I actually don't have a problem w/ making this legal-- I just think it's a stupid idea, and I'm shocked that anyone who is a well-trained hunter with good firearms safety skill would ever allow another person to judge the safety of their shot, knowing the consequences.
When I was a kid, a friend of our family was out hunting one season and got killed. It was a (reasonably) honest mistake, he was wearing a blaze vest but brown cap, and the other hunter got him coming out of cover. The other hunter was a good, decent person who had to live the rest of his life knowing he'd killed another person by accident. If I (God forbid) ever went blind, I don't think I could ever open myself to the risk of having my friend say "range is clear", then I pull the trigger, and have to live with the consequences if something goes wrong.
In addition, as hard as it was on our friend's family, I cannot imagine how everyone would have felt if it had been a blind hunter who had shot him. Just thinking about it gives me the willies-- I would suspect that the first time such an accident happens, that'll be the end of it.
I really don't think this reduces the dependence of a blind person on sighted persons-- just the opposite. Hunting like this raises the dependence of the blind person to the highest level possible. It makes the blind person, 100%, submit to the judgment of their sighted assistant on whether or not pulling the trigger at a particular moment is safe. If the sighted assistant screws up, the blind person will have to live the rest of their lives knowing they accidentally killed another person. That's the kind of power over me I would never want to give to another person, regardless of how much I trusted them.
I grew up around firearms & hunting, still enjoy shooting when I can. But if, God forbid, I ever became blind, I would never pull a trigger again in my life. If I'm blind, I can't possibly be sure of my target & range, and so I cannot ethically take a shot. But if somebody wants to give that power to another person, they'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
A blind person can absolutely do that by having someone assist them is sighting the gun.
I completely disagree. Unless you can see the target, the range, and downrange yourself, you cannot be sure of your target. The way I was taught, that means you don't take the shot. Having someone else tell you "range is clear, fire away" is NOT a substitute.
Choosing to pull that trigger means you are personally responsible for whatever happens after. If your assistant screws up and misses some kid screwing around in the woods downrange and you plug the kid, you're still going to have to deal with the guilt of that the rest of your life.
Yes, I grew up around firearms and hunting. Still like to shoot, not much of a hunter anymore but 100% support those who choose to hunt. When I was a kid, a friend of our family ( a hunter himself) was mistaken for a deer and died one season in the woods. The person who shot him was an experienced hunter, and a perfectly nice person, who made a one second lapse in judgment about his target and had to live the rest of his life knowing he killed my friend's father. If you're blind, are you really going to let someone else judge your target for you? If so, you better be prepared for the consequences.
Not making fun of anyone-- I grew up around firearms, and hunting is a way of life in much of the country, esp. where I come from. Not my personal choice, but I have no issue w/ it. The one thing that was drilled into my head, over and over and over again, is that when you pull the trigger of a firearm, you are personally responsible for whatever happens. You are personally and individually responsible for examining everything between you and the target, and everything you can see downrange of the target, to make sure that if you choose to pull that trigger, you are not going to hit anything you didn't mean to hit. Being told by someone else, "nope, nothing downrange, fire away" DOES NOT CUT IT. And I'm sorry for anyone who wants to hunt but can't, but if you can't see downrange, there is no way you should ever pull that trigger. What if what your buddy thinks is an old tree behind your target and a little to the left, is actually another hunter. And then you shoot, and miss high and to the left, and punch a hole in the guy's chest. Are you gonna feel o.k. for the rest of your life knowing that it's really your buddy's fault, he should have seen it?
Nobody dies from walking around the store w/ a guide dog, or using a cane. When you pick up a firearm you're making life and death decisions for other people, and you have an ethical responsibility to personally know what that gun is pointed at.
Yep, Landsteiner got the Nobel in 1930 for ABO typing-- nothing to do w/ chiral recognition. That work was done later with van der Scheer, in the 20's, not part of the ABO work & not what the Nobel was awarded for. I am remotely familiar w/ my science in this area;). And a little bit of the history, too.
Understood about confusing glycine & alanine, but when you're pointing out chiral recognition and you choose as an example the one and only non-chiral amino acid, somebody's gonna call you on it.
