CharonY

Ultimately, what sells are things that maximize convenience and minimize errors, as the latter can skyrocket costs in the medical field. While there have been pushes toward reducing carbon footprint, the increasing danger of resistant infections have pushed some to go the "better safe than sorry" route.

Most importantly is the changing part. During individual development a lot of the brain changes and is pruned and continues to do so. Moreover, while there is data on potential differences between hetero and homo-sexual brains (male or female) as well as some on transsexuals, the differences (even just between male and females) the data is typically inhomogenous and often not replicated. There are no defined structures that have been identified. Rather there is evidence of certain general changes (e.g. thickness of certain cortical structures) that may be more prevalent in one group vs another. To my knowledge the physiological relevance for these potential dimorphisms has not been resolved.

As I tried to make clear, it is explicitly not about judgement. Just that stereotyping (regardless whether obviously negative or not) were commonplace and in fact still are, though often more veiled. Rather it is weird to assume that Einstein would be free of them. I do not want to go down the road and start a discussion why almost all stereotypes can be problematic (even seemingly positive ones, given context) but even in that example it is difficult to state that Einstein made a thoroughly positive description of the population. I am not saying that everyone travelling should be as open minded and respectful as the late Bourdain (though that was one of his big draws), especially not in the last century. But at least some of the posts seem to imply that due to his stature he would be above that (and one poster taking the polar opposite to reinforce their ideology).

Not sure how any of that would work. Rubisco either fixes co2 or uses o2 (creating p-glyerate) but at no point is o2 produced via co2.

I am not referring to criticizing that he held those views. He was, as I said a child of his time. Rather some posters seemed to imply that his view are not racially coloured at all, which would be very surprising (even today).

I am a bit surprised that quite a few want to put Einstein on pedestal. While he undoubtedly had progressive views he was also a child of his time. As such I find it hardly surprising to find misogynist and racist streaks in personal thoughts. Even today stereotypes are still prevalent and colour ones opinion often in a subversive way. Why should a brilliant physicist be immune to this?

Also, where is the gravitational center of the pendulum? And is it static?

Hey, I understood that. Am I maths now? Long time no see!

That is an interesting point actually. I suspect you learned basic arithmetic in Italian, then? When I am tired, I still default to German for numbers. While German was not my very first language I learned simple calculations initially in German.

Not sure what you are trying to say, but Trump voters (which are a sizable proportion of the US) were driven to vote by racial resentment as investigations have shown. I.e. fiscal and other concerns were at best secondary predictors for a Trump vote. A notion that is heavily supported by the administration. Moderate conservatives have been losing out for a long time in the GOP and now they are also under fire from the top. If you talk to moderate conservatives the common notion is that the crazies have taken over the ship (a trend that has started at least with the Tea Party). So institutionally, the GOP is in fact directly or indirectly adding fuel to the fires of resentment in order to retain control over the increasingly influential proportion of its base that was considered the fringe not terribly long ago. And also note, that I am not talking about debatable aspects of conservatism, such as the right fiscal balance. I am talking about full-blown crazy ("both sides" in charlottesville, Soros is Nazi, Obama is Kenyan Muslim) that is increasingly being normalized, with decreasing opposition from the traditional conservatives.

I am pretty sure that there are studies on multi-linguals out there. I vaguely remember there being publications discussing whether multilingualism delays milestones in language acquisition, for example. I am pretty sure that much of it depends on fluency in the respective languages and active usage. Personally, I tend to think in the language that I used most recently, for a given context. Science-related stuff (i.e. job) is typically all English for me, for example. But there can also be mesh-ups as Markus described. I think you get an affinity for certain words and associated language that you use in certain contexts (or people you talk to or think about).

Difficult to tell, but is sounds to me like a lack of focus and/or engagement. Actually, it is something that I observe quite frequently (not sure whether it is applicable to your case, but the general situations sounds familiar). Folks working according to protocols (especially Kit assays) just kind of execute the steps somewhat mindlessly and are often unable to clearly recall the steps and/or deduce the functions of the respective steps. Folks who first visualize the procedure and build a mental representation of the technique usually do not suffer from that problem. In most cases I would say it is just simply not of interest to the students and they would rather distract themselves as much as possible (without physically messing up). Which include e.g. playing with the cell phone during wait times (rather than e.g. planning ahead, for example). I think it is more that in the modern connected world it has become so common to become distracted by all sorts of inputs that focus and concentrating on an issue has become more and more difficult. By now, folks actually need a strategy to disconnect, rather than to connect.

That does not sound right. I am pretty sure that as undergrads we had discussed chemolithotrophic organisms quite extensively (and that was quite before 2000, to my dismay). In fact, I am pretty sure that some extensive studies on microbial mats near deep-sea vents were published sometime in the 80s and we reviewed them as part of a seminar, I believe. There may be details that have emerged from recent studies, but they certainly were not discovered only around 2000.

