Yes Neil... Check some of Lawrence Kirmayer's stuff on Cultural Responsiveness; being open to diversity, walking with respect and curiosity. And google Explanatory Models as a means of learning to explore the worlds of those whose experience and meaning are different to our own.

I think you can look at Hex protein-protein docking.................. GRAMM-X Protein-Protein Docking Web Server vakser.bioinformatics.ku.edu/resources/gramm/grammx/

Hi there I don't quite get the formula you're using. Given two samples (a and b), shouldn't it be something like "(1+Efficiency)^[-(Cta - Ctb)]"? This would give you the relative expression (a/b) of a given gene (target or reference). Next, to normalise, simply divide the results for the target gene by the results for the reference gene. Another thing you can do is select the most stable reference gene(s) using NormFinder or GeNorm before normalising. I can help you out if you want. Good luck =)

I think structural annotation is available for all proteins at SCOP and CATH protein classification database..... Meanwhile if it analysis of protein at various level of structural organisation you can have a look at array of tools available at http://www.expasy.org/tools/

you can also try this: http://dip.doe-mbi.ucla.edu/dip/Main.cgi

The information "ntasks = XX, cpus / task = X, ncpus = XXX, nodes = XY" do not appear in my output. You imagine what can be the problem?

Dear Prof Mansor, please send me your files about AB model via thanhnha_nh@yahoo.com. Moreover, I would like to ask if there is any software to estimate with both restrictions. Tks a lot.

I recommend Texmaker too. It is quite good!

Thanks a lot Dear Sumon Saha. I am using constant heat flux on a SS tube. I am using copper nanofluids with DI water. If you don't mind i want to discuss some more issues related to my research i.e. Heat Transfer intensification using Nanofluids.

Merci !!!

I suggest ILWIS if remote sensing otherwise, OpenCV is also very good. You can develop your algorthim in C/C++.

Check the fabrication process, specially deposition of insulating layer thickness and metal-organic interfaces. May be your device were severely exposed with air during fabrication process.

Dear Dr. Liu, I'm still waiting something more insightful from you.

@Stam: Your statements contain logical gaps and contradictions. 1. "... the statement that a radius has the same properties as a light cone doesn't make sense: a length is a space-like quantity and no Lorentz transformation can make it light-like, which a distance along the light cone is." At such qualifying it should be "a velocity is a time-like quantity and no Lorentz transformation can make it light-like, which a distance along the light cone is", but this is obviously absurd. In fact the grav. radius in GR is not an ordinary space-like distance, but it is an areal radius of a collapsing spherical object where worldlines (of particles on the surface) should be light-like. 2. "the Planck length is not the grav. radius of any one particle, but, simply, sets a scale, where one expects gravitational, relativistic and quantum effects to be comparable-but, absent a concrete situation, needs to be complemented by a dynamics." If here "...gravitational, relativistic and quantum effects to be comparable", you MUST use the exact solution of GR eqs. for compact objects, i.e. Schw. sol., where at the grav. radius worldlines SHOULD BE timelike (at least formally). 3. "Within general relativity, if you had a mass greater than the Planck mass, within a region less than the Planck length, you would form a black hole, whose size separates space into causally disconnected regions., so you cannot extend spacetime beyond the horizon." If you read my papers about frozar picture of GR collapse, you can see that "within GR" the collapse leads to frozen stars (frozars) whose proper time is frozen with respect to the world time related by CMB frame and BHs can not be formed in our Universe. No such separation of real spce and worldlines are timelike everywhere. See details in my large discussion with colleagues in LenkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=197654004&gid=3091009&commentID=110918635&trk=view_disc&ut=1TK0SywbV34lA1 4. "But this discussion is beside the point of the original question, where regularization arises in order to perform calculations in quantum field theory, where you have global Poincaré invariance, not local, as in general relativity, which is a classical theory and regularization does not come into play." As you have a system where gravity is so strong that grav. radius is the same scale as the wavelengths, YOU MUST work in the framework of GR, not SR. Any other way is quasi-science and has not relation to the real world. In QED Coulomb component of the elm field remains non-quantized, so "the Newtonian" component of grav. field (in the Schw. form, i.e. g00) also remains non-quantized and in QFT the classical GR works exactly.

Random assignment is generally used in experimental and quasi-experimental designs. The use of a nonprobability sampling design very much depends on your research question and research design. For example, qualitative research (such as a focus group) rarely if ever utilizes probability sampling designs. Qualitative research or exploratory research focuses on topics that have received no or liffle knowledge. Explanatory research, on the other hand, almost always requires probability sampling designs.

@Yakov Nizhnik: we hadn't applied sublimation method for this case, @Dr. Vishnu Sondhiya: Yes Mr. Vishnu Sondhiya, I do agree with that, mixture of solvents will work good. But, because of its solubility issue we had to try only from DMSO.

Survey Monkey -- highly recommend.

Daryl, "Your below statement is wrong Daniel. "Alone, selection cannot create something indeed. And that was never an argument of neo-Darwinism that I'm aware, only a straw man."" Since Darwin, we now that non-random differential survival and reproduction (natural selection) only happens when there's available variation, and doesn't matter how variation came to being, selection and drift is what will change their frequencies to promotes adaptation. Selection allows some bias on novelties, e.g. a bigger wing can only be selected when a shorter one exists, i.e. the previous selection of those shorter wings paves the way to a longer one. It's in this sense (cumulative), that NS has a role on "creativity", but of course the longer wing will need that new variations are available to be selected. I agree with Gould that we need, (and we are through evo-devo mainly) understanding how the fit come to being. On that comment of Eugenne Koonin, I agree if we are talking of evolution as the general phenomenon of biological change, that NS is one among a few process. But if we are talking on adaptive evolution, natural selection is a necessary and ubiquitous process, acting on novelties that arrive by other process.

From my understanding, Craddock's method is an algorithm to define those ROIs using your own data, so there are no specific coordinates. You may run their scripts to define your own ROIs.

Once again, thank you for your reply, Daniel! Yes, the plasmids were new and purchased directly. We checked them by electrophoresis, but no sequencing was done (I assume, this should be done by manufacturer). I did adress my questions to Invitrogen as well, but it is still unclear (to me and to them, I guess), why the product is not working as expected. To conclude, we are now performing the cloning with another construct, and next time I will definitely check the plasmids functionality before any cloning, even if it is new and from respected provider (: