technically naked mole rats are considered "operational poikilotherms." Their body temperature varies drastically depending on the temperature of their environment due to their very limited ability to control their own body temperature.
They may not perceive certain types of pain, but that is not "immunity".
I'm guessing you failed high school biology?
The definition of "immunity" in the English language is not restricted to an immunity to disease.
Cancer cells are indeed immortalized and can live on their own practically indefinitely. However, they also have numerous mutations that change their cellular physiology significantly. Immortalization allows for indefinite cell reproductive life but it does not in of its self grant that life.
Quite. That is why we should also do additional work characterizing interactions between p16 and other proteins. A technique involving inserting a synthetic light sensitive amino acid into the polypeptide chain making up p16 could photo-cross-link with nearby proteins when the protein interacts with them. It's used to identify close interactions between proteins by fixing them in those states.
With cancers caused by viral infections, it seems that the proliferation of cell division that is cancer is a secondary effect. HTLV-1 provirus as an example causes cancer in only about 3% of infected individuals. It hijacks the normal functions of p300 and creb using its own TAX protein encoded in the virus' genome to massively upregulate the production of its own proteins. Cell cycle regulation is often disrupted as a result of this meddling by the virus.
If we were really patient, we could knock out p16 in these moles and see if they get cancer. That would pretty well establish whether or not it was just p16 that was responsible for the relative resistance to cancer. On the topic of mice, there is a line of mice that is quite resistant to cancer as it is. As of yet, it is unknown what factors are responsible for this immunity. Other mice have been genetically modified to be highly resistant to cancer using other tumor suppressor genes. The article is from sciencedaily so take it with a grain of salt.
If p16 functions the same way in humans as it does in mice does this open a potential alternative to telomere shortening and thus a pathway to the elimination of aging?
No. As is the case with these moles, the indefinite extension of telomeres does not eliminate aging. Cell division requires that the genome be replicated and that requires a small segment of DNA be snipped off the ends of chromosomes. The telomeres act as a piece of code for this purpose that once sacrificed causes no real harm to the organism. The telomeres are repeats of the sequence TTAGGG in humans which forms hydrogen bonds with its self forming a quadruple helix acting as a cap for the ends of chromosomes. Once the telomeres are eliminated, the ends of chromosomes are treated as double strand breaks by genetic repair machinery which more often than not, results in apoptosis, chromosome joining and ultimately cancer in some cases. Much of aging has to do with genetic damage and incorrect methylation of base pairs in genes. Telomerase (the enzyme that extends telomeres) would not stop that kind of aging process.
The short answer is no. p16 would help stop a virus from causing cancer but it would not prevent the virus from infecting the cell. If you're curious about some of the research being done on the phenomena of viruses causing cancer then I'll direct your attention here. The HTLV-1 provirus hijacks p300 and CREB and uses them to reproduce its self. p300 is a transcriptional co-activator which basically means that it greatly increases the rate of transcription of a gene. p16 wouldn't stop the infection of the cell nor would it stop the virus from hijacking these cellular proteins. However, it would help keep cell division relatively under control.
The neanderthals were close enough to modern humans that in my own opinion, it is possible that humans intermingled socially with them however, it was also my understanding that their DNA was distinct enough from ours to make them unable to interbreed and thus a separate species. Genetic markers in the million base sequence that has been reconstructed so far indicate that they fall significantly outside of typical variation for modern humans.
No. You have a very distorted view of what "wasteful" means. Using your financial resources for something that you do not *need* is wasteful.
That's not your call to make. Further, Hollywood puts out a *lot* of good movies. Just because they also put out a lot of crap doesn't mean I should therefore not buy movies that I enjoyed.
Clearly it never mattered to you whether a boycott works or not. It wasn't part of your decision making process anyway. Voting with your money is the same as voting for a cannidate; many peopel believe their vote doesn't matter either way on its own but there's millions of those same people who collectively do matter.
Good governments are rare if not non-existent. When you empower one group to rule over another, the temptation to use that power to benefit the ruling group is very strong.
Well you could just infringe their copyright like your sig suggests. Admit it. Your decision has nothing to do with the effectiveness of voting with your dollars. You've made it plenty clear in your posts that you have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it regardless. You want their garbage and there is no amount of reason that will dissuade you from buying it like everyone else.
Anything funded by the federal government including private work should be considered the property of the people and thus released into the public domain. We, the public, should not be expected to pay twice for work done by the private sector. Either we pay for the work and have all of it released for us to utilize or the work remains proprietary and receives no funding from the public.
It is not in your own best interests to spend money wastefully. You'd be better off ignoring the garbage Hollywood puts out and spend your money on something useful. These companies can do this because there are more people like you that believe that it isn't worth doing anything about than there are people like me who completely reject such a notion.
Socialism is a system where the means of production are owned by the workers collectively or the state. Fascism at least in a historical sense, has also been a form of socialism where the means of production are controlled by the state for its own ends.
It seems that they too believe that their media isn't worth seeing more than once. Otherwise, it would be worth buying rather than renting for a night or two and leaving it at that.
Yes it is strange. However, I'm betting that it is a very similar to the reasons why the "spooks" of the previous slashdot article didn't want a three strikes law. There is selfish interest somewhere... I guarantee it.
I'd like to think when they made that exception, they assumed those using it would be sane and in the best interests of the citizens...
I think that it is incredibly naive to believe that the FCC or the DHS has anything other than their own interests in mind when making decisions. History has unfortunately, shown this to be largely true.
Slashdot Mirror
technically naked mole rats are considered "operational poikilotherms." Their body temperature varies drastically depending on the temperature of their environment due to their very limited ability to control their own body temperature.
