Because I can take 30 minutes and plop down in front of my computer and blow stuff up for the cost of the game, as many times as I wish. Compared to taking 30 minutes to drive to a paintball place, pay about as much as the game release cost to buy time, rent a gun, and buy ammo, and play for a couple of hours and drive back. Granted, it's more fun to play paintball, but you can't just plop down and play for a half an hour after the kids go to bed.
Why run on a threadmill or pedal on a stationary bicycle, when you can run or bike outside?
Can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's because it's 100F outside, and the terrain here is perfectly flat. I can get a better workout on the stationary bike at the gym. Ironically, I ride my real bike to the gym, to ride the stationary bike....OK, people do do some stupid stuff. Then again, if I read journals on my real bike, I'd wind up under a bus.
OK, is anyone else having trouble finding the actual paper? Winston, in Nature, at Harvard. I went on Pubmed and searched for him, no hits. He has a faculty webpage at Harvard, but I can't find this paper through Pubmed or from Nature's website.
Anybody know where I can get this paper? I hate reading news blurbs on research. I want the meat!!!
Variance in gene (allele) frequency is not evolution. Changes in allele frequency over time is evolution. The variance is the raw material for evolution. It may seem a little nitpicky, but it is an important distinction. In the absence of a selective pressure, these changes in frequency will be reduced to drift, which is among the the weakest of the evolutionary mechanisms.
As long as some people have more children that survive to adulthood than others natural selection continues.
Actually, no. That statement is incomplete. The two groups must be distinct in some inheritable way, however minor. If the two groups are heritably distinct, and one group has greater fitness, then selection has occured. If the two groups are indistinguishable pertaining to heritable traits, then selection has not occured no matter how much a difference in fitness exsists because there has been no change in allele frequency.
What genetically distinct group of humans has greater fitness? Point one out, and I'll agree that evolution still has a significant effect on the human population.
My point goes to Nature vs Nuture. Every trait is affected by both to varying degrees. In modern culture, we have increased the effect of environment so much that Nature can be nearly taken out of the question, in most cases. We can change the hard-genetic coded color of our hair. We can compensate for familial oncogenes by close monitoring. Any gene that may affect intelligence, strength, vision, or any number of traits can be compensated for through careful manipulation of the environment. We have even developed successful treatments for previously fatal genetic disorders. The increased power we have over nuture (environment) has drastically reduced the effect of nature (genes). For better or worse.
People living forever means less need for kids, which slows down evolution
Evolution holds little relevance to humans today. Those with genetic disorders are fixed through medicine. Those with "undesireable" traits are given enough beneficial environment to counter them (eyeglasses, dyslexia, autism; yes I know these may/may not have genetic components). There is little to no natural selection any more. I won't even get into the whole "stupid people breed more" argument, but it's been said on/. before.
Take away the motivation of a limited lifespan and suddenly everything seems a lot less urgent.
You may have a point there. It's been argued before, and it may or may not have merit. Is Niven's vision correct, or is Asimov's? Will octagenarians become more flexible when they realize that 80 is not really old? That 800 is not even all that old? How much of that inflexibility is the result of the knowledge that death is near? How much is from biological/biochemical processes associated with aging? How much is associated with the accumulation of years on the mind? We really don't know, and can't know until it is tried and observed.
What people need nowadays (in America anyway) is acceptance of the fact that we can't control everything.
Says who? God? Fate? The Universe? Sure, there are things we can't comtrol right now, and there *may* be some things we can *never* control. However, there is no way of knowing that until you try to control them. Otherwise, it's just an assumption with no basis.
I have no fear of death, but I will be dead for billions of years. I'm in no hurry. Life is short. Even a thousand years is short compared to eternity. Fear of becoming an "artifically-preserved shell of a human" is based on assumption as well. We have absolutely no idea what the mental makeup of a 200 year old person would be, much less an 800 year old.
COOKING IS AN ART. if it wasn't, any regular joe could pick up a copy of the Joy of Cooking and be running a four-star restaurant in a week
I agree that this is the snobby artistic side talking. It's the part that tell you that art is hard, and science is easy. You're only half right.
Although I agree there is more to being a chef than science, your statement implies that science is easy. More precisely, it implies that being an outstanding scientist is easy. Could someone pick up a copy of Wade's or Carey's (The OC texts on the shelf over my desk) and become a Nobel laureate? If so, I'm in luck.
