I think the parent missed my point: if you inject x nanoparticles and only x/100 make it to the tumour, how could you be surpised at x/50 appearing there when you inject 2x at the start?
In addition, Davis and his colleagues were able to show that the higher the nanoparticle dose administered to the patient, the higher the number of particles found inside the tumor cells—the first example of this kind of dose-dependent response using targeted nanoparticles.
Why is this the first example of the concentration of nanoparticles showing a correlation with the initial dose? To me it seems obvious that this would happen, so I'm curious as to what normally prevents this.
It would be entirely possible to target the RNA sequence to only bind to malignant cells and ignore normal ones.
You mean like a square peg bouncing off a round hole?
Yes, I'm being pedantic but this is/. after all. Granted, targeting may have a more specific meaning in pharmacology but this is stretching things: rather like GM putting a car on rails then saying it drives itself.
That's not targeting, though. It's equivalent to throwing a million square blocks at 999,999 round holes and one square one. You'll hit the target, but not because you were actually aiming at it.
Small is relative. Here in Europe the Prius is a fairly average-sized car. Not cutsey to my eyes (fugly in fact), but that's subjective. I think you're right about 'truck' owners, I imagine most people that buy trucks in the States do so for the same reason that people here buy Chelsea tractors.
What's worrying to me is the ever more common sight of a Dodge or suchlike in my city centre. Now, this isn't going to go down well, but I've yet to see an American car that I found aesthetically pleasing. Again this is all subjective, obviously
The same way that so-called "targeted" painkillers work: they don't.
Every time I see that damn Nurofen advert I cringe
In addition, Davis and his colleagues were able to show that the higher the nanoparticle dose administered to the patient, the higher the number of particles found inside the tumor cells—the first example of this kind of dose-dependent response using targeted nanoparticles.
Either I'm missing something really important or this is the biggest 'Well, Duh!' moment I've had this year
First thing I noticed was that all my games stopped working properly. It's (probably) not Windows' fault but the wireless PCI card now causes terrible stuttering issues whenever I do anything more than play a video. I say probably but I have the same problem with MS' own driver. Aside from that I'm pleased as punch to have ditched Vista for good.
The new taskbar is really great - reminds me of my mac. But I am sad to see that MS is still pulling some of the old tricks: laying new interfaces on top of old ones. The control panel is even more of a cluttered mess than Vista!
You can easily pump oil with a positive displacement pump. It's quieter, too - our 10-ton hydraulic press makes less noise than my home PC (with only one SilenX fan in it).
Density isn't really an issue because for all the extra mass you're pumping you taking away something on the order of 5 times the heat per unit mass of coolant (air/oil) that you pump. Aerofoils aren't my area so I'll have to ask someone else to comment on the efficiency of a bladed fan vs. a PD pump, i.e. the energy needed to move 1kg of air vs. 1kg of oil, ignoring the fact that you need to move less than half the mass of oil for similar Q-values.
WRT the sibling post I should say that I don't see how completely immersing the system and relying on convection is a much better solution than using something similar to a water cooling setup supplemented for forced-air convection for the cooler (e.g. HDDs) components. But I suppose with the RAM, northbridge (are they still called that?) and all the rest you might as well go the whole hog.
Mineral oil has a thermal conductivity 5 times greater than air, and is much easier to pump around. I expect the difference in cp is similar but wikipedia doesn't list a value for oil.
My attitude is if you don't find it interesting then why are you studying it?
I agree. I didn't say that I didn't find the international trade routes of the 18th century world interesting, I said that I found learning about them boring. I wanted to learn. I needed to learn. But I would have been much more tempted to do something else *in addition to* trying to learn during those classes with the excuse, "I can multitask..."
It would seem to be a matter of willpower. Depending on your degree there may well be parts of it that are simply just dull. I'm lucky in this respect because I chose my degree solely because I thought it was an interesting and engaging subject - I've always been fascinated in how things work and how they're put together. Time has taught me that I really can't multitask but I don't try to anyway because I enjoy studying engineering so much.
Calculus may have been dry and mechanics may have been (still is) difficult but they're both still interesting. If anything, the only part so far that has bored me has been the 'Professional Development' BS that businesses want us to learn: seems like everyone has to have the same "we're all special" wishy-washy, touchy-feely PHB mindset.
