I agree. The story itself has logical inconsistencies. First they are spraying things with this "solution" or whatnot created by the machine, and later in the article they are purifying water using the machine. So is it this machine, or the solution it creates that is killing the microorganisms. Both? And as far as uncurdling milk....that's a chemical change. Killing the bacteria won't fix it. Will they be able to take American cheese and turn that back into milk as well?
I think that in the rush to publish some sort of ground-breaking article related to anthrax, this station got conned. Just my opinion, tho.
-Ryan
Re:Free Flow of information?
on
Open-Source Biology
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I agree. "Open Source" in biology is more the rule than the exception.l I have been astounded by the FREE resources out there available for anyone to use! Databases like Genbank and Swiss-Prot are invaluable to modern molecular work. Pedro's Biomolecular Tools is just a sample of the plethora of free resources available today.
Incidentally, I can't recommend Ensembl highly enough. Not only have I been able to significantly further my research with their tools, but they have open-sourced the entire code behind their site! And the documentation is even in Wiki! I really think what they have done is incredible and should be one of the first projects anyone mentions when expounding the virtues of open-source software as well as sharing information in the field of Biology.
"Many in government and industry are now concerned that well-meaning U.S. hackers may launch denial-of-service attacks or release worms or viruses aimed at disrupting terrorists, and in the process hurt the overall Internet."
or...
"Many in privacy and civil rights groups are now concerned that well-meaning U.S. congressmen may launch bills or release laws or regulations aimed at disrupting terrorists, and in the process hurt the overall Internet."
MSNBC have proven themselves to be pretty damn impartial. Slashdot cannot claim that. At all.
When did anyone ever suggest that Slashdot is, or should be, impartial? Does Slashdot promote itself as some sort of investigative reporting site? Aside from Jon Katz articles, almost nothing posted here is original content. It's a more of a community bulletin board than anything else. I don't understand where people like you get off being all indignant about the "impartiality" (or lack thereof) of Slashdot. Give me a break.
Did you? These stem cells are only multipotent, whereas the reason embryonic stem cells are so popular is because they are pluripotent. The technique mentioned here is certainly useful, but it in no way replaces the value of embryonic stem cells. Not according to this article, at least. Try having something intelligent to say the next time you call some one an idiot.
This got me thinking about my other favorite reclusive former comic strip writer. I looked around and found an interview (allegedly the only one he ever gave); and a shorter, more recent article. The second one is kind of sad . . . it's too bad that the fame of the strip brought him so much unhappiness.
Possibly. It depends on where you are....in some places you can get a T1 for around $400/month (including channel mileage, assuming you're not too far away). NRCs will probably run you close to $1000, though. I worked for a company that made software that priced all kinds of lines and there are some pretty cheap deals to be had out there (kentucky, maybe?). I also worked at another place where we had a frame-relay line shared among 30 or so people. I think we were paying what worked out to about $200/month for it (which included about 60 IPs), and it worked out pretty nice most of the time. The bandwidth always seemed to be fine, although we had some serious latency issues (that I blame on the very old CISCO router we were using). And right before I left, QWest was trying to sell us some sort of DSL line w/ 768k going both ways, although I can't remember how much they wanted for it.
The point is, if you look around there are deals to be had. I think wiring a neighborhood is a little unwieldy, but I live in a nifty little apartment complex that would be a snap to wire with some cat5.
Rather than going in "together" with a bunch of people, if you lived in the right kind of apartment complex you could lease as fat a line as you could, and sell ethernet connections to the people around you. You could be your own little ISP...get the domain Complex_Name.com, and sell people their own email addresses and web space on it. That takes care of the administrator problem because *you* are the administrator. You might even be able to make a tiny profit. Also, you could advertise the full speed of your line as the individual connection speed (which it would be, as long as no one else is hogging the bandwidth......if @home can do it, why can't you?).
Wow, I wasn't intending to go on like that. Of course, you'll inevitably end up dealing with everyone in the apartments around you coming to you for help when they can't install the latest game because they've filled their hard drives with MP3s and pr0n, and their computer keeps crashing because they are running 500 apps in their system tray. Damn. Never mind, forget I said anything.
