Buy an Essay Online for Cheap 24/7 -
The Execution of Charles I | Banqueting House | Historic Royal Palaces
Nov 09, 2017 Charles first execution, write my essay, paper -
ansys homework MENG 421 Assignment 4. Ansys Axisymmetric Cylinder. In Lesson 2 you found the deflection and stress in a cylindrical body by using the Ansys Pipe16 element. For today's lesson you will find the deflection and stress in a cylindrical body by another method. You will use the Ansys Plane42 element in axisymmetric mode. With this method you define a planar shape that is revolved about the first, y axis. You can make many shapes in this way. For example, a rectangle generates a cylinder when rotated about the left edge, and mail, a pipe if the axis is offset to the left. Charles? A trapezoidal shape can produce a conical nozzle. Learn more from the Ansys help files by searching for plane42 and also axisymmetric . You will also learn more about the Ansys NGEN and EGEN commands for creating a set of elements and you will create a two-dimensional section that Ansys rotates about the Y-axis to generate the cylinder. You will use the 2D, 4-node Ansys element PLANE42 with the on the Western Remarche Essay, axisymmetric option. Since you only define a two-dimensional array of charles first, elements, the Ansys plot only the conventional is called shows the 2D cross-section of half the cylinder.
The cylinder is deformed by loading the top surface is the while the charles first execution, bottom surface is constrained. Today's lesson is in two parts. Main Of A Public Are? First you will use a short file Cylind1a.a to create just the 2D array in stages by adding keyboard commands. Then you will change to the complete file Cylind1.a to solve the problem. For both files, you will make changes with editor before running Ansys. For the complete second file, copy the output data to first the end of the Ansys file, and print out both the Ansys file and graphic shown above. Before going any further, do the four things you learned in Assignment 2 : check the screen resolution , check the size of your stored files , clear the Recycle Bin , and clear the Temp folder. Copy the two files: cylind1.a and cylind1a.a from class files page as you have done before.
Editing the first Ansys file cylind1a.a. Open an editor with the shorter file cylind1a.a Put your name and date on the /TITLE line as usual. Go to the variable elax (number of axial elements) and change the mail is called, value to 6 Go to the variable elra (number of radial elements) and change the value to 2 Notice that the next to last line is which defines the first quadrilateral element in the preprocessor section. Don't close the editor, we'll use it in the next step. Editing the second Ansys file cylind1.a. Open a second editor for the longer file cylind1.a Go back to charles the first editor and drag through the entire TITLE line with your name, to highlight it Type Ctrl-C to is called copy the line Click to remove the execution, highlight Move to the second editor and drag through the entire TITLE line to highlight it Type Ctrl-V to paste the new TITLE line. Observation? Click to remove the highlight Make two more changes to the file as you did for the other one: Go to the variable elax (number of axial elements) and change the execution, value to All Quiet by Erich 6 Go to the variable elra (number of radial elements) and change the value to 2 Don't close the editor for cylind1.a, the complete problem, since you will put the Ansys results at the end. Running cylind1a.a with Ansys.
In this section you will run the short file with Ansys in charles first execution, batch mode to create the first element. Then you will type two Ansys EGEN commands to create the remaining elements. Start Ansys. Essay On My? Click the Ansys File menu at the upper left and pick Read Input from . The Read File dialog box should show C:WINDOWSTemp since that is where you set the first execution, workspace previously. (If another location is shown instead, Ansys is not set correctly. Then reset Ansys to C:WINDOWSTemp as you learned in Assignment 2 .) But, of course, your Ansys files are not stored in C:WINDOWSTemp. Steer Ansys to the location to your files at U:winAnsys. Drop down the Drive list and pick U Double-click the win folder Double-click the Ansys folder Highlight your Cylind1a.a file by All Quiet Western Front by Erich Essay, left clicking. Click OK to start running the short program Your figure should look like this showing the first element (1, 11, 12, 2). Check for the correct node numbers. Check that your name, the date, and the title appear on first execution, the figure. Shift the the two main characteristics of a public, figure to the left and reduce the size with the Pan-Zoom-Rotate tool you used in Lesson 3 and 4. Create a column of elements by typing the element generation command shown below Find the Ansys command line at the upper-left side with the charles execution, heading Click in the box just below this line and type the following As you know, this command creates elax (6) total elements using the the two main characteristics of a public good are, previous element (-1) as a pattern and increments the node numbers by 1. Press Enter to first execution complete the command.
Use the Pan-Zoom-Rotate tool to container home make all the charles, elements visible. Alternately click the small dot and the down arrow. Your figure should look like this showing six vertical elements. Create the remaining elements by typing a second EGEN command Click the command line box again and All Quiet on the by Erich Remarche Essay, type the following This command copies the previous elax (6) elements to create elra (2) columns of elements and increments the node numbers by 10. Press Enter to complete the command. Your figure should look like this showing the 12 elements.
Close the charles first, Pan-Zoom tool. You are now finished with this file Click the container, File menu and pick Clear Start New so you can run the next batch file. In this section you will run your edited Cylind1 file with Ansys. This will create the complete figure and calculate the deflections of the nodes. Be sure you have cleared Ansys in the previous section. Click the File menu and pick Read Input from . Highlight your Cylind1.a file by charles first, left clicking. Click OK to start running your program. The cylinder should appear in the Graphics window. The background is black because of the /COLOR,PBAK,off command. Click Close when the calculations are done.
Check that your name, date, and title appear on the figure. If not, go back to the editor, put your name and date on the /TITLE line of the Ansys source program, and save the file. Run Ansys again by first clicking File and non-standard, then Clear Start New . Reduce the figure size and slide it over the title In the Utility Menu click PlotCtrls and pick Pan, Zoom, Rotate . Click for full tool. Notice that both the original and deformed shapes are shown. Move to the middle part of the menu, shown on the right, and pick the first execution, smaller dot to zoom out so all of the figure shows. Pick the left arrow to All Quiet Front Maria move the figure over your title. Don't change the first execution, orientation with the Iso or Obliq buttons. Your figure should look like the one on the right. On The Front By Erich Maria? this. First Execution? Capture your figure with LView as you did in Assignment 3. Make the usual changes with the Photoeditor (reverse, gray scale, transparent), then print it.
Animate the figure with the characteristics of a public, following steps. Pick the PlotCtrls menu Click Animate, then pick Deformed Shape Pick Def + undeformed and click OK. Charles First? The animation appears in cost, a Media Player window with a separate control window. Stop the animation if moving, and drag the slider bar back and forth to charles control the animation. To see a 560KB animation of the deformation: ?Click here . Microsoft Internet Explorer opens Media Player with full controls. Container Home Cost? Make a 3/4 oblique view of the complete cylinder and animate it.
Pick the PlotCtrls menu Move to Style Move right to Symmetry Expansion and click 2D AxiSymmetric Pick 3/4 expansion Open the charles first, Pan-Zoom-Rotate tool Pick the Obliq button Your figure should look like this Pick the PlotCtrls menu Click Animate, then pick Deformed Shape Pick Def + undeformed and click OK. The animation appears in a Media Player window with a separate control window. Overt Observation? Stop the animation if moving, and drag the slider bar back and forth to control the animation. Pasting the deflection data to your Ansys File. In this section you will copy the charles first execution, calculated deflections to your Ansys file and then print it.
In the left pane of Explorer left-click U:Ansys to see the Ansys output file. The first part of the output appears on Essay on My, the Ansys Output Window. We aren't interested in this part unless there are error messages. The displacements and forces are in the file Displ.txt because the line: appears in the Ansys source code (Cylind1.a) Make sure that editor is open with your Cylind1.a file. Double-click the file Displ.txt so another copy of Notepad can edit it. Look through the file to charles first find the displacement with the heading Drag through the displacement data and press Ctrl-C to copy to the clipboard. Switch to overt observation the editor that has your Ansys file and scroll to charles the bottom. Drag through the original output to highlight it and non-standard english, press the Del key. Press Ctrl-V to paste the new displacement data. Check that the results are close to the exact value.
Make changes if necessary and rerun Ansys. Send your file to the printer. Using a word processor, make a cover sheet describing what you did. Solve the charles first, problem exactly with a 20kip point load (Displacement = PL/(AE)) and compare with the Ansys solution, giving the percent error. Include a discussion of the axisymmetric method.
Attach the Ansys code with displacement at the bottom and include the graphics figure with your name and date. Turn in the package before 4:30 PM Tuesday. Before logging out check the size of your saved files. Last revised: February 13, 2004 -- Copyright ? 1997-2004 ARMiller.
Execution of King Charles I - "To Kill a King"  - YouTube
Write My Research Paper -
Execution of Charles I - The British Library
Nov 09, 2017 Charles first execution, how to buy essay cheap with no worries -
peer review paper In their paper, the authors have tested the hypothesis on the genomes of eubacteria using a genome-wide approach based on multiple machine learning models. Eubacteria are an interesting set of organisms which have an appreciably high variation in their nucleotide composition with the percentage of CG genetic material ranging from 20% to 70%. The authors classified different eubacterial proteomes in terms of their aggregation propensity and chaperone-dependence. Charles. For this purpose, new classifiers had to be developed which were based on carefully curated data. They took account for twenty-four different features among which are sequence patterns, the pseudo amino acid composition of phenylalanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, the distribution of positively charged amino acids, the FoldIndex score and the hydrophobicity. These classifiers seem to be altogether more accurate and robust than previous such parameters. The authors found that, contrary to what expected from the working hypothesis, which would predict a decrease in protein aggregation with an increase in the conventional mail is called GC richness, the aggregation propensity of proteomes increases with the GC content and thus the stability of the proteome against aggregation increases with the decrease in charles execution GC content. The work also established a direct correlation between GC-poor proteomes and Western Maria, a lower dependence on first execution GroEL. The authors conclude by overt observation, proposing that a decrease in execution eubacterial GC content may have been selected in organisms facing proteostasis problems.
A way to test the overall results would be through in vitro evolution experiments aimed at testing whether adaptation to Essay Family, low GC content provide folding advantage. The main strengths of this paper is that it addresses an execution interesting and timely question, finds a novel solution based on a carefully selected set of rules, and provides a clear answer. As such this article represents an excellent and elegant bioinformatics genome-wide study which will almost certainly influence our thinking about protein aggregation and evolution. Some of the weaknesses are the not always easy readability of the text which establishes unclear logical links between concepts. Another possible criticism could be that, as any in silico study, it makes strong assumptions on the sequence features that lead to aggregation and english, strongly relies on the quality of the charles first execution, classifiers used. Even though the container home cost, developed classifiers seem to be more robust than previous such parameters, they remain only overall indications which can only allow statistical considerations. It could of course be argued that this is good enough to execution, reach meaningful conclusions in this specific case. I NaL is a small current component generated by a fraction of Nav1.5 channels that instead to overt, entering in the inactivated state, rapidly reopened in a burst mode.
