yes, but you cannot deny that nuclear power is simply harvesting the potential energy already present in matter..in a sense, taking energy from a more cosmic source (i.e. the sun) than from the local energy distribution on earth.
ostensibly, the problem comes in where the energy is returned, as you have pointed out, mainly in the form of heat.
but the majority of that heat is generated as waste, simply a byproduct of inefficient processes. if we were to improve the efficiency of these processes then the effects could be greatly reduced locally, to the point where the energy return back to the local system (earth) is little different than that which has been going on here for the last billions of years.
nuclear power could do this, coupled with more efficient technology.
you are forgetting one thing: we are not a democracy.
we are a constitutional republic, and with good reason. guys like thomas paine were pushing for a pure democracy, with no president, just the power to the people. unfortunately, this would have been the worst thing that could have happened since the average iq of early americans was probably around that of an eggplant.
we were fortunate that our revolution was conducted by educated, intelligent, _middle class_ guys. it was not a revolution of aristocracy (as never faired well in britain) and it certainly was not a revolution of the poor (like the abomination that happened in france). it was somewhere in between, and we are all better off for it's moderation.
you make it sound like the founding fathers just wanted to "surpress" the people...nothing could be farther from the truth.
the truth is that democracy conflicts with the idea of personal rights. in a true democracy, the majority rules on every issue. so what is to prevent the majority from wanting to take away my property, for instance? or say, force me to pay half of my earned salary to social programs?
this may seem more clear when 51 % of the people figure out how to make the other 49 % pay all of the taxes.
here and now in the 21st century we are still pondering these questions that seemed obvious to the founding fathers. shows that we have come a long way alright. we have chosen a path of moderation, one that includes both the republican and democratic concerns, but the moment that we let this fall out of balance is when we will regret it.
the IgE antibody is the one primarily involved in immune response. This antibody is also found to be in elevated levels in those with parasitic infections...so the idea of introducing proteins from a parasite that those antibodies will bind to may make some sense.
then again, this may lead to plasma cells making even _more_ IgE...
an alternative theory is that allergies are the price that we pay for vaccination. for example lets say that i want to raise an antibody against a protein; there may be a particular type of protein that i wish to study, and having an antibody will let me identify it. well, the tried and true method of doing this is to take a fragment of that protein and inject it into an animal...repeatedly. then take the blood serum and purify the antibodies. each time the animal is innoculated you will get a more massive immune response, which in this case is desired.
it may possible be that by being vaccinated for the same thing over and over again (which we in the USA are - which also have a much larger percentage of allergies than other parts of the world) we develop an oversensitized immune system.
i guess when i think of vector analysis, i think of having to memorize formulas for divergence, curl, formula for curve integrals, etc. no need to memorize when u know the GST!
i am still learning the subject somewhat, i have a good background on tensors and forms but my knowledge of topology is next to nothing.
i did not know this. then again, i am utterly ignorant of quantum maths..but chalk another one up for the GST!
to this day i do not understand why vector analysis is not being taught in terms of differential forms. i think maybe its because ppl associate diff. forms with the more traditional tensors and say "whoah, too many indices dude".
what you have stated so plainly may not be so plain. you are taking the philosophical standpoint that mathematics is nothing more than a model of physical reality.
most platonists would differ. in their view, mathematics has an existence all to it's own, and transcends the physical universe. they claim that their equations have an intrinsic existence of their own, regardless of their expression or discovery.
it is interesting to note that every great civilization that has endured for hundred or thousands of years was mathematically advanced. mathematical knowledge is directly proportional to ones power.
it is also incredible that many mathematical discoveries have preceded the discoveries of physical laws which use those mathematics....
of these, i would say that perhaps the most important is the Generalized Stokes Theorem: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StokesTheorem.html
this says that the integral of a form over the boundary of a manifold is equal to the integral of the exterior derivative of the form over the manifold itself. it shows that the derivative itself implies topological content!
