Genecks

I'm reading about pyoverdin, and I've decided it seems very similar to GFP. Why were researchers in the past so focused on GFP as a marker in cells rather than pyoverdin? Was it that GFP better enabled itself to be embedded in proteins rather than be used an a gene insert?

The thread title is asking about "best results." In my opinion, that refers to at least an average state of well-being. People on artificial organs are not at least an average state of well-being. They're living, and I'm sure they like that. Also, sometimes the artificial parts need to be fixed or replaced. I was friends with one girl who supposedly was to get one of these dialysis things put in her arm instead of going to a treatment center every other week. Or maybe it was twice a week. Either way, the story is that she wouldn't be able to lift much weight with one of her arms (she said no more than 5 lbs, really) if she had that artificial part put into her arm. Problems come with the artificial parts.

I don't agree with the usage of an artificial heart as a forever-replacement, because it works with the nervous system to help a person achieve tasks. I'm sure the same could be said for other organs, but being able to control the heart is more important. Truth be, you'll want the heart, lung, liver, and pancreas working together... If the heart is beating faster, more than likely, the lungs are inflating and deflating more often... Artificial organs are ok if you don't plan on doing large amounts of activity or bursts of activity often. --stem cell to repair damage organ/tissue I say that, because it would lead to a product much faster than the other alternative.... --stem cell to grow new organ. --organ grown in the lab This would help some scientists make some more discoveries about cell differentiation and development if there was enough funding and resources to feasibly accomplish this. I mention both, because perhaps the person had a genetic disorder that caused the heart to be attacked/malfunction in the first place. Thus, the stem cell would need to be genetically altered and have that defect removed.

India has more people than China. If problems get bad enough, China or India will beat up any governing body. That's the way I see it: My "Chinese flood" hypothesis. The Jews or whoever could try taking control. Ultimately, however, you're going to have a large population of people who feel degraded and eventually rebel against their oppressors. Or you could have some crazy religious mystic trying taking them all on. Technology allows the power to go back to the people. It's an issue that's been going since people could get access of guns. God didn't make all men equal. The Colt did. There are people who control the world. I will not deny this. There is some truth to that. Figuring out who those people are, their roles in society, and whether or not they are efficient for the progress of mankind as a whole is what needs to be determined. Perhaps you have someone who controls most of the resources but keeps society stable, and let's say without technological progress. And if you could remove that person from the scene, replace him/her with another person who allots resources toward technological improvement, then obvious getting rid of the former person would be beneficial (at least for those wanting technological progress than a neo-luddite, non-progressive technological society). Not to be prejudice, but I often do think that somehow the Jewish society plays into worldwide economic affairs. At least, things seem that way. And if not the Jewish society, then perhaps some few Jewish fundamentalists who organize under religious esotericism in an attempt to gain control of the world to create their heaven on Earth. And there is truth that many religious groups have held domination over socioeconomics in countries. This is still seen in foreign lands. In a place like America, however, more people have become aware of such actions, such as how Protestants controlled many aspects of education and success in American society, and have found ways to counter it. So, what I'm getting at, is that even if there is some group out there, there's going to be a competitor, which may or may not have a different philosophy as to how things in the world should go about.

