You connect a heat source to the bottom of a water tank, as it heats water on the bottom, the density of water in vicinity decreases and flow upward in one direction.
Yes because that's also the direction of the heat gradient vector. Put a refrigerator at the bottom, and you'll soon find that the transfer of heat is now reversed.
If heat could only transfer from the bottom of the tank to the top, and if the top of the tank was much hotter than the bottom but heat was not transfered to the bottom, then that would be transferring heat in one direction, in the sense meant by the GP, and would violate thermodynamics.
I think ceasing to disclose U.S. employment sends a very clear labor market signal: The off-shoring will continue, probably at a rate much higher than you were thinking or are comfortable with. What more does a policy maker really need to know than "IBM is shipping jobs over seas so fast they don't want to talk about it"?
In order to foster his unique style, and to one-up Twitter, the main form of communication on this social networking site are tiny posts, known as "Shats", limited to exactly one word.
And losing your network connection because you were sitting at the wrong end of the conference table in your meeting would be a huge minus.
And having the signal stop at the wall but not at the window sounds like a major ding to the "huge plus", not to mention a recipe for a false sense of security.
In either case you'd have to secure your wireless network in a traditional fashion. So, why not just do that, and get the benefit of non-line-of-sight communication too?
Just a practical note from personal experience. Screaming "child pornography" at the top of my lungs did not let me undo the Constitutionally granted power of the Executive Branch to create law enforcement agencies to enforce federal laws while agents of said agencies were hauling me away. Quite the opposite in fact.
Yeah I like how being able to go through walls is listed as a downside. Though I guess if leeches are your biggest concern, it is an improvement. They'd still exist, but you'd be a lot more likely to notice the guy sitting outside your window with a laptop than if he was in his own home.
I remember in college making a radio and a wireless speaker system on the same breadboard, using an LED to transmit the audio from the radio to the amplifier. It was a pretty cool thing to do in a lab, but it didn't occur to me to rush home and duplicate this amazing feat on my home stereo.
The one questions is: how does your laptop equipped with this technology talk back? Will your laptop have a multi-watt emitter on the top (read "bright white light") lighting up the room for the upstream traffic?
Naw, it's like some satellite internet connections. You use the LED for download, and upstream you use dialup. I'm sure it'll catch on.:)
why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical? Isn't it more intuitive that there would be differences? But finding the "unexpected" makes for a better article than finding the expected...
Nobody ever thought they'd be identical, and of course there will be differences. That's not the same as expecting it to be completely opposite.
Expecting some kind of difference is not the same as expecting this difference. This difference was unexpected.
You can't say that because a difference of some kind is to be expected, that therefore whatever difference actually shows up was also expected. That's what strikes me as silly.
Gender identity is what lets you pick out cross-dressers and transvestites.
Sexual orientation is how you're oriented during sex, i.e. missionary, doggy style, reverse cowgirl, Saskatchewan Swinging Simian power retrograde style, etc.
Humans would be somewhere in between. A man will grow breasts if you give him enough hormones, but you'll have to do something surgically to change the penis...
My gf showed me pictures in her biology text of what were genetically men who appeared externally to be completely female, including with vaginas. Internally they lacked a uterus.
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
Yeah you can see that their sex chromosomes are different.
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
Because to notice this you have to specifically study the birds who have cells that are mixed between male and female, and then notice that the sexual characteristics vary over the same organism in accordance with which cells are male and which female.
Otherwise, you're just observing that a chicken is genetically male or female, and has male or female traits. That doesn't distinguish between a per-cell sexual determination, and mammals' overall hormone-based one.
Birds on the other hand use Z/W chromosomes for sex determination, as do most fish, some insects and some reptiles. So the big eyed "Ooooh, who would've thunk that birds aren't handling it the way we mammals do?" attitude of the article seems kind of silly considering we've known about this striking difference for a long time.
Okay, but knowing that the nature of the sex chromosomes is different isn't the same as knowing that the overall mechanism by which the sex of the organisms is determined is different. The assumption was that it was still essentially the same -- sex chromosome in the egg cell ends up controlling the formation of male or female gonads, which then release male or female hormones, which then control the sexual characteristics of the organism as a whole. And this is pretty reasonable on its face, since chickens do develop male/female gonads which do release sex hormones. It's largely the same, right up to the point where those hormones are what determine sex for every cell or not.
In mammals that's the case. Every cell in your body could be carrying X/Y chromosomes, but if due to some disorder you aren't producing male hormones but instead female ones, you will acquire female secondary sexual characteristics.
Now we know this isn't the case for birds, that every cell has its own sexual identity independent of hormones, and no we have not known about this striking difference until now.
There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...
They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking brutal. One level is Dark Side of the Moon. The next is The Wall. Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!
you still have to pull the action back for the first shot, which a 3 year old can't do.
