They don't enforce anything, they require NIH institutes to publish in journals that do provide free access. If this means more journals will open up, very nice, but options are already available (PLoS, JBC, etc., etc.) and IMHO will just limit the range journals to publish in for NIH labs...
The process of adding heat to reagents (a.k.a. cooking) is in itself a chemical process. No, it's not, it's physics. It's chemistry when molecules react with each other.
Very easily, no oxygen was present when life originated here on earth either. All the oxygen present here now was produced later by photosynthetic organisms, allowing aerobic life forms to evolve. So oxygen is not a requirement for life to form, probably it even helps if it is absent, being all toxic and all...
Indeed, I had a lecture from the director of our national forensic institute (Dutch) once, explaining the whole procedure of obtaining DNA, what they actually analyze and how they verify the validity. There is a reason why these tests take up to 2 weeks to give a result: Once you as a scientist say "we have DNA evidence, we got him!" it pretty much seals the deal. So you got to be damn sure you are right:
-what are the odds that an identical DNA pattern from someone else came there (no they don't sequence your DNA, so there's a small chance that another person with a similar pattern was on the crime scene, usually the chance is close to zero though)
-how was the evidence collected, could it be contaminated etc. etc.
-is there other evidence that contradicts the results
And after that an analyzis has to been done estimating the chances that you are wrong in saying that the DNA is from the person you are accusing, and that he/she actually commited the crime.
I wouldn't be very happy to let an untrained (in forensics) police officer do those things, because most of them hardly known what DNA is, and what exactly is analyzed. Another reason why you wouldn't wnat that: in the lab everythinh is done anonymous, the analyst just has sample numbers and suspect, X, Y, and Z. The police will know the name of the suspect and stop looking as soon as they think they can nail him, regardless of the presence of any other evidence contradicting this.
PS. This forensics guy wasn't too happy with CSI, it creates really unrealistic expectations about what cases the police can actually solve (and the amount of time it takes them to do so).
This is exactly why the EU wants to limit sales of preinstalled Windows PCs http://www.globalisation.eu/briefings/competition-policy/unbundling-microsoft-windows-200709231241/.
As soon as people have to decide themselves what OS they want, they actually start to think about it, and start to consider advandtages and disadvantages of available choices. I think most people are hardly aware that their could be something else on their PC then Windows. That may also make linux distributions more known to "common" people, amd let's face it, most distributions are not harder to install than windows.
Yes, except that probably if you're really honest you would have to round it up to 3*10^9, in which case rural and urban population have been equal for a long time.
you think so? How many animals are really studied do you think? I can give you the answer: C. elegans, fruitfly, zebrafish, bulfrog, chicken, mice and rats. The rest hardly counts. The reason why they choose C. elegans in this case you already stated, the principles of signal transduction apply just as much to human beings as to those worms. Your EGFR/RAS/MAPK pathway isn't that different...
Sure, for geeks. But if we want people to stop using IE we must provide a credible alternative. why would I want other people to stop using IE? If it works for them, good for them. I don't really feel the need to evangelize the browser that happens to work for me. It's just a program for showing internet pages for crying out loud!
One interesting thing that struck me was the high score for "improved hardware support" in "what should be in future versions". Which is actually what Ubuntu has been working on in their last release. Apparently you don't need a big survey to figure this out;)
Because if you don't work in the USA, which is still the majority of the scientist, odds are that your university is funded by tax-payers money. So it is reasonable to require that your publicly funded results be available for the public to read them.
The interesting thing of course is: for the scientist this is ALSO advantageous! Given the fact that most journals require a publication fee anyway (both commercial "closed" and open journals) and that ALL good articles are peer reviewed (also the open ones). I as a scientist would definately prefer to publish in a open journal because it will allow everyone to access your data. And I think that there are enough opions available too, for example PLOS Biology has an impact factor only beaten by the very best (Cell, Nature, Science).
Slashdot Mirror
oooh, US and Korean companies spying for China on Taiwan, now it gets juicy!
