304 karma · joined July 7, 2010
Can you clarify?
By selecting and rearranging several different coding sequences from three different chromosomes, each lymphocyte develops its own antibody "design", permanently changing its own genome in the process. This is what allows us to develop immunity to a broad range of foreign antigens with a relatively small amount of genetic code. Think of it as an "immune alphabet", if you will. You certainly don't want to interfere with that!
Other rearrangements also occur, some harmful, others not so much. Even if you wanted to target just the bad ones, though, a virus really isn't the tool for it. Your cytoxic T lymphocytes already do that. In fact, what you're really describing isn't all that far off from what we already have. I think we even have mechanisms for genetic error correction and repair, but I'll have to hit the books again to double-check that.
What is truly unfortunate is, this doesn't always work. Some viruses are able to "hide" in their host cells, preventing them from activating the immune response, and persist idefinitely in a latent state. This is why you can't really get rid of herpes, once you have it.
What looks promising about this development is that it seems to target a form of RNA that is simply not found in healthy cells. Human cells store their genome in double-stranded DNA, and use single-stranded RNA for transcription, but make no use of double-stranded RNA. Apparently, only certain viruses do, so the presence of dsRNA in a human cell should be diagnostic for viral infection, regardless of its sequence. In other words: see dsRNA, kill it!
Would that all viruses were that easy.
These mats tend to build up in layers, and often form structures known as stromatolites. You can find some examples both at the NASA team's site (http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/students/this_month/page2.cfm) and here: http://www.evolutionaryresearch.org/stromatolites.htm
There used to be a page up, claiming to show the remains of actual stromatolites on Mars, but it seems to be completely gone now (Spirit Finds Stromatolites, http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsstro.htm). The Wayback Machine has it at http://web.archive.org/web/20081120022703/http://www.xenotec... but I'd probably rank its credibility with the Face On Mars.
EDIT: Just to make it clear, all actual stromatolites in these links are definitely of terrestrial origin! (At least, I think they are)
The Nirvanix Cloud Storage Network meets the healthcare industry's need for secure archives. You can use policy-based replication to store data at multiple storage nodes that meet SAS 70 compliance. Nirvanix solutions encrypt data both in flight and at rest and enable you to instantly verify the integrity of your files. You also can make data securely available to selected users. We even seamlessly migrate data to new discs on standard refresh cycles, eliminating the complexities of long-term retention. With its secure long-term storage, the Nirvanix cloud will help you to comply with HIPAA Privacy and HIPAA Security Rules as well as other mandates for data privacy. (http://www.nirvanix.com/solutions/healthcare.aspx)
Here's a few other links that discuss the topic in a more informative manner:
http://www.hipaacompliancejournal.com/2009/05/cloud-storage-...
http://billkos.squarespace.com/hit-journal/2010/1/21/cloud-s...
http://hipaaaudit.com/2010/06/22/do-no-evil-says-google/
EDIT: Replaced Nirvanix quote with the correct paragraph. Oh, and I don't represent the company. Just picked 'em out of a search.
Imagine for a moment that you were sued over a product or service another party claims infringes a patent of theirs. Then, you found out that some product they offer actually infringes one of your patents. Now, you're thinking you've got leverage to negotiate a settlement, but the other party refuses all your offers, until you're finally left with no choice to countersue. That's when you find out they actually have the patent on patent trolling! Not only can they sue anyone they like for the slightest whiff of possible infringement, but the defendant can't fight back without actually violating another patent!
Quite the trump card, if you can get it.
I suspect rarity has less to do with the issues surrounding gold than its ancient desirability, its role throughout history, and the cultural baggage it's picked up in consequence. You probably carry as much rare as gold material in your mobile phone as you'll find in one of those solar cells, and if not, the platinum in your car's catalytic converter may more than make up the difference.
Don't let one minor inconvenience get in your way. ;)
Okay, I just spent the better part of an hour working on a comment on this (hey, I just passed a hematology course, sooo... ;), and then, as I finally got around to checking out the website, I catch this line in the video (emphasis mine):
"All that's really needed from an individual is a drop of blood from the finger to create a thin smear on a slide for analysis with standard protocols."
That's a lot different from what the linked article claims (again, emphasis mine):
"A single drop of blood from the patient is required then smeared on the microscopy lens."
Smearing the lens directly seemed an interesting idea, although it poses a few challenges I'll touch on shortly. However, a close listen to the video makes it clear that's not what the project purports to do. The Lifelens "hardware" -- the lens -- is just meant to give a phone camera microscopic capabilities. How well that works isn't too clear, but it's definitely not the same thing.
