Except, NO, it wasn't accidentally introduced, and anyone who is interested could have easily known this - it's even in the Wikipedia article for CMV!
The promoter of the 35S RNA is a very strong constitutive promoter responsible for the transcription of the whole CaMV genome. It is well known for its use in plant transformation. It causes high levels of gene expression in dicot plants. However, it is less effective in monocots, especially in cereals. The differences in behavior are probably due to differences in quality and/or quantity of regulatory factors. The promoter was named CaMV 35S promoter ("35S promoter") because the coefficient of sedimentation of the viral transcript, whose expression is naturally driven by this promoter, is 35S. It is one of the most widely used, general-purpose constitutive promoters. It was discovered at the beginning of the 1980s, by Chua and collaborators at the Rockefeller University.
This study basically just "discovered" something that has already been the basis of much of the research and industry around gene insertion in plants for 30 years. Wow.
It's beyond that - a significant fraction of your DNA is fragments of virii. And a recombinant virus is the most common way of introducing new DNA for gene therapy.
And further, this article is idiotic. The Caulilflower mosaic viral promoter is the most common mechanism for inserting genes into GMO, so of COURSE it's going to be present, that's common knowledge to anyone in the field. Now whether it's healthy or not is a different issue..
I always wondered why people would even consider trusting this guy with anything. I mean regardless of whether he is guilty of the current charges against him, he's already been convicted for fraud, data theft, insider trading, and embezzlement in the past.
We'll see how the situation plays out, but you'd have to be pretty naive to be surprised if a two time convicted criminal ended up doing something illegal in his current venture...
Actually, requiring *your* textbook for *your* class and making students pay over $80 for it has always seemed a bit shady (but common) to me. I did have a couple of professors supply their book as bound lecture notes (which is how many of these textbooks begin) for about 1/5 of the textbook cost, though, so if you own the copyright you can make things more affordable to your students...
Well, first, I said house cat. Most domesticated house cats really rarely eat rats, etc. if they are indoors most of the time and you aren't starving them. And second, there is nothing wrong with occasional rats, mice, birds, or insects in their diet anyway, so it's irrelevant.
Oh come on. They didn't sell decrepit horses for high end human consumption anyway. That horse meat likely just went to zoos, which was a small fraction (10%?) of the production.
In general, horses are a horrible source of food in terms of input efficiency, since they put on a lot less weight per food consumed than any other meats like pork or beef. The entire US horse slaughtering industry was something like $50M a year before the last few plants closed down. That's in a $150B meat (pork,beef,chicken,etc) industry in the US. I'm not even really an opponent to horse meat on moral grounds or anything, but it's just not a big business.
Cats and dogs are domesticated animals that eat whatever humans feed them. Dogs raised for food (in Korea, for example) have a diet no worse (maybe better) than most cattle. And even the average family dog and house cat eat perfectly safe food that is not "concentrating" poisons.
Not that I am really interested in eating either of them, but let's not make excuses, the reason is purely psychological.
Not going to comment on your mental capacity, but you definitely didn't get the point of the OP's comment, which was objecting to eating animals that were beyond a certain level of intelligence.
A friend of mine had a rule that he "wouldn't eat animals smarter than his cat". Beef, chicken, lamb, and most seafood were ok, but pigs and oddly but probably correctly octopus were not. Then again that was until he married into a Chinese family and eventually gave up. (Is this vegetarian? Yes, yes, just vegetables. What's that? Oh, that's not meat, that pork is just for flavor...)
Did you even READ my comment? LG Prada = "past failed device".
And it wasn't multitouch anyway, which was the key innovation that enabled apps like Google Maps, Safari for iOS, etc, and many of the popular iOS games. Probably more importantly, it couldn't even support those "killer" apps, since the *software* sucked ass based on Flash Lite, with no usable web browser or reasonable SDK for developing apps. And big surprise - no mobile platform will succeed from now on without a great developer kit and app store.
