Thanks to human inginuity, we can bottle ourselves up in nice little climate-controlled houses, eat carefully prepared and nutritionally balanced foods, get regimented exercise, and receive all manner of medical treatment that cancel out pretty much everything that evolution has to work with.
all humans have SUVs and AC?
That actually sums up pretty nicely why the rest of the world don't like americans:
if they haven't got a SUV with AC they're not really human. =>If they're not really human why don't we shoot them and take their oil for our SUVs?
Well, to group all species, you'd have have to try to interbreed all species (n^n combinations?)...
This is bound to make biology a far more interesting field of research.:
"Well, dr. Smith... I think we can safely say that elephants and hamsters are NOT the same species..."
You make it sound like flexible/printable displays using semiconducting polymers is something people have been trying to construct for decades.
Truth is that the patent was filed about 1½ years ago (can't seem to find the patent right now...). and working prototypes of monochrome displays have been around for approximately the same time.
semiconducting polymers haven't been around for decades... creating them is the real hurdle towards making this technology work.
I think you're way too fast too dismiss this technology... This is not at all like trying to build a nanorobot with "lasers" that can perform surgery inside peoples bodies, or being able to make a computer model of a living cell based on nothing but the genome... This concept is proven, it just takes time to get a cheap product to the end consumer...
I've worked with glycolytic oscillations... and studying this network, I've learned that you can affect frequency and amplitude by adjusting a WHOLE range of enzyme activities...
having changed one enzyme activity only, you might feel tempted to jump to the conclusion that this enzyme controls the oscillation... having adjusted several you'll realise that oscillations are a network property.
How is this paper able to conclude that NADPH-Ox is the pacemaker, and not simply a small part of a n oscillating network? that's the part I'm not sure is watertight.
what does "the rythm of the proteine" mean anyway?
and you're right, the Biochemistry is a fine journal... but it's read by a biochemists, and the discovery deserves attention from a whole range of diiferent fields of research.
is it really that trivial to republish old news in a journal like science or nature?
I haven't seen the discovery channel show, but my guess that it isn't the same thing.
What you're describing sounds like a relaxation oscillator (they are well known in chemistry and biochemistry)... the "Biochemistry" paper, points out, that they show that the timekeeping is NOT a gene network oscillator.
So they've disproved the theory presented on the discovery channel (if they're right... which I'm not completely convinced of yet).
They think it's all down to this single enzyme, that oscillates due to some really funky properties (being able to catalyze two completely different reactions depending on the state)
if I understand the paper right, and interpret your description of the show corrrectly:)
ok, so this is really groundbreaking news... I mean, Explaining the circadian rythm has been a priority for decades. It has an enormous impact on the pharmaceutical industry, it's extremely important for biochemists, chemists, theoretical chemist and non-linear dynamics people... And the importance is REALLY obvious.
my question is this: Why do they publish it in Biochemistry?!?!
This is Nature or Science material... if it's true.
Something is obviously wrong with their argumentation, but I haven't figured out what's wrong yet... anybody?
They DEFINITELY need more sampling points... but I guess there's more to it than that.
Re:Please don't take this the wrong way
on
Deadly Perversions
·
· Score: 1
I mean, if you love something so much and if you know a ton about something, why aren't you actually doing it rather than writing little editorial pieces here and there or spending years on full-blown books that won't even get read by many people.
Yeah... If you're interested in computers you should sit in at home by your computer, or at work in your cubicle and work with it... Trying to share it with people you haven't met on slashdot just goes to show that you not REALLY interested in computer...
If the American state works so hard to supress freedom in other countries, in order to get more freedom for American citizens... Why should the major americans have higher moral standards?
I mean... They're getting money for selling a product, thereby making the american economy better => more freedom for american citizens, to do what they think is fun!
Not that I'm an expert, but my guess is that the display wouldn't be affected by magnetic fields.
CRT's are sensitive because the electrons are moving with respect to the magnetic field, thus being deflected.
This display works via a static charge... no way, that'll be affected by a magnetic field.
EM? well, that depends on how they build the thing... but if they know what they're doing that DEFINITELY shouldn't be a problem.
Yup... absolutely true.
In fact, it's the whole point about wars. (it probably isn't about being nice to civilians anyway).
I was merely pointing out a factual error in the article.
Apparently they believed that THIS PARTICULAR weapon of war would actually benefit civilians.
nono... real life is far more civilized than BattleTech.
We lie about the real purpose of the laser...
Well... yes... of course we could destroy a tank much cheaper and more effeiciently with a machine-gun or an ordinary bomb, and yes it wouldn't take up as much real estate as laser...
But really... we prefer laser because it... uhm... sounds cool and science fiction'ish.
The whole blinding people buisness is just a nasty (and COMPLETELY unintentional) side effect.
1) pretty simple... the power needed to fry someones retina is minimal compared to the power required to burn a hole in a tank...
How long does a laserbeam have to pass through air to reach a level where it's safe...
effectively the uper boundary is set by the terrain, thus the "several miles".
It just seemed like a nice estimate for a typical line of sight.