I'm on an @home network and I've been getting hit pretty hard almost since the first XXX query at about 6 this morning. Since then it's just kept building....I probably get about 60+ an hour right now, and I'd say about 99% of those are from within @home. And things have slowed down a LOT.
Just for perspective....the first time around I get hit maybe 10-15 times TOTAL by Code Red. The second time around, I've been getting 20-30 hits per day of the NNN variety, so this is quite a HUGE increase.
Torricelli said in a press release this week that he introduced the legislation after the Trenton (New Jersey) Times reported that a local school district had its home page defaced with what appeared to be a threat that referenced the 1999 Columbine massacre. Concerned parents reportedly kept their children home from school that day.
So how is this bill supposed to help? If the catch whoever did that there will certainly be severe repurcussions already (expulsion, counseling, etc...). It just seems to me that this law creates greater penalties, and a broader legal definitition of abuse. What's the point of that? Are they really going to give a 16 year old kid 10 years in jail because he defaces the school's web site? It seems to me his constituents got scared, and he drafted up something nasty-sounding to make them feel like "something is being done". I don't see this going through, though. It's just too vague.
That's true. I guess my real problem with this is that I keep envisioning it being used in a deceptive manner. Who is going to knowingly install a program that is for all intents and purposes going to advertise products on every web site you visit? It's just such a great way to advertise without people realizing it, I can't imagine companies not taking advantage of this.
No one can come after you, because the link WAS NOT ON YOUR SITE
You're missing the point. People can, and most likely will come after me, regardless of whether I am legally liable. Even though I am in no way liable, I can still be hurt by litigation, if only in terms of reputation, etc...
It's insidious, and I still think it's a bad thing.
1) Just because the link is different from others doesn't mean Joe User who is visiting my site for information is going to know some one else added the link.
2)I don't have to say "go take these". I could have the words "a good way to diet" somewhere, and they could be a link. Therefore, I now have a link on my page which makes it look like I think the pills are a good way to diet.
3)I certainly will, but perhaps the damage has already been done?
I really don't get why there's such a community uproar over link-insertion--either this, or IE's Smart Tags.
Why? Ok, here's a hypothetical example:
Let's say I'm a well-recognized nutritionist, and as a service to the world at large, I have a web site dedicated to dieting with your health in mind. Lots of people visit this site because they want to lose weight, but they are concerned about their health. Now, let's also assume Drop-Dead diet pills have bought adspace with some link-insertion company. Suddenly, links to the potentially dangerous Drop-Dead diet pills are appearing all over my site, and even worse, people are buying these and using them like crazy. Why not? My site is dedicated to healthy dieting, I'm a certified nutritionist, and I've got links to Drop-Dead all over my page.
And then of course, say some one dies from this and his/her family comes after me because I "recommended" the pills?
I still have a standing offer: will anyone have an architect without a degree design a house they would then live in?
I think I heard about this.....isn't it one of those new "reality" shows? I believe it's called "Who wants to be an architect?", and it's going to be on FOX after the Super Bowl.....
I'd comment more on this thread, but I haven't completed my degree in "Effective argumentational posting on Slashdot" (my thesis is on the 'first post' phenomenon and it's relationship to the price of tea in China). Therefore, I probably have nothing else to add that would be worth your time. Cheers!
Microwave radiation is most definitely not high energy radiation.
Well, compared to say....x-rays, no. But compared to ambient electromagnetic radiation? Yes. And held directly next to the brain (specifically the temporal lobe, which is sensitive to electromagnetic waves), I wouldn't be surprised if there were side-effects.
Umm... there is a slight difference between a 250 W microwave oven and a 0.6 W cell phone.
True, but I'm not eating turkey right now that was heated using radio waves....
Well, according to the abstract they accounted for monitor radiation. Specifically:
We conducted a hospital-based and population-based case-control study of uveal melanoma and occupational exposures to different sources of electromagnetic radiation, including radiofrequency radiation.
and more specifically:
Other sources of electromagnetic radiation such as high-voltage lines, electrical machines, complex electrical environments, visual display terminals, or radar units were not associated with uveal melanoma.
