It's evolution, my friends. Organisms have specialized to compete in their own biological niches and developed the best tools available to do so, at the cost of performing well in alternative environments. Any organism introduced from such a foreign environment as I've mentioned, even if it could survive our human environment, it would be horrifically outcompeted by the existing organisms in our ecosystem and die handily.
Tersely put, you're not as bright as you think you are. Many foreignly introduced species do quite well in new environment for the mere fact that they have no natural predators. Here in Michigan someone decided it would be a good idea to introduce japanese beetles to kill an insect that was destroying crops. Well...ok, it worked a little too well. Now our fall season is marked by a ridiculous number of ladies bugs getting in any crack or crevice you can imagine. They're everywhere. Now this is just an annoyance, but there have been similar non-native species introduced that destroy other species.
Also, as previously mentioned, species like Deinococcus radiodurans thrives in harsh conditions but also squeaks along under normal life conditions. There are many species whose spores can survive in non-optimal conditions and only start to grow when they are presented with those conditions that are conducive for life.
This is more of a threat than many people are playing it off as. Additionally, our sending ships there is a threat to any possible native species in Mars. Oh, and this also had nothing to do with evolution. I don't know why you threw that in there except as a buzz word.
I was curious too (and fall into one of the Kerry groups even though I voted Libertarian). CNN agrees with grandparent post:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta tes/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Enjoy.
private institutions? none of their damn business.
As far as I know there are only two or three private colleges that do not accept federal funding (Hillsdale College in Michigan, Grove City College in Pennsylvania, and Patrick Henry College in Virginia). I graduated from Hillsdale in 2002 and so this fact falls close to home, but you can seetheseothersources for verification.
This brings us back on topic, should the federal government be able to keep tabs on its investment? Maybe the better question is should the federal government be funding (read controlling) nearly all of the higher education in the nation? Seeing as only 3 colleges are run without federal money, which I would like to find anyone who gets funding without strings attached.
Well, you may have passed your high school biology class (and I stress may) but you certainly haven't followed that through with upper level classes.
Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...
Technically, no they couldn't. The sperm-egg recognition factors (proteins that stick out of the egg) have specific receptors on the sperm. Most animals will not recognize the receptor-ligand interaction of other animals. Additionally, the egg secretes molecules that the sperm uses to find the egg and these are also not conserved between species.
Additionally, I'll let the other posters explain to you the many many differences that separate humans from animals. Sorry bud, but you're way off on this argument. There's a lot more to life than biology when it comes to distinguising animals and humans. Not my field though...biochemistry is.
This needs to be said at the top of this thread because noone reads the articles:
Source - Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.
Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touchscreen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.
Well, first of all Microsoft doesn't make a browser. They make an OS named "Windows" one of its features is an icon called "Internet Explorer." That feature isn't free, you have to fork over cold, hard cash for a Windows license.
I guess this doesn't exist then. As far as I can tell it's a free browser available from Microsoft.
Not that I use it...but it's available and free. I just like saying "you're wrong".
http://karlammann.com/bondo.html
They printed the phylogenetic tree as well as wrote up the findings. I lazily skimmed the text but the phylogenetic tree makes it look not that exciting. A new subspecies but not very diverse from other known species.
Enjoy~
Well, that's kind of amusing...but you're missing the point. This is not 'digestion' breakdown of proteins. The "Kiss of Death" is a regulated process by which a Ubiquitin molecule is attached specifically to proteins that need to be degraded. This Ubiquitin label is recognized by the Proteasome, a big enzyme that just degrades proteins, and good bye protein.
Microsoft reiterated that they are not backing away from their original assertion that the device has the "feel and the look of an iPod"
I know it's asking way too much to read the article, and even the teaser has it wrong. What Microsoft has said is: "I've spent time with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service that will look and feel as good as the iPod product."
Looking and feeling as good is a lot different then having the look and feel of an iPod. That negates all of the patent issues that everyone is complaining about.
Yes, but...Video doesn't have to be motion. How many people carry along photos in their wallets? How many people have photos up at work? This could be really cool especially if it could attach to a compact flash drive and dump them onto a hard drive. I know the iPod can do it with a big bulky attachment...but even then you can't see them.
