Hi Wifried, from you... " I think, there exists two independent data processing etc" There are two independent mechanisms. The look-up mechanism that simply responds rapidly to inputs in an appropriate way. This is an autonomic type of systems that is using what might be called "knowledge" . The other systems is goal-based mechanism capable of internalised feedback. This refines (to yield "knowledge") what might be called belief or even: solves open-loop control problems by modelling. We call this thought . It is that process that needs to converge and the emotions system could be seen as part of the system's test for convergence. The emotions system must be a component of evolutionary development so it somehow keeps us viable. Thus when we are not able to respond directly using knowledge we are still able to plan/model and derive viable responses - belief refinement using internal feelings to plan responses that are viable... perhaps emotions are generic tests for what is best for us..? The brain has no obvious data storage and I would suggest that memory is more akin to state-based recall - like a delay line. the states can be triggered and that creates apparent memory. Thus I do not see the brain as a data processing system but instead as a vast state-machine and the feelings (emotions) can be interpreted as states - highly generic expressions of viability that can be triggered whenever we model/plan/think. (The emotions system and the goal system are strongly related and both can be interpreted as generic actions - that also fits in with the concept of a state machine.)

Hi Mr. Masood Sir, Could you please tell me how to use CygWin software to download images from DDSM database o n windows 7, i have install it but it give error.

HI Bridget. Thanks for that. Yes, I have read that article and while its terms are similar the context is different. "passive mechanisms" in nest thermoregulation refer to things such as nest site choice to capture environmental heat, nest modifications to reduce heat loss and supplement brood warmth. My question was more to do with the heat produced by the colony's brood and massed workers, without them actually "actively" increasing the heat production by such behaviour as shivering or wing muscle vibration. I think i have managed to sort out the problem and am hoping to resubmit the MS soon. Just waiting on some statistical support...

e.g: all of metals which contain +2 : Fe,mg,cd,co,cr and ...

@Cyril. I forgot to answer the part of your question that asks '"is it an active or passive device." We call it an active device, simply because it's operation exploits an external energy source. Roughly speaking, any device that has a semiconductor in it is going to be an active device.

Have a look in the pages 201-210 of Kabata-Pendias 2011 (attached): There you can see the form of Mn in soil, the absorption and transport by plants, and biochemical functions.

I think it is better to use a standard Linux distribution and add the resources you need for your work.

I will agree with the previous posters, but I will also point out that Open Access publishers often waive publication charges if there is a justification. Being a young researcher or lack of funds could be accepted as a reasonable justification. It's certainly worth asking the editors for a waiver in both PubMed (eg for BMC Bioniformatics) and PLOS (eg PLOS One, or PLOS Computational Biology), or other journals that have publication charges.

The challenge is to list out all the pairs and ask if the are any variables that aren't paired.

Hi, Bedbrata, Have you found MIC (minimal inhibiting conncentration) at which you have seen visible inhibition of wt growth? If at this concentration you still have problem with rooting in transgenic plants, You should transfer plants to the medium without kanamycicn after short selection period. In the case root growth should recover. Good luck!

Johann, <<Why we, scientists and engineers, still fail to create an appropriate Artificial Intellegence (AI)? >> I think that the so-called off topic discussion was not so off-topic as it appears. Most of the first generation of AI scientists have minimized the challenge of making a machine intelligent, and they minimized the complexity of : the vision problem, the representation problem, locomotion problem, planning problem, etc etc. Most important, they did not seriously studied biological systems which are dealing with these complex problems. The most important part for solving a problem is always the specification of the problem. If the problem is arbitrary set, it is most likely that it is not relevant and most importantly it is not solvable. I do not exclude the possibility of creating a theoretical science call "AI" whose field of study is the creation of sense-acting systems for artificial agents acting in the world. In order to be this theoretical science will need a general architural framework that is closed to the one that evolves in living organisms. So I see the possibility of a theoretical AI close to a theoretical biology. It has to be theoretical, I do not beleive in hacking type of AI. That type failed and will continue to fail.

