Yea, but what does any of that have to do with the merits of the game itself. It is equivalent to saying the brand name is successful now so therefore it will continue to be successful in the future. Sounds like basing business decisions on a fad to me.
Evaluation of Physical and Chemical Changes in Pharmaceuticals Flown on Space Missions Brian Du1, Vernie R. Daniels1, Zalman Vaksman2, Jason L. Boyd3, Camille Crady1 and Lakshmi Putcha4 Abstract Efficacy and safety of medications used for the treatment of astronauts in space may be compromised by altered stability in space. We compared physical and chemical changes with time in 35 formulations contained in identical pharmaceutical kits stowed on the International Space Station (ISS) and on Earth. Active pharmaceutical content (API) was determined by ultra- and high-performance liquid chromatography after returning to Earth. After stowage for 28 months in space, six medications aboard the ISS and two of matching ground controls exhibited changes in physical variables; nine medications from the ISS and 17 from the ground met the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) acceptance criteria for API content after 28 months of storage. A higher percentage of medications from each flight kit had lower API content than the respective ground controls. The number of medications failing API requirement increased as a function of time in space, independent of expiration date. The rate of degradation was faster in space than on the ground for many of the medications, and most solid dosage forms met USP standard for dissolution after storage in space. Cumulative radiation dose was higher and increased with time in space, whereas temperature and humidity remained similar to those on the ground. Exposure to the chronic low dose of ionizing radiation aboard the spacecraft as well as repackaging of solid dosage forms in flight-specific dispensers may adversely affect stability of pharmaceuticals. Characterization of degradation profiles of unstable formulations and identification of chemical attributes of stability in space analog environments on Earth will facilitate development of space-hardy medications.
To be honest I've been trying to find a use for this gene expression visualization feature for the last 2 hours by looking at different things different ways and I've come up with nothing yet. Also the program keeps crashing if I click anywhere when looking at coronal sections. The software is good for learning anatomy, I'm really at a loss for the gene expression visualization though. I guess overlapping patterns could mean the genes regulated each other, but if you have multiple splice variants and one is ubiquitous then thats not very helpful. Thats just for my specific case though.
Why do you need to funnel your money through the federal government for it to help out your local community? Just do it directly. What you proposed sounds really inefficient.
In my book, you also failed to actually answer the question. The answer is: There are not enough cosmic rays to be worth the difficulty of harvesting them. Yes, this is implied by your answer, but why you didn't just outright state it is beyond me. Similarly, you act like cosmic ray density is common knowledge, most people have no use for this information in their every day life and so will forget it even if they learned it in 5th grade. That you expect everyone to know this detail is definitely strange. For example, can you name all the major organelles off the top of your head? This was also learned in elementary school.
My pay comes from grants. Grants are administered by an institution and to actually spend the money requires the signatures of various bureaucrats. If I work at a Veterans Affairs Hospital, should I be looking for other sources of income? This IS NOT a stupid question.
Do you think it makes sense for someone to have billions of dollars in personal wealth? I mean really, that guy is just that good at contributing to society? There IS something wrong with that, no one individual has contributed that much relative to the average person. At the same time using resources to support financially and emotionally draining troublemakers that cant get a job for the rest of their lives is wrong. (I used to think different but changed due to personal experience) . Give them an opportunity and if they fuck it up, give them one more some number of years later if their able to still function, then never again. Creating a system that does neither but still runs consistently is difficult, but should be what we strive for. I'm not saying I have the exact answer, but tax the super rich and stop giving so much to deadbeats is a start.
An informal statement of the argument for explosion is this: Consider two inconsistent statements, “Lemons are yellow” and "Lemons are not yellow", and suppose for the sake of argument that both are true. We can then prove anything, for instance that Santa Claus exists: Since the statement that "Lemons are yellow and lemons are not yellow" is true, we can infer that lemons are yellow. And from this we can infer that the statement “Either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists” is true (one or the other has to be true for this statement to be true, and we just showed that it is true that lemons are yellow, so this expanded statement is true). And since either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists, and since lemons are not yellow, (this was our first premise), it must be true that Santa Claus exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_entailment#Paradox_of_entailment
I'm not really familiar with the field so maybe that example is outdated or something. In that case, can you give an example of an important, ongoing philosophical argument (e.g. related to consciousness)?