And "first with hype machine"? The first Android device wasn't released until about a *year and a half* after the iPhone, which had already exploded in sales by then.
"Vast marketing resources" is just a cop out excuse. Microsoft has vast marketing resources and how has that worked out for them lately?
...yep... or the original iPhone or iPad as full screen multitouch devices, a SUCCESSFUL ultralight notebood w/ SSD...
And no, we don't need example of past failed devices that implemented some of those features. The key word is ESTABLISHED, and in most of the past decade Apple has been the establisher and others the jumpers.
And seriously AC - Philips and Sony haven't done anything new in consumer electronics in years. In fact Philips doesn't even make TVs any more, they just license their name to Funai. And Sony hasn't made most of the parts in their TVs for years, they just buy panels from Samsung and Sharp.
Except that when you really look at the long term, the west has been working less and less for basic needs.
True when you look at workers up to middle age, not so much after that.
If everyone worked until age 60 and then immediately kicked the bucket 30 hour weeks would probably be fine. But if you expect to retire at 65 and live until 85, "basic needs" really has to cover those 20 years of basic living expenses, plus the likely huge but now expected medical expenses required to actually keep you alive that long.
At this point the younger generations are going to be working extra hours for the older generations, because their contributions to social security and medicare aren't even coming close to covering their "basic needs".
I forgot to add - not a panacea, but it sure does help. And probably *more* important is the reverse - fixing poverty would go a long way to improving a child's education, both at home and in school.
No, it means the US has rich kids receiving a good education, and poor kids receiving a poor education.
Hmm, the uncomfortable reality is that rich kids perform better even in same schools with same teachers. It's what happens at home that makes the difference, namely greater expectations from parents and a greater range of activities and experiences outside the school.
I agree. The important point there is "education" is not just something done in schools, it starts and ends at HOME and ultimately the parents are responsible, not the state. My point was it's much more about nurture than nature, it's about "uneducated", not "dumb".
No, it means the US has rich kids receiving a good education, and poor kids receiving a poor education.
No, if you RTFA, it means that rich kids in the US receive a good education, and poor kids in the US perform pretty much the same as poor kids everywhere else.
Yeah, I read the fucking article. Those two statements not mutually exclusive, and in fact pretty much mean the same thing. Poor US kids and poor kids elsewhere get poor educations. What a surprise!
Education is not a magical panacea for poverty. Other factors (e.g. drug use, violence in the home, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, etc, etc, etc...) also contribute heavily towards a lack of educational achievement for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
This is not a problem that can be fixed in the schools alone, regardless of the amount of money we throw at education.
And I in no way said it was. Just that this is nurture, not nature. Which it sounds like you agree with.
And further, "education" != "schools". Education starts at home.
Are you basing that on the danger to the soldiers or not wanting to kill US citizens? If it's the former, that was my point, and if it's the latter, they still don't need assault rifles or even handguns to make themselves potential targets.
Either way, it's silly. There was this thing called the American Civil War that proved that theory wrong already.
And now you understand why most American cattle are corn fed (even through grass is their natural food, healthier for the cattle and tastes better for the beef consumer), soft drinks use high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, and fuel ethanol is based on corn instead of other significantly more efficient ethanol sources...
Unless other countries finally say fuck this and put tariffs on Chinese rare earths. I'm not a big fan of tariffs for protectionism, but punitive tariffs can be pretty useful.
The subsidy part could be compared, but not the destroying competition. No one else even WANTS to grow corn to compete - the subsidy is because of all the farmers who don't know how to do anything else, so they keep growing it when no one even wants it.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, NO, it wasn't accidentally introduced, and anyone who is interested could have easily known this - it's even in the Wikipedia article for CMV!
