Perhaps you mean the first Mainstream Windows browser to do so... Otherwise, I've got news: iCab and Mac IE 5.0 both render HTML 4.0 with 100% compliance.
Dinosaurs (note spelling!) lived from about 200 MYA to 65 MYA. They included thousands of species. There was also a mass extinction in other species, of all types of life. Including plankton, invertebrates of all sorts, etc. Bacterial plagues rarely even cause the extinction of even an entire species, much less thousands of taxa at all levels below class.
Neither this bacterium nor any other caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. It is completely inconsistent with the type of mass extinction that occurred, and it was entirely the wrong time span.
Well, there are ways to test its effects on humans to some extent. Put it in with cultured human cells of various sorts and see what it does. If it gets eaten instantly by macrophages, it won't hurt us.
Ebola isn't a good human parasite anyway -- it can't keep us alive long enough to spread very well. There's no way Ebola will form a major epidemic as it is today unless someone cultures it and releases it all over the world in many places.
Real human plagues evolved to attack US. Not some other species. Certainly not a species that was around in the Permian. On the microscopic (pun intended) chance that it turns out to be a pathogen, and the even more microscopic chance that it happens to be able to avoid our immune system, there is still an extremely strong chance that it will not be adapted to keep us alive long enough to spread. So the worst that would happen would be a brief outbreak and a few lab workers dead.
There were almost no human pathogens who were immune to antibiotics until we started using them. And those that were, were because of overall structural properties; e.g. Penicilin can't attack Gram-negative (IIRC) bacteria because it is designed to attack Gram-positive cell walls. (It might be the other way around, I don't recall precisely.)
I'm not fooling myself. I have sufficient understanding of the issues to be able to make an educated judgement of the risks involved, and they are extremely slim.
Actually, it was many bacteria, a species that had evolved specifically to be a pathogen of mammals, with an intermediate host in fleas. It was pretty much unable to live outside its hosts.
Viruses are obligate parasites, and this is not a virus. There is no reason to believe that is is one of the tiny percentage of bacteria which are pathogenic.
No, I don't see how it could be dangerous. Bacteria in their spores cannot reproduce. When they're in normal, unprotected mode, they're no less vunerable than anything else to our immune systems, antibiotics, and predators. Tons of modern bacteria have this ability to form spores. Some are dangerous, most are not.
And, no, every possible precaution probably isn't. But just about every reasonable precaution probably is. Unlike you, I actually have experience doing biological research, and I know what the procedures are like. Unlike you, I didn't formulate my conception of science based on bad B-movies. Here's a hint: there are no movies about science working correctly and keeping mysterious bacteria safely in check inside the lab, because that would be boring. So they distort scientific procedures and make scientists look like either maniacal madmen or bumbling idiots.
You fail to address my point, which is that the percentage of bacteria in the world that are pathogenic is miniscule. Take any random bacterium from any random environment, and chances are it's harmless to humans.
We as a species are no more vunerable to biological infection than any other, and less so than many -- most invertebrates don't have an adaptive immune system as vertebrates do.
AIDS is not a bacterium. It's a virus, which is an OBLIGATE parasite. And it's not a consequence of scientific research.
"Hey, maybe things don't always fall down but sometimes float up!" That's idle speculation that is "possible" in that we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't, and would invalidate gravity.
It doesn't make it any less foolish, though.
Science is concerned with those things for which there is evidence. Saying "well, it COULD exist" is pointless.
They have evaluated the risks. If anything shows up that's going to be unaffected by our immune system and antibiotics, it'll be something that specifically evolved to avoid our immune system and our antibiotics. Modern pathogens, in other words.
Chances are this was just a normal soil bacterium, like most bacteria are, that just happened to find itself in a salty environment and went into hibernation mode.
Besides, they wouldn't end up inside the environment of a person's body unless someone was really, really, really, really dumb.
That's different from having antibiotics themselves. I'm not familiar with any organism that eats, say, _Penicillium_ mold when it gets sick. If there were known examples of this, I might find it a considerable possibility. Otherwise it's just idle speculation, and not science.
No bacterium that has not evolved specifically to get past our immune defenses will become an epidemic. They're too generalist and adaptive (our defenses, that is) -- and almost certainly quite different from our ancestors 250 million years ago, before true mammals even evolved.
To be sure, bacteria may contain not-so-healthy chemicals or waste products, so drinking down a big glass of bacterial culture would be dumb.
But no one's going to do that. And this thing is of sufficient importance that I'm sure it'll be handled intelligently.
They had no civilization that we can find any evidence of. Therefore, we conclude until such evidence happens to come to light that they had no civilization and therefore no antibiotics.
They had immune systems, obviously, but so do we.
And we DO know what they died of. It was big, bad, came out of the sky and made a giant crater in the Yucatan and left a layer of iridium-rich sediment all over the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, wrong URL. http://www.orangemicro.com/opc660.html is what I meant to paste.
There have been PCs on PCI cards before. For example, http://home.netscape.com?cp=wn6/ I don't think they make them anymore, though.
The problems with lasers are that they require more power than radio antennas, have to be precisely aligned, and produce more heat.
Why are people SO FUCKING IGNORANT?
Dinosaurs (note spelling!) lived from about 200 MYA to 65 MYA. They included thousands of species. There was also a mass extinction in other species, of all types of life. Including plankton, invertebrates of all sorts, etc. Bacterial plagues rarely even cause the extinction of even an entire species, much less thousands of taxa at all levels below class.
Neither this bacterium nor any other caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. It is completely inconsistent with the type of mass extinction that occurred, and it was entirely the wrong time span.
