This scenario is almost exactly what happens here in Airstrip One, under the Blair Junta's 'anti-terror' legislation.
The only difference is that under the lateat proposals, a judge is unnecessary - the Home Secretary (equivalent of the US Sec. of State) can decide who gets locked up.
My sig sums up my feelings on this, as on so much else.
Unlikely - the wavelengths of the light range (normally - some spectrophotometers go into the infra-red) from about 400nm to 700nm or so, so further breakup of 200nm particles would be unlikely to change the OD.
Perhaps the density in the UV range should be measured, but UV can cause damage to bacteria, so you might kill the thing you are trying to measure.
The increase in OD could be caused by some interaction between the nanoparticles and the media, or it might be due to replication taking place. Repetition with a bunch of different growth media could point to the true cause, but until DNA or RNA is isolated and shown not to be contamination from other sources, the whole thing has to remain doubtful.
Personally, I'd like to see nanobacteria - the smaller the minimal unit that can be shown to self replicate gets, the less persuasive the phony statistical arguments of the creationist movement will become, and we can finally put all this god nonsense to bed.
Do you have especially huge cricket grounds where you come from? I can throw a cricket ball around 100 yards (300 feet for the USians) fairly accurately, and could always reach the wicket from 3rd man, no matter which ground I played at. Baseball grounds, OTOH, are regularly 130 yards from home plate to the boundary - an extra 100 feet or so.
And the idea of trying to catch a ball with one of those silly mitts on fills me with horror.
Good slip fielding is impressive - fielding in the deep is comparatively easy.
No - you've missed the point of this exercise entirely.
The purpose of having a multiprocessor on a single core is to make consumer devices (read: audiovisual stuff) more versatile, by allowing them to dedicate, say, one core to processing the signal you're watching, one to processing the signal you wish to record, one to handle the disk I/O, and one to watch over everything and make sure your favourite show is recorded without glitches.
This isn't aimed at the desktop, or at shrinking supercomputers to the size of your thumb, or any other fantasies you may while away your idle cycles with.
It's aimed fairly and squarely at the embedded and consumer device markets, where it will produce benefits, and will likely make ARM a tidy sum in license fees.
The reason SCO acted so quickly wasn't because they respect other peoples copyrights, since they obviously didn't check before ripping this material off.
It's simply that to do otherwise given their current legal shenanigans would have been foolish.
There's no honour involved, just cold calculation of the lawyer variety.
The carbon fibre itself may not be very flammable, but the epoxy resin used to bond the fibre will burn, though not in the sort of conflagration that caught the Sheffield in the Falklands.
I'd expect it to char and smoulder, in most cases.
As the idiot that ran headlong over a cliff (a disused quarry) while orienteering in my youth, despite having noted the quarry on my map not two minutes before, I can tell you the world is full of idiots.
It was only 30-odd feet, but it was a nasty surprise (and was I glad I knew how to roll on landing!).
"None of these innovations were perpetrated by a monopoly..."
Yes they were - the NRDC (later to become BTG) had a monopoly on the exploitation of publically funded research from its inception.
Patenting things (hovercraft, interferon, CVT, etc.) is entirely different from patenting processes/software - the first can be justified, the second is a can of worms best left unopened.
Imagine the chaos if the Germans had had bureaucrats with vision, and had properly funded and supported Zuse.
His 'computing universe' idea (alluded to at the end of the article) seems so similar to Wolfram's recent ideas that I was tempted to think the whole article was a hoax, but there are far too many links on Google for that.
Regional stamp duty might screw them up, though - a large step change at around 80,000 or so might distort the market sufficiently to keep first time buyers in the market, and the proceeds could be used to subsidise social housing on new developments.
If it was the government doing it, I'd still be cool - a decent BBc engineer costs much less than a useless NHS administrator to employ, after all.
But the BBC isn't the government - it's public service broadcasting at its best (though it's not as good as it might be, since it feels the need to justify the license fee by playing the ratings game and filling the schedule with mindless drivel). The BBC has been at the forefront of broadcast engineering development since the 1920s, and I'm happy to see them contributing to the world once more.
And the top rate of income tax over here isn't 50%, it's 40% - I wish it was 50% for high earners, then perhaps they'd have less disposable income to push house prices beyond the reach of the rest of us.
Unlikely, unless Lamarck was right - in which case I'll grow you a taller girraffe, given a few generations and a tree on a jack.
I can see how you might interpret the failure of Tamoxifen after a period of remission as the cancer somehow 'evolving', but wouldn't hold the same interpretation myself, preferring to explain the phenomenon by the existence of a range of sensitivity to Tamoxifen among cancer cells, with the least affected cells likely to persist and eventually to dominate the tumour. They may even be different cell types - cancer is evidence of cell genome damage, so numerous cells in one locality may become damaged by a single event, and not all cells need be sensitive to the therapy used initially.
I haven't seen any reverences to testicular cancer evolving - perhaps you could point me to some papers, as I find the subject fascinating.