IrfanView is ok...but you'll have to pry the ACDSee v 3.0 CD from my cold dead hands. Their newer versions are crap but 3.0 is the best image viewer I have seen. Since moving to my PowerBook I use iView MediaPro. It's alright, but not nearly as nice/simple/quick as ACDSee 3.0. That's the only thing I miss...
I'm not sure what kind of scientific people you know, but I can tell you that's certainly not the overwhelming majority. I work in a biochem lab at University of Michigan. A very strong majority (~60%) of the people I interact with are christian. This is a decent population size too, probably a good 100-200 people. And my estimate is very conservative.
Additionally, I completely disagree with your assertion: You seem to be implying that people are free to choose their faith and that scientists chose athiesm for convenience. It's the other way around. I'll agree it's more difficult to accept things you can not scientifically prove if you have a scientific background, but our culture dictates the disparity between science and religion more than it actually exists. If you look hard at yourself I am fairly certain you will find things that you believe without proof. Ever fallen in love? Was that just a chemical reaction? That's one example that comes to mind, I'm sure there are others.
Basically, if you want to bug a scientist about religion just let me know. efatapo at hotmail.com If you'd rather, I could give you the names of at least a hundred scientists who are Christian as well...just a hundred because those are the only ones I know personally.
Religion and science are not oil and water, it's something worthwhile that you should check out.
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Slashdot isn't a photography website, but I'll respond to this anyways. Optical zoom wouldn't have helped you much here. As others have responded, it probably would have hurt more than anything.
The shutter was open for 1/8 second. Usually the most stable hands can only hold a camera still for 1/focal length. ie, for a standard camera you shouldn't shoot any slower than 1/30 of a second.
Having a longer focal length would have exacerbated the problem. What you need here is a greater light sensitivity (higher ISO). A higher ISO would have allowed you to shoot with a faster shutter speed.
I think it's safe to say that classically, this is parthenogenesis, no?
In short, no. They injected this cell with DNA from another species. This is much closer to cloning than it is parthenogenesis. The Nature article refers to it as such, but I would have to disagree. This isn't virgin birth so much as this is birth from two parents...one just isn't a father. Classic parthenogenesis involves some sort of cellular insult to an egg that triggers embryogenesis (be it osmotic, electric, or physical).
Therefore it's pretty safe to say this is definitely not classic parthenogenesis if it's parthenogenesis at all.
Indeed, if this rare occurrance could happen perchance...I didnt think that this was really possible at all but having shown that it is...
You probably didn't read the article, but hopefully I can explain why this isn't possible by chance in humans.
First, they were only able to do this using a mutant immature mouse egg cell. Two genes had to be mutated in order to stop it from imprinting an egg transcriptome (basically, what genes are on). This also would seem to prevent, at least for the forseeable future, doing this in humans. It's hard to mutagenize humans, while it might be possible to turn off the gene using something like siRNA who knows if we could get human egg cells in that premature of a form
The second, and much larger, problem is that they took genetic material from a second egg and injected it into the first. This is not going to happen naturally. Sperm has a special cellular mechanism that allows it to fuse with an egg. Eggs do not contain these cellular components and therefore would have a hard time (read: impossible) doing this in vivo.
Basically, the process of parthenogenesis does not happen in mammals in vivo. Can we set up an artificial system to do it with humans, yes probably we can eventually. However setting up an in vitro situation has no implications for in vivo possibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
It's evolution, my friends. Organisms have specialized to compete in their own biological niches and developed the best tools available to do so, at the cost of performing well in alternative environments. Any organism introduced from such a foreign environment as I've mentioned, even if it could survive our human environment, it would be horrifically outcompeted by the existing organisms in our ecosystem and die handily.
Tersely put, you're not as bright as you think you are. Many foreignly introduced species do quite well in new environment for the mere fact that they have no natural predators. Here in Michigan someone decided it would be a good idea to introduce japanese beetles to kill an insect that was destroying crops. Well...ok, it worked a little too well. Now our fall season is marked by a ridiculous number of ladies bugs getting in any crack or crevice you can imagine. They're everywhere. Now this is just an annoyance, but there have been similar non-native species introduced that destroy other species.
