It's not a computer supply company and my personal experiences with them have been non-commercial and always to the same address, but McMaster Carr is by far my favorite online store.
Thanks for the info. Just looking at their inventory was making me drool . . .
Maybe I shouldn't be thankful. I'll probably be spending too much money on harebrained ideas. Might even have to get out my Unit Operations class notes. Heat exchangers? Pressure transducers? Networked process controllers? Oh my.
And I speak as someone who has developed and extensively tested an immunoassay (ELISA) for a cancer biomarker. IHC is tissue staining (immunohistochemistry), as opposed to ICC (immunocytochemistry, cell staining), and neither of those methods is worth a damn for quantifying protein levels. You would have to homogenize the sample (sonicate it, for example), then do an ELISA with a standard curve. And no, the standard curve doesn't have to be linear, but you do have to fit it to some suitable sigmoidal (S-shaped) model.
Then there's the problem of quenching. If the protein level is super high, my fluorescent signal will be too high and the dye molecules stack on top of each other, causing quenching (loss of fluorescent signal). The way around that problem is a dilution series (two would be adequate) for each test sample. Quenching is the main reason IHC and ICC suck for quantitation, too. That, and photobleaching, and other microscope artifacts. Anyone with any experience reserves IHC and ICC for qualitative information.
They mentioned the Yale scientists looked at tissue microarrays, which should not be the standard test. That technology is in its infancy, and most of its successes are either exaggerations or outright lies. Again, I'm speaking as someone in-the-know. I've seen the shiny Powerpoint presentations, and I've seen the shoddy data behind the scenes that they didn't show in the presentation. High-throughput automated microscopy? Hah. Not for another decade will that work as advertised.
And another thing: standardization of the antibody is not an issue as long as the off-rate is slow enough, and the same antibody is used for test samples and standards. I've had more than adequate experience in this arena as well, using Biacore Surface Plasmon Resonance to measure antibody on- and off-rates.
Just goes to show you, never send a doctor to do the job of a molecular biologist or biochemist.
Anyone have any idea what they meant by this? From the article:
Visa simply rode out the rest of the jump in level flight following the highway until the fuel ran out. Visa then continued in normal bird-man flight until deployment altitude.
So prior to running out of kerosene, it was abnormal bird-man flight? I don't really care what they call it, but I'd love to give it a try.
We are attached to the Eve theory because we can bear children with any different human race on the planet. Separate evolutions would have lead to speciation. And speciation precludes baby makin'.
Slippery slope, that species boundary. Is it certain humans and chimps couldn't have fertile offspring? They have a different number of chromosomes, but apparently that doesn't always preclude baby makin'. But I'd never say humans and chimps were the same species, even if they did have fertile, very ugly, humpanzee babies.
There is more difference between two random humans in the same race, then there is between two average humans of different races. In other words, if were to average all the genetics of each individual race, you would find that they are more similar to each other then difference you find between humans due to natural variation.
That really doesn't make sense, the way you worded it. But I just figured out what you were trying to say. My problem is your choice of the words "random" and "average." There is no average human. That doesn't make sense. You can't compare an individual with a population, but you can compare two populations with each other.
Let me try: There is such a wide degree of variance within human subpopulations (communities, races, ethnicities, whatever) that there is no statistical difference between human subpopulations. I.e., we have to accept the null hypothesis that there is no genetic difference between races.
Unfortunately, the differences that do exist (recessive genes in certain ethnicities) are pretty important. Otherwise there would be no Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, or any other genetic disorders caused by people marrying within their own isolated groups. To be fair, you should really look at the DNA that matters, the 1% or so that distinguishs us from other primates. And also realize that not all DNA is equally important. What if most of the variation in DNA is due to noncoding repeat units? Should that be counted? What if there was once much greater variation between ethnic groups, but that diversity was destroyed by, say, smallpox? Only those individuals with certain genes survived, regardless of ethnicity. In other words, an American Indian alive today is certainly not genetically representative of the "average" American Indian pre-conquest, given that at least 90% of all indigenous people in North America died from European diseases.
I'm sad to see some asshole modded your comment "flamebait." Probably just an RIAA troll.
Anyway, I agree that private entities should not be granted police / military powers. Which is why I was so pissed when those Blackwater mercenary thugs were given special treatment in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Regular citizens were disarmed by police, in violation of the 2nd Ammendment, while Blackwater's forces were allowed to keep their weapons in order to protect corporate interests. Blech.
As Zi Mei's affidavit points out, the RIAA has no solid evidence any crimes were even committed! As someone else on this forum pointed out, the RIAA itself has planted bogus mp3 files on p2p services which would have looked the same as pirated mp3s. The evidence the RIAA does have is extremely flimsy, and would never compel a decent judge to make the ISPs hand over server logs.
Say someone in an apartment building had a birthday party, and at that party there was an unlicensed performance of the "Happy Birthday" song that a lawyer happened to hear while walking past the building. Then say that lawyer tried to have an ex parte order to get a list of all the building's tenants, to determine who had a birthday on that day. Would anyone take him seriously? And even so, would having a birthday on that day prove you had illegally performed the "Happy Birthday" song?