Hard data is full of anomalies and unexplained deviations from what is expected. Figuring out why is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor that has been going on for centuries. Humanity is making progress towards increasing understanding and reducing suffering, but not due to public consensus. In fact, "common knowledge" and "common sense" are two of the greatest obstacles towards creation of a world free of ignorance. Definitely not the only obstacles though. Also, scientists/engineers/experts are people too... they don't always know what they are talking about and are often overconfident. This is why it is difficult to accept that aliens are amongst us no matter who says it. If my toilet doesn't flush, is that god punishing me or did the chain come loose? Anything is possible, understanding which possibilities are most likely is a useful skill. Then again so is understanding which possibility will get you the most attention.
If you can show me a website useful to me in terms of relearning the math I have forgotten from high school and undergraduate classes I would use it. And be grateful.
Isn't it possible that a space faring race would have such a huge population that there would be enough aliens at the tail end of the normal curve "spending cold nights cuddling up" to the humans? Maybe the alien society puts forth just enough effort towards prevention to prevent human mass acceptance of the probings?
I've seen very few pro-wikipedia comments here but have read many decent wikipedia articles, so I think there may be selection bias going on.
Personally, I have edited various biomedical, biochemical pages and never had any problem. In fact the majority of future modifications only improved upon what I had created. I almost always use wikipedia as a starting point when learning about a subject. Often there is some random fact or connection someone has added to the articles that wouldn't fit well enough for a review article and I would have never thought to check on my own otherwise. Anyone who knows how to do actual research wouldn't really trust even a textbook or peer reviewed article 100% anyway.
I see no problem at all with double checking everything seen on wikipedia before taking it as "fact," this is what people should be doing no matter what the source is. Even if it is a primary source, you need to look at the data and decide for yourself. Of course, if you aren't an expert in an area then it may not be worth the time to double check everything. In that case peer review is more trustworthy than wikipedia, but there should still be a nagging thought in the back of your head that the info is beyond what you should feel "sure" about. Then it becomes important to know your boundaries.
Anyway, I have found reading and contributing to wikipedia a rewarding experience.
Yes, but at the same time, the government should also not encourage individuals/corporations/(entities) to have more money than their contributions to society are worth.
The people who will get hysterical aren't going to trust the physics textbook because "its written by the same people who built the reactors." Your argument will hold no sway with them. Just sayin.
Government funding provides the degree of stability necessary to complete huge, perhaps decades-long, projects. Also besides things that get classified state secrets and such, the raw data and details regarding processes become publicly available, decreasing the need to reinvent the wheel... and therefore waste. Finally, money gets spent on projects that may not have any immediately obvious benefit to Joe Sizpack, but increase humanity's understanding of the world around them. So research is actually one of the valid uses of government money.
It's not a matter of having access to the huge amounts of money. It's a matter of having it practically guaranteed, which allows researchers (as a group) to have priorities beyond capitalization.
Well like you I also didn't read the actual paper so really don't know what I'm talking about, but from the article it sounds like they are saying that whatever TMS protocol they are using is resulting in less active cortical interneurons. I'm also relatively unfamiliar with TMS but the way I understand it is that the magnetic fields are pushing and pulling ions to induce action potentials in some subset of neurons that are susceptible to it for whatever reason (like stimulating at the resonant frequency of a neural circuit). So from that I'd guess that the reported loss of Gabaergic activity is probably due to some kind of negative feedback. One obvious "expense" here would be an increased risk of seizures due to aberrant LTP. I'd also guess you would also be uncoupling firing from the signals of upstream neurons, which could lead to LDP and possible loss of other important connections leading to development of anxiety triggers and the like. Actually at the last SfN i got my radial nerve TMSed at some vendor booth but they wouldn't do my cortex for insurance reasons. Like I said though, didn't read the paper and don't know much about TMS. It's pretty well known though that the brain limits the amount of plasticity in favor of increased stability. Thats why there are multiple mechanisms in place to prevent CNS neurons from regenerating after injury in organisms with complex brains (ie anything more related to us than a zebrafish). I guess my point is that there probably is some risk involved in messing with brain function, but that doesn't mean that if a pathology is involved we can't be better at performing the risk/benefit calculation better than evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a nucleation point.
Would you kill someone in self defense?
Yea, but what does any of that have to do with the merits of the game itself. It is equivalent to saying the brand name is successful now so therefore it will continue to be successful in the future. Sounds like basing business decisions on a fad to me.