I NaL critically determines action potential duration (APD), in such a way that both acquired (myocardial ischemia and heart failure among others) or inherited (long QT type 3) diseases that augmented the I NaL magnitude also increase the susceptibility to cardiac arrhythmias. Therefore, I NaL has been recognized as an important target for the development of drugs with either antiischemic or antiarrhythmic effects. Unfortunately, accurate measurement of charles first execution I NaL is a time consuming and technical challenge because of its extra-small density. Characteristics. The automated patch clamp device tested by first, Chevalier et al. resolves this problem and allows fast and Essay, reliable I NaL measurements. The results here presented merit some comments and arise some unresolved questions. First, in some experiments (such is the case in experiments B and first, D in Figure 2) current recordings obtained before the ranolazine perfusion seem to be quite unstable. Indeed, the amplitude progressively increased to a maximum value that was considered as the control value (highlighted with arrows). Can this problem be overcome? Is this a consequence of a slow intracellular dialysis? Is it a consequence of a time-dependent shift of the voltage dependence of activation/inactivation?
Second, as shown in Figure 2, intensity of drug effects seems to be quite variable. In fact, experiments A, B, C, and Essay, D in Figure 2 and panel 2D, demonstrated that veratridine augmentation ranged from charles first execution 0-400%. Observation. Even assuming the normal biological variability, we wonder as to whether this broad range of charles first execution effect intensities can be justified by changes in cost the perfusion system. Has been the automated dispensing system tested? If not, we suggest testing the effects of several K + concentrations on inward rectifier currents generated by Kir2.1 channels (I Kir2.1 ). The authors demonstrated that the recording quality was so high that the automated device allows to the differentiation between noise and current, even when measuring currents of less than 5 pA of amplitude. Execution. In order to make more precise mechanistic assumptions, the authors performed an elegant estimation of Family current variance (? 2 ) and charles execution, macroscopic current (I) following the procedure described more than 30 years ago by Van Driessche and All Quiet Western Remarche Essay, Lindemann 1 . By means of this method, Chevalier et al. concluded that ranolazine acts as an open pore blocker reducing the open channel probability, while veratridine increases the number of channels in the burst mode. Charles Execution. We respectfully would like to overt observation, stress that these considerations must be put in context from a pharmacological point of view. We do not doubt that ranolazine acts as an open channel blocker, what it seems clear however, is that its onset block kinetics has to be “ultra” slow, otherwise ranolazine would decrease peak I NaL even at low frequencies of stimulation.
This comment points towards the fact that for a precise mechanistic study of ionic current modifying drugs it is mandatory to analyze drug effects with much more complicated pulse protocols. Questions thus are: does this automated equipment allow to the analysis of the frequency-, time-, and voltage-dependent effects of charles first drugs? Can versatile and complicated pulse protocols be applied? Does it allow to a good voltage control even when generated currents are big and non-standard english examples, fast? If this is charles first execution, not possible, and by means of its extraordinary discrimination between current and noise, this automated patch-clamp equipment will only be helpful for rapid I NaL -modifying drug screening. Obviously it will also be perfect to non-standard english examples, test HERG blocking drug effects as demanded by the regulatory authorities. Finally, as cardiac electrophysiologists, we would like to stress that it seems that our dream of testing drug effects on charles first human ventricular myocytes seems to come true. Indeed, human atrial myocytes are technically, ethically and logistically difficult to get, but human ventricular are almost impossible to be obtained unless from the explanted hearts from patients at the end stage of cardiac diseases. Here the authors demonstrated that ventricular myocytes derived from hiPS generate beautiful action potentials that can be recorded with this automated equipment. The traces shown suggested that there was not alternation in the action potential duration.
Is this a consistent finding? How long do last these stable recordings? The only comment is that resting membrane potential seems to be somewhat variable. Can this be resolved? Is it an unexpected veratridine effect? Standardization of maturation methods of ventricular myocytes derived from Essay on My Family hiPS will be a big achievement for cardiac cellular electrophysiology which was obliged for years to the imprecise extrapolation of data obtained from a combination of several species none of execution which was representative of english human electrophysiology.
The big deal will be the maturation of human atrial myocytes derived from hiPS that fulfil the known characteristics of charles first execution human atrial cells. We suggest suppressing the All Quiet Western Remarche Essay, initial sentence of section 3. We surmise that results obtained from the experiments described in this section cannot serve to execution, understand the the two main public good, role of I NaL in arrhythmogenesis. 1. Van Driessche W, Lindemann B: Concentration dependence of first execution currents through single sodium-selective pores in container cost frog skin. Charles First. Nature . 1979; 282 (5738): 519-520 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text. Based on all these factors, it is the conventional is called, impossible for me to approve this manuscript. First Execution. I should however state that it is laudable that the authors chose to make all the raw data of their experiment publicly available. Without this it would have impossible for me to carry out the additional analyses, and on the Western by Erich Essay, thus the most fundamental problem in charles the analysis would have remained unknown. I respect the authors’ patience and professionalism in dealing with what I can only assume is a rather harsh review experience. I am honoured by the request for an adversarial collaboration.
I do not rule out such efforts at some point in the future. However, for all of the reasons outlined in this and my previous review, I do not think the time is right for this experiment to proceed to this stage. Fundamental analytical flaws and weaknesses in the design should be ruled out first. Mail. An adversarial collaboration only execution really makes sense to me for paradigms were we can be confident that mundane or trivial factors have been excluded. I was very pleased to see the within-isolate behavior was consistent in replicate experiments one year apart. The authors further argue that the Essay on My Family, between-isolate differences in behavior arise from a Founder's effect, at least in the differences in locomotor behavior between the Paris lines CS_TP and CS_JC. I believe this is a very reasonable and testable hypothesis. It predicts that genetic variability for these traits exist within the populations. Charles First. It should now be possible to on My Family, perform selection experiments from the original CS_TP population to charles execution, replicate the founding event and estimate the heritability of these traits. Two other things that I liked about the two main characteristics of a are this manuscript are the ability to adjust parameters in figure 3, and our ability to first, download the raw data. After reading the manuscript, I was a little disappointed that the by Erich Remarche, performance of the five strains in charles first execution each 12 behavioral variables weren't broken down individually in a table or figure.
I thought this may help us readers understand what the of a are, principle components were representing. The authors have made this data readily accessible in a downloadable spreadsheet. Only 2 areas need revision: Page 3, para 2: the notion that these data from Papp et al . convey is critical and the message needs an explicit sentence or two at end of paragraph. Charles First. Page 4, Conclusion: the assertion concerning the ethics of the two Phase 3 clinical trials needs toning down. Perhaps rephrase to indicate that the overt, value and sense of charles first doing these trials is open to question, with attendant ethical implications, or softer wording to that effect. In detail, the authors begin with gene responsible for home, X-linked spinal muscular atrophy and express both the wild-type version of that human gene as well as a mutant form of that gene in S. Charles Execution. pombe . The conceptual leap here is that progress in genetics is Western Maria Remarche Essay, driven by phenotype, and this approach involving a yeast with no spine or muscles to first execution, atrophy is nevertheless and N-dimensional detector of phenotype. The study is not without a small measure of luck in that expression of the wild-type UBA1 gene caused a slow growth phenotype which the mutant did not.
Hence there was something in S. Essay On My. pombe that could feel the impact of this protein. Given this phenotype, the authors then went to work and first, using the power of the synthetic genetic array approach pioneered by Boone and non-standard examples, colleagues made a systematic set of double mutants combining the human expressed UBA1 gene with knockout alleles of a plurality of S. pombe genes. They found well over a hundred mutations that either enhanced or suppressed the growth defect of the cells expressing UBI1. Most of these have human orthologs. My hunch is that many human genes expressed in yeast will have some comparably exploitable phenotype, and time will tell. Building on the interaction networks of S. pombe genes already established, augmenting these networks by the protein interaction networks from yeast and from human proteome studies involving these genes, and from the structure of the emerging networks, the authors deduced that an charles first execution E3 ligase modulated UBA1 and made the leap that it therefore might also impact X-linked Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Here, the Essay, awesome power of the model organism community comes into the picture as there is a zebrafish model of spinal muscular atrophy. The principle of phenologs articulated by the Marcotte group inspire the recognition of the transitive logic of how phenotypes in charles one organism relate to overt, phenotypes in another. With this zebrafish model, they were able to confirm that an inhibitor of E3 ligases and of the Nedd8-E1 activating suppressed the motor axon anomalies, as predicted by the effect of charles mutations in S. pombe on the phenotypes of the the conventional mail is called, UBA1 overexpression. I believe this is an important paper to teach in intro graduate courses as it illustrates beautifully how important it is to know about and embrace the many new sources of systematic genetic information and apply them broadly.
This is my first open review, so I'm not sure of the protocol. But given that there appears to be errors in both Efron (2013b) and the paper under review, I am sorry to charles, say that my review might actually be longer than the article by Family, Efron (2013a), the primary focus of the critique, and the critique itself. I apologize in advance for this. First Execution. To start, I will outline the problem being discussed for the sake of readers. This problem has various parameters of All Quiet Western Front Maria interest. The primary parameter is the genetic composition of the charles execution, twins in the mother’s womb.
Are they identical (which I describe as the state x = 1) or fraternal twins ( x = 0)? Let y be the data, with y = 1 to indicate the twins are the same gender. Finally, we wish to obtain Pr( x = 1 | y = 1), the mail is called, probability the twins are identical given they are the same gender1. First Execution. Bayes’ rule gives us an the conventional is called expression for execution, this: Now we know that Pr( y = 1 | x = 1) = 1; twins must be the overt, same gender if they are identical.
Further, Pr( y = 1 | x = 0) = 1/2; if twins are not identical, the probability of them being the same gender is 1/2. Finally, Pr( x = 1) is the prior probability that the charles, twins are identical. The bone of non-standard english examples contention in charles first execution the Efron papers and the critique by is called, Amrhein et al. revolves around how this prior is treated. One can think of Pr( x = 1) as the first, population-level proportion of twins that are identical for a mother like the one being considered. However, if we ignore other forms of twins that are extremely rare (equivalent to ignoring coins finishing on their edges when flipping them), one incontrovertible fact is that Pr( x = 0) = 1 ? Pr( x = 1); the probability that the twins are fraternal is the complement of the probability that they are identical. The above values and expressions for Pr( y = 1 | x = 1), Pr( y = 1 | x = 0), and Pr( x = 0) leads to a simpler expression for the probability that we seek ‐ the probability that the Family, twins are identical given they have the same gender: We see that the answer depends on the prior probability that the charles, twins are identical, Pr( x =1). Western Maria Remarche. The paper by first execution, Amrhein et al. points out home, that this is a mathematical fact. For example, if identical twins were impossible (Pr( x = 1) = 0), then Pr( x = 1| y = 1) = 0. Charles Execution. Similarly, if all twins were identical (Pr( x = 1) = 1), then Pr( x = 1| y = 1) = 1. The “true” prior lies somewhere in between. Apparently, the doctor knows that one third of twins are identical2.
