I think he is computing the median number of legs based on what approximately 50% of the population refers to as their "3rd leg" or, occasionally, "the one-eyed monster".
470 million works out to about $1 per mile. Knowledge is priceless. Exploration, besides that of Uranus, is exciting.
Go crap on some Republican bailouts for s&L (NOT people in foreclosure) or Bear Stearns.
I have not flown much, but I cannot think of a single instance in which the lousy service, late - delayed - cancelled flights, lost luggage or wasted "show up 4 hours early"time have NOT left me feeling, and presumably appearing, enraged. Perhaps they should screen out the happy patrons, as they must be a)under the influence of the drugs they are smuggling b) imagining the joys of revenge c) thinking about getting laid by 72 virgins.
Its still better than Greyhound. Not any faster, but the planes don't smell as bad.
I agree. The idea of privacy goes out the window. "well, if you have nothing to hide, and you cannot be discriminated against, why not just give us a cheek swab ?" The implication is that insisting on maintaining your privacy means you have something to hide, instead of the right to choose what and to whom you disclose information. I am frustrated to insanity with drug testing, criminal record disclosure, etc. I have never tested positive for drugs, or committed a felony. I have nothing to hide, BUT my privacy is important to me, as I wish to choose to whom I disclose anything I consider my own, private information. Proving I have nothing to hide is insulting, demeaning, and assumes one is "guilty until proven innocent".
It was an extremely offensive expression in its original derivation. Like many terms, it has lost most of its sting due to most younger people not knowing what it originally meant. The word "sucks" is a good example - it was considered almost as bad as the "F" word when I was a kid ( I was born in 1956).
Things change.:)
The definition is correct - the details are important. Currently most cloning techniques involve 1. either transferring the nucleus of a body cell into an ovum which has had its genetic material removed. Assuming this results in a viable egg, it is implanted into a surrogate "mother" for gestation. Or 2. a whole body cell is isolated, various growth factors and cell signaling chemicals are introduced to induce multiplication. (So far, in mammals, anyway, process #1 also requires various growth factors and chemical signals). All genetic material is NOT equal. Epigenetic changes to the DNA occur thru-out life, as a result of natural processes, chemical exposures, radiation ( x-ray's taken intentionally, or natural background radiation). In the past few years, epigenetic changes (genetic changes due to time, exposure to toxins, or whatever) have been shown to cause disease, including cancer, behavioral issues, etc. If you followed the Dolly the sheep story ( a much over-hyped accomplishment) you are aware that Dolly showed MANY problems generally associated with much older animals. This was PROBABLY due to both the shorter telomeres on the donor chromosomes, and to "older", environmentally degraded donor DNA ( i.e., the epigenetic changes). Why is this an issue? It may not turn out to be - however, the various chemical factors needed at this time to induce replication are applied in (relatively speaking) massive amounts, are extremely potent, and we really do not understand all the implications of what they do. Can this affect the person consuming the animal ? No one knows. Can "bad " genes be transmitted to the consumer ( "eater") ?
Some bacteria normally found in the intestines can pick up stray DNA from cell damage to the animal which occurs with the normal sloughing of cells in the GI tract, tissue injury during eating, swallowing, digesting, and defecating. Such genes could produce harmful factors. No animal is a separate, stand-alone "product". It has thousands or millions of interactions with other living organisms, especially bacteria, which excel at making gene products implanted in or aquired by them. (Think of the bacteria being used to make Human Insulin). In my experience, it is almost impossible to anticipate problems that could arise, BUT we have seen them in other clones. I do not believe in "vital forces" or bullshit like that, but organisms are horrendously complex, with emergent processes that we have not even begin to fathom.
You want to grow beef in tissue culture, I'll eat it. Cloned beef -- ummmm - not yet. Cloned animals are NOT genetically OR epigenetically identical to the donor - NOT EVEN CLOSE. Living things do not work that way, and never will.
And I know of NO TESTS performed regarding safety of cloned animal products. However, that is somewhat out of my area, and I could be unaware of such tests. I would like to look them over. I would also like to see tests performed on the normal bacterial flora of clones as well. I can only tell you that surprises are the norm in this area.
No one knows how "cloned" meat is produced because it has not been done. As far as cloned animals, it would probably be safe to eat. However, Dolly, the cloned sheep showed abnormally rapid aging, autoimmune diseases, and some other abnormalities. YOU cannot say you understand how cloned meat will be produced.
As for genetically modified organisms(in a lab, NOT by selective breeding), there is so much we do not yet understand about life, I would hesitate to eat it. And I suspect I know alot more about biochemistry and biotechnology than you. Proof available on demand.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he is computing the median number of legs based on what approximately 50% of the population refers to as their "3rd leg" or, occasionally, "the one-eyed monster".
Bwahahaha - good one. I'd give you ten pts for insight if I could.
