Actually, current drug treatments can bring HIV levels down to an undetectable amount--however, the virus is somehow still lurking in your body (perhaps in your brain, as antibody producing cells cannot cross the blood brain barrier).
One of the concepts of evolution is that two species cannot live in the same niche, i.e. two versions of HIV cannot coexist at the same time. Due to natural selection, one HIV species will beat the other out. Since HIV's mechanism of spreading is quite dependant on the lysis of white blood cells, I would not expect the winner of this battle to be this new "helpful" HIV
There's been a new "virus treatment" almost every year, and each supposedly showing promise to cure cancer, or AIDS, etc. In fact, as far back as the 1930s, people have been attempting to use bacteriophage viruses as antibiotics.
All the experiments generally end up failing for one simple reason: your body has an immune system. And the immune system will attack the good virus and eliminiate it quickly.
This promising new HIV is special because it lacks the ability to kill white blood cells. Common sense says since it can't kill them, it'll be destroyed by them. Either that, or due to natural selection, the normal HIV that *can* kill will crowd out the "good" HIV.
The person who had the "wrong" leg amputated was Willie King.
* Mr. King suffered from progressive vascular disease in both legs arising from diabetic complications that had affected several organs. He was losing both legs to these complications; the question was in what order they would go.
* Both of Mr. King's legs had undergone extensive assessment. According to many of the tests, his left leg was actually farther gone than his right, its arteries 90 percent occluded. This severely diseased leg was in no way normal-looking, and would have had to be amputated in "a very short period of time". But King had asked doctors to remove the right leg because it was giving him more pain.
http://walterolson.com/articles/wsjleg.html
Oh, and as a side note: you are correct that CPR alone rarely is enough to recussitate a victim. I believe that laymen CPR classes now exclude pulse-checking from their training. Health care professionals, however, are still required to check for pulses.
AEDs are not a magic bullet. AEDs are only effective for two *specific* types of cardiac arrest: v-tach and v-fib. They are not definitely NOT a substitute for CPR. While you may have witnessed a miracle case, recussitation usually requires drugs and constant airflow in addition to shocks.
It is *essential* to keep the oxygenated blood moving to the brain to prevent tissue death (via CPR), until the paramedics arrive. As the grandparent poster said, The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive.
From the junk fax FAQ on tort law. Does anyone know if this could apply to the SCO case?
Q. Can you go after the individuals involved as well as the corporation?
A. Yes.
The "general rule," discussed in 3A Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations (perm. ed. rev. vol. 2002), sets forth as follows:
"An individual is personally liable for all torts which that individual committed, notwithstanding the person may have acted as an agent or under directions of another. This rule applies to torts committed by those acting in their official capacities as officers or agents of a corporation. It is immaterial that the corporation may also be liable. Under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, if a corporate officer participates in the wrongful conduct, or knowingly approves the conduct, the officer, as well as the corporation, is liable for the penalties. The person injured may hold either liable, and generally the injured person may hold both as joint tort-feasors.
"Corporate officers are liable for their torts, although committed when acting officially, even though the acts were performed for the benefit of the corporation and without profit to the officer personally. Corporate officers, charged in law with affirmative official responsibility in the management and control of the corporate business, cannot avoid personal liability for wrongs committed by claiming that they did not authorize and direct that which was done in the regular course of that business, with their knowledge and with their consent or approval, or such acquiescence on their part as warrants inferring such consent or approval. However, more than mere knowledge may be required in order to hold an officer liable. The plaintiff must show some form of participation by the officer in the tort, or at least show that the officer directed, controlled, approved, or ratified the decision which led to the plaintiff's injury. . . . A corporate officer or director may not seek shelter from liability in the defense that he or she was only following orders. Personal liability attaches, regardless of whether the breach was accomplished through malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance."
Id. at 1135.
In addition, an important distinction should be noted: "[p]ersonal liability for the torts of officers does not depend on the same grounds as 'piercing the corporate veil,' that is inadequate capitalization, use of the corporate form for fraudulent purposes, or failure to comply with the formalities of corporate organization. The true basis of liability is the officer's violation of some duty owed to the third person which injures such third person." Id.
Their DNA is the same, but its phenotypic expression is influenced by various other environmental factors including body size (which depends on embryonic blood supply and hGH levels).
If you own an ATM, getting money out of it isn't an act of criminal brilliance. So if I'm not too smart, that would make you...
from the article: "Randy stocked the machine with cash. And his bank account would be automatically reimbursed every time someone made a withdrawal."
