Post anyone's private emails or transcripts of their back room dealings (e.g. politicians) and you'll get a different perception about what goes on. The emails were private for a reason. This situation would be no different if leaks happened in any other field or industry. Stop singling out scientists.
"Metathesis can be compared to a dance in which the couples change partners."
This has to be the worst quote I've ever heard describing Grubbs' catalyst. When I woke up this morning and heard that Grubbs had won the Nobel I wondered what the brief description of his work was going to be, and I honestly have to say I was amazingly disappointed with it. However this is part of a larger problem that I've encountered often especially on this webpage, how do you explain complicated subjects to the uninformed masses? How do you explain detailed chemistry to computer geeks? In some cases a pretty simplistic idea is transferred successfully, but this is the exception rather than the rule. IMO, the comments left about the story tend to further complicate the matter.
Having use chemistry developed by Grubbs I'll provide a brief description of his remarkable achievements in the field of organic synthesis (one of the serveral fields Grubbs has impacted [Grubbs is however an organometallic / inorganic chemist]). Organic synthesis is the study of building complext molecules from simple starting materials. The "goal" of organic synthesis is to make compounds with biological activity, e.g. new drugs. Many of the target compounds are initially isolated from nature, chemist then try to replicate them in the lab environment. One of the catalysts Grubbs developed allowed for synthesis of a particularly common structural feature (I'm thinking of cyclic structures, there are more, I know) and it opened whole new doors in terms of synthetic routes that one could take to complete a molecule. It was fairly evident in the mid 90s that his work had a huge impact on the synthetic community and it was apparent he would win the nobel, it was just a matter of time.
Chlorine is a gas that will react with atmospheric water to give HCl (hydrochloric acid). Infact, they will most likely purposely make HCl, collect it and then sell it. Similar "nasty" byproducts from other types of industrial reactions are also sold. Sulfuric acid, which I believe is a byproduct of paper manufacturing (could be wrong), is one of the cheapest chemicals you can buy because of this.
The Dire Maul instance was released in an early WoW patch and is an endgame 5 man group dungeon. Pretty good loot in there to if you wear mail. NREF SHANAMS!
Well, I'm a 59 shammy and I couldn't take down a 60 druid even after using a discombobulator ray. Druids just have way too many heals, shaman only really have 1 at that lvl (NS + healing wave rank 9).
If you are claiming Shaman are over powered you are:
1. Alliance
2. Do not understand PvP
3. Lazy
To help you in your retarded state, read this and all of your questions/fears will be answered/assuaged. Since I know you're lazy (and might not read the link), answer me this: Why are no shaman at the top of the PVP honor rankings anywhere if they're so overpowered? PWN3D!!!!!
Shaman are not over powered, read this. Since this story has become essentially an extension of the blizz forms I will reply properly: STFU if you think Shaman are overpowered, you're obviously a n00b and have no idea how to get around our omgwtfuber frost shock. =D
omgwtf. The damn shaman form has been overrun with nerf posts to point that Blizzard now locks nerf posts the moment they come up (at least the ones IN ALL FREAKIN CAPS). See for yourself.
One problem I've been running into recently (and am curious to see how pvp honor system handles) is getting ganged up on. I can rock anyone my lvl (I'm a shamy, that's my job) but two peeps 1-2 lvls below me can rock the f)#$% outta me. Pretty lame when I'm questing, but can I get honor for almost killing someone?
Whatever evidence I present isn't going to convince you, and your evidence doesn't convince me. You obviously have very personal reasons for what you believe, that's cool, my beliefs are very personal as well.
Just a couple of non evidence based comments on your comments:
This is the argument put forth in the book of James...
You can pull any sentence out of the bible and say that it conflicts with some other sentence. I say you examine a word in every instance that it is use (i.e. a word study) to get the general take on what the Biblical view is. Therefore, I don't think Jesus's and Paul/James conflict each other, they are different views on the same thing. I'm assuming your response on this will be something like "How can they be different views when they say completely opposite things?" Good question, I think an in-depth study (i.e. not comments on slashdot) should clear this up, although it I think it will come down to a matter of interpretation.
can bring up conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Bible all day long...
Great. This sounds like someone shoved the bible down your throat when you were a kid and some philosopher friend in college "showed you the truth." That's awesome. The Bible is basis for my belief however, I think that you are in much more trouble than I am (although that situation can be rectified).
If this is what you are clinging to that prevents you from a relationship with God then I seriously hope you are correct, I'd cling to those inconsistencies with every fiber of my being if I didn't believe in God. However, this is where the argument goes from logical to personal. Everyone has a different take on it and nothing can really be said to change someone's mind.
