For one, cells can be viewed while alive - fixative isn't always necessary. Motility studies, for exmaple, don't actually kill the cells (or sperm). For another, dyes aren't the only technique to view cells - plasmid insertion into bacteria with a fluorescent marker not only allows cells to be seen, but doesn't harm the cell.
What's interesting about this is the cell organelle contrast. Yes, you can view living cells without exogenous contrast. No, not many good techniques exist which can show internal structure very clearly, in vivo, with no exogenous contrast. Differential interference contrast (DIC) is nice (Interactive Java Tutorial demonstrating this common technique).
Secondly, I find it decidedly inconvenient that this can only view small images.
I chose to respond to these comments to shed some light on the science. This, however, is just plain argumentative, short-sighted, etc etc. On a topic more accessible to the general public it would be obvious flamebait.
Thirdly, even if you can view these cells, only in very specific instances will it give clues about functionality. Sure, that's better than nothing, but it's not the miraculous panacea that the article describes. The mechanics of drug interaction are much more complex than can be determined by simply looking at a cell.
I agree, it's an excellent tool, but it will take a long time before it is fully utilized, and it does not cure cancer by itself. However, when fluorescence confocal microscopy came out, it had (and still does) many more problems. And yet, it revolutionized so many fields it would be impossible count them.
Finally, from a research standpoint, I have to ask how much this costs. Is the cost-benefit ratio really that good that spending large amounts of money to get this is worth it? Especially considering how in reality it has such a limited usage?
This should cost anything more than a good confocal microscope once the technology is refined. Most departments have at least one of those for common usage among labs (same for mass spectrometers, etc). In fact, it's one of the cheaper instruments I can think of, and extremely easy to maintain.
The screen is reflective. For 220 mW to ignite anything, it needs to be pretty dark. I work with a few hundred mW in my lab all day, and you can safely put your hand in a 300 mW+ beam in the red. Sometimes I block the beams with business cards, however, and if it hits the black ink instead of white paper it can burn a hole in the card.
You could always buy your own and take it with you I guess, but I wouldn't want to pay extra for it since air travel is so safe. It'd be better to put the money into health insurance or a pension if I wanted the most life for my buck.
I bet you get some funny looks from checkpoint security as you try to explain why you want to bring a parachute as a carry-on.
If you're interested in helping the US improve its research capabilities, write to your representatives. If you still have good handwriting, that's preferable. If not, type it and print it. Because so few people spend the effort to do this, it is still a powerful option for a small, motivated body.
Funding for the NIH is shrinking. This is one of the top sources for the bulk of research performed: chemistry, biochemistry, biology, medical, even physics and computer science. The NIH funds a major chunk of every research university's programs. Government funding should be re-made a priority in this country.
Primary and secondary education needs to be improved. Again, the way to do this is not with more rigorous testing and the denial of funding (No Child Left Behind), but increased funding for basic education. Of course, the image of teachers and education in general needs to be improved as well, but there's less your Representatives can do about that.
Finally, immigration reform. The US still attracts top foreign talent, but it is an absolute nightmare even to get permission to study in this country, let alone work or live here. By handing out mostly temporary visas to a limited pool of foreign academics, we're restricting the number of brilliant researchers we allow to stay in this country. Currently many come over for graduate studies, but are denied the ability to remain in the US and become a citizen. This means we fund their scientific schooling in graduate school, and when they become most productive they're booted back out of the country. Wouldn't you prefer they stayed and worked here, raised their children and contributed to society with the education we payed for?
As if a billion devices around the world couldn't do the same thing.
If this was true, there would be no reason for a standard in the first place, would there? Why don't you read a little about the ideas behind the work.
Its ok I reject you standing in line to vote for two whole hours is massive oppression logic.
Standing in line for 2 hours to vote is a significant block to many voters, and is enough to prevent very large segments of the population from voting.
My point was he simply stated the liquid lenses are not suitable for development because they were new. I didn't say CCDs had replaced film throughout the industry, but they are definitely a solid option for several different types of photography, even though they a few hundred years in development behind film.
...could you somehow have a lens with multiple focus points? I'm thinking if you have 4 people in a picture you could focus on each of their faces with one lens and have a nice picture with everyone in focus rather than someone in the background a bit blurry.
You don't want multiple focal planes: you want to focus light from different planes to the same focus (the film, detector, whatever). But to answer your question, no - this would not work, no matter what lens medium and scheme you had.
I believe one of the early English astronomical refractor telescopes (one of William Herschel's iirc, possibly the 20-foot one) had a lens made of two hemispherical pieces of glass filled with white wine.
It has only been perfected as an optical material for the last 150-200 years.
