Nice idea, except all planet/moon systems currently orbit a center of mass that is not at the center of either body. The Earth and Moon both orbit a center of mass point. It happens that due to the masses of each, and their distance apart that the center of mass of the system is somewhere beneath the Earth's surface, but not at the center of the Earth. I gather that you are thinking of systems where the center of mass is not within either body. This seems arbitrary scientifically, but understandable in a common sense sort of way.
Here is the Wikipedia's entry for Barycenter, with some helpful diagrams illustrating the concept.
But isnt that the point. Science fiction gives people something to strive towards. Whether it be a utopian society, an expansive universce to explore, or simply a future where technology makes life better, science fiction provides people with imaginative and currently far fetched ideas that may one day be realities.
Opiates don't make you think the world will be better, they make you think the world is better. Sitcoms are the opiates of the masses. They show people in "bubbles" acting out mundane, overdone, and common situations, over and over again. Sci-fi, if anything, gives you hope but also helps show whats wrong with the world now. If you think that the world today is as egalitarian, free, and open as it is in Star Trek, then you aren't reading enough good journalism
Wrong orientation? Have you noticed how new HDTVs are widescreen and movie theatres are as well? Additionally, for all but East Asia, written communication is mostly horizontal. Because of the nature of our eyes, our horizontal view is wider than our vertical. Thus, it is easier to read when the width is longer than the height. Thus, the PSP seems ideal. I use a Palm T3 for reading, horizontally of course, with the virtual graffiti area removed. Previously, I used an NR70V from Sony in a similar fashion. Try reading something both ways.....6 words across by 10 lines down or 11 words across by 5 lines down, and see which u prefer.
Scientists releasing papers and ideas, especially ones that are obviously controversial, before the peer review/publication process has been completed is poor science. While the peer review process is not perfect with the potential to overemphasize mediocre/bad work or miss good work, the system is the checks and balances upon which science has relied for decades to ensure quality work.
For an example of how releasing scientific results to the media before it is fully evaluated can have disastrous effects, check out cold fusion.
I have a degree in Biochemistry, Cellular and Molecular Biology. I used to work in a Genetics research lab as well. Now, I'm no Cambridge Scholar, but I'm not stupid. But unless I'm missing something, this guy has basic points wrong in most of his 7 points.
Eliminating telomerase is not bad, and a way to reduce/eliminate cancer. Telomoerase is essential for Germ Cells, i.e. sperm and egg cells. It seems unlikely to be able to eliminate it in all cells but these.
Cancer cells don't need telomerase. There are countless avenues to cancerous cell growth.
Stimulation cell growth is good and necessary. Cell growth in the brain could be extremely problematic. The brain is a living, connected system. The connections are what make the brain what it is. Unlike computeres with fixed hardware and variable software, the brain is variable in both. The electrical patterns can change as well as the paths the patterns take. Essentially, they are insepearable. The addition of new cells, with no way to control their connectedness would not aleveate the problems of cellular degredation and loss.
Extrecellular protein linkages are unique. Biology is extremely effecient at its use of chemical compounds, structurally. Our knowledge of protein strcuture is limited, due to the limitiations we have of computational modeling due to limited computational abilities. That he should think that extracellular proteins show unique linkages seems hubristic. It is possible we don't understand all protein interactions yet.
Cell growth can be stimulated naturally. Here, even a passing comment has errors. Muscle cells are stimulated to divide by excercise. No! Excercise increases the size of muscles by stimulating an increase in production of muscle fiber proteins. More proteins cause a cell to be larger, and thus the overall muscle to be bigger. Thus excercise increases the size of muscles, not the number of cells. This is basic biology.
Mitochondrial proteins will work in the nucleus.While most cells in the world use a universal genetic code, some vary specific cells do not fully share the code's universality. Some non-eukaryotic cells and mitochondria. (It is interesting to note that mitochondria are thought to be descendended from symbiotic non-eukaryotics cells themselves.) I don't know off the top of my head if these proteins will work with both codes, but it seems likely that even if the nucleus can produce the raw protein, the proper folding, transport, and ultimate use of the proteins might not occurt since they are not where they need to be, namely inside the mitochondria. Only native proteins might be functional.
Again, I might have too simple an outlook or be completely incorrect, but it seems that there are basic concepts of biology that conflict with de Grey's ideas.
