CharonY

Good tips. A few things to add (and heavily echoing Arete): -be mindful of the type of reviewers you get. Scientists? Adminstrators? Adjust language accordingly. - always assume that reviewers are not experts on your field. Make it as broadly appealing as possible. - be only slightly ahead of the innovation curve. As Arete said, funding decisions are typically very conservative - be mindful of the mechanism. Howe much is the grant decision based on proposed research, vs quality of applicant? Is it a training grant, or do you have to demonstrate leadership? Are there outreach components? Do not underestimate the need to demonstrate abilities (i.e. more than just listing published papers) - do not make the reviewer work to make sense of your abstract. Tell them at the beginning why the project is great and use the rest just to bolster your argument. You either convince them in the first paragraphs or you don't - give yourself time to distance yourself from your writing in order to review it critically

I did and and as I said, he was not elected, as this position was not He was appointed because the right-wing thought that they could use him to a) rally the workers and get them away from communists (remember, the fall of Russia is still in vivid memory and b) control him (among other reasons). You are also neglecting many things happening at that point, including parliamentary fragmentation, effective rule using emergency powers and other things. The appointment of the chancellor is not based on popular support. Though the economic situation did make the NSDAP, a deeply populist group highly attractive to workers as well as capitalists (due to their anti-communist stance). But to get back on track (although the whole bit is off-topic by now), installing Hitler was a power-political move driven by the republican corner. Now are there parallels to Hamas? Well in the broadest sense yes. There are economic issues, unrest and other similarities. But before I would do any judgement, I would have to read up much more on the power struggle there. While I digressed a bit I would like to note that your assertion was that I.e. that the people elected him (not true or at least only after he got power otherwise) and that WWI was the defining factor. Both of which are factually wrong. In discussing historical parallels it is extremely important to have the correct context and not override them with neat narratives that one may have built up.

Well, the mitochondrial genome (in humans) is extremely limited and many functions relevant to mitochondria are encoded in the nucleus. That being said, there are quite a few transcriptome studies pertaining to exercise. A quick pubmed scan revealed that much is probably done on skeletal muscle functions.

Also that is not what happened. Hitler was appointed (not elected) chancellor after a parliamentary crisis. He was neither that powerful nor popular initially, but he got significant support from the established parties when the Reichstag seriously fragmented (for various reasons). That put him into a position of power which later on helped him getting the combined president and chancellor position (though at that point it was barely an election anymore). Barely any parallels can be drawn to the Palestine issue.

I can only guess. However, considering that those that generally were against NATO were also more pro-Russian (i.e. East Ukraine) I would think that the ties to Russia are the reason that they were anti-NATO. It is important to remember that the Ukraine is in itself polarized in their stance towards NATO/EU and Russia, which is one of the reason for the initial protests.

Well, learning from history would require the knowledge of circumstance and context. It is certainly debatable whether there was actually a viable response to the Chamberlain's policy (especially with the lack of hindsight) and to some extent this is also the case here. It is relevant to note that entering NATO was and is also contentious from the Ukrainian side. Take a look at this Gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/167927/crisis-ukrainians-likely-nato-threat.aspx.Before the crisis Ukraine was already deeply divided on NATO with the west leaning toward them (but still only 39% seeing them positively) whereas the east perceived them as threat (46%). Now the attitude has changed, but still with all the clashes, the support is around 40% as of June http://ukraine.setimes.com/en_GB/articles/uwi/features/2014/07/21/feature-01. Thus, it is likely that in March the referendum would not have passed. This is reflection of the complex situation as Ukraine and specifically Crimea has a significant pro-Russian population.

Based on the German translation I would say it means a classification for a population of a specific region (or ethnicity). A synonym for demonym, so to speak. I.e. "American" would be an example of a gentilic.

Isn't it pretty much the same word in English (i.e. gentilic)?

The curriculum will vary from school to school, so it is hard to make a specific recommendation. The keywords are typically molecular biology, genetics, cell and/or microbio, biotech and variations thereof. You have to know that the things that you mentioned are rather basic tools rather than research directions per se. So you will have to develop interests around these topics (e.g. uses in plant biology, fermentation technologies etc.).

These cocktails are not very specific nor is there a perfect combo that completely reduces protease activity (and does not cause downstream issues). For proteomic applications we found that working quickly on ice results in little or no detectable degradation. That being said, either of the mixes would cover the range of major protease classes.

One could also argue that terrorism is a response to someone with a much bigger stick. Trying to discourage that by wielding an even bigger stick seems like the definition of insanity.