Look, a Nobel prize was awarded back in the 30's for the discovery that IGGs can recognize even racemic molecules such as L and D forms of glycine even and the olfactory literature is just as rich.
I dunno which Nobel prize you're referring to, because none of the Chemistry or Med/Physiology prizes from the 1930s deal with antibody recognition of anything (listing here).
Recognized the D and L forms of glycine? You are aware that glycine is achiral, right? There is no such thing as D- or L- glycine.
Mods, nice job in giving +5 informative to a troll talking out of his/her arse.
I think it was even more than just accessing the Windows market; selling me the ipod that would sync w/ my windows box directly led to the purchase of my Powerbook; the kool-aid does taste good. And if they release a smartphone that syncs w/ my powerbook, that'll sell a phone for them. I think opening up the hardware as much as possible to Windows users is their best way to gain converts;)
Based on how reliable (er, not) 3rd party syncing software works w/ my PocketPC, I'm not willing to take the $$$ plunge for a smartphone on the hope that sometimes, just maybe, I'll be able to use it to sync most of my mail & calendar w/ my.mac account. Except for the days it doesn't want to work. Or the mail messages it doesn't feel like syncing, for no reason. I know there are third party solutions, just like there are 3rd party software packages to let me mount my mac-formatted firewire drive on a WinXP box. My point is, Microsoft is doing everything possible to keep Smartphones tied to Windows (and, of course, Outlook). A "smartphone" type device tied to OSX will be a no-brainer for me, as well as a lot of other folks as well. And if they make a simpler version that syncs w/ Windows as well, as the Wayans brothers would say, mo money, mo money, mo money.
I think the parent was referring to the close tie-in between current Smartphones and Windows-- as a mac user, I'm basically told to get stuffed by my cell phone provider when I ask about a smartphone that can sync w/ my.mac mail, calender, etc etc. Apple opened up the iPod to windows (after the 1st generation, admittedly) in a way that MS will never, ever allow Smartphones to do w/ macs.
If you RTFA, the first person the author asks about it is J.C., and he says "nope, not me, maybe this other guy". Specifically NOT taking credit for this snip of code.
Our courts and congresscritters are much better paid, and know who owns them. Don't expect the courts to agree w/ the rational folks (i.e. Canada) on this one.
You should pay more attention, this one has consequences. Cholesterol is not a trans fat, BTW (it's actually not a fat at all; it's a lipid but not a fat.) Personal opinion plays no role, there's a perfectly good chemical definition on whether something is a trans fat or not.
Any unsaturated fatty acid produced naturally in a foodstuff has all cis double bonds. We have enzymes that deal perfectly well with these unsaturated fats. When polyunsaturated fats are partially hydrogenated through chemical means, some of the bonds isomerize to trans rather than cis. We have no enzymes to deal with a trans bond in a fatty acid, so they get treated in some funky ways. One of the impacts is that they appear to cause higher cholesterol, and appear to be much worse for you than even fully saturated fats like lard. Of course, any foodstuff that has less than 1g of trans fat per serving, even if they have 0.99g per serving, can label themselves as "0g trans fat". This stuff is bad for you on the mg scale, and should be labeled like cholsterol on mg's rather than grams, but that's what money will buy ya from the FDA. For a good review, see Zaloga et al, "Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease", Nutr Clin Pract. 2006 Oct;21(5):505-12.
What do these have to do w/ GM food? Nothing at all;). I think the analogy is that for years, margarine (which is positively loaded with trans fatty acids) was presented as the healthful alternative to butter. Now it appears that it's much worse for you than butter. Without enough study to understand the real biology of what's going on, jumping to the conclusion that something newly made is good for you is unjustified. FWIW, I have nothing at all against GM foods, or for that matter cloned animals, which aren't necessarily GM'd anyway. Jumping to the conclusion that something new is bad is unjustified, but failing to study new foodstuffs for potential risks and then being willing to drop bad ideas is important too.
