This device serves – together with an existing gauge block set – for setting of the SUBITO measuring instruments. Application range overall from 4,5 to 800 mm. Special designs up to 1.200 mm are available on request.
The Lasker Foundation's first ever award to a Chinese scientist working on the mainland has reignited a 30-year controversy over whether one person should be recognized for developing a powerful antimalarial drug that was the product of a massive government project during China's Cultural Revolution. Last Friday in New York City, the foundation presented Tu Youyou, an 80-year-old phytochemist at the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, with the 2011 Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award for "the discovery of artemisinin, a drug therapy for malaria that has saved millions of lives across the globe, especially in the developing world." But some Chinese scientists disagree with the citation, particularly its exclusive focus on Tu.
Wu Yulin, a retired chemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences's Institute of Organic Chemistry who helped determine the chemical structure of artemisinin, wrote in response to an inquiry from ScienceInsider that Tu "made contributions to the discovery of the compound" but did not make significant contributions after that. Critics of the Lasker citation emphasize that development of the artemisinin-based combination therapy used today resulted from a scientific relay race that went through many stages. In comments on Web postings and in an independent newspaper, they argue that more than one person deserves to be cited for the achievement.
Tu's proponents argue, however, that her discovery stands out. Two supporters—Louis Miller, chief of Malaria Cell Biology at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleague Xinzhuan Su, also at NIH—described Tu's contributions in a 16 September Cell article, writing that they have "no doubt that the major credit must go to Youyou." Su says their conclusion was backed by classified documents shown to them by Tu and officials at her institute.
Rao Yi, a neuroscientist at Peking University in Beijing, takes a more nuanced stand in support of Tu. Rao and his colleagues say they have seen a much larger set of classified and internal documents archived at institutions that were involved in artemisinin research and interviewed many of the major players. Rao says, "Although we agree with Miller and Su that Youyou should be recognized as a representative, we find they went too far in reaching conclusions that are not supported by available sources and in attributing credits based on claims that are at least controversial if not wrong." Rao included some of their findings in an article he posted online. He says: "Our article is very specific about clarifying the role of Tu Youyou, and we came to the conclusion that Tu is a representative of the project. We clearly mentioned others such as [contemporary artemisinin researchers] Yu Yagang and Zhong Yurong. We did note that the roles of others need to be further studied and established."
The search that led to artemisinin began in the 1960s when the North Vietnamese government asked China for help in finding a cure for drug-resistant malaria, which was decimating troops in the jungles of Indochina. Under Mao Zedong's instruction, China launched a secret effort at the height of the Cultural Revolution in 1967. Code-named Project 523, it mobilized more than 500 researchers from some 60 organizations across several military and civilian agencies.
Project 523 planned a three-pronged attack on drug-resistant malaria: research and develop new drugs the Western way, screen traditional medicine and folk remedies to search for a Chinese therapy, and find ways to prevent malaria infection in the first place. Tu's institute, the Institute of Chinese Materia Medica, was assigned to work on the second approach. According to research by Rao's group, Yu Yagang, who worked at the same institute as Tu, analyzed a 1965 compilation of traditional remedies for malaria statistically and found qinghao (green-blue wormwood) was one of the ingredients used most often. Yu then worked with another researcher from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences to test a crude extract of qinghao on a rodent model of malaria, finding that the extract killed parasites with 60% to 80% potency. Yu reported the results to Tu, the group leader. Yu soon was reassigned to an even larger effort—searching for a treatment for bronchitis, from which Mao suffered. Tu then asked others in the group to repeat Yu's experiment, but they couldn't obtain extracts with consistent potency.
Tu describes her work in some detail in an essay in the October issue of Nature Medicine. She suspected that extraction at high temperature destroyed the active ingredient of qinghao. She went back to the traditional medicine book and, after reading about a preparation that called for soaking qinghao with cold water, proposed using a low boiling point solvent to extract the active chemical. This insight is considered a breakthrough step toward the discovery of artemisinin by her supporters. Tu's detractors, however, point out that using ether and other low boiling point solvents to extract active ingredients from plants is standard phytochemistry.