This is just an assertion with little evidence. In fact, many generals and other military leaders were more than willing to continue. Depending on which scholar you ask, the atomic bomb provided various degrees of leverage for the emperor to call in a surrender (and even then there were mutinies). But most would agree that it was but one of the many aspects. And some would also argue that it was completely unnecessary after the invasion of the Soviets. As others are trying to explain, these events are massively complicated and simple cause-effect type of reasoning are almost always wrong.

In addition to what Ophiolite said, the Japanese were hoping to broker a peace with the US via the Soviets. But the invasion of Manchuria and the destruction of the largest military unit that the Japanese still had shattered that hope. Considering that the previous firebombing that occurred over Japan were far more devastating than the atomic bombs, the narrative of atomic bombs as a direct route to peace is at best misleading (and a lousy bumpersticker to boot).

Is there anything to discuss here?

I am not sure whether that is the intention of OP but sociopathy is generally regarded as a type of personality disorder. As is often the case, details and definitions can be fuzzy, but among the common factors named are often lack of empathy, poor impulse control and high self-confidence. The causes are under much discussion and appear to be very varied ranging from genetic influences to childhood upbringing. It will be almost impossible to elucidate defining elements. But based on that alone it is very unlikely that a singular aspect (such as games) will be the cause. In addition, one has to distinguish whether media act as triggers for sociopathic individuals in a given study/observation or whether it is a contributor in the development of psychopathy.

Based on memory (though I could be wrong of course), in most cases the redoxpotentials would be incredibly tricky. Especially in the described scenario they would have to be electron donors but in the absence of oxygen there is little in terms of possible acceptors. Respiration-dependent accumulation was observed in some bacteria, but always in presence of oxygen. I believe there was also the possibility of iron silicates but the options are very limited. That being said, my statement does appear to be rather absolute and I should have qualified it a bit more.

It somewhat annoys me that in these kind of reports use "feeding" for respiration as well as nutrient acquisition. Obviously, neither metals nor silicates can provide biomass. Reduced metals could be electron donors, but the question would be what the acceptor would be (respiration). And pure silicates won't do at all.

Demanding context-free discussions pretty much precludes the educated and emphasizes the opinion part.

I suppose you are referring to the small cans used to dust off computers and suchalike? They typically contain difluorethane (a refrigerant) rather than actually compressed. It is slightly toxic, but the label is probably just a general precaution to avoid cold damage (but you would have to dump a lot on it). But as Bignose said, it is pretty hard to harm yourself with it (except maybe trying to swallow the bottle whole).

This discussion is pointless as it discusses not a religion per se, but followers of the religion and then even some random subset at an arbitrary point in time. As others have pointed out, there are so many different islamic countries and societies that a true discussion has to be much more in-depth and cannot be boiled down to Christianity vs Islam. Many things affecting societal values are cannot simply be reduced to one thing, even if it is as influential as religion. For example, it appears that the general conception is that Islam prevents women's rights. But look for example at voting rights. In Iran and Afghanistan they were allowed to vote in 1963, but in Switzerland it took almost a decade longer. But since then in Afghanistan things changed dramatically. So if even within a country values and rights change dramatically without a radical change in religion, how can you expect to be able to distill it down to that simple factor?

Nor did I ever claimed it to be. However, in an earlier comment you stated: Yet an observer of that time clearly showed the opposite. While many moved for other reasons, contrary to your claim quite a number of, Palestinians who did not flee were chased out. And obviously that also means that those that have not been actively ejected, may have fled to precisely avoid that. That, in turn shows that your narrative that you are trying to spin does not conform to the actual events. It is estimated that around 80% of Palestinians left or were removed from their homes. Likewise various studies and estimates point to (near) total destruction of quite a number of Palestinian settlements, concurrent with land gain by Israel. That is the 1948 exodus, btw. The 1967 exodus has a report from the UN which describes forcible eviction following the 6-day war. The fact that Palestinians still remain does not equate the fact that they did not remove Palestinians from their home. In fact, a critical person would wonder why they became a minority in the first place. Just for perspective, Nazi-Germany had definitely an active murder program targeted at Jews (and others). However, at the end of the war there were still had Jewish survivors living in Germany (in hiding or married to non-Jews). Estimates put the survivor rate at a mere 10%. But obviously, looking back one cannot take the survivors as an example that no targeted program ever existed against Jews in Germany.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus:

The thing is that ivy leagues typically have more excellent students than they can accept. Extra-curricular activities are just the cherry on top to distinguish yourself from all the other equally excellent students. If you are not competitive in that regard, there is little that extras could do.

Note that the current evidence is quite weak and likely spurious. That is not to say that there are no interactions, but they are more likely do complex metabolic interactions rather than targeted manipulations as in cases of other parasites.

Solved is a bit strong considering that it is only a model. It is an interesting hypothesis at this point.