You're right, of course - our freedoms are intrinsic rights of human beings, not gifts from Uncle Sam.
No. Your human rights are intrinsic, your civil liberties are not.... just ask the 2+million persons incarcerated in our prisons. Our government takes away their citizens' rights all the time.
I do sympathize with both sides however. As a voting citizen it irks me that those who bitch and moan don't take part in the process of changing what they detest, but alas, they have the right to bitch and moan all they damn well please
Aren't your electronic "papers" still protected by the fourth amendment without encryption?
Taken to the extreme doesn't strong encryption of personal information violate the 4th amendment?
The amendment states that but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment indicates that under these specific circumstances, the government does have the right to possess your "papers", so if your papers are encrypted doesn't that subvert the intention of the 4th amendment?
An aside. Good God I sound like Clarence Thomas! That's frightening.
Seriously. I was really taken aback by this Slashdot "call to action" which was long on rhetoric and short on details.
Is encrypted email a "civil liberty?" I personally don't buy the comparison that encryption==envelope. I think a better comparison would be carnivore==FBI_agents_intercepting_your_mail_becau se_they _have_a_warrant_to_do_so, but IANAL.
So other than the putative civil liberty of "strong encryption", what other civil liberties are we talking about here? The FBI going over AOL and Earthlink's email accounts to look for potential communications between the terrorists doesn't impinge on my civil liberties. Even if they found something on me from my earthlink account, it would be thrown out in court in a millisecond as an illegal search and seizure.
So list the 'civil liberties' which you feel are protected under to constitution that you might lose given the current atmosphere in the US.
Virii introduce themselves into the host cell, splice their own RNA into the DNA of the cell
Virii don't splice their RNA into the host DNA. Some viruses, such as Retroviruses, reverse transcribe (copy their RNA into DNA) then integrate this into the host genome. Furthermore, many, many viruses have RNA genomes and don't splice their genomic material into the host's.
then allow the cell to act like a little virus factory to crank out copies of the original virus
Some virues aim to furiously replicate themselves... others don't.
The cell fills up with these copies and pops when it surpasses critical containment volume, releasing all the copies to repeat the process with other host cells.
Not really. Some viruses, such as rhabdoviruses, may replicate at rates which essentially "pop" the host cell, but more often than not this isn't the case.
So there is no point in using a nanotube to pop the host cell, as this will simply do what is going to happen anyway.
Considering "popping" the host cell is essentially what an activated T-cell does to an infected cell, this isn't such a pointless scenario.
To stop virii in general, it helps to inhibit the virus's ability to splice its RNA into the host cell's DNA. This approach is where the most promising and effective HIV treatments reside today.
Only a select few virues actually "splice" their genomic material into the host genome and the only one I can think of that we are actively targetting therapeutically is HIV. AFAIK, there are no "integrase" inhibitors on the market today, but it is an active area of drug discovery research... and a logical point of intervention in the retroviral life cycle. The majority of treatments for this class of viruses involve inhibiting the conversion of the viral RNA into DNA (nucleoside analogs and non-nucleoside RT inhibitors) and inhibiting a viral specifc protease (protease inhibitors).
However, the only way to whack a virus is to get the body's own destroyer cells to eat them. This is difficult to do with HIV because the invader-signaller cells are the ones that HIV loves to use as factories.
Actually, the host "destroyer" cells "whacking" the "factories" (T-cells), may contribute to disease. Kinda like the body doing it's job, but killing itself in the process.
This nanotube approach is great against living invaders (bacteria, and possibly even some types of cancer), but not useful against virii: HIV, or any other.
