It's just a negative feedback circuit. If you inhibit yourself, then you stop producing, which stops inhibiting your own inhibition, etc. and this causes oscillation.
The problem is that there are definitely some types of cells that simply can't be made via stem cells, because the requisite stem cells simply don't exist. Consider Type I Diabetes, for example; beta islet cells have no adult stem cell, and no adult stem cell has been conclusively shown to differentiate into beta cells (as opposed to, say, fusing with beta cells, which might make it seem as though stem cells differentiated; this is a common mistake and problem with stem-cell differentiation research).
People are already starting to sequence cancer cells, and they're all quite different from each other. Cancer can be caused by a few select viruses, but the majority are probably caused by simple mutations; and yes, cancer is really just a group of cells that has a change to make it proliferate uncontrollably, which is how it kills the "host." The main thing that makes cancer more complicated is that so many things have to happen for cancer to survive (disable antiproliferative regulatory systems, force blood vessels to grow around it, become immortal, disable anticancer-sensing autodestruct systems).
It's been found that carbon can, however, be pseudo-hypervalent via a three-center two-electron bond. It's nearly equivalent to having hypervalent carbon, since the molecule becomes symmetric. Carbonium-carbenium chemistry is really interesting...
Not only is this a new method, but it isn't really all that practical for the synthesis of fuels. You can't run this reaction with just substrates and the Grubb's catalyst; you have to have solvents, which cost money. The catalysts have a finite lifetime and turnover, so you also have to replace those. That's not really very cost effective, in the end, compared to simply adapting technologies to use the substrates as fuel directly.
Microeconomics has a concept called "monopolistic competition", which is an intermediary between pure monopoly and pure commodity. Obviously, anything protected by copyright has monopolistic competition. Think of the competition between clothing lines, books, music, software, and so on. Sure, in a sense, there's a monopoly in that they're the only ones making the product, making them price-makers instead of price-takers, but that doesn't mean they're immune from demand curves. In fact, in monopolistic competition, the curve is almost completely determined by the demand curve, making consumers the ones that determine the market. As demand becomes higher, prices will rise, making other suppliers pile in with closer and closer substitutes, until demand goes down for that specific product (as people turn to cheaper substitutes). That's why a lot of popular music sounds basically the same, because they try to substitute for each other. The music industry doesn't have unlimited pricing power; they have to respond to demand, or they lose sales. Thus, market forces win anyway. The only time there is a true problem is when there is an *actual* full, systemic monopoly on a commodity which has no close substitute (say, oil).
If those "key" bits of functionality are really worth it to you, then you'll probably pay for them. If they aren't, they just don't pay for them, or replace them with cheaper functionality from third parties. If Microsoft really has made their software too expensive, they won't sell as much as they anticipated, and so they'll have to make it cheaper. Let market forces decide if it's too expensive or not.
It isn't just polarity; hydrogen bonding plays a huge part in creating the entropic effects necessary for protein folding, as well as the optimal heat capacity for maintaining a stable earth temperature.
Peter Schultz at the Scripps Institute had done similar work before; he had assembled "libraries" of mice with various genetic mutations, to see their effects on entire living systems. On one of the mice, he found that it could regenerated the tissue in its ear when they punched holes in them. I don't know whether they investigated that strain any further, or as drastically as these scientists had, but he did come up with a mouse line that did this.
There could be a lot of alternative explanations for this study's results, including causality in the reverse of what Slashdotter's seem to prefer seeing in the data. It does not suggest at all that peer-to-peer downloading will encourage legitimate buying (though it doesn't necessarily exclude it). Instead, alternative explanations include:
People who are music fans (and thus buy lots of music in general) will also download lots of music by legal or illegal means.
The BPI's explanation could definitely be true. The majority of people could be "switching" to illegal downloads instead of buying, with a select few buying lots of music and downloading lots of music, too, thus giving the observed correlation of downloads and buying (on average).
Next time, have him/her check the macrumor's Apple buyer's guide, which will tell you approximately when the next updates will be coming, so that he/she doesn't get burned like that again.