Evaluation of Physical and Chemical Changes in Pharmaceuticals Flown on Space Missions
Brian Du1, Vernie R. Daniels1, Zalman Vaksman2, Jason L. Boyd3, Camille Crady1 and Lakshmi Putcha4
Abstract
Efficacy and safety of medications used for the treatment of astronauts in space may be compromised by altered stability in space. We compared physical and chemical changes with time in 35 formulations contained in identical pharmaceutical kits stowed on the International Space Station (ISS) and on Earth. Active pharmaceutical content (API) was determined by ultra- and high-performance liquid chromatography after returning to Earth. After stowage for 28 months in space, six medications aboard the ISS and two of matching ground controls exhibited changes in physical variables; nine medications from the ISS and 17 from the ground met the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) acceptance criteria for API content after 28 months of storage. A higher percentage of medications from each flight kit had lower API content than the respective ground controls. The number of medications failing API requirement increased as a function of time in space, independent of expiration date. The rate of degradation was faster in space than on the ground for many of the medications, and most solid dosage forms met USP standard for dissolution after storage in space. Cumulative radiation dose was higher and increased with time in space, whereas temperature and humidity remained similar to those on the ground. Exposure to the chronic low dose of ionizing radiation aboard the spacecraft as well as repackaging of solid dosage forms in flight-specific dispensers may adversely affect stability of pharmaceuticals. Characterization of degradation profiles of unstable formulations and identification of chemical attributes of stability in space analog environments on Earth will facilitate development of space-hardy medications.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/61047706rj720h76/fulltext.html
To be honest I've been trying to find a use for this gene expression visualization feature for the last 2 hours by looking at different things different ways and I've come up with nothing yet. Also the program keeps crashing if I click anywhere when looking at coronal sections. The software is good for learning anatomy, I'm really at a loss for the gene expression visualization though. I guess overlapping patterns could mean the genes regulated each other, but if you have multiple splice variants and one is ubiquitous then thats not very helpful. Thats just for my specific case though.
Why do you need to funnel your money through the federal government for it to help out your local community? Just do it directly. What you proposed sounds really inefficient.
All is cool then.
In my book, you also failed to actually answer the question. The answer is: There are not enough cosmic rays to be worth the difficulty of harvesting them. Yes, this is implied by your answer, but why you didn't just outright state it is beyond me. Similarly, you act like cosmic ray density is common knowledge, most people have no use for this information in their every day life and so will forget it even if they learned it in 5th grade. That you expect everyone to know this detail is definitely strange. For example, can you name all the major organelles off the top of your head? This was also learned in elementary school.
My pay comes from grants. Grants are administered by an institution and to actually spend the money requires the signatures of various bureaucrats. If I work at a Veterans Affairs Hospital, should I be looking for other sources of income? This IS NOT a stupid question.
Do you think it makes sense for someone to have billions of dollars in personal wealth? I mean really, that guy is just that good at contributing to society? There IS something wrong with that, no one individual has contributed that much relative to the average person. At the same time using resources to support financially and emotionally draining troublemakers that cant get a job for the rest of their lives is wrong. (I used to think different but changed due to personal experience) . Give them an opportunity and if they fuck it up, give them one more some number of years later if their able to still function, then never again. Creating a system that does neither but still runs consistently is difficult, but should be what we strive for. I'm not saying I have the exact answer, but tax the super rich and stop giving so much to deadbeats is a start.
Why are you still buying meat?
I think he's referring to things like this:
An informal statement of the argument for explosion is this: Consider two inconsistent statements, “Lemons are yellow” and "Lemons are not yellow", and suppose for the sake of argument that both are true. We can then prove anything, for instance that Santa Claus exists: Since the statement that "Lemons are yellow and lemons are not yellow" is true, we can infer that lemons are yellow. And from this we can infer that the statement “Either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists” is true (one or the other has to be true for this statement to be true, and we just showed that it is true that lemons are yellow, so this expanded statement is true). And since either lemons are yellow or Santa Claus exists, and since lemons are not yellow, (this was our first premise), it must be true that Santa Claus exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_entailment#Paradox_of_entailment
I'm not really familiar with the field so maybe that example is outdated or something. In that case, can you give an example of an important, ongoing philosophical argument (e.g. related to consciousness)?
