Leaderboard

Our alpacas! 😄 Left to right: Elliot, Radar, Samson. IMG_1086.heic

"With the help of advanced laboratory techniques, we were able to identify a panel of nanobodies that very effectively neutralized several variants of SARS-CoV-2," says Gerald McInerney, professor at the Department of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology (MTC), Karolinska Institutet, and joint senior author of both studies. Despite the roll-out of vaccines and antivirals, the need for effective therapeutics against severe COVID-19 infection remains high. Nanobodies -- which are fragments of antibodies that occur naturally in camelids and can be adapted for humans -- are promising therapeutic candidates as they offer several advantages over conventional antibodies. For example, they have favourable biochemical properties and are easy to produce cost-effectively at scale. In the now published studies, the labs of Gerald McInerney and Ben Murrell, also at MTC, identify several potent nanobodies derived from an alpaca immunised with SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Nontechnical version: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220325185907.htm Technical version: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm0220

It has nothing at all to do with "more detailed". It's hard to figure out if you're serious about discussing science, or more interested in pushing the views for your YT channel. Videos often require the viewer to keep going back to make sure they heard things right. The written word allows us to do this practically instantaneously. It's much easier to put mis/dis-information that goes unnoticed into a video than a written study. Video often adds an emotional element that's unnecessary. You yourself admit you used a "provocative title" to grab attention. Then there's the whole element of illusion. With modern tech, can we really trust what we see on posted videos? In science, you can't get "too detailed". There will always be someone who requires more clarity and precision simply because they can understand it and use it to promote even better explanations for various phenomena.

In post 2 of this thread I made the same point and provided both a link to the paper and a synopsis of the research, last Tuesday. All without making a video, too! 😀

We've been having some discussions and have concluded that URL shorteners aren't consistent with a good user experience; too often they mask a spammer's attempt to get you to visit a (possibly malicious) site that you wouldn't be inclined to visit if you could see the actual link. So: don't use them here. We have no post-length limits that might justify them. We will assume that new people using them are spammers and react accordingly. If you have a track record, we'll delete the link and give you a chance to modify your habits.

That's a bit silly, frankly. As both you and I have pointed out, that is not what the paper is about. It's just a typical pop-sci headline: eye-catching but misleading. So why waste time on that? It would be far more interesting if you can build on my brief summary of what it seemed to me the paper actually is about, as per post 2.

Well it's 2235 in London, now and I'm tired after a 2hr choir rehearsal (performing Haydn's Creation on Saturday) so I'm off to bed. I think you've got the idea by the look of it now, so hope you manage to work the rest of it out.

We haven't but we've been collecting the fiber, and my wife just bought a spinning wheel. We may also send some fiber off to have something made rather than doing it ourselves. They are also due for a shearing next month which is a fun event (for us, not the alpacas!). It is the little ones. And Radar, while being a trouble maker, is also a big baby. If I go out to the barn in a different coat it takes him 10 minutes to decide if it is safe to come in to the barn with me.

?? You're thinking about query-string arguments? Domain A (e.g. the JS script hosted on it) creates cookie/supercookie if it is not present ("session id"). Website X uses the code from domain A (cookie/supercookie is set to initial value). X has link to Y. The user goes from X to Y (a reference URL is sent with it, so Y knows who referred it). Website Y does not use the code from domain A. The user goes from Y to Z (a reference URL is sent with it). Website Z uses the code from domain A (cookie/supercookie is already sent). "A" knows that you visited X, Z directly from analyze of the logs.. because the same cookie/supercookie is found..

It's not this - it changes the address to where it doesn't include the original. e.g. tinyurl.com/ye29ahp7 will take you to this thread. But how would you know that without clicking on the link? (I've omitted the https:// so it's not a clickable link) There's no indication of the actual site's name. with www.scienceforums.net/topic/126922 you know where you are going, and can make an informed decision about whether to click. Such a service has its utility, but it's inappropriate to use here.

It is always the little ones, isn't it? Could be an universal trait. I have heard that they also create hierarchies with other animals, if there are not enough alpacas around (one was apparently top sheep).

The only serious part of my post was the 'grow up' part. I should always include laughing emojis when I attempt humor. ( like bad TV comedies that need a laugh track )

That is why we have three! We originally asked about buying two but the woman we bought them from would not sell us fewer than three. When they get stressed they stand around and hum. One of their better features is that they use a communal spot for relieving themselves, making it easier to clean up and less likely you'll step in anything. Har! Those would have been good names too. The names came with them though. They are registered when born just like show dogs.

And it is much better in writing than an audio-visual. For me anyway.

I had trouble making out the nanobodies in your pic, @zapatos, but they are cute. Though I can see the Radar resemblance, I think the others look more like Colonel Potter and Charles Emerson Winchester.

Seeing your post, I had a look online and they appear to have a nice nature. The article, by an alpaca farmer, said you should never have less than three because having a group hierachy is important to their well-being. Is that why you have three?

