Yeah, I loved MP3.com. Problem (for them) was that it was completely trivial to "beam" your CDs (ie the hash code it calculated) to all of your friends' accounts (or just share yours, since you could stream to 3 computers at a time. Not to mention the fact that it was trivial to write a program/script to scrape the HTML and download the MP3s. In fact, if you bandwidth was good enough, it was faster to beam up your CD and then download the MP3s than it was to rip and encode them...
I don't know, still disturbs me... makes it sound like a drug called "Pax" from a sci-fi movie based on a cancelled TV show I'm sure no one on/. has ever seen...
I'm sorry, I just can't take this "feud" seriously, it's a fight between two imbeciles to see who is more clueless or gullible. And Ian is winning that fight hands down.
Can I get credit for debunking this myth 5 seconds after I saw the website, given that it's COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to 90% of the population that it's exactly the same theme as the DirecTV commercials that have been inundating network TV ever since the Superbowl?
Anyway, I would hope you wouldn't drink lithium batteries, I was just pointing out that it's not something we want in our water supply (for the lithium or any of the other metals that are toxic at certain levels) - especially compared to *hydrogen and oxygen*.
And despite what pseudo-scientists say, you don't want to ingest any of it if you don't have to. My brother takes lithium for bipolar disorder, and beyond being a mood stabilizer, even at prescribed doses (which aren't that much lower than dangerous toxic doses) it can also cause weight gain, high blood pressure, tremors, kidney and thyroid dysfunctions, even diabetes. In fact, if doctors could find anything else with a similar medicinal property, they'd stop prescribing it pretty quickly...
I'd still call them a hardware company. The primarily SELL hardware, even if they do write the software on it (as have many other traditionally categorized "hardware" companies like Cisco, Juniper, Sony Electronics/SCE, etc). Whereas a primarily "software" company like Google or Microsoft makes almost all of their revenue from selling software or services running on their software (though I'd call Google a "B2B services company" more than software, since they make most of their money selling services to other companies).
But the main point is valid either way - Google and Apple are not currently competitors in any meaningfuly way that affects their bottom line. Android gets a lot of hype, but it's really nothing to Google besides another platform to sell ads and services (as is iOS, where they still have the default Maps application and Internet search functions, along with several other downloadable applications). The GP claiming they are playing "catchup" to Apple makes no sense...
Ok, go ahead, open one up, soak it in water for a while, then drink the water... it doesn't have to kill you by touch or even instantly by ingestion to be toxic (same with lead, mercury, or other metal poisoning).
This is especially true compared to the components of water. Sure, hydrogen gas can combust, but so can gasoline, natural gas, or many batteries. But with water I'm really not worried about the poor recycling policies of most consumers (and the lack of interest by manufacturers due to the cost) or accidentally leaching it into my, eh, water supply...
Also, I wasn't specifically talking about lithium, since it's not really practical for large capacity storage anyway. If you want to store large amounts of generated energy where cost and capacity is more important than size (ie. at home rather than in a car) lead-acid batteries are still the most common. On the upside those are very recyclable, but on the downside they are REALLY toxic...
This isn't about solar cells or harvesting, it's about a simple and cheap mechanism for energy storage using hydrogen.
The majority of the currently used hydrogen is still generated by fossil-fuel power, and all of the high-efficiency electrical battery storage systems use a lot of toxic (and expensive) marerials as well as having a limited lifespan.
A mechanism that passively and directly turns water into oxygen and hydrogen, even with a fraction of the efficiency of traditional solar cells, could be very useful. Of course there will be plenty of technical issues around collecting, compressing, and storing that hydrogen, but just because it isn't trivial or ready for use doesn't mean it's not interesting...
Wha? This makes no more sense than it would applied to clean water to use for any other use. If there were always enough clean water available to everyone as rainwater there would be no need for desalinization in the Middle East, let alone need for reservoirs, irrigation systems, wells...
Well, the OP there was clueless, his numbers made no sense.
But the reality is, Thunderbolt is ONE 10 Gbps *duplex* channel (did you even read the link you cited?) - if hardware (like Apple's) decides to support *two* channels, that's fine, but not required by the spec...
Fact is, by your own citation DisplayPort 2560*1600 is 8-10Gbps, so that's pretty much one channel. The other channel? Sure, could be used by the almost totally non-existant other Thunderbolt devices. None of which can use the full bandwidth, meaning if you have the physical space for connector/ports and they cost LESS than the fancy new bus protocol, why bother except for an extra sexy and overpriced side profile of your laptop?