And what if they did? The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. This guy is from 250 million years ago. Do the math.
And, as others have pointed out, chances are that dissolving or broken up salt crystals release ancient bacteria into the environment all the time.
Well, there are ways to test its effects on humans to some extent. Put it in with cultured human cells of various sorts and see what it does. If it gets eaten instantly by macrophages, it won't hurt us.
Ebola isn't a good human parasite anyway -- it can't keep us alive long enough to spread very well. There's no way Ebola will form a major epidemic as it is today unless someone cultures it and releases it all over the world in many places.
Real human plagues evolved to attack US. Not some other species. Certainly not a species that was around in the Permian. On the microscopic (pun intended) chance that it turns out to be a pathogen, and the even more microscopic chance that it happens to be able to avoid our immune system, there is still an extremely strong chance that it will not be adapted to keep us alive long enough to spread. So the worst that would happen would be a brief outbreak and a few lab workers dead.
There were almost no human pathogens who were immune to antibiotics until we started using them. And those that were, were because of overall structural properties; e.g. Penicilin can't attack Gram-negative (IIRC) bacteria because it is designed to attack Gram-positive cell walls. (It might be the other way around, I don't recall precisely.)
I'm not fooling myself. I have sufficient understanding of the issues to be able to make an educated judgement of the risks involved, and they are extremely slim.
I'm not a microbiologist, but I AM a biologist and I keep up with the new developments in the field.
I've read the Nature article that this story is based on. Have you?
Actually, it was many bacteria, a species that had evolved specifically to be a pathogen of mammals, with an intermediate host in fleas. It was pretty much unable to live outside its hosts.
Viruses are obligate parasites, and this is not a virus. There is no reason to believe that is is one of the tiny percentage of bacteria which are pathogenic.
Oooh, like I've never ever seen those arguments before.
Idiot.
No, I don't see how it could be dangerous. Bacteria in their spores cannot reproduce. When they're in normal, unprotected mode, they're no less vunerable than anything else to our immune systems, antibiotics, and predators. Tons of modern bacteria have this ability to form spores. Some are dangerous, most are not.
And, no, every possible precaution probably isn't. But just about every reasonable precaution probably is. Unlike you, I actually have experience doing biological research, and I know what the procedures are like. Unlike you, I didn't formulate my conception of science based on bad B-movies. Here's a hint: there are no movies about science working correctly and keeping mysterious bacteria safely in check inside the lab, because that would be boring. So they distort scientific procedures and make scientists look like either maniacal madmen or bumbling idiots.
You fail to address my point, which is that the percentage of bacteria in the world that are pathogenic is miniscule. Take any random bacterium from any random environment, and chances are it's harmless to humans.
We as a species are no more vunerable to biological infection than any other, and less so than many -- most invertebrates don't have an adaptive immune system as vertebrates do.
AIDS is not a bacterium. It's a virus, which is an OBLIGATE parasite. And it's not a consequence of scientific research.
"Hey, maybe things don't always fall down but sometimes float up!" That's idle speculation that is "possible" in that we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't, and would invalidate gravity.
It doesn't make it any less foolish, though.
Science is concerned with those things for which there is evidence. Saying "well, it COULD exist" is pointless.
They have evaluated the risks. If anything shows up that's going to be unaffected by our immune system and antibiotics, it'll be something that specifically evolved to avoid our immune system and our antibiotics. Modern pathogens, in other words.
It lived in a form of suspended animation. That's typical for bacteria. Once they're out of the spore form, they're vunerable.
Chances are this was just a normal soil bacterium, like most bacteria are, that just happened to find itself in a salty environment and went into hibernation mode.
Besides, they wouldn't end up inside the environment of a person's body unless someone was really, really, really, really dumb.
Sorry. I'm just annoyed at all these people on this board who think that life is a bad scifi flick.
There's no evidence it isn't that I know of, save that the vast majority of _Bacillus_ bacteria are nonpathogenic.
Discover magazine gets more and more like "Popular Science" each day. And no, that's not a compliment.
If you spent less time watching scifi and more time in science class you might know the answer to that.
Because we KNOW there's a strain of that which is pathogenic. We have no reason to believe that of _B. permians_.
"Potentially lethal threat"? What bullshit. If you have some evidence that this thing is pathogenic, present it.
Oh, wait, you're an AC -- you just make bullshit claims without evidence.
That's different from having antibiotics themselves. I'm not familiar with any organism that eats, say, _Penicillium_ mold when it gets sick. If there were known examples of this, I might find it a considerable possibility. Otherwise it's just idle speculation, and not science.
250million years ago was during the Permian, hence the name _Bacillus permians_.
"Wow, who missed basic biology then"
You, apparently.
No bacterium that has not evolved specifically to get past our immune defenses will become an epidemic. They're too generalist and adaptive (our defenses, that is) -- and almost certainly quite different from our ancestors 250 million years ago, before true mammals even evolved.
To be sure, bacteria may contain not-so-healthy chemicals or waste products, so drinking down a big glass of bacterial culture would be dumb.
But no one's going to do that. And this thing is of sufficient importance that I'm sure it'll be handled intelligently.
They had no civilization that we can find any evidence of. Therefore, we conclude until such evidence happens to come to light that they had no civilization and therefore no antibiotics.
They had immune systems, obviously, but so do we.
And we DO know what they died of. It was big, bad, came out of the sky and made a giant crater in the Yucatan and left a layer of iridium-rich sediment all over the planet.
I swear, people. Think, THEN post!