Li Ying, a retired chemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Materia Medica in Shanghai, who worked on the synthesis of artemisinin derivatives, wrote in an article in 2008 that Tu's method of extraction and purification yielded crystals containing artemisinin mixed with other chemicals, giving rise to toxicity in clinical trials. At roughly this time, Wei Zhenxing of the Shandong Institute of Pharmacology and Luo Zeyuan of the Yunnan Institute of Pharmacology, after hearing about Tu's breakthrough, each independently derived antimalarial chemicals from local herbs called huang hua hao or yellow-flower wormwood (Artemisia annua). Several species were used traditionally as medicinal qinghao, but only A. annua eventually proved to contain a sufficient amount of artemisinin. The Yunnan group also found the best cultivated source of A. annua in another province. Using this source, they were able to produce pure artemisinin in large quantities, speeding up drug research and development. Tu's group also adopted the Yunnan method.
Meanwhile, researchers working in Shanghai from 1973 to 1975 found that artemisinin has a novel and unusual structure, a so-called peroxide bridge. Artemisinin is the only natural compound known to have this structure. It is key to its antimalarial property and makes artemisinin-based drugs entirely different from those derived from quinine, such as chloroquine, to which malarial parasites have become resistant. Li Ying's group in Shanghai synthesized artemisinin derivatives that were more potent at killing malaria parasites and had more desirable chemical properties (such as solubility in water), making them better drug candidates than natural artemisinin. They are the basis of therapy used today. It was only after secrecy rules were lifted in 1977 that research papers from Project 523 began to come out.
After the Lasker Award ceremony, Tu seemed eager to mollify the critics, telling Xinhua News Agency, "I think the honor not only belongs to me but also to all Chinese scientists."
Because the Lasker Award is often seen as a precursor to the Nobel Prize, the Chinese media are abuzz with anticipation. But some worry that the disagreement over credit might give the Nobel committee pause. Rao says that if he had to choose three scientists—the limit for the Nobel—then he would pick either Yu Yagang, Tu Youyou, and Zhong Yurong for the discovery of artemisinin; or Tu Youyou, Luo Zeyuan, and Li Ying for the early work on artemisinin that led to the drug therapy.
I offered a flat earth proponent to look through my solar telescope so he could confirm himself it never changed size sunrise, noon to sunset. He wouldn't do it.
generaly they lack the mental concentration required to follow through on cross system functionality for science comparative evaluation.
this emotional breaking point has been propped up by the flat earth theory to serve as an emotional need.
someone who is interested in science doesnt just say "stop" and stop studying something because they feel like their ego or emotions are not aligning with the scientific results coming out.
flat-earthers are incapable of this because they are operating from the same part of the brain as religous cults do.
The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519–1522).
The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth: In early Mesopotamian mythology, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean with a hemispherical sky-dome above, and this forms the premise for early world maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus. Other speculations on the shape of Earth include a seven-layered ziggurat or cosmic mountain, alluded to in the Avesta and ancient Persian writings (see seven climes).
The realization that the figure of the Earth is more accurately described as an ellipsoid dates to the 17th century, as described by Isaac Newton in Principia. In the early 19th century, the flattening of the earth ellipsoid was determined to be of the order of 1/300 (Delambre, Everest). The modern value as determined by the US DoD World Geodetic System since the 1960s is close to 1/298.25.
Pomponius Mela, the first Roman geographer, asserted that the earth had two habitable zones, a North and South one, but that it would be impossible to get into contact with each other because of the unbearable heat at the Equator.