The reason people "attack" cell phones is that they use high-energy microwaves to carry their information (the same waves you use to cook food). I don't know about you, but that in itself is enough to set off warning bells in my head. Additionally, widespread cellular use has just caught on. We won't really know about the effects for at least another 10-20 years when suitable longitudinal epidemiological studies will have been done. Conversely, people have been using monitors for a while now....
I thought those "Cort Scannners" (I think that's what the were called) were super cool. They shine a light into his eyes, and within seconds his whole life (in minute detail) is on a disk. Imagine the BANDWIDTH, people!!!!
Re:If you can clone an extinct animal...
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
No, the genetic diversity is the only thing you are preserving. Whatever their behavior, the clones would be geneticly the same as the creatures they are replicated from.
*sigh*.
No, the genetic diversity is not being preserved. The key word here is diversity. As you say, the clones will be genetically the same as the creatures they are replicated from. Same != diversity. The very good point that was made in the previous post is that you need lots of different genes to maintain a healthy population. The closer the genetic code between individuals, the more chance that recessive alleles will be expressed.
I don't know how often they attacked humans before, but I would prefer Tasmanian tigers that don't kill people, all things being equal.
Not very often, if ever. It was roughly the size of a dog, and was very keen on avoiding humans. This was most likely a learned (rather than instinctive) behavior, by the way.
I don't think so. The gun would be stolen. This offense would just be added onto the offense of using the gun in the commission of the crime.
I'm not sure if that's exactly how it works in cases of negligence. I know it is possible (at least where I'm from) for a person to be injured while trespassing on your property (say falling into a well) and then sue you. I'm not sure that this sort of thing applies to guns on the porch or unsecure (I almost wrote insecure -ha ha) servers, but the point is that you can be sued for just about anything no matter how ridiculous, so it probably won't be long before we see some one being sued for an unsecure machine.
Oh, and the McDonalds lawsuit wasn't really that ridiculous. It was some elderly lady who suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns all over from the coffee. I believe the medical bill alone was in excess of $100k.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. The story itself has logical inconsistencies. First they are spraying things with this "solution" or whatnot created by the machine, and later in the article they are purifying water using the machine. So is it this machine, or the solution it creates that is killing the microorganisms. Both? And as far as uncurdling milk....that's a chemical change. Killing the bacteria won't fix it. Will they be able to take American cheese and turn that back into milk as well?
I think that in the rush to publish some sort of ground-breaking article related to anthrax, this station got conned. Just my opinion, tho.
-Ryan
I agree. "Open Source" in biology is more the rule than the exception.l I have been astounded by the FREE resources out there available for anyone to use! Databases like Genbank and Swiss-Prot are invaluable to modern molecular work. Pedro's Biomolecular Tools is just a sample of the plethora of free resources available today.
Incidentally, I can't recommend Ensembl highly enough. Not only have I been able to significantly further my research with their tools, but they have open-sourced the entire code behind their site! And the documentation is even in Wiki! I really think what they have done is incredible and should be one of the first projects anyone mentions when expounding the virtues of open-source software as well as sharing information in the field of Biology.
-Ryan
"Many in government and industry are now concerned that well-meaning U.S. hackers may launch denial-of-service attacks or release worms or viruses aimed at disrupting terrorists, and in the process hurt the overall Internet."
or...
"Many in privacy and civil rights groups are now concerned that well-meaning U.S. congressmen may launch bills or release laws or regulations aimed at disrupting terrorists, and in the process hurt the overall Internet."
"U R Gay.....hee hee hee!"
Oooh, really? How was it? I'm something of a fan of Searle after a mind/brain/AI philosophy course I took. What was the lecture on, if you don't mind?
"News for nerds. Stuff that matters."
Are you familiar with the expression "tongue-in-cheek"?
MSNBC have proven themselves to be pretty damn impartial. Slashdot cannot claim that. At all.
When did anyone ever suggest that Slashdot is, or should be, impartial? Does Slashdot promote itself as some sort of investigative reporting site? Aside from Jon Katz articles, almost nothing posted here is original content. It's a more of a community bulletin board than anything else. I don't understand where people like you get off being all indignant about the "impartiality" (or lack thereof) of Slashdot. Give me a break.
