We need to find a short blond kid missing an arm and leg. It's the only way we'll ever get any farther.
Not true, observe: the best way to defeat terrorism is with embryonic stem cell research.
Put that on a bumper sticker, get some people hired as priests to say that, and get a NASCAR with that message on it, and suddenly medicine will have more money for research than it can shake a stick at.
Joe Biden (candidate for the Office of the Vice President of the United States, and a Catholic, even) disagrees.
Abortion being wrong, abortion being a necessary evil to prevent more deaths, and the united states government having a right to dictate to women what they can and can't do to their own bodies are three totally separate issues. Most everyone feels that abortion is a bad thing, but anyone rational sees that there are more issues than than that which aren't so simple of "is it wrong."
Drinking yourself into oblivion every night is bad, but prohibition didn't work and was a stupid move to begin with because the government isn't there to stamp out everything unpleasant.
We need to be making more noise about the fact that these advances only came about via embryonic stem cell research. The genes they expressed weren't random, they started from genes they knew were expressed in embryonic stem cells.
If there is a cure for any condition that comes out of IPS cell treatment, that's benefiting from embryonic stem cell research. If you believe stem cell research is evil, you have to at the very least turn down any treatment from multi-purpose cells like this, say you were wrong, or admit you are a hypocrite.
I say that when we see treatments coming out of this, and we will, that you have to admit you're a hypocrite if you are opposed to stem cell research but get this treatment. Or better yet, pledge that in the future, you will listen to scientists and doctors on matters of science and medicine, not your local pastor.
The timers on cells cannot be reset. These are older cells. You can attempt to use them for repairs, what-not. But they will never be the same as actual stem cells.
Well then you better tell the cells that, because they seem pretty convinced. Not sure which timer you're talking about, but all the ones we can measure have been and they seem to think they're embryonic stem cells.
Telomere length is often described as a cell timer. Those are the ends of chromesomes, they shorten after every cell division in mature cells, and the thinking is that when they get short enough you don't have further divisions because it would be losing actual coding regions of DNA. But these reprogrammed cells are apperantly able to extend their telomeres by the same mechanism that stem cells do: telomerase.
Another common irreversible step from immature stem cells to adult differentiated cells is the modification of the DNA itself. That also seems to be reversed in IPS cells.
So... it seems the timer is reset, you can use them for repairs and for anything that actual stem cells can.
Also, these adenoviruses aren't gene-altering directly, that's the exact point of the newest breakthrough. Things could go spectacularly wrong, but that's true for absolutely every human endeavor. See some of the misguided controversey over the LHC for more on that.
Embryonic stem cell research was never needed, and has yielded no cures for anything.
Bullshit, you never knew what you were talking about and you still don't.
You same types were the ones saying there was no way the earth is round or revolved around the sun. When you're right, it's by accident. And even now it's too premature to say we don't need ESC research.
You're dead wrong that embryonic stem cells haven't done anything. Thousands of papers have been published using cultured embryonic stem cell lines. We've learned quite a bit from them already, and we definitely have gotten to the point we are at now with the induced pluripotent cells because of ES cell lines. The original papers last year WERE BASED off of knowledge gleaned from embryonic stem cells, that's how they knew which genes to use to deprogram adult cells. It certainly wasn't by reading the bible that they learned that. They used ES cells in those very publications to compare the IPS cells to to know they were working right.
Any cures which come out of IPS will be based in knowledge from ES cells. Anyone who truly believes that ES research is evil cannot in the future accept IPS treatment without being hypocritical.
try not to be too scared every time the word virus is mentioned.
Very true, and I'd add to that many vaccines are actually live viruses. You survived those just fine.
The important difference here is that they are safer because they don't mess up your code. The viruses which integrate their genes into your genes dump it wherever, potentially in the promoter region of a cancer-supressing gene. When the virus does that, the DNA will be maintained whenever that cell reproduces.
If the virus, like the one used here, doesn't put the DNA into the genome, it can still work for a limited time, apperantly long enough to get the job done. It won't be putting it into any genes you need to prevent cancer. And after a few divisions, the cell will lose the artificial DNA. In other words, it will be as it was before.
