CharonY

It is interesting that many frame it around Trump's actions. However, one different viewpoint is that the situation was created or at least opportunistically seized bu Kim. He succeeded in getting Trump into an embarrassing position, potentially driving a wedge between him and SK and potentially easing pressure from China. In broader context, it adds to the already weakening of the diplomatic standing of the US, even among its allies.

That is not a lot for the basis of troubleshooting. First thing to figure out is the where in the lightpath you got issues and what kind of issues they are (misalignment, dirt etc.). You can always try cleaning the easily accessible parts (usually objectives and eyepiece) using safe methods and go from there.

Don't forget that in the meantime we had a couple of other systems aimed at racial segregation (e.g. Jim Crow and apartheid) as well as less formal arrangements. While not as murderous, the underlying idea was codified by law until far more recently.

I'd do some standard tests for dynamic range, detection limit, reproducibility, etc. I.e. create repeat calibration curves with standard protein of known concentration. You can also compare them with commercial reagents, if you have them.

My first thought was that I prefer it on the Amiga, because I do not know where my stacks of floppies with the various config.sys to properly configure the allocation of memory. Then I realized that I have no idea where I stored my old PC or Amiga. And only then I got coffee and realized what you are talking about...

Most countries have laser safety standards and usually it requires that the eye protection are compliant (e.g. EN207 or ANSI Z136). In Europe, the ratings are based on power output rather than just the OD. But I would not buy any goggles that does not list them as being compliant to either norm (e.g. just listing OD).

Well, there are several points when it became obvious as such, I am not sure there is a specific when. Considering that the timelines are still under investigation and the fact that the early hypotheses were formed due to a confluence of different findings, ranging from geological records, discovery of fossilized traces of cyanobacteria, to radiodating experiments etc. All these data together show a timeline that puts life prior to the oxygenation event on Earth as well as providing evidence of the biological origin. In addition, microbial discovery of tons of microbes living under anoxic conditions, further showed mechanisms on how early life may have looked like. If I had to guess, I would say that by the 50s at the latest it was probably widely accepted. But really, this is more a science history question rather than a science question. AFAIK it is just something that got accepted but did not have a specific publication associated with it that would give it a specific date (such as the publication of GR, for example). Part of it is also because many aspects are still speculative (due to the nature of the question) although it has a lot of supporting evidence. In that regard it is different from theoretical work, which has e.g. a strong basis in mathematics but sometimes lacks empirical evidence.

I am not sure I understand your main question. In fact, it seems that you are asking several, slightly related ones. Do you mean to ask when (historically) folks realized that Earth used to be anoxic? That is unrelated to evolution per se, as I would assume that the initial evidence was gathered from geological records and the timing of the origin is still subject to research. Another related discovery would be photosynthesis and, presumably, the role of cyanobacteria. Since the hypothesis was formed by a confluence of different discoveries, I am not sure whether one could pinpoint a specific time.

It is called flagella (plural of flagellum). Which part do you have problems with. Or perhaps it is easier if you try to formulate what you think is happening?

How? And sometimes: Did I turn off the stove?

I'd think that would be a reasonable assumption. You also scrub part of your outer layer off.

So here is an interesting spin on the persecution of gun owners. Apparently law enforcement (including the FBI) have a racially divided approach. Historically, this is a known phenomenon. Folks were suddenly for gun control when Black Panther activists decided to make use of their 2nd Amendment rights. More recently law enforcement still seems to hold that view: Now, this is not just a note without consequences: Articles 1, 2 and 3. Strangely, the voices shouting for freedom of expression and the 2nd Amendment keep quiet for certain folks.

Usually not a lot, as mushing buzzwords together does not generate new approaches per se. Rather one would need an idea what to accomplish and then map out the way toward the goal. As mentioned, large scale genetic changes in formed organisms are unrealistic. Manipulation and implantation of e.g. stem cells for certain diseases much more so, for example.

Horizontal gene transfer is a common mechanism of genetic exchange in prokaryotes. I am pretty sure you can find an overview on wikipedia, as it is really a very common, fundamental and frequently observed mechanism. While you are at it, I recommend looking up "resistance plasmids" (not the only, but very common means for spreading resistance genes). Edit: noticed the modnote, even without reading, it is quite clear that this is hardly news. And OP is rather unclear in what it tries to say. Can this moved to the microbiology section?

... never realized there was a sequel. I thought Chaos strikes back was it..

This is kind of old news but becoming an increasing problem. So, this is a huge misunderstanding of what is happening these resistances are not limited to singular organisms or even groups of organisms. The large antibiotics promotes the rise of resistant bacteria, some of those resistances can be transmitted to other bacteria via horizontal gene transfer. In addition, manure contains these antibiotics and they are spread to the environment (as fertilizer in wastewater etc). Thus the habitats where resistant bacterial strains may arise will increase further. All this has by now led to a situation where we have many multi-resistant strains where no antibiotic will work anymore. Thus, in the rather near future infections that would be routinely cleared by antibiotics could be fatal (in fact, there are an increasing number of these cases already). The environmental release of antibiotics is a huge concern, as it would mean that even by cutting down antibiotics use for human treatment, there is still a huge pool of these compounds that would select for and lead to a spread of resistant strains.

