...the introduction of genetically altered mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells (e.g. with genes 'knocked-out' or replaced) into a developing mouse blactocyst...
Introducing mouse into mouse... so why are we talking about human cells in mice?
Hmm... Humans are a way to improve the survival of cows... cowpox requires cows.. more cows improves the survival of cowpox...
Humans are a way to improve the survival of cowpox. It's cowpox that has trained humans to care for it -- and even got us to use antibiotics to fight diseases that might kill cows. So that's why doctors can't fight viruses...
Yes, the density of water is 1.0 g/cc, while that of the entire Earth is 5.5 g/cc.
So if the number of molecules is about 1/6th less, rather than a seismic energy similar to 0.6 pound of dynamite, it would only be 0.1 pound. 0.1 pound in 10 cm... I still think your arm wouldn't handle one-tenth of a stick of dynamite very well -- and that's just the seismic energy, which should be less than the heat created.
This isn't the end of the publication,
this is reaching the promise of its name,
so now it is Electronic News With News Of Electronics(and stuff that sparks).
Can someone explain exactly what 'the edge' refers to?
If you visualize the Internet as a graph where lines represent each communication link, each computer has various numbers of lines to its neighbors.
Usually the systems which have the most connections are shown on such a graph as being deep inside the web. Those which have only one connection, such as home computers and others which use one ISP, tend to be a frilly edge all around the web.
"Securing the edge" means protecting against misbehavior of servers around the edge, particularly servers other than communication devices inside ISPs. A common example is ingress filtering, where an ISP rejects packets from customers when the origin address (the computer's IP address) is not one of the ISP's addresses; this shouldn't happen because the ISP knows the proper addresses of its customers. Ingress filtering keeps "the edge" from sending in garbage.
Humans are just a vehicle for the improved survival of cows. Cows have succeeded in training us to protect and care for them. Their numbers have increased into huge herds on every part of the globe. They are now competing with penguins to get us to take over Antarctica.
Re:You know, Fresco...doesn't ring a bell?
on
Fresco M1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Hah. I had to read 12 replies even to this message to find someone who thought to give an answer, rather than natter on about the features of this low-calorie open soft drink.
" It's a innovative windowing system that aims to implement some radically new ideas in desktop graphics."
I look forward to FlatFlash, where corporate home pages will take over your monitor, change your TV channels to follow their company's staggered ads across 500 channels, and record all of them on my PVR in case I miss something.
This thing was like 50 kilotons of dynamite spread through the Earth. I don't think we can measure a 50 MEGATON explosion on the surface of the Sun, much less if it were spread along a line inside.
The energy is much more than that of seven pounds of dynamite per meter.
So if you have a hole 10 meters deep, with 70 pounds of dynamite spread along its length, you can get an idea of the minimum damage at the surface It might destroy a tree or a building, but the hole won't be large enough to be geographically significant. A farmer might think a deer or some dogs had rolled on the ground and dug a shallow hole in his corn field. In a city, a gas explosion or a bomb factory might be suspected.
I think seismic events can be located within a few miles, but the location would only be easy to find if it's located down to within a square mile. That's eight city blocks on each side of a square containing 64 city blocks to search for a hole which might be several yards across. Hope there are no large swamps or sandy areas there.
Should we mention that the ozone hole was not detected for years because ozone readings which were out of the "expected" range were omitted from reports due to being erroneous readings?
It wasn't until someone looked more closely at where there was no data and realized many "erroneous readings" were happening above the same area of Antarctica. They had to scan through the raw data tapes to extract the past readings and realize what was happening.
In science it is particularly important to document the exceptions to the rules. That's often where a discovery is made. (Particularly because digital storage is so cheap now...)
The energy release is more than that of a stick of dynamite in your body, so this actually is an explanation for "spontaneous human explosion".
I think that would have been noticed more, and there would be a few more witnesses per event, than with combustion reports. And the evidence wouldn't be left in a tidy pile.
Well... per centimeter, not square centimeter. We're talking about the length of a line, not surface area.
I come up with 7.8 pounds of TNT per meter, or 0.78 for 10 centimeters, about half the width of your head. And that's only the shock wave, which is a tiny fraction of the energy released as heat.
