Yes, because NSA *surely* can't hack those types of sites, too...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Came here to say the same thing. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
I would also add, that now we know how powerful wide collection nets of metadata can be (eg, NSA surveillance), I wonder if other types of donation, such as bone marrow registries, are going to be subpoenaed and how that will affect donations.
For museums in general, it depends on the exhibit and whether or not the works have been copyrighted. If so, no photography of any kind is allowed. For the Louvre, it seems like most exhibits should allow photography, although not necessarily flash. Even so, it seems like flash photography may not harm paintings after all...
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
As others have pointed out, these zombie studies are generally based on epidemic/pandemic disease spread. I think your zombie list is interesting, but all those things are highly dependant on how a zombie outbreak might occur, specifically on modes of transmission. Are you infected if a zombie bites you? What if some blood gets on your skin? Will that infect you? What about in a paper cut? What about if you get zombie blood in your mouth, eyes, or lungs? What happens when you set off a bomb in the middle of a zombie hoard? Did you just aerosolize the zombie virus/particle/whatever? 1 human might kill 3 zombies, but that doesn't do any good if that 1 human becomes a zombie, and the resulting battles infected 10 other human bystanders.
The point is not to kill zombies necessarily, but to contain them, eradicate them and most importantly, not to become one yourself.
Well, NAFLD is a real thing and related to NASH.
One issue I have, is that the very first sentence of the abstract is probably incorrect. NAFLD doesn't lead to diabetes, it's the other way around. In the full article, they back away from saying NAFLD causes diabetes and merely says they are related. The biggest problem, is that they used rats, and rats just don't get diabetes, NASH, or NAFLD (or heart disease either, for that fact), so they have to heavily heavily manipulate the rats' genetic background, as well as a ludicrous diet. I'm not saying their study is bad, but just that in a heavily modified animal model system, well... let's not break out the champagne and Noble prizes just yet. What might be more interesting is the chemistry involved to make a "safe" form of DNP. Don't tell the high school girls, they'll all want it!
The title of the Slashdot summary should really be edited to end with "... in rats."
More like misuse.
Ha! I'm already training to be a robotics repairmen repairman!
The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?
You'd be surprised, actually...
Linky with higher res PDF than website...
Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.
Completely agree. However, if the bandwidth is so dramatically improved, can't the caps be also dramatically increased? Kind of like how when 4G first came out, that was unlimited, while 3G was capped or something like that? I might have that situation reversed but still, you get the idea.
Aren't carrieres already calling LTE and 4G+, etc 5G? Since it seems like 5G is such a dramatic improvement, should it have an entirely new name? A la Intel's move away from the x86 lines of processors?
"The only winning move is not to play"