A bunch of salts... and amino acids, a sugar, a tripeptide, a full on protein, a nucleotide precursor, and organic acid. Not to mention a specific pH and temperature.
I suggest improving your chemical know-how before karma whoring. As well all know, karma is a bitch.
You can't patent coal, or wood, so why should you be able to patent a natural resource like DNA? If they create something new from it, like a new allele or treatment, I'd say that's fair game.
In the end, this is an extremely important ruling, but unfortunately it's probably not the end. It will probably require the Supreme Court to make a ruling. I don't see anyone involved giving up that easily.
This has been going on for many years, with many different groups. Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen.
Mayhap Wikileaks should try and dig up information on Paypal.
So... what they discovered is that limiting diets reduce reproduction at the expense of lifespan?
Color me skeptical, but this is not exactly new. It's well known that limited diets reduce reproductive metabolism in favor of survival. After all, what good is reproduction if you don't live to do it.
Now, I'm not saying this is all bunk. I don't know. What I am saying is that all this really proves is that methionine is necessary for egg-laying and lifespan in Drosophila. That's a far stretch from saying that reducing methionine increases lifespan in well-fed humans. In fact, what TFA says is that there is a discrepancy in studies. In fact, TFA doesn't even mention tryptophan, so I don't know where the submitter got that.
Unfortunately, I can't access the Nature article right now. However, I'll definitely be taking a look at it tomorrow, because I am extremely skeptical of these claims.
While this is excellent news, and intriguing scientifically, an effectiveness of 31.8% is practically useless in vaccinating a population. Typically you need at least 70% of your population (varies based on virus) vaccinated before you start to see the effects of herd immunity. Even if they vaccinated everyone in Thailand, you wouldn't get this effect.
Furthermore, the low effectiveness is actually a liability; the end result could be mutations in the HIV virus that make it immune to the vaccine. This is part of the reason why the influenza vaccine has limited effectiveness - influenza, like HIV, has a tendency to mutate quickly. If a new strain comes along, like H1N1 for influenza, you're defenseless.
Finally, I think there's a problem with how the vaccine will be perceived. If the vaccine is only 30% effective, I think people will see that as being too risky to even get the shot. There's already (too much IMO) FUD out there against vaccines in general. If you think that you can get influenza from the flu vaccine, there's a strong aversion to taking the HIV vaccine. For a 30% chance at being immune, that's no good. If it were 100%, that would be a totally different story.
Nitpicking here, since the original site requires an account to post...
First, while technically there are 16 core classes, in reality that number is 17 counting the Swordmage. This is slated to be expanded upon in Arcane Power, and has had material released in DDI. It's clear WotC considers this a fully realized class (Arcane Defender, for those interested), as much as any other class in the PHBs.
Second, Deva is a re-imagined Aasimar. It may be unfair to the author, but I have to question the opinion of any author that would write a piece and not realize this - especially since WotC has indicated this is the case. It throws a giant monkey-wrench into the credibility of the article, from a long-time D&D player's (ie, my) perspective.
While I understand the need to have a catchy title, it's grossly mis-representative of the problem. Doctors don't hate science - doctors hate the misapplication of science and the failure to apply common sense. Hence, pap smears for patients without a cervix.
I understand that they want to make a sequel to Star Control II, and that's awesome. However, I think that ship has long since passed. If they were really serious about carrying on the spirit of the game, they could simply make a new game in the Star Control style with a new background. That's why they're called "spiritual successors." I know that's not a true sequel, but that's about as good to one as we're going to get.
Your job is to do development for a company - they pay you for this. Thus, your feelings on whether patents are broken or not is irrelevent. Anything that you've written for the company while being paid by the company belongs to the company, and if they choose to patent it that is their right. You don't own it, you have no say. Consequently, when you tell your boss you won't do what you are being told, despite the fact that ethically you may have a point, you don't actually have a leg to stand on. So will you get fired? Who knows, we don't know your boss. Would your boss be in the right to repremand you? Absolutely.
The article was short on details (aside from the study being in Taiwan), but my guess would be that the "geeks" are the ones playing video games, and unfortunately most of the big titles are constrained to Windows. On the other hand, a computer you're only using for e-mail and web browsing should opimally be as cheap as possible, and you certainly don't get cheaper on an OS than free.
Whoever wrote this article shows a gross misunderstanding about how genetics actually works. The central dogma of genetics applies here: DNA is transcribed into mRNA, and translated into proteins, which can then be post-translationally modified.,
First - a single nucleotide change may or may not cause a "genetic defect." Translation involves taking three nucleotides (aka bases) and getting the appropriate amino acid from that. There are 20 common amino acids, and 64 combinations - so there is some overlap. If the changes nucleotide doesn't change the corresponding amino acid, it doesn't matter.
