I work on oncogenomics, but I studied GMOs: it is wrong to assume that since I don't work in that specific field, I do not know anything about it. Also some of my colleagues used to work or still work in the field of GMOs (mostly related to tracing their presence in food for legislative purposes).
And what I meant about GP being correct, yes, I meant that Greenpeace follows an agenda that is dictated by ideology, false facts or plain ignorance, and not by accurate knowledge. I don't mind if they object to GMO usage, as long as they have proper facts to back their claims (and not this report which is - according even to them - not conducted using all the necessary scientific methods). The case of the Golden Rice is a perfect example. Here are some links:
Personally, I don't mind the use of GMOs. Given the paranoia around them, they will be the best controlled food ever, always under a rather rigorous watch (and if it's not for "the good of the general public" it can also be to avoid bad PR)
The bombing was what I was trying to refer to. It may be unjustifiable, bad, evil... but those Greenpeace people were violating France's territorial borders. I absolutely hate weapons of any kind, but perhaps they should have acted with respect to France's laws. Their ideology does NOT put them above the law.
Second, you confuse me with the one who said "anti corporation types". Point one, I'm not that poster (read carefully next time), second, I'm an interested party because I'm a scientist, not because of some unknown (economic?) interest. If you're interested in what field I work, I do oncogenomics of human tumors in an Italian university. I've never got funding from companies nor I am interested in getting any.
But I get annoyed when Greenpeace spreads FUD about environment, and biology in particular, just because they don't have a clue. It's a failure of science itself (for not being properly able to communicate), but also the product of a precise ideological agenda.
Being a biotechnologist, I had to deal with the Greenpeace guys every now and then. Despite your claims for FUD, IMO the GP is correct. Greenpeace may have a "noble" intent, but:
a. They're totally blinded by their ideology. When I was attending TeBio 2001 in Genova, Italy, their Italian representative had a speech that showed only deep, and I mean, deep ignorance of the subject (it was on GMOs). Now, how can you have a productive dicussion if you don't even know about the matter?
b. Their double-edged approach on the Golden Rice (as evidenced in a Scientific American article several years ago). Notice that it is a *public* fund that sponsored it. At first Greenpeace endorsed it, then opposed it? Why?
c. Their arrogant attitude that gives them the "right" to break laws (national and international) for a "greater good" (notice the quotes). The incident with the French and the Rainbow Warrior is the best example.
They're just using a blind "save the environment" campaign, but they're just promoting their own ideology. Very personally speaking, to me they're not more than eco-terrorists.
Well, yeah... it's good that they adopted open source at a national level... and how is that supposed to be good? I mean, Cuba is not a democracy, and someone interested in "freedom" should battle for it first, rather than open source... Don't get me wrong, I'm all for FOSS use in governments, but here the priorities are messed up.
A dictatorship gets Open Source for its government and so they are good? I don't see the point.
is the most striking demonstration to date of why religion is a crock and in fact deserves no special legal recognition whatsoever.
Why was this modded insightful? While extremization of religion (but also of many other things) can be bad by itself, I don't see why there is such a hatred for that in these posts. This "intolerance" mostly comes out of people that are "tolerant", or say they are. However, respecting religion when it doesn't cause harm to you or your country (I'm talking about religion by itself, not fanatism) would be a real sign of tolerance.
He's talking about the Roman Catholic Church in general, and his statement is generally true. Whether fanatics in your country are going beyond that has nothing to do with the Church itself.
I'll elaborate. When you have to present an application for a drug patent you have to deliver a *load* of information. Specifically you must give details about the drug, physical and chemical properties, mechanism of action and a lot more. Plus, you have to give details about the manufacturing process and, more importantly, *preliminary toxicological results*.
You don't want a drug to go around untested, do you? The case of Talidomide should remind everyone that strict testing is essential.
Developing a drug isn't just seeing if it works on tissues. Countless molecules that were promising in vitro were then scrapped because they didn't work at all in vivo. And all that testing has a cost, quite large. Now, pharmaceutical companies *aren't* nice and some are truly evil, but equating "no patent" with "good" isn't better either.
An area that *needs* public intervention, instead, is the one about "orphan drugs", that are drugs that aren't developed because they're considered not profitable (e.g.: a cure for malaria, or other endemic diseases in the underdeveloped countries). But this story seems biased to me.