Lasers are NOT a precise weapon... it's far more non-local than bombs. The beam does not stop just because it hits a tank.
2) So you would also argue that land mines are better than bombs because they don't kill people?!?!
My point is that like landmines the only real losers are the civilians because this means that we'll revert to weapons that damage just as large an area as carpet bombing. Smart bombs are very local compared to lasers.
3) Of course civilians lose in a war... and that's the whole point... why make wars if the civilians on the oppposite side didn't get hurt.
I was merely pointing out an error in the article.
Apparently they believed that THIS particular weapon would benefit civilians.
the article states: With such lasers, a fighter jet could destroy ground targets with pinpoint accuracy, significantly reducing the chance of injuring civilians.
uhmmm... no!
The problem with lasers is, that once they hit something the beam will reflected beam/beam fragments will be able to blind people in a LARGE area (as in a radius of several miles) around the target...
Soldiers will be able to wear protective gear...
Civilians probably won't...
Civilians lose...
If anyone has ever worked with really powerful laser you'll will know how strict the safety regulations are... and you'll know how difficult it is to find all the reflections from an experimental setup.
You (the americans) shouldn't be concerned about ranking 17 on a scale that's mostly irelevant for what freedom and democracy is all about...
if you start attacking people, calling them un-american, non-patriots (whatever), becayuse they simply don't agree with the govermet policy, then your democracy has a problem...
Great, now everybody will be able to assemble americans from scratch using internet mail-order DNA segments like was done with polio. Good going. Sequence some more deadly mammal genomes while you're at it.
It's possible to create virussus from their dna sequence because of their simple structure (basically RNA in a shell).
Higher organisms are far more difficult to create from scratch... this parasite is a higher organism.
And why on earth would anyone want to do that... I'm pretty sure that it's cheaper to fly to africa and get hold of malaria from there.
and WHAT ON EARTH would you do with the malaria once you had it?!?!?
I'm sure that there are far deadlier diseases than malaria you could spread... probably even diseases that didn't depend on mosquitos...
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to human inginuity, we can bottle ourselves up in nice little climate-controlled houses, eat carefully prepared and nutritionally balanced foods, get regimented exercise, and receive all manner of medical treatment that cancel out pretty much everything that evolution has to work with.
all humans have SUVs and AC?
That actually sums up pretty nicely why the rest of the world don't like americans:
if they haven't got a SUV with AC they're not really human.
=>If they're not really human why don't we shoot them and take their oil for our SUVs?
I just got the strangest feeling of Déja vu...
Well, to group all species, you'd have have to try to interbreed all species (n^n combinations?)... This is bound to make biology a far more interesting field of research.:
:P
"Well, dr. Smith... I think we can safely say that elephants and hamsters are NOT the same species..."
You make it sound like flexible/printable displays using semiconducting polymers is something people have been trying to construct for decades.
Truth is that the patent was filed about 1½ years ago (can't seem to find the patent right now...).
and working prototypes of monochrome displays have been around for approximately the same time.
semiconducting polymers haven't been around for decades... creating them is the real hurdle towards making this technology work.
I think you're way too fast too dismiss this technology...
This is not at all like trying to build a nanorobot with "lasers" that can perform surgery inside peoples bodies, or being able to make a computer model of a living cell based on nothing but the genome... This concept is proven, it just takes time to get a cheap product to the end consumer...
I've worked with glycolytic oscillations...
and studying this network, I've learned that you can affect frequency and amplitude by adjusting a WHOLE range of enzyme activities...
having changed one enzyme activity only, you might feel tempted to jump to the conclusion that this enzyme controls the oscillation... having adjusted several you'll realise that oscillations are a network property.
How is this paper able to conclude that NADPH-Ox is the pacemaker, and not simply a small part of a n oscillating network?
that's the part I'm not sure is watertight.
what does "the rythm of the proteine" mean anyway?
and you're right, the Biochemistry is a fine journal... but it's read by a biochemists, and the discovery deserves attention from a whole range of diiferent fields of research.
is it really that trivial to republish old news in a journal like science or nature?
I haven't seen the discovery channel show, but my guess that it isn't the same thing. What you're describing sounds like a relaxation oscillator (they are well known in chemistry and biochemistry)... the "Biochemistry" paper, points out, that they show that the timekeeping is NOT a gene network oscillator. So they've disproved the theory presented on the discovery channel (if they're right... which I'm not completely convinced of yet). They think it's all down to this single enzyme, that oscillates due to some really funky properties (being able to catalyze two completely different reactions depending on the state) if I understand the paper right, and interpret your description of the show corrrectly :)
ok, so this is really groundbreaking news...
I mean, Explaining the circadian rythm has been a priority for decades.
It has an enormous impact on the pharmaceutical industry, it's extremely important for biochemists, chemists, theoretical chemist and non-linear dynamics people...
And the importance is REALLY obvious.
my question is this: Why do they publish it in Biochemistry?!?!
This is Nature or Science material... if it's true.
Something is obviously wrong with their argumentation, but I haven't figured out what's wrong yet... anybody?
