My background is strictly biology, so a lot of the physics stuff goes over my head, but I can decipher the sciencey jargon well enough to read the paper. Anyway, here's what they saw:
bacterial DNA in tube 1 -> water tube surrounded by 7hz field -> tube 2 containing PCR ingredients minus template -> recovery of bacterial DNA sequence from tube 2
The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated. It involves the hypothetical creation of so-called water nanostructures (water memory anyone?), but apparently the ~7hz field is important and recapitulated in the math somehow that's opaque to me.
So that's the paper for dummies, so to speak. If anyone can elaborate or correct in simple terms I'd be happy to read it; this is cool stuff.
The mortality rate for measles in otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 0.3% (yeah, I can Wikipedia too). This disregards several things: complications from measles in adults, the immunocompromised patient (measles has a 30% mortality rate in AIDS patients), and every single other disease we have vaccines for. Aggregate lifetime risk (not just mortality - see polio) from all of these diseases is far, far greater - and for a greater number of people - than any of the stated autism risk numbers. Moreover, the overwhelming body of evidence has shown that the stated autism risk numbers are, in fact, non-existent.
I have trouble seeing how this is any different from child abuse. But, let's say that parents are completely within their rights to withhold from their children one of the greatest medical achievements of the past century (and, legally, they are). What about someone else who has a kid who can't get the vaccine for one of a variety of reasons? They're dependent on everyone else immunizing their kids to stop the spread of disease. Here, have a car analogy: It's one thing to say that it's alright for people to drive with their eyes closed if it's only going to hurt them, but we know that there is a significant chance that they'll also hurt someone else. In this context, widespread refusal to vaccinate has significant repercussions for everyone else not just the parents who refuse to vaccinate.
Wrong. Genetic stories on this site constantly have comments that would be answered with a quick year or two in medical school (or some Google for you auto-didacts). Even if we assume that "average slashdotter" knows more than "average person" it has been my experience that a doctor will still know more.
What do you think is at the top of the bore? They're sampling the lake but at the top is just a hose that sprays whatever they find into the environment? It takes a long string of implausibly (impossibly?) disastrous outcomes to cause any concern whatsoever.
There are a variety of genetic factors that contribute to autism spectrum disorder, but none of them are sufficient to explain all cases of the disease yet, nor why it is so variable. Possible explanations include environmental factors, still-unknown genetic factors, or the broad definition for what actually constitutes autism.
Would you mind elaborating on that? It sounds like you're saying that Facebook hasn't changed much, which would be ridiculous. What's this whole internets thing anyway? I could buy things before that, couldn't I? And talk to people remotely, and send letters. Yeah it's not the same as saying the internet hasn't changed anything, but it's only because Facebook is part of the internet. Go to any college campus, anywhere, and find someone with a laptop. 999 times out of 1000, that person has Facebook open. If that isn't changing things, what is?
Depending on the severity of the attacks it might be the technical equivalent of blockading the building's door for an indeterminate amount of time. Also, since you don't have to physically have people there to protest, your "technical" protest can be a lot more effective with a lot less participation. Equivalent, I'd say not.
If you're using your sperm, the offspring won't be genetically identical to you since the production of sperm has already shuffled your genes around. So technically all the child's genetic material would be a subset of yours, but would not be identical. The easiest example of this is that you could create a female using two sperm from the same father, provided you get two sperm carrying X chromosomes (neither Y); both X chromosomes would be identical to each other - and to every X chromosome in your cells - but the offspring would be female, not a clone of the father. If you've had some basic biology you may recall good old Punnett Squares. If so, the combination of sperm from a single father to create offspring is the same as doing a self cross in plants.
This question was discussed in China Mieville's Kraken which featured (among other wackiness) a character who could teleport by completely breaking himself down into component molecules/atoms/energy/whatever and reassembling his entire body at his destination, like a Star Trek teleporter. This is distinct from, say, ripping a hole in space-time and walking through to a distant destination, since your body would remain intact for the journey. The upshot of course is that he "died" with every teleportation, and was haunted by dozens of ghosts - of all his dead selves killed by teleportation. Of course if ghosts aren't real, and there is no afterlife, then nobody would ever know or care, which I guess is how Roddenberry figured it. Similarly, in The Prestige Hugh Jackman's (pardon my reference to the movie, I never read the book) remarks that every time he used Tesla's duplication device he wondered whether he would be the one drowning, although of course from his point of view he survived (and would survive) 100% of the time.
