You can make the same argument for the development of language but it is not a genetic disposition. Obviously the original settlers of an area dictated the language of choice for a region, just as they dictated the pigmentation of skin. You "strong evidence" is only evidence of similarities based on geographical region, any explanation of that is valid. The point you missed is that geneticists have dismissed your reason because the time period has been too short.
Those little black arrows on that graph indicate splits. I would not expect someone making such an uninformed comment to know that, so I figure I'd try to clue you in. Also, unless you missed the past 5 or so year, the Athlon hasn't done too shabby. Remember, just because the cyclic nature of the chip sector has swung back to intels favor doesn't mean AMD is or has been worthless.
First off, it's the red blood cells that are important in the majority of transfusions so that is why the lack of a nucleus is pointed out by the gp post. Secondly, blood cells are created in the marrow so I'm not sure what your point is about development. Some blood cells do mature in other places (e.g. thymus and spleen) but you're not going to be getting any blood if you try to grow new cells out of a tissue besides the marrow.
Small company has 10 hand picked employees to start out and set up some great idea. Each employee was selected for what they could do and evaluated stringently. These guys get some 20% of their time to develop pet projects that may or may not end up helping the company out in the long run.
Now the company takes off and they have 1000 employees, some of which are hired under those same practices and therefore should have the 20% time to spend on pet projects. BUT, now that they have huge offices, HR centers, call centers, etc. there is a need for people to work on things that are not mission critical. Positions that do not exist in a small startup model. These workers do not need 20% of their time to work on pet projects and while the call center guy or HR person may be able to use 20% of their time to create something it is much more likely, by nature of their work that they wont.
A second, very simple argument to support my earlier post could be that there are some people in this work with really good work ethics and some people with not so good work ethics. When hiring a very small amount of people (e.g. 5) it is easier to avoid the latter type of person but, when it's 1000 people being hired by multiple managers you have to assume some portion will slip through. Thus, the need to restrict some, but not all, employees.
I suppose, seeing how they are scientists and all, that they could be looking forward to progress made in the realm of gene therapy to deliver the chloride pumps to the target neurons. Receptors in neurons are constantly turning over, so adding the gene for the pump would be a viable way to express it. I would have hoped the slashdot crowd would be take a little time and think about the future implications possible with this study rather than condemn it as non-feasible.
I'm sure Google needs the ability to hire workers who will not spend 20% of their time on passion projects and who they can set to a fixed schedule. Not everyone at a large company will have the kind of work ethic that they enjoyed when it was still a smaller workplace. This is not some awful evil thing they are doing. It is the natural progression in the growth of a large company.
In a statement, Viacom lashed out at YouTube's business practices, saying it has "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google." Then how do they justify all the people like her. There is no way you can claim she took that content from anyone. There are countless examples of this type of video and that is what youtube is built on. Just look at the top rated videos, I don't see anything but infringing material on the first page at the time of this post. I hope Google fights this out and takes it to a jury trial. I would bet at least half the jury would have used youtube and understand that it is not all infringing works and Google can't be responsible for every user which uploads a clip.
Are you kidding!?! Why do you think you need to go through a thesis defense in order to get that PhD. It needs to pass peer review! When those profs are creating their "new concepts" they publish in peer reviewed journals. This is because peers are the only people who will be able to comment, correct, and repeat such experiments.
"A good example could be that I create a new and fantastic forensic approach for detecting illicit file sharing, and since it disrupts the current approaches, and wasn't thought of by the others, and the others haven't enough time to understand the revolutionary paradigm shift of my approach, all the "peers" disapprove of it."
Man I am scared of the world you want to live in where every untested method a doctor comes up with gets taken on faith.
Think about the script kiddys who use automated perl scripts.. Should perl not be on systems? You are confusing the ability to use a script written in a specific language to exploit a hole with security vulnerabilities that are inherent in a particular language.
If you are making that mistake you should probably not be flaming anyone.