Or just buy one of these. He can do his MPEG decoding in linux, output to either DVI or VGA, and use a broadcast quality scan converter like the Magni to pump out a clean NTSC signal. In YUV if he wants.
Erm, wow. Not even close. Syria & Lebanon haven't been part of Persia for, oh, 1500 years or so. The part of the world where most Persians live is called Iran. Both Syria & Lebanon are primarily Arabic language, Iran (Persia) is Farsi. And while Syria & Lebanon were under French control, Iran was under British control until 1925, when it became independant again. If you're gonna be biased against somebody b/c of their history, at least get the history right.
Few cents? And you're suggesting to read the summary? I'd suggest reading the legislative analysits comments, as well. It's not "a few cents", if crude's over $60 a barrel, the tax is 6 percent.
No, it won't affect the worldwide price of oil, since California's yearly production is something like a week of Saudi Arabia's production. What it will do is reduce the supply of in-state sourced crude, because there won't be new exploration, and low yeilding wells will be shut down as no longer profitable. In-state crude production should go down by 10%, see the independant Legg report or others. So refineries will have to source their crude out of state or country to keep up with demand, which as we've all seen isn't going down despite considerable increase in price. Imported crude costs more, the refineries are under no obligation to absorb those costs under 87. Expect to see prices at the pump go way up.
In addition, especially if the republicans maintain control of house & Senate, anticipate seeing producers really start to hammer hard on ending the moritorium on offshore drilling on the west coast. More than 3 miles out, it's not state control, it's federal control. No prop 87, no extra California environmental laws to deal with, just more derricks at the edge of the horizon and, eventually, the inevitable accident & major spill. Thanks Prop 87!
The people of Hawaii, that is. Interesting economics experiment they tried last year. They capped wholesale gas prices. And surprise surprise, wholesale gas supply decreased, since produces would rather sell their gas elsewhere for more money. Supply go down, prices go up. Retail gas prices went up even faster after the cap. Try to cap retail prices and you'll see a black market emerge immediately. See any of a variety of pages such as this for more details.
Incorrect. The prop doesn't tax the oil companies per se. It taxes oil pumped out of the ground in California. The law does say they can't pass the cost on to their customers, the refineries. Let's assume that the producers follow this, rather than justifying price hikes by being just a little bit creative. Costs for in-state pumping will go up, but the cost to run a well is constant, thus low-yielding wells will be shut down sooner. And companies doing exploration are going to look elsewhere rather than explore in Cali. Thus in-state production will go down-- estimates I've read go from 10-20% reduction in in-state production over 5-10 years. Consumers will still drive, demand will remain fairly constant, which means more oil will be shipped in from Alaska and overseas. Shipped in oil is more expensive. Refineries will have to pay the higher price for out-of-state sourced crude, and they most certainly can and will pass those higher costs on to their consumers. Net result-- if 87 passes, Cali gas prices will go up. Economics of commodities is a byatch.
The other thing I anticipate happening is that the oil companies are going to redouble their efforts to get permission to drill in Federal controlled waters. That means anything more then 3 miles off the coast. There is absolutely nothing Californians can do about it if Congress lets them do this, it's Federal "land" (at least treated as land) covered by federal law. And guess what, oil pumped out of Federal lands isn't subject to prop 87's severance tax. Problem solved!
Maybe you should check your references before calling someone an idiot for spelling it "Ockham"? See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for instance (see point 2). Occam is the French spelling of the very English name of William of Ockham. Maybe the patronization was justified?
Um, Beverly Young was "the lady with the Support our Troops shirt". Idiot.
"I don't belive anything she says because of the things she's said in the past."
If you're going to call her a liar based on past untruths, please post a reference to one single incident where she has made a statement later shown to be untrue. Just becuase you don't like what she says doesn't make it untrue. And, since the police apologized rather than deny mistreatment, pretty much the only person who is saying she brought it on herself and that the police acted appropriately is, well, you.
"The officer obviously thought that she was about to start some shit, so he arrested her and took her outside."
Step back and think about that statement for a second. Are you really, truly, sure you want to live society where the police can arrest you just because they think you're going to do something? Even when you haven't done anything yet? Anything illegal at all? 'Cause I really don't want to. Insert Ben Frankin Quote Here.
