Aside from oversaturating target cells with specific drugs, you would probably use a combination approach - use different surface markers to guide the nanoparticles and use different targets for the siRNAs, so that even with the high mutation rate of cancer cells, the population as whole can't escape.
The most interesting part here is not about directing damage, it is that this was a successful non-topical application of siRNAs. In most tests up to now, siRNAs have been injected directly into the target tissue. This study shows a delivery system that carries the siRNA specifically into targeted cells via the bloodstream. In the long run, this might be the key to target metastases however small they are and wherever they are.
The day I get 25 3D-printed, fleshy, unattached penises rolling on my desk when I open my mailbox will be the day I quit all modern technology and vanish into the woods.
I don't think he meant specifically traveling to get treatment. That would certainly not be covered. He is right, though. During my PhD work, I spent half a year in California, coming from Europe. My travel insurance covered me with negligible deductible for WAY less than what you quoted. There was an upper limit, which, however, was not along the range of getting me fixed up enough to board a regular plane, but rather around the point where it would get cheaper to get me a medical transport flight back home and continue treatment there.
The FDP is in no way libertarian - they are, or rather have devolved into, a clientèle party for the interests of big business and the self-employed in the highest earning bracket. They ceased to be liberal in a somewhat classical small government, minimal state intrusion into the citizens life sense starting in the 70s and for sure under the CDU/FDP coalition under Kohl. I'll give you that they still carry somewhat libertarian concepts on their banner, but that has been transparently false for at least 30 years now.
I don't believe a pure Communist position (you owe society everything)
To inject a minor nitpick into the debate - I wouldn't call that a pure Communist position. In orthodox communism, there is a mutual debt between the society and the individual. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." That one-sided debt to society is a totalitarian thing, and communism is not necessarily totalitarian, at least in theory. One might say that an isolated "you owe society everything" is rather fascist. Compare the Nazi concept of "Volkskörper" ("body of society") as the entity on which history is actually working. Under this concept, individuals are like cells of your body - getting shed, replaced, worthless in itself, only of importance in the context of the whole.
Apart from that, I am on your side there. Modern society is so interconnected, that owing society nothing is not in any sense a viable position. Oh, and also agreed on the civility of this subthread. Keep it up, guys.
Well, there we can go into technical sophistry about what actually is meant by "maneuverable". The V1 had an autopilot coupled to a gyrocompass system. In my opinion, that counts as maneuverable. Of course, not external correctional inputs were possible with that system, which might be considered the true definition of maneuverable.
That's more or less an economic question - is it cheaper to deploy supersonic anti-ship missiles to take out a cruise, or to saturate it's defense screen with a huge amount of subsonic ones?
I wouldn't say the layered scenes looked really bad - but basically I agree. The most impressive scenes were those where 3D was just subtly used to give a bit of depth to the scene. As you said, the dandelion thingies, or the ashes of the burning tree. It will be interesting to watch how directors learn to work with the technique.
I guess they want to refine their extreme environment exploration techniques locally before they try it out somewhere out there. Weren't techniques for the moon landings rehearsed in the highland deserts of Iceland? Perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
Of course this is just speculation. However, this broadens the range of environments where we know that complex life, and even self sustaining ecosystems can exist. And that is the true purpose of the Drake equation. Not giving us a probability for life elsewhere, but rather defining the parameter envelope we think is able to sustain life. Every discovery of more extreme ecosystems broadens that envelope - and that is interesting in itself. Now let's get our arse to Europa and Drill, Baby, Drill!
I found the way Cameron used 3D quite well executed, actually. Not many "jump you in the face" effects, rather giving it a slight bit of depth all the time. There were some conflicts with the 3D effect and depth perception for me, though - objects in a deeper 3D layer that were filmed slightly out of focus, while my eyes tried in vain to focus on them. I think directors really have some learning to do regarding how to work with the effect. It is a useful effect that can be used to enhance movies. For now, some producers will probably try to milk it and make 3D films for the sake of it. Once that wears off, it will be integrated in the cinematic toolkit like everything else.
