CharonY

Ultimately, I think people had positive interactions with Czech and Polish people and realized that (most) of their fears were unsubstantiated. This also explains why East Germany (with far less foreigners) is much more xenophobic, similar to as what you described in Poland. This, at least, is what gives me the most hope. If you are going to have interactions with other people it is so much harder to cling to your bigotry. The only way for those far-right groups to maintain this bubble is to exclude them for as long as possible, of course.

Statistics did indicate higher theft rates after opening up to East Europe. However, the initial hysteria from the German right to far right was of course to paint all Eastern Europeans into the same light (untrustworthy thieves and low quality workers) which was frankly disgusting and similar to what we see with regard to anti-Muslim arguments today. I am also not a fan of the pendulum imagery as it assumes a kind of perpetual middle. However, attitudes shift and what is considered to be a middle ground for folks 50 years ago, is massively different to what we assume to be centre today. As such, I am not sure how useful this model actually is.

I assume it refers to the creation of a salt bath? That is located at the Henle loop in the medullary fluid.

It is especially sad considering how much Western Europe was against Polish integration into the EU for fears of them taking all the jobs and bringing all the crime (well, mostly car thefts). Even now Polish folks (if revealed to be as such by name or accent) face discrimination in many Western European countries. That is to a large degree inaccurate. What it lead to was a sense of nationalism. However, how that has manifested throughout polish history has been very multifaceted and was not always inward-looking. The best example is the romantic Polish nationalism of the the 19th century as represented by Mickiewicz or Chopin. This form was more framed by idealism rather than borders or ethinicity. And while politically ineffectual, it had a profound impact on Polish identity. In modern times there is a deep rift in the perception of post-WWII events, which is fueled by by feeling wronged by the communists, but also the Western world. PiS managed to ride the wave of resentment to create an exclusive form of nationalism with heavy revisionists aspects. On top, they masterfully integrated the church as an umbrella for the dissatisfied and, ironically, sprinkled the whole thing with elements of the communist and fascist regime that controlled Poland. The blood and soil rhetoric was, to my knowledge never a cornerstone of Polish nationalism. Rather, it was used as justification for the Nazis for ethnic cleansing in Poland. To embrace this is... well, depressing.

There are two ways to look at it. The optimistic view is that this the growing pain of an increasing international community. By being afraid of the new, the boundary what is considered to be foreign is pushed further and further outward. For example, in former times the ethnic and nationalist boundaries between European nations was much tighter. Yet now, even nationalist call for a European (albeit white) identity. Eventually, one could argue that this tight definition of nationalist identity simply becomes obsolete and delegated to a fringe that will become insignificant by virtue of self-isolation. The pessimistic view is that these movements are just the manifestation of an existing undercurrent that has always existed and will always exist. Their powers will come and go in rhythm with perceived crises. And with the advent of fake news, some actively try to create perpetual crises to solidify these movements. Half agree, half disagree with the sentiment. I think it is more accurate to state the research is heavily abused (though some researchers are not quite impartial).

That is immensely disappointing. When I was in Poland with my class it was imparted to us how important Solidarność was to enact social change. Yet to the younger generation this seems to be lost entirely. As well as much of modern history, which is true also for Germany.

One of the eye-opening events in my younger years was when I was hanging out with my then girlfriend together with another couple. We were having a walk and I was busy chatting with a friend, while our GFs where walking ahead and chatting with each other. The amount of cat-calls and unsolicited advances was unreal. Sure, it was a Friday evening crowd with lots of young folks, but I did not expect that they would have to fight off people with sticks. The sad thing is that they mentioned something like that at one point, but me being young and dumb thought she was just exaggerating. Sadly these things continued happening in professional settings, especially in situations when folks think that ordinary rules do not apply (e.g. conferences).

You could add white nationalist. Several of the banners (including those used by the organizers) had calls for "pure blood" and a "white Europe", which is incredibly ironic given the history with Nazi Germany. The populist right in Europe is using a weird form of racist revisionist history, paradoxically invoking a common white European identity (try that a few decades back). The current enemy, of course being mostly Muslims, dark-skinned folks in general and, traditionally perhaps, Jews. It appears that sometimes history does indeed repeat itself. Another common theme is that racism is most openly expressed in areas with incredibly low amount of visible folks with foreign background (e.g. East Germany or Poland). Also this trend is clearly not about poverty alone. In many elections there wasn't a strong association between income and election of right-populists (though they tend to be very strong with the lower middle-class). However, there is a stronger correlation with ressentiment to other groups of people. I.e. people seem more concerned regarding foreigners mooching off rather than policies that may affect their direct financial well-being. But again, this is an ancient populist tactic that has been adapted to the modern world. Edit: A Polish friend of mine commented by saying that apparently the years of freedom did not agree with the Polish people and they are taking steps to remedy that (he emigrated from Poland quite a while ago, though).

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

It also speaks to the theme of American exceptionalism . Incidentally that also helps to control flow of information by invalidating lessons and actions from other countries.

The biggest hurdle In my opinion is that we do not understand many functions in cell biology (cancer or not). Moreover, much of what we figure out is based on animal or in vitro models. There is actually a ton of cancer research, but funding to understand basic cellular processes are, again IMO underfunded. The pharma industry has little influence as they generally do not fund basic research to begin with and they have little influence on cancer research funded e.g. by the NIH (or equivalent). That being said, immunotherapy currently sees a lot of funding and there are promising results for certain types of cancer.