Well, the OP there was clueless, his numbers made no sense.
But the reality is, Thunderbolt is ONE 10 Gbps *duplex* channel (did you even read the link you cited?) - if hardware (like Apple's) decides to support *two* channels, that's fine, but not required by the spec...
Fact is, by your own citation DisplayPort 2560*1600 is 8-10Gbps, so that's pretty much one channel. The other channel? Sure, could be used by the almost totally non-existant other Thunderbolt devices. None of which can use the full bandwidth, meaning if you have the physical space for connector/ports and they cost LESS than the fancy new bus protocol, why bother except for an extra sexy and overpriced side profile of your laptop?
Apple actually put 2 separate channels on their external port - one for DisplayPort, and one for the mostly non-existent Thunderbolt devices. A 1920x1200 monitor (apparently considered pedestrian by high end Apple users these days) uses about 5Gbps, so you basically get the same as dual DVI on one port (and less for anything more than that), and 2 USB 3.0 ports on the other. Yay, I can get fewer ports on the ultra-stylish and expensive Macbook and then buy extra hubs to connect my imaginary devices, or get a few more USB3 ports for almost nothing otherwise... what an advantage for Apple's BOM and pain in the ass for the customer.
In the end it's the exact same issue that made USB ubiquitous and Firewire irrelevant - cost. USB 3.0 can do 5Gbps for a fraction of the cost of Thunderbolt's 10Gbps. The laptops that care about an extra port or two don't usually need the bandwidth, and the desktops/servers that care about bandwidth don't care about an extra port.
Apple actually put 2 separate channels on their external port - one for DisplayPort, and one for the mostly non-existent Thunderbolt devices. A 1920x1200 monitor (apparently considered pedestrian by high end Apple users these days) uses about 5Gbps, so you basically get the same as dual DVI on one port (and less for anything more than that), and 2 USB 3.0 ports on the other. Yay, I can get fewer ports on the ultra-stylish and expensive Macbook and then buy extra hubs to connect my imaginary devices, or get a few more USB3 ports for almost nothing otherwise... what an advantage for Apple's BOM and pain in the ass for the customer.
In the end it's the exact same issue that made USB ubiquitous and Firewire irrelevant - cost. USB 3.0 can do 5Gbps for a fraction of the cost of Thunderbolt's 10Gbps. The laptops that care about an extra port or two don't usually need the bandwidth, and the desktops/servers that care about bandwidth don't care about an extra port.
True - but let's not reward Apple for this with inflated market share numbers, given that they say it voids your warranty, consider it illegal and pulled out the DMCA card to try to stop it.
As far as 680x0 Macs - I'm pretty sure the iPad 2 w/ the ARM A9 core would compete with a Mac PPC G4, let alone any dinosaurs from the 80's...;)
I don't think the big issue is "compatible"... the big issue is that iOS devices aren't *open*. IMO it's a joke to call a device like that a home computer when you can only run programs on it that Apple allows, along with requiring an account on their online store and tracking your download and installation.
Plus, there is basically NO difference between an iPod Touch/iPhone and an iPad besides the size of the screen (and that some people use a little known bonus feature of the iPhone to make calls...) And they all support video out to a monitor/TV as well as a bluetooth keyboard, so there really isn't much in the way of hardware differences from a low-end PC, either. The defining difference is in who gets control over the use of that hardware - and in that case the iPad is really just a big smartphone...
[and before anyone whines about Apple haters - I have an iPhone and iPad, and they are great. They just aren't home computers...]
As far as I can tell mGive itself isn't non-profit. Here's what I found (though information is sparse, so I could be wrong):
1. Mobile Accord is the parent for-profit corporation. 2. mGive is a for-profit subsidiary of Mobile Accord. 3. The mGive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation created to certify other non-profit corporations to use the mGive platform.
I'm not saying that mGive isn't a great idea even as a for-profit company (most mobile marketing companies are disgusting IMO), but it would be nice for them to be more clear about their status. Just gleaning the above information took a lot more effort than it should have...
A bit better but still SLOWEST to startup
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I installed FF4 on Windows XP - from launch to display of the iGoogle home page was about 4 seconds - not great, but better than FF3.6...
Then again, IE8 does it in about 2.5 seconds, and Chrome in barely 1.5 seconds.
Firefox still has a long way to go to remove all that bloat it's built up over the last few years...
