CharonY

I have not finalized it yet, but my idea involves a team of trained rabbits. Preliminary results suggest that keeping them focused on the task could be slightly challenging. Will continue after I re-captured them. That being said, I assume the cheap-ass snow blowers (which are around 200 USD) won't work either?

That is not what is commonly known as an idea.

I am also worried about Ben Carson in HUD. It is a major influence against poverty. Now Carson said himself that he lacks administrative experience (which he has in common with Trump) but also was critical to the mission of the department that he is now heading.

It is also not an issue of how fast it happens, but the momentum it has. Since CO2 is accumulating it will get harder and harder to remove sufficient amounts to make a difference. In addition, once we reach certain tipping points reversal is probably not really an option anymore.

Just to be clear, melanin is a metabolite and therefore cannot be mutated. However, there are already genetic variations known in genes that are involved in melanin synthesis and regulation. This is why we have the variations in colour. However, I am not quite sure what specifically you are asking.

Another big issue is that there are many more issues that we kind of accept but for convenience or other reasons tend to ignore. For example according to WHO there are an estimated 7 million deaths due to air pollution per year. Much of what we enjoy on a daily basis is detrimental in the long run.

For starters there is no intent behind global warming. The question could be liability, though.

These are slightly unrelated issues. World leader in science are those that are able to recruit some of the best researchers and have decent funding for research. USA has been draining talent pool all over the world, for example. I would also be careful to lump all developed countries together, as there are marked quality and output differences.

As I said, why would a gel be needed if it is only one protein? Or to clarify, are you aware which steps during an SDS-gel can potentially lead to denaturation? Also, what do you need to have analyzed for? For identification simple PMF could be enough, assuming you got enough hydrophilic loops. Or do you want to have complete coverage? Are you looking for PTM, and if so where do you suspect them? Or do you need a quantitative analysis? Is this pure protein, a purification, or crude extract?

Except that you may have quite a different understanding of what nanomachines are able to do. What do you mean with wireless and how would you design a responsive circuit on the nanoscale? The articles are horrible. What they do is provide bacteria electrons for respiration. All organisms do it. The only difference to what normally happens is that they deliver it via an electrode. There is a difference between speculative science and pure bullshitting, btw.

That won't help much unless, (as John said) you get some readings on e.g. carbonate content of the water.

You mean whether the SDS-treatment is sufficient to denature it? Potentially. Typically samples are cooked and dentured via SDS and some resistant proteins may be denatured sufficiently. However, other than for separation (and potentially purification) purposes there is no reason to run a gel. You can as easily treat with SDS and heat. Though you may have to reduce the SDS prior to digest a bit.

Note while the work from that group is interesting for a number of reasons, it still requires to be replicated in broader context. While it could indeed be a new mechanisms, it is certainly not canon yet. I have to admit that I only skimmed the paper when it came out so I cannot really say whether there were issues with methodology or not (it was far more convincing on first glance than other previous studies).

Sure, that is why you can get decent fragments out of membrane proteins. The membrane integral parts are annoying, though.

For example, or using other aggressive denaturation approaches.

So the initial results for the Austrian presidential election are in and the far-right candidate Hofer has conceded defeat, despite that polls predicted a much closer race.

Depends on the context. However, often it is used when referring to proteins with a hydrophobic core. In aqueous solutions they are tend to be tightly packed with minimal exposure to the buffer and are therefore not easily accessible.

Assuming the examples are really high on the priority list of Canadians, they do sound like goals that would be more associated with left/progressive policies. So if I understand you correctly Canadians would then go and vote for a leftist protest party or just go back to the conservatives?

Well, there are limits to what he can implement and also to what actually he wants to. He has courted the right fringe to get into power, but they are not that important to keep him in power (though correct me if I am wrong). The actual issue is probably that just the issues that have been bubbling under the surface are finally bubbling out. People will not suddenly join the KKK, it is just that members are more likely to be more vocal about it, now. I am not sure if there is any comfort, but basically it just means that the bigots do not feel the need to be "PC" anymore rather than that people will suddenly become bigots. Edit: removed no sentence fragment.

Well bacteria can respond to electromagenetic fields. Just nothing like described above.

What types of neurons do bacteria possess?

Well, stereolithography is often counted as 3d printing (though in the strictest sense it is kinda misleading as there is no printing per se) and using 2-photon approaches we can approach nanoscale. That being said, it is entirely different to what some, including OP may think it is or can. Especially due to the limitations of the substrate.

That is not how they spread the anti-climate change propaganda. Basically they are using the playbook that has been around at least since the tobacco industry hid the link between smoking and cancer and has been perfected since then. Roughly tactics are employed that (off the top of my head, I am certainly missing the finer points): - raise uncertainty that are intuitive. Ideally based on actual data but ignores the actual context:" we always had climate changing, We even had an ice age, and that was certainly not caused by humans!" - create controversy "climategate" - criticize data, or of if that is not possible criticize those that collected data: "scientists are liberal shills!" - as a corollary create an anti-intellectual atmosphere ("those elites!") to be possible to dismiss any data and research finding that runs counter to what one would like. (incidentally this is pursued heavily by the Republicans, which turned off quite and marginalized a few Republican scientists and intellectuals) - discredit arguments on an emotional level ("they are just fearmongering") - raise fear: "it is a ploy by foreign powers to cripple our industry", make it as personal as possible "your liberties will be infringed and you will lose your job" Taken all together it is a strong emotional argument that is specifically designed to target data (by discrediting it and those who analyze them), make it impossible to raise counter-arguments (as those people doing research are obviously biased and lying) and present it as a simple personal choice ("look, maybe something is happening but what can you do? However, if you do these things that those elites want you to do all your jobs will move to China"). If you want to stay on the factual side of things you simply won't win, as you only got one weapon (data/research) whereas the opposing side has everything else.

Also there is really hardly any room for debate. You have data on one side and disinformation on the other.

No one is saying that and throwing that around at best weakens your argument. It is understandable that fathers also have an emotional commitment to the whole issue, bu the whole problem is how to weigh each others input. As has already stated the physical impact is entirely the woman's, which is on top of emotional ones. There is simply an imbalance if a father can overrule a woman's right to make a decision that concerns her own body and well-being. It certainly does not make the anguish of the father any less real but I see far more issues if we promote the rights of the person with less stakes in the matter over the one with more.