Also, as previously mentioned, species like Deinococcus radiodurans thrives in harsh conditions but also squeaks along under normal life conditions. There are many species whose spores can survive in non-optimal conditions and only start to grow when they are presented with those conditions that are conducive for life.
This is more of a threat than many people are playing it off as. Additionally, our sending ships there is a threat to any possible native species in Mars. Oh, and this also had nothing to do with evolution. I don't know why you threw that in there except as a buzz word.
~A biochemist
I was curious too (and fall into one of the Kerry groups even though I voted Libertarian). CNN agrees with grandparent post: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta tes/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Enjoy.
private institutions? none of their damn business.
As far as I know there are only two or three private colleges that do not accept federal funding (Hillsdale College in Michigan, Grove City College in Pennsylvania, and Patrick Henry College in Virginia). I graduated from Hillsdale in 2002 and so this fact falls close to home, but you can see these other sources for verification.
This brings us back on topic, should the federal government be able to keep tabs on its investment? Maybe the better question is should the federal government be funding (read controlling) nearly all of the higher education in the nation? Seeing as only 3 colleges are run without federal money, which I would like to find anyone who gets funding without strings attached.
Well, you may have passed your high school biology class (and I stress may) but you certainly haven't followed that through with upper level classes.
Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...
Technically, no they couldn't. The sperm-egg recognition factors (proteins that stick out of the egg) have specific receptors on the sperm. Most animals will not recognize the receptor-ligand interaction of other animals. Additionally, the egg secretes molecules that the sperm uses to find the egg and these are also not conserved between species.
Additionally, I'll let the other posters explain to you the many many differences that separate humans from animals. Sorry bud, but you're way off on this argument. There's a lot more to life than biology when it comes to distinguising animals and humans. Not my field though...biochemistry is.
Do you see how his comment was marked 'Funny'?
Relax! It was really just supposed to be funny not a serious political critique that requires your correction.
This needs to be said at the top of this thread because noone reads the articles:
Source - Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.
Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touchscreen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.
Well, first of all Microsoft doesn't make a browser. They make an OS named "Windows" one of its features is an icon called "Internet Explorer." That feature isn't free, you have to fork over cold, hard cash for a Windows license.
I guess this doesn't exist then. As far as I can tell it's a free browser available from Microsoft.
Not that I use it...but it's available and free. I just like saying "you're wrong".
Photos by Daniel Coughlin
So what's the problem? 100 pounds is certainly over $100.
Way to go Steve-o
~Dan
photos
http://karlammann.com/bondo.html They printed the phylogenetic tree as well as wrote up the findings. I lazily skimmed the text but the phylogenetic tree makes it look not that exciting. A new subspecies but not very diverse from other known species. Enjoy~
Well, that's kind of amusing...but you're missing the point. This is not 'digestion' breakdown of proteins. The "Kiss of Death" is a regulated process by which a Ubiquitin molecule is attached specifically to proteins that need to be degraded. This Ubiquitin label is recognized by the Proteasome, a big enzyme that just degrades proteins, and good bye protein.
This has nothing to do with eating meat.
which I cannot use on an alternate OS (Linux) without hacks
Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't EVERYTHING in linux done with hacks?
I'm pretty sure the 'boom' happens when they explode...
or marbles...Guess it depends on how well they bounce ;)
What on earth does that have to do with the tragedy of the commons?
But you still have to have Cable TV (+$20) which keeps the cost right at $40. If I only had to pay $19.99 without the cable tax I would be happy.
Stupid Comcast.
Microsoft reiterated that they are not backing away from their original assertion that the device has the "feel and the look of an iPod"
I know it's asking way too much to read the article, and even the teaser has it wrong. What Microsoft has said is: "I've spent time with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service that will look and feel as good as the iPod product."
Looking and feeling as good is a lot different then having the look and feel of an iPod. That negates all of the patent issues that everyone is complaining about.