From the time of St Augustine, the Christian church was skeptical of the notion. Augustine asserted that "it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man."[8]
In the Early Middle Ages, Isidore of Seville's widely read encyclopedia presented the term "antipodes" as referring to antichthones (people who lived on the opposite side of the Earth), as well as to a geographical place; these people came to play a role in medieval discussions about the shape of the Earth.[9] In 748, in reply to a letter from Saint Boniface, Pope Zachary declared the belief "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and moon" to be heretical. In his letter, Boniface had apparently maintained that Vergilius of Salzburg held such a belief.[10][11][12][13]
The antipodes being an attribute of a spherical Earth, some ancient authors used their perceived absurdity as an argument for a flat Earth.[14] However, knowledge of the spherical Earth was widespread during the Middle Ages, only occasionally disputed — the medieval dispute surrounding the antipodes mainly concerned the question whether people could live on the opposite side of the earth: since the torrid clime was considered impassable, it would have been impossible to evangelize them. This posed the problem that Christ told the apostles to evangelize all mankind; with regard to the unreachable antipodes, this would have been impossible. Christ would either have appeared a second time, in the antipodes, or left the damned irredeemable. Such an argument was forwarded by the Spanish theologian Alonso Tostado as late as the 15th century and "St. Augustine doubts" was a response to Columbus's proposal to sail westwards to the Indies.[15]
The author of the Norwegian book Konungs Skuggsjá, from around 1250, discusses the existence of antipodes. He notes that (if they exist) they will see the sun in the north in the middle of the day and that they will have seasons opposite those of the Northern Hemisphere.
The earliest surviving account by a European who had visited the Southern Hemisphere is that of Marco Polo (who, on his way home in 1292, sailed south of the Malay Peninsula). He noted that it was impossible to see the star Polaris from there.
The idea of dry land in the southern climes, the Terra Australis, was introduced by Ptolemy and appears on European maps as an imaginary continent from the 15th century. In spite of having been discovered relatively late by European explorers, Australia was inhabited very early in human history; the ancestors of the Indigenous Australians reached it at least 50,000 years ago.
hmmm... it is obvious that some don't understand latitude and longitude and the significance of both , from the sea navigation perspective.
I guess he has large nails in his shoes when he walks outside and relies on the iron in his blood to keep him in bed
People who love to quote from Scripture during sermons usually leave out the parts that they know will not be believed or are contrary to the morals they wish to promote.
When the Israelites were wandering in the famous (but not unique) desert, with Moses and God guiding them, the people complained to Moses about the lack of food and water. Moses complained to God, who reliably provided some food and water, but the people weren't pleased with the quality. They complained further, so Moses asked Aaron to to spy out the land ahead. Aaron sent his three best soldiers, knowing that God would not approve of this innovation, as He had said that the route to the Promised Land would be chosen by Him alone.
Anyway, off they went, taking with them some provisions, including a "paddle", which one assumes was some kind of spade for digging holes where they could relieve themselves. On the first night, they were attacked by some Baalites and although they managed to escape, they left their paddle behind and one of them was found dead the next morning. The two remaining spies discussed what to do and decided to carry on, as they feared Aaron's wrath. The next night, they were attacked by wild animals that had four faces and one of the soldiers was swallowed alive, but his companion escaped by hiding up a tree. The remaining solder decided again to carry on with his mission, being vary careful, hiding among rocks and sleeping up trees.
There were no people around to record this and in any case, languages were developed by humans over many thousands of years. English did not exist when the Universe was created !
Of course only a total fool would contend that everything in the bible should be taken literally. Virtually no preachers do so, nor have they done so at any point in history after about 400 AD - perhaps even earlier. And then again, no preacher is going to recite the whole damned thing, so inevitably they will "leave out" most of it. What they actually do, as most people realise, is to choose a passage that illustrates an idea or a behaviour that they want to draw to the attention of their flock.
If your post is just laboriously making the point that you think the bible should be classified as "fiction", then forget it. Religious texts are classified as, er, religious texts, for the reason that they have a particular cultural significance to society, whether you like it or not.
