Leaderboard

With the limited information available my answer will be very general. I would be cautious if someone provides detailed answers based on limited information. 10s of thousands can be a tiny or huge depending on the amount of data, how the traffic is clustered, response time requirements, processing required to create an answer, what standard services that are already available as services, API, micro services etc.

If it is part of a lab, I would expect that folks will let you know which what the standard procedures in the lab are. If it is a theoretical course, or if you need to establish protocols as part of your thesis, I would probably start with transfection kits from the usual manufacturers (again, ask you supervisor regarding suppliers in your region). While they often do not have too much details on optimization strategies, their protocols are usually very detailed and are a good starting point. In parallel I would look into papers doing these types of transfections using your cell line- I am not familiar with it, but optimization is often cell line dependent.

I assume you aren't making the final decision so don't take that responsibility. You should create a PowerPoint presentation referencing the various options that are available and present that to the other members of your team so an informed decision can be made. If you are uncomfortable doing so yourself I'm sure you can recruit a consultant on a temporary basis to do so.

I know some that are conjugated

A forth is that their village has taught them to fear and despise, the people they stole and treated as livestock (just in case they took umbridge). It's so strange, how that policy perpetuates the tension; cause they were just doing their job. Imagine how much better things would be, if the policy was: Ok, hands up, my bad I'm sorry, and as a more concrete apology here's a home (with food water and our education) and a paid job, if you want it, to have more (a prettier home, tastier food and hot and cold water). Only then, can we say "all lives matter", with a straight face... 🙄

Drag is a force, which means an acceleration. If freely-traveling photons experienced drag, they would have to slow down. They don’t. Another option is to have some kind of thrust to counter the drag. That would mean a loss of energy (work is being done), which doesn’t happen. No drag.

Thanks for the calculation, appreciate it. You are missing three zeros, it is actually 10^13 joules. Conversion from KJ net three zeros.

Something needs editing there. Too many things are getting every which way. LOL

No. But I take responsibility for my free actions, and I don't for actions where I am coerced. So if I did something wrong freely, I can: correct my error apologise apologise and ask help to correct my error accept the consequences When it was coerced I say terrible things, like: I warned you Sorry, but I was ordered to do that, they did not listen to my objections Sorry, it wasn't me who decided that. Complain somewhere else. So yes, the discussion has very practical impact. And btw, one of your paragraphs in your previous posts, paraphrasing Dennett, you showed why: Only this small part is of course wrong: "that not having free will is not that bad". We declare our free will and responsibility, so that we can 'join the club': that is Dennett's stance. Which reminds me of something else: Sam Harris has written a pamphlet against free will, but he very much realises that responsibility is the glue of society, even that there are circumstances where punishment is justified. So in his pamphlet 'Free Will' he first shoots all his arguments against the idea that we have free will, and then, in explaining how he sees responsibility, defends a view that exactly matches compatibilist free will. He just refuses to call it that.

You mentioned terminal velocity earlier, so you seem to be thinking that it requires drag to stop things just getting faster and faster until they are travelling infinitely fast and take zero time to get from A to B. This is not consistent with Newton's laws of motion: 1. A body at rest remains at rest or, if it is in motion it moves with uniform velocity, unless acted on by a force. 2. A moving object will only change speed (or direction) if there is a force acting on it (F = ma) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion So the concept of terminal velocity only applies to things falling through the air (or similar situations) where there is a constant force of gravity acting on it. There is no force acting on photons and so they continue to move at the same speed all the time. Also, the speed of light is not just constant, but it is invariant. It is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative speed.

Any BH which is not the result of stellar gravitational collapse can be termed a microBH, even quantum BHs could be formed at energies in the TeV range. as was 'feared' at the LHC. None were observed, as expected, since cosmic rays reach energies of hundreds of TeVs, yet do no damage at all. Micro BHs that are small enough would be vigorous emitters of Hawking radiation, as their 'temperature' would be extremely high. As such they would evaporate rather quickly, and be extremely easy to spot. None have ever been observed, possibly indicating that comparatively large micro BHs did not form in the hot, dense primordial universe as it was too isotropic and homogeneous, while quantum BHs may need much higher energies to form, or may not be possible. One could assume BHs can form at any mass above the Planck mass , however... "All this assumes that the theory of general relativity remains valid at these small distances. If it does not, then other, presently unknown, effects might limit the minimum size of a black hole. Elementary particles are equipped with a quantum-mechanical, intrinsic angular momentum (spin). The correct conservation law for the total (orbital plus spin) angular momentum of matter in curved spacetime requires that spacetime is equipped with torsion. The simplest and most natural theory of gravity with torsion is the Einstein–Cartan theory.[7][8] Torsion modifies the Dirac equation in the presence of the gravitational field and causes fermion particles to be spatially extended. In this case the spatial extension of fermions limits the minimum mass of a black hole to be on the order of 1016 kg, showing that micro black holes may not exist. The energy necessary to produce such a black hole is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the energies available at the Large Hadron Collider, indicating that the LHC cannot produce mini black holes. But if black holes are produced, then the theory of general relativity is proven wrong and does not exist at these small distances. The rules of general relativity would be broken, as is consistent with theories of how matter, space, and time break down around the event horizon of a black hole. This would prove the spatial extensions of the fermion limits to be incorrect as well. The fermion limits assume a minimum mass needed to sustain a black hole, as opposed to the opposite, the minimum mass needed to start a black hole, which in theory is achievable in the LHC under some conditions.[9][10]" From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole As to whether you can have a BH without an event horizon, the Kerr metric describing space-time around a rotating, non-charged symmetric BH, postulates the dissolution of the non-spherical event horizon when certain rotation conditions are met, allowing for a 'naked singularity'. The Kerr metric is an exact solution, but as with the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom metrics, it may not be a physical solution.

