In a place like Hawaii, the duration of protection is almost irrelevant anyways as you lose most of the sunscreen every time you enter the water. Even "active" sunscreens that market themselves as sweatproof or waterproof advise you to reapply after entering the water.
In most cases they would, the thinking is that once you can grown custom neurons outside of the body, you can also modify them to be resistant to or able to reverse the disorder. For example, what if you could re-engineer normal neurons from a patient with Huntington's disease. Injecting them back in, maybe they would replace some of the dying neurons and at least diminish the effects of the disease. If you could engineer glial cells that can properly transport beta-amyloid or are hyper effective at it, maybe they can compensate for cells that can't and slow down the progression of Alzheimer's to push it back beyond reasonable human lifespans.
The other key idea is now you have a way of producing cells that carry the disease genes without having to cut open someone's brain to get at them. This is one of the first necessary tools to study and develope new treatments to fight these diseases for which no human-derived models exist. This is probably the likliest short term benefit of such technology (ie benefit in 10-20 years rather than 20-50 year timeframe) accelerating the pace of drug discovery.
Printed parts are still by far inferior to more conventionally produced alternatives. For organs with 3D architecture, by far the most successful approaches have been to basically seed the relevant cell types in layers on a gel or degradable fiber based scaffold. Anthony Atala's group at Wake Forest (no association, just a fan of their work) has made replacement urethras and bladders among many others that have actually been implanted in patients. I believe the bladder work is currently in a phase II clinical trial on its way to becoming more widely available. Sangeeta Bhatia's group has done amazing work on liver tissue, although their focus has been on laboratory samples for drug testing rather than implantation for the time being. They actually do use a 3D printing approach to their work but only to build a sugar-based scaffold that can dissolve away and leave space for blood vessels to be engineered. The tissue itself is just dumped onto the scaffold in a gel slurry and organizes itself.
I think 3D printing tissues is a rather short-sighted approach to assembling structures whose function and shape is self-organized. The most successful approaches thus far (in terms of having products on the market or organs in people) have been strategies that rely on the intrinsic self-organization of tissues. Even more complex structures such as the colonic epithelium can be generated this way.
Our entire development team uses Macbooks - and of 12 users, only two of them run OSX. One of them is even geeky enough to paste a Tux logo over the light-up Apple logo.
The last time I visited Google HQ (about 5 years ago) the most common setup I saw was Thinkpads running Linux with Macbooks running Linux in a close second.
Not in the slightest. I'm one of (seemingly many) people who seem to believe that the payment Google offers in exchange for access to my personal information is quite fair. Just because you don't doesn't mean that other people are somehow ignorant for not having realized what "the game" is, it just means that they have slightly different ideas of what different types of privacy mean to them, which aspects of their privacy they are willing to put a price on and what that price might be.
Apples to oranges comparison here, but this happened to me when I ran the first few alpha builds of CyanogenMod that were built from 4.3, subsequent updates fixed the problem. I never ran stock 4.3 so YMMV
PLoS is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit and discloses their finances in detail as required by the IRS. There are also links to detailed financial statements for the last 2 fiscal years which are audited by a 3rd party.
Which is why it's fairly costly to publish in the Public Library of Science (PLoS) with publication fees ranging from $1,350 to $2,900. Fortunately most grants allow you to use those funds to pay the submission fees and many universities (at least in the US) have programs that can help support the cost as well.
Generally yes, although the specific restrictions may vary.
From the link (PMC = PubMed Central):
The PMC Open Access Subset some or all openaccess content is a part of the total collection of articles in PMC. Articles in the PMC Open Access Subset are still protected by copyright, but are made available under a Creative Commons or similar license that generally allows more liberal redistribution and reuse than a traditional copyrighted work. Note, however, that the license terms are not identical for all of the articles in this subset. Please refer to the license statement in each article for specific terms of use. We also provide a search-by-license feature, described below, which enables finding articles with specific reuse rights.
