Agreed. As I recall one of the potential attack vectors against most cancers is the fact that energy production moves from the mitochondria to the cytoplasm.
Sort of. Most cancers use their mitochondria less, because there's often not enough oxygen around, but they do still use their mitochondria some.
So it would seem at least naively obvious that even human cells have the genetic capacity to survive without mitochondria (assuming they serve no other essential function), that other eukaryotes can do so as well should be no surprise.
Actually, it is kind of a big surprise; sugars are (in general) broken down through one of two pathways, one of which involves mitochondria. That pathway is much more efficient (it produces more than an order of magnitude more usable chemical energy, in fact). The main reason cancer cells survive is that they can feed off the extra sugars in our bloodstream. If all of our cells started doing that, we'd die quickly. That is, in fact, the primary reason we need oxygen to survive - the mitochondrial pathway requires oxygen. These new microbes apparently acquired a way of emulating mitochondria, but that has never been seen before, and is pretty neat.
Of course markets are made up of people, but to say that any regulation on people is also regulation on the market is asinine. Laws prohibiting hate speech do not affect the market for teddy bears. Laws regulating one market may not even affect other markets; saying that golf courses must trim their grass to certain heights, for instance, probably has negligible effects on drug prices.
I'm not sure what you're asking with the second question.
Well, depending on how you achieve that market, it could - but generally, market transactions are supposed to be voluntary, and you could have an unregulated market while still having a government that prohibits assault or threats to commit assault. An unregulated market doesn't have to exist in an anarchy.
Not in the classical sense. More recently, some people use it to mean a market that has no restrictions, but that wasn't what the term was intended to mean.
I'm not sure that actually counts still; generally one wouldn't count violence or threats of violence as being part of any market, and it's hardly a voluntary transaction.
No, it's not a price control. It influences prices, but does not set them directly. Businesses don't have to change prices when new regulations are introduced, although they often do.
This garbage got +4? Really? Most oil companies don't do all of the above steps - most refineries aren't the same company as the people who pump it out of the ground. And all of those steps cost quite a bit. Furthermore, it seems like with $0.59 per gallon, American roads and bridges should be in a much better state than they are.
Ah yes, the "war for oil" claim again. Tell me, do you know how much of Iraq's oil actually went to the US? Because it's pretty much none of it. Most oil companies operating in Iraq aren't even American companies.
Classically, the term "free market" meant that sellers could set their prices, not that there was no government intervention - that is, a market free from price controls, but not necessarily free from regulation.
A Pigouvian solution has worked pretty well at reducing carbon emissions in British Columbia. I think you have to be careful about how you implement it, but it's probably the best way I've heard.
Also, the poor in most of Latin America are significantly worse off than those in America. The poor in Europe are sometimes better off, although it really depends on the country, and on what you consider "poor".
I mean, I don't know how the GOP convention works precisely, but I think they have the ability to disregard to primary results and pick someone else if they really want to. I doubt they're going to choose "none of the above" for their candidate.
By bombarding Seoul with the large amount of artillery they have? Seoul is actually close enough to the border, and NK has artillery deployed right up against the DMZ, that they could kill a lot of South Koreans pretty quickly.
You know what's interesting? The US subsidizes drug costs for the rest of the world. Because Americans (and the US Medicare/Medicaid systems) cannot negotiate for drug prices, they end up paying much more for drugs, and that is largely what funds R&D. They make money selling in most countries they operate in, but only if you don't include R&D costs - production is often relatively cheap. Allowing the US to negotiate prices would either stifle pharma R&D or cause prices in other countries to rise.
If you're aiming for the "financial impact" argument... Are the people who get killed by not looking up before crossing the street really going to be a net positive, financially speaking, for society? Although I suppose you could argue that in countries with universal health care, it might be more expensive to treat the people who are hit but not killed.
Isn't it a conspiracy either way? Either the government is working to lower standards so companies have an easier time of it (conspiracy) or Greenpeace made things up to hurt public support (also a conspiracy). I'm more inclined to believe the first is true, but it wouldn't surprise me if Greenpeace is lying; they aren't always the most trustworthy organization.
Emigrates to where? Many European countries make it hard to Americans to stay there on a semi-permanent basis (and there's usually a language barrier), Canada doesn't want that many more people, and most other countries have those or larger barriers.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It has a nucleus and is therefore a eukaryote.
Agreed. As I recall one of the potential attack vectors against most cancers is the fact that energy production moves from the mitochondria to the cytoplasm.
Sort of. Most cancers use their mitochondria less, because there's often not enough oxygen around, but they do still use their mitochondria some.
