That would most likely be the result of an inherited genetic defect which interferes with the genetic repair process active in most people. So what I said is still accurate, the difference being that they accumulate errors much faster than a typical person.
"If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females."
Actually, I saw a study the other day (whose details, I admit, escape me now) that showed some evidence that children born to older men do have a higher incidence of neurological developmental disorders. In addition to the problems associated with older women giving birth (Down's syndrome being the best known example).
" If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?"
Only if you evolved a way to stop expressing those proteins past a certain age--and again, once you've procreated, evolution is through with you. Granted, nowadays it's possible to have children later in life, but for most of the natural history of the species, you squeezed out pups as soon as you were able.
"There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer"
The body isn't DESIGNED to wear out any more than it's designed to keep working. It's designed to make babies, and anything happening later is irrelevant. And of course, if you limit the amount of carcinogens you ingest and keep yourself fit you'll spare yourself undue wear and tear (both on your genetic material and on the physiological structure), leading to longer life.
Admittedly, it's possible that the behavioral/societal benefits of increased longevity could drive the species towards greater life expectancy, and I have no idea what sort of time scale that would operate on, or how beneficial having grandpa around would have to be to make it work. It doesn't really affect my main point: cancer is a natural result of the body's genetic repair/control systems breaking down over time, rather than an unnatural plague as some paint it to be (barring, of course, cases of cancer due to toxic exposures, or radiation).
...a species that historically procreates before 30 years of age is kept alive until their 80s by improved hygiene and medicine. Your body was never designed to last as long as it usually does nowadays, and the systems break down. Cancer isn't a "manmade virus;" it's the end result of a lifetime's worth of minor genetic insults.
"Basically I think that if BOTH parents aren't OK with it, then abortion is a no-go. If only one wants it, then they shouldn't be responsible for the child."
Awesome. A position that the pro-lifers AND the pro-choicers can hate.
There ARE DNA based vaccines where naked DNA is shot into your body (usually into a muscle) and your body's transcriptional/translation machinery makes the proteins, which the immune system then detects and responds to. Indeed, several vaccines currently in development rely on this technology. However, from the article, I can't tell exactly what they're doing: "The HIV-1 specific cells injected into the recipients were the DNA fragments of the virus which don't cause infection," doesn't mean a thing to me.
If it works, obviously it would be phenomenal--but let's not forget that other vaccines have passed their phase I trials, only to be knocked out later.
That has a lot more to do with people surviving longer with HIV than old people becoming newly infected. The first really successful HIV treatment came out in 1996, and before that, people with AIDS just didn't live long enough to become elderly.
That said, an HIV vaccine probably wouldn't be given to everyone, just the most high risk people--intravenous drug users, sex workers, and men who have sex with men. Many of these people might be willing to accept the risk of birth defects for protection from a terrible, fatal disease.
It's not an issue of "a few thousand people who need special food." Rather, given things as they are, Listeria infection will kill a few thousand people per year, which may be a certain subclass of people (like those who are already sick and weak), or which may not. The point is, producing the phage for this use will not be terribly daunting, and there is basically no way for the virus to cause harm in humans. Keep in mind that any virus that infects humans has evolved to somehow circumvent the immune system--no easy feat. These phages are involved to infect bacteria, which have only the simplest of defenses against an invading pathogen. In short, it would be like expecting a medieval knight to overrun a modern army base.
As to cost, you need to consider the cost/effectiveness ratio is this sort of decision. Kidney dialysis costs upwards of $50K per life year saved, and most people agree this is an acceptable level of spending. If this treatment saves lives at a decent cost, then it's worth investing in.
Apologies for the tin foil hat moment...
I was wondering that myself, but from a more universal perspective, how do we as a society strike down this kind of thing? This is a victory for privacy, but there's no way the administration will just stop--it will appeal, or claim executive privilege, or just move the whole thing underground away from prying eyes. Even if we soundly boot the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008, does anyone expect the Democrats to do differently?
How can we protect our rights to privacy in a day and age where the individual is so thoroughly marginalized?