The promoter of the 35S RNA is a very strong constitutive promoter responsible for the transcription of the whole CaMV genome. It is well known for its use in plant transformation. It causes high levels of gene expression in dicot plants. However, it is less effective in monocots, especially in cereals. The differences in behavior are probably due to differences in quality and/or quantity of regulatory factors. The promoter was named CaMV 35S promoter ("35S promoter") because the coefficient of sedimentation of the viral transcript, whose expression is naturally driven by this promoter, is 35S. It is one of the most widely used, general-purpose constitutive promoters. It was discovered at the beginning of the 1980s, by Chua and collaborators at the Rockefeller University.
This study basically just "discovered" something that has already been the basis of much of the research and industry around gene insertion in plants for 30 years. Wow.
It's beyond that - a significant fraction of your DNA is fragments of virii. And a recombinant virus is the most common way of introducing new DNA for gene therapy.
And further, this article is idiotic. The Caulilflower mosaic viral promoter is the most common mechanism for inserting genes into GMO, so of COURSE it's going to be present, that's common knowledge to anyone in the field. Now whether it's healthy or not is a different issue..
I always wondered why people would even consider trusting this guy with anything. I mean regardless of whether he is guilty of the current charges against him, he's already been convicted for fraud, data theft, insider trading, and embezzlement in the past.
We'll see how the situation plays out, but you'd have to be pretty naive to be surprised if a two time convicted criminal ended up doing something illegal in his current venture...
It was a joke, see the book title.
Actually, requiring *your* textbook for *your* class and making students pay over $80 for it has always seemed a bit shady (but common) to me. I did have a couple of professors supply their book as bound lecture notes (which is how many of these textbooks begin) for about 1/5 of the textbook cost, though, so if you own the copyright you can make things more affordable to your students...
Almost unethical, even...
Well, first, I said house cat. Most domesticated house cats really rarely eat rats, etc. if they are indoors most of the time and you aren't starving them. And second, there is nothing wrong with occasional rats, mice, birds, or insects in their diet anyway, so it's irrelevant.
Oh come on. They didn't sell decrepit horses for high end human consumption anyway. That horse meat likely just went to zoos, which was a small fraction (10%?) of the production.
In general, horses are a horrible source of food in terms of input efficiency, since they put on a lot less weight per food consumed than any other meats like pork or beef. The entire US horse slaughtering industry was something like $50M a year before the last few plants closed down. That's in a $150B meat (pork,beef,chicken,etc) industry in the US. I'm not even really an opponent to horse meat on moral grounds or anything, but it's just not a big business.
Cats and dogs are domesticated animals that eat whatever humans feed them. Dogs raised for food (in Korea, for example) have a diet no worse (maybe better) than most cattle. And even the average family dog and house cat eat perfectly safe food that is not "concentrating" poisons.
Not that I am really interested in eating either of them, but let's not make excuses, the reason is purely psychological.
Not going to comment on your mental capacity, but you definitely didn't get the point of the OP's comment, which was objecting to eating animals that were beyond a certain level of intelligence.
A friend of mine had a rule that he "wouldn't eat animals smarter than his cat". Beef, chicken, lamb, and most seafood were ok, but pigs and oddly but probably correctly octopus were not. Then again that was until he married into a Chinese family and eventually gave up. (Is this vegetarian? Yes, yes, just vegetables. What's that? Oh, that's not meat, that pork is just for flavor...)
This one is even better so far, half of the comments are retarded trying to be serious.
Did you even READ my comment? LG Prada = "past failed device".
And it wasn't multitouch anyway, which was the key innovation that enabled apps like Google Maps, Safari for iOS, etc, and many of the popular iOS games. Probably more importantly, it couldn't even support those "killer" apps, since the *software* sucked ass based on Flash Lite, with no usable web browser or reasonable SDK for developing apps. And big surprise - no mobile platform will succeed from now on without a great developer kit and app store.
And "first with hype machine"? The first Android device wasn't released until about a *year and a half* after the iPhone, which had already exploded in sales by then.
"Vast marketing resources" is just a cop out excuse. Microsoft has vast marketing resources and how has that worked out for them lately?
...yep... or the original iPhone or iPad as full screen multitouch devices, a SUCCESSFUL ultralight notebood w/ SSD...