Regardless, I do agree with the idea that cooking is "science until you eat it". Being a chef has a greater component of art to it, but merely cooking dinner for the purpose of palatable sustenance is just like following a protocol. There is little art to it. Or, as you put it maybe "regular" home cooking can be broken down into pure numbers that anybody can grind out, but making truly excellent food will always need that certain artists' touch.
I believe that about the Memphis delay, I grew up there. I don't know for certain, but I would imagine it has to do with the employment base there; it's been tapped by FedEx. The FedEx hub is in Memphis, and FedEx pays well, compared to USPS. The same skill set is required in both sorting centers, and FedEx's sorting center is much larger than the USPS one in Memphis. They (FedEx) suck the job market dry of qualified people that are willing to do the work. USPS in Memphis is left with the underqualified people, and those forced into that type of work.
Purely conjecture, though. I can tell you, though, that letters sen to Memphis don't have the same delay. When I send stuff to my family or vice versa, it rarely takes more than 48 hours (650mi trip, two states), and has even gotten there the next day a couple of times.
That's a little short sighted. For an electric car, maintenance is lower (no oil, no tuneups, no transmission problems), there are tax breaks for using this kind of vehicle, and it's cheaper to drive.
It has an output of 13 kw, and runs for 1 hour, so you get 13khw. On my electric bill, 1 kwh costs me $0.1206, so 60 miles costs me $1.56. To make things fair, let's look at gas prices before the recent upswing, say $1.60/gal. Say you have a fairly efficient car, 30mpg. 60 miles at 30mpg = $3.20, more than double. Even more in the case of an upswing like this one (comes to nearly $4 for 60 miles in my area).
Not to mention the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that you aren't polluting as much (provided your electricity is through someone like these guys).
I'm sure there are special case maintenance issues with an electric car over a gas powered one, but I would assume that they balance out. But I'm sure someone will point out that I'm wrong. Regardless, the point is that most people can afford one of these. And they are cheaper to run than what most people use for their commute car today.
Everywhere I am aware of in North America, kids get free bus rides to school if it's too far to walk.
Aside from emergencies or quasi-abnormal days (trip to the dentist, for instance..put them all together and it's not so abnormal anymore), a large number of kids have after-school activities and need transportation home after those. I don't know of many schools where the buses pick kids up at 5PM. Also, staying home all day every weekend and all summer is not very realistic. People with families will require something larger than this available to them daily.
And yes, for you motocycle bufs, it's the same Corbin that makes the boots & jackets. It's not quite as cool looking as the Toyota thing, but it's real, and you can buy one today (for not that much, $13k). It has a decent range, it can go 60mph for 60 minutes. It's getting billed as a to-and-from work thing for the city.
I can see doing something like this. My wife & I could swap out the sedan, based on who's got kid duty that day, while the other used the little electric job for work.
Best of both worlds, even though it does look like something Daffy Duck would drive.
They were going for fame & fortune. OK, so fame is "I've been to the New World!", but there was the crucial "fortune" aspect as well. They were after gold, or land, or trade, or some other natural resource. People went because they wanted more than what they had; they wanted land, or wealth, or freedom. Besides, most people who went to the New World stayed there. Kinda loses the coolness factor when everyone you know did the same thing.
The reason there was a mass influx unto the New World is because there was money in it. And that is the same way you'll see an influx into space from the private sector : once there is money in it. And yes, I know 15 quadrrillion dollars worth of minerals on each asteroid, the moon is a giant lump of He-3, and we can beam down solar energy from microwave stations.
Make the harvesting of asteroids feasible and profitable. Find a present-day use for He-3, and then find a way to collect it that is feasible and profitable. Make the microwave-beaming-thing feasible and profitable, too. Then you will see people enter space.
But how does this make oil inelastic? (If, in fact, that is what you are saying. Recall that I speak out of ignorance)
I know about CAFE, the rise of SUVs, etc. I also know that with the average sized (2 kids) US family, an SUV is not a daily necessity. Even in the case of 3 kid families, a sedan is adequate for daily use. Four people + groceries, books, etc in the trunk. My wife does it all the time, in a Saturn SL2. Granted, my kids are young, but those car seats take up a lot of space. I'm fine in the back seat of that car (well, when the car seats are out that is), and I'm 6'2.
