Why doesn't dog two's immune system identify that there is a foreign body (a cell from dog one) and destroy it?
That being the mystery. There is something unusual about these cells. Another thing is that the normal immune can take place, but after a tumour has been allowed to develop over several months.
This is interesting because it's the actual tumor cells themselves that are being transmitted from one host to another. You can do that in the lab by injecting tumor cells from one mouse into another and letting a new tumor form, however I haven't seen examples of this occuring naturally and in those experiments the mice need to either be from the same genetic background or immunosuppressed SCID mice.
Mice bred for laboratory use specifically are intended to have minimal genetic diversity within a specific strain. Whereas this is not the case with domestic dogs as a species.
The way I understand it the current theory is that the liquids are precurser components and not complete explosives. they need to be mixed on the plane. and because they are not standard explosives the dogs/ sniffers do not pick up on them.
"Non standard expolsive" could easily equate to something difficult to manufacture (in a proper chemistry lab, never mind a plane). There is also the issue that for a sucessful attack you need to be able to manufacture enough explosive. Too small an explosion results in plenty of forensic evidence. (Whilst these terrorists might be prepared to blow themselves up are they prepared to face a planeload of angry passengers?)
Great idea. On that idea, why not also have those who believe in brain surgery be required to perform it? Doesn't matter if you are qualified or suited to participate in it right?
What's the minimum skill level required to get shot at in Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon? Alternativly if armies only took highly qualified people there wouldn't be too many wars.
My first questions were these: 1) Where any of the alleged terrorists actually booked on a flight? The earliest indication seems to be they were not, yet the plot was supposed to happen 'within days'.
Probably not a meaningful indicator. Many ordinary passengers do book flights at short notice. Especially at this time of year. It wouldn't be that hard for any terrorist to come up with a plausable reason for travelling at short notice.
I guess we will know soon enough, but at the moment, this is looking like a bigger version of the Miami Liberty 7; a bunch of clueless terrorist wannbes that couldn't tie their own shoes without having the undercover agents supplying the shoes, laces, and detailed instructions.
The worst case senario is where these agents give enough help to change fools into dangerous fools.
Just yesterday, the UK Home Secretary was in the news saying that "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term" to protect us from evil terrorists.
None of the news media appears to have realised that "modify" is not a synonym for "reduce". Nor do John Reid's freedoms appear to have been modified in the slightest.
How's about those who want the war go their and fight it. In the process sacrificing their freedoms and possibly lives then? There appear to be far too many people "cheerleading" conflict in Asia from North America and Europe.
The best counter-terrorism strategy would be to spend money on increasing the level of education and the standard of living in the areas where they are being recruited. The more people feel they have to lose, the less likely they are to become suicide bombers.
It might be more effective to find a way to ensure that even foiled terrorist plots hurt government. A big problem currently is that terrorism is often a net gain for government. e.g. increased budgets and powers for "intelligence" services. If you had something like government ministers and senior civil servants having to compensate victims of terrorism (including people such as Jean Charles de Menzes) from their own pockets, immediatly after losing their high paid jobs, effective anti-terrorism measures wouldn't be long in comming. It probably wouldn't hurt either if Tony Blair or John Reid were stuck for several hours at a crowded airport with only a plastic bag containing only their ID cards and tickets. Especially if other passengers were boarding their flights on time with hand luggage.
While it's true that our government had to do something in response to terrorist activity simply to appease the public, I don't know that this constitutes justification.
There are plenty of things which governments could do which would be a lot less disruptive (even not disruptive at all) to the public.
Especially when one considers the fact that many of these actions have, in fact, put us at greater risk than we were before.
This is only to be expected when you have "security" policy being set by politicans. Whereas doing something which actually improve security might well appear strange even counter productive to the average politican/reporter. e.g. supplying passengers and crew with guns to prevent hijackings.
Terrorists never seem to learn that blowing innocent people up is not the best way of getting people to see that your cause is just and fair. In fact, quite the opposite.
So what's to say that the "terrorists" arn't fully aware of this and lieing about what their "cause" (or even identity) is?
But, before, we were having bombings mainly from the IRA who would phone up beforehand, using a special keyword, and tell the police where the vicinity of the bomb was. They evidently wanted to destroy property and cause a panic, but not kill people.
This actually being a two part process the bomb cause the property destruction and the phone call cause the panic. If they are more interested in the former they don't bother to call until afterwards...
