I think a more appropriate way to look at this is that all organims have the capacity to reproduce exponentially. Under typical circumstances, the primary limits on how large a population becomes are resources (ie. food) and predators. I doubt food is the limiting factor in a case such as this. I would image there is plenty of cotton.
So, in that light i can't see this making much of a difference because:
1. Even if only a small fraction survived, that would be plenty to repopulate.
2. Mothes from neighboring fields, counties, states, ect. will always migrate over time.
3. Obviously, the sterility gene won't be passed on long term.
4. Those with the 'luminosity', assuming it will be more detectable by predators, will cause the modifed mothes be picked off first.
This could be effective short term and if it is, both the companies and the farmers will hopefully benefit.
I hate rude cell phone users as much as anyone else. I can't stand it when people in lectures have the audacity to leave them on ring mode and then proceed to have conversations in class. It's unbelievable. Same can be said for movies and resturants, but I don't think jamming is the answer. Cell phones are so new in mainstream society that 'rules' of politeness perhaps need sometime to develop.
There are alternatives, put up signs encouraging them to be put on 'buzz' mode, and requiring converstations to be held in other areas.
As a future doctor, I would hate to find out I could not be reached because I was unknowly withing the range of a cell phone jammer. The same goes for anyone else that needs to be availble in emergencies or for immediate consultation. At the very least, if something like this would be allowed, there needs to be a requirment that everyone in an area being jammed is made well aware of that fact.
puck
If I understand correctly, stem cells are immortal (able to divide indefinitely). This means you'd need one sample for all future needs. I'm sure there's enough honestly-obtainable tissue for that.
From my experience, stem cells are not in reality immortal. Theroetically, perhaps, yes. In reality, no. For instance, everytime a stem cell divides there is a very small chance of an error in reproduction of the DNA molucules (ie. mutations). After a number of generations, as you might imagine, they will be no good. Also, undifferented cells (ie. stem cells) don't like to stay undifferentiated from what I understand. A friend of mine works at a lab at Washington University, and it is common for a batch of their stem cells to spontaeously convert to a specifc tissue. One time they arrived at the lab after a long weekend to find a rythmically contracting culture of cells....the stem cells spontaneously differentiated to cardiac muscle cells! I suppose with time we might get better at preserving the stem cells, but cells will never (I usually hate to use the word never, but I think it applies here) be able to make exact copies of themselves everytime.
Obviously there are good reasons for doing this, but I think you're missing a the other half of this picture. Just like everything else there are positives and negatives. This system has a large potential for abuse. Information brokers, advertisors, and whomever is capable of accessing the database with all this information would have the ability to create a very detailed profile of just about anyone. You coorespond this info with credit card info, you can figure out what an *individual* spends there money, where they spend it, when, ect ect. One could create a very detailed circumstanial history with this information. I don't know about you, but I don't feel anyone has the right to know what I do on a day to day basis or should even have the ability to do so without probable cause. I probably haven't even scratched the surface as for as possiblities are concened either. You give a bunch of creative information brokers who have plenty of incentive (money), they could probably learn more about me than I know about me.
Point well taken. However, I'm not convinced now that either is necessarily correct, because as I read it again, it seems open to interpretation. Nothing in that paragraph seems to rule out either possibility.
For example, "Napster has the duty to disable access to the offending content". What does disable access mean? They don't say how or what meets that standard. Napster could make the case that by banning users with "metallica" in their lists, they are disabling the content. Sure the user could find some way to get around the band, or other users could start sharing "metallica" but that isn't necessarily Napster's problem. ie "Napster, however, also bears the burden of policing the system within the limits of the system". That sounds like it could be a loop hole.
we place the burden on plaintiffs to provide notice to Napster of copyrighted works and files containing such works available on the Napster system before Napster has the duty to disable access to the offending content. Napster, however, also bears the burden of policing the system within the limits of the system. Here, we recognize that this is not an exact science in that the files are user named. In crafting the injunction on remand, the district court should recognize that Napster's system does not currently appear to allow Napster access to users' MP3 files
Despite all the decisions against Napster, I think this is an important decision in its favor. I interprete this to mean, Napster is not liable to police its users, rather this responsibility is placed on the copyright holders. As such, it sounds, for practical purposes anyway, like the status quo. ie. it is up the the Metallicas and Dr. Dres of this world to moniter their materials on Napster and report the violators.
