Please shut up, we do not want to hear from you on important matters.
We know what's best, so just get over yourselves.
Have you TALKED to the average letter-writing citizen? Our representatives aren't the best people on earth, we could do better, but we could do much, much worse too. While they don't know best, they do know better than a lot of their constituents. If I had to read some of the letters that they probably get, I'd probably be opposed to democracy.
I should start this off saying I don't know much about computers in general, just an average user. I personally don't care much about capping because it doesn't seem to affect me. I don't know if my service is capped or not, but if it is, I've never had a problem with it, so I'm going to go with whoever is cheaper. If that is someone who caps, that's fine with me: it's not affecting me and I don't have the money to be making a statement about whether or not the internet should be metered, there are more important issues out there that I can't support financially.
I do realize however that my demands for bandwidth or data transfer have mushroomed up, as have everyone else's. I don't really see that stopping. When netflix does something involving downloads instead of shipping actual discs, I'm sure I'm not going to want to watch low-quality. I'm saying that I am going to keep wanting more data, as will the other average users. I don't know when I'm going to start needing 250 gb a month, but it doesn't seem impossible. I'm also confident that if your average user like me is constantly using up their alloted data transfer, we won't be quiet about it, and the capping isn't going to stay at that. But I won't be voting for politicians based on this issue until it becomes an issue for me. That's absurd with, you know, some of the stuff going on right now.
If we're even luckier the judge, bored out of his mind, decides a deathmatch is the way to go. Two executive boards enter, part of one executive board leaves.
Well, right, there are embryonic stem cells, and then induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent cells would also be too plastic, when they injected immune-deficient mice, they got massive tumors. Of course, some of that may have had to do with the lack of immune system, they only used immuneless mice so they could implant human cells without rejection. IPS cells though could be differentiated to a point prior to injection, we should be able to for example differentiate the cells to a point where they are limited to producing muscle cells upon implantation, which would limit that. This is what's being worked on right now.
But I still don't know why you're talking about "science embargos." I'm not saying embargo it, I never did! I'm saying individual patients need to be aware they might have moral objections to it.
If memory serves me correctly, there was that song "bittersweet symphony" back in the 90s that sampled part of a rolling stones song. The guy who owned the rights to that song (not the rolling stones, I think it was a manager type who screwed the stones out of the rights to their song) sued them and eventually gained rights to that song as well. He promptly whored it out to nike or some other large corporation, against the wishes of the guys who actually made the song, in addition to keeping every last dime of profits. And you could argue also ensured the song would be overplayed, annoying, and that The Verve would be a one hit wonder everyone was sick of 3 months later.
Certainly a strong argument against the status quo.
Anyway, I'm assuming if given the chance, that particular asshole would try to sue activision for all they're worth if you did.
It's a bit of chicken and egg problem too. Production of PV is low because demand is low, so prices are higher.
If everyone were buying solar panels like they were going out of style, there'd of course be some price fluctuations, but eventually we'd know how to make them for much cheaper than we do now. At least that seems likely to me, a guy with no real qualifications to be making that statement...
And imagine if this were for renewables rather than just turning off lights when you weren't using them! And further imagine if this had come years ago, and by now we had workable solutions to our energy needs!
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Studies on human embryonic stem cells, which some people are opposed to, were the basis for knowing how to induce pluripotency. If you're actually opposed to HES research, you should be aware of that if and when you need treatments derived from it.
I'm just saying you can be morally opposed to it and not take the treatment, you can be okay with it and accept the treatment, or you can be a hypocrite and accept the treatment even though you think it's evil.
I'm not sure why you godwin'd yourself, and I'm not saying anyone needs to or even should reverse engineer anything on their own. I personally am not sure where I stand on human embryonic stem cell research, but I know I wouldn't turn down IPS treatment because of that.
They threw Game Boy Advance backwards compatibility in there, though. If they were trying to call it something besides a Game Boy (successor), they sure stirred up a lot of confusion with that move.
Calling their console the "wii" shows nintendo has some odd ideas about names.
Well, that depends on the research and the application. In the case of spinal cord repair, no. Adult stem cells are thought to only make one or a few types of cells, not because the genetic information is lost but because the DNA has been modified to silence it. In every cell you have the same DNA, your skin cells have the genes to make neurons and your hair color, but in addition to not being read and used by your skin cells, it's physically unreadable. DNA methylation appears to be used to silence genes, a CH3 group is put onto certain bases themselves to make them not fit into the right proteins for that. So your skin cells will normally never read those genes, and you shouldn't be able to get neurons from skin.
