Another example of overblown novelty... AFM is nothing new, and "olympicene" is also nothing new.. it's been made before... at least as early as 1965.. and possibly earlier still (haven't looked deeply in the scifinder databases).
Here's a literature citation (something the parent article sorely lacks) with proof. You know.. the stuff science is supposedly made of ?
There's two obvious reasons for this: Points on my credit card (i.e. free money/miles/ etc), and convienience. It allows me to watch only my credit card bill and pay it once. Also, there's a little bit of money to made on the float (not much these days w/ the low interest rates).
I'm curious, I'm a chemist and I use a UV lamp nearly every day to visualize TLC plates. The lamps, as I understand it emit from ~254-365 nm. The lamp is typically used against a black benchtop background to illuminate a white silica TLC plate, usually impregnated with a fluorescent dye to help visualization (the whole plate typically glows green under UV light, except where your compound is).
I always avoid looking directly at the lamp of course (but occasionally catch sight of it). However, I'm wondering, how dangerous this frequent exposure is. I'm often wearing my regular prescription glasses while doing this (which I believe block UV), but I know some people don't wear anything when looking at their TLCs. Furthermore, I always wear at least reasonably thick gloves when my hands are under the UV, but again, some people do not (this is direct exposure to the UV lamp source, which seems like a really bad idea...). Do you think the reflection is hazardous ? Given the frequency of use by the average bench chemist, it seems like this should be more of a concern than people typically talk about.
Also, some people sell enclosures to help visualization, but also to help block the UV light... the annoyance with these of course is that they're typically quite clunky to use in comparison to the "flashlight" method people often use: http://uvp.com/cabinetsoverview.html.
It's not that it's old... it's that its' NOT new in any tangible way... no new tech , no new application, no real invention here.. which makes it pretty "meh" in perspective.
That this stuff has been sold commercially for decades is pretty damning in terms of this being a "So what? " news item.
I'm not a huge fan of personal attacks, but you've got to admit, the guy's right.. this stuff is really very old stuff... it's not even marginally innovative.
This is news ? I mean, it's a cute college project and all..... but it's sort of a joke compared to the cutting edge. And the cutting edge is what's NEWs.
This is something i'd expect to see in make mag, or similar.
By the way... I think the commentator in the attached perspective (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/411.full) gets the born-oppenheimer approximation wrong... he states that :
"The BO approximation makes possible the practical application of quantum mechanics to all of molecular science. As the arrangement of the nuclei changes, the BO approximation postulates that the electrons will remain in a particular quantum state. "
When the BO approximation is the opposite : The atoms DONT move while the electrons DO (relatively speaking) because of their vast difference in mass. That is... the electrons are little bullets whizzing around at top speed, whereas the atoms are massive aircraft carriers in terms of mass (note: this is not meant to be even a remotely accurate analogy, but it's the general idea). You'd think that SCIENCE, of all journals, would get the Born-Oppenheimer approximation right !
Note: That in the second step of a typical quantum mech. calculation (e.g. a geometry optimization), you then use the average field generated in the first part to move the atoms (if they need to move in the particular calculation). Then you iterate to self-consistency.
When will the mathematicians give up on Pi as some sort of grand benchmark.... couldn't they do better things to benchmark their systems... like running a folding@home client, or some such thing?
Honestly.. the first thing I thought when I saw this was... wow.. how.. uncreative...
How is this going to help them beat out Google and MS again ?
Not to bash on Yahoo.. they were once a great service/company... but they're quickly becoming a has-been. What they desperately need, and what everyone in this sector needs, is creativity. This sort of horn tooting doesn't really impress me, so much as it depresses me that people are benchmarking their systems on the same old problem again and again.
If you actually read the journal article, all you will find is a LOT of criticism of Monsanto's statistical methodology (which may be valid), but very little (if any) of any actual evidence of toxicity.
Basically , they claim (which may be correct): Monsanto didn't do their studies properly! They should've used more rats, for longer, and with more measured parameters !
And THEN they turn around and claim... even though the study is statistically unsound (according to their own argument), we're going to draw some conclusions that are weak to begin with, even within the weak frame of this supposedly faulty study !
It just doesn't make much sense.... from a professional scientists' standpoint (mine), this amounts to a lot of hemming and hawing about experimental methods, but absolutely nothing in the way of conclusions !
