'Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude. Tests also showed that some derivatives of the molecule are highly stable in human blood plasma, and non-toxic even at very high concentrations. A synthetic version of VIRIP also proved effective at blocking HIV, excluding the possibility that some other factor was responsible. VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell. '"
Yes, but how effective. Generally, drug companies synthesize naturally occurring compounds (effedrine vs. psuedoeffedrine) to remove nasty side effects and improve performance. However, this systhesis also allows the companies to patent their drug formulations and charge exhorbitant amounts of money for they molecular forgeries. In this case, I wonder how "proved effective" matches up with a two orders of magnitude boost in potency. Everyone needs to see a return on investment, but if there is no reason to make a synthetic version and the (tweaked) naturally occuring version works as well or better, I would hope seeing return on investment is translated as "lives saved" and not "dollars earned."
When was the last time a genetic predisposition to heart disease, diabetes or MS trumped feeling of genuine love? Or glasses for that matter. Until GATACCA comes to pass and genetic descrimination is a way of life, "genetic progress" will be halted. And I am fine with that.
Yes, but while knowing the mechanism netted someone their PhD (or some PhD their tenure,) a workable implementation will net some company billions of dollars. Nearly 100% efficient solar cells? Yes, please. Pass the chlorophyll over here.
I guess we just have to disagree on this. I know other companies have engaged in industrial espionage in the past, but I do not think it is OK for Chinese companies to do it now. Chinese companies use their labor force as reasoning to bring product assembly to China. This allows them to reverse engineer any product they assemble. They are very good at it.
0) Well I guess the rest of the global economy who got used to legislative control that allowed them to sell products they developed and implemented, that built their companies around this (they have to now, even if they did not in the past) will just have to go back to the good 'ol days of stealing ideas. Why? Because China joined the game and if we do not change all the rules, they will take their billion member, dirt cheap labor force and go home.
1) Chinese companies are engaged in industrial espionage. They steal technology implementations that require millions of dollars to develop. They do not copy the idea, they copy the implementation. I think this is stealing.
2) Fine, R&D AND implementation costs, because, again, Chinese companies are engaged in industrial espionage. Oh, and Chinese quality culture is leaps and bounds beyond where it was. You need some form of QC to build these.
3) Oh, but it is much less than working the bugs out on your own.
I loved Reading Rainbow as a child, because I love to read and it was hosted by LaVar Burton, AKA Geordi La Forge. So in that vein, you can always read more about it! Now, its time for coffee.
I personally think it is stupid and a waste of resources to reinvent a good wheel (badly or in a twisted manner to avoid "patent infringement") when you can copy it.
If you like the wheel, you buy the wheel, you do not steal the wheel. Say you work for the most altruistic company in the world. You spend millions developing a widget that costs $100 to manufacter, but you have to pay for R&D costs, so its $200 until the R&D costs go away. Why pay the R&D costs? Your employees need to eat food, not altruism. If someone steals you prototype (or your design, or infringes on your patent, or reverse engineers your patent) and starts producing your widget, think about these two possibilities:
A. They directly compete with you, selling at $200 and cut into your sales. This increases the time to recoup R&D costs and cuts budgets for all your other altruistic projects.
B. They directly compete with you, selling at $175 and eliminate your sales. Why shouldn't they undercut you? They do not have to worry about R&D costs and they do not have to share sales anymore. No one will buy your product on moral grounds because they is nothing wrong with what they did, right? Why should they reinvent the wheel? Oh, the time to recoup R&D costs goes to infinity and your altrustic company goes out of business.
This is simple economics. It costs resources to develop an idea from the drawing board and to build a product. In a global economy, if one of the players just cuts corners by stealing someone work, why should anyone do anything?
I would comment on your use of profanity, but I know it would not do any good. There is nothing insightful about your comment or the disgusting grammar it displays. First, pay attention to the title. Technology is the implementation of knowledge and is the reason why patents are important. It costs time and money, large amounts of R&D, to bring an idea to maturity. Without the incentive of recouping these costs, why should anyone raise an idea out of the pages of scientific journals and into your grubby little fingers?
Obviously, anything about China stealing US technology would be considered racist and FOXNEWSish, so how about what they are doing to Germany from the German perspective? Are you telling me a transportation system as complicated as a magnetically levitated train under development for 24 years can be replicated in 22 months because one guy cleverer than the next? You might find a gem in there about Airbus, a French company as well.
Just so you know, there is a blurb about Boeing, a US company, so I will not be surprised if you discount the article completely. That would, however, render you ignorant of the complete situation.
