Those are not the correct 8 choices as far as I am aware. Where did you get your list from? The ones posted 2 days ago on Engadget are here:http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/19/which-wind ows-vista-will-you-run-you-have-8-choices/
"Windows Starter 2007 - Vista without Aero, probably meant for developing nations.
Windows Vista Home Basic - Basic Windows Vista for your single PC fam, doesn't sound like much going on here. Analagous to XP Home.
Windows Vista Home Basic N - European version of the same, but without Media Player (because of antitrust rulings against MS in the EU).
Windows Vista Home Premium - This is the one we're all probably gonna own. It's got Media Center functionality, Cable Card support, the whole home-media shebang.
Windows Vista Business - Think of it as XP Pro, but Vista.
Windows Vista Business N - Think of it as XP Pro, but Vista, but Euro.
Windows Vista Enterprise - Business version of Vista with numerous enterprise features, like Virtual PC, volume encryption, etc.
Windows Vista Ultimate - Love that name. This one does all of the above (and more); what else do you need to know? It's ultimate Windows.."
More choices are rarely a bad idea. I dislike bundled crapola that I'll never need or want.
"...is like calling present-day India part of England just because the upper classes there speak English."
It is NOT just the upper classes that speak English. There is a much better correlation with population centers (vs remote villages). This is sometimes, but not necessarily the same as upper class vs lower class. An ever increasing number of people in India are bilingual. English is very easy to learn from TV/movies. Just adding my off-topic reply to your off-topic post.
No. The article states that the change in gene expression in certain regions of the brain results ultimately in "loner" type behavior...avoidance. Unless you consider that kind of antisocial behavior a good thing, getting bullied is not a good thing.
I'm not worried about the petrol supply running out per se. I am worried about what it means when we have actually burnt all those fossil fuels. That will mean that we have released in a few hundred years the CO2 stored in those fuels over a billion year time span. That would be catastrophic. I'm sure your econ-101 theory will pan out as far as expense, but is intelligent to allow it to get to that point? Just let economics decide? I don't think so. For one, the economics of having to deal with that CO2 buildup and all its consequences down the line is insane. Thus if one were to think long term, econcomically, it would be better to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel use earlier (through global mandates) rather than later (simply through market forces). But we are not doing that... so really, your economic theory from decades ago is still flawed. It's time to think long term, if 100 years can even be considered that long.
There have been many advances in virology, not just from the group described in the article, towards using bacteriophages (viruses which attack bacteria) to combat infection and sickness in people. This COULD LEAD to a practical solution. I have not heard of any physician using phage to treat an infection in well documented scientific study. No idea where you get your idea that this is the mainstream procedure in Russia. Here is an article referring to some of the history of phage-as-cure theories, referring to Russia: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.10/phages.ht ml
It really is an interesting idea, and the potential is there, but there haven't even been any trials on the efficacy of such a treatment in practice. If someone could point to such a scientific study (controlled trial of phage vs placebo treatment of bacterial infection), rather than anecdotal evidence, I would love to see it.
Even when such treatments actually do come into the mainstream, it's not like they are obviously better than antibiotics -- bacteria can evolve to be come phage-resistant just as easily as they can become resistant to antibiotics. The difference is that the phage can co-evolve to evade the newfound resistance. A word of caution: Using viruses rampantly is just as bad as using antibiotics rampantly... not only is there potential to create super-ultra resistant bacteria, but also hyper-super-ultra viruses.
You must be joking. Have you looked at the article listings in those fringe journals? Those guys are practically anti-fluoride think tankers. From browsing a few I'd say it's a miracle we're not all dead already if you believe half of what they say about fluoride. Try looking through the New England Journal of Medicine, or some other reputable journals. You'll find interesting results about fluoride there too, no need to consult the fluoride society. The point is that far more reputable research has proven the benefits of fluoridating water. Anyway, back to TFA -- a semi-permanent fluoride layer on your teeth will significantly delay tooth decay.
I'm willing to side with the science on this one rather than your tin hat website. Even if I didn't believe the published and peer-reviewed studies, I know from my own work in a biology lab that an alkaline substance such as fluoride ion is going to reverse the acidification caused by bacteria. At 0.15% w/v, it's certainly not toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic. And that's just toothpaste which you probably don't eat... Drinking water has less. If you don't want to use fluoride toothpaste, please be my guest and see how long your teeth last. If you want to talk about toxic substances used to deal with dental issues, talk about alcohol. That stuff will kill the bacteria too, but as opposed to fluoride, it is a known toxin and carcinogen.
