Reading and writing is still a weird metric. It isn't necessary or sufficient to demonstrate human-level cognition. It's like asking why they don't forge iron. Whole societies have existed without writing. Or at least without more than a few educated elite having it.
Sometimes you only get 'partial immunity'.. like wise you can have some benefit to being administered a vaccine after infection. You'll still get sick, but it won't be as severe. For human medicine this is fine, for livestock having a bunch of sick animals may be as bad as having a bunch of dead ones.
What is the proposed mechanism for the EM radiation interfering with ion channels? I googled Martin Pall and he seems to implicate the NO-ONOO in multiple chemical sensitivity as well... there wouldn't likely be any overlap there, which would start to get some clicks on the BS-o-meter.
No, antibodies are usually harvested from people, mice, or goats. The trick is to be able to present an antigen that makes them make anitbodies you want, and then isolate and purify those antibodies.
When doing science I am performing experiments and recording my observations in detail as data. My observations must be carefully done to be useful science, but they are still 'only' observations.
The observations I make after mowing the lawn and having a few beers would have to be corroborated to a much higher degree as they would be done without rigor in an uncontrolled environment.
That a direct observation must be corroborated doesn't mean it isn't a fact, either. I think you're conflating empirical fact with a logical truism. Science is always at least the slightest bit tentative, but we can certainly be comfortable with labeling things scientific facts since we know this.
Disagree. It is a fact that my cup is blue. I can propose and test a theory as to why it is blue or how long it will remain blue. Throughout all of this it remains blue. Evolution is a fact. That allele frequencies change within populations is a fact. There are theories about why this happens, and so we develop those into theories like Natural Selection and propose further theories about random mutation or inherited epigenetics. The proposed mechanisms about how it works are theories. The observed occurrence is fact.
The AC who responded to you makes a good point I hadn't considered in my initial post. While 10 years is about as long as B cells are thought to live, detectable titers could persist for longer from whatever percentage live longer than that.
Booster shots make sure you have a sufficient number of said B cells to make antibodies quickly enough to remain healthy, and the annual pet vaccines are often akin to flu shots where they chase the current strains.
Yeah, my neighbor's house caught fire when they weren't there and before the firemen went in a policeman opened the garage door with a pry bar in about 3 seconds reaching through the top. Looked like he disengaged the chain.
It isn't like you get a badge that says "show me your secret stuff!" that you can wave around to random people.
You'd need to insert records into innumerable other locations to create a sufficient e-paper trail to pass the background check, in addition to actually getting a job where you'd have a need to know whatever it was you were after.
This alone isn't even enough to get a passport.
Sure, if you were immune do to mutated cell receptors you'd be unlikely to have gotten enough virus to trigger an antibody response. Likewise this would probably only look back 10 years or so, as last I'd heard that was how long memory B cells are thought to live.
I actually don't know much about the diphtheria vaccine and am feeling too lazy to look it up, but yes, some vaccines only have you make antibodies that inactivate the bacterial toxins, which lets you stay alive long enough for the rest of your immune system to clear the bacteria via more conventional means. This makes extra sense in circumstances where the toxin is highly conserved but the bacterial cell wall is highly variable.
It would also show how trusting stats on a subject you're not well informed on can be deceiving. There are plenty of circumstances where the differences between the rocks and eggs may not be obvious to a lay person.
I'm honestly surprised it has taken this long for drugs to be made this way. Well, not that many aren't already, but ones that the average person would be interested in making, that is... really anything that isn't toxic to yeast ought to be doable.
And one last point to everyone who is pro-vaccine and antagonistic to those who aren't, I would like to point out that if YOU did not do the science yourself, then these issues come down to who you trust (I wouldn't trust Jenny McCarthy either). I bet all of you have an opinion one way or the other about climate change, but almost none of you have actually looked at the data and models yourself. Claiming "its science you idiots" when you did not do the science is pretty similar to religion....belittling someone with a *belief* that differs from yours because yours must be the one true god.
