CharonY

Which laws do you think apply when a Christian or a an atheist strikes his daughter? Also, you are arguing from an extremely judgmental position of incredulity. Did Christians not change their attitude? Did I not present evidence that Muslims are not a homogeneous mass in their attitude? Is that, in turn not evidence that Muslims can have a very differentiated opinion on issues even if they have the same religious background? Should I point out that Christianity is in its core misogynist and is therefore not compatible with our society, which is supposed to be based on equality?

Precisely. The context being the USA or, potentially by extension, other Western countries. If one omits all context one can make a case for virtually anything. For example Hitler was elected withing a democratic system. So I could claim that democracy is bad, as it resulted in a Nazi regime (whilst ignoring other parameters that were relevant). Pardon the Godwin, but that is the direct consequence of omitting context. Now, if you want to, would you mind trying to refute the points SwansonT proposed? Because I surely can't. And since homosexuality has been brought up, there have been anti-homosexuality laws in the US, and (male) homosexuality was considered a felony up until recently. There are still laws enacted trying to limit LGBT rights, and as far as I can see these were not pushed primarily by Muslims. Take a look at the Pew data on homosexuality. 45% of the Muslims said that it should be accepted. While it is lower than Catholics (70%) or Jews (81%) it is still higher than Evangelical protestants (38%) or Mormons (36%). But why are they treated differently? Also the acceptance of homosexuals by American Muslims is higher than in other countries. Doesn't it tell us again that it is meaningless to paint everything with one brush? We do that for protestants: "they may be anti-gay but they are basically good people" or how about the statistic I recently cited regarding misogyny comparing Syrians and Germans? Why is it that we can differentiate between nuances of intentions and see the good in people, provided they are more like we are? And why can't we do the same for those that are not, even if available data shows a far more complicated view? Do theocratic Muslim regimes do horrible things? Sure. But do you really believe that a theocratic protestant regime would be so much better if given unlimited power? And again, that is why we have laws and the constitution to prevent precisely that happening, regardless which faith you may or may not be.

It really depends on the specific purpose. There is no one-size fits all solution. There are for example digital storage systems that are supposed to last a millenium (e.g. m-disk). Though it is not clear whether we will have the ability to read them in the future. And obviously more information on papyrus and tablets have been lost than recovered. Assuming you can fit ~50k books onto one disk and you create a thousand of those and seal them away and try to do the same in paper form, the question would be how many of those would still be around in a few hundred years, for example.

To be fair, the effects was always there, but mostly locally. I.e. unless being exposed to new experiences there is a good chance that one surrounds oneself or gets surrounded with light-minded people (which includes family). There was never a fix other than getting out into the world and see things for oneself. The main issue is that technology helps you to stay in your bubble that you grew up in even if you are actually in a place where you could make new experiences (such as college). There is the additional problem that much of the media consumption is partially monopolized by few providers (such as facebook) which normalizes fake news. There is no real fix that I can think of. After all, moderation does not mean that someone is doing fact-checking. The only thing I can think of is that one has to teach critical media consumption early on in school, especially since a recent study found those skills severely lacking in kids.

The problem in terms of data corruption is when the information starts becoming ambiguous. Let's consider stored information in digital and analog format and then introduce noise to the data. In the digital format, one would still be able to distinguish between high and low values as long as the noise ceiling is significantly lower than the high signal. If your data is analog, however, the signal between would become ambiguous, even at moderate noise levels. In your example losing a bit would not lose out all the data, same with analog data. How much you lose depends on the way the signal is converted and also whether there is error correction. Edit: not saying that digital does not have issues, but I was referring specifically to that.

This is not how society works, tar. With no kids, why should I subsidize schools and other facilities that benefit kids at all? The reason is that it benefits society as a whole. Regardless whether you got one or two kids, you benefit from schools that are heavily subsidized and the same goes for colleges if either you or your kids visited one (yes tuition fees are horrendeous, yet most of the operating funds are coming from state, not from tuition).

There is also the issue of data corruption which is worse for analog system (due to higher ambiguity), which Strange kind of alluded to.

So Trump is no Hitler but some prominent supporters seem to wish he was...

I will have to think about whether there are data pools to draw from. However, I have heard plenty of middle and upper-middle class people complaining about welfare parasites and how those that do not work are too lazy and do not deserve benefits etc. There is also the weird desire to control those on benefits. I.e. to make sure that they spend it the way they are supposed to and not splurge on luxury items. It is hard not to see a trace of envy in seeing those that supposedly do not work as hard as you getting benefits that you didn't get.

Are you sure that the primers work and that they do not go into repetitive regions (can cause unspecific products). For template concentration changes what type of extraction do you perform? Usually it is easier to change the amount post rather pre-extraction for troubleshooting. I am not familiar with that polymerase, but does it have proof-reading? Also there are additives you can use in case of high GC templates (though judging from the temp it does not seem to be the case).