They don't enforce anything, they require NIH institutes to publish in journals that do provide free access. If this means more journals will open up, very nice, but options are already available (PLoS, JBC, etc., etc.) and IMHO will just limit the range journals to publish in for NIH labs...
some ecosystems might disagree with you...
does it run linux?
Hah! So these paleoanthropologists should be looking for ancient irrigation channels in the (former) desert part of Africa!
wouldn't a more evolved and intelligent species move to a more hospitable environment???
Very easily, no oxygen was present when life originated here on earth either. All the oxygen present here now was produced later by photosynthetic organisms, allowing aerobic life forms to evolve. So oxygen is not a requirement for life to form, probably it even helps if it is absent, being all toxic and all...
Ooooh, so they found out again that women are the ones to make the final decision as to choosing partners?
Indeed, I had a lecture from the director of our national forensic institute (Dutch) once, explaining the whole procedure of obtaining DNA, what they actually analyze and how they verify the validity. There is a reason why these tests take up to 2 weeks to give a result: Once you as a scientist say "we have DNA evidence, we got him!" it pretty much seals the deal. So you got to be damn sure you are right: -what are the odds that an identical DNA pattern from someone else came there (no they don't sequence your DNA, so there's a small chance that another person with a similar pattern was on the crime scene, usually the chance is close to zero though) -how was the evidence collected, could it be contaminated etc. etc. -is there other evidence that contradicts the results And after that an analyzis has to been done estimating the chances that you are wrong in saying that the DNA is from the person you are accusing, and that he/she actually commited the crime. I wouldn't be very happy to let an untrained (in forensics) police officer do those things, because most of them hardly known what DNA is, and what exactly is analyzed. Another reason why you wouldn't wnat that: in the lab everythinh is done anonymous, the analyst just has sample numbers and suspect, X, Y, and Z. The police will know the name of the suspect and stop looking as soon as they think they can nail him, regardless of the presence of any other evidence contradicting this. PS. This forensics guy wasn't too happy with CSI, it creates really unrealistic expectations about what cases the police can actually solve (and the amount of time it takes them to do so).
This is exactly why the EU wants to limit sales of preinstalled Windows PCs http://www.globalisation.eu/briefings/competition-policy/unbundling-microsoft-windows-200709231241/. As soon as people have to decide themselves what OS they want, they actually start to think about it, and start to consider advandtages and disadvantages of available choices. I think most people are hardly aware that their could be something else on their PC then Windows. That may also make linux distributions more known to "common" people, amd let's face it, most distributions are not harder to install than windows.
>Why wouldn't Dell extend this deal into Canada? Because France, Germany and the UK are bigger markets?
meh. It's about 2995 billion years after the sun has gone red dwarf, I guess we'll have moved by then...
the Linux boxes already did already earn their money: by generating all this free advertising!
Yes, except that probably if you're really honest you would have to round it up to 3*10^9, in which case rural and urban population have been equal for a long time.
True, but obviously you choose a simple model as a proof of concept, and work from there.
you think so? How many animals are really studied do you think? I can give you the answer: C. elegans, fruitfly, zebrafish, bulfrog, chicken, mice and rats. The rest hardly counts. The reason why they choose C. elegans in this case you already stated, the principles of signal transduction apply just as much to human beings as to those worms. Your EGFR/RAS/MAPK pathway isn't that different...
Or... They produce really low quality HD?
I wanted to comment on this, but I'm not gonna...
I think he's referring to even cheaper grad students...
One interesting thing that struck me was the high score for "improved hardware support" in "what should be in future versions". Which is actually what Ubuntu has been working on in their last release. Apparently you don't need a big survey to figure this out ;)
Because if you don't work in the USA, which is still the majority of the scientist, odds are that your university is funded by tax-payers money. So it is reasonable to require that your publicly funded results be available for the public to read them. The interesting thing of course is: for the scientist this is ALSO advantageous! Given the fact that most journals require a publication fee anyway (both commercial "closed" and open journals) and that ALL good articles are peer reviewed (also the open ones). I as a scientist would definately prefer to publish in a open journal because it will allow everyone to access your data. And I think that there are enough opions available too, for example PLOS Biology has an impact factor only beaten by the very best (Cell, Nature, Science).