|
Corsi is expecting a pardon, like Manafort. And all the others. They're not going to get pardons, because it'll be bad for Trump.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:07 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:07 |
These people's lesson from OJ were to milk your infamy as much as possible because its worth it years down the road.
|
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:15 |
|
isk why they all go on Ari's show to do this sam numberg did the same thing
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:29 |
|
M_Gargantua posted:These people's lesson from OJ were to milk your infamy as much as possible because its worth it years down the road. I don’t think their version of “if I’d done it” would make that much cash.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:29 |
|
Plus unlike OJ, they were actually found guilty and will most assuredly not only go to jail, but will die in jail. Partly because they're going to be there forever, partly because there's hardly any healthcare at all for elderly inmates and it's actually a real problem!
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:34 |
|
too republican even for the bundy gang https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/...r%3D233%23pti19
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:47 |
|
Was going to insert the Baretta theme Found this and change my mind. quote:In parts of some state prison facilities, you’re less likely to encounter any dangerous convicts than you are to see someone who could be your grandparent. But even if they can barely walk, much less commit another crime, elderly prisoners often remain locked up for life.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:48 |
|
mods changed my name posted:too republican even for the bundy gang Probably having issues finding cheap labor or something.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 03:50 |
|
Syrian Lannister posted:Elderly prisoner stuff. If you toss the elderly who are too sick or decrepit to reoffend out the prison gates it's much less the state's problem and more the individual's or the Fred's problem.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:04 |
|
Maybe someone already posted this, but a scientist in China apparently made germ-line edits to human babies. The change was a knockout of the CCR5 gene, which could confer resistance to HIV. Of course, the guy that did it has also said only a single copy was of the gene was edited, which won't be enough to actually confer resistance, so these kids get no real benefit but face all the risk of potentially harmful off-target edits that everyone else in the scientific community has said need to be addressed before doing germ line editing. https://cen.acs.org/policy/First-gene-edited-babies-allegedly/96/i48 Edit: CCR5 suppression has also been linked to increased intelligence in mice I guess. pygmy tyrant fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 29, 2018 |
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:14 |
|
Please explain off target editing and its problems
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:18 |
|
Waroduce posted:Please explain off target editing and its problems I was about to reply “my mates in Oxford Uni don’t know how to do that yet”. Lone biochemists scare the poo poo out of me.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:22 |
|
Fred better fix that poo poo
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:23 |
Waroduce posted:Please explain off target editing and its problems I'm kinda behind on all the crispr/cas9 stuff but IIRC there's a possibility of unintentionally changing genes which you're not looking to change. As with any random mutation this is almost always a bad thing for the organism in question. my kinda ape fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Nov 29, 2018 |
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:24 |
|
Delete one line of code and you might crash the system
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:34 |
|
my kinda ape posted:I'm kinda behind on all the crispr/cas5 stuff but IIRC there's a possibility of unintentionally changing genes which you're not looking to change. As with any random mutation this is almost always a bad thing for the organism in question. I know bugger all about cutting edge low level genetic work, but a long time ago a friend of mine taught me a buttload about it when he was working in the field and I still have a bookshelf of mid 2000s text books on genetic biochem I read through from time to time. It's nuts complex and I'd happily prosecute anyone that tries any experiments out on a living human unless they could give me a half ton (literally) of supporting documentation before they did so. I may be a bit anal about that kind of research.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:34 |
|
bonus army 2.0 when https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1067961629390905344
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:34 |
|
Turbocancer.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:35 |
|
hexediting one dll file then rebooting
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:43 |
|
my kinda ape posted:I'm kinda behind on all the crispr/cas5 stuff but IIRC there's a possibility of unintentionally changing genes which you're not looking to change. As with any random mutation this is almost always a bad thing for the organism in question. Basically this. Long form: CRISPR/Cas9 is a protein that has a strand of RNA to guide it. When it bumps into a strand of DNA that matches the RNA guide, it grabs onto the DNA and maybe makes some cuts or just hangs out and gets in the way of normal read DNA --> make protein behaviors. If you slice the DNA strand, you usually put some new stuff in there and repair proteins already present will put your DNA back together for you. Every single stage of this process is driven by random motion of molecules due to heat, so the protein can latch on to places that only mostly look like the guide strand or only barely look like it. Making gene editing reliable enough to use in people is a major focus of research right now, but when I was actually reading papers a few years ago I think only getting ~20 or so off target edits was a really good job.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 04:56 |
|
kraken! posted:Basically this. Long form: It isn't even that nice - that process "run along some code string and make matches" is itself hilariously stochastic. Your cells / body / base biochem has 4 billion years worth of error correcting systems based on the tiny tiny quantum fluctuations between large molecules (and the small ones, and everything else). We are nowhere near there messing with it.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:00 |
Hexyflexy posted:I know bugger all about cutting edge low level genetic work, but a long time ago a friend of mine taught me a buttload about it when he was working in the field and I still have a bookshelf of mid 2000s text books on genetic biochem I read through from time to time. It's nuts complex and I'd happily prosecute anyone that tries any experiments out on a living human unless they could give me a half ton (literally) of supporting documentation before they did so. I may be a bit anal about that kind of research. You can't really edit the genetics of an organism that's more than an embryo as every cell contains it's own copy of the organism's DNA that's been passed down from the single cell embryo through division. To gene edit an adult you would have to somehow change the DNA of every cell, or at least a big enough percentage that the edited ones are creating the desired effect. Attempts to do this have had uh, unfortunate consequences from what I've been told. Plants are easy because they have totipotency and can be grown into an entirely new plant from any given living cell with the right application of hormones so if you can isolate a cell that's successfully received your edit then you can just grow a plant from that and breed the gene(s) into the population as normal. With animals you pretty much have to do it to an embryo, hope it takes, and then hope it grows up normally. Quite a bit trickier. So basically for human/animal gene editing we're restricted to making babies and hoping we didn't insanely gently caress them up on accident. Definitely something you want to have an absolute mastery of before you try it on humans.