Now we're dealing with terrorists who want to kill themselves and as many others as possible. I think this warrants a change in policy, don't you?
At least part of the problem is that these "they" are somewhat shadowy figures with quite a bit of information on them coming from proven liers. There's also the issue that "want to kill themselves and as many others as possible" does not appear to be the case. It seems incredible that "Al Quaeda" could not find out when there were most people in the WTC...
In the case of the TSA rules these appear to apply to anyone boarding the plane. Thus it's possible that the next threat to commercial aviation in the US could be sunburned pilots.
If we were to adopt the same attitude towards "fear" and "terror", it would lower it's value to a point where the goals of the terrorist (to incite fear) cannot be achieved thru terror. Thus the terrorist ceases to exist.
Possibly the biggest irony is that an actual terrorist attack did take place in the UK this week, against multiple tragets too. Yet has been overshadowed by reports of this "plot". The Real IRA may now be wishing they had attacked Ryanair...
Anyone who is capable of constructing a useful carry-on explosive is capable of purchasing an R/C device for detonating the same explosive in the cargo hold, which is no less fatal.
Given the design of the typical airliner it's rather worst to have an explosion in the lower part compared with the upper part. A 737-200 most definitly will fly missing a third of it's upper fuselage. Whereas even less serious damage to the lower fuselage is likely to result in an inflight breakup.
First, congratulations to the Security Services for foiling this plot.
Assuming they actually have, especially considering previous "performance" . Might be best to wait until somebody has actually been charged, maybe even until a trial. (Assuming the Media and said "services" don't make it impossible for anyone accused to get a fair trial.)
If you deport them, they'll be free to try and come back again, or preach/instigate terror in their home countries. Instead, keep them locked up _until they die_ so they're forever unFree and unable to become martyrs.
As opposed to being "political prisoners" detained in a foreign jail. This is only a better option if the number of people you detain is greater than the number of their "family and friends". A person who held in prison may well make a better "martyr" than one who gets a stamp on their passport confirming that they are unwelcome in a country which they wern't welcome in in the first place.
And tobacco is tricky and expensive to grow, and it only grows well in a few places. MJ on the other hand grows like a weed in just about any temperate area,
It's even nicknamed "weed".
with no need for fertilizer or pesticide. Sounds like it would end up being very cheap.
With most agriculture a lot of effort (and hence cost) goes into ensuring that the desired plant isn't outcompeted by wild plants, known as weeds. One reason to plant crops in clearly defined rows is that it makes it easier to mechanically or chemically get rid of weeds. A crop with could itself outcompete weeds would be a highly desirable one....
I do, when you are hauling ass down the interstate in your 18-wheeler hopped up on meth and coke and you plow into a busload of kids or worse you plow into me. Drugs make people do crazy shit that can and could very well hurt others.
This truck driver could be a danger due to alcohol (or other legal drugs, including perscription medication), lack of sleep or even just because they arn't skilled enough to be driving the vehicle in the first place.
Not only that, but nobody has ever died from smoking too much pot.
I'm not sure if this is actually the case. Since smoking just about anything is hardly likely to do your lungs much good. Has anyone actually researched the dangers of smoking plant material which contains no alkaloids...
Alcohol is as much of a drug as any other drug. In fact, on the scale of drugs, it is probably one of the worst. It is absolutely lethal if you over dose, it is damaging to your body in low doses, it induces aggression in many people, and it destroys sound judgment.
It's also one of the few drugs which has been through the complete cycle of prohibition. Paracetamol is also rather a nasty drug which is freely available.
The only thing that keeps alcohol related deaths down compared to some drugs is that alcohol is made in a nice clean factory instead of some sketchy drug dealer's basement. If alcohol was made the same way illegal drugs are made (as it was during prohibition) you would find all the same problems that current illegal drug face in terms of purity and safety.
The other problem which goes with drug prohibition is that people involved in supply tend to be highly dangerous too.
As to how society would change, other then a dramatic drop in crime and massive budget surpluses from the resulting savings in law enforcement, nothing much would change. People would still take drugs to recreate, they just might throw in some other drugs into the mix besides alcohol and caffeine.
Actually quite a bit about the drugs themselves and the way they were used would change. Social distinctions between "use" and "abuse" would be likely to appear. You'd also see more dilute forms of the drugs themselves. When alcohol was illegal in the US the illegal forms tended to be spirits rather than beer or wine.