If this is true, and the technology becomes cheap/popular enough, does this mean the end of hospitals/morgues/doctors? Cancer of the liver? Just cut it out, and grow a new one.
The answer, no, no, and no.
1. One would require a hospital to administer treatments. First, not all diseases will be cured by this. Second, there will always be emergencies requiring immediate care.
2. Read #1. Emergencies (car accidents, bullets) and other diseases will still cause death.
3. I don't know about you, but if some one is going to administer pluiripotent cells to me, I sure as hell want them to know where to administer them and how. For example, a patient may have congestive heart failure (CHF). If a doc is to administer pluipotential cells to a heart to regrow cardiac muscle, he/she better know what their doing because the stem cells will become the cell they are surrounded by. A heart in CHF will typically be considerably fibrosed so injecting the cells haphazardly could potentially cause them to take up around fibroblasts (the cells that produce the fibrosis) and become fibroblasts. That'll only make matters worse.
What's really interesting about this story is how sure the scientific community is that this is impossible
Perhaps you should read the article again.
"So unlikely does the claim seem to many biologists that she has found it impossible to have it published in leading journals."
My interpretation of this is that the claim is unlikely so it was impossible for her to publish in reputable journals. Considering it had been pretty much presumed for years one could not undiffereniate a differentiated cell, the skepticism is warrented. Many have tried, none have appeared to succeed until now. If these are indeed stem cells that were produced, this will truely be revolutionary.
Re:...but the doctors are stubborn...
on
Digital Doctoring
·
· Score: 1
I agree, some old school docs are stubborn about using computers/palms, but most will learn, especially doctors at teaching hospitals. I'm a medical student, and my unversity will soon *require* us to use a handheld. Most of us already use them as do the doctors who supervise us. Besides some minor complaints concerning possible improvements, everyone loves them.
Its funny, a few years ago here, a student started using a palm on the wards, and was brought in front of the ethics committee here for cheating!!! Thankfully, our administrators are resonable and the student was not punished once the faculty learned how much it was a tool rather than a way to cheat.
I guess, what i'm trying to say is, they will catch on eventually as more medical schools begin to require there use. Perhaps some rural docs might hold out and some in private practice, but most will come around.
Florida is not the only state called too early....
on
Election Wrapping Up
·
· Score: 1
Check out Michigan, all the networks have Gore picked to win. Even CNN is picking Gore to win Michingan who is also reporting Bush ahead 53% to 45%!!! That's with 20% of the vote!! Do they have a legitimate reason for this or are they just plain stupid???
I noticed the same thing....currently 52% of the votes are counted. Bush 51% Gore 47% The only reason I can think than Gore was picked so early and continues to be is the exit poll. (Check them out on CNN). It favors Gore big time. Maybe the popular votes that haven't been counted are in Democratic areas, or maybe they just f'ed up. That's the problem with polls, there is always room for error.
obviously we will evenutally run out of fossil fuels. But at present, there are far more sources of it than are being used because it just isn't worth the money to start drilling new wells. We ARE finding many more sources of fossil fuel at present that we need. A little bit of research will will show I'm right. I wish I could site a souce off hand, but my memory is not that good:)
"with gas prices continuing up, it's definitely starting to look a bit more attractive."
Someone already mentioned gas prices are on there way down in the short term. I'd also like to add that in the long term, gas prices are expected to plummet! Why? So many new oil reserves have been discovered in the recent because of various new technologies that supply will almost certainly increase.
So expect prices to fall. Unfortunately for those of us looking for alternative fuels to becomse mainstream, it won't be happening anytime soon:(
INFORMATIVE???? How about mostly false and grossly exaggerated!!! Obviously, you have no clue as to how roundup works. Its actually quite an elegant design. Fortunately, as a biochemist and future MD (2 more years left, woo hoo!), I do know how it works, and know that it is pretty harmless to mammals....especially compared to just about every other herbacide out there. Fortunately, I also know that in the enviroment, roundup has a short life before it is degraded to a form that has no bioactivity. I believe this time is about 10-14 days. After that, its harmless to plants...it was never harmful to mammals. I wish i could say the same about all the other herbicides we have sparyed on our crops every year that then proceed to flow down our rivers!