If you want a criminal rather than civil example, pretend it was marijuana smoke drifting out of the building instead of music, and that a police officer wanted a warrant to search every apartment in the building.
I couldn't get them to come to my house to get rid of my roommate's ex-wife when she was violating a CLETS restraining order, simply because she wasn't actively physically threatening anyone at the moment. (That woman is large enough she can actually cause physical harm without a weapon...)
Any chance this woman was the same psychotic single-mom that inundated you with legal motions? Just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info. Just looking at their inventory was making me drool . . .
Maybe I shouldn't be thankful. I'll probably be spending too much money on harebrained ideas. Might even have to get out my Unit Operations class notes. Heat exchangers? Pressure transducers? Networked process controllers? Oh my.
Then there's the problem of quenching. If the protein level is super high, my fluorescent signal will be too high and the dye molecules stack on top of each other, causing quenching (loss of fluorescent signal). The way around that problem is a dilution series (two would be adequate) for each test sample. Quenching is the main reason IHC and ICC suck for quantitation, too. That, and photobleaching, and other microscope artifacts. Anyone with any experience reserves IHC and ICC for qualitative information.
They mentioned the Yale scientists looked at tissue microarrays, which should not be the standard test. That technology is in its infancy, and most of its successes are either exaggerations or outright lies. Again, I'm speaking as someone in-the-know. I've seen the shiny Powerpoint presentations, and I've seen the shoddy data behind the scenes that they didn't show in the presentation. High-throughput automated microscopy? Hah. Not for another decade will that work as advertised.
And another thing: standardization of the antibody is not an issue as long as the off-rate is slow enough, and the same antibody is used for test samples and standards. I've had more than adequate experience in this arena as well, using Biacore Surface Plasmon Resonance to measure antibody on- and off-rates.
Just goes to show you, never send a doctor to do the job of a molecular biologist or biochemist.
So "normal bird-man flight" = gliding. That's kind of what I figured. Thanks for the clarification. It also explains the funky fins on his helmet.
Visa simply rode out the rest of the jump in level flight following the highway until the fuel ran out. Visa then continued in normal bird-man flight until deployment altitude.
So prior to running out of kerosene, it was abnormal bird-man flight? I don't really care what they call it, but I'd love to give it a try.
Slippery slope, that species boundary. Is it certain humans and chimps couldn't have fertile offspring? They have a different number of chromosomes, but apparently that doesn't always preclude baby makin'. But I'd never say humans and chimps were the same species, even if they did have fertile, very ugly, humpanzee babies.
That really doesn't make sense, the way you worded it. But I just figured out what you were trying to say. My problem is your choice of the words "random" and "average." There is no average human. That doesn't make sense. You can't compare an individual with a population, but you can compare two populations with each other.
Let me try: There is such a wide degree of variance within human subpopulations (communities, races, ethnicities, whatever) that there is no statistical difference between human subpopulations. I.e., we have to accept the null hypothesis that there is no genetic difference between races.
Unfortunately, the differences that do exist (recessive genes in certain ethnicities) are pretty important. Otherwise there would be no Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, or any other genetic disorders caused by people marrying within their own isolated groups. To be fair, you should really look at the DNA that matters, the 1% or so that distinguishs us from other primates. And also realize that not all DNA is equally important. What if most of the variation in DNA is due to noncoding repeat units? Should that be counted? What if there was once much greater variation between ethnic groups, but that diversity was destroyed by, say, smallpox? Only those individuals with certain genes survived, regardless of ethnicity. In other words, an American Indian alive today is certainly not genetically representative of the "average" American Indian pre-conquest, given that at least 90% of all indigenous people in North America died from European diseases.
Anyway, I agree that private entities should not be granted police / military powers. Which is why I was so pissed when those Blackwater mercenary thugs were given special treatment in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Regular citizens were disarmed by police, in violation of the 2nd Ammendment, while Blackwater's forces were allowed to keep their weapons in order to protect corporate interests. Blech.
As Zi Mei's affidavit points out, the RIAA has no solid evidence any crimes were even committed! As someone else on this forum pointed out, the RIAA itself has planted bogus mp3 files on p2p services which would have looked the same as pirated mp3s. The evidence the RIAA does have is extremely flimsy, and would never compel a decent judge to make the ISPs hand over server logs.
Say someone in an apartment building had a birthday party, and at that party there was an unlicensed performance of the "Happy Birthday" song that a lawyer happened to hear while walking past the building. Then say that lawyer tried to have an ex parte order to get a list of all the building's tenants, to determine who had a birthday on that day. Would anyone take him seriously? And even so, would having a birthday on that day prove you had illegally performed the "Happy Birthday" song?
If you want a criminal rather than civil example, pretend it was marijuana smoke drifting out of the building instead of music, and that a police officer wanted a warrant to search every apartment in the building.
Any chance this woman was the same psychotic single-mom that inundated you with legal motions? Just curious.