Like this: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
Fine, don't believe me. Look up the evidence on your own as opposed to having some webpage summarize it for you (I'm talking legit research journals now), I suggest starting with Pub Med, it's an NIH database of medical research. Oh, and so you know, Mullis has since changed his position. Even an idiot knows that HIV causes AIDS, tell your friends to update the webpage.
I'm questioning Mullis's authority on the subject. I'm not so much attacking him as I am discrediting him.
I thought a scientist would be able to generate a more convincing argument than "c'mon man."
You are 100% correct. That was an emotion appeal, and not a very good one at that.
I think that the salvation issue here is kind of at a moot point. I mean, if you have have faith you should also have the holy spirit which should produce works in you. I don't think that faith and works are separable, and I know that this is brought up several times in the NT. Many people bring up arguments such as these to show some sort of "conflict" in the bible (there are some but nothing too ridiculous).
I actually was going to give you some credibility based on an intelligent analysis until I saw your sig. Good grief man, being a scientist myself how can you deny HIV=Aids? Works is done on the virus in my lab, I know enough about it know the two are linked. As for your virus myth page, Mullis is an idiot. Everyone knows that. He won the nobel prize for inventing a thermocycler. C'mon man.
Yeah, I think there is a bit of a crossover tho:) Getting chemslash up and running was enough pain in and of itself, creating topics was put on the back burner and will continue to stay their until after my advancement to candidacy exam... perhaps you'd like to suggest some (with graphics)?
You may want to check out this article. It talks about porphyrins as data storage polymers. They can stand up to 400 degrees and over a trillion cycles. Organic storage devices rock, but there current state isn't all that great.
This story reminds me of an article I saw here. Looks like story has a link to the C&EN article and the original article that appeared in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
Interesting, I've read several reports (here and here) discussing that there will be too little oil for global warming. According to the stories all of the petroleum reserves will run out before the atmosphere heats up enough to have any effect. I guess this just goes to show that atmospheric chemistry isn't always an exact science.
I don't see why this is news worthy. Just about *every* single drug today has its origins in some marine life (or bacteria/mold). For instance, many research groups get millions of grant dollars flying to remote areas, cutting up the local inhabitants, and then running cell assays on them. If they make it through a certain number of assays (generally for cytoxicity, but others exist) then they publish the info. Just check out the Journal of Natural Products. Issues upon issues of this stuff. The interesting stuff comes later, when the synthetic organic chemists try to create these things artificially, generally in really low yields. In fact, a project I was working on was the synthesis of a marine ladder toxin that is one of the active compounds in red tide catastrophes (see this book). It too blocks sodium ion channels. Probably the most famous cancer fighting compound, taxol, is isolated from the bark of the pacific yew tree.
Dude, c'mon! Read the freakin' title "top 10 personal computers". It doesn't say "Top 10 Consoles hacked to run linux by silly zealots" nor does it say "Top 10 kick-ass lookin' macs". Hence, the lack of appearance of any of your suggestions.
Living in extreme environments is one thing, but completely different respiration systems is another thing entirely. This article reminds me of one I saw here. Apparently, some microbes discovered utilize iron as opposed to oxygen in order to sustain themselves. That's quite an accomplishment.
This serves as a bitter reminder of how bungie used to be before being acquire by M$. Instead of continuing their tradition of super-kick-ass indy games (started at first by marathon and eventually myth), they ended up selling incomplete games (Oni) and putting all future effort towards lining M$'s pockets in a sector of the market they shouldn't even be in. And now they are gonna release Halo for the PC? Please. Releasing Halo now is a slap in the face.
There are very few scientists who will master a completely different technique in the middle of their career, while working on the same area of research.
What about not just changing fields, but inventing entire new ones? Stu Schreiber came in as a synthetic organic chemist and founded the field of chemical biology. I guess it is just a matter of time before he wins the prize.
Also, anyone think it's strange that 2 chemists won the prize for medicine, and 2 doctors won the prize for chemistry? Chemistry != protein studies.
Anyone else getting a ? (should be unicode character with a questionmark inside a diamond) after the intro text? Maybe it's just me, but that kinda jumped out.
Slashdot Mirror
Post anyone's private emails or transcripts of their back room dealings (e.g. politicians) and you'll get a different perception about what goes on. The emails were private for a reason. This situation would be no different if leaks happened in any other field or industry. Stop singling out scientists.
See this arstechnica article from Jan 17 2007.