Right, this has nothing to do with the fact that a no strings attached version of the bill had enough Republican votes in the house to pass from the get go but the republican caucus in the house changed the parliamentary rules so only the majority leader could bring the bill to vote, ie boehner, who proceeded to refuse to do so to begin this whole charade of brinkmanship to begin with.
Citation:
http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77802818/
Exactly, in my lab we work primarily on bone and colon tissue (although generated from adult stem or induced pluripotent stem cells). It would not be exaggerating to call these technologies the next generation of medical research. There are tons of genetic and developmental disorders that are either too rare to study readily in vivo or just impossible to study in-vitro. We're nearing the point where we can start with IPSC's either engineered to carry mutations of interest or derived directly from patients carrying these mutations and turn them into all sorts of tissues: liver, colon, neural, vascular, muscular, etc. In many cases it's not even necessary to get to the stage of organoids, simply having true human tissue with the right pathophysiology will be a tremendous boon to in-vitro drug screening and discovery and far more relevant than animal models.
A valid point, perhaps one mitigating bit of information worth noting is that compulsory licensing does not mean that the generic manufacturer can violate the patent. Under TRIPS (the international treaty governing intellectual property rights) what the Indian government has done is to deem the asking cost of a drug combined with the asking cost or unwillingness of the manufacturer to license the drug to generic manufacturers to be damaging to public health (I forget the precise phrasing used). As a consequence they've issued a "mandatory license" by which the generic manufacturer can pay Bayer a licensing fee established as reasonable by the government exercising its right to compulsory licensing, essentially granting a license to the patent it issued to Bayer to generics manufacturers for domestic production and consumption in order to ensure access to the drug. Hence the 6% licensing fee on revenues (not profit) referenced in the article. Arguably, Bayer stands to make that money for free considering the vast majority of the consumption of that drug will be by patients who could not have afforded the treatment previously.
Certainly there are potential negative consequences of such an action, but the calculus of such a decision would involve weighing these potential future costs of "decreased innovation due to perceived risk of diminished monopoly" against the very immediate human cost of not having access to treatment. In this case it seems that the government of India decided that the immediate cost outweighed the potential future cost.
In most of these situations, it isn't your device but often company property and therefore allowed only to run approved applications because it will have access to sensitive company networks. Mac vs windows vs linux security / usability arguments aside, I can see why companies would want to standardize the tools they buy for their employees / have some degree of control over them.
A friend in the industry once remarked that some of the best and brightest in software engineering have been going into the financial industry as of late. It's hard not to wonder what they might have achieved in more productive areas of work...
Actually it is possible to produce highly vascularized tissue. The trick is to use the decellularized collagen matrix from a donor organ (either taken from an animal or from a cadaver) which can then be re-seeded with the patient's own cells and implanted. Atala's group has done this with livers (although not re-implanted yet) and has made proof-of-concepts with kidneys (by using a stack of 2d tissues rather than attempting to engineer the complete 3d structure)
Which is still extremely useful tech, even if the weapons application turns out to be just a fruitless route to attract free money for the government if they can make smaller, cheaper, more powerful and more efficient lasers, they'll have no shortage of potential customers.
Yes, but it would have been possible for them to make a lot more money out of the process if they were fired afterwards. Typically stock paid to execs have to vest over a period for ex. every year 20% of your stock vests over 5 years. If the execs were not fully vested, the acquisition event would have triggered an instant vest clause and they could have cashed out on their entire package. If they were fired before the acquisition, any stock that had not yet vested would simply be lost, reducing the total amount of stock Skype had issued and increasing the value of the stock held by the equity firms. They were stabbed in the back by their own financiers- not an uncommon occurrence. It serves you well to vette the VCs you work with every bit as much as they're going to vette you.
College professors and students are insulated from market forces and over time this has eroded the system.