But then again neither is the US or its satellite in Europe, GB ltd.
Apologies for the off topic post, but this irritates me. The fact that you are here, writing that, means they are democracies, or at least you have free speech. Go say that in China, or another real regime, and watch what happens.
I don't like the idea of the OLPC because there is some fundamental problem that needs to be fixed before that. That is, a good deal of the so called third world countries that will need it aren't democracies. Now, what gain would it be if you give the chance to obtain information that has been already altered and censored? I'd say to worry about that problem first.
Why the attack on religion? Some ethic considerations may be not only religious in nature, but also philosophical.
This involves the beginning of life itself, so I wouldn't classify the matter in such simply (and I dare say "propagandistic") terms.
(A religious scientist who used to work in the stem cell research)
Muscle cells aren't your average cell types. You're used to a single cell having a membrane and a nucleus (ok, this is a HUGE oversimplification, but useful for the purpose). Muscle cells are made up by several cells fused together (they're called "multi-nucleate" cells) early in the development process. Aside that, like neurons, they're "stuck" into "non-replicating mode", that is, once they're fully formed they're permanently locked out of the cellular cycle. That's why sarcomas and neuroblastomas (neuron tumors) are rare. They never occur on the mature cell (unable to divide) but rather on the precursors (that can still divide). And you don't have many of these (if any) in an adult organism.
She put it in a way like "Novell is now Evil and will only do Bad Things". I don't like that deal, but the community response, *including* PJ's has been either misguided or childish.
Except this news story is not a "legal dissection". It's a mere interpretation of a press release, and a wrong one at that. I like PJ's legal posts, but I absolutely HATE those with a striking moralistic attitude such as the one of this headline.
...that FFXII, save for a few changes (such as Gambits) is basically an offline version of FFXI. There are many features that are in common (monster aggressivity, or as FFXI players know, "aggro", the auto-attack and in general the battle system, the hunts that resemble the Notorious Monsters...). This is no surprise as Matsuno was a big fan of FFXI. It's a shame that even Square Enix is trying to hide this fact (check the interviews on the extra DVD, if you have the collector's edition)
BLAZEMONGER! Memories of those threads in those newsgroup resurface... And about your burnt computer, did you try contacting BLAZE's Customer Support to "discuss" the matter?
...Slahsdot is severely biased towards other publishers (Nintendo, anyone?). Can we just *wait* till this console is in the shop without spreading what is no more than FUD?
- First of all, the brain cells are "terminally differentiated". This means that once their growth is complete, they can't reproduce anymore (though they're free to adapt to the environment); - Then, when there is injury in the central nervous system, the specialized immune system of the brain (microglia) causes an inflammation that further damages the area and prevents regrowth; - Third, neurons are *extremely* susceptible to stress: for the sake of preserving their mission-critical function, if they get damaged, they usually commit cellular suicide (apoptosis). Actually a good part of research is devoted to preventing the cellular suicide, because even if neuron numbers decrease, if it's a small lesion they can compensate by rearranging their networks; - Last but not least, don't forget that the micro-environment of the brain and spinal cord and the periphery is extremely different at a chemical level, so there may be molecules that influence a regeneration in periphery and not in the center.
7) Why I have to buy a new set of computers and cell phones and PDAs so often..... and recycle the old ones (sorry, even Linux can't save a 486SX-25 machine)
Actually, my old software router ran on a 486 and with Linux on a floppy...
That Microsoft actually proposed some licensing for the protocols, only:
a. They weren't compatible with all licenses (guess what? the GPL was one of them) b. Small businesses complained that they had to pay a big amount of cash for a lot of material, most of which they didn't even need.
As usual, groklaw had a good coverage of the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I work on oncogenomics, but I studied GMOs: it is wrong to assume that since I don't work in that specific field, I do not know anything about it. Also some of my colleagues used to work or still work in the field of GMOs (mostly related to tracing their presence in food for legislative purposes).