Did you? These stem cells are only multipotent, whereas the reason embryonic stem cells are so popular is because they are pluripotent. The technique mentioned here is certainly useful, but it in no way replaces the value of embryonic stem cells. Not according to this article, at least. Try having something intelligent to say the next time you call some one an idiot.
This got me thinking about my other favorite reclusive former comic strip writer. I looked around and found an interview (allegedly the only one he ever gave); and a shorter, more recent article. The second one is kind of sad . . . it's too bad that the fame of the strip brought him so much unhappiness.
Possibly. It depends on where you are....in some places you can get a T1 for around $400/month (including channel mileage, assuming you're not too far away). NRCs will probably run you close to $1000, though. I worked for a company that made software that priced all kinds of lines and there are some pretty cheap deals to be had out there (kentucky, maybe?). I also worked at another place where we had a frame-relay line shared among 30 or so people. I think we were paying what worked out to about $200/month for it (which included about 60 IPs), and it worked out pretty nice most of the time. The bandwidth always seemed to be fine, although we had some serious latency issues (that I blame on the very old CISCO router we were using). And right before I left, QWest was trying to sell us some sort of DSL line w/ 768k going both ways, although I can't remember how much they wanted for it.
The point is, if you look around there are deals to be had. I think wiring a neighborhood is a little unwieldy, but I live in a nifty little apartment complex that would be a snap to wire with some cat5.
Rather than going in "together" with a bunch of people, if you lived in the right kind of apartment complex you could lease as fat a line as you could, and sell ethernet connections to the people around you. You could be your own little ISP...get the domain Complex_Name.com, and sell people their own email addresses and web space on it. That takes care of the administrator problem because *you* are the administrator. You might even be able to make a tiny profit. Also, you could advertise the full speed of your line as the individual connection speed (which it would be, as long as no one else is hogging the bandwidth......if @home can do it, why can't you?).
Wow, I wasn't intending to go on like that. Of course, you'll inevitably end up dealing with everyone in the apartments around you coming to you for help when they can't install the latest game because they've filled their hard drives with MP3s and pr0n, and their computer keeps crashing because they are running 500 apps in their system tray. Damn. Never mind, forget I said anything.
I'm on an @home network and I've been getting hit pretty hard almost since the first XXX query at about 6 this morning. Since then it's just kept building....I probably get about 60+ an hour right now, and I'd say about 99% of those are from within @home. And things have slowed down a LOT.
Just for perspective....the first time around I get hit maybe 10-15 times TOTAL by Code Red. The second time around, I've been getting 20-30 hits per day of the NNN variety, so this is quite a HUGE increase.
Torricelli said in a press release this week that he introduced the legislation after the Trenton (New Jersey) Times reported that a local school district had its home page defaced with what appeared to be a threat that referenced the 1999 Columbine massacre. Concerned parents reportedly kept their children home from school that day.
So how is this bill supposed to help? If the catch whoever did that there will certainly be severe repurcussions already (expulsion, counseling, etc...). It just seems to me that this law creates greater penalties, and a broader legal definitition of abuse. What's the point of that? Are they really going to give a 16 year old kid 10 years in jail because he defaces the school's web site? It seems to me his constituents got scared, and he drafted up something nasty-sounding to make them feel like "something is being done". I don't see this going through, though. It's just too vague.
That's true. I guess my real problem with this is that I keep envisioning it being used in a deceptive manner. Who is going to knowingly install a program that is for all intents and purposes going to advertise products on every web site you visit? It's just such a great way to advertise without people realizing it, I can't imagine companies not taking advantage of this.
No one can come after you, because the link WAS NOT ON YOUR SITE
You're missing the point. People can, and most likely will come after me, regardless of whether I am legally liable. Even though I am in no way liable, I can still be hurt by litigation, if only in terms of reputation, etc...
It's insidious, and I still think it's a bad thing.
1) Just because the link is different from others doesn't mean Joe User who is visiting my site for information is going to know some one else added the link.
2)I don't have to say "go take these". I could have the words "a good way to diet" somewhere, and they could be a link. Therefore, I now have a link on my page which makes it look like I think the pills are a good way to diet.
