I don't have to supply credentials - I merely linked to an article in which someone WITH credentials took this author's work apart. That, at the very least, makes his conclusions doubtful. My credentials really are irrelevant at that point, and I maintain anonymity as my colleagues really do read this.
Well, I guess we'll just have to take you at your word on that wont we? There is no way for us to know if instead of being a theoretician, you're actually just a really well-read waiter who's pissed at being beaten out by Jim Parsons during the casting of "The Big Bang Theory". Don't worry, we'll keep your identity secure from the other waiters. However, you really should forgive kdawson for not tipping you the other night. In all fairness you *did* spill his drink and ruined his pants.
I criticized Kdawson not for his lack of knowledge of theoretical physics, but rather for taking a single, un-reviewed, non-checked article on the arXiv. The arXiv,about anyone can post to, and so although great physicists post there, crackpots can do too and hence its not guarantee of the quality of the work. Then he takes this to state that the whole theory of EG is dead in the water. Not that some random guy is claiming it, or that it could be doubted, but the title says that it has been "disproved".
So instead of harassing us here on Slashdot, why don't you go complain to arXiv? I urge you to once again take another look around you. Most of us here are taking this WAY less seriously than you apparently are. Take a moment to think about how Slashdot operates. Stories are submitted, they are screened to filter out the spam, screened again for content relevance, then posted, then discussed. In that process, you are the only one thus far to be conspicuously screaming bloody murder at kdawson for committing a great unforgivable crime against the reputation of your professional field. The majority of us don't have the technical background to evaluate these types of ideas with a cursory glance. That is why we come here to talk about it - not listen to some AC randomly accuse others of being crackpots.
I tried to correct the misleading headline by pointing to another paper in which this is disputed strongly, and so remove the idea that EG is dead. That was my real aim here, and to stop it happening again.
Try harder. Your citation appears to be sourced from arXiv just like what you are railing against. Why should their refutation be taken more seriously? How do we know *They* are not the crackpots? If you really are as knowledgeable as you say, it would be easy to explain or summarize the meat of these publications to clarify the issue for those without the proper context. Instead you argue on the basis of reputation and credibility. You can do better.
As for NSF grants etc, a similar story got a colleague into a lot of trouble at a job interview - he was told that his field (Loop Gravity) had been disproved by experiment by one of his interviewers. On tracking down the source, it was a story on a blog not dissimilar to slashdot, which completely misinterpreted a paper, but by the time he'd done this, his chance of getting the position was zero, as the hiring committee had written him off. Whether we like it or not, we as physicists live in a world where our jobs are determined by non-experts who often like to pretend that they have some knowledge by reading pop-science stuff, and so calling out the pop-science writers when they do this is fair game.
If my previous comment was not understood, let me now make it clear: Slashdot is just fine the way it is. The problem with your grant reviewers' ignorance of what constitutes authoritative academic resources is beyond the scope of responsibility for "News for Nerds". Your frustration is hardly unique. Until last year, I worked for Genentech in the drug industry. You don't think I get headaches whe
Your willingness to engage in this conversation is appreciated. However, you still have not convinced me that kdawson ought to be criticized for not being a theoretical physicist. From the article his submission cited:
"Experiments on gravitational bound states of neutrons unambiguously disprove the entropic origin of gravitation," he [Kobakhidze] says.
You are well within your rights to express disagreement with such strong language, but why single out kdawson - who seems merely to be a messenger for someone else's words? You should just as well accuse MIT's Technology Review of ignorance and sensationalism since they are the originators of the article to begin with.
In any case, you've missed the point I was trying to make. Given the state of discussion on such a highly disputed subject area, you - as someone who probably has more to offer than most - has a chance to make positive contributions toward understanding it. You've failed to do that in numerous ways. Most importantly, (and this was my original beef) you claim authority on this subject while refusing to offer credentials and hide behind anonymity. Your defense (real or not) comes off as rather selfish really - why should *your* funding security have any bearing on why we should be persuaded by your opinions?
I'm sorry you feel insulted, but perhaps your concerns are misplaced to begin with? I don't agree that Slashdot is a popular press with much ability to influence the direction of NSF grants. We don't nearly approach the numbers of reader of TIME, Newsweek, WSJ, or any other mainstream news sources that command the attention of the voting public elected officials (and by proxy appointed officials) answer to. You should remind any slashdoting grant reviewer that this is also the website that played host to "OMG! Ponies!" and "Kathleen Fent Read This Story....." But if I'm wrong, you'll need to work much harder at elevating the professionalism and discriminating standards of this essentially ad-hoc community to the point where the content is reliable and reputable enough to make meaningful decisions.