Like "try".

I am not familiar with Ontario politics, but obviously the control between inflow and outflow is a crucial element. I am sure the recession in 2007/8 had a big role and while not universally accepted, there are good reasons (including semi-empiric studies) to believe that strict austerity measures would tanked the economy even worse (i.e. the restriction of outflow would have a disproportionate limitation to future inflow). I have no expertise in economics, but I imagine striking the right balance is difficult. Regardless of political affiliation I do believe that this balance should not be based on ideology but should be based on the best available evidence. What Phi mentioned is for example a talking point of many free-marketeers that privately run systems are inherently more efficient, but there is of course evidence that in many cases this is not true. And again, in my mind research is needed to understand why it works (or not). Unfortunately parties often have strict limitations in what they can say or do and not offend their base. As such I suspect that most are unable to come up with coherent plan and rather muddle their way through. Some the US side of things are tax cuts, without any good evidence that it will not increase debts (the opposite is more likely from what I am reading). I have tried to check up on the PC platform and boy is it difficult to find substance there.

Those two franchises are in my mind entirely different markets. Star Trek combines world building with societal comments. Though the newer movies try to get into action (which I do not like that much). Star Wars has always been about swashbuckling and action. Essentially they are Samurai movies in space (with some borrowed themes from Kurosawa).

It is fairly simple, actually. What Dimreepr is talking about is well defined under public accomodations, which includes stores, rentals, educational institutions etc. These public accomodations fall under the discrimination laws, which is actually also highlighted in the SCOTUS report, if you had read it. Under federal law specifically private clubs and religious organizations are exempt.

That still would not be your job as a judge. Rather the judge (or jury) has to hear the arguments. I.e. if the defendant claims that service was denied because of e.g. harassment then both can present their respective evidence and arguments and the judge rules on that basis. It is not their job to figure out what the real reason was for a complaint but on the matter presented. And that specific situation as virtually no bearing on the case being discussed, so why bring it up in the first place?

That is at best weird conjecture and has no application in this ruling. Is there any evidence that the pair did anything but request a regular wedding cake? Where they disruptive in any way? There is no indication that they were or that being disruptive was the reason they were denied service. Funnily that is close to the argument of the defense. While they did not say that they flat out deny service, their argument was that they would non express messages that were against his beliefs (which, are, in this case targeted at sexual orientation) and cited freedom of creative expression. At no point did the defense bring up being targeted or other willfulness by the plaintiff. So again, your argument does not make a lot sense.

That does not make sense at all. First of all the defendant claimed first amendment rights as grounds for refusal, not somehow being targeted (i.e. it clearly has no legal bearing), second of all what legal grounds would could there possibly be to refuse service because somehow you feel targeted? And again, unless you are targeted by government entities, how would that matter for the legal standing? Rather, precedence have been the opposite, many SCOTUS rulings have been pushed to set legal precedence and as such is political in nature. The way you describe how you would be ruling does not seem to be how the US legal system works. I.e. what you advocate seems like a complete rework of how legal proceedings are handled. To get back on topic, the ruling of this particular case is essentially that a) the cakeshop owner did not receive a fair tribunal hearing and therefore overturned the ruling but also b) limited the decision to the particulars of this case and c) upheld the principles that business owners cannot discriminate against protected individuals.

The job of the court is not truth-finding, especially not if it does not pertain to the case. Specifically, assuming the plaintiff chose that particular baker for its views does it really matter if they reject them? Either the discrimination laws are applicable, or they are not. This is what the court should be testing. The lower court said that it is, and the Supreme Court through it out mostly because the procedure was faulty. Whether they deliberately targeted that particular baker has AFAIK nothing to do with it.

Well, the symbolism of D-Day in Europe has transformed over the years to a symbol of freedom and reconciliation (at least in continental Europe). That being said, the Trump administration has been straining its relationship with Germany quite a bit. This is unprecedented, considering how strong Merkel's transatlantic ties had been (even to her detriment). Considering the spat with the US ambassador to Germany I would think that it will simply put into the "Trump is an idiot" folder (Germans love categorizing). Considering the situation, the specific example was pretty much an example of blundering along trying to conduct diplomacy with US-blinders firmly attached.

That does not look like streaking (i.e. degradation) but rather an issue with the electrophoretic mobility of the higher MW DNA. Have you triple checked that your buffer (for gel and the the chamber) was made correctly and still good?

You can check the evaporation rate by weighing your bottles just after collection and before evaporation and make a rough estimate from there. Unless you store them for a prolonged time and/or are in a very badly ventilated area it is rarely an issue.

The release from the hplc should be minimal and for evaporation usually you have a trap. For micro-prep good ventilation is often enough.