And to think, Chip, it only took 6 years to use this quip in a both acceptable and relevant way.
Can't tell if trolling..
Not to nit-pick, but the model organism used is the Fruit Fly--the House Fly is not even part of the same family. Drosohpila M., also like Arabidopsis T., and E. Coli, have been great model organisms, for cellular analogs not so easily replicable within natural world scenarios.
That being said, it of no surprise that our cells, and their intricate systems, become adversely affected by exposure to these unnatural environments. The thing about putting living creatures in space, is that there ARE NONE (that we know of), and it only makes sense that our cells--here today because of billions of years of evolution, in specific gravity and low magnetic environments. All cells use electrochemical gradients in their various functions. Your entire neural system is fed by the opening and closing of gated ion channels all along a neuron, leading to the synapses--where the electrical charge of ions is converted into chemical signals released via vesicles across the synaptic cleft.
I'm glad that research is being done on this, however, so that we may figure out how to better equip those who will be going up into space, many years from now. & they probably wont be American, since NASA will of become a giant McDonald's ball pit by that time.
If I read correctly, it's not solely soft drink taxation, its only a title, which generally is supposed to look good--for them, their political agenda, and personal beliefs, etc. The taxation and regulation & so forth would include other high sugar products, HFCS is in a lot of things.
Such as: a lot of salad dressings--especially those packets at mc'donalds. Some yogurts (such as Yoplait) have over 27g of HFCS. That's over half one days 'recommended' sugar serving. I'm not sure why groups have yet to establish a rule on this as of yet.
However, the energy drink companies are aware of it, they's why they put the non registered value in place of an actual DV rating--for when their full cans are greater than 50g of HFCS. If you think about it, they often don't have a single serving can, they only sell them in 2+ servings. Monster even came out with a BFC (think about the acryonym, lol--which is fucking awesome, I've pounded one before when I used to inhale energy drinks during HS). AND THAT was 108g of HFCS. Lol
I'm just trying to say, there is A LOT of products with excessive HFCS in it, and sugars in general. But this tax is only theoretical anyways, there is followups by Lustig, and moreover, by other objective parties / peers.
Yet even with all that, if you take a moment and go back, there is no dietary set value for sugar. So they would have to establish a ratio with enough striking evidence, to drive a correlation of ng of sugar to "toxicity" within the body. And even then, I don't think it's just sugar that's causing this alone, there is probably a number of variables--such as genetic predispositions, environmental factors, stress, SES, and so forth.
So like I said, calm down, and let people like me get sugar diabetes II.
:)
That's not fair, nor entirely accurate; after about 30 hours of line drawing, there's a big ass circle, and then 4 more hours of straight lines.
Am I seriously the first one to point out the Shenron ball in picture 4?
I don't know about you guys, but between full time work / school, the only difficulty I have availability for is Easy / Normal (if easy is laughable).
I like to get the story in, rather than hours of playing shoot and duck--a perfect example being Uncharted--I had a much more enjoyable time being able to play shoot and duck, or just pummel the shit out of my assailants; on easy the option was mine. I was able to chew through UC:1, 2, & 3 in two days (I had owned the first one since it came out and never played it).
At the moment, I've started Mass Effect, and again, I prefer the easiest mode so I can actually play the game and not spend most of my time dying, getting frustrated and such.
This isn't to say that I am incapable of playing, or that I am a noob, but I don't have the time to grind away at games so that I can get better, more accurate, quicker in my execution of moves, etc. for harder difficulties.
How many of you have gone from the Experienced Gamer to Casual? How do you find time to continue playing?
I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
#collegestudentthatlivesunderar...
#collegestudentthatlivesunderar...
You're right, the proximity does have my weary. Other than that, I'm really unsure. And @KingKellogg the Waffle haggler, I hate hippies. So no.
But wouldn't they be grossly inefficient? I mean, in essence, you have a target planet, but you're simultaneously compromising dozens, maybe hundreds of other systems going through point A to Z.
It's always humorous to see 'your' and "idiot" in the same sentence.
:)
:)
Because the Wii U is almost definitely a money grab on Nintendo's end. Their peripherals will not be included with the system, but instead bundled. Ultimately predicting that at some point, the system will be sold without the screen peripheral, and just a lowly Wiimotion Plus Remote. The peripheral, which I assume will be ~$100-200 and pair with a $250-350 console.
The Wii U is going to be Sony's BC PS3.
That's assuming R&D doesn't bankrupt them amidst paltry 3DS sales. They're promising to have a working unit by E3, but that does not necessitate a finished product by holiday 2012. Likewise, Nintendo's push for a new "current-gen" console (because the Wii is definitely sub-current gen, barring motion capabilities, speaking strictly in a graphical sense.) will prompt Microsoft and Sony for more aggressive development of new next-gen consoles.
The wrist comment may be fan-boyish, however, I too would be upset if an influential person had their abilities squandered on a potentially failure of a platform.
/shrug
That's just what I would think would happen. I'm no industry analyst so I'm speaking strictly hypothetically.
As for the next-gen console, I can only hope Microsoft wissens up and opts for Blu-Ray media capable drives. DVDs are fantastic n' all...except when games are made on PS3 first, then compressed for 360 later. Plus it would make Microsoft a better bet for the total media experience, since it has a vastly superior online experience.
That too is an area Nintendo has been awful at; embarrassingly so, actually.
The Wii U is going to be Sony's BC PS3.