0 5/00000055/00000009/art00003 (full text is free)
E SSID=43000e1dc9f08ba97f1d53c624f16299
a rch=greenpeace&searchHILI=1
And what I meant about GP being correct, yes, I meant that Greenpeace follows an agenda that is dictated by ideology, false facts or plain ignorance, and not by accurate knowledge. I don't mind if they object to GMO usage, as long as they have proper facts to back their claims (and not this report which is - according even to them - not conducted using all the necessary scientific methods). The case of the Golden Rice is a perfect example. Here are some links:
A commentary on BioScience, September 2005
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/aibs/bio/20
Greenpeace's claims on Golden Rice (German)
http://de.einkaufsnetz.org/presse/16102.html?PHPS
A rebuttal to Greenpeace's claims on Golden Rice (German)
http://www.welt.de/data/2005/04/05/621872.html?se
Personally, I don't mind the use of GMOs. Given the paranoia around them, they will be the best controlled food ever, always under a rather rigorous watch (and if it's not for "the good of the general public" it can also be to avoid bad PR)
The bombing was what I was trying to refer to. It may be unjustifiable, bad, evil... but those Greenpeace people were violating France's territorial borders. I absolutely hate weapons of any kind, but perhaps they should have acted with respect to France's laws. Their ideology does NOT put them above the law.
Second, you confuse me with the one who said "anti corporation types". Point one, I'm not that poster (read carefully next time), second, I'm an interested party because I'm a scientist, not because of some unknown (economic?) interest.
If you're interested in what field I work, I do oncogenomics of human tumors in an Italian university. I've never got funding from companies nor I am interested in getting any.
But I get annoyed when Greenpeace spreads FUD about environment, and biology in particular, just because they don't have a clue. It's a failure of science itself (for not being properly able to communicate), but also the product of a precise ideological agenda.
Being a biotechnologist, I had to deal with the Greenpeace guys every now and then. Despite your claims for FUD, IMO the GP is correct. Greenpeace may have a "noble" intent, but:
a. They're totally blinded by their ideology. When I was attending TeBio 2001 in Genova, Italy, their Italian representative had a speech that showed only deep, and I mean, deep ignorance of the subject (it was on GMOs). Now, how can you have a productive dicussion if you don't even know about the matter?
b. Their double-edged approach on the Golden Rice (as evidenced in a Scientific American article several years ago). Notice that it is a *public* fund that sponsored it. At first Greenpeace endorsed it, then opposed it? Why?
c. Their arrogant attitude that gives them the "right" to break laws (national and international) for a "greater good" (notice the quotes). The incident with the French and the Rainbow Warrior is the best example.
They're just using a blind "save the environment" campaign, but they're just promoting their own ideology. Very personally speaking, to me they're not more than eco-terrorists.
And the sole fact you managed to publish it proves you wrong. Try criticizing the Chinese governmenment in China.
Well, yeah... it's good that they adopted open source at a national level... and how is that supposed to be good? I mean, Cuba is not a democracy, and someone interested in "freedom" should battle for it first, rather than open source...
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for FOSS use in governments, but here the priorities are messed up.
A dictatorship gets Open Source for its government and so they are good? I don't see the point.
Why was this modded insightful? While extremization of religion (but also of many other things) can be bad by itself, I don't see why there is such a hatred for that in these posts. This "intolerance" mostly comes out of people that are "tolerant", or say they are. However, respecting religion when it doesn't cause harm to you or your country (I'm talking about religion by itself, not fanatism) would be a real sign of tolerance.
You can like science and be religious. You make them seem like opposites, but they aren't. (and yes, I'm a religious scientist)
He's talking about the Roman Catholic Church in general, and his statement is generally true. Whether fanatics in your country are going beyond that has nothing to do with the Church itself.
I'll elaborate. When you have to present an application for a drug patent you have to deliver a *load* of information. Specifically you must give details about the drug, physical and chemical properties, mechanism of action and a lot more. Plus, you have to give details about the manufacturing process and, more importantly, *preliminary toxicological results*.
You don't want a drug to go around untested, do you? The case of Talidomide should remind everyone that strict testing is essential.
Developing a drug isn't just seeing if it works on tissues. Countless molecules that were promising in vitro were then scrapped because they didn't work at all in vivo. And all that testing has a cost, quite large.
Now, pharmaceutical companies *aren't* nice and some are truly evil, but equating "no patent" with "good" isn't better either.
