It's called a removable battery and virtually all cellphones have one. You drive into a poor signal zone and pop it out, then change direction and head to your destination.
since when does any of that info have to be truthful? With all the signups I do, I've probably singlehandedly increased the number of 97-year-old Albanian midgets making $200K by 300% in the last 6 months.
Thanks, it's nice to actually be able to read and evaluate all the hype, even though it was published in such a highly respected scientific journal like Wired.
At any rate, after having skimmed the J Virol paper, essentially what they did was plug in a bunch of numbers to a mathematical model and predict that if someone were to invent some sort of parasitic anti-HIV virus (they didn't actually do it themselves) and if they were to engineer its promoters and regulation in thus-and-such a way as to theoretically make certain levels of certain gene products at certain time points, then the infection may indeed be induced to latency. Oh, and by the way the whole thing could recombine or be inactivated entirely, never mind the unknown super-infection effects, even though they conveniently write them off.
Now you may be able to see my bias as an experimentalist, but this seems to be a bunch of hand-waving and pontification. While there can be relevant mathematical models for well-understood biochemical processes such as protein folding and enzymatic activity, interactions within and between cells and systems are notoriously variable. That being said, no one has come up with a viable "anti-virus" for the HIV system yet.
Viral capsids (the protein coats that contain the genetic material) have size limits for many types of viruses, and as such can't hold unlimited amounts of DNA/RNA.
They are generally located near population centers because that's where the research is being performed - at universities, pharm/biotech companies, and other organizations. It's hard enough to attract top-notch talent to one of these places without having it be in the middle of nowhere. There was a very interesting article in The Scientist last month about working in one of these places. Not so much fun as you'd think.
Just one scientific nitpick: antrax is caused by Bacillus anthracis, a bacterium, not a virus. The organisms that cause SARS, Ebola fever, smallpox, and various other bioweapons-related diseases are viruses.
As an added aside to the rest of your comment, live complete organisms are by no means required for every facet of preventative/palliative research such as vaccine development. Plenty of great discoveries have been made using crippled viruses, model organisms, expression vectors, cell culture, transgenic animals, recombinant proteins, etc. etc. I can learn a great deal about the primary anthrax toxins by studying/manipulating the DNA and purified proteins without ever having to culture the bug in the lab. I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm also a scientist (microbiology/immunology) and have slightly more experience with these sorts of things than you appear to. You might want to get your facts straight before spouting off.
There are very few places in the world that are truly silent, but I could imagine that the Chernobyl area is one of them.
Try the Sahara, too. No plants to move in the wind, no planes if you're away from air routes, no cars, no bugs, just sand, rock, and silence. And, unlike Chernobyl, no radiation.
The same thing can happen at an eye doctor examining you with a slit scope (I don't know the technical name for it). As near as I can figure out, the reflected light from the back of your eyeball bounces off the lens/cornea/whatever and back into your retina. It's kind of neat to see, until the bright light goes directly over the retina and you see floaters for the next hour.
It's not like Bud is handing over your drinking habits to the US gov't,
Wanna take bets on that? And would you like to take the same bet five years from now?
If they really wanted to know, a quick glance inside my recycle bin in the alley behind my house would give a much better idea than trying to track my spending (cash, credit, debit) at various restaurants, pubs, wine and spirits shoppes (I live in PA), and beer stores (again, PA).
This is true to an extent, but often in cases like this where the therapy being tested isn't widely available yet, the doctor may not be able to get a supply if not already a part of the study.
not to mention woodworkers do a lot of their work under the table.
So to speak. Although laying on your back and getting sawdust in your eyes gets old after a while, so I usually flip the thing over. Sanding goes much faster that way.
. . this would clearly be discriminatory against people missing their left legg. But that doesn't mean that I am some how liable financially or legally!
Actually, you are (if residing in the US). You might want to check out the Americans with Disabilities Act and see what's required for "Public Services," a category into which most businesses fall.
okay, perhaps that was a bad example. Another, better one might be Mus musculus, the common house mouse, and Mus spretus, the western wild mouse. They can interbreed, but produce sterile offspring, similar to horse + donkey = mule. They look similar, but are different enough genetically that they are often used to track markers in quantitative trait analysis (narrowing disease susceptibilities to chromosomal locations and eventually genes).
Google for phylogeny, or just check out this page for a relatively good introduction. Comparative geneticists use sequence comparisons between species to determine relative evolutionary separation, much like the subject of the article. We haven't gotten rid of the kingdom-phylum-order-class-family-genus-species thing yet, but we're working on it.
The genera diverged thousands of years ago when domestication and breeding began. They share many of the same genes, but are not genetically identical. A good but not perfect analogy is between humans and mice. Similar, but not identical genes.