The same could be said about film. Even professionals seem to be using a lot of CCDs today. "Older is better" is not an argument. "Liquid lenses suffer from fundamental geometric limitations" is, but that is not what you said.
Yes, it is completely new. First, we can start with a simple test: could anyone do this before?
Answer: No.
A transformer is a relatively simple device, with two coils of wire. There are not a lot of restrictions for the device to work. You can choose different numbers of coils and sizes, if you wish to transform volts to current and vice versa, you can add cores and change the geometry to alter various other properties. And as other commenters have observed, you'd lose a few orders of magnitude over a distance of 2m with a coil of this size. These guys got 40% efficiency. Yes, it is new, because they made it work.
It's every bit a breakthrough as the telephone was to the telegraph. Sure, they're sending simple signals down a wire, to carry information. However, one has a high degree of cleverness and innovation modifying a basic concept, and that's what makes a revolutionary device.
I believe they approached Verizon initially, as they did a lot of carriers. However, Cingular was the only network at the time who were willing to partner with Apple on Apple's terms: Apple was to design the phone, control every aspect of it, and prevent the network from stuff their own software and logo all over it. That may seem reasonable from the perspective of a hardware designer, but must networks were used to stamping all approved phones with their own software/logo/etc.
Blame Verizon for declining a reasonable partnership.
Paying for lessons and buying sheet music aren't linked. One can do one, the other, or both. Sheet music is readily available pretty cheaply; this is unrelated to the cost of lessons.
What makes me go/boggle is the sheet music costs more than the song itself.
The only banking thing that I do that bothers me is I have a paypal account that connects to my bank account and that kinda gives me the creeps.
I would never, ever pay with a Paypal bank account simply because of their wretched customer service. Twice I have clicked on the option "Pay with xx credit card", and Paypal immediately payed with my bank account. Now, this account was an empty one, so the payment immediately hit as an over-draft. Hours of speaking with customer service reps netted me nothing : they continually claim I messed up choosing my transaction, and the web software could not have been faulty. I know this is not the case, however, because the second time it happened I was extremely careful. It wasn't worth more than a few hours arguing however to avoid the $20 or whatever overdraft charges.
Addressing the broader question, no, I never use online banking in any form. I have never had the need, and credit cards work just fine for paying over the internet. I understand most bank accounts have protection on them, but there's _always_ customer service delays, the possibility of them refusing to cover an incident, etc. Bottom line: when someone places fraudulent charges on your credit card, you have not lost any money yet. You have all the time in the world to resolve the problem, because you still control your funds. If someone takes money from your account, you have lost your money, and now must wait for the bank to resolve the problem. Which situation do you prefer?
"Your post sounds to me like someone who doesn't like to read directions or likes to post a generalization of things but not "why" it's done. So let me address them. First I've lived in Raleigh, NC for 31 years. They have one of the more difficult methods to obtain a new drivers license because frankly... people from other states can't drive for shit. In NC, in general, people let others in, don't cut others off etc."
Untrue. Coming from New England, NC drivers are pretty damn awful. They NEVER EVER use their turn signal. It's not a big deal when the car I'm waiting to go buy turns out to be turning, that just inconviences me. However, for example when changing lanes on the highway, most people don't use their signal either. This makes a game out of it! "When I merge right into the middle lane, is the person in the right lane ALSO going to go for the middle at the same time?" No one EVER moves out of the right lane when approaching a highway on-ramp. This results in people often being forced to halt at the end of the on-ramp, one of the most dangerous things which can happen on a highway. I've seen a lot of extremely dangerous highway situations in this state in 3 years.
Slashdot Mirror
What's interesting about this is the cell organelle contrast. Yes, you can view living cells without exogenous contrast. No, not many good techniques exist which can show internal structure very clearly, in vivo, with no exogenous contrast. Differential interference contrast (DIC) is nice (Interactive Java Tutorial demonstrating this common technique).
I chose to respond to these comments to shed some light on the science. This, however, is just plain argumentative, short-sighted, etc etc. On a topic more accessible to the general public it would be obvious flamebait.
I agree, it's an excellent tool, but it will take a long time before it is fully utilized, and it does not cure cancer by itself. However, when fluorescence confocal microscopy came out, it had (and still does) many more problems. And yet, it revolutionized so many fields it would be impossible count them.
This should cost anything more than a good confocal microscope once the technology is refined. Most departments have at least one of those for common usage among labs (same for mass spectrometers, etc). In fact, it's one of the cheaper instruments I can think of, and extremely easy to maintain.