Yeah, that's true, and I think what people really misunderstand about this experiment (beyond the fact that this is NOT an example of evolution, it's the first potential step of abiogenesis!) is that it's not about the EXACT precursors used.
So many of the arguments against it (mostly from creationists picking and choosing their sources) claim "those weren't the early Earth conditions" (like ANYONE knows the conditions of every possible climate on Earth 4 billion years ago, when we are still finding new ones that support life today!). The experiment was a proof of concept that VERY simple precursors and conditions could create amino acids in a matter of days (and in fact led to similar experiments that created adenine, ie. one of the nucleotides in RNA and DNA). At the very least it gives those working on the next steps you mention - how were RNA and proteins first formed - a plausible assumption of availability of some amino acids and nucleotides...
Don't know, we didn't get to try very many variations, since the last one involved plenty of methane and hydrogen gas...
And actually, inseminating sea urchins is really more a matter of squeezing them to release the eggs and then fertilizing the eggs afterwards, so you have to have pretty good aim and a really small "pipette"... was never very good at it myself;)
Additionally, amino acids are no longer considered to be the precursor building blocks to life. That role is now believed to belong to RNA
Eh, I think that's a pretty huge oversimplification and doesn't really even represent the RNA hypothesis. Amino acids ARE the building blocks of protein, just as nucleoties are the building blocks of RNA (and yes, nucleotides have been created through similar experiments with different precursors like HCN and NH3). You could argue that spontaneously assembled RNA somehow was involved in assembly of simple proteins, but I have never seen anyone claim that RNA is able to create amino acids. There are theories that amino acids were heavily involved in a lot of early RNA processes, as well (as cofactors, or even simple cataltysts/enzymes).
So, there is still a lot of usefulness in the theory that amino acids can be created from simpler molecules via conditions that existed (if not necessarily identical to Miller's - though even with that, of course, the *whole* atmosphere doesn't have to be suitable - just one small microclimate!) in the primordial Earth atmosphere - as well as being at least a partial inspiration for further studies like Oro's that showed the same for nucleotides.
Complexity- doing this experiment the first time took a researcher 25 years of his life zapping assorted vials of sludge with electricity before he could find a result among them, while some of this can be automated; it would still be a VERY complex experiment taking thousands of man hours to repeat.
See my post above about my experience with this - but the gist is that this just isn't remotely true. It's not a trivial experiment to execute, but with the right equipment it's pretty straightforward to reproduce in a few days. It's just not worth it outside of a learning experience, precisely because it's so reproducible.
As far as Miller "spending 25 years of his life" and "thousands of hours of research" - what are you TALKING about? There is information on this all of the place, no need for wild guessing! Here's a quite from an article in Science from 2003 discussing the experiement:
"Miller began the experiments in the fall of 1952. By comparison with contemporary analytical tools, the paper chromatography method available at the time was crude. Still, after only 2 days of sparking the gaseous mixture, Miller detected glycine in the flask containing water. When he repeated the experiment, this time sparking the mixture for a week, the inside of the sparking flask soon became coated with an oily material and the water turned a yellow-brown color. Chromatographic analysis of the water flask yielded an intense glycine spot; several other amino acids were also detected."
There are plenty of repeats of this - they just don't bother publishing them because there isn't much new to learn.
In fact, we repeated a version of the Urey-Miller experiment in my undergraduate biology lab independent project. The hard pard was going around bumming free equipment (high voltage transformer from the EE dept, balloons of elementary gases from the chemistry dept, even the help of a very cool tech in the physics dept who helped us make a simple spark gap chamber out of a glass bottle, a couple tungsten rods, and a blowtorch).
The goal was to repeat a few times with slightly different starting materials, and see what different amino acids we could find. Unfortunately, we managed to blow up the custom made spark bottle on the second run; someone dropped it and caused a hairline crack after the first run, and that let enough oxygen get in after we (not-so-successfully) evacuated it to cause a nice little explosion after turning on the spark gap. Luckily we were careful enough to put it under an enclosed fume hood;)
In the end it was more an exersice in begging for supplies than novel science. But that was probably a lot more useful skill to learn for a budding researcher than how to inseminate a sea urchin...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I loved MP3.com. Problem (for them) was that it was completely trivial to "beam" your CDs (ie the hash code it calculated) to all of your friends' accounts (or just share yours, since you could stream to 3 computers at a time. Not to mention the fact that it was trivial to write a program/script to scrape the HTML and download the MP3s. In fact, if you bandwidth was good enough, it was faster to beam up your CD and then download the MP3s than it was to rip and encode them...
