Along similar lines, I have to use google to search for old slashdot stories, since slashdot search does, and always has, sucked. Same for many other forums. Also many other websites in general, where it can be difficult to figure out how to navigate/find the content that you want. I use google as a workaround to the failings of many other websites poor UI/search design. Google Maps is another example of this, so, at least from my perspective, it's not the best example to use to make your point
Sorry, I just felt like ranting against increasingly poor website design, and this post brought that to the surface. Not like anyone besides maybe the original author is going to read this when I'm only getting around to reading the article 2 weeks after if was posted anyways....
I wouldn't go so far as to say that chicken is the closest living relative to the T-Rex, just that it is the closest in sequence similarity to this particular collagen protein, out of all of the protein sequences known in 2007 (chicken could have been the only bird represented in the database at the time, but I am not going to take the time to look into this).
I just searched the GVQGPPGPQGPR T-rex collagen sequence given in the text against the NCBI nr database, which is pretty comprehensive. It yielded the following Collagen alpha-1(I) chain perfect matches:
Brachylophosaurus canadensis [dinosaur]
Tyrannosaurus rex [dinosaur]
Sarcophilus harrisii [Tasmanian devil]
Monodelphis domestica [Gray short-tailed opossum]
Corvus brachyrhynchos [American crow]
Gallus gallus [Chicken]
Manacus vitellinus [Golden-collared manakin]
Pseudopodoces humilis [Ground tit]
Anas platyrhynchos [Mallard duck]
Geospiza fortis [Medium ground finch]
Acanthisitta chloris [Rifleman]
Columba livia [Rock dove]
Melopsittacus undulatus [Parakeet]
Falco peregrinus [Peregrine falcon]
Falco cherrug [Saker falcon]
So, that's 11 birds, 1 other dinosaur, and 2 mammals (one placental, one marsupial). The list gets bigger if we relax the sequence similarity cutoff. Based on this single fragment of a sequence, we can infer that T-rex is generally more closely related to birds than to mammals or lizards (and no lizards made the top-hit list), since there were a lot more bird matches than mammals (and the lack of mammal hits is likely not due to lack of sampling relative to birds). This is a big inference to make from a single fragment of a single protein, but I'm reasonably confident that further analysis of additional T-rex sequences would strengthen this finding.
If more sequences have been published since 2007, then perhaps we could get a better idea of which modern bird T-rex is most closely related to, but there is no way to determine this from just the single example sequence above. We cannot say with any confidence that T-rex is more related to chicken than to any other bird, unless a much more thorough analysis is performed using a lot more data. Perhaps this has already been done, but I haven't taken the time to hunt for additional literature.
After experiencing this level of cluelessness and severe disconnect with reality, I swore off Ubuntu forever. If other Linux distros are anything like the Ubuntu maintainers, I can only imagine what poor reasoning and justifications have been put forward regarding switching to systemd....
I used to allow unobtrusive ads, but then slashdot began causing my mouse pointer to turn into the busy pointer as these "non-instrusive" ads updated themselves. I don't mind static ads that don't take up much space, but once they start changing themselves on a frequent basis, which in turn causes my mouse pointer to animate, which I see out of the corner of my eye while reading the article I am interested in, then it quickly becomes intrusive. So, since non-intrusive ads have now become intrusive, I simply block them all. Screw 'em. They've used up all my good faith.
It really pisses me off that A) they don't say on their website which sets will ever be sold in a physical LEGO store or not, and B) whether a set is limited edition or not, and what limited edition might mean. There was no indication that the Mars Rover would never show up physically in stores, or that it would sell out by the 3rd month of the year and never be available again. I really wanted one of these. I'd been following it for a year or so, and thought I'd just have to wait for it to show up in stores 6 months later, after demand had fallen, like the Back to the Future set did (LEGO store clerks I spoke to in store said they were selling out the day the truck came in with a shipment). If a set is really popular and selling out quickly, you'd usually expect a company to make a bunch more to sell for more profit , like they did for the Back to the Future set, but for some reason this logic was not followed for the Mars Rover.