Agreed it may be useful towards bacterial infection. Cancer? Doubt it, but if it is possible for cancer, then it would probably be possible for killing virus infected cells.... virus infected cells are often much easier to distinguish from "normal" cells than cancerous cells are. Virus infected cells are producing foreign material (viruses), while cancerous cells are "normal" cells which just don't know when (or can't be told) to stop dividing. (Very simplistic description, I know)
'how do you cause the tubules to ofly affect the target cells?' The answer is quite interesting" To prevent indiscriminate targeting of bacterial and human cells, the rings had to be 'tuned' to prefer bugs. The team produced a range of rings with different membrane affinities and mixed them with bacteria or human red blood cells. Prime candidates - those that were lethal to bugs but harmless to humans - were selected
This technology is simply amazing IMO, but just like other treatments it is frightening as well. From what I understand the quote above is correct, the cyclic peptides were selected to bind specifically to bacteria. Bacterial cell walls are significantly different than the plasma membranes surrounding our cells, but how different is different enough? They mentioned testing the peptides against red blood cells, but in our bodies there are a multitude of different cell types. So herein lies a major obstacle. Until they can tell exactly how these peptides are binding to the bacteria (at the molecular level) and be sure that mammalian cells don't have any similar structures on their surfaces, I wouldn't volunteer for a phase I clinical trial. Imagine you get a the highest dose in the trial and for some unpredictable reason, the peptide binds to and punches holes in... let's say... blood vessels deep in your brain. Not fun.
Another issue is how selective are these peptides for pathogenic bacteria and how are they metabolized? The problem lies in the fact that we have a multitude of normal bacterial flora, much of which probably looks the same to a nano-peptide as pathogenic enterococcus (for example). If the peptides are really effective and have a short half-life, one could imagine a lot of normal flora being wiped out along with the bad guys.
One more thing, don't think that nature hasn't thought of this already. This is one of the same principals by which bacteria are already targeted by our own immune systems. Specifically, when your body generates Antibodies against a particular bacteria, the antibodies bind to the bacteria, then a specific cascade of events involving the Complement system occurs. The result of this cascade is called the Membrane Attack Complex which is a complex of proteins which pokes holes in whatever is covered (opsonized) by antibody.
Furthermore, when T-cells target infected cells for destruction, they release a protein called perforin which, once again, pokes holes in the cell slated for destruction.
Congratulations to the authors for taking such a biological prinicipal and engineering it to our advantage!
Re:GMO Sympathizers: READ THIS
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
And where are you getting your "Facts"?
scientists....know enough to be given billions and billions of dollars, free reign to do whatever they want, and a massive police force available to beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees?
Where do scientists enlist this "massive police force" you talk about? Is there a 1-800 number I can call to get the crap beat out of some eco-terrrorists?
For instance, in San Diego at the biotech industry conference last week, your tax dollars paid for a huge police presence so that cops could dress up as black bloc and march next to peaceful protesters.
To avoid another disaster like we had in Seattle at the WTO meeting... and I don't agree with the WTO nor the tacticts used by the SPD. Fact remains if you have people who are willing to kill others (ELF), then the police should have the presence to ensure the protest remains peaceful.
Your tax dollars paid for hundreds to be ticketed for holding signs and walking down the sidewalk.
Hundreds? I read there were only hunderds of total protesters. So unless all of them were arrested, then your are probably pulling numbers out of your ass, or your "heard" that there were 100s arrested. Either way, CNN probably got it closer to the truth.
In Oakland, two popular redwood forest activists were bombed in their car. The FBI's involvement in the case is highly suspect...
The FBI's involvement is suspect according to whom? Was this published in the non-biased 'Humbolt Environmental Flyer'? Just because someone says something is suspect, or you read it in print somewhere, doesn't mean it's true.
In the Pacific Northwest, police repression against environmental groups is huge, and is backed by right-wing industry front groups.
Wooooo... those amorphous 'right-wing front groups'. Again where was this published? Or did you "hear" this was the case or read it in some propaganda flyer?
Oh my bad, I just realized that since you got this information from the vererable sf.indymedia.org therefore it must be the "truth".
At least when I read the NYtimes I realize that it is a "liberal" paper and is biased as such.
But I have a God Given Right to cheap gas!!
