However, a good fraction of the cost in making such proteins is the purification, not the initial production...In this age of avian influenza, we'd have to develop ways to test for avian viruses and a way to test for residual egg proteins in the purified drug
First off let me just say that separation of proteins is a rather standard thing in biochemistry there are a myriad of ways to do it probably the easiest and most widely used, atleast in biochemistry labs, is HPLC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPLC/. The ability to separate things is also incredibly dependant on the concentration of protein in the egg whites if they weren't getting a ton of protein it just wouldn't be worthwhile anyway. Also if you don't believe me perhaps a quote from TFA
The proteins are secreted into the whites of the eggs. It is a fairly straightforward process then to extract and purify them. Also if you read the article and knew a bit of biochemistry you would know that post-translational modification doesn't really apply here because as stated in the article they are getting the protiens they want not modified ones. So thanks for throwing around Biochem buzzwords but seriously RTFA and try and get your facts straight.
1. As a college student I paid under $20 for my copy of WinXP, but would have had to pay ~$45 for MacOS X. Although this doesn't tend to defeat your argument, it sure does lower one of the reasons not to use Windows and makes OS X the one which needs to prove itself.
2. I know how to use Windows. These were skills I built up before ever owning my own PC, mostly when I was living at home using my parents PC, and my Dad used Windows because it was built on DOS, the earliest OS he knew. What you say above is right once you get to know how to use Windows you don't want to anymore, but alas I've already paid for it and have a box which does pretty much everything I call on it to do, so there isn't any reason to need another PC or to switch.
3. I have very rarely been called on to know/learn a piece of software that doesn't run on Windows. I have on the other hand been called on to know/learn Power Point, Word, Excel, InDesign, and many others. This is excluding text editors run on Linux machines for my CS classes, but then they haven't cared which one I use so on WinXP at home I use Notepad++, and in lab on Linux I use nedit.
4. If I want a Linux box I'll build one and will be able to do it on the cheap. So I'm not worried about getting one right now, when I'm college style poor, I'd rather have steak once in a while.
5. My friends/relatives/co-workers/group-members know how to use Windows and thus I don't have to try and explain Linux everytime they want to do something on my computer; this happens quite frequently I might add.
6. The games, I know you tried to blow this off with consoles but thats not a valid argument, because as a cheap/poor college student I can't afford to buy an XBox 360 or a PS3 or a Wii or whatever. And I don't enjoy console gaming as much either so atleast let me have my own preferences in that realm, without just telling me that my preference doesn't matter. I don't own any consoles and don't really plan on buying one for a good while.
As a note I would not consider myself a Windows "fanboi" but I do feel Windows is right for me, right now, and I feel anyone telling me I'm wrong is really in no place to say so. Your choice of OS really boils down to circumstances and that is all there really is to it.
One thing many people don't realize is that with the loss of the electoral college, comes a huge loss for campaigning in any area which doesn't have a huge population density. This means that candidates will campaign only in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and other large population cities meaning that if you do not live in a huge metropolis, or near one, goodluck getting to hear a person speak. And I don't just mean them just physically speaking; you won't see as much information coming from either candidate outside of those areas as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a Few:
1. As a college student I paid under $20 for my copy of WinXP, but would have had to pay ~$45 for MacOS X. Although this doesn't tend to defeat your argument, it sure does lower one of the reasons not to use Windows and makes OS X the one which needs to prove itself.
2. I know how to use Windows. These were skills I built up before ever owning my own PC, mostly when I was living at home using my parents PC, and my Dad used Windows because it was built on DOS, the earliest OS he knew. What you say above is right once you get to know how to use Windows you don't want to anymore, but alas I've already paid for it and have a box which does pretty much everything I call on it to do, so there isn't any reason to need another PC or to switch.
3. I have very rarely been called on to know/learn a piece of software that doesn't run on Windows. I have on the other hand been called on to know/learn Power Point, Word, Excel, InDesign, and many others. This is excluding text editors run on Linux machines for my CS classes, but then they haven't cared which one I use so on WinXP at home I use Notepad++, and in lab on Linux I use nedit.
4. If I want a Linux box I'll build one and will be able to do it on the cheap. So I'm not worried about getting one right now, when I'm college style poor, I'd rather have steak once in a while.
5. My friends/relatives/co-workers/group-members know how to use Windows and thus I don't have to try and explain Linux everytime they want to do something on my computer; this happens quite frequently I might add.
6. The games, I know you tried to blow this off with consoles but thats not a valid argument, because as a cheap/poor college student I can't afford to buy an XBox 360 or a PS3 or a Wii or whatever. And I don't enjoy console gaming as much either so atleast let me have my own preferences in that realm, without just telling me that my preference doesn't matter. I don't own any consoles and don't really plan on buying one for a good while.
As a note I would not consider myself a Windows "fanboi" but I do feel Windows is right for me, right now, and I feel anyone telling me I'm wrong is really in no place to say so. Your choice of OS really boils down to circumstances and that is all there really is to it.
One thing many people don't realize is that with the loss of the electoral college, comes a huge loss for campaigning in any area which doesn't have a huge population density. This means that candidates will campaign only in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and other large population cities meaning that if you do not live in a huge metropolis, or near one, goodluck getting to hear a person speak. And I don't just mean them just physically speaking; you won't see as much information coming from either candidate outside of those areas as well.