The gun was allegedly left lying out in the open after the father took the gun out of its alleged secure hiding place because he thought he heard a prowler.
One would expect that he would have chambered a round himself in that circumstance.
(This is the Spanish word for the hot kind of spicy. In English this is sometimes called piquant (from French), but that word can also mean spicy in a more general sense (think Christmas spice)
The adjective to describe something with e.g Christmas spice in it in English is "spiced".
I.e. "Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum", as opposed to "Captain Morgan's Spicy Rum" which sounds both scary and awesome./me considers that he possesses both Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum and Tabasco sauce...
Anyway yeah I do like the Spanish 'picante' too for its clarity. I've forgotten most of what little Spanish I ever knew, but I did appreciate how it both seemed to lack extraneous synonyms for everything (though that probably makes poets sad), yet also had separate words for things that are really different enough to be considered homonyms in English.
"Free" is my favorite example... "Software libre" is perfectly clear in Spanish. There's really no need to say "Libre como libertad, no gratis como cerveza".
Oh thank god. I was worried it was going to be a movie starring Martin Lawrence as a wise-cracking [blank] who dies but gets sent back to earth so that he can [blank] while continuing to crack wise.
This is probably not patentable, and therefor no one will do the necessary trials to get it approved.
I thought that was the argument for why nobody would ever develop a non-patentable treatment in the first place. And yet, here it is. I doubt we got to the point of an actual stem cell therapy without expending lots of money on the research.
FDA approval costs a lot of money, it's true. Valid scientific clinical trials cost a lot of money even if you aren't trying to get approval, it's true. Maybe NIH funding the trials themselves for cases where industry won't is the answer.
Whatever the solution to this conundrum is, it isn't to forgo the clinical trials.
Slashdot Mirror
Thermal bias != Maxwell's Demon.
The second law does not require that heat flow from hot to cold, only that there is a net increase in heat.
Good point!
And the water example is not a thermal bias, no, but it is a neat case.
Eh, I guess. Heat moving faster in one direction than the other due to convection isn't very surprising.
You connect a heat source to the bottom of a water tank, as it heats water on the bottom, the density of water in vicinity decreases and flow upward in one direction.
Yes because that's also the direction of the heat gradient vector. Put a refrigerator at the bottom, and you'll soon find that the transfer of heat is now reversed.
If heat could only transfer from the bottom of the tank to the top, and if the top of the tank was much hotter than the bottom but heat was not transfered to the bottom, then that would be transferring heat in one direction, in the sense meant by the GP, and would violate thermodynamics.
I think ceasing to disclose U.S. employment sends a very clear labor market signal: The off-shoring will continue, probably at a rate much higher than you were thinking or are comfortable with. What more does a policy maker really need to know than "IBM is shipping jobs over seas so fast they don't want to talk about it"?
So send everyone home before it gets dark. Sounds like a win to me. :)
One?! I'm thinking most of 'em already get the kind of "laid" where it only happens to one.. ;)
In order to foster his unique style, and to one-up Twitter, the main form of communication on this social networking site are tiny posts, known as "Shats", limited to exactly one word.
And losing your network connection because you were sitting at the wrong end of the conference table in your meeting would be a huge minus.
And having the signal stop at the wall but not at the window sounds like a major ding to the "huge plus", not to mention a recipe for a false sense of security.
In either case you'd have to secure your wireless network in a traditional fashion. So, why not just do that, and get the benefit of non-line-of-sight communication too?
Just a practical note from personal experience. Screaming "child pornography" at the top of my lungs did not let me undo the Constitutionally granted power of the Executive Branch to create law enforcement agencies to enforce federal laws while agents of said agencies were hauling me away. Quite the opposite in fact.
Yeah I like how being able to go through walls is listed as a downside. Though I guess if leeches are your biggest concern, it is an improvement. They'd still exist, but you'd be a lot more likely to notice the guy sitting outside your window with a laptop than if he was in his own home.
I remember in college making a radio and a wireless speaker system on the same breadboard, using an LED to transmit the audio from the radio to the amplifier. It was a pretty cool thing to do in a lab, but it didn't occur to me to rush home and duplicate this amazing feat on my home stereo.
The one questions is: how does your laptop equipped with this technology talk back? Will your laptop have a multi-watt emitter on the top (read "bright white light") lighting up the room for the upstream traffic?
Naw, it's like some satellite internet connections. You use the LED for download, and upstream you use dialup. I'm sure it'll catch on. :)
"Sex Researchers: Taking the fun out of the last thing we hadn't already since 1962."
"Sex researchers do it rigorously and with copious bookkeeping."
"Sex researchers do it in double blind studies."
"Official sex researcher. Spread your legs for SCIENCE!"
why should we assume that the implementation on the organism level would be identical? Isn't it more intuitive that there would be differences? But finding the "unexpected" makes for a better article than finding the expected...