this beautiful equation says everything one needs to know about the calculus of geometry. from this equation one can derive the fundamental theorem of calculus, vector analysis, antisymmetric tensors, metrics, etc.
one interesting example of this are regions of DNA that encode for double-stranded RNA as an antiviral defense mechanism.
it was discovered in C. elegans that these short ds pieces of RNA could bind to a protein complex (RISC) which will then recognize a partially complementary mRNA strand in the cytosol and cleave it.
who would have imagined that something like this would take place? this may even be a method by which the cell silences its own transcribed genes, and not just foreign genetic material.
the lab techniques of using so-called siRNA and miRNA to silence genes are becoming a powerful method of research.
to compute an siRNA sequence, check out:
http://www.ambion.com/techlib/misc/siRNA_finder. ht ml
NO - the right to vote is NOT a fundamental human right. Popular vote was never even an original part of the constitution.
Who would want a felon to vote anyway? Why would the rest of the law-abiding populance care one way or the other? Or even worse, why would we allow ballots to be cast in prison, which sounds like what you are about to suggest.
>more than 17 percent of the state's black male adults
it sounds like you are implying that there is something discriminating about this. there are currently more black people in prison than in college (making up 40 % of the fed prison population, and closer to 80 % in the state prison populations) so it should be no surprise that many people trying to vote as felons are black.
let those of us who actually care do all of the voting - we dont need to be making it easier for retards to go to the polls.
consider the following argument:
when it is deemed time to "pull the plug" on an incapacitated patient, what is the criteria? the answer is that there must be no possible way for the nervous system of that person to operate. whether the person is missing limbs, organs or tissues does not matter. what matters is if the nervous system is non-functioning or non-existent.
the same should be applied when trying to define the point at which something that is living becomes an actual "life". and that point should be when the nervous system of the fetus begins to develop.
clearly once a cell divides to the stage of a blastocyst (from which ES cells are harvested), there are no cells that have yet differentiated. since there are no differentiated cells, there are no nervous cells. hence there is no nervous system, and the living cell mass is not a "human life".
it is interesting that this same arguement would imply that abortion is definately murder, since that would involve an actual embryo that has some nervous system developed already (> 1 week).
>current minimum wage) $235,000/year to live on, >and that it should be as tax free up to that >point as the guy who makes $23,500.
why stop at 10x the amount? what makes 10 so special?
you definition is just as arbitrary as mine.
i hate to tell you this, but why the heck would anyone take the risk and deal with the punishment required to start a company if all they could make was $235,000?!?!?
i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.
have you actually researched HOW MANY african women (or men for that matter) have contracted AIDS? how many are HIV-positive, and how the test is done for being HIV-positive?
if the answer is "no", then you have no idea what you are talking about, only regurgitating what others have told you.
At the current population of 616 million, 0.012 % are suffering from AIDS. The numbers of deaths per year represent only 0.6%. Hardly an "epidemic"; and these numbers come from the WHO.
Want to know what the criteria for being HIV-positive is in Africa?
a) "weight loss over 10%, b) chronic diarrhea for more than a month, c) fever for more than a month, d) persistent cough, e) generalized pruritic dermatitis, f) recurrent herpes zoster (shingles), g) candidiasis oral and pharyngeal, h) chronic or persistent herpes, i) cryptococcal meningitis, j) Kaposi's sarcoma"
notice that these are all generally symptomatic of somehow who is malnourished and living in substandard conditions. is it any surprise then that we have yet to discover the mysterious african strain of HIV?
And what do the world's leading virologists have to say:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
-Dr. Kary Mullis, nobel prize laureaute, inventor of PCR
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
-Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978
"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome."
-Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley
"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does."
-Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology
"The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the Western world."