I use Google Scholar a lot for chemistry searches, just because it's a helluva lot faster and easier to use than Scifinder Scholar or Beilstein, even though the latter two are a bit more comprehensive. Google's apparently done some sort of arrangement with my university, because I can access fulltext through Scholar searches itself, which is immensely useful.
Silica is relatively cheap and non-toxic (other than causing asbestos like cancer when inhaled). The sodium-mercury amalgam is quite toxic and very expensive, and it's also a bit more difficult to handle.
Not everything must be for profit (cf. non-profit corporations), but it's better that the private sector do something than the public sector, all other things being equal, because you gain consumer and producer surpluses, which you lose with tax-funded public ventures. The catch, of course, is "all other things being equal", which is often not the case. Here, though, I'd say that the ACS does a pretty good job with CAS and SciFinder.
"so a free system like this would certainly be great for the average citizen. Additionally, it may well be worth the government's while, in terms of cost, to develop a free system for their own use."
Most of the people using SciFinder scholar, CAS, Beilstein, etc. are university researchers and industrial chemists anyway. Maybe a few are in gov't labs, and a very small few are in independent labs like Cold Spring Harbor. How many "average citizens" would actually benefit from a open database (not that there's anything wrong with an open database). Plus, it's generally not worth the government's time to do anything that a private company can already do quite well.
Er, except that economically, it's much more efficient for private businesses to do something than the government, since with taxation you lose consumer and producer surpluses.
Sheesh. You're criticizing me about my sig? I suppose you're one of those people who doesn't understand the whole "tongue-in-cheek" concept of Calvin and Hobbes.
I think for myself, showing why the dogma, that valuable texts were probably destroyed ideologically, rather than according to some false economics. I back up my attack on the dogmas with facts and logic.
Since you don't actually have any logic or facts, I'm done arguing with you. That whole thing about the Irish being the only ones to transcribe pre-Catholic texts is actually a myth. The Spanish Inquisition happened in the 1400's, this manuscript was turned into a prayerbook a few hundred years before that. You glorified the return of the Renaissance as the "Age of Reason" and a return of science, when in actuality, it was the Age of Religion and the Inquisition. No facts, no logic, no reason. Go figure, you're a Slashdot junkie, that's pretty typical.
I think there was quite a bit more than superficial resemblence. Round arches, Romanesque basilica-style cathedrals, barral vaults, frescoes, acanthus leaf motifs, and monumental sculptures as parts of architecture were all from Roman styles. Roman models were quite well-known and studied, and other Grecoroman styles came in with a Byzantine twist, such as realistic modeling of human forms under drapery and more Hellenistic-era style emotion and drama. Influences like the Roman aqueducts are clearly visible in the various cathedrals during that time.
My point in invoking the Romanesque was that the church didn't destroy the Grecoroman tradition. Rather, the tradition was lost when the empire fell, and it slowly seeped back in, mostly due to the help of the Church and the aristocracy. The parts that were lost were mostly due to raids, fires, wars, and general rot and lack of care.
For a supposed attacker of religious dogma, you sure are one hell of a dogmatic.
Firstly, Grecoroman culture had about 1200 years (the first noted philosopher Thales, who is dated from about 585 BC by the eclipse he observed) to the fall of Western Rome and Latin culture at about 600 AD, while Christianity had a about 800 years (400-1200) in the Middle Ages, before what most people call the Renaissance (which is really just a misnomer). But since you are so anti-religion, lets take the word of Bertrand Russell, a noted famous atheist philosopher. He gives many Greek philosophers, but he also attests to St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, John the Scot, Abailard, St. Aquinas, the Franciscans, and so on. The problem here, of course, is that there is a false dichotomy between philosophy and theology; almost all Church philosophers were theologians. If one doesn't explicitely exclude theologists for being theologists, then we can also consider people like St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Ignatius, and so on, all the people that had ideas about how to live and what the structure of the world is (which is really what philosophy is all about).
The church actively saved tons of Grecoroman culture, and most of it, in fact, was not "lost" during the Middle Ages. Also, it's a relatively false claim that the Renaissance brought about a secularization of the people. Contemporary historians are now of the belief that during the early Renaissance, people became *more* religious, and religion became more widespread. During the Middle Ages, religion was mostly confined to the wealthy and the members of the clergy. Most people saw it was there, but it didn't really affect their lives. In the Renaissance and thereafter, religion became more widespread, and people started to practice, and the laity became a huge part of the religious movement. So you can't really put this strange dichotomy between the Medievalists and the Renaissance.
