ewmon

Why should nucleosomes contain RNA? Eukaryotes use a method of reducing the maximum dimensions within which the long strand of DNA will fit to allow for its storage and use in the nucleus. To realize this goal, the DNA is wound around histone proteins which cluster in a mass called a nucleosome. These nucleosomes reside in the nucleus, which is a compartment (basically a simple bag) within eukaryotes whose purpose is to house and maintain the integrity of the DNA and to house and control the materials used in the transcription process, whose result is newly-formed RNA. So, RNA does exist in the nucleus, although not within the nucleosomes. There is no readily apparent reason for RNA to be part of the nucleosomes. I hope this explains away your doubts about nucleosomes not containing RNA.

I was surprised when we actually married. We technically didn't do anything to make it official/final. We had obtained the license a month or two earlier, but on the day of the wedding, we never actually entered any information on it, signed/dated it or anything like that. It was completed, signed, dated, etc by the minister performing the wedding and the witness. I didn't expect it to be like that, and I still don't think it makes sense because marriage is a contract recognized in a court of law. It's the only contract I know where the parties don't make a record of to finalize it — compared to consumer contracts, business contracts, etc. A marriage is a binding contract recognized by society, and when people end a marriage, they actually sue to end it, just as they would sue to end any contract (although the process can, when actually played out, be much more non-contentious and informal than a lawsuit). Most people now sue for a no-fault/incompatibility, whereas in the past (ie, in heterosexual marriages), they sued for specific "breach of contract": infidelity, abandonment/desertion, cruelty/abusiveness, etc. These causes for divorce indicate what the marriage contract meant entailed (aside from the religious slant): fidelity/faithfulness/allegiance, companionship/emotional support, physical/financial support, kindness/mercy/compassion, etc.

exposed copper wire — I assume you mean the bared ends of the wire used to make the coil. a resistor on both ends — No. Think of the wiring as water pipes. (Actually, the English scientist Oliver Heaviside sarcastically called this hydraulic model, the "drain-pipe theory".) Resistors act like certain amounts of restriction in a piece of pipe. Coils are like water turbines, and the momentum of the turbine is the magnetic field. The high side (+) of the power supply is like the high pressure source in a water system. The low side (–) of the power supply is like a drain/sewer. So you have pressure coming out of the power supply, and going through a pipe that leads to a restriction and then the turbine, or vice versa. It doesn't matter their order, but you don't need two resistors unless one alone is too small. Resistances add when connected in series (in other words, resistors are additive in series). You now know the equations to compute the current-limiting resistor needed to prevent you from blowing your power supply (even if the coil is missing from the circuit, and the resistor is connected to both power supply terminals). You know the resistor size that will protect the power supply because we know the power supply's current limit. The coil is a different story because we don't know the coil's current limit. The current-limiting resistor does limit the amount of current flowing through the coil (actually, through everything in the circuit because it's all in series ... again, think water pipe). However, can the coil dissipate the power (I²Rcoil) generated within it so as not to melt the wiring? Here, several factors come into play. How thick is the copper wiring? The thicker the wiring, the larger the cross-sectional area, the lower the resistance. Again, think water pipe. How tightly/loosely is the coil wound? Loosely-wound coils might dissipate heat more readily due to the hot air within it flowing out and being replaced with cooler air. What's the diameter (D) of the coil, and how many turns (N) does it have? These factors help determine the length of wire of which the coil is composed (NπD), which determines the resistance of the coil's wire, which helps determine the amount of heat it must dissipate. No. That said, there's a danger which you must avoid — insufficient current-limiting resistance. You can set a pot's (or rheostat's) resistance to zero, which is as bad as not having any resistance in the circuit. So, you'll want to have a resistor in the circuit to ensure a minimum amount of resistance in the circuit. Oil?? What oil? If you mean "coil", we talk about coils in terns of: number of turns (N), diameter of core (D) around which the wire is wound, etc. Last comment for the night. You don't want to be using your hands for trying to pull the power supply's cord/plug from the wall in an emergency. It could already be melting, or (though unlikely) the current might fuse the plug's lugs to the wall outlet. You could end up with live wires in your hands. Do you have a power strip with an on/off switch that you could use?

Yes, definitely. Variable resistors called "potentiometers" (say "poe-TEN-shee-AH-meh-terz") (also simply called "pots") exist, but I haven't seen them able to dissipate the heat yours will produce (although they may exist). You might want to use separate resistors for each coil circuit you wish to use. Or you could make one circuit that uses a resistance box that switches various resistances into the circuit as needed.