3)I certainly will, but perhaps the damage has already been done?
I really don't get why there's such a community uproar over link-insertion--either this, or IE's Smart Tags.
Why? Ok, here's a hypothetical example:
Let's say I'm a well-recognized nutritionist, and as a service to the world at large, I have a web site dedicated to dieting with your health in mind. Lots of people visit this site because they want to lose weight, but they are concerned about their health. Now, let's also assume Drop-Dead diet pills have bought adspace with some link-insertion company. Suddenly, links to the potentially dangerous Drop-Dead diet pills are appearing all over my site, and even worse, people are buying these and using them like crazy. Why not? My site is dedicated to healthy dieting, I'm a certified nutritionist, and I've got links to Drop-Dead all over my page.
And then of course, say some one dies from this and his/her family comes after me because I "recommended" the pills?
THAT is why it's a bad thing.
I still have a standing offer: will anyone have an architect without a degree design a house they would then live in?
I think I heard about this.....isn't it one of those new "reality" shows? I believe it's called "Who wants to be an architect?", and it's going to be on FOX after the Super Bowl.....
I'd comment more on this thread, but I haven't completed my degree in "Effective argumentational posting on Slashdot" (my thesis is on the 'first post' phenomenon and it's relationship to the price of tea in China). Therefore, I probably have nothing else to add that would be worth your time.
Cheers!
Microwave radiation is most definitely not high energy radiation.
Well, compared to say....x-rays, no. But compared to ambient electromagnetic radiation? Yes. And held directly next to the brain (specifically the temporal lobe, which is sensitive to electromagnetic waves), I wouldn't be surprised if there were side-effects.
Umm... there is a slight difference between a 250 W microwave oven and a 0.6 W cell phone.
True, but I'm not eating turkey right now that was heated using radio waves....
Well, according to the abstract they accounted for monitor radiation. Specifically:
We conducted a hospital-based and population-based case-control study of uveal melanoma and occupational exposures to different sources of electromagnetic radiation, including radiofrequency radiation.
and more specifically:
Other sources of electromagnetic radiation such as high-voltage lines, electrical machines, complex electrical environments, visual display terminals, or radar units were not associated with uveal melanoma.
The reason people "attack" cell phones is that they use high-energy microwaves to carry their information (the same waves you use to cook food). I don't know about you, but that in itself is enough to set off warning bells in my head. Additionally, widespread cellular use has just caught on. We won't really know about the effects for at least another 10-20 years when suitable longitudinal epidemiological studies will have been done. Conversely, people have been using monitors for a while now....
I thought those "Cort Scannners" (I think that's what the were called) were super cool. They shine a light into his eyes, and within seconds his whole life (in minute detail) is on a disk. Imagine the BANDWIDTH, people!!!!
No, the genetic diversity is the only thing you are preserving. Whatever their behavior, the clones would be geneticly the same as the creatures they are replicated from.
*sigh*.
No, the genetic diversity is not being preserved. The key word here is diversity. As you say, the clones will be genetically the same as the creatures they are replicated from. Same != diversity. The very good point that was made in the previous post is that you need lots of different genes to maintain a healthy population. The closer the genetic code between individuals, the more chance that recessive alleles will be expressed.
I don't know how often they attacked humans before, but I would prefer Tasmanian tigers that don't kill people, all things being equal.
Not very often, if ever. It was roughly the size of a dog, and was very keen on avoiding humans. This was most likely a learned (rather than instinctive) behavior, by the way.
I don't think so. The gun would be stolen. This offense would just be added onto the offense of using the gun in the commission of the crime.
I'm not sure if that's exactly how it works in cases of negligence. I know it is possible (at least where I'm from) for a person to be injured while trespassing on your property (say falling into a well) and then sue you. I'm not sure that this sort of thing applies to guns on the porch or unsecure (I almost wrote insecure -ha ha) servers, but the point is that you can be sued for just about anything no matter how ridiculous, so it probably won't be long before we see some one being sued for an unsecure machine.
Oh, and the McDonalds lawsuit wasn't really that ridiculous. It was some elderly lady who suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns all over from the coffee. I believe the medical bill alone was in excess of $100k.