It is not that simple in the field of cellular regulation. The mammalian cell has a complex network of signals and signal processing proteins that control the development of the cell - when it divides, when it dies, when it goes into a resting state. Within such a network, there is no simple "one gene - one trait" relationship. Blocking the p21 gene alters the behaviour of this network in a way that makes regeneration possible in mice. The function of the gene - or rather its product - is to block entry of cells into a certain development phase. It acts as a checkpoint mechanism for development. That is not purely a negative trait as in "loss of regeneration", but can be viewed as positive as in "increased control over cellular development". It is quite hard to slap simple evaluations on such functions. The reason why the system evolved that way may be cancer prevention, it may also be a more fine-grained control over tissue development.
Apoptosis is basically instant death for the cell when the appropriate apoptosis signal is triggered. Senescence results in cell death, but not immediately. The cell is rather arrested in a state where it can't reproduce anymore and finally dies of whatever kills it first.
A live fix in the sense of gene therapy is *maybe* possible for example by targeted insertion of a retrovirus into the gene coding for p21. However, such gene therapy methods have not worked very well so far. It is especially problematic to target a majority of somatic cells. Most gene therapy trials so far were aimed at hematopoetic stem cells in bone marrow, which can be extracted and treated ex vivo. This would not work in this case, so at the moment, I don't see a very promising way to do it. An alternative to gene therapy would be a targeted inhibitor. p21 works, amongst others, by inhibiting the working of certain enzymes responsible for cell cycle progression - the cyclin dependent kinases (CDK). One could possibly try to find a small molecule that blocks the interaction of p21 with those CDKs or other proteins affected by p21. You would have to take that medication constantly to retain the regenerative function of p21 blockage. To my knowledge, no such molecule is known as of yet, but I am out of that field for a while.
The main point here is probably not that the kid learned because of a game - the kid learned, because you took time for him and helped him advance. Anyway, the problem with studies like this is that "gaming" is not a homogenous occupation. I spent much of my youth playing Infocom adventures and rather elaborate strategy games like Harpoon. This is in no way comparable to spending my time with shooters and racing games. The latter might have improved my hand-to-eye coordination and reaction times, while doing nothing for my reasoning skills, while the former probably helped me improving language and logic.
You are raising a good point there - a monolithic view of future energy concepts is probably not the way. Optimizing different applications separately and tying it together would probably shave off some losses that couldn't be avoided in a monolithic system. Hydrogen as off peak storage for power plants is a new concept to me, but I am by no means an expert there. Sounds interesting, and would probably be way more compact than compressed air or thermal storage in molten salt/metal, and would surely provide more capacity and flexibility than flywheels. Gotta do some reading up on this when I get time. Thanks for the pointers.
I see the problem with swappable batteries rather in crash safety. Battery packs are huge and heavy, so they carry a tremendous momentum in case of a crash. To prevent them to rip loose, you have to secure them really tight, which somewhat conflicts with easy replacement.
[/me goes looking for a place to test drive the Knight XV]
Bonneville Salt Flats, I guess. Where else will you find enough clearance for that... thing. Can't help myself to like it in all its monstrosity, though.
That would basically transform hydrocarbons from a depletable energy source into an energy carrier. The main question here is whether hydrocarbons are a more efficient energy carrier/storage than hydrogen over the whole transport/storage/usage circle. But yeah, generally that emphasizes what I am saying - if we are not energy limited, we are not resource limited, within practical boundaries, of course.
I realize that energy usage will be prohibitive to resource recovery at some point. It remains to be determined where that point actually is - e.g. uranium recovery from seawater might actually be feasible. I have no idea where that point is for rare earths, though. Rare earths are not actually rare, after all. They tend to be well diluted, with few high concentration deposits. That's exactly where the thermodynamic angle comes in, so we have to think about this in terms of energy availability.
I am perfectly realistic about the fact that we can't switch to a sustainable energy economy over night. Before we cover whole countries with solar cells, we should rather get a better yield from solar thermal, add in nuclear as an intermediate solution and we better hope that we get fusion running. We won't run out of hydrogen that fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from oversaturating target cells with specific drugs, you would probably use a combination approach - use different surface markers to guide the nanoparticles and use different targets for the siRNAs, so that even with the high mutation rate of cancer cells, the population as whole can't escape.