Both words describe the compact structures of DNA found in living cells. The names are different to distinguish between how eukaryotes and prokaryotes store them in their compact forms. Because DNA's serial structure (that is, its information forms one-dimensional sequences), and because these sequences of one-dimensional information are many, many times longer than its cell, the DNA must be compacted into tight three-dimensional structures. The DNA in eukaryotes, which are wrapped around histone proteins, are called nucleosomes. The DNA in eukaryotes is linear, and nucleosomes fold through a series of successively higher order structures to eventually form a chromosome. The DNA in prokaryotes, which form a mass, are called a nucleoid. Most DNA in prokaryotes is circular, and they are supercoiled to keep them gathered together. If this wasn't what you wanted to know, please ask more questions.

You could use a "load-limiting resistor", which is a resistor in the circuit whose purpose is to limit the load that the transformer must feed. Hmmm. Your coil drew too much current because of its low resistance. With this resistor in series (NOT parallel) with the coil, it will limit the amount of current that the transformer will attempt to provide. Let's say for the sake of simplicity that your coil has a resistance of 1 ohm (although I'm sure it's probably much less than this). This coil would draw a current equal to the voltage divided by the resistance, 24v/1Ω, which would equal 24 amps. The transformer is rated at only 1.2 amps therefore you overloaded it, which is why it started smoking. The nominal output voltage divided by the maximum current defines the lowest resistance the power supply can feed. It can used to be able to feed 24v/1.2A, which equals 20Ω. But don't use a load-limiting resistor of 20Ω because it will draw 1.2 amps from the transformer, which is right on the limit. To be on the safe side, use a load-limiting resistor that's larger than that (especially because you already smoked the transformer, which means it's probably not capable of putting out 24v or 1.2A anymore). So, let's say 40Ω or even 60Ω. A 40Ω resistor will draw 0.6 amps (24v/40Ω) from the transformer. A 60Ω resistor will draw 0.4 amps (24v/60Ω) from the transformer. Obviously, if you end up using another transformer, always use a load-limiting resistor with these experiments so that you don't smoke your transformer again. For example, if you use a transformer that's rated at 9 volts and up to 0.6 amps, the smallest load-limiting resistor would be 9V/0.6A, which equals 15Ω — but use a larger resistor. I recommend a safety factor of 2, so I would recommend a 30Ω resistor (15Ω × 2 = 30Ω).

What have you found so far? Have you looked in Wikipedia? Have you tried googling them?

Same-sex marriage? Polygamy? Several years ago, I listened to a few pro-same-sex marriage people (granted they were not spokespeople of the LGBT community, even though the LGBT community — whoever may comprise it — doesn't elect/authorize spokespeople) vigorously defend same-sex marriage against someone who was pro-polygamy. These pro-same-sex marriage people strongly insisted, almost ranted, that marriage was strictly between two people, and besides, very few people would engage in polygamy. I don't know if they realized what they said, but they sounded very similar to "straight" people arguing against same-sex marriage — marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, and besides, very few people would engage in same-sex marriages. Actually, same-sex marriage, by definition, avoids/negates exclusive breeding rights, and so polygamy shouldn't be illegal. Furthermore, for confirmed bachelors and spinsters to avoid the stigma of being "unmarried", "spinsters" etc, someone wanting to be married to him-herself should also be allowed to do so. What's the harm? What about widows and widowers who want to be considered married forever or who want to avoid the widowed/widwered stigma? Certainly their partners didn't want their marriage to end. Anyone should be allowed to be married to him/herself. Chen Wei-Yi did it in Taiwan. How do we know this?

I found this 14-minute TED presentation by Clay Shirky that's rather interesting from the historical perspective.

Why not Trés Juicé? Hey hey. Anyway, ewmon, pronounced as as "human" without the "h". It's just who I am.

Imagine the number of people who go through life never having such an epiphany. Socrates apparently said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I hear a lot of guilt from beginning to end: I've always been a loser ... No chance in Hell. Having realized this about your past, you can now address your future more appropriately and effectively. Our environment helps to shape us, and we help to shape our environment. Time to be the captain of your ship. I applaud you for your forthrightness and willingness to accept advice. As for children, I would try really hard, try all sorts of advice (nutrition, boxers, timing, whatever), and prove the doctors wrong (as they sometimes are). Try another doctor who uses different tests or treatments. If you are absolutely shooting blanks, there's always adoption etc. There is someone to fill that child-sized hole in your heart. As for Life, I didn't get a guarantee when I was born. At middle age, almost everything has been, or is being, taken from me (family, health, career, etc).