That is a poor excuse for choosing to express yourself as a rude condescending jerk. kdawson may not have the subject matter expertise to evaluate the strength/merit of what he felt was something cool and worth sharing - news for nerds. But how is it you choose to ignore timothy's role as a gate keeper for what is worthy of slashdot? Your own disclaimer express an opinion that the dust has yet to settle - even among experts. Yet you pull no punches in expressing your own opinion and expect us to take it at face value. That isn't the actions of someone fearful of future funding. It is the mark of someone too arrogant to acknowledge progress in science as necessitated by a series of meaningful arguments and counter-arguments within a framework of mutual understanding. What understanding did you attempt to foster here? I'm afraid you have a very skewed understanding of the slashdot community if you expect the link you posted to really mean anything for the majority of readers here. Take a good look at the replies to your post - half of them are cracking jokes and the other half are decidedly not impressed about the nature of scholarly publication. When your done feeling smug and self-important it would be helpful to consider how to undo the damage your post did by obfuscating the subject. An expert is useless if (s)he is incapable of communicating that expertise.
Kdawson, could you please try to have the first clue about something that you submit?
Those are fighting words, mate! It almost sounds like you're gunning for a newly vacated position. In which case you probably should have worked up the courage to post as someone identifiable rather than AC.
No sir. If you understood autism to any degree beyond narrowly selective personal anecdotes, you would know that ADD behavior (although distinct in and of itself) can be and often is symptomatically linked with being on all parts of the spectrum. My nephew's formal diagnosis is ADD-PDD (Pervasive Development Disorder) which is a mild form of autism. Ritalin helps manage his mood significantly. It is said that with intensive and specialized treatment, his development can approach mainstream alignment and he would be able to socially function with reasonable normalcy. And we have seen slow but steady progress in his ability to practically comprehend and interact effectively with the world around him. Your last comment has no place in a civil society. If that is how you feel, humanity stands to gain far more from your own demise without progeny so that we'd be ride of such inhumane and compassion-less pedigree.
My nephew started exhibiting traits consistent with being on the autism spectrum at around 3/4 years of age. He has siblings and cousins who were raised together and are not autistic. His parents are competent, dedicated, and hard-working folks who do not deserve your criticism. These days, the autism diagnosis can be made considerably before bad parenting can have a measurable effect on a child's development. It has been scientifically demonstrable that autism is a real biological condition that deserve medical attention and serious study. You are advised to seek a more informed perspective.
I wonder if you are familiar with the "religion" called Scientology? Very similar - except Falun Gong has not yet had a chance to stir the pot enough for people to cry foul and organize along the lines of "Operation Clambake". I know of no other comparable "religious" organization that has engaged in so much clearly non-religious endeavors. Other than creating an anti-Beijing mouthpiece in the guise of a media entity such as "The Epoch Times", Falun Gong has also masqueraded as an arts/culture organization called the "Shen Yun Dance Company" producing propaganda rich performances that some audiences mistakenly accepts as authentic classical Chinese dance forms.
Thank you for clarifying. But I'm afraid I disagree that any of the social movements you cited were based on "rational thought". With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see where the momentum of those historic developments went off the rails. But I wonder, how much situational awareness did contemporary observers have of the unfolding events? Did *they* believe what was happening was a progressive thing that would properly replace religion? In the case of the French Revolution, at least, I believe the answer was no. I'm reminded of a contemporary American political cartoon comparing and contrasting the American Revolution symbolized by the statue of liberty with the French Revolution rendered as the monster Medusa holding a sword in one hand and the head of the French people in the other. Americans of the time were horrified at the fanatical bloody excesses of the French. Likewise, at the eve of WWII, both Communism and Fascism were viewed with great nervousness and suspicion by the West. I don't think anyone labored under the illusion what was happening was driven by rationality. Unfortunately, no one had the courage or political will power at the time to challenge what they thought they couldn't afford to defend against. In all these cases, support was garnered by propaganda rather than civil discourse. Be that as it may, I remain optimistic that one day, when the institutions of religion is no longer self-sufficient, it will implode on itself and out of the ashes will arise a more effective social institution that will serve the same purpose without the superstitious nonsense.
