If you want to get technical, get technical. It's not "invisible" light you're shining on it. The maximum excitation wavelength for eGFP (which I assume they're using) is 488 nm, visible light is 390 to 750. You'd need to shine a blue light on them and be using filters to block the blue light from your eyes.
Not to rain on your joke, but this seems to be GFP, which is fluorescent, not "glow in the dark." You'd have to shine a much brighter blue light on them to get them to emit green light. So your cats will only wake you up if you have a blinding blue night-light and are wearing glasses that filter out the blue light but let in the green light. Which is fine if that's what you're into, I'm not judging. Some people think I'm weird for having three cats.
Except that it's not a level playing field. Fossil fuels get heavily subsidized. According to this, (which I have not independently verified or checked sources on) solar would be cheaper if that was turned around.
At the very least "less optimal economy" seems like disingenuous or stupid way to judge the cost/benefit to me. The costs of global warming, asthma, coal-related deaths, and smog would massively tilt the scale in favor of green. We've let the economists and corporations convince us that fossil fuels' external costs will never ever ever have to be paid off though, just as we let economists and irresponsible politicians convince us that deficits don't matter.
"Long term" in politics means "after my next term." To a politician, 2022 seems like a million bajillion years. They are in fact thinking "long term." Specifically they're thinking long term in the way they always think: it will be someone else's problem by then.
is a relatively slow growing, typically aerotolerant anaerobic gram positive bacterium (rod) that is linked to the skin condition acne... Preliminary research shows healthy pores are only colonized by P. acnes while unhealthy ones universally include the non-pore-resident Staphylococcus epidermidis, amongst other bacterial contaminants. Whether this is a root causality, just opportunistic & a side-effect, or a more complex pathological duality between P. acnes and this particular Staph is not known
So it sounds like bacteria are a necessary part of it.
I'm interested in signing onto your enterprise. My idea is to offer an ad-supported "free" version which basically just tells you when and where to get UV light. I have no programming skills, but it would basically show the time until it was daylight and tell the user to go outside naked.
About 3,300 people paid US$0.99 for Acne Pwner on Google's Android Marketplace and about 11,600 people paid $1.99 for AcneApp through Apple's iTunes store, according to the FTC.
There you have it. Proof that iphone users are uglier and dumber than droid users.
I love people who assume that just because google is a big corporation, they must be doing something wrong. Makes me feel like I'm not the flaming commie liberal that my midwest relatives seem to think I am.
Every parent ever has been accused of being "totally mean" or "UNFAIR" by the children they're disciplining. Every cop in America who has ever arrested a person of a different race has been accused of racism. Every judge who has ever decided against someone has been accused of being biased.
Has yelp ever been -caught- extorting anyone? Because otherwise, those accusations are just shitty restaurants whining.
I thought the "no handguns" signs were a response to lax gun laws which say you can take yer gun anywhere, not an attempt to stop gun crimes. Feel intimidated by a visibly armed redneck? Well, unless you posted a sign saying he couldn't bring a gun into your business, he's not doing anything wrong. it's not going to stop a robber, obviously, but it might help ensure you're not accidentally shot by someone playing hero.
I would say our reactions are shaped by how things usually go down. A government employee accused of something: way too often gets off with a slap on the wrist, conversely the little guy usually gets fucked over. We're frustrated with it. If we're biased against the authority figure from the start, well that's maybe a little hypocritical, but they have zero bearing on the outcome. Rather than concern yourself with our hypocritical response, be more concerned about the injustices that cause us to have those responses.
There's "unbiased" and then there's "pointlessly walking on eggshells when talking about scumbags who abuse their position and then try to sue their victims."
To clarify: the OTHER board members were the moral crusaders willing to do immoral things. This guy seems opposed to the whole idea of censorship, his efforts to make it a transparent process are not hypocritical by my estimation.
Sounds more like the kettle calling it's own white parts black. This guy was a free speech advocate. He was posting what the board had been censoring. I think this is a case of moral crusaders bent on cleaning up society, and willing to fight extremely dirty to do so. Which is what the self-righteous always do, be it pro-lifers murdering or law enforcement breaking the law to catch the "bad guys."
You can take a cynical outlook to any situation needing reform and say it will never happen because people don't want it to happen. Missing in TFA is any concrete reason why it can never happen. "Companies find it cheaper to abuse the system themselves, and, you know, lobbyists" is about it.
During the Bush/Kerry election, there were plenty of people willing to glumly tell you that preexisting conditions would never ever ever ever be covered in the US because the health insurance industry wouldn't allow it, and a million other reasons. They were wrong. The health care reform that we got wasn't anyone's dream come true, one could argue that the health industry got a better deal out of it than they should, but pre-existing conditions are going to be covered. With patent reform, we should, like with healthcare reform, not expect to get a perfect solution out of it, as those don't actually exist when talking about something as complicated as that. Compromise is an inevitable part of politics.