|
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:03 |
|
It's always amusing to see the research that comes out of countries that don't really have IRBs. Whenever I would do any literature searches for work I had to automatically exclude literally everything that originated in China period, and stuff from India was immediately flagged for a SME to review. Because the Chinese just loving make poo poo up and publish/"peer" review it, and India has like no ethical rules.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:04 |
|
Man gently caress the VA.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:06 |
|
I'm starting a VA contract in like a week or two so I can't wait to see what horrors are in that organization.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:08 |
Soulex posted:Delete one line of code and you might crash the system Pretty much. Fortunately a lot of our code doesn't actually do anything at all so a random change in a random place often won't hurt anything. On the other hand the slightest change in an important section will make it so you never make it to birth or past being a small clump of cells.
|
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:12 |
|
Vasudus posted:I'm starting a VA contract in like a week or two so I can't wait to see what horrors are in that organization. Destroy the system from inside.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:23 |
|
I’m hoping to get hired on at the local VA hospital when I graduate college. I’ve been told working there is hell but I can eventually draw a second pension and some sweet TSP matching money.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:35 |
|
VA owes me $50 a month since classes started this semester. I'm getting my loving money from them.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:35 |
|
McNally posted:VA owes me $50 a month since classes started this semester. I'm getting my loving money from them. *Narrator Voice* He did not.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:39 |
|
VA hospitals will take anybody that can get hired, they're so insanely undermanned because they're hell on earth. If you can stand it, go for it. Unfortunately I'm working in the policy shop so I'll have no cool connections.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:40 |
|
Vasudus posted:VA hospitals will take anybody that can get hired, they're so insanely undermanned because they're hell on earth. If you can stand it, go for it. I figure I get in with a B.S. in a heavily Certificate/A.A.S dominated field plus I get that sweet disabled vet preference. If it sucks hard enough I’ll bail and go work at the hospital my wife works at. It’s 5 minutes away versus the 35 minutes away that the VA hospital is.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:45 |
|
my kinda ape posted:Pretty much. Fortunately a lot of our code doesn't actually do anything at all so a random change in a random place often won't hurt anything. On the other hand the slightest change in an important section will make it so you never make it to birth or past being a small clump of cells. This is today’s equivalent to that “we only use 10% of our brains” quackery from the 90s. The expression of genes is so much more complicated than simple Mendelian genetics we learn in middle school. (They never teach that Mendel ran into this wall in his later research because great men and all that) We have just enough knowledge to know certain genes can control certain functions but not enough to know how the whole of the genetic code works as a unit. (Sorta like how we knew what atomic energy was in the late 40s and early 50s and decided to do a bunch of super reckless experiments because we didn’t know better) Anyone who says we have unimportant bits of our genetic code can go let the Chinese freely edit them and see how unimportant those bits turned out to be.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 05:53 |
|
Is protein folding still a complete black box?
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 06:02 |
|
shame on an IGA posted:Is protein folding still a complete black box? I’m a applied mathematician who is a specialist in the maths required to understand that question. Lol yes.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 06:06 |
|
my kinda ape posted:Pretty much. Fortunately a lot of our code doesn't actually do anything at all so a random change in a random place often won't hurt anything. On the other hand the slightest change in an important section will make it so you never make it to birth or past being a small clump of cells. The benefit of mortality is that I won't spend eternity wishing I was revision x.1 instead of x.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 06:14 |
mods changed my name posted:bonus army 2.0 when I finish finals in two weeks and then I’m free.
|
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 06:24 |
Thwomp posted:This is today’s equivalent to that “we only use 10% of our brains” quackery from the 90s. I think it's fairly safe to say that the contents of many introns will not be adversely affected by small changes as they are non-coding. Which does not necessarily mean that section is useless dead weight but to say that our entire genetic code is all very important is equally silly. Parts come and go over time through random chance. The whole system works because in each generation it didn’t not work. That doesn't mean there's not a ton of garbage floating around in there. But yes it is all almost unfathomably complex and there's so much we still don't know. We absolutely should not be editing humans at this stage.
|
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 06:26 |
|
Hexyflexy posted:I’m a applied mathematician who is a specialist in the maths required to understand that question. Lol yes. That's pretty cool. It also illustrates another reason gene editing is a terrible idea: even when you know a gene codes for a specific protein and you know what effect that gene has on an organism, the reason it has that effect is pretty much inaccessible to us.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 06:28 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 19:07 |
|
kraken! posted:That's pretty cool. God works in mysterious ways
|
# ? Nov 29, 2018 07:34 |