I don't think that SUVs are simply a logical consequence of CAFE. CAFE certainly contributed to the rise of the SUV, but as you noted, oversimplification can get you into trouble. There are other factors. There are significant psychological reasons for driving SUVs : feeling of being in control, safe, and protected, and the feeling of being able to see over traffic. My mother in law drives an SUV. Her youngest kid is 26, rarely takes the grandkids out, hardly ever transports anthing large (they have a pickup for that), but still drives an Expedition. She drives it because she "feels safe, and in control". This is not a necessity, it is a luxury.
I'm not saying that SUVs are evil and that it should be a criminal offense to drive one. If you can afford it, do it. If you think there is a need to do it, do it. I just think that, for most people, SUVs are not a necessity, and the supply/demand effects do apply to them (they are elastic). I live in a city (Houston) where nearly half of the private vehicles on the road are classified as trucks. A large porportion are pickups, but we have more than our fair share of SUVs. Most of the SUVs I see on the road have one, or possibly two occupants. Rarely do I see one with more than 4 people in it.
AFAIK, deuterium is used in most fusion concepts, and it is not very danerous(PDF warning). The biggest safety risk is that it is an asphyxiant. Same risk factor for any other gas that isn't oxygen.
So, are you saying that oil is elastic or inelastic?
It seems to me it would be elastic, because "some people can go without" oil, or at the very least reduce their comsumption of it. It is far from "Take this pill (oil) once a day or you die". Changes in lifestyle can reduce your dependence or need, and once those changes in lifestyle become financially feasible in comparison to an increase in oil costs, people will do it. Transportation in modern American society is a necessity. Transportation via SUV is not. Taking the pill once a day is a necessity, washing it down with Vintage port is not.
In the inelastic scenario, imagine a new pill came out, one that did the same job, but had to be taken only once a week, and cost abot twice as much per pill. It would quickly take over.
If I missed something, pardon my ignorance. I was taking organic chem while you were taking macroeconomics, and it's been a LONG time since I took any econ stuff of any sort.
They have "known" that there are less than 15 years of oil left for the past 17 years? You'd think they'd start to question this knowledge around year 16.
Unless the bacteria were relying on nutrients in our bloodstream.
That is a good point, but it stil doesn't answer all of the data regarding diet/CVD relationships. It also does not account for the deposition of the plaques in the first place. They are of a different compostition than the particles, and it is theorized that the particles arrive after plaque formation. Besides, for most any bacterium in our blood the limiting factors to growth would be metals (iron, potassium, magnesium), not carbon source. Granted, in an unknown and proposed organism, the limiting factor could be helium for all we know.
Unless it is a cumulative effect, like a bloom that protects itself by "plaquing".
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. It was proposed that bloom is responsible for the CVA's, and that these blooms are brought about by suppression/depression of the immune system. In a person in which plaques are found that is immunosuppressed, there is not normally an immediate CVA. In fact, that event is quite rare.
I found some absolutes in your argument that you might want to go and correct.
/. is not exactly Cell. It's not even on par with the Lithuanian Journal of Epithelial Disease, and I would not expect this to go anywhere near a reviewer. Besides, the primary thrust of my post was that although this may be a contributing factor in CVD, it is most likely not the sole reason for it. Not exactly an absolute.
AJP is an obscure clinical journal???? Not in my book, and not with any of my colleagues. Certainly not 1st tier, but just as certainly not "obscure". It is a very well-respected journal.
As for the data, they did show that uridine incorporation rate is greater with the particles than is seen with hydroxyapatite crystals added to the same medium, this argues that it is a different process.
Furthermore, the uridine incorporation rate they observed does allow for a lag-log-plateau pattern, reaching plateau by day 3. Granted, it's only 4 points, but the shape of the graph could allow for the correct curve.
They did show that the particles do contain DNA, and that it is TUNEL negative (not apoptotic bodies, and not simply dye-absorptive).
Yes, unique sequences would be more convincing. Actually, in my mind, that would be the clencher. It's not done, not by a longshot. These may or may not be "nanobacteria", but the data is compelling. It warrants further investigation, certainly. I suggest you read the paper. It's one of those annoying preprint things, double spaced with the figures at the end and seperate from the legends, but it's pretty good.