One of the amazing, and somewhat unexpected things about the magic genes this paper is dealing with is that it reverses that process, affected cells have their silencing reversed to where all the genes can concievably be read.
So because of this silencing, adult stem cells can't be used to make most of the cell types, and apperantly none that can make spinal cord cells. There is at least one exception to that I know of, although it's not getting much attention, a kind of stem cell that's found at hair follicles. I don't know the specifics or why it's not as hot a topic, so I'm just going to say that there might be exceptions, but probably none which can make any cell like embryonic cells or these IPS cells can.
Adult stem cells aren't as good for many research applications because they're not truly pluripotent, able to turn into anything. If you're researching blood, then yes, there are adult stem cells for that I think, and studying them could be faster. For spinal cord repair, there aren't any good candidates (except for that one I alluded to) so adult stem cell research is not more expedient.
There are types of stem cells which could potentially be harvested from you at birth so you'd have them later, but research from that is going slow as well. Not sure, but I don't think they're pluripotent either.
The term "adult stem cell" is somewhat misleading: newborn babies appear to have adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. In fact, it seems like even embryos past a certain stage have adult stem cells. It's not a gradual process, the cells quickly go from pluripotent cells able to make any cell type to much more specialized stem cells to eventually stem cells which will only make one or two cell types. Basically, the only point at which there are naturally occurring cells which will make any cell type is at a stage where the embryo is a hollow ball of cells. Not trying to devalue human life there, that's just a factual description of what the cellular makeup of the embryo at that point. And while there was one report that said you could get those cells without destroying the embyro, it's controversial at best, the general thinking in the field is that you do destroy the embryo.
Fortunately, studies like this offer an alternative.
I don't know, if the IPS cells truly are behaving as HES cells, then you could probably use the same culturing techniques used with HES cells to maintain it. So you could use them as their own line after one conversion the same as you can with HES cells.
At least, I think HES cell lines can be maintained to where you can use them continuously without them differentiating, rather than harvest new embryos every time, I could be off.
One benefit I could see with using HES lines instead of IPS lines is that the HES lines are better studied, and some probably are already sequenced, wheras IPS from different humans have differing genes and possibly behaviors, though I can't imagine that amounting to much difference. After all, all our cells differentiate basically the same, if you had a gene that caused that to change, you probably have a major birth defect or died as an embryo. But it could be a concern.
I can however see two giant benefits to using IPS cells. One is that there is a lot more funding available. Two is then you don't need to repeat your studies in IPS cells. There is incredible pressure on these researchers, they're racing each other to publish first, and also repeating the experiments if using IPS and HES cells is the same would be a needless delay. No one is going to want a treatment that works on HES cells if IPS pans out because of the rejection.
Well, I think it's impossible to argue that the media is anything near perfect. I also don't think that liberals in the media is the cause of that. They've been over-covering Sarah Palin. She probably has more name recognition at this point than McCain. And while a lot is negative, it's certainly taken attention away from Obama and any meaningful debate. And no press is bad press.
I think I misunderstood who was confused there. It does appear that IPS cells can be used the same as HES cells, except that since your own cells can be induced, there's no chance of tissue rejection, you're quite right. IPS cells can make all the cells that HES cells can (and of course, adult stem cells cannot).
The obvious question, then, is whether or not the fetus is a human being.
More generally if it has rights that trump the mother's rights. Included in that is whether or not it's a human. The death penalty is also framed in that way.
The larger question than that though is if anyone has the authority to say if the fetus is a human being with rights. It's possible to have an opinion that the fetus does have rights, but the opinion that you, the government, and the church don't have the ability to dictate that.
My main question is when the hell is this actually going to help someone?
Well, if we had something that works, we'd be selling it. Many treatments that seem really promising in early stages, when it's just yeast, rats, or pigs, seem very effective, but then make the jump to humans and it suddenly doesn't work. The other common occourance is that something works great in mice, but a little too great.
In the case of mice trials of IPS cells, the injected cells did indeed make many types of cells including neurons. Of course, it was completely random and produced awful tumors which would be resistant to cancer treatments. When injected in the abdomen for instance, many mice developed large bony tumors which eventually would have killed them.
IPS cell treatment could maybe do some help but would go way overboard. Neurons wouldn't just grow in your spinal cord, there would also probably be bone cells, fat cells, skin cells, and a lot of not completely mature cells which would crawl all throughout your central nervous system before turning into whatever they felt like. Some cells may turn into neurons at the right places and make the right connections, but most would not, and there's no way yet to screen out those others.
I believe the chinese have injected human embryonic stem cells, functionally the same thing as the stem cells discussed here, into humans. The results were not pretty, the victims died within months of teratomas.
