The main reason that bacteria are easier to attack than fungi is that, since they are further down the evolutionary chain (they are prokaryotes, not eukaryotes like the fungi and humans), they are more likely to have proteins different enough from ours to serve as safe targets for drugs. Finding a protein that is foundamental for a fungi's survival yet different enough from the human counterpart is the main obstacle in developing effective antifungals.
The problem with viruses is that since they use the host's cellular machinary, they usually have a small amount of unique proteins, and thus exacerbating the problem mentioned above. BTW, an antiviral drug doesn't have to prompt the immune system's response (Interferon does that, but others, such oseltamivir, do not).
P.S. It's 2AM, I don't feel like including Wikipedia links. Feel free to look up what you need yourself. Sorry.
And I said so when? I didn't talk about the bees' virus. I meant to say that unlike bacteria, for whom making antibiotics is (relatively) easy, for fungi it is hard.
Chickens and eggs are things that are created one from the other and thus it's not known which was created first (since each is dependent on the other). In this case it is not a chicken-and-egg situation. The fungi and the virus are created independently. They are not dependent on one another for creation. On the contrary, their being together in the same bee causes them to die* (together with the bee). It is more logical to assume each was created on its own and by chance have such an effect on the bee. It mught be that somehow their infecting the bee increase the pathogens' spread, but it's still not chicken-and-egg.
Really all that needs to be developed is a weak fungicide that targets it, and that's not as hard as it sounds.
Actually, it is not that easy. Antibiotics (for bacteria) are easier to make than antifungals and that is one of the reasons why we don't have so many anti-fungal drugs for humans (and hu-womans). Granted, when you develop a drug for bees you are less worried about side-effects than you are with humans, but it's still not that easy.
Although the moderation system has a lot going for it, I don't think it's the only reason for the quality of the comments. Let's face it, the people writing comments on/. are not the same as those that read a popular news site. In Israel we have a popular news site. I like to read the comments to articles; you can really see how low peoples' intelligence and logic can go. i see it as an anthropological study. And yes, it makes me feel vastly superior, any problem with that?:)
Well, the system does have its problems, but it sure beats all the others I've seen. I don't think you can ever achieve the "perfect" system, especially since we are talking about the quality of the comments, an inheritly subjective issue. In the ideal system all the comments I deem worthwhile should rise to the top, but since each person's definition of worthwhile is different, by definition you cannot have such a system.
Example: I do not completely agree to your post, but I think it is interesting and thus I wish it to be modded up so I can see it. Someone else will think you wrote a pile of shit and would want to see you buried to oblivion. etc.
Born out of a collaboration between The Internet Society, the University of Colorado, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology...
I have this problem on one of my computers for some time now. My solution (when I need to paste a link) is to cut&paste everything to Notepad, insert the link and then copy the whole test back. It seems that when the comment box is empty I can paste into it. I have it only on one machine (running Win 7 & Chrome). Maybe I should reinstall the OS? It's about time./Offtpoic
...even if it's only to get them some new customers, and even if it won't last.
I don't understand what's the problem of them doing something "only to get them some new customers"? They are a company out to make a profit. Of course they are trying to get more customers. The good thing is that they are going at it the right way - by pursuing the good of the customer and not by using dirty tricks, at least according to TFA, I don't know about the traffic shaping others are talking about in this thread.
Of course they do teach us that and I do appreciate you knowing that I care about money and not my patients. I agree there is room for hope and we should not abandon it, however there is a thin line between giving hope and giving false hope. DMD is a disease that usually kills by age 20. There have been some rare cases of people living till age 40. Does that mean the doctor should tell the family that with an artificial heart (actually, a left ventricle assist device, but...) he will live till 40? I think the proper compromise should be to tell the child and the parents that although the device should solve the heart problem, it will no solve all other problems caused by the disease and in all likelihood he will not survive for many years. However, since we are talking about the human body and not a computer, no one can predict and there is a small chance he will live longer. As for your condition, I don't know what you had and what the doctors told your parents exactly, I'm just glad you survived and you are in good health.