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
or at least a constitutional one...
oh wait, that's wrong too...
I completely agree with the premise of using taxes to cut consumption, but unfortunately that isn't the opinion of any of our elected officials. Instead we've got the Republicans who claim we have some sort of "right" to our consumptive lifestyle (at the expense of the rest of the planet) and who claim we can't do anything remotely environmental because it might jeapordize our precious economy. On the other side we've got the Dems who pay lipservice to environmental causes, but in the end don't really have the spine to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
How in the hell can we complain about $2.00/gallon gas when we gleefully spend $8.00/gallon for CocaCola (0.75c/12oz), or $1.29 for 1/2 liter of fucking water!
This story is a complete load of BS. When I read the Nitric Acid bit I thought, "This kid can get the NRC to tell him how to build a reactor, he can extract thorium from mantles and he can pose as a "professor", but he can't find the ever elusvie Nitric Acid?" I'm not sure if I remember my 'Anarchist's Cookbook' very well (nor my Organic Chemistry), but I think to make Nitroglycerin it require glycerine and nitric acid.. could be wrong though.
Two more things. I work with small amounts of radioactivity on a daily basis and I find it incredibly hard to believe the radium story. He was supposedly "driving by" a antiques store when he picked up the vial of radium paint with the geiger counter. C'mon. The ability to detect radiation is proportional to the inverse of the distance from the source squared. I can't imagine how hot that clock would have been if he could detect it in his car while driving by.
And. With quotes like, "I'll pay any some [sic] of money..." it is not possible that he could have carried on a conversation by mail, posing as a teacher or a professor.
Sorry, but that is just the way taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose where they go. I'd prefer that my taxes not subsidize spectrum bandwith so that religious entities can have a couple of channels on every broadcast system in the US.
Ever called your cable operator and asked them why you have to pay for religious channel 94, which broadcasts some Brazilian guy with Portugese accent sermonizine in Spanish? "Because we have to" is the answer you'll get. Same goes for local access channels... they bring in 0.00 revenue for your cable operator, but the government tell them they gotta have provide it.
... on my Mac, Granted it's OS9 and using Kensington drivers.
Out of the box, OSX supports 2-buttons; I'm using it right now (literally)... I just right-clicked the window and got a contextual menu. I'm quite sure Kensington will release drivers for OSX that support as many damn buttons as you can handle... even Taco Boy. I'll bet he already ordered a TiG4.
I wish I could moderate this post up to 5. There needs to be a new moderation category in addition to 'flamebait', 'interesting', etc. 'editors get a clue'.
Don't forget that almost all of those apps you are describing *will* run in the classic environment inside OSX. Hence, there is no loss of functionality for the user... except maybe waiting for classic to boot.
and I can tell you that this story is not in any way 'new' news. Maybe the nano blurb is a new idea for this technology, but the idea of turning on and off engineered genes at you're discretion is not.
The system they are referring to is known as a tetracycline responsive promoter. A commercially kits for this purpose are available here.
Having used the system, I can tell you it does not work very well. A better system is located here and an even newer system here. I rarely post here, but I have noticed that most of the pieces on biologically related topics that make it on/. are not well researched on the poster's part. When I think about it, the majority of news and pseudonews sites on the web and in the traditional media fail miserably when producing stories about science in general and particulary regarding biology.
Slashdot Mirror
The office suite (beta) works very well on 10.1
Since it is a beta there are still many issue, but the speed is there and the interface is there (for better or worse).
No. Your human rights are intrinsic, your civil liberties are not.... just ask the 2+million persons incarcerated in our prisons. Our government takes away their citizens' rights all the time.
I do sympathize with both sides however. As a voting citizen it irks me that those who bitch and moan don't take part in the process of changing what they detest, but alas, they have the right to bitch and moan all they damn well please
Taken to the extreme doesn't strong encryption of personal information violate the 4th amendment?
