Dak

you could try downloading KillBox, and copying the files pathname into killbox and seeing if killbox can handle it. the 'delete on reboot' option usually works. [edit] assuming that you'v already tried reebooting -- if not, mezarashi idea's will work & be easyer[/edit]

-log(0.5) = log(0.5) X -1 = -0.3 X -1 = 0.3 just to test my memory/understanding, is the following right? pKa = pH plus dissociation constant (Ka) Ka = ([conk products]^no.mols)/[conk reagents]^no.mols) so Ka{HA --> H+ + A-} = ([H+]1 + [A-]1)/[HA]1 as it is a weak acid, [H+] will be small, and thus can be ingnored, giving Ka = [A-]/[HA] Hence, pKa = pH + ([A-]/[HA]) ?

winexec could be a couple of things; _DelItH.bat, i have no idea. If you want, you could download HijackThis (scroll down to the button with the flashing green light next to it). run it, and select 'do a system scan and save a logfile'. also, if you go to http://virusscan.jotti.org/ and upload the file C:/_DelItH.bat, and then post up the HijackThis log and the results of the jotti scan, that should be enough to work out what malware you have. [edit]actually, you may aswell scan the winexec.exe file at jotti aswell, and include those scan results in your post[/edit]

so what happens when someone is asked to pick a random number? I agree that thered probably be patterns, but there must be some degree of randomness/pseudo-randomness. where does that come from?

Hi. found a persistant rendering problem on the deathtocreationism site (but couldnt work out how to attach an image to the PM in d2c*) So here it is. misrender appears using firefox 1.0.6 and 1.0.7, on windows XP SP2. it only appears on my first visit to the site in a while; a refresh, or going to another page on the site, makes the problem go away untill I've left and come back. ----------------------- *or, for that matter, in SFN: hence the bumpage of this thread. stoopid technology.

bump! made a mistake, which iv now corrected. the added bits are in blue.

thing is, every time chromosomes replicate they shorten. this is countered by telomerase, which extends the telomere of the chromosome in order to combat this shortening. thus, every cell that wants to replicate more than a few (i think its something like 15 times) and survive has to make telomerase, so targetting it wouldnt be too great an idea. to prevent cancer, our cells make a telomerase inhibitor so that, in any cells that rapidly replicate, the telomerase cannot keep up with the rate of telomere depletion and the cell dies. this telomerase inhibitor is shared by cells via gap junctions, so that even a cell that is a bit broke and thus not producing telomerase inhibitor will be cancer-proofed by its neighbours telomerase inhibitor. hence why chemicals that block gap juctions are carcenogenic. soooo... given the prevalance of telomerase, i really wouldnt like to have a telomerase-targeted antibody floating around in my blood. if anything anti-cancerish is to be done re: telomerase, id say it would be an increase in the amount of telomerase inhibitor at cancer sites; maybe a 'highly-active-telomerase-targeted telomerase-inhibitor vector' or something. or possibly a cytotoxin that is active only in the abscence of telomerase-inhibitor (possibly) hmm... i dont suppose that NK cells or cytotoxic-t-cells somehow use the level/activity of telomerase-inhibitor to attract them to cancer sites, do they? i suppose that, if they do, it could, in theory, be used to target tumors.

judging from the fact that theyre all the same shape, id say that the exposure time was too long, and that the camera was shook -- leaving (identically shaped) traces of the light-sources on the photo.

are you dyslexic? or do you find your work really booring? (trouble concentrating on reading being symptoms of both of those conditions). other than that, try reading out-loud, and have a 5 minit break every 10/15 minutes (or even every 5, if nessesary).

dont killer-t-cells and mast cells do that anyway? or is that killer-t-cells and natural killer cells?

i dont think telomerase is more common in cancer cells -- more that the bodies natural telomerase inhibiter is abscent. hence why something that closes the gap junctions between cells is a carcenogenic -- it stops the cell recieving telomerase inhibitor from neighboring cells. so targeting telomerase wouldnt be that useful, as most cells have it, and cancer cells, afaic, dont have it any more than non-cancer cells.

do you mean like the way that calculators and computers generally have a 'produce random number' function?

that huge cream-coloured space is being included in the size of the picture, btw try and clip it down like cap'n suggested.