Nobody ever thought they'd be identical, and of course there will be differences. That's not the same as expecting it to be completely opposite.
Expecting some kind of difference is not the same as expecting this difference. This difference was unexpected.
You can't say that because a difference of some kind is to be expected, that therefore whatever difference actually shows up was also expected. That's what strikes me as silly.
Don't be silly.
Sex is what you want but can never get enough of.
Gender identity is what lets you pick out cross-dressers and transvestites.
Sexual orientation is how you're oriented during sex, i.e. missionary, doggy style, reverse cowgirl, Saskatchewan Swinging Simian power retrograde style, etc.
Humans would be somewhere in between. A man will grow breasts if you give him enough hormones, but you'll have to do something surgically to change the penis...
My gf showed me pictures in her biology text of what were genetically men who appeared externally to be completely female, including with vaginas. Internally they lacked a uterus.
Seriously. What I'm inferring from the article is that you can see the difference in the cells, e.g. male vs. female....
Yeah you can see that their sex chromosomes are different.
So how the hell have they never noticed that female and male birds have these slightly different cells before, and reached the non-hormone driven conclusion before this?
Because to notice this you have to specifically study the birds who have cells that are mixed between male and female, and then notice that the sexual characteristics vary over the same organism in accordance with which cells are male and which female.
Otherwise, you're just observing that a chicken is genetically male or female, and has male or female traits. That doesn't distinguish between a per-cell sexual determination, and mammals' overall hormone-based one.
Birds on the other hand use Z/W chromosomes for sex determination, as do most fish, some insects and some reptiles. So the big eyed "Ooooh, who would've thunk that birds aren't handling it the way we mammals do?" attitude of the article seems kind of silly considering we've known about this striking difference for a long time.
Okay, but knowing that the nature of the sex chromosomes is different isn't the same as knowing that the overall mechanism by which the sex of the organisms is determined is different. The assumption was that it was still essentially the same -- sex chromosome in the egg cell ends up controlling the formation of male or female gonads, which then release male or female hormones, which then control the sexual characteristics of the organism as a whole. And this is pretty reasonable on its face, since chickens do develop male/female gonads which do release sex hormones. It's largely the same, right up to the point where those hormones are what determine sex for every cell or not.
In mammals that's the case. Every cell in your body could be carrying X/Y chromosomes, but if due to some disorder you aren't producing male hormones but instead female ones, you will acquire female secondary sexual characteristics.
Now we know this isn't the case for birds, that every cell has its own sexual identity independent of hormones, and no we have not known about this striking difference until now.
There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...
They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking brutal. One level is Dark Side of the Moon. The next is The Wall. Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!
you still have to pull the action back for the first shot, which a 3 year old can't do.
The gun was allegedly left lying out in the open after the father took the gun out of its alleged secure hiding place because he thought he heard a prowler.
One would expect that he would have chambered a round himself in that circumstance.
You're right; I meant 2-hop and 3-hop instead of 1 and 2 respectively.
(This is the Spanish word for the hot kind of spicy. In English this is sometimes called piquant (from French), but that word can also mean spicy in a more general sense (think Christmas spice)
The adjective to describe something with e.g Christmas spice in it in English is "spiced".
I.e. "Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum", as opposed to "Captain Morgan's Spicy Rum" which sounds both scary and awesome. /me considers that he possesses both Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum and Tabasco sauce...
Anyway yeah I do like the Spanish 'picante' too for its clarity. I've forgotten most of what little Spanish I ever knew, but I did appreciate how it both seemed to lack extraneous synonyms for everything (though that probably makes poets sad), yet also had separate words for things that are really different enough to be considered homonyms in English.
"Free" is my favorite example... "Software libre" is perfectly clear in Spanish. There's really no need to say "Libre como libertad, no gratis como cerveza".
Oh thank god. I was worried it was going to be a movie starring Martin Lawrence as a wise-cracking [blank] who dies but gets sent back to earth so that he can [blank] while continuing to crack wise.
Personally I'm wondering how Silence of the Lambs looks dated because of X-Files. Or at all for that matter.
So do books, but books don't make you fat.
Are you kidding? Those things are nothing but carbs. Well and fiber, so at least you'll be a regular fat-ass.
Are they saying a picture of a fan does not provide the same level of cooling as a real fan?
No, it does, and the box includes a picture of a frequency/temperature monitor you can glue to your screen to prove it.
This is probably not patentable, and therefor no one will do the necessary trials to get it approved.
I thought that was the argument for why nobody would ever develop a non-patentable treatment in the first place. And yet, here it is. I doubt we got to the point of an actual stem cell therapy without expending lots of money on the research.
FDA approval costs a lot of money, it's true. Valid scientific clinical trials cost a lot of money even if you aren't trying to get approval, it's true. Maybe NIH funding the trials themselves for cases where industry won't is the answer.
Whatever the solution to this conundrum is, it isn't to forgo the clinical trials.