On the contrary, I think the exact opposite is the problem. Colleges are increasingly under pressure to teach skills that will get students jobs, recruit more students to get more funding and twist every metric possible in order to move up in rankings. Take admissions and graduation statistics, for example, the more students that get rejected from a university the more "prestigious and exclusive" it becomes, on the flip side the more students that fail out of the university, the more inept it appears. It is thus in every university's best interest to encourage the widespread ideas that everybody can and should go to college and then relax graduation standards for accepted students.
Even academic research is slowly but surely moving away from high-risk, publicly funded fundamental work to applied technology development (itself not necessarily a bad thing) which has gone hand-in-hand with the rise of the university Technology Transfer Office and a drive to squeeze every drop of money out of that academic research rather than focusing on the core university mission to produce and disseminate knowledge as widely as possible. While the dissemination of many technologies may benefit from patenting and exclusive licensing (particularly tech that requires significant private investment to develop and bring to market), the promise of commercial success has motivated patenting in many fields which do not fit this model.
Menus are not hard, they're inefficient, particularly on a laptop where 90% of your interactions are with a trackpad rather than a mouse. It is significantly easier to simply hit super and start typing the name of the application you want and hit enter after 3-4 keystrokes (~250-500ms) on average than the navigate through menus nested 3-4 levels deep with a trackpad.
The problem is that the evidence goes both ways, some studies show a correlation, others don't. Keep in mind that what's been said by the WHO isn't that the studies that showed a correlation are correct, just that they might be. The end result for the WHO is to say "well, there *might* be a link so we should at least continue to watch the issue" which is basically all that classifying cell phones as class 2B carcinogens says. As noted by other commentors, this class of potential carcinogen includes things like caffeine, nickel and Red No. 2 food coloring. Basically the slightly misleading name of the category (calling it a carcinogen) has the media all in a tizzy since of course journalists never actually read the quotes they're relaying or look into what that pesky 2B in front means. FTFA:
"This IARC classification does not mean cell phones cause cancer. Under IARC rules, limited evidence from statistical studies can be found even though bias and other data flaws may be the basis for the results."
Slashdot Mirror
In a place like Hawaii, the duration of protection is almost irrelevant anyways as you lose most of the sunscreen every time you enter the water. Even "active" sunscreens that market themselves as sweatproof or waterproof advise you to reapply after entering the water.
In most cases they would, the thinking is that once you can grown custom neurons outside of the body, you can also modify them to be resistant to or able to reverse the disorder. For example, what if you could re-engineer normal neurons from a patient with Huntington's disease. Injecting them back in, maybe they would replace some of the dying neurons and at least diminish the effects of the disease. If you could engineer glial cells that can properly transport beta-amyloid or are hyper effective at it, maybe they can compensate for cells that can't and slow down the progression of Alzheimer's to push it back beyond reasonable human lifespans. The other key idea is now you have a way of producing cells that carry the disease genes without having to cut open someone's brain to get at them. This is one of the first necessary tools to study and develope new treatments to fight these diseases for which no human-derived models exist. This is probably the likliest short term benefit of such technology (ie benefit in 10-20 years rather than 20-50 year timeframe) accelerating the pace of drug discovery.
Printed parts are still by far inferior to more conventionally produced alternatives. For organs with 3D architecture, by far the most successful approaches have been to basically seed the relevant cell types in layers on a gel or degradable fiber based scaffold. Anthony Atala's group at Wake Forest (no association, just a fan of their work) has made replacement urethras and bladders among many others that have actually been implanted in patients. I believe the bladder work is currently in a phase II clinical trial on its way to becoming more widely available. Sangeeta Bhatia's group has done amazing work on liver tissue, although their focus has been on laboratory samples for drug testing rather than implantation for the time being. They actually do use a 3D printing approach to their work but only to build a sugar-based scaffold that can dissolve away and leave space for blood vessels to be engineered. The tissue itself is just dumped onto the scaffold in a gel slurry and organizes itself.
