Buried on page D10 (the Circuits section) is an article titled "Who Says Surfers Are Anitisocial?"
One interesting point in the debate on which studies are correct is in the last paragraph where one of the people interviewed says that both sides could be right, "because in the five years since he began gathering data for his own Web project, the medium has been transformed. 'Five years ago you couldn't talk to your best friend or your mother online because they weren't online'."
Sorry, but this seems to much like Microsoft's answer to security.
Instead of makeing a feature secure, the answer is to just turn it off. But what if you actually need that feature?
I know most of the people here know how to "protect" themselves, but the @Home "Don't worry, be happy" attitude towards security is dangerous for the "@home" audience at large.
I have to disagree on this one. I think as a general rule parents do take responsibility for their children.
It only takes a small percentage who don't to really screw things up. Even a 1% "failure rate" (for lack of a better term) would be much worse than we have now.
Start with two strands of DNA, an "original" strand and a "test" strand.
In a hybridization experiment, you put the two together, and if they complement each other they will "anneal" and become the double-stranded DNA we normally picture, and can form a double-stranded helical structure (looks like a ladder thats been twisted from both ends). This is the structure that can be "filled" with metal atoms.
If there is a "mutation" in the test strand, it won't complement the "original" strand and that "rung" in the ladder is broken, the DNA can't form a normal helix, thus can't hold any metal ions at that point -continuity is broke.
If the test DNA has a deletion, the ladder gets put together, but one side has a couple extra "rungs" hanging out of its side, which also disrupts the helix formation.
What I can't figure out is how to solder the beasties to my circuit board!
Slashdot Mirror
Buried on page D10 (the Circuits section) is an article titled "Who Says Surfers Are Anitisocial?"
One interesting point in the debate on which studies are correct is in the last paragraph where one of the people interviewed says that both sides could be right, "because in the five years since he began gathering data for his own Web project, the medium has been transformed. 'Five years ago you couldn't talk to your best friend or your mother online because they weren't online'."
Sorry, but this seems to much like Microsoft's answer to security.
Instead of makeing a feature secure, the answer is to just turn it off. But what if you actually need that feature?
I know most of the people here know how to "protect" themselves, but the @Home "Don't worry, be happy" attitude towards security is dangerous for the "@home" audience at large.
I have to disagree on this one. I think as a general rule parents do take responsibility for their children.
It only takes a small percentage who don't to really screw things up. Even a 1% "failure rate" (for lack of a better term) would be much worse than we have now.
You're right, but I would simplify it to one reason: To maximize profit.
Start with two strands of DNA, an "original" strand and a "test" strand. In a hybridization experiment, you put the two together, and if they complement each other they will "anneal" and become the double-stranded DNA we normally picture, and can form a double-stranded helical structure (looks like a ladder thats been twisted from both ends). This is the structure that can be "filled" with metal atoms. If there is a "mutation" in the test strand, it won't complement the "original" strand and that "rung" in the ladder is broken, the DNA can't form a normal helix, thus can't hold any metal ions at that point -continuity is broke. If the test DNA has a deletion, the ladder gets put together, but one side has a couple extra "rungs" hanging out of its side, which also disrupts the helix formation. What I can't figure out is how to solder the beasties to my circuit board!