They DEFINITELY need more sampling points... but I guess there's more to it than that.
I mean, if you love something so much and if you know a ton about something, why aren't you actually doing it rather than writing little editorial pieces here and there or spending years on full-blown books that won't even get read by many people.
Yeah... If you're interested in computers you should sit in at home by your computer, or at work in your cubicle and work with it... Trying to share it with people you haven't met on slashdot just goes to show that you not REALLY interested in computer...
That would really make you a loser...
If the American state works so hard to supress freedom in other countries, in order to get more freedom for American citizens... Why should the major americans have higher moral standards?
I mean... They're getting money for selling a product, thereby making the american economy better => more freedom for american citizens, to do what they think is fun!
RIGHT?!?!
We should be able to mod posts down as "-1 Anti-Semitic".
excellent point... thx
DOE accused of file-sharing...
OK... It's not a DivX version of spiderman, but scientific articles. But can someone explain the difference to me?
Not that I'm an expert, but my guess is that the display wouldn't be affected by magnetic fields.
CRT's are sensitive because the electrons are moving with respect to the magnetic field, thus being deflected. This display works via a static charge... no way, that'll be affected by a magnetic field.
EM? well, that depends on how they build the thing... but if they know what they're doing that DEFINITELY shouldn't be a problem.
Yup... absolutely true.
In fact, it's the whole point about wars. (it probably isn't about being nice to civilians anyway).
I was merely pointing out a factual error in the article.
Apparently they believed that THIS PARTICULAR weapon of war would actually benefit civilians.
nono... real life is far more civilized than BattleTech.
We lie about the real purpose of the laser...
Well... yes... of course we could destroy a tank much cheaper and more effeiciently with a machine-gun or an ordinary bomb, and yes it wouldn't take up as much real estate as laser... But really... we prefer laser because it... uhm... sounds cool and science fiction'ish. The whole blinding people buisness is just a nasty (and COMPLETELY unintentional) side effect.
1) pretty simple... the power needed to fry someones retina is minimal compared to the power required to burn a hole in a tank... How long does a laserbeam have to pass through air to reach a level where it's safe... effectively the uper boundary is set by the terrain, thus the "several miles". It just seemed like a nice estimate for a typical line of sight.
Lasers are NOT a precise weapon... it's far more non-local than bombs. The beam does not stop just because it hits a tank.
2) So you would also argue that land mines are better than bombs because they don't kill people?!?!
My point is that like landmines the only real losers are the civilians because this means that we'll revert to weapons that damage just as large an area as carpet bombing. Smart bombs are very local compared to lasers.
3) Of course civilians lose in a war... and that's the whole point... why make wars if the civilians on the oppposite side didn't get hurt. I was merely pointing out an error in the article. Apparently they believed that THIS particular weapon would benefit civilians.
the article states:
With such lasers, a fighter jet could destroy ground targets with pinpoint accuracy, significantly reducing the chance of injuring civilians.
uhmmm... no!
The problem with lasers is, that once they hit something the beam will reflected beam/beam fragments will be able to blind people in a LARGE area (as in a radius of several miles) around the target...
Soldiers will be able to wear protective gear...
Civilians probably won't...
Civilians lose...
If anyone has ever worked with really powerful laser you'll will know how strict the safety regulations are... and you'll know how difficult it is to find all the reflections from an experimental setup.
I like it!
:-)
reposting a post thats been modded +5 Insightful...
It's good but not that good
The Slashdot community may be faced with the "Curious Yellow Post" that may take over all other slashdot news in just a few days...
If anyone attempts to post other news it will immediately be taken off the site and replaced by a link to the "Curious Yellow Post"...
You (the americans) shouldn't be concerned about ranking 17 on a scale that's mostly irelevant for what freedom and democracy is all about...
if you start attacking people, calling them un-american, non-patriots (whatever), becayuse they simply don't agree with the govermet policy, then your democracy has a problem...
I've been modded "insightful" by someone!!!
now I'm REALLY scared.
OMG!
This is going to be the next terror weapon against the US! Terrorists will be able to transfer secret terrorist plans real easy!
They can go around spreading secret terrorist virusses by simply touching victims, this can lead to terrible epidemics.
Why haven't we done anything to stop japan from developing these weapons... we could have nuked them before it was to late!
well... ohkay
Oh, god. I hope no one sequences the French.
:)
Don't worry... I'm sure that would qualify as terrorism
they've sequenced the human genome...
Great, now everybody will be able to assemble americans from scratch using internet mail-order DNA segments like was done with polio. Good going. Sequence some more deadly mammal genomes while you're at it.
It's possible to create virussus from their dna sequence because of their simple structure (basically RNA in a shell).
Higher organisms are far more difficult to create from scratch... this parasite is a higher organism.
And why on earth would anyone want to do that... I'm pretty sure that it's cheaper to fly to africa and get hold of malaria from there.
and WHAT ON EARTH would you do with the malaria once you had it?!?!?
I'm sure that there are far deadlier diseases than malaria you could spread... probably even diseases that didn't depend on mosquitos...
(I really hope this wasn't a joke...)