I'm a graduate student (PhD) working in a molecular biology/immunology lab, and have quite a bit of experience in euthanasia. For most research, rodents are euthanized via anaesthesia, basically going to sleep and never waking up. However, anaesthesia can interfere with the immune system, nervous system, and other vital areas. If one of them happens to be your area of study (immunology for me), the prefered method is cervical dislocation. You take the mouse out of its cage (holding it by its tail) and put it on top. It will automatically grab onto the wire bars with its front paws. Before it knows what's going on, put a pair of scissors/forceps/anything handy immediately behind its skull, press down, and pull firmly on the tail with your other hand until you feel a pop. The spine has been dislocated from the base of the brain and the little guy/gal is gone, without feeling a thing.
DNA, maybe. DNA is fairly good at reproducing without errors. RNA, on the other hand, isn't that good with errors, but is much quicker. (Ask any virus.)
DNA and RNA don't replicate themselves, they need the help of enzymes called polymerases. These biological machines unwind the template DNA or RNA strand and create a complementary copy (A pairs with T, G with C). Along with the template reading and synthesis domains, there is also a proofreading domain, checking to ensure that the right match has been made. However, the more stringent the proofreading, the slower the synthesis. Many viruses (which can have DNA or RNA as their base genetic material) want to replicate quickly, so their polymerase has diminished proofreading capability. HIV is an example of this, and consequently mutates quite frequently as a result of mismatches, deletions, insertions, etc. On the other hand, there are polymerases that are very very stringent with proofreading, and therefore have a very low mismatch (mutation) rate. This is independent of the nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) used as the template. The impression that RNA has a higher mismatch rate possibly comes from the fact that RNAs such as messenger RNA is transient in the cell (half-life of seconds to minutes) while DNA is around much longer (days to years).
My thought is this: as soon as the process becomes complex, errors introduced into each cell could produce vastly different results. And the debug process would be tortuous. There'd be no guarantee that a single mutation couldn't bring down the whole system.
The nice thing about working with bacterial systems is that the numbers of individual bacteria is quite high. A milliliter of liquid culture could have 10^7 or more organisms in it. A single mutation in one organism would be drowned out by the rest of the crowd, especially if it led to a lethal condition and was deleted by selective pressure. On the other hand, this also allows for beneficial mutations which increase survival rates to eventually take over (or at least coexist with) the original version.
Now, just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'd like to know exactly why this is a good idea, or why this is not a good idea. From a privacy point of view, we're already tracked by credit card purchases, website cookies, university ID card/swipe in systems, automatic road toll devices, grocery store club cards, and many other technologies. Now, I know that all of these are more or less voluntary, and if you really valued your privacy above all conveniences, you could live without them. However, for the rest of us that aren't that dedicated, how is this so bad? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just want to gauge reactions. Comments?
Seeing as the previous admin had been relieved of his duties for using our systems against the Treasury Dept and the IRS (there were FBI agents hanging around during my interview), this was the first item on my list of things to do. And yes, I backed it up and removed a few trojans from the system first.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called a removable battery and virtually all cellphones have one. You drive into a poor signal zone and pop it out, then change direction and head to your destination.
I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod!
J. Craig Venter himself, apparently.
You mean like CNN?
since when does any of that info have to be truthful? With all the signups I do, I've probably singlehandedly increased the number of 97-year-old Albanian midgets making $200K by 300% in the last 6 months.
Luckily here at Penn State (at least College of Medicine) we still do real experiments, and yes, they do involve genetically modified viruses :)
At any rate, after having skimmed the J Virol paper, essentially what they did was plug in a bunch of numbers to a mathematical model and predict that if someone were to invent some sort of parasitic anti-HIV virus (they didn't actually do it themselves) and if they were to engineer its promoters and regulation in thus-and-such a way as to theoretically make certain levels of certain gene products at certain time points, then the infection may indeed be induced to latency. Oh, and by the way the whole thing could recombine or be inactivated entirely, never mind the unknown super-infection effects, even though they conveniently write them off.
Now you may be able to see my bias as an experimentalist, but this seems to be a bunch of hand-waving and pontification. While there can be relevant mathematical models for well-understood biochemical processes such as protein folding and enzymatic activity, interactions within and between cells and systems are notoriously variable. That being said, no one has come up with a viable "anti-virus" for the HIV system yet.
Viral capsids (the protein coats that contain the genetic material) have size limits for many types of viruses, and as such can't hold unlimited amounts of DNA/RNA.
They are generally located near population centers because that's where the research is being performed - at universities, pharm/biotech companies, and other organizations. It's hard enough to attract top-notch talent to one of these places without having it be in the middle of nowhere. There was a very interesting article in The Scientist last month about working in one of these places. Not so much fun as you'd think.
As an added aside to the rest of your comment, live complete organisms are by no means required for every facet of preventative/palliative research such as vaccine development. Plenty of great discoveries have been made using crippled viruses, model organisms, expression vectors, cell culture, transgenic animals, recombinant proteins, etc. etc. I can learn a great deal about the primary anthrax toxins by studying/manipulating the DNA and purified proteins without ever having to culture the bug in the lab. I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm also a scientist (microbiology/immunology) and have slightly more experience with these sorts of things than you appear to. You might want to get your facts straight before spouting off.