What track record? Where or when has any such attempt been made at all? I was not raised with religion, but a couple of years back I attended a Sunday service as a school assignment and finally understood the social component of a church community. It was rather nice and I was sorry to go at the end except for the fact that I was put off by all the hocus-pocus biblical stuff. Even then, for want of benefits such as health care, I think a rational human being would be very compelled to embrace such ideals, accepting the spiritual stuff as an annoyance and the social bonds as a bonus. I haven't since encountered any group of people that shared quit the same appealing traits without the superstitious worldview.
The survey also revealed that the prospect of getting help was enticing. In the past 5 years, about 400 of those responding have shifted religions, many of them moving to Pentecostal or the African Independent Churches, places where the promise of receiving care is greater and the stigma of having AIDS is less, Hughes noted.
The evidence presented suggests that however born, growth/conversion of religion in the study area is at least in part motivated by the incentive of some health care.
Cheer up, sport! There are a few things in Hollywood worth looking forward to. I'm been anticipating Cameron's "Battle Angel" adaptation for many years now. Ever since I saw this computer rendered action sequence years ago, I've wondered how awesome a feature length adaptation would be. With the production work of "Avatar" as the proving ground for what he needs to shoot the movie, I've got high expectations! Incidentally, the original manga that "Battle Angel" is based on was heavily influenced by the visuals of the original "Blade Runner".
I hate to burst your luddite bubble, but nothing in our modern society is as simple as throwing some stuff in a vat any more. Don't get me wrong, I dearly wish we can all go back to the days when an ordinary person has substantially more self-sufficiency than one does now. but I'm afraid you have vastly over-simplified the point I wanted to make. It is indeed possible to know (most, not all) the basic ingredients that goes into a food item. But how many outfits can you name that engages production by building their product molecule by molecule? The raw ingredients are not really "raw" ingredients. You don't, for example, substitute garlic with some weird concoction of minerals and organic extracts distilled from god-knows-what. Anyone with even a little bit of food/cooking experience would know that it is *not* trivial to "backward engineer" all but the simplest of recipes. For some dishes, the slightest variation in preparation style can have drastic effects on taste and consistency. But I digress.
Back to the subject at hand, so many things in modern material science are critically dependent on unique manufacturing processes. Many of our most challenging engineering problems involve knowing what has to be done, what is needed to do it, but not *HOW* to do it. One of the most inspiring stories of success that I've come across involve the invention of the blue LED/laser. This a bona fide David vs. Goliath story of how an unknown material scientist working for an obscure Japanese supplier of industrial chemicals beat out the well-resources R&D machinery of major players in both academia as well as industry to achieve one of the "holy grails" of semi-conductor manufacturing. I will not bore you with further karma whoring, but if you are so inclined, look up the story of Suji Nakamura and how he turned an idea rooted in well established solid state theory by inovatively playing around with chemical deposition methods to get just the right band gap he needed.
Well done! It is just as useful for an adversary to study how a weapon fails or doesn't work as the whole point of defense is to induce failure in said weapon or render it useless. How successful were the SEAL teams were at destroying the critical tech in the chopper? If I'll be fighting against this weapon in the foreseeable future, I want to be able to render such destruction on the battlefield.
Years ago, we discussed this in my organic chemistry class during a lab exercise using GC-MS (gas chromatography - mass spectrometry). Just because you know what something is made of does not mean you can replicate the process that makes it. That is why things that matter a great deal of money to certain businesses such as the formula for coca-cola or the colonel's 11 special spices are still secure despite their wide-spread availability. Things may have changed, but it still seems like most of material science can be compared to one way functions so widely used in cryptography. It is relatively easier to make something by putting things together than it is to reverse the process in a meaningful way.
Maybe you're being a bit unfair. The messanger maybe unsavory but at least part of the source does appear to be reputable.
......scientists from the University of Oulu will present new findings on human brain's photosensitivity at the Scandinavian Physiology Society Annual Meeting 2011, August 12-14.
I think it would be prudent to hold off on judgment until the paper is actually presented. In any case, photo sensitivity of brain tissue is not unheard of.