Even earlier, there were people who said that the soviet union would never fall. Before that, people swore we'd never walk on the moon. Before that, everyone was just positive that man would never fly because there was gravity. And a while before that, there were posts on ITworld.com about how slavery was far too important to the economy of the south and it would never be abolished ever.
I don't see much point in predicting something is not going to happen for a very long time just because businesses may not want it to. Now if he had a crystal ball prediction, that would lend slightly more credibility to it...
By defining the role of the understudied adipocyte lineage cells in the skin, we have identified that these cells dynamically promote epithelial stem cell activity. Whether cells of the adipocyte lineage also play a role in other processes in the skin, such as tumorigenesis and wound healing, is not known.
This is important information on cell signaling, the implications of which are still unknown. This might be a step in curing cancer, or treating burn victims. The most immediate and attention-grabbing is potential baldness treatment, but that's not the full use of this research.
Anyway, we can already prevent both of those diseases. The continued spread of malaria and HIV is not a failure on the part of researchers. Malaria could be prevented for 3 billion dollars. HIV could be prevented with education and condoms. Baldness, on the other hand, cannot be prevented without expensive drugs, if even then.
A common tactic in these debates is to draw a false dichotomy: we either have to change nothing, or we have to go EXTREEEEEMELY far in the other direction.
Does anyone think the only way to fight climate change is raising gas prices so high that people will starve? Because if so, you haven't though a second about it and should leave decisions on the subject to someone else.
7 BILLION PEOPLE. That's an insane amount of people putting an extreme burden on our delicate ecosystem. Earth is already at the brink of death, it's been estimated that when we hit 10 billion, there's no turning back.
While Dr. Bob is clearly a troll, it's amazing to me the number of non-trolls that accept this part as absolutely true without need for proof. High population isn't killing the environment, inefficient consumption of resources is killing the environment. Per capita, US citizens use far more energy, and put out far more CO2 than the average for the world. We have 4.5% of the world's population, but contribute 18.5% of the CO2 emissions.
The only way more people = environmental destruction is if we refuse to tighten our belts and the rest of the world decides they want to live as wastefully as we do. We need to stop feeling entitled to use and abuse resources however we feel like at the moment simply because previous generations could get away with it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to get technical, get technical. It's not "invisible" light you're shining on it. The maximum excitation wavelength for eGFP (which I assume they're using) is 488 nm, visible light is 390 to 750. You'd need to shine a blue light on them and be using filters to block the blue light from your eyes.
Not to rain on your joke, but this seems to be GFP, which is fluorescent, not "glow in the dark." You'd have to shine a much brighter blue light on them to get them to emit green light. So your cats will only wake you up if you have a blinding blue night-light and are wearing glasses that filter out the blue light but let in the green light. Which is fine if that's what you're into, I'm not judging. Some people think I'm weird for having three cats.
You appear to be looking for logic and reason in a corporate press statement. That's a bit like seeking health advice in a morgue.
Except that it's not a level playing field. Fossil fuels get heavily subsidized. According to this, (which I have not independently verified or checked sources on) solar would be cheaper if that was turned around.
At the very least "less optimal economy" seems like disingenuous or stupid way to judge the cost/benefit to me. The costs of global warming, asthma, coal-related deaths, and smog would massively tilt the scale in favor of green. We've let the economists and corporations convince us that fossil fuels' external costs will never ever ever have to be paid off though, just as we let economists and irresponsible politicians convince us that deficits don't matter.
"Long term" in politics means "after my next term." To a politician, 2022 seems like a million bajillion years. They are in fact thinking "long term." Specifically they're thinking long term in the way they always think: it will be someone else's problem by then.
Wiki on Propionibacterium acnes
is a relatively slow growing, typically aerotolerant anaerobic gram positive bacterium (rod) that is linked to the skin condition acne... Preliminary research shows healthy pores are only colonized by P. acnes while unhealthy ones universally include the non-pore-resident Staphylococcus epidermidis, amongst other bacterial contaminants. Whether this is a root causality, just opportunistic & a side-effect, or a more complex pathological duality between P. acnes and this particular Staph is not known
So it sounds like bacteria are a necessary part of it.
I'm interested in signing onto your enterprise. My idea is to offer an ad-supported "free" version which basically just tells you when and where to get UV light. I have no programming skills, but it would basically show the time until it was daylight and tell the user to go outside naked.
About 3,300 people paid US$0.99 for Acne Pwner on Google's Android Marketplace and about 11,600 people paid $1.99 for AcneApp through Apple's iTunes store, according to the FTC.
There you have it. Proof that iphone users are uglier and dumber than droid users.
-sent from my ipad using the slashdot pro app
To quote myself: " it's not going to stop a robber, obviously, but it might help ensure you're not accidentally shot by someone playing hero."
I feel safer with zero bullets flying in close proximity to me, regardless of how heroic one of the shooters is.
Watch TV, including cable? Yup. You're the product. OMFG!!!!
I love people who assume that just because google is a big corporation, they must be doing something wrong. Makes me feel like I'm not the flaming commie liberal that my midwest relatives seem to think I am.