Cancer, just like any other disease is evolving and will evolve...
Sorry to sound abrupt, but evolving? Evolving my arse.
Cancer isn't an organism, it's a fairly well defined malfunction in various types of cell in your body - which don't tend to evolve at all these days, due to the lack of selection pressure.
Only a few cancers can be characterised by excess RNA or by specific marker proteins at present - that's why they have concentrated on prostrate cancer and a form of lung cancer for their proof-of-concept. As more markers are identified, this method will become more generally applicable, and you'll eventually be able to have an annual 'anti-cancer shot' that will be much the same from year to year, except for having additional cancers added to it.
No - they already had a simple 'yes/no' sort of automaton.
What they have done, which is cool, clever and generally admirable, is to add an input (detect protein A, or RNA strand B, etc.) that triggers an appropriate output (synthesise protein C, or make enzyme D to release drug E).
This is incredibly powerful - indeed it is 90% of the way to the 'magic bullet' that was the grail of cancer research a few years back (there's no method for delivery into the cell yet, but I'm sure a viroid shell for anti-cancer drugs is possible), and the guys deserve a Nobel prize for this if it lives up to its potential.
Redefining a word because it suits you is pure charlatanry, nothing less.
Either something is literally true, or it isn't (that's not the same as literally false, btw).
Stretching your interpretation of your book to accomodate facts may be laudable, in that you do not at least attempt to deny the facts (as previous generations of your co-religionists have), but you will eventually have to accept that so many facts will disagree with any reasonable interpretation of your beliefs that you can choose either to accept the truth or to drive yourself insane playing word-games to salvage a doomed faith.
For an analogy to this, try reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and note how older theories are held sacred until battered down by evidence, waiting for a better theory to appear.
Thoughtful scientists accept that their theories are at best a metaphor for reality - why is it that religions claim absolute truth?
Is there another feasible source that I don't know about?
No, but there is one you might have paddled in, swum in or surfed on - seawater has around 150ppm deuterium oxide - AKA heavy water.
It is the main source for deuterium, and I think your confusion arises from the use of heavy water to moderate some reactor desings - the deuterium is not produced by the reactor, but is used to slow the neutrons to allow efficient fusion.
You aren't going to use it in your home computer because your home computer does a broad range of things.
But it's the software application that tells the chip how to reprogram itself - so I can see this technology being embedded in a card for your PC that multiple programs can take advantage of, with a driver that can lock the card to a particular executable while it's running.
Consider the possibilities - a generic card that can provide fast encryption, DSP, complex geometry, all dependent on the application, and if successful at a low cost compared to ASICs.
If required, a machine could have multiple cards, independently addressable by different applications.
It looks good to me, so long as the unit cost can be made realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
This scenario is almost exactly what happens here in Airstrip One, under the Blair Junta's 'anti-terror' legislation.
The only difference is that under the lateat proposals, a judge is unnecessary - the Home Secretary (equivalent of the US Sec. of State) can decide who gets locked up.
My sig sums up my feelings on this, as on so much else.
Perhaps the density in the UV range should be measured, but UV can cause damage to bacteria, so you might kill the thing you are trying to measure.
The increase in OD could be caused by some interaction between the nanoparticles and the media, or it might be due to replication taking place. Repetition with a bunch of different growth media could point to the true cause, but until DNA or RNA is isolated and shown not to be contamination from other sources, the whole thing has to remain doubtful.
Personally, I'd like to see nanobacteria - the smaller the minimal unit that can be shown to self replicate gets, the less persuasive the phony statistical arguments of the creationist movement will become, and we can finally put all this god nonsense to bed.
White robots, programmable bats, exploding balls - even Kerry Packer would be on to a winner with that sort of sport!
Do you have especially huge cricket grounds where you come from? I can throw a cricket ball around 100 yards (300 feet for the USians) fairly accurately, and could always reach the wicket from 3rd man, no matter which ground I played at. Baseball grounds, OTOH, are regularly 130 yards from home plate to the boundary - an extra 100 feet or so.
And the idea of trying to catch a ball with one of those silly mitts on fills me with horror.
Good slip fielding is impressive - fielding in the deep is comparatively easy.
Being Cantabrigian, they probably preferred the Greek metaphor, anyway ;)
The purpose of having a multiprocessor on a single core is to make consumer devices (read: audiovisual stuff) more versatile, by allowing them to dedicate, say, one core to processing the signal you're watching, one to processing the signal you wish to record, one to handle the disk I/O, and one to watch over everything and make sure your favourite show is recorded without glitches.
This isn't aimed at the desktop, or at shrinking supercomputers to the size of your thumb, or any other fantasies you may while away your idle cycles with.
It's aimed fairly and squarely at the embedded and consumer device markets, where it will produce benefits, and will likely make ARM a tidy sum in license fees.
The Lord has sent these here batteries to power the iBooks of the Sodomites, and will smite them mightily!
