Slashdot Mirror

I know this is against /. 's unwritten rules, but here are actual results of previous tries:

http://www.cehd.umn.edu/research/highlights/Sleep/ and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609071202.htm and http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133246.php

Ok, now back to fantasies about sex-crazed teens left unattended but apparently with the means to get to their FWB's house at 7 AM...

The findings are published in Nature Genetics. They are based on the largest-ever autism genome scan. Over 120 scientists from over 50 institutions who formed the Autism Genome Project (AGP) performed the research. ... Researchers speculate that there may be five or six major genes and as many as 30 other genes involved in autism. Gene That May Lead to Autism Identified

The American Journal of Human Genetics publishes the findings in its Jan. 10 online edition, which also features two studies from research teams at Yale and Johns Hopkins that used different methods that pinpointed the same gene. The coincidence suggests that the gene, called contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CNTNAP2), likely plays a key role in the development of autism. New Genetic Link To Autism Discovered By Studying Speech

the study, which appears online on March 22 in advance of publication in the April print issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Teiichi Furuichi and colleagues show that mice lacking CADPS2, which is encoded by a gene in the autism susceptibility region of human chromosome 7, had impaired social interactions (when pairs of CADPS2-deficient mice that had never met were placed together they interacted substantially less frequently than pairs of wild-type mice that had never met), hyperactivity, and decreased exploration of a new environment; all of which are characteristics of individuals with autism. New Protein Implicated In Autism

The research was led by Dr Bhismadev Chakrabarti and Professor Simon Baron-Cohen from the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge. 68 genes were chosen either because they were known to play a role in neural growth, social behaviour, or sex steroid hormones (e.g. testosterone and estrogen). ... The research found that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 27 out of the 68 genes were nominally associated with either AS and/or with autistic traits/empathy. 10 of these genes (such as CYP11B1) were involved with sex steroid function, providing support for the role of this class of genes in autism and autistic traits. 8 of these genes (such as NTRK1) were involved in neural growth, providing further support to the idea that autism and autistic traits could result from aberrant patterns of connectivity in the developing brain. The other 9 genes (such as OXTR) were involved in social behaviour, shedding light on the biology of social and emotional sensitivity. Asperger Syndrome, Autism, And Empathy: Study Links 27 Genes

The findings are published in Nature Genetics. They are based on the largest-ever autism genome scan. Over 120 scientists from over 50 institutions who formed the Autism Genome Project (AGP) performed the research. ... Researchers speculate that there may be five or six major genes and as many as 30 other genes involved in autism. Gene That May Lead to Autism Identified

The American Journal of Human Genetics publishes the findings in its Jan. 10 online edition, which also features two studies from research teams at Yale and Johns Hopkins that used different methods that pinpointed the same gene. The coincidence suggests that the gene, called contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CNTNAP2), likely plays a key role in the development of autism. New Genetic Link To Autism Discovered By Studying Speech

the study, which appears online on March 22 in advance of publication in the April print issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Teiichi Furuichi and colleagues show that mice lacking CADPS2, which is encoded by a gene in the autism susceptibility region of human chromosome 7, had impaired social interactions (when pairs of CADPS2-deficient mice that had never met were placed together they interacted substantially less frequently than pairs of wild-type mice that had never met), hyperactivity, and decreased exploration of a new environment; all of which are characteristics of individuals with autism. New Protein Implicated In Autism

The research was led by Dr Bhismadev Chakrabarti and Professor Simon Baron-Cohen from the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge. 68 genes were chosen either because they were known to play a role in neural growth, social behaviour, or sex steroid hormones (e.g. testosterone and estrogen). ... The research found that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 27 out of the 68 genes were nominally associated with either AS and/or with autistic traits/empathy. 10 of these genes (such as CYP11B1) were involved with sex steroid function, providing support for the role of this class of genes in autism and autistic traits. 8 of these genes (such as NTRK1) were involved in neural growth, providing further support to the idea that autism and autistic traits could result from aberrant patterns of connectivity in the developing brain. The other 9 genes (such as OXTR) were involved in social behaviour, shedding light on the biology of social and emotional sensitivity. Asperger Syndrome, Autism, And Empathy: Study Links 27 Genes

The findings are published in Nature Genetics. They are based on the largest-ever autism genome scan. Over 120 scientists from over 50 institutions who formed the Autism Genome Project (AGP) performed the research. ... Researchers speculate that there may be five or six major genes and as many as 30 other genes involved in autism. Gene That May Lead to Autism Identified