Have you seen primates' teeth up close? They're actually pretty nasty. But you are partly right, they do have subtle differences in saliva biochemistry due to adaptation that allow them to handle sugary diets... the teeth remain usable despite the formation of cavities (ultimately the teeth are lost, as expected). Animals in captivity get rudimentary dental care, or at the least, fluorinated water. On the otherhand, your notion that many primates eat fruit exclusively is an oft repeated lie (mostly from cartoons). Fruits are a treat, and more uncommon than one might think. Sugars diets are the causative factor for increased microflora in the mouth -- the simpler the carbohydrate, the easier it is for the bacteria to fluorish (eg high fructose corn syrup). In fact, there are over 500 different species of bacteria that come onto your teeth in between twice-daily brushings. The bacteria themselves will not decay teeth as long as you keep an alkaline environment in your mouth. This is how other animals deal with them... we use brushing with fluoride ion (a base). If you'd like to test your theory, please feel free to stop using fluoride or baking soda in your dental care.
What exactly does this have to do with NEWS FOR NERDS. STUFF THAT MATTERS.?
I actually agree with you, partly. Although I am happy to see more science-related issues on Slashdot, comments like yours prove that clearly some nerds here are not intelligent enough to handle them.
I've noticed recently that I'm actually far more likely to visit unheard of newspaper's websites when I see the story linked from google news snippets. Perhaps this has reduced my visits to the major news organization websites, but then that isn't what they're complaining about.
...but i'm not sure what that could be. the nsa obviously asked for the records in secret and made at&t keep it a secret under threat. i'm not sure what at&t could have done? gone public and face criminal charges? i don't think anyone should be snooping warrantlessly on citizens, but what should at&t have done? if someone is holding a gun to MY head and asking for some data from my computer, i'm going to say take it and don't hurt me. at&t had no recourse precisely because it was a state secrets issue. google is defending their search data against government intrusion because it's all out in the open. if the government has already taken from google in secret, we just wouldn't know about it. when we find out, should we then sue google? i think the legal battle should focus on the government's illegal actions.
This project has a chance to work and I believe it will. In many instances where limited technology resources have been introduced into 3rd-world countries for the commone people, they have always risen to the challenge of accepting and integrating it. (Eg. cell phone ladies in India). If you think all these people can handle or need or want is another dosage of food, you are grossly underestimating them. They are just like any other people in the world. We want our food and our internet, and *most* of us want to learn with an open mind. So do they. Just because many of them are malnourished or in poverty does not mean they will not appreciate a chance to educate themselves.
If someone wants to use their talents to make this happen, I applaud it. One cannot dictate to other the form of charity they wish to participate in. There are many dedicated to feeding the malnourished. There are others who work towards better treatment of disease and preventing the spread thereof. Perhaps there are those who think passing out crackers is a higher priority than passing out condoms, but there are valid arguments for both. Only by taking a big picture approach can the third world nations be granted the tools to bring themselves out of poverty. This laptop program is a commendable step in the right direction, and only one of many neccessary.
Really? They should have the ~0.1% in mind who have zero access to mac or windows computers? This is what you complain about? Seriously?
I applaud Stanford's effort. It is not easy to come up with a mass distribution scheme that will be easily accessible to the vast majority of people. I'm sure MIT's program is great but this is the first I've heard of it. With Stanford's programs on iTunes, I would bet they would be far more accessible to the broader public.
I'm all for open source, stick it to the man, down with establishment etc., but gimme a break if you think Linux is easy for just anybody. Let's focus on the spirit of TFA, not the usual politics of Linux elitism.
The general press and general public really do not bother to focus on concerns such as the ones you bring up. I'm glad you have the ability to think critically, but do not judge everything about this research from this press release. There are thousands of primary articles from scientists dedicated to understanding how to better implant medical devices. Look for articles in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ under pubmed -- search for terms like "implant", "rejection", "immune response", and other such keywords if you want to actually know what more about how science is dealing with this very issue. Such research has already made possible the ability to implant pacemakers, stints, artifical joints, steel plates. It is only a matter of time -- in my professional opinion, about 3-6 years until phase I clinical tests on fabricated retinas begins. Phase I/II are specifically designed to test the safety of medical drugs and devices to address the concerns you bring up about rejection. I think it could be up to 10 years until phase III -- the actual efficacy trial. Then we'll know how people whose vision has degenerated can benefit from this treatment. But we will certainly know before then whether or not animal models will respond to this treatment.