If you just want to do damage, why would you need a cell-specific targeting system?
The most interesting part here is not about directing damage, it is that this was a successful non-topical application of siRNAs. In most tests up to now, siRNAs have been injected directly into the target tissue. This study shows a delivery system that carries the siRNA specifically into targeted cells via the bloodstream. In the long run, this might be the key to target metastases however small they are and wherever they are.
Pasquale Manfredi has sent you an invite you cannot refuse. Do you want to accept?
You surely meant "Do you want to accept - yes or yes?".
The day I get 25 3D-printed, fleshy, unattached penises rolling on my desk when I open my mailbox will be the day I quit all modern technology and vanish into the woods.
I don't think he meant specifically traveling to get treatment. That would certainly not be covered. He is right, though. During my PhD work, I spent half a year in California, coming from Europe. My travel insurance covered me with negligible deductible for WAY less than what you quoted. There was an upper limit, which, however, was not along the range of getting me fixed up enough to board a regular plane, but rather around the point where it would get cheaper to get me a medical transport flight back home and continue treatment there.
The FDP is in no way libertarian - they are, or rather have devolved into, a clientèle party for the interests of big business and the self-employed in the highest earning bracket. They ceased to be liberal in a somewhat classical small government, minimal state intrusion into the citizens life sense starting in the 70s and for sure under the CDU/FDP coalition under Kohl. I'll give you that they still carry somewhat libertarian concepts on their banner, but that has been transparently false for at least 30 years now.
I don't believe a pure Communist position (you owe society everything)
To inject a minor nitpick into the debate - I wouldn't call that a pure Communist position. In orthodox communism, there is a mutual debt between the society and the individual. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." That one-sided debt to society is a totalitarian thing, and communism is not necessarily totalitarian, at least in theory. One might say that an isolated "you owe society everything" is rather fascist. Compare the Nazi concept of "Volkskörper" ("body of society") as the entity on which history is actually working. Under this concept, individuals are like cells of your body - getting shed, replaced, worthless in itself, only of importance in the context of the whole.
Apart from that, I am on your side there. Modern society is so interconnected, that owing society nothing is not in any sense a viable position. Oh, and also agreed on the civility of this subthread. Keep it up, guys.
Well, there we can go into technical sophistry about what actually is meant by "maneuverable". The V1 had an autopilot coupled to a gyrocompass system. In my opinion, that counts as maneuverable. Of course, not external correctional inputs were possible with that system, which might be considered the true definition of maneuverable.
That's more or less an economic question - is it cheaper to deploy supersonic anti-ship missiles to take out a cruise, or to saturate it's defense screen with a huge amount of subsonic ones?
Not to mention the fact that cruise missiles are by definition maneuverable.
Some members of our species are too dumb to live
And who, mister high-and-mighty, will decide if you deserve to live?
I wouldn't say the layered scenes looked really bad - but basically I agree. The most impressive scenes were those where 3D was just subtly used to give a bit of depth to the scene. As you said, the dandelion thingies, or the ashes of the burning tree. It will be interesting to watch how directors learn to work with the technique.
I guess they want to refine their extreme environment exploration techniques locally before they try it out somewhere out there. Weren't techniques for the moon landings rehearsed in the highland deserts of Iceland? Perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
Of course this is just speculation. However, this broadens the range of environments where we know that complex life, and even self sustaining ecosystems can exist. And that is the true purpose of the Drake equation. Not giving us a probability for life elsewhere, but rather defining the parameter envelope we think is able to sustain life. Every discovery of more extreme ecosystems broadens that envelope - and that is interesting in itself. Now let's get our arse to Europa and Drill, Baby, Drill!
I found the way Cameron used 3D quite well executed, actually. Not many "jump you in the face" effects, rather giving it a slight bit of depth all the time. There were some conflicts with the 3D effect and depth perception for me, though - objects in a deeper 3D layer that were filmed slightly out of focus, while my eyes tried in vain to focus on them. I think directors really have some learning to do regarding how to work with the effect. It is a useful effect that can be used to enhance movies. For now, some producers will probably try to milk it and make 3D films for the sake of it. Once that wears off, it will be integrated in the cinematic toolkit like everything else.