I believe those deafening white-flash bang fireworks which often end shows are like 0.5 pounds of dynamite. Your head would make the ears ring of everyone within a half mile of you.
Look at my comment above (subject "Imagine...on the back of an envelope").
The energy released as it went through your head would be more than that of one pound of dynamite. Shock wave and heat. Possible effects are left as an exercise for the reader.
Well, the BBC article mentions the energy released is like that a 50-ton nuclear bomb (why nuclear? 50 kilotons of dynamite won't do?), spread along the entire path through the Earth.
OK, so you can figure out how much energy per kilometer, then per meter, and you can estimate the seismic energy released as it passes through your body -- perhaps 1/10th or 1/3rd of a meter.
50 kiloton / 12,756 km diameter = 3.9 Ton/km
3.9 Ton/km / 1,000 = 0.0039 Ton/m
0.0039 Ton/m * 2,000 pounds/Ton = 7.8 pounds/m
7.8 * 0.1 = 0.78 pounds of dynamite per 1/10th of a meter.
So if it hits only 1/10th of a meter of you, it's like three-quarters of a pound of dynamite.
But that is seismic energy, the energy of movement. That will tell you the effect of the shock wave due to moving faster than the speed of sound in your bag of dirty water, and a little of that will be a push against you. Although a shock wave inside you is interesting, if you look at the research report, you see that seismic energy is perhaps 0.01 of the energy released (maybe a larger fraction) -- the rest is heat. You might get burned rather than just shaken, as the heat energy will be more than that 0.78 pound of seismic energy.
Unfortunately, that article referred to "strangelets", so a search for "quarks" wouldn't match the article text. Tsk.
My favorite section of that discussion was this:
Re:What about... (Score:4, Interesting)
by 56ker on 02-05-12 22:21 (#3508458)
(User #566853 Info | http://www.level80.co.uk/ | Last Journal: 02-05-01 13:28)
Question: Can you get the six names of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed into one sentence without it being nonsensical and without being clever like writing, "There are six types of quark: up, down, bottom, strange and charmed."?
[ Parent ]
Re:What about... (Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on 02-05-12 22:25 (#3508474)
It was strangely charming to see her bottom go up and down while I should've been more interested in watching her top, this being a jump-rope contest after all.
[ Parent ]
I believe the military thinks the V-2 solution of hitting the target with the whole plane is satisfactory. It is so awkward to get the fuselage to land safely back at the base.
Actually, the military went the other way. They removed the wings and hit the target with the fuselage of the cruise missile.
And to rain down hellfire to save a few, you really should use an Orion drive. Drop explosives under the vehicle, and the force of the explosions will push the plane up. Use small nuclear explosives if you have any difficulty getting enough thrust. ("ailerons" 'check' "flaps" '15 degrees' "matter conversion impact avoidance system" 'armed')
I don't think any of us are serious. Wings are attached rather well, as they do have to transfer the thrust from four BIG engines to the fuselage -- or even worse stress if the engines on one wing are shut down. Anything which removed wings would likely mean the fuselage's aluminum shell would be in poor condition. And everyone would be.
If you want to see some of this, go look at the Popular Mechanix archive of their covers. 1930-1960 have interesting aircraft ideas, including a plane with the passenger compartment lifting away from the falling body on its parachute (the pilots are jumping with their own parachutes).
There is a story on the net (at PBS, I think) about the development of that. One of the people in charge of creating a parachute which could handle a bomb weighing tons remembered a story that the German military airdropped a tank in WWII. He found the inventor of the ribbon parachute and had to obtusely ask him if an object weighing about so much or that much could be handled, as the inventor could not be told what the cargo was.
It is just a little hard to visualize. A drawing would certainly have made obvious what an awkward position that would be, and the large wing and tail surfaces which would be across the air flow. Or maybe we've all tried tossing a toy plane backwards and observed that is just doesn't behave well.
Yes, that was bad. The test pilot was testing the new airframe prototype -- as he was merely testing a new aircraft design, the parachute was not required and could be installed later when that unit was ready. However, although I don't remember the details, I do remember that it seemed like the situation was one where the parachute might not have helped.