The main difference in the Renaissance was not that they discovered Grecoroman culture again, because they'd done that a while ago, but that 1) Wealth started being democratized 2) People started invoking Grecoroman republics to justify seizing power (cf. Cosimo de Medici, Lorenzo de Medici). Those two lead to people being antiquarians (i.e. not really reviving Grecoroman learning, but learning about it because it was fashionable). You'll remember that Latin only really survived because of the Church; how many countless books would have been lost if not for the preservation of Latin in the west and Greek in the east by the Church? Plato, Aristotle, and many other famous Greek philosophers only survived because the Church preserved them. It's not like they didn't recognize the value of such things.
You exaggerate to dishonesty my assertion, then argue with a strawman.
Sheesh. You're more in the tradition of wiping out inconvenient learning than the Catholic church is. People as dogmatic as you who talk about subjects before they even have an adequate, working knowledge of them are the people who lead to things like Kansas' problems with evolution, or the people in favor of intelligent design, and so on. Get with the 21st century, man; try reading first.
After 600 years in the hands of the Catholic Church, European civilization had lost most of its heritage of learning and rationality it inherited from the Grecoromans who produced it.
So what do you call all the Platonists and Aristotelian Catholic philosophers? St. Augustine was a definite Platonist, using it to explain Christian ideology in a manner that (attempted to be) rational. Same with St. Aquinas, who was an Aristotelian and hailed as the greatest philosopher of the Catholic Church. Whatever you might think of their Scholasticism, they were trying to be as hyper-rational and logical as one could imagine. Yes, they had definite agendas in mind (i.e. justifying Christianity), but you can't just dismiss them and say that Grecoroman learning and rationality "disappeared."
If you know any of your art history, Grecoroman culture was also preserved to a certain extent (hence, Romanesque art), but it was later pushed aside by more German and French styles (Gothic), which were in vogue because people liked windows (which Romanesque styles didn't really support) in their Cathedrals.
Sorry if I sound a bit nitpicky, but I think your examination of "language" is a bit misguided. I'm not really sure what standard you're using for "importance", but I'd say that importance is determined by what is observed, and their closeness to it. If a theory (a.k.a. model) doesn't work with observation, we don't throw out the observation. Sure, models and theories are what give understanding or predictions (or both), but facts are the immutable foundations by which models and theories are judged. If they aren't quantitatively or qualitatively predictive, they have no value (or at least, they're only valuable to the scope to which they apply).
Slashdot Mirror
It's just a negative feedback circuit. If you inhibit yourself, then you stop producing, which stops inhibiting your own inhibition, etc. and this causes oscillation.
The problem is that there are definitely some types of cells that simply can't be made via stem cells, because the requisite stem cells simply don't exist. Consider Type I Diabetes, for example; beta islet cells have no adult stem cell, and no adult stem cell has been conclusively shown to differentiate into beta cells (as opposed to, say, fusing with beta cells, which might make it seem as though stem cells differentiated; this is a common mistake and problem with stem-cell differentiation research).
People are already starting to sequence cancer cells, and they're all quite different from each other. Cancer can be caused by a few select viruses, but the majority are probably caused by simple mutations; and yes, cancer is really just a group of cells that has a change to make it proliferate uncontrollably, which is how it kills the "host." The main thing that makes cancer more complicated is that so many things have to happen for cancer to survive (disable antiproliferative regulatory systems, force blood vessels to grow around it, become immortal, disable anticancer-sensing autodestruct systems).
Vitalism dies hard.
It's been found that carbon can, however, be pseudo-hypervalent via a three-center two-electron bond. It's nearly equivalent to having hypervalent carbon, since the molecule becomes symmetric. Carbonium-carbenium chemistry is really interesting...
Induction.