this looks suspiciously like a uni assighnment ignoring the last bit 'cos it made no sence and plowing ahead, im assuming that your asking stuff about how to work out the offspring ratio for two parents with reguards to three linked (and thus non-mendelian) genes? ok, to start off -- do you know what MUs mean with reguards to the chance of a cross-over occouring inbetween the two gene loci? basically, 1 MU = 1% chance of a cross-over occouring betwix the two loci; or in other words, a 1% chance that the two genes will be inherited seperately (and thus 99% chance they will be inherited together). (thats what makes the genes linked, btw) so, from that you can work out the persentage chance of any given zygote being spawned from the hetrozygouse parent. eg, A-10MU-B--20MU--C a-10MU-b--20MU--c from that, the possible zygotes are: ABC ABc AbC aBC aBc abC Abc abc take the first one: ABC. that relys on no cross overs occouring atall, to produce the chromosome: A-B-C a-b-c and from that, there is a 50% chance of getting an ABC zygote, and a 50% chance of an abc zygote. so the probability of getting an ABC zygote = the probability of a cross over not occouring/2 = (probability of no cross over twix A & B X probability of no cross over between B & C)/2 P(no cross A&B) = 90% (as they are 10MU apart, the prob of a cross = 10% so the prob of no cross = 90%) P(no cross B&C) = 80% (similar reasons) so P(ABC) = (P(no cross A&B) X P(no cross B&C))/2 =(90% X 80%)/2 = 72%/2 =36% So now we have ABC <-- 36% ABc AbC aBC aBc abC Abc abc the rest can be worked out in a similar fashion, eg: Prob(ABc) = (prob(no cross over between A and B) X prob(a cross over between B & C))/2 do that for all of them, and you have the zygote frequency from the hetrozygouse parent. the frequency from the homozygote will be easy: abc <-- 100% simply change the % chance of occourance into a frequency, and bobs yer unkle now, just do a normal cross and incorporate the zygote frequency into the mating frequency, (eg, ABCand bobs yer unkle -- enough number crunching to put a smile on daves face later, and youll have your answre.

if homo sapiens died out thousands of thousands of years ago, we would be dead (what with us belonging to homo sapiens). Homo sapiens neandertalensis died out thousands of years ago, leaving the only other sub-species of humans (namely us -- homo sapiens sapiens, as you said) the only survivors of the homo genera. below sub-species, a distinktion is pretty meaningless overall. the eukaryote equivelant of a strain is, iirc, a population. the allele distribution is slightly different in any group, be it a larger population (ie, mongaloids, caucasions, negroids etc) or a very small group (people from london, people from sot'on etc). it doesnt make a difference in generall, but -- with respect to a few genes -- there are significant differenses between populations; eg, its pretty obviouse that the 'black skin alleles' are more common within the negroid population than within the caucasian. the type-b blood allele is less comon amongst native americans. etc. so, in answre to the OP -- it depends on how you define 'race'. there are between a few and absolutely loads of different populations of humans, depending on how big-a-group you are talking about at the time, and 'race' seems to be (scientifically speaking) a quasi-arbitrary distinction placed on populations that happen to share the same nationality or ethnic appearance. for example, the london population doesnt count as a race, but anglo-saxon does.

apparently, the max attachment size is 976.6 kb, hence why it wont work hmm... try this: open ectoplasm!.jpg up in MS paint go to file > 'save as...' click on the box next to 'save as type', and select 'gif' click save see if ectoplasm!.gif will upload (gifs are generally smaller than jpgs)

how large is the ectoplasm!.jpg file? P.S., i always have trouble with attachments myself. stoopid attachments

in theory, you could use viral vectors. a hiv based vector, for example, could inject stuff into all cd4+ cells, what with hiv being desighned specifically to infect cd4+ cells. So, if the target cells exhibit some unique cell membrane structure that a virus targets, then they can be targeted by viral-vector delivered chemicals. but in practice its a lot trickier than that, apparently.

^ just to add to that, whilst i was looking into parthoneogenesis, i discovered that most parthaneogenisising (?) vertebrates live, sparsly distributed, in habitats where the chanses of bumping into a mate are quite slim. more common is 'facultive partheneogenesis', whereby the individual can reproduse sexually or by partheneogenesis. in those cases, sexual reproduction is usually chosen if a mate is available, and partheneogenesis is only chosen when mates are unavailable; which would seem to supporting the idea that inbreeding is, over the long term, unsustainable.

Inbreeding could confere a few benefits. for example, inbreeding would increase homology at gene loci, which could confer a higher tolerance for resessively-fatal mutations, and therefore allow a higher rate of mutation, possibly allowing the faster aquisition of new beneficial mutations. A species adapted to inbreed could find itself with a higher reproduction rate due to the fact that finding a mate is easyer, due to not having to go to the trouble of finding a mate that is unrelated a species adapted to (and able to survive the downsides of) inbreeding could find itself better able to survive bottlenecks; perhaps useful in unstable habitats, where the population could fluctuate wildly maintanance of a good set of alleles: if a very good combination of alleles is achieved, inbreeding could resist the effect of natural selection to split the alleles up; in other words, inbreeding could lower diversity, which would be a good thing if the average set of alleles was pretty good. and, of course, the chances of passing on your genes is increased by mating with someone genetically similar. wether those would be enough to counteract the disadvantages of inbreeding... most of those ^ advantages, by the way, were based some hypothetical advantages to partheneogenesis 1, which, being analogouse to the mating between two identical twins, could be considered uber-inbreeding.

i remember hearing something about wikis being adopted in the work place, although i think that was more for progects than for meetings.

apparently, the aid that was sent in to the survivors of hurricaine catrina was deleyed because the people taking the aid in came under gun fire from some of the local inhabitants. do you think this throws doubt on the argument that americans should be allowed guns for their own protection, as the guns aggrevated the situation in this case and that, whilst there are many stories of rape and robbery in post-catrina new orleans, i have not heard of a single instance in which an assailant was shot, or scared off with a gun (ie, no reports of people defending themselves with guns). or does the rareness of the situation invalidate/weaken any anti-gun arguments drawn from it?

I'm thinking ivory-white frilly-lace with pink trimming would look good. hmm... but what would suit bettina?