...this guy's story. Of course we'll have to wait until the investigators have done their work, and possibly until after a jury hears the case, but at this point it just doesn't wash. He says he kidnapped her because he loved her...so why does he also say he wanted to collect a ransom? And if the ransom was the reason all along, why did he write the note in the Ramsey house, instead of bringing it with him? And why ask for 118K, which (coincidentally?) happened to be the size of a company bonus John Ramsey had just received?
There may be good reasons for these inconsistencies, and I certainly wouldn't rush to accuse the parents as many did, but there are a few things that suggest there's more to this than a child molesting teacher.
He also said that he tried to kidnap her because he loved her. And yet, he has also claimed he kidnapped her in order to hold her for ransom. My initial impression is that what he says shouldn't be taken at face value until the investigators have had more time to check him out.
I remember reading (I think it was in Michael Collins' book on Mars exploration) that back in the 70s, some folks in NASA talked about what they called the 'poor bastard' Mars exploration plan, in which a single man is landed on Mars with as many supplies as they can squeeze into the capsule with him, and he does as much science as he can before he runs out. Obviously there'd be almost no chance of resupply or rescue, hence making him the "poor bastard."
There were some volunteers, but for obvious reasons NASA didn't want people talking about this in public.
They had a ghetto thug in The Thing--the guy who was always going around on roller skates and playing loud music (the ghetto has obviously changed a lot in 24 years). The fact that they were killing each other had more to do with a shapeshifting alien than it did with any kind of emotional problems.
Nah, if there are ETs out there capable of detecting it, retrieving it, and figuring out where it came from, chances are they can manage to go a little faster than a probe that's been coasting on a gravity slingshot for 30-odd years.
No, it would be more like they found two guys who they thought were terrorists, and then found out they weren't, and so they stopped worrying about it. It doesn't mean terrorism isn't a threat; it just means these guys aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
That would most likely be the result of an inherited genetic defect which interferes with the genetic repair process active in most people. So what I said is still accurate, the difference being that they accumulate errors much faster than a typical person.
"If our bodies were not meant to last this long, babies born of old males and young females should have more genetic problems than young males and females." Actually, I saw a study the other day (whose details, I admit, escape me now) that showed some evidence that children born to older men do have a higher incidence of neurological developmental disorders. In addition to the problems associated with older women giving birth (Down's syndrome being the best known example). " If our sole purpose was to reproduce a few times and die "young" (before 35), then why do our cells have so many proteins dedicated to detecting and repairing chromosome damage? Shouldn't they deactivate after 35 years?" Only if you evolved a way to stop expressing those proteins past a certain age--and again, once you've procreated, evolution is through with you. Granted, nowadays it's possible to have children later in life, but for most of the natural history of the species, you squeezed out pups as soon as you were able. "There's no reason to believe our bodies were made to wear out at 60 or 70. Eat less calories, more fruit and veggies high in anti-oxidant compounds, exercise (physical labor and mental), and there's no reason that our bodies couldn't last... longer" The body isn't DESIGNED to wear out any more than it's designed to keep working. It's designed to make babies, and anything happening later is irrelevant. And of course, if you limit the amount of carcinogens you ingest and keep yourself fit you'll spare yourself undue wear and tear (both on your genetic material and on the physiological structure), leading to longer life. Admittedly, it's possible that the behavioral/societal benefits of increased longevity could drive the species towards greater life expectancy, and I have no idea what sort of time scale that would operate on, or how beneficial having grandpa around would have to be to make it work. It doesn't really affect my main point: cancer is a natural result of the body's genetic repair/control systems breaking down over time, rather than an unnatural plague as some paint it to be (barring, of course, cases of cancer due to toxic exposures, or radiation).
...a species that historically procreates before 30 years of age is kept alive until their 80s by improved hygiene and medicine. Your body was never designed to last as long as it usually does nowadays, and the systems break down. Cancer isn't a "manmade virus;" it's the end result of a lifetime's worth of minor genetic insults.
It was a reference to the movie WarGames...and last I heard, Gary Kasparov was doing a pretty good job of augmenting his income with chess.
...but wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess? -Joshua
"Basically I think that if BOTH parents aren't OK with it, then abortion is a no-go. If only one wants it, then they shouldn't be responsible for the child." Awesome. A position that the pro-lifers AND the pro-choicers can hate.