The American Journal of Human Genetics publishes the findings in its Jan. 10 online edition, which also features two studies from research teams at Yale and Johns Hopkins that used different methods that pinpointed the same gene. The coincidence suggests that the gene, called contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CNTNAP2), likely plays a key role in the development of autism. New Genetic Link To Autism Discovered By Studying Speech

the study, which appears online on March 22 in advance of publication in the April print issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Teiichi Furuichi and colleagues show that mice lacking CADPS2, which is encoded by a gene in the autism susceptibility region of human chromosome 7, had impaired social interactions (when pairs of CADPS2-deficient mice that had never met were placed together they interacted substantially less frequently than pairs of wild-type mice that had never met), hyperactivity, and decreased exploration of a new environment; all of which are characteristics of individuals with autism. New Protein Implicated In Autism

The research was led by Dr Bhismadev Chakrabarti and Professor Simon Baron-Cohen from the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge. 68 genes were chosen either because they were known to play a role in neural growth, social behaviour, or sex steroid hormones (e.g. testosterone and estrogen). ... The research found that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 27 out of the 68 genes were nominally associated with either AS and/or with autistic traits/empathy. 10 of these genes (such as CYP11B1) were involved with sex steroid function, providing support for the role of this class of genes in autism and autistic traits. 8 of these genes (such as NTRK1) were involved in neural growth, providing further support to the idea that autism and autistic traits could result from aberrant patterns of connectivity in the developing brain. The other 9 genes (such as OXTR) were involved in social behaviour, shedding light on the biology of social and emotional sensitivity. Asperger Syndrome, Autism, And Empathy: Study Links 27 Genes

The findings are published in Nature Genetics. They are based on the largest-ever autism genome scan. Over 120 scientists from over 50 institutions who formed the Autism Genome Project (AGP) performed the research. ... Researchers speculate that there may be five or six major genes and as many as 30 other genes involved in autism. Gene That May Lead to Autism Identified

The American Journal of Human Genetics publishes the findings in its Jan. 10 online edition, which also features two studies from research teams at Yale and Johns Hopkins that used different methods that pinpointed the same gene. The coincidence suggests that the gene, called contactin-associated protein-like 2 (CNTNAP2), likely plays a key role in the development of autism. New Genetic Link To Autism Discovered By Studying Speech

the study, which appears online on March 22 in advance of publication in the April print issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Teiichi Furuichi and colleagues show that mice lacking CADPS2, which is encoded by a gene in the autism susceptibility region of human chromosome 7, had impaired social interactions (when pairs of CADPS2-deficient mice that had never met were placed together they interacted substantially less frequently than pairs of wild-type mice that had never met), hyperactivity, and decreased exploration of a new environment; all of which are characteristics of individuals with autism. New Protein Implicated In Autism

The research was led by Dr Bhismadev Chakrabarti and Professor Simon Baron-Cohen from the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge. 68 genes were chosen either because they were known to play a role in neural growth, social behaviour, or sex steroid hormones (e.g. testosterone and estrogen). ... The research found that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 27 out of the 68 genes were nominally associated with either AS and/or with autistic traits/empathy. 10 of these genes (such as CYP11B1) were involved with sex steroid function, providing support for the role of this class of genes in autism and autistic traits. 8 of these genes (such as NTRK1) were involved in neural growth, providing further support to the idea that autism and autistic traits could result from aberrant patterns of connectivity in the developing brain. The other 9 genes (such as OXTR) were involved in social behaviour, shedding light on the biology of social and emotional sensitivity. Asperger Syndrome, Autism, And Empathy: Study Links 27 Genes

It is not necessary to wonder. This study was already done. In the places where thimerosal was replaced, autism rates did not decrease. In fact they continued to INCREASE.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107181551.htm

Methane Hydrate, we have quite a bit of it off-shore. It's been researched for some time, since most of our deposits are underwater, harvesting them safely is a problem.

I'm sure the environmentalists will object and sue to stop any project to tap our Methane Hydrate reserves.

The Chinese have no such problem, and wouldn't tolerate such interference even if there was a Chinese environmentalist movement.

Line-of-sight should not be a huge issue.

"The signal would be generated in a room by slightly flickering all the lights in unison."