So it would seem at least naively obvious that even human cells have the genetic capacity to survive without mitochondria (assuming they serve no other essential function), that other eukaryotes can do so as well should be no surprise.
Actually, it is kind of a big surprise; sugars are (in general) broken down through one of two pathways, one of which involves mitochondria. That pathway is much more efficient (it produces more than an order of magnitude more usable chemical energy, in fact). The main reason cancer cells survive is that they can feed off the extra sugars in our bloodstream. If all of our cells started doing that, we'd die quickly. That is, in fact, the primary reason we need oxygen to survive - the mitochondrial pathway requires oxygen. These new microbes apparently acquired a way of emulating mitochondria, but that has never been seen before, and is pretty neat.
Of course markets are made up of people, but to say that any regulation on people is also regulation on the market is asinine. Laws prohibiting hate speech do not affect the market for teddy bears. Laws regulating one market may not even affect other markets; saying that golf courses must trim their grass to certain heights, for instance, probably has negligible effects on drug prices.
I'm not sure what you're asking with the second question.
It's a regulation on the people, not on the market.
Well, depending on how you achieve that market, it could - but generally, market transactions are supposed to be voluntary, and you could have an unregulated market while still having a government that prohibits assault or threats to commit assault. An unregulated market doesn't have to exist in an anarchy.
Not in the classical sense. More recently, some people use it to mean a market that has no restrictions, but that wasn't what the term was intended to mean.
I'm not sure that actually counts still; generally one wouldn't count violence or threats of violence as being part of any market, and it's hardly a voluntary transaction.
No, it's not a price control. It influences prices, but does not set them directly. Businesses don't have to change prices when new regulations are introduced, although they often do.
This garbage got +4? Really? Most oil companies don't do all of the above steps - most refineries aren't the same company as the people who pump it out of the ground. And all of those steps cost quite a bit. Furthermore, it seems like with $0.59 per gallon, American roads and bridges should be in a much better state than they are.
Ah yes, the "war for oil" claim again. Tell me, do you know how much of Iraq's oil actually went to the US? Because it's pretty much none of it. Most oil companies operating in Iraq aren't even American companies.
Classically, the term "free market" meant that sellers could set their prices, not that there was no government intervention - that is, a market free from price controls, but not necessarily free from regulation.
A Pigouvian solution has worked pretty well at reducing carbon emissions in British Columbia. I think you have to be careful about how you implement it, but it's probably the best way I've heard.
Why'd you bring Canada into this?
Also, the poor in most of Latin America are significantly worse off than those in America. The poor in Europe are sometimes better off, although it really depends on the country, and on what you consider "poor".
They could pull a fast one on everybody and try to get Bush Sr. his second term.
I mean, I don't know how the GOP convention works precisely, but I think they have the ability to disregard to primary results and pick someone else if they really want to. I doubt they're going to choose "none of the above" for their candidate.
How many tiddies would one expect an anime character to have?
I'd be more familiar with it if she had ever finished what she said she'd do...
That's no more accurate than the statement you replied to.
By bombarding Seoul with the large amount of artillery they have? Seoul is actually close enough to the border, and NK has artillery deployed right up against the DMZ, that they could kill a lot of South Koreans pretty quickly.
You know what's interesting? The US subsidizes drug costs for the rest of the world. Because Americans (and the US Medicare/Medicaid systems) cannot negotiate for drug prices, they end up paying much more for drugs, and that is largely what funds R&D. They make money selling in most countries they operate in, but only if you don't include R&D costs - production is often relatively cheap. Allowing the US to negotiate prices would either stifle pharma R&D or cause prices in other countries to rise.
You wanna back up your assertions? Kind of funny how you want citations for what other people say but provide none yourself.
Well, that really depends on how this compares to the medical error rates in other countries, doesn't it?
I think you have some rose-tinted glasses there, bud.
If you're aiming for the "financial impact" argument... Are the people who get killed by not looking up before crossing the street really going to be a net positive, financially speaking, for society? Although I suppose you could argue that in countries with universal health care, it might be more expensive to treat the people who are hit but not killed.
Isn't it a conspiracy either way? Either the government is working to lower standards so companies have an easier time of it (conspiracy) or Greenpeace made things up to hurt public support (also a conspiracy). I'm more inclined to believe the first is true, but it wouldn't surprise me if Greenpeace is lying; they aren't always the most trustworthy organization.
Emigrates to where? Many European countries make it hard to Americans to stay there on a semi-permanent basis (and there's usually a language barrier), Canada doesn't want that many more people, and most other countries have those or larger barriers.