I did and continue to do the science myself, but this statement that believing experts is akin to religion is wrong. It isn't the same as faith to expect that the reagents I order from Sigma are what they say they are. The whole idea of science is that you don't have to reproduce all of human knowledge yourself before proceeding further. Otherwise instead of making immunoassays I'd still be stuck somewhere around metallurgy to build the apparatuses needed to harvest oil to make the plastic bottles from.
Modern vaccines use fewer antigens than old fashioned ones. They aren't getting hammered with anymore antigens than if they ate some dirt, we just make sure that they get some antigens that make them immune to nasty bugs.
The brain can still be blackboxed and we can call the output sentience. The GP essentially says that because we don't know all the details then we can appeal to magic. If we blackbox the heart we can call the output circulation, but calling it digestion is still inaccurate without having to appeal much to empiricism. We defined cells before we knew how they worked.
Your line of thought leads one to think that we can't know anything unless we know everything, which isn't true. Although perhaps I misunderstand.
It is a matter of definition. If you want to define sentience as something other than 'what brains do' you will have to justify it. By definition I can also assert without further empiricism that blue is 450–495 nm.
Not necessarily, that sort of behavior can be driven to other inherently irrational devotions. Sports fandom pushes many of the same buttons in terms of ritual, doctrine, and affiliation. And you tend to support teams favored either by your family or locality.
Well... you state "Otherwise you're making an argument that every time you exhale, you're polluting the air." to which I'd say, "yes, you're correct, we do pollute every time we exhale. Why wouldn't you think so? We pollute plenty with other natural processes."
When making beer the little yeast pollute that carboy with their excretia and respiratory byproducts until they die or go dormant.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading and writing is still a weird metric. It isn't necessary or sufficient to demonstrate human-level cognition. It's like asking why they don't forge iron. Whole societies have existed without writing. Or at least without more than a few educated elite having it.
Sometimes you only get 'partial immunity'.. like wise you can have some benefit to being administered a vaccine after infection. You'll still get sick, but it won't be as severe. For human medicine this is fine, for livestock having a bunch of sick animals may be as bad as having a bunch of dead ones.
What is the proposed mechanism for the EM radiation interfering with ion channels? I googled Martin Pall and he seems to implicate the NO-ONOO in multiple chemical sensitivity as well... there wouldn't likely be any overlap there, which would start to get some clicks on the BS-o-meter.
I agree about PS controllers... for some games I've found that it is most comfortable to hold it upside down to use my fingers rather than thumbs.
No, antibodies are usually harvested from people, mice, or goats. The trick is to be able to present an antigen that makes them make anitbodies you want, and then isolate and purify those antibodies.
When doing science I am performing experiments and recording my observations in detail as data. My observations must be carefully done to be useful science, but they are still 'only' observations. The observations I make after mowing the lawn and having a few beers would have to be corroborated to a much higher degree as they would be done without rigor in an uncontrolled environment.
That a direct observation must be corroborated doesn't mean it isn't a fact, either. I think you're conflating empirical fact with a logical truism. Science is always at least the slightest bit tentative, but we can certainly be comfortable with labeling things scientific facts since we know this.
Disagree. It is a fact that my cup is blue. I can propose and test a theory as to why it is blue or how long it will remain blue. Throughout all of this it remains blue. Evolution is a fact. That allele frequencies change within populations is a fact. There are theories about why this happens, and so we develop those into theories like Natural Selection and propose further theories about random mutation or inherited epigenetics. The proposed mechanisms about how it works are theories. The observed occurrence is fact.
The AC who responded to you makes a good point I hadn't considered in my initial post. While 10 years is about as long as B cells are thought to live, detectable titers could persist for longer from whatever percentage live longer than that. Booster shots make sure you have a sufficient number of said B cells to make antibodies quickly enough to remain healthy, and the annual pet vaccines are often akin to flu shots where they chase the current strains.