Yes, yes no slogan-bearing clothing was allowed. Dignity and all that. Care to speculate on why the "support the troops" shirt was escorted out while Sheehan was arrested?
College campuses are definitly the place to go to find the thought police in action. UCLA's alumni association was offering a bounty on tapes of Professors expressing left-leaning opinions, in case you hadn't heard.
The subject matter isn't confusing to me, at least. What we have here, folks, is a failure to communicate.
The heating/cooling process is not the rate limiting step in this reaction. Read that last part again if you don't get it. Taq, Pfu, all the other polymerases that are used for PCR are processive. The fastest possible way to duplicate a strand of DNA is to have a single copy of the polymerase run down that strand, making the copy strand as it goes along. There is only one priming site, so a given template can only be used to make one copy per cycle. And for all of the enzymes I'm familiar with, and I'm pretty familiar with this area, the rate is in the ballpark of 1min/ 1000 bp. The fastest system I'm familiar with, Stratagene's FullVelocity QPCR, takes about 1 hour to run a 40 cycle reaction. Regardless of what other posters may be saying in the thread, their product literature agrees with this number, so I'd suggest asking some of the other posters for documentation of their much faster qpcr numbers. There are ways you can speed it up by giving up some accuracy and sensitivity, but five minutes? Not unless you can warp time or suddenly make a thermostable enzyme do its thing 20-30x faster. In which case TFA wouldn't be talking about heating & cooling rates, but would be addressing their hugely better enzyme.
I think it's still up in the air as to whether they're alive though.
Prions are no more alive than a box of powdered milk. They're more like the biological equivalent of a meme-- one PrPSc can "tell" another PrPC to become PrPSc, but the second PrPSc is in no way a descendant of the first. You might call it up in the air as to whether regular nucleic acid viruses are alive or not, but I don't know anybody who considers prions to be alive.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually don't have a problem w/ making this legal-- I just think it's a stupid idea, and I'm shocked that anyone who is a well-trained hunter with good firearms safety skill would ever allow another person to judge the safety of their shot, knowing the consequences.
When I was a kid, a friend of our family was out hunting one season and got killed. It was a (reasonably) honest mistake, he was wearing a blaze vest but brown cap, and the other hunter got him coming out of cover. The other hunter was a good, decent person who had to live the rest of his life knowing he'd killed another person by accident. If I (God forbid) ever went blind, I don't think I could ever open myself to the risk of having my friend say "range is clear", then I pull the trigger, and have to live with the consequences if something goes wrong.
In addition, as hard as it was on our friend's family, I cannot imagine how everyone would have felt if it had been a blind hunter who had shot him. Just thinking about it gives me the willies-- I would suspect that the first time such an accident happens, that'll be the end of it.
I really don't think this reduces the dependence of a blind person on sighted persons-- just the opposite. Hunting like this raises the dependence of the blind person to the highest level possible. It makes the blind person, 100%, submit to the judgment of their sighted assistant on whether or not pulling the trigger at a particular moment is safe. If the sighted assistant screws up, the blind person will have to live the rest of their lives knowing they accidentally killed another person. That's the kind of power over me I would never want to give to another person, regardless of how much I trusted them.
I grew up around firearms & hunting, still enjoy shooting when I can. But if, God forbid, I ever became blind, I would never pull a trigger again in my life. If I'm blind, I can't possibly be sure of my target & range, and so I cannot ethically take a shot. But if somebody wants to give that power to another person, they'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
A blind person can absolutely do that by having someone assist them is sighting the gun.
I completely disagree. Unless you can see the target, the range, and downrange yourself, you cannot be sure of your target. The way I was taught, that means you don't take the shot. Having someone else tell you "range is clear, fire away" is NOT a substitute.
Choosing to pull that trigger means you are personally responsible for whatever happens after. If your assistant screws up and misses some kid screwing around in the woods downrange and you plug the kid, you're still going to have to deal with the guilt of that the rest of your life.