The manufacturer's web site is at Cirrus Design, and a picture of a test plane is there along with the first-save story.
Not straight backwards, as the chute is fired above the fuselage -- for the chute to fire down, you have to be going backwards, up side down, tail down, fuselage tilted at about 35 degrees. For most planes, I think that is a somewhat unstable position which they'll quickly move out of...
a parachute big enough to slow the descent of a plane that large that won't tear the wings off when it opens at cruising speed.
If the wings are removed, it will be easier for the parachutes to bring down the important part slowly.
The system has to work above and below cruising speed, as that could easily happen under conditions where a parachute would be helpful.
I am certain a 747 could be lowered with these parachutes. The cargo area is a significant fraction of the size of the passenger area. Imagine having one parachute for each seat, installed in the large cargo area under the passenger cabin. I'm pretty sure the weight of the plane in the volume of a cylinder which contains a single seat is less than half the weight of a 2/4 passenger single-engine plane. Of course, there may not be much space left for cargo...(cargo weight? if that is a problem, have the cargo be dropped.)
I think the opening shock can be reduced -- can't ribbon parachutes be designed so they open appropriately for the speed?
As others observed, this same method can affect DDoS and spam. Although sendmail has a throttling method, this can be done for all machines on a network.
Corporations could do it for their own nets, but perhaps ISPs could do it for all the non-business customers. Exceptions may be needed for subscribed mailing lists...or the ISP could have a passworded relay to bypass the throttle (or run with a gentler throttle).
But then, the ISPs who aren't already doing source routing aren't likely to do throttling. And DDoS indicates there are may ISPs not checking their outgoing packets.
Slashdot Mirror
Introducing mouse into mouse... so why are we talking about human cells in mice?
Hmm... Humans are a way to improve the survival of cows... cowpox requires cows.. more cows improves the survival of cowpox...
Humans are a way to improve the survival of cowpox. It's cowpox that has trained humans to care for it -- and even got us to use antibiotics to fight diseases that might kill cows. So that's why doctors can't fight viruses...
So if the number of molecules is about 1/6th less, rather than a seismic energy similar to 0.6 pound of dynamite, it would only be 0.1 pound. 0.1 pound in 10 cm... I still think your arm wouldn't handle one-tenth of a stick of dynamite very well -- and that's just the seismic energy, which should be less than the heat created.
This isn't the end of the publication,
this is reaching the promise of its name,
so now it is Electronic News With News Of Electronics (and stuff that sparks).
If you visualize the Internet as a graph where lines represent each communication link, each computer has various numbers of lines to its neighbors.
Usually the systems which have the most connections are shown on such a graph as being deep inside the web. Those which have only one connection, such as home computers and others which use one ISP, tend to be a frilly edge all around the web.
"Securing the edge" means protecting against misbehavior of servers around the edge, particularly servers other than communication devices inside ISPs. A common example is ingress filtering, where an ISP rejects packets from customers when the origin address (the computer's IP address) is not one of the ISP's addresses; this shouldn't happen because the ISP knows the proper addresses of its customers. Ingress filtering keeps "the edge" from sending in garbage.
Surely a brand new agency is operating on Internet time. Don't you know how long 20 minutes is to a computer? :-)
(A government agency operating efficiently and quickly? I don't know whether to be more stunned than afraid.)
Humans are just a vehicle for the improved survival of cows. Cows have succeeded in training us to protect and care for them. Their numbers have increased into huge herds on every part of the globe. They are now competing with penguins to get us to take over Antarctica.
" It's a innovative windowing system that aims to implement some radically new ideas in desktop graphics."
I look forward to FlatFlash, where corporate home pages will take over your monitor, change your TV channels to follow their company's staggered ads across 500 channels, and record all of them on my PVR in case I miss something.
This thing was like 50 kilotons of dynamite spread through the Earth. I don't think we can measure a 50 MEGATON explosion on the surface of the Sun, much less if it were spread along a line inside.
So if you have a hole 10 meters deep, with 70 pounds of dynamite spread along its length, you can get an idea of the minimum damage at the surface It might destroy a tree or a building, but the hole won't be large enough to be geographically significant. A farmer might think a deer or some dogs had rolled on the ground and dug a shallow hole in his corn field. In a city, a gas explosion or a bomb factory might be suspected.
