scicop

Here's one...that actually worked for me after a awesome night of dancing in a new york city club with a mad punk hot girl.... "my place or yours?" We went to hers. Fond memories...fond memories indeed. I know..not that orginal for a pick-up line..but hey..who cares...I tapped a hot tramp!

I'll take the "packed".

Yeah, its well known that some drugs for the "mentally" are linked to higher incidents for what's know as "metabolic disease" (altered glucose, triglycerides levels in the blood), which is associated with higher propensites for weight gain. Usually these effects are associated with atypical antipsychotics (used for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder). The reason is that these drugs not only act at targets that reduced "mental illness" (such as blockade of dopamine d2, and serotonin-5HT1A) but at other targets in a non-specific manner, such as H1-histamine receptors. Studies have shown that the increased affinity of these drugs to H1-histamine receptors are associated with weight gain. In addition, blockade of D2 receptors can precipitate other metabolic disorders such as hyperprolactemia. There are newer drugs (partial agonists) being put out now, that have reduced affinity for H1 (thus lower propensity for weight-gain/metabolic disorder) and that are senstive to neurotransmitter level. As these drugs can help reduce the propensity for the "mentally ill" to gain weight, and show good effectiveness. S o the problem is being addressed in the industry. Also, physcians now have options now to individualize therapy options for patients who may be predisposed for diabetes (i.e. overweight etc.)

Sounds like bout of bipolarism. You may not have bipolar disorder, but you may be in the prodromal stages. The doctor most likely put you on a atypical antipsychotic to prevent a full on-set, and i'm most certain he prescribed some form of psycho-social therapy. HOWEVER, these question should be presented to your physician

If this dude is having so much trouble understanding that science supports humans and apes share a common ancestor, wait till he finds out that the same is true for humans and rodents...and I'm sure he'll flip his lid when he finds out the same is true for humans and nematodes along with the fruit-fly!!!

I wouldn't mind if God strangled himself with his strings..if that's what he uses. He could easily step in front of a train, that would be equally as satisfying to me. Ratzinger too. He needs a bullet to the head.

but..that's gravity! ahh..newtonian physics..the old days.

I stand corrected. I am humbled.

Well, the OP stated "o" air resistance, which I take as a vacuum so terminal velocity would not occur. If you would take into account the presence of "air", then I believe a terminal velocity can be reached, given the weight and surface area (contributing to a friction coef) as well as surface texture, as well as how the ant is postured as it falls (balled up or legs out). An if we really get minute with the details, then temperature would play a apart as it would determine the density of air. Humidity too I think would play a part and maybe time of day,....wow..i can really start building up the variables here no? All in all, we gonna have a dead ant.

Hate to say it, but too bad Ann Coulter wasn't in the towers. We'd be speared her drivel.

yes, its another level of differentiation for say contrast, especially advantagous in low light conditions where they live. In the world of microscopy, we can change the polarization of light so that we can detect 3d surface texture of our specimens; alot of Drosophila geneticist use this form of microscopy. FYI, its called Differential Interferance Contrast or some know it as Normarski.

Interestingly enough its well known that humans have generally grown taller over the past 2000 years or so. A male was considered tall in ancient roman times if he was 5'5". I learned this at a trip to one of the Smithsonian Museums a few years back. Prior to that, whenever I visited a museum with garments from antiquity (such as roman gladitor uniforms) I would get disappointed with the small sizes!! The armor looked as though it was made for hobbits.

No you wouldn't to know time to determine the force. and I don't think jello would do anything at that velocity. Surface tension.

if you knew how much the ant weighed and the exact height you drop the ant from you can figure out the force of impact! "College" Physics 101 for retards who want to pursue medicine.

Um..nanocytes eh? We already have "nanocytes", we just know them as a different names...DRUGS!!! or MEDCINE! Most are small molecules scale where as others are antibodies, or recombinant proteins which can be described on the "nano" scale if you want (though most stick with angstroms). Nano is just a savy term being thrown around these days, we were there a long time ago, we just called in micro then! People like hearing 0.1 "nanometers" instead of 100 "micro"meters these days. Don't know if you've taken a basic biology course yet, but that's how drugs we alerady have work! They do have a specific target (albiet selectivity can be an issue) and depending on how the drug is designed, it can by cell-type (or pathogen) selective (as a function of cell specific target expression). All drugs for infectious diseases and Cancer work on the principle of what us pharmacologist call "selective toxicity". But, seems to me you haven't taken a biology course yet, so if you don't understand it now ...you will eventually. In some cases, drug design tends to favor a magic-bullet path..i.e. single molecular target, as with the case for Cancer; whereas, now being more accepted in the pharmaceutical world, is the concept of "magic shotgun", where a drug may have selectivity for multiple targets, thereby increasing efficasy while reducing propensity for adverse events. This would be the case for anti-psychotics such as the Atypical variety (see a review by Roth in Nature Drug Discovery a couple years ago). Other "magic shotgun" approaches include therapy for HIV where multiple gene products are targeted for effectiveness (however high risks, but in this case the benefits outweight the risks in terms of patient quality of life). I've probably put too many concepts for you to understand, but as time goes on you'll understand. As for what to study, as we already have the so called "nanocytes" (aka regular drugs! ) so if you would like to know how to design them you would have to figure out which class of "nanocytes.(.ha ha..such a funny term...knock it off with the star trek) you want to develop. If its recombinant proteins or antibodies, then you would need a solid biochemistry/molecular-cell biology background. If its small molecule "rational design" (something else you will eventually learn about..like QSAR) then you need a solid organic chemistry background, or chemical engineering back ground. You do not need a medical degree to develop these compounds the in lab. However you do need one to test it to the clinic. Most physicians involved in clinical research (trials) are NOT bench scientist. Usually its the basic scientist that hands the drug over to the clinicians once pre-clinical screening with animal models suggest a safe toxicity profile as well as demonstrated efficasy..these people are usually behavioral pharmacologist (ph.d.). After animal studies the next step is delivery formulation, usually done by a PharmD (pharmacist) who then passes it on to the clinical investigors (MDs, DOs, and PhDs who are (statistics experts and/or psychologist) Once you're at the clinical trial level, there is no basic science anymore, its basically measuring/reporting patient outcomes, based on previously established outcome indexes, such as HAM-D for depression, or CDAI for Crohn's disease, and alot of statistical analysis. So you need of figure out at what stage in a drug's life-cycle (or whats called "pipeline" in you want to participate in). I know this is alot of info to absorb! and although your question was simple, I could tell you don't have a biology/pharmaceutical background so hense to big discussion. The pharmaceutical industry is tough and if you want to get into any form of drug discovery you HAVE to be good. Pharma industry does not tolerate mediocracy from its scientist, nor does academic science. So its important to really grow up..forget about star-trek, learn how things are done and learn it fast..cause there are a TON of people how there who are excellent will bid for the same job you want. You're shooting yourself in the foot by not deciding on a major after 120 credits, it will come back to haunt you if you don't act now. Science is very intolerant of indecision and medicine is even worse...and pharmaceutical industry as 10 times worse than science and medicine combined. When money is involved, there is no room for indicision.