Yes, I grew up around firearms and hunting. Still like to shoot, not much of a hunter anymore but 100% support those who choose to hunt. When I was a kid, a friend of our family ( a hunter himself) was mistaken for a deer and died one season in the woods. The person who shot him was an experienced hunter, and a perfectly nice person, who made a one second lapse in judgment about his target and had to live the rest of his life knowing he killed my friend's father. If you're blind, are you really going to let someone else judge your target for you? If so, you better be prepared for the consequences.
Not making fun of anyone-- I grew up around firearms, and hunting is a way of life in much of the country, esp. where I come from. Not my personal choice, but I have no issue w/ it. The one thing that was drilled into my head, over and over and over again, is that when you pull the trigger of a firearm, you are personally responsible for whatever happens. You are personally and individually responsible for examining everything between you and the target, and everything you can see downrange of the target, to make sure that if you choose to pull that trigger, you are not going to hit anything you didn't mean to hit. Being told by someone else, "nope, nothing downrange, fire away" DOES NOT CUT IT. And I'm sorry for anyone who wants to hunt but can't, but if you can't see downrange, there is no way you should ever pull that trigger. What if what your buddy thinks is an old tree behind your target and a little to the left, is actually another hunter. And then you shoot, and miss high and to the left, and punch a hole in the guy's chest. Are you gonna feel o.k. for the rest of your life knowing that it's really your buddy's fault, he should have seen it?
Nobody dies from walking around the store w/ a guide dog, or using a cane. When you pick up a firearm you're making life and death decisions for other people, and you have an ethical responsibility to personally know what that gun is pointed at.
Yep, Landsteiner got the Nobel in 1930 for ABO typing-- nothing to do w/ chiral recognition. That work was done later with van der Scheer, in the 20's, not part of the ABO work & not what the Nobel was awarded for. I am remotely familiar w/ my science in this area ;). And a little bit of the history, too.
Understood about confusing glycine & alanine, but when you're pointing out chiral recognition and you choose as an example the one and only non-chiral amino acid, somebody's gonna call you on it.
Look, a Nobel prize was awarded back in the 30's for the discovery that IGGs can recognize even racemic molecules such as L and D forms of glycine even and the olfactory literature is just as rich.
I dunno which Nobel prize you're referring to, because none of the Chemistry or Med/Physiology prizes from the 1930s deal with antibody recognition of anything (listing here).
Recognized the D and L forms of glycine? You are aware that glycine is achiral, right? There is no such thing as D- or L- glycine.
Mods, nice job in giving +5 informative to a troll talking out of his/her arse.
I think it was even more than just accessing the Windows market; selling me the ipod that would sync w/ my windows box directly led to the purchase of my Powerbook; the kool-aid does taste good. And if they release a smartphone that syncs w/ my powerbook, that'll sell a phone for them. I think opening up the hardware as much as possible to Windows users is their best way to gain converts ;)
Based on how reliable (er, not) 3rd party syncing software works w/ my PocketPC, I'm not willing to take the $$$ plunge for a smartphone on the hope that sometimes, just maybe, I'll be able to use it to sync most of my mail & calendar w/ my .mac account. Except for the days it doesn't want to work. Or the mail messages it doesn't feel like syncing, for no reason. I know there are third party solutions, just like there are 3rd party software packages to let me mount my mac-formatted firewire drive on a WinXP box. My point is, Microsoft is doing everything possible to keep Smartphones tied to Windows (and, of course, Outlook). A "smartphone" type device tied to OSX will be a no-brainer for me, as well as a lot of other folks as well. And if they make a simpler version that syncs w/ Windows as well, as the Wayans brothers would say, mo money, mo money, mo money.
I think the parent was referring to the close tie-in between current Smartphones and Windows-- as a mac user, I'm basically told to get stuffed by my cell phone provider when I ask about a smartphone that can sync w/ my .mac mail, calender, etc etc. Apple opened up the iPod to windows (after the 1st generation, admittedly) in a way that MS will never, ever allow Smartphones to do w/ macs.
If you RTFA, the first person the author asks about it is J.C., and he says "nope, not me, maybe this other guy". Specifically NOT taking credit for this snip of code.