Sometimes we forget that when a condition has a 99% mortality rate, there is still 1% of surviving. OTOH, if the doctor stresses this 1% too much, the patient will naturally exaggerate his chances. Just ask the person in Las Vegas who is sure he is going to win now.
No, it should be realistic. The summery painted the pictures as if now, having replaced the boy's heart, he has 20-25 years of disease-free life. The reality is different and he still has probably a few years to live and even those not easy. The family has to know that before going through with the operation. It's hard, but sometimes a doctor has to be direct. You can't go around and build dreams. In Hebrew there is a saying: "The best of the doctors, to hell". Basically it means that sometimes a doctor has to "bad" for the patients' best interests. If I am skirmish and can't tell my patient he has a disease that almost certainly will kill him in a few years, am I good to him or bad?
You are absolutely correct that no one can know how he will choose faced with these possibilities. These are hard choices that no one can truthfully predict how they will decide until faced with them in real life. As a doctor, I guess for me it is something I face on a more daily basis. I see old people who have full-blown dementia, are physically bed-ridden and incontinent and yet sometimes their families want me to do anything to save their loved ones and make them healthy. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so out of touch with reality. If it were my parents (which I know that one day it will be), I would like to know when to stop and let them just die without anymore suffering.
So yes, I understand this is a hard choice for a 15y old child and his family and, frankly, I can understand why they chose to cling to any small shred of hope. I just hope that their doctor presented the situation truthfully and didn't paint the child's prospects too positively before the operation (unlike the summery).
Slashdot Mirror
I admit I haven't seen the dilemma in this light before, so thanks. Nevertheless, its use in the summary is still wrong.
The main reason that bacteria are easier to attack than fungi is that, since they are further down the evolutionary chain (they are prokaryotes, not eukaryotes like the fungi and humans), they are more likely to have proteins different enough from ours to serve as safe targets for drugs. Finding a protein that is foundamental for a fungi's survival yet different enough from the human counterpart is the main obstacle in developing effective antifungals.
The problem with viruses is that since they use the host's cellular machinary, they usually have a small amount of unique proteins, and thus exacerbating the problem mentioned above. BTW, an antiviral drug doesn't have to prompt the immune system's response (Interferon does that, but others, such oseltamivir, do not).
P.S. It's 2AM, I don't feel like including Wikipedia links. Feel free to look up what you need yourself. Sorry.
I agree with all you said, except for:
Even the unwashed masses can learn to think before they post.
As the saying goes: "Individuals are intelligent, but groups are stupid". And sometimes, even individuals are not all they are pumped up to be.
Actually, I was going for satire. BTW, that sound you hear is not the flight of the bumblebee, but just a slight Whoosh. Good night (GMT+2).
And I said so when?
I didn't talk about the bees' virus. I meant to say that unlike bacteria, for whom making antibiotics is (relatively) easy, for fungi it is hard.
Chickens and eggs are things that are created one from the other and thus it's not known which was created first (since each is dependent on the other).
In this case it is not a chicken-and-egg situation. The fungi and the virus are created independently. They are not dependent on one another for creation. On the contrary, their being together in the same bee causes them to die* (together with the bee). It is more logical to assume each was created on its own and by chance have such an effect on the bee.
It mught be that somehow their infecting the bee increase the pathogens' spread, but it's still not chicken-and-egg.
Next metaphor!
* As much as a virus can be said to die.
Really all that needs to be developed is a weak fungicide that targets it, and that's not as hard as it sounds.
Actually, it is not that easy. Antibiotics (for bacteria) are easier to make than antifungals and that is one of the reasons why we don't have so many anti-fungal drugs for humans (and hu-womans).
Granted, when you develop a drug for bees you are less worried about side-effects than you are with humans, but it's still not that easy.
Glad to be of service.
Although the moderation system has a lot going for it, I don't think it's the only reason for the quality of the comments. Let's face it, the people writing comments on /. are not the same as those that read a popular news site. :)
In Israel we have a popular news site. I like to read the comments to articles; you can really see how low peoples' intelligence and logic can go. i see it as an anthropological study.
And yes, it makes me feel vastly superior, any problem with that?