While the argument that the electoral college (and the Senate for that matter) gives smaller states an oppurtunity to equalize the playing field in the national politcal stage is often bandied about, the fact remains that the system is inherently undemocratic. In our view of republican democracy, people are represented by "rerpesenatives". Each person should have an equal vote in his/her representation. Yet in the Electoral College and Senate, voters in less populous (though not necessarily smaller) states have a disproportionately larger vote value. While this does prevent less populous regions from being dominated by metropolitan areas, it does give these smaller regions domination over metropolitan areas. Ultimately, even though this is less than ideal, there are few better alternatives. In the current system (as seen by the 2000 election), the will of a minority can dominate the will of the majority. This is antithetical to democracy.
While your overall point is good, you make assumptions and draw conclusions that don't necessairly follow.
First, just because humans can survive without caffeine doesn't mean we should. I'm pretty sure your "hooked" on electricity but probably don't consider it a vice. Humans have existed without it for thousands of years and yet we don't seem to think its a problem. Yet it provides stimulation to keep us alert and awake (alarm clocks, Muzak, etc.) This is akin to what is commonly called the naturalistic fallacy, excpet worded in the negative. (Just because x is not necessary for existence, then x should not exist [or be used].)
Second, look up some information on amphetamines and ADHD. While I know ADHD is heavily debated in scientific circles, there is evidence that stimulants do help alleviate hyperactivity in some people. Its counterintuitive, I know, but as is often the case, biology and chemistry aren't intuitive. Look at the duck-billed platypus.
Furthermore, Edison had a large lab with a large staff working on "his" various inventions. It's unfortunate that people don't give these associates their due in the creation of the light bulb, motion picture camera, etc.
"Genius is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration" - Edison
It seems Edison knew that it took both hard work and the occasional Eureka moment in the invention process.
This idea of broadband access creating a "breeding ground" for new malicious code as well as allowing the code to be spread more rapidly and universally seems to parrallel the problems that have been facing public health officials for the last century.
With the increase in human mobility due to cars, trains, planes, etc. more people can come in contact from disparate places more rapidly and more often. This has resulted in once isolated diseases with limited scope becoming important health concerns. SARS is a prime example. Toronto became an infected city, though thousands of miles away from the epicenter. Yet we develop technology to aid in the detection and treatment of diseases. We don't, though, regulate people's movement. Temporarily there might be economic forces that isolate areas (i.e. airline travel stops due to lack of demand) but such effedts are temporary.
I don't see a need to necessarily worry that broadband access's negative effects will trigger overregulation. Instead, I think that systems will be developed that mimic biologic systems. Oftentimes, evolution has produced solutions to complex problems in very elegant ways that we could not have developed using traditional methods.
While I know the Nazi post was pertinent to the conversation, since the current American administration has orchestrated the passage of many questionable laws, I can't help but laugh.
It seems that I saw a science show about heart surgeons in USSR/Russia (I don't remember how old this was)who used this idea to perform open heart surgeries.
With the decline of the USSR, hospitals often went underfunded without complex heart/lung machines. Yet it is necessary to stop the heart during open heart surgeries. As a solution, doctors chill the person's body, packing the head in ice, and removing the blood replacing it with some chilled liquid. Then they have an hour after stopping the heart. Once finished, the slowly warm the person and apply a shock to restart the heart.
The detials might be wrong. It also seems like similar procedures are sometimes done in the States as well.
Your right, they do look like cell membranes, except that cell membranes don't have that layer of air between the surfactants layers. Instead, membranes consist of fatty acid tails which are extremely hydrophobic nestled between phosphorous heads, hence the term "phospholipid bilayer". There are two mirror layers of phospholipids with the tails pointing in and the heads pointing out.
While the pictures don't exactly portray a phospholipid bilayer, they do approximate the double membrane of a cell's nucleus, which is TWO phospholipid bilayers together (hence two sets of two phosopholipids, or 4 altogether).
Each surfactant layer resembles a membrane and there is space between the two layers. The nucleus of cell's have this configuration possibly as a result of endosymbiosis, in which bacteria were engulfed into other bacteria or into simple spherical membraneous droplets. Mitochrondria also have this double membrane for those interested.
In case you were unaware, you cannot cure cancer. In fact, most people have cancer at some time in their life. Cancer is abnormal cell division, most often do to genetic mutations in cell cycle regulators. The immune system often recognizes cancererous cells and eliminates them. It is only when normal immune processes fail to stop the abnormal cell growth that a person gets what we call "cancer".