And then there is surely a correlation between the BMI and the percentage of body fat one has. There are fully trained athlets whose musculature increases the BMI into obesity levels without being obese. But those are not normal people. Most people with a high BMI are really fat, and if you do a statistic you probably wont find a 1 as correlation factor, but something very high in the 0.9. Those few heavy lifters don't exonerage a whole fat population from being obese.
Do you have anything to back that up besides "surely's" and "probably's?" I only have my personal experience, but it is a data point. I am not a body builder. I am 6', 255 lbs. which gives me a BMI of 34.6. This indicates obesity. I can run a 5K, I play soccer and football and go to the gym 3-5 times per week. I wear and XL shirt and wear 40/32 pants. You would never call me obese (a bit overweight, maybe) and you would never guess I weigh 255lbs. If you look at the limitations of the BMI, note It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build. I am not an athlete, I am a software engineer. Chalk it up to northern European barabarian genetics. I just have a "muscular build," I wore "husky" jeans as a kid and you may have referred to me as "chunky." But I am by no stretch of the imagination a "heavy lifter."
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night
Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
Istanbul (Istanbul)
Istanbul (Istanbul)
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
It's not like that can't archive processor designs and such, just why archive spam, inter-office bullsh!t, like love letters, plans for the pub and whatnot (ok, the loveletters may be interesting reading...)
Because "processor designs and such" do not contain intentions, motivations and business decisions based upon anti-competitive practices. Amidst all that noise is possibly an e-mail gem sent to a distribution group describing some, shall we say, shady business decisions. This e-mail could have spurred multiple replies and conversations that would also be of interest to the court. Obliterating the whole moutainside eliminates any chance of finding those diamonds.
Change in Chineese trading market regulations were the cause of this drop. A massive sell off occurred with the beginning of a crackdown on questionable and illegal trading on China's stock market. This rippled to every other market in the world. Asian, North America, South American and European markets were all affected. Blaming the computer systems is damage control.
...many nonprofessional evolutionary biologists consider "evolution" to be a rather nonspecific word meaning "gradual change," and that "emergence" more explicitly incorporates the component aspects of the evolutionary process, namely, mutation, recombination, and/or horizontal transfer of resistance. The word "spread" may, similarly, appear to incorporate the component processes of transmission, horizontal transfer, and increase in allele frequency.
Buried in the paper is a rational explantation of the nomenclature used. The connotation (and denotation) of evolution is that of a gradual, generational change. It does not convey the horizontal nature of the adaptation being discussed in antibiotic resistance research.
From the same paragraph:
While these processes are recognized by professional evolutionary biologists as important aspects of evolutionary change, biomedical researchers may have the sense that the word "evolution" is itself too imprecise.
Scientific research papers are about precision. Evolution is too broad a term.
A critical question is whether avoidance of the word "evolution" has had an impact on the public perception of science.
No, it is not. I am sorry, but scientific papers are not for the unwashed masses. They are for publishing and interchange of technical information between professionals working in a specific field of research. Research papers, antibiotic or otherwise, are not the correct vector for delivering evolution to the general public.
I'm assuming a Dreadknight follows the EQ Shadowknight model, ie a mix of Warrior and Necro...
And you would be wrong. A Dreadknight is a defensive fighter meant to hold aggro whilst others DPS, just like a Warrior. The hate generating abilities, stunning abilities and different stances are very similar to those of a Warrior.
The weight of an object is based upon the amount of matter it has and the acceleration due to a local gravity field upong the object. The mass of an object is just the amount of matter it has, a fundemental quantity. Objects weigh less on the moon because the moon's gravitation pull is less than the earth. You can think of gravity as the interaction of two masses, with the medium that transmits the interaction being space-time. The moon has less gravity than Earth because it has less mass than Earth, so its interaction with other masses is less pronounced than the earths. You do not loose mass by moving to the moon, you just loose weight. Physics 101
Hurray for bio-diesel! While ethanol is the flashy, trendy and expensive Mac getting all the press, bio-diesel is the time tested PC stand by with a new twist...no more window, now running lean, mean and clean Linux. Bio-diesel makes sense on so many more levels than ethanol.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=int ernet+argument
When you're having an argument in a public forum...t ernet+argument
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=in
How do you know what he has and what he does not have?
If the bullet has enough (a) is does not need any (b,) because nothing lasts very long against lots of (a) moving really fast. (I need me some (a.))
'Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude. Tests also showed that some derivatives of the molecule are highly stable in human blood plasma, and non-toxic even at very high concentrations. A synthetic version of VIRIP also proved effective at blocking HIV, excluding the possibility that some other factor was responsible. VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell. '"
Yes, but how effective. Generally, drug companies synthesize naturally occurring compounds (effedrine vs. psuedoeffedrine) to remove nasty side effects and improve performance. However, this systhesis also allows the companies to patent their drug formulations and charge exhorbitant amounts of money for they molecular forgeries. In this case, I wonder how "proved effective" matches up with a two orders of magnitude boost in potency. Everyone needs to see a return on investment, but if there is no reason to make a synthetic version and the (tweaked) naturally occuring version works as well or better, I would hope seeing return on investment is translated as "lives saved" and not "dollars earned."
TED
When was the last time a genetic predisposition to heart disease, diabetes or MS trumped feeling of genuine love? Or glasses for that matter. Until GATACCA comes to pass and genetic descrimination is a way of life, "genetic progress" will be halted. And I am fine with that.
Yes, but while knowing the mechanism netted someone their PhD (or some PhD their tenure,) a workable implementation will net some company billions of dollars. Nearly 100% efficient solar cells? Yes, please. Pass the chlorophyll over here.
I guess we just have to disagree on this. I know other companies have engaged in industrial espionage in the past, but I do not think it is OK for Chinese companies to do it now. Chinese companies use their labor force as reasoning to bring product assembly to China. This allows them to reverse engineer any product they assemble. They are very good at it.
0) Well I guess the rest of the global economy who got used to legislative control that allowed them to sell products they developed and implemented, that built their companies around this (they have to now, even if they did not in the past) will just have to go back to the good 'ol days of stealing ideas. Why? Because China joined the game and if we do not change all the rules, they will take their billion member, dirt cheap labor force and go home.
1) Chinese companies are engaged in industrial espionage. They steal technology implementations that require millions of dollars to develop. They do not copy the idea, they copy the implementation. I think this is stealing.
2) Fine, R&D AND implementation costs, because, again, Chinese companies are engaged in industrial espionage. Oh, and Chinese quality culture is leaps and bounds beyond where it was. You need some form of QC to build these.
3) Oh, but it is much less than working the bugs out on your own.
I loved Reading Rainbow as a child, because I love to read and it was hosted by LaVar Burton, AKA Geordi La Forge. So in that vein, you can always read more about it! Now, its time for coffee.
I personally think it is stupid and a waste of resources to reinvent a good wheel (badly or in a twisted manner to avoid "patent infringement") when you can copy it.
If you like the wheel, you buy the wheel, you do not steal the wheel. Say you work for the most altruistic company in the world. You spend millions developing a widget that costs $100 to manufacter, but you have to pay for R&D costs, so its $200 until the R&D costs go away. Why pay the R&D costs? Your employees need to eat food, not altruism. If someone steals you prototype (or your design, or infringes on your patent, or reverse engineers your patent) and starts producing your widget, think about these two possibilities:
A. They directly compete with you, selling at $200 and cut into your sales. This increases the time to recoup R&D costs and cuts budgets for all your other altruistic projects.
B. They directly compete with you, selling at $175 and eliminate your sales. Why shouldn't they undercut you? They do not have to worry about R&D costs and they do not have to share sales anymore. No one will buy your product on moral grounds because they is nothing wrong with what they did, right? Why should they reinvent the wheel? Oh, the time to recoup R&D costs goes to infinity and your altrustic company goes out of business.
This is simple economics. It costs resources to develop an idea from the drawing board and to build a product. In a global economy, if one of the players just cuts corners by stealing someone work, why should anyone do anything?
I would comment on your use of profanity, but I know it would not do any good. There is nothing insightful about your comment or the disgusting grammar it displays. First, pay attention to the title. Technology is the implementation of knowledge and is the reason why patents are important. It costs time and money, large amounts of R&D, to bring an idea to maturity. Without the incentive of recouping these costs, why should anyone raise an idea out of the pages of scientific journals and into your grubby little fingers?
Obviously, anything about China stealing US technology would be considered racist and FOXNEWSish, so how about what they are doing to Germany from the German perspective? Are you telling me a transportation system as complicated as a magnetically levitated train under development for 24 years can be replicated in 22 months because one guy cleverer than the next? You might find a gem in there about Airbus, a French company as well.
Just so you know, there is a blurb about Boeing, a US company, so I will not be surprised if you discount the article completely. That would, however, render you ignorant of the complete situation.
China Systematically Stealing New Technologies
And I don't care if you mod me down! Damn the man!
Its called scortched earth, man. Haven't you ever heard salt the fields of thine enemies?