A large number of studies have also shown that many chemicals that harm a rodent have no ill effects on humans. One of the most famous being aspirin. Aspirin can cause abortions in rodents but obviously does not have the same effect in humans, despite the similarity of our DNA.
A possibly even more important point which you fail to mention is that these studies will have been performed on INBRED strains. These strains are often prone to developing cancer, especially in response to treatment with certain chemicals that are benign otherwise (e.g. mineral oil). Just check out the history of the BALBc strain of mice if you would like more information. There could be some chemical product in the GM food that causes a sickness in the mice but would have no adverse effects on an human (considering we are all outbred).
I would expect someone with a strong background in biology to have considered some of these issues.
Look at the graphs and the article I don't see anything indicating that E was attacked. Did you just add whatever letter you needed to make your theory work?
Wow, you should really know at least a little about clinical research before you come posting nonsense about revealing private data. Everything of this nature is covered in HIPAA the IRB approved protocol that governs the study. Even the people who pay to read the research can not get that kind of identifying information. The group that conducted the study will have any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that they collected locked up safe and/or encrypted in their database for the set number of years they must retain it but no one will release that without permission from a patient and even getting the permission requires more permission first.
39 million people are living with HIV/AIDS as of 2005 according to WHO data and the 2006 numbers are going to be higher, so please don't act like no one has it anymore. I know there are probably more people with cancer (in total) but you have to understand cancer is not one disease. It is hundreds of different diseases under one label. Fighting one type is not always the same as fighting another so if you break up all the different cancers into groups there are only a few with numbers that rival 39 million. Therefore, it does make as much sense to work on treating HIV/AIDS as it does cancer. This is also not considering the fact that HIV can cause a number of different cancers.
I'm not sure how long it takes to kill the cancer by blocking its blood supply but I work with nanoparticles in my lab and the ones we create are biodegradable and can be made to last for varying amounts of time (~1-7 days normally) based on the material. I suppose they could greatly decrease the chance of problems post-cancer if they formulate the clot to degrade after average amount of time needed to starve the cancer.
I went and found a cite for you http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com _wrapper&Itemid=182. Maybe the OP figured it was so easy to find that you wouldn't come back asking for a cite before at least googling a simple phrase like "cost of the iraq war" Looking further into it to make sure that site is not pulling numbers out of it's ass I checked this page http://costofwar.com/numbers.html which documents how they calculated the total from congressional documents.
Yes, but you are ignoring his first point. That they get the patent so that they can make money from it. I work in a lab at a very large private university. The main goal for a lot of our research is to come up with a product/treatment/etc, test it in vitro and then in vivo (small animals mostly), and if that works out we sell the rights to a company. The companies normally fund the larger experiments (i.e. monkeys) and the clinical trials required to bring the product to humans.
The Wii is definitely worth the wait. I got Zelda a little while after the Wii and it is AMAZING so you will not be disappointed. I will warn you though, Super Monkey Ball Blitz is pretty bad. The main game just isn't worth playing. The party games are decent but I feel like the design was rushed. When a game is over you can't even choose to play again, you have to constantly exit and restart the game making it really slow.
If you have a chance pick up Trauma Center. I never played the DS version but it's very fun for the Wii as long as you put aside the silly plot lines.
Once again I must suggest you read the article and watch the video. He was NOT resisting. He WAS trying to leave until they stopped him. They ended up carrying him out so why couldn't they do that in the first place? What did tasering him accomplish since he was never fighting them?
You essentially made my point for me though, about the tasering being akin (this means "similar", not "same" as you wrote it) to beating him. The taser is supposed to be used instead of a club in situations that require force to subdue someone, it should not be used in a situation that could not also warrant the use of a club if no taser was available. That is the point you, and most undertrained cops, fail to understand. Someone who is lying MOTIONLESS on the ground does not need to be subdued, period! Narrow minded people like yourself need to remember that a taser can be much more harmful or even deadly than a club to someone with specific medical conditions (some of which may be unknown even to the person being tased).