Li-S could be easily packed into the tinniest devices
That means it'll be great for powering my tinny DVD, my tinny digital camera, in fact anything tinny and of far-Eastern manufacture.
The reason SCO acted so quickly wasn't because they respect other peoples copyrights, since they obviously didn't check before ripping this material off.
It's simply that to do otherwise given their current legal shenanigans would have been foolish.
There's no honour involved, just cold calculation of the lawyer variety.
I'd expect it to char and smoulder, in most cases.
Better not fire those things if you're being tailgated, sonny boy - they'll stop you quicker than a set of Brembos!
Don't know whether you've read it, but I'm just about to.
It was only 30-odd feet, but it was a nasty surprise (and was I glad I knew how to roll on landing!).
Yes they were - the NRDC (later to become BTG) had a monopoly on the exploitation of publically funded research from its inception.
Patenting things (hovercraft, interferon, CVT, etc.) is entirely different from patenting processes/software - the first can be justified, the second is a can of worms best left unopened.
I think you're trolling, anyway.
Imagine the chaos if the Germans had had bureaucrats with vision, and had properly funded and supported Zuse.
His 'computing universe' idea (alluded to at the end of the article) seems so similar to Wolfram's recent ideas that I was tempted to think the whole article was a hoax, but there are far too many links on Google for that.
But the BBC isn't the government - it's public service broadcasting at its best (though it's not as good as it might be, since it feels the need to justify the license fee by playing the ratings game and filling the schedule with mindless drivel). The BBC has been at the forefront of broadcast engineering development since the 1920s, and I'm happy to see them contributing to the world once more.
And the top rate of income tax over here isn't 50%, it's 40% - I wish it was 50% for high earners, then perhaps they'd have less disposable income to push house prices beyond the reach of the rest of us.
Put t'briomide in thy tea, and calm down!
Mea culpa, for relying on journalists!
Unlikely, unless Lamarck was right - in which case I'll grow you a taller girraffe, given a few generations and a tree on a jack.
I can see how you might interpret the failure of Tamoxifen after a period of remission as the cancer somehow 'evolving', but wouldn't hold the same interpretation myself, preferring to explain the phenomenon by the existence of a range of sensitivity to Tamoxifen among cancer cells, with the least affected cells likely to persist and eventually to dominate the tumour. They may even be different cell types - cancer is evidence of cell genome damage, so numerous cells in one locality may become damaged by a single event, and not all cells need be sensitive to the therapy used initially.
I haven't seen any reverences to testicular cancer evolving - perhaps you could point me to some papers, as I find the subject fascinating.
Sorry to sound abrupt, but evolving? Evolving my arse.
Cancer isn't an organism, it's a fairly well defined malfunction in various types of cell in your body - which don't tend to evolve at all these days, due to the lack of selection pressure.
Only a few cancers can be characterised by excess RNA or by specific marker proteins at present - that's why they have concentrated on prostrate cancer and a form of lung cancer for their proof-of-concept. As more markers are identified, this method will become more generally applicable, and you'll eventually be able to have an annual 'anti-cancer shot' that will be much the same from year to year, except for having additional cancers added to it.
What they have done, which is cool, clever and generally admirable, is to add an input (detect protein A, or RNA strand B, etc.) that triggers an appropriate output (synthesise protein C, or make enzyme D to release drug E).
This is incredibly powerful - indeed it is 90% of the way to the 'magic bullet' that was the grail of cancer research a few years back (there's no method for delivery into the cell yet, but I'm sure a viroid shell for anti-cancer drugs is possible), and the guys deserve a Nobel prize for this if it lives up to its potential.
Redefining a word because it suits you is pure charlatanry, nothing less.
Either something is literally true, or it isn't (that's not the same as literally false, btw).
Stretching your interpretation of your book to accomodate facts may be laudable, in that you do not at least attempt to deny the facts (as previous generations of your co-religionists have), but you will eventually have to accept that so many facts will disagree with any reasonable interpretation of your beliefs that you can choose either to accept the truth or to drive yourself insane playing word-games to salvage a doomed faith.
For an analogy to this, try reading Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and note how older theories are held sacred until battered down by evidence, waiting for a better theory to appear.
Thoughtful scientists accept that their theories are at best a metaphor for reality - why is it that religions claim absolute truth?
No, but there is one you might have paddled in, swum in or surfed on - seawater has around 150ppm deuterium oxide - AKA heavy water.
It is the main source for deuterium, and I think your confusion arises from the use of heavy water to moderate some reactor desings - the deuterium is not produced by the reactor, but is used to slow the neutrons to allow efficient fusion.
But it's the software application that tells the chip how to reprogram itself - so I can see this technology being embedded in a card for your PC that multiple programs can take advantage of, with a driver that can lock the card to a particular executable while it's running.
Consider the possibilities - a generic card that can provide fast encryption, DSP, complex geometry, all dependent on the application, and if successful at a low cost compared to ASICs.
If required, a machine could have multiple cards, independently addressable by different applications.
It looks good to me, so long as the unit cost can be made realistic.