Hard data is full of anomalies and unexplained deviations from what is expected. Figuring out why is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor that has been going on for centuries. Humanity is making progress towards increasing understanding and reducing suffering, but not due to public consensus. In fact, "common knowledge" and "common sense" are two of the greatest obstacles towards creation of a world free of ignorance. Definitely not the only obstacles though. Also, scientists/engineers/experts are people too... they don't always know what they are talking about and are often overconfident. This is why it is difficult to accept that aliens are amongst us no matter who says it. If my toilet doesn't flush, is that god punishing me or did the chain come loose? Anything is possible, understanding which possibilities are most likely is a useful skill. Then again so is understanding which possibility will get you the most attention.
If you can show me a website useful to me in terms of relearning the math I have forgotten from high school and undergraduate classes I would use it. And be grateful.
Have you ever looked at "hard" data?
Isn't it possible that a space faring race would have such a huge population that there would be enough aliens at the tail end of the normal curve "spending cold nights cuddling up" to the humans? Maybe the alien society puts forth just enough effort towards prevention to prevent human mass acceptance of the probings?
I've seen very few pro-wikipedia comments here but have read many decent wikipedia articles, so I think there may be selection bias going on.
Personally, I have edited various biomedical, biochemical pages and never had any problem. In fact the majority of future modifications only improved upon what I had created. I almost always use wikipedia as a starting point when learning about a subject. Often there is some random fact or connection someone has added to the articles that wouldn't fit well enough for a review article and I would have never thought to check on my own otherwise. Anyone who knows how to do actual research wouldn't really trust even a textbook or peer reviewed article 100% anyway.
I see no problem at all with double checking everything seen on wikipedia before taking it as "fact," this is what people should be doing no matter what the source is. Even if it is a primary source, you need to look at the data and decide for yourself. Of course, if you aren't an expert in an area then it may not be worth the time to double check everything. In that case peer review is more trustworthy than wikipedia, but there should still be a nagging thought in the back of your head that the info is beyond what you should feel "sure" about. Then it becomes important to know your boundaries.
Anyway, I have found reading and contributing to wikipedia a rewarding experience.
Polite Pedophile?
Actually a child genius might be the best possible person for that kind of task.
Yes, but at the same time, the government should also not encourage individuals/corporations/(entities) to have more money than their contributions to society are worth.
The people who will get hysterical aren't going to trust the physics textbook because "its written by the same people who built the reactors." Your argument will hold no sway with them. Just sayin.
Government funding provides the degree of stability necessary to complete huge, perhaps decades-long, projects. Also besides things that get classified state secrets and such, the raw data and details regarding processes become publicly available, decreasing the need to reinvent the wheel... and therefore waste. Finally, money gets spent on projects that may not have any immediately obvious benefit to Joe Sizpack, but increase humanity's understanding of the world around them. So research is actually one of the valid uses of government money.
It's not a matter of having access to the huge amounts of money. It's a matter of having it practically guaranteed, which allows researchers (as a group) to have priorities beyond capitalization.
I hadn't heard of that one but it makes sense. Interesting... thank you. (toothpaste with diethylene glycol impurities)
Well like you I also didn't read the actual paper so really don't know what I'm talking about, but from the article it sounds like they are saying that whatever TMS protocol they are using is resulting in less active cortical interneurons. I'm also relatively unfamiliar with TMS but the way I understand it is that the magnetic fields are pushing and pulling ions to induce action potentials in some subset of neurons that are susceptible to it for whatever reason (like stimulating at the resonant frequency of a neural circuit). So from that I'd guess that the reported loss of Gabaergic activity is probably due to some kind of negative feedback. One obvious "expense" here would be an increased risk of seizures due to aberrant LTP. I'd also guess you would also be uncoupling firing from the signals of upstream neurons, which could lead to LDP and possible loss of other important connections leading to development of anxiety triggers and the like. Actually at the last SfN i got my radial nerve TMSed at some vendor booth but they wouldn't do my cortex for insurance reasons. Like I said though, didn't read the paper and don't know much about TMS. It's pretty well known though that the brain limits the amount of plasticity in favor of increased stability. Thats why there are multiple mechanisms in place to prevent CNS neurons from regenerating after injury in organisms with complex brains (ie anything more related to us than a zebrafish). I guess my point is that there probably is some risk involved in messing with brain function, but that doesn't mean that if a pathology is involved we can't be better at performing the risk/benefit calculation better than evolution.
that second sentence was terrible