We could just deny them access entirely. Though I would feel tension between my pledge to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and the Constitution, clearly the Constitution wins. I will defend the constitution, even to the death (of Congresspeople).
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook:
* EMI
* Sony Music Entertainment
* Universal Music Group
* Warner Music Group
Totally not your fault. My comment about the two stories being unrelated was something of a snide jab at the "relatedly" claim made in the summary.
So, article #1 is talking about the use of a modified virus to target a cancer. Actually, to be more accurate, it's talking about modifying a virus to avoid causing liver damage while killing cancer cells.
Apparently, the adenovirus strain that they used in this trial does a good job of killing cancer cells. However, it also does a good job of killing liver cells.
What they did was introduced a liver-specific microRNA binding site to the virus. Therefore, when the virus infects the liver and produces RNA, the liver's naturally-produced microRNA will recognize this and bind to it. That's all in the article, but I'll extrapolate and assume that the body's typical dsRNA mechanisms kick in at that point, destroy the RNA, and possibly induce an antiviral response.
So essentially, it appears that they're using a virus that is good at killing cancer but is also good at destroying the liver, and they're attaching a liver-specific "kill me" tag so that the liver can protect itself.
Exactly. Also, I may have missed this in the paper, but why not perform the experiment with a photon-blocking device (i.e., a piece of paper or, better yet, thin lead or gold) as a control?
"It is quick and efficient. It doesn't take time to disperse like chemical signals."
Sure, propagation is quick. On the other hand, generating the light does take time and energy because it's liberated via a chemical process.
In the end, you're simply establishing a tradeoff. With chemical signals, you have a substance that is slow to transmit, but stays around for an extended period (unless you want it to go away, then you just digest it). Light as a signal transmits rapidly, but must be regenerated constantly due to the fact that photons don't exactly linger.
To get back on topic: the results being discussed in this article are so far from conclusive that I don't really consider this study to have added anything to the scientific corpus.
FTFA: "Depending on the cuvette material and the number of cells involved, these effects were positive or negative."
Occam's razor: These are stochastic effects.
Seriously, he replicated these studies 4 times TOTAL. "Depending on the cuvette material and the number of cells involved, these effects were positive or negative" basically fits the definition of a null hypothesis, which I certainly won't reject on the basis of 4 trials. Call me when an outside lab replicates this in a large number of trials.
If the argument is that the *chemistry* in the brain is governed by quantum principles, then I'll (trivially) agree. However, chemistry is below the 'level' that is relevant for consciousness. rrohbeck is correct in saying that the evidence doesn't support the notion that quantum mechanics is relevant for that type of neuronal function.
Perhaps more damning, there isn't even theoretical support for that idea. The scale at which quantum is relevant is substantially smaller than the scale at which neurons interact.
Even if you had a machine which could solve equation specifying, say, all of the particles in a water bottle, it wouldn't give you a more precise understanding of that bottle's macro behavior than the more simple formulae that we use for engineering macro objects all the time. Neurons are much like this (though smaller than a water bottle, they're too large to exhibit quantum mechanical behaviors).
It's not the energy that is the problem, it's the energy match.
The energy match between a 1mm wave and submicrometer biological particles is essentially zero. Provided that the emission spectrum is sufficiently narrow, this should pose absolutely no additional risk of cancer.
(Caveat: if you operate any EMF-producing device at high enough power with a wide enough emission spectrum, you can imagine that the rare high-energy particles being emitted are common enough to cause damage. I'm not a physicist, but the useful parallel in biophysics would be the Boltzmann distribution.)
I helped create a Java curriculum for a group of programming-naive high school students. I don't regularly use Java, but it behaves similarly to other languages (good for me and for them). There are plenty of tutorials out there that they can explore in their extracurricular time. Also, there are many sites and fora dedicated to java, allowing my students to get plugged into the broader community of programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
We could just deny them access entirely. Though I would feel tension between my pledge to uphold the Hippocratic Oath and the Constitution, clearly the Constitution wins. I will defend the constitution, even to the death (of Congresspeople).
If I'm going to drop a couple Gs on getting a genome-based risk assessment, they had damn well better deep-sequence that shit.
Where's NYCL when you need him to give a brief smackdown on that theory? Haha.
Their embryos are also transparent.
NYCL - You are a hero to me and many others. Thanks for your service. Please accept my apologies for the overly-harsh admonishment!
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook: * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group
Totally not your fault. My comment about the two stories being unrelated was something of a snide jab at the "relatedly" claim made in the summary.
So, article #1 is talking about the use of a modified virus to target a cancer. Actually, to be more accurate, it's talking about modifying a virus to avoid causing liver damage while killing cancer cells.
Apparently, the adenovirus strain that they used in this trial does a good job of killing cancer cells. However, it also does a good job of killing liver cells.
What they did was introduced a liver-specific microRNA binding site to the virus. Therefore, when the virus infects the liver and produces RNA, the liver's naturally-produced microRNA will recognize this and bind to it. That's all in the article, but I'll extrapolate and assume that the body's typical dsRNA mechanisms kick in at that point, destroy the RNA, and possibly induce an antiviral response.
So essentially, it appears that they're using a virus that is good at killing cancer but is also good at destroying the liver, and they're attaching a liver-specific "kill me" tag so that the liver can protect itself.
Be glad to, but which one? There are two completely unrelated articles linked from this 'story'.
Ahh, yes. A tyrosine kinase inhibitor can play a role in alcoholism. But wait, cancer cells have tyrosine kinases, too!
I've found the connection between cancer and alcoholism: they both occur in human beings.
Exactly. Also, I may have missed this in the paper, but why not perform the experiment with a photon-blocking device (i.e., a piece of paper or, better yet, thin lead or gold) as a control?
Undergrad. To be more accurate, I know people who know you. I'm not sure that we've ever met in person.
You're discussing experiment 1. I was discussing experiment 2. Sorry for not making that clear.
"It is quick and efficient. It doesn't take time to disperse like chemical signals."
Sure, propagation is quick. On the other hand, generating the light does take time and energy because it's liberated via a chemical process.
In the end, you're simply establishing a tradeoff. With chemical signals, you have a substance that is slow to transmit, but stays around for an extended period (unless you want it to go away, then you just digest it). Light as a signal transmits rapidly, but must be regenerated constantly due to the fact that photons don't exactly linger.
To get back on topic: the results being discussed in this article are so far from conclusive that I don't really consider this study to have added anything to the scientific corpus.
Excuse me. I should have said "Godel might have something to say about mathematics reserving the right for *all* universal truths."
But then again, your response would have been much less funny. Also, I know you.
"Mathematics reserves the right for universal truths."
^
Godel might have something to say about that.
FTFA: "Depending on the cuvette material and the number of cells involved, these effects were positive or negative."
Occam's razor: These are stochastic effects.
Seriously, he replicated these studies 4 times TOTAL. "Depending on the cuvette material and the number of cells involved, these effects were positive or negative" basically fits the definition of a null hypothesis, which I certainly won't reject on the basis of 4 trials. Call me when an outside lab replicates this in a large number of trials.
If the argument is that the *chemistry* in the brain is governed by quantum principles, then I'll (trivially) agree. However, chemistry is below the 'level' that is relevant for consciousness. rrohbeck is correct in saying that the evidence doesn't support the notion that quantum mechanics is relevant for that type of neuronal function.
Perhaps more damning, there isn't even theoretical support for that idea. The scale at which quantum is relevant is substantially smaller than the scale at which neurons interact.
Even if you had a machine which could solve equation specifying, say, all of the particles in a water bottle, it wouldn't give you a more precise understanding of that bottle's macro behavior than the more simple formulae that we use for engineering macro objects all the time. Neurons are much like this (though smaller than a water bottle, they're too large to exhibit quantum mechanical behaviors).
It's not the energy that is the problem, it's the energy match.
The energy match between a 1mm wave and submicrometer biological particles is essentially zero. Provided that the emission spectrum is sufficiently narrow, this should pose absolutely no additional risk of cancer.
(Caveat: if you operate any EMF-producing device at high enough power with a wide enough emission spectrum, you can imagine that the rare high-energy particles being emitted are common enough to cause damage. I'm not a physicist, but the useful parallel in biophysics would be the Boltzmann distribution.)
Given your self-description, are you certain the diagnosis is acute and not chronic?
It's called 'jaw osteonecrosis', generally associated with high-dose bisphosphonates used for cancer treatment.
More like: sex-toy store rejects new sex-toy videogame.
And yes, for those of you who R'd TFA, given the current payment practices, I do consider the corporation to be the 'performer'.
R
.
Great suggestion; thanks for the rationale. I'll definitely look into Python before I teach my next set of students.
I helped create a Java curriculum for a group of programming-naive high school students. I don't regularly use Java, but it behaves similarly to other languages (good for me and for them). There are plenty of tutorials out there that they can explore in their extracurricular time. Also, there are many sites and fora dedicated to java, allowing my students to get plugged into the broader community of programmers.