-Dr. Charles Thomas, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and John Hopkins Universities
so there is my data...where is yours? or perhaps you will bring forth these rhetorical "african women" that you speak of as testimony?
what we call "aids" is a breakdown of the immune system that is instigated by the use of recreational and prescription drugs. furthermore, the "lifestyle" of many gay people (lots of funny pills, staying up all night, not eating right, etc.) would seem to fit the bill in a way that explains the demographics since >90 % of people that have been diagnosed with AIDS are in fact gay. in addition, a significant percentage of folks diagnosed with AIDS test negative for the HIV virus.
many of the world's leading molecular biologists and biochemists support this view (several nobel laureates among them), but their voices have been drowned out by the pro-AIDS agenda which includes the governments of developing countries strapped for $.
for a list, look here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm
>of no job being paid any more than 10x >any other job- for no man is >more than 10x as productive as any other).
that is one of the biggest loads of crap that i have heard in awhile. where did you get that from, karl marx?
compare some ghetto-rat who does nothing but sit on his ass feeding off of society versus someone creative who is a benefactor for society: are you suggesting that this comparison cannot be quantified? that somehow all people are intrinsically of the same value and therefore deserve something (from who, one might ask)?
and even if you are not "buying" this rather abstract concept: say that jack is a lazy worker and lifts 10 bricks all day, but jim is a good worker and lifts 100 bricks all day. this is both possible and plausible and a 10-fold increase in productivity.
>Is it the car commercials that creates the race-car mentality in most people?
actually, people associate going fast with being COOL.
but you see, it is actually MUCH COOLER to go slow because it means you are either:
a) smoking a joint b) receiving a blowjob
both of which are very cool experiences, and highly recommended. so you see, everyone has it backwards.
going fast is actually gay because it shows that someone is in a hurry and hence subject to some reprimand for being late and hence under someone elses thumb. not cool.
i agree completely, but the problem is this: you start a software company, go to VC for investment and they go "where are your patents?"
As any reformed dot-COMer knows, without saying "patent pending" you will get $0.
hopefully cases like this will make investors realize that not only are software patents a stupid waste of money, but are a LIABILITY for the reasons that you have mentioned.
nearly every known antibiotic has been derived from natural sources. nearly all of them mimic these natural organic compounds in that they inhibit protein synthesis by binding to some part of the prokaryotic ribosome.
the rest work by inhibiting specific enzymes that eukaryotes do not possess, or interfere with the formation of the cell wall (which again, eukaryotic cells do not possess).
these techniques, and more often than not the compounds themselves, have been isolated from plant, fungi and animal sources.
i think that the intent was to defend Germany, not play some kind of game.
while i understand what you are saying (i still have family in Germany), to not consider the possibility of nuclear war entering the equation would have been foolish.
it is those same "pentagon assholes" who protected Germany when the rest of the world wanted Germany's blood after wwii? Who setup bases there to protect Germany from soviet invasion, which most Germans did NOT want?
even more to the point, how is the fairness affected by the openings? chessmasters now must memorize dozens of openings dozens of moves deep or else the game is lost.
it is this fact that has led some chessmasters like fischer and capablanca to propose their own games. (in a "fischer game" the starting positions of the pieces is random).
i am now going to nitpick like a grandma, because thats what slashdotters do.
you are using the term chimera wrong. it is not a chimera. a chimera is technically an organism which possesses a genetic composition from more than one zygote. this athlete in question came from only one zygote, apparently, and only has had some of it's genes modified, therefore gene therapy (using a vector such as retro or adenovirus to deliver a gene) does not make a chimera.
a "mosaic" would be the correct term, which would be an organism that developed from the same zygote but which contains cells that have varying genetic composition.