I think 3D printing tissues is a rather short-sighted approach to assembling structures whose function and shape is self-organized. The most successful approaches thus far (in terms of having products on the market or organs in people) have been strategies that rely on the intrinsic self-organization of tissues. Even more complex structures such as the colonic epithelium can be generated this way.
Our entire development team uses Macbooks - and of 12 users, only two of them run OSX. One of them is even geeky enough to paste a Tux logo over the light-up Apple logo.
The last time I visited Google HQ (about 5 years ago) the most common setup I saw was Thinkpads running Linux with Macbooks running Linux in a close second.
Not in the slightest. I'm one of (seemingly many) people who seem to believe that the payment Google offers in exchange for access to my personal information is quite fair. Just because you don't doesn't mean that other people are somehow ignorant for not having realized what "the game" is, it just means that they have slightly different ideas of what different types of privacy mean to them, which aspects of their privacy they are willing to put a price on and what that price might be.
Apples to oranges comparison here, but this happened to me when I ran the first few alpha builds of CyanogenMod that were built from 4.3, subsequent updates fixed the problem. I never ran stock 4.3 so YMMV
PLoS is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit and discloses their finances in detail as required by the IRS. There are also links to detailed financial statements for the last 2 fiscal years which are audited by a 3rd party.
Which is why it's fairly costly to publish in the Public Library of Science (PLoS) with publication fees ranging from $1,350 to $2,900. Fortunately most grants allow you to use those funds to pay the submission fees and many universities (at least in the US) have programs that can help support the cost as well.
The PMC Open Access Subset some or all openaccess content is a part of the total collection of articles in PMC. Articles in the PMC Open Access Subset are still protected by copyright, but are made available under a Creative Commons or similar license that generally allows more liberal redistribution and reuse than a traditional copyrighted work. Note, however, that the license terms are not identical for all of the articles in this subset. Please refer to the license statement in each article for specific terms of use. We also provide a search-by-license feature, described below, which enables finding articles with specific reuse rights.
Right, this has nothing to do with the fact that a no strings attached version of the bill had enough Republican votes in the house to pass from the get go but the republican caucus in the house changed the parliamentary rules so only the majority leader could bring the bill to vote, ie boehner, who proceeded to refuse to do so to begin this whole charade of brinkmanship to begin with. Citation: http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77802818/
Exactly, in my lab we work primarily on bone and colon tissue (although generated from adult stem or induced pluripotent stem cells). It would not be exaggerating to call these technologies the next generation of medical research. There are tons of genetic and developmental disorders that are either too rare to study readily in vivo or just impossible to study in-vitro. We're nearing the point where we can start with IPSC's either engineered to carry mutations of interest or derived directly from patients carrying these mutations and turn them into all sorts of tissues: liver, colon, neural, vascular, muscular, etc. In many cases it's not even necessary to get to the stage of organoids, simply having true human tissue with the right pathophysiology will be a tremendous boon to in-vitro drug screening and discovery and far more relevant than animal models.
A valid point, perhaps one mitigating bit of information worth noting is that compulsory licensing does not mean that the generic manufacturer can violate the patent. Under TRIPS (the international treaty governing intellectual property rights) what the Indian government has done is to deem the asking cost of a drug combined with the asking cost or unwillingness of the manufacturer to license the drug to generic manufacturers to be damaging to public health (I forget the precise phrasing used). As a consequence they've issued a "mandatory license" by which the generic manufacturer can pay Bayer a licensing fee established as reasonable by the government exercising its right to compulsory licensing, essentially granting a license to the patent it issued to Bayer to generics manufacturers for domestic production and consumption in order to ensure access to the drug. Hence the 6% licensing fee on revenues (not profit) referenced in the article. Arguably, Bayer stands to make that money for free considering the vast majority of the consumption of that drug will be by patients who could not have afforded the treatment previously.
Certainly there are potential negative consequences of such an action, but the calculus of such a decision would involve weighing these potential future costs of "decreased innovation due to perceived risk of diminished monopoly" against the very immediate human cost of not having access to treatment. In this case it seems that the government of India decided that the immediate cost outweighed the potential future cost.