I've been looking forward to this Female Scientists set for a while now too, and I'm worried that I won't be able to ever buy one if they follow the same pattern as the LEGO Mars Rover. Paying 2x-3x on E-Bay is not an acceptable option, and mail order from the online LEGO Store directly is generally out for me as well, since there is too much risk of delivered items being stolen off my apartment doorstep. If they follow the same pattern as the Mars Rover and don't sell these in LEGO stores, and stop selling them at all after 3-4 months, then I will be very sad
It's disastrous. cDNA is just a direct copy of the most important part of what's in the genomeâ"the actual transcript that gets used to make the final protein. This isn't a victory at all.
I agree that this isn't really a victory. The court still got things very wrong. But the above explanation isn't quite correct, either. The transcript that gets used to make the final protein would be mRNA, not cDNA.
It's still just a copy of the original, though. And a trivial copy to produce. Nature already gave us enzymes to do this, which we isolated from various bacteria (which were also patented). We then mix some stuff in a tube, and voila, we have a complementary copy of the DNA. For a not-quite-apt analogy, it would be like taking a page of text and photocopying a mirror image of it. Or, perhaps more appropriate for Slashdot, transcribing it into ROT13. However you look at it, it is a trivial to produce copy, even if it is sort of a mirror image of the original.
So, I feel that cDNA should not be patentable. It's trivial. It's obvious. It's already existing in nature. Little effort went into creating it. You should not be able to patent fragments of cDNA. Now, how you *USE* said fragments, like as a specific collection of cDNA fragments for a test kit, that's another matter, one which I don't want to get into. I don't like method patents, but that isn't the issue we're discussing right now. The court still got this wrong, due to lack of sufficient understanding of biology.
But, why do they then choose acronyms that are so easy to make fun of?
ASCAP: Ass-Cap (put a cap in yo ass)
SABAM: Sa-*BAM* (like punching someone in a Batman comic book)
I'm sure there are fun mis-pronunciations for the equivalent associations in other countries as well. Anyone from other countries want to contribute more?
My memory is a little fuzzy on the exact number from when I worked in the industry, but something like 70% of all drugs that pass Phase 1 trials fail in Phase 2 trials. Phase 1 trials are small and test for safety problems, and Phase 2 trials expand to a larger cohort to test for efficacy -- does the drug work. The pharmaceutical industry loses around 70% of all its drug candidates due to them plain not working. Often times, this is due to it working in mice/rats, but not working in humans. This isn't entirely surprising, since rodents are a good bit different than humans. Also, many animal models simply mimic human disease, rather than actually being related to how the human disease works. For example, many animal models are done over a short period of time, say 30 days or less between the initial insult (do something nasty to the rodent to induce disease-like symptoms). For inflammatory diseases, real human disease may take years from the initial problem (whatever it may be) to develop into full blown disease. When you're comparing an animal model on the time scale of a few weeks to human disease over several years, and the insult is something very very different from what it could possibly ever be in a human, it should come as no surprise that the model is often biologically very different from what is going on the human. This isn't necessarily due to rodents being too different from humans, but could easily be due to the model simply being the wrong model to mimic human disease.
Long story short, many animal models just don't do a good job at representing human disease. This is not news to anyone who has worked with them or been in the pharmaceutical industry. However, not everything is gloom and doom here. There are, actually, many animal models that *DO* do a good job of modeling human disease. The trick is to know which ones are good and which ones aren't for various diseases, drugs, pathways, etc. before you start spending the big money on clinical trials....
To this day, I *still* automatically use shift-backspace to fix typos during login prompts, as well as ^D to forward delete instead of the delete key
A bit further off-topic, but there was one program on one system that I used one time where neither the ENTER nor the RETURN key functioned as expected. I was forced to resort to ^M to issue newlines! Ah, the days needing to know all of the alternate ^key commands
It should be one crime, one charge, but that's not required by law, so they interpret this type as shotgunning as within their requirement t prosecute to the full extent of the law. Don't like it? Change the law. Your congress-critter won't change the law? Change congress-critters -- this you CAN do.
This makes me think of the South Park rerun that was on last night or maybe the night before -- the one where the kids had to vote for the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich as their school mascot. When your choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it doesn't much matter which congress-critter you vote in -- neither choice will result in the outcome you desire above....