That's assuming R&D doesn't bankrupt them amidst paltry 3DS sales. They're promising to have a working unit by E3, but that does not necessitate a finished product by holiday 2012. Likewise, Nintendo's push for a new "current-gen" console (because the Wii is definitely sub-current gen, barring motion capabilities, speaking strictly in a graphical sense.) will prompt Microsoft and Sony for more aggressive development of new next-gen consoles.
The wrist comment may be fan-boyish, however, I too would be upset if an influential person had their abilities squandered on a potentially failure of a platform.
/shrug
That's just what I would think would happen. I'm no industry analyst so I'm speaking strictly hypothetically.
As for the next-gen console, I can only hope Microsoft wissens up and opts for Blu-Ray media capable drives. DVDs are fantastic n' all...except when games are made on PS3 first, then compressed for 360 later. Plus it would make Microsoft a better bet for the total media experience, since it has a vastly superior online experience.
That too is an area Nintendo has been awful at; embarrassingly so, actually.
It will still come out before KH3, or--albeit less wanted--ZOE:3.
I know SE and Kojima have nothing to do with TLG, but they all share painful months of silence between stagnent announcements such as this.
I know SE and Kojima have nothing to do with TLG, but they all share painful months of silence between stagnent announcements such as this.
I need to finish college!
I was thinking Canada.
I was thinking Canada.
Reason #10538 why I don't want to live in this country anymore.
You guys need to look at the buttons on the controller--specifically the D-Pad and Action Buttons. The glossy black crosses which frame them in the background throws the entire design off.
True it does possess some "Red Dead Redemption-ey" qualities that can be appreciated in the paint, but I just can't get over charcoal matt cross hatch clashing with the glossy inky blacks.
True it does possess some "Red Dead Redemption-ey" qualities that can be appreciated in the paint, but I just can't get over charcoal matt cross hatch clashing with the glossy inky blacks.
Nah. DNA used to just be RNA.
DNA only has that information because a long time ago a mutation happened in an organism that essentially made it's cells differentiate into what is known today as a leg, or arm. Even then, the leg or arm was a very crude impression of what we understand them to be.
You also have to consider that evolution simply doesn't "stop." Human beings are evolving constantly--no, not like the X-Men--but nonetheless, we just don't observe this change because it takes such a huge expanse of time. Hell, even to trees that would take generations upon generations to be noticed by them (if they were cognizant.)
My point is, somewhere along the lines, some kind of organism, or "proto-organism" began to proliferate, and the organelles, nucleus, RNA, and DNA came later on. In fact, it is probably just organic material that happened to come together, creating an ordered structure based on its biochemical properties, and then recreating itself over and over and over, adapting with each generation of progeny, growing increasingly complex.
DNA only has that information because a long time ago a mutation happened in an organism that essentially made it's cells differentiate into what is known today as a leg, or arm. Even then, the leg or arm was a very crude impression of what we understand them to be.
You also have to consider that evolution simply doesn't "stop." Human beings are evolving constantly--no, not like the X-Men--but nonetheless, we just don't observe this change because it takes such a huge expanse of time. Hell, even to trees that would take generations upon generations to be noticed by them (if they were cognizant.)
My point is, somewhere along the lines, some kind of organism, or "proto-organism" began to proliferate, and the organelles, nucleus, RNA, and DNA came later on. In fact, it is probably just organic material that happened to come together, creating an ordered structure based on its biochemical properties, and then recreating itself over and over and over, adapting with each generation of progeny, growing increasingly complex.
So now that his name has been publicized, and his findings--if anything--sensationalized. What is stopping a radical terrorist group from kidnapping him and forcing him to comply? Forget him publishing his findings, they just need the man himself and they hold all the theoretical cards.
This doesn't make sense to me.
EVEN IF this "LUCA" existed, it is theorized to be a conglomeration of cells...which is what most all life is on earth--multicellular organisms. The difference of LUCA is that they are suggesting it existed in a pre-survival of the fittest. As romantic as a giant, amorphous, cellular mass floating around, cooperatively existing, may sound...I still am not buying it.
What is even more perplexing is the idea that this cell has internal membrane structures, but no DNA or nucleus.
Also, if LUCA used only RNA--it is erroneous to say that "cells spent hundreds of millions of years freely exchanging genetic material with each other." Since DNA carries over genetic information to its progeny.
Okay, so thinking halfway through my post, maybe it is plausible for LUCA to have existed...
What bothers me is the post title, since the ancestor of all life on Earth is undoubtedly a single celled organism, not a multicellular entity. That single celled organism would proliferate until becoming the mass known as LUCA--theres like a billion things I want to say here, but I'll just leave what I wrote as is.
BLAH!
EVEN IF this "LUCA" existed, it is theorized to be a conglomeration of cells...which is what most all life is on earth--multicellular organisms. The difference of LUCA is that they are suggesting it existed in a pre-survival of the fittest. As romantic as a giant, amorphous, cellular mass floating around, cooperatively existing, may sound...I still am not buying it.
What is even more perplexing is the idea that this cell has internal membrane structures, but no DNA or nucleus.
Also, if LUCA used only RNA--it is erroneous to say that "cells spent hundreds of millions of years freely exchanging genetic material with each other." Since DNA carries over genetic information to its progeny.
Okay, so thinking halfway through my post, maybe it is plausible for LUCA to have existed...
What bothers me is the post title, since the ancestor of all life on Earth is undoubtedly a single celled organism, not a multicellular entity. That single celled organism would proliferate until becoming the mass known as LUCA--theres like a billion things I want to say here, but I'll just leave what I wrote as is.
BLAH!