I don't think it's unusual at all for geeks to release source code during their lonely nights in high school.
Our courts and congresscritters are much better paid, and know who owns them. Don't expect the courts to agree w/ the rational folks (i.e. Canada) on this one.
Oops, "even if they have 0.99g per serving" should have read "even if they have 0.49g per serving".
You should pay more attention, this one has consequences. Cholesterol is not a trans fat, BTW (it's actually not a fat at all; it's a lipid but not a fat.) Personal opinion plays no role, there's a perfectly good chemical definition on whether something is a trans fat or not.
;). I think the analogy is that for years, margarine (which is positively loaded with trans fatty acids) was presented as the healthful alternative to butter. Now it appears that it's much worse for you than butter. Without enough study to understand the real biology of what's going on, jumping to the conclusion that something newly made is good for you is unjustified. FWIW, I have nothing at all against GM foods, or for that matter cloned animals, which aren't necessarily GM'd anyway. Jumping to the conclusion that something new is bad is unjustified, but failing to study new foodstuffs for potential risks and then being willing to drop bad ideas is important too.
Any unsaturated fatty acid produced naturally in a foodstuff has all cis double bonds. We have enzymes that deal perfectly well with these unsaturated fats. When polyunsaturated fats are partially hydrogenated through chemical means, some of the bonds isomerize to trans rather than cis. We have no enzymes to deal with a trans bond in a fatty acid, so they get treated in some funky ways. One of the impacts is that they appear to cause higher cholesterol, and appear to be much worse for you than even fully saturated fats like lard. Of course, any foodstuff that has less than 1g of trans fat per serving, even if they have 0.99g per serving, can label themselves as "0g trans fat". This stuff is bad for you on the mg scale, and should be labeled like cholsterol on mg's rather than grams, but that's what money will buy ya from the FDA. For a good review, see Zaloga et al, "Trans fatty acids and coronary heart disease", Nutr Clin Pract. 2006 Oct;21(5):505-12.
What do these have to do w/ GM food? Nothing at all
Or just buy one of these. He can do his MPEG decoding in linux, output to either DVI or VGA, and use a broadcast quality scan converter like the Magni to pump out a clean NTSC signal. In YUV if he wants.
Erm, wow. Not even close. Syria & Lebanon haven't been part of Persia for, oh, 1500 years or so. The part of the world where most Persians live is called Iran. Both Syria & Lebanon are primarily Arabic language, Iran (Persia) is Farsi. And while Syria & Lebanon were under French control, Iran was under British control until 1925, when it became independant again. If you're gonna be biased against somebody b/c of their history, at least get the history right.
Few cents? And you're suggesting to read the summary? I'd suggest reading the legislative analysits comments, as well. It's not "a few cents", if crude's over $60 a barrel, the tax is 6 percent.
No, it won't affect the worldwide price of oil, since California's yearly production is something like a week of Saudi Arabia's production. What it will do is reduce the supply of in-state sourced crude, because there won't be new exploration, and low yeilding wells will be shut down as no longer profitable. In-state crude production should go down by 10%, see the independant Legg report or others. So refineries will have to source their crude out of state or country to keep up with demand, which as we've all seen isn't going down despite considerable increase in price. Imported crude costs more, the refineries are under no obligation to absorb those costs under 87. Expect to see prices at the pump go way up.
In addition, especially if the republicans maintain control of house & Senate, anticipate seeing producers really start to hammer hard on ending the moritorium on offshore drilling on the west coast. More than 3 miles out, it's not state control, it's federal control. No prop 87, no extra California environmental laws to deal with, just more derricks at the edge of the horizon and, eventually, the inevitable accident & major spill. Thanks Prop 87!
The people of Hawaii, that is. Interesting economics experiment they tried last year. They capped wholesale gas prices. And surprise surprise, wholesale gas supply decreased, since produces would rather sell their gas elsewhere for more money. Supply go down, prices go up. Retail gas prices went up even faster after the cap. Try to cap retail prices and you'll see a black market emerge immediately. See any of a variety of pages such as this for more details.