The amendment states that but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This amendment indicates that under these specific circumstances, the government does have the right to possess your "papers", so if your papers are encrypted doesn't that subvert the intention of the 4th amendment?
An aside. Good God I sound like Clarence Thomas! That's frightening.
Seriously. I was really taken aback by this Slashdot "call to action" which was long on rhetoric and short on details.
u se_they _have_a_warrant_to_do_so, but IANAL.
Is encrypted email a "civil liberty?" I personally don't buy the comparison that encryption==envelope. I think a better comparison would be carnivore==FBI_agents_intercepting_your_mail_beca
So other than the putative civil liberty of "strong encryption", what other civil liberties are we talking about here? The FBI going over AOL and Earthlink's email accounts to look for potential communications between the terrorists doesn't impinge on my civil liberties. Even if they found something on me from my earthlink account, it would be thrown out in court in a millisecond as an illegal search and seizure.
So list the 'civil liberties' which you feel are protected under to constitution that you might lose given the current atmosphere in the US.
Yup, I'm still getting a least one scan every minute of every day, so within the @home network the infected machines are still running wild.
Other than dealing with their completely incompetent tech support one time, the service has been great... it's like having my personal T3@home.
Virii don't splice their RNA into the host DNA. Some viruses, such as Retroviruses, reverse transcribe (copy their RNA into DNA) then integrate this into the host genome. Furthermore, many, many viruses have RNA genomes and don't splice their genomic material into the host's.
then allow the cell to act like a little virus factory to crank out copies of the original virus
Some virues aim to furiously replicate themselves... others don't.
The cell fills up with these copies and pops when it surpasses critical containment volume, releasing all the copies to repeat the process with other host cells.
Not really. Some viruses, such as rhabdoviruses, may replicate at rates which essentially "pop" the host cell, but more often than not this isn't the case.
So there is no point in using a nanotube to pop the host cell, as this will simply do what is going to happen anyway.
Considering "popping" the host cell is essentially what an activated T-cell does to an infected cell, this isn't such a pointless scenario.
To stop virii in general, it helps to inhibit the virus's ability to splice its RNA into the host cell's DNA. This approach is where the most promising and effective HIV treatments reside today.
Only a select few virues actually "splice" their genomic material into the host genome and the only one I can think of that we are actively targetting therapeutically is HIV. AFAIK, there are no "integrase" inhibitors on the market today, but it is an active area of drug discovery research... and a logical point of intervention in the retroviral life cycle. The majority of treatments for this class of viruses involve inhibiting the conversion of the viral RNA into DNA (nucleoside analogs and non-nucleoside RT inhibitors) and inhibiting a viral specifc protease (protease inhibitors).
However, the only way to whack a virus is to get the body's own destroyer cells to eat them. This is difficult to do with HIV because the invader-signaller cells are the ones that HIV loves to use as factories.
Actually, the host "destroyer" cells "whacking" the "factories" (T-cells), may contribute to disease. Kinda like the body doing it's job, but killing itself in the process.
This nanotube approach is great against living invaders (bacteria, and possibly even some types of cancer), but not useful against virii: HIV, or any other.
Agreed it may be useful towards bacterial infection. Cancer? Doubt it, but if it is possible for cancer, then it would probably be possible for killing virus infected cells.... virus infected cells are often much easier to distinguish from "normal" cells than cancerous cells are. Virus infected cells are producing foreign material (viruses), while cancerous cells are "normal" cells which just don't know when (or can't be told) to stop dividing. (Very simplistic description, I know)
Warning, this poster has little, none, or seriously misconstrued knowledge of microbiology.