Looks like something based off ambient lighting. A couple of light sources should be sufficient to get around LOS issues.

It was the first one that google pulled up. How about Science Daily?

Actually, I did. However, the one that convinced me that it was real is this one in science daily. The receptor is called CaSR. Of course, that was in mice, not humans. The article I linked to was the first one I found, and not the best, and definitely not the one that I had read a while back when I first heard about it.

I suspect that that may be some part of it, but I would guess that a larger part of it is ads.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209095753.htm

Apparently, there is also no correlation to weight gain and watching TV if you are watching DVDs or movies. The correlation does not exist between TV and being fat, only TV with ads. Similarly, playing on a computer has minimal ads, like watching a DVD, and shockingly, neither activity relates to obesity.

Also, typing one handed is useful for more than just fapping... Also good for holding your booze, a smoke, and a shovel for food.

You slaughter 'em I'll man the grill! But I would disagree with you, there are studies that show a correlation between TV time and ability to grasp information. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182830.htm is a great article on a study that talks about that, so there is some evidence for the original posters stand.

but still mmm sacred cow burgers.

But I'm happy about it because I think it is important. Anyway since I spent a while putting my submission together, here it is for your (hopeful) enjoyment:

Will LIFE almost end AGAIN? Another Great Dying?

I've said it before (http://slashdot.org/submission/1066423/Another-Permian-extinction-on-the-way?art_pos=62, http://slashdot.org/submission/1056203/Global-Warming-Tipping-Point?art_pos=71) and I'll say it again: there may be a chance that we may be facing another Permian level extinction event. What is that you say? It was the greatest extinction event in earth's history (hence "The Great Dying") causing up to 96% of all marine organisms to go extinct and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates. Remember, these are entire SPECIES that went extinct, individual population losses were obviously higher. The cause? Well according to Wikipedia: "only one sufficiently powerful cause has been proposed for the global 10 reduction in the 13C/12C ratio: the release of methane from methane clathrates;[7]"

So, as you can see, I keep saying this because the stakes are so high.

Well now there are reports (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10010948) that the methane clathrates off of Eastern Siberia are releasing 8 million tons of methane a year. While currently "negligible" compared to global emissions of about 440 million tons: "The release of just a 'small fraction of the methane held in (the) East Siberian Arctic Shelf sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming,'" This WILL become more likely because: "If atmospheric temperatures rise, the hydrate stability zone will shift upward, leaving in its stead a layer of methane gas that has been freed from the hydrate cages. Pressure in that new layer of free gas would build, forcing the gas to shoot up." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm. Of course what's driving this is the quick rise in temperatures in the Arctic/Antarctic, temperatures there are rising twice as fast as the global average (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane). So even if we manage to keep the temperature rise BEFORE counting in the additional methane release to a very optimistic 2 celsius (3.6 degrees for Americans) it will be twice that for the arctic regions. Remember also that these articles are talking about just a small part of the arctic methane clathrate reserve (which is itself just a tiny part of the global reserve in all the deep sea sediments) and that it is coming out of out of the sea bed in other places too. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133637.htm).

If the temperature rises cause enough methane to come out to cause the temperature to rise even more we could be in for a very bad greenhouse effect. Methane is 20x more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are 500-2500 Gigatons of the stuff on the ocean floor compared to just 700 Gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if just 5% of the stuff comes out, we've doubled the heat retained in this manner by the atmosphere!

Now I probably lost the climate-denialists/creationists/young-earthian/Republicans a while ago but to those of you still reading please consider that this is an EXISTENTIAL threat, that is it threatens our (humankind's) very existance. Maybe if temperatures soar into the mid-one hundreds, people will still be able to walk outside/in the winter/in Antarctica and exist in air-conditioned caves elsewhere but I think you'll agree we will have made our own hell on earth. So even if the chance of a semi-runaway greenhouse effect is very small we should really REALLY be careful. (To see the effect of a full runaway greenhouse effect, just visit Venus, hot enough to melt lead!).

Sure prediction, especially about the future, is hard. But the vast majority of climate scientists think we are headed for a cliff in the fog, fast. They may dis

vegetarianism:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061215090916.htm

And people's prejudices affect how food tastes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716205208.htm

But IQ is a load of crap.

Same item, but on ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

vegetarianism:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061215090916.htm

And people's prejudices affect how food tastes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716205208.htm

But IQ is a load of crap.