According to the Marxist school of thought that is not what it is supposed to be. Rather the means of production are supposed to be owned by society not by the state. There is little indication how that is supposed to happen, though (based on my limited knowledge). My point in comparing views on communist regimes however, is more to figure out whether Cuba is revered (if it is indeed so) because of its revolutionary/communist streak, or despite it. My broader point I tried to make is that our view of specific countries are colored by our common history and much less by ideology. Iraq was a prime example where we disliked a dictator, then liked him than hated him again. All while the basic ideology of his regime did not fundamentally change. Likewise, I doubt China up until its massive economic expansion was revered in any form (other than the ancient history parts, maybe). Also, if you look at the obituary of Pinochet e.g. in the Washington Post, you can see that the view between Pinochet and Castro is quite conflicted, which makes the simple thesis of entrenched ideologies as formulated in the OP far too simplistic, as it ignores all other factors that come into the evaluation of regimes. Not the least being a constant change in the values of the evaluators. You seem to try to link it to economic success, for which there is ample evidence that capitalist influences are superior in creating a thriving market (yet for which there is also evidence that capitalism can exist in dictatorships). But I am not sure what the broader point is. Unless it is the assumption that now for some reasons communist ideals are making a return, for which I see little evidence so far.

Maybe it is necessary to dwell on specifics. In which country is communism relevant? My assumption is that current admiration for China is not because they are communist but because of their current economic power (after discarding communism, if you will). Also, to test your hypothesis, which other communist regimes do you think are commonly revered? Is there really s generally acceptance and reverence for those? I am not old enough to remember that much of the cold war, but it really seems at odds wit common experience (happened to see more demos from neonazis than communists, for example).

I am not sure that those kind of comparison are a worthwhile exercise as it is easy to resort to whataboutism. However, to contextualize the view of communism in the West i will note that during the cold war there was significant political persecution of communists (most notably the McCarthyism and equivalent). The left scene organized around an anti-establishment, worker's right and civil rights themes which also included parts of the communist movement. As they were politically never dominant they often acted and/or were seen as a balance to a conservative elite rather than as a truly revolutionary force as in other countries. Obviously, they were closely watched by the respective governments, though. If we talk about the ideology things are complicated as fascism has not a very well organized system of thought. As such, it is difficult to compare a communist ideal with the fascist ideal. The latter really can only be described in historical manifestations (as Nazism, for example), which were clearly horrible. Communism on the other hand, may not be practical, but does not necessarily authoritarianism as final principle. Also, I do not think that the treatment of icons is terribly useful as there are different reasons why certain things become acceptable and not. And it is not always trivial to trace them down to the original ideology (as can be seen in the confederate statues discussion). But while we are at it, I take issue with the 100 mio number as it is not the ideology per se that resulted in the killing, but the political upheaval that came with it, especially when you conflate murder with incredible inaptness resulting in famines. It is the kind of (mostly) useless accounting that one could make to push any kind of argument. I.e. would you count the Irish potato famine as a failure of constitutional monarchy? One could directly compare individual autocrats (e.g. Hitler vs Stalin vs Castro vs Mussolini) but what would be the point? The individual death tolls would be the culmination of many factors and not of ideology alone. If we talk about ideology in itself, however, it is clear why communism could be seen as more acceptable. After all it calls for an Utopian for of equality, whereas most forms of facism as an ideology calls for a strong autocratic leader, typically mixed with strong elements of nationalism. Together with the overall incoherent body of thought it makes it quite difficult target for positive branding.

Hmm i read it as why one instrument got chosen over the other. But if that is the question then the basic answer is that for refractory elements the necessary temps are often not reached even with GFAA. That being said, practically it also depends on overall method development, but also the type of ICP. Another aspect, depending on sample, are e.g. spectral interference, where the performance of the detector would determine the respective quality of the results (but which would not be an issue in ICP-MS, for example).

There are quite a few differences in performance. For example ICP has higher dynamic range and can run more easily unattended. Also, they differ in sensitivity for different metals. For standard analyses the most important bit are established and certified protocols.

This has been repeated so often in certain circles that it amounts to at least willful ignorance. The real frightening bit is that this line of reasoning is not limited to the online world.

Also, Trump's attorney basically said that it is not against the law to obtain opposition research (though he kinda weasels out of the question what he thinks if it is offered by foreign officials), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSHau66R-0

It is not at all unusual, the laws of mass actions predict non-linearity. Read up on "fractional occupancy" in the context of Clark's theory.

Other than that, Tony Podesta appears to have come under scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. And while we are at it, some more details on Papdopoulos:

A page back tar and iNow summarized the indictments of Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos. Considering that all three were important figures in the campaign, it is quite optimistic and I dare say premature to view the indictments as evidence of no collusion whatsoever. It is unclear if things can actually be linked to Pres. Trump himself, yet there are quite a few more people on the list that are linked to Russian operatives and/or people who have close ties to them (as e.g. the indicted people above). What is true is that at this point no smoking guns have been revealed. Note that the investigation is not over yet. In the clear would ideally be if the campaign operatives were found not to have any meaningful connections to the Russians (or at least hadn't lied about it). As it stands it is still wait and see.

What was the smear job before the election? AFAIK the dossier really only came out when Steele gave it to McCain.

It is certainly evidence that people like ghost stories.

Intuitively I would think that you may have some contaminants. IPA is a commonly used solvents for many fluorescence-related analytics and is commonly used in the UV range due to its low absorbance.

The distinction between in vivo and in vitro is a but muddied when it comes to cell cultures. What do you specifically define as in vivo? For example, if you lyse cells and measure metabolite levels, do you consider that in vivo or in vitro?