An area that *needs* public intervention, instead, is the one about "orphan drugs", that are drugs that aren't developed because they're considered not profitable (e.g.: a cure for malaria, or other endemic diseases in the underdeveloped countries). But this story seems biased to me.
Apologies for the off topic post, but this irritates me. The fact that you are here, writing that, means they are democracies, or at least you have free speech. Go say that in China, or another real regime, and watch what happens.
I don't like the idea of the OLPC because there is some fundamental problem that needs to be fixed before that. That is, a good deal of the so called third world countries that will need it aren't democracies. Now, what gain would it be if you give the chance to obtain information that has been already altered and censored? I'd say to worry about that problem first.
Why the attack on religion? Some ethic considerations may be not only religious in nature, but also philosophical. This involves the beginning of life itself, so I wouldn't classify the matter in such simply (and I dare say "propagandistic") terms. (A religious scientist who used to work in the stem cell research)
Muscle cells aren't your average cell types. You're used to a single cell having a membrane and a nucleus (ok, this is a HUGE oversimplification, but useful for the purpose). Muscle cells are made up by several cells fused together (they're called "multi-nucleate" cells) early in the development process. Aside that, like neurons, they're "stuck" into "non-replicating mode", that is, once they're fully formed they're permanently locked out of the cellular cycle.
That's why sarcomas and neuroblastomas (neuron tumors) are rare. They never occur on the mature cell (unable to divide) but rather on the precursors (that can still divide). And you don't have many of these (if any) in an adult organism.
She put it in a way like "Novell is now Evil and will only do Bad Things". I don't like that deal, but the community response, *including* PJ's has been either misguided or childish.
Except this news story is not a "legal dissection". It's a mere interpretation of a press release, and a wrong one at that. I like PJ's legal posts, but I absolutely HATE those with a striking moralistic attitude such as the one of this headline.
Rather cheap for being a fine!
/. editors: I think you forgot an "M" after those)
(note to
...that FFXII, save for a few changes (such as Gambits) is basically an offline version of FFXI. There are many features that are in common (monster aggressivity, or as FFXI players know, "aggro", the auto-attack and in general the battle system, the hunts that resemble the Notorious Monsters...). This is no surprise as Matsuno was a big fan of FFXI.
It's a shame that even Square Enix is trying to hide this fact (check the interviews on the extra DVD, if you have the collector's edition)
BLAZEMONGER! Memories of those threads in those newsgroup resurface...
And about your burnt computer, did you try contacting BLAZE's Customer Support to "discuss" the matter?
...Slahsdot is severely biased towards other publishers (Nintendo, anyone?). Can we just *wait* till this console is in the shop without spreading what is no more than FUD?
Ironic that a former "peacekeeper" says "Nuke"... Very lame, regardless of the reason.
There are a number of probable factors.
- First of all, the brain cells are "terminally differentiated". This means that once their growth is complete, they can't reproduce anymore (though they're free to adapt to the environment);
- Then, when there is injury in the central nervous system, the specialized immune system of the brain (microglia) causes an inflammation that further damages the area and prevents regrowth;
- Third, neurons are *extremely* susceptible to stress: for the sake of preserving their mission-critical function, if they get damaged, they usually commit cellular suicide (apoptosis). Actually a good part of research is devoted to preventing the cellular suicide, because even if neuron numbers decrease, if it's a small lesion they can compensate by rearranging their networks;
- Last but not least, don't forget that the micro-environment of the brain and spinal cord and the periphery is extremely different at a chemical level, so there may be molecules that influence a regeneration in periphery and not in the center.
Actually, my old software router ran on a 486 and with Linux on a floppy...
That Microsoft actually proposed some licensing for the protocols, only:
a. They weren't compatible with all licenses (guess what? the GPL was one of them)
b. Small businesses complained that they had to pay a big amount of cash for a lot of material, most of which they didn't even need.
As usual, groklaw had a good coverage of the matter.
- First of all, you need to have a solid scientific background on what you want to ask the funding for
- If you are already working on this field, you have to present your previous results, with published data
- You have to present a detailed plan of what you want to do, and the rationale for it, and possibly the deadlines for partial results
- You also have to give reasons for using the money, including salaries and equipment
Writing a *good* grant is not that easy. I don't live in the US, but I think that similar guidelines apply there.All it's needed are specifications. Nothing more.