CharonY

I never felt a particular urge to use one and am not sure if they are very accurate (i.e. if they may miss a count if you do not push hard enough). I used to have a mechanical counter and a regular pen, but at some point I was faster and basically as accurate just using the pen as compared to someone using a tally counter. Still, if you can get one cheap you can try whether you like it. AFAIK all just count up, so you have to write down the number before going to the next plate (usually I write the count on the bottom of the plate.)

How do you reconcile these statements with the 1-child policy in China? Or the the steady reduction of world population growth? Or with projects that aim at the emancipation of women and distribution of contraceptives (though there are religious counter movements, but I am not sure how much they amount to).

I would assume that preferences are highly dependent on sexual imprinting. Just to pick a random paper, Bereczkei et al. (2003) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B (2004) 271, 1129–1134 published a study with mating preferences of adopted children were investigated. Apparently their husbands had traits similar to their step-father and this further correlated with the quality of the relationship between father and daughter. As such I would think that color bias could be highly dependent on with whom you grow up.

I would consider consulting an eye physician. Flashes can be associated with a number of eye conditions, you should have that tested.

On the other hand, certain parasites are known to affect behavior, such as Leucochloridium paradoxum. Also the common rabies at least affects excitability in humans. Also diseases that may damage nervous tissue can result in aberrant behavior. I would not think that anything like a mindless killing machine is likely, but increased aggression, sure.

This is debatable. In high-malaria risk regions the dangers of DDT may be overshadowed by the death toll of malaria. Risk assessment is an incredibly complicated process and there is little funding for the understanding the risks of the stuff we dump into the environment. Who says that scientists have a higher intellect? We are highly trained in solving specific problems and to generate knowledge. Part of our job is to make the knowledge public, but the real power is somewhere else. Just look at the anti-vaccination debacle to see how well it goes. The best thing we can do is to train people in critical thinking, which includes the ability to carefully analyze available data, carefully investigate the validity of premises before any sweeping assumptions are made. There is rarely such a thing as simple questions and simple answers are usually even less forthcoming.

Also note that the world population growth rate has been dropping since the 90s or so. That is Capn's model is more in tune to observations of the human population rather than bacterial batch cultures which have a very specialized set of problems.

You really should provide evidence rather than making this general statements. I really want to have satellite on my own. Did I just increase the price for it? Obviously I would only increase the demand if I actually started buying them. Come on, this is not the first thread where you use these kind of tactics (moving goalposts, building strawmen, appeal to authority). Try to keep the premises right, adjust them to real data, then build an opinion up on it, which we can discuss. Right now the only thing to do is pointing out errors in reasoning, which I assume no one particularly enjoys.

The most difficult study is usually the one you are not particular interested in.

Not necessarily. Basically the original cell may still have the vector, but all its daughter cells will be devoid of it. But sometimes vectors can also be degraded.

Let us aim for 1000 years. Long enough to not be able to predict what is going to happen.

Well, recombinant DNA actually refers to DNA that has been altered in any form in vitro, i.e. it does not necessarily refer to a cloning vector or a particular gene (though the insert or the whole molecule can be considered recombinant). That being said, the fate of the vector depends on the host. If the vector is compatible with it, it will stay in the host and replicate with it. If it is incompatible, it can get lost, (i.e. only the original cell keeps a copy, but none of the daughter cells will have it). Another possibility is that the whole vector gets integrated into the cell via homologous recombination. In that case it becomes part of the chromosome (but can loop out and get lost again, in some instances).

Interesting the next paragraph in the link provided in the OP the situation is far more complex [...] It has been cautioned that the studies are overall still limited with regards to the effects of immigration on social cohesion.

In short: we have a lot of tools and can change things. On the practical level we basically have no idea what they do. And there are a lot of detailed technical problems (ignoring all the ethical issues). So as already mentioned, knowledge is the limiting factor.

Another thing that could help is a decent mentoring system. Though that depends on the interaction between the mentor and the mentored.

I have seen the first kind of measure employed fairly often. Unfortunately, people are rather guarded at the beginning, so it is tricky to get reliable information out of these interviews. Sometimes you can spot that something is really off, though. Fixing it is a different issue, of course.

Insights into the interactions between the colleagues (aka, politics). Unfortunately, there is no way to get it objectively.

Is it a membrane protein?

FAIR is a known anti-immigration partisan group that repeatedly purports made-up numbers. Even the conservative CATO institute has demonstrated that they are wrong http://politicalcorr...ck/201107200006. However, considering that the core of this discussion has shifted several times it appears to me that there is only one consistent theme: So the premise is that that economic problems are caused by large populations. The source is apparently secondary. If that is the case, one should just need e.g. to correlate economic success (or lack thereof) with population size to test his hypothesis. So let's take public debt as an example http://en.wikipedia...._by_public_debt. Apparently huge countries like Saint Kitts and Navis or the Lebanon should cut down on their population growth. Top of the pack is Japan, however even including immigration they appear to have a population decline over the last few years. So the aging population should put the right back on track, right?

So you are focusing on the cost of asylum seekers? As opposed to the rest of legal as well as illegal immigration? This is quite a a different premise than initially stated. Also note that the number of asylum seekers Australia (and most other countries, I think) accept is regulated. Quick googling indicate roughly 12-13k people per year. I am doubtful that this constitutes mass migration. Note that legal immigrants also contribute to the infrastructure and pay for water etc. So just focusing on the cost side is unjustified.

To declare things as patently obvious (without providing data) is not a good way to argue. I would think this is blatantly obvious.

The main factors are generally contamination with proteases, that destroy the enzyme. However, to me the restriction does not appear complete to me. Is it possible that the enzyme already lost a significant amount of activity? Also, what is the difference between the lanes labeled Lambda-HindIII and HindIII(temp), the bands appear to be identical. For the test I would first aim to get a complete digestion taking the minimum required time, and use the RT-stored enzyme for the same amount. Even if it has reduced activity, if you treat it long enough you may still get significant digestion. In the end the RT-storage will only result in a gradual reduction and you will have to time your experiments accordingly (but again, first go for complete digestion).

Well, it depends a little bit on the phrasing of the question. It could be interpreted as to what are the proximate factors resulting in being a carnivore or herbivore. This could be a physiological question, of course. Evolution defines their history as to how they became the way they are. But the question is not (to me) stated clear enough to be sure what is being asked.

I still fail to see why the absolute metric should be more important than the relative value, especially for a) comparative purposes and b) to assess burden. Both of which are points of the OP. And secondly, how do illegal immigrants get access to welfare? Legal immigrants on the other hand are only allowed to immigrate if they can demonstrate the ability to take care of themselves and are therefore influencing the economy in a positive way. As already state above, the basic premises should be cleared before we can move to the next step (which would include to put some numbers on the actual burden- and ideally from non-partisan groups).

recycled is not too bad a term. In most organelles you have ongoing replacement (turnover) going on. Whether they ever leave the cell is kind of a philosophical question. The components of the membrane are replaced on a regular basis, for instance. The C-bodies are eventually oxidized to CO2 or volatile fatty acids that may be secreted (depending on cell type). As such they get out of the cell. However, the membrane as a whole persists.