or, put differently, if the thing were light sensitive enough (which they never are, you have to bombard the scene with photons which typically causes heat issues, but that's another topic)...
Light sensitivity is a big issue in some applications of fluorescent microscopy. Not heat sensitivity but photobleaching. I don't understand anything about the quantum physics involved, but the fluorophores lose their ablity to give a signal the longer they're excited, it can be rapid and it's annoying in many applications.
I look at cells on a confocal microscope, it uses a laser of one wavelength to excite fluorescent proteins, which causes it to emit light at a different wavelength. Filters can be used to see just the emitted wavelength, so I can tell which cells have the protein and where it is within the cell. Even if I turn the laser down to %1 and take fast images, there is some minimal loss of signal. Wouldn't be a problem, except that sometimes I need to make time lapse movies for up to 20 hours. That many exposures add up quickly, and I commonly see cells go dark due to photobleaching. There are plenty of tricks availiable, but if I could take pictures faster, that would be better than some of the other compromises I have to make, like turning down the resolution or resetting the contrast.
Quantum dots and some inorganic fluorphores I understand are more resistant to photobleaching, but they're not very good yet as far as I know for live cell imaging. For that we need to use fluorescent proteins, which are both dimmer and less photostable.
I don't know if this technology will actually be useful or even compatible with confocal microscopy, but if it could cut down on the exposure time required, that would really help lower loss of signal and/or help with resolution issues. TFA seems to indicate they're developing this with microscopy in mind. Hopefully they'll make a microscope with it quickly, like say a month, and it will be "cheap," like under $400K. And they'll send me one free. With a pony.
I don't think parent should be marked troll, he didn't say anything like "this has no use," he just asked a question, apperantly honestly.
The article specifically mentions blood cells running through a blood vessel.
A lot of cell biologists take pictures of fluorescent molecules, where the fluorophore absorbs one wavelenght of light and spits out another lower one. Filters can be used to isolate the emitted light so all you see is that specific molecule. Some are very dim and to see them you need to use a camera with a fairly long exposure time.
If you're trying to visualize a fluorescent protein in a blood cell as it's moving through a capilary as it's dumping its load, you might see just a blur with a CCD camera or PMT. Actually, not might, you would only see a blur. This fast camera might be sensitive and fast enough to take good pictures of that.
So that's one use I could imagine for the low exposure time. You wouldn't need the 6 million for that though.
Why wasn't this the default to begin with? There's no good reason to automatically run anything on media like hard disks or flash drives. It's an obvious virus vector.
Man, I'm WAY too busy to double click on my flash drive, I gotta have those pictures of the kegger last weekend NOW! Thanks a lot, micro$oft, selling out to the "anti-kegger pictures immediately" lobby!
Perhaps because Tom Tom's business model involves building and selling GPS devices, and not fighting patent battles?
Makes me glad I chose the buisness model I did: Making and selling GPS devices, and also running a secret assasin organization which kills patent trolls that get in my way. With poison darts.
Right, democrats don't compromise. We did after all stand as one block against the Iraq war.
Wait, no, they pretty much all ignored their constituents and bowed down. Don't imply that democrats don't compromise, from my perspective (which I'll be the first to admit is biased) they do nothing BUT compromise. Have you heard "gun control" mentioned since WE took control? If you have, it wasn't any democrat in a position of much influence, except maybe to swear up and down they weren't so much as THINKING about it.
Most importantly, a filibuster is not a tool of compromise.
I would consider all those "Tr3y canadian C1alis rol3x3s FREE!" sufficient provokation to justify military action. Not only do they spam me, they're full of typos! It's offensive on all levels!
(Yes, I do know it's not so much typos as it is trying to get past filters, I don't care)
What the US should do is stop connecting 'computers' to the Internet that can so easily be hijacked in phishing/malware/spam attacks.
That's somewhat less satisfying than dropping napalm on them. More effective, sure, but do you really want to live in a world where spammers AREN'T burned alive? Cause I don't.
Grey goo is self-replicating right? I suppose if you have a whole city made out of "ruthenium bipyridine ions" this might be disconcerting, but the article says nothing about self-replication or eating anything. Which makes this significantly less scary than your average amoeba.
