This sounds awfully close to electroosmotic flow a phenomenon that has been known about for 200 years. Maybe someone better informed in this field could clarify the difference.
Ah, you're right I should have read the actual
paper.
The fact remains though, that similar treatments are being performed on humans in countries with less stringent standards which makes mouse studies somewhat less exciting but, of course important.
The cells that would be used are progenitor cells obtained from the blood or bone marrow,...
The word you're looking for to describe those cells is stem cells. But it wasn't the poster's fault. The poorly written article makes the same mistake.
Don Ho had this surgery done where his own stem cells, extracted from his blood, were injected into his heart. He died soon after but his surgeon claims that the surgery was so successful that Don didn't recover fully before resuming touring and put too much strain on his heart and died.
Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.
Many Bush aides believe [Bill] Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak louder than words," a top Bush aide said, describing the president's view of his appropriate role.
The initial response was to criticize Bill Clinton for his statements and pledge $15 milion dollars, which is a drop in the bucket. It was only after widespread domestic and international criticism did the government take more concrete action. The same article goes on to say that,
Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.
So, sure, the US is the most generous in absolute terms but that's because its economy makes up about 25% of the entire world's GDP. But in relative terms it's the stingiest.
Reuters has a nice infographic comparing the total amounts donated by 20 countries for the tsunami relief effort.
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/aidtracker/index.htm
The United States was at the top in absolute amounts, but lowest in the ratio government aid to private aid (its citizens are more generous the the government) and about 16th in aid per capita.
That $100 billion figure is about the cost of one year of the war in Iraq. And that doesn't even include the indirect costs (opportunity cost, lifetime medical bills for injured veterans, increased cost of oil etc.)
Violet is especially tricky. Its wavelength is shorter than blue, but in addition to stimulating your blue cones, your red cones are also slightly sensitive to it.
This doesn't make any sense. Red cones are not sensitive to blue light. Here is a diagram showing the sensitivities of of the three cones (S, M, and L or Blue, Green and Red) in our retina whose signals combine to create color.
Our perception of color comes from the combination and comparison of the stimulation of three different cones, each maximally sensitive to different wavelengths. The output of the cones gets combined in what are called opponent pathways, one is Red-Green, and the other is Blue-yellow. The Red-Green pathway compares the output of the Red and Green cones and the Blue-yellow pathway compares the output of the blue cone with the sum of the red and green cones. This is why you will never see a color that is reddish-green or blueish-yellow (see nick) at least in the additive sense that red+blue=violet and yellow+blue+green.
So why does extremely short wavelength light appear to contain a reddish component? I don't believe that anyone knows the answer to that yet. But the hypothesis is that somewhere along the path from cone to cortex the input from a blue cone and red cone combine which turns our perception of an extremely short wavelength light into a combination of short wavelength light (blue) and extremely long wavelength light (red). So our sensation of color becomes a continuum that loops back on itself as opposed to our sense of pitch (which is also frequency or wavelength).
Interestingly people who have had their lenses removed are somewhat able to perceive ultraviolet light. This is because the lens ordinarily blocks UV light and blue cones are sensitive to UV light but very little ever penetrates to the retina normally. Apparently they see it as lilac.
Many mammals, fish, birds, insects, and reptiles (basically everyone except us) are able to see UV light as well. It's a good that we can't for two reason. One is that there is more chromatic aberration at shorter wavelengths. Basically blue light bends more than red light. This makes focusing more difficult. Also, more importantly, UV light damages DNA which is a very, very, bad thing. This is a good resource for learning more.
The biggest contributor to ageing is just plain old living (kind of obvious really), and the best way to therefore cut down on that damage is to eat less, slowing down the metabolism and decreasing the amount of ROS the mitochondria produces.
What you said was perfectly reasonable, and intuitive, but also wrong. It used to be thought that the mechanism by which caloric restriction extends lifespan in yeast, fruit flies, mice and maybe for humans as well, was by reducing the damage due to oxidative stress.
Cells burn sugar somewhat like a car burns gasoline and so the theory goes if you eat less food you were putting fewer miles on your internal engine.
But now it seems like that isn't true. The rate of death in fruit flies put on a restricted diet slowed down within just a few days no matter how old the flies were. That implies that animals of any age can benefit from a restricted diet. It seems more likely now that what happens is that the body goes into "starvation mode" very quickly when food is scarce and that animals live longer in this regime. This is alluded to in the article.
The Sir2 gene has been known about and studied for quite some time. The mechanism of its action, epigentic silencing, is actually quite fascinating on its own outside of the context of its function. Well ok, maybe not.
So the billion dollar questions are, "Does this work in people?", and "What are the physiological costs associated with this starvation mode?". Finding out the answers to those two questions will take some time and teach us a lot about the aging process in humans along the way.
People die. What a compelling argument. The complexity of THE WEATHER (It's scarier when you use ALL CAPS) is nothing compared with the complexity of the cell, or the human mind. Should we avoid learning about them too?
Should we give up trying to cure cancer or treat heart disease because, well, as you mentioned twice, people die, that's just how it works? Some of us get malaria or tuberculosis because we are unlucky and that's just too bad for us.
We shouldn't even bother trying to make people better because, if we do, who knows what god awful thing might happened to them. Probably something worse than the original illness.