Same item, but on ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

vegetarianism:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061215090916.htm

And people's prejudices affect how food tastes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716205208.htm

But IQ is a load of crap.

Same item, but on ScienceDaily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

If you want to get along with people better, next time, try being correct.

This kind of anxiety has also been shown to cause behavior that confirms stereotypes. For example, if girls are told that they can't succeed in math, then they'll get more anxious than the boys before math tests and score lower: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524082806.htm

I read the link, (I know, I must be new here) fascinating stuff. It is for people still with undamaged nerve ganglia. But I wonder about gene therapy. I imagine that could possibly be better. There has been some success in injections, like described here on /.

I read something recently about a chicken's eye and how it differs from a human's. Here's the link Short version: sharp color vision across the field of view and extra cones to see violet/uv, and double cones to see movement.

Could a person who has AMD get an injection of cone/rod dna/proteins in their eye and get regeneration?

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081104084210.htm

I'd suggest you do some reading. How would you like that crow?

Stir fried with extra garlic please.

I learned something on Slashdot that had nothing to do with computers! Who knew?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081104084210.htm

I'd suggest you do some reading. How would you like that crow?

Do some basic research before you post next time... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813162438.htm

I think it will be important in 5 years to say: We've got a climate model that's made correct predictions for the last five years, so you should trust that model as a good guide to the future.

They've made plenty of predictions. They're just always wrong. The IPCC was established in 1989 and published its first assessment report in 1990. In that report, they predicted an increase of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C. That didn't materialize and in 1997, the IPCC had their asses handed to them in front of congress:

However, it was apparent that when the first so-called consensus was imposed upon the issue of global warming by the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, such an equilibrium had not been reached.

That report in 1990 stated, `When the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales.'

The suite of climate models extant at that time predicted that the globe's mean temperature should have risen by then between 1.3 and 2.3 degrees Celsius. Slightly revised versions of these models provided the technical background for the Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed in 1992.

The observed warming since the late 19th Century has only been 0.5 degrees Celsius, or less than one-third of the predicted value. Critics argued, as I did before this committee, that there would have to be a dramatic reduction in the forecast of future warming in order to reconcile the facts and the hypotheses.

By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'

Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.

So, the IPCC went back to the drawing board and returned with Mann's infamous Hockey stick graph. They declared DOOM. End of the world. Humanity was fucked. They extrapolated from 1998 temperatures (an unusually hot year) that climate change was 'for real' this time and was about to run out of control. When the skeptics got their hands on his computer model, they found that entering random data produced hockey stick graphs too. Oops.

So, uh, yeah, they've got egg on their face with that one. Nevermind that their prediction was wrong, again. Temperatures peaked in 1998 and haven't been that high since. In fact, it doesn't take a lot of searching to find examples of where their model predictions do not match reality.

In spite of all this, there are still people out there who believe in the IPCC. They cannot explain how this planet managed to have an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels around 4200ppm during the Carboniferous period. They cannot account for three gigatons of CO2 that simply vanishes right out from under their noses each year. But hey, there's a consensus. The IPCC says so. So "the debate is over."

Nevermind Hansen's faked data. Nevermind the

That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out. Whoops, there goes macroevolution*. Whoops, there goes the big bang. Whoops, there goes the primordial soup.

Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet. Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not. So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite. And what if it isn't definite and never will be? Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!

Oh? What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway? Hey, how about this! You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.

*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.

When you actually come up with a scientific theory for I.D. or whatever you want to call creationism, and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution (yes, even macro) that hasn't been disproved, then sure, I could see the argument for including that.

You will look smarter if you keep up with current science. Human Gait Adapted for Efficient Walking at the Cost of Efficient Running

Ok, that's unfair, it's a very very recent study. Here's one that's two years old: Chimpanzee locomotor energetics and the origin of human bipedalism

That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out. Whoops, there goes macroevolution*. Whoops, there goes the big bang. Whoops, there goes the primordial soup.

Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet. Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not. So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite. And what if it isn't definite and never will be? Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!

Oh? What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway? Hey, how about this! You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.

*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.

As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene. The transistors aren't the big factor anymore. Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal. Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.

Maybe you shouldn't write-off the potential impact of graphene yet. As this article states Graphene May Have Advantages Over Copper For IC Interconnects At The Nanoscale

“Our experimental demonstration of graphene nanowire interconnects on the scale of 20 nanometers shows that their performance is comparable to even the most optimistic projections for copper interconnects at that scale. Under real-world conditions, our graphene interconnects probably already out-perform copper at this size scale.”