So the money would be stolen electronically, not physically. Although I assume there must be *some* sort of protection/encryption to prevent someone from directly feeding information into the ATM network?
Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.
The main proponent of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection.
(by the way, the quote in the subject line is taken from Leonard Krishtalka, the director of the University of Kansas Natural History Museum.)
> Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc.
The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*.
> An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide.
This is another one of those things that sounds good in theory, but will never work in real life. The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids. By modifiying any of the three even slightly, you destroy their ability to bind specifically. (in addition, the cost of synthesizing "heavily modified amino acids" could be over $100 per molecule!)
> Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binding patterns, you the potential for self-assembly.
Biological molecules, unfortunately, don't follow a simple set of unchanging rules. You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site and ruin the whole process.
> Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc.
The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*.
> An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide.
This is another one of those things that sounds good in theory, but will never work in real life. The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids. By modifiying any of the three even slightly, you destroy their ability to bind specifically. (in addition, the cost of synthesizing "heavily modified amino acids" could be over $100 per molecule!)
> Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binding patterns, you the potential for self-assembly.
Biological molecules, unfortunately, don't follow a simple set of unchanging rules. You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site.
Slashdot Mirror
.....it can trim trees?
yeah, but by then the grass will be pretty tall
Actually, current drug treatments can bring HIV levels down to an undetectable amount--however, the virus is somehow still lurking in your body (perhaps in your brain, as antibody producing cells cannot cross the blood brain barrier).
One of the concepts of evolution is that two species cannot live in the same niche, i.e. two versions of HIV cannot coexist at the same time. Due to natural selection, one HIV species will beat the other out. Since HIV's mechanism of spreading is quite dependant on the lysis of white blood cells, I would not expect the winner of this battle to be this new "helpful" HIV
There's been a new "virus treatment" almost every year, and each supposedly showing promise to cure cancer, or AIDS, etc. In fact, as far back as the 1930s, people have been attempting to use bacteriophage viruses as antibiotics.
All the experiments generally end up failing for one simple reason: your body has an immune system. And the immune system will attack the good virus and eliminiate it quickly.
This promising new HIV is special because it lacks the ability to kill white blood cells. Common sense says since it can't kill them, it'll be destroyed by them. Either that, or due to natural selection, the normal HIV that *can* kill will crowd out the "good" HIV.
I give you credit for being the first person to make me really laugh out loud on slashdot.
The person who had the "wrong" leg amputated was Willie King. * Mr. King suffered from progressive vascular disease in both legs arising from diabetic complications that had affected several organs. He was losing both legs to these complications; the question was in what order they would go. * Both of Mr. King's legs had undergone extensive assessment. According to many of the tests, his left leg was actually farther gone than his right, its arteries 90 percent occluded. This severely diseased leg was in no way normal-looking, and would have had to be amputated in "a very short period of time". But King had asked doctors to remove the right leg because it was giving him more pain. http://walterolson.com/articles/wsjleg.html
the French have a navy?
Oh, and as a side note: you are correct that CPR alone rarely is enough to recussitate a victim. I believe that laymen CPR classes now exclude pulse-checking from their training. Health care professionals, however, are still required to check for pulses.
How did this get modded +5 Informative?
AEDs are not a magic bullet. AEDs are only effective for two *specific* types of cardiac arrest: v-tach and v-fib. They are not definitely NOT a substitute for CPR. While you may have witnessed a miracle case, recussitation usually requires drugs and constant airflow in addition to shocks.
It is *essential* to keep the oxygenated blood moving to the brain to prevent tissue death (via CPR), until the paramedics arrive. As the grandparent poster said, The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive.
From the junk fax FAQ on tort law. Does anyone know if this could apply to the SCO case?
Q. Can you go after the individuals involved as well as the corporation?
A. Yes.
The "general rule," discussed in 3A Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations (perm. ed. rev. vol. 2002), sets forth as follows:
"An individual is personally liable for all torts which that individual committed, notwithstanding the person may have acted as an agent or under directions of another. This rule applies to torts committed by those acting in their official capacities as officers or agents of a corporation. It is immaterial that the corporation may also be liable. Under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, if a corporate officer participates in the wrongful conduct, or knowingly approves the conduct, the officer, as well as the corporation, is liable for the penalties. The person injured may hold either liable, and generally the injured person may hold both as joint tort-feasors.
