The peer-review process is so unpredictable and irregular that it effectively decouples the time-of-year for the discovery from the time-of-year for the publication of said discovery.

So, the answer to your question is, "no," on that grounds.

But, also, if there *were* any push for results, it would be aligned with the end-of-budgetary-year for a given grant, which is three times per year, and doesn't necessarily align with the Federal fiscal cycle.

So, again, the answer is, "no."

>"Redefining, or allowing people to define it themselves? Maybe someone else's marriage isn't any of your fucking business?"

It is everyone's business if everyone is expected to participate in the definition and then acknowledge it. The entire point of marriage is a societal signal. It isn't something secret or personal. Otherwise, literally anything can be marriage.

As an aside, you have some serious anger and civil communication issues. Let's grab some statements from just your posts, so far, in this single article's comments:

* too fucking stupid to understand what they read.
* Are you some kind of puritan piece of shit
* Don't be stupid.
* You fucking morons not understanding how stupid you are will be.
* Bullshit.

And that is indicative of your posting history for a very long time. Nasty personal attacks and comments, one after another. A little introspection would be welcome.

Yes, Americans would never vote for a dictator. And even if they do, there is Congress that reigns in the worst ideas. Oh wait...

No kidding. But "si vis pacem para bellum". Many nations aspire to lasting peace, but as it turns out there's always some ambitious a-hole who thinks their neighbour's land is there for the taking.

>"Why should we *not* do this?"

Because it is extremely dangerous. You might be selecting for one trait but getting a bad trait along with it. We actually have VERY LITTLE good information about the actual workings of genetics. Especially since it isn't static but things "trigger" over time and based on environment. If too many people get sucked into this type of stuff for long enough, it could change the entire human population in non-ideal ways that might be difficult to detect in one lifetime and then would be very difficult to "undo".

You don't have to be religious to think this type of tampering is, generally, a bad thing. And it gets 1,000,000 times worse when we start talking about editing genes (not just eugenics) for supposedly "desirable" traits...

>"Nobody cared how thick laptops were in the 90s."

I lived the era, and the 80's where "laptop" also meant a TRS-80 model 100 and such. And people were amazed at the size and lightness of that. Several years later, guess what? The model 102:

"The Tandy 102, introduced in 1986 as a direct replacement for the Model 100, having the same software, keyboard, and screen, and a nearly identical, but thinner, form factor that weighed about one pound less than the Model 100."

So yeah, thinness was always a factor.

>"People caring about thickness only started when Apple launched the macbook air out of a manila envelope. But at the time, Apple's only audience was egotistical pretentious people with more money than brains."

I do agree people started to obsess on it more at that time, to the point of throwing away some of the useful function in the pursuit of "thinness". But the size/weight/dimensions were always important

>"Once you've made the declaration "it doesn't matter if your baby isn't actually related to you", you've already said adoption is the easy answer."

Some might care somewhat about the "related to" and in the egg donation, the child would at least carry half the DNA of the couple (the father, not the mother, in this example).

I get what you are saying, though. And yes, adoption can/should be just or almost as fulfilling (especially if very young) in such cases.

>"So instead of fixing the constant bugs and crashes, you're hardcoding a "feature" we already had with plugins? This isn't an improvement; it's a step backward. We used to have the *choice* to add these effects. Now you're forcing them on us and removing customization."

They are not removing the choice to turn that feature off. But they are removing the choice to remove the bloat of the code, that is true. I am not sure why they would do that. Personally, I think rounded windows are a silly fad. They could have just included the plugin as a default with it on and easily turned off AND removable.

>"Focus on making KDE stable, not on trivial visual garbage."

Unfortunately, "eye-candy" seems to be the major focus of so many projects (software, desktops, websites, etc). And it often comes at the cost of customization and focus on more important stuff like performance, battery life, time, usability, function, bug fixes, etc.

Look no further than the horrible UI disaster of Gnome 3+ for a perfect example of forced radical UI changes that most people didn't (and probably still don't) want. Gotta hide everything. Gotta get rid of menus. Gotta get rid of icons in menus, round everything, full-screen everything, white-space and space-out everything, monochromize everything, "fade in/out" everything, "smooth scroll" everything, take over the function of window titles, restrict themes to death, and on and on. But the developers "know better". At least KDE and most other Linux desktops respect choice more.

>"And yet it remains amazing."

If you are OK a super-thick laptop, yes.

>"IBM never made anything like it again. Neither did anyone else..."

Probably because people didn't want super-thick laptops :) Adding a sliding mechanism like that and being rigid-enough to work would easily at least double the thickness of modern notebooks, while also adding significantly to the weight and cost. And the cherry on top would be reliability; it is yet another mechanical thing to fail.

I agree it is very cool.

(But it also has nothing to do with a butterfly. Doesn't fold like one, move like one, or look like one. Kind of a ridiculous nickname.)

Very few businesses that are involved in IT in any way have anything remotely close to decent security.

Basically, they need to reintroduce the US' Internet Czar, who should have meaningful authority and who should impose meaningful IT security standards. That small companies can't afford to hire security staff is irrelevant as they mostly either work in the cloud using SAAS, at which point their provider should be handling all the security. If you want to roll your own, then you should accept the burden of paying for adequate security. Minimum standards apply to just about everything else in life, and I'd rate getting IT security right just a little bit more important than getting cars to not roll over (you can usually survive a roll) or preventing toasters from spontaneously combusting (you can park electrical appliances away from flammable stuff).

You can avoid catastrophes with defective appliances but you can't avoid catastrophes with defective IT systems.

How about just working on making KDE smaller and faster, instead?

Pretty please?

With the last Plasma update, the time to intialize my desktop went from acceptable-but-could-be-better, to (not kidding) 60+ seconds. No changes on my side.

(And to the folks over at Mozilla, you've completely dropped the ball for rapidly getting Firefox to a usable state.)

>"Are you also on board with infidelity, handmaids, and other means to have children that are not biologically related to both parents?"

That has nothing to do with what I posted. Having children is about raising and teaching and loving them for many years. The biology part should be very, very minor, it is an extremely minor contribution; the love you have for your full, partial, or no DNA relation children should be the same.

The biology of creating new life is simple and has almost no investment at all (other than the pregnancy). Protecting and raising children to adulthood is a huge, difficult, expensive, and time-consuming contribution to society.

>"lot of people want to have and raise their own children, not somebody else's offspring."

Why? So they can look more like the parents? Do you think anyone would treat or love their children less, or feel less "complete" if somehow had the egg or sperm or both has been secretly swapped with someone else's but both parents never knowing?

>"A couple could otherwise have good nuclear DNA, but a high risk of defective mitochondria- this puts them back in the gene pool as healthy reproducers."

Couples in that situation could already have healthy reproduction with egg donation, which requires no genetic manipulation at all. Normal carry term, have baby, enjoy. It wouldn't have the rest of the DNA from the pregnant/delivering mother, but I am not sure why that should be all that important. It is not like humans are endangered species.

>"Hard to see it as anything but a win for humanity"

I find it interesting, for sure. But I am also not going to ignore the possibilities of unforeseen issues and slippery slopes (because next would be non-mitochondria DNA). That is the reason most of this type of DNA manipulation in humans is, thankfully, extremely regulated.

>"Sure, like an organ transplant."

Except an organ transplant doesn't pass down "forever" through genes in progeny.