9 .html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070117-863
"Metathesis can be compared to a dance in which the couples change partners."
This has to be the worst quote I've ever heard describing Grubbs' catalyst. When I woke up this morning and heard that Grubbs had won the Nobel I wondered what the brief description of his work was going to be, and I honestly have to say I was amazingly disappointed with it. However this is part of a larger problem that I've encountered often especially on this webpage, how do you explain complicated subjects to the uninformed masses? How do you explain detailed chemistry to computer geeks? In some cases a pretty simplistic idea is transferred successfully, but this is the exception rather than the rule. IMO, the comments left about the story tend to further complicate the matter.
Having use chemistry developed by Grubbs I'll provide a brief description of his remarkable achievements in the field of organic synthesis (one of the serveral fields Grubbs has impacted [Grubbs is however an organometallic / inorganic chemist]). Organic synthesis is the study of building complext molecules from simple starting materials. The "goal" of organic synthesis is to make compounds with biological activity, e.g. new drugs. Many of the target compounds are initially isolated from nature, chemist then try to replicate them in the lab environment. One of the catalysts Grubbs developed allowed for synthesis of a particularly common structural feature (I'm thinking of cyclic structures, there are more, I know) and it opened whole new doors in terms of synthetic routes that one could take to complete a molecule. It was fairly evident in the mid 90s that his work had a huge impact on the synthetic community and it was apparent he would win the nobel, it was just a matter of time.
We are selling our songs through iPod, but we don't have a share of iPod's revenue ... We want to share in those revenue streams
= greedy
Did they want a share of walkman revenue "streams" in the 80s and 90s?
Chlorine is a gas that will react with atmospheric water to give HCl (hydrochloric acid). Infact, they will most likely purposely make HCl, collect it and then sell it. Similar "nasty" byproducts from other types of industrial reactions are also sold. Sulfuric acid, which I believe is a byproduct of paper manufacturing (could be wrong), is one of the cheapest chemicals you can buy because of this.
The Dire Maul instance was released in an early WoW patch and is an endgame 5 man group dungeon. Pretty good loot in there to if you wear mail. NREF SHANAMS!
Well, I'm a 59 shammy and I couldn't take down a 60 druid even after using a discombobulator ray. Druids just have way too many heals, shaman only really have 1 at that lvl (NS + healing wave rank 9).
If you are claiming Shaman are over powered you are:
1. Alliance
2. Do not understand PvP
3. Lazy
To help you in your retarded state, read this and all of your questions/fears will be answered/assuaged. Since I know you're lazy (and might not read the link), answer me this: Why are no shaman at the top of the PVP honor rankings anywhere if they're so overpowered? PWN3D!!!!!
Shaman are not over powered, read this. Since this story has become essentially an extension of the blizz forms I will reply properly: STFU if you think Shaman are overpowered, you're obviously a n00b and have no idea how to get around our omgwtfuber frost shock. =D
omgwtf. The damn shaman form has been overrun with nerf posts to point that Blizzard now locks nerf posts the moment they come up (at least the ones IN ALL FREAKIN CAPS). See for yourself.
Aphext - 58 Shaman Crushridge
One problem I've been running into recently (and am curious to see how pvp honor system handles) is getting ganged up on. I can rock anyone my lvl (I'm a shamy, that's my job) but two peeps 1-2 lvls below me can rock the f)#$% outta me. Pretty lame when I'm questing, but can I get honor for almost killing someone?
With the commercial skip that ReplayTV has (think chapter skipping on a DVD) I don't know why anyone would want a Tivo.
Whatever evidence I present isn't going to convince you, and your evidence doesn't convince me. You obviously have very personal reasons for what you believe, that's cool, my beliefs are very personal as well.
Just a couple of non evidence based comments on your comments:
This is the argument put forth in the book of James...
You can pull any sentence out of the bible and say that it conflicts with some other sentence. I say you examine a word in every instance that it is use (i.e. a word study) to get the general take on what the Biblical view is. Therefore, I don't think Jesus's and Paul/James conflict each other, they are different views on the same thing. I'm assuming your response on this will be something like "How can they be different views when they say completely opposite things?" Good question, I think an in-depth study (i.e. not comments on slashdot) should clear this up, although it I think it will come down to a matter of interpretation.
can bring up conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Bible all day long...
Great. This sounds like someone shoved the bible down your throat when you were a kid and some philosopher friend in college "showed you the truth." That's awesome. The Bible is basis for my belief however, I think that you are in much more trouble than I am (although that situation can be rectified).