You would still get fired if you went to work, and alcoholics / drug addicts would still find themselves fucked when it comes to holding down a job.
Currently people can wind up being fired because of the result of a chemistry test even if they are perfectly capable of doing their jobs.
Prohibition has always been about control. Drug addicts are not productive workers and their allegience is with their drug supplier rather than their government.
Actually it's perfectly possible for drug users, even those who are clinically addicted, to be perfectly productive. Indeed there are millions of people addicted to perscription drugs around the world. With a drug's status as legal or illegal having little to do with their potential for addiction, side effects or toxiticy.
Well for one thing its quite difficult to design an explosive device that will kill hundreds of people from zero altitude. For the best results you need to have something like a claymore, that fires lots off large ball bearings in all directions, and even they are not, as a general rule, three dimensional devices, or even 360 degrees. In a packed stadium, the bodies closest to the blast will absorb most of the force of the blast, not unlike letting off a bomb underwater. A hopper, airburst explosive, will have by far the most casualties, and they are never small or easy to conceal.
They don't need to be small or easy of conceal. If you want to blow up a stadium your maximum size bomb is the size of the largest truck you can get hold of.
I would take a page from the Russians' books; if terrorists execute hostages, execute the families of these terrorists.
Just hope the terrorists don't steal your ID first...
1) The potential death count is in the hundreds, even if you don't manage to get control of the aircraft before setting off your bomb.
The potential death toll of a crowded train can be much greater.
There is VERY little possibility for people to escape the crashing aircraft once the bomb has been set off. In a stadium, people can just run like hell, all you get is the 25 or so people sitting within immediate range of your bomb.
If you stick the bomb in the crowd maybe, but what if you used explosives to collape a crowded building? Try getting multiple truck bombs into the cabin of an airliner too.
Planes crash and explode in a very scary and noisy fashion, unlike stadiums, which, if you're lucky, burn slowly.
Buildings can collapse in a very scary and noisy fashion. It's also rather easier to ensure that people can see this happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't dog two's immune system identify that there is a foreign body (a cell from dog one) and destroy it?
That being the mystery. There is something unusual about these cells. Another thing is that the normal immune can take place, but after a tumour has been allowed to develop over several months.
This is interesting because it's the actual tumor cells themselves that are being transmitted from one host to another. You can do that in the lab by injecting tumor cells from one mouse into another and letting a new tumor form, however I haven't seen examples of this occuring naturally and in those experiments the mice need to either be from the same genetic background or immunosuppressed SCID mice.
Mice bred for laboratory use specifically are intended to have minimal genetic diversity within a specific strain. Whereas this is not the case with domestic dogs as a species.
In general, it's healthy to distrust the government
Even when it is comprised entirely of honest patriots.
The way I understand it the current theory is that the liquids are precurser components and not complete explosives. they need to be mixed on the plane. and because they are not standard explosives the dogs/ sniffers do not pick up on them.
"Non standard expolsive" could easily equate to something difficult to manufacture (in a proper chemistry lab, never mind a plane). There is also the issue that for a sucessful attack you need to be able to manufacture enough explosive. Too small an explosion results in plenty of forensic evidence. (Whilst these terrorists might be prepared to blow themselves up are they prepared to face a planeload of angry passengers?)
Great idea. On that idea, why not also have those who believe in brain surgery be required to perform it? Doesn't matter if you are qualified or suited to participate in it right?
What's the minimum skill level required to get shot at in Afghanistan, Iraq or Lebanon? Alternativly if armies only took highly qualified people there wouldn't be too many wars.
My first questions were these: 1) Where any of the alleged terrorists actually booked on a flight? The earliest indication seems to be they were not, yet the plot was supposed to happen 'within days'.
Probably not a meaningful indicator. Many ordinary passengers do book flights at short notice. Especially at this time of year. It wouldn't be that hard for any terrorist to come up with a plausable reason for travelling at short notice.
I guess we will know soon enough, but at the moment, this is looking like a bigger version of the Miami Liberty 7; a bunch of clueless terrorist wannbes that couldn't tie their own shoes without having the undercover agents supplying the shoes, laces, and detailed instructions.
The worst case senario is where these agents give enough help to change fools into dangerous fools.
Just yesterday, the UK Home Secretary was in the news saying that "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term" to protect us from evil terrorists.
