I recently had an OB/GYN professor (I'm a medical student) give us a lecture on using the Da Vinci for post-menopausal hysterectomies. Apparently he makes only 5 small incisions superior and lateral to the umbilicus (hence the post-menopausal, it can't be covered with a bikini). He said he uses it quite frequently, and that when hiring new physicians heavily considers whether they have been trained in robotic procedures during their residency/fellowship.
He also said that they expected to have force feedback versions pretty soon.
... anyway, interesting stuff. The radiologists are already practicing interstate and intercontinental, sounds like the surgeons might not be far off.
I think you missed the point of his post, even though you copied it into your own. Allow me to repeat it.
But please do explain to me how something others provide to you can be your right?
This is not something that you have which is then removed, or a freedom curbed by government, but rather a service provided to you by others.
It would be nice if everyone could get the best possible healthcare for very little money... but it's not going happen anytime soon. Every healthcare system in the world has its problems. In the U.S. its expensive, but it's also the most advanced and best in the world... if you can afford it. In Canada and numerous E.U. countries its available to everyone and its pretty good. There is a reason rich Europeans and rich Canadians come to the U.S. for critical (and elective) problems if they can afford it.
What is obvious, however, is that the insurance companies are reaming everyone in the ass, right along with the drug companies.
Well, I am a bit of a biologist (I'm a med student with a masters in physiology), so I'll see if I can't provide a bit more detail...
The initial shot of a blood vessel is way bigger than a capillary (more like an arteriole), but those are certainly WBCs crawling along the inside. Those aren't cilia, but rather a variety of different cell adhesion molecules (CAMs), and cell recognition proteins.
The "platforms" floating around on the exterior surface of the cells are likely lipid rafts (which are quite fascinating, actually - a select, extremely hydrophobic lipid type accumulates around some proteins, and in some cases seems to dictate how and where they move around the exterior of the cell. In fact, they seem to be connected to the cytoskeleton on the inside of the cell - really cool stuff).
Most of what we see from here on out is not specific to WBCs, but rather processes that all cells go through. Those are actin microfilaments which form a mesh for structural support on the outer edge of the cell (near the membrane). Throughout the cell there are microfilaments, intermediate filaments, and microtubules, which give the cell structure, and more importantly, a framework for the movement of various organelles and vesicles around the inside of the cell (as we see in a little bit).
These are actin filaments being assemble initially (and then cleaved, and disassembled), and then after that microtubules are formed. They actually form in a very ordered linear manner like this. MT's form in long sheets that then fold over and seal to form a tube, then upon disassembly chip off, almost like shards of glass. MT's frequently fracture/shatter, while actin just breaks.
The part with the vesicle being towed along the MT is very cool - the parent post is quite right about the unrealistic steadiness of this molecule, but of course this is really the case for all the molecules. That tow molecule is probably either a kinesin or a dynein - these molecules are kind of like myosin (myosin and actin are what allow your muscles to contract), and one moves in one direction down a MT and the other moves in the opposite direction. We also see a distance shot of some centrioles (which are also composed of microtubules). Centrioles serve to anchor the microtubules that connect to the chromosomes and pull them apart during cell division. There are MT strands shooting out in all directions from the centrioles. One side anchors them to the cellular membrane and the other connects to centromere of the chromosomes.
Yep, those are definitely mRNA's shooting out of the nuclear pores. They form a ring as the two ends form a complex that initiates translation of the mRNA into protein. The ribosomes then latch on and start cranking out protein. As the protein emerges from the ribosome we can see it start it folding process. Protein folding is a very complicated and intricate process. If a protein is misfolded it may simply not work, or it may cause a disease state. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (caused by mad cow disease in some instances) is caused by misfolded proteins that then cause other proteins to misfold (it's a prion encephalopathy).
We then see some sort of protein-protein interaction occurring randomly out in the cytosol of the cell. This could be any number of things, but looks to me like a signaling protein interaction. That newly formed protein dimer could then float off and effect some other cellular process (presumably something those two proteins couldn't do by themselves). Also, that big gray thing in the background that they float by - if I had to wager a guess, I'd say that was a mitochondria.
We then see a protein fold through a membrane in the rough ER.
We then see what looks like vesicles budding off of the ER and floating off, presumably to the Golgi apparatus, which is what we see next, right after more of the vesicle being towed again. The Golgi preps things for extracellular and intracellular transport. The golgi often sends the proteins it modifies
When I was talking about the burden of proof I was referring directly to your questions:
Are you certain that:
Currently, women's positions in the field accurately matches their skills and qualifications?
Girls and young women are given adequate education, motivation, and acceptance when it comes to even considering entering the field?