Every parent ever has been accused of being "totally mean" or "UNFAIR" by the children they're disciplining. Every cop in America who has ever arrested a person of a different race has been accused of racism. Every judge who has ever decided against someone has been accused of being biased.
Has yelp ever been -caught- extorting anyone? Because otherwise, those accusations are just shitty restaurants whining.
I think you misunderstand what "best designed/marketed/developed" meant.
Specifically: it was NOT designed/marketed/developed for/at YOU.
I thought the "no handguns" signs were a response to lax gun laws which say you can take yer gun anywhere, not an attempt to stop gun crimes. Feel intimidated by a visibly armed redneck? Well, unless you posted a sign saying he couldn't bring a gun into your business, he's not doing anything wrong. it's not going to stop a robber, obviously, but it might help ensure you're not accidentally shot by someone playing hero.
I would say our reactions are shaped by how things usually go down. A government employee accused of something: way too often gets off with a slap on the wrist, conversely the little guy usually gets fucked over. We're frustrated with it. If we're biased against the authority figure from the start, well that's maybe a little hypocritical, but they have zero bearing on the outcome. Rather than concern yourself with our hypocritical response, be more concerned about the injustices that cause us to have those responses.
There's "unbiased" and then there's "pointlessly walking on eggshells when talking about scumbags who abuse their position and then try to sue their victims."
To clarify: the OTHER board members were the moral crusaders willing to do immoral things. This guy seems opposed to the whole idea of censorship, his efforts to make it a transparent process are not hypocritical by my estimation.
Sounds more like the kettle calling it's own white parts black. This guy was a free speech advocate. He was posting what the board had been censoring. I think this is a case of moral crusaders bent on cleaning up society, and willing to fight extremely dirty to do so. Which is what the self-righteous always do, be it pro-lifers murdering or law enforcement breaking the law to catch the "bad guys."
You can take a cynical outlook to any situation needing reform and say it will never happen because people don't want it to happen. Missing in TFA is any concrete reason why it can never happen. "Companies find it cheaper to abuse the system themselves, and, you know, lobbyists" is about it.
During the Bush/Kerry election, there were plenty of people willing to glumly tell you that preexisting conditions would never ever ever ever be covered in the US because the health insurance industry wouldn't allow it, and a million other reasons. They were wrong. The health care reform that we got wasn't anyone's dream come true, one could argue that the health industry got a better deal out of it than they should, but pre-existing conditions are going to be covered. With patent reform, we should, like with healthcare reform, not expect to get a perfect solution out of it, as those don't actually exist when talking about something as complicated as that. Compromise is an inevitable part of politics.
Even earlier, there were people who said that the soviet union would never fall. Before that, people swore we'd never walk on the moon. Before that, everyone was just positive that man would never fly because there was gravity. And a while before that, there were posts on ITworld.com about how slavery was far too important to the economy of the south and it would never be abolished ever.
I don't see much point in predicting something is not going to happen for a very long time just because businesses may not want it to. Now if he had a crystal ball prediction, that would lend slightly more credibility to it...
Which shouldn't bother you if you don't have any gross ingrown toenails or foot fungus to hide from the eyetoy.
In soviet Russia, you don't watch tube...
By defining the role of the understudied adipocyte lineage cells in the skin, we have identified that these cells dynamically promote epithelial stem cell activity. Whether cells of the adipocyte lineage also play a role in other processes in the skin, such as tumorigenesis and wound healing, is not known.
This is important information on cell signaling, the implications of which are still unknown. This might be a step in curing cancer, or treating burn victims. The most immediate and attention-grabbing is potential baldness treatment, but that's not the full use of this research.
Anyway, we can already prevent both of those diseases. The continued spread of malaria and HIV is not a failure on the part of researchers. Malaria could be prevented for 3 billion dollars. HIV could be prevented with education and condoms. Baldness, on the other hand, cannot be prevented without expensive drugs, if even then.
A common tactic in these debates is to draw a false dichotomy: we either have to change nothing, or we have to go EXTREEEEEMELY far in the other direction.
Does anyone think the only way to fight climate change is raising gas prices so high that people will starve? Because if so, you haven't though a second about it and should leave decisions on the subject to someone else.
7 BILLION PEOPLE. That's an insane amount of people putting an extreme burden on our delicate ecosystem. Earth is already at the brink of death, it's been estimated that when we hit 10 billion, there's no turning back.
While Dr. Bob is clearly a troll, it's amazing to me the number of non-trolls that accept this part as absolutely true without need for proof. High population isn't killing the environment, inefficient consumption of resources is killing the environment. Per capita, US citizens use far more energy, and put out far more CO2 than the average for the world. We have 4.5% of the world's population, but contribute 18.5% of the CO2 emissions.
The only way more people = environmental destruction is if we refuse to tighten our belts and the rest of the world decides they want to live as wastefully as we do. We need to stop feeling entitled to use and abuse resources however we feel like at the moment simply because previous generations could get away with it.