But you cannot take out a large city with an rpg.
And then there is surely a correlation between the BMI and the percentage of body fat one has. There are fully trained athlets whose musculature increases the BMI into obesity levels without being obese. But those are not normal people. Most people with a high BMI are really fat, and if you do a statistic you probably wont find a 1 as correlation factor, but something very high in the 0.9. Those few heavy lifters don't exonerage a whole fat population from being obese.
Do you have anything to back that up besides "surely's" and "probably's?" I only have my personal experience, but it is a data point. I am not a body builder. I am 6', 255 lbs. which gives me a BMI of 34.6. This indicates obesity. I can run a 5K, I play soccer and football and go to the gym 3-5 times per week. I wear and XL shirt and wear 40/32 pants. You would never call me obese (a bit overweight, maybe) and you would never guess I weigh 255lbs. If you look at the limitations of the BMI, note It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build. I am not an athlete, I am a software engineer. Chalk it up to northern European barabarian genetics. I just have a "muscular build," I wore "husky" jeans as a kid and you may have referred to me as "chunky." But I am by no stretch of the imagination a "heavy lifter."
Yeah, nothing to see...ignore the $1,000,000,000,000.00 suit. Negotiation tactics are cruise missiles, not nukes.
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night
Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
Istanbul (Istanbul)
Istanbul (Istanbul)
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
Istanbu
It's not like that can't archive processor designs and such, just why archive spam, inter-office bullsh!t, like love letters, plans for the pub and whatnot (ok, the loveletters may be interesting reading...)
Because "processor designs and such" do not contain intentions, motivations and business decisions based upon anti-competitive practices. Amidst all that noise is possibly an e-mail gem sent to a distribution group describing some, shall we say, shady business decisions. This e-mail could have spurred multiple replies and conversations that would also be of interest to the court. Obliterating the whole moutainside eliminates any chance of finding those diamonds.
I prefer Bloomberg for my financial news. Straight down the middle.i d=arfY.lBSosN4&refer=news
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&s
Change in Chineese trading market regulations were the cause of this drop. A massive sell off occurred with the beginning of a crackdown on questionable and illegal trading on China's stock market. This rippled to every other market in the world. Asian, North America, South American and European markets were all affected. Blaming the computer systems is damage control.
...many nonprofessional evolutionary biologists consider "evolution" to be a rather nonspecific word meaning "gradual change," and that "emergence" more explicitly incorporates the component aspects of the evolutionary process, namely, mutation, recombination, and/or horizontal transfer of resistance. The word "spread" may, similarly, appear to incorporate the component processes of transmission, horizontal transfer, and increase in allele frequency.
Buried in the paper is a rational explantation of the nomenclature used. The connotation (and denotation) of evolution is that of a gradual, generational change. It does not convey the horizontal nature of the adaptation being discussed in antibiotic resistance research.
From the same paragraph:
While these processes are recognized by professional evolutionary biologists as important aspects of evolutionary change, biomedical researchers may have the sense that the word "evolution" is itself too imprecise.
Scientific research papers are about precision. Evolution is too broad a term.
A critical question is whether avoidance of the word "evolution" has had an impact on the public perception of science.
No, it is not. I am sorry, but scientific papers are not for the unwashed masses. They are for publishing and interchange of technical information between professionals working in a specific field of research. Research papers, antibiotic or otherwise, are not the correct vector for delivering evolution to the general public.
I'm assuming a Dreadknight follows the EQ Shadowknight model, ie a mix of Warrior and Necro...
And you would be wrong. A Dreadknight is a defensive fighter meant to hold aggro whilst others DPS, just like a Warrior. The hate generating abilities, stunning abilities and different stances are very similar to those of a Warrior.
...my parents have a chandelier...
Sorry concern for the environment will make your parent's chandelier look unattractive.
The weight of an object is based upon the amount of matter it has and the acceleration due to a local gravity field upong the object. The mass of an object is just the amount of matter it has, a fundemental quantity. Objects weigh less on the moon because the moon's gravitation pull is less than the earth. You can think of gravity as the interaction of two masses, with the medium that transmits the interaction being space-time. The moon has less gravity than Earth because it has less mass than Earth, so its interaction with other masses is less pronounced than the earths. You do not loose mass by moving to the moon, you just loose weight. Physics 101
Hurray for bio-diesel! While ethanol is the flashy, trendy and expensive Mac getting all the press, bio-diesel is the time tested PC stand by with a new twist...no more window, now running lean, mean and clean Linux. Bio-diesel makes sense on so many more levels than ethanol.