It would actually be quite difficult to get an acceptable specimen on a tiny lens. The standard laboratory method is to place a drop of blood on a slide, then use another slide to draw it out into a thin film. Here's a quick video that shows a pretty good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA6ce-3sYgk
Note how the tech drags the slide back at an angle over the drop, then pushes it forward almost immediately. It takes good timing and a lot of practice to get it right, and then you have to find just the right part of the specimen for a proper analysis. What you get in a typical thin smear is a range of population densities, from a clumpy mess of cells crowding and overlapping each other, to rarefied lines and clusters of cells spaced widely apart. The nice, evenly spaced fields shown in the article are just a small region of the full sample, usally a couple fields behind the feathered edge. Getting that is a challenge just in the laboratory. On a tiny lens in the field? I'll believe that when I see it, and this is just the second step! (Getting the sample is the first) The specimen still has to be stained.
While RBCs with their hemoglobin do en masse make blood red to reddish-purple, individual red cells don't actually show a lot of color without staining. Nor do white cells; they just look a bit larger and grainier than reds. To better examine cell structures, a stained specimen is needed. The standard analytical sample is a Wright stained thin film smear, which requires three different stains be applied and washed in sequence. This stuff doesn't just wash off, either, so don't expect to use the same lens twice. Again, however, that's not what the project actually claims to do. What it does claim, on the other hand, strains credulity in other directions.
Sad to say, but a half-sphere lens on a phone camera does not a microscope make. Without going too deep into details (I hope), proper microscopy requires close attention to the properties of light and lenses. You can't just point a powerful lens at a specimen and expect to get a good image. You also need to ensure sufficient lighting, proper contrast, and control your depth of field!!!
I cannot emphasize that last point enough! Even squashed nearly flat under a cover slip, any specimen you examine is still three dimensional, with details you can only see by shifting the microscopic stage up and down by very small amounts. The depth of field is very narrow. A professional scope's fine adjustment is fine enough to shift focus on a cell from "front" to "back" and anywhere in between. As you might imagine, that requires keeping the stage very, very still. That's why scopes have specimen stages. You won't get that out of a phone camera without clamping it down.
That's what made the article's statement so interesting. If an acceptable specimen could be obtained by smearing the lens directly, the fixed position might allow for proper analysis, but that's not what the project purports to do.
It might be interesting to see where this project goes, but at this point, it's still looking very alpha to me. I'd wait 'til they show this thing in action.
EDIT: Minor spelling error.
Sorry, I just like the irony.
Then again, I've heard of some interesting soda flavors. There may be more of those than of ice cream.
APL and J have "transpose" instructions that let you rearrange the dimensions of a multidimensional array. I figured out awhile back how that could be done without having to move all the individual elements in memory; basically, keep track of the 'step size' between elements on each axis, and you can shuffle them around as much as you like. Of course, once you've done that, you're jumping back and forth all over the array to pull in each element when/where you want it.
Well, looky what those "gather" instructions do! Promising. Very promising...
It took me a second look to realized, but in today's dollars, quite the bargain!
I was just working today with a coagulation test machine (Coag-A-Mate: http://www.gmi-inc.com/BioMerieux-Coag-A-Mate-2210.html) that can draw samples and reagents from an array of loaded vials. A "liquid-sipping robot" would actually be a VERY accurate description.
I suspect the reasoning is more along the lines of languages picking up more phonemes over time, such that older languages, having been around longer, would have picked up more phonemes.
To really illustrate the point of recursion, consider showing your students one of the simplest recursive algorithms out there. You can find it on the back of many shampoo bottles:
* Lather.
* Rinse.
* Repeat.I think he might have been a little unclear on the concept.
I was having a look at Terabyte drives in Best Buy yesterday, and while wondering how well a model might work with Linux, I realized, now the display computers actually have internet capability, I should be able to look it up right there in the store! So, I wander over to a convenient laptop, kick it out of screensaver mode, start up the browser, and plug in the product name. Only after I hit the search button did I notice WHAT service I was using. Added bonus: Google was NOT an option.
I'll believe that Bing is dead when it isn't the default search engine in the default browser on the default operating system at the default computer store.
In theory. I can see at least a couple of challenges in making such a system feasible. It's not like you can just shove the batteries into a massive underground tank, for example.
If I weren't trying to get away and do WBC differentials...
Or anything else.