No. Akaryocytes refer specficially to cells without a nucleus. More specifically it is generally used to describe eurkaryotic cell types without a nucleus (i.e. cells that never had one do not fall under this category). Viruses are not even close as they are not cellular to begin with. Note that you are misinterpreting the images. Only Pic1 shows a virus. The others are cartoons of a bacterium (which is a prokaryotic cell, not a virus).

It is kind of interesting that in the original article the origin of life aspect was more regarding the utilization of iron, whereas the news articles claim that the new lineages themselves shed light into the origin of life. Considering that they were looking at microaerophilic systems that is clearly not the case. Though to be fair, I suspect folks are getting less excited about implications for iron cycling, which is the arguably more interesting aspect of it.

Perhaps you are right. Though I tend to think that terrorism evokes the worst even in otherwise reasonable folks and is just an easier way to scapegoat a whole population.

That is kind of my point. The minority of actual attackers manage to drown out the woes of the actual relevant part of the population. They manage to be the determining factor of various foreign policies (including the US) which is likely only to make matters worse. This is why the fringes are so insidious, they manage to accumulate more traction than they should.

Kindly summarize Benjamin Franklin's contribution to the discipline of Philosophy. Also note that strangely, pretty much everyone reading your and Eise's post side by side, comes to the conclusion that Eise more likely knows more about philosophy. Reasons include differences in the clarity of writing (especially outlining the subject), stronger focus on the argument itself rather than building straw men or discussion peripheral aspects with no obvious connections to the subject at hand (including the need to remind everyone that one is a philosopher). Dismissal of a whole body of knowledge without any indication of having studied them is another serious blow to ones' credentials. Take this for example: Who has ever claimed that? What is the relevance (other than just being plain wrong?). Just like the other bio-inspired arguments in this thread they just exemplify a lack of understanding of biological systems. Even worse, if one at the same time claims expertise and the authority to define terms on that subject (i.e. defining what "philosophical" viewpoint on consciousness is, which, as far as I can tell, is pulled straight from nowhere). However, from the post it appears that your definition of "philosophy" is actually expounding on subjects one has little knoweldge about. In that case I declare myself a philosopher with special non-knowledge in astrophysics. And before the bloody toaster is brought up, I believe Bender was just trying to make the point that being reactive to stimuli is not a sufficient criterion for consciousness (though we could have left it at cells, too, same applies there).

I do not doubt that the Palestinians are in a bad place, nor that the root of their anger might very well be justified. At no point I am saying that tactics and actions on both sides are equal, but that the tactics of the hardliners within their respective group are not helpful in any way for a peaceful resolution. I.e. I am discussing it in terms of tactics within, rather than between groups. As such referring to the both sides argument is a misunderstanding of my original position. In fact, I believe that you heard that argument so often that you superimposed it over mine, while I do believe that my argument was more nuanced than that. Again, while did say that both sides capitalized it for their respective power gains, I am not saying that they play from the same level or that the outcome is equal. What is does, however, is to escalate the situation further. Yes, the Israelis have the power and vote that way because they are afraid. Yes, Palestinians are on the short end of the stick, but those that decide that attacks on civilians are the right way only give fuel to the former. Considering that Israel is in the stronger position, it would be wise to take away that excuse to exercise their strength without restraint. However, suicide attacks are likely to keep hardliners in power instead.

How hard is the part regarding cutting out moderates and polarizing the population? If there were no elections these strategies would not be quite that important. I honestly do not know sufficiently about the Palestinian political landscape. I do hear laments from moderate Israelis who want to find a non-violent solutions, but have trouble getting traction as every attack is used as an excuse to stop talking and start shooting. I assume that Hamas utilizes similar sentiments, though from a different position. I also note that the power in Palestine is split, not only between Hamas and Fatah but is also split within these groups. As is usual (and as we can see it in politics world wide) violence makes it easier for the extremer sides to gain and maintain power. I.e. folks with with a pragmatic and perhaps even effective solutions are unlikely to rally support. But of course, this is also just a simple narrative and does not take historical events into account.

While I do not agree with the power difference, by fostering violence Hamas had the effect of associating Palestinian resistance with terrorism. By polarizing their own population they effectively remove power from their moderate factions. I.e. I am talking in terms of the sides within the Gaza strip and Israel, respectively, if that makes sense. But in all honesty, the situation is far too complex that I could meaningful comment on that some serious reading.

The annoying bit is that the the whole discussion is going to be driven by hardliners who do nothing but exacerbate the situation (and the move was clearly massively capitalized in that regard by both sides). This a shrewd move to diminish the power and voice of moderates and a frigging textbook example of how to utilize conflict to stay in power.