Not only is this a new method, but it isn't really all that practical for the synthesis of fuels. You can't run this reaction with just substrates and the Grubb's catalyst; you have to have solvents, which cost money. The catalysts have a finite lifetime and turnover, so you also have to replace those. That's not really very cost effective, in the end, compared to simply adapting technologies to use the substrates as fuel directly.
Microeconomics has a concept called "monopolistic competition", which is an intermediary between pure monopoly and pure commodity. Obviously, anything protected by copyright has monopolistic competition. Think of the competition between clothing lines, books, music, software, and so on. Sure, in a sense, there's a monopoly in that they're the only ones making the product, making them price-makers instead of price-takers, but that doesn't mean they're immune from demand curves. In fact, in monopolistic competition, the curve is almost completely determined by the demand curve, making consumers the ones that determine the market. As demand becomes higher, prices will rise, making other suppliers pile in with closer and closer substitutes, until demand goes down for that specific product (as people turn to cheaper substitutes). That's why a lot of popular music sounds basically the same, because they try to substitute for each other. The music industry doesn't have unlimited pricing power; they have to respond to demand, or they lose sales. Thus, market forces win anyway. The only time there is a true problem is when there is an *actual* full, systemic monopoly on a commodity which has no close substitute (say, oil).
If those "key" bits of functionality are really worth it to you, then you'll probably pay for them. If they aren't, they just don't pay for them, or replace them with cheaper functionality from third parties. If Microsoft really has made their software too expensive, they won't sell as much as they anticipated, and so they'll have to make it cheaper. Let market forces decide if it's too expensive or not.
It isn't just polarity; hydrogen bonding plays a huge part in creating the entropic effects necessary for protein folding, as well as the optimal heat capacity for maintaining a stable earth temperature.
Peter Schultz at the Scripps Institute had done similar work before; he had assembled "libraries" of mice with various genetic mutations, to see their effects on entire living systems. On one of the mice, he found that it could regenerated the tissue in its ear when they punched holes in them. I don't know whether they investigated that strain any further, or as drastically as these scientists had, but he did come up with a mouse line that did this.
Next time, have him/her check the macrumor's Apple buyer's guide, which will tell you approximately when the next updates will be coming, so that he/she doesn't get burned like that again.
I use Google Scholar a lot for chemistry searches, just because it's a helluva lot faster and easier to use than Scifinder Scholar or Beilstein, even though the latter two are a bit more comprehensive. Google's apparently done some sort of arrangement with my university, because I can access fulltext through Scholar searches itself, which is immensely useful.
Silica is relatively cheap and non-toxic (other than causing asbestos like cancer when inhaled). The sodium-mercury amalgam is quite toxic and very expensive, and it's also a bit more difficult to handle.
Not everything must be for profit (cf. non-profit corporations), but it's better that the private sector do something than the public sector, all other things being equal, because you gain consumer and producer surpluses, which you lose with tax-funded public ventures. The catch, of course, is "all other things being equal", which is often not the case. Here, though, I'd say that the ACS does a pretty good job with CAS and SciFinder.
Most of the people using SciFinder scholar, CAS, Beilstein, etc. are university researchers and industrial chemists anyway. Maybe a few are in gov't labs, and a very small few are in independent labs like Cold Spring Harbor. How many "average citizens" would actually benefit from a open database (not that there's anything wrong with an open database). Plus, it's generally not worth the government's time to do anything that a private company can already do quite well.
Er, except that economically, it's much more efficient for private businesses to do something than the government, since with taxation you lose consumer and producer surpluses.
I think for myself, showing why the dogma, that valuable texts were probably destroyed ideologically, rather than according to some false economics. I back up my attack on the dogmas with facts and logic.
Since you don't actually have any logic or facts, I'm done arguing with you. That whole thing about the Irish being the only ones to transcribe pre-Catholic texts is actually a myth. The Spanish Inquisition happened in the 1400's, this manuscript was turned into a prayerbook a few hundred years before that. You glorified the return of the Renaissance as the "Age of Reason" and a return of science, when in actuality, it was the Age of Religion and the Inquisition. No facts, no logic, no reason. Go figure, you're a Slashdot junkie, that's pretty typical.
