CharonY

I believe we are talking about different points. My initial assumption (without data) was that most governments will exhibit corruption due to interconnections between elements of power. I believe your argument appears to be that a) it was not the case in the US until recently (for which I have not seen any data to substantiate) and b) that other countries do much better. I provided the link using the only metric that I could find that at least based on ranking there does not appear to be something fundamentally different between the US and other Western countries with similar forms of government. I think your arguments do not touch these points at all but are rather a rally to change the current situation (with a hint that it used to be better). To be fair, both of us have moved quite a bit off-topic so it would be fine to end the discussion at that point. Though it does intrigue me whether corruption has indeed risen significantly over the years and whether the Reagan years were indeed turning point of sorts. Why I like to go back to data and values is that anecdotes are good for opinion pieces, but do not necessarily reflect reality. One striking element that I could find that could back it up is that there appears to be a significant increase in revolving door issues (e.g. policy-makers becoming lobbyists, lobbyists serving as congressional staff members etc.). It should be noted that the EU is riddled with the very same issues. One interesting point would be to see whether that is really a novel development and where the roots are. For instance, have there been changes in regulations that would prohibited it earlier?

But doesn't that lead back to the issue of how to quantify corruption? I.e. how much is perception and how is really quantifiable? The closest thing I could find is the corruption perceptions index, in which the US is ranked 19, which is close to the UK and Japan (17) but higher than France (22). If we used that values it is not that outlandishly different, but unfortunately the data collection only started 1996 http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results. It is certainly true that Canada (and Australia, as well as many Nordic countries) are ranked higher, but then it goes again to the question how much is the difference, really?

Was it an individual banana or a bunch? I also wanted to point out that according to OP the taste was not off, just apparently not the ripeness as expected. Also, was it exposed to sunlight and at which temperature? Also was the banana still green when bought? Most bananas are usually ripened past that point, i.e. they are sold while still firm, but should not have a strong raw taste to them. In ripening chambers the process takes about a week (from green to early ripeness). However, there the bananas are stacked in close proximity and exposed to defined doses of ethylene. Keeping them individually and unconfined will delay the ripening process (as they emit ethylene themselves). Obviously, if you really are interested, you would have to conduct some more experiments and monitor the results more closely as categories such as "too firm" are usually not terribly helpful.

I am also unaware of chemicals with that properties. Only recently a coating was proposed that would delay rotting, but the standard way is to increase/restrict access to ethylene. But from your description your taste changes only in ripeness and is not indicative of the use of some mystery chemicals. There are several ways to increase or slow the ripening process, e.g. sealing them in a bag, add pear or apple etc, so the ripening time will be also dependent on the way you store them. To me, 9 days starting from a green banana does not sound terribly odd.

Is it possible that you got plantains?

While we are discussing that in terms of US government, I am pretty sure that pretty much the same is true for basically all governments. Strong networks are the basis of power, but also of corruption.

These are pretty much my feelings, too. Things like blatant lies and hypocrisy are relatively easy to spot, but corruption is quite a different matter. Moreover, I suspect the entanglement between influential groups and politics is so tight that many things that one may perceive as corrupt are commonplace and in fact part of the normal policy-making process. When comes to this I would also assume that the depth of entanglement does likely correlate with political influence rather than party, as one is dependent on the other to a large extent.

I am wondering, is there any metric that would quantify that? Maybe in terms of donations volumes, for example.

Hm, I kind of missed that it is about non-rhizobial diazotrophic bacteria. That is slightly somewhat less exciting as to my (potentially outdated) knowledge the fixation rate is far lower (probably due to more limited nutrient exchange and unfavorable pO2 levels). I remember faintly that there was quite a discussion whether some of the observed yield increase were really due to nitrogen fixation or an enhanced ability to take up nutrients from soil in presence of bacteria. In any case the results were significant, but the effect size was not huge, especially compared to rhizobia. Getting these endophytes in a way that they immediately colonize the plant is probably a clever thing as they tend to get outcompeted so easily from root surfaces and soil, but I assume there will still be quite a significant need of other forms of fertilization. I would be somewhat surprised if the reduction in fertilizer would be huge.