The mechanisms the other types of viruses would cause you cancer aren't true with this type.
When did yelling "bias" become the automatic first move for you guys? All news channels except Fox News, all newspapers except the wall street journal (and then sometimes), education at all levels, educated people, any author, republicans who disagree with the administration, people with above average intelligence, blue states, slashdot, Reddit...
Or is it maybe not intentional? You're so far right that everything looks left?
Whoever modded that down as overrated clearly didn't know enough to judge. You don't publish negative results because of the time and effort it takes to write it up.
The reasons vary for different fields. A lot of times, researchers don't bother doing proper controls until after the experiment works or doesn't. If the trial run works, you do the controls afterward to verify your result was real, if you don't get the result you expect you might try it again, doing some troubleshooting, but at some point you have to make a choice between a control that would be particularly onerous or expensive, or giving up on the experiment entirely. If you get a negative result that you're not interested in, you generally don't do the controls to prove to others it was a valid result because you don't care and have better things to do. But that's what you would have to do to publish it.
A negative but true result can also be even more difficult to prove than a positive result would be. If you are expecting one protein to interact with another one, and you get no result, it could be that they are and your test just isn't working. If you do the experiment a different way and still show no interaction that makes it a little more convincing, but doesn't prove that both systems are working. You can't say for sure they don't interact in real cells.
In clinical trials you could think of additional reasons why someone would not care to publish the negative results. The most obvious is that the drug company doesn't want to make it known that they're working on drug X. Not sure how that works, but you could imagine that they might have to patent it to keep others from using it, and then the clock on the patent starts before they actually get it working. They could spend 5 years refining it before it actually works, then more years before it gets to market, and they only have a few years before the patent runs out. If they don't patent it and aren't sure it's a complete dead-end, another company might take the results and make a working drug from it, effectively stealing the expensive work to get up to that point.
Not a lawyer or an expert on the pharmecutical industry obviously, but publishing means making it known, and they're only going to do that if they're sure they're done with it, if then.
It makes sense that they're not going to be published, and while it's less than ideal, I think it would be worse to force the pharmecuticals to publish negative results of trials. If you make the clinical trial phase that risky, companies would be more reluctant to develop new drugs that haven't already proven effective, and advances in cancer treatment would slow.
Evolution does imply a direction though. "Survival of the fittest" has a specific meaning. Fit does not mean more intelligent, quicker, happier, or better. It is just the ability to successfully procreate. By that definition fruit files are fitter than humans.
I may be overstepping my knowledge here, but I think that's not completely true. I think random drift, and/or change that doesn't affect fitness is still evolution, though I could be wrong.
If you had a population of birds that over several generations turned from black to brown, it could be that the black ones are less fit, like maybe a predator can see and eat the black ones easier, in which case it would be evolution in a direction, to get more fit and have better reproductive success.
It's entirely possible though that it has nothing to do with fitness and could just be luck of the draw. Black birds and brown birds could be equally fit, but the brown was just a dominant trait. I think that's still evolution, and is not in a fitter direction.
I think Gould would call that a structural constraint on evolution. Whether that is still evolution I don't know.
Either way, the AC was talking about evolution in terms of america getting dumber and less moral, or something like that. The equivalent there would be an animal getting dumber or slower, not loss of fitness. He seemed to be of the mindset that if an animal gets dumber, that's de-evolution, and that in this case, america is getting worse and is "evolving backwards," which we both agree is a misunderstanding of evolution.
I didn't mean to imply that, I am a biologist too, I wouldn't have given the book any time so he's much less biased than me. Just saying, there's a certain predictable dynamic here.
Evolution in the broadest sense means change, it doesn't imply directionality in biology and it doesn't in a more general use of the word. Saying something is evolving backwards is like saying something is "changing backwards."
If a parent species of birds were to give rise to a new species of birds that were dumber, smaller, uglier, and/or shorter-lived, that wouldn't be de-evolution or evolving backwards, that would still be evolution.
Use your terms properly! What you mean is that you don't think you like what america is "evolving" into.
1: Some renewable energy source that actually can handle dense loads 24/7.