This technology is simply amazing IMO, but just like other treatments it is frightening as well. From what I understand the quote above is correct, the cyclic peptides were selected to bind specifically to bacteria. Bacterial cell walls are significantly different than the plasma membranes surrounding our cells, but how different is different enough? They mentioned testing the peptides against red blood cells, but in our bodies there are a multitude of different cell types. So herein lies a major obstacle. Until they can tell exactly how these peptides are binding to the bacteria (at the molecular level) and be sure that mammalian cells don't have any similar structures on their surfaces, I wouldn't volunteer for a phase I clinical trial. Imagine you get a the highest dose in the trial and for some unpredictable reason, the peptide binds to and punches holes in... let's say... blood vessels deep in your brain. Not fun.
Another issue is how selective are these peptides for pathogenic bacteria and how are they metabolized? The problem lies in the fact that we have a multitude of normal bacterial flora, much of which probably looks the same to a nano-peptide as pathogenic enterococcus (for example). If the peptides are really effective and have a short half-life, one could imagine a lot of normal flora being wiped out along with the bad guys.
One more thing, don't think that nature hasn't thought of this already. This is one of the same principals by which bacteria are already targeted by our own immune systems. Specifically, when your body generates Antibodies against a particular bacteria, the antibodies bind to the bacteria, then a specific cascade of events involving the Complement system occurs. The result of this cascade is called the Membrane Attack Complex which is a complex of proteins which pokes holes in whatever is covered (opsonized) by antibody.
Furthermore, when T-cells target infected cells for destruction, they release a protein called perforin which, once again, pokes holes in the cell slated for destruction.
Congratulations to the authors for taking such a biological prinicipal and engineering it to our advantage!
And where are you getting your "Facts"?
scientists....know enough to be given billions and billions of dollars, free reign to do whatever they want, and a massive police force available to beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees?
Where do scientists enlist this "massive police force" you talk about? Is there a 1-800 number I can call to get the crap beat out of some eco-terrrorists?
For instance, in San Diego at the biotech industry conference last week, your tax dollars paid for a huge police presence so that cops could dress up as black bloc and march next to peaceful protesters.
To avoid another disaster like we had in Seattle at the WTO meeting... and I don't agree with the WTO nor the tacticts used by the SPD. Fact remains if you have people who are willing to kill others (ELF), then the police should have the presence to ensure the protest remains peaceful.
Your tax dollars paid for hundreds to be ticketed for holding signs and walking down the sidewalk.
Hundreds? I read there were only hunderds of total protesters. So unless all of them were arrested, then your are probably pulling numbers out of your ass, or your "heard" that there were 100s arrested. Either way, CNN probably got it closer to the truth.
In Oakland, two popular redwood forest activists were bombed in their car. The FBI's involvement in the case is highly suspect...
The FBI's involvement is suspect according to whom? Was this published in the non-biased 'Humbolt Environmental Flyer'? Just because someone says something is suspect, or you read it in print somewhere, doesn't mean it's true.
In the Pacific Northwest, police repression against environmental groups is huge, and is backed by right-wing industry front groups.
Wooooo... those amorphous 'right-wing front groups'. Again where was this published? Or did you "hear" this was the case or read it in some propaganda flyer?
Oh my bad, I just realized that since you got this information from the vererable sf.indymedia.org therefore it must be the "truth".
At least when I read the NYtimes I realize that it is a "liberal" paper and is biased as such.
or at least a constitutional one...
oh wait, that's wrong too...
I completely agree with the premise of using taxes to cut consumption, but unfortunately that isn't the opinion of any of our elected officials. Instead we've got the Republicans who claim we have some sort of "right" to our consumptive lifestyle (at the expense of the rest of the planet) and who claim we can't do anything remotely environmental because it might jeapordize our precious economy. On the other side we've got the Dems who pay lipservice to environmental causes, but in the end don't really have the spine to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
How in the hell can we complain about $2.00/gallon gas when we gleefully spend $8.00/gallon for CocaCola (0.75c/12oz), or $1.29 for 1/2 liter of fucking water!
--------
I have no point and I know it.