DNA and RNA aren't proteins, they are nucleic acids. Completely different structure and composition
As for prions or something similar carrying the information, there was a theory a while back that said protein was the molecular basis of inheritance. At first, it seemed like a logical idea: proteins are exceptionally complex and many are quite stable. They would make a good information store. After a while, it became less attractive because of the difficulties involved. For instance, no one could propose a mechanism by which a protein could duplicate itself from free amino acids. The theory was eventually abandoned when the DNA supporters demonstrated nucleic acids as the basis.
So it's possible, but unlikely that these base ineritance on protein. If it is found that these do use protein as genetic information, it would be something totally new, and something that possibly arose independent of the DNA-using lineage. This is actually another argument against it, as that these would have had to compete with DNA-based organisms early on, and it seems quite obvious that DNA forms took dominance. It would be likely that if something like this, it would have been selected out. (Again, not impossible, I can think of a few scenarios in which it could happen...)
It is unlikely, however, that they use prion-like behavior, because they can grow in cell-free culture. Prions require their host proteins to replicate.
Re:Not everything that reproduces is alive
on
Nanobacteria Discovered?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Prions, however, require host cells to replicate (term used loosely). They cause conformational switches in normal cell proteins to convert them into pathogenic conformations, which can then cause the same alteration in more of the same protein.
These appeared to do so on their own, with no protein to start with.
Although the mechanisms you describe are possibly valid mechanisms of CVD, they are by no means the only mechanisms. Some CVD may have nothing to do with cholesterol levels, etc. but certainly not all of them
If CVD were caused solely by infection, then there would be no correlation to diet, provided immune function is accounted for (which is the case in most studies). Furthermore, if infection were the primary in CV events like stroke & heart attack, any person with cardiovascular disease that became immunosuppressed would have an immediate vascular event of some kind. Not all heart transplant patients have a stroke as soon as they are started on immunosuppressive drugs. In fact, most don't.
I'm not saying that it's not possible that infection causes CVD, I think it probably does. I am saying, however, that it is not the only mechanism. Just like H./C. pylori infection is not the only cause of stomach ulcers. This is why a lot of "on the edge" theories don't get into 1st tier journals; they speak in absolutes. Scientists don't like it when the first paper on a subject comes right out and says "This IS the way it is, because of such and such". First papers on a subject are always considered preliminary, and should be worded as such. We have enough trouble with the media touting things as absolutes without our own ranks encouraging or feeding the behavior.
By the way, Warren & Marshall's paper describing the effect of C. pyloriwas published in Lancet. Subsequent papers were in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, and Journal of Clinical Pathology. Hardly obscure journals. Techniques for screening people for the bacterium were developewd within four years of the first paper on the subject. Three years after the first paper attempting to fulfill Koch's postulates. Doesn't sound like he was kicked out of the field. A quick Pubmed search shows that they kept up a steady stream of journal articles, even to today.
Just wanted to second the sentiment. This is great stuff, I was floored looking at those pictures. Amazing. Simply amazing.
Keep up the good work! And why is this not front page? I mean even on/.. Why is this stuck on the Science page, and not with the main stuff? THIS is news for nerds, and it definately matters.
Apparently, many of the dairy producers cut their supply recently. Some say that it is because when dairy supply was too high recently, they killed off their livestock because the meat was worth more than the milk. Others say it was calculated by the larger farmers to jack up the price.
If you are referring to the Parliament there, it's been around longer than that. What, a thousand years or so? Well, not really. It was founded that long ago, but it's been dissolved & reformed.
It was also not exactly a democratic setup, if memory serves. It's been a while since I read about it, but wasn't it a gathering of local lords? Besides, prior to 1944, Iceland wasn't even a nation for 500-600 years. It was part of Denmark or that Scandanavian united kingdom....I can't remember the name.
But we nitpick. My original contention was that when placed in an open area, people were able to try out new ways of doing things, without being actually tied to their past. You got a new setup in the US, a new combination of things that had not been seriously considered together before.
Regardless, I can't believe nobody's jumped on the fact that first of all, the US is NOT a democracy, it's a representative republic. And second, if you want to find an old democracy, I can think of a REALLY old one that no one's mentioned for some odd reason. Think Zeus.
Iceland : Under Danish (Aristocratic) rule until 1944.
Switzerland : OK, they were a Democracy before the US.