Samantha, *you* are the ultimate authority on what image/impression you want to project. (^_^) If you're an in-your-face confrontational kind of gal, anything that has to do with politics or religion (or nerd tribalism on slashdot) will never fail to disappoint (or offend). If it was me and I wanted to showcase the intersection of my code geek side with my bio geek side, I'd maybe go with something like:
-- A template in the language of life: AUG -/* insert code here */ - TAG --
I myself chose to go with the slightly eccentric to the casual observer. But anyone who chooses to ponder my words will appreciate my respect for the things in our world that truly nurtures intellect and sapience. Or maybe they'll think I'm being too cheesy. (because of the milk.... never mind.) I suppose evaluation of my intended interpretation can go south depending on the observer. ("I got layers. Wanna undress me?") But I'm less obsessed over controlling what others think than I am about meeting kindreds who understand and share my vision. If you would indulge me, I'd like to quote a little "Babylon 5" to help you decide:
Who are you? What do you want? Where are you going?
Actually, yours was slightly off-putting, but perhaps your intent was to parody a stereotype rather than perpetuate it. That's why I bothered to look into your comment history to figure out what your deal really was. No harm done.
You *did* get me to look, though. Memo to sig: Mission accomplished.
You're welcome! In more ways than one - I just took a quick glance at your comment history. Folks with decent expertise in the biological sciences are far and few here. Slashdot is lucky to have you!;-)
These speak very generally about the subject at hand. But the GI environment is very typical of the kinds of microbial eco-systems where viruses and bacteria interact in complex relationships.
Years ago, I spent a semester at a UCSF lab that investigated pulmonary infections among other things that affect post-operative immuno-compromised patients. One of the most important things I learned from the scientists was how little traditional microbiology tells us about the broad microbial ecology of prevalent health issues. Given the intimacy of relationships between viruses and bacteria, it is far *less* likely that the bulk of bacteria *won't* be affected by an agent that can decimate viruses.
Slashdot Mirror
thank you! short, sweet, and to the point. I have mod points today. Pity I posted to this submission earlier today.
Okay, one at a time.
I don't have to supply credentials - I merely linked to an article in which someone WITH credentials took this author's work apart. That, at the very least, makes his conclusions doubtful. My credentials really are irrelevant at that point, and I maintain anonymity as my colleagues really do read this.
Well, I guess we'll just have to take you at your word on that wont we? There is no way for us to know if instead of being a theoretician, you're actually just a really well-read waiter who's pissed at being beaten out by Jim Parsons during the casting of "The Big Bang Theory". Don't worry, we'll keep your identity secure from the other waiters. However, you really should forgive kdawson for not tipping you the other night. In all fairness you *did* spill his drink and ruined his pants.
I criticized Kdawson not for his lack of knowledge of theoretical physics, but rather for taking a single, un-reviewed, non-checked article on the arXiv. The arXiv,about anyone can post to, and so although great physicists post there, crackpots can do too and hence its not guarantee of the quality of the work. Then he takes this to state that the whole theory of EG is dead in the water. Not that some random guy is claiming it, or that it could be doubted, but the title says that it has been "disproved".
So instead of harassing us here on Slashdot, why don't you go complain to arXiv? I urge you to once again take another look around you. Most of us here are taking this WAY less seriously than you apparently are. Take a moment to think about how Slashdot operates. Stories are submitted, they are screened to filter out the spam, screened again for content relevance, then posted, then discussed. In that process, you are the only one thus far to be conspicuously screaming bloody murder at kdawson for committing a great unforgivable crime against the reputation of your professional field. The majority of us don't have the technical background to evaluate these types of ideas with a cursory glance. That is why we come here to talk about it - not listen to some AC randomly accuse others of being crackpots.
I tried to correct the misleading headline by pointing to another paper in which this is disputed strongly, and so remove the idea that EG is dead. That was my real aim here, and to stop it happening again.
Try harder. Your citation appears to be sourced from arXiv just like what you are railing against. Why should their refutation be taken more seriously? How do we know *They* are not the crackpots? If you really are as knowledgeable as you say, it would be easy to explain or summarize the meat of these publications to clarify the issue for those without the proper context. Instead you argue on the basis of reputation and credibility. You can do better.