I don't know, still disturbs me... makes it sound like a drug called "Pax" from a sci-fi movie based on a cancelled TV show I'm sure no one on /. has ever seen...
I'm sorry, I just can't take this "feud" seriously, it's a fight between two imbeciles to see who is more clueless or gullible. And Ian is winning that fight hands down.
Can I get credit for debunking this myth 5 seconds after I saw the website, given that it's COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to 90% of the population that it's exactly the same theme as the DirecTV commercials that have been inundating network TV ever since the Superbowl?
Could have also meant high cost efficiency ;)
Anyway, I would hope you wouldn't drink lithium batteries, I was just pointing out that it's not something we want in our water supply (for the lithium or any of the other metals that are toxic at certain levels) - especially compared to *hydrogen and oxygen*.
And despite what pseudo-scientists say, you don't want to ingest any of it if you don't have to. My brother takes lithium for bipolar disorder, and beyond being a mood stabilizer, even at prescribed doses (which aren't that much lower than dangerous toxic doses) it can also cause weight gain, high blood pressure, tremors, kidney and thyroid dysfunctions, even diabetes. In fact, if doctors could find anything else with a similar medicinal property, they'd stop prescribing it pretty quickly...
I'd still call them a hardware company. The primarily SELL hardware, even if they do write the software on it (as have many other traditionally categorized "hardware" companies like Cisco, Juniper, Sony Electronics/SCE, etc). Whereas a primarily "software" company like Google or Microsoft makes almost all of their revenue from selling software or services running on their software (though I'd call Google a "B2B services company" more than software, since they make most of their money selling services to other companies).
But the main point is valid either way - Google and Apple are not currently competitors in any meaningfuly way that affects their bottom line. Android gets a lot of hype, but it's really nothing to Google besides another platform to sell ads and services (as is iOS, where they still have the default Maps application and Internet search functions, along with several other downloadable applications). The GP claiming they are playing "catchup" to Apple makes no sense...
Ok, go ahead, open one up, soak it in water for a while, then drink the water... it doesn't have to kill you by touch or even instantly by ingestion to be toxic (same with lead, mercury, or other metal poisoning).
This is especially true compared to the components of water. Sure, hydrogen gas can combust, but so can gasoline, natural gas, or many batteries. But with water I'm really not worried about the poor recycling policies of most consumers (and the lack of interest by manufacturers due to the cost) or accidentally leaching it into my, eh, water supply...
Also, I wasn't specifically talking about lithium, since it's not really practical for large capacity storage anyway. If you want to store large amounts of generated energy where cost and capacity is more important than size (ie. at home rather than in a car) lead-acid batteries are still the most common. On the upside those are very recyclable, but on the downside they are REALLY toxic...
This isn't about solar cells or harvesting, it's about a simple and cheap mechanism for energy storage using hydrogen.
The majority of the currently used hydrogen is still generated by fossil-fuel power, and all of the high-efficiency electrical battery storage systems use a lot of toxic (and expensive) marerials as well as having a limited lifespan.
A mechanism that passively and directly turns water into oxygen and hydrogen, even with a fraction of the efficiency of traditional solar cells, could be very useful. Of course there will be plenty of technical issues around collecting, compressing, and storing that hydrogen, but just because it isn't trivial or ready for use doesn't mean it's not interesting...
Wha? This makes no more sense than it would applied to clean water to use for any other use. If there were always enough clean water available to everyone as rainwater there would be no need for desalinization in the Middle East, let alone need for reservoirs, irrigation systems, wells...
Stop posting!
Well, the OP there was clueless, his numbers made no sense.
But the reality is, Thunderbolt is ONE 10 Gbps *duplex* channel (did you even read the link you cited?) - if hardware (like Apple's) decides to support *two* channels, that's fine, but not required by the spec...
Fact is, by your own citation DisplayPort 2560*1600 is 8-10Gbps, so that's pretty much one channel. The other channel? Sure, could be used by the almost totally non-existant other Thunderbolt devices. None of which can use the full bandwidth, meaning if you have the physical space for connector/ports and they cost LESS than the fancy new bus protocol, why bother except for an extra sexy and overpriced side profile of your laptop?
Well, the OP there was clueless, his numbers made no sense.
