Though they may sound less than gorgeous visually, the feathery nanotubes turned in a beautiful performance in practical terms, Dai said. The coating of PEG made the nanotubes highly water soluble, which helped them to stay in the blood instead of being absorbed.
I'd prefer to keep my precious bodily fluids pure and unsapped thank you very much.
Ha... so to summarize all the interesting stuff you were too lazy to write out: NASA got the guy who (must have) copied the original meatball for starfleet to design the new Orion insignia and NASA has a problem with reproducing the original logo since they don't yet have replicators. Lets just hope for the logical conclusion
I don't remember the name of the guy but my human evolution teacher told us a story one time of this physical anthropologist who thought he found some sort of new hominid species and when everyone disagreed with his conclusion he simply refused to let anyone look at it and hid the bones under his bed. I couldn't figure out a good internet search about this but maybe someone more familiar with field knows the story better.
Thats pretty funny actually, I wont even paste the funniest ones, just read those things. Hilarious. Are some people really worried that this reflects some sort of anti-science sentiment, or even if it does it will be a successful form of propaganda. The last thing I can think of is that its disconcerting that someone is already so anti-science so we need to fix our culture or something, but really come on anti-science sentiment isnt that prevalant
Cancer does not arise from the formation of new nucleotides, its just a series of reorderings/other changes that utilizes the existent genetic code in a way that makes the cell line immune to death and stop-growing signals that normally hold its replication in check
I think the disconnect between you and people who do/support such research may be that you take the purpose to be "proving" some phenomenon to be true. It's not, not in any sense. The purpose is not finding proof for this or that, but to figure out how it works and possibly why. Keep in mind that although that is the stated, immediate goal there is a reason the science meme has spread so successfully: it consistently leads to practical innovations that (at least ostensibly) improve people's lives.
How many people do you know who would naturally think to design a tool to do something they were having trouble doing rather than just dealing with it as if it were "just how things are"? I think the number is pretty low even though its obvious that creating a new tool is an option jsut because we are surrounded by tools that must have come from somewhere.
Also remember that things like cars were basically designed by humans for human use through decades of trial and error until something intuitive was figured out. So its a two way street; ie we create the tools were using and then choose to use the ones that happen to be easiest to use
well yea theres a lot to be worked out, the main problem I thought of was it was basically indiscriminant vaccination, something people probably would not want. It sure sounds cool though.
Right sophisticated selfishness, just keep in mind thats not necessarily a conscious sophistication. And in regards to the instinct vs. conscience issue I guess that just depends on what you attribute the phenomenon of what we call a conscience to; since it's so prevalent it must be something ingrained into humanity in some way (ie an aspect of human nature) so I would say you could call having a conscience a specific instance of instinct, others might reserve the word instinctual for more concrete things though.
Probably they need to combine this with introducing a harmless (non disease vector) mosquito species suited to a given environment (for example some places may suit aedes albopictus).
Yes, mod parent up for this, that is a great idea.
yes this idea is really no different than setting up a million mosquito traps. Same result, this one involves Genetic engineering though so its a threat to the ecosystem.
While it would seem to be advisable for us to try to maintain the status quo (since were at the top right now)other life forms are going to evolve and adapt regardless, so saving species from extinction,etc is not really the strategy thats in Humanity-as-a-whole's self interest. What the best strategy is nobody knows, so really we should just continue doing what we do best and has worked for so long: kill off/keep away anything that annoys us. Yea, it's heuristical but seeing as noone has created and really satisfactory models of ecosystems yet (satisfactory=predictive ability) I'd say don't fix what isn't broken.
It's much more complex than this and IANAImmunologist but... roughly your immune system involves antibodies, major histocompatability complexes (MHCs) and antigens. the antigens are molecules take ninto the body by by breathing, blood transfusions etc or expressed by your bodies cells (important here). For the antigen to cause an immune response it needs to complex with an MHC (theres probably exceptions) at which point the MHC interacts with with antibodies (macrophages, antibody upregulating cells, etc) and you get inflammation and tissue rejection. This girl apparently (I dont remember the blood type) stopped creating the Rh responding antibody or something in between so that the Immune system will no longer recognize the foreign tissue as foreign due to the expression of the Rhesus factor antigen.
yes but it wasnt until the third generation of stars (our current one) that enough oxygen, carbon, heavy metals, etc had been synthesized (created) by exploding stars for rocky planets and life-as-we-know it to be feasible. Granted that still leaves up to about 5 billion years for some other life to have figured this out before us, but yea.
One way an atheist could define good is "a type of adaptive decision making that leads to making altruistic and innocuous decisions when ones actions could foreseeably affect the well-being of others, with the ultimate result of gaining all the advantages of living as a part of a community." Theres probably someone out there who has worded it better, thats just off the top of my head, but the basic idea is its in your own best interest to act "good" because as long as most other people are doing the same everyone benefits. Also if you go around pissing people off eventually its goign to be the wrong person and it won't end well for you.