So you *never* do anything else in class then? Always on the up-and-up with the note taking and attention giving? it kind of sounds like you are currently in college and--if you are in the US, which I would bet you are from your preferred profanities--then there is a good chance you are in class, going to class, or coming from class.
Since you only take classes that you could never find boring, I imagine that the rant above *must* have been posted during the latter two options... no way you posted during class.
Right?
Honestly, when I'm in class I'm paying attention. I don't take notes, though, I write on the handouts which are the notes the lecturer provides. If I write anything it will be a solved example (these are what I find most useful) or a clarification on a point in the notes that I don't immediately understand.
As a matter of fact I'm in a UK university. Not sure what you were getting at with the point about profanities, but bullshit is universal and so is cock (I don't use the other c-word). Even using cock and BS was for the benefit of the US readers; I doubt many of you would have appreciated my native curses. I wanted to use Twat and Wank respectively but the latter would probably have elicited a few 'whooshes'.
As for where I was when I posted, I was at home (it being after 8pm and all).//
You sound like a fine example of an anarchist: a man after my own heart. Unfortunately there isn't an anarchist utopia for us to live in, there are still taxes, lobbies, crime and corruption in our respective countries (let's face it, probably in all of them).
You're a braver man than I and certainly moreso than the OP. I'm going to look for a better place to live as soon as I can. Switzerland sounds nice: quiet, not too warm and apparently the people can force a referendum there, which is a far cry from the frankly pathetic excuse that No.10 calls "petitioning".
Or, indeed, an English student. Because here if you come from a poorer family the state will pay your tuition fees*. I was one of these lucky folks; without the state I'd probably be just another spanner-jockey by now.
Someone asked earlier why lecturers take a register, well among other reasons it's to let the student finance peeps know if you're wasting their money. Sure it has nothing to do with banning laptops, which just seems asinine (I'm not an Eng Lang/Lit student btw, so don't bother)
My point is that it isn't necessarily your money you're wasting, but even if it is one of these facebook-surfing miscreants is taking up a seat that could have gone to someone who would make better use of it
*Up until recently, anyway. Now it seems wholly state-funded higher education has been replaced by a system of loans paid back after graduation and limited state subsidies. I suppose it had to happen eventually, but you can bet your bottom dollar - is that how you say it? - that if things were as before and students wasted time in class they would be told to buck up their ideas.
When it comes down to it, this isn't high school anymore and many of the topics you learn in college are NOT FUN TO LEARN. They are boring as hell, but incredibly useful. That coupled with the fact that most of the time you are half asleep and would die for something else to do and allowing a distraction like a laptop or even a cell phone becomes a really horrible idea.
Speak for yourself! In high school I sat there bored because I was forced to learn about subjects that had neither practical nor any interest at all, I came to university and chose a subject that I found interesting. Calculus may have been dry and mechanics may have been (still is) difficult but they're both still interesting. If anything, the only part so far that has bored me has been the 'Professional Development' BS that businesses want us to learn: seems like everyone has to have the same "we're all special" wishy-washy, touchy-feely PHB mindset.
My attitude is if you don't find it interesting then why are you studying it? If you're doing a degree simply because you want a well-paid job out of it then you can just fuck off to the Business/Law school with the rest of them*. Art students may be a bit flakey, but at least they're there because they enjoy the subject.
*My apologies to people who are actually interested in law, but you seem to be surrounded by utter cocks and it's hard to tell you apart. (Even if you aren't wearing Ug boots or a body warmer/plaid combo)//
Most Nitrous-charged engines I've come across are rebuilt instead of serviced. That should give some indication as to what little relevance they have to a production vehicle.
It's dishonest because for both the "2s" and "4s" solve of the cube, the cube was not fully scrambled. In fact, for the 2 second solve, the cube only had one single turn on it when the timer started. It is dishonest because he CLEARLY and obviously did not scramble the cube for both the 2 second and 4 second time.
This isn't dishonest. I watched the video and saw that the machine can solve a trivial problem in one move. The video didn't disguise this in the slightest. You can see a more complex configuration being solved elsewhere in the video and this obviously takes more time.
