Kudos for a mature and informative response. Agree original post was politically driven with responses from a 9 year old. Wait, no 3 yr old. No wait, a turd.

No the question is which person's followers can think for themselves. #1 vote just means Rogans followers are cattle....being led to the slaughter.

Agree with this on for sure. At one time I thought Rogan had brains but nope. He is a meathead.

Respectfully disagree. Not sure how you could not see the implications for technology use. Problem I see in reseach is scientist who are so focused in their field of study that they fail to see what other fields have already accomplished or could be translated for other fields.

So why not use that gene technique to avoid reaction from a human kidney? If it works for a pig organ than... Also why call it galsafe? Sounds like a name that came from a chauvanist pig :)

Agree. I remember at one time I considered but stopped at the auto donate "feature". Granted they do need to eat but is this a potential security risk?

I am not sure the prevalence of raspberry pi devices but still good to see solutions based on material at hand. I am sure can always do better or maybe cheaper but in RURAL areas this could save lives. Not sure why so many naysayers versus encouragers. Maybe someone has shaft stuck up somwhere waiting for a diamond. +1 for female engineers and thinking outside the box.

Now this response is good. I hope the researchers are already writing a paper about this incident, how they discovered it and what can be done to prevent in the future would be worthwhile. Assuming they did not prevent themselves from doing such work about FB in the data use agreement.

Great rebuttal. Also like saying the person at a restarant is not a real chef unless they slaughtered the cow themselves. Or you are nit a Linux programmer and your linux code should not be trusted until you write and contribute to the Linux kernel. BTW, I am in research, have collected my own and used other data sources and have slaughtered and bought chickens to cook so not just talking out of my arse.

agree

Agreed. Abbot, Cruz, Dan Patrick, and Ken Paxton are all one and the same. Corrupt and self serving. They all don't know how to tell the truth if it hit them in their face. Best way to deal with these slimy swamp filth is to vote them out and investigate the bajesus out of them. Sure there are a few skeletons in those closets. Some have already been convicted of crimes as well and still in office. Amazing...

Well said.

Your derogatory comment sounds like a monkey is smarter than you.

So if a doctoral review board with members from MIT, Stanford, and etc approved along with a specific PhD advisor who is willing to stake their reputation by vouching for the award of doctorate then yes. Otherwise it is just a person trying to sell an idea that happens to be at an academic venue. I provide a lunch and learn on data management at a university every other week but would not even consider myself a PhD...

Also honorary doctorates are pointless. You are a PhD or not. So in my argument above, the doctoral review board abive should be willing to put their own PhD reputation on the line like a doctoral candidate has an advisor who makes sure they are ready. Lets see how many honorary degrees would suddenly stop being given thennn :)