Please when you want to be critical of the bible could you separate New testament from the Old testament
Why should they be treated separately when they are routinely published together? Why should they (or either) be treated differently than the Book of Mormon or the Vedic scriptures or the Koran?
I think I understand what he is getting at. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the OT is respected as the old Jewish inheritance of Christianity, but it is the NT, about the life and teaching of Christ, which defines Christianity, often by way of revision and contrast to what was in the OT.
Thus it seems to me that attacks on Christianity which rely solely on quoting selected bits of the OT do not really hit the mark.
Also, I have no idea what's going on here, since Ted also said that any errors in the Bible come from human interpretation. Clearly, fiction is an error.
Bolded part 100% true and even more illogical will contradictorily claim the entire bible is the perfect and infallible word of god and god is perfect.
If god is perfect, the bible wouldnt need to be revised as in the big elephant in the room wouldnt need to be ignored by constant omission.
I suspect that many of the Biblical writers looked at what had been invented before and thought to themselves, you know, I could make up a convincing story, just like all the others. So they then picked out a few details that they found and incorporated them into their new stories. So, for example, Revelation, the book so much admired by prophets of doom, has many notions copied straight out of Ezekiel, where creatures are described having unusual characteristics such as four faces, the face of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle etc..
They also pretend they are fulfilling prophecies in the old testament in doing so. They sometimes actually tell you they are doing it! A good example is in Matthew chapter 1, verse 22 and 23...
"Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"
How do I know? Because the next chapter tells us "And I went unto the prophetess and she conceived and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz".
If I say "you should clean behind your ears before you you to bed", I am not saying something that is true nor not true, I am offering advice, which may or may not be good advice. If it turns out to be bad advice, then you could say it is not true that it is good advice, but until the advice has been tested, we don't know whether or not it is good advice.
Some books contain both "testaments", but I suspect the Jewish Bible doesn't contain the New one. One of my books has the New only. Some Christians have taken the trouble of actually reading the whole of the Holy book and know that the Old is quoted many times in the New, especially by Yeshua (aka Jesus). Oftentimes, the New writers state that some of the events in the New fulfill prophecies in the Old and these examples are used by some theologians to "prove" the unity and truth of the Bible. In any case, if the Fall of Man myth isn't true, then we don't inherit sin, which means there was no need for Yeshua to save us from that sin, which completely removes the need for him to be sacrificed to his father. In other words, if you want the New Testament, you'll have to accept the Old one, warts and all. Remember that Yeshua came to complete the word of God, not delete it.
How can be not true " the fall of man , " I sin every day so I fall every day so Yahshua was necessary. Think about If every individual that sins have to bring an offering of a lam at the present time it would be disastrous with pollution and smell of burned flesh. So tank to Yahshua for his sacrifice.
There was no sacrifice. Jesus admittedly had a bad weekend but then went to paradise. His death has nothing to do with one's immoral actions - an artifact, by the way, of an imperfect design. So don't blame yourself for that.
No. If you want the idea of Jesus' salvation, you need to accept the idea of the Fall of Man. Not the whole OT "warts and all".
The question then is what is really conveyed by the idea of the Fall of Man - and the accompanying doctrine of Original Sin. The latter is quite subtle and has been much discussed in theology over the last two thousand years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
Personally, I find the idea of Original Sin as an inherent tendency to sinfulness quite easy to understand. I have always associated the Fall with the acquisition of moral responsibility, via eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which can be seen as a metaphor for becoming aware of good and evil, combined with this inherited tendency not to do the morally right thing. Just like a child as it grows up.
Your story wouldn't pass at all. There are too many details that are clearly not Biblical: the "paddle" nonsense, animals with four faces, a bottomless pit. Nobody who has read the Bible would be fooled by your story.
Deuteronomy 23:13 "And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee"
Ezekiel and Revelation are both figurative. Your made-up story makes no distinction between figurative and literal.