I think most parents to some degree accept the fact that their kids are going to live their own life at some point. Being a parent is and should be a bit selfless. As a parent you get to create and form a person and that itself could pretty much be reward enough (and you are passing on your genes, if you are into that....) If you only have a child to for your entertainment, you are probably better off with a pet. Also, I think a relationship in which someone cares more about his/her parents than his/her own family is not necessarily very healthy. Priorities pass on from one generation to the next and I think this is something that most parents understand well.

In addition to what swansont pointed out, the values you found are likely to be recommended values, not minimum requirements. So going for two weeks under the value would not necessarily impact weight immediately. But I would also assume that the biggest factor here is incorrect calorie intake assessment.

So he thought he ate turtle but did not? And his wife is involved? Is she at the, ehm very source of a culinary misstep? In any case, I have the feeling that this is more an example of convoluted story-telling rather than a true riddle, as the premises allow for almost unlimited number of "correct" answers. Just saying.

Symbiosis and parasitism are very similar in many ways. Both need to overcome host defense responses (plant defenses are generally not considered immune system, as they are functionally very different). But it is more just an infection, in root nodules (formed by the plants) they create a low-oxygen environment for the bacteria. who start differentiating into a nitrogen fixing form (bacteroid). Subsequently there is an extensive nutrient exchange between host and symbiont, which involves a very complicated interplay. The claim that this was successfully transferred between non-host systems is very bold (and amazing, if true).

Eh, what? Other than dyslexia, how was that connection made?

I would say that this is pretty much overwhelming evidence.

Unfortunately I am unable to find any original papers (patent issues?) as the article is a bit strange. As mentioned, nitrogen fixation is nothing new per se, legume symbiosis is known very well and has been used in one for or another for a long time (e.g. crop rotation). That being said the biggest claim here is that they report a method that allows nitrogen fixation in all major crops. That would be very big news since nitrogen-fixing symbiosis is only found in a few non-legumes and we do not even know all the mechanisms yet. Transferring effective nitrogen fixation to non-legume crops have always been the holy grail of nitrogen fixation research and I am really surprised that there is now a claim for a major breakthrough with almost no paper trail. I really wonder how much of it is usual journalistic exaggeration and how much is true. E.g. if the method is really "just" an improved way to induce symbiosis or increase the efficiency of the symbiosis (both of which are would be pretty interesting, too).

Networking is indeed key. One thing that I would like to add to Trimidity's anecdote, a postdoc is usually on soft money in form of grants or similar. Thus, depending on the overall lab situation losing one or two rounds of grants may result in termination. Not very attractive when you are in your 40s and have a family. In some institutions there are a handful of permanent research scientist positions, but they are very, very rare. One thing to consider is also the financial situation, if it is insecure I would be careful about an academic career. I have no personal experience with the UK system and have to rely on what my colleagues from there tell me, but a PhD (which is required for an academic career), is likely to take about 8-9 years. But even so, only after the PhD the search for an academic career actually starts. In biology we are looking at almost a minimum of 4 years of post-doc, usually with very low salary. but even 6 to 8 years are not that uncommon to get a lecturer position. In the US that would be a tenure-track position (assistant prof), from my understanding in the UK the position would be open ended. So if everything works perfectly it is likely to take more than 15 years to secure a position. But one thing to keep in mind is that there are not that many positions to begin with. The majority of postdocs will not get an academic position (though luckily most eventually find other employment, e.g. in industrial positions, at least in my field). The average academic position (tenure track) has about 200 applicants, for example. In order to get that position you need more than a little bit of hard work and giant chunk of luck (though a strong network will optimize the latter). I am not trying to be too negative here, but the point is that even if everything is done correctly and one graduates on top, the chances of securing a career are bad to begin with. To give a number, before the economic crisis less than 20% of all PhDs staying in academia got tenure but that number is likely to be lower by now. I would not even think that age is the biggest challenge here, although it does not make things easier. A potentially better choice is too look for jobs outside academia on the masters level, e.g. as analyst or technician. Especially if you bring real-life experience outside of academia to the table you will look more attractive than the 20-something who has not stepped outside of school yet.