So to recap, your (A) is true, (B) is not true, (C) was pulled out of your ass, (D) is superstition, and (E) uses (A) to justify not intervening to save people's lives, which is also known to some as a circular argument.
With very slight additional effort these researchers could have released a terrain model based on the paralax offset of features in the image and saved us all from straining our eyes.
This has nothing to do with Morse code or communication between cells. It's a press release for a paper on an oscillating biochemical reaction within cells.
Slashdot Mirror
Curse you, I've just lost an hour on wikipedia!
This sounds awfully close to electroosmotic flow a phenomenon that has been known about for 200 years. Maybe someone better informed in this field could clarify the difference.
Ah, you're right I should have read the actual paper. The fact remains though, that similar treatments are being performed on humans in countries with less stringent standards which makes mouse studies somewhat less exciting but, of course important.
The word you're looking for to describe those cells is stem cells. But it wasn't the poster's fault. The poorly written article makes the same mistake.
Don Ho had this surgery done where his own stem cells, extracted from his blood, were injected into his heart. He died soon after but his surgeon claims that the surgery was so successful that Don didn't recover fully before resuming touring and put too much strain on his heart and died.
Reuters has a nice infographic comparing the total amounts donated by 20 countries for the tsunami relief effort. http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/aidtracker/index.htm The United States was at the top in absolute amounts, but lowest in the ratio government aid to private aid (its citizens are more generous the the government) and about 16th in aid per capita.
That $100 billion figure is about the cost of one year of the war in Iraq. And that doesn't even include the indirect costs (opportunity cost, lifetime medical bills for injured veterans, increased cost of oil etc.)
The drug's name is Efavirenz not Elfavirenz. The stupid troll couldn't even get the name right.
This doesn't make any sense. Red cones are not sensitive to blue light. Here is a diagram showing the sensitivities of of the three cones (S, M, and L or Blue, Green and Red) in our retina whose signals combine to create color.
Our perception of color comes from the combination and comparison of the stimulation of three different cones, each maximally sensitive to different wavelengths. The output of the cones gets combined in what are called opponent pathways, one is Red-Green, and the other is Blue-yellow. The Red-Green pathway compares the output of the Red and Green cones and the Blue-yellow pathway compares the output of the blue cone with the sum of the red and green cones. This is why you will never see a color that is reddish-green or blueish-yellow (see nick) at least in the additive sense that red+blue=violet and yellow+blue+green.
So why does extremely short wavelength light appear to contain a reddish component? I don't believe that anyone knows the answer to that yet. But the hypothesis is that somewhere along the path from cone to cortex the input from a blue cone and red cone combine which turns our perception of an extremely short wavelength light into a combination of short wavelength light (blue) and extremely long wavelength light (red). So our sensation of color becomes a continuum that loops back on itself as opposed to our sense of pitch (which is also frequency or wavelength).
Interestingly people who have had their lenses removed are somewhat able to perceive ultraviolet light. This is because the lens ordinarily blocks UV light and blue cones are sensitive to UV light but very little ever penetrates to the retina normally. Apparently they see it as lilac.
Many mammals, fish, birds, insects, and reptiles (basically everyone except us) are able to see UV light as well. It's a good that we can't for two reason. One is that there is more chromatic aberration at shorter wavelengths. Basically blue light bends more than red light. This makes focusing more difficult. Also, more importantly, UV light damages DNA which is a very, very, bad thing. This is a good resource for learning more.
Too many kids are soft courses at uni (art/media etc etc) that we're being left with a dearth of people who have useful skills.
Yes, because making mechanical watches is a useful skill indeed.
What you said was perfectly reasonable, and intuitive, but also wrong. It used to be thought that the mechanism by which caloric restriction extends lifespan in yeast, fruit flies, mice and maybe for humans as well, was by reducing the damage due to oxidative stress.
Cells burn sugar somewhat like a car burns gasoline and so the theory goes if you eat less food you were putting fewer miles on your internal engine.
But now it seems like that isn't true. The rate of death in fruit flies put on a restricted diet slowed down within just a few days no matter how old the flies were. That implies that animals of any age can benefit from a restricted diet. It seems more likely now that what happens is that the body goes into "starvation mode" very quickly when food is scarce and that animals live longer in this regime. This is alluded to in the article.
The Sir2 gene has been known about and studied for quite some time. The mechanism of its action, epigentic silencing, is actually quite fascinating on its own outside of the context of its function. Well ok, maybe not.
So the billion dollar questions are, "Does this work in people?", and "What are the physiological costs associated with this starvation mode?". Finding out the answers to those two questions will take some time and teach us a lot about the aging process in humans along the way.
Should we give up trying to cure cancer or treat heart disease because, well, as you mentioned twice, people die, that's just how it works? Some of us get malaria or tuberculosis because we are unlucky and that's just too bad for us.
We shouldn't even bother trying to make people better because, if we do, who knows what god awful thing might happened to them. Probably something worse than the original illness.
So to recap, your (A) is true, (B) is not true, (C) was pulled out of your ass, (D) is superstition, and (E) uses (A) to justify not intervening to save people's lives, which is also known to some as a circular argument.
Like this?
On the SI scale of humiliation what Ashlee Simspon did measures about 400 milliVanillis.
This has nothing to do with Morse code or communication between cells. It's a press release for a paper on an oscillating biochemical reaction within cells.