Second - not all mutations are harmful. If a mutation happens in an exon (a piece that is cut out), there may well be no difference if there is a mutation there or not. Even if it' is in a part that is kept, it may not be in a part of the protein that dictates structure or function.
Third - most organisms, including humans, have built in redundancies and backups. Losing a gene doesn't usually mean losing the protein, because often something else will make the product another way, or compensate. In diploid organisms often this can be duplicated genes or the other allele.
In short, in order to truly make sense of the data given by these companies you really need to know at least the basics of genetics and have an understanding of how the gene and protein work. These are no small tasks and, surprise, generally results in getting a degree in some branch of biology.
Your genes do not dictate how you are, they only contribute. Environment also plays a role in how healthy you are. Genetics may say that you are predisposed to alcoholism, or breast cancer, or obesity - but they do not in any way guarantee those outcomes. Often, environment plays a much bigger role than genetics in determining these things.
So if you have "bad genes" for obesity, it can be (and should be, IMO) argued that you need to take responsibility for your health, instead of hand-waving that "the genes did it" and declare there's nothing you can do. Children of alcoholics are urged not to drink, children of women with breast cancer are urged to get frequent screenings. It is absolutely no different for obesity.
Undergraduates get lab time, yes. Freshmen (a specific subset of undergrads) gennerally get grunt work. The juniors and seniors in my lab get some very cool stuff to work on, just as cool as the graduate students.
I can tell you what my first day, and really my first week, were like - standing and/or bumbling around trying to get used to where everything is and how everything is done while being completely ineffectual. After that, it depended on the situation.
I have a question. You're out of high school, and you're working in a university lab? No offense, but it is highly likely you will be doing nothing but grunt work. While on occassion labs will take (college) freshmen as work study, I've never heard of them getting to work on "cool" projects. In my lab (bioengineering) they basically did all the chores. I say "did" because we had such problems with freshmen my PI won't take any more under work study. Our lower limit is college juniors, with one notable exception of one sophmore who is working on a really simple project.
The clear answer is no. The reason for this is that in a perfect world, people would be able to pick up multiple proficiencies easily. However, that simply isn't the case in real life - a relatively small amount of people have this trait. Rather than weed out everyone capable of doing a job (say, data entry) because they can't handle even rudimentary IT, it is much more efficient to keep all the people capable of doing a job (data entry in this case), then hire an IT staff. You get all the people capable of data entry doing data entry, and the people capable at IT doing IT, and no one doing a job with rudimentary skill. Plus, you don't have to pay your non-IT staff more for a broader knowledge base.
I don't really see the point of Bioware keeping the game "exclusive." I would think that Bioware, or any company really, would want to reach as many players as possible. The best way to do that is to make the game as cross-platform as possible. That is, to find a good balance between time/money and cross-platform-ness (not a word, I know). That's why all those garbage movie tie-in games are for as many platforms as possible - maximize the number of people buying it by letting them buy it on the platform they want. Exclusivity is awful for publishers and designers; I suspect the only real reason it happens is that Sony/Microsoft defray production costs in exchange.
That said, there's also precedent for any Bioware game not being exclusive - both KotOR and Jade Empire were both later released for the PC. I would expect the same for Mass Effect and especially a JE sequel.
No, the rudeness is not criminal. A cell phone jammer takes away a person's right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot. Rudeness is a person exercising their right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night was one of the best 2D platformers ever made. I don't understand why Konami put all the sequels on the handheld systems. My point being, with the graphical capabilities of the new-gen systems, it's a real shame that a true successor isn't going to get made, because it would look beautiful, and probably sound it too.
I definitely think there's cause for caution with regards to a Wii "bubble" bursting. However, I also think that we're only just now starting to see big games come out for the platform, and that will support the popularity more and more as time passes. The only big name game we've gotten is Zelda. Metroid just came out. The Big Three Mario games (platformer, racing, fighting) haven't hit the console yet, and won't until next year. That's going to step up the support for the platform. So until then, I think it's right to worry, but I think in the long term there's not much to worry about.
I don't know if the rating system works in the UK like the ESRB system here in the US. If it does, then Rockstar's problem isn't that it's not getting the rating, but that retailers won't carry the game if it doesn't. Obviously that undercuts the profit of the game, so Rockstar makes no money and thus no games.
So, (again, assuming the system is similar between countries) no one is telling you what is inappropriate. However if retailers don't carry the game, you can't buy the game in a brick and mortar store. Of course they could sell it online, but again, that severely undercuts their profit margin. That's the reason Rockstar is fighting this in the first place, instead of simply not releasing the game in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
A bunch of salts... and amino acids, a sugar, a tripeptide, a full on protein, a nucleotide precursor, and organic acid. Not to mention a specific pH and temperature. I suggest improving your chemical know-how before karma whoring. As well all know, karma is a bitch.