JazzMutant has some pretty nifty stuff.
1971: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6654g6683t420p7/ "Parametric study of the anode of an implantable biological fuel cell" which cites related papers as far back as 1968.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Samsung's phones/tablets use AMOLED screens that they themselves produce
ImageJ
CellProfiler
Open Microscopy Environment
Hugin
Micro-Manager
R
In most of these situations, it isn't your device but often company property and therefore allowed only to run approved applications because it will have access to sensitive company networks. Mac vs windows vs linux security / usability arguments aside, I can see why companies would want to standardize the tools they buy for their employees / have some degree of control over them.
A friend in the industry once remarked that some of the best and brightest in software engineering have been going into the financial industry as of late. It's hard not to wonder what they might have achieved in more productive areas of work...
Actually it is possible to produce highly vascularized tissue. The trick is to use the decellularized collagen matrix from a donor organ (either taken from an animal or from a cadaver) which can then be re-seeded with the patient's own cells and implanted. Atala's group has done this with livers (although not re-implanted yet) and has made proof-of-concepts with kidneys (by using a stack of 2d tissues rather than attempting to engineer the complete 3d structure)
Anthony Atala's group, now at Wake Forest University, have grown implanted bladders grown in the same fashion. In fact, it was Atala's group that was one of the leading pioneers of the technique (I believe Robert Langer's group at MIT also had done some seminal work in this area). http://articles.cnn.com/2006-04-03/health/engineered.organs_1_bladder-cells-spina-bifida?_s=PM:HEALTH
Which is still extremely useful tech, even if the weapons application turns out to be just a fruitless route to attract free money for the government if they can make smaller, cheaper, more powerful and more efficient lasers, they'll have no shortage of potential customers.
Yes, but it would have been possible for them to make a lot more money out of the process if they were fired afterwards. Typically stock paid to execs have to vest over a period for ex. every year 20% of your stock vests over 5 years. If the execs were not fully vested, the acquisition event would have triggered an instant vest clause and they could have cashed out on their entire package. If they were fired before the acquisition, any stock that had not yet vested would simply be lost, reducing the total amount of stock Skype had issued and increasing the value of the stock held by the equity firms. They were stabbed in the back by their own financiers- not an uncommon occurrence. It serves you well to vette the VCs you work with every bit as much as they're going to vette you.
College professors and students are insulated from market forces and over time this has eroded the system.
On the contrary, I think the exact opposite is the problem. Colleges are increasingly under pressure to teach skills that will get students jobs, recruit more students to get more funding and twist every metric possible in order to move up in rankings. Take admissions and graduation statistics, for example, the more students that get rejected from a university the more "prestigious and exclusive" it becomes, on the flip side the more students that fail out of the university, the more inept it appears. It is thus in every university's best interest to encourage the widespread ideas that everybody can and should go to college and then relax graduation standards for accepted students.
Even academic research is slowly but surely moving away from high-risk, publicly funded fundamental work to applied technology development (itself not necessarily a bad thing) which has gone hand-in-hand with the rise of the university Technology Transfer Office and a drive to squeeze every drop of money out of that academic research rather than focusing on the core university mission to produce and disseminate knowledge as widely as possible. While the dissemination of many technologies may benefit from patenting and exclusive licensing (particularly tech that requires significant private investment to develop and bring to market), the promise of commercial success has motivated patenting in many fields which do not fit this model.
Menus are not hard, they're inefficient, particularly on a laptop where 90% of your interactions are with a trackpad rather than a mouse. It is significantly easier to simply hit super and start typing the name of the application you want and hit enter after 3-4 keystrokes (~250-500ms) on average than the navigate through menus nested 3-4 levels deep with a trackpad.
FTFA:
"This IARC classification does not mean cell phones cause cancer. Under IARC rules, limited evidence from statistical studies can be found even though bias and other data flaws may be the basis for the results."