So - let's say your analysis is spot on. Current business charges subscription, not enough people sign up, company goes bankrupt. Then what happens?
I think exactly what happened with Iridium. The satelites are still in orbit. Somebody will pick them up out of the bankruptcy proceedings for pennies (probably fractions of pennies) on the dollar. This new company will only have ground crew maintenance & programming costs as overhead - not interest payments on the monsterous debt incurred during launch. Suddenly, it's very easy to make money on advertising alone - or at least convince investors that you will be able to do so.
The moneybags behind these first two companies will be screwed (much like Motorola for Iridium) - but the US will have free satelite radio.
First: the article was published in Science and is available here.
And you're very right in pointing out that of the vast number of antibody-directed cancer therapies mentioned in the literature, almost all have failed in people. However, there are a few successes - Mylotarg, Ontak, Herceptin, and Rituxan spring to mind. In fact, the Herceptin antibody was one of the antibodies used in this study - which increases the odds of clinical relevance.
Chemotherapeutics (at least, some anthracyclines) not only muck around with DNA, but can lead to free radical generation & can damage cellular membrane components.
There are two reasons this particular therapy favors cancer cells over "normal cells"
First: the caged actinium-225 is attached to a monoclonal antibody. The antibody (or, in their case, 4 antibodies) binds very nicely to a specific receptor/molecule. Ideally, this receptor/molecule is ONLY found on cancer cells, and not on healthy cells. In practice, this isn't ever the case - but there are a number of receptors which are more prevalent on cancer cells than normal cells. There are a couple of FDA approved anti-cancer treatments which make use of monoclonal antibodies (such as Mylotarg and Herceptin).
Second: Why does radiation kill cancer cells faster than normal cells? Well - 'radiation' does bad things to DNA - it can cause strand breaks, or base-pair dimer formation. These sorts of things happen all the time in cells, and they have a number of repair mechanisms to take care of just these sorts of problems, if they have enough time (and the damage isn't too severe). In cancer, cells are typically dividing as fast as they possibly can, since the normal regulatory checkpoints which govern cell division are often missing or damaged. Often, cancerous cells will even have problems with their DNA repair mechanisms. So - the repair mechanisms don't have time to fix the damage before the cell replicates its DNA or divides. The result of faulty or incomplete DNA synthesis is unpredictable, but often bad - in other words, the cell dies.
By the way, the journal article can be found here.
So, while you're correct in that the 2nd amendment mearly states what Congress may or may not do, the protections of the Bill of Rights have long since been extended to cover actions of State/Local governments through the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Feel free to check the rather in-depth anaylsis of this amendment at Findlaw. A search on Google will turn up some less-dense discussions of this amendment's implications as well.
Did you get YDL 2.0 to install on a 6500? I spent two days trying - then flung my hands up in frustration & switched to LinuxPPC 2000 Q4. I never found a video setting which gave me a useable screen for the install - even ultra safe gave pure garbage right after bootup. This looked to be the same problem everybody on the mailing lists with a 6500 was having. No one that I wrote to ever got a useable solution.
Do you have a stock machine, or a non-standard video card? Or did you run YDL 1.2? Enquiring minds want to know . . .
On the off chance you don't have a soundcard, or are too lazy to listen to a 17 minute interview (of which, truth be told, only the first 10 min. or so cover the "laptops for 7th & 8th graders" program) here are some details. Note - these wouldn't be typical, off the shelf laptops - he's got a special 'new' beast in mind for the great state of Maine.
Gov. King is asking for "Smart Client" laptops - which as of today don't exist. They're putting out RFP soon to see what various companies are willing/able to build. So what is a Smart Client laptop? No hard disk. No floppy/CD. Programs are stored via a 'flash memory' system which will be upgradable from the network. An example he gives of what this would be capable of: students can take the computers home and type a paper with a flashed-down version of a word processor, then upload it once returning to school. He's hoping they can be bought en masse for about $500/machine. No word on what sort of applications/OS they'd be built on, but one can presume our good friends in Redmond will offer WinCE or some such beast.
I suppose you could think of it as being an X-client when at school, yet capable of functioning as a somewhat limited stand-alone machine if disconnected from the network.
Assuming it worked, this would eliminate support hassles (oops, I deleted gui32.dll . . . ) and rampant mp3/p0rn/warez/etc trading during 3rd period Social Studies. It might also make them slightly more rugged - although the LCD screen is still probably the most fragile part of the machine.
This site gives a general overview of current fusion studies.
For the more technically inclined, you can check out the journal Fusion Engineering and Design (Sorry - if the link doesn't work for you, it's probably a pay-per-access journal and your business/school/self isn't a subscriber). Anyway, it's full of juicy fusion engineering and design details.
Let me get this straight - they live in a burnt-out house in a poor part of town, but managed to get their local teleco to set them up with a DSL connection without being told "it will be at least 10 years before we offer that service in your area?"