You can't patent coal, or wood, so why should you be able to patent a natural resource like DNA? If they create something new from it, like a new allele or treatment, I'd say that's fair game. In the end, this is an extremely important ruling, but unfortunately it's probably not the end. It will probably require the Supreme Court to make a ruling. I don't see anyone involved giving up that easily.
This has been going on for many years, with many different groups. Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen. Mayhap Wikileaks should try and dig up information on Paypal.
So... what they discovered is that limiting diets reduce reproduction at the expense of lifespan?
Color me skeptical, but this is not exactly new. It's well known that limited diets reduce reproductive metabolism in favor of survival. After all, what good is reproduction if you don't live to do it.
Now, I'm not saying this is all bunk. I don't know. What I am saying is that all this really proves is that methionine is necessary for egg-laying and lifespan in Drosophila. That's a far stretch from saying that reducing methionine increases lifespan in well-fed humans. In fact, what TFA says is that there is a discrepancy in studies. In fact, TFA doesn't even mention tryptophan, so I don't know where the submitter got that.
Unfortunately, I can't access the Nature article right now. However, I'll definitely be taking a look at it tomorrow, because I am extremely skeptical of these claims.
While this is excellent news, and intriguing scientifically, an effectiveness of 31.8% is practically useless in vaccinating a population. Typically you need at least 70% of your population (varies based on virus) vaccinated before you start to see the effects of herd immunity. Even if they vaccinated everyone in Thailand, you wouldn't get this effect.
Furthermore, the low effectiveness is actually a liability; the end result could be mutations in the HIV virus that make it immune to the vaccine. This is part of the reason why the influenza vaccine has limited effectiveness - influenza, like HIV, has a tendency to mutate quickly. If a new strain comes along, like H1N1 for influenza, you're defenseless.
Finally, I think there's a problem with how the vaccine will be perceived. If the vaccine is only 30% effective, I think people will see that as being too risky to even get the shot. There's already (too much IMO) FUD out there against vaccines in general. If you think that you can get influenza from the flu vaccine, there's a strong aversion to taking the HIV vaccine. For a 30% chance at being immune, that's no good. If it were 100%, that would be a totally different story.
Nitpicking here, since the original site requires an account to post...
First, while technically there are 16 core classes, in reality that number is 17 counting the Swordmage. This is slated to be expanded upon in Arcane Power, and has had material released in DDI. It's clear WotC considers this a fully realized class (Arcane Defender, for those interested), as much as any other class in the PHBs.
Second, Deva is a re-imagined Aasimar. It may be unfair to the author, but I have to question the opinion of any author that would write a piece and not realize this - especially since WotC has indicated this is the case. It throws a giant monkey-wrench into the credibility of the article, from a long-time D&D player's (ie, my) perspective.
While I understand the need to have a catchy title, it's grossly mis-representative of the problem. Doctors don't hate science - doctors hate the misapplication of science and the failure to apply common sense. Hence, pap smears for patients without a cervix.
I understand that they want to make a sequel to Star Control II, and that's awesome. However, I think that ship has long since passed. If they were really serious about carrying on the spirit of the game, they could simply make a new game in the Star Control style with a new background. That's why they're called "spiritual successors." I know that's not a true sequel, but that's about as good to one as we're going to get.
Your job is to do development for a company - they pay you for this. Thus, your feelings on whether patents are broken or not is irrelevent. Anything that you've written for the company while being paid by the company belongs to the company, and if they choose to patent it that is their right. You don't own it, you have no say. Consequently, when you tell your boss you won't do what you are being told, despite the fact that ethically you may have a point, you don't actually have a leg to stand on. So will you get fired? Who knows, we don't know your boss. Would your boss be in the right to repremand you? Absolutely.
This bigger point being - while science may have come a long way, reporting of science in the media has not.
The article was short on details (aside from the study being in Taiwan), but my guess would be that the "geeks" are the ones playing video games, and unfortunately most of the big titles are constrained to Windows. On the other hand, a computer you're only using for e-mail and web browsing should opimally be as cheap as possible, and you certainly don't get cheaper on an OS than free.
Whoever wrote this article shows a gross misunderstanding about how genetics actually works. The central dogma of genetics applies here: DNA is transcribed into mRNA, and translated into proteins, which can then be post-translationally modified.,
First - a single nucleotide change may or may not cause a "genetic defect." Translation involves taking three nucleotides (aka bases) and getting the appropriate amino acid from that. There are 20 common amino acids, and 64 combinations - so there is some overlap. If the changes nucleotide doesn't change the corresponding amino acid, it doesn't matter.
Second - not all mutations are harmful. If a mutation happens in an exon (a piece that is cut out), there may well be no difference if there is a mutation there or not. Even if it' is in a part that is kept, it may not be in a part of the protein that dictates structure or function.