*throws a pokeball*

Funny. One of my neuroscience advisors is in China at the moment (left around May, I think). Maybe there is some scientific event going on there at the moment that lures in intellectuals? I don't know. Are things difficult? I would say that as I've studied cognition, neuroscience, and learning, I find it easier for me to pick up a scientific topic and learn it. In general, I would say that most college classes are time consuming rather than difficult. Once in a while, you'll come across an assignment that is "difficult." And this would mean that it's very cryptic, trying to figure out how to answer/reply to the assignment is difficult. But when you start to notice that how you go about answering/replying to such assignments starts with going back to everything you've learned so far in the class (and perhaps basics of testing the theories/concepts you've learned), then completing such cryptic assignments becomes somewhat easier. If you want to know more about what it means to test a theory/concept, then you'll want to read into the philosophy of science. In general, the difficulty comes with time. You'll be strapped for time a lot, and that will be what makes things difficult. It's about figuring out how to allot time. Studying the right way also helps. I find that "memorizing/understanding lecture at the least" is a good way to get at least 70% on an exam. At least, that's at the university I'm at. Back at my community college, they'd often spring questions on the exams that were problems from the book. That's a sharp difference, though. I find that the university I'm at does not do that so much. However, the last class I took, the exam had two essay-like problems. These came directly out of the study guide. So, anyone who took a look at the problems, did them, understood them, etc.. was able to answer them on the exam. That was a microeconomics class (got out of it last week); but that kind of stuff can happen in any class. Yeah, neurogenesis is awesome. Many new developments started spring up in the early 2000s. We're still trying to understand various pharmalogical aspects of drugs on neurogenesis, such as SSRIs and their involvement in neurogenesis. If you're interested in neurogenesis and intelligence, you might want to read about neural darwinism and plasticity. More brains cells does not necessarily mean higher intelligence. As I've studied neuroscience, I've noticed there are some sharp differences in the disciplines. This could be a contemporary issue, or it could be an issue to stay. In other words, if something relates to the biology of the brain, you're going toward the realm of neurobiology. This involves cellular mechanisms and so forth. If you're studying cognition/behavior, then you're moving toward the psychology of neurobiology... And this means you'd be probably working with psychologists who have a passion to understand the mechanisms of the brain. Nonetheless, both people are working with the biology. As I've experienced it, however, the people studying the direct biology have Ph.Ds in biology. Those working with the behavior/cognition of the brain have Ph.Ds in psychology. But the psychologists do indeed play with the biochemistry. My point is that if you're moving toward cognition/behavior, you might be shuffled in with psychology majors rather than biology majors. Me? I'm going against the grain. I firmly believe in getting a Ph.D in Neuroscience with a biological emphasis on cognition/behavior. Sure, it's psychology, but I want there to be more emphasis on biology and physical structures. I don't think there were too many Ph.D neuroscience programs two decades ago. So, there were more than likely people who took the biology route and others who took the psychology route. Thus, that would explain why you see two different fields of people working on similar things. That's good. I did the same thing while starting up. I wanted to get a feel for where the world stood in terms of current research and what was left to accomplish. When you get into the college/university system, you'll more than likely want to knock that off and focus on studies and your exams. That's just my word of caution from the experiences I've had. As a final note, I'll have to agree with timo. I don't mean to degrade people. I think we need more people with a passion for science rather than pre-meds walking around wanting money. It's difficult to say where scientists will end up in the future. Money is getting tight, and the ability to get funding to do what you want is diminishing. But until you've spent time around enough scientists and started looking at the sociology of science, you might not understand what you're getting into. As I've learned it, I'm getting into a situation where I might not get tenure (I knew that years ago), I might not get into a decent academic institution that studies biology in relation to cognition and intelligence (it's still a growing field, and perhaps people don't want to fund it as much), and I'll have to learn to persuade people to give me funding. Getting a Ph.D may be the least of a person's worries (although the battle is tough). The next battle is establishing oneself as a scientist in the world (and it can become a make/break situation). But as I like to believe, as long as you keep doing your best, you'll get better. And try to keep a journal of what makes you better as you discover new abilities and things that help you do better in life. If anything else, after working hard toward something, you become an expert and can help others perhaps attempt to accomplish goals that you could not accomplish by yourself.

The cactus is "alive." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjCH7maKf90

I believe in determinism and free will. I think that some people were given a bad hand in life, didn't have the right growing environment, and became criminals. The judicial system, in that case, is more of a degrading feature of human society than anything else. But it's beneficial when those whom have become "self-aware" of their actions decide to commit a crime. There are people who learn to overcome their environment and how it determines their lives; and then there are those who succumb to it. And becoming self-aware and overcoming the deterministic effects of one's environments helps a person make his/her own choices in life. Now, when there are forces of higher intelligence and awareness directly and actively acting upon people and their lives, this would obviously be a deterministic system. As such, you can't really expect free will to be in play that much. I think in absolutes and extremes. For this universe to be in existence as I sit here in type... well, that just means to me something had free will or something like that to make all of this. Call it the Tao, Big Bang, God, etc... Something did something... Crazy universe we live in.