Some people need to RTFA! He WAS leaving the library. They stopped him and would not let him leave. So much for your argument about suspiciously not leaving. One of the officers grabbed him and he them went limp, he was afraid they might do something to him if he remained standing. I see you glossed over the point of why someone on the floor should be tasered? Are you really implying that he should have been shocked because the cop thought he was suspicious? I cant even imagine all the people that would get tasered if the cops had that kind of leeway.
First, there was no fighting back. Not even the cops said he fought. Everyone has said he went limp when they tried to STOP HIM FROM LEAVING! Please explain the point of tasing someone who is limp on the ground. This is akin to them beating him with a club while on the ground, unless you really believe the taser is meant to be used as a motivation device. Second, even if we accepted your comment, how do explain the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tasing? Do you justify tasering someone because they can't get up after you already tased them? They ended up dragging him out, if that was an option why did they spend time shocking him? Maybe laziness is an excuse for using a taser now? Lastly, since when does asking a cop for his badge number and telling him to stop hurting someone warrant a threat to be tased as well?
Any explanation you could give for some small part of this atrocity would always leave the rest shown to be completely unnecessary.
Morphine tested mostly on humans? Where do you get this stuff? It may have been discovered in humans but a simple and quick pubmed search will show thousands upon thousands of morphine studies in animals.
I hate to break it to you but normal OTC pain relievers (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, etc) are all tested on animals as well. I guess you better stick with the crystals and acupuncture.
If you have access to a computer at a hospital or university I suggest you try a website called uptodate.com It does require having a subscription but most medical centers already have one. This is very close to what you are asking for in your comment and it is very useful to doctors around the world.
And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.
That's a very nice sentiment and would be fine if the person in question did almost anything except politics. In the case of politics, specifically republican politics, there is a platform of most things gay being "wrong, bad, perverted, or evil, etc." If a top member of this group is gay then you run into quite a few dilemmas. The laws that the GOP push affect everyone, all the time, so it very much matters what someone does "on their own time."
IANAL but the guy who posted the clip IS a lawyer. He states that there is a fair use right which protects short (8-10 sec) news clips. So I'm going to have to believe him over you on that one.
Slashdot Mirror
You can make the same argument for the development of language but it is not a genetic disposition. Obviously the original settlers of an area dictated the language of choice for a region, just as they dictated the pigmentation of skin. You "strong evidence" is only evidence of similarities based on geographical region, any explanation of that is valid. The point you missed is that geneticists have dismissed your reason because the time period has been too short.
Those little black arrows on that graph indicate splits. I would not expect someone making such an uninformed comment to know that, so I figure I'd try to clue you in. Also, unless you missed the past 5 or so year, the Athlon hasn't done too shabby. Remember, just because the cyclic nature of the chip sector has swung back to intels favor doesn't mean AMD is or has been worthless.
First off, it's the red blood cells that are important in the majority of transfusions so that is why the lack of a nucleus is pointed out by the gp post. Secondly, blood cells are created in the marrow so I'm not sure what your point is about development. Some blood cells do mature in other places (e.g. thymus and spleen) but you're not going to be getting any blood if you try to grow new cells out of a tissue besides the marrow.
Ok, so let me set a scenario for you:
Small company has 10 hand picked employees to start out and set up some great idea. Each employee was selected for what they could do and evaluated stringently. These guys get some 20% of their time to develop pet projects that may or may not end up helping the company out in the long run.
Now the company takes off and they have 1000 employees, some of which are hired under those same practices and therefore should have the 20% time to spend on pet projects. BUT, now that they have huge offices, HR centers, call centers, etc. there is a need for people to work on things that are not mission critical. Positions that do not exist in a small startup model. These workers do not need 20% of their time to work on pet projects and while the call center guy or HR person may be able to use 20% of their time to create something it is much more likely, by nature of their work that they wont.