Slashdot Mirror
im not exactly sure why this post was moderated as 'funny', since this is all perfectly logical.
yes, but you cannot deny that nuclear power is simply harvesting the potential energy already present in matter..in a sense, taking energy from a more cosmic source (i.e. the sun) than from the local energy distribution on earth.
ostensibly, the problem comes in where the energy is returned, as you have pointed out, mainly in the form of heat.
but the majority of that heat is generated as waste, simply a byproduct of inefficient processes. if we were to improve the efficiency of these processes then the effects could be greatly reduced locally, to the point where the energy return back to the local system (earth) is little different than that which has been going on here for the last billions of years.
nuclear power could do this, coupled with more efficient technology.
unfortunately, many of the eproms from "back in the day" have a lifetime of only 10-20 years...
making a backup of the eproms might be a smart thing to do.
you are forgetting one thing: we are not a democracy.
we are a constitutional republic, and with good reason. guys like thomas paine were pushing for a pure democracy, with no president, just the power to the people. unfortunately, this would have been the worst thing that could have happened since the average iq of early americans was probably around that of an eggplant.
we were fortunate that our revolution was conducted by educated, intelligent, _middle class_ guys. it was not a revolution of aristocracy (as never faired well in britain) and it certainly was not a revolution of the poor (like the abomination that happened in france). it was somewhere in between, and we are all better off for it's moderation.
you make it sound like the founding fathers just wanted to "surpress" the people...nothing could be farther from the truth.
the truth is that democracy conflicts with the idea of personal rights. in a true democracy, the majority rules on every issue. so what is to prevent the majority from wanting to take away my property, for instance? or say, force me to pay half of my earned salary to social programs?
this may seem more clear when 51 % of the people figure out how to make the other 49 % pay all of the taxes.
here and now in the 21st century we are still pondering these questions that seemed obvious to the founding fathers. shows that we have come a long way alright. we have chosen a path of moderation, one that includes both the republican and democratic concerns, but the moment that we let this fall out of balance is when we will regret it.
> the IgE antibody is the one primarily involved in >immune response
i meant to say in ALLERGIC immune response...
the IgE antibody is the one primarily involved in immune response. This antibody is also found to be in elevated levels in those with parasitic infections...so the idea of introducing proteins from a parasite that those antibodies will bind to may make some sense.
then again, this may lead to plasma cells making even _more_ IgE...
an alternative theory is that allergies are the price that we pay for vaccination. for example lets say that i want to raise an antibody against a protein; there may be a particular type of protein that i wish to study, and having an antibody will let me identify it. well, the tried and true method of doing this is to take a fragment of that protein and inject it into an animal...repeatedly. then take the blood serum and purify the antibodies. each time the animal is innoculated you will get a more massive immune response, which in this case is desired.
it may possible be that by being vaccinated for the same thing over and over again (which we in the USA are - which also have a much larger percentage of allergies than other parts of the world) we develop an oversensitized immune system.
no, it makes perfect sense what you are saying.
i guess when i think of vector analysis, i think of having to memorize formulas for divergence, curl, formula for curve integrals, etc. no need to memorize when u know the GST!
i am still learning the subject somewhat, i have a good background on tensors and forms but my knowledge of topology is next to nothing.
i did not know this. then again, i am utterly ignorant of quantum maths..but chalk another one up for the GST!
to this day i do not understand why vector analysis is not being taught in terms of differential forms. i think maybe its because ppl associate diff. forms with the more traditional tensors and say "whoah, too many indices dude".
what you have stated so plainly may not be so plain. you are taking the philosophical standpoint that mathematics is nothing more than a model of physical reality.
most platonists would differ. in their view, mathematics has an existence all to it's own, and transcends the physical universe. they claim that their equations have an intrinsic existence of their own, regardless of their expression or discovery.
it is interesting to note that every great civilization that has endured for hundred or thousands of years was mathematically advanced. mathematical knowledge is directly proportional to ones power.
it is also incredible that many mathematical discoveries have preceded the discoveries of physical laws which use those mathematics....
of these, i would say that perhaps the most important is the Generalized Stokes Theorem: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StokesTheorem.html
this says that the integral of a form over the boundary of a manifold is equal to the integral of the exterior derivative of the form over the manifold itself. it shows that the derivative itself implies topological content!
this beautiful equation says everything one needs to know about the calculus of geometry. from this equation one can derive the fundamental theorem of calculus, vector analysis, antisymmetric tensors, metrics, etc.
i may get this thing tatooed on myself.
one interesting example of this are regions of DNA that encode for double-stranded RNA as an antiviral defense mechanism.
