what a weird / poorly written article. maybe i'm misunderstanding some of their statements, but the author makes certain important conclusions that totally lack support. In particular, the possibiliy of liquid water (as evidenced by mud) is suggested. The article states "Levin points to Opportunity imagery that offers conclusive proof of standing liquid water and running water on a cold Mars." The argument is that freezing areas in the rover's tracks are filled with ice, which is supposedly identified through pictures. This may be valid, but to suggest that such an important conclusion can be made by theorizing on what could make a shiny surface in imagaes... seems excessive. This appears especially absurd to me because the rover has tools specifically designed to answer this question. I mean, why is this guy attempting to conjecture this based on images when we can use IR & GC to find out exactly what is there? I suppose the point in this article is that this data has been collected, and is to be announced soon, but the confidence with which the article makes these assertions and its lack of explication for the possible errors in these theories really frustrated me and seems totally inappropriate in a scientific publication, even one online:\
However, you said: "Regarding the formation of new memories; human neurons in the adult brain generally form new connections (synapses) rather than mitotically dividing to form new neurons"
which is largely incorrect. as shown in the article posted in reponse (and other research I am aware of) the formation of new neurons through mitotic division of existing cells is relevent to learning and memory formation.
nice post, and an excellent example of how very simple communication through a prosthetic implant could dramatically improve someone's abilities. even a binary communication would probably be much quicker for him than having to communicate with muscles he has difficulty controlling. i wonder if devices of this sort will supercede new regenerative biological treatments, which are also advancing quite quickly. i would assume that it will be a combination of both, with different approaches used to treat specific patients, and the possibility of helping so many people (although as you mentioned patients with this particular pathology are rare) is very exciting.
but i think that clearly limits the applicability of such equations in this area. i liked your original post but the amount of approximation is such to prevent its use here.
This is one of the most ill-thought out and contradictory posts I have read. This guy complains about how some technologies are insufficiently "boolean"; he cites flying cars, robots, automated kitchens, nanotechnology, and "genetic solutions" as examples. Flying, he suggests, is the opposite, in that "you fly or you dont fly". The absurdity here is that by his definition all these other technologies batch this boolean ideal, in that there have been flying cars, there exist robots that clean the house, automated kitchens, nanotechnologies, and certainly genetic research has yielded vast numbers of new knowledge and applicable treatments.
The idea he fails to grasp is that flight is not really an all-or-nothing technology, at least not in terms of its impact and importance. Would it have been particularly useful if planes remained what they were at their conception? The original flying machine built by the Wrights was celebrated when it flew a distance most of us would walk. For this tech to be really meaningul took many, many years of work and continous research, both directly applied to aviation and general research with no specific applications, such as materials science, mechanical engineering, etc. It is only through a great deal of progress that flight has become as important a technology as it is today.
Similarly, the technologies the parent poster mentions require extensive work and research to bear fruit. While there are robots that can clean a whole house, they are proof-of-concepts that cost more than my car. Similar to flight, advances need to be made before it has practical applications.
I find it somewhat humorous that he states "I'm skeptical of current nanotechnology and genetic solutions actually being major breakthroughs" when if you talk to anyone receiving current chemotherapy their lives may have been saved by these breakthroughs for which he has so much skepticism. While I encourage a healthly degree of distrust, this needs to be well directed. The fact is that new technologies and new research needs to continue in every field, and if new knowledge is being obtaining by good scientific methods, and someone is willing to spend their time obtaining it, it is hard to say that that is worthless or should be stymied.
"This is a very cheap ($12) "disposable" digital camera sold at select Ritz/Wolf Camera stores. Note that this is NOT the same as the one sold at Walgreens."
Why is this modded down? I think it's a valid point. Business and technology are different things, one person doesn't do it all. A good CEO will, of course, realize the scope of their specialties, and will trust the tech people with tech issues, and this is how tech firms can be successfully run by non-techs.