But the reality is, Thunderbolt is ONE 10 Gbps *duplex* channel (did you even read the link you cited?) - if hardware (like Apple's) decides to support *two* channels, that's fine, but not required by the spec...
Fact is, by your own citation DisplayPort 2560*1600 is 8-10Gbps, so that's pretty much one channel. The other channel? Sure, could be used by the almost totally non-existant other Thunderbolt devices. None of which can use the full bandwidth, meaning if you have the physical space for connector/ports and they cost LESS than the fancy new bus protocol, why bother except for an extra sexy and overpriced side profile of your laptop?
Thunderbolt can't really drive multiple monitors (and anything else) over daisy chain, either...
Apple actually put 2 separate channels on their external port - one for DisplayPort, and one for the mostly non-existent Thunderbolt devices. A 1920x1200 monitor (apparently considered pedestrian by high end Apple users these days) uses about 5Gbps, so you basically get the same as dual DVI on one port (and less for anything more than that), and 2 USB 3.0 ports on the other. Yay, I can get fewer ports on the ultra-stylish and expensive Macbook and then buy extra hubs to connect my imaginary devices, or get a few more USB3 ports for almost nothing otherwise... what an advantage for Apple's BOM and pain in the ass for the customer.
In the end it's the exact same issue that made USB ubiquitous and Firewire irrelevant - cost. USB 3.0 can do 5Gbps for a fraction of the cost of Thunderbolt's 10Gbps. The laptops that care about an extra port or two don't usually need the bandwidth, and the desktops/servers that care about bandwidth don't care about an extra port.
Thunderbolt can't really drive multiple monitors (and anything else) over daisy chain, either...
Apple actually put 2 separate channels on their external port - one for DisplayPort, and one for the mostly non-existent Thunderbolt devices. A 1920x1200 monitor (apparently considered pedestrian by high end Apple users these days) uses about 5Gbps, so you basically get the same as dual DVI on one port (and less for anything more than that), and 2 USB 3.0 ports on the other. Yay, I can get fewer ports on the ultra-stylish and expensive Macbook and then buy extra hubs to connect my imaginary devices, or get a few more USB3 ports for almost nothing otherwise... what an advantage for Apple's BOM and pain in the ass for the customer.
In the end it's the exact same issue that made USB ubiquitous and Firewire irrelevant - cost. USB 3.0 can do 5Gbps for a fraction of the cost of Thunderbolt's 10Gbps. The laptops that care about an extra port or two don't usually need the bandwidth, and the desktops/servers that care about bandwidth don't care about an extra port.
True - but let's not reward Apple for this with inflated market share numbers, given that they say it voids your warranty, consider it illegal and pulled out the DMCA card to try to stop it.
As far as 680x0 Macs - I'm pretty sure the iPad 2 w/ the ARM A9 core would compete with a Mac PPC G4, let alone any dinosaurs from the 80's... ;)
I don't think the big issue is "compatible"... the big issue is that iOS devices aren't *open*. IMO it's a joke to call a device like that a home computer when you can only run programs on it that Apple allows, along with requiring an account on their online store and tracking your download and installation.
Plus, there is basically NO difference between an iPod Touch/iPhone and an iPad besides the size of the screen (and that some people use a little known bonus feature of the iPhone to make calls...) And they all support video out to a monitor/TV as well as a bluetooth keyboard, so there really isn't much in the way of hardware differences from a low-end PC, either. The defining difference is in who gets control over the use of that hardware - and in that case the iPad is really just a big smartphone...
[and before anyone whines about Apple haters - I have an iPhone and iPad, and they are great. They just aren't home computers...]
And I bet you he didn't even use a real envelope, anyway...
As far as I can tell mGive itself isn't non-profit. Here's what I found (though information is sparse, so I could be wrong):
1. Mobile Accord is the parent for-profit corporation.
2. mGive is a for-profit subsidiary of Mobile Accord.
3. The mGive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation created to certify other non-profit corporations to use the mGive platform.
I'm not saying that mGive isn't a great idea even as a for-profit company (most mobile marketing companies are disgusting IMO), but it would be nice for them to be more clear about their status. Just gleaning the above information took a lot more effort than it should have...
Ok, I installed FF4 on Windows XP - from launch to display of the iGoogle home page was about 4 seconds - not great, but better than FF3.6...
Then again, IE8 does it in about 2.5 seconds, and Chrome in barely 1.5 seconds.
Firefox still has a long way to go to remove all that bloat it's built up over the last few years...