Therefore, if we assume Pr( x = 1) = 1/3, then Pr( x = 1| y = 1) = 1/2. Now, what would happen if we didn't have the doctor's knowledge? Laplace's “Principle of Insufficient Reason” would suggest that we give equal prior probability to all possibilities, so Pr( x = 1) = 1/2 and Pr( x = 1| y = 1) = 2/3, an answer different from 1/2 that was obtained when using the doctor's prior of 1/3. Efron (2013a) highlights this sensitivity to the prior, representing someone who defines an uninformative prior as a “violator”, with Laplace as the non-standard, “prime violator”. In contrast, Amrhein et al. correctly points out that the difference in the posterior probabilities is merely a consequence of charles execution mathematical logic. Western Front By Erich Remarche. No one is violating logic they are merely expressing ignorance by charles first, specifying equal probabilities to all states of nature. Whether this is philosophically valid is debatable (Colyvan 2008), but this example does not lend much weight to that question, and it is well beyond the scope of this review. But setting Pr( x = 1) = 1/2 is not a violation; it is merely an assumption with consequences (and one that in characteristics are hindsight might be incorrect2).
Alternatively, if we don't know Pr( x = 1), we could describe that probability by its own probability distribution. Now the problem has two aspects that are uncertain. We don’t know the true state x , and we don’t know the prior (except in the case where we use the doctor’s knowledge that Pr( x = 1) = 1/3). Uncertainty in the state of charles x refers to uncertainty about this particular set of twins. Mail. In contrast, uncertainty in first Pr( x = 1) reflects uncertainty in the population-level frequency of identical twins.
A key point is that the state of cost one particular set of twins is a different parameter from the frequency of occurrence of identical twins in the population. Without knowledge about Pr( x = 1), we might use Pr( x = 1) dunif(0, 1), which is consistent with Laplace. First Execution. Alternatively, Efron (2013b) notes another alternative for an uninformative prior: Pr( x = 1) dbeta(0.5, 0.5), which is the Jeffreys prior for a probability. Here I disagree with Amrhein et al. Western Front By Erich Maria Remarche Essay. ; I think they are confusing the two uncertain parameters. Amrhein et al. Execution. state: “We argue that this example is the two public good are, not only flawed, but useless in illustrating Bayesian data analysis because it does not rely on any data. Although there is one data point (a couple is due to be parents of charles first execution twin boys, and the twins are fraternal), Efron does not use it to update prior knowledge. Container Cost. Instead, Efron combines different pieces of expert knowledge from the charles execution, doctor and genetics using Bayes’ theorem.”
This claim might be correct when describing uncertainty in is called the population-level frequency of identical twins. The data about the twin boys is charles first, not useful by itself for this purpose they are a biased sample (the data have come to light because their gender is the same; they are not a random sample of twins). Further, a sample of size one, especially if biased, is not a firm basis for inference about a population parameter. While the data are biased, the container home cost, claim by Amrheim et al. Charles First Execution. that there are no data is incorrect. However, the data point (the twins have the cost, same gender) is entirely relevant to the question about the state of this particular set of twins. First Execution. And it does update the prior. This updating of the prior is overt, given by equation (1) above. First. The doctor’s prior probability that the All Quiet Western Front Remarche, twins are identical (1/3) becomes the charles first, posterior probability (1/2) when using information that the twins are the same gender. The prior is clearly updated with Pr( x = 1| y = 1) ≠ Pr( x = 1) in all but trivial cases; Amrheim et al. ’s statement that I quoted above is incorrect in this regard. This possible confusion between uncertainty about these twins and uncertainty about the population level frequency of identical twins is further suggested by Amrhein et al. ’s statements: “Second, for the uninformative prior, Efron mentions erroneously that he used a uniform distribution between zero and home cost, one, which is clearly different from the value of 0.5 that was used.
Third, we find it at execution least debatable whether a prior can be called an uninformative prior if it has a fixed value of 0.5 given without any measurement of uncertainty.” Note, if the prior for Pr( x = 1) is specified as 0.5, or dunif(0,1), or dbeta(0.5, 0.5), the posterior probability that these twins are identical is 2/3 in all cases. Efron (2013b) says the overt, different priors lead to different results, but this result is incorrect, and the correct answer (2/3) is given in Efron (2013a)3. Nevertheless, a prior that specifies Pr( x = 1) = 0.5 does indicate uncertainty about whether this particular set of twins is identical (but certainty in the population level frequency of twins). And Efron’s (2013a) result is consistent with Pr( x = 1) having a uniform prior. Therefore, both claims in execution the quote above are incorrect. It is probably easiest to show the (lack of) influence of the prior using MCMC sampling. Here is the conventional, WinBUGS code for the case using Pr( x = 1) = 0.5. Running this model in WinBUGS shows that the posterior mean of x is 2/3; this is the posterior probability that x = 1. Instead of using pr_ident_twins - 0.5, we could set this probability as being uncertain and define pr_ident_twins.
dunif(0,1), or pr_ident_twins. dbeta(0.5,0.5). In either case, the posterior mean value of x remains 2/3 (contrary to Efron 2013b, but in accord with the correction in Efron 2013a). Note, however, that the value of the population level parameter pr_ident_twins is different in all three cases. In the first it remains unchanged at 1/2 where it was set. In the case where the prior distribution for pr_ident_twins is charles first, uniform or beta, the container, posterior distributions remain broad, but they differ depending on the prior (as they should different priors lead to different posteriors4). Charles Execution. However, given the biased sample size of 1, the posterior distribution for this particular parameter is likely to Essay on My Family, be misleading as an first execution estimate of the population-level frequency of twins. So why doesn’t the choice of prior influence the posterior probability that these twins are identical?
Well, for these three priors, the prior probability that any single set of cost twins is identical is 1/2 (this is essentially the mean of the prior distributions in these three cases). If, instead, we set the first, prior as dbeta(1,2), which has a mean of 1/3, then the posterior probability that these twins are identical is 1/2. This is the same result as if we had set Pr( x = 1) = 1/3. In both these cases (choosing dbeta(1,2) or 1/3), the prior probability that a single set of twins is identical is 1/3, so the posterior is the same (1/2) given the data (the twins have the home cost, same gender). Further, Amrhein et al. also seem to misunderstand the data. Charles First. They note: “Although there is one data point (a couple is due to be parents of twin boys, and the twins are fraternal). ”
This is incorrect. The parents simply know that the twins are both male. Whether they are fraternal is overt, unknown (fraternal twins being the complement of first execution identical twins) that is the question the parents are asking. This error of interpretation makes the on the Front Maria Essay, calculations in first Box 1 and subsequent comments irrelevant. Box 1 also implies Amrhein et al. are using the data to estimate the population frequency of identical twins rather than the non-standard examples, state of this particular set of twins. This is different from the aim of Efron (2013a) and the stated question.
Efron suggests that Bayesian calculations should be checked with frequentist methods when priors are uncertain. First Execution. However, this is a good example where this cannot be done easily, and Amrhein et al. are correct to point this out. In this case, we are interested in the probability that the the two main of a public are, hypothesis is true given the charles execution, data (an inverse probability), not the probabilities that the observed data would be generated given particular hypotheses (frequentist probabilities). If one wants the inverse probability (the probability the twins are identical given they are the same gender), then Bayesian methods (and therefore a prior) are required. A logical answer simply requires that the examples, prior is first, constructed logically.
Whether that answer is “correct” will be, in most cases, only known in hindsight. However, one possible way to analyse this example using frequentist methods would be to assess the likelihood of obtaining the overt, data for each of the two hypothesis (the twins are identical or fraternal). The likelihood of the first, twins having the same gender under the hypothesis that they are identical is 1. The likelihood of the twins having the same gender under the hypothesis that they are fraternal is english, 0.5. Therefore, the weight of evidence in favour of identical twins is twice that of fraternal twins. Scaling these weights so they sum to one (Burnham and Anderson 2002), gives a weight of first execution 2/3 for identical twins and 1/3 for fraternal twins. Overt. These scaled weights have the same numerical values as the posterior probabilities based on either a Laplace or Jeffreys prior. Thus, one might argue that the weight of execution evidence for is called, each hypothesis when using frequentist methods is execution, equivalent to the posterior probabilities derived from an All Quiet on the Western Front Essay uninformative prior. So, as a final aside in reference to Efron (2013a), if we are being “violators” when using a uniform prior, are we also being “violators” when using frequentist methods to charles first, weigh evidence? Regardless of the english, answer to execution, this rhetorical question, “checking” the results with frequentist methods doesn’t give any more insight than using uninformative priors (in this case). However, this analysis shows that the question can be analysed using frequentist methods; the single data point is not a problem for this.
The claim in Family Armhein et al. Charles. that a frequentist analyis is impossible because there is observation, only one data point, and frequentist methods generally cannot handle such situations is not supported by this example. In summary, the comment by Amrhein et al. raises some interesting points that seem worth discussing, but it makes important errors in analysis and interpretation, and misrepresents the charles first, results of Efron (2013a). This means the current version should not be approved. Colyvan, M. 2008. Is Probability the Only Coherent Approach to Uncertainty? Risk Anal. 28: 645-652. Efron B. (2003a) Bayes’ Theorem in the 21st Century.
Science 340(6137): 1177-1178. Efron B. (2013b) A 250-year argument: Belief, behavior, and the bootstrap. Bull Amer. Math Soc. 50: 129-146. The twins are both male. However, if the good are, twins were both female, the statistical results would be the same, so I will simply use the first, data that the twins are the overt observation, same gender. In reality, the frequency of twins that are identical is first, likely to vary depending on many factors but we will accept 1/3 for now. Efron (2013b) reports the posterior probability for these twins being identical as “a whopping 61.4% with a flat Laplace prior” but as 2/3 in Efron (2013a). The latter (I assume 2/3 is Essay, “even more whopping”!) is the correct answer, which I confirmed via email with Professor Efron. Therefore, Efron (2013b) incorrectly claims the posterior probability is sensitive to the choice between a Jeffreys or Laplace uninformative prior.
When the data are very informative relative to the different priors, the posteriors will be similar, although not identical. The authors take a rather narrow view of data publication, which I think hinders their analyses. They describe three types of (digital) data publication: Data as a supplement to an article; data as the subject of a paper; and data independent of charles first a paper. The first two types are relatively new and they represent very little of the data actually being published or released today. The last category, which is essentially an “other” category, is rich in its complexity and encompasses the vast majority of data released. I was disappointed that the examples of this type were only the most bare-bones (Zenodo and Figshare). Good Are. I think a deeper examination of this third category and its complexity would help the authors better characterize the current landscape and charles execution, suggest paths forward. Some questions the authors might consider: Are these really the only three models in consideration or does the publication model overstate a consensus around a certain type of the conventional mail data publication? Why are there different models and which approach is better for different situations? Do they have different business models or imply different social contracts?
Might it also be worthy of typing “publishers” instead of “publications”? For example, do domain repositories vs. institutional repositories vs. publishers address the issues differently? Are these models sustaining models or just something to get us through the next 5-10 years while we really figure it out? I think this oversimplification inhibited some deeper analysis in first execution other areas as well. I would like to see more examination of the home cost, validation requirement beyond the lens of charles first execution peer review, and english examples, I would like a deeper examination of incentives and credit beyond citation. I thought the validation section of the paper was very relevant, but somewhat light. Charles Execution. I like the choice of the term validation as more accurate than “quality” and it fits quite well with Callaghan’s useful distinction between technical and scientific review, but I think the authors overemphasize the peer-review style approach.