About the seeds? Well what do you expect! They spent billions on developing them! You expect them to give them away for free? If they made no money on them, what incentive would any corporation have to develope new and better ways to feed the worlds population, or develop lifesaving drugs, or anything else. Plus, for most farmers, the seeds are so beneficial, that they make more money with them after the cost of buying them, than they would with the old seed. Besides, the company is not even going to proceed with "Terminator". Look here if you don't believe me: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/gurt/default.ht m
One might also find this tid bit from the EPA interesting: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the active ingredient in Roundup as Category E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans), based on a thorough review of toxicological studies. Categories are rated A through E, with E being the most favorable. This favorable rating has been given to only a limited number of pesticide active ingredients."
Sorry, i'd explain the mechansim of Glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup, but i don't remember all the details off hand, and I'd hate to spread misinformation. I will say what I do remember for certain. It is an inhibitor of an enzyme found in all/most plants. The enzyme is part of an essential chemical pathway for plants to survive. Mammels do NOT have this particular enzyme, and glyphosate is very specific for the plant enzyme...thus no toxicity in mammals. So what monsanto did, they added a gene for an isozyme of this particular enzyme. An isozyme is a different enzyme (completely different structure and sequence, but the same function--it catalzes the same reaction as the original). Because of its structual differences, the isozyme is not inhibited like the original...as one would expect. Thus, plants that have had this added to their genome are complete unaffected by roundup while all other plants exposed to it will die. Kinda neat if you ask me!
Slashdot Mirror
I think a more appropriate way to look at this is that all organims have the capacity to reproduce exponentially. Under typical circumstances, the primary limits on how large a population becomes are resources (ie. food) and predators. I doubt food is the limiting factor in a case such as this. I would image there is plenty of cotton.
So, in that light i can't see this making much of a difference because:
1. Even if only a small fraction survived, that would be plenty to repopulate.
2. Mothes from neighboring fields, counties, states, ect. will always migrate over time.
3. Obviously, the sterility gene won't be passed on long term.
4. Those with the 'luminosity', assuming it will be more detectable by predators, will cause the modifed mothes be picked off first.
This could be effective short term and if it is, both the companies and the farmers will hopefully benefit.
puck
I hate rude cell phone users as much as anyone else. I can't stand it when people in lectures have the audacity to leave them on ring mode and then proceed to have conversations in class. It's unbelievable. Same can be said for movies and resturants, but I don't think jamming is the answer. Cell phones are so new in mainstream society that 'rules' of politeness perhaps need sometime to develop. There are alternatives, put up signs encouraging them to be put on 'buzz' mode, and requiring converstations to be held in other areas. As a future doctor, I would hate to find out I could not be reached because I was unknowly withing the range of a cell phone jammer. The same goes for anyone else that needs to be availble in emergencies or for immediate consultation. At the very least, if something like this would be allowed, there needs to be a requirment that everyone in an area being jammed is made well aware of that fact. puck
I like these, but as far as I know teknap is the only one that runs on an OS other than windoz.
Audiognome
Winmx
Teknap
puck
If I understand correctly, stem cells are immortal (able to divide indefinitely). This means you'd need one sample for all future needs. I'm sure there's enough honestly-obtainable tissue for that.
From my experience, stem cells are not in reality immortal. Theroetically, perhaps, yes. In reality, no. For instance, everytime a stem cell divides there is a very small chance of an error in reproduction of the DNA molucules (ie. mutations). After a number of generations, as you might imagine, they will be no good. Also, undifferented cells (ie. stem cells) don't like to stay undifferentiated from what I understand. A friend of mine works at a lab at Washington University, and it is common for a batch of their stem cells to spontaeously convert to a specifc tissue. One time they arrived at the lab after a long weekend to find a rythmically contracting culture of cells....the stem cells spontaneously differentiated to cardiac muscle cells! I suppose with time we might get better at preserving the stem cells, but cells will never (I usually hate to use the word never, but I think it applies here) be able to make exact copies of themselves everytime.
