Guess what? Not all cancers have easily identifiable markers, and even ones that do vary a lot from one cancer to another. You're not going to find a single agent (or even a set of agents) that you can use to target all of them. Therefore, no, it isn't universal.
It sounds like this particular technology doesn't really change the manufacturing process other than to remove drying time. So it can probably be implemented with little difficulty.
It is confidently asserting that because you don't understand nature's ways that you are observing a suboptimal solution.
Ha! What in the world suggests to you that we're an optimal solution? Evolution only makes an organism fit enough to reproduce and rear the next generation. Things that cause problems rarely, or create health in old age are poorly selected for. If we're optimized for anything, it would be as tribal hunter-gatherers, not modern civilization. Science is not magic. I am confident that we can do better, if we choose to do so.
Me? Absolutely not. I'm a software engineer, not a biochemist. That doesn't mean that nobody can. We've mapped the genome, now the job is figuring out what everything does, including all of the interactions. Once we know that (which is a truly massive task that has only just begun), we can start looking at what we can change to make things work better. It might require changing many things at once in order to separate, for example, two biological pathways that are currently connected, where correcting an issue in one creates an issue in the other. And the result might be people that are no longer genetically compatible with unmodified humans. I'll let someone else tackle the sociological effects of that, but it's almost certainly possible to make those sort of changes once we understand our biology well enough.
No not like "non-coding DNA is junk". You can have a fully functional example of spaghetti code where every bit of it is doing something vital to the code being functional, but doing it in a way that is much more complicated than necessary.
Yeah, but we can do better than random modifications if we have a solid understanding of ourselves. Huge challenge though, as our biology is a huge example of spaghetti code. Right now, changing one gene can have a complex cascade of unintended consequences. Some level of interdependency is probably necessary, but it's likely that a lot of it isn't, it just ended up that way randomly. It will really be the golden age of DNA modification if we figure out enough that we can start unraveling those interdependencies and clean up our genetics.
I assume you are either deep pocketed, or are talking about a used fire truck that a department wants to get rid of. Even a small, unequiped fire truck is going to be over 100k.
If you aren't correcting for errors in data collection then your conclusions will be wrong.
When you're dealing with measurements made over decades, the only way to deal with errors in data collection of those past measurements is to apply corrections. You cant co back and take new measurements. Also, it's not as though they're just saying, "this doesn't agree with my opinion, I'll just change all the measurements by this much". They're looking at unexpected discrepancies and trying to determine why they exist.
For example, recently researchers noticed ocean temperature measurements collected by buoys read consistently lower than measurements collected by ships. The buoys are reading accurately, and the ships appear to be reading high. (not surprising, given that ships have engines that release heat) Before the pause, most of our ocean temperature measurements were made via ships. At the beginning of the "pause" we were moving away from ships and toward primarily buoy based measurements. This created an artificial drop in the average temperature that was due to changes in measurement, not changes in the actual temperature. If this is corrected for (adjust the measurements made by ships down a specific amount determined by the typical difference between ships and buoys) then the global warming pause completely disappears. The researchers didn't set out to make it disappear, it just came out of the data.
They will clean themselves up. Low earth orbit has a very small amount of atmosphere, but enough to slow the satellites over time and cause them to re-enter. Most likely they would burn up pretty much completely, though a few pieces might reach the ground.
Instruments on ocean buoys for some reason are reading a lower temperature than research ships. Many buoys were deployed during the time period of the "pause", which pushed down the average temperature reading as compared to past measurements. They've now taken this disparity into account and the "pause" disappears. They were looking for an explanation for the "pause" and found it to be an error in the way the data was collected, so they corrected for the error.
Matter and energy are equivalent. Regardless, it's a moot point as the article states that electrons are being emitted by the graphene, and it is these electrons which are suggested to be the source of the thrust.
Or, it just means that we found a way to convert energy to momentum directly. No free lunch as you'd still have to supply energy to convert into momentum.
The tube couldn't travel at c, only very close to c. If you were in the tube, and propelled yourself within the tube by whatever means, you wouldn't notice anything particularly odd. To you, it might take 5 minutes to traverse the length of the tube. But to an outside observer, it would take **FAR** longer. Say, a thousand years, for the same action (the closer to c, the longer it it would take from the viewpoint of an outside observer). The faster you tried to move in the tube, the more time dilation you would experience.
Usually the cars that are meant to come with HID headlights will not blind you, because the reflector is designed to cut off the beam above headlight level. The cars that blind you are almost always cars that were made for halogen, but have HIDs installed.
The filament in a halogen bulb isn't the same size and shape as the incandescent gas in an HID bulb. The reflector would need to be redesigned in order to use an HID buib without causing glare. It is pretty much never a good idea to use an HID bulb in a halogen fixture.
True, but it can be damaged enough to prevent healing. There are also chemicals it doesn't know how to deal with, so they just build up in the liver until it can't function.
Also, it's suprisingly easy to overdose on acetaminophen. Particularly if you consume alcohol while taking it. An overdose can easily result in total liver failure.
Even with a very effective vaccine, your body could still be overwhelmed by a virus. There are only so many antibodies in your body for a particular virus at one time. If you are exposed to a huge quantity of virus all at once, it could overwhelm the ability of your immune system to fight it. You probably wouldn't get as sick as someone who was unvaccinated, but you could still get sick.
Slashdot Mirror
...a blanket ban on arming drones might affect themselves,...
Guess what? Not all cancers have easily identifiable markers, and even ones that do vary a lot from one cancer to another. You're not going to find a single agent (or even a set of agents) that you can use to target all of them. Therefore, no, it isn't universal.