My parents clearly need to move.
Re:Misinformation Capitalizing on the Atlantis Mov
on
Pillars Underwater
·
· Score: 2
> when everyone just saw the Atlantis movie . . .
You were disappointed?
Imagine thier disappointment when they realized that NOBODY saw the Atlantis movie!
So, now that box makers are allowed to remove all visible traces (but not all traces, of course) of IE, will AOL try to strike a deal to get Mozilla/Netscape 6.x installed as the sole, default browser on people's desktops?
IMHO, failure to pull a deal like this will mean the end of Netscape (not Mozilla) - but more troublingly, the possible end-of-funding of the hordes of Mozilla developers working for AOL.
I also have to mention that not only did you not comprehend the context of the 1 sentence you pulled out of the CNN article, from the tone of your response it seems as if you think that it nullifies every other piece of information i presented (from web of science, Sciene magazine, etc.).
Yes - the article clearly said that in 2000, Levitus found an increase in ocean temperature, but couldn't attribute the change to natural vairation of human activity. The original article can be found here. It is important to note - this is NOT THE STUDY discussed in the CNN article. This is what is known as "previous work."
This previous work was one of the motivating factors for the next study they performed, the study discussed in the aformentioned CNN article.
In this study, they performed simulations "using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century." These simulations MATCHED their data, and the increase in temperatures in their model could be attributed to greenhouse gases released by human activity. And THAT is the study discussed in this CNN article.
And, just to pour a little salt on the wound, let's look at some of the other quotes in the article which you've chosen to ignore (rather than merely take out of context)
"I believe our results represent the strongest evidence to date that the Earth's climate system is responding to human-induced forcing,"said Sydney Levitus of the National Oceanographic Data Center.
"Warming in the ocean is bad and good news. It really does add strength to the claims that global warming is here," said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography..." but it also suggests that the immediate impact may not be as great because the oceans may slow things down a little"
Exactly as I originally stated. Global warming is real. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this. The evidence that it is caused by human activity is becoming overwhelming. But the consequences of this warming, its magnitude, etc, is still a question of scientific debate.
Personally, I feel we should take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Not because "I know" horrible things will happen to the earth's climate. But because SOMETHING will PROBABLY happen, and it MIGHT be very bad. But I was never much of a gambler.
A recent letter in Science
provides 13 citations for reports of such exciting phenomena as reduction in alpine glaciers, increase in permafrost thawing, later freeze-ups & earlier thaws of lakes, etc. etc. etc. occuring over the past 60 years.
These 13 citations are A VERY SMALL FRACTION of the total evidence supporting a warming trend over the recent past. A quick search through the web of science over just the past 2 years turns up 595 articles. Do they all provide evidence of a warming trend? No. Do many of them? Yes.
Heck, even a quick search on CNN turns up evidence of ocean warming caused by humans.
A more complete review of the evidence is presented here.
There is very little doubt that the earth is getting warmer. The debates over the past few years settle on "is it caused by humans" and "how much will it affect climate". The evidence seems pretty clear that humans are responsible for a good portion of the warming. The overall affect of this warming, however, is still very much in doubt. THAT'S where the main scientific debate is.
And, on a slightly unrelated rant . . .
Comments like this really piss me off. It's clear you haven't done any poking through the scientific literature about global warming, and your "as i understand it" comes from mouthpieces of our good friends in the oil industry, rush limbaugh, and others.
Plus, EVERYTHING in science is a theory. It's an explanation of how the world works, based on experimental data. A good theory explains the current data and makes predictions about the results of future experiments (ie, warming the earth will cause an increase in the rate of polar ice cap melting). Theories are NEVER PROVEN - there's always the chance that some experiment in the future will provide data that can't be explained by the current theory - which leads to its modification or, in very rare and exciting cases, a completely new theoriy. This is why we have a "theory of gravity" or "theory of evolution" - they can't be proven, but they explain very nicely all the data we've picked up to this point.
LG is much bigger than you realize (unless you realized that it was a 100k person, $100 billion chaebol (a Korean conglomerate))
Perhaps if they said "Lucky Goldstar" the name might start ringing some bells. Or just "Goldstar". Or maybe "Zenith".
Yes, that's right, it's one of everyone's favorite makers of relatively cheap, relatively well-made (ahem) electronic equipment. Which has the advantage of being based in a country with somewhat lax enforcement of IP laws.
So LG is a big loss to SDMI - but otherwise, you're right on with your assessment of the other loser & no-name companies bailing out.
Slashdot Mirror
So - let's say your analysis is spot on. Current business charges subscription, not enough people sign up, company goes bankrupt. Then what happens?