This is a pretty good comment, but I'd like to add that the reason why a certain enantiomer of a sugar would not convey calories is because it would fail to react with digestive enzymes. However, any chemical that is altered to remove specificity for these enzymes is also likely to cease its specificity for the taste receptors that register "sweet". While I believe that taste receptors might be a little bit more lenient, I would bet that this would be one of the problems. The extreme difficulty/cost of seperating enantiomers being another, as noted in the parent. which is why other approaches are yielding results more quickly, such as the undigestible "fat" of Olestra.
critisizing is one thing, if you think it's so bad, why don't you point us in the direction of a better explanation? although given you're posting as AC i'd say there's a 50/50 chance your post is total nonsense : P
unfortunately i never have mod points when it seems to matter, but i very much agree with this statement./rant why the fuck are 90% of all comments (and pretty much every comment higher rated than this one, at the time of this response) almost completely off the god damn topic, and in no way valuable besides as general filler. RIAA bashing, DMCA bashing, jesus fucking christ why do these people bother, the replies are so formulaic i'm fairly sure it's mostly scripted. worst of all WHO THE FUCK MODS THAT SHIT UP??? why do I have to scroll through pages of it to find something that actually discusses the TOPIC of the thread? wtf./endrant
Check out http://folding.stanford.edu/. They aren't researching SARS, but other, IMHO more important problems such as Altzheimer's, BSE (mad cow disease) and general protein research. Also, since it's run by a university, their data is public domain (although they'll probably take credit for your CPU cycles;) ). Go fold!
The definition of species is not artificial, if two individuals cannot produce viable offspring, then they are different species. It's generally just that simple, but there are some complicating factors that do add some subjectivity. Some birds, for example, are probably capable of producing offspring, but their mating rituals vary so greatly that they will never attempt to breed (sometimes it's hard to get animals to fsck).
Also, your comment that "Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species" is absolutely absurd and somewhat insulting. People of different nationalities are certainly not off different species; some suggest a comparison with breeds (as in breeds of horses, dogs, etc.) but even this is probably a stretch. Recent genetic work (human genome) has shown that there is _no_ genetic basis for race.
This is a really long post so excuse me if I haven't RTFP, but your first point is incorrect.
He's 100% right, and summed up the response I was about to post. Genetic variation * selection = evolution. We can actually witness it happen, and regardless of other beliefs (God, creation of the world, etc.) for a "scientist" to say that evolution does not occur means that that he has either not done his research or isn't capable of understanding basic biology & logic. While _all_ science is theory, and no good scientist will assert absolute knowledge of ANYTHING, for anyone to suggest that evolution does not occur implies that they have not correctly evaluated the arguments, since the evidence we have collected is remarkably clear and well understood.
This is, as you know, exactly the correct reason and response to the parent's question. He's assuming that the events he described has a nonzero possibility, which isn't necessarily true. However, since this is/. (and i don't have mod points right now) his incorrect assumption and question sits at the top of the chat modded up the wazzoo, while your response remains at 1 and will likely not be read.;\
Well obviously we need a military capable of defending our nation - if they can't do that, there isn't really much of a point. But the amount of resources currently devoted to the military is repugnantly excessive, and is evidenced by our worldwide military influence and activities. Our current military is like a kid with a constant string of new toys - they have this new shiny thing so they want to go out and play with it.
Your implication that wellfare is the only other area for spending money (or even the area that I'm advocating) is absurd - there are many, many places where money (and the many intelligent and dedicated people that comprise our military) could be spent. Take a look at the decision to build the national highway system - this act has been given a great deal of the credit for our current economic prowess, and has likely paid itself back many times over and in many ways. The government should focus more on things like this; I'm sure the legions of engineers, scientists, and others employed in finding new ways to kill people could come up with some very potent ways to improve the lives of people in this country.
Quite true, I saw an entire show on the history or learning channel or some such (so you know my expertise is unquestionable) on the properties of bubbles. This is also why suds are so important when cleaning things - bubbles = larger surface area, which means a solute (dirt) will be more inclined to dissolve. Makes sense that the same is true for heat.
This is my biggest problem with war/military/etc. I think FDR is a better orator than myself, so I'll just quote him: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
in other words, the resources and manpower can be going to far worthier causes.