. ht ml
it was discovered in C. elegans that these short ds pieces of RNA could bind to a protein complex (RISC) which will then recognize a partially complementary mRNA strand in the cytosol and cleave it.
who would have imagined that something like this would take place? this may even be a method by which the cell silences its own transcribed genes, and not just foreign genetic material.
the lab techniques of using so-called siRNA and miRNA to silence genes are becoming a powerful method of research.
to compute an siRNA sequence, check out:
http://www.ambion.com/techlib/misc/siRNA_finder
NO - the right to vote is NOT a fundamental human right. Popular vote was never even an original part of the constitution.
Who would want a felon to vote anyway? Why would the rest of the law-abiding populance care one way or the other? Or even worse, why would we allow ballots to be cast in prison, which sounds like what you are about to suggest.
>more than 17 percent of the state's black male adults
it sounds like you are implying that there is something discriminating about this. there are currently more black people in prison than in college (making up 40 % of the fed prison population, and closer to 80 % in the state prison populations) so it should be no surprise that many people trying to vote as felons are black.
let those of us who actually care do all of the voting - we dont need to be making it easier for retards to go to the polls.
>Seriously though... who REALLY needs to be contacted IMMEDIATELY 24-7?
superheroes
consider the following argument: when it is deemed time to "pull the plug" on an incapacitated patient, what is the criteria? the answer is that there must be no possible way for the nervous system of that person to operate. whether the person is missing limbs, organs or tissues does not matter. what matters is if the nervous system is non-functioning or non-existent. the same should be applied when trying to define the point at which something that is living becomes an actual "life". and that point should be when the nervous system of the fetus begins to develop. clearly once a cell divides to the stage of a blastocyst (from which ES cells are harvested), there are no cells that have yet differentiated. since there are no differentiated cells, there are no nervous cells. hence there is no nervous system, and the living cell mass is not a "human life". it is interesting that this same arguement would imply that abortion is definately murder, since that would involve an actual embryo that has some nervous system developed already (> 1 week).
...are:
1) Sun's default echo '+ +' > ~/.rhosts
2) NIS
3) NFS
these things led to massive compromises
>current minimum wage) $235,000/year to live on, >and that it should be as tax free up to that >point as the guy who makes $23,500.
why stop at 10x the amount? what makes 10 so special?
you definition is just as arbitrary as mine.
i hate to tell you this, but why the heck would anyone take the risk and deal with the punishment required to start a company if all they could make was $235,000?!?!?
i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.
have you actually researched HOW MANY african women (or men for that matter) have contracted AIDS? how many are HIV-positive, and how the test is done for being HIV-positive?
if the answer is "no", then you have no idea what you are talking about, only regurgitating what others have told you.
At the current population of 616 million, 0.012 % are suffering from AIDS. The numbers of deaths per year represent only 0.6%. Hardly an "epidemic"; and these numbers come from the WHO.
Want to know what the criteria for being HIV-positive is in Africa?
a) "weight loss over 10%,
b) chronic diarrhea for more than a month,
c) fever for more than a month,
d) persistent cough,
e) generalized pruritic dermatitis,
f) recurrent herpes zoster (shingles),
g) candidiasis oral and pharyngeal,
h) chronic or persistent herpes,
i) cryptococcal meningitis,
j) Kaposi's sarcoma"
notice that these are all generally symptomatic of somehow who is malnourished and living in substandard conditions. is it any surprise then that we have yet to discover the mysterious african strain of HIV?
And what do the world's leading virologists have to say:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
-Dr. Kary Mullis, nobel prize laureaute, inventor of PCR
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
-Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978
"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome."
-Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley
"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does."
-Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology
"The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the Western world."
-Dr. Charles Thomas, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and John Hopkins Universities
so there is my data...where is yours? or perhaps you will bring forth these rhetorical "african women" that you speak of as testimony?
there is an alternative explanation....
what we call "aids" is a breakdown of the immune system that is instigated by the use of recreational and prescription drugs. furthermore, the "lifestyle" of many gay people (lots of funny pills, staying up all night, not eating right, etc.) would seem to fit the bill in a way that explains the demographics since >90 % of people that have been diagnosed with AIDS are in fact gay. in addition, a significant percentage of folks diagnosed with AIDS test negative for the HIV virus.
many of the world's leading molecular biologists and biochemists support this view (several nobel laureates among them), but their voices have been drowned out by the pro-AIDS agenda which includes the governments of developing countries strapped for $.
for a list, look here: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm
>of no job being paid any more than 10x
>any other job- for no man is
>more than 10x as productive as any other).
that is one of the biggest loads of crap that i have heard in awhile. where did you get that from, karl marx?
compare some ghetto-rat who does nothing but sit on his ass feeding off of society versus someone creative who is a benefactor for society: are you suggesting that this comparison cannot be quantified? that somehow all people are intrinsically of the same value and therefore deserve something (from who, one might ask)?
and even if you are not "buying" this rather abstract concept: say that jack is a lazy worker and lifts 10 bricks all day, but jim is a good worker and lifts 100 bricks all day. this is both possible and plausible and a 10-fold increase in productivity.
>Is it the car commercials that creates the race-car mentality in most people?
actually, people associate going fast with being COOL.
but you see, it is actually MUCH COOLER to go slow because it means you are either:
a) smoking a joint
b) receiving a blowjob
both of which are very cool experiences, and highly recommended. so you see, everyone has it backwards.
going fast is actually gay because it shows that someone is in a hurry and hence subject to some reprimand for being late and hence under someone elses thumb. not cool.
i agree completely, but the problem is this: you start a software company, go to VC for investment and they go "where are your patents?" As any reformed dot-COMer knows, without saying "patent pending" you will get $0. hopefully cases like this will make investors realize that not only are software patents a stupid waste of money, but are a LIABILITY for the reasons that you have mentioned.
this is not correct.
nearly every known antibiotic has been derived from natural sources. nearly all of them mimic these natural organic compounds in that they inhibit protein synthesis by binding to some part of the prokaryotic ribosome.
the rest work by inhibiting specific enzymes that eukaryotes do not possess, or interfere with the formation of the cell wall (which again, eukaryotic cells do not possess).
these techniques, and more often than not the compounds themselves, have been isolated from plant, fungi and animal sources.
i think that the intent was to defend Germany, not play some kind of game.
while i understand what you are saying (i still have family in Germany), to not consider the possibility of nuclear war entering the equation would have been foolish.
it is those same "pentagon assholes" who protected Germany when the rest of the world wanted Germany's blood after wwii? Who setup bases there to protect Germany from soviet invasion, which most Germans did NOT want?
maybe you are being a little harsh...
even more to the point, how is the fairness affected by the openings? chessmasters now must memorize dozens of openings dozens of moves deep or else the game is lost.
it is this fact that has led some chessmasters like fischer and capablanca to propose their own games. (in a "fischer game" the starting positions of the pieces is random).
i am now going to nitpick like a grandma, because thats what slashdotters do.
you are using the term chimera wrong. it is not a chimera. a chimera is technically an organism which possesses a genetic composition from more than one zygote. this athlete in question came from only one zygote, apparently, and only has had some of it's genes modified, therefore gene therapy (using a vector such as retro or adenovirus to deliver a gene) does not make a chimera.
a "mosaic" would be the correct term, which would be an organism that developed from the same zygote but which contains cells that have varying genetic composition.