SIMPLE things?!? You mean "Simple in concept but impossible in reality?" Yeah, fusion fits that bill. Another idea: the prepetual motion+ machine. Not only does it move forever, it turns a turbine to generate power. From nothing.
Also zero-point energy. That sounds interesting. I'd be suprised if someone hadn't proven it is impossible, or a misunderstanding of some physics concept.
Perfect solutions to energy problems probably will always be fiction.
Re:Is it ok to keep kids off the internet these da
on
Good Email For Kids?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It will mean a lot of work, but it will avoid more problems than it causes.
Yeah, but one problem it might cause is extreme awkwardness. You're increasing the chances that you'll have to use the line "Well, at least I know now you're not gay." Do you really want to risk those type of situations? Sure your kid might grow up with unhealthy views of sex, but at least you won't know about it.
I shudder to think what ads google would show me if I stopped blocking their banner ads. If I'm not prepared for... certain content which might be included in said ads... I think I might crap my pants. Which incidentally some of the ads might have solutions for.
And I think the reason we got to where we are is because we stuck to our guns, or lack of guns.
Where exactly is it that they got? The game isn't out yet. It might still not go over with gamers because of a lack of guns vehicles or 3rd person perspective. While I'm still interested as to how they got to release, I think it's a bit early to be doing this type of interview, since it could be a major disaster. Game-makers, don't go emulating them just yet!
And then you started posting photographs of members of the boss' family in the break room, and included several pages of hard core gay porn [theregister.co.uk] in the company's annual report.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's an unpredictable cancer-inducing mutation of the original variation of "safe".
Not familiar with adenoviruses, are you? Didn't RTFA, did you? Still don't see what you did wrong, do you?
We need to find a short blond kid missing an arm and leg. It's the only way we'll ever get any farther.
Not true, observe: the best way to defeat terrorism is with embryonic stem cell research.
Put that on a bumper sticker, get some people hired as priests to say that, and get a NASCAR with that message on it, and suddenly medicine will have more money for research than it can shake a stick at.
Joe Biden (candidate for the Office of the Vice President of the United States, and a Catholic, even) disagrees.
Abortion being wrong, abortion being a necessary evil to prevent more deaths, and the united states government having a right to dictate to women what they can and can't do to their own bodies are three totally separate issues. Most everyone feels that abortion is a bad thing, but anyone rational sees that there are more issues than than that which aren't so simple of "is it wrong."
Drinking yourself into oblivion every night is bad, but prohibition didn't work and was a stupid move to begin with because the government isn't there to stamp out everything unpleasant.
We need to be making more noise about the fact that these advances only came about via embryonic stem cell research. The genes they expressed weren't random, they started from genes they knew were expressed in embryonic stem cells.
If there is a cure for any condition that comes out of IPS cell treatment, that's benefiting from embryonic stem cell research. If you believe stem cell research is evil, you have to at the very least turn down any treatment from multi-purpose cells like this, say you were wrong, or admit you are a hypocrite.
I say that when we see treatments coming out of this, and we will, that you have to admit you're a hypocrite if you are opposed to stem cell research but get this treatment. Or better yet, pledge that in the future, you will listen to scientists and doctors on matters of science and medicine, not your local pastor.
The timers on cells cannot be reset. These are older cells. You can attempt to use them for repairs, what-not. But they will never be the same as actual stem cells.
Well then you better tell the cells that, because they seem pretty convinced. Not sure which timer you're talking about, but all the ones we can measure have been and they seem to think they're embryonic stem cells.
Telomere length is often described as a cell timer. Those are the ends of chromesomes, they shorten after every cell division in mature cells, and the thinking is that when they get short enough you don't have further divisions because it would be losing actual coding regions of DNA. But these reprogrammed cells are apperantly able to extend their telomeres by the same mechanism that stem cells do: telomerase.
Another common irreversible step from immature stem cells to adult differentiated cells is the modification of the DNA itself. That also seems to be reversed in IPS cells.
So... it seems the timer is reset, you can use them for repairs and for anything that actual stem cells can.