"Corporate officers are liable for their torts, although committed when acting officially, even though the acts were performed for the benefit of the corporation and without profit to the officer personally. Corporate officers, charged in law with affirmative official responsibility in the management and control of the corporate business, cannot avoid personal liability for wrongs committed by claiming that they did not authorize and direct that which was done in the regular course of that business, with their knowledge and with their consent or approval, or such acquiescence on their part as warrants inferring such consent or approval. However, more than mere knowledge may be required in order to hold an officer liable. The plaintiff must show some form of participation by the officer in the tort, or at least show that the officer directed, controlled, approved, or ratified the decision which led to the plaintiff's injury. . . . A corporate officer or director may not seek shelter from liability in the defense that he or she was only following orders. Personal liability attaches, regardless of whether the breach was accomplished through malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance."
Id. at 1135.
In addition, an important distinction should be noted: "[p]ersonal liability for the torts of officers does not depend on the same grounds as 'piercing the corporate veil,' that is inadequate capitalization, use of the corporate form for fraudulent purposes, or failure to comply with the formalities of corporate organization. The true basis of liability is the officer's violation of some duty owed to the third person which injures such third person." Id.
He did cover this. He says the libraries will only accept pressed CDs from a reliable vendor (eg no CD-R/CD-RW.)
As you remove a dirty t-shirt, you through it on top. When you need a new one, you take from the bottom.
so your shirts are a LIFO stack?
The first thing I thought when I read the headline was "Wow. That's a long time. Hmm... I wonder what year Win98 was released in."
The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
:-)
;)
Hey, you missed a spot.
no, that was on purpose
Anybody remember the slugbot from a while back?
yes, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging does not look for iron but he said fMRI
actually, oxygenated hemoglobin is diamagnetic.
Their fingerprints aren't identical.
Their DNA is the same, but its phenotypic expression is influenced by various other environmental factors including body size (which depends on embryonic blood supply and hGH levels).
If you own an ATM, getting money out of it isn't an act of criminal brilliance. So if I'm not too smart, that would make you...
from the article: "Randy stocked the machine with cash. And his bank account would be automatically reimbursed every time someone made a withdrawal."
So the money would be stolen electronically, not physically. Although I assume there must be *some* sort of protection/encryption to prevent someone from directly feeding information into the ATM network?
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party, I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Intelligent Design is a "scientific" front for creationists to advance their anti-evolution agenda.
to summarize the skepdic's analysis:
Intelligent design (ID) refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity. Advocates of ID maintain that their theory is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They believe that design is empirically detectable in nature and in living systems. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom because it is an alternative to the scientific theory of natural selection.
The main proponent of Intelligent Design is the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection.
(by the way, the quote in the subject line is taken from Leonard Krishtalka, the director of the University of Kansas Natural History Museum.)
Thats OK brother. Plumpers are like mopeds right??
Fun to ride, until your friends catch you on one?
> Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc.
The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*.
> An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide.
This is another one of those things that sounds good in theory, but will never work in real life. The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids. By modifiying any of the three even slightly, you destroy their ability to bind specifically. (in addition, the cost of synthesizing "heavily modified amino acids" could be over $100 per molecule!)
> Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binding patterns, you the potential for self-assembly.
Biological molecules, unfortunately, don't follow a simple set of unchanging rules. You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site and ruin the whole process.
> Different polypetides might make transistors, autonomous clock circuits, chemical-to-electrical battery subunits, wires, tees, etc. The problem with "biocomputers" is that typical electronic equipment and biological macromolecules have very different properties. Proteins get their "shape" from very specific conditions, including *temperature*. > An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide. This is another one of those things that sounds good in theory, but will never work in real life. The reason tRNA have specificity for their *exact* amino acid specificity is because of incredibly precise interactions with the enzyme that links them, and the amino acids. By modifiying any of the three even slightly, you destroy their ability to bind specifically. (in addition, the cost of synthesizing "heavily modified amino acids" could be over $100 per molecule!) > Each electrical component would have a unique code on each terminal that only binds with the component that it connects to in the circuit. By labelling all the terminii of the components with these specific binding patterns, you the potential for self-assembly. Biological molecules, unfortunately, don't follow a simple set of unchanging rules. You never know when an already assembled subunit will turn around and bind something that it shouldn't, or when a temperature change will denature a binding site.
it's a bacteria.