A second, very simple argument to support my earlier post could be that there are some people in this work with really good work ethics and some people with not so good work ethics. When hiring a very small amount of people (e.g. 5) it is easier to avoid the latter type of person but, when it's 1000 people being hired by multiple managers you have to assume some portion will slip through. Thus, the need to restrict some, but not all, employees.
I suppose, seeing how they are scientists and all, that they could be looking forward to progress made in the realm of gene therapy to deliver the chloride pumps to the target neurons. Receptors in neurons are constantly turning over, so adding the gene for the pump would be a viable way to express it. I would have hoped the slashdot crowd would be take a little time and think about the future implications possible with this study rather than condemn it as non-feasible.
I'm sure Google needs the ability to hire workers who will not spend 20% of their time on passion projects and who they can set to a fixed schedule. Not everyone at a large company will have the kind of work ethic that they enjoyed when it was still a smaller workplace. This is not some awful evil thing they are doing. It is the natural progression in the growth of a large company.
Are you kidding!?! Why do you think you need to go through a thesis defense in order to get that PhD. It needs to pass peer review! When those profs are creating their "new concepts" they publish in peer reviewed journals. This is because peers are the only people who will be able to comment, correct, and repeat such experiments.
"A good example could be that I create a new and fantastic forensic approach for detecting illicit file sharing, and since it disrupts the current approaches, and wasn't thought of by the others, and the others haven't enough time to understand the revolutionary paradigm shift of my approach, all the "peers" disapprove of it."
Man I am scared of the world you want to live in where every untested method a doctor comes up with gets taken on faith.
If you are making that mistake you should probably not be flaming anyone.
A large number of studies have also shown that many chemicals that harm a rodent have no ill effects on humans. One of the most famous being aspirin. Aspirin can cause abortions in rodents but obviously does not have the same effect in humans, despite the similarity of our DNA.
A possibly even more important point which you fail to mention is that these studies will have been performed on INBRED strains. These strains are often prone to developing cancer, especially in response to treatment with certain chemicals that are benign otherwise (e.g. mineral oil). Just check out the history of the BALBc strain of mice if you would like more information. There could be some chemical product in the GM food that causes a sickness in the mice but would have no adverse effects on an human (considering we are all outbred).
I would expect someone with a strong background in biology to have considered some of these issues.
Might I offer up Duke Nukem Forever and Daikatana as examples for a counter argument.
Look at the graphs and the article I don't see anything indicating that E was attacked. Did you just add whatever letter you needed to make your theory work?
Wow, you should really know at least a little about clinical research before you come posting nonsense about revealing private data. Everything of this nature is covered in HIPAA the IRB approved protocol that governs the study. Even the people who pay to read the research can not get that kind of identifying information. The group that conducted the study will have any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that they collected locked up safe and/or encrypted in their database for the set number of years they must retain it but no one will release that without permission from a patient and even getting the permission requires more permission first.
39 million people are living with HIV/AIDS as of 2005 according to WHO data and the 2006 numbers are going to be higher, so please don't act like no one has it anymore. I know there are probably more people with cancer (in total) but you have to understand cancer is not one disease. It is hundreds of different diseases under one label. Fighting one type is not always the same as fighting another so if you break up all the different cancers into groups there are only a few with numbers that rival 39 million. Therefore, it does make as much sense to work on treating HIV/AIDS as it does cancer. This is also not considering the fact that HIV can cause a number of different cancers.
I'm not sure how long it takes to kill the cancer by blocking its blood supply but I work with nanoparticles in my lab and the ones we create are biodegradable and can be made to last for varying amounts of time (~1-7 days normally) based on the material. I suppose they could greatly decrease the chance of problems post-cancer if they formulate the clot to degrade after average amount of time needed to starve the cancer.
I went and found a cite for you http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com _wrapper&Itemid=182. Maybe the OP figured it was so easy to find that you wouldn't come back asking for a cite before at least googling a simple phrase like "cost of the iraq war" Looking further into it to make sure that site is not pulling numbers out of it's ass I checked this page http://costofwar.com/numbers.html which documents how they calculated the total from congressional documents.