If this is what you are clinging to that prevents you from a relationship with God then I seriously hope you are correct, I'd cling to those inconsistencies with every fiber of my being if I didn't believe in God. However, this is where the argument goes from logical to personal. Everyone has a different take on it and nothing can really be said to change someone's mind.
Like this: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
Fine, don't believe me. Look up the evidence on your own as opposed to having some webpage summarize it for you (I'm talking legit research journals now), I suggest starting with Pub Med, it's an NIH database of medical research. Oh, and so you know, Mullis has since changed his position. Even an idiot knows that HIV causes AIDS, tell your friends to update the webpage.
I'm questioning Mullis's authority on the subject. I'm not so much attacking him as I am discrediting him.
I thought a scientist would be able to generate a more convincing argument than "c'mon man."
You are 100% correct. That was an emotion appeal, and not a very good one at that.
I think that the salvation issue here is kind of at a moot point. I mean, if you have have faith you should also have the holy spirit which should produce works in you. I don't think that faith and works are separable, and I know that this is brought up several times in the NT. Many people bring up arguments such as these to show some sort of "conflict" in the bible (there are some but nothing too ridiculous).
I actually was going to give you some credibility based on an intelligent analysis until I saw your sig. Good grief man, being a scientist myself how can you deny HIV=Aids? Works is done on the virus in my lab, I know enough about it know the two are linked. As for your virus myth page, Mullis is an idiot. Everyone knows that. He won the nobel prize for inventing a thermocycler. C'mon man.
Yeah, I think there is a bit of a crossover tho :) Getting chemslash up and running was enough pain in and of itself, creating topics was put on the back burner and will continue to stay their until after my advancement to candidacy exam... perhaps you'd like to suggest some (with graphics)?
You may want to check out this article. It talks about porphyrins as data storage polymers. They can stand up to 400 degrees and over a trillion cycles. Organic storage devices rock, but there current state isn't all that great.
This story reminds me of an article I saw here. Looks like story has a link to the C&EN article and the original article that appeared in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
Interesting, I've read several reports (here and here) discussing that there will be too little oil for global warming. According to the stories all of the petroleum reserves will run out before the atmosphere heats up enough to have any effect. I guess this just goes to show that atmospheric chemistry isn't always an exact science.
I don't see why this is news worthy. Just about *every* single drug today has its origins in some marine life (or bacteria/mold). For instance, many research groups get millions of grant dollars flying to remote areas, cutting up the local inhabitants, and then running cell assays on them. If they make it through a certain number of assays (generally for cytoxicity, but others exist) then they publish the info. Just check out the Journal of Natural Products. Issues upon issues of this stuff. The interesting stuff comes later, when the synthetic organic chemists try to create these things artificially, generally in really low yields. In fact, a project I was working on was the synthesis of a marine ladder toxin that is one of the active compounds in red tide catastrophes (see this book). It too blocks sodium ion channels. Probably the most famous cancer fighting compound, taxol, is isolated from the bark of the pacific yew tree.
Dude, c'mon! Read the freakin' title "top 10 personal computers". It doesn't say "Top 10 Consoles hacked to run linux by silly zealots" nor does it say "Top 10 kick-ass lookin' macs". Hence, the lack of appearance of any of your suggestions.
Living in extreme environments is one thing, but completely different respiration systems is another thing entirely. This article reminds me of one I saw here. Apparently, some microbes discovered utilize iron as opposed to oxygen in order to sustain themselves. That's quite an accomplishment.
This serves as a bitter reminder of how bungie used to be before being acquire by M$. Instead of continuing their tradition of super-kick-ass indy games (started at first by marathon and eventually myth), they ended up selling incomplete games (Oni) and putting all future effort towards lining M$'s pockets in a sector of the market they shouldn't even be in. And now they are gonna release Halo for the PC? Please. Releasing Halo now is a slap in the face.
There are very few scientists who will master a completely different technique in the middle of their career, while working on the same area of research.
What about not just changing fields, but inventing entire new ones? Stu Schreiber came in as a synthetic organic chemist and founded the field of chemical biology. I guess it is just a matter of time before he wins the prize.
Also, anyone think it's strange that 2 chemists won the prize for medicine, and 2 doctors won the prize for chemistry? Chemistry != protein studies.
Hmm, my primer didn't mention anything about a new Diamond age. Maybe I have a bad ractor.
Anyone else getting a ? (should be unicode character with a questionmark inside a diamond) after the intro text? Maybe it's just me, but that kinda jumped out.