470 million works out to about $1 per mile. Knowledge is priceless. Exploration, besides that of Uranus, is exciting. Go crap on some Republican bailouts for s&L (NOT people in foreclosure) or Bear Stearns.
Oh, you mean like how the earth was COVERED in plant life millions of years before humans were around ?
Me, I'll take ugly but cheap any day. Probably because I'm ugly and cheap.
I have not flown much, but I cannot think of a single instance in which the lousy service, late - delayed - cancelled flights, lost luggage or wasted "show up 4 hours early"time have NOT left me feeling, and presumably appearing, enraged. Perhaps they should screen out the happy patrons, as they must be a)under the influence of the drugs they are smuggling b) imagining the joys of revenge c) thinking about getting laid by 72 virgins. Its still better than Greyhound. Not any faster, but the planes don't smell as bad.
I agree. The idea of privacy goes out the window. "well, if you have nothing to hide, and you cannot be discriminated against, why not just give us a cheek swab ?" The implication is that insisting on maintaining your privacy means you have something to hide, instead of the right to choose what and to whom you disclose information. I am frustrated to insanity with drug testing, criminal record disclosure, etc. I have never tested positive for drugs, or committed a felony. I have nothing to hide, BUT my privacy is important to me, as I wish to choose to whom I disclose anything I consider my own, private information. Proving I have nothing to hide is insulting, demeaning, and assumes one is "guilty until proven innocent".
Apparently no one watches Monty Python anymore :(
It was an extremely offensive expression in its original derivation. Like many terms, it has lost most of its sting due to most younger people not knowing what it originally meant. The word "sucks" is a good example - it was considered almost as bad as the "F" word when I was a kid ( I was born in 1956). Things change. :)
Dang. And I was ALL set to get my eye transplant done by that surgeon in the movie Minority Report.
I get to build a better mousetrap !!! Ummm, a bigger mousetrap at least.
The definition is correct - the details are important. Currently most cloning techniques involve 1. either transferring the nucleus of a body cell into an ovum which has had its genetic material removed. Assuming this results in a viable egg, it is implanted into a surrogate "mother" for gestation. Or 2. a whole body cell is isolated, various growth factors and cell signaling chemicals are introduced to induce multiplication. (So far, in mammals, anyway, process #1 also requires various growth factors and chemical signals). All genetic material is NOT equal. Epigenetic changes to the DNA occur thru-out life, as a result of natural processes, chemical exposures, radiation ( x-ray's taken intentionally, or natural background radiation). In the past few years, epigenetic changes (genetic changes due to time, exposure to toxins, or whatever) have been shown to cause disease, including cancer, behavioral issues, etc. If you followed the Dolly the sheep story ( a much over-hyped accomplishment) you are aware that Dolly showed MANY problems generally associated with much older animals. This was PROBABLY due to both the shorter telomeres on the donor chromosomes, and to "older", environmentally degraded donor DNA ( i.e., the epigenetic changes). Why is this an issue? It may not turn out to be - however, the various chemical factors needed at this time to induce replication are applied in (relatively speaking) massive amounts, are extremely potent, and we really do not understand all the implications of what they do. Can this affect the person consuming the animal ? No one knows. Can "bad " genes be transmitted to the consumer ( "eater") ? Some bacteria normally found in the intestines can pick up stray DNA from cell damage to the animal which occurs with the normal sloughing of cells in the GI tract, tissue injury during eating, swallowing, digesting, and defecating. Such genes could produce harmful factors. No animal is a separate, stand-alone "product". It has thousands or millions of interactions with other living organisms, especially bacteria, which excel at making gene products implanted in or aquired by them. (Think of the bacteria being used to make Human Insulin). In my experience, it is almost impossible to anticipate problems that could arise, BUT we have seen them in other clones. I do not believe in "vital forces" or bullshit like that, but organisms are horrendously complex, with emergent processes that we have not even begin to fathom. You want to grow beef in tissue culture, I'll eat it. Cloned beef -- ummmm - not yet. Cloned animals are NOT genetically OR epigenetically identical to the donor - NOT EVEN CLOSE. Living things do not work that way, and never will. And I know of NO TESTS performed regarding safety of cloned animal products. However, that is somewhat out of my area, and I could be unaware of such tests. I would like to look them over. I would also like to see tests performed on the normal bacterial flora of clones as well. I can only tell you that surprises are the norm in this area.
No one knows how "cloned" meat is produced because it has not been done. As far as cloned animals, it would probably be safe to eat. However, Dolly, the cloned sheep showed abnormally rapid aging, autoimmune diseases, and some other abnormalities. YOU cannot say you understand how cloned meat will be produced. As for genetically modified organisms(in a lab, NOT by selective breeding), there is so much we do not yet understand about life, I would hesitate to eat it. And I suspect I know alot more about biochemistry and biotechnology than you. Proof available on demand.
The FDA has approved these cloned foods. There will be no "testing"