This is an excellent point. The lost revenue associated with specialists hacking the os on to PCs should be little or nothing -- the general public is the biggest worry. I don't know how "easy" this would be, but even if it was, I'm not sure how well os x would run on non-apple PCs. macs are well integrated machines, and i'm honestly not sure how generic os x is as far as its ability to run *properly* and with full functionality on non-apple hardware. I for one think it would be "cool" to have mac os x running on my PC, but i have doubts that is would play nicely with the hardware.
This one particular article should not be the cause of your worry, as transgenic animals are nothing new. Animal research is quite tightly controlled, and I am not that concerned about these particular animals escaping. It would not be of grave concern if that happened (the green fluorescent protein is non-toxic), but of course we cannot predict for sure how intermixing of these scientific animals with wildlife would affect ecosystems and the food chain.
Even worse, what happens when your neighbour's kid starts glowing in the dark?
Now this is just sensationalism. These animals were engineered when they were embryos to incorporate the gene for Green Fluorescent Protein. No such gene therapy is currently possible in humans, and no such work in human embryos is even feasable. It may one day be, but don't discount researchers as being immediately drawn to evil plans. It is currently possible in theory to add sculptures under your skin (kind of like 3D tattoos), similar to breast implants and such, but you don't see that taking hold. No, your neighbors kid is not going to be green.
First of all, there is a huge imbalance here with people jumping to end-of-world cyborg pig scenarios, and not enough comments on the specific research described in TFA.
Second, your analogy is flawed -- I am opposed to people making broad comments about the entire scientific community over any possible misues of biomedical breakthroughs. I do not see people here making endless comments about Google promoting illegal activites, or new flight technology promoting drug trade. Biomedical research deserves the same respect and consideration.
...slashdot really is no place for biology research news. 99% percent of these posts are crude (but amusing) humor, indicating a benign carelessness about underlying research topic. The last 1% is truly frightening -- people so afraid of biology research they actually feel it necessary to malign it while lacking any true understanding of what is going on.
These transgenic animals are nothing new -- transgenics (even the fluorescent kind) have been around for many years, and are a critical tool for elucidating basic mechanisms in biology. Pigs, like mice, worms, yeast, bacteria, etc., are model organisms -- their underlying cell biology is so generic, that understanding it is immensely useful for many pure research and biomedical purposes.
The researchers involved in this study were not out to make some freak of nature -- they used a very straightforward line of reasoning to make these transgenics. By labelling the entire animal, one can trace any part of the animal when it is transplanted into an unlabelled animal. For example, researchers could study what happens with organ transplant: how do the donor organs interact with the receipient body? Does it integrate well or not? More cutting-edge research could involve tracing individual tissues and cells, such as stem cells and neurons and cardiac cells. Where do the cells migrate? Do they localize properly (i.e. do cardiac cells stay where they should at the heart)? Do stem cells that were introduced for a particular damage (i.e. brain damage) actually migrate to the brain and function where they should?
As stated in the article, many others have done similar studies with mice, monkeys, etc while labelling specific tissues. These researchers have done it with a pig, and while labelling every cell in the pig. I don't personally believe this is novel from a research standpoint, but I think it is a valuable tool continue research in mammalian biology. I certainly don't think it's something to be feared, hated, and maligned as some here have suggested.
I'm following what you're saying -- I think however that more and more it will become apparent that both government and private sector money working together will have the most beneficial impact. It happens a lot in technology, and is happening more and more in science. There are already a lot of grants and awards to individual scientists from companies or other private sources that do not necessarily have any strings attached. Other ways in which the private sector contributes is by sponsoring the infrastructure at universities -- building research facilities or donating scientific equipment.
I should clarify -- what happens in iTunes sharing is exactly what I said, streaming in full quality, and NOT downloading to a computer. The files do not stay on your computer, and you do not own them. The concept is similar to just listening to the stereo of someone who is near you. My point with the ad-hoc networking is that I'm just trying to apply a concept which is currently legal -- iTunes sharing, to a portable music player. Look -- basically, an iPod with WiFi. You connect to an ad-hoc appletalk network within range and do the same thing you'd be able to do in that appletalk network at home or in the office or in the dorm. I work in a university lab where many people have their own computers and there is a localtalk network and you can hear music from other people's shared libraries. It would be great if instead of using my powerbook to do this, I could just use my wi-fi iPod. Hell, this could be done currently if there was a suitable wi-fi adaptor for the iPod and software update for the "iTunes" that's in an iPod to give it the same sharing feature available in the iTunes for computers.