The ability of the minority to prevent a majority from running amok completely unchecked is an important part of our country's checks-and-balances in politics.
Alternatively, an unpopular minority has lost just one of many tools availiable to them to make their voices heard.
Yet another alternative: republicans may be less able to pretend that you don't have to compromise in politics.
I wonder if the same people who want this game to be published would also advocate a Vietnam game like this?
That's actually a really good idea. Games seem like a good vehicle in theory to get you to identify with one side or another. I'd love to see a whole franchise of games where you play as the other side. Playing as a grunt on the german side in WWII, another one for the japanese side, the Vietmihn as you mentioned.
It would be easy to mess up the narrative, and tempting to make it more palpatable by presenting some situations as less ambiguous than they actually were. I'd expect a lot of whitewashing, and I'd be really suprised if there are any devs out there who could actually put out a game in which you would, by definition, be killing american troops. I -know- that it wouldn't go over well, and that a lot of people would oppose and distort it despite the fact that they wouldn't have as much problem if the same content were presented in a movie format.
There's still so much "America is always right, everyone who stands in our way is evil" that I think a game or games which challenges that by putting us in the shoes of our "enemies" could be theraputic for us. Hell, we NEED a game like that to teach us lessons and perspectives we're resistant to learning from non-interactive history.
also to everyone: nowhere in that entire article did he propose that it be a government taxing to spend that money - sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".
They're not listening. Obama was pegged by some as a tax-raiser before he said anything about taxes. Whether or not he actually is raising or is going to raise taxes has little bearing on their perception of reality. If he were to say "We're going to cut taxes" plenty of people will hear "raise" instead of "cut."
Someone will get mad if I don't point out that democrats do the same thing and did the same thing with Bush on different issues. So there it was.
Bad enough we have all those dead bodies cluttering up meatspace.
Are you by any chance browsing/. from inside a warzone? Or are you some type of murderer? I really haven't ever had a problem with cluttering of dead bodies. In real life. "Bad enough" seems an odd phrase. Are you suggesting that we have a real lack of graveyard space? Where exactly?
As for cyberspace dead body cluttering, I always liked humorous tombstones in Oregon Trail. Sure, everyone put "Peperoni" because of that commercial at the time.
First: who said I hadn't been out in the real world? Second: it goes moreso for some applications than others. (And trivial third: who said I would ever be getting out of academia?)
I worked at a major pharmecutical for some time before grad school, some of the extreme basics I learned in undergrad, but was re-taught anyway. Most of what I was doing there was paperwork anyway. While I was there, some of my co-workers were enrolled in masters programs in their field, paid for by the company, to get a pay bump. They would be doing the same job that they had before, so clearly they weren't learning any skills they needed to do the job, but now that they had a better certificate, the company had more faith in them and would pay them more. And that company was hardly unique.
You may have been in academia too long if you think most jobs require a degree as anything more than a certificate saying someone could learn how to be a whatever. Or maybe your specific field is one of those that do actually use what you learn in undergrad, so you assume that's how it is for everyone.
And how much did they retain a month later, would you think, compared with those who didn't?
I would expect individual differences to outweigh any differences seen with the drug. Without the drug, there are obvious differences in retention, and when I've taken aderall and when I haven't, I don't notice any obvious differences in retention.
That's the real point of getting an education, you know, not just grades.
Not in all cases. There are plenty of jobs where a college diploma is really just useful as a certificate saying you CAN understand things in a specific area. I was a bio major in undergrad, I'm in a cell biology graduate program now. The vast majority of what I studied in undergrad is not in any way applicable to what I'm studying now. Most of what I did study in undergrad that was applicable to what I'm studying now I didn't remember nearly well enough and had to relearn. And that's basically continuing education, what you actually learn is even more irrelevant when you're talking about many other jobs that require a bachelors merely as a way of reducing the number of resumes that HR has to look through.
If consumers where smart individuals marketers would not exist.