As far as the rate, it is painfully slow for an individual watching the process. This is true for all levels of research though, it's never fast enough for the researchers (and it's frustrating for us, believe me) and it's not fast enough for patients. Not the answer that you're hoping for, but we are trying our very best. To be honest, the field is progressing extremely rapidly compared to other fields of biomedical results. Everyone involved knows the huge benefits this research would gain, and there's a ton of funding compared to other areas. It's been about a year since the original breakthrough, in that time they've apperantly managed to overcome one obstacle to treatment, a feat which would take much longer normally. The researchers in labs working about this probably average at least 60 hours a week working on it, one of the lead investigators took a yearlong sabattical from teaching entirely to work on this, and I've heard several researchers, having published the papers last year have said they're going to get out of this research or research entirely, they're too burned out.
We also aren't letting the talking heads get in our way. The current induced pluripotent stem cell field came out of human embryonic stem cell research. While the moral nannies were saying it was an outrage, those scientists came up with this.
Adult stem cells are natural and generally give rise to only one or a few cell types. They aren't pluripotent. Your adult stem cells which give rise to your new red blood cells probably only give rise to blood cells, not neurons.
The cells talked about above and in the article aren't adult stem cells, they're reprogrammed adult cells. Like skin cells that have been manipulated. I've seen them called INDUCED pluripotent stem cells.
So adult stem cells aren't pluripotent but are naturally occuring. IPS cells are pluripotent but are not natural, and potentially not safe.
An earlier study did in fact take human fibroblasts and showed they could be reverted back to the deprogrammed state. In mice without immune systems, they behaved as human embryonic stem cells do. But you're right, we can't shut the door on HeS cells yet, it is too premature, we might find problems with IPS cells that aren't the case with HeS cells.
yes, but this new discovery neatly side- steps that problem.
Not really. IPS cell technology is still based off of knowledge from and studies using human embryonic stem cells. This new approach wouldn't exist without the type of research the Vatican and Republicans oppose. Anyone who thinks HES cell research is evil would be a hypocrite to accept IPS-based treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they'll come back a few days later as the antichrist?
Please shut up, we do not want to hear from you on important matters.
We know what's best, so just get over yourselves.
Have you TALKED to the average letter-writing citizen? Our representatives aren't the best people on earth, we could do better, but we could do much, much worse too. While they don't know best, they do know better than a lot of their constituents. If I had to read some of the letters that they probably get, I'd probably be opposed to democracy.
I should start this off saying I don't know much about computers in general, just an average user. I personally don't care much about capping because it doesn't seem to affect me. I don't know if my service is capped or not, but if it is, I've never had a problem with it, so I'm going to go with whoever is cheaper. If that is someone who caps, that's fine with me: it's not affecting me and I don't have the money to be making a statement about whether or not the internet should be metered, there are more important issues out there that I can't support financially.
I do realize however that my demands for bandwidth or data transfer have mushroomed up, as have everyone else's. I don't really see that stopping. When netflix does something involving downloads instead of shipping actual discs, I'm sure I'm not going to want to watch low-quality. I'm saying that I am going to keep wanting more data, as will the other average users. I don't know when I'm going to start needing 250 gb a month, but it doesn't seem impossible. I'm also confident that if your average user like me is constantly using up their alloted data transfer, we won't be quiet about it, and the capping isn't going to stay at that. But I won't be voting for politicians based on this issue until it becomes an issue for me. That's absurd with, you know, some of the stuff going on right now.
Yes, like Corvettes, Axe body spray, hair gel for guys, gold medalions, tight white tank tops (for guys)...
It is in the MPAA's direct financial interest that as many people as possible, defeats the MPAA's DRM ASAP.
FYI, the FBI's TGIF is BYOB, OK? LOL, BRB.
If we're even luckier the judge, bored out of his mind, decides a deathmatch is the way to go. Two executive boards enter, part of one executive board leaves.
Well, right, there are embryonic stem cells, and then induced pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent cells would also be too plastic, when they injected immune-deficient mice, they got massive tumors. Of course, some of that may have had to do with the lack of immune system, they only used immuneless mice so they could implant human cells without rejection. IPS cells though could be differentiated to a point prior to injection, we should be able to for example differentiate the cells to a point where they are limited to producing muscle cells upon implantation, which would limit that. This is what's being worked on right now.
But I still don't know why you're talking about "science embargos." I'm not saying embargo it, I never did! I'm saying individual patients need to be aware they might have moral objections to it.
Dude, the song was like 3 minutes long. Why are you listening to it 1 and a half times?