It is not that simple in the field of cellular regulation. The mammalian cell has a complex network of signals and signal processing proteins that control the development of the cell - when it divides, when it dies, when it goes into a resting state. Within such a network, there is no simple "one gene - one trait" relationship. Blocking the p21 gene alters the behaviour of this network in a way that makes regeneration possible in mice. The function of the gene - or rather its product - is to block entry of cells into a certain development phase. It acts as a checkpoint mechanism for development. That is not purely a negative trait as in "loss of regeneration", but can be viewed as positive as in "increased control over cellular development". It is quite hard to slap simple evaluations on such functions. The reason why the system evolved that way may be cancer prevention, it may also be a more fine-grained control over tissue development.
Apoptosis is basically instant death for the cell when the appropriate apoptosis signal is triggered. Senescence results in cell death, but not immediately. The cell is rather arrested in a state where it can't reproduce anymore and finally dies of whatever kills it first.
A live fix in the sense of gene therapy is *maybe* possible for example by targeted insertion of a retrovirus into the gene coding for p21. However, such gene therapy methods have not worked very well so far. It is especially problematic to target a majority of somatic cells. Most gene therapy trials so far were aimed at hematopoetic stem cells in bone marrow, which can be extracted and treated ex vivo. This would not work in this case, so at the moment, I don't see a very promising way to do it. An alternative to gene therapy would be a targeted inhibitor. p21 works, amongst others, by inhibiting the working of certain enzymes responsible for cell cycle progression - the cyclin dependent kinases (CDK). One could possibly try to find a small molecule that blocks the interaction of p21 with those CDKs or other proteins affected by p21. You would have to take that medication constantly to retain the regenerative function of p21 blockage. To my knowledge, no such molecule is known as of yet, but I am out of that field for a while.
The main point here is probably not that the kid learned because of a game - the kid learned, because you took time for him and helped him advance. Anyway, the problem with studies like this is that "gaming" is not a homogenous occupation. I spent much of my youth playing Infocom adventures and rather elaborate strategy games like Harpoon. This is in no way comparable to spending my time with shooters and racing games. The latter might have improved my hand-to-eye coordination and reaction times, while doing nothing for my reasoning skills, while the former probably helped me improving language and logic.
You are raising a good point there - a monolithic view of future energy concepts is probably not the way. Optimizing different applications separately and tying it together would probably shave off some losses that couldn't be avoided in a monolithic system. Hydrogen as off peak storage for power plants is a new concept to me, but I am by no means an expert there. Sounds interesting, and would probably be way more compact than compressed air or thermal storage in molten salt/metal, and would surely provide more capacity and flexibility than flywheels. Gotta do some reading up on this when I get time. Thanks for the pointers.
I see the problem with swappable batteries rather in crash safety. Battery packs are huge and heavy, so they carry a tremendous momentum in case of a crash. To prevent them to rip loose, you have to secure them really tight, which somewhat conflicts with easy replacement.
[/me goes looking for a place to test drive the Knight XV]
Bonneville Salt Flats, I guess. Where else will you find enough clearance for that... thing. Can't help myself to like it in all its monstrosity, though.
That would basically transform hydrocarbons from a depletable energy source into an energy carrier. The main question here is whether hydrocarbons are a more efficient energy carrier/storage than hydrogen over the whole transport/storage/usage circle. But yeah, generally that emphasizes what I am saying - if we are not energy limited, we are not resource limited, within practical boundaries, of course.
I realize that energy usage will be prohibitive to resource recovery at some point. It remains to be determined where that point actually is - e.g. uranium recovery from seawater might actually be feasible. I have no idea where that point is for rare earths, though. Rare earths are not actually rare, after all. They tend to be well diluted, with few high concentration deposits. That's exactly where the thermodynamic angle comes in, so we have to think about this in terms of energy availability.
I am perfectly realistic about the fact that we can't switch to a sustainable energy economy over night. Before we cover whole countries with solar cells, we should rather get a better yield from solar thermal, add in nuclear as an intermediate solution and we better hope that we get fusion running. We won't run out of hydrogen that fast.