Beyond resistivity improvement, graphene interconnects would offer higher electron mobility, better thermal conductivity, higher mechanical strength and reduced capacitance coupling between adjacent wires.

Of course it may never live up to its potential but graphene looks very interesting for many possible uses. It may also be used in spintronics which would be a huge boost to computers.

This is a really interesting question, and as your link points out, a very difficult one to solve given that we know so little of our own history. There is a lot of evidence human civilization was thriving until a comet strike about 13,000 years ago on the North American continent wiped out most of the worlds population and potentially raised sea levels dramatically, submerging their cities.

There is evidence that there were some advanced civilizations prior to the theorized comet incident. They might have had large populations. The problem is that this topic tends to attract the type of people that like to throw around terms like "Atlantians" and "Nephilim", so its really hard to casually research. Typing in "13,000" and "comet" to Google gets you mostly websites with black backgrounds with star fields on them, purple new-age-y fonts, and a lot of talk about Noah and aliens (contributing greatly to the 95% of the internet is bullshit figure above, I'm sure).

If 3% of "tech firms" and 1% of "high-tech firms" were founded by women, and yet 19% are primarily owned by women, that seems to suggest that women position themselves very well in terms of getting to the top of these companies.

In terms of founding firms, if one gender wants to found more firms --- then maybe they should just found more firms? I don't see how anything but the most abstruse and heavy-handed affirmative action is going to change that. ("Oh, you want a business license? But you're a male and we've already completed our quota of patri-licenses! Try again next decade.")

Maybe male-dominance of firms can be explained by three facts: (1) founding a firm is one of the more risky ways to try to secure wealth for oneself; (2) tendency to take greater risks is positively associated with testosterone levels (link and link); and (3) males have higher testosterone levels than women.

Sure, there is much more that needs to be done in the realm of women's rights. But that men tend to want to found firms and women do not, is not really high up on the list. Let's try making sure women do not get assaulted as much as they do. This will probably increase their mental well-being and self-confidence such that they will be even more able to succeed in things like finance and high-tech as well!

I suspect, however, that part of the reason the pressure is so high on Venus is the composition of the atmosphere. We already have organisms that survive in extremely hot, acidic, high-pressure environments on the earth, so it's not impossible to find an organism that could survive in Venus' atmosphere. If we can find such an organism that ingest the heavy molecules in Venus' atmosphere and excrete less dense molecules like O2, then wouldn't the pressure of the atmosphere on the surface of Venus decrease? Assuming, of course, that the heavy, dense molecules that currently make up the atmosphere aren't replaced at a rate greater than they are being processed into something more suitable for human life, that is.

... not harder than natural diamonds.

That is because what they are (or should be) talking about is not hardness, but mechanical strength. Black diamonds are not harder, but because they consist of microscopic crystals, they don't have the convenient break lines of monocrystals, and therefore are more difficult to process. See:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0612-mystery_diamonds.htm

"And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct? Just curious"

Sorry I'm back and I have answers.

The Oak Ridge "Jaguar" Supercomputer is the World's Fastest, with 37,376 six-core AMD processors. That puts it at 224,256 processors, so those 24 million hours should be done in 107 hours, or a little more than 4 days.

The 1.6 billion hours comes from the here: "....computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories will employ a competitive peer review process to allocate researchers 1.6 billion processor hours in 2010." That works out to be about 297 days.

"And after the 1.6 billion hours, does the computer self destruct? Just curious"

Sorry I'm back and I have answers.

The Oak Ridge "Jaguar" Supercomputer is the World's Fastest, with 37,376 six-core AMD processors. That puts it at 224,256 processors, so those 24 million hours should be done in 107 hours, or a little more than 4 days.

The 1.6 billion hours comes from the here: "....computing facilities at Oak Ridge and Argonne national laboratories will employ a competitive peer review process to allocate researchers 1.6 billion processor hours in 2010." That works out to be about 297 days.

It's not like one protein that catalyzes one reaction can simply mutate into a different protein that catalyzes a different reaction. It's more of an all or nothing thing. It doesn't seem like you would ever see transitional "evolutionary" forms of proteins for that reason.

There are instances of proteins evolving into something that does something different.