And then using these possibilities as a basis for your argument. This is a fallacious motivation. My restatement of you're argument was to show how inadequate it is. It amounts at least a combination of argumentum ad ignorantiam and "appeal to probability". The terms I refuse to argue on are those of a fallacy. The problem with fallacies is that you can dance circles around them all day, and not get anywhere; It's a waste of time.
I'm all for studying the issue, and I don't believe I made any statements that indicated I wanted to ignore a potential problem. I simply refused to argue against fallacy. I have no strong disagrement with the ideas you are arguing for, just the way you are arguing them.
Again, I do think that the gender difference in IT is more a result of interest than of opportunity. If a person is interested enough, they will find a way to learn about the topic of their interest. And as far as computer techonology goes, it's pretty damn easy to get your foot in the door these days; The internet has a vast amount of information on computers and internet technology. Young girls just need to start reading slashdot... well, maybe not slashdot (they don't need misinformation), but something on the web. I, for one, have no formal training in IT/CS (I'm a more "traditional" scientist... of a biological type), I just started reading all the free info that is available out there. I won't claim to be an expert on any of this, but I'm certainly more knowledgable than most. Furthermore, I think that computers are uniquely sourced on the web. You can't find the kind of info about bio/chem/medicine/etc that you can find about CS stuff. The real problem in this country is science education across the board. Girls, boys, everyone.
This is a specious argument, and the burden of proof is on you. You need to demonstrate that there is a significant percentage of women who meet the criteria you've lain out, not call on others to refute the possibility. Your argument amounts to little more than "Isn't it possible that women don't have the same opportunities, etc?"
Your statements call into question the possibility of an injustice. You need to demonstrate an actual injustice before considerable monies and social programs are used to try and correct this perceived problem. You need to show that women have inadequate opportunity in IT/CS, and that it is desirable for them to have comparatively better resources (or at least more specialized resources). That is to say, that women will take advantage of these opportunities to the extent that it is worth the money.
So, basically, I refuse to argue this on your terms. However, I do think that the high percentage of men in IT compared to women is more a result of a difference between the sexes than it is a lack of educational opportunities. I have purely anecdotal evidence to back this up, but of all the humans I know (and I know quite a few), women just have different interests and tendencies towards technology than men... in general.
So, apparently, for no extra charge, you can now get a glossy screen on the MacBook Pro. Can anyone explain to me why you would want a glossy screen? It just seems like it would make the glare rediculous.
An effective binding affinity is determined by several different pharmacological variables. Depending on the type of poison, the bioavailability could actually be pretty low. Meaning that just because you ingest a whole bunch of it doesn't mean that amount is what actually reaches your blood stream in an effective form. So, even though you eat a bunch, only a little of it ever actually goes to work on your body.
Also, as I recall, carbonmonoxide only has about 200 times greater affinity for hemoglobin than oxygen, but that is more than enough to suffocate you at a fairly low concentration (this is due to the way the quaternary structure of the hemoglobin molecule coopertively binds multiple oxygen/CO molecules).
Either way, the point is that there are a lot of different ways this thing could have increased efficacy without a huge delivery volume or extremely high binding affinity.
Biotech companies get special compensation by the U.S. government to develop treatments for so called "orphan" diseases. They get tax breaks and exclusive market rights if they develop drugs for these conditions, and as a result there are really quite a few advancements in the treatment of rare diseases when it normally wouldn't be monetarily feasible... but of course there are tons of different wierd conditions that people have.
Here is a link for the FDA website discussing this:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_orphan.h tml
i'm not downplaying the exciting sci-fi possibilities. i'm emphasizing the "fi" part. what i'm saying is that the scientific breakthrough is not as amazing as news media might make you think, and that the scientist who did the research has a bit of a reputation for being a wee bit dramatic. take it with a grain of salt is all.
Other lines of mice are capable of similar things than just the MRL mouse, and even the MRL mouse has some serious limitations. For example, Heber-Katz cryo-injured the mouse heart and it healed, but other more relevant damage did not. Ischemic heart cells did not recover, which are those lacking oxygen supply, as in a heart-attack. Most of the other regenerations were not nearly as impressive, as several organs have the ability for significant regeneration anyway. Heber-Katz is known for her press releases being very sensational... and coming out before she presents her evidence. still, some of the papers she has released have some pretty cool stuff, just not as groundbreaking as popular news media would have you believe.
exactly! what we need is supreme executive power derived from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicle aquatic ceremony! I mean you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. I mean if i went 'round saying i was an emperer just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
(sorry, i just can't help myself sometimes;))
tritium is actually used in medicine/physiology to measure the total amount of water in a person's body. you can then ingest other stuff to narrow it down... do a little math... and you can figure out total body water, intracellular water, extracellular water, and plasma water. which are some pretty useful measurements.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently had an OB/GYN professor (I'm a medical student) give us a lecture on using the Da Vinci for post-menopausal hysterectomies. Apparently he makes only 5 small incisions superior and lateral to the umbilicus (hence the post-menopausal, it can't be covered with a bikini). He said he uses it quite frequently, and that when hiring new physicians heavily considers whether they have been trained in robotic procedures during their residency/fellowship.