The screen is reflective. For 220 mW to ignite anything, it needs to be pretty dark. I work with a few hundred mW in my lab all day, and you can safely put your hand in a 300 mW+ beam in the red. Sometimes I block the beams with business cards, however, and if it hits the black ink instead of white paper it can burn a hole in the card.
I bet you get some funny looks from checkpoint security as you try to explain why you want to bring a parachute as a carry-on.
Once again, I forgot line breaks. Forgive me for not Previewing. Is there any way to edit?
If you're interested in helping the US improve its research capabilities, write to your representatives. If you still have good handwriting, that's preferable. If not, type it and print it. Because so few people spend the effort to do this, it is still a powerful option for a small, motivated body. Funding for the NIH is shrinking. This is one of the top sources for the bulk of research performed: chemistry, biochemistry, biology, medical, even physics and computer science. The NIH funds a major chunk of every research university's programs. Government funding should be re-made a priority in this country. Primary and secondary education needs to be improved. Again, the way to do this is not with more rigorous testing and the denial of funding (No Child Left Behind), but increased funding for basic education. Of course, the image of teachers and education in general needs to be improved as well, but there's less your Representatives can do about that. Finally, immigration reform. The US still attracts top foreign talent, but it is an absolute nightmare even to get permission to study in this country, let alone work or live here. By handing out mostly temporary visas to a limited pool of foreign academics, we're restricting the number of brilliant researchers we allow to stay in this country. Currently many come over for graduate studies, but are denied the ability to remain in the US and become a citizen. This means we fund their scientific schooling in graduate school, and when they become most productive they're booted back out of the country. Wouldn't you prefer they stayed and worked here, raised their children and contributed to society with the education we payed for?
Everyone who's posting here should be forced to read parent first. Beautiful post.
Standing in line for 2 hours to vote is a significant block to many voters, and is enough to prevent very large segments of the population from voting.
I think we can agree that is a problem, yes?
My point was he simply stated the liquid lenses are not suitable for development because they were new. I didn't say CCDs had replaced film throughout the industry, but they are definitely a solid option for several different types of photography, even though they a few hundred years in development behind film.
You don't want multiple focal planes: you want to focus light from different planes to the same focus (the film, detector, whatever). But to answer your question, no - this would not work, no matter what lens medium and scheme you had.
The first beer goggle prelude?
The same could be said about film. Even professionals seem to be using a lot of CCDs today. "Older is better" is not an argument. "Liquid lenses suffer from fundamental geometric limitations" is, but that is not what you said.
Yes, it is completely new. First, we can start with a simple test: could anyone do this before?
Answer: No.
A transformer is a relatively simple device, with two coils of wire. There are not a lot of restrictions for the device to work. You can choose different numbers of coils and sizes, if you wish to transform volts to current and vice versa, you can add cores and change the geometry to alter various other properties. And as other commenters have observed, you'd lose a few orders of magnitude over a distance of 2m with a coil of this size. These guys got 40% efficiency. Yes, it is new, because they made it work.
It's every bit a breakthrough as the telephone was to the telegraph. Sure, they're sending simple signals down a wire, to carry information. However, one has a high degree of cleverness and innovation modifying a basic concept, and that's what makes a revolutionary device.
Is it useful? That's another question.
I believe they approached Verizon initially, as they did a lot of carriers. However, Cingular was the only network at the time who were willing to partner with Apple on Apple's terms: Apple was to design the phone, control every aspect of it, and prevent the network from stuff their own software and logo all over it. That may seem reasonable from the perspective of a hardware designer, but must networks were used to stamping all approved phones with their own software/logo/etc. Blame Verizon for declining a reasonable partnership.
NIXON'S BACK, BABY! RAR!
Damn, second post and I figured out some formatting, but it looks like I need to force line breaks. Sorry for the block of text.
I would also like to see this.
"Your post sounds to me like someone who doesn't like to read directions or likes to post a generalization of things but not "why" it's done. So let me address them. First I've lived in Raleigh, NC for 31 years. They have one of the more difficult methods to obtain a new drivers license because frankly... people from other states can't drive for shit. In NC, in general, people let others in, don't cut others off etc." Untrue. Coming from New England, NC drivers are pretty damn awful. They NEVER EVER use their turn signal. It's not a big deal when the car I'm waiting to go buy turns out to be turning, that just inconviences me. However, for example when changing lanes on the highway, most people don't use their signal either. This makes a game out of it! "When I merge right into the middle lane, is the person in the right lane ALSO going to go for the middle at the same time?" No one EVER moves out of the right lane when approaching a highway on-ramp. This results in people often being forced to halt at the end of the on-ramp, one of the most dangerous things which can happen on a highway. I've seen a lot of extremely dangerous highway situations in this state in 3 years.