I think exactly what happened with Iridium. The satelites are still in orbit. Somebody will pick them up out of the bankruptcy proceedings for pennies (probably fractions of pennies) on the dollar. This new company will only have ground crew maintenance & programming costs as overhead - not interest payments on the monsterous debt incurred during launch. Suddenly, it's very easy to make money on advertising alone - or at least convince investors that you will be able to do so.
The moneybags behind these first two companies will be screwed (much like Motorola for Iridium) - but the US will have free satelite radio.
Hi . . . but I think I've got you beat by a couple of months with this link.
Just a small quibble:
First: the article was published in Science and is available here.
And you're very right in pointing out that of the vast number of antibody-directed cancer therapies mentioned in the literature, almost all have failed in people. However, there are a few successes - Mylotarg, Ontak, Herceptin, and Rituxan spring to mind. In fact, the Herceptin antibody was one of the antibodies used in this study - which increases the odds of clinical relevance.
Hasta.
Just as an aside:
Chemotherapeutics (at least, some anthracyclines) not only muck around with DNA, but can lead to free radical generation & can damage cellular membrane components.
They're nasty, nasty molecules.
There are two reasons this particular therapy favors cancer cells over "normal cells"
First: the caged actinium-225 is attached to a monoclonal antibody. The antibody (or, in their case, 4 antibodies) binds very nicely to a specific receptor/molecule. Ideally, this receptor/molecule is ONLY found on cancer cells, and not on healthy cells. In practice, this isn't ever the case - but there are a number of receptors which are more prevalent on cancer cells than normal cells. There are a couple of FDA approved anti-cancer treatments which make use of monoclonal antibodies (such as Mylotarg and Herceptin).
Second: Why does radiation kill cancer cells faster than normal cells? Well - 'radiation' does bad things to DNA - it can cause strand breaks, or base-pair dimer formation. These sorts of things happen all the time in cells, and they have a number of repair mechanisms to take care of just these sorts of problems, if they have enough time (and the damage isn't too severe). In cancer, cells are typically dividing as fast as they possibly can, since the normal regulatory checkpoints which govern cell division are often missing or damaged. Often, cancerous cells will even have problems with their DNA repair mechanisms. So - the repair mechanisms don't have time to fix the damage before the cell replicates its DNA or divides. The result of faulty or incomplete DNA synthesis is unpredictable, but often bad - in other words, the cell dies.
By the way, the journal article can be found here.
But what do I know.
Feel free to check the rather in-depth anaylsis of this amendment at Findlaw. A search on Google will turn up some less-dense discussions of this amendment's implications as well.
Ahhh . . . a Voodoo 3. I think that made the difference.
Thanks for the info.
Off topic - but I've got to ask.
Did you get YDL 2.0 to install on a 6500? I spent two days trying - then flung my hands up in frustration & switched to LinuxPPC 2000 Q4. I never found a video setting which gave me a useable screen for the install - even ultra safe gave pure garbage right after bootup. This looked to be the same problem everybody on the mailing lists with a 6500 was having. No one that I wrote to ever got a useable solution.
Do you have a stock machine, or a non-standard video card? Or did you run YDL 1.2? Enquiring minds want to know . . .
On the off chance you don't have a soundcard, or are too lazy to listen to a 17 minute interview (of which, truth be told, only the first 10 min. or so cover the "laptops for 7th & 8th graders" program) here are some details. Note - these wouldn't be typical, off the shelf laptops - he's got a special 'new' beast in mind for the great state of Maine.
Gov. King is asking for "Smart Client" laptops - which as of today don't exist. They're putting out RFP soon to see what various companies are willing/able to build. So what is a Smart Client laptop? No hard disk. No floppy/CD. Programs are stored via a 'flash memory' system which will be upgradable from the network. An example he gives of what this would be capable of: students can take the computers home and type a paper with a flashed-down version of a word processor, then upload it once returning to school. He's hoping they can be bought en masse for about $500/machine. No word on what sort of applications/OS they'd be built on, but one can presume our good friends in Redmond will offer WinCE or some such beast.
I suppose you could think of it as being an X-client when at school, yet capable of functioning as a somewhat limited stand-alone machine if disconnected from the network.
Assuming it worked, this would eliminate support hassles (oops, I deleted gui32.dll . . . ) and rampant mp3/p0rn/warez/etc trading during 3rd period Social Studies. It might also make them slightly more rugged - although the LCD screen is still probably the most fragile part of the machine.
> It's a bit too glib, see?
damn punny. major props to you.
It made it less funny.
But I still gave it a +1.
This site gives a general overview of current fusion studies.
For the more technically inclined, you can check out the journal Fusion Engineering and Design (Sorry - if the link doesn't work for you, it's probably a pay-per-access journal and your business/school/self isn't a subscriber). Anyway, it's full of juicy fusion engineering and design details.
Let me get this straight - they live in a burnt-out house in a poor part of town, but managed to get their local teleco to set them up with a DSL connection without being told "it will be at least 10 years before we offer that service in your area?"