People, being social animals, naturally live their lives this way for the most part anyway, ethics and all that are just philosophical justifications for what people already know "feels right." Of course theres some cases (abortion for example) where there is no obvious guiding instinct so the ethical rules mentioned above need to be generalized to take that situation into account as well. At which point the philosophy has come to be its own guiding principle. Thats not really inherently bad or anything, just worth thinking about. Anyway thats a rough Atheists guide to justifying good behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha... so to summarize all the interesting stuff you were too lazy to write out: NASA got the guy who (must have) copied the original meatball for starfleet to design the new Orion insignia and NASA has a problem with reproducing the original logo since they don't yet have replicators. Lets just hope for the logical conclusion
Obviously the word has lost all meaning
too bad they stole it from star trek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Starfleet_command_emblem.png
So does anyone have advice for a future Grad student about how to prevent this?
I don't remember the name of the guy but my human evolution teacher told us a story one time of this physical anthropologist who thought he found some sort of new hominid species and when everyone disagreed with his conclusion he simply refused to let anyone look at it and hid the bones under his bed. I couldn't figure out a good internet search about this but maybe someone more familiar with field knows the story better.
you forgot the citation
Isn't that called paraphrasing?
Thats pretty funny actually, I wont even paste the funniest ones, just read those things. Hilarious. Are some people really worried that this reflects some sort of anti-science sentiment, or even if it does it will be a successful form of propaganda. The last thing I can think of is that its disconcerting that someone is already so anti-science so we need to fix our culture or something, but really come on anti-science sentiment isnt that prevalant
Cancer does not arise from the formation of new nucleotides, its just a series of reorderings/other changes that utilizes the existent genetic code in a way that makes the cell line immune to death and stop-growing signals that normally hold its replication in check
I think the disconnect between you and people who do/support such research may be that you take the purpose to be "proving" some phenomenon to be true. It's not, not in any sense. The purpose is not finding proof for this or that, but to figure out how it works and possibly why. Keep in mind that although that is the stated, immediate goal there is a reason the science meme has spread so successfully: it consistently leads to practical innovations that (at least ostensibly) improve people's lives.
How many people do you know who would naturally think to design a tool to do something they were having trouble doing rather than just dealing with it as if it were "just how things are"? I think the number is pretty low even though its obvious that creating a new tool is an option jsut because we are surrounded by tools that must have come from somewhere.
Also remember that things like cars were basically designed by humans for human use through decades of trial and error until something intuitive was figured out. So its a two way street; ie we create the tools were using and then choose to use the ones that happen to be easiest to use
well yea theres a lot to be worked out, the main problem I thought of was it was basically indiscriminant vaccination, something people probably would not want. It sure sounds cool though.
Right sophisticated selfishness, just keep in mind thats not necessarily a conscious sophistication. And in regards to the instinct vs. conscience issue I guess that just depends on what you attribute the phenomenon of what we call a conscience to; since it's so prevalent it must be something ingrained into humanity in some way (ie an aspect of human nature) so I would say you could call having a conscience a specific instance of instinct, others might reserve the word instinctual for more concrete things though.
so the higgs boson is like an ether except for mass?
or its even more valid because of this internet thing
yes this idea is really no different than setting up a million mosquito traps. Same result, this one involves Genetic engineering though so its a threat to the ecosystem.
While it would seem to be advisable for us to try to maintain the status quo (since were at the top right now)other life forms are going to evolve and adapt regardless, so saving species from extinction,etc is not really the strategy thats in Humanity-as-a-whole's self interest. What the best strategy is nobody knows, so really we should just continue doing what we do best and has worked for so long: kill off/keep away anything that annoys us. Yea, it's heuristical but seeing as noone has created and really satisfactory models of ecosystems yet (satisfactory=predictive ability) I'd say don't fix what isn't broken.
thats a far fetched but genius idea worth investigation, hello thesis.
It's much more complex than this and IANAImmunologist but... roughly your immune system involves antibodies, major histocompatability complexes (MHCs) and antigens. the antigens are molecules take ninto the body by by breathing, blood transfusions etc or expressed by your bodies cells (important here). For the antigen to cause an immune response it needs to complex with an MHC (theres probably exceptions) at which point the MHC interacts with with antibodies (macrophages, antibody upregulating cells, etc) and you get inflammation and tissue rejection. This girl apparently (I dont remember the blood type) stopped creating the Rh responding antibody or something in between so that the Immune system will no longer recognize the foreign tissue as foreign due to the expression of the Rhesus factor antigen.
yes but it wasnt until the third generation of stars (our current one) that enough oxygen, carbon, heavy metals, etc had been synthesized (created) by exploding stars for rocky planets and life-as-we-know it to be feasible. Granted that still leaves up to about 5 billion years for some other life to have figured this out before us, but yea.
One way an atheist could define good is "a type of adaptive decision making that leads to making altruistic and innocuous decisions when ones actions could foreseeably affect the well-being of others, with the ultimate result of gaining all the advantages of living as a part of a community." Theres probably someone out there who has worded it better, thats just off the top of my head, but the basic idea is its in your own best interest to act "good" because as long as most other people are doing the same everyone benefits. Also if you go around pissing people off eventually its goign to be the wrong person and it won't end well for you.
People, being social animals, naturally live their lives this way for the most part anyway, ethics and all that are just philosophical justifications for what people already know "feels right." Of course theres some cases (abortion for example) where there is no obvious guiding instinct so the ethical rules mentioned above need to be generalized to take that situation into account as well. At which point the philosophy has come to be its own guiding principle. Thats not really inherently bad or anything, just worth thinking about. Anyway thats a rough Atheists guide to justifying good behavior.
come on at least say ignorant rather than stupid, they mean two different things