So, even if you can get rid of one population of cancerous cells, it doesn't preclude a person from getting a different cancer somewhere else at a later time. Thus, the treatment is just that, a treatment and not a cure.
Yes the sun provides radiant energy, but even the most effecient conversion of solar energy to some other more readily available form is something like 30% and that's in the chlorplasts of living plants. Fusion power is a much more feasible source of energy. Covering the Earth's surface with solar cells couldn't generate the energy needed to sustain our civilization.
What about states with right turns on red? Most traffic would stop, but there would be residual cars moving around, creating obstacles to be avoided, along with all the stopped cars at the redlights.
Perhaps you haven't considered that the water flowing through the pipes of your neighborhood and home isn't the purest and/or tastiest water available. I myself would rather purchase purified bottled water to avoid the musky, metallic taste of my house's water. I do know that not all bottled water is the same, with some being only marginally better than that of my home. So I choose wisely.
Additionally, the water you consume at your home is not free. It is less expensive than bottled water. You can check this out by reading your utility bill next month.
Personally, I would gladly pay for content that is delivered to my house via Satellite, Cable, DVD, etc. if the quality is better than what is available for free. I buy music from Apple's iTunes music store because I hate the hassle of P2P systems, and I want a good quality, readily availabe music source.
Is this new information? Hasn't the sun always been emitting more and more energy over its lifetime? I was under the impression that this was part of the basis for the Gaia hypothesis - that the planet as a whole reacts to changes such that life maintains favorable conditions on the planet for life to exist. I am not defending this hypothesis, just restating it.
One reason this idea was developed has to do with the radiant energy problem of the sun. The sun has been emitting more energy over time, yet surface temperature conditions have not changed much (on the average) over a long period of time. An explanation has to do with the Gaia hypothesis. The planet, as a whole, undergoes changes that work to counterbalance the external change. Such changes include more cloud cover to refelct more light; a change in plant distribution (i.e. grasslands, forests, etc.); oceanic CO2 load to change the greenhouse effect; etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, I just realized I wasn't logged in so this is an AC post. Sorry about that. If you'd like to discuss, this is my SN.
Nice idea, except all planet/moon systems currently orbit a center of mass that is not at the center of either body. The Earth and Moon both orbit a center of mass point. It happens that due to the masses of each, and their distance apart that the center of mass of the system is somewhere beneath the Earth's surface, but not at the center of the Earth. I gather that you are thinking of systems where the center of mass is not within either body. This seems arbitrary scientifically, but understandable in a common sense sort of way.
Here is the Wikipedia's entry for Barycenter, with some helpful diagrams illustrating the concept.
But isnt that the point. Science fiction gives people something to strive towards. Whether it be a utopian society, an expansive universce to explore, or simply a future where technology makes life better, science fiction provides people with imaginative and currently far fetched ideas that may one day be realities.
Opiates don't make you think the world will be better, they make you think the world is better. Sitcoms are the opiates of the masses. They show people in "bubbles" acting out mundane, overdone, and common situations, over and over again. Sci-fi, if anything, gives you hope but also helps show whats wrong with the world now. If you think that the world today is as egalitarian, free, and open as it is in Star Trek, then you aren't reading enough good journalism
Wrong orientation? Have you noticed how new HDTVs are widescreen and movie theatres are as well? Additionally, for all but East Asia, written communication is mostly horizontal. Because of the nature of our eyes, our horizontal view is wider than our vertical. Thus, it is easier to read when the width is longer than the height. Thus, the PSP seems ideal. I use a Palm T3 for reading, horizontally of course, with the virtual graffiti area removed. Previously, I used an NR70V from Sony in a similar fashion. Try reading something both ways.....6 words across by 10 lines down or 11 words across by 5 lines down, and see which u prefer.
Scientists releasing papers and ideas, especially ones that are obviously controversial, before the peer review/publication process has been completed is poor science. While the peer review process is not perfect with the potential to overemphasize mediocre/bad work or miss good work, the system is the checks and balances upon which science has relied for decades to ensure quality work.
For an example of how releasing scientific results to the media before it is fully evaluated can have disastrous effects, check out cold fusion.