The experiment, however (contrary to what was implied in my post) was not just the system of governance, but also philosophies of foreign policy, trade, and economics; and the combination of those philosophies.
What was that about the US education system? (besides that it really is substandard in many areas, and I know history mainly because I enjoy it as a hobby?)
And it is not always dark. In the abscene of change, improvement is impossible. In the presence of change, improvement or degredation is possible. I guess it depends on wether or not you're a gambler, or are willing to take the chance. But I do agree the "approach with caution" sentiment. I just think we should focus on the "approach" part of the statement right now. The caution is irrelevant if you aren't approaching
I've been thinking about the analogy of evolution...I like it. It removes motivation, purpose, and all other factors of the like from the equation. It just looks at what winds up making a better society. Whatever works, beats out the rest as long as true competition is allowed. Right now, true competition is waning. Someday, it will be gone and the selective process will no longer work.
What he actually said was "it's the best there is right now", and then he said "it's crap" (paraphrase).
Rather than assume contradiction at first glace, how about the resolution of "the best there is right now, is crap". It's kind of like saying that Wendy's has the healthiest fast food hamburgers, but they're still crap.
Sounds reasonable to me. I also happen to agree.
BTW, the Chinese people that I work with agree with the statement that China is totalitarian and fascist.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I can take 30 minutes and plop down in front of my computer and blow stuff up for the cost of the game, as many times as I wish. Compared to taking 30 minutes to drive to a paintball place, pay about as much as the game release cost to buy time, rent a gun, and buy ammo, and play for a couple of hours and drive back. Granted, it's more fun to play paintball, but you can't just plop down and play for a half an hour after the kids go to bed.
Why run on a threadmill or pedal on a stationary bicycle, when you can run or bike outside?
Can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's because it's 100F outside, and the terrain here is perfectly flat. I can get a better workout on the stationary bike at the gym. Ironically, I ride my real bike to the gym, to ride the stationary bike....OK, people do do some stupid stuff. Then again, if I read journals on my real bike, I'd wind up under a bus.
Anybody know where I can get this paper? I hate reading news blurbs on research. I want the meat!!!
As long as some people have more children that survive to adulthood than others natural selection continues.
Actually, no. That statement is incomplete. The two groups must be distinct in some inheritable way, however minor. If the two groups are heritably distinct, and one group has greater fitness, then selection has occured. If the two groups are indistinguishable pertaining to heritable traits, then selection has not occured no matter how much a difference in fitness exsists because there has been no change in allele frequency.
What genetically distinct group of humans has greater fitness? Point one out, and I'll agree that evolution still has a significant effect on the human population.
My point goes to Nature vs Nuture. Every trait is affected by both to varying degrees. In modern culture, we have increased the effect of environment so much that Nature can be nearly taken out of the question, in most cases. We can change the hard-genetic coded color of our hair. We can compensate for familial oncogenes by close monitoring. Any gene that may affect intelligence, strength, vision, or any number of traits can be compensated for through careful manipulation of the environment. We have even developed successful treatments for previously fatal genetic disorders. The increased power we have over nuture (environment) has drastically reduced the effect of nature (genes). For better or worse.
Evolution holds little relevance to humans today. Those with genetic disorders are fixed through medicine. Those with "undesireable" traits are given enough beneficial environment to counter them (eyeglasses, dyslexia, autism; yes I know these may/may not have genetic components). There is little to no natural selection any more. I won't even get into the whole "stupid people breed more" argument, but it's been said on /. before.
Take away the motivation of a limited lifespan and suddenly everything seems a lot less urgent.
You may have a point there. It's been argued before, and it may or may not have merit. Is Niven's vision correct, or is Asimov's? Will octagenarians become more flexible when they realize that 80 is not really old? That 800 is not even all that old? How much of that inflexibility is the result of the knowledge that death is near? How much is from biological/biochemical processes associated with aging? How much is associated with the accumulation of years on the mind? We really don't know, and can't know until it is tried and observed.
What people need nowadays (in America anyway) is acceptance of the fact that we can't control everything.
Says who? God? Fate? The Universe? Sure, there are things we can't comtrol right now, and there *may* be some things we can *never* control. However, there is no way of knowing that until you try to control them. Otherwise, it's just an assumption with no basis.