The same thing can happen at an eye doctor examining you with a slit scope (I don't know the technical name for it). As near as I can figure out, the reflected light from the back of your eyeball bounces off the lens/cornea/whatever and back into your retina. It's kind of neat to see, until the bright light goes directly over the retina and you see floaters for the next hour.
Wanna take bets on that? And would you like to take the same bet five years from now?
If they really wanted to know, a quick glance inside my recycle bin in the alley behind my house would give a much better idea than trying to track my spending (cash, credit, debit) at various restaurants, pubs, wine and spirits shoppes (I live in PA), and beer stores (again, PA).
Now I'm really glad I invested in that heavy-duty tinfoil hat instead of the cheap one. No EMP-brainscans for me!
This is true to an extent, but often in cases like this where the therapy being tested isn't widely available yet, the doctor may not be able to get a supply if not already a part of the study.
So to speak. Although laying on your back and getting sawdust in your eyes gets old after a while, so I usually flip the thing over. Sanding goes much faster that way.
Actually, you are (if residing in the US). You might want to check out the Americans with Disabilities Act and see what's required for "Public Services," a category into which most businesses fall.
As for the dog and wolf thing, my mistake.
Good explanation here.
Google for phylogeny, or just check out this page for a relatively good introduction. Comparative geneticists use sequence comparisons between species to determine relative evolutionary separation, much like the subject of the article. We haven't gotten rid of the kingdom-phylum-order-class-family-genus-species thing yet, but we're working on it.
dog = Canis familiaris
The genera diverged thousands of years ago when domestication and breeding began. They share many of the same genes, but are not genetically identical. A good but not perfect analogy is between humans and mice. Similar, but not identical genes.
I'm a graduate student (PhD) working in a molecular biology/immunology lab, and have quite a bit of experience in euthanasia. For most research, rodents are euthanized via anaesthesia, basically going to sleep and never waking up. However, anaesthesia can interfere with the immune system, nervous system, and other vital areas. If one of them happens to be your area of study (immunology for me), the prefered method is cervical dislocation. You take the mouse out of its cage (holding it by its tail) and put it on top. It will automatically grab onto the wire bars with its front paws. Before it knows what's going on, put a pair of scissors/forceps/anything handy immediately behind its skull, press down, and pull firmly on the tail with your other hand until you feel a pop. The spine has been dislocated from the base of the brain and the little guy/gal is gone, without feeling a thing.
DNA and RNA don't replicate themselves, they need the help of enzymes called polymerases. These biological machines unwind the template DNA or RNA strand and create a complementary copy (A pairs with T, G with C). Along with the template reading and synthesis domains, there is also a proofreading domain, checking to ensure that the right match has been made. However, the more stringent the proofreading, the slower the synthesis. Many viruses (which can have DNA or RNA as their base genetic material) want to replicate quickly, so their polymerase has diminished proofreading capability. HIV is an example of this, and consequently mutates quite frequently as a result of mismatches, deletions, insertions, etc. On the other hand, there are polymerases that are very very stringent with proofreading, and therefore have a very low mismatch (mutation) rate. This is independent of the nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) used as the template. The impression that RNA has a higher mismatch rate possibly comes from the fact that RNAs such as messenger RNA is transient in the cell (half-life of seconds to minutes) while DNA is around much longer (days to years).
My thought is this: as soon as the process becomes complex, errors introduced into each cell could produce vastly different results. And the debug process would be tortuous. There'd be no guarantee that a single mutation couldn't bring down the whole system.
The nice thing about working with bacterial systems is that the numbers of individual bacteria is quite high. A milliliter of liquid culture could have 10^7 or more organisms in it. A single mutation in one organism would be drowned out by the rest of the crowd, especially if it led to a lethal condition and was deleted by selective pressure. On the other hand, this also allows for beneficial mutations which increase survival rates to eventually take over (or at least coexist with) the original version.
This has to be one of the least coherent posts I've ever read on this site. Congratulations, whoever you are! That must have taken some effort!
Now, just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I'd like to know exactly why this is a good idea, or why this is not a good idea. From a privacy point of view, we're already tracked by credit card purchases, website cookies, university ID card/swipe in systems, automatic road toll devices, grocery store club cards, and many other technologies. Now, I know that all of these are more or less voluntary, and if you really valued your privacy above all conveniences, you could live without them. However, for the rest of us that aren't that dedicated, how is this so bad? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just want to gauge reactions. Comments?
Seeing as the previous admin had been relieved of his duties for using our systems against the Treasury Dept and the IRS (there were FBI agents hanging around during my interview), this was the first item on my list of things to do. And yes, I backed it up and removed a few trojans from the system first.