Yes, but...Video doesn't have to be motion. How many people carry along photos in their wallets? How many people have photos up at work? This could be really cool especially if it could attach to a compact flash drive and dump them onto a hard drive. I know the iPod can do it with a big bulky attachment...but even then you can't see them.
Just a thought.
Speaking of which here are my photos
Yeah...scanning a bar code for a website is a great idea. Wish I would have thought of that.
1. Steal someone's unsuccessful idea
2. ???
3. Profit?
Probably not...
...Half Life 2
IrfanView is ok...but you'll have to pry the ACDSee v 3.0 CD from my cold dead hands. Their newer versions are crap but 3.0 is the best image viewer I have seen. Since moving to my PowerBook I use iView MediaPro. It's alright, but not nearly as nice/simple/quick as ACDSee 3.0. That's the only thing I miss...
I'm not sure what kind of scientific people you know, but I can tell you that's certainly not the overwhelming majority. I work in a biochem lab at University of Michigan. A very strong majority (~60%) of the people I interact with are christian. This is a decent population size too, probably a good 100-200 people. And my estimate is very conservative.
Additionally, I completely disagree with your assertion: You seem to be implying that people are free to choose their faith and that scientists chose athiesm for convenience. It's the other way around. I'll agree it's more difficult to accept things you can not scientifically prove if you have a scientific background, but our culture dictates the disparity between science and religion more than it actually exists. If you look hard at yourself I am fairly certain you will find things that you believe without proof. Ever fallen in love? Was that just a chemical reaction? That's one example that comes to mind, I'm sure there are others.
Basically, if you want to bug a scientist about religion just let me know. efatapo at hotmail.com If you'd rather, I could give you the names of at least a hundred scientists who are Christian as well...just a hundred because those are the only ones I know personally.
Religion and science are not oil and water, it's something worthwhile that you should check out.
Slashdot isn't a photography website, but I'll respond to this anyways. Optical zoom wouldn't have helped you much here. As others have responded, it probably would have hurt more than anything.
The shutter was open for 1/8 second. Usually the most stable hands can only hold a camera still for 1/focal length. ie, for a standard camera you shouldn't shoot any slower than 1/30 of a second.
Having a longer focal length would have exacerbated the problem. What you need here is a greater light sensitivity (higher ISO). A higher ISO would have allowed you to shoot with a faster shutter speed.
I would suggest reading up a bit at www.dpreview.com or www.steves-digicams.com before buying a new camera.
If you want to see my credentials for making this comment take a look at: http://www.pbase.com/efatapo
I think it's safe to say that classically, this is parthenogenesis, no?
In short, no. They injected this cell with DNA from another species. This is much closer to cloning than it is parthenogenesis. The Nature article refers to it as such, but I would have to disagree. This isn't virgin birth so much as this is birth from two parents...one just isn't a father. Classic parthenogenesis involves some sort of cellular insult to an egg that triggers embryogenesis (be it osmotic, electric, or physical).
Therefore it's pretty safe to say this is definitely not classic parthenogenesis if it's parthenogenesis at all.
Indeed, if this rare occurrance could happen perchance...I didnt think that this was really possible at all but having shown that it is...
You probably didn't read the article, but hopefully I can explain why this isn't possible by chance in humans.
First, they were only able to do this using a mutant immature mouse egg cell. Two genes had to be mutated in order to stop it from imprinting an egg transcriptome (basically, what genes are on). This also would seem to prevent, at least for the forseeable future, doing this in humans. It's hard to mutagenize humans, while it might be possible to turn off the gene using something like siRNA who knows if we could get human egg cells in that premature of a form
The second, and much larger, problem is that they took genetic material from a second egg and injected it into the first. This is not going to happen naturally. Sperm has a special cellular mechanism that allows it to fuse with an egg. Eggs do not contain these cellular components and therefore would have a hard time (read: impossible) doing this in vivo.
Basically, the process of parthenogenesis does not happen in mammals in vivo. Can we set up an artificial system to do it with humans, yes probably we can eventually. However setting up an in vitro situation has no implications for in vivo possibilities.
and a labor shortage.
Wait, I thought we were in an employement slump?