If memory serves me correctly, there was that song "bittersweet symphony" back in the 90s that sampled part of a rolling stones song. The guy who owned the rights to that song (not the rolling stones, I think it was a manager type who screwed the stones out of the rights to their song) sued them and eventually gained rights to that song as well. He promptly whored it out to nike or some other large corporation, against the wishes of the guys who actually made the song, in addition to keeping every last dime of profits. And you could argue also ensured the song would be overplayed, annoying, and that The Verve would be a one hit wonder everyone was sick of 3 months later.
Certainly a strong argument against the status quo.
Anyway, I'm assuming if given the chance, that particular asshole would try to sue activision for all they're worth if you did.
It's a bit of chicken and egg problem too. Production of PV is low because demand is low, so prices are higher.
If everyone were buying solar panels like they were going out of style, there'd of course be some price fluctuations, but eventually we'd know how to make them for much cheaper than we do now. At least that seems likely to me, a guy with no real qualifications to be making that statement...
And imagine if this were for renewables rather than just turning off lights when you weren't using them! And further imagine if this had come years ago, and by now we had workable solutions to our energy needs!
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Studies on human embryonic stem cells, which some people are opposed to, were the basis for knowing how to induce pluripotency. If you're actually opposed to HES research, you should be aware of that if and when you need treatments derived from it.
I'm just saying you can be morally opposed to it and not take the treatment, you can be okay with it and accept the treatment, or you can be a hypocrite and accept the treatment even though you think it's evil.
I'm not sure why you godwin'd yourself, and I'm not saying anyone needs to or even should reverse engineer anything on their own. I personally am not sure where I stand on human embryonic stem cell research, but I know I wouldn't turn down IPS treatment because of that.
So then just stop by my house on your way back, duh. As for flavor, the "for men" variety please.
Bring me back some pocky, please.
They threw Game Boy Advance backwards compatibility in there, though. If they were trying to call it something besides a Game Boy (successor), they sure stirred up a lot of confusion with that move.
Calling their console the "wii" shows nintendo has some odd ideas about names.
Well, that depends on the research and the application. In the case of spinal cord repair, no. Adult stem cells are thought to only make one or a few types of cells, not because the genetic information is lost but because the DNA has been modified to silence it. In every cell you have the same DNA, your skin cells have the genes to make neurons and your hair color, but in addition to not being read and used by your skin cells, it's physically unreadable. DNA methylation appears to be used to silence genes, a CH3 group is put onto certain bases themselves to make them not fit into the right proteins for that. So your skin cells will normally never read those genes, and you shouldn't be able to get neurons from skin.
One of the amazing, and somewhat unexpected things about the magic genes this paper is dealing with is that it reverses that process, affected cells have their silencing reversed to where all the genes can concievably be read.
So because of this silencing, adult stem cells can't be used to make most of the cell types, and apperantly none that can make spinal cord cells. There is at least one exception to that I know of, although it's not getting much attention, a kind of stem cell that's found at hair follicles. I don't know the specifics or why it's not as hot a topic, so I'm just going to say that there might be exceptions, but probably none which can make any cell like embryonic cells or these IPS cells can.
Adult stem cells aren't as good for many research applications because they're not truly pluripotent, able to turn into anything. If you're researching blood, then yes, there are adult stem cells for that I think, and studying them could be faster. For spinal cord repair, there aren't any good candidates (except for that one I alluded to) so adult stem cell research is not more expedient.
There are types of stem cells which could potentially be harvested from you at birth so you'd have them later, but research from that is going slow as well. Not sure, but I don't think they're pluripotent either.
The term "adult stem cell" is somewhat misleading: newborn babies appear to have adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. In fact, it seems like even embryos past a certain stage have adult stem cells. It's not a gradual process, the cells quickly go from pluripotent cells able to make any cell type to much more specialized stem cells to eventually stem cells which will only make one or two cell types. Basically, the only point at which there are naturally occurring cells which will make any cell type is at a stage where the embryo is a hollow ball of cells. Not trying to devalue human life there, that's just a factual description of what the cellular makeup of the embryo at that point. And while there was one report that said you could get those cells without destroying the embyro, it's controversial at best, the general thinking in the field is that you do destroy the embryo.
Fortunately, studies like this offer an alternative.
I don't know, if the IPS cells truly are behaving as HES cells, then you could probably use the same culturing techniques used with HES cells to maintain it. So you could use them as their own line after one conversion the same as you can with HES cells.
At least, I think HES cell lines can be maintained to where you can use them continuously without them differentiating, rather than harvest new embryos every time, I could be off.