This technology will just allow the Tech Repair guy to wave a wand over your unit and see repair info on it, without having to hunt down the serial number printed on the 3rd IC from the lower left hand side©
Obviously there are good reasons for doing this, but I think you're missing a the other half of this picture. Just like everything else there are positives and negatives. This system has a large potential for abuse. Information brokers, advertisors, and whomever is capable of accessing the database with all this information would have the ability to create a very detailed profile of just about anyone. You coorespond this info with credit card info, you can figure out what an *individual* spends there money, where they spend it, when, ect ect. One could create a very detailed circumstanial history with this information. I don't know about you, but I don't feel anyone has the right to know what I do on a day to day basis or should even have the ability to do so without probable cause. I probably haven't even scratched the surface as for as possiblities are concened either. You give a bunch of creative information brokers who have plenty of incentive (money), they could probably learn more about me than I know about me.
puck
Point well taken. However, I'm not convinced now that either is necessarily correct, because as I read it again, it seems open to interpretation. Nothing in that paragraph seems to rule out either possibility.
For example, "Napster has the duty to disable access to the offending content". What does disable access mean? They don't say how or what meets that standard. Napster could make the case that by banning users with "metallica" in their lists, they are disabling the content. Sure the user could find some way to get around the band, or other users could start sharing "metallica" but that isn't necessarily Napster's problem. ie "Napster, however, also bears the burden of policing the system within the limits of the system ". That sounds like it could be a loop hole.
puck
we place the burden on plaintiffs to provide notice to Napster of copyrighted works and files containing such works available on the Napster system before Napster has the duty to disable access to the offending content. Napster, however, also bears the burden of policing the system within the limits of the system. Here, we recognize that this is not an exact science in that the files are user named. In crafting the injunction on remand, the district court should recognize that Napster's system does not currently appear to allow Napster access to users' MP3 files
:)
puck
Despite all the decisions against Napster, I think this is an important decision in its favor. I interprete this to mean, Napster is not liable to police its users, rather this responsibility is placed on the copyright holders. As such, it sounds, for practical purposes anyway, like the status quo. ie. it is up the the Metallicas and Dr. Dres of this world to moniter their materials on Napster and report the violators.
Please correct me if I'm wrong
thou!!! i thought i was logged in when I posted that!! :)
puck
If this is true, and the technology becomes cheap/popular enough, does this mean the end of hospitals/morgues/doctors? Cancer of the liver? Just cut it out, and grow a new one.
The answer, no, no, and no.
1. One would require a hospital to administer treatments. First, not all diseases will be cured by this. Second, there will always be emergencies requiring immediate care.
2. Read #1. Emergencies (car accidents, bullets) and other diseases will still cause death.
3. I don't know about you, but if some one is going to administer pluiripotent cells to me, I sure as hell want them to know where to administer them and how. For example, a patient may have congestive heart failure (CHF). If a doc is to administer pluipotential cells to a heart to regrow cardiac muscle, he/she better know what their doing because the stem cells will become the cell they are surrounded by. A heart in CHF will typically be considerably fibrosed so injecting the cells haphazardly could potentially cause them to take up around fibroblasts (the cells that produce the fibrosis) and become fibroblasts. That'll only make matters worse.
What's really interesting about this story is how sure the scientific community is that this is impossible
Perhaps you should read the article again.
"So unlikely does the claim seem to many biologists that she has found it impossible to have it published in leading journals."
My interpretation of this is that the claim is unlikely so it was impossible for her to publish in reputable journals. Considering it had been pretty much presumed for years one could not undiffereniate a differentiated cell, the skepticism is warrented. Many have tried, none have appeared to succeed until now. If these are indeed stem cells that were produced, this will truely be revolutionary.