I have a degree in Biochemistry, Cellular and Molecular Biology. I used to work in a Genetics research lab as well. Now, I'm no Cambridge Scholar, but I'm not stupid. But unless I'm missing something, this guy has basic points wrong in most of his 7 points.
Eliminating telomerase is not bad, and a way to reduce/eliminate cancer. Telomoerase is essential for Germ Cells, i.e. sperm and egg cells. It seems unlikely to be able to eliminate it in all cells but these.
Cancer cells don't need telomerase. There are countless avenues to cancerous cell growth.
Stimulation cell growth is good and necessary. Cell growth in the brain could be extremely problematic. The brain is a living, connected system. The connections are what make the brain what it is. Unlike computeres with fixed hardware and variable software, the brain is variable in both. The electrical patterns can change as well as the paths the patterns take. Essentially, they are insepearable. The addition of new cells, with no way to control their connectedness would not aleveate the problems of cellular degredation and loss.
Extrecellular protein linkages are unique. Biology is extremely effecient at its use of chemical compounds, structurally. Our knowledge of protein strcuture is limited, due to the limitiations we have of computational modeling due to limited computational abilities. That he should think that extracellular proteins show unique linkages seems hubristic. It is possible we don't understand all protein interactions yet.
Cell growth can be stimulated naturally. Here, even a passing comment has errors. Muscle cells are stimulated to divide by excercise. No! Excercise increases the size of muscles by stimulating an increase in production of muscle fiber proteins. More proteins cause a cell to be larger, and thus the overall muscle to be bigger. Thus excercise increases the size of muscles, not the number of cells. This is basic biology.
Mitochondrial proteins will work in the nucleus.While most cells in the world use a universal genetic code, some vary specific cells do not fully share the code's universality. Some non-eukaryotic cells and mitochondria. (It is interesting to note that mitochondria are thought to be descendended from symbiotic non-eukaryotics cells themselves.) I don't know off the top of my head if these proteins will work with both codes, but it seems likely that even if the nucleus can produce the raw protein, the proper folding, transport, and ultimate use of the proteins might not occurt since they are not where they need to be, namely inside the mitochondria. Only native proteins might be functional.
Again, I might have too simple an outlook or be completely incorrect, but it seems that there are basic concepts of biology that conflict with de Grey's ideas.
While the argument that the electoral college (and the Senate for that matter) gives smaller states an oppurtunity to equalize the playing field in the national politcal stage is often bandied about, the fact remains that the system is inherently undemocratic. In our view of republican democracy, people are represented by "rerpesenatives". Each person should have an equal vote in his/her representation. Yet in the Electoral College and Senate, voters in less populous (though not necessarily smaller) states have a disproportionately larger vote value. While this does prevent less populous regions from being dominated by metropolitan areas, it does give these smaller regions domination over metropolitan areas. Ultimately, even though this is less than ideal, there are few better alternatives. In the current system (as seen by the 2000 election), the will of a minority can dominate the will of the majority. This is antithetical to democracy.
Trans-Siberian Railroad maybe?
First, just because humans can survive without caffeine doesn't mean we should. I'm pretty sure your "hooked" on electricity but probably don't consider it a vice. Humans have existed without it for thousands of years and yet we don't seem to think its a problem. Yet it provides stimulation to keep us alert and awake (alarm clocks, Muzak, etc.) This is akin to what is commonly called the naturalistic fallacy, excpet worded in the negative. (Just because x is not necessary for existence, then x should not exist [or be used].)
Second, look up some information on amphetamines and ADHD. While I know ADHD is heavily debated in scientific circles, there is evidence that stimulants do help alleviate hyperactivity in some people. Its counterintuitive, I know, but as is often the case, biology and chemistry aren't intuitive. Look at the duck-billed platypus.
Furthermore, Edison had a large lab with a large staff working on "his" various inventions. It's unfortunate that people don't give these associates their due in the creation of the light bulb, motion picture camera, etc.
"Genius is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration" - Edison
It seems Edison knew that it took both hard work and the occasional Eureka moment in the invention process.
This idea of broadband access creating a "breeding ground" for new malicious code as well as allowing the code to be spread more rapidly and universally seems to parrallel the problems that have been facing public health officials for the last century.