One benefit I could see with using HES lines instead of IPS lines is that the HES lines are better studied, and some probably are already sequenced, wheras IPS from different humans have differing genes and possibly behaviors, though I can't imagine that amounting to much difference. After all, all our cells differentiate basically the same, if you had a gene that caused that to change, you probably have a major birth defect or died as an embryo. But it could be a concern.
I can however see two giant benefits to using IPS cells. One is that there is a lot more funding available. Two is then you don't need to repeat your studies in IPS cells. There is incredible pressure on these researchers, they're racing each other to publish first, and also repeating the experiments if using IPS and HES cells is the same would be a needless delay. No one is going to want a treatment that works on HES cells if IPS pans out because of the rejection.
Well, I think it's impossible to argue that the media is anything near perfect. I also don't think that liberals in the media is the cause of that. They've been over-covering Sarah Palin. She probably has more name recognition at this point than McCain. And while a lot is negative, it's certainly taken attention away from Obama and any meaningful debate. And no press is bad press.
As opposed to the rest of the stuff on slashdot, and your little one liner?
I think I misunderstood who was confused there. It does appear that IPS cells can be used the same as HES cells, except that since your own cells can be induced, there's no chance of tissue rejection, you're quite right. IPS cells can make all the cells that HES cells can (and of course, adult stem cells cannot).
The obvious question, then, is whether or not the fetus is a human being.
More generally if it has rights that trump the mother's rights. Included in that is whether or not it's a human. The death penalty is also framed in that way.
The larger question than that though is if anyone has the authority to say if the fetus is a human being with rights. It's possible to have an opinion that the fetus does have rights, but the opinion that you, the government, and the church don't have the ability to dictate that.
My main question is when the hell is this actually going to help someone?
Well, if we had something that works, we'd be selling it. Many treatments that seem really promising in early stages, when it's just yeast, rats, or pigs, seem very effective, but then make the jump to humans and it suddenly doesn't work. The other common occourance is that something works great in mice, but a little too great.
In the case of mice trials of IPS cells, the injected cells did indeed make many types of cells including neurons. Of course, it was completely random and produced awful tumors which would be resistant to cancer treatments. When injected in the abdomen for instance, many mice developed large bony tumors which eventually would have killed them.
IPS cell treatment could maybe do some help but would go way overboard. Neurons wouldn't just grow in your spinal cord, there would also probably be bone cells, fat cells, skin cells, and a lot of not completely mature cells which would crawl all throughout your central nervous system before turning into whatever they felt like. Some cells may turn into neurons at the right places and make the right connections, but most would not, and there's no way yet to screen out those others.
I believe the chinese have injected human embryonic stem cells, functionally the same thing as the stem cells discussed here, into humans. The results were not pretty, the victims died within months of teratomas.
As far as the rate, it is painfully slow for an individual watching the process. This is true for all levels of research though, it's never fast enough for the researchers (and it's frustrating for us, believe me) and it's not fast enough for patients. Not the answer that you're hoping for, but we are trying our very best. To be honest, the field is progressing extremely rapidly compared to other fields of biomedical results. Everyone involved knows the huge benefits this research would gain, and there's a ton of funding compared to other areas. It's been about a year since the original breakthrough, in that time they've apperantly managed to overcome one obstacle to treatment, a feat which would take much longer normally. The researchers in labs working about this probably average at least 60 hours a week working on it, one of the lead investigators took a yearlong sabattical from teaching entirely to work on this, and I've heard several researchers, having published the papers last year have said they're going to get out of this research or research entirely, they're too burned out.
We also aren't letting the talking heads get in our way. The current induced pluripotent stem cell field came out of human embryonic stem cell research. While the moral nannies were saying it was an outrage, those scientists came up with this.
Adult stem cells are natural and generally give rise to only one or a few cell types. They aren't pluripotent. Your adult stem cells which give rise to your new red blood cells probably only give rise to blood cells, not neurons.
The cells talked about above and in the article aren't adult stem cells, they're reprogrammed adult cells. Like skin cells that have been manipulated. I've seen them called INDUCED pluripotent stem cells.
So adult stem cells aren't pluripotent but are naturally occuring. IPS cells are pluripotent but are not natural, and potentially not safe.
An earlier study did in fact take human fibroblasts and showed they could be reverted back to the deprogrammed state. In mice without immune systems, they behaved as human embryonic stem cells do. But you're right, we can't shut the door on HeS cells yet, it is too premature, we might find problems with IPS cells that aren't the case with HeS cells.
yes, but this new discovery neatly side- steps that problem.
Not really. IPS cell technology is still based off of knowledge from and studies using human embryonic stem cells. This new approach wouldn't exist without the type of research the Vatican and Republicans oppose. Anyone who thinks HES cell research is evil would be a hypocrite to accept IPS-based treatment.