My parents clearly need to move.
> when everyone just saw the Atlantis movie . . .
You were disappointed?
Imagine thier disappointment when they realized that NOBODY saw the Atlantis movie!
So, now that box makers are allowed to remove all visible traces (but not all traces, of course) of IE, will AOL try to strike a deal to get Mozilla/Netscape 6.x installed as the sole, default browser on people's desktops?
IMHO, failure to pull a deal like this will mean the end of Netscape (not Mozilla) - but more troublingly, the possible end-of-funding of the hordes of Mozilla developers working for AOL.
Very sloppy thinking on your part, I must say.
Yes - the article clearly said that in 2000, Levitus found an increase in ocean temperature, but couldn't attribute the change to natural vairation of human activity. The original article can be found here. It is important to note - this is NOT THE STUDY discussed in the CNN article. This is what is known as "previous work."
This previous work was one of the motivating factors for the next study they performed, the study discussed in the aformentioned CNN article. In this study, they performed simulations "using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century." These simulations MATCHED their data, and the increase in temperatures in their model could be attributed to greenhouse gases released by human activity. And THAT is the study discussed in this CNN article.
And, just to pour a little salt on the wound, let's look at some of the other quotes in the article which you've chosen to ignore (rather than merely take out of context)
"I believe our results represent the strongest evidence to date that the Earth's climate system is responding to human-induced forcing,"said Sydney Levitus of the National Oceanographic Data Center.
"Warming in the ocean is bad and good news. It really does add strength to the claims that global warming is here," said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography .. ." but it also suggests that the immediate impact may not be as great because the oceans may slow things down a little"
Exactly as I originally stated. Global warming is real. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support this. The evidence that it is caused by human activity is becoming overwhelming. But the consequences of this warming, its magnitude, etc, is still a question of scientific debate.
Personally, I feel we should take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Not because "I know" horrible things will happen to the earth's climate. But because SOMETHING will PROBABLY happen, and it MIGHT be very bad. But I was never much of a gambler.
A recent letter in Science provides 13 citations for reports of such exciting phenomena as reduction in alpine glaciers, increase in permafrost thawing, later freeze-ups & earlier thaws of lakes, etc. etc. etc. occuring over the past 60 years.
These 13 citations are A VERY SMALL FRACTION of the total evidence supporting a warming trend over the recent past. A quick search through the web of science over just the past 2 years turns up 595 articles. Do they all provide evidence of a warming trend? No. Do many of them? Yes.
Heck, even a quick search on CNN turns up evidence of ocean warming caused by humans.
A more complete review of the evidence is presented here.
There is very little doubt that the earth is getting warmer. The debates over the past few years settle on "is it caused by humans" and "how much will it affect climate". The evidence seems pretty clear that humans are responsible for a good portion of the warming. The overall affect of this warming, however, is still very much in doubt. THAT'S where the main scientific debate is.
And, on a slightly unrelated rant . . .
Comments like this really piss me off. It's clear you haven't done any poking through the scientific literature about global warming, and your "as i understand it" comes from mouthpieces of our good friends in the oil industry, rush limbaugh, and others.
Plus, EVERYTHING in science is a theory. It's an explanation of how the world works, based on experimental data. A good theory explains the current data and makes predictions about the results of future experiments (ie, warming the earth will cause an increase in the rate of polar ice cap melting). Theories are NEVER PROVEN - there's always the chance that some experiment in the future will provide data that can't be explained by the current theory - which leads to its modification or, in very rare and exciting cases, a completely new theoriy. This is why we have a "theory of gravity" or "theory of evolution" - they can't be proven, but they explain very nicely all the data we've picked up to this point.
Sheesh.
LG is much bigger than you realize (unless you realized that it was a 100k person, $100 billion chaebol (a Korean conglomerate))
Perhaps if they said "Lucky Goldstar" the name might start ringing some bells. Or just "Goldstar". Or maybe "Zenith".
Yes, that's right, it's one of everyone's favorite makers of relatively cheap, relatively well-made (ahem) electronic equipment. Which has the advantage of being based in a country with somewhat lax enforcement of IP laws.
So LG is a big loss to SDMI - but otherwise, you're right on with your assessment of the other loser & no-name companies bailing out.
So . . . the kid needed $3,350. Let's say he worked a minimum wage job, and he cleared $5/hr,
which seems like a fairly conservative assumption.
3350/5 = 670 hours.
assuming he worked 20 hrs. a week . . . .
670/20 = 33.5 weeks, or about 8 months.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Other than the part about working at minimum wage that long.
And, of course, he could have cleared a lot more dough mowing lawns or from tips as a waiter.
Unfortunately, no information is yet listed about their problems with Launch.com et al.
This tech report begs to differ.
Oh, really?
I would kill for moderation points right now.