It sounds like this particular technology doesn't really change the manufacturing process other than to remove drying time. So it can probably be implemented with little difficulty.
Then I guess I'm just more optimistic about what we can learn and do than you are. Nature is far from perfect.
It is confidently asserting that because you don't understand nature's ways that you are observing a suboptimal solution.
Ha! What in the world suggests to you that we're an optimal solution? Evolution only makes an organism fit enough to reproduce and rear the next generation. Things that cause problems rarely, or create health in old age are poorly selected for. If we're optimized for anything, it would be as tribal hunter-gatherers, not modern civilization. Science is not magic. I am confident that we can do better, if we choose to do so.
Me? Absolutely not. I'm a software engineer, not a biochemist. That doesn't mean that nobody can. We've mapped the genome, now the job is figuring out what everything does, including all of the interactions. Once we know that (which is a truly massive task that has only just begun), we can start looking at what we can change to make things work better. It might require changing many things at once in order to separate, for example, two biological pathways that are currently connected, where correcting an issue in one creates an issue in the other. And the result might be people that are no longer genetically compatible with unmodified humans. I'll let someone else tackle the sociological effects of that, but it's almost certainly possible to make those sort of changes once we understand our biology well enough.
No not like "non-coding DNA is junk". You can have a fully functional example of spaghetti code where every bit of it is doing something vital to the code being functional, but doing it in a way that is much more complicated than necessary.
Yeah, but we can do better than random modifications if we have a solid understanding of ourselves. Huge challenge though, as our biology is a huge example of spaghetti code. Right now, changing one gene can have a complex cascade of unintended consequences. Some level of interdependency is probably necessary, but it's likely that a lot of it isn't, it just ended up that way randomly. It will really be the golden age of DNA modification if we figure out enough that we can start unraveling those interdependencies and clean up our genetics.
I assume you are either deep pocketed, or are talking about a used fire truck that a department wants to get rid of. Even a small, unequiped fire truck is going to be over 100k.
Momentum is a form of energy.
If you aren't correcting for errors in data collection then your conclusions will be wrong. When you're dealing with measurements made over decades, the only way to deal with errors in data collection of those past measurements is to apply corrections. You cant co back and take new measurements. Also, it's not as though they're just saying, "this doesn't agree with my opinion, I'll just change all the measurements by this much". They're looking at unexpected discrepancies and trying to determine why they exist. For example, recently researchers noticed ocean temperature measurements collected by buoys read consistently lower than measurements collected by ships. The buoys are reading accurately, and the ships appear to be reading high. (not surprising, given that ships have engines that release heat) Before the pause, most of our ocean temperature measurements were made via ships. At the beginning of the "pause" we were moving away from ships and toward primarily buoy based measurements. This created an artificial drop in the average temperature that was due to changes in measurement, not changes in the actual temperature. If this is corrected for (adjust the measurements made by ships down a specific amount determined by the typical difference between ships and buoys) then the global warming pause completely disappears. The researchers didn't set out to make it disappear, it just came out of the data.
They will clean themselves up. Low earth orbit has a very small amount of atmosphere, but enough to slow the satellites over time and cause them to re-enter. Most likely they would burn up pretty much completely, though a few pieces might reach the ground.
Instruments on ocean buoys for some reason are reading a lower temperature than research ships. Many buoys were deployed during the time period of the "pause", which pushed down the average temperature reading as compared to past measurements. They've now taken this disparity into account and the "pause" disappears. They were looking for an explanation for the "pause" and found it to be an error in the way the data was collected, so they corrected for the error.
This is not anything like that sort of geothermal.
Matter and energy are equivalent. Regardless, it's a moot point as the article states that electrons are being emitted by the graphene, and it is these electrons which are suggested to be the source of the thrust.
Actually, after RTFA, it appears that they confirmed a flow of electrons away from the graphene. That would imply that momentum is being conserved.
Or, it just means that we found a way to convert energy to momentum directly. No free lunch as you'd still have to supply energy to convert into momentum.
The tube couldn't travel at c, only very close to c. If you were in the tube, and propelled yourself within the tube by whatever means, you wouldn't notice anything particularly odd. To you, it might take 5 minutes to traverse the length of the tube. But to an outside observer, it would take **FAR** longer. Say, a thousand years, for the same action (the closer to c, the longer it it would take from the viewpoint of an outside observer). The faster you tried to move in the tube, the more time dilation you would experience.
That dyson fan does have blades, they're just hidden inside the base: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix... The same would not work for power generation.
Usually the cars that are meant to come with HID headlights will not blind you, because the reflector is designed to cut off the beam above headlight level. The cars that blind you are almost always cars that were made for halogen, but have HIDs installed.
The filament in a halogen bulb isn't the same size and shape as the incandescent gas in an HID bulb. The reflector would need to be redesigned in order to use an HID buib without causing glare. It is pretty much never a good idea to use an HID bulb in a halogen fixture.
But you don't fill the engine and passenger compartment with saltwater.
And its nearly 100% likely that it exploded upon tipping over.
True, but it can be damaged enough to prevent healing. There are also chemicals it doesn't know how to deal with, so they just build up in the liver until it can't function. Also, it's suprisingly easy to overdose on acetaminophen. Particularly if you consume alcohol while taking it. An overdose can easily result in total liver failure.
Even with a very effective vaccine, your body could still be overwhelmed by a virus. There are only so many antibodies in your body for a particular virus at one time. If you are exposed to a huge quantity of virus all at once, it could overwhelm the ability of your immune system to fight it. You probably wouldn't get as sick as someone who was unvaccinated, but you could still get sick.