CharonY

Although it seems to be weird coming from someone who delivers lectures, I always found these courses fairly useless for myself. As a student I mostly used the lecture to inform myself on sources to read, which helped my much more to get a proper understanding of a subject. I do think that lectures are most effective if you already read up, and then can use the lecture to clarify things. But I have never managed to get it to work like this in these large undergrad courses. Of course I do hope that the lectures are not a complete waste of time, but in all honesty I am not sure. Once we get to smaller graduate courses I try to ditch lectures as much as possible (or only as supplemental element). I tried to get into audiobooks a while ago, but I realized that the pace made me lose focus and I would start thinking about other things. I read fairly fast and only slow down for complicated matters (mostly non-fiction) and I found it quite at odds with the steady, but slow pacing of reading aloud.

Sure, although I have lost track of what the original line of argument (from anyone really) is. And they do it by using relatively simple molecular mechanisms that could be emulated with electronic circuits. Again, I am not sure what the argument is really about. Can something react to stimuli in fairly simple ways? Yes. Do we need a consciousness for that? No, simple biological or electronic circuits can do that. Are cells more complex than toasters? Yes. Are cells conscious? Nope, unless we define it as merely reactive to something, which brings the toaster into that area. Or get a more complicated device with a camera or any other sensor that reacts to it. I doubt that the toaster is the important bit. Or the bread. Or if it is then just ... just use a bagel, I don't care. I am pretty sure the analogy train left the station a few hours ago.

So the international response is interesting. The US ambassador to Germany has demanded that German companies should wind down operations, whereas the president of the German Industrial association called for a clear commitment by the EU, Russia and China. Saudi Arabia and Israel are quite happy about that decision, which is a novelty. Rouhani's position is now weakened, which, in the worst case, could open the way for hardliners. I mean, in the end it could be kind of a strategy. By playing hardball, it forces everyone to negotiate because the US cannot be trusted to be a mediator anymore. I.e. it ultimately makes everyone else seem to be the rational actor. In the long run it is unlikely to improve the US' standing in the world though.

Strangely, I have the opposite tendency. I dislike audiobooks because the pace is far too slow for my liking (even with great voices, such as Lee's). I would find Asimov, Herbert etc. far more palatable if I can read through it. With Tolkien I did enjoy the writing (though I was a fan of epics around the time I read it).

Today I learned that there are folks out there who spread random stuff without any level of source analysis. Also, apparently random youtube videos are a source of learning now (which goes back to point one).

My reading is a bit different, especially with regard to the secondary sanctions. From the New York Times: Though I suppose the specifics will come to light eventually.

The thing is that theoretically the US could impose sanctions on international companies that continue to have dealings with Iran. If they do, it would deepen the rift between the US and its partners. If they don't, their withdrawal has no real bite. Also, it sends the signal to everyone that any dealings with the US cannot be taken in good faith.

Though it is not clear that a path to perfect exists, even in theory. The overall goal seemingly is to topple the Iranian regime. But I think by now folks should have realized that it is not that trivial. Even worse, it would lead to serious destabilization and we have seen what the results of that are...

So, the US is unilaterally pulling out of the Iran deal that was designed to keep Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. As it stands, pretty much all the other signees (UK, Germany. France, China, Russia) are committed to continue. Although Iran has signaled that it would adhere to the terms, there are worries that the deal may be undercut. If the deal is falling apart, there is no reason for Iran to adhere to nuclear restrictions. Also, so far the US has not indicated what they want to see in its place, nor what the actual consequences are going to be, once they are out. Theoretically, the US may sanction companies from other countries if they continue dealings with Iran under the existing deal. It is worrisome that the US decided to invoke a new crisis in the Middle East- seemingly without a coherent strategy (especially not long-term)

Same could be said about Asimov. Amazing ideas but boring prose.

Quite so. Really good books often result in an intimate interplay between what is happening in the book and your own life experiences. The angst and uncertainty and resulting missteps of youth may resonate very strongly if you are in the same situation, but with distance may look awkward and, frankly, stupid (and vice versa, of course).

I agree. Classics became such because they had elements that transcendent the confines of a given era. But it also often means that one has to read them in a sort of analytical way, as the immediate impact will be different for other generations as the context will often not make immediate sense. And then there are books that are infuriating inaccessible and require serious work to be appreciated (James Joyce's Ulysses comes to mind). Are they overrated for that? By whom? Should the basis be the craftsmanship that went into it, regardless of accessibility? Or the enjoyment and popularity among contemporary readers can draw because it hits an ongoing trend, but may likely be forgotten by future generations? Something that survived the test of time for a variety of reasons? There are also books that are incredibly well written but intended to be a horrible read so to say. Nabolov's "Lolita" comes into mind. It is disturbing and I have no desire to re-read it. Yet, I cannot deny that it is incredibly well written. Is it under- or overrated for that? In some aspects it is even worse than Ellis" American Psycho, who is much more blunt (including the prose) in its disturbing ways. Yet, the latter is aimed at a particular aspect of modernity in the 90s and emulates that voice almost perfectly. But without that context much of it is lost. As such I suppose the question is really which books did you read with high expectations and got disappointed by them?

