Posted on 02/23/2011 7:01:08 AM PST by Hawk720
Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell says she's been invited to be a contestant on TV's "Dancing with the Stars." But the losing Senate candidate from Delaware isn't sure she should accept, saying she has two left feet and a book about politics to complete.
The conservative Republican, who lost to a Democrat amid controversy over past statements about youthful dabbling in witchcraft, is soliciting opinions on her Facebook page.
O'Donnell says her initial reaction was to say "no" to the show, but others are encouraging her to accept. O'Donnell writes she's flattered, but a 2-year-old nephew has more rhythm than she does.
A program representative said Tuesday it has no comment on casting speculation, adding a new cast will be announced next week.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Not sure if such was the case when and where you went to school, but I don't want to say that there is no such animal as the B.S. degree in History - because there is.
Really? Ok.
No, none of the schools where I applied at the time offered a BS in history. Hmm, that’s interesting.
“For a B.A. major, 9 additional hours humanities, 3 hours natural sciences or, for B.S. majors, 9 hours natural sciences, 3 hours humanities.”
My degree meets both elective requirements.
“Being a scientist though I think the proper ‘experiment’ would be between two groups, one with a B.S. degree and the other with a B.A. degree in the same subject - and a test upon that subject.
And with a sample size of n=1 for each group I would be leery of accepting such a test as anything more than anecdotal evidence.”
Well, I’m a ringer, so it’s not really a fair test.
I have 60 science credits, and the bare minimum of BA credits for both my major and my electives.
10 years experience in the industry has taught me a thing or two as well!
Biology is such a specialized subject (as History can be), especially with an advanced degree, that I think whoever designed the test would bias it towards their own area of expertise.
Like if one Historian were a Middle ages specialist and the other a WWII specialist - the test would have to be on Ancient Egyptian history or something to accurately compare.
I am a Molecular Biologist by education (specializing in genetics, signal transduction, and cardiac myocytes), and a Pharmacokinetician by training (what the body does to a therapeutic).
If you found a Taxonomist to quiz me on the names of species and phylogenies, I could give an excellent discourse on HOW such things should be determined (and if he were a morphologist classifier instead of a DNA classifier we would NOT get on!) - but couldn't tell you the NAMES to save my life!
I’m for it...just so I can see her legs. I bet they’re awesome.
I lost my gamble. I was an astrophysicist. Why couldn’t you be a structural chemist or something like that? Molecular biology? Ouch! I’ll get killed.
Oh gosh. I didn’t even take high school biology. There simply wasn’t time. I took chem and physics and as much advanced math as I could.
I tutor quite a few students, and I have had to work with nursing students, so I had to pick up crash courses in biology to get me up to speed, and help them with their anatomy and physiology courses.
At least I think I understand what it is that you do. You tailor drugs to individuals so that they work better?
But great guess. The notion of ‘individual medicine’ and interpersonal variability in response to drugs is one of the main things looked at in Pharmacokinetics.
Some people are “poor metabolizers” of a drug, and so a normal dose regimen will lead to toxic accumulation as their liver doesn't clear it at the expected rate.
Others are “fast metabolizers” of a drug, and so a normal dose regimen will not accumulate to an efficacious dose - and they get little or no benefit from the therapy.
This is based upon genetic variability of CYP P450 enzymes expressed primarily in the liver.
Sometimes it is based upon genetic variability of the gene that codes for the protein the drug is supposed to act upon.
For example, if a small molecule drug is supposed to bind to a receptor and turn it “on” to stimulate a therapeutic response within the body - if there is high genetic variability in the gene that codes for that receptor - it might not bind in some people or it might bind and turn it “off”.
Luckily for me humans show a high level of genetic homology. We are all very similar in DNA despite the superficial differences that arose as a result of climactic differences over our worldwide distribution.
:)
Is it bad I understood everything you said, save the enzyme which I am unfamiliar with?
Cool beans. You must be excited with the recent
advancements. How much of the genotyping work is applicable to your field?
Human screens of drugs now regularly include a genetic screening component.
If the primary enzyme of metabolism is highly variable in the population(poor metabolizers and fast metabolizers)it is figured out ahead of time.
Sometimes the DNA is not run at all - unless something weird happens that might require a DNA explanation.
Check this out, on the subject of history and CYP P450 enzymes...