The definition of "immunity" in the English language is not restricted to an immunity to disease.
Cancer cells are indeed immortalized and can live on their own practically indefinitely. However, they also have numerous mutations that change their cellular physiology significantly. Immortalization allows for indefinite cell reproductive life but it does not in of its self grant that life.
Quite. That is why we should also do additional work characterizing interactions between p16 and other proteins. A technique involving inserting a synthetic light sensitive amino acid into the polypeptide chain making up p16 could photo-cross-link with nearby proteins when the protein interacts with them. It's used to identify close interactions between proteins by fixing them in those states.
With cancers caused by viral infections, it seems that the proliferation of cell division that is cancer is a secondary effect. HTLV-1 provirus as an example causes cancer in only about 3% of infected individuals. It hijacks the normal functions of p300 and creb using its own TAX protein encoded in the virus' genome to massively upregulate the production of its own proteins. Cell cycle regulation is often disrupted as a result of this meddling by the virus.
If we were really patient, we could knock out p16 in these moles and see if they get cancer. That would pretty well establish whether or not it was just p16 that was responsible for the relative resistance to cancer. On the topic of mice, there is a line of mice that is quite resistant to cancer as it is. As of yet, it is unknown what factors are responsible for this immunity. Other mice have been genetically modified to be highly resistant to cancer using other tumor suppressor genes. The article is from sciencedaily so take it with a grain of salt.
No. As is the case with these moles, the indefinite extension of telomeres does not eliminate aging. Cell division requires that the genome be replicated and that requires a small segment of DNA be snipped off the ends of chromosomes. The telomeres act as a piece of code for this purpose that once sacrificed causes no real harm to the organism. The telomeres are repeats of the sequence TTAGGG in humans which forms hydrogen bonds with its self forming a quadruple helix acting as a cap for the ends of chromosomes. Once the telomeres are eliminated, the ends of chromosomes are treated as double strand breaks by genetic repair machinery which more often than not, results in apoptosis, chromosome joining and ultimately cancer in some cases. Much of aging has to do with genetic damage and incorrect methylation of base pairs in genes. Telomerase (the enzyme that extends telomeres) would not stop that kind of aging process.
The short answer is no. p16 would help stop a virus from causing cancer but it would not prevent the virus from infecting the cell. If you're curious about some of the research being done on the phenomena of viruses causing cancer then I'll direct your attention here. The HTLV-1 provirus hijacks p300 and CREB and uses them to reproduce its self. p300 is a transcriptional co-activator which basically means that it greatly increases the rate of transcription of a gene. p16 wouldn't stop the infection of the cell nor would it stop the virus from hijacking these cellular proteins. However, it would help keep cell division relatively under control.
The neanderthals were close enough to modern humans that in my own opinion, it is possible that humans intermingled socially with them however, it was also my understanding that their DNA was distinct enough from ours to make them unable to interbreed and thus a separate species. Genetic markers in the million base sequence that has been reconstructed so far indicate that they fall significantly outside of typical variation for modern humans.
No. You have a very distorted view of what "wasteful" means. Using your financial resources for something that you do not *need* is wasteful.
Clearly it never mattered to you whether a boycott works or not. It wasn't part of your decision making process anyway. Voting with your money is the same as voting for a cannidate; many peopel believe their vote doesn't matter either way on its own but there's millions of those same people who collectively do matter.
Good governments are rare if not non-existent. When you empower one group to rule over another, the temptation to use that power to benefit the ruling group is very strong.
Well you could just infringe their copyright like your sig suggests. Admit it. Your decision has nothing to do with the effectiveness of voting with your dollars. You've made it plenty clear in your posts that you have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it regardless. You want their garbage and there is no amount of reason that will dissuade you from buying it like everyone else.
Lifting your finger to complain yet do nothing constructive to rectify the situation. Increasing your odds of reducing your Karma. Take your pick.
Anything funded by the federal government including private work should be considered the property of the people and thus released into the public domain.
We, the public, should not be expected to pay twice for work done by the private sector. Either we pay for the work and have all of it released for us to utilize or the work remains proprietary and receives no funding from the public.
The government has always acted in its own interests. Perhaps they have realised that releasing software as OSS suits their purposes.
Can you give an example of a case where these subsidies did not benefit corporations? In theory there is a difference, in practice, there isn't.
They could just like they did Slashdot but judging by the sheer number of reposts on the subject at the time, they did themselves more harm than good.
Hence the socialism.
It was pretty clear in his post that it didn't matter if it worked or not, he's not going to lift a finger to make it happen either way.
It is not in your own best interests to spend money wastefully. You'd be better off ignoring the garbage Hollywood puts out and spend your money on something useful. These companies can do this because there are more people like you that believe that it isn't worth doing anything about than there are people like me who completely reject such a notion.
Socialism is a system where the means of production are owned by the workers collectively or the state. Fascism at least in a historical sense, has also been a form of socialism where the means of production are controlled by the state for its own ends.
Then don't buy their products. They can not profit from you at that point without some type of socialism.
It seems that they too believe that their media isn't worth seeing more than once. Otherwise, it would be worth buying rather than renting for a night or two and leaving it at that.
Yes it is strange. However, I'm betting that it is a very similar to the reasons why the "spooks" of the previous slashdot article didn't want a three strikes law. There is selfish interest somewhere... I guarantee it.
Maybe if Blizzard donates enough $ to the right people, an exception will be made.
I think that it is incredibly naive to believe that the FCC or the DHS has anything other than their own interests in mind when making decisions. History has unfortunately, shown this to be largely true.