The authors rightly argue that “peer-review” is english, where the publication metaphor leads us, but it may be a false path. They overstate some difficulties of peer-review (No-one looks at every data value? No, they use statistics, visualization, and other techniques.) while not fully considering who is charles execution, responsible for what. We need a closer examination of different roles and who are appropriate validators (not necessarily conventional peers). Family. The narrowly defined models of data publication may easily allow for a conventional peer-review process, but it is much more complex in the real-world “other” category. First. The authors discuss some of this in what they call “independent data validation,” but they don’t draw any conclusions. Only the simplest of research data collections are validated only by the original creators. More often there are teams working together to overt observation, develop experiments, sampling protocols, algorithms, etc. There are additional teams who assess, calibrate, and revise the data as they are collected and assembled.
The authors discuss some of this in their examples like the PDS and charles first, tDAR, but I wish they were more analytical and offered an cost opinion on the way forward. Are there emerging practices or consensus in these team-based schemes? The level of service concept illustrated by Open Context may be one such area. Would formalizing or codifying some of charles first these processes accomplish the same as peer-review or more? What is the role of the curator or data scientist in all of this? Given the mail, authors’s backgrounds, I was surprised this role was not emphasized more.
Finally, I think it is a mistake for science review to be the main way to assess reuse value. It has been shown time and again that data end up being used effectively (and valued) in ways that original experts never envisioned or even thought valid. The discussion of charles execution data citation was good and captured the state of the observation, art well, but again I would have liked to see some views on first execution a way forward. Have we solved the basic problem and are now just dealing with edge cases? Is the english examples, “just-in-time identifier” the way to charles first execution, go? What are the container home cost, implications? Will the more basic solutions work in the interim? More critically, are we overemphasizing the role of citation to provide academic credit? I was gratified that the charles first execution, authors referenced the Parsons and Fox paper which questions the whole data publication metaphor, but I was surprised that they only discussed the english examples, “data as software” alternative metaphor. That is a useful metaphor, but I think the ecosystem metaphor has broader acceptance.
I mention this because the authors critique the software metaphor because “using it to charles first execution, alter or affect the academic reward system is overt observation, a tricky prospect”. Yet there is little to suggest that data publication and charles, corresponding citation alters that system either. Indeed there is little if any evidence that data publication and citation incentivize data sharing or stewardship. As Christine Borgman suggests, we need to home, look more closely at who we are trying to incentivize to do what. There is no reason to assume it follows the same model as research literature publication. It may be beyond the scope of first this paper to fully examine incentive structures, but it at least needs to be acknowledged that building on the current model doesn’t seem to observation, be working.
Finally, what is the takeaway message from this essay? It ends rather abruptly with no summary, no suggested directions or immediate challenges to overcome, no call to charles execution, action, no indications of things we should stop trying, and overt, only brief mention of alternative perspectives. What do the authors want us to take away from this paper? Overall though, this is a timely and needed essay. It is well researched and nicely written with rich metaphor. With modifications addressing the detailed comments below and first execution, better recognizing the complexity of the current data publication landscape, this will be a worthwhile review paper. With more significant modification where the authors dig deeper into the complexities and controversies and truly grapple with their implications to suggest a way forward, this could be a very influential paper.
It is possible that the the two of a public good, definitions of “publication” and “peer-review” need not be just stretched but changed or even rejected. The whole paper needs a quick copy edit. There are a few typos, missing words, and wrong verb tenses. Note the word “data” is a plural noun. E.g., Data are not software, nor are they literature. (NSICD, instead of NSIDC) Page 2, para 2: “citability is charles, addressed by assigning a PID.” This is not true, as the authors discuss on Western by Erich Maria Essay page 4, para 4. Indeed, page 4, para 4 seems to contradict itself. Citation is more than a locator/identifier. In the charles, discussion of “Data independent of any paper” it is main of a good, worth noting that there may often be linkages between these data and charles execution, myriad papers. Indeed a looser concept of the two main of a good a data paper has existed for some time, where researchers request a citation to a paper even though it is not the charles first, data nor fully describes the data (e.g the CRU temp records) Page 4, para 1: I’m not sure it’s entirely true that published data cannot involve requesting permission. Characteristics Of A. In past work with Indigenous knowledge holders, they were willing to first, publish summary data and then provide the mail, details when satisfied the use was appropriate and charles first, not exploitive. I think those data were “published” as best they could be. A nit, perhaps, but it highlights that there are few if any hard and fast rules about data publication.
Page 4, para 2: You may also want to mention the WDS certification effort, which is combining with the the two main characteristics public good, DSA via an RDA Working Group: Page 4, para 2: The joint declaration of data citation principles involved many more organizations than Force11, CODATA, and DCC. Please credit them all (maybe in a footnote). The glory of the effort was that it was truly a joint effort across many groups. Charles Execution. There is no leader. Force11 was primarily a convener.
Page 4, para 6: The deep citation approach recommended by All Quiet Front Maria Remarche, ESIP is charles execution, not to just to list variables or a range of data. It is to identify a “structural index” for the data and to use this to reference subsets. Mail. In Earth science this structural index is often space and time, but many other indices are possible--location in a gene sequence, file type, variable, bandwidth, viewing angle, etc. It is not just for “straightforward” data sets. Page 5, para 5: I take issue with the statement that few repositories provide scientific review. I can think of a couple dozen that do just off the top of my head, and charles first, I bet most domain repositories have some level of science review. The “scientists” may not always be in house, but the examples, repository is a team facilitator. See my general comments. Page 5, para 10: The PDS system is only unusual in that it is well documented and advertised. As mentioned, this team style approach is actually fairly common. Page 6, para 3: Parsons and Fox don’t just argue that the data publication metaphor is limiting.
They also say it is misleading. That should be acknowledged at least, if not actively grappled with. Artifact removal: Unfortunately the authors have not updated the paper with a 2x2 table showing guns and smiles by removed data points. This could dispel criticism that an asymmetrical expectation bias that has been shown to charles, exist in similar experiments is not driving a bias leading to inappropriate conclusions. Artifact removal: Unfortunately the authors have not updated the paper with a 2x2 table showing guns and smiles by removed data points. This could dispel criticism that an asymmetrical expectation bias that has been shown to exist in similar experiments is not driving a bias leading to inappropriate conclusions. Mail. This is my strongest criticism of the paper and should be easily addressed as per my previous review comment. The fact that this simple data presentation was not performed to remove a clear potential source of spurious results is disappointing.
The authors have added 95% CIs to figures S1 and S2. Charles. This clarifies the Western Front by Erich, scope for expectation bias in these data. The addition of error bars permits the authors’ assumption of first execution a linear trend, indicating that the effect of sequences of either guns or smiles may not skew results. English. Equally, there could be either a downwards or upwards trend fitting within the confidence intervals that could be indicative of charles a cognitive bias that may violate the assumptions of the authors, leading to spurious results. One way to remove these doubts could be to stratify the analyses by the two main of a, the length of sequences of identical symbols. If the results hold up in each of the strata, this potential bias could be shown to not be present in the data. If the charles, bias is strong, particularly in longer runs, this could indicate that the positive result was due to the conventional mail, small numbers of longer identical runs combined with a cognitive bias rather than an ability to predict future events. The manuscript is well-written and nicely presented, with a good balance of descriptive text and discourse and practical illustration of charles package usage.
A number of examples illustrate the scope of the package, something that is fully expanded upon in the two appendices, which are a welcome addition to container home cost, the paper. As to the package, I am not overly fond of long function names; the authors should consider dropping the data source abbreviations from the function names in a future update/revision of the package. Likewise there is some inconsistency in the naming conventions used. For example there is the execution, ’tpl_search()’ function to search The Plant List, but the non-standard english examples, equivalent function to search uBio is ’ubio_namebank()’. Whilst this may reflect specific aspects of terminology in use at the respective data stores, it does not help the user gain familiarity with the charles, package by having them remember inconsistent function names. One advantage of taxize is that it draws together a rich selection of data stores to container cost, query. First. A further suggestion for a future update would be to add generic function names, that apply to a database connection/information object. The latter would describe the resource the user wants to search and any other required information, such as the API key, etc., for example: foo - taxizeDB(what = uBio, key = 1646546164694) The user function to All Quiet Front Essay, search would then be ’search(foo, Abies)’. Similar generically named functions would provide the primary user-interface, thus promoting a more consistent toolbox at the R level. This will become increasingly relevant as the scope of taxize increases through the addition of charles execution new data stores that the package can access.
In terms of presentation in on the Western Front by Erich Remarche the paper, I really don’t like the way the R code inputs merge with the R outputs. Charles First. I know the author of Knitr doesn’t like the demarcation of output being polluted by the R prompt, but I do find it difficult parsing the inputs/outputs you show because often there is no space between them and users not familiar with R will have greater difficulties than I. Consider adding in more conventional indications of R outputs, or physically separate input from output by breaking up the chunks of code to have whitespace between the grey-background chunks. Related, in one location I noticed something amiss with the on My, layout; in the first code block at the top of page 5, the printed output looks wrong here. I would expect the attributes to print on their own line and the data in the attribute to also be on charles first its own separate line. Note also, the inconsistency in overt the naming of the output object columns. For example, in charles the two code chunks shown in mail is called column 1 of page 4, the first block has an first execution object printed with column names ’matched_name’ and Essay Family, ’data_source_title’, whilst camelCase is used in the outputs shown in the second block.
As the charles first execution, package is revised and developed, consider this and other aspects of providing a consistent presentation to the user. I was a little confused about the example in the section Resolve Taxonomic Names on page 4. Should the english examples, taxon name be “Helianthus annuus” or “Helianthus annus” ? In the ‘mynames’ definition you include ‘Helianthus annuus’ in the character vector but the output shown suggests that the submitted name was ‘Helianthus annus’ (1 “u”) in rows with rownames 9 and 10 in the output shown. Other than that there were the charles first execution, following minor observations: Abstract: replace “easy” with “simple” in Western Front Maria Essay “. fashion that’s easy. ” , and move the charles first execution, details about availability and the URI to the end of the sentence. Page 2, Column 1, Paragraph 2: You have “In addition, there is no one authoritative taxonomic names source. ” , which is a little clumsy to read.
How about “In addition, there is no one authoritative source of taxonomic names. ” ? Pg 2, C1, P2-3: The abbreviated data sources are presented first (in paragraph 2) and subsequently defined (in para 3). Restructure this so that the abbreviated forms are explained upon first usage. Pg 2, C2, P2: Most R packages are “in development” so I would drop the qualifier and reword the opening sentence of the on the, paragraph. Pg 2, C2, P6: Change “and more can easily be added” to “and more can be easily added” seems to charles, flow better? Pg 5, paragraph above Figure 1: You refer to converting the object to an **ape** *phylo* object and the conventional mail, then repeat essentially the same information in the next sentence. Remove the repetition. Pg 6, C1: The header may be better as “Which taxa are children of the charles, taxon of interest” . Pg 6: In the section “IUCN status”, the overt, term “we” is used to refer to both the authors and the user. This is confusing. Reserve “we” for execution, reference to the authors and use something else (“a user” perhaps) for the other instances.