With the increase in human mobility due to cars, trains, planes, etc. more people can come in contact from disparate places more rapidly and more often. This has resulted in once isolated diseases with limited scope becoming important health concerns. SARS is a prime example. Toronto became an infected city, though thousands of miles away from the epicenter. Yet we develop technology to aid in the detection and treatment of diseases. We don't, though, regulate people's movement. Temporarily there might be economic forces that isolate areas (i.e. airline travel stops due to lack of demand) but such effedts are temporary.
I don't see a need to necessarily worry that broadband access's negative effects will trigger overregulation. Instead, I think that systems will be developed that mimic biologic systems. Oftentimes, evolution has produced solutions to complex problems in very elegant ways that we could not have developed using traditional methods.
While I know the Nazi post was pertinent to the conversation, since the current American administration has orchestrated the passage of many questionable laws, I can't help but laugh.
It seems that I saw a science show about heart surgeons in USSR/Russia (I don't remember how old this was)who used this idea to perform open heart surgeries.
With the decline of the USSR, hospitals often went underfunded without complex heart/lung machines. Yet it is necessary to stop the heart during open heart surgeries. As a solution, doctors chill the person's body, packing the head in ice, and removing the blood replacing it with some chilled liquid. Then they have an hour after stopping the heart. Once finished, the slowly warm the person and apply a shock to restart the heart.
The detials might be wrong. It also seems like similar procedures are sometimes done in the States as well.
Your right, they do look like cell membranes, except that cell membranes don't have that layer of air between the surfactants layers. Instead, membranes consist of fatty acid tails which are extremely hydrophobic nestled between phosphorous heads, hence the term "phospholipid bilayer". There are two mirror layers of phospholipids with the tails pointing in and the heads pointing out.
While the pictures don't exactly portray a phospholipid bilayer, they do approximate the double membrane of a cell's nucleus, which is TWO phospholipid bilayers together (hence two sets of two phosopholipids, or 4 altogether).
Each surfactant layer resembles a membrane and there is space between the two layers. The nucleus of cell's have this configuration possibly as a result of endosymbiosis, in which bacteria were engulfed into other bacteria or into simple spherical membraneous droplets. Mitochrondria also have this double membrane for those interested.
In case you were unaware, you cannot cure cancer. In fact, most people have cancer at some time in their life. Cancer is abnormal cell division, most often do to genetic mutations in cell cycle regulators. The immune system often recognizes cancererous cells and eliminates them. It is only when normal immune processes fail to stop the abnormal cell growth that a person gets what we call "cancer".
So, even if you can get rid of one population of cancerous cells, it doesn't preclude a person from getting a different cancer somewhere else at a later time. Thus, the treatment is just that, a treatment and not a cure.
Yes the sun provides radiant energy, but even the most effecient conversion of solar energy to some other more readily available form is something like 30% and that's in the chlorplasts of living plants. Fusion power is a much more feasible source of energy. Covering the Earth's surface with solar cells couldn't generate the energy needed to sustain our civilization.
What about states with right turns on red? Most traffic would stop, but there would be residual cars moving around, creating obstacles to be avoided, along with all the stopped cars at the redlights.
Perhaps you haven't considered that the water flowing through the pipes of your neighborhood and home isn't the purest and/or tastiest water available. I myself would rather purchase purified bottled water to avoid the musky, metallic taste of my house's water. I do know that not all bottled water is the same, with some being only marginally better than that of my home. So I choose wisely. Additionally, the water you consume at your home is not free. It is less expensive than bottled water. You can check this out by reading your utility bill next month. Personally, I would gladly pay for content that is delivered to my house via Satellite, Cable, DVD, etc. if the quality is better than what is available for free. I buy music from Apple's iTunes music store because I hate the hassle of P2P systems, and I want a good quality, readily availabe music source.
Is this new information? Hasn't the sun always been emitting more and more energy over its lifetime? I was under the impression that this was part of the basis for the Gaia hypothesis - that the planet as a whole reacts to changes such that life maintains favorable conditions on the planet for life to exist. I am not defending this hypothesis, just restating it. One reason this idea was developed has to do with the radiant energy problem of the sun. The sun has been emitting more energy over time, yet surface temperature conditions have not changed much (on the average) over a long period of time. An explanation has to do with the Gaia hypothesis. The planet, as a whole, undergoes changes that work to counterbalance the external change. Such changes include more cloud cover to refelct more light; a change in plant distribution (i.e. grasslands, forests, etc.); oceanic CO2 load to change the greenhouse effect; etc.