I contacted my legislators and told them not to make the SOPA and PIPA bills overly broad, constitutionally vague, unnecessarily restrictive etc. There's something called "legislative intent" in referring to what the legislators intend the law to do, which is later called "the spirit of the law". It's when the "the letter of the law" — that is, what the canonized code says literally, can be (and usually is) somewhat different, which can be used beyond the lawmakers' intentions. This dissonance can be one of the head points in cases that question a law. One side argues the (original) legislative intent, while the other side argues the law's appropriate application to (subsequent, current and future) conditions unseen or not considered when the law was written. There's also something called "legal fiction" that's very important in law. Generally, a party asks, "What if this situation were to fall under this law?". British legal historian Sir Henry Maine in his Ancient Law (1861) gave an example where a Roman court might consider giving a right of Roman citizens to the Roman Empire's non-Roman citizens. A "what if" question. How would it benefit, how would it harm?

What about ionizing the particles so they are electrically repulsed from one's skin. Or depolarizing particles so our moist skin (with polarized water) will repulse them, then sonic waves (MHz?, GHz?) separates them from the skin and they fall to the ground.

So an entire supermarket (or supermarket chain) should be shut down after someone complains about a dented can or wilted head of lettuce being sold at a store. Same idiotic logic that a court would quickly find to be unconstitutional.

Seriously though, has it been tried? Imagine surgeons putting their arms into wide tubes where foamy whirlwinds whisk the germs from their skin in seconds as a partial vacuum draws the germy wetness away, instead of scrubbing and rinsing repeatedly for several minutes. Or torus/rings with high speed soap/foam dispensed from the middle of the torus/ring and a vacuum on both sides of the torus/ring that works opposite of dyson fans. There would be one large one for the hand/arm, and five small ones two feet away for the digits. You'd put your hand through the large one and move it forward to put the digits through the five smaller ones. No skin would touch anything (pads, bristles, etc) that could retain/transfer germs. It would at least look very cool.

Perhaps at certain frequencies, standing waves could be produced that would "bounce" water droplets off your skin as they fall to the floor. Within seconds of the water source shutting off, all droplet will have made their way to the floor. Forget the sound ... what about a wet whirlwind with wind speeds at the skin's surface of, let's say, a bit less than 100 mph? I think you'd want to wear goggles, earplugs, nose plugs, etc . Theoretically, most [dirty] water droplets would fly off your body tangentially. If the impinging droplets were small enough, they shouldn't hurt too much.

A higher atmospheric pressure means a thicker atmosphere (a part of which a near-earth object may have subsequently torn away), or a denser atmosphere (such as mostly CO2), which natural processes may have subsequently sequestered. We're not only talking a higher concentration of unsequestered carbon, but an increased flow rate through the Carbon Cycle, causing fantastically huge amounts of plants, followed by herbivores and then carnivores. Nature's version of the "velocity of money".

Well, there you go. Try to bring some across the border, look a little too sleazy (I recommend some bling, dark sunglasses, hip-hop clothing and some scantily-clad chicks women), ... and presto, they test it for you. Seriously though, you might ask some American govt agency (eg, US DEA) to test it or look into it. Tell them what you told us and more ... you use it to make "magic incense", you're worried that it's illegal or otherwise harmful, and would like to know what it is from a consumer safety perspective. You might be surprised ... and you'd be doing the right thing. I wonder if the FDA regulates incense.

This antagonistic or zero sum game idea involving the reproductive and immune systems is interesting at least from the perspective that they are the only systems that produce cells ad infiinitum ... well, at least in men.

It turns out that I must research and discuss the Néel-Arrhenius equation. The only problem is, I don't know with a certainty how to pronounce the surnames Néel or Arrhenius. I can guess at the French name as NAY-el and the Swedish name as Ar-REY-nee-oos. However, they might be pronounced as nay-EL and so on. Does anyone know with some certainty how to pronounce these names. Please don't let me go blindly into the night.