This story is a complete load of BS. When I read the Nitric Acid bit I thought, "This kid can get the NRC to tell him how to build a reactor, he can extract thorium from mantles and he can pose as a "professor", but he can't find the ever elusvie Nitric Acid?" I'm not sure if I remember my 'Anarchist's Cookbook' very well (nor my Organic Chemistry), but I think to make Nitroglycerin it require glycerine and nitric acid.. could be wrong though.
Two more things. I work with small amounts of radioactivity on a daily basis and I find it incredibly hard to believe the radium story. He was supposedly "driving by" a antiques store when he picked up the vial of radium paint with the geiger counter. C'mon. The ability to detect radiation is proportional to the inverse of the distance from the source squared. I can't imagine how hot that clock would have been if he could detect it in his car while driving by.
And. With quotes like, "I'll pay any some [sic] of money..." it is not possible that he could have carried on a conversation by mail, posing as a teacher or a professor.
Blech... this is pure crap!
50K/s... bah
I always get 400K/s+ and often get sustained rates of 0.8MB/s and higher.
I download the mozilla nightlies, ~11MB in 15 seconds. The thought of 80K/s on DSL makes me shudder.
Sorry, but that is just the way taxes work. You don't get to pick and choose where they go. I'd prefer that my taxes not subsidize spectrum bandwith so that religious entities can have a couple of channels on every broadcast system in the US.
Ever called your cable operator and asked them why you have to pay for religious channel 94, which broadcasts some Brazilian guy with Portugese accent sermonizine in Spanish? "Because we have to" is the answer you'll get. Same goes for local access channels... they bring in 0.00 revenue for your cable operator, but the government tell them they gotta have provide it.
... on my Mac, Granted it's OS9 and using Kensington drivers.
Out of the box, OSX supports 2-buttons; I'm using it right now (literally)... I just right-clicked the window and got a contextual menu. I'm quite sure Kensington will release drivers for OSX that support as many damn buttons as you can handle... even Taco Boy. I'll bet he already ordered a TiG4.
Get a sunfire Cinema Grand Signature - 3750
a sunfire Cinema Theatre II preamp - 3495
http://www.sunfire.com/
And a set of B&W 800 series speakers - the rest
http://www.bwspeakers.com/
Ahhh
Yes.
I wish I could moderate this post up to 5. There needs to be a new moderation category in addition to 'flamebait', 'interesting', etc. 'editors get a clue'.
do hope that you learn to be a bit more level headed before you venture into the job markets that don't rely on state funding.
Hmm... then howcome MSFT paid no business taxes in Washington state.
Answer: MSFT has benefited incredibly from the state corporate welfare system.
with your Whine?
Give me a break. This was pure rant/FUD/BS. Go back in you hole and emulate that.
Don't forget that almost all of those apps you are describing *will* run in the classic environment inside OSX. Hence, there is no loss of functionality for the user... except maybe waiting for classic to boot.
"I've lost a 2 year mailbox to mozilla"
Doh!
They are building "Aquaesque" chrome. Check out this shot I found in the mozilla newsgroups.
Plus the sullivan chrome at mozillazine feels very mac-like.
Chris
and I can tell you that this story is not in any way 'new' news. Maybe the nano blurb is a new idea for this technology, but the idea of turning on and off engineered genes at you're discretion is not.
The system they are referring to is known as a tetracycline responsive promoter. A commercially kits for this purpose are available here.
Having used the system, I can tell you it does not work very well. A better system is located here and an even newer system here. I rarely post here, but I have noticed that most of the pieces on biologically related topics that make it on /. are not well researched on the poster's part. When I think about it, the majority of news and pseudonews sites on the web and in the traditional media fail miserably when producing stories about science in general and particulary regarding biology.
Yo
Please refrain from writing articles on topics which you have zero knowlegde.
Thank you,
P.s. If I want to read this type of drivel I will buy a book by Jeremy Rifkin.
Then go to http://www.toysrus.com to see a huge, balanced cluster of top of the line NT boxes in a real world situation.
We all know what the result will be, but it's fun anyway.
Foamy