Why can't God work through the government as well? If He instructs us to "render unto Caesar" then isn't it reasonable to accept what "Caesar" renders back to you? Not being snide, it just seems oddly inconsistent to me to say that God won't work through all available means to accomplish what He (presumably) desires.
Well since they've already got a veritable terror cornucopia of choice targets, what's the harm in adding one more? Sewage treatment, food distribution centers, your kids' schools, the security line at the airport, hospitals, etc etc.
Then, instead of the election being about whether it was time for a female on the ticket, it became about whether America was ready for a person with a different racial background as President. He not only brought a knife to a gun fight, but it was a spectacularly dull knife.
I wish I had mod points, this is the best summary of the 2008 election ever.
NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe.
For the "future of life" bit, could be something cool relating to our ability to live in space. After all, our current body of evidence suggests that we're the future of extraterrestrial life (speculation about Thursday notwithstanding).
To hazard a guess, I imagine most of our cell division machinery wouldn't work very well with circular chromosomes. It's very important to get the chromosomal composition correct before division, that's why there are so many checks during the cell cycle (p53/cyclin system). Nondysjunction is the primary issue I foresee, which could have innumerable problems - cell differentiation, survival, etc. Cancer cells on the other hand don't care about all that, and in many cases their only goal (reproduction) is served by an abnormal chromosome content, as altering the copy number of genes can increase growth activators or decrease growth inhibitors through the loss or retention of whole chromosomes or fragments of chromosomes.
On the contrary, the vast majority of human cancers have telomerase (are "immortal"), perhaps what you're thinking of is the ability to grow in culture, which is a relatively rarer phenomenon (HeLa cell line!) but nowadays can be artificially induced. This makes sense because a cancer's rapid growth rate would be unsustainable in the long term without some way of getting around telomere loss. The rapid division combined with most cancer's predisposition to mutation results in natural selection for these specific kinds of mutations - the first cell to express telomerase, for example, will out-compete his shorter-lived brothers in the long run, so inevitably all cancers wind up circumventing the telomere issue in one way or another.
If you've got access, you can read this nice review article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9282118
Slashdot Mirror
My background is strictly biology, so a lot of the physics stuff goes over my head, but I can decipher the sciencey jargon well enough to read the paper. Anyway, here's what they saw:
bacterial DNA in tube 1 -> water tube surrounded by 7hz field -> tube 2 containing PCR ingredients minus template -> recovery of bacterial DNA sequence from tube 2
The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated. It involves the hypothetical creation of so-called water nanostructures (water memory anyone?), but apparently the ~7hz field is important and recapitulated in the math somehow that's opaque to me.
So that's the paper for dummies, so to speak. If anyone can elaborate or correct in simple terms I'd be happy to read it; this is cool stuff.
Demand just skyrocketed - you all saw it!
The mortality rate for measles in otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 0.3% (yeah, I can Wikipedia too). This disregards several things: complications from measles in adults, the immunocompromised patient (measles has a 30% mortality rate in AIDS patients), and every single other disease we have vaccines for. Aggregate lifetime risk (not just mortality - see polio) from all of these diseases is far, far greater - and for a greater number of people - than any of the stated autism risk numbers. Moreover, the overwhelming body of evidence has shown that the stated autism risk numbers are, in fact, non-existent.
I have trouble seeing how this is any different from child abuse. But, let's say that parents are completely within their rights to withhold from their children one of the greatest medical achievements of the past century (and, legally, they are). What about someone else who has a kid who can't get the vaccine for one of a variety of reasons? They're dependent on everyone else immunizing their kids to stop the spread of disease. Here, have a car analogy: It's one thing to say that it's alright for people to drive with their eyes closed if it's only going to hurt them, but we know that there is a significant chance that they'll also hurt someone else. In this context, widespread refusal to vaccinate has significant repercussions for everyone else not just the parents who refuse to vaccinate.
Wrong. Genetic stories on this site constantly have comments that would be answered with a quick year or two in medical school (or some Google for you auto-didacts). Even if we assume that "average slashdotter" knows more than "average person" it has been my experience that a doctor will still know more.
What do you think is at the top of the bore? They're sampling the lake but at the top is just a hose that sprays whatever they find into the environment? It takes a long string of implausibly (impossibly?) disastrous outcomes to cause any concern whatsoever.
Well, er, me. The carbon-based part is the complicated fun bit.
There are a variety of genetic factors that contribute to autism spectrum disorder, but none of them are sufficient to explain all cases of the disease yet, nor why it is so variable. Possible explanations include environmental factors, still-unknown genetic factors, or the broad definition for what actually constitutes autism.