If you mean nucleons sharing the same quantum numbers, similar to electrons in the atomic shell they will spread over different energy levels obeying the Pauli exclusión principle for fermions.

Hello. Check the gold.err log file, it keeps all the errors. Ricardo

The problem with the approach you are describing above is that in order to eliminate antibiotic resistance, you really need to have 100% plasmid curing. However plasmid curing with those agents are not very efficient, often just a few percent. So I am skeptical that such an approach would have any real efficacy - especially with persistent antibiotic treatment providing a selective pressure.

It might be interesting to use Xeloda in combination with Alimta as the activity of thymidylate synthase (target for Xeloda) has been shown to render NSCLC patients resistant to Alimta. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487406 It is of course noteworthy that in a very nice study from Japan, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative that is also currently under evaluation for the treatment of NSCLC as a thymidylate synthase–targeted agent has been shown to enhance activity of EGFR targeting agents http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/9/6/1647.long

Al-Harbie, I agree with your post; you're correct. My apology, please. Thanks, Ben Olwe

True Dr. Farida, What so ever = PREVENTION is better than treament/management. i.e. development of new TB diagnostics able to detect MTB early [[or reducing the cost of PCR test for endemic countries]] at least will reduce TB endemcity and consequent worldwide pandemic TB issues.

In addition to Larry's excellent comments above -- in order to see the entire behavior of the dynamic dilution range(s), serial 1:2 dilutions (for about 25 points) is the most informative way to view your standard curves the first time. Once, done, then hone in and use the "sweet" ranges. Hopefully, when you do this, you will also find that "The plot of ddCt (calculated in #2 and plotted in #3) should yield a linear regression {[difference in slopes]} no less/greater than -0.1 to +0.1" that Larry speaks of. It is an age-old ABI User Bulletin #2 edict of sorts.