I think this is a standard disclaimer. I have the little brother to this guy, the Dell 24". That must be one of the best reviewed LCDs out there, and I have been extremely thrilled with it. No dead pixels. Although dead pixels are a very valid concern, certain brands have better reputations than others. IMHO, the maker of Dell's screens is quite good.
I think this is a great concept, but the P2P part of it may be throwing too much gasoline on the fire. A similar idea from Apple's iTunes might offer a nice alternative. Currently, it is possible for mac users with iTunes to look at and play music from other people's shared libraries. The songs are not really downloaded to the client computer, but rather stream in full quality. This depends on a constant network connection.
In the portable realm, therefore, it may not be so feasable while you are moving around from hotspot to hotspot, but I think it would be neat to share a song or two with other people on the bus or in the cafe or wherever, even if just for a short period of time. I'm not saying iTunes sharing is the only way -- indeed if there were a WiFi sharing option on all sorts and brands of portable music players, something compatible, we'd all be able to dynamically share and experience each other's music. You'd be able to broaden the kinds of music you hear, and I believe this could be legal just like iTunes sharing.
The portable networking (device-to-device-to-device) may even work without a wifi hotspot, or even more generally, could spread the range of a hotspot. With enough users, each one being a sort of node, a great dynamic network would be formed. Now I'm just dreaming out loud...
I'm a biologist working at a university currently as a postdoc. I don't work on stem cells directly, but have an interest in many topics in biomedical research. This situation went down exactly as it should have -- a fradulent scientist was methodically investigated and censured (officially and unofficially). Scientific fraud (and more often, inaccuracy) are generally fished out and prosecuted by the greater scientific community. There is a vested interest for all scientists to maintain the integrity of research in their labs as well as other labs -- much of biology research is interdependent and self-correcting.
The main reason why this is elevated to "scandal" level is because of the topic -- stem cells. This man has done great harm to the stem cell field, which is struggling to gain acceptance in this increasingly anti-scientific culture. Some of the comments here have highlighted this alarming trend. It frightens me when people start claiming that scientists need more policing from the outside (re: dada21's post). Although external review is critical for government organization, science is a decentralized, distributed organism dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. As scientists we attempt to conduct our research and lead our lives, but we also strive to educate the general public (and indeed are excited when the public takes interest in our work).
It's not "many" scientists that are publicly funded, it's MOST scientists. There are very valid reasons for that, and yet this year NIH has seen a cut in funding unheard of since the 70s. Please consider this next time you think about DNA testing, the quality of the food you eat, your health care, and something as simple as taking an aspirin. Please don't be deluled into thinking of science and scientists as scary. It attack on science is truly what is frightening.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are not the correct 8 choices as far as I am aware. Where did you get your list from? The ones posted 2 days ago on Engadget are here:http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/19/which-wind ows-vista-will-you-run-you-have-8-choices/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/19/which-windows-
"Windows Starter 2007 - Vista without Aero, probably meant for developing nations.
Windows Vista Home Basic - Basic Windows Vista for your single PC fam, doesn't sound like much going on here. Analagous to XP Home.
Windows Vista Home Basic N - European version of the same, but without Media Player (because of antitrust rulings against MS in the EU).
Windows Vista Home Premium - This is the one we're all probably gonna own. It's got Media Center functionality, Cable Card support, the whole home-media shebang.
Windows Vista Business - Think of it as XP Pro, but Vista.
Windows Vista Business N - Think of it as XP Pro, but Vista, but Euro.
Windows Vista Enterprise - Business version of Vista with numerous enterprise features, like Virtual PC, volume encryption, etc.
Windows Vista Ultimate - Love that name. This one does all of the above (and more); what else do you need to know? It's ultimate Windows.."
More choices are rarely a bad idea. I dislike bundled crapola that I'll never need or want.
It is NOT just the upper classes that speak English. There is a much better correlation with population centers (vs remote villages). This is sometimes, but not necessarily the same as upper class vs lower class. An ever increasing number of people in India are bilingual. English is very easy to learn from TV/movies. Just adding my off-topic reply to your off-topic post.
No. The article states that the change in gene expression in certain regions of the brain results ultimately in "loner" type behavior...avoidance. Unless you consider that kind of antisocial behavior a good thing, getting bullied is not a good thing.
I'm not worried about the petrol supply running out per se. I am worried about what it means when we have actually burnt all those fossil fuels. That will mean that we have released in a few hundred years the CO2 stored in those fuels over a billion year time span. That would be catastrophic. I'm sure your econ-101 theory will pan out as far as expense, but is intelligent to allow it to get to that point? Just let economics decide? I don't think so. For one, the economics of having to deal with that CO2 buildup and all its consequences down the line is insane. Thus if one were to think long term, econcomically, it would be better to reduce and eliminate fossil fuel use earlier (through global mandates) rather than later (simply through market forces). But we are not doing that... so really, your economic theory from decades ago is still flawed. It's time to think long term, if 100 years can even be considered that long.
It really is an interesting idea, and the potential is there, but there haven't even been any trials on the efficacy of such a treatment in practice. If someone could point to such a scientific study (controlled trial of phage vs placebo treatment of bacterial infection), rather than anecdotal evidence, I would love to see it.
Even when such treatments actually do come into the mainstream, it's not like they are obviously better than antibiotics -- bacteria can evolve to be come phage-resistant just as easily as they can become resistant to antibiotics. The difference is that the phage can co-evolve to evade the newfound resistance. A word of caution: Using viruses rampantly is just as bad as using antibiotics rampantly... not only is there potential to create super-ultra resistant bacteria, but also hyper-super-ultra viruses.
You've hit on an interesting point. People who drink bottled water (unfluoridated, obviously) tend to have a HIGHER incidence of tooth decay: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DentalHeal th/tb/1756
You must be joking. Have you looked at the article listings in those fringe journals? Those guys are practically anti-fluoride think tankers. From browsing a few I'd say it's a miracle we're not all dead already if you believe half of what they say about fluoride. Try looking through the New England Journal of Medicine, or some other reputable journals. You'll find interesting results about fluoride there too, no need to consult the fluoride society. The point is that far more reputable research has proven the benefits of fluoridating water. Anyway, back to TFA -- a semi-permanent fluoride layer on your teeth will significantly delay tooth decay.
I'm willing to side with the science on this one rather than your tin hat website. Even if I didn't believe the published and peer-reviewed studies, I know from my own work in a biology lab that an alkaline substance such as fluoride ion is going to reverse the acidification caused by bacteria. At 0.15% w/v, it's certainly not toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic. And that's just toothpaste which you probably don't eat... Drinking water has less. If you don't want to use fluoride toothpaste, please be my guest and see how long your teeth last. If you want to talk about toxic substances used to deal with dental issues, talk about alcohol. That stuff will kill the bacteria too, but as opposed to fluoride, it is a known toxin and carcinogen.
Have you seen primates' teeth up close? They're actually pretty nasty. But you are partly right, they do have subtle differences in saliva biochemistry due to adaptation that allow them to handle sugary diets... the teeth remain usable despite the formation of cavities (ultimately the teeth are lost, as expected). Animals in captivity get rudimentary dental care, or at the least, fluorinated water. On the otherhand, your notion that many primates eat fruit exclusively is an oft repeated lie (mostly from cartoons). Fruits are a treat, and more uncommon than one might think. Sugars diets are the causative factor for increased microflora in the mouth -- the simpler the carbohydrate, the easier it is for the bacteria to fluorish (eg high fructose corn syrup). In fact, there are over 500 different species of bacteria that come onto your teeth in between twice-daily brushings. The bacteria themselves will not decay teeth as long as you keep an alkaline environment in your mouth. This is how other animals deal with them... we use brushing with fluoride ion (a base). If you'd like to test your theory, please feel free to stop using fluoride or baking soda in your dental care.
I actually agree with you, partly. Although I am happy to see more science-related issues on Slashdot, comments like yours prove that clearly some nerds here are not intelligent enough to handle them.
I've noticed recently that I'm actually far more likely to visit unheard of newspaper's websites when I see the story linked from google news snippets. Perhaps this has reduced my visits to the major news organization websites, but then that isn't what they're complaining about.