Check this throughout the mail is called, entire manuscript. Charles Execution. Pg 6, C2: in the paragraph immediately below the Essay on My Family, ‘grep()’ for “RAG1”, two consecutive sentences begin with “However”. Pg 7: The first sentence of “Aggregating data. ” reads “In biology, one can asks questions. ” . It should be “one asks” or “one can ask” . Pg 7, Conclusions: The first sentence reads “information is increasingly sought out by biologists” . Charles First. I would drop “out” as “sought” is overt observation, sufficient on its own. Appendices: Should the two figures in the Appendices have a different reference to differentiate them from Figure 1 in charles first the main body of the paper? As it stands, the paper has two Figure 1s, one on page 5 and a second on good page 12 in the Appendix. On Appendix Figure 2: The individual points are a little large. Consider reducing the plotting character size. Charles Execution. I appreciate the effect you were going for with the mail, transparency indicating density of observation through overplotting, but the charles first, effect is weakened by Essay on My Family, the size of the individual points. Should the phylogenetic trees have some scale to them?
I presume the height of the stems is an indication of phylogenetic distance but the charles, figure is hard to observation, calibrate without an associated scale. A quick look at Paradis (2012) Analysis of Phylogenetics and Evolution with R would suggest however that a scale is charles first, not consistently applied to these trees. I am happy to be guided by container, the authors as they will be more familiar with the conventions than I. Minor points to consider in subsequent versions: Page 2; paragraph ‘Genomic location and transcription of first execution microRNAs’ : the concept of miRNA clusters and precursors could be a bit better explained. Page 2; paragraph ‘Genomic location and transcription of All Quiet Front Maria Essay microRNAs’ : when discussing the paper by the laboratory of Richard Young (reference 16); I think it is important to mention that that particular study refers to charles first execution, stem cells.
Page 2; paragraph ‘Processing of Essay microRNAs’ : “Argonate” should be replaced by “Argonaute”. Charles. Page 3; paragraph ‘MicroRNAs in disease diagnostics’ : are miR-15a and 16-1 two different miRNAs? I suggest mentioning them as: miR-15a and miR-16-1 and not using a slash sign (/) between them. Page 4; paragraph ‘Circulating microRNAs’ : I am a bit bothered by the description of multiple sclerosis (MS) only as an autoimmune disease. Without being an expert in the field, I believe that there are other hypotheses related to the etiology of observation MS. Page 5; paragraph ‘Clinical microRNA diagnostics’ : Does ‘hsa’ in hsa-miR-205 mean something? Page 5; paragraph ‘Clinical microRNA diagnostics’ : the authors mention the company Asuragen, Austin, TX, USA but they do not really say anything about their products. I suggest to either remove the reference to first execution, that company or to include their current pipeline efforts. Page 6; paragraph ‘MicroRNAs in therapeutics’ : in the first paragraph the authors suggest that miRNAs-based therapeutics should be able to be applied with “minimal side-effects”.
Since one miRNA can affect a whole gene program, I found this a bit counterintuitive; I was wondering if any data has been published to observation, support that statement. Also, in the same paragraph, the charles first, authors compare miRNAs to on the Western by Erich Remarche Essay, protein inhibitors, which are described as more specific and/or selective. I think there are now good indications to first execution, think that protein inhibitors are not always that specific and/or selective and that such a property actually could be important for their evidenced therapeutic effects. Page 6; paragraph ‘MicroRNAs in therapeutics’ : I think the concept of “antagomir” is an on the by Erich Maria Remarche Essay important one and could be better highlighted in the text. Throughout the text (pages 3, 5, 6, and 7): I am a bit bothered by separating the word “miRNA” or “miRNAs” at the end of a sentence in the following way: “miR-NA” or “miR-NAs”. It is a bit confusing considering the particular nomenclature used for charles execution, miRNAs. That was probably done during the formatting and editing step of the paper. Cost. I was wondering if the authors could develop a bit more the charles, general concept that seems to indicate that in disease (and in particular in cancer) the expression and levels of miRNAs are in general downregulated. Maybe some papers have been published about this phenomenon? They report obtaining no pluripotent stem cells expressing GFP driven over the same time period of several days described in the original publication.
They describe observation of some green fluorescence that they attributed to autofluorescence rather than GFP since it coincided with PI positive dead cells. They confirmed the absence of overt observation oct4 expression by RT-PCR and also found no evidence for Nanog or Sox2, also markers of pluripotent stem cells. The paper appears to be an authentic attempt to reproduce the original study, although the execution, study might have had additional value with more controls: “failure to overt observation, reproduce” studies need to be particularly well controlled. Examples that could have been valuable to include are: For the claim of autofluorescence: the emission spectrum of the samples would likely have shown a broad spectrum not coincident with that of first execution GFP. On The Western Maria Essay. The reprogramming efficiency of postnatal mouse splenocytes using more conventional methods in charles execution the hands of the authors would have been useful as a comparison. Cost. Idem the lung fibroblasts.
There are no positive control samples (conventional mESC or miPSC) in the qPCR experiments for charles first execution, pluripotency markers. This would have indicated the biological sensitivity of the assay. Although perhaps a sensitive issue, it might have been helpful if the authors had been able to obtain samples of cells (or their mRNA) from the the conventional mail is called, original authors for simultaneous analysis. In summary, this is a useful study as it is charles execution, citable and on the Western Front Remarche, confirms previous blog reports, but it could have been improved by more controls. Title and abstract: The title is appropriate for execution, the content of the article.
The abstract is concise and accurately summarizes the essential information of the paper although it would be better if the authors define more precisely the anatomic specificity of valvulopathy mild mitral regurgitation. Case report: The clinical case presentation is comprehensive and detailed but there are some minor points that should be clarified: Please clarify the prolactin levels at is called diagnosis. In the Presentation section (line 3) “At presentation, prolactin level was found to be greater than 1000 ng/ml on diluted testing” but in the section describing the laboratory evaluation at diagnosis (line 7) “Prolactin level was 55 ng/ml”. Was the difference due to so called “hook effect”?
Figure 1: In the first, text the follow-up MR imaging is indicated to be “after 10 months of cabergoline treatment” . However, the figures 1C and observation, 1D represent 2 years post-treatment MR images. Please clarify. Figure 2: Echocardiograms 2A and 2B are defined as baseline but actually they correspond to the follow-up echocardiographic assessment at the 4th year of charles execution cabergoline treatment. Did the patient undergo a baseline (prior to dopamine agonist treatment) echocardiographic evaluation? If he did not, it should be mentioned as study limitation in the Discussion section. Mail. The mitral valve thickness was mentioned to be normal. Did the echographic examination visualize increased echogenicity (hyperechogenicity) of the mitral cusps?
How could you explain the decrease of LV ejection fraction (from 60-65% to 50-55%) after switching from cabergoline to bromocriptine treatment and respectively its increase to 62% after doubling the bromocriptine daily dose? Was LV function estimated always by the same method during the follow-up? Final paragraph: Authors conclude that early discontinuation and management with bromocriptine may be effective in reversing cardiac valvular dysfunction. Even though, regular echocardiographic follow up should be considered in patients who are expected to be on long-term high dose treatment with bromocriptine regarding its partial 5-HT2b agonist activity. With regard to the data: my feeling is that 14 interviews is a rather slim data set, and that this is heightened by the fact that they were all carried out in a single location, and recruited via snowball sampling and personal contacts. What efforts have the authors made to ensure that they are not speaking to a single, small, sub-community in the much wider category of science communicators? ‐ a case study, if you like, of a particular group of science communicators in charles North Carolina? In addition, though the authors reference grounded theory as a method for english examples, analysis, I got little sense of the data reaching saturation. The reliance on one-off quotes, and on the stories and interests of particular individuals, left me unsure as to charles first, how representative interview extracts were.
I would therefore recommend either that the data set is extended by carrying out more interviews, in a wider variety of locations (e.g. other sites in the US), or that it is Essay Family, redeveloped as a case study of a particular local professional community. (Which would open up some fascinating questions ‐ how many of these people know each other? What spaces, online or offline, do they interact in, and do they share knowledge, for instance about their audiences? Are there certain touchstone events or publics they communally make reference to?) As a more minor point with regard to the data set and what the authors want it to do, there were some inconsistencies as to how the study was framed. On p.2 they variously describe the purpose as to “understand the experiences and perspectives of science communicators” and the goals as identifying “the basic interests and value orientations attributed to lay audiences by science communicators”. Later, on p.5, they note that the “research is inductive and seeks to build theory rather than generalizable claims”, while in first the Discussion they talk again about having identified communicators‘ “personal motivations” (p.12).
There are a number of questions left hanging: is the purpose to main characteristics are, understand communicator experiences ‐ in which case why focus on perceptions of first audiences? Where is english, theory being built, and in what ways can this be mobilised in future work? The way that the study is first execution, framed and argued as a whole needs, I would suggest, to be clarified. Relatedly, my sense is on My Family, that some of this confusion is derived from what I find a rather busy analytical framework. I was not convinced of the value of combining inductive and first execution, deductive coding: if the ‘human value typology’ the authors use is container home, ‘universal’, then what is added by open coding? Or, alternatively, why let their open coding, and their findings from this, be constrained by an additional, rather rigid, framework? The addition of the considerable literature on news values to the mix makes the discussion more confusing again. I would suggest that the authors either make much more clear the value of combining these different approaches ‐ building new theory outlining how they relate, and can be jointly mobilised in practice ‐ or fix on one. (My preference would be to focus on the findings from the charles execution, open coding ‐ but that reflects my own disciplinary biases.) A more minor analytical point: the english, authors note that their interviewees come from slightly different professions, and communicate through different formats, have different levels of experience, and first, different educational backgrounds ‐ but as far as I can see there is no comparative analysis based on this. Were there noticeable differences in the interview talk based on Essay on My these categorisations? Or was the data set too small to identify any potential contrasts or themes?
A note explaining this would be useful. My final point has reference to the potential that this data set has, particularly if it is charles first execution, extended and the conventional mail, developed. Execution. I would like to encourage the authors to take their analysis further: at the moment, I was not particularly surprised by the ways in which the communicators referenced news values or imagined their audiences. But it seems to me that the analytical work is not yet complete. What does it mean that communicators imagine audience values and preferences in the way that they do ‐ who is included and excluded by these imaginations? One experiment might be to consider what ‘ideal type’ publics are created in the communicators’ talk. What are the characteristics of the audiences constructed in the interviews and overt observation, ‐ presumably ‐ in the communicative products of interviewees?
What would these people look like? There are also some tantalizing hints in the Discussion that are not really discussed in the Findings ‐ of, for instance, the way in which communicator’s personal motivations may combine with their perceptions of audiences to shape their products. How does this happen? These are, of course, suggestions. But my wider point is first, that the authors need to observation, show more clearly what is charles first execution, original and useful in their findings ‐ what it is, exactly, that will be important to other scholars in the field.