None of the news media appears to have realised that "modify" is not a synonym for "reduce". Nor do John Reid's freedoms appear to have been modified in the slightest.
In a war people must make sacrifices.
How's about those who want the war go their and fight it. In the process sacrificing their freedoms and possibly lives then? There appear to be far too many people "cheerleading" conflict in Asia from North America and Europe.
The best counter-terrorism strategy would be to spend money on increasing the level of education and the standard of living in the areas where they are being recruited. The more people feel they have to lose, the less likely they are to become suicide bombers.
It might be more effective to find a way to ensure that even foiled terrorist plots hurt government. A big problem currently is that terrorism is often a net gain for government. e.g. increased budgets and powers for "intelligence" services.
If you had something like government ministers and senior civil servants having to compensate victims of terrorism (including people such as Jean Charles de Menzes) from their own pockets, immediatly after losing their high paid jobs, effective anti-terrorism measures wouldn't be long in comming. It probably wouldn't hurt either if Tony Blair or John Reid were stuck for several hours at a crowded airport with only a plastic bag containing only their ID cards and tickets. Especially if other passengers were boarding their flights on time with hand luggage.
While it's true that our government had to do something in response to terrorist activity simply to appease the public, I don't know that this constitutes justification.
There are plenty of things which governments could do which would be a lot less disruptive (even not disruptive at all) to the public.
Especially when one considers the fact that many of these actions have, in fact, put us at greater risk than we were before.
This is only to be expected when you have "security" policy being set by politicans. Whereas doing something which actually improve security might well appear strange even counter productive to the average politican/reporter. e.g. supplying passengers and crew with guns to prevent hijackings.
Terrorists never seem to learn that blowing innocent people up is not the best way of getting people to see that your cause is just and fair. In fact, quite the opposite.
So what's to say that the "terrorists" arn't fully aware of this and lieing about what their "cause" (or even identity) is?
But, before, we were having bombings mainly from the IRA who would phone up beforehand, using a special keyword, and tell the police where the vicinity of the bomb was. They evidently wanted to destroy property and cause a panic, but not kill people.
This actually being a two part process the bomb cause the property destruction and the phone call cause the panic. If they are more interested in the former they don't bother to call until afterwards...
Now we're dealing with terrorists who want to kill themselves and as many others as possible. I think this warrants a change in policy, don't you?
At least part of the problem is that these "they" are somewhat shadowy figures with quite a bit of information on them coming from proven liers. There's also the issue that "want to kill themselves and as many others as possible" does not appear to be the case. It seems incredible that "Al Quaeda" could not find out when there were most people in the WTC...
No liquids or gels can be brought on board.
In the case of the TSA rules these appear to apply to anyone boarding the plane. Thus it's possible that the next threat to commercial aviation in the US could be sunburned pilots.
If we were to adopt the same attitude towards "fear" and "terror", it would lower it's value to a point where the goals of the terrorist (to incite fear) cannot be achieved thru terror. Thus the terrorist ceases to exist.
Possibly the biggest irony is that an actual terrorist attack did take place in the UK this week, against multiple tragets too. Yet has been overshadowed by reports of this "plot". The Real IRA may now be wishing they had attacked Ryanair...
Anyone who is capable of constructing a useful carry-on explosive is capable of purchasing an R/C device for detonating the same explosive in the cargo hold, which is no less fatal.
Given the design of the typical airliner it's rather worst to have an explosion in the lower part compared with the upper part. A 737-200 most definitly will fly missing a third of it's upper fuselage. Whereas even less serious damage to the lower fuselage is likely to result in an inflight breakup.
First, congratulations to the Security Services for foiling this plot.
Assuming they actually have, especially considering previous "performance" . Might be best to wait until somebody has actually been charged, maybe even until a trial. (Assuming the Media and said "services" don't make it impossible for anyone accused to get a fair trial.)
If you deport them, they'll be free to try and come back again, or preach/instigate terror in their home countries. Instead, keep them locked up _until they die_ so they're forever unFree and unable to become martyrs.
As opposed to being "political prisoners" detained in a foreign jail. This is only a better option if the number of people you detain is greater than the number of their "family and friends".
A person who held in prison may well make a better "martyr" than one who gets a stamp on their passport confirming that they are unwelcome in a country which they wern't welcome in in the first place.