Copy it into a text editor that allows horizontal scrolling, and you'll see it's not garbage. I am working on Windows and using XAMPP. The differences between what I have here and what you have are small. I have a "Password" column that is blank in all rows, which is not in your log... I have multiple "root" user accounts, each for IPv4 and IPv6, either by name or directly by IP number. Have you tried the phpmyadmin from a web browser? Different MySQL versions can behave slightly differently. So if I were you, I would try inserting a password column in mysqladmin/phpmyadmin, and then duplicate the row to have IPv6 support as well, just in case. Just like in my screenshot above.

Further to that, which MigL has commented on. A scientific theory does not mean what is sometimes meant as a theory in normal speak. A scientific theory is our best estimation at the time of formation, according to the observational and experimental evidence. It is always open for improvement, modification, and change, as observations and experiments dictate. A scientific theory is the best we have, and always grows in certainty, the longer it aligns with the evidence, and as predictions made by the theory are verified. eg: BH's and gravitational radiation in recent times. That is speculation.

The BB was an evolution of space and time. So it happened everywhere at the same time. It was all there was and there was no outside or no centre. The recent discovery of an acceleration in the expansion rate, makes any future collapse unlikely. Remembering of course this expansion is only observed over the larger scales. Over smaller scales like galactic groups, galaxies, solar systems etc, gravity due to densities overcomes that expansion rate, and such systems are bound. The other forces of Electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces also play a part on even smaller scales.

Here here! It also seems to be short view utilitarianism too. For some, the notion of long-term, unseen and unpredictable negative consequences that can arise out of the act of torture doesn't seem to hold much weight, for me it does. Especially in the terrorist scenarios. A terrorist organizations rhetoric of fighting against an evil tyrannical force, holds more weight if you torture them. Which can erode public support and stir up more sympathy for them in the long-run. Recruitment would be easier and some of the public may even blame the next attack on the torturers, saying they provoked it by behaving as savagely as the terrorists claim they are. That doesn't make it right; terrorists are far more guilty of using tactics and strategies that damage any moral justification their original cause may or may not have had. It may be unfair for the public to develop more sympathy for terrorists because desperate people did a desperate thing in desperate circumstances, but it does not change the fact that this is a potential long-term consequence of the torture. I feel as if the whole "Try everything possible" argument implies that the ends always justifies the means. Which is not something I believe to be true. I mean, we could have this same discussion where the only difference is we all agree on the physical torture aspect but disagree on how far we should go. "Well, I did the finger stuff and smacked him around for awhile but it didn't work." "Did you try threatening his genitals or mutilating them? What about taking one of his eyes and starving him? You need to try everything possible or you will have completely failed the victims and I will hold you personally responsible for their deaths!"

I think that is fair to say, but a bit unrealistic. Earlier, I made the point; that if you have enough time to try everything else first, chances are the situation is not as time sensitive as we make out. There is one other factor here that we are not mentioning; Individual skill and competency. One individual may just not be skilled or experienced enough to get the information humanely,while another person is. In the scenarios involving law enforcement being the ones to decide on torture, chances are that if the current team or individual is not getting results with the humane methods in a timely enough manner, the task will be reassigned to someone else before anyone ever brings up torture. So when all else fails, do we think about moving onto torture first or move onto someone else trying everything else first? From interrogation, profiling and investigation there is a lot of different methods, strategies and tactics that are involved. How long roughly do you think it would take 2-3 different individuals or teams to go through trying all of it? Hours? Days? Weeks?

I think perhaps that a RTS game won't incorporate the phenomenon of "poorly-maintained equipment because the system has been looted by corrupt higher-ups and widespread incompetence/apathy" along with scores of other impacts that can't be programmed in to a simulation. So even if logistics matters it's unlikely that it goes into the level of detail that real people encounter in real situations There are computer games where you just happen to find ammo and 'health' hidden behind odd-looking bricks in a wall, which is great for game play but not realistic at all, though the phenomenon of finding enemy equipment abandoned might be under-represented. Douglas Bader, WWII RAF pilot, gave a talk to a prestigious girls’ school, and was describing the German planes attacking him: "I had two f*ckers to the left of me, two f*ckers to the right" The horrified schoolmistress interrupted with, “Ladies, the Fokker was a type of German aircraft,” to which Bader replied: “That’s as may be, Madam, but these f*ckers were in Messerschmitts.” (Paraphrased. there are various versions of this all over the internet)

Simple questions, seem far to hard for you, so you resort to insults? You havn't given an answer...Perhaps some cryptic nonsense you are noted for and as mentioned by others, but no answer. If you have an answer/clarification, then point me to it. If you havn't, then keep on doing what you are doing. What's your answer?

Oh FFS man, grow up.

As, I think, Kierkegaard would have said "You're making a fool of yourself"; please stop... 🙏 The most insidious of lies are the one's we tell ourselves... The only reason I continued to engage with you in these thread's is, I believe everyone deserves the chance of redemtion, and can be redeemed, until I'm proven wrong; whilst I'm not 100% certain that I'm right about you; you have gone beyond reasonable doubt; so I official place you in the prison of my ignore list and have thrown away the key. Not really, I'll just ignore you until you have something interesting to say... 😉