I'll piggyback on this, but I meant to mention this anyway. Eastern cultures tend to be more male-oriented, and western cultures tend to be more female-oriented. I see the rise of "modern" technology in the west as the cause of this dichotomy. Prior to the western industrial revolutions, Dad might have been trudging behind a plow, or messily butchering hogs, but he was there on the family farm, never far from his family. Even the far side of the "north 40 [acres]", if square, was only ¼ mile — or a 5-minute walk — away. Bit by bit, the industrial revolutions fueled by technologies that harnessed wind power (sailing ships), water power (mills), steam power (factories) etc gradually stole Dad away from his family for most of the day. Moms became increasingly more important in the daily management of the family, while Dad's role diminished to killing spiders, taking out the trash, disciplining children (Wait till your father gets home) etc while he increasingly complained to a family that knew him less and less about work that slowly entombed him from the rest of the world, first in mills and factories, then in offices and laboratories. Gone are the days where under a spreading chestnut tree, the village smithy stands, a mighty man is he, with large and sinewy hands ... and children coming home from school, look in at the open door, and love to see the flaming forge, and hear the bellows roar. (With apologies to Longfellow.) But now western Moms have joined the Dads in the Rat Race, and they feel as little appreciated as the Dads do. And for all the slavery and disenfranchisement that Dad endures in his "modern" western world (that is, if Mom decides to keep him around because she has such power, and he has so little), the most respect he gets (according to Chris Rock's "Bigger and Blacker" standup routine) is the big piece of chicken. ... Like most comedy, it isn't very far from the truth.

I've seen it described more as what cultures consider as the "social unit". Eastern cultures seem skewed toward families, while western cultures seem skewed toward individuals. For example, compared to Americans, Chinese tend to practice ancestor worship, show more personal obligation toward family, care for elderly parents (and show disgust toward "shipping" the elderly off to nursing homes), perceive more shame for the family due to personal behavior (so feelings of shame are multiplied several times over, sometimes to the point of suicide), tend to drive toward the desired profession of ancestors (eg, a (grand)father wanted to be a doctor, so his (grand)son feels obligated to become one), etc. Perhaps, just perhaps, these tendencies evolved due to abundance/scarcity of resources. Mutual support within families increases survival rates during times/situations/lifestyles involving scarcity. In the West, particularly in America, natural and man-made resources are plentiful (so much so that we are an obese nation), and thus, mutual support within families is not so necessary for survival. (Probably Jared Diamond's work helped me to think this way. See him at TED and YouTube.) This may have a trickle down effect beyond social units. As Peter Parker's (Spiderman's) Uncle Ben said, "With great power comes great responsibility." When individuals realize they are responsible for their behavior and only their behavior, it affects their morality, their views of rewards and punishments, and their acceptance/rejection of religious beliefs. Chinese have a hard time accepting Christianity because it's an individual-based religion, and they still perceive shame and punishment in what relatives do, they feel betrayal toward ancestors if they break away from family religious traditions, etc. I've found Asians to feel shame to an extreme degree. A co-worker, an older Chinese lady, fainted at work one day, but soon recovered. She sat on the floor, curled up against a cubicle wall, her face buried in shame, yet seemingly okay. Everyone gathered around, people kept asking her if she was okay, she remained silent throughout, and an ambulance was called. After several minutes of this "standoff", I knelt down next to her and began having a conversation of sorts where she only nodded her head yes or no. She wanted everyone to just go away. I told her they wanted her to go to the hospital. Finally, I told her that they wouldn't go away until she went to the hospital, and she eventually allowed the EMTs to take her.

I was thinking that the maximum deflection in degrees can be equated with rise, nominally, 1-cosΘ, and that the rise is, of course, potential energy.

Different suggestions: I'm experienced performing an anthrone-sulfuric acid assay, but you'd need the anthrone and sulfuric acid as well as a (very) hot water bath, the nerve/dexterity of injecting the sulfuric acid reagent into aqueous solutions and then placing test tubes of these reacting chemicals into a hot water bath, and then a UV-Vis spectrophotometer (ie, one that reads in the ultraviolet through the visual spectrum) to obtain the absorbances resulting from the glucose reacting with the anthrone. The sulfuric acid should hydrolyze the cellulose, and so negate using cellulase. You'd obtain the quantitative concentrations of these solutions by back-calculating their absorbances against a standard curve made from known concentrations, which can be done using a spreadsheet app. If you were confident that the vast majority of dissolved matter from the newspaper was cellulose, then you could try a dry weight assay. Add the newspaper to water, add the cellulase, allow it to react. Then filter out the non-dissolved particles — or centrifuge the solution and pour off the supernatant — and evaporate the water, weight the dried material, and compute the concentration based on the volume of the original solution. If you contact food testing laboratories in your area, you might find one nice enough to test your samples (by whatever means) while you watch and/or participate in some (perhaps minor) way. If you can use the glucometer (I don't know if it would work), its validity/accuracy may depend upon operating under biological conditions (37°C, pH≈7.4, etc).

For someone new to molding, consider polycaprolactone that melts at 150°F/65°C, meaning that you can prepare it in a double boiler (which provides a consistent 212°F/100°C) on a hotplate or stove. Your local arts & crafts store probably has information on a variety of molding materials and techniques.