And tobacco is tricky and expensive to grow, and it only grows well in a few places. MJ on the other hand grows like a weed in just about any temperate area,
It's even nicknamed "weed".
with no need for fertilizer or pesticide. Sounds like it would end up being very cheap.
With most agriculture a lot of effort (and hence cost) goes into ensuring that the desired plant isn't outcompeted by wild plants, known as weeds. One reason to plant crops in clearly defined rows is that it makes it easier to mechanically or chemically get rid of weeds. A crop with could itself outcompete weeds would be a highly desirable one....
I do, when you are hauling ass down the interstate in your 18-wheeler hopped up on meth and coke and you plow into a busload of kids or worse you plow into me. Drugs make people do crazy shit that can and could very well hurt others.
This truck driver could be a danger due to alcohol (or other legal drugs, including perscription medication), lack of sleep or even just because they arn't skilled enough to be driving the vehicle in the first place.
Not only that, but nobody has ever died from smoking too much pot.
I'm not sure if this is actually the case. Since smoking just about anything is hardly likely to do your lungs much good.
Has anyone actually researched the dangers of smoking plant material which contains no alkaloids...
Alcohol is as much of a drug as any other drug. In fact, on the scale of drugs, it is probably one of the worst. It is absolutely lethal if you over dose, it is damaging to your body in low doses, it induces aggression in many people, and it destroys sound judgment.
It's also one of the few drugs which has been through the complete cycle of prohibition. Paracetamol is also rather a nasty drug which is freely available.
The only thing that keeps alcohol related deaths down compared to some drugs is that alcohol is made in a nice clean factory instead of some sketchy drug dealer's basement. If alcohol was made the same way illegal drugs are made (as it was during prohibition) you would find all the same problems that current illegal drug face in terms of purity and safety.
The other problem which goes with drug prohibition is that people involved in supply tend to be highly dangerous too.
As to how society would change, other then a dramatic drop in crime and massive budget surpluses from the resulting savings in law enforcement, nothing much would change. People would still take drugs to recreate, they just might throw in some other drugs into the mix besides alcohol and caffeine.
Actually quite a bit about the drugs themselves and the way they were used would change. Social distinctions between "use" and "abuse" would be likely to appear. You'd also see more dilute forms of the drugs themselves. When alcohol was illegal in the US the illegal forms tended to be spirits rather than beer or wine.
You would still get fired if you went to work, and alcoholics / drug addicts would still find themselves fucked when it comes to holding down a job.
Currently people can wind up being fired because of the result of a chemistry test even if they are perfectly capable of doing their jobs.
Prohibition has always been about control. Drug addicts are not productive workers and their allegience is with their drug supplier rather than their government.
Actually it's perfectly possible for drug users, even those who are clinically addicted, to be perfectly productive. Indeed there are millions of people addicted to perscription drugs around the world. With a drug's status as legal or illegal having little to do with their potential for addiction, side effects or toxiticy.
Ask any judge if they would have a job if drugs were legal. Odds are, they will say no.
In which case you could probably promote ending prohibition as a method to cut crime...
Well for one thing its quite difficult to design an explosive device that will kill hundreds of people from zero altitude. For the best results you need to have something like a claymore, that fires lots off large ball bearings in all directions, and even they are not, as a general rule, three dimensional devices, or even 360 degrees. In a packed stadium, the bodies closest to the blast will absorb most of the force of the blast, not unlike letting off a bomb underwater. A hopper, airburst explosive, will have by far the most casualties, and they are never small or easy to conceal.
They don't need to be small or easy of conceal. If you want to blow up a stadium your maximum size bomb is the size of the largest truck you can get hold of.
I would take a page from the Russians' books; if terrorists execute hostages, execute the families of these terrorists.
Just hope the terrorists don't steal your ID first...
1) The potential death count is in the hundreds, even if you don't manage to get control of the aircraft before setting off your bomb.
The potential death toll of a crowded train can be much greater.
There is VERY little possibility for people to escape the crashing aircraft once the bomb has been set off. In a stadium, people can just run like hell, all you get is the 25 or so people sitting within immediate range of your bomb.
If you stick the bomb in the crowd maybe, but what if you used explosives to collape a crowded building? Try getting multiple truck bombs into the cabin of an airliner too.
Planes crash and explode in a very scary and noisy fashion, unlike stadiums, which, if you're lucky, burn slowly.
Buildings can collapse in a very scary and noisy fashion. It's also rather easier to ensure that people can see this happen.