"The Province"? I would have never guessed that was BC. Kind of like Ohio calling its major newspaper "The State".
I guess they are going pro-Apple to try to prove Vancouver isn't just a suburb of Seattle? ;-P
Switch to UTC and hate anyone who doesn't?
Yeah, that's true, and I think what people really misunderstand about this experiment (beyond the fact that this is NOT an example of evolution, it's the first potential step of abiogenesis!) is that it's not about the EXACT precursors used.
So many of the arguments against it (mostly from creationists picking and choosing their sources) claim "those weren't the early Earth conditions" (like ANYONE knows the conditions of every possible climate on Earth 4 billion years ago, when we are still finding new ones that support life today!). The experiment was a proof of concept that VERY simple precursors and conditions could create amino acids in a matter of days (and in fact led to similar experiments that created adenine, ie. one of the nucleotides in RNA and DNA). At the very least it gives those working on the next steps you mention - how were RNA and proteins first formed - a plausible assumption of availability of some amino acids and nucleotides...
Don't know, we didn't get to try very many variations, since the last one involved plenty of methane and hydrogen gas...
And actually, inseminating sea urchins is really more a matter of squeezing them to release the eggs and then fertilizing the eggs afterwards, so you have to have pretty good aim and a really small "pipette"... was never very good at it myself ;)
Additionally, amino acids are no longer considered to be the precursor building blocks to life. That role is now believed to belong to RNA
Eh, I think that's a pretty huge oversimplification and doesn't really even represent the RNA hypothesis. Amino acids ARE the building blocks of protein, just as nucleoties are the building blocks of RNA (and yes, nucleotides have been created through similar experiments with different precursors like HCN and NH3). You could argue that spontaneously assembled RNA somehow was involved in assembly of simple proteins, but I have never seen anyone claim that RNA is able to create amino acids. There are theories that amino acids were heavily involved in a lot of early RNA processes, as well (as cofactors, or even simple cataltysts/enzymes).
So, there is still a lot of usefulness in the theory that amino acids can be created from simpler molecules via conditions that existed (if not necessarily identical to Miller's - though even with that, of course, the *whole* atmosphere doesn't have to be suitable - just one small microclimate!) in the primordial Earth atmosphere - as well as being at least a partial inspiration for further studies like Oro's that showed the same for nucleotides.
Complexity- doing this experiment the first time took a researcher 25 years of his life zapping assorted vials of sludge with electricity before he could find a result among them, while some of this can be automated; it would still be a VERY complex experiment taking thousands of man hours to repeat.
See my post above about my experience with this - but the gist is that this just isn't remotely true. It's not a trivial experiment to execute, but with the right equipment it's pretty straightforward to reproduce in a few days. It's just not worth it outside of a learning experience, precisely because it's so reproducible.
As far as Miller "spending 25 years of his life" and "thousands of hours of research" - what are you TALKING about? There is information on this all of the place, no need for wild guessing! Here's a quite from an article in Science from 2003 discussing the experiement:
"Miller began the experiments in the fall of 1952. By comparison with contemporary analytical tools, the paper chromatography method available at the time was crude. Still, after only 2 days of sparking the gaseous mixture, Miller detected glycine in the flask containing water. When he repeated the experiment, this time sparking the mixture for a week, the inside of the sparking flask soon became coated with an oily material and the water turned a yellow-brown color. Chromatographic analysis of the water flask yielded an intense glycine spot; several other amino acids were also detected."
There are plenty of repeats of this - they just don't bother publishing them because there isn't much new to learn.
In fact, we repeated a version of the Urey-Miller experiment in my undergraduate biology lab independent project. The hard pard was going around bumming free equipment (high voltage transformer from the EE dept, balloons of elementary gases from the chemistry dept, even the help of a very cool tech in the physics dept who helped us make a simple spark gap chamber out of a glass bottle, a couple tungsten rods, and a blowtorch).
The goal was to repeat a few times with slightly different starting materials, and see what different amino acids we could find. Unfortunately, we managed to blow up the custom made spark bottle on the second run; someone dropped it and caused a hairline crack after the first run, and that let enough oxygen get in after we (not-so-successfully) evacuated it to cause a nice little explosion after turning on the spark gap. Luckily we were careful enough to put it under an enclosed fume hood ;)
In the end it was more an exersice in begging for supplies than novel science. But that was probably a lot more useful skill to learn for a budding researcher than how to inseminate a sea urchin...