And no, we don't need example of past failed devices that implemented some of those features. The key word is ESTABLISHED, and in most of the past decade Apple has been the establisher and others the jumpers.
And seriously AC - Philips and Sony haven't done anything new in consumer electronics in years. In fact Philips doesn't even make TVs any more, they just license their name to Funai. And Sony hasn't made most of the parts in their TVs for years, they just buy panels from Samsung and Sharp.
Pretty soon they'll be setting up mines and factories, it will become as smoggy as Beijing, and everyone will have to wear masks to go outside.
You really need to get out more. This isn't the 19th Century.
Chinese workers are paid a lot less than in the US, sure, but it's more like $2 an hour, not $0.30 a day. Derp.
Except that when you really look at the long term, the west has been working less and less for basic needs.
True when you look at workers up to middle age, not so much after that.
If everyone worked until age 60 and then immediately kicked the bucket 30 hour weeks would probably be fine. But if you expect to retire at 65 and live until 85, "basic needs" really has to cover those 20 years of basic living expenses, plus the likely huge but now expected medical expenses required to actually keep you alive that long.
At this point the younger generations are going to be working extra hours for the older generations, because their contributions to social security and medicare aren't even coming close to covering their "basic needs".
In fact, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened already- it should be drop dead simple to automate a fast food restaurant.
Welcome to minimum wage. $7.25 an hour full time is about $14k a year. Who needs robots when you have wage slaves...
Education is not a magical panacea for poverty.
I forgot to add - not a panacea, but it sure does help. And probably *more* important is the reverse - fixing poverty would go a long way to improving a child's education, both at home and in school.
No, it means the US has rich kids receiving a good education, and poor kids receiving a poor education.
Hmm, the uncomfortable reality is that rich kids perform better even in same schools with same teachers. It's what happens at home that makes the difference, namely greater expectations from parents and a greater range of activities and experiences outside the school.
I agree. The important point there is "education" is not just something done in schools, it starts and ends at HOME and ultimately the parents are responsible, not the state. My point was it's much more about nurture than nature, it's about "uneducated", not "dumb".
No, if you RTFA, it means that rich kids in the US receive a good education, and poor kids in the US perform pretty much the same as poor kids everywhere else.
Yeah, I read the fucking article. Those two statements not mutually exclusive, and in fact pretty much mean the same thing. Poor US kids and poor kids elsewhere get poor educations. What a surprise!
Education is not a magical panacea for poverty. Other factors (e.g. drug use, violence in the home, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, etc, etc, etc...) also contribute heavily towards a lack of educational achievement for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
This is not a problem that can be fixed in the schools alone, regardless of the amount of money we throw at education.
And I in no way said it was. Just that this is nurture, not nature. Which it sounds like you agree with.
And further, "education" != "schools". Education starts at home.
"...who are in the lower socio-economic classes."
The 2nd period in "U.S." is part of the abbreviation, not the end of the sentence. I think it's you. ;)
This just means that the US has extremely rich kids, who are smart. And extremely poor kids, who are dumb.
No, it means the US has rich kids receiving a good education, and poor kids receiving a poor education.
Are you basing that on the danger to the soldiers or not wanting to kill US citizens? If it's the former, that was my point, and if it's the latter, they still don't need assault rifles or even handguns to make themselves potential targets.
Either way, it's silly. There was this thing called the American Civil War that proved that theory wrong already.
And now you understand why most American cattle are corn fed (even through grass is their natural food, healthier for the cattle and tastes better for the beef consumer), soft drinks use high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, and fuel ethanol is based on corn instead of other significantly more efficient ethanol sources...
Unless other countries finally say fuck this and put tariffs on Chinese rare earths. I'm not a big fan of tariffs for protectionism, but punitive tariffs can be pretty useful.
The subsidy part could be compared, but not the destroying competition. No one else even WANTS to grow corn to compete - the subsidy is because of all the farmers who don't know how to do anything else, so they keep growing it when no one even wants it.