As for NSF grants etc, a similar story got a colleague into a lot of trouble at a job interview - he was told that his field (Loop Gravity) had been disproved by experiment by one of his interviewers. On tracking down the source, it was a story on a blog not dissimilar to slashdot, which completely misinterpreted a paper, but by the time he'd done this, his chance of getting the position was zero, as the hiring committee had written him off. Whether we like it or not, we as physicists live in a world where our jobs are determined by non-experts who often like to pretend that they have some knowledge by reading pop-science stuff, and so calling out the pop-science writers when they do this is fair game.
If my previous comment was not understood, let me now make it clear: Slashdot is just fine the way it is. The problem with your grant reviewers' ignorance of what constitutes authoritative academic resources is beyond the scope of responsibility for "News for Nerds". Your frustration is hardly unique. Until last year, I worked for Genentech in the drug industry. You don't think I get headaches whe
Your willingness to engage in this conversation is appreciated. However, you still have not convinced me that kdawson ought to be criticized for not being a theoretical physicist. From the article his submission cited:
"Experiments on gravitational bound states of neutrons unambiguously disprove the entropic origin of gravitation," he [Kobakhidze] says.
You are well within your rights to express disagreement with such strong language, but why single out kdawson - who seems merely to be a messenger for someone else's words? You should just as well accuse MIT's Technology Review of ignorance and sensationalism since they are the originators of the article to begin with.
In any case, you've missed the point I was trying to make. Given the state of discussion on such a highly disputed subject area, you - as someone who probably has more to offer than most - has a chance to make positive contributions toward understanding it. You've failed to do that in numerous ways. Most importantly, (and this was my original beef) you claim authority on this subject while refusing to offer credentials and hide behind anonymity. Your defense (real or not) comes off as rather selfish really - why should *your* funding security have any bearing on why we should be persuaded by your opinions?
I'm sorry you feel insulted, but perhaps your concerns are misplaced to begin with? I don't agree that Slashdot is a popular press with much ability to influence the direction of NSF grants. We don't nearly approach the numbers of reader of TIME, Newsweek, WSJ, or any other mainstream news sources that command the attention of the voting public elected officials (and by proxy appointed officials) answer to. You should remind any slashdoting grant reviewer that this is also the website that played host to "OMG! Ponies!" and "Kathleen Fent Read This Story....." But if I'm wrong, you'll need to work much harder at elevating the professionalism and discriminating standards of this essentially ad-hoc community to the point where the content is reliable and reputable enough to make meaningful decisions.
That is a poor excuse for choosing to express yourself as a rude condescending jerk. kdawson may not have the subject matter expertise to evaluate the strength/merit of what he felt was something cool and worth sharing - news for nerds. But how is it you choose to ignore timothy's role as a gate keeper for what is worthy of slashdot? Your own disclaimer express an opinion that the dust has yet to settle - even among experts. Yet you pull no punches in expressing your own opinion and expect us to take it at face value. That isn't the actions of someone fearful of future funding. It is the mark of someone too arrogant to acknowledge progress in science as necessitated by a series of meaningful arguments and counter-arguments within a framework of mutual understanding. What understanding did you attempt to foster here? I'm afraid you have a very skewed understanding of the slashdot community if you expect the link you posted to really mean anything for the majority of readers here. Take a good look at the replies to your post - half of them are cracking jokes and the other half are decidedly not impressed about the nature of scholarly publication. When your done feeling smug and self-important it would be helpful to consider how to undo the damage your post did by obfuscating the subject. An expert is useless if (s)he is incapable of communicating that expertise.
Kdawson, could you please try to have the first clue about something that you submit?
Those are fighting words, mate! It almost sounds like you're gunning for a newly vacated position. In which case you probably should have worked up the courage to post as someone identifiable rather than AC.
No sir. If you understood autism to any degree beyond narrowly selective personal anecdotes, you would know that ADD behavior (although distinct in and of itself) can be and often is symptomatically linked with being on all parts of the spectrum. My nephew's formal diagnosis is ADD-PDD (Pervasive Development Disorder) which is a mild form of autism. Ritalin helps manage his mood significantly. It is said that with intensive and specialized treatment, his development can approach mainstream alignment and he would be able to socially function with reasonable normalcy. And we have seen slow but steady progress in his ability to practically comprehend and interact effectively with the world around him. Your last comment has no place in a civil society. If that is how you feel, humanity stands to gain far more from your own demise without progeny so that we'd be ride of such inhumane and compassion-less pedigree.