Protein-turnover at membranes is fairly complex and there are quite a few different pathways, depending on the targets and e.g. whether they are bound for recycling or further degradation. However, the best understood degradation mechanism is the ER-associated degradation pathway,

Depends, most likely not terribly long as the once the blood stops flowing cells will undergo hypoxia and depleted of nutrients, which limits their ability to proliferate. In mice mitosis was observed from biopsied dead mice about 60 hours or so postmortem (less if you keep temperatures high, which facilitates bacterial decomposition). Cells do remain viable for quite longer than that, if we ignore or reduce bacterial activities. Note that you argued the opposite, that death occurs because of cessation of cell division. If cell division stops, the organism will die, however I cannot think of many scenarios where that could theoretically occur. There is basically cell division happening not only until the point of death, but also for a little bit after that (after which bacteria take over and basically have large snack). Quite some philosopher have approached conciousness from a materialistic and include neurophysiological aspects. But I doubt that there are a lot of metaphysical approaches that would attribute consciousness on the cellular level (perhaps Eise can comment on that).

Many cell cultures that can be cultivated indefinitely have been obtained from cancerous tissues. HeLa, one of the most famous cell lines that are currently still being cultivated have been isolated from Henrietta Lacks, who died 1951. I also disagree that a cell has anything that we would associate with consciousness in any common usage of the word. Our inability to create a fully synthetic cell is more due to the complexity of the system rather than the strangely defined quality that you want to impart to them. And again, as others have mentioned your definition of the term goes more into the metaphysical rather than what one would normally use it (which generally is associated with a nervous system of a minimum complexity).

Where did you get that idea? That is simply.... not correct.

Ok, so that is not how it works. Metabolites that we call vitamins are synthesized by the plant, not taken up by the soil. If the soil is too depleted for necessary metabolic function, the plant will not grow sufficiently in the first place. On top of it, a fruit only diet may be too high in sugar content, compared to other nutrients. If we take for example vitamin C, we will find that broccoli has roughly 1.5 times the amount compared to oranges, for example (and no, the values have not changed). And even if that was the case, why the heck would vegetables be specifically depleted but not produce such as fruit?

There are a variety of options to further purify water, including reverse osmosis and a bewildering range of filter materials and resins. Not entirely sure what the ultimate goal of OP is, though.

UV is already in use to treat drinking water (you can buy home units, for example). However, bacterial components, including toxins remain (though with sufficient power at least some of them may also be destroyed by photolysis).

That does not happen. Aging cells do stop proliferating, but cell proliferation does not stop with age of the organism (if we exclude very small ones, where cellular aging overlaps with organismal aging). There are shifts in which cells proliferate to some degree, though. Sometimes an organisms dies because the wrong cells aggressively proliferate (i.e. they get cancer). More importantly, throughout life, different cell lines continue to proliferate, whereas others are terminal. Some organs (such as pancreas) rely on constant renewal. We die very well before that point.

Although it is about US politics, I will mention that sales pitches are used everywhere. There is a reason why sales guys make more money than the tech staff. That being said, I am kind of worried about the impact of folks like Trump on other politicians. By creating a fact-free environment it is possible to make outrageous claims. While those may have impacted the image of politicians in former times, it does not seem to be the case anymore. In fact, if anything it does seem to rally their base instead.

That would be quite a feat, as rattlesnakes are native to the Americas. You know, the continent where you generally do not find elephants. Even then, adult rattlesnakes have fangs up to ~15 mm which would not even pierce most of the elephant's skin, especially around the legs. The most venomous ones have fangs about half that size. But even if we assume a direct injection in a vunerable of the most lethal rattlesnake venom, we would need ~0.03 mg/kg to reach LD50 (i.e. concentration where 50% of injected mice die). For subcutaneous injection (which arguably would be more likely) we would go an order of magnitude higher. Of course these are only approximations, as the scale is massively different from the models for LD measurements, but it is the closest we can get. If we take the smallest elephants (African forest elephant, Loxodonta cyclotis) at a weight of ~2,700 kg, we would need 81 mg to reach LD50. The total amount milked from e.g. the Mohave rattlesnake amounts to ~150 mg, so even if completely extracted we could at most inject two elephants with levels close to LD50 (and statistically one may die). Alternatively, a single lethal dosage for one elephant might be reached (though a bit difficult to tell as the these are not linear functions). However, you specified per bite. Although the snake can adjust the dosage, the average bite delivers ~8% of the total stored venom, so that would bring us to ~12 mg. Enough to kill a human, but quite lower than the estimated LD50 for elephants. Even worse, you specified baby rattle snakes, which have a much shorter fang and also far less venom, meaning that even fully milked they are likely unable to kill even a single elephant from the smallest available species (even with intravenous injection). So even under the most charitable assumptions it is fair to assume that the proposed "research" is quite inadequate. Not to mention that I have no idea what the purpose of the argument is.

I think the sixth sense also suffered heavily from the scene in which the boy basically tells the audience that the protagonist is dead. One can easily contrast it with Mulholland Drive, where the story only comes together at the end and the turning point does not become a spoiler for the final act. But I agree, a great movie usually does not not suffer much from spoilers. Even if you know what is going to happen, and even if you noticed every little detail, the cinematic experience itself can be very satisfying (aside from Kubrick , Kurosawa is also high on that particular list),

Another example where plot and spoiler do not matter much are probably David Lynch movies (with few exceptions). I thoroughly like the way he creates atmosphere (much of it due to sound design) but the plot does not fundamentally matter most of the time.

No they basically need to bump into each other for something to happen. It is generally assumed that in small bacterial cells the volume is sufficiently small for it to happen by chance (though there may be some mechanisms that allow crowding). In larger cells many reactions are confined within certain organelles for this reason. Actual enzyme movement is based on conformational changes but they do not hunt down their substrates actively, if that is what you mean.