Look at the video at 30s and freeze it at the start of the timer and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can't honestly believe that you don't know what I mean by "dishonest" if you haven't done this simple task for me.
At 0:30 I see a cut from one sequence to another. I didn't think I was watching a real demonstration until I saw a start-to-finish run without any cuts.
And yeah, you were right about the 18 moves thing, I was quickly looking for a number to back up my argument. The fact that 18 is actually lower than the optimal lower bound strengthens my argument instead of weakening it, though.
No, it doesn't. Your original argument seemed to be that 18 moves is the lower bound for solving any particular configuration of a Rubik's Cube; this is just wrong.
I can show you at least a dozen possible configurations that need only one move to solve. If you include an already solved cube then the lower bound becomes zero. The upper bound is the significant one because for any starting position you can solve the cube in x moves or fewer. However, the upper bound means there is/are configurations that cannot be solved in less than x moves. If this was your point, then so what? No cube can be solved in fewer moves than it took to set it up, and the fewer moves that took, the lower the upper bound for solving it.
For the four moves, you need to see much more than a "single face" to solve a rubik's cube.
I didn't suggest that the machine looked at only one face, I said it could only look at one at a time. The 3-4 moves are so the machine can look at more than one face to fully determine the state the cube was in.
However, When solving a cube, you do not look at faces, but rather look at the pieces that make up the cube: the "corners" which have 3 stickers on them, and the "edges" which have 2 stickers on them.
What particular parts of each face are important is - from a practical standpoint - irrelevant. The machine still needs to look at more than one face irrespective of what bits the algorithm works with.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they do: ENHANCE!
In addition, Davis and his colleagues were able to show that the higher the nanoparticle dose administered to the patient, the higher the number of particles found inside the tumor cells—the first example of this kind of dose-dependent response using targeted nanoparticles.
Why is this the first example of the concentration of nanoparticles showing a correlation with the initial dose? To me it seems obvious that this would happen, so I'm curious as to what normally prevents this.
It would be entirely possible to target the RNA sequence to only bind to malignant cells and ignore normal ones.
You mean like a square peg bouncing off a round hole?
Yes, I'm being pedantic but this is /. after all. Granted, targeting may have a more specific meaning in pharmacology but this is stretching things: rather like GM putting a car on rails then saying it drives itself.
That's not targeting, though. It's equivalent to throwing a million square blocks at 999,999 round holes and one square one. You'll hit the target, but not because you were actually aiming at it.
Small is relative. Here in Europe the Prius is a fairly average-sized car. Not cutsey to my eyes (fugly in fact), but that's subjective. I think you're right about 'truck' owners, I imagine most people that buy trucks in the States do so for the same reason that people here buy Chelsea tractors.
What's worrying to me is the ever more common sight of a Dodge or suchlike in my city centre. Now, this isn't going to go down well, but I've yet to see an American car that I found aesthetically pleasing. Again this is all subjective, obviously
The same way that so-called "targeted" painkillers work: they don't.
Every time I see that damn Nurofen advert I cringe
In addition, Davis and his colleagues were able to show that the higher the nanoparticle dose administered to the patient, the higher the number of particles found inside the tumor cells—the first example of this kind of dose-dependent response using targeted nanoparticles.
Either I'm missing something really important or this is the biggest 'Well, Duh!' moment I've had this year
And you can bet your last penny that they claimed the cost back on MPs' expenses.
First thing I noticed was that all my games stopped working properly. It's (probably) not Windows' fault but the wireless PCI card now causes terrible stuttering issues whenever I do anything more than play a video. I say probably but I have the same problem with MS' own driver. Aside from that I'm pleased as punch to have ditched Vista for good.
The new taskbar is really great - reminds me of my mac. But I am sad to see that MS is still pulling some of the old tricks: laying new interfaces on top of old ones. The control panel is even more of a cluttered mess than Vista!
Exactly how smart do you think the PR people at Viacon, excuse me, Viacom, are?
Is that a trick question?
Their IPs? I'm assuming they weren't stupid enough to have Viacom for their u/n...