My nephew started exhibiting traits consistent with being on the autism spectrum at around 3/4 years of age. He has siblings and cousins who were raised together and are not autistic. His parents are competent, dedicated, and hard-working folks who do not deserve your criticism. These days, the autism diagnosis can be made considerably before bad parenting can have a measurable effect on a child's development. It has been scientifically demonstrable that autism is a real biological condition that deserve medical attention and serious study. You are advised to seek a more informed perspective.
I wonder if you are familiar with the "religion" called Scientology? Very similar - except Falun Gong has not yet had a chance to stir the pot enough for people to cry foul and organize along the lines of "Operation Clambake". I know of no other comparable "religious" organization that has engaged in so much clearly non-religious endeavors. Other than creating an anti-Beijing mouthpiece in the guise of a media entity such as "The Epoch Times", Falun Gong has also masqueraded as an arts/culture organization called the "Shen Yun Dance Company" producing propaganda rich performances that some audiences mistakenly accepts as authentic classical Chinese dance forms.
Thank you for clarifying. But I'm afraid I disagree that any of the social movements you cited were based on "rational thought". With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see where the momentum of those historic developments went off the rails. But I wonder, how much situational awareness did contemporary observers have of the unfolding events? Did *they* believe what was happening was a progressive thing that would properly replace religion? In the case of the French Revolution, at least, I believe the answer was no. I'm reminded of a contemporary American political cartoon comparing and contrasting the American Revolution symbolized by the statue of liberty with the French Revolution rendered as the monster Medusa holding a sword in one hand and the head of the French people in the other. Americans of the time were horrified at the fanatical bloody excesses of the French. Likewise, at the eve of WWII, both Communism and Fascism were viewed with great nervousness and suspicion by the West. I don't think anyone labored under the illusion what was happening was driven by rationality. Unfortunately, no one had the courage or political will power at the time to challenge what they thought they couldn't afford to defend against. In all these cases, support was garnered by propaganda rather than civil discourse. Be that as it may, I remain optimistic that one day, when the institutions of religion is no longer self-sufficient, it will implode on itself and out of the ashes will arise a more effective social institution that will serve the same purpose without the superstitious nonsense.
What track record? Where or when has any such attempt been made at all? I was not raised with religion, but a couple of years back I attended a Sunday service as a school assignment and finally understood the social component of a church community. It was rather nice and I was sorry to go at the end except for the fact that I was put off by all the hocus-pocus biblical stuff. Even then, for want of benefits such as health care, I think a rational human being would be very compelled to embrace such ideals, accepting the spiritual stuff as an annoyance and the social bonds as a bonus. I haven't since encountered any group of people that shared quit the same appealing traits without the superstitious worldview.
Humanity needs to replace religion with a civil institution for promoting social cohesion with a basis in rational thought.
FIFY
From the article:
The survey also revealed that the prospect of getting help was enticing. In the past 5 years, about 400 of those responding have shifted religions, many of them moving to Pentecostal or the African Independent Churches, places where the promise of receiving care is greater and the stigma of having AIDS is less, Hughes noted.
The evidence presented suggests that however born, growth/conversion of religion in the study area is at least in part motivated by the incentive of some health care.
Tales from the Script The industry has a funny way of treating such critical talent.
Well, if Ridley Scott is successful, the only way to tell the two films apart would be to apply the Voight-Kampff test.
Cheer up, sport! There are a few things in Hollywood worth looking forward to. I'm been anticipating Cameron's "Battle Angel" adaptation for many years now. Ever since I saw this computer rendered action sequence years ago, I've wondered how awesome a feature length adaptation would be. With the production work of "Avatar" as the proving ground for what he needs to shoot the movie, I've got high expectations! Incidentally, the original manga that "Battle Angel" is based on was heavily influenced by the visuals of the original "Blade Runner".
I hate to burst your luddite bubble, but nothing in our modern society is as simple as throwing some stuff in a vat any more. Don't get me wrong, I dearly wish we can all go back to the days when an ordinary person has substantially more self-sufficiency than one does now. but I'm afraid you have vastly over-simplified the point I wanted to make. It is indeed possible to know (most, not all) the basic ingredients that goes into a food item. But how many outfits can you name that engages production by building their product molecule by molecule? The raw ingredients are not really "raw" ingredients. You don't, for example, substitute garlic with some weird concoction of minerals and organic extracts distilled from god-knows-what. Anyone with even a little bit of food/cooking experience would know that it is *not* trivial to "backward engineer" all but the simplest of recipes. For some dishes, the slightest variation in preparation style can have drastic effects on taste and consistency. But I digress.