On the Mac OS X version I dont actually see a home button in the Customize Toolbar dialog. Furthermore, switching small icons on/off appears to do nothing on OS X.
Akk, I hate the new theme for Mac OS X. Is there an easy way to bring back the Firefox 2.0 one ? I can't even find my freaking home button ! Also I usually run safari side by side so this is actually super-confusing for me.
Sure senator, i'd like some diamonds and a free ride to happy-land along with it. Is that ok ? What's that? It's out of everyone's else's pockets!? Why sure, hand it over !
I'm a science oriented person (a chemist actually), but this reeks of the many tax and spend programs we could do without in this country. The kind that make my taxes, even as a grad student, absolutely ridiculous. This is shameless vote whoring. It's real easy to be a big "giver" when you're not giving out of your own pocket. I don't particularly like him giving out of mine, and neither should anyone else.
Last year, Microsoft also invited researchers to give presentations to its employees at its own security conference. Now the company has surpassed other software vendors when it comes to currying favor with researchers, says Jon Ellch, a 24-year-old researcher in Monterey, Calif. -- "at least in terms of the number of beers (it) bought for me."
You left out Mac OS X, with it's Zero-Conf based system, which Just-Works(TM). Easiest system to network, I find OSX boxes are the most plug-n-play networking devices around.
I like how the main medical "authority" is a nurse.
Not to put down the hard training and work they do... but they're not doctors for a reason people... They're not really trained to diagnose and treat new diseases. That it hasnt been submitted to the CDC sorta sours me on the idea. We have systems for weeding out this sort of psychosis for a REASON... to keep the important stuff important, and the small/nutball stuff, well, where it belongs, in the round bottom bin.
I feel bad for these people, but I really do feel like it's mostly in their heads.
Slashdot Mirror
Another example of overblown novelty... AFM is nothing new, and "olympicene" is also nothing new.. it's been made before... at least as early as 1965.. and possibly earlier still (haven't looked deeply in the scifinder databases).
Here's a literature citation (something the parent article sorely lacks) with proof. You know.. the stuff science is supposedly made of ?
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/1965/JR/jr9650005920
There's two obvious reasons for this: Points on my credit card (i.e. free money/miles/ etc), and convienience. It allows me to watch only my credit card bill and pay it once. Also, there's a little bit of money to made on the float (not much these days w/ the low interest rates).
Subreality,
I'm curious, I'm a chemist and I use a UV lamp nearly every day to visualize TLC plates. The lamps, as I understand it emit from ~254-365 nm. The lamp is typically used against a black benchtop background to illuminate a white silica TLC plate, usually impregnated with a fluorescent dye to help visualization (the whole plate typically glows green under UV light, except where your compound is).
I always avoid looking directly at the lamp of course (but occasionally catch sight of it). However, I'm wondering, how dangerous this frequent exposure is. I'm often wearing my regular prescription glasses while doing this (which I believe block UV), but I know some people don't wear anything when looking at their TLCs. Furthermore, I always wear at least reasonably thick gloves when my hands are under the UV, but again, some people do not (this is direct exposure to the UV lamp source, which seems like a really bad idea...). Do you think the reflection is hazardous ? Given the frequency of use by the average bench chemist, it seems like this should be more of a concern than people typically talk about.
A typical lamp used for this purpose is shown here: http://www.uvp.com/compactlamps.html#thumb or here: http://orgchem.colorado.edu/hndbksupport/TLC/TLCprocedure.html#visualize
Also, some people sell enclosures to help visualization, but also to help block the UV light ... the annoyance with these of course is that they're typically quite clunky to use in comparison to the "flashlight" method people often use: http://uvp.com/cabinetsoverview.html.
It's not that it's old... it's that its' NOT new in any tangible way... no new tech , no new application, no real invention here.. which makes it pretty "meh" in perspective.
That this stuff has been sold commercially for decades is pretty damning in terms of this being a "So what? " news item.
Yea, I was imagining something like force-feedback via the beams.. now THAT would've been cool / slick.
I'm not a huge fan of personal attacks, but you've got to admit, the guy's right.. this stuff is really very old stuff... it's not even marginally innovative.
Also, FYI.. these guys are re-inventing the wheel... so, sadly, it's not even new: http://www.irtouch.com/
This is news ? I mean, it's a cute college project and all..... but it's sort of a joke compared to the cutting edge. And the cutting edge is what's NEWs.