I agree, some old school docs are stubborn about using computers/palms, but most will learn, especially doctors at teaching hospitals. I'm a medical student, and my unversity will soon *require* us to use a handheld. Most of us already use them as do the doctors who supervise us. Besides some minor complaints concerning possible improvements, everyone loves them. Its funny, a few years ago here, a student started using a palm on the wards, and was brought in front of the ethics committee here for cheating!!! Thankfully, our administrators are resonable and the student was not punished once the faculty learned how much it was a tool rather than a way to cheat. I guess, what i'm trying to say is, they will catch on eventually as more medical schools begin to require there use. Perhaps some rural docs might hold out and some in private practice, but most will come around.
Check out Michigan, all the networks have Gore picked to win. Even CNN is picking Gore to win Michingan who is also reporting Bush ahead 53% to 45%!!! That's with 20% of the vote!! Do they have a legitimate reason for this or are they just plain stupid???
I noticed the same thing....currently 52% of the votes are counted. Bush 51% Gore 47% The only reason I can think than Gore was picked so early and continues to be is the exit poll. (Check them out on CNN). It favors Gore big time. Maybe the popular votes that haven't been counted are in Democratic areas, or maybe they just f'ed up. That's the problem with polls, there is always room for error.
hmmm, the link didn't work for me. I got the same ol' registration page. Am I missing something? I really hope someone with access will post it.
obviously we will evenutally run out of fossil fuels. But at present, there are far more sources of it than are being used because it just isn't worth the money to start drilling new wells. We ARE finding many more sources of fossil fuel at present that we need. A little bit of research will will show I'm right. I wish I could site a souce off hand, but my memory is not that good :)
"with gas prices continuing up, it's definitely starting to look a bit more attractive."
:(
Someone already mentioned gas prices are on there way down in the short term. I'd also like to add that in the long term, gas prices are expected to plummet! Why? So many new oil reserves have been discovered in the recent because of various new technologies that supply will almost certainly increase.
So expect prices to fall. Unfortunately for those of us looking for alternative fuels to becomse mainstream, it won't be happening anytime soon
INFORMATIVE???? How about mostly false and grossly exaggerated!!! Obviously, you have no clue as to how roundup works. Its actually quite an elegant design. Fortunately, as a biochemist and future MD (2 more years left, woo hoo!), I do know how it works, and know that it is pretty harmless to mammals....especially compared to just about every other herbacide out there. Fortunately, I also know that in the enviroment, roundup has a short life before it is degraded to a form that has no bioactivity. I believe this time is about 10-14 days. After that, its harmless to plants...it was never harmful to mammals. I wish i could say the same about all the other herbicides we have sparyed on our crops every year that then proceed to flow down our rivers!
t m
About the seeds? Well what do you expect! They spent billions on developing them! You expect them to give them away for free? If they made no money on them, what incentive would any corporation have to develope new and better ways to feed the worlds population, or develop lifesaving drugs, or anything else. Plus, for most farmers, the seeds are so beneficial, that they make more money with them after the cost of buying them, than they would with the old seed. Besides, the company is not even going to proceed with "Terminator". Look here if you don't believe me:
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/gurt/default.h
One might also find this tid bit from the EPA interesting:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the active ingredient in Roundup as Category E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans), based on a thorough review of toxicological studies. Categories are rated A through E, with E being the most favorable. This favorable rating has been given to only a limited number of pesticide active ingredients."
Sorry, i'd explain the mechansim of Glyphosate, the active ingredient of roundup, but i don't remember all the details off hand, and I'd hate to spread misinformation. I will say what I do remember for certain. It is an inhibitor of an enzyme found in all/most plants. The enzyme is part of an essential chemical pathway for plants to survive. Mammels do NOT have this particular enzyme, and glyphosate is very specific for the plant enzyme...thus no toxicity in mammals. So what monsanto did, they added a gene for an isozyme of this particular enzyme. An isozyme is a different enzyme (completely different structure and sequence, but the same function--it catalzes the same reaction as the original). Because of its structual differences, the isozyme is not inhibited like the original...as one would expect. Thus, plants that have had this added to their genome are complete unaffected by roundup while all other plants exposed to it will die. Kinda neat if you ask me!