2011-08-15, 09:52 AM
The general populace is not sufficiently well-informed to judge whether it is truely that magic bullet we're looking for. Until you know exactly how DRACO works i.e. read the paper and understand it or get someone to explain to you how it works (objectively) and understand what it can and/or cannot do, I'm sorry your words aren't much better than mine. Look, this is science: they tested A, B, C, D, but have not tested E to Z. We tend to hope, and make reasonable assumptions, but until it actually is tested, nobody is right or wrong in saying if E works or doesn't work. Why do you think I said "my guess"?
Fine. Here's a good example of why DNA and RNA are so different. Why does your ribosome translate RNA and not DNA? Why do you think HIV's reverse-transcriptase is "RNA-dependent" DNA polymerase? Everything in that hover spoiler, and from my explanation, suggests that there is no chance of double stranded RNA originating from the HIV payload or downstream processes, and RNA-DNA duplex is therefore hardly similar to double stranded RNA.
Don't buy it? Then it's no one's loss. I've explained it clearly (at least, I think it is perfectly clear to me and most people), and nobody loses a piece of meat by failing to get my idea.
I don't think the media is the best place to obtain such opinions. Science blogs... a little better. I am very sure you are sufficiently mature to judge if that URL you just put (and your google search) gives sufficiently balanced views, or if it has too much optimism in it that it blinds people. You probably have read my comments on previous threads with similar reports of big discoveries. Always, always, be cautious, and never give more hope than you should. There are (up till now) no absolutes in this world, and DRACO is no exception.
So am I snuffing this discovery? Nope. I've dumped a whole lot of queries, but I definitely will say that this has great promise, because the concept is very good, and it works for now. Until they do more, hope all you want, but it's not going to change any future results. Just feel that if they put in a little more effort, this paper would probably have made it into CNS...
I'll inform you that the scientific community scrutinises details very carefully, just like your hover spoiler and the words you typed just before it.
Hadriel
[hope is such a wonderous, and yet terrible thing]
Fine. Here's a good example of why DNA and RNA are so different. Why does your ribosome translate RNA and not DNA? Why do you think HIV's reverse-transcriptase is "RNA-dependent" DNA polymerase? Everything in that hover spoiler, and from my explanation, suggests that there is no chance of double stranded RNA originating from the HIV payload or downstream processes, and RNA-DNA duplex is therefore hardly similar to double stranded RNA.
Don't buy it? Then it's no one's loss. I've explained it clearly (at least, I think it is perfectly clear to me and most people), and nobody loses a piece of meat by failing to get my idea.
I don't think the media is the best place to obtain such opinions. Science blogs... a little better. I am very sure you are sufficiently mature to judge if that URL you just put (and your google search) gives sufficiently balanced views, or if it has too much optimism in it that it blinds people. You probably have read my comments on previous threads with similar reports of big discoveries. Always, always, be cautious, and never give more hope than you should. There are (up till now) no absolutes in this world, and DRACO is no exception.
So am I snuffing this discovery? Nope. I've dumped a whole lot of queries, but I definitely will say that this has great promise, because the concept is very good, and it works for now. Until they do more, hope all you want, but it's not going to change any future results. Just feel that if they put in a little more effort, this paper would probably have made it into CNS...
I'll inform you that the scientific community scrutinises details very carefully, just like your hover spoiler and the words you typed just before it.
Hadriel
[hope is such a wonderous, and yet terrible thing]