Slashdot Mirror

> Francis Bacon .... declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to 'put nature to the question'

Call that Bacon's Law; but consider what could be called Torquemada's Corollary to Bacon's Law: Torturers will hear exactly what they want to hear.

Studies that don't replicate well probably missed something important.

Bacon in fact makes that point explicitly.

"There are two images used by Bacon to refer to knowledge, torture and light.
The torture refers to the violent twisting of nature's secrets...."

-- http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/reportessay/SocialIssues/Religion%5CFrancis_Bacon_and_the_Society_of_New_Atlantis-32139.htm

Well going by this review, it looks like the working mother role-model has a definite positive effect on daughters, but there might be a problem with "middle-class boys" for some reason:

Further studies have demonstrated that a mother's employment status and occupation tends to be a good predictor of the outcome of the working mother's daughter, since daughters tend to follow in their mother's footsteps. Typically, working mothers held higher educational aspirations for their children and furthermore, most daughters tend to achieve higher grades in school. (Spitz 606) It is also important to note that both male and female children acquire more egalitarian sex role attitudes when both parents work. Boys with working mothers showed better social and personal skills than boys of non-working mothers. On a negative note, middle-class boys tend to do worse in school when their mothers worked. (Shreve 118)

Did you mean the Manchu Qing dynasty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty

Not that "America," has much room to talk. We're named after an shady Italian explorer, and not even the right one :)

http://www.studyworld.com/Amerigo_Vespucci.htm

Columbus didn't discover America, and it wasn't because there were people already here. Columbus discovered some islands. He never found the mainland. It was later that Amerigo Vespucci discovered mainland (South America, probably near Columbia or Venezuela) that "America" was discovered, thus the name "America" for Amerigo rather than "Columbia". Though the name of the country that exists at that point now is somewhat ironic.

First, HIV is a retrovirus. It doesn't care about receptors. If you read the linked reference, you'll observe they carry spikes to burst through the membrane. Hence, your argument that the receptor is blocked would appear to not be worth a damn, since the virus doesn't need to attach to one.

I might conceed on the B-cell/T-cell argument, as that seems to be the prevaling theory. Maybe not quite just yet, though. Since B-cells and T-cells work together, and viruses aren't exactly endowed with vision, I want a credible argument as to why you believe that B-cells aren't affected. And, no, just because that's the popular belief is NOT a good enough answer. Microbiology is not a democracy. Viruses don't give a damn about consensus. On the other hand, virologists DO give a damn, because most of their money comes from the Government, which is notoriously stingy when it comes to the sciences.

As for the self-destruct, that bit is insanely obvious. Remember the law of conservation of matter? Retroviruses don't just vanish, if they fail in an attack on a given cell. They'll keep on attacking, until they successfully invade a cell or are destroyed by some process or other.

If the immune system of person X is NOT detecting the virus and is NOT attacking it, then whatever process is used to eliminate the virus cannot include the immune system. Duh.

The virus, if it cannot do anything at all, will simply exist in the body. It won't multiply, because it can't break in anywhere, but it won't die off - viruses are practically immortal. They are very stable molecule chains, for the most part.

Under those specific conditions, the only way you're going to reduce the number is if the virus attacks a cell, but the cell incapacitates the virus by incapacitating itself. There are simply no other mechanisms that'll do the job. You're quite welcome to argue that "that doesn't happen in practice", or "it doesn't work that way" as much as you like. What happens in any given case is not the point.

The point is, if you have some given number of viral strands - N, say - then N can go up (the virus has turned a cell into a replicating factory for the virus), it can stay the same (the virus and the body don't interact at all), or it can drop. There are no other possibilities.

In the case where someone isn't (apparently) dying off from HIV, then it's reasonable to assume N is not increasing.

If, in that same case, we can prove that the immune system isn't responding, then we can eliminate the largest contributor to N falling.

Now all we have to show is that N is not remaining the same. That's tougher. For this, I'm going to assume that virologists have done the obvious, which is to take blood and cell samples from where HIV should be present, and injected those into labratory animals that can be infected with HIV.

Assuming this to be the case, and assuming that N is remaining constant, then some percent of these animals should become HIV positive. If that was happening, we'd know in an instant that these people were not immune to the virus at all.

Researchers, though, are pretty clear on their argument that some resistance must exist. They didn't just pluck this idea out of thin air. Ergo, they've done the tests and have shown a statistically low probability of the virus merely cohabiting the body.

None of this is rocket science, and I really cannot comprehend why you're so freaked out over it. Unless you're in line for next year's Nobel prize, for discovering an AIDS vaccine, you need to learn how to argue in a less hostile way.

Immunodeficiency is not incomp

Let's not forget inventing typeset printing -- that's _actually_ inventing it, not coming up with it magically thousands of years after someone else invented it... COUGH*Gutenberg*COUGH

The first thing off of the Gutenberg press? The Bible. The next thing? Pr0n.
(clean history of printing) http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Hist ory/General%5CThe_History_of_Printing-362967.htm
(brief mention of gutenberg's rapid switch to printing filth: R-rated link, sorry) http://www.robyncalifornia.com/writing/o_01-06-25. html

Problem is (seems to be?) that because Japan is a strong country, anything they say or write is more likely to be taken for granted overseas. Korea can shout all they want, they wont be heard.

For example, should I say east sea or sea of japan? Well, It's pretty much always been east sea. Korea and China use the term, but guess which one the rest of the world is using?

There are also some diputed teritories and signs of american involvment in the dispute... (the bastards ;)

Add to the history rewrite some fake archaeological discoveries and you end-up with Korean people being very angry not just about what Japan did but about what Japan is doing now.

It really is fascinating to be living here in Korea. It is a country still strongly affected by its past history. For instance, they have programs on TV about people looking for their displaced relatives in kazakhstan or uzbekistan (Blame Stalin) and when you go to Ansan, the Koreans who returned from Sakhalin and live there speak better russian than I do...

But from what you wrote, I guess you don't have to go very far to see signs of history being rewritten. In France, anybody who dares say concentration camps never existed or that gas was never used for killing Jews, ends-up in Prison. I don't like my country much but some things they do right. No use hiding behind some ammendment to try and spew crap: if you do, you know the risks...

The noun for citizens of the United States is Americans not USians. USian makes you sound like some sort of ignorant turd, or French.

Lol. Good troll. Lots of countries get called something else in foreign countries. In English speaking countries we call it "Germany". In French speaking countries they call it "Allemagne". But in German speaking countries I believe they call it Deutchland. This is a very common phenomenon.

You can't really control what foriegners call you. I suggest you try to get used to it.

One of the later contributors to this thread claimed that since Virginia was the first English speaking colony in the Americas, the United States should get to claim the name "America" for the country it eventually became a part of. Lol.

But wasn't Amerigo Vespuci Italian? So what does he have to do with the USA? Lol.