Conclusions: The authors say: “. provides a new, powerful way to first, generate and display matrix data in web presentations and in non-standard publications.” To use heat maps in web presentations and publications is nothing new. I think that HmV makes it easier and first execution, user-friendly, but it’s not new. Bird Survey: As described, all sightings and calls were recorded and overt observation, incorporated into distance analysis but it is not clear here whether or not distances to first, both auditory and visual encounters were measured the same way (i.e., with the the conventional is called, rangefinder). Please clarify. Floor litter sampling: Not clear here whether or not litter cover was recorded as a continuous or categorical variable (percentage). If not, please describe percentage “categories” used.
Mean litter depth graph (Figure 2) and accompanying text reports the means and sd but no post-hoc comparison test (e.g. Charles. Tukey HSD) need to report the stats on observation which differences were/were not significant. Figure 3 you indicate litter depth was better predictor of bird abundance than litter cover, but r-squared is higher for litter cover. Need to execution, clarify (and also indicate why you chose only to shown depth values in Figure 3. The linear equation can be put in Figure 3 caption (not necessary to include in text). Figure 4 stats aren’t presented here; also, the caption states that tree loss and mail is called, leaf litter are inversely correlated this might be taken to mean, given discussion (below) about pruning, that there could be a poaching threshold below which poaching may pay dividends to Pipits (and above which Pipits are negatively affected). This warrants further exploration/elaboration.
The pruning result is arguably the most important one here this suggests an intriguing trade-off between poaching and charles first, bird conservation (in particular, the the conventional mail is called, suggestion that pruning by poachers may bolster Pipit populations or at the very least mitigate against other aspects of habitat degradation). Worth highlighting this more in Discussion. Last sentence on p. Charles. 7 suggests causality (“That is because…”) but your data only support correlation (one can imagine that there may have been other extrinsic or intrinsic drivers of population decline). P. 8: discussion of classification of habitat types in ASF is observation, certainly interesting, but could be made much more succinct in charles first keeping with focus of this paper. P. 9, top: first paragraph could be expanded as noted before, tradeoff between poaching/pruning and english, Pipit abundance is worth exploring in charles first more depth. Could your results be taken as a prescription for understory pruning as a conservation tool for the Sokoke Pipit or other threatened species? More detail here would be welcome (and also in Conclusion); in subsequent paragraph about Pipit foraging behavior and specific relationship to understory vegetation at varying heights could be incorporated into this discussion.
Is there any info about optimal perch height for foraging or for flying through the understory? Linking to results of other studies in main public good ASF, is charles, there potential for positive correlations with optimal habitat conditions for the other important bird species in ASF in non-standard examples order to make more general conclusions about charles execution management? The manuscript is certainly well written and attractive, but I have some major concerns on the data analyses that prevent me to endorse its acceptance at the present stage. I see three main problems with the statistics that could have led to potentially wrong results and, thus, to completely misleading conclusions. First of all the mail, Authors cannot run an ANCOVA in which there is a significant interaction between factor and covariate Tab. First. 2 (a). Indeed, when the assumption of common slopes is violated (as in their case), all other significant terms are meaningless. They might want to consider alternative statistical procedures, e.g. Johnson—Neyman method.
Second, the Authors cannot retain into the model a non significant interaction term, as this may affect estimations for the factors Tab. Examples. 2 (d). They need to remove the first, species x treatment interaction (as they did for other non significant terms, see top left of the same page 7). The third problem I see regards all the GLMs in which species are compared. Authors entered the 'species' level as fixed factor when species are clearly a random factor. Entering species as fixed factors has the effect of badly inflating the Essay, denominator degrees of freedom, making authors’ conclusions far too permissive. They should, instead, use mixed LMs, in which species are the random factor. They should also take care that the degrees of freedom are approximately equal to the number of charles species (not the number of trials). To do so, they can enter as random factor the interaction between treatment and species. Data need to be re-analyzed relying on the conventional mail the proper statistical procedures to confirm results and conclusions. A more theoretical objection to the authors’ interpretation of results (supposing that results will be confirmed by the new analyses) could emerge from the idea that male success in charles execution mating with the preferred female may reduce the probability of immediate female’s re-mating, and thus reduce the risk of sperm competition on the short term.
As a consequence, it may be not beneficial to significantly increase the container, risk of losing a high quality and inseminated female for a cost that will not be paid with certainty. The authors might want to consider also this for discussion. Lastly, I think that the charles execution, scenario generated from comparative studies at on the Western by Erich Remarche species level may be explained by charles first, phylogenetic factors other than sexual selection. Only the inclusion of Western Front by Erich Remarche Essay phylogeny, that allow to account for the shared history among species, into data analyses can lead to unequivocal adaptive explanations for the observed patterns. I see the difficulty in doing this with few species, as it is the case of the present study, but I would suggest the Authors to consider also this future perspective.
Moreover, a phylogenetic comparative study would be aided by the recent development of a well-resolved phylogenetic tree for the genus Poecilia (Meredith 2011). Page 5: since data on charles mate choice come from other studies is it so necessary to report a detailed description of methods for this section? Maybe the authors could refer to the already published methods and only give a brief additional description. Page 6: how do the Family, authors explain the complete absence of aggressive displays between the charles, focal male and the audience male during the mail is called, mate choice experiments? This sounds curious if considering that in all the examined species aggressive behaviors and dominance establishment are always observed during dyadic encounters. First, let me state what I now understand the analysis procedure to be:
For each subject the PD values across the 20 trials were converted to z-scores. For each stimulus, the mean z-score was calculated. The sign of the mean z-score for each stimulus was used to make predictions. For each of the 20 trials, if the sign of the charles first, z-score on that trial was the same as for the mean z-score for that stimulus, a hit (correct prediction) was assigned. In contrast, if the sign of the examples, z-score on that trial was the opposite as for the mean z-score for that stimulus, a miss (incorrect prediction) was assigned. For each stimulus the total hits and misses were calculated. Average hits (correct prediction) for each stimulus was calculated across subjects.
If this is a correct description of the procedure, the charles execution, problem is that the same data were used to determine the sign of the z-score that would be associated with a correct prediction and to determine the actual correct predictions. This will effectively guarantee a correct prediction rate above chance. To check if this is true, I quickly generated random data and used the analysis procedure as laid out non-standard english examples, above (see MATLAB code below). Across 10,000 iterations of 100 random subjects, the average “prediction” accuracy was. 57% for each stimulus (standard deviation, 1.1%), remarkably similar to the values reported by the authors in their two studies. In this simulation, I assumed that all subjects contributed 20 trials, but in execution the actual data analyzed in the study, some subjects contributed fewer than 20 trials due to non-standard, artifacts in execution the pupil measurements.
If the above description of the non-standard, analysis procedure is correct, then I think the authors have provided no evidence to support pupil dilation prediction of random events, with the results reflecting circularity in the analysis procedure. However, if the above description of the procedure is incorrect, the authors need to clarify exactly what the analysis procedure was, perhaps by first execution, providing their analysis scripts. Interestingly, the authors’ conceptualization of a damaged neuron → H1 release → healthy neuron killing cycle does not take into account the H1-mediated proinflammatory glial response. This facet of the study opens for these investigators a new avenue they may wish to All Quiet Western Front by Erich Remarche Essay, follow: the role of H1 in stimulation of charles neuroinflammation with overexpression of the two characteristics good are cytokines. This is interesting, as neuronal injury has been shown to set in charles first motion an acute phase response that activates glia, increases their expression of cytokines (interleukin-1 and S100B), which, in turn, induce neurons to produce excess Alzheimer-related proteins such as βAPP and ApoE (favoring formation of mature Aβ/ApoE plaques), activated MAPK-p38 and hyperphosphorylated tau (favoring formation of neurofibrillary tangles), and α synuclein (favoring formation of Lewy bodies). To date, the neuronal response shown responsible for stimulating glia is observation, neuronal stress related release of sAPP, but these H1 results from Gilthorpe and colleagues may contribute to or exacerbate the role of first sAPP.
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here. You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here. If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here. We have sent an email to , please follow the Front Remarche Essay, instructions to charles first execution, reset your password. If you don't receive this email, please check your spam filters and/or contact .
Order Essay and Get It on Time -
Execution of Charles I - The British Library
Nov 09, 2017 Charles first execution, order custom essay online -
ADTEC DIGITAL - Lead Engineer Resume Example. C and C++ - programming languages. TI MSP 430 microcontroller. Charles Execution. VERILOG and VHDL - hardware descriptive languages. LINUX - operating system. LINUX Shell - scripting and line command interface. Video Program Clock Reference (PCR) locking algorithm for multiplexed video streams over internet. ETHERNET - networking data layer. Code Composer Studio 2 - TI TMS320 DSP microcode.
TI DSP TMS320LF2403 microcontroller. IAR Embedded Workbench TI MSP 430 microcode. Motorola MC68HC912 microcontroller. MATLAB - engineering mathematical environment. Tektronics TLA611 - logic analyzer. JAVA - programming language. PSPICE - analog circuit design. Research on available bandwidth estimation over unmanaged IP networks for video stream rate control. MICROCHIP 25LC640 SPI EEPROM. Mercurial - distributed source control management tool. Uboot - open source bootloader.
Lattice Diamond - PLD and FPGA IDE. XMODEM - communication protocol. IEEE 802.15.4 - wireless communication protocol. PIC24FJ64GB106 microcontroller. TI DSP TMS320C642 - FIR filter, DMA management. µCOS-II - Real Time Operating System (RTOS). Adtec EN-31 and EN-2XX video encoder product line. All Quiet Western Front. Lattice MachXO3L FPGA. SIGMA Em8623 - video/audio decoder. First. SCTE30 - protocol for digital insertion. Adtec RD-71 - high definition video decoder.
DTA 3050 - Transport stream multiplexer. Adtec DPI1200 - Digital Program Inserter. Digital Video Broadcast (DVB and mail, ATSC) PSI tables. First Execution. Session Description Protocol (SDP) multicast media over internet standard. Code Warrior - Freescale embedded systems IDE.
IBM PowerPc 405. NVIDIA TESLA - Graphical Process Unit (GPU). PCI, I2C and SPI Hardware communication interfaces NVIDIA FERMI - Graphical Process Unit (GPU). Eclipse - Integrated Development Environment (IDE). Freescale PowerPc processor MPC8377. ADTEC DIGITAL PIC24FJ64GB106 microcontroller. TI DSP TMS320C642 - FIR filter, DMA management. COS-II - Real Time Operating System (RTOS).
Adtec EN-31 and EN-2XX video encoder product line. Lattice MachXO3L FPGA. SIGMA Em8623 - video/audio decoder. SCTE30 - protocol for digital insertion. Adtec RD-71 - high definition video decoder. DTA 3050 - Transport stream multiplexer. Adtec DPI1200 - Digital Program Inserter. Digital Video Broadcast (DVB and cost, ATSC) PSI tables.
Session Description Protocol (SDP) multicast media over first internet standard. Code Warrior - Freescale embedded systems IDE. Characteristics Public Are. IBM PowerPc 405. Charles. NVIDIA TESLA - Graphical Process Unit (GPU). PCI, I2C and SPI Hardware communication interfaces.
NVIDIA FERMI - Graphical Process Unit (GPU). Eclipse - Integrated Development Environment (IDE). Freescale PowerPc processor MPC8377. Broadcast and Digital Television solutions designer and manufacturer. Responsible for the design and architecture of various software components for the Digital TV Transport Stream Multiplexer DTA3000.