So because many consumers are idiots, that makes it okay for marketers to annoy us all? As a matter of fact, what does intelligence have to do with any of it? Marketers work half by the power of suggestion, smart people are influenced just like us morons.
This is good progress, but still a kludge because it uses muscles rather than a direct nerve attachment.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm assuming its because unconnected axons don't fire or degenerate too quickly to be used. I'm more certain that unopposed synapses are unstable and not functional, you don't want neurons just dumping neurotransmitter into nothing. I know that in development, some neurons require functional synapses for survival, and unconnected projections from neurons disappear. So I'd guess that if you have a motorneuron running into an arm that wasn't there anymore, the axon might go through cycles of formation and degeneration, or might not transmit an impulse at all, unless it had a synapse, which it wouldn't have unless there was something to synapse with. I suspect it's more complicated than that, or I'm completely off, since biology is always more complicated than theory, let alone half-informed theory.
If you do need something to anchor the axon like that, you probably wouldn't need to use muscles you use for other things. They were testing a concept here, if it pans out they might transplant some muscle cells to the stump of the limb, re-innervate that, and then use those axons. The muscles would still flex but wouldn't be moving anything. Or maybe not, I really don't know anything about surgery and very little about neurobiology.
I ALMOST feel like listing them here, but my soul was burned out from the process and I am neutral.
Hmm... you also seem to have lost all sense of when you need to use the caps lock. I didn't know that was a function of the soul.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer (sidenote: neither is Jack Thompson anymore) so I don't understand the distinction you're pointing out. How do trade secrets enter into it if they're claiming patent infringement?
Slashdot Mirror
or, put differently, if the thing were light sensitive enough (which they never are, you have to bombard the scene with photons which typically causes heat issues, but that's another topic)...
Light sensitivity is a big issue in some applications of fluorescent microscopy. Not heat sensitivity but photobleaching. I don't understand anything about the quantum physics involved, but the fluorophores lose their ablity to give a signal the longer they're excited, it can be rapid and it's annoying in many applications.
I look at cells on a confocal microscope, it uses a laser of one wavelength to excite fluorescent proteins, which causes it to emit light at a different wavelength. Filters can be used to see just the emitted wavelength, so I can tell which cells have the protein and where it is within the cell. Even if I turn the laser down to %1 and take fast images, there is some minimal loss of signal. Wouldn't be a problem, except that sometimes I need to make time lapse movies for up to 20 hours. That many exposures add up quickly, and I commonly see cells go dark due to photobleaching. There are plenty of tricks availiable, but if I could take pictures faster, that would be better than some of the other compromises I have to make, like turning down the resolution or resetting the contrast.
Quantum dots and some inorganic fluorphores I understand are more resistant to photobleaching, but they're not very good yet as far as I know for live cell imaging. For that we need to use fluorescent proteins, which are both dimmer and less photostable.
I don't know if this technology will actually be useful or even compatible with confocal microscopy, but if it could cut down on the exposure time required, that would really help lower loss of signal and/or help with resolution issues. TFA seems to indicate they're developing this with microscopy in mind. Hopefully they'll make a microscope with it quickly, like say a month, and it will be "cheap," like under $400K. And they'll send me one free. With a pony.
I don't think parent should be marked troll, he didn't say anything like "this has no use," he just asked a question, apperantly honestly.
The article specifically mentions blood cells running through a blood vessel.
A lot of cell biologists take pictures of fluorescent molecules, where the fluorophore absorbs one wavelenght of light and spits out another lower one. Filters can be used to isolate the emitted light so all you see is that specific molecule. Some are very dim and to see them you need to use a camera with a fairly long exposure time.
If you're trying to visualize a fluorescent protein in a blood cell as it's moving through a capilary as it's dumping its load, you might see just a blur with a CCD camera or PMT. Actually, not might, you would only see a blur. This fast camera might be sensitive and fast enough to take good pictures of that.
So that's one use I could imagine for the low exposure time. You wouldn't need the 6 million for that though.
Why wasn't this the default to begin with? There's no good reason to automatically run anything on media like hard disks or flash drives. It's an obvious virus vector.