Back to the subject at hand, so many things in modern material science are critically dependent on unique manufacturing processes. Many of our most challenging engineering problems involve knowing what has to be done, what is needed to do it, but not *HOW* to do it. One of the most inspiring stories of success that I've come across involve the invention of the blue LED/laser. This a bona fide David vs. Goliath story of how an unknown material scientist working for an obscure Japanese supplier of industrial chemicals beat out the well-resources R&D machinery of major players in both academia as well as industry to achieve one of the "holy grails" of semi-conductor manufacturing. I will not bore you with further karma whoring, but if you are so inclined, look up the story of Suji Nakamura and how he turned an idea rooted in well established solid state theory by inovatively playing around with chemical deposition methods to get just the right band gap he needed.
Well done! It is just as useful for an adversary to study how a weapon fails or doesn't work as the whole point of defense is to induce failure in said weapon or render it useless. How successful were the SEAL teams were at destroying the critical tech in the chopper? If I'll be fighting against this weapon in the foreseeable future, I want to be able to render such destruction on the battlefield.
Years ago, we discussed this in my organic chemistry class during a lab exercise using GC-MS (gas chromatography - mass spectrometry). Just because you know what something is made of does not mean you can replicate the process that makes it. That is why things that matter a great deal of money to certain businesses such as the formula for coca-cola or the colonel's 11 special spices are still secure despite their wide-spread availability. Things may have changed, but it still seems like most of material science can be compared to one way functions so widely used in cryptography. It is relatively easier to make something by putting things together than it is to reverse the process in a meaningful way.
Maybe you're being a bit unfair. The messanger maybe unsavory but at least part of the source does appear to be reputable.
......scientists from the University of Oulu will present new findings on human brain's photosensitivity at the Scandinavian Physiology Society Annual Meeting 2011, August 12-14.
I think it would be prudent to hold off on judgment until the paper is actually presented. In any case, photo sensitivity of brain tissue is not unheard of.
On a less serious note, Star Trek did it first.
Samantha, *you* are the ultimate authority on what image/impression you want to project. (^_^) If you're an in-your-face confrontational kind of gal, anything that has to do with politics or religion (or nerd tribalism on slashdot) will never fail to disappoint (or offend). If it was me and I wanted to showcase the intersection of my code geek side with my bio geek side, I'd maybe go with something like:
-- /* insert code here */ - TAG
A template in the language of life:
AUG -
--
I myself chose to go with the slightly eccentric to the casual observer. But anyone who chooses to ponder my words will appreciate my respect for the things in our world that truly nurtures intellect and sapience. Or maybe they'll think I'm being too cheesy. (because of the milk.... never mind.) I suppose evaluation of my intended interpretation can go south depending on the observer. ("I got layers. Wanna undress me?") But I'm less obsessed over controlling what others think than I am about meeting kindreds who understand and share my vision. If you would indulge me, I'd like to quote a little "Babylon 5" to help you decide:
Who are you?
What do you want?
Where are you going?
good luck!
Actually, yours was slightly off-putting, but perhaps your intent was to parody a stereotype rather than perpetuate it. That's why I bothered to look into your comment history to figure out what your deal really was. No harm done.
You *did* get me to look, though. Memo to sig: Mission accomplished.
You're welcome! In more ways than one - I just took a quick glance at your comment history. Folks with decent expertise in the biological sciences are far and few here. Slashdot is lucky to have you! ;-)
Given that we are talking about the underlying drive for reproductive success, the obvious solution is Evolution, wouldn't you agree?
we were manufacturing technicians working drug production in south san francisco. I left last year. haven't kept in touch. what do you do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_ecology
These speak very generally about the subject at hand. But the GI environment is very typical of the kinds of microbial eco-systems where viruses and bacteria interact in complex relationships.
Years ago, I spent a semester at a UCSF lab that investigated pulmonary infections among other things that affect post-operative immuno-compromised patients. One of the most important things I learned from the scientists was how little traditional microbiology tells us about the broad microbial ecology of prevalent health issues. Given the intimacy of relationships between viruses and bacteria, it is far *less* likely that the bulk of bacteria *won't* be affected by an agent that can decimate viruses.