I am following this discussion now for some days, and I am shocked! Usually I am avoiding any discussion about evolution with creationists because it's useless, but the foolish ideas that I had to read here leave me no choice. So here is my answer to Carlo Alberto Cossano. Mr. Cossano, you obviously need some lessons in biology and about the truth of intelligent design. Lesson number 1: The history of intelligent design. Right-wing, evangelic fundamental Christians in the USA never liked the idea that their children had to learn about evolution at school. They are creationists, and they belief that the world came into existence in the way it is described in the bible (Genesis, chapter 1 and 2). And so they protested against the teaching of evolution at school. They even started court trials against the school administration in order to abandon evolution from the classroom and from biology textbooks. But they have lost every trial. And so they came up with a new idea. They disguised creationism as a scientific theory and called it Intelligent Design. Because as a scientific theory creationism could be taught at school as an alternative theory to evolution. Once again it came to trial (the Dover trial, 2005), and the judge came to the conclusion that there is no difference between ID and creationism. Therefore, from a legal perspective, ID is officially no scientific theory. At this point, everyone (even you Mr. Cossano) should realize that intelligent design is not a scientific concept, developed by scientists. It's a faith based political campaign, inaugurated by fundamental Christians in the USA. Lesson number 2: The (pseudo)scientific concepts of intelligent design. Mr. Cossano. I am pretty sure you are familiar with the concept of “non reducible complexity” (NRC). A Professor of Biochemistry, Michael Behe, came up with it. Behe's favorite example for NRC was the flagellum motor of bacteria. Behe said, the flagellum motor is so complex, it cant be the result of evolutionary processes, therefore, it must have been designed. The ID people often use the “mouse trap” as an analogy. A mouse trap is only fully functional when all parts are in the right place. If even one part is missing, the trap does not work. Behe said that the same is true for complex biological “machines” like the flagellum motor. Unfortunately (for the ID people) Behe was wrong. It was shown, that you can remove 50% of the components of the flagellum motor, and it still works. The concept of non reducible complexity has been disproved in many cases, and I wonder why the creationists still use it. The ID people often claim, that the existence of complex organs like the human eye, or complex systems like the immune-system, could not be explained by evolution. Mr. Cossano, go to the Pubmed homepage and type in “eye evolution” or “evolution immune system”. As a result you will get 4468 scientific papers that deal with eye evolution and 10094 papers that deal with the evolution of the immune-system (at Saturday 18th of May 2013). (I hope you know what Pubmed is). There is overwhelming evidence for the evolution of the eye or any other organ. And how does ID explain the human eye? It doesn't! ID hasn't come up with even one explanation in any field of biology! If you think differently Mr. Cossano, then please cite a peer-reviewed paper. I have already seen the articles that you have linked in your comments, but none of them is a prove for ID. Lesson number 3: Epigenetics In your opening question you wrote about epigenetics and the ENCODE project. It seems you think, that epigenetics has something to do with ID. You are terribly wrong. In fact it's a dirty lie, and it's outrageous! If I had to summarize epigenetics, I would come up with the following three terms: DNA-methylation, chromatin-remodelling and RNA-interference. But epigenetics is not so new as you might think, Mr. Cossano. When I was a student I have learned about all these things and no one called it epigenetics back then. There was no class or course called “epigenetics”, I have learned about these topics in classes about cell biology and molecular genetics, etc. What I have learned, but what you obviously did not learn is the following: 1) Trans-generational epigenetic inheritance is usually not stable! In the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, you can introduce an altered methylation pattern on the DNA by environmental stress. In the following generations this induced methylation pattern disappears more and more from generation to generation. So what remains in the end? The DNA of course. 2) An epigenetic factor does not appear out of nowhere. Every epigenetic factor is by itself encoded as a gene on the DNA level. Every DNA-methyltransferase, every chromatin-remodelling-protein and every microRNA is encoded by a gene. 3) Some people think, that epigenetics is in conflict with our current concepts of evolution, but I don't think so. Let's assume, that an epigenetic factor, like a DNA-methyltransferase or a microRNA, provides an advantage to an organism, be it survival and/or reproduction. Then what is the unit of selection here? Of course the gene that encodes for the DNA-methyltransferase or the microRNA. You see, epigenetics is not even in conflict with old-fashioned genetic inheritance. In fact, it perfectly fits into the concept of Richard Dawkins' “selfish gene”, and although I am not an expert on this, I would bet my last T-shirt on the fact, that epigenetics is absolutely consistent with the concept of an “evolutionary stable strategy” (ESS) (I hope you know what that is). In conclusion, epigenetics is not in conflict with our concepts of evolution. Moreover, it adds to our better understanding of evolutionary processes. But it certainly has nothing to do with ID. Lesson number 4: Philosophy of Science. By reading the comments in this discussion, I have seen that some people don't like Poppers idea of falsification. I understand that, because I felt the same way until my masters degree. I didn't like Poppers concept, because I didn't understand it. I said to myself, “well maybe Biology is different, and falsification cant be applied to biological problems”. During my PhD, I was attending classes and seminars in philosophy of science, epistemology and history of science. Here, I had to work myself through Poppers concept, as well as the concepts of Thomas Kuhn or Paul Feyerabend, etc. In the end I had to admit, that falsification is the only acceptable scientific way. A scientific theory or hypothesis is only of value when we can test it. At first I have an