Also, these adenoviruses aren't gene-altering directly, that's the exact point of the newest breakthrough. Things could go spectacularly wrong, but that's true for absolutely every human endeavor. See some of the misguided controversey over the LHC for more on that.
Man, you got him there, all the research at wisconsin is aiming to make better cheese out of human embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell research was never needed, and has yielded no cures for anything.
Bullshit, you never knew what you were talking about and you still don't.
You same types were the ones saying there was no way the earth is round or revolved around the sun. When you're right, it's by accident. And even now it's too premature to say we don't need ESC research.
You're dead wrong that embryonic stem cells haven't done anything. Thousands of papers have been published using cultured embryonic stem cell lines. We've learned quite a bit from them already, and we definitely have gotten to the point we are at now with the induced pluripotent cells because of ES cell lines. The original papers last year WERE BASED off of knowledge gleaned from embryonic stem cells, that's how they knew which genes to use to deprogram adult cells. It certainly wasn't by reading the bible that they learned that. They used ES cells in those very publications to compare the IPS cells to to know they were working right.
Any cures which come out of IPS will be based in knowledge from ES cells. Anyone who truly believes that ES research is evil cannot in the future accept IPS treatment without being hypocritical.
Yeah, those aren't embryos, they're swimmers.
try not to be too scared every time the word virus is mentioned.
Very true, and I'd add to that many vaccines are actually live viruses. You survived those just fine.
The important difference here is that they are safer because they don't mess up your code. The viruses which integrate their genes into your genes dump it wherever, potentially in the promoter region of a cancer-supressing gene. When the virus does that, the DNA will be maintained whenever that cell reproduces.
If the virus, like the one used here, doesn't put the DNA into the genome, it can still work for a limited time, apperantly long enough to get the job done. It won't be putting it into any genes you need to prevent cancer. And after a few divisions, the cell will lose the artificial DNA. In other words, it will be as it was before.
The mechanisms the other types of viruses would cause you cancer aren't true with this type.
When did yelling "bias" become the automatic first move for you guys? All news channels except Fox News, all newspapers except the wall street journal (and then sometimes), education at all levels, educated people, any author, republicans who disagree with the administration, people with above average intelligence, blue states, slashdot, Reddit...
Or is it maybe not intentional? You're so far right that everything looks left?
Funny, first thing I do when I buy a game is try to have fun. You know, by playing it.
Ah. Well then, nevermind. Maybe it's just the innate "Keep secret all that you possibly can," attitude.
As for Americans getting dumber, well that seems to fit.
Well... at least we've evolved past burning women at the stake for being witches.
Whoever modded that down as overrated clearly didn't know enough to judge. You don't publish negative results because of the time and effort it takes to write it up.
The reasons vary for different fields. A lot of times, researchers don't bother doing proper controls until after the experiment works or doesn't. If the trial run works, you do the controls afterward to verify your result was real, if you don't get the result you expect you might try it again, doing some troubleshooting, but at some point you have to make a choice between a control that would be particularly onerous or expensive, or giving up on the experiment entirely. If you get a negative result that you're not interested in, you generally don't do the controls to prove to others it was a valid result because you don't care and have better things to do. But that's what you would have to do to publish it.
A negative but true result can also be even more difficult to prove than a positive result would be. If you are expecting one protein to interact with another one, and you get no result, it could be that they are and your test just isn't working. If you do the experiment a different way and still show no interaction that makes it a little more convincing, but doesn't prove that both systems are working. You can't say for sure they don't interact in real cells.
In clinical trials you could think of additional reasons why someone would not care to publish the negative results. The most obvious is that the drug company doesn't want to make it known that they're working on drug X. Not sure how that works, but you could imagine that they might have to patent it to keep others from using it, and then the clock on the patent starts before they actually get it working. They could spend 5 years refining it before it actually works, then more years before it gets to market, and they only have a few years before the patent runs out. If they don't patent it and aren't sure it's a complete dead-end, another company might take the results and make a working drug from it, effectively stealing the expensive work to get up to that point.
Not a lawyer or an expert on the pharmecutical industry obviously, but publishing means making it known, and they're only going to do that if they're sure they're done with it, if then.
It makes sense that they're not going to be published, and while it's less than ideal, I think it would be worse to force the pharmecuticals to publish negative results of trials. If you make the clinical trial phase that risky, companies would be more reluctant to develop new drugs that haven't already proven effective, and advances in cancer treatment would slow.
Evolution does imply a direction though. "Survival of the fittest" has a specific meaning. Fit does not mean more intelligent, quicker, happier, or better. It is just the ability to successfully procreate. By that definition fruit files are fitter than humans.
I may be overstepping my knowledge here, but I think that's not completely true. I think random drift, and/or change that doesn't affect fitness is still evolution, though I could be wrong.
If you had a population of birds that over several generations turned from black to brown, it could be that the black ones are less fit, like maybe a predator can see and eat the black ones easier, in which case it would be evolution in a direction, to get more fit and have better reproductive success.
It's entirely possible though that it has nothing to do with fitness and could just be luck of the draw. Black birds and brown birds could be equally fit, but the brown was just a dominant trait. I think that's still evolution, and is not in a fitter direction.
I think Gould would call that a structural constraint on evolution. Whether that is still evolution I don't know.
Either way, the AC was talking about evolution in terms of america getting dumber and less moral, or something like that. The equivalent there would be an animal getting dumber or slower, not loss of fitness. He seemed to be of the mindset that if an animal gets dumber, that's de-evolution, and that in this case, america is getting worse and is "evolving backwards," which we both agree is a misunderstanding of evolution.
You can imply that there is bias all you want...
I didn't mean to imply that, I am a biologist too, I wouldn't have given the book any time so he's much less biased than me. Just saying, there's a certain predictable dynamic here.
Evolution in the broadest sense means change, it doesn't imply directionality in biology and it doesn't in a more general use of the word. Saying something is evolving backwards is like saying something is "changing backwards."
If a parent species of birds were to give rise to a new species of birds that were dumber, smaller, uglier, and/or shorter-lived, that wouldn't be de-evolution or evolving backwards, that would still be evolution.
Use your terms properly! What you mean is that you don't think you like what america is "evolving" into.
What were people expecting? That goes both ways.
"A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp"
The conclusion: it's crap.
OMFG!!!
Next up: the writer of the inteligent design textbook reacts to the review. Don't want to spoil the ending, but he MAY not be convinced!
1: Some renewable energy source that actually can handle dense loads 24/7.
SIMPLE things?!? You mean "Simple in concept but impossible in reality?" Yeah, fusion fits that bill. Another idea: the prepetual motion+ machine. Not only does it move forever, it turns a turbine to generate power. From nothing.
Also zero-point energy. That sounds interesting. I'd be suprised if someone hadn't proven it is impossible, or a misunderstanding of some physics concept.
Perfect solutions to energy problems probably will always be fiction.
It will mean a lot of work, but it will avoid more problems than it causes.
Yeah, but one problem it might cause is extreme awkwardness. You're increasing the chances that you'll have to use the line "Well, at least I know now you're not gay." Do you really want to risk those type of situations? Sure your kid might grow up with unhealthy views of sex, but at least you won't know about it.
I shudder to think what ads google would show me if I stopped blocking their banner ads. If I'm not prepared for... certain content which might be included in said ads... I think I might crap my pants. Which incidentally some of the ads might have solutions for.
And I think the reason we got to where we are is because we stuck to our guns, or lack of guns.
Where exactly is it that they got? The game isn't out yet. It might still not go over with gamers because of a lack of guns vehicles or 3rd person perspective. While I'm still interested as to how they got to release, I think it's a bit early to be doing this type of interview, since it could be a major disaster. Game-makers, don't go emulating them just yet!
Also, who the FUCK would be friends with this moron?
At least one group dedicated to censoring videogames has specifically tried to distance themselves from his antics
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/jack-thompson-is-blasted-by-pro-family-group
So short answer: not even his allies want to be allied with Jack Thompson.
And then you started posting photographs of members of the boss' family in the break room, and included several pages of hard core gay porn [theregister.co.uk] in the company's annual report.
Not goign to click on that link!
Hey, I NEVER took out an ad in my local newspaper saying my company kills puppies!