Yeah, my neighbor's house caught fire when they weren't there and before the firemen went in a policeman opened the garage door with a pry bar in about 3 seconds reaching through the top. Looked like he disengaged the chain.
It isn't like you get a badge that says "show me your secret stuff!" that you can wave around to random people. You'd need to insert records into innumerable other locations to create a sufficient e-paper trail to pass the background check, in addition to actually getting a job where you'd have a need to know whatever it was you were after. This alone isn't even enough to get a passport.
Sure, if you were immune do to mutated cell receptors you'd be unlikely to have gotten enough virus to trigger an antibody response. Likewise this would probably only look back 10 years or so, as last I'd heard that was how long memory B cells are thought to live.
I actually don't know much about the diphtheria vaccine and am feeling too lazy to look it up, but yes, some vaccines only have you make antibodies that inactivate the bacterial toxins, which lets you stay alive long enough for the rest of your immune system to clear the bacteria via more conventional means. This makes extra sense in circumstances where the toxin is highly conserved but the bacterial cell wall is highly variable.
Viruses generally are not as stable as your story posits. Spores maybe, but that's a whole different thing.
It would also show how trusting stats on a subject you're not well informed on can be deceiving. There are plenty of circumstances where the differences between the rocks and eggs may not be obvious to a lay person.
I'm honestly surprised it has taken this long for drugs to be made this way. Well, not that many aren't already, but ones that the average person would be interested in making, that is... really anything that isn't toxic to yeast ought to be doable.
Perhaps they are hit by cars with some frequency?
And one last point to everyone who is pro-vaccine and antagonistic to those who aren't, I would like to point out that if YOU did not do the science yourself, then these issues come down to who you trust (I wouldn't trust Jenny McCarthy either). I bet all of you have an opinion one way or the other about climate change, but almost none of you have actually looked at the data and models yourself. Claiming "its science you idiots" when you did not do the science is pretty similar to religion....belittling someone with a *belief* that differs from yours because yours must be the one true god.
I did and continue to do the science myself, but this statement that believing experts is akin to religion is wrong. It isn't the same as faith to expect that the reagents I order from Sigma are what they say they are. The whole idea of science is that you don't have to reproduce all of human knowledge yourself before proceeding further. Otherwise instead of making immunoassays I'd still be stuck somewhere around metallurgy to build the apparatuses needed to harvest oil to make the plastic bottles from.
Modern vaccines use fewer antigens than old fashioned ones. They aren't getting hammered with anymore antigens than if they ate some dirt, we just make sure that they get some antigens that make them immune to nasty bugs.
The brain can still be blackboxed and we can call the output sentience. The GP essentially says that because we don't know all the details then we can appeal to magic. If we blackbox the heart we can call the output circulation, but calling it digestion is still inaccurate without having to appeal much to empiricism. We defined cells before we knew how they worked. Your line of thought leads one to think that we can't know anything unless we know everything, which isn't true. Although perhaps I misunderstand.
It is a matter of definition. If you want to define sentience as something other than 'what brains do' you will have to justify it. By definition I can also assert without further empiricism that blue is 450–495 nm.
Not necessarily, that sort of behavior can be driven to other inherently irrational devotions. Sports fandom pushes many of the same buttons in terms of ritual, doctrine, and affiliation. And you tend to support teams favored either by your family or locality.
Sentience is just what brains do. It is hard to describe the shape of a waterfall as it changes moment to moment but it isn't magic.
Well... you state "Otherwise you're making an argument that every time you exhale, you're polluting the air." to which I'd say, "yes, you're correct, we do pollute every time we exhale. Why wouldn't you think so? We pollute plenty with other natural processes." When making beer the little yeast pollute that carboy with their excretia and respiratory byproducts until they die or go dormant.
Why would the idea of polluting the air with exhalation be silly? Certainly I'm polluting a well if I take a dump in it.