idea. Let's call this idea our hypothesis. Then I think of ways how to test this hypothesis. By using my hypothesis, I should be able to make predictions. Then I go to the field to make observations or I go to the lab to perform experiments in order to determine, whether my predictions were right or wrong. If the results are consistent with my predictions, then the hypothesis is true, and I am happy. If my predictions were wrong, I have to rethink my hypothesis. And here, especially for you Mr. Cossano, is an example why evolution is a true scientific theory and why ID is not: The ID people said, humans have 23 chromosomes (haploid) and apes have 24 chromosomes. Then how can humans and apes descend from a common ancestor? The difference in chromosome number is a clear proof, that there is no common ancestor and that the designer (god) made apes and humans separately. The evolutionists answered, yes you are right. If the theory of evolution is true, then the theory must be able to explain the differences in chromosome number. A good theory can make predictions, and the prediction made by the evolutionists was simple. Some time during the development of the human species, two chromosomes must have fused. This would explain why the human genome is missing one chromosome compared to apes. Chromosomes have distinctive parts, like telomers and centromers. If there really was a fusion between two chromosomes, then we should find a chromosome, that carries telomer- or centromer-sequences in places where they don't belong, remaining from the fusion process. So they analyzed the human genome, and guess what they have found. The human chromosome number 2 is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes. Chromosome 2 carries the remaining, unusual centromer sequences exactly as predicted by the theory. This is a textbook example of how science is done. There is a problem, the theory makes predictions, the predictions are tested, and if the results are true, the theory is true. Here is the paper: LaDeana W. Generation and annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4. NATURE | VOL 434 | 724-731. And now to you Mr. Cossano. How does ID explain the difference in chromosome number between apes and humans? ID does not explain it at all. It is no scientific theory, it cant make any predictions and it is not testable by laboratory experiments or by observations in the field. When you say in your comments, that ID uses the same methods and principles like any other scientific discipline, then this is a f****** lie. Lesson number 5: Logic 1) By reading some of your comments, I really was laughing my ass off. You said, that ID does not ask about the designer, it only asks whether an object was designed or not. Dude, when an object was designed, it obviously had a designer. When you don't understand that, then you are beyond any help. But I know why you say that, it's a defense reaction. By definition of the ID-think-tank (the “Discovery Institute” in the USA), the “Designer” is the Christian god (if you disagree, google it). You have to avoid any talk about the designer, because this would lead the discussion away from its (pseudo)scientific ground, and inevitably would end in a discussion about god, and you don't want this to happen. But I see through this rhetorical trick, since I already had enough discussions with people like you. 2) When we summarize the logic of ID in one phrase, then it is: “the designer made it that way”. Why are the petals of a flower arranged in the way they are? The designer made it that way. Why do apes have 24 chromosomes and humans 23? The designer made it that way. Why are hyaena so ugly? The designer made them that way. The phrase “the designer made it that way” is what in German is called a “Totschlag-Argument”. I don't know of a precise English translation, but the best translation would probably be a “killer-phrase” (the leo-dictionary calls it a tough-terminating-cliché). A killer-phrase is always right, it is never wrong and it can never fail. But a theory, hypothesis, argument or premiss, that cannot fail, is useless in its attempt to gain new knowledge. Its useless in its attempt to distinguish between true or false. It is in fact the same rhetoric that religious people use when they say “god is omnipotent, god can do everything”. I don't believe, that the miracles described in the bible are true. Why not? God can do everything, so why shouldn't these miracles be true? I don't believe, that Marie, the mother of christ, ascended into heaven alive and physically. Why not? God can do everything. If he wishes, then god will find a way to ascend her. You see. Intelligent Design and religion are using the same logic and the same argumentation. This once and for all proves the faith based concept of ID, and for me, this discussion is over, but I have some further comments. Comment 1: You misuse terms like “design”, “information” and “complexity”, and you are doing this on purpose. By doing so, you are trying to confuse your opponents. And when your opponent uses one of these terms correctly, you have the audacity to tell him that he/she has a misconception about it. This is the usual despicable rhetoric that I have encountered in many discussions with creationists like you. Comment 2: I was curious about you, and so I did some research. First, I entered your name in Pubmed, but I found no publications with your name on it. Of course that doesn't mean anything, you might be a student and so you probably haven't published yet. Then I tried to find your affiliation, but you don't show this information on Researchgate, so I googled your name. Google+ says that you are a senior technician and project manager at Dedalus S.p.A. So you are not a scientist, and you are not working in any field of research, fine. But most of all, you have nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Google also showed a link to Amazon Kindle. The stuff that you read reveals your true nature: The edge of evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism, by Michael Behe! (As if I knew it). What else do you read: The Cell's design: How Chemistry reveals the Creators Artistry. Wow. Are you a biologist at all, or are you just a religious internet-troll, on a campaign against evolution? Entering your name, google also finds pages about UFOs. I hope for you that this is an other Carlo Alberto Cossano, otherwise I would have to assume, that you are totally out of your mind. You may find my answer insulting. But I feel offended by the stupidity and ignorance of the ID people. So we can call it even.