My point in invoking the Romanesque was that the church didn't destroy the Grecoroman tradition. Rather, the tradition was lost when the empire fell, and it slowly seeped back in, mostly due to the help of the Church and the aristocracy. The parts that were lost were mostly due to raids, fires, wars, and general rot and lack of care.
Firstly, Grecoroman culture had about 1200 years (the first noted philosopher Thales, who is dated from about 585 BC by the eclipse he observed) to the fall of Western Rome and Latin culture at about 600 AD, while Christianity had a about 800 years (400-1200) in the Middle Ages, before what most people call the Renaissance (which is really just a misnomer). But since you are so anti-religion, lets take the word of Bertrand Russell, a noted famous atheist philosopher. He gives many Greek philosophers, but he also attests to St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, John the Scot, Abailard, St. Aquinas, the Franciscans, and so on. The problem here, of course, is that there is a false dichotomy between philosophy and theology; almost all Church philosophers were theologians. If one doesn't explicitely exclude theologists for being theologists, then we can also consider people like St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Ignatius, and so on, all the people that had ideas about how to live and what the structure of the world is (which is really what philosophy is all about).
The church actively saved tons of Grecoroman culture, and most of it, in fact, was not "lost" during the Middle Ages. Also, it's a relatively false claim that the Renaissance brought about a secularization of the people. Contemporary historians are now of the belief that during the early Renaissance, people became *more* religious, and religion became more widespread. During the Middle Ages, religion was mostly confined to the wealthy and the members of the clergy. Most people saw it was there, but it didn't really affect their lives. In the Renaissance and thereafter, religion became more widespread, and people started to practice, and the laity became a huge part of the religious movement. So you can't really put this strange dichotomy between the Medievalists and the Renaissance.
The main difference in the Renaissance was not that they discovered Grecoroman culture again, because they'd done that a while ago, but that 1) Wealth started being democratized 2) People started invoking Grecoroman republics to justify seizing power (cf. Cosimo de Medici, Lorenzo de Medici). Those two lead to people being antiquarians (i.e. not really reviving Grecoroman learning, but learning about it because it was fashionable). You'll remember that Latin only really survived because of the Church; how many countless books would have been lost if not for the preservation of Latin in the west and Greek in the east by the Church? Plato, Aristotle, and many other famous Greek philosophers only survived because the Church preserved them. It's not like they didn't recognize the value of such things.
You exaggerate to dishonesty my assertion, then argue with a strawman.
Sheesh. You're more in the tradition of wiping out inconvenient learning than the Catholic church is. People as dogmatic as you who talk about subjects before they even have an adequate, working knowledge of them are the people who lead to things like Kansas' problems with evolution, or the people in favor of intelligent design, and so on. Get with the 21st century, man; try reading first.
So what do you call all the Platonists and Aristotelian Catholic philosophers? St. Augustine was a definite Platonist, using it to explain Christian ideology in a manner that (attempted to be) rational. Same with St. Aquinas, who was an Aristotelian and hailed as the greatest philosopher of the Catholic Church. Whatever you might think of their Scholasticism, they were trying to be as hyper-rational and logical as one could imagine. Yes, they had definite agendas in mind (i.e. justifying Christianity), but you can't just dismiss them and say that Grecoroman learning and rationality "disappeared."
If you know any of your art history, Grecoroman culture was also preserved to a certain extent (hence, Romanesque art), but it was later pushed aside by more German and French styles (Gothic), which were in vogue because people liked windows (which Romanesque styles didn't really support) in their Cathedrals.
They're using PEG, and it's known to be fairly inert. It just diffuses out of cells after the chain breaks down, since it's small and nonpolar.
Sorry if I sound a bit nitpicky, but I think your examination of "language" is a bit misguided. I'm not really sure what standard you're using for "importance", but I'd say that importance is determined by what is observed, and their closeness to it. If a theory (a.k.a. model) doesn't work with observation, we don't throw out the observation. Sure, models and theories are what give understanding or predictions (or both), but facts are the immutable foundations by which models and theories are judged. If they aren't quantitatively or qualitatively predictive, they have no value (or at least, they're only valuable to the scope to which they apply).
Reminds me of Jasondows from Foxtrot...