Awesome, thanks for the great links. Very fascinating field, my interest has been perked.

In this week's Science there is an article regarding the deployment of Neutrino detectors at the bottom of the mediterranean ocean, by astronomers, with the aim of understanding cosmic-ray emission by other galaxies. Apparently, the neutrino "telescopes" are very sensitive light detectors, that measure the light emmitted by neutrinos when they collide with atoms. According to the article, the detection of neutrinos requires not only complete darkness but also locations where background levels are extremely low, such as deep under water (a the bottom of various oceans) or in underground mines with mass of earth above. The astronomers can selectively choose which galaxies to study based on the geographic location of the detectors. This is really the first time I've heard of physics-based studies of the "heavens" where the "telescopes" are placed way underground or a the bottom of our oceans. This is why I thought the article was interesting. I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, thus I don't understand the implications of detecting neutrinos from far off galaxies or what the relationship of neutrinos are to cosmic rays..anyone want to enlighten me? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/312/5778/1305

That's cheaper than trying to "grow" meat. No one here has mentioned the cost!!!!! Geez, like 40% of my lab budget use to go on tissue culture (thats "growing" cells for the non bio knowledge people) alone. So by the time I got like 10 cm plate of 100% confluency (about 10 million cells..or about a 0.1 mL volume of cells in a 15mL falcon tube) the total cost was probably around $10, just for that one plate!!. This includes the cost of FBS (fetal bovine serum), media, antibiotics (to prevent bacterial and some cases fungal growth), trypsin (to split cells), and PBS. For one plate you have change the media at least 2 or 3 times to get healthy cells. Then there is the cost of the material, such as the incubator, tissue culture dishes, CO2, deionized H20, tubes, and the cost of disposing biological waste. The point is the "growing" meat is economically not feesible..now. $10 for 0.5g of cells? hmm...imagine what that burger from cultured cells would cost ya! Forget about scale up productions! That would be even more expensive, when you bring in not only the cost of growth material, but also the incubators, pumps, machinary to change the media and collect cells, centrifuges.

Um..some guy named Leonardo (of no historical importance) painted a chick he knew? By the way, In italian the mona lisa is called "the giaconda". First learned that while standing in line at the luevre, way back in the day.

YT, why create things for the benefit of mankind, when mankind is already SO screwed up? I say kill. mame. murder. Too much talk of mankind being good. Go with the death-ray. Spark the interest of the DOD, make lots of $$$ and screw the world.

If you want the link, just look at the DNA. 99% of it is identical to humans. The origin of species variation is suggested to involve the non-coding regions, regions that are extremly important for determining gene expression, both spatially and temporally. So there is your link, we don't need no stinking fossils. Molecular evolutionist/ geneticist/molecular biologist have enough to suggest a common ancestory among us primates. Again..bible idiots can't even understand a basic biology 101 book, which in my opinion is like 4th grade biology. So if they do open a bio book, the bible holding idiots have biology knowledge of a 4th grade student..which is really none at all. Evolution skeptics..should worship god someplace..or better yet, swallow a bullet so they can be closer to their "god".

You dudes have to be really young!!! The dry ice in water was ancient when I was an undergrad, the methos in coke as old after my first year of grad school...and that was years ago!

Sad...NMR is one of those techniques where if you don't use it, you lose it. I did all that way back when my project involved isolation (Column chromatagraphy and HPLC isolation first..also TLC analysis of my fractions) and NMR structure determination of flavanoids in "phenax rogousus" plant (south american species). Back then, we had a NMR machine operating at 600 Mhz, that was considered state of the art. I did both H and C, NOE (there's another one I forgot) 2D and 3D spectra analysis. But that was like 10 years ago. I was in a natural pharmaceutical science department then. You really need to find a good teacher in your department, find a post doc whose willing to sit down with you and over "real world" examples. Books can be useless. The only way to become proficient with deciphering the technique is to practice, practice, practice. I had a realatively decent teacher, and thus my abilities back then was "relatively decent" I wish I stuck with it, but then I went more the molecular/classical pharmacology route (not very marketable these days). If you like it there are alot of pharma companies that would like to speak with you. That's is one part of the pre-clinicial drug discovery process that pharma are keeping active interest in, when they're not busy finding (and creating) new clinical indications for their already marketed drugs.

whoops