Man, I'm WAY too busy to double click on my flash drive, I gotta have those pictures of the kegger last weekend NOW! Thanks a lot, micro$oft, selling out to the "anti-kegger pictures immediately" lobby!
I only meant that amoebas are less scary than world-eating nanobots (AKA grey goo). Doesn't mean I think they're harmless.
Perhaps because Tom Tom's business model involves building and selling GPS devices, and not fighting patent battles?
Makes me glad I chose the buisness model I did: Making and selling GPS devices, and also running a secret assasin organization which kills patent trolls that get in my way. With poison darts.
Right, democrats don't compromise. We did after all stand as one block against the Iraq war.
Wait, no, they pretty much all ignored their constituents and bowed down. Don't imply that democrats don't compromise, from my perspective (which I'll be the first to admit is biased) they do nothing BUT compromise. Have you heard "gun control" mentioned since WE took control? If you have, it wasn't any democrat in a position of much influence, except maybe to swear up and down they weren't so much as THINKING about it.
Most importantly, a filibuster is not a tool of compromise.
At least, not until provoked
I would consider all those "Tr3y canadian C1alis rol3x3s FREE!" sufficient provokation to justify military action. Not only do they spam me, they're full of typos! It's offensive on all levels!
(Yes, I do know it's not so much typos as it is trying to get past filters, I don't care)
What the US should do is stop connecting 'computers' to the Internet that can so easily be hijacked in phishing/malware/spam attacks.
That's somewhat less satisfying than dropping napalm on them. More effective, sure, but do you really want to live in a world where spammers AREN'T burned alive? Cause I don't.
Grey goo is self-replicating right? I suppose if you have a whole city made out of "ruthenium bipyridine ions" this might be disconcerting, but the article says nothing about self-replication or eating anything. Which makes this significantly less scary than your average amoeba.
The ability of the minority to prevent a majority from running amok completely unchecked is an important part of our country's checks-and-balances in politics.
Alternatively, an unpopular minority has lost just one of many tools availiable to them to make their voices heard.
Yet another alternative: republicans may be less able to pretend that you don't have to compromise in politics.
I wonder if the same people who want this game to be published would also advocate a Vietnam game like this?
That's actually a really good idea. Games seem like a good vehicle in theory to get you to identify with one side or another. I'd love to see a whole franchise of games where you play as the other side. Playing as a grunt on the german side in WWII, another one for the japanese side, the Vietmihn as you mentioned.
It would be easy to mess up the narrative, and tempting to make it more palpatable by presenting some situations as less ambiguous than they actually were. I'd expect a lot of whitewashing, and I'd be really suprised if there are any devs out there who could actually put out a game in which you would, by definition, be killing american troops. I -know- that it wouldn't go over well, and that a lot of people would oppose and distort it despite the fact that they wouldn't have as much problem if the same content were presented in a movie format.
There's still so much "America is always right, everyone who stands in our way is evil" that I think a game or games which challenges that by putting us in the shoes of our "enemies" could be theraputic for us. Hell, we NEED a game like that to teach us lessons and perspectives we're resistant to learning from non-interactive history.
You're still more likely to be eaten by a shark than you are to die in another plane crashing into a building.
My god, you're right, sharks could crash planes into buildings and then eat us!
also to everyone: nowhere in that entire article did he propose that it be a government taxing to spend that money - sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".
They're not listening. Obama was pegged by some as a tax-raiser before he said anything about taxes. Whether or not he actually is raising or is going to raise taxes has little bearing on their perception of reality. If he were to say "We're going to cut taxes" plenty of people will hear "raise" instead of "cut."
Someone will get mad if I don't point out that democrats do the same thing and did the same thing with Bush on different issues. So there it was.
Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive?
Only the first few minutes, then it gets boring and annoying, plus you question whether it's normal to become bored with boobs so quickly.
At my AA meetings, I do assume that everyone, including me, is drunk.
Bad enough we have all those dead bodies cluttering up meatspace.
Are you by any chance browsing /. from inside a warzone? Or are you some type of murderer? I really haven't ever had a problem with cluttering of dead bodies. In real life. "Bad enough" seems an odd phrase. Are you suggesting that we have a real lack of graveyard space? Where exactly?