These are not proteins, but amino acid substitutions within a single protein (a ribonuclease). The rest of your post is, unfortunately, mostly gibberish.

I think there are two qualifiers that go with it. 1) it is about perceived threat, people far easier convinced by fear than by fact. 2) people are also afraid to lose out, i.e. the perception that someone else is getting more than their fair share drives people bonkers. For some reason I think that sometimes people can only be happy if they know that someone else is worse off.

The ability to project a larger sphere of influence is going to make East Europe quite nervous. Also, it basically leaves Germany as the counterpoint in Europe which for many reasons also makes people rather unhappy.

If you read SwansonT and my post it should be clear that Sharia law does not an issue in the USA (note the title) due to the legal framework provided.

And how many stonings have happened in the USA? And as for the extremist individuals, what does it matter whether they did because of the Bible, Quran, anti-capitalist, anti-government, supremacist, political, or any other ideology? If we use the same measure, shouldn't we ostracize all ideologies that could eventually lead to violence? And when we do, what is left?

On danger of going off-topic, but that is precisely what is not happening. Most politicians have been trying to leverage the refugee crisis to stoke panic and it mostly benefited the populist-right. However, somewhat uncharacteristic (as Merkel is more known to be an opportunist rather than an ideologue) she pretty much stuck to her colours for the most part. So she is actually one of the few sticking to her principles (which still surprises me) and is not making concessions to the populists. While it will cost her votes, it sends a strong signal that she is catering to the center, which may stabilize her base somewhat.

Ultimately it is a bogeyman as it sounds foreign and threatening and fears are based on completely ignoring the legal framework a given society (even their own) is based on. While somewhat off-topic it is akin to the irrational fear of having freedom of speech suppressed by introducing elements that are considered PC, such as introducing polite forms to address minorities.

Nope, it was in the traditional congratulatory speech where Merkel said that she was looking forward to continue working with the US contingent on “shared values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views.” The last bit is the unusual part as friendship was always assumed with the US, even in light of the Iraq issue.

In the roughest sense it refers to the reduction of mobility and/or toxicity of contaminants.

Good grief.

They did make fun of him while he was running and at least Merkel (German chancellor) did offer uncharacteristic veiled criticism on Trump.

Interestingly basically none of the years you listed are supported by reality. If you throw away toxic stuff you are in for a fine, not jail time. And if we did not penalize that you would complain about not having any potable water. Drugs on the countryside are mostly a prescription drug or meth (sold and bought predominantly by whites). Social security is to a big part a demographic issue, as the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is dropping. No political side can change that. As far as I can tell Trump did not address the issue at all. Do you have any shred of evidence that the 1% Muslims in the USA are in any way affecting your way of life? It seems to me that you are doing it to yourself by fearing them. Whether people look for you for guidance should be entirely independent on your skin colour or age, but based on what you say, what you do and how you behave towards others. How is the government taking over households? By making a point that women can and should also be breadwinners? A different point regarding job, low-level blue collar jobs are a huge issue as in the modern economy they are likely not able to sustain a family. There needs to be a change in the system, in order to prepare the youth for a changing world. And this is something that pretty much no one really hast touched yet, probably because there are no simple solutions. It makes sense that working class families (regardless of colour) feel like losers of the economy, because they are. Unfortunately, they do have a point that both sides have ignored them to a bit. Unfortunately Trump acknowledged specifically white males using the lowest common denominator. Disdain for those that are worse or better off then them. Rather than having struggling low-income folks united, traditionally there is a split along ethnic lines, which I can only presume to be a part of a divide and conquer strategy.

It is not about fear, bacteria are routinely used in food production. It is just that your specific idea is impractical and has zero benefits over traditional approaches, such as using plant material for bulk sugar production. Sorry to say, but your idea is not great as it is based on very limited understanding of the underlying biochemistry. Enthusiasm is one thing, but it needs to be equipped with a bit of knowledge to be useful at all. Otherwise, you are just indulging in fantasy and not in science.

Bits and pieces. There is a huge body of literature out there implying a variety of pathways and mechanisms that contribute to aging. However, there are enormous gaps in our understanding and we are far from having a unified view of all the various findings. Things like cell-cycle control (including telomerases) seem to be important, as well as oxidative stress responses, certain regulatory pathways (most notably IGF-1) and so on. However, most is derived from simple metazoan and/or cell models, which do not easily translate to phenotypes in humans, such as greying of hair and so on. On the other hand the mechanism underlying certain phenotypes, such as greying of hair, i.e. the reduction of melanin production is somewhat known independently of aging. But it is not quite clear why one causes the other. This is not much of a theory, is it. I postulate that things go downhill from the first division.

there is little difference between brands in my experience and none of the have the sensitivity of freshly prepared colloidal coomassie stains. That being said, if you do not want prepare solutions and are not too worried about sensitivity they all kind of work. Of course there also alternatives in case you do not want to stick with coomassie,