He also said that they expected to have force feedback versions pretty soon.
... anyway, interesting stuff. The radiologists are already practicing interstate and intercontinental, sounds like the surgeons might not be far off.
ummm... you have anything to back that statement up? Without a prefrontal cortex people aren't, well, people.
This is not something that you have which is then removed, or a freedom curbed by government, but rather a service provided to you by others.
It would be nice if everyone could get the best possible healthcare for very little money... but it's not going happen anytime soon. Every healthcare system in the world has its problems. In the U.S. its expensive, but it's also the most advanced and best in the world... if you can afford it. In Canada and numerous E.U. countries its available to everyone and its pretty good. There is a reason rich Europeans and rich Canadians come to the U.S. for critical (and elective) problems if they can afford it.
What is obvious, however, is that the insurance companies are reaming everyone in the ass, right along with the drug companies.
Well, I am a bit of a biologist (I'm a med student with a masters in physiology), so I'll see if I can't provide a bit more detail...
The initial shot of a blood vessel is way bigger than a capillary (more like an arteriole), but those are certainly WBCs crawling along the inside. Those aren't cilia, but rather a variety of different cell adhesion molecules (CAMs), and cell recognition proteins.
The "platforms" floating around on the exterior surface of the cells are likely lipid rafts (which are quite fascinating, actually - a select, extremely hydrophobic lipid type accumulates around some proteins, and in some cases seems to dictate how and where they move around the exterior of the cell. In fact, they seem to be connected to the cytoskeleton on the inside of the cell - really cool stuff).
Most of what we see from here on out is not specific to WBCs, but rather processes that all cells go through. Those are actin microfilaments which form a mesh for structural support on the outer edge of the cell (near the membrane). Throughout the cell there are microfilaments, intermediate filaments, and microtubules, which give the cell structure, and more importantly, a framework for the movement of various organelles and vesicles around the inside of the cell (as we see in a little bit).
These are actin filaments being assemble initially (and then cleaved, and disassembled), and then after that microtubules are formed. They actually form in a very ordered linear manner like this. MT's form in long sheets that then fold over and seal to form a tube, then upon disassembly chip off, almost like shards of glass. MT's frequently fracture/shatter, while actin just breaks.
The part with the vesicle being towed along the MT is very cool - the parent post is quite right about the unrealistic steadiness of this molecule, but of course this is really the case for all the molecules. That tow molecule is probably either a kinesin or a dynein - these molecules are kind of like myosin (myosin and actin are what allow your muscles to contract), and one moves in one direction down a MT and the other moves in the opposite direction. We also see a distance shot of some centrioles (which are also composed of microtubules). Centrioles serve to anchor the microtubules that connect to the chromosomes and pull them apart during cell division. There are MT strands shooting out in all directions from the centrioles. One side anchors them to the cellular membrane and the other connects to centromere of the chromosomes.
Yep, those are definitely mRNA's shooting out of the nuclear pores. They form a ring as the two ends form a complex that initiates translation of the mRNA into protein. The ribosomes then latch on and start cranking out protein. As the protein emerges from the ribosome we can see it start it folding process. Protein folding is a very complicated and intricate process. If a protein is misfolded it may simply not work, or it may cause a disease state. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (caused by mad cow disease in some instances) is caused by misfolded proteins that then cause other proteins to misfold (it's a prion encephalopathy).
We then see some sort of protein-protein interaction occurring randomly out in the cytosol of the cell. This could be any number of things, but looks to me like a signaling protein interaction. That newly formed protein dimer could then float off and effect some other cellular process (presumably something those two proteins couldn't do by themselves). Also, that big gray thing in the background that they float by - if I had to wager a guess, I'd say that was a mitochondria.
We then see a protein fold through a membrane in the rough ER.
We then see what looks like vesicles budding off of the ER and floating off, presumably to the Golgi apparatus, which is what we see next, right after more of the vesicle being towed again. The Golgi preps things for extracellular and intracellular transport. The golgi often sends the proteins it modifies
When I was talking about the burden of proof I was referring directly to your questions:
And then using these possibilities as a basis for your argument. This is a fallacious motivation. My restatement of you're argument was to show how inadequate it is. It amounts at least a combination of argumentum ad ignorantiam and "appeal to probability". The terms I refuse to argue on are those of a fallacy. The problem with fallacies is that you can dance circles around them all day, and not get anywhere; It's a waste of time.