I am pretty sure about the inability of B. cereus, but I would have to look it up for B subtilis. Yes, you are correct. However, colony and cell morphology are somewhat distinguishable between those two as an additional factor. But that really only helps if you got a reference or experience with them.

How so?

Depending on strain hemolysis is sometimes not terribly strong. Are the cells motile (B. cereus)? Another test is the Voges-Proskauer test (B. megaterium, would be negative, the others positive). But that being said, I am pretty sure that B. cereus does ferment glucose anaerobically. However, they still grow very poorly if the medium is not very rich (which may lead to false negatives).

With regards to employment, the question is also what type of position you are thinking about? Academic positions are highly competitive (age or not) and securing a position there at all is tricky and it does not look that it is going to be easier any time soon. i think the first thing is to figure out what type of jobs would be interesting to you at all (as there is no such thing as a generic science job, and even biology itself has vast variety). Getting contacts is always a good start, though I am not so sure whether websites are a good tool for that. But a quick thing to do is e.g. looking at naturejobs or the equivalent on the Science website to get some rough ideas what types of jobs there are (but also other job listings may be worthwhile).

To come to this conclusion the chief element is an inflated ego. Inflated ego and ignorance. The two elements are an inflated ego and ignorance and laziness. The three elements are an inflated ego, ignorance, laziness and the inability to deal with criticism... Amongst the main reasons are elements such as.. I should stop now.

The thing is that it is almost impossible (at least with our current knowledge) to accurately deconvolute the influence of environment and genetics for all but the most simple traits. For IQ the estimated values range wildly and also change with age. I.e. it appears that (contraintuitively maybe) at early age the measured heritability is low but increases with age (see Bouchard 2004; Curr Directions in Psychological Science). From my perspective (which is biased towards molecular biology) a mechanistic link is needed, before we can be certain of the actual contribution. With regards to families, there is also a strong influence on environment for that. A family that values sport is more likely to be more active in that regard, for example. I am not saying that there is no genetic influence, as there certainly is, but there is no simple 1:1 attribution of a genetic trait with the physiological outcome. Many factors have to come together and especially at the top level time investment becomes more relevant. You will not become a world pianist just by having good genes (say, nimble fingers of sufficient length, good hearing etc.). You will always need an enormous amount of practice. But as a thought experiment. let us assume that there are some genes that promote musicality and as a result one person needed less training to become good, and another one needs more. But both finally master the art. How would you look at their performance and quantify the contribution of their respective genes? What is more likely to happen is that "designer" babies will end up with certain desirable physical traits (say, eye color) and absence of markers for certain genetic and maybe even reduced propensity for certain other diseases. But do not expect the genes do the work for you. If you spoil the kids, they probably end up being lazy-ass couch potatoes (but who knows, maybe with lower risks of cardiac diseases).

The idea is not bad however this has been tried out for easier traits (IQ is highly complicated in that regard) such as diseases. And it does not work out very well. The reason is, as I mentioned that few traits can be strongly linked to a single gene or group of genes. Especially something like IQ will dependent on a large part on environmental queues. Think of it that way, even if there was a gene that influences IQ (and if there is, we do not know how it does it), if you raise the kid alone in a dark room it will likely perform far less well than an "average" kid with a more interactive upbringing. I am also pretty sure that if you analyze the allelic variants between world-class sprinters and average people, you will find no genetic signature that explains that difference (and so on).

I think two, but they had a strong Brazilian accent and I can't be sure.