Incorrect. The prop doesn't tax the oil companies per se. It taxes oil pumped out of the ground in California. The law does say they can't pass the cost on to their customers, the refineries. Let's assume that the producers follow this, rather than justifying price hikes by being just a little bit creative. Costs for in-state pumping will go up, but the cost to run a well is constant, thus low-yielding wells will be shut down sooner. And companies doing exploration are going to look elsewhere rather than explore in Cali. Thus in-state production will go down-- estimates I've read go from 10-20% reduction in in-state production over 5-10 years. Consumers will still drive, demand will remain fairly constant, which means more oil will be shipped in from Alaska and overseas. Shipped in oil is more expensive. Refineries will have to pay the higher price for out-of-state sourced crude, and they most certainly can and will pass those higher costs on to their consumers. Net result-- if 87 passes, Cali gas prices will go up. Economics of commodities is a byatch.
The other thing I anticipate happening is that the oil companies are going to redouble their efforts to get permission to drill in Federal controlled waters. That means anything more then 3 miles off the coast. There is absolutely nothing Californians can do about it if Congress lets them do this, it's Federal "land" (at least treated as land) covered by federal law. And guess what, oil pumped out of Federal lands isn't subject to prop 87's severance tax. Problem solved!
Because Lexmark lost?
Maybe you should check your references before calling someone an idiot for spelling it "Ockham"? See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for instance (see point 2). Occam is the French spelling of the very English name of William of Ockham. Maybe the patronization was justified?
Um, Beverly Young was "the lady with the Support our Troops shirt". Idiot.
"I don't belive anything she says because of the things she's said in the past."
If you're going to call her a liar based on past untruths, please post a reference to one single incident where she has made a statement later shown to be untrue. Just becuase you don't like what she says doesn't make it untrue. And, since the police apologized rather than deny mistreatment, pretty much the only person who is saying she brought it on herself and that the police acted appropriately is, well, you.
"The officer obviously thought that she was about to start some shit, so he arrested her and took her outside."
Step back and think about that statement for a second. Are you really, truly, sure you want to live society where the police can arrest you just because they think you're going to do something? Even when you haven't done anything yet? Anything illegal at all? 'Cause I really don't want to. Insert Ben Frankin Quote Here.
Yes, yes no slogan-bearing clothing was allowed. Dignity and all that. Care to speculate on why the "support the troops" shirt was escorted out while Sheehan was arrested?
College campuses are definitly the place to go to find the thought police in action. UCLA's alumni association was offering a bounty on tapes of Professors expressing left-leaning opinions, in case you hadn't heard.
The subject matter isn't confusing to me, at least. What we have here, folks, is a failure to communicate.
The heating/cooling process is not the rate limiting step in this reaction. Read that last part again if you don't get it. Taq, Pfu, all the other polymerases that are used for PCR are processive. The fastest possible way to duplicate a strand of DNA is to have a single copy of the polymerase run down that strand, making the copy strand as it goes along. There is only one priming site, so a given template can only be used to make one copy per cycle. And for all of the enzymes I'm familiar with, and I'm pretty familiar with this area, the rate is in the ballpark of 1min/ 1000 bp. The fastest system I'm familiar with, Stratagene's FullVelocity QPCR, takes about 1 hour to run a 40 cycle reaction. Regardless of what other posters may be saying in the thread, their product literature agrees with this number, so I'd suggest asking some of the other posters for documentation of their much faster qpcr numbers. There are ways you can speed it up by giving up some accuracy and sensitivity, but five minutes? Not unless you can warp time or suddenly make a thermostable enzyme do its thing 20-30x faster. In which case TFA wouldn't be talking about heating & cooling rates, but would be addressing their hugely better enzyme.
I think it's still up in the air as to whether they're alive though.
Prions are no more alive than a box of powdered milk. They're more like the biological equivalent of a meme-- one PrPSc can "tell" another PrPC to become PrPSc, but the second PrPSc is in no way a descendant of the first. You might call it up in the air as to whether regular nucleic acid viruses are alive or not, but I don't know anybody who considers prions to be alive.