This is something i'd expect to see in make mag, or similar.
By the way... I think the commentator in the attached perspective (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/411.full) gets the born-oppenheimer approximation wrong... he states that :
"The BO approximation makes possible the practical application of quantum mechanics to all of molecular science. As the arrangement of the nuclei changes, the BO approximation postulates that the electrons will remain in a particular quantum state. "
When the BO approximation is the opposite : The atoms DONT move while the electrons DO (relatively speaking) because of their vast difference in mass. That is... the electrons are little bullets whizzing around at top speed, whereas the atoms are massive aircraft carriers in terms of mass (note: this is not meant to be even a remotely accurate analogy, but it's the general idea). You'd think that SCIENCE, of all journals, would get the Born-Oppenheimer approximation right !
Note: That in the second step of a typical quantum mech. calculation (e.g. a geometry optimization), you then use the average field generated in the first part to move the atoms (if they need to move in the particular calculation). Then you iterate to self-consistency.
What with the rising cost of helium... what a terrible waste of a resource we're running out of ! It also must've cost a fortune.
When will the mathematicians give up on Pi as some sort of grand benchmark.... couldn't they do better things to benchmark their systems... like running a folding@home client, or some such thing?
Honestly.. the first thing I thought when I saw this was... wow.. how.. uncreative...
How is this going to help them beat out Google and MS again ?
Not to bash on Yahoo.. they were once a great service/company... but they're quickly becoming a has-been. What they desperately need, and what everyone in this sector needs, is creativity. This sort of horn tooting doesn't really impress me, so much as it depresses me that people are benchmarking their systems on the same old problem again and again.
There's no auto-opt-in for ping.. you have to turn it on manually.
Warning.. movies appear to be in crap-tastic Indeo 5 format
Available here free of charge:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/la903813g
That's funny.. working at R* sounds just like being a grad student.
If you actually read the journal article, all you will find is a LOT of criticism of Monsanto's statistical methodology (which may be valid), but very little (if any) of any actual evidence of toxicity.
Basically , they claim (which may be correct): Monsanto didn't do their studies properly! They should've used more rats, for longer, and with more measured parameters !
And THEN they turn around and claim... even though the study is statistically unsound (according to their own argument), we're going to draw some conclusions that are weak to begin with, even within the weak frame of this supposedly faulty study !
It just doesn't make much sense.... from a professional scientists' standpoint (mine), this amounts to a lot of hemming and hawing about experimental methods, but absolutely nothing in the way of conclusions !
On the Mac OS X version I dont actually see a home button in the Customize Toolbar dialog. Furthermore, switching small icons on/off appears to do nothing on OS X.
Akk, I hate the new theme for Mac OS X. Is there an easy way to bring back the Firefox 2.0 one ? I can't even find my freaking home button ! Also I usually run safari side by side so this is actually super-confusing for me.
They want their story back.... the headline's even ripped.. come on guys. "http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-iphone- no-seriously/"
Sure senator, i'd like some diamonds and a free ride to happy-land along with it. Is that ok ? What's that? It's out of everyone's else's pockets!? Why sure, hand it over !
I'm a science oriented person (a chemist actually), but this reeks of the many tax and spend programs we could do without in this country. The kind that make my taxes, even as a grad student, absolutely ridiculous. This is shameless vote whoring. It's real easy to be a big "giver" when you're not giving out of your own pocket. I don't particularly like him giving out of mine, and neither should anyone else.
You left out Mac OS X, with it's Zero-Conf based system, which Just-Works(TM). Easiest system to network, I find OSX boxes are the most plug-n-play networking devices around.
Parent has it dead on.
For exmaple, from the article: "Scientists are interested in the new material because of the potential applications.
Translation: Please give us more funding.
I like how the main medical "authority" is a nurse.
Not to put down the hard training and work they do... but they're not doctors for a reason people... They're not really trained to diagnose and treat new diseases. That it hasnt been submitted to the CDC sorta sours me on the idea. We have systems for weeding out this sort of psychosis for a REASON... to keep the important stuff important, and the small/nutball stuff, well, where it belongs, in the round bottom bin.
I feel bad for these people, but I really do feel like it's mostly in their heads.