and make sure to log in next time, then I can add you to my friends list, check out your posts, and mod them up to advance my personal political views in a public forum.;)
Slashdot Mirror
what a weird / poorly written article. maybe i'm misunderstanding some of their statements, but the author makes certain important conclusions that totally lack support. In particular, the possibiliy of liquid water (as evidenced by mud) is suggested. The article states "Levin points to Opportunity imagery that offers conclusive proof of standing liquid water and running water on a cold Mars." The argument is that freezing areas in the rover's tracks are filled with ice, which is supposedly identified through pictures. This may be valid, but to suggest that such an important conclusion can be made by theorizing on what could make a shiny surface in imagaes... seems excessive. This appears especially absurd to me because the rover has tools specifically designed to answer this question. I mean, why is this guy attempting to conjecture this based on images when we can use IR & GC to find out exactly what is there? I suppose the point in this article is that this data has been collected, and is to be announced soon, but the confidence with which the article makes these assertions and its lack of explication for the possible errors in these theories really frustrated me and seems totally inappropriate in a scientific publication, even one online :\
However, you said:
"Regarding the formation of new memories; human neurons in the adult brain generally form new connections (synapses) rather than mitotically dividing to form new neurons"
which is largely incorrect. as shown in the article posted in reponse (and other research I am aware of) the formation of new neurons through mitotic division of existing cells is relevent to learning and memory formation.
(if you've read the article)
nice post, and an excellent example of how very simple communication through a prosthetic implant could dramatically improve someone's abilities. even a binary communication would probably be much quicker for him than having to communicate with muscles he has difficulty controlling. i wonder if devices of this sort will supercede new regenerative biological treatments, which are also advancing quite quickly. i would assume that it will be a combination of both, with different approaches used to treat specific patients, and the possibility of helping so many people (although as you mentioned patients with this particular pathology are rare) is very exciting.
but i think that clearly limits the applicability of such equations in this area. i liked your original post but the amount of approximation is such to prevent its use here.
This is one of the most ill-thought out and contradictory posts I have read. This guy complains about how some technologies are insufficiently "boolean"; he cites flying cars, robots, automated kitchens, nanotechnology, and "genetic solutions" as examples. Flying, he suggests, is the opposite, in that "you fly or you dont fly". The absurdity here is that by his definition all these other technologies batch this boolean ideal, in that there have been flying cars, there exist robots that clean the house, automated kitchens, nanotechnologies, and certainly genetic research has yielded vast numbers of new knowledge and applicable treatments.
The idea he fails to grasp is that flight is not really an all-or-nothing technology, at least not in terms of its impact and importance. Would it have been particularly useful if planes remained what they were at their conception? The original flying machine built by the Wrights was celebrated when it flew a distance most of us would walk. For this tech to be really meaningul took many, many years of work and continous research, both directly applied to aviation and general research with no specific applications, such as materials science, mechanical engineering, etc. It is only through a great deal of progress that flight has become as important a technology as it is today.
Similarly, the technologies the parent poster mentions require extensive work and research to bear fruit. While there are robots that can clean a whole house, they are proof-of-concepts that cost more than my car. Similar to flight, advances need to be made before it has practical applications.
I find it somewhat humorous that he states "I'm skeptical of current nanotechnology and genetic solutions actually being major breakthroughs" when if you talk to anyone receiving current chemotherapy their lives may have been saved by these breakthroughs for which he has so much skepticism. While I encourage a healthly degree of distrust, this needs to be well directed. The fact is that new technologies and new research needs to continue in every field, and if new knowledge is being obtaining by good scientific methods, and someone is willing to spend their time obtaining it, it is hard to say that that is worthless or should be stymied.
Nanotech needs AI? WTF?
I wish all technology followed moore's law ; )
wtf if GiFT
eol
yeah the acumacy of wordage only in an article not in his post very good isnt.
:/
it's quite hard to read sometimes, and as you've pointed out, often blatently wrong. i have not RTFA, but that quote makes me inclined not to bother
RTFA
"This is a very cheap ($12) "disposable" digital camera sold at select Ritz/Wolf Camera stores. Note that this is NOT the same as the one sold at Walgreens."
Why is this modded down? I think it's a valid point. Business and technology are different things, one person doesn't do it all. A good CEO will, of course, realize the scope of their specialties, and will trust the tech people with tech issues, and this is how tech firms can be successfully run by non-techs.
Based on a misreading of your post, I've come up with a great new idea.
I want a PDA powered by Jesus.
Sure he died for our sins, but what has he done for us _lately_??