I have no fear of death, but I will be dead for billions of years. I'm in no hurry. Life is short. Even a thousand years is short compared to eternity. Fear of becoming an "artifically-preserved shell of a human" is based on assumption as well. We have absolutely no idea what the mental makeup of a 200 year old person would be, much less an 800 year old.
I agree that this is the snobby artistic side talking. It's the part that tell you that art is hard, and science is easy. You're only half right.
Although I agree there is more to being a chef than science, your statement implies that science is easy. More precisely, it implies that being an outstanding scientist is easy. Could someone pick up a copy of Wade's or Carey's (The OC texts on the shelf over my desk) and become a Nobel laureate? If so, I'm in luck.
Regardless, I do agree with the idea that cooking is "science until you eat it". Being a chef has a greater component of art to it, but merely cooking dinner for the purpose of palatable sustenance is just like following a protocol. There is little art to it. Or, as you put it maybe "regular" home cooking can be broken down into pure numbers that anybody can grind out, but making truly excellent food will always need that certain artists' touch.
I believe that about the Memphis delay, I grew up there. I don't know for certain, but I would imagine it has to do with the employment base there; it's been tapped by FedEx. The FedEx hub is in Memphis, and FedEx pays well, compared to USPS. The same skill set is required in both sorting centers, and FedEx's sorting center is much larger than the USPS one in Memphis. They (FedEx) suck the job market dry of qualified people that are willing to do the work. USPS in Memphis is left with the underqualified people, and those forced into that type of work.
Purely conjecture, though. I can tell you, though, that letters sen to Memphis don't have the same delay. When I send stuff to my family or vice versa, it rarely takes more than 48 hours (650mi trip, two states), and has even gotten there the next day a couple of times.
It has an output of 13 kw, and runs for 1 hour, so you get 13khw. On my electric bill, 1 kwh costs me $0.1206, so 60 miles costs me $1.56. To make things fair, let's look at gas prices before the recent upswing, say $1.60/gal. Say you have a fairly efficient car, 30mpg. 60 miles at 30mpg = $3.20, more than double. Even more in the case of an upswing like this one (comes to nearly $4 for 60 miles in my area).
Not to mention the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that you aren't polluting as much (provided your electricity is through someone like these guys).
I'm sure there are special case maintenance issues with an electric car over a gas powered one, but I would assume that they balance out. But I'm sure someone will point out that I'm wrong. Regardless, the point is that most people can afford one of these. And they are cheaper to run than what most people use for their commute car today.
Aside from emergencies or quasi-abnormal days (trip to the dentist, for instance..put them all together and it's not so abnormal anymore), a large number of kids have after-school activities and need transportation home after those. I don't know of many schools where the buses pick kids up at 5PM. Also, staying home all day every weekend and all summer is not very realistic. People with families will require something larger than this available to them daily.
And yes, for you motocycle bufs, it's the same Corbin that makes the boots & jackets. It's not quite as cool looking as the Toyota thing, but it's real, and you can buy one today (for not that much, $13k). It has a decent range, it can go 60mph for 60 minutes. It's getting billed as a to-and-from work thing for the city.
I can see doing something like this. My wife & I could swap out the sedan, based on who's got kid duty that day, while the other used the little electric job for work.
Best of both worlds, even though it does look like something Daffy Duck would drive.
The reason there was a mass influx unto the New World is because there was money in it. And that is the same way you'll see an influx into space from the private sector : once there is money in it. And yes, I know 15 quadrrillion dollars worth of minerals on each asteroid, the moon is a giant lump of He-3, and we can beam down solar energy from microwave stations.
Make the harvesting of asteroids feasible and profitable. Find a present-day use for He-3, and then find a way to collect it that is feasible and profitable. Make the microwave-beaming-thing feasible and profitable, too. Then you will see people enter space.
I know about CAFE, the rise of SUVs, etc. I also know that with the average sized (2 kids) US family, an SUV is not a daily necessity. Even in the case of 3 kid families, a sedan is adequate for daily use. Four people + groceries, books, etc in the trunk. My wife does it all the time, in a Saturn SL2. Granted, my kids are young, but those car seats take up a lot of space. I'm fine in the back seat of that car (well, when the car seats are out that is), and I'm 6'2.