Eureka is surprisingly fun, if that question wasn't rhetorical.
Would you mind elaborating on that? It sounds like you're saying that Facebook hasn't changed much, which would be ridiculous. What's this whole internets thing anyway? I could buy things before that, couldn't I? And talk to people remotely, and send letters. Yeah it's not the same as saying the internet hasn't changed anything, but it's only because Facebook is part of the internet. Go to any college campus, anywhere, and find someone with a laptop. 999 times out of 1000, that person has Facebook open. If that isn't changing things, what is?
It's not the "same thing," despite what Glenn Beck may have told you.
Depending on the severity of the attacks it might be the technical equivalent of blockading the building's door for an indeterminate amount of time. Also, since you don't have to physically have people there to protest, your "technical" protest can be a lot more effective with a lot less participation. Equivalent, I'd say not.
It's probably in the PATRIOT Act somewhere...
If you're using your sperm, the offspring won't be genetically identical to you since the production of sperm has already shuffled your genes around. So technically all the child's genetic material would be a subset of yours, but would not be identical. The easiest example of this is that you could create a female using two sperm from the same father, provided you get two sperm carrying X chromosomes (neither Y); both X chromosomes would be identical to each other - and to every X chromosome in your cells - but the offspring would be female, not a clone of the father. If you've had some basic biology you may recall good old Punnett Squares. If so, the combination of sperm from a single father to create offspring is the same as doing a self cross in plants.
Acutally, you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#2000s
Mod: Funny/Depressing
Agreed. That's taxpayer funded poop they're flushing!
This question was discussed in China Mieville's Kraken which featured (among other wackiness) a character who could teleport by completely breaking himself down into component molecules/atoms/energy/whatever and reassembling his entire body at his destination, like a Star Trek teleporter. This is distinct from, say, ripping a hole in space-time and walking through to a distant destination, since your body would remain intact for the journey. The upshot of course is that he "died" with every teleportation, and was haunted by dozens of ghosts - of all his dead selves killed by teleportation. Of course if ghosts aren't real, and there is no afterlife, then nobody would ever know or care, which I guess is how Roddenberry figured it. Similarly, in The Prestige Hugh Jackman's (pardon my reference to the movie, I never read the book) remarks that every time he used Tesla's duplication device he wondered whether he would be the one drowning, although of course from his point of view he survived (and would survive) 100% of the time.
Why can't God work through the government as well? If He instructs us to "render unto Caesar" then isn't it reasonable to accept what "Caesar" renders back to you? Not being snide, it just seems oddly inconsistent to me to say that God won't work through all available means to accomplish what He (presumably) desires.
Well since they've already got a veritable terror cornucopia of choice targets, what's the harm in adding one more? Sewage treatment, food distribution centers, your kids' schools, the security line at the airport, hospitals, etc etc.
Then, instead of the election being about whether it was time for a female on the ticket, it became about whether America was ready for a person with a different racial background as President. He not only brought a knife to a gun fight, but it was a spectacularly dull knife.
I wish I had mod points, this is the best summary of the 2008 election ever.
NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe.
For the "future of life" bit, could be something cool relating to our ability to live in space. After all, our current body of evidence suggests that we're the future of extraterrestrial life (speculation about Thursday notwithstanding).
Article here: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/26/apple-bans-android-magazine-app/
To hazard a guess, I imagine most of our cell division machinery wouldn't work very well with circular chromosomes. It's very important to get the chromosomal composition correct before division, that's why there are so many checks during the cell cycle (p53/cyclin system). Nondysjunction is the primary issue I foresee, which could have innumerable problems - cell differentiation, survival, etc. Cancer cells on the other hand don't care about all that, and in many cases their only goal (reproduction) is served by an abnormal chromosome content, as altering the copy number of genes can increase growth activators or decrease growth inhibitors through the loss or retention of whole chromosomes or fragments of chromosomes.
On the contrary, the vast majority of human cancers have telomerase (are "immortal"), perhaps what you're thinking of is the ability to grow in culture, which is a relatively rarer phenomenon (HeLa cell line!) but nowadays can be artificially induced. This makes sense because a cancer's rapid growth rate would be unsustainable in the long term without some way of getting around telomere loss. The rapid division combined with most cancer's predisposition to mutation results in natural selection for these specific kinds of mutations - the first cell to express telomerase, for example, will out-compete his shorter-lived brothers in the long run, so inevitably all cancers wind up circumventing the telomere issue in one way or another. If you've got access, you can read this nice review article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9282118