This is a pretty good comment, but I'd like to add that the reason why a certain enantiomer of a sugar would not convey calories is because it would fail to react with digestive enzymes. However, any chemical that is altered to remove specificity for these enzymes is also likely to cease its specificity for the taste receptors that register "sweet". While I believe that taste receptors might be a little bit more lenient, I would bet that this would be one of the problems. The extreme difficulty/cost of seperating enantiomers being another, as noted in the parent. which is why other approaches are yielding results more quickly, such as the undigestible "fat" of Olestra.
and btw IAABOC (i am a bioorganic chemist)
well, in training. give me a few years ; )
critisizing is one thing, if you think it's so bad, why don't you point us in the direction of a better explanation?
although given you're posting as AC i'd say there's a 50/50 chance your post is total nonsense : P
unfortunately i never have mod points when it seems to matter, but i very much agree with this statement. /rant /endrant
why the fuck are 90% of all comments (and pretty much every comment higher rated than this one, at the time of this response) almost completely off the god damn topic, and in no way valuable besides as general filler. RIAA bashing, DMCA bashing, jesus fucking christ why do these people bother, the replies are so formulaic i'm fairly sure it's mostly scripted. worst of all WHO THE FUCK MODS THAT SHIT UP??? why do I have to scroll through pages of it to find something that actually discusses the TOPIC of the thread?
wtf.
I'm not aware of this "Study AIDS," is it a new strain? Also, I didn't think Apple was in the virulent disease businss. What gives?
[southpark]
How did Jared lose so much weight? He got Aids. And now he wants to help everyone by giving them Aids.
[/southpark]
Shouldn't that be aides?
Check out http://folding.stanford.edu/. They aren't researching SARS, but other, IMHO more important problems such as Altzheimer's, BSE (mad cow disease) and general protein research. Also, since it's run by a university, their data is public domain (although they'll probably take credit for your CPU cycles ;) ). Go fold!
The definition of species is not artificial, if two individuals cannot produce viable offspring, then they are different species. It's generally just that simple, but there are some complicating factors that do add some subjectivity. Some birds, for example, are probably capable of producing offspring, but their mating rituals vary so greatly that they will never attempt to breed (sometimes it's hard to get animals to fsck).
Also, your comment that "Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species" is absolutely absurd and somewhat insulting. People of different nationalities are certainly not off different species; some suggest a comparison with breeds (as in breeds of horses, dogs, etc.) but even this is probably a stretch. Recent genetic work (human genome) has shown that there is _no_ genetic basis for race.
This is a really long post so excuse me if I haven't RTFP, but your first point is incorrect.
He's 100% right, and summed up the response I was about to post. Genetic variation * selection = evolution. We can actually witness it happen, and regardless of other beliefs (God, creation of the world, etc.) for a "scientist" to say that evolution does not occur means that that he has either not done his research or isn't capable of understanding basic biology & logic. While _all_ science is theory, and no good scientist will assert absolute knowledge of ANYTHING, for anyone to suggest that evolution does not occur implies that they have not correctly evaluated the arguments, since the evidence we have collected is remarkably clear and well understood.
This is, as you know, exactly the correct reason and response to the parent's question. He's assuming that the events he described has a nonzero possibility, which isn't necessarily true. However, since this is /. (and i don't have mod points right now) his incorrect assumption and question sits at the top of the chat modded up the wazzoo, while your response remains at 1 and will likely not be read. ;\
Well obviously we need a military capable of defending our nation - if they can't do that, there isn't really much of a point. But the amount of resources currently devoted to the military is repugnantly excessive, and is evidenced by our worldwide military influence and activities. Our current military is like a kid with a constant string of new toys - they have this new shiny thing so they want to go out and play with it.
Your implication that wellfare is the only other area for spending money (or even the area that I'm advocating) is absurd - there are many, many places where money (and the many intelligent and dedicated people that comprise our military) could be spent. Take a look at the decision to build the national highway system - this act has been given a great deal of the credit for our current economic prowess, and has likely paid itself back many times over and in many ways. The government should focus more on things like this; I'm sure the legions of engineers, scientists, and others employed in finding new ways to kill people could come up with some very potent ways to improve the lives of people in this country.
Quite true, I saw an entire show on the history or learning channel or some such (so you know my expertise is unquestionable) on the properties of bubbles. This is also why suds are so important when cleaning things - bubbles = larger surface area, which means a solute (dirt) will be more inclined to dissolve. Makes sense that the same is true for heat.
This is my biggest problem with war/military/etc. I think FDR is a better orator than myself, so I'll just quote him:
;)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
in other words, the resources and manpower can be going to far worthier causes.
and make sure to log in next time, then I can add you to my friends list, check out your posts, and mod them up to advance my personal political views in a public forum.
NT = no text
stop reading this textless post!
This assumes you can stand the irony of bringing an animal back to life just so that you can kill it....