I'm all for studying the issue, and I don't believe I made any statements that indicated I wanted to ignore a potential problem. I simply refused to argue against fallacy. I have no strong disagrement with the ideas you are arguing for, just the way you are arguing them.
Again, I do think that the gender difference in IT is more a result of interest than of opportunity. If a person is interested enough, they will find a way to learn about the topic of their interest. And as far as computer techonology goes, it's pretty damn easy to get your foot in the door these days; The internet has a vast amount of information on computers and internet technology. Young girls just need to start reading slashdot... well, maybe not slashdot (they don't need misinformation), but something on the web. I, for one, have no formal training in IT/CS (I'm a more "traditional" scientist... of a biological type), I just started reading all the free info that is available out there. I won't claim to be an expert on any of this, but I'm certainly more knowledgable than most. Furthermore, I think that computers are uniquely sourced on the web. You can't find the kind of info about bio/chem/medicine/etc that you can find about CS stuff. The real problem in this country is science education across the board. Girls, boys, everyone.
This is a specious argument, and the burden of proof is on you. You need to demonstrate that there is a significant percentage of women who meet the criteria you've lain out, not call on others to refute the possibility. Your argument amounts to little more than "Isn't it possible that women don't have the same opportunities, etc?"
Your statements call into question the possibility of an injustice. You need to demonstrate an actual injustice before considerable monies and social programs are used to try and correct this perceived problem. You need to show that women have inadequate opportunity in IT/CS, and that it is desirable for them to have comparatively better resources (or at least more specialized resources). That is to say, that women will take advantage of these opportunities to the extent that it is worth the money.
So, basically, I refuse to argue this on your terms. However, I do think that the high percentage of men in IT compared to women is more a result of a difference between the sexes than it is a lack of educational opportunities. I have purely anecdotal evidence to back this up, but of all the humans I know (and I know quite a few), women just have different interests and tendencies towards technology than men... in general.
So, apparently, for no extra charge, you can now get a glossy screen on the MacBook Pro. Can anyone explain to me why you would want a glossy screen? It just seems like it would make the glare rediculous.
An effective binding affinity is determined by several different pharmacological variables. Depending on the type of poison, the bioavailability could actually be pretty low. Meaning that just because you ingest a whole bunch of it doesn't mean that amount is what actually reaches your blood stream in an effective form. So, even though you eat a bunch, only a little of it ever actually goes to work on your body.
Also, as I recall, carbonmonoxide only has about 200 times greater affinity for hemoglobin than oxygen, but that is more than enough to suffocate you at a fairly low concentration (this is due to the way the quaternary structure of the hemoglobin molecule coopertively binds multiple oxygen/CO molecules).
Either way, the point is that there are a lot of different ways this thing could have increased efficacy without a huge delivery volume or extremely high binding affinity.
Biotech companies get special compensation by the U.S. government to develop treatments for so called "orphan" diseases. They get tax breaks and exclusive market rights if they develop drugs for these conditions, and as a result there are really quite a few advancements in the treatment of rare diseases when it normally wouldn't be monetarily feasible... but of course there are tons of different wierd conditions that people have. Here is a link for the FDA website discussing this: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_orphan.h tml
I would generally agree with you... except for the Newton. That was pretty damn groundbreaking... unsuccessful, but groundbreaking.
i'm not downplaying the exciting sci-fi possibilities. i'm emphasizing the "fi" part. what i'm saying is that the scientific breakthrough is not as amazing as news media might make you think, and that the scientist who did the research has a bit of a reputation for being a wee bit dramatic. take it with a grain of salt is all.
Other lines of mice are capable of similar things than just the MRL mouse, and even the MRL mouse has some serious limitations. For example, Heber-Katz cryo-injured the mouse heart and it healed, but other more relevant damage did not. Ischemic heart cells did not recover, which are those lacking oxygen supply, as in a heart-attack. Most of the other regenerations were not nearly as impressive, as several organs have the ability for significant regeneration anyway. Heber-Katz is known for her press releases being very sensational... and coming out before she presents her evidence. still, some of the papers she has released have some pretty cool stuff, just not as groundbreaking as popular news media would have you believe.
exactly! what we need is supreme executive power derived from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicle aquatic ceremony! I mean you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. I mean if i went 'round saying i was an emperer just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away! (sorry, i just can't help myself sometimes;))
tritium is actually used in medicine/physiology to measure the total amount of water in a person's body. you can then ingest other stuff to narrow it down... do a little math... and you can figure out total body water, intracellular water, extracellular water, and plasma water. which are some pretty useful measurements.