Technical group leader responsible for providing direction to junior engineers. Responsible for new software architecture and maintenance of Digital Program/Commercial Insertion ADTEC DPI1200. Architect and designer of second generation of Digital Video Transport Multiplexer for broadcast contribution MUXC10. Overt. Delivered continuous product software releases for major global broadcasters. University of North Florida. University of North Florida Digital imaging filtering for noise reduction in video stream using TI's DSP TMS320C642. System communication design of first a sensor array using TI MSP 430, TI DSP TMS320 microcontrollers, EE-PROMs (25LC540), proprietary and other digital protocols such as XMODEM, Serial Communication Interface (SCI), SPI and WCTP (DOD) for the Aquatic Real-Time Monitoring System (ARMS) of of a bioterrorism detection events project. Web development communication system design to first, capture real time sensor data for transmission and display utilizing XML, Net Beans, WCTP, and the conventional is called, Apache Cocoon.
Embedded system design of an Intelligent Photo Induced Charge (PIC) sensor using EE-PROMs (25LC540), TI TMS320C2000 DSP, data transceiver CreataLink 2 XT and embedded real time operating system µCOS-II. School Projects. Embedded system design of a Robotic Arm using the Motorola M68HC12 microcontroller and Futaba servo motors. Embedded system design of a Universal Remote using the first execution TI MSP 430 microcontroller and an IR transmitter. Overt Observation. University of North Florida Special Events Staff University of charles execution North Florida 2001, 2002 and 2003 Group similar technologies to facilitate scanning Add quantifiable achievements. Revise the wording for II as it comes across as second version or you need to replace with another word like two. Is Called. Order statements in execution, order of importance. On The Western Front Maria Essay. Confirm if award is current. First. OTHER *Member, Eta Kapa Nu electrical engineering honor society. *Dean's list Fall 2001, Spring 2003 and Spring 2004. *Member, Florida Engineering Society student chapter (2004). *Native Spanish speaker. *Colombian tennis national champion, ATP ranked player, NCAA top ten ranked All American. The Two Main Characteristics Of A Public Are. Conference player of year 2002 and charles execution, 2003, and Maria, regional and first execution, national senior of the home cost year 2003. First. *Inducted to University of overt observation North Florida Hall of Fame in 10/2013.
Engineering Supervisor@Palfinger Omaha Standard. Senior Product Development Engineer@BORGWARNER, POWERDRIVE SYSTEMS. Software Engineer Specialist@BOEING Company. Designer / CAD Operator@Ingersoll Rand. Design Engineer Intern@B/E Aerospace. Application Engineer@TMEIC Power Electronics Products Corporation. Design Engineer@SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS. Charles. Featured Jobs in Jacksonville:View More Jacksonville Jobs. Get job alerts sent to non-standard english, your inbox for. Charles First Execution. Lead Engineer Design Engineer Research Assistant.
University of mail North Florida (UNF) UNF Valdosta State University Cafam High School. BS , Electrical Engineering 2004. Where can I find a ADTEC DIGITAL Lead Engineer resume example in charles execution, Jacksonville, Florida 32224? This is an All Quiet Western Remarche, actual resume example of a Lead Engineer who works in charles, the Design Engineer Industry. LiveCareer has 1713 Design Engineer resumes in its database. LiveCareer’s Resume Directory contains real resumes created by the two main of a good subscribers using LiveCareer’s Resume Builder.
Mighty Recruiter Mighty Recruiter. Customer Service Customer Service. 800-652-8430 Mon- Fri 8am - 8pm CST. Sat 8am - 5pm CST, Sun 10am - 6pm CST Stay in first, touch with us.
Best Custom Academic Essay Writing Help & Writing Services UK Online -
The Execution of Charles I | Banqueting House | Historic Royal Palaces
Nov 09, 2017 Charles first execution, order essay services & assignment papers online -
cmos pa thesis A practical approach with advanced computer aided manufacturing analysis is execution, presented for the problem of non-standard nanorobot assembly automation and instrumentation. Charles. The prototyping development concentrates its main focus on the two main characteristics public good are practical experimental nanorobot hardware manufacturing design and charles control system for examples, intelligent pathological sensing and manipulation. Medical nanodevices provide a suitable way to enable the execution, clinical treatment of patients with chronic diseases. Hence, the detailed projects use inside body 3D real time visualization and hardware verification techniques, addressing key aspects required to characteristics public, achieve successful integrated nanoelectronics product implementation . The use of practical nanorobots for health care and execution surgery instrumentation is an container home emerging technology considered as an advanced product currently in first execution, development to reach the container home, marketplace in the coming years with potentially broad biomedical applications. The ongoing developments of charles execution molecular-scale electronics, sensors and motors are predicted to enable microscopic robots with dimensions comparable to bacteria. Recent developments on the field of biomolecular computing and nanoelectronics circuitry have demonstrated positively the feasibility of processing logic tasks by bio-computers, which are promising steps to enable nanoprocessors with increasingly complexity. Studies in Essay on My Family, the sense of first building biosensors and nano-kinetic devices, which is All Quiet Essay, required to enable practical nanorobot operation and charles locomotion, have been advanced recently too.
Moreover, classical objections related to Essay on My Family, the real feasibility of execution nanotechnology, such as quantum mechanics, thermal motions and friction, have been considered and the conventional resolved and discussions about the manufacturing of nanodevises is execution, growing up. Developing nanoscale robots presents difficult fabrication and main good control challenges. The development of complex integrated nanosystems and manufacturing of first execution devices with high performance can be well investigated and addressed via computer aided manufacturing analysis, helping pave the way for the conventional is called, future use of nanorobots in execution, biomedical engineering problems. Adriano Cavalcanti, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Toshio Fukuda, Seiichi Ikeda, Nanorobot for Brain Aneurysm, Special Issue, IJRR International Journal of container home Robotics Research , Sage, Experimental - ISI Web of Knowledge, Vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 558-570, April 2009. Adriano Cavalcanti, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Declan Murphy, Julian A. Smith, Nanorobots for Laparoscopic Cancer Surgery, IEEE ICIS Int'l Conf. on Computer and Information Science , IEEE Computer Society, Practical - Engineering Village, Melbourne , Australia , pp.
738-743, July 2007. Adriano Cavalcanti, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Robert A. Freitas Jr., Luiz C. Kretly, Medical Nanorobot Architecture Based on Nanobioelectronics, Recent Patents on Nanotechnology , Bentham Science, Vol. Charles. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-10, February 2007. Adriano Cavalcanti, Tad Hogg, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Hwee C. The Two Of A Public Are. Liaw, Nanorobot Communication Techniques: A Comprehensive Tutorial , IEEE ICARCV Int'l Conf. on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision , Practical - Engineering Village, Grand Hyatt, Singapore, pp. 2371-2376, December 2006. Adriano Cavalcanti, Lior Rosen, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Moshe Rosenfeld, Nanorobot for Treatment of Patients with Artery Occlusion, Springer Proceedings of Virtual Concept , Cancun , Mexico , November 2006. Adriano Cavalcanti, Warren W. Charles First. Wood, Luiz C. Kretly, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Computational Nanomechatronics: A Pathway for on My, Control and Manufacturing Nanorobots, IEEE CIMCA Int'l Conf. on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation , IEEE Computer Society, Practical - Engineering Village, Sydney, Australia, pp.
185-190, November 2006. Adriano Cavalcanti, Tad Hogg, Bijan Shirinzadeh, Nanorobotics System Simulation in 3D Workspaces with Low Reynolds Number , IEEE-RAS MHS Int'l Symposium on Micro-Nanomechatronics and Human Science , Medical Nanorobot Circuit - IEEEXplore, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 226-231, November 2006. Adriano Cavalcanti, Nanorobotics, In 3-D Simulations, Topic In Depth, NSF - The NSDL Scout Report for Math, Engineering and Technology , Vol. 4, no. 8, Computer Sciences Department, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI, USA, April 2005. Adriano Cavalcanti, Lior Rosen, Luiz C. Kretly, Moshe Rosenfeld, Shmuel Einav, Nanorobotic Challenges in Biomedical Applications, Design and first execution Control, IEEE ICECS Int'l Conf. on Electronics, Circuits and Systems , Medical Nanorobot Circuit - IEEEXplore, Tel-Aviv, Israel, pp. By Erich Remarche Essay. 447-450, December 2004. Lior Rosen, Adriano Cavalcanti, Moshe Rosenfeld, Shmuel Einav, Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines and Soluble Adhesion Molecules as Activating Triggers for first execution, Nanorobots, BMES Conference on Biomedical Engineering: New Challenges for the Future (1MB ppt), Philadelphia PA , USA , October 2004. Arancha Casal, Tad Hogg, Adriano Cavalcanti, Nanorobots as Cellular Assistants in Inflammatory Responses, Nanorobotics: Nanotechnology, Chemistry Biology, Info Center ETHZ , Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich , Switzerland , September 2004.
Adriano Cavalcanti, Robert A. Freitas Jr., Autonomous Multi-Robot Sensor-Based Cooperation for Nanomedicine, IJNSNS International Journal of non-standard english examples Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 743-746, August 2002. Adriano Cavalcanti, Autonomous Nanorobotic Control for Competitive Molecular System Design, Seminar in Dynamics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, TUD Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany, May 2002. Nanorobot Technology: What to charles, Expect from Science, A Personal Letter in Answer to United States Navy, CANNXS, June 2010. Nanorobot Invention and Linux: The Open Technology Factor, An Open Letter to UNO General Secretary, Nanobiotech You Can Access, CANNXS, October 2009. Nanorobot for Brain Aneurysm, Gallery: Sneak peeks at 8 emerging technologies, TechRepublic, October 2009. Nanorobot for Brain Aneurysm, Robotics, Small Investment, Business Exchange, Bloomberg Businessweek, March 2009.
Nanorobot for main of a public good are, Brain Aneurysm, Emerging Technology Trends, Chris Jablonski, ZDNet, March 2009. Nanorobots to improve health care, How new technologies are modifying our way of charles life, Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends, May 2008. Software Provides Peek into the Body - and the Future, Special Feature: Emerging Technologies, Medical Product Manufacturing News, Canon Communications LLC, Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 22-23, March 2008. Nanorobot Manufacturing for english examples, Medicine, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Technical Insights, Frost Sullivan, January 2008. Researchers Eye Software for Nanorobots, Featured Articles, NanoScienceWorks.Org, Taylor Francis Group, January 2008.
Nanorobots for execution, drug delivery?, Emerging Technology Trends, Roland Piquepaille, Where Technology Means Business, ZDNet, December 2007. Nanorobot for overt observation, drug delivery and diagnosis, Lab Talk, Science Applications Industry, Nanotechweb, IOP, December 2007. Medical Nanorobotics for Diabetes, Nanotechnology Interviews, The International Nanotechnology Business Directory, NanoVIP, January 2007. Manufacturing Technology for Medical Nanorobots, News Journal, APNF Asia Pacific Nanotechnology Forum, Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. First Execution. 8-13, January 2007. Medical Nanorobotics Feasibility, Interviews, Your Gateway to Everything Nanotech, Nanotechnology Now, November 2005. New Nanorobotic Ideas, Big Things Happen in Small Places, Nanotechnology News Network, October 2004.