You can easily pump oil with a positive displacement pump. It's quieter, too - our 10-ton hydraulic press makes less noise than my home PC (with only one SilenX fan in it).
Density isn't really an issue because for all the extra mass you're pumping you taking away something on the order of 5 times the heat per unit mass of coolant (air/oil) that you pump. Aerofoils aren't my area so I'll have to ask someone else to comment on the efficiency of a bladed fan vs. a PD pump, i.e. the energy needed to move 1kg of air vs. 1kg of oil, ignoring the fact that you need to move less than half the mass of oil for similar Q-values.
WRT the sibling post I should say that I don't see how completely immersing the system and relying on convection is a much better solution than using something similar to a water cooling setup supplemented for forced-air convection for the cooler (e.g. HDDs) components. But I suppose with the RAM, northbridge (are they still called that?) and all the rest you might as well go the whole hog.
Mineral oil has a thermal conductivity 5 times greater than air, and is much easier to pump around. I expect the difference in cp is similar but wikipedia doesn't list a value for oil.
Why doesn't it fit in TFS?
Who sorts dates as if they were strings/numbers?
Doesn't the date type come with its own rules for sorting? If not, why not?
Is this a prelude to the FCC clamping down on ISPs' habit of overselling or are they simply gathering data for it's own sake?
My attitude is if you don't find it interesting then why are you studying it?
I agree. I didn't say that I didn't find the international trade routes of the 18th century world interesting, I said that I found learning about them boring. I wanted to learn. I needed to learn. But I would have been much more tempted to do something else *in addition to* trying to learn during those classes with the excuse, "I can multitask..."
It would seem to be a matter of willpower. Depending on your degree there may well be parts of it that are simply just dull. I'm lucky in this respect because I chose my degree solely because I thought it was an interesting and engaging subject - I've always been fascinated in how things work and how they're put together. Time has taught me that I really can't multitask but I don't try to anyway because I enjoy studying engineering so much.
Calculus may have been dry and mechanics may have been (still is) difficult but they're both still interesting. If anything, the only part so far that has bored me has been the 'Professional Development' BS that businesses want us to learn: seems like everyone has to have the same "we're all special" wishy-washy, touchy-feely PHB mindset.
So you *never* do anything else in class then? Always on the up-and-up with the note taking and attention giving? it kind of sounds like you are currently in college and--if you are in the US, which I would bet you are from your preferred profanities--then there is a good chance you are in class, going to class, or coming from class.
Since you only take classes that you could never find boring, I imagine that the rant above *must* have been posted during the latter two options... no way you posted during class.
Right?
Honestly, when I'm in class I'm paying attention. I don't take notes, though, I write on the handouts which are the notes the lecturer provides. If I write anything it will be a solved example (these are what I find most useful) or a clarification on a point in the notes that I don't immediately understand.
As a matter of fact I'm in a UK university. Not sure what you were getting at with the point about profanities, but bullshit is universal and so is cock (I don't use the other c-word). Even using cock and BS was for the benefit of the US readers; I doubt many of you would have appreciated my native curses. I wanted to use Twat and Wank respectively but the latter would probably have elicited a few 'whooshes'.
As for where I was when I posted, I was at home (it being after 8pm and all). //
You sound like a fine example of an anarchist: a man after my own heart. Unfortunately there isn't an anarchist utopia for us to live in, there are still taxes, lobbies, crime and corruption in our respective countries (let's face it, probably in all of them).
You're a braver man than I and certainly moreso than the OP. I'm going to look for a better place to live as soon as I can. Switzerland sounds nice: quiet, not too warm and apparently the people can force a referendum there, which is a far cry from the frankly pathetic excuse that No.10 calls "petitioning".
Don't worry, they're mostly from Yorkshire. I think they vote UKIP just for a laugh... at least I really hope that's why.
Now all we need is a twisted and deformed creature to covet and ultimately destroy copyright. Shouldn't be difficult...
You mean like Lord Mandelson of Sith?
Oh, shit.
And besides whose paying the tuition?
I see you're not an English major! ;)
Or, indeed, an English student. Because here if you come from a poorer family the state will pay your tuition fees*. I was one of these lucky folks; without the state I'd probably be just another spanner-jockey by now.