"Biologists have shown that independent but similar molecular changes turned a harmless digestive enzyme into a toxin in two unrelated species -- a shrew and a lizard -- giving each a venomous bite."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029125532.htm

Generally, what happens in these cases (where a protein evolved into a different protein with a different function) is that the original DNA sequence gets duplicated, and then one of the duplicates starts evolving (and the other copy continues to serve the same original function that it had earlier). One of the things that evolutionary biologists do is look at protein sequences and find similar sequences within the same organism. Very often, there's a tree-like structure showing multiple variations on a single protein within an organism. For example, humans have multiple copies/variations on the hemoglobin gene. They're either inactive or active at different phases in a person's life. Example:

"Fetal hemoglobin, or foetal haemoglobin, (also hemoglobin F or HbF) is the main oxygen transport protein in the fetus during the last seven months of development in the uterus and in the newborn until roughly 6 months old. Functionally, fetal hemoglobin differs most from adult hemoglobin in that it is able to bind oxygen with greater affinity than the adult form, giving the developing fetus better access to oxygen from the mother's bloodstream."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin_F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Types_in_humans

There's also the case of the fish antifreeze that evolved from non-protein-coding DNA:
"Scientists at the University of Illinois have discovered an antifreeze-protein gene in cod that has evolved from non-coding or 'junk' DNA."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060404090831.htm

It's not like one protein that catalyzes one reaction can simply mutate into a different protein that catalyzes a different reaction. It's more of an all or nothing thing. It doesn't seem like you would ever see transitional "evolutionary" forms of proteins for that reason.

There are instances of proteins evolving into something that does something different.

"Biologists have shown that independent but similar molecular changes turned a harmless digestive enzyme into a toxin in two unrelated species -- a shrew and a lizard -- giving each a venomous bite."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029125532.htm

Generally, what happens in these cases (where a protein evolved into a different protein with a different function) is that the original DNA sequence gets duplicated, and then one of the duplicates starts evolving (and the other copy continues to serve the same original function that it had earlier). One of the things that evolutionary biologists do is look at protein sequences and find similar sequences within the same organism. Very often, there's a tree-like structure showing multiple variations on a single protein within an organism. For example, humans have multiple copies/variations on the hemoglobin gene. They're either inactive or active at different phases in a person's life. Example:

"Fetal hemoglobin, or foetal haemoglobin, (also hemoglobin F or HbF) is the main oxygen transport protein in the fetus during the last seven months of development in the uterus and in the newborn until roughly 6 months old. Functionally, fetal hemoglobin differs most from adult hemoglobin in that it is able to bind oxygen with greater affinity than the adult form, giving the developing fetus better access to oxygen from the mother's bloodstream."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin_F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Types_in_humans

There's also the case of the fish antifreeze that evolved from non-protein-coding DNA:
"Scientists at the University of Illinois have discovered an antifreeze-protein gene in cod that has evolved from non-coding or 'junk' DNA."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060404090831.htm

Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere.

I'm guessing that GP's point is that our current space technologies are so awfully expensive that though technically we, as a society, can once in a lifetime do a stunt like trip to the Moon (or now Mars,) it has near-zero practical use.

It is my personal belief that we won't be flying to planets until we design a propulsion technology that is good enough for SSTO. Then it will be also good enough to move between orbits and land on planets and take off again. The current chemical rockets are not even close. Getting to the LEO is pointless if we have nowhere to go from there.

To offer an analogy, it is possible to cross the Atlantic ocean on a raft, or in a rubber boat - it had been done - but if Europeans were limited to those technologies we'd never see Americas.

IMO, the money should be spent primarily on fundamental science, and a smaller part of it - on good, complex robots that can be launched from time to time to other planets. We need to know how this Universe works. An antigravity-based propulsion would solve all our problems, for example. Teleportation or FTL would also come (or definitively not come) from the same pool of knowledge. I'd even settle on a Space Elevator that we will be able to put together out of new materials. We need to stop paddling our reed canoe across the Atlantic for a moment and instead think if there is a better way.

After some google exercises, I actually found something on Science Daily. The 1000-year figure indeed comes from statistics that ignored mobility. Interestingly, a more advanced model taking mobility, social mating barriers and the like into account, gives about 3000 years for the most recent common ancestor. Still seems awfully close to me. I can't get access to the original paper in Nature from home, but I'll look into it when I find the time.