The King Mithridates the great used to drink a concoction of poisons every day to build up a toxic tolerance - much as a regular drinker builds up a tolerance to alcohol by ready expression of the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase - by inducing the expression of (no doubt) a host of CYP P450 enzymes in his liver.
He could reportedly drink a lethal dose of poison and not die because of the tolerance built up. Now not all poisons work that way, but for those that do, it is known as the “Mithridic principle”.
A therapeutic that induces CYP P450 enzymes is also something I look at, because it will not only effect the dosing regimen of the drug itself, but also any other drug the patient is taking.
Which is probably why me as a small Irishman who drinks rarely can win drinking contests. :)
As an Irishman you are a ringer in any drinking contest from the get go.
My brother laughed when talking about Amerindians susceptibility to alcoholism. We have bred in alcohol tolerance he pointed out “Eric cannot hold his mead! After we drink, bash him!”
“Sexual selection also” his wife chimed in - in animal behavior it is called “handicapping” - like how a gazelle will do three or four twelve foot hops when he sees a lion - he is saying ‘I can jump like this for no reason and STILL outrun you, so don’t even TRY to chase me’.
I pointed out that I dated a bartender in college who got mad at me for not drinking “be a man!” she admonished me. “I will be a man tomorrow on the oar!” I explained (I rowed Crew) - but that wasn’t what she measured masculinity on. No wonder I ended up with a gal on the Crew team!
And you are better off for it I’d imagine.
Unfortunately not a rower here. Runner yes, rower, no. If I were short and stocky I’d be a great rower, but alas, not the case.
Twin rowers for the USA 2008 Olympics pair.
6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
220 lb (100 kg)
One sued the Facebook guy.
Really? Shows you what I know about the sport. You folks are amazing athletes.
If you get a fast start you see your opponents coming up on you. If you are making up ground you are rowing in their chop and you cannot see if your efforts are paying off in making up ground. Sometimes you are side by side across from each other during most or all the race.
We had a coxswain who would call out the seats in the boat that we were passing “I have their stroke, give me seven, give me seven”. That makes for a strong race because you are challenging them to row harder, but usually when you pass them - they fold. It is rough to see them break discipline - but in victory we also did not row as hard as if they were up to the challenge.
One race I will always remember a boat was ahead of us all the race, but we were boat to boat the entire time, until the last seconds of the race when we surged ahead and won.
I could feel their pain! The poor dumb bastard were ahead for 99.999% of the race except for the three seconds that it counted when we passed the finish line!
Good times, good times.
And Crew women are tall and develop great legs and asses! And if you like tiny gals, the coxswains are cute little bossy ones! One had a twin, who I had a lot of classes with..... drool.....
I’ll bet.
I like tall gals with nice legs, so yeah, rowers and swimmers for me. If they don’t mind short guys then it works out great!
Oh, funny story. A friend set me up on this blind date once and I told him to make sure that she knows what to expect. So she told her that I played volleyball, as a blocker. Which is true...
Oh she was not happy! She thought I’d be a tall guy, and was surprised that I was so tiny. I told her well you run, you build up everything in the legs. I’m not very heavy so it means I can jump really high. I had the same reach as the tall guys and could move around faster so I stayed on the team.
Even the coach was surprised. When she first started she had me assigned to set, since usually it’s the short guys who set. I told her, well, you probably don’t want me there. You want me digging or blocking. Eventually she got me up at the net, but it took some convincing!
With the new rules now, I’d have been much more of an asset. Prior, everyone had to play either up front or back. Now I could just stay back all the time and dig.
I'm puzzled why you believe that engaging in private enterprise somehow isn't entrepreneurial. I believe it is, and I think most would agree. And, the larger point that I was making in my post was that virtually all the Founding Fathers had at least some private enterprise experience, and many were incredibly successful businessmen.
"...was decidedly academic in nature and very idealistic to boot "
Again, I'm puzzled. Why would an entrepreneur not be allowed to be idealistic or academic?
If you look at the enduring silicon valley business stories, many of the most successful entrepreneurs were not only accomplished academics, but idealists as well. Sergey Brinn and Andy Grove, come to mind immediately. In America, academia has frequently been the great incubator to many of our entrepreneurial achievements. If you examine America's greatest inventor - Edison, IMO - you're going to find a man who was wildly idealistic, on of the most active free thinkers of his generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.