I don't think that SUVs are simply a logical consequence of CAFE. CAFE certainly contributed to the rise of the SUV, but as you noted, oversimplification can get you into trouble. There are other factors. There are significant psychological reasons for driving SUVs : feeling of being in control, safe, and protected, and the feeling of being able to see over traffic. My mother in law drives an SUV. Her youngest kid is 26, rarely takes the grandkids out, hardly ever transports anthing large (they have a pickup for that), but still drives an Expedition. She drives it because she "feels safe, and in control". This is not a necessity, it is a luxury.
I'm not saying that SUVs are evil and that it should be a criminal offense to drive one. If you can afford it, do it. If you think there is a need to do it, do it. I just think that, for most people, SUVs are not a necessity, and the supply/demand effects do apply to them (they are elastic). I live in a city (Houston) where nearly half of the private vehicles on the road are classified as trucks. A large porportion are pickups, but we have more than our fair share of SUVs. Most of the SUVs I see on the road have one, or possibly two occupants. Rarely do I see one with more than 4 people in it.
AFAIK, deuterium is used in most fusion concepts, and it is not very danerous(PDF warning). The biggest safety risk is that it is an asphyxiant. Same risk factor for any other gas that isn't oxygen.
It seems to me it would be elastic, because "some people can go without" oil, or at the very least reduce their comsumption of it. It is far from "Take this pill (oil) once a day or you die". Changes in lifestyle can reduce your dependence or need, and once those changes in lifestyle become financially feasible in comparison to an increase in oil costs, people will do it. Transportation in modern American society is a necessity. Transportation via SUV is not. Taking the pill once a day is a necessity, washing it down with Vintage port is not.
In the inelastic scenario, imagine a new pill came out, one that did the same job, but had to be taken only once a week, and cost abot twice as much per pill. It would quickly take over.
If I missed something, pardon my ignorance. I was taking organic chem while you were taking macroeconomics, and it's been a LONG time since I took any econ stuff of any sort.
That is a good point, but it stil doesn't answer all of the data regarding diet/CVD relationships. It also does not account for the deposition of the plaques in the first place. They are of a different compostition than the particles, and it is theorized that the particles arrive after plaque formation. Besides, for most any bacterium in our blood the limiting factors to growth would be metals (iron, potassium, magnesium), not carbon source. Granted, in an unknown and proposed organism, the limiting factor could be helium for all we know.
Unless it is a cumulative effect, like a bloom that protects itself by "plaquing".
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. It was proposed that bloom is responsible for the CVA's, and that these blooms are brought about by suppression/depression of the immune system. In a person in which plaques are found that is immunosuppressed, there is not normally an immediate CVA. In fact, that event is quite rare.
I found some absolutes in your argument that you might want to go and correct.
/. is not exactly Cell. It's not even on par with the Lithuanian Journal of Epithelial Disease, and I would not expect this to go anywhere near a reviewer. Besides, the primary thrust of my post was that although this may be a contributing factor in CVD, it is most likely not the sole reason for it. Not exactly an absolute.
As for the data, they did show that uridine incorporation rate is greater with the particles than is seen with hydroxyapatite crystals added to the same medium, this argues that it is a different process.
Furthermore, the uridine incorporation rate they observed does allow for a lag-log-plateau pattern, reaching plateau by day 3. Granted, it's only 4 points, but the shape of the graph could allow for the correct curve.
They did show that the particles do contain DNA, and that it is TUNEL negative (not apoptotic bodies, and not simply dye-absorptive).
Yes, unique sequences would be more convincing. Actually, in my mind, that would be the clencher. It's not done, not by a longshot. These may or may not be "nanobacteria", but the data is compelling. It warrants further investigation, certainly. I suggest you read the paper. It's one of those annoying preprint things, double spaced with the figures at the end and seperate from the legends, but it's pretty good.
DNA and RNA aren't proteins, they are nucleic acids. Completely different structure and composition
As for prions or something similar carrying the information, there was a theory a while back that said protein was the molecular basis of inheritance. At first, it seemed like a logical idea: proteins are exceptionally complex and many are quite stable. They would make a good information store. After a while, it became less attractive because of the difficulties involved. For instance, no one could propose a mechanism by which a protein could duplicate itself from free amino acids. The theory was eventually abandoned when the DNA supporters demonstrated nucleic acids as the basis.
So it's possible, but unlikely that these base ineritance on protein. If it is found that these do use protein as genetic information, it would be something totally new, and something that possibly arose independent of the DNA-using lineage. This is actually another argument against it, as that these would have had to compete with DNA-based organisms early on, and it seems quite obvious that DNA forms took dominance. It would be likely that if something like this, it would have been selected out. (Again, not impossible, I can think of a few scenarios in which it could happen...)
It is unlikely, however, that they use prion-like behavior, because they can grow in cell-free culture. Prions require their host proteins to replicate.
These appeared to do so on their own, with no protein to start with.
If CVD were caused solely by infection, then there would be no correlation to diet, provided immune function is accounted for (which is the case in most studies). Furthermore, if infection were the primary in CV events like stroke & heart attack, any person with cardiovascular disease that became immunosuppressed would have an immediate vascular event of some kind. Not all heart transplant patients have a stroke as soon as they are started on immunosuppressive drugs. In fact, most don't.
I'm not saying that it's not possible that infection causes CVD, I think it probably does. I am saying, however, that it is not the only mechanism. Just like H./C. pylori infection is not the only cause of stomach ulcers. This is why a lot of "on the edge" theories don't get into 1st tier journals; they speak in absolutes. Scientists don't like it when the first paper on a subject comes right out and says "This IS the way it is, because of such and such". First papers on a subject are always considered preliminary, and should be worded as such. We have enough trouble with the media touting things as absolutes without our own ranks encouraging or feeding the behavior.
By the way, Warren & Marshall's paper describing the effect of C. pyloriwas published in Lancet. Subsequent papers were in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, and Journal of Clinical Pathology. Hardly obscure journals. Techniques for screening people for the bacterium were developewd within four years of the first paper on the subject. Three years after the first paper attempting to fulfill Koch's postulates. Doesn't sound like he was kicked out of the field. A quick Pubmed search shows that they kept up a steady stream of journal articles, even to today.
Keep up the good work! And why is this not front page? I mean even on /.. Why is this stuck on the Science page, and not with the main stuff? THIS is news for nerds, and it definately matters.
Apparently, many of the dairy producers cut their supply recently. Some say that it is because when dairy supply was too high recently, they killed off their livestock because the meat was worth more than the milk. Others say it was calculated by the larger farmers to jack up the price.
It was also not exactly a democratic setup, if memory serves. It's been a while since I read about it, but wasn't it a gathering of local lords? Besides, prior to 1944, Iceland wasn't even a nation for 500-600 years. It was part of Denmark or that Scandanavian united kingdom....I can't remember the name.
But we nitpick. My original contention was that when placed in an open area, people were able to try out new ways of doing things, without being actually tied to their past. You got a new setup in the US, a new combination of things that had not been seriously considered together before.
Regardless, I can't believe nobody's jumped on the fact that first of all, the US is NOT a democracy, it's a representative republic. And second, if you want to find an old democracy, I can think of a REALLY old one that no one's mentioned for some odd reason. Think Zeus.
Articles of Confederation : 1777 (authored)
Holland : 1780
Iceland : Under Danish (Aristocratic) rule until 1944.
Switzerland : OK, they were a Democracy before the US.
The experiment, however (contrary to what was implied in my post) was not just the system of governance, but also philosophies of foreign policy, trade, and economics; and the combination of those philosophies.
What was that about the US education system? (besides that it really is substandard in many areas, and I know history mainly because I enjoy it as a hobby?)
And it is not always dark. In the abscene of change, improvement is impossible. In the presence of change, improvement or degredation is possible. I guess it depends on wether or not you're a gambler, or are willing to take the chance. But I do agree the "approach with caution" sentiment. I just think we should focus on the "approach" part of the statement right now. The caution is irrelevant if you aren't approaching
I've been thinking about the analogy of evolution...I like it. It removes motivation, purpose, and all other factors of the like from the equation. It just looks at what winds up making a better society. Whatever works, beats out the rest as long as true competition is allowed. Right now, true competition is waning. Someday, it will be gone and the selective process will no longer work.
Rather than assume contradiction at first glace, how about the resolution of "the best there is right now, is crap". It's kind of like saying that Wendy's has the healthiest fast food hamburgers, but they're still crap.
Sounds reasonable to me. I also happen to agree.
BTW, the Chinese people that I work with agree with the statement that China is totalitarian and fascist.