...but i'm not sure what that could be. the nsa obviously asked for the records in secret and made at&t keep it a secret under threat. i'm not sure what at&t could have done? gone public and face criminal charges? i don't think anyone should be snooping warrantlessly on citizens, but what should at&t have done? if someone is holding a gun to MY head and asking for some data from my computer, i'm going to say take it and don't hurt me. at&t had no recourse precisely because it was a state secrets issue. google is defending their search data against government intrusion because it's all out in the open. if the government has already taken from google in secret, we just wouldn't know about it. when we find out, should we then sue google? i think the legal battle should focus on the government's illegal actions.
If someone wants to use their talents to make this happen, I applaud it. One cannot dictate to other the form of charity they wish to participate in. There are many dedicated to feeding the malnourished. There are others who work towards better treatment of disease and preventing the spread thereof. Perhaps there are those who think passing out crackers is a higher priority than passing out condoms, but there are valid arguments for both. Only by taking a big picture approach can the third world nations be granted the tools to bring themselves out of poverty. This laptop program is a commendable step in the right direction, and only one of many neccessary.
I applaud Stanford's effort. It is not easy to come up with a mass distribution scheme that will be easily accessible to the vast majority of people. I'm sure MIT's program is great but this is the first I've heard of it. With Stanford's programs on iTunes, I would bet they would be far more accessible to the broader public.
I'm all for open source, stick it to the man, down with establishment etc., but gimme a break if you think Linux is easy for just anybody. Let's focus on the spirit of TFA, not the usual politics of Linux elitism.
The general press and general public really do not bother to focus on concerns such as the ones you bring up. I'm glad you have the ability to think critically, but do not judge everything about this research from this press release. There are thousands of primary articles from scientists dedicated to understanding how to better implant medical devices. Look for articles in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ under pubmed -- search for terms like "implant", "rejection", "immune response", and other such keywords if you want to actually know what more about how science is dealing with this very issue. Such research has already made possible the ability to implant pacemakers, stints, artifical joints, steel plates. It is only a matter of time -- in my professional opinion, about 3-6 years until phase I clinical tests on fabricated retinas begins. Phase I/II are specifically designed to test the safety of medical drugs and devices to address the concerns you bring up about rejection. I think it could be up to 10 years until phase III -- the actual efficacy trial. Then we'll know how people whose vision has degenerated can benefit from this treatment. But we will certainly know before then whether or not animal models will respond to this treatment.
This is an excellent point. The lost revenue associated with specialists hacking the os on to PCs should be little or nothing -- the general public is the biggest worry. I don't know how "easy" this would be, but even if it was, I'm not sure how well os x would run on non-apple PCs. macs are well integrated machines, and i'm honestly not sure how generic os x is as far as its ability to run *properly* and with full functionality on non-apple hardware. I for one think it would be "cool" to have mac os x running on my PC, but i have doubts that is would play nicely with the hardware.
Even worse, what happens when your neighbour's kid starts glowing in the dark?
Now this is just sensationalism. These animals were engineered when they were embryos to incorporate the gene for Green Fluorescent Protein. No such gene therapy is currently possible in humans, and no such work in human embryos is even feasable. It may one day be, but don't discount researchers as being immediately drawn to evil plans. It is currently possible in theory to add sculptures under your skin (kind of like 3D tattoos), similar to breast implants and such, but you don't see that taking hold. No, your neighbors kid is not going to be green.
Second, your analogy is flawed -- I am opposed to people making broad comments about the entire scientific community over any possible misues of biomedical breakthroughs. I do not see people here making endless comments about Google promoting illegal activites, or new flight technology promoting drug trade. Biomedical research deserves the same respect and consideration.
These transgenic animals are nothing new -- transgenics (even the fluorescent kind) have been around for many years, and are a critical tool for elucidating basic mechanisms in biology. Pigs, like mice, worms, yeast, bacteria, etc., are model organisms -- their underlying cell biology is so generic, that understanding it is immensely useful for many pure research and biomedical purposes.
The researchers involved in this study were not out to make some freak of nature -- they used a very straightforward line of reasoning to make these transgenics. By labelling the entire animal, one can trace any part of the animal when it is transplanted into an unlabelled animal. For example, researchers could study what happens with organ transplant: how do the donor organs interact with the receipient body? Does it integrate well or not? More cutting-edge research could involve tracing individual tissues and cells, such as stem cells and neurons and cardiac cells. Where do the cells migrate? Do they localize properly (i.e. do cardiac cells stay where they should at the heart)? Do stem cells that were introduced for a particular damage (i.e. brain damage) actually migrate to the brain and function where they should?