To answer your question, I think that would depend on the university/college. Many universities don't want you in certain classes unless it's required of your major. This is setup so that people can graduate sooner and deal with less BS. So, unless you're a biology major, you're probably not going to get priority registration for a cell biology class. Furthermore, if you're not a biology major, you might not even be allowed to sign up for it. For what I remember, at UIC, people have been allowed to take first-year biology courses as elective. But I believe biology majors get first pick...and the availability slots fill up really, really quick. And then the rest is for jim, jack, jill, and sue. I think it'd be wise to ask a university advisor about the registration statistics for certain courses. Asking questions, such as "if i'm undecided, what's the probability of me getting into X,Y,Z course(s) if I'm not of that major that needs that course to fulfill degree requirements?" Things similar to that. A good amount of the time they'll have a general idea, I think. Sometimes advisors are so annoying, ignorant, or stupid that you want to slap them. Try not to do that. Keep drilling them with new or similar questions or just ask the advisor who might know the answers to your questions. Perhaps the instructors themselves would know the chances of you getting slotted into a class. There have been many times I've gone to an advisor and thought, "You're an idiot. You have failed to answer any of my legitimate questions for which I seek advice and counsel. Why am I here again?" Someone usually has the answer... you gotta figure out who... If you take mathematics, physics, and electives your first year... I think you can get away with being on track until you make a decision. However, not taking a biology course during that first year could change your opinions on whether or not to be a biology major. Then again, you might be able to take biology courses as electives or something similar... If you do take mathematics, physics, and biology during your first year, you're going to be crushed with reading and constant studying. You won't have much fun with it. Well, fun doesn't really exist when you're serious all the time. Even if you're not out to have fun (only strongly wanting the degree and to deal with as little BS as possible), you'll find the coursework immediately difficult. College/University level work is much more difficult than high school work. The best or quickest things to do is seek help from those who are willing to give it to you. I actively study neuroscience along with many other things. I'll be pursuing graduate study in neuroscience (or something hopefully very similar). From my opinion, if you're interested in physics, chemistry, and biology, I'd think you'd move toward biochemistry. Really, I think if I could turn back the clock, I'd been a biochemistry major and saved myself a lot of money and problems. Maybe I would have double majored and earned a second bachelors degree in engineering or physics (I like engineering more). From there, I would have gone onto graduate school in neuroscience. It's hard to say what you ought to do. You have to make that decision. And that decision will more than likely reflect upon your beliefs about your abilities and how you see the world and yourself in the world. It may also reflect how you hope to see yourself in the future for better or perhaps situations where you work a job that wasn't your goal but you're willing to accept it as it is. Also, albeit early in the game, I think many people choose their major because they plan on going to professional school (graduate school / medical school). So, where do you see yourself five to six years from now? What kind of research would you like to be doing? What kind of life would you be willing to live? Since you'll be a straight-up freshman, you've got the ability to actually double major and pull it off without too many problems. I'm a senior at UIC, so I can't easily double major in something, such as engineering. I could stay a while and attempt a degree in physics... but that would more than likely take two years.. Why? Well, because I would need to get pre-requisites out of the way... Sure, it's a year worth of classes... but I have to finish the pre-reqs first... and doing so cannot be accomplished in a year's time. I think it would actually be easier for me to get a second bachelors in economics... and I don't really have a need for that... It wouldn't be worth my money. I'd go to a nearby university for a second bachelors at that. This recession really calls for people to save money. Since you're brand new, you could take the pre-reqs for courses as you move through your first two years. Also, you might be able to get a B.S. in General Science or something like that... Maybe see if something like that is offered. You want a book? Buy this book: http://www.amazon.com/Study-Smarter-Harder-Self-Counsel-Business/dp/1551800594 Keep organized, keep a schedule, study hard, and review/recall often. Study the course material rather than looking into things you weren't told to do or were not hinted at to do.

This is the kind of stuff that's valuable in life if you own a car. Give it a whirl, original poster. It's a word problem. But you need to take that word problem and turn it into a chemical equation. Sulfuric acid is what chemical formula? Lead dioxide is what chemical formula? Taking word problems and turning them into symbols and math becomes common place in science with more scientific training. Also, this sentence should have a comma: As the battery discharges, the metallic lead and lead dioxide are converted to lead sulfate.

How is this news?