Third - most organisms, including humans, have built in redundancies and backups. Losing a gene doesn't usually mean losing the protein, because often something else will make the product another way, or compensate. In diploid organisms often this can be duplicated genes or the other allele.
In short, in order to truly make sense of the data given by these companies you really need to know at least the basics of genetics and have an understanding of how the gene and protein work. These are no small tasks and, surprise, generally results in getting a degree in some branch of biology.
Your genes do not dictate how you are, they only contribute. Environment also plays a role in how healthy you are. Genetics may say that you are predisposed to alcoholism, or breast cancer, or obesity - but they do not in any way guarantee those outcomes. Often, environment plays a much bigger role than genetics in determining these things. So if you have "bad genes" for obesity, it can be (and should be, IMO) argued that you need to take responsibility for your health, instead of hand-waving that "the genes did it" and declare there's nothing you can do. Children of alcoholics are urged not to drink, children of women with breast cancer are urged to get frequent screenings. It is absolutely no different for obesity.
Science Daily isn't announcing anything, they just regurgitate press releases.
A team of astrophysicists at Yale have published a paper in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. They're the ones announcing it.
Undergraduates get lab time, yes. Freshmen (a specific subset of undergrads) gennerally get grunt work. The juniors and seniors in my lab get some very cool stuff to work on, just as cool as the graduate students.
I can tell you what my first day, and really my first week, were like - standing and/or bumbling around trying to get used to where everything is and how everything is done while being completely ineffectual. After that, it depended on the situation.
I have a question. You're out of high school, and you're working in a university lab? No offense, but it is highly likely you will be doing nothing but grunt work. While on occassion labs will take (college) freshmen as work study, I've never heard of them getting to work on "cool" projects. In my lab (bioengineering) they basically did all the chores. I say "did" because we had such problems with freshmen my PI won't take any more under work study. Our lower limit is college juniors, with one notable exception of one sophmore who is working on a really simple project.
Or, stick him at the end of the queue. That way he's blocking nobody from getting on, and has a maximal amount of time to get to the boarding area.
This isn't math and physics, you kn... oh.
The clear answer is no. The reason for this is that in a perfect world, people would be able to pick up multiple proficiencies easily. However, that simply isn't the case in real life - a relatively small amount of people have this trait. Rather than weed out everyone capable of doing a job (say, data entry) because they can't handle even rudimentary IT, it is much more efficient to keep all the people capable of doing a job (data entry in this case), then hire an IT staff. You get all the people capable of data entry doing data entry, and the people capable at IT doing IT, and no one doing a job with rudimentary skill. Plus, you don't have to pay your non-IT staff more for a broader knowledge base.
I don't really see the point of Bioware keeping the game "exclusive." I would think that Bioware, or any company really, would want to reach as many players as possible. The best way to do that is to make the game as cross-platform as possible. That is, to find a good balance between time/money and cross-platform-ness (not a word, I know). That's why all those garbage movie tie-in games are for as many platforms as possible - maximize the number of people buying it by letting them buy it on the platform they want. Exclusivity is awful for publishers and designers; I suspect the only real reason it happens is that Sony/Microsoft defray production costs in exchange.
That said, there's also precedent for any Bioware game not being exclusive - both KotOR and Jade Empire were both later released for the PC. I would expect the same for Mass Effect and especially a JE sequel.
I always knew Gattaca was a documentary!
My state rocks. E-voting is bad. Write your senators and congressmen and demand the same.
No, the rudeness is not criminal. A cell phone jammer takes away a person's right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot. Rudeness is a person exercising their right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night was one of the best 2D platformers ever made. I don't understand why Konami put all the sequels on the handheld systems. My point being, with the graphical capabilities of the new-gen systems, it's a real shame that a true successor isn't going to get made, because it would look beautiful, and probably sound it too.
I definitely think there's cause for caution with regards to a Wii "bubble" bursting. However, I also think that we're only just now starting to see big games come out for the platform, and that will support the popularity more and more as time passes. The only big name game we've gotten is Zelda. Metroid just came out. The Big Three Mario games (platformer, racing, fighting) haven't hit the console yet, and won't until next year. That's going to step up the support for the platform. So until then, I think it's right to worry, but I think in the long term there's not much to worry about.
I don't know if the rating system works in the UK like the ESRB system here in the US. If it does, then Rockstar's problem isn't that it's not getting the rating, but that retailers won't carry the game if it doesn't. Obviously that undercuts the profit of the game, so Rockstar makes no money and thus no games.
So, (again, assuming the system is similar between countries) no one is telling you what is inappropriate. However if retailers don't carry the game, you can't buy the game in a brick and mortar store. Of course they could sell it online, but again, that severely undercuts their profit margin. That's the reason Rockstar is fighting this in the first place, instead of simply not releasing the game in the UK.