As stated in the article, many others have done similar studies with mice, monkeys, etc while labelling specific tissues. These researchers have done it with a pig, and while labelling every cell in the pig. I don't personally believe this is novel from a research standpoint, but I think it is a valuable tool continue research in mammalian biology. I certainly don't think it's something to be feared, hated, and maligned as some here have suggested.
I'm following what you're saying -- I think however that more and more it will become apparent that both government and private sector money working together will have the most beneficial impact. It happens a lot in technology, and is happening more and more in science. There are already a lot of grants and awards to individual scientists from companies or other private sources that do not necessarily have any strings attached. Other ways in which the private sector contributes is by sponsoring the infrastructure at universities -- building research facilities or donating scientific equipment.
I should clarify -- what happens in iTunes sharing is exactly what I said, streaming in full quality, and NOT downloading to a computer. The files do not stay on your computer, and you do not own them. The concept is similar to just listening to the stereo of someone who is near you. My point with the ad-hoc networking is that I'm just trying to apply a concept which is currently legal -- iTunes sharing, to a portable music player. Look -- basically, an iPod with WiFi. You connect to an ad-hoc appletalk network within range and do the same thing you'd be able to do in that appletalk network at home or in the office or in the dorm. I work in a university lab where many people have their own computers and there is a localtalk network and you can hear music from other people's shared libraries. It would be great if instead of using my powerbook to do this, I could just use my wi-fi iPod. Hell, this could be done currently if there was a suitable wi-fi adaptor for the iPod and software update for the "iTunes" that's in an iPod to give it the same sharing feature available in the iTunes for computers.
I think this is a standard disclaimer. I have the little brother to this guy, the Dell 24". That must be one of the best reviewed LCDs out there, and I have been extremely thrilled with it. No dead pixels. Although dead pixels are a very valid concern, certain brands have better reputations than others. IMHO, the maker of Dell's screens is quite good.
I think this is a great concept, but the P2P part of it may be throwing too much gasoline on the fire. A similar idea from Apple's iTunes might offer a nice alternative. Currently, it is possible for mac users with iTunes to look at and play music from other people's shared libraries. The songs are not really downloaded to the client computer, but rather stream in full quality. This depends on a constant network connection. In the portable realm, therefore, it may not be so feasable while you are moving around from hotspot to hotspot, but I think it would be neat to share a song or two with other people on the bus or in the cafe or wherever, even if just for a short period of time. I'm not saying iTunes sharing is the only way -- indeed if there were a WiFi sharing option on all sorts and brands of portable music players, something compatible, we'd all be able to dynamically share and experience each other's music. You'd be able to broaden the kinds of music you hear, and I believe this could be legal just like iTunes sharing. The portable networking (device-to-device-to-device) may even work without a wifi hotspot, or even more generally, could spread the range of a hotspot. With enough users, each one being a sort of node, a great dynamic network would be formed. Now I'm just dreaming out loud...
I'm a biologist working at a university currently as a postdoc. I don't work on stem cells directly, but have an interest in many topics in biomedical research. This situation went down exactly as it should have -- a fradulent scientist was methodically investigated and censured (officially and unofficially). Scientific fraud (and more often, inaccuracy) are generally fished out and prosecuted by the greater scientific community. There is a vested interest for all scientists to maintain the integrity of research in their labs as well as other labs -- much of biology research is interdependent and self-correcting. The main reason why this is elevated to "scandal" level is because of the topic -- stem cells. This man has done great harm to the stem cell field, which is struggling to gain acceptance in this increasingly anti-scientific culture. Some of the comments here have highlighted this alarming trend. It frightens me when people start claiming that scientists need more policing from the outside (re: dada21's post). Although external review is critical for government organization, science is a decentralized, distributed organism dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. As scientists we attempt to conduct our research and lead our lives, but we also strive to educate the general public (and indeed are excited when the public takes interest in our work). It's not "many" scientists that are publicly funded, it's MOST scientists. There are very valid reasons for that, and yet this year NIH has seen a cut in funding unheard of since the 70s. Please consider this next time you think about DNA testing, the quality of the food you eat, your health care, and something as simple as taking an aspirin. Please don't be deluled into thinking of science and scientists as scary. It attack on science is truly what is frightening.