Here's a better article with a bigger picture and a bit more explanation, and here's a much bigger picture.

A dupe from Dick Tracy, that is.
This "wearable computer" crap comes along every 5 years. It's still the epitome of lame, even by slashdot standards.
 

I think that depends on how you define its purpose:

SMS Your ECG To ER: Portable Heart Monitor Sends Emergency Alerts And ECG As Text Message

It isn't difficult to imagine remote medical monitoring and assitive tech becoming the norm for the patient at risk, the chronically ill and elderly.

There is something to be said for the gadget that doesn't need a pocket or purse, that fades into invisibility.

In response to a similar story, a poster remarked that a wrist watch is one of the few pieces of jewelry a man can wear without embarrassment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm Thought Quantum entanglement solved that for us already?

Nope. It's certainly true that the entanglement causes the collapse in superposition to "communicate" the state of one to the other, so the entangled particles can be said to "communicate" their state instantly across any distance. However, since you can't control which way the superposition is going to collapse, there's no way you can use this effect to transmit information.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm

Thought Quantum entanglement solved that for us already?

you gotta link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505174547.htm

this was also a slashdot story, But if you don't read the flaming summaries, you'd never know.

So look for more reports of this sort over the next few years. Still, it looks like a big jump forward for our early-solar-system models.

--Greg

No correlation to cancer? That's not what studies are showing. I've also read that cell phones sitting in pockets have been connected to reduced sperm count.

Certainly, given the widespread use of mobile phones and their clear value to us, it would be quite earth-shattering to discover a clear and specific link between phones and cancer. However, at this point I've say the threat is likely quite minimal with moderate use. But mobile phones haven't been around nearly long enough for us to be able to gauge their effects on us. Wait until this generation starts aging; then we'll have a better indication of whether or not cell phones are a danger or not.

You seem fairly eager to believe one study over another simply because that one shows a positive side-effect. There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other, especially since many of these other studies have been conducted directly on humans.

Weather is not Climate, and a warmer world means less Katrina's due to increased wind shear.

Why would a rock that was a room temperature superconductor save Earth? You couldn't build nuclear power plants from it. Perhaps it has properties that make it 1000x more powerful than uranium? None of this gets addressed.

Well, that's called backstory and it usually is the domain of socially inept people posting on obscure Internet sites. But since you asked, room temperature superconductivity would be a big deal. A very big deal. Not Save-The-Earth technology, but perhaps close enough for the story.

Sit back, relax. It's entertainment, not physics.

Rating Attractiveness: Consensus Among Men, Not Women, Study Finds

Men's judgments of women's attractiveness were based primarily around physical features and they rated highly those who looked thin and seductive. Most of the men in the study also rated photographs of women who looked confident as more attractive.

As a group, the women rating men showed some preference for thin, muscular subjects, but disagreed on how attractive many men in the study were. Some women gave high attractiveness ratings to the men other women said were not attractive at all.

Hmm. I'm on Google search page 40 and there's been only one mention of how cell phone radiation may make rats more susceptible to the "ooh, shiny..." phenomenon. I did however manage to find articles on:

• How the cell phone is driving health IT innovation in the developing world
• How mobile phones are the most cherished thing to come out of the Iraq war
• Stanford has a mobile phone orchestra
• 20 Ways to tweet on my mobile
• Someone is making a rather disturbing "When cell phones attack..." type movie.
• They make cell phones for your pet

I'm not dismissing you entirely but if you're going to make specific claims it'd be a good idea to include citations. Doing a more specific search will net a number of hits but the best you can say from them is that a number of groups are looking at the subject and while some preliminary results are in with some very vocal advocates, there are conflicting data and definitely no consensus.

P.S. you must have a pretty sucky search engine as I got 387,000,000 results.

I think the quick answer is that Europa is not as simple as it sounds. A lander has to bring fuel to slow down on Europa, not so
Titan which has a handy handy thick atmosphere with which to slow the descent. Even if you landed on Europa you then
have to start scraping at the ice to get at those red stripes (they're rust -- sorry). The Titanian-space boat proposed will
be equipped with a mass spec and I guarantee, there are probably a whole lot of interesting organic molecules swimming
in that methane solvent. I rate Europa high but we need something big, nuclear powered, and coupled with a means to either drill
or melt its way down.

Plus Jupiter's radiation is a b----!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010329075139.htm