There ARE DNA based vaccines where naked DNA is shot into your body (usually into a muscle) and your body's transcriptional/translation machinery makes the proteins, which the immune system then detects and responds to. Indeed, several vaccines currently in development rely on this technology. However, from the article, I can't tell exactly what they're doing: "The HIV-1 specific cells injected into the recipients were the DNA fragments of the virus which don't cause infection," doesn't mean a thing to me. If it works, obviously it would be phenomenal--but let's not forget that other vaccines have passed their phase I trials, only to be knocked out later.
That has a lot more to do with people surviving longer with HIV than old people becoming newly infected. The first really successful HIV treatment came out in 1996, and before that, people with AIDS just didn't live long enough to become elderly. That said, an HIV vaccine probably wouldn't be given to everyone, just the most high risk people--intravenous drug users, sex workers, and men who have sex with men. Many of these people might be willing to accept the risk of birth defects for protection from a terrible, fatal disease.
It's not an issue of "a few thousand people who need special food." Rather, given things as they are, Listeria infection will kill a few thousand people per year, which may be a certain subclass of people (like those who are already sick and weak), or which may not. The point is, producing the phage for this use will not be terribly daunting, and there is basically no way for the virus to cause harm in humans. Keep in mind that any virus that infects humans has evolved to somehow circumvent the immune system--no easy feat. These phages are involved to infect bacteria, which have only the simplest of defenses against an invading pathogen. In short, it would be like expecting a medieval knight to overrun a modern army base. As to cost, you need to consider the cost/effectiveness ratio is this sort of decision. Kidney dialysis costs upwards of $50K per life year saved, and most people agree this is an acceptable level of spending. If this treatment saves lives at a decent cost, then it's worth investing in.
Apologies for the tin foil hat moment... I was wondering that myself, but from a more universal perspective, how do we as a society strike down this kind of thing? This is a victory for privacy, but there's no way the administration will just stop--it will appeal, or claim executive privilege, or just move the whole thing underground away from prying eyes. Even if we soundly boot the Republicans out in 2006 and 2008, does anyone expect the Democrats to do differently? How can we protect our rights to privacy in a day and age where the individual is so thoroughly marginalized?
I move no more headlines be posted that include the phrase "on a plane" for the next couple of weeks.
...this guy's story. Of course we'll have to wait until the investigators have done their work, and possibly until after a jury hears the case, but at this point it just doesn't wash. He says he kidnapped her because he loved her...so why does he also say he wanted to collect a ransom? And if the ransom was the reason all along, why did he write the note in the Ramsey house, instead of bringing it with him? And why ask for 118K, which (coincidentally?) happened to be the size of a company bonus John Ramsey had just received? There may be good reasons for these inconsistencies, and I certainly wouldn't rush to accuse the parents as many did, but there are a few things that suggest there's more to this than a child molesting teacher.
He also said that he tried to kidnap her because he loved her. And yet, he has also claimed he kidnapped her in order to hold her for ransom. My initial impression is that what he says shouldn't be taken at face value until the investigators have had more time to check him out.
I remember reading (I think it was in Michael Collins' book on Mars exploration) that back in the 70s, some folks in NASA talked about what they called the 'poor bastard' Mars exploration plan, in which a single man is landed on Mars with as many supplies as they can squeeze into the capsule with him, and he does as much science as he can before he runs out. Obviously there'd be almost no chance of resupply or rescue, hence making him the "poor bastard." There were some volunteers, but for obvious reasons NASA didn't want people talking about this in public.
They had a ghetto thug in The Thing--the guy who was always going around on roller skates and playing loud music (the ghetto has obviously changed a lot in 24 years). The fact that they were killing each other had more to do with a shapeshifting alien than it did with any kind of emotional problems.
You probably just need to relax a little. Maybe it should rub some lotion on it's skin before it gets the hose again.
And they sure are sick of those m----- f----- snakes on those m------ f----- plains. Forgive me.
Nah, if there are ETs out there capable of detecting it, retrieving it, and figuring out where it came from, chances are they can manage to go a little faster than a probe that's been coasting on a gravity slingshot for 30-odd years.
No, it would be more like they found two guys who they thought were terrorists, and then found out they weren't, and so they stopped worrying about it. It doesn't mean terrorism isn't a threat; it just means these guys aren't.