I think seismic events can be located within a few miles, but the location would only be easy to find if it's located down to within a square mile. That's eight city blocks on each side of a square containing 64 city blocks to search for a hole which might be several yards across. Hope there are no large swamps or sandy areas there.
It wasn't until someone looked more closely at where there was no data and realized many "erroneous readings" were happening above the same area of Antarctica. They had to scan through the raw data tapes to extract the past readings and realize what was happening.
In science it is particularly important to document the exceptions to the rules. That's often where a discovery is made. (Particularly because digital storage is so cheap now...)
I think that would have been noticed more, and there would be a few more witnesses per event, than with combustion reports. And the evidence wouldn't be left in a tidy pile.
I come up with 7.8 pounds of TNT per meter, or 0.78 for 10 centimeters, about half the width of your head. And that's only the shock wave, which is a tiny fraction of the energy released as heat.
I believe those deafening white-flash bang fireworks which often end shows are like 0.5 pounds of dynamite. Your head would make the ears ring of everyone within a half mile of you.
The energy released as it went through your head would be more than that of one pound of dynamite. Shock wave and heat. Possible effects are left as an exercise for the reader.
OK, so you can figure out how much energy per kilometer, then per meter, and you can estimate the seismic energy released as it passes through your body -- perhaps 1/10th or 1/3rd of a meter.
50 kiloton / 12,756 km diameter = 3.9 Ton/km
3.9 Ton/km / 1,000 = 0.0039 Ton/m
0.0039 Ton/m * 2,000 pounds/Ton = 7.8 pounds/m
7.8 * 0.1 = 0.78 pounds of dynamite per 1/10th of a meter.
So if it hits only 1/10th of a meter of you, it's like three-quarters of a pound of dynamite.
But that is seismic energy, the energy of movement. That will tell you the effect of the shock wave due to moving faster than the speed of sound in your bag of dirty water, and a little of that will be a push against you. Although a shock wave inside you is interesting, if you look at the research report, you see that seismic energy is perhaps 0.01 of the energy released (maybe a larger fraction) -- the rest is heat. You might get burned rather than just shaken, as the heat energy will be more than that 0.78 pound of seismic energy.
My favorite section of that discussion was this:
Actually, the military went the other way. They removed the wings and hit the target with the fuselage of the cruise missile.
And to rain down hellfire to save a few, you really should use an Orion drive. Drop explosives under the vehicle, and the force of the explosions will push the plane up. Use small nuclear explosives if you have any difficulty getting enough thrust. ("ailerons" 'check' "flaps" '15 degrees' "matter conversion impact avoidance system" 'armed')
If you want to see some of this, go look at the Popular Mechanix archive of their covers. 1930-1960 have interesting aircraft ideas, including a plane with the passenger compartment lifting away from the falling body on its parachute (the pilots are jumping with their own parachutes).
There is a story on the net (at PBS, I think) about the development of that. One of the people in charge of creating a parachute which could handle a bomb weighing tons remembered a story that the German military airdropped a tank in WWII. He found the inventor of the ribbon parachute and had to obtusely ask him if an object weighing about so much or that much could be handled, as the inventor could not be told what the cargo was.
It is just a little hard to visualize. A drawing would certainly have made obvious what an awkward position that would be, and the large wing and tail surfaces which would be across the air flow. Or maybe we've all tried tossing a toy plane backwards and observed that is just doesn't behave well.
The manufacturer's web site is at Cirrus Design, and a picture of a test plane is there along with the first-save story.
Not straight backwards, as the chute is fired above the fuselage -- for the chute to fire down, you have to be going backwards, up side down, tail down, fuselage tilted at about 35 degrees. For most planes, I think that is a somewhat unstable position which they'll quickly move out of...
Corporations could do it for their own nets, but perhaps ISPs could do it for all the non-business customers. Exceptions may be needed for subscribed mailing lists...or the ISP could have a passworded relay to bypass the throttle (or run with a gentler throttle).
But then, the ISPs who aren't already doing source routing aren't likely to do throttling. And DDoS indicates there are may ISPs not checking their outgoing packets.