Yes, but you are ignoring his first point. That they get the patent so that they can make money from it. I work in a lab at a very large private university. The main goal for a lot of our research is to come up with a product/treatment/etc, test it in vitro and then in vivo (small animals mostly), and if that works out we sell the rights to a company. The companies normally fund the larger experiments (i.e. monkeys) and the clinical trials required to bring the product to humans.
The Wii is definitely worth the wait. I got Zelda a little while after the Wii and it is AMAZING so you will not be disappointed. I will warn you though, Super Monkey Ball Blitz is pretty bad. The main game just isn't worth playing. The party games are decent but I feel like the design was rushed. When a game is over you can't even choose to play again, you have to constantly exit and restart the game making it really slow.
If you have a chance pick up Trauma Center. I never played the DS version but it's very fun for the Wii as long as you put aside the silly plot lines.
Once again I must suggest you read the article and watch the video. He was NOT resisting. He WAS trying to leave until they stopped him. They ended up carrying him out so why couldn't they do that in the first place? What did tasering him accomplish since he was never fighting them?
You essentially made my point for me though, about the tasering being akin (this means "similar", not "same" as you wrote it) to beating him. The taser is supposed to be used instead of a club in situations that require force to subdue someone, it should not be used in a situation that could not also warrant the use of a club if no taser was available. That is the point you, and most undertrained cops, fail to understand. Someone who is lying MOTIONLESS on the ground does not need to be subdued, period! Narrow minded people like yourself need to remember that a taser can be much more harmful or even deadly than a club to someone with specific medical conditions (some of which may be unknown even to the person being tased).
Some people need to RTFA! He WAS leaving the library. They stopped him and would not let him leave. So much for your argument about suspiciously not leaving. One of the officers grabbed him and he them went limp, he was afraid they might do something to him if he remained standing. I see you glossed over the point of why someone on the floor should be tasered? Are you really implying that he should have been shocked because the cop thought he was suspicious? I cant even imagine all the people that would get tasered if the cops had that kind of leeway.
First, there was no fighting back. Not even the cops said he fought. Everyone has said he went limp when they tried to STOP HIM FROM LEAVING! Please explain the point of tasing someone who is limp on the ground. This is akin to them beating him with a club while on the ground, unless you really believe the taser is meant to be used as a motivation device. Second, even if we accepted your comment, how do explain the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tasing? Do you justify tasering someone because they can't get up after you already tased them? They ended up dragging him out, if that was an option why did they spend time shocking him? Maybe laziness is an excuse for using a taser now? Lastly, since when does asking a cop for his badge number and telling him to stop hurting someone warrant a threat to be tased as well?
Any explanation you could give for some small part of this atrocity would always leave the rest shown to be completely unnecessary.
Morphine tested mostly on humans? Where do you get this stuff? It may have been discovered in humans but a simple and quick pubmed search will show thousands upon thousands of morphine studies in animals.
I hate to break it to you but normal OTC pain relievers (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, etc) are all tested on animals as well. I guess you better stick with the crystals and acupuncture.
If you have access to a computer at a hospital or university I suggest you try a website called uptodate.com It does require having a subscription but most medical centers already have one. This is very close to what you are asking for in your comment and it is very useful to doctors around the world.
And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.
That's a very nice sentiment and would be fine if the person in question did almost anything except politics. In the case of politics, specifically republican politics, there is a platform of most things gay being "wrong, bad, perverted, or evil, etc." If a top member of this group is gay then you run into quite a few dilemmas. The laws that the GOP push affect everyone, all the time, so it very much matters what someone does "on their own time."
IANAL but the guy who posted the clip IS a lawyer. He states that there is a fair use right which protects short (8-10 sec) news clips. So I'm going to have to believe him over you on that one.