As of late, I've been noticing an odd trend. I'm not sure how popular it is or how much it's been coming into place, but for the past year or so, I've seen a trend with people attempting to become medical doctors. In general, I keep seeing people go for their Masters degree and then discuss how they want to get a medical degree. Does this make much sense to you? I guess in a monetary sense, in the US, it makes sense. Doctors get paid a lot. Eventually, the pay from being a MD will bring back net gains and so forth... But why go to the Masters program and then apply to the medical program? For instance, I came across a student from the University of Chicago who is getting his Masters degree and is now attempting to get into a medical school. I've also met other students from different universities doing the same thing. I keep meeting people who want to get a Masters and then a MD. Is this something about being good enough for the medical admissions process? Did people decide that being a researcher was not their cup of tea? What do you think?

What college classes and books you read will depend on the major you choose. A biochemistry major would be involved with math, physics, biology, and chemistry. What will you be best at? Well, that depends on how well you absorb the topics being discussed. If you find you can easily remember reaction mechanisms, then you may be good at studying chemistry. If you're good at remembering aspects of cells, then you might like biology.. etc. etc. etc.

I agree with E. Coli in a way. Perhaps the best way to win in such a game is to have a backup plan that causes probability to go in your favor. If my partner in crime knows he's going to be whacked or lose some limbs if he reports me, then it's probable that he will "not confess" or choose the action that causes both of us (or at least me) to serve less time. Likewise, if my partner shares the same activity (saying I'll get whacked if I confess), then it's probable that I will not confess. So, an external factor outside of the game, indirectly playing into the game, will cause probabilities to change. Nonetheless, this is covered in "game theory."

Evaluate these statements: 1) Our science is only as good as our math. 2) Our science is only as good as our logic.

I've had talks with behavioral scientists. Some would say that human society has evolved and lost these aspects of biology, and there is a new level of sociobiology. In other words, people really aren't controlled by the seasons. Cultural ideas, such as love and money, have taken place of biological reasons to mate. So, perhaps, getting a girl madly in love with you will increase her arousal and willingness to mate. Something like that. I have read some studies, however, that will state that there may indeed be cycles in the year to sexual activity. Nonetheless, I think cultural values and reasons to have sex have taken over. I will say, however, that I believe females are more interested in sex as they continue to age and lose reproductive ability. Because of cultural values, however, they may become picky and decide to choose some males over others. In other words, they want a male with resources who can provide. I think that's a typical value in the animal kingdom. As such, it does make sense for a woman to be more willing to mate with a person who has resources rather than a deadbeat who can't hold a job and is in debt. Personally, I think there is still some strength to reasoning that humans are willing to mate in summer or fall. It's reasonable to assume not many people want to mate in the winter. You can still look at months when the most humans are born. There could be cultural reasons behind it. But assume that a woman gets pregnant in the latter part of the Winter. She avoids having to maintain a child through the coldest of months and can give birth to the child in a month with decent weather. I think there is something innate. Depending on the climate, in a place such as California, seasonal reproductive clocks may be different. Colder climates may have different cycles, too. I've seen some studies that state women are more willing to have sexual interactions in the spring and summer. I think the study involved determining what months women more often had sex with a man after meeting him at a party or dance. They found that it was more around Spring that a higher amount of women had sex with men after meeting them at parties/clubs. I can't remember the specifics, but that was the general idea. And, of course, the other interpretive study would be determining when the most children in certain regions are born; inferring what kind of sociobiological interactions might be at play in order for the birth rate to be so high during certain times of the year.

I'm pretty sure one of the guys I know is tenured. If he wasn't, he would probably go back to work in the industry and make $100K+ USD a year. That's what he was making. I was standing around one day, listening to him talk about how he didn't want to go meeting and felt he had the ability to blow it off because he had tenure. He's probably in his 60s or something. He has but a Masters degree. Yes, community colleges have tenured professors whom don't have a Ph.D. I'm not sure if it's common for people with Masters degrees to obtain tenure in community colleges anymore. The system could have changed, and perhaps it now restricts tenure to those with a Ph.D.