As for cyberspace dead body cluttering, I always liked humorous tombstones in Oregon Trail. Sure, everyone put "Peperoni" because of that commercial at the time.
You guys remember that cool new technology that was going to revolutionize the way we store data? The one that was just 11 years away?
No. I probably saved the story, but ran out of storage space and/or it got corrupted because it wasn't holographic.
First: who said I hadn't been out in the real world? Second: it goes moreso for some applications than others. (And trivial third: who said I would ever be getting out of academia?)
I worked at a major pharmecutical for some time before grad school, some of the extreme basics I learned in undergrad, but was re-taught anyway. Most of what I was doing there was paperwork anyway. While I was there, some of my co-workers were enrolled in masters programs in their field, paid for by the company, to get a pay bump. They would be doing the same job that they had before, so clearly they weren't learning any skills they needed to do the job, but now that they had a better certificate, the company had more faith in them and would pay them more. And that company was hardly unique.
You may have been in academia too long if you think most jobs require a degree as anything more than a certificate saying someone could learn how to be a whatever. Or maybe your specific field is one of those that do actually use what you learn in undergrad, so you assume that's how it is for everyone.
And how much did they retain a month later, would you think, compared with those who didn't?
I would expect individual differences to outweigh any differences seen with the drug. Without the drug, there are obvious differences in retention, and when I've taken aderall and when I haven't, I don't notice any obvious differences in retention.
That's the real point of getting an education, you know, not just grades.
Not in all cases. There are plenty of jobs where a college diploma is really just useful as a certificate saying you CAN understand things in a specific area. I was a bio major in undergrad, I'm in a cell biology graduate program now. The vast majority of what I studied in undergrad is not in any way applicable to what I'm studying now. Most of what I did study in undergrad that was applicable to what I'm studying now I didn't remember nearly well enough and had to relearn. And that's basically continuing education, what you actually learn is even more irrelevant when you're talking about many other jobs that require a bachelors merely as a way of reducing the number of resumes that HR has to look through.
Not to be insulting, but these are not magic pills that make you do what you are supposed to.
As a magic pill maker, I am deeply insulted despite your disclaimer.
If consumers where smart individuals marketers would not exist.
So because many consumers are idiots, that makes it okay for marketers to annoy us all? As a matter of fact, what does intelligence have to do with any of it? Marketers work half by the power of suggestion, smart people are influenced just like us morons.
This would also have the advantage of solving global warming and make the hole in the ozone not a problem. Jeezus, why haven't we done this already?
This is good progress, but still a kludge because it uses muscles rather than a direct nerve attachment.
Don't quote me on this, but I'm assuming its because unconnected axons don't fire or degenerate too quickly to be used. I'm more certain that unopposed synapses are unstable and not functional, you don't want neurons just dumping neurotransmitter into nothing. I know that in development, some neurons require functional synapses for survival, and unconnected projections from neurons disappear. So I'd guess that if you have a motorneuron running into an arm that wasn't there anymore, the axon might go through cycles of formation and degeneration, or might not transmit an impulse at all, unless it had a synapse, which it wouldn't have unless there was something to synapse with. I suspect it's more complicated than that, or I'm completely off, since biology is always more complicated than theory, let alone half-informed theory.
If you do need something to anchor the axon like that, you probably wouldn't need to use muscles you use for other things. They were testing a concept here, if it pans out they might transplant some muscle cells to the stump of the limb, re-innervate that, and then use those axons. The muscles would still flex but wouldn't be moving anything. Or maybe not, I really don't know anything about surgery and very little about neurobiology.
Do we know the language of nerve impulses?
Yes, it's called sodium and potassium permeability.
I ALMOST feel like listing them here, but my soul was burned out from the process and I am neutral.
Hmm... you also seem to have lost all sense of when you need to use the caps lock. I didn't know that was a function of the soul.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer (sidenote: neither is Jack Thompson anymore) so I don't understand the distinction you're pointing out. How do trade secrets enter into it if they're claiming patent infringement?