Just to add info. The oxygen in photosynthesis comes from the breaking up of water molecules. The possibility that it came from CO2 has been ruled out experimentally by using isotopic tracers. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Science-William-K-Purves/dp/0716798565 (chapter 8: Identifying Photosynthetic Reactants and Products) Water was very abundant in the atmosphere after the late heavy bombardment.

! Moderator Note Please try and find a better source than videos. It is difficult for some people to watch videos. It is impossible to quote form or easily refer to the content. This video is over 2 hours long. You need to be more specific about exactly what in this video supports your claims. If you could find a written source, it would be preferable. ! Moderator Note If you are not able to provide some proper scientific support for your claims then this thread will be closed. ! Moderator Note http://www.danwinter.com is interesting if one wants to see what sort of person Dan Winter is. It would, of course, be an ad-hominem fallacy to use his criminality as an argument against his pseudoscientific nonsense. But luckily, we don't have to. There is clearly no science here. Thread closed.

I agree, though I found that the references in wikipedia for many topics are not that great, sometimes general textbook references are given other times there are papers but not always the ones that folks in the field would consider to be really relevant or important. The reason of course being that the editors are often not experts themselves and there is the tendency on the web to cite whatever google shows up in a given topic. The danger there is that there is a disconnect in terms of what the internet seemingly tells you what important research is being done versus what experts actually think. But obviously, the quality varies and especially for basic concepts linking to text books is not actually a bad thing.

It's odd that most people understand that biodiversity is a good thing, but some idiots fail to realise that it applies to us too. Humans are not very big or very strong. Our major asset in terms of success is that we can communicate so well and cooperate. Our ability to communicate is the basis of our ability to cooperate, and it is that cooperation that explains why we are so successful. Perhaps the first group we should "cleanse" from the species is not the slow learners or the unfit, but those who don't understand the importance of cooperation. A way to identify them would be to see who thinks eugenics is a good idea, after all- you never seem to hear anyone saying "I'm going to kill myself because it will improve the gene pool" they always plan to kill others.

So, shall we start with you then...? A society requires a broad range of intelligence available to fullfill the all tasks required for it to function properly...it takes all sorts to make a world.

Education is one. Do I win a prize? Will you give me a cookie now?

Vilifying folks that are victims of a system is a common tactic to invalidate experiences especially of poor folks. It is the cheapest way to use moral outrage to create an us vs them stance in order to wipe away legal or moral standards. It has been used to justify holding folks in blacksites, it is being used to explain deaths during police encounters which should not and in other countries would not have ended up deadly. It is as if only perfect human beings should be protected by the law, which is of course a ridiculous stance.

What do you think about Eugenics? I personally think it would drastically change the world for the better. By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100, and forcibly aborting any fetus which will be born with a genetic deformity, retardation, etc. Also encouraging geniuses to procreate by giving them tax breaks and benefits for each child they produce. Can you imagine a world where geniuses are a dime a dozen? Classrooms full of gifted children, no more government funds wasted on special ed classrooms, all this we can achieve. We just have to set aside pointless emotions and see the bigger picture. It might be difficult to accept forced sterilization at first, but the benefits are more than worth it. I envision a city on the Moon, and colonies on Mars in our not so distant future, should we adopt the practice of Eugenics, because it would drastically increase the amount of future scientists that will be born.

You're killing me Smalls.

Did you watch the whole video? He wasn't a martyr period. You're derailing the point of the video. She's neutral and not picking sides. You're pulling an ad hominem on her. I dislike BLM also because it's self-evident that it's a hate group. I've lived in a multicultural community as a minority white male while receiving an unfair amount of insulting remarks from racist black people while minding my own business and at other times witnessed humble black people feeling frustrated with the rude and loud attitudes of other black people. BLM is a hate group because racism is driven by us verses them mentality. Hitler wanted good for people. It's just that his actions were incorrect towards taking out the trash(religion). Was he a good leader? No. Was he a bad leader? Who cares. He was ok. Nothing remarkable or revolutionary.