CharonY

I normally do not do these types of analyses so I cannot give a definite answer off the top of my head, but the richest medium would be choc, followed by blood. After that all of the plates are at least slightly selective (either for gram+ or -). As high salt is not normally immediately toxic I would think MSA followed by MAC and CNA would make sense. It may also depend on what you want to be certain to get.

Moved to homework. What is a rule of three? In any case, you have not considered the size of chromosome 22 (in relation to the rest of the genome).

There are gazillions of variations out there (I am not even sure why ruminants are singled out). Surely it is way more than a single post could ever cover.

My thoughts precisely. IMO SFN always had the following constants: Threads about : - violating the first law of thermodynamics - esoteric cosmology - denial of evolution - self-proclaimed teenage geniuses AND - ydoaPs is never to become a mod. (Well and threads about Azure losing her pants, but that is also old news.) What is going to happen next? Insightful discussions? I never!

OK, how about cat-hamster weddings with canaries as bridesmaids? Also your browsing history is going to be interesting.

Dogs to cats, actually. But good thing that we finally got to the things that matter.

I cannot comment specifically on anything regarding aeronautics for reasons of having no clue about degrees and potential careers in this area (though I would think that the market is not terribly big). In the years in academia I have not yet found a single example of natural intellect factor. The important bit is not only to put efforts into something (anything you want to master, really) but also enjoying putting the efforts it. If you do not like what you do it is going to be an uphill struggle. You can still succeed but you would have to utilize a disproportionate amount of time as you will lack of in focus and motivation. Also you have to be certain that your "passion" also includes (and in the end, is dominated) by the day-to-day things that the degree entails. I.e. it is not about designing fancy spaceships or create giant mutant monsters (for totally unrelated example on which I am certainly not working on) but the nuts and bolts of its elements that you will have to be interested in. If you think that is the case and you can get and stay motivated (really, it is a marathon, not a sprint), I see no fundamental reason why you should not succeed. And, on a final note, an academic career is sometimes indeed compared to a sports or rock star career (except of course for the money, sex and drugs... well, recreational ones at least). The reason being that only a smallish fraction will be able to stay in academia there is immense competition, cut-throat system and so on. However, a degree in engineering obviously also allows for jobs in industry, so that is not too bad in that regards. Getting a degree is really the easy part and again there is no fundamental reason why one should not be able to get one. The better question is what to do afterwards as the degree never guarantees a career.

... cats I meant to say. Sometimes my post clicky speed is higher than my keyboard typing one. One of many reasons why I am only stuck with expert status.

Bloody hell, soon enough dogs marry

Well, hold on a second. ydoaPs is staff? What happened to the SFN that I knew?

Odd I could have sworn that I have posted here already. In any case, I still have not found the time to read the paper, but the numbers refer to relative risks. In this case it is the ratio of deaths in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated individuals at the given time points. Thus 1 would indicate that the risk is identical in bots populations, whereas 0.39 indicates that a vaccinated person would have 2.5 lower risk than non-vaccinated people. I would have to read it to be certain but it could mean that over time, the relative risk of both population become identical. Judging from OP I would say that the researchers indicate that the differences in relative risk of death is not due to immunity to flu as the strongest effects do not seem to coincide with the actual occurrence of flu. Again, solely based on the OP, not based on actually reading the paper. To me, that would not be terribly surprising as the general risk from dying of flu (even if infected) is generally low (for industrialized areas, at least). So I would not be surprised that flu vaccination protects from getting the flu, rather than from dying (again, the presented data refers to death and not to getting sick).

Computer games were popular even when the graphics were extremely crappy by today's standard. If the gameplay sucks, the graphics is not going to rescue it. Gaming is the whole experience which also includes accessibility. This is why consoles, with their ease of use and relatively low price tags as compared to high-end computer rigs, have a larger market share than (desktop) computer games. And this is despite the fact that from a technical point of view computer rigs are way more powerful. As lightburst indicated, production of video games is dependent on the market and not how technically advanced the hardware is. In the end, people buy games when there are fun. And due to novel distribution models, low end and retro games are making a revival now. Partially because many modern games almost exclusively focus on graphics, while omitting decent story lines or engaging gameplay mechanisms.

What is she doing, btw. Is she coming with you?

Both can happen. The allosteric inhibitor generally causes a conformational change in the enzyme which in some cases leads to a reduction in substrate affinity but can also just lower the enzymatic activity (based on the extent and type of conformational change).

... and that is how I met my wife.

I always found the twitter irritating or distracting at best. Well, I do not feel that I really want to share random stuff. If I feel the urge to do so I prefer to write an email. I do share photos with some friends but that is about it. And I believe they are grateful for that, otherwise I would science them to It does not help that I am not really good at quick witty posts (I am looking at you swansont). If I did twitter it would probably be something like - sitting in darkness - sitting in darkness - wow, light! oh no, just security with flashlight - why is the stuff not growing? - why is the stuff growing? etc.

If you are certain that only the N-terminus is labelled, it should work. Other possibilities include amperometry, weighing (very tricky). Or one could hydrolyse them and perform AA anlysis (a bit tedious and would not work with mixtures, but that does not appear to be the case here).

Somehow I do not get the social networking thingy. Also, I feel old.

Not quite. The rhesus refers to the presence of antigens. What you want to avoid are combinations where the antigen is present and the recipient possesses antibody directed against them (as this would elicit and immune response). As such rh- blood can safely be received by everyone, as no antigens are present to which the immune system can respond to. Also note that rh refers to a specific antigen (D) and there are more to consider, actually.

1) For GCMS the selection is big and there is really no that much of a difference between current-gen models of the different manufacturers. Some of the bigger ones such as Thermo, Waters, Shimadzu etc. may have quicker support, though it is also not universally true. The biggest decision is the type of MS (single/multiple quad, ion trap etc.) and the precise demands you have (many or few compounds in a single run, sensitivity, accuracy etc.). Only after that does it really make sense to look what the manufacturers have to offer. Alternatively call them with the types of applications in mind and they will do their hardest to show whether they have a system that fit your needs. 2) The companies generally also offer training. Personally I like to learn it on my own, but if you do not have anyone who is experienced with analytical instrumentation or bioanalytical approaches it may be worthwhile to invest in a few training sessions. They are not cheap, however, and tend to cover only the basics. A complete novice tend not to have the good questions to ask to make it worthwhile (IMO). Some companies have good support, however, so one can still ask questions as issue pop up. One should just not overdo it (i.e. call them for very trivial things all the time) to ensure a good working relationship (I know stories from ppl working in tech support....). Depending on who you represent you could also just post an opening for a technician position, for example.

Brilliant! Congrats and all the best.

Group theory, eh? Yeah, as you know, we are pretty big in that. We have lots of group theory. Oodles, in fact. Let me just quickly google that for you.... oh.

This is kind of funny as Trichoderma species are often used as biocontrol agents themselves (they tend to be mycoparasites). Isolating a virus would take a tremendous amount of work, and proper isolation and characterization would be a whole project, not a simple experiment (also note that many viruses do not kill of their host). That being said, I am not an expert in this field and would not know any specific viruses off the top of my head. But a quick search did not reveal repositories with appropriate viruses.

As Ringer stated, the core criterion is the ability to reproduce viable offspring. Even survival is only secondary to that. If the death of one organisms enables its offspring to survive, it may be a viable strategy (and there are many examples for species in which one or both parent die some time after successful reproduction). So the focus on survival is maybe a bit misleading.

How about this as a starting point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_eye