There are different types of theft. If I have insurance on something, maybe I wouldn't kill. But if it was grand theft or item was of extreme value, then I'd probably blast the fool. If someone was attempting to steal one of my computers, oh yeah. That fool would get blasted. I wouldn't have to do a headshot, as that's pure and simple murder. But since I know how to use a gun, I'd shoot them in the legs or something. Some thieves do carry guns these days, so some people would be tempted to blast them. Not too many thieves carry guns, because they know it increases the possibility of them actually getting killed while stealing: If they attempted to pull a gun or it bulged out somehow, then yes, the person of the household would more than likely not be afraid to use a shotgun. I'm in Chicago now, so I don't have that ability. In my hometown, though, I have that ability. In my hometown, not too many people walk into homes and rob them, though, because plenty of people have pistols, shotguns, and more. In general, it's a bad idea to steal in Rockford, IL. Stealing in certain areas is like the poor stealing from the poor; and the poor will have none of that. I guess it's just a sign of the times.

More than likely, you'll want to quickly review pawnshops, craigslist, and ebay. Attempt to see if any locals are selling your stuff or something similar. Maybe keep at it each week. I think it's odd someone was quick enough to steal from you. The person was probably reviewing your actions often and determining if you were going to leave soon? Oh, yeah. Death for thieves if you can get them while they steal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_prosthetic For what I've read, there has been progress. However, the visual resolution is low. How low? person could possibly make out shapes of something, such as a plate (circle) or a pad of paper (rectangle), but not too much more than that. Now imagine if that kind of technology could be used while a person is resting... and run the person through a kung fu teaching program...

At my old community college, there are "professors," as we called them. Many had only a Masters degree. One "professor" asked me not to call him a professor, as he did not have his Ph.D. Now whether or not I really shouldn't have is a different story. It was commonplace to call them a professor, though. Some only had a Masters degree yet held tenure positions.

I think when I was about 16 I started questioning the possibility of making a dragon through bioengineering. Consider the mythology of dragons: There are those that fly and those that walk. So, technically, you could make a drake (walking dragon) breath fire and still have it called a dragon. With that in mind, instill some kind of sociobiology triggers to make the dragon breathe fire when necessary. Breathing fire for a dragon would be similar to a human throwing punches. So, rises in adrenaline or other chemicals aroused by social stimulation and situation would induce it to breathe fire. What all did the essay really entail? Some biochemistry of how to get it to breathe fire? Or perhaps a way to develop its anatomy and physiology and fire in addition? Sometimes we see similar questions on SFN. I believe someone wanted to find a way to get humans to have wings (I'm guessing like angels). With such things in mind, mitochondrial dispersal and their taxis during development becomes an important aspect. I argued that such a creation would take many trial/error periods, most leading to the death of the developing organism. I don't think it's impractical, but I think it's unnecessary. There would also be a whole realm of physics involved. Perhaps making flight somewhat similar to featherless mammals. With the controversy of dinosaurs having feathers, a person might dare to suggest that dragons should have feathers. But if you were to shy away from feather development, you'd still have to work in flight with reptilian-like skin and scales.

It's on my to-do list. On a serious note, I think if anything were to happen, then it would have a rate of destruction. That with the most destruction at once would more than likely be an asteroid. I think the next would be grey-goo. From there, it would be massive, world-wide earthquakes. The difference is that grey-goo would really target destruction of the Earth as a whole. Digging yourself a hole in the ground wouldn't do any good. Since there hasn't been an immediate observation of change, then I'll assume Armageddon isn't happening any time soon.

I'm trying to determine the number of science professors in America in relation to their perspective research fields, such as biology, chemistry, earth science, and more. I'm not having such an easy time, and I don't know if it's possible to even figure that out. I'm guessing there are about 1.5 million Ph.D holders currently in America. I'm guessing that perhaps 80% of them are agile, living in good condition, and mobile. Maybe more? Not sure. I get that number from reading that about 1% of America has Ph.D holders, so I suspect that's the adult population. From the SED, I suspect that a quarter of the Ph.D holders at most are biologists. One of the things I've been trying to figure it is if there are that many professors, what are they all up to?

I mean, I could have suggested we use robots in the first place. What I was worried about was the level of visibility with so much oil being spewed out. I wasn't sure you could operate a robot to fix this issue with little to zero visibility. With the way this ordeal has been approached, I have a feeling that NASA engineers could have handled this better.