Well, the system does have its problems, but it sure beats all the others I've seen. I don't think you can ever achieve the "perfect" system, especially since we are talking about the quality of the comments, an inheritly subjective issue.
In the ideal system all the comments I deem worthwhile should rise to the top, but since each person's definition of worthwhile is different, by definition you cannot have such a system.
Example: I do not completely agree to your post, but I think it is interesting and thus I wish it to be modded up so I can see it. Someone else will think you wrote a pile of shit and would want to see you buried to oblivion. etc.
I stopped running asylums when they offered me the world. Now kneel, slave!
Born out of a collaboration between The Internet Society, the University of Colorado, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology...
Any more questions?
I have this problem on one of my computers for some time now. My solution (when I need to paste a link) is to cut&paste everything to Notepad, insert the link and then copy the whole test back. It seems that when the comment box is empty I can paste into it. /Offtpoic
I have it only on one machine (running Win 7 & Chrome). Maybe I should reinstall the OS? It's about time.
...even if it's only to get them some new customers, and even if it won't last.
I don't understand what's the problem of them doing something "only to get them some new customers"? They are a company out to make a profit. Of course they are trying to get more customers. The good thing is that they are going at it the right way - by pursuing the good of the customer and not by using dirty tricks, at least according to TFA, I don't know about the traffic shaping others are talking about in this thread.
Oh, so you want people to read the license agreement, Really? Next thing we know, you'll want them to RTFA. You must be new here (yes, I said it!)
Even better, not why just have it as a comma-delimited text file and have it done with?
Whom do you say does not care anymore?
Damn, I don't know if you should be modded Funny, Interesting or Informative. Lucky I don't have any mod points today :) But +1 anyway.
I thought we said to not let the facts stand in the way of a nice argument. You cut it out and let the parent continue his rant, you insensitive clod!
Of course they do teach us that and I do appreciate you knowing that I care about money and not my patients.
I agree there is room for hope and we should not abandon it, however there is a thin line between giving hope and giving false hope.
DMD is a disease that usually kills by age 20. There have been some rare cases of people living till age 40. Does that mean the doctor should tell the family that with an artificial heart (actually, a left ventricle assist device, but...) he will live till 40? I think the proper compromise should be to tell the child and the parents that although the device should solve the heart problem, it will no solve all other problems caused by the disease and in all likelihood he will not survive for many years. However, since we are talking about the human body and not a computer, no one can predict and there is a small chance he will live longer.
As for your condition, I don't know what you had and what the doctors told your parents exactly, I'm just glad you survived and you are in good health.
Sometimes we forget that when a condition has a 99% mortality rate, there is still 1% of surviving. OTOH, if the doctor stresses this 1% too much, the patient will naturally exaggerate his chances. Just ask the person in Las Vegas who is sure he is going to win now.
Yes, a big Whoosh flying way over your head.
No, it should be realistic. The summery painted the pictures as if now, having replaced the boy's heart, he has 20-25 years of disease-free life. The reality is different and he still has probably a few years to live and even those not easy. The family has to know that before going through with the operation.
It's hard, but sometimes a doctor has to be direct. You can't go around and build dreams. In Hebrew there is a saying: "The best of the doctors, to hell". Basically it means that sometimes a doctor has to "bad" for the patients' best interests. If I am skirmish and can't tell my patient he has a disease that almost certainly will kill him in a few years, am I good to him or bad?
Except that DMD doesn't affect smooth muscles, only striated and cardiac muscles.
You are absolutely correct that no one can know how he will choose faced with these possibilities. These are hard choices that no one can truthfully predict how they will decide until faced with them in real life.
As a doctor, I guess for me it is something I face on a more daily basis. I see old people who have full-blown dementia, are physically bed-ridden and incontinent and yet sometimes their families want me to do anything to save their loved ones and make them healthy. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so out of touch with reality.
If it were my parents (which I know that one day it will be), I would like to know when to stop and let them just die without anymore suffering.
So yes, I understand this is a hard choice for a 15y old child and his family and, frankly, I can understand why they chose to cling to any small shred of hope. I just hope that their doctor presented the situation truthfully and didn't paint the child's prospects too positively before the operation (unlike the summery).
Thought so. Thanks.