Someone asked earlier why lecturers take a register, well among other reasons it's to let the student finance peeps know if you're wasting their money. Sure it has nothing to do with banning laptops, which just seems asinine (I'm not an Eng Lang/Lit student btw, so don't bother)
My point is that it isn't necessarily your money you're wasting, but even if it is one of these facebook-surfing miscreants is taking up a seat that could have gone to someone who would make better use of it
*Up until recently, anyway. Now it seems wholly state-funded higher education has been replaced by a system of loans paid back after graduation and limited state subsidies. I suppose it had to happen eventually, but you can bet your bottom dollar - is that how you say it? - that if things were as before and students wasted time in class they would be told to buck up their ideas.
When it comes down to it, this isn't high school anymore and many of the topics you learn in college are NOT FUN TO LEARN. They are boring as hell, but incredibly useful. That coupled with the fact that most of the time you are half asleep and would die for something else to do and allowing a distraction like a laptop or even a cell phone becomes a really horrible idea.
Speak for yourself! In high school I sat there bored because I was forced to learn about subjects that had neither practical nor any interest at all, I came to university and chose a subject that I found interesting. Calculus may have been dry and mechanics may have been (still is) difficult but they're both still interesting. If anything, the only part so far that has bored me has been the 'Professional Development' BS that businesses want us to learn: seems like everyone has to have the same "we're all special" wishy-washy, touchy-feely PHB mindset.
My attitude is if you don't find it interesting then why are you studying it? If you're doing a degree simply because you want a well-paid job out of it then you can just fuck off to the Business/Law school with the rest of them*. Art students may be a bit flakey, but at least they're there because they enjoy the subject.
*My apologies to people who are actually interested in law, but you seem to be surrounded by utter cocks and it's hard to tell you apart. (Even if you aren't wearing Ug boots or a body warmer/plaid combo) //
Most Nitrous-charged engines I've come across are rebuilt instead of serviced. That should give some indication as to what little relevance they have to a production vehicle.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and you can not simply ignore it.
You can if you do it in Cuba.
It's dishonest because for both the "2s" and "4s" solve of the cube, the cube was not fully scrambled. In fact, for the 2 second solve, the cube only had one single turn on it when the timer started. It is dishonest because he CLEARLY and obviously did not scramble the cube for both the 2 second and 4 second time.
This isn't dishonest. I watched the video and saw that the machine can solve a trivial problem in one move. The video didn't disguise this in the slightest. You can see a more complex configuration being solved elsewhere in the video and this obviously takes more time.
Look at the video at 30s and freeze it at the start of the timer and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can't honestly believe that you don't know what I mean by "dishonest" if you haven't done this simple task for me.
At 0:30 I see a cut from one sequence to another. I didn't think I was watching a real demonstration until I saw a start-to-finish run without any cuts.
And yeah, you were right about the 18 moves thing, I was quickly looking for a number to back up my argument. The fact that 18 is actually lower than the optimal lower bound strengthens my argument instead of weakening it, though.
No, it doesn't. Your original argument seemed to be that 18 moves is the lower bound for solving any particular configuration of a Rubik's Cube; this is just wrong.
I can show you at least a dozen possible configurations that need only one move to solve. If you include an already solved cube then the lower bound becomes zero. The upper bound is the significant one because for any starting position you can solve the cube in x moves or fewer. However, the upper bound means there is/are configurations that cannot be solved in less than x moves. If this was your point, then so what? No cube can be solved in fewer moves than it took to set it up, and the fewer moves that took, the lower the upper bound for solving it.
For the four moves, you need to see much more than a "single face" to solve a rubik's cube.
I didn't suggest that the machine looked at only one face, I said it could only look at one at a time. The 3-4 moves are so the machine can look at more than one face to fully determine the state the cube was in.
However, When solving a cube, you do not look at faces, but rather look at the pieces that make up the cube: the "corners" which have 3 stickers on them, and the "edges" which have 2 stickers on them.
What particular parts of each face are important is - from a practical standpoint - irrelevant. The machine still needs to look at more than one face irrespective of what bits the algorithm works with.
I suggest you swap your CPU and graphics chip around then switch to a format that will fit on the screen on such an old piece of kit.