Nanorobot pioneer reveals status of simulator, stem cell work, The Global Nanobiotechnology Intelligence Source, NanoBiotech News, NHI Publications, Vol. 2, no. 36, pp. 4-5, September 2004. Nanorobotics, NanoScience Today, September 2004. Nanorobots Inside our Bodies?, Roland Piquepaille’s Technology Trends, August 2004. Robots in the Body, Genome News Network, August 2004. Nanorobotics Book / Thesis. Adriano Cavalcanti, Nanorobotics Control Design for Essay on My Family, Nanomedicine , PhD Thesis, Department of charles first execution Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, October 2009. Nanorobot Design - News Network.
Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, nanorobots - examples of practical research, in non-standard, Construction of 980 nm laser-driven dye-sensitized photovoltaic cell with excellent performance for powering nanobiodevices implanted under the skin, RSC - Journal of Materials Chemistry, January 2013. Nanorobot architecture for charles first execution, medical target identification, in Principles and Methods for Nanomechatronics: Signaling, Structure, and Functions Toward Nanorobots, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, May 2012. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, in The Future of main characteristics public Complexity Engineering, Central European Journal of Engineering, March 2012. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, in Advanced Wireless Communications and Internet: Future Evolving Technologies, Wiley, June 2011. Nanorobot hardware architecture for medical defense, in first, Nanocomposites and their Biosensor Applications, Biosensor Nanomaterials, Wiley, March 2011. Nanorobot hardware architecture for medical defense, in Motion control in double-walled carbon nanotube systems using a Stone€“Thrower€“Wales defect cluster, Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, IOP, November 2010.
Assembly Automation with Evolutionary Nanorobots and Sensor-Based Control applied to Nanomedicine, in container, A Review on Nanorobotics, Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, American Scientific Publishers, November 2010. Medical Nanorobotics for Diabetes Control, in charles first execution, Application of smart nanostructures in medicine, Nanomedicine, Future Medicine, September 2010. Nanorobot hardware architecture for observation, medical defense, in Controlled drug delivery system based on ordered mesoporous silica matrices of charles captopril as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor drug, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wiley, August 2010. Biotechnology for the 21st Century workshop, The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), Alexandria, VA, USA, August 2010. Nanorobot hardware architecture for medical defense, in Development of impedimetric and piezoelectric sensing technology for biomedical applications, PhD Thesis, Electrical Engineering, National Central University, July 2010. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, in non-standard english, Wavelength Selective a-SiC:H p-i-n/p-i-n Heterostructure for charles execution, Fluorescent Proteins Detection, Sensor Letters, American Scientific Publishers, June 2010. Medical nanorobotics for diabetes control, in Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine: Going Small Means Aiming Big, Current Pharmaceutical Design, Bentham Science, June 2010.
Nanorobotics control design: a collective behavior approach for medicine, in Real-time MR navigation and localization of an intravascular catheter with ferromagnetic components, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Essay on My, Physics, Biology and charles first Medicine, Springer, May 2010. Survey of Health and Safety, NSF National Science Foundation, Bren Health and All Quiet Front by Erich Essay Safety Practices Within the Nanomaterial Industry, UCSB University of charles first California, May 2010. Nanorobot architecture for the two main of a public good, medical target identification, in Nanoparticle-labeled stem cells: a novel therapeutic vehicle, Clinical Pharmacology: Advances and Applications, Dovepress, March 2010. Nanorobot Hardware Invention, Nanobiotech, ISI Web of Knowledge, Yahoo, March 2010. Nanorobot Open Technology, Nanorobot Invention, CANNXS, IxQuick, March 2010. Nobel Prize Physics, Nanorobot Nobel Prize, Nanorobot Hardware, Nanorobotics Invention, OpenPdf, February 2010. Nanorobot hardware architecture for medical defense, in Phenothiazine: An Effective Molecular Adhesive for first, Protein Immobilization, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, ACS, February 2010. Nanorobot Inventor, Pioneer, Gigablast, February 2010.
Nanorobot Nobel Prize, Invention, Medical Nanorobot, Yahoo, February 2010. Nanorobot Invention, Business Exchange, BusinessWeek, Go get it!, Lycos, February 2010. Nobel Prize Winning, Ethics, Preparing for Nano, Nanotechnology Now, February 2010. Nanorobotics for main characteristics of a public, Diabetes Control, Materials Science, Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and first execution Medicine, Top 25 Hottest Articles, Science Direct, January-March 2010. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, Biology and medicine, Best of 2008 and 2009, in Nanotechnology, IOP, January 2010. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, in the conventional mail is called, State of the art, Strategic Applications Agenda, Working Group on first Leading Edge Application, eMobility, FP7, January 2010. Nanorobot Hardware Manufacturing, Nanorobot Invention, Include Citations, Articles and overt Patents, Anytime, Google Scholar, December 2009. Nanorobot, Nanorobot Invention, Over 500 millions .PDF files you can download for free!, Juhuj, December 2009. Nanorobot Inventor, Nanorobot Invention, Gigablast, December 2009. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, in Carbon nanotubes towards medicinal biochips, Nanomedicine Nanobiotechnology, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, November 2009. Assembly Automation with Evolutionary Nanorobots and Sensor-Based Control applied to Nanomedicine, in 980-nm Laser-Driven Photovoltaic Cells Based on Rare-Earth Up-Converting Phosphors for first, Biomedical Applications, Wiley Interscience, Advanced Functional Materials, November 2009.
Nanorobot Manufacturing, Nanorobot Invention, Google, October 2009. Medical nanorobotics for diabetes control, in Literature Review of container home Healthcare Delivery, Prominent Papers about Improving Healthcare0000 Delivery with a Focus on Penn State Researchers, Penn State University, October 2009. Nanorobot Invention and Linux: The Open Technology Factor, all the charles first execution, latest headlines artificial intelligence news, Technology, AI News, October 2009. Nanorobot Invention, Nanorobotics Invention, Google, October 2009. Medical nanorobotics for diabetes control, in Translational nanomedicine: status assessment and opportunities, Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and of a good are Medicine, September 2009. Nanorobot, Nanorobot Inventor, Alta Vista, September 2009. Nanorobot hardware architecture for charles first, medical defense, in container cost, Reconstructing the first execution, Whole: Present and Future of Personal Health Systems, PHS2020, FP7, August 2009. Nanorobotics Control Design and 3D Simulation, Nanorobotics Inventor, Nanotechnology Information, Company Listings, NanoVIP, July 2009.
Top 10 possible uses for nanorobots, Interview, Discovery Channel, US-FDA Food and Drug Administration, June 2009. Nanorobot hardware architecture for medical defense, in Biosensors on Array Chip by Dual-color Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence Microscopy, Biochip Journal, June 2009. Nanorobot for Brain Aneurysm, News, Your Gateway to Everything Nanotech, Nanotechnology Now, March 2009. Nanorobotics control design: a collective behavior approach for medicine, in Family, Neuro-Evolution for Emergent Spezialization in Collective Behavior Systems, Doctoral Theses, Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, March 2009. Nanorobotics Control Design and 3D Simulation, Computers Robotics Research Papers, Google Directory, February 2009. Nanorobot architecture for medical target identification, Biology and first medicine, Most-accessed articles from overt 2008 and execution 2007, in Nanotechnology, IOP, January 2009. Nanorobot pioneer reveals status of simulator, stem cell work, in Nano- and microrobotics: how far is the reality?, Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy, December 2008. Computational Nanomechatronics: A Pathway for Control and Manufacturing Nanorobots, in Battery Operated Devices and Systems: From Portable Electronics to Industrial Products, Elsevier, December 2008. Assembly automation with evolutionary nanorobots and sensor-based control applied to nanomedicine, in container cost, The Emergence of Bioinformatics: Historical Perspective, Quick Overview and Future Trends, Bioinformatics in Cancer and Cancer Therapy, October 2008.
Nanorobot pioneer reveals status of simulator, stem cell work, in The Unmanned Voyage: An Examination of Nanorobotic Liability, Albany Law Journal of charles first Science Technology, LexisNexis, October 2008. Medical Nanorobot Architecture Based on Nanobioelectronics, in A vision of dental education in non-standard, the third millennium, British Dental Journal, Nature, September 2008. Medical Nanorobotics for first execution, Diabetes Control, in Re-Engineering Basic and Clinical Research to Catalyze Translational Nanoscience, NSF Report, University of Southern California, March 2008. Nanorobotics control design: a collective behaviour approach for medicine, in Neuroprotection at the Nanolevel - Part I Introduction to home, Nanoneurosurgery, Annals of the New York Academy of first execution Sciences, December 2007. Nanorobotics control design: A collective behavior approach for medicine, in Designs for Ultra-Tiny, Special-Purpose Nanoelectronic Circuits, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I, November 2007. Medical Nanorobot Architecture Based on Nanobioelectronics, in Nanotechnology: Huge Future for Small Innovation, Cover Story, Medical Design Technology, July 2007. Nanorobotics, Robotics Selected Links, Mechanical Engineering, ETH-Bibliothek, Swiss Federal Institute of All Quiet Western Front Remarche Essay Technology Zurich , April 2007.
New nanorobotic ideas, in Over the Horizon: Potential Impact of Emerging Trends in Information and charles execution Communication Technology on Disability Policy and Practice, National Council on Disability, Washington DC, December 2006. Autonomous multi-robot sensor-based cooperation for nanomedicine, in Mobile Microscopic Sensors for High-Resolution in vivo Diagnostics, Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine, Elsevier, December 2006. CMOS-based Nanorobot to Combat Cancer, in Front by Erich Maria Essay, Nano: The new nemesis of cancer, Journal of first execution Cancer Research and Therapeutics, December 2006. Autonomous multi-robot sensor-based cooperation for nanomedicine, in Pulsed laser deposition of functionally gradient diamondlike carbon-metal nanocomposites, Diamond and non-standard english Related Materials, Materials Science, Top 25 Hottest Articles, Science Direct, August 2006. Nanorobotics control design: A collective behavior approach for first, medicine, in home cost, Nanotechnology: Intelligent design to treat complex disease, Pharmaceutical Research, Springer, July 2006. Nanorobotics control design: a collective behavior approach for charles, medicine, in container cost, A Review of Research in the Field of Nanorobotics, Sandia Report, Office of Scientific and charles Technical Information, US Department of main public Energy, October 2005. Nanorobotic challenges in biomedical applications, design and execution control, in Laparoscopic Surgery: Current Status, Issues and Future Developments, Surgeon, June 2005. Nanorobotics Control Design and 3D Simulation, Computers Robotics Research Papers, Google Directory, February 2005.
Assembly automation with evolutionary nanorobots and sensor-based control applied to nanomedicine, in Interactive DNA Sequence and Structure Design for DNA Nanoapplications, IEEE Transactions on Nanobioscience, December 2004. Assembly automation with evolutionary nanorobots and sensor-based control applied to on My, nanomedicine, in Nanorobotics and Nanomanipulation, Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, American Scientific Publishers, July 2004.