These are pseudoparticles. They're like magnetic monopoles in almost all ways, but they arise from the collective motion of other particles rather than actually existing in and of themselves (think about having an electron hole, versus having an actual positron). The breakthrough is that they've made the first pseudoparticle in a quantum mechanical regime that allows it to behave consistently with the real particle.
It's slightly more sophisticated than that; chiral molecules will rotate polarised light one direction or the other, but what makes them chiral is the spatial arrangement of the chemical groups. That has significant implications for reactivity, so for example all life on Earth can only use one chirality of amino acid and not the other. (One of the wonderful effects of common descent.) The upside of the effects on reactivity that you can come up with chirally-controlled syntheses, as you say. And of course not every compound is used by the body in a way that even notices its chirality.
If we want to talk about the vox populi, then that's another story, but the article is about the organisations involved and their supposed eagerness to polarise the issue. I can't say that the Snowden side has done much to make a martyr out of him except provide the documents.
I'm amazed that a politician of all people took the gamble in that direction. Maybe it'll come up at the next election that you blew through a cool couple of million for a snow day that never happened, but everyone will remember the time they wasted a tank of gas trying to travel two miles and their kids were trapped at school overnight.
How can you "build a better browser and they will come" when reliance on Internet Explorer is built into the operating system itself? I mean, Microsoft actually argued - this was their own defense! - that it was so fundamental to the operating system that you simply could not replace it with someone else' browser.
I don't think you understand any of the cases and accusations involved. The issue is not that someone dominated the market with a better product; the issue is that someone dominates the market with one superior product (Search, Windows) and then uses that dominant position to ensure the success of a whole bunch of inferior products, or simply the products their partners want to sell, thereby harming customers.
I can't say I've seen a non-editorial account in the Guardian or the Washington post that paints Snowden as a hero. Certainly not to the same extent that the NSA and GCHQ paint the very acknowledement of the documents' existence as treason. One side is stating cold, dry, unpleasant facts, while the other is engaged in a bunch of red-faced howling about traitors and national security.
The "antitrust" is in the advertising, travel, and sales markets; their success in Search is just the tool Google used to dominate those fields. By analogy, Microsoft used the dominance Windows to make Internet Explorer the dominant browser; the fixes had to be in the Browser field, not operating systems.
That's simply not true. You're thinking of your body's healthy and largely harmless microbial ecosystem, which can cause problems, but only when they wind up in parts of the body they're not supposed to be or your body's ability to control them breaks down. It's not like your body is perpetually riddled with would-be tumours and flesh-eating bacteria that are held at bay only by their own contempt for each other.
The "prescription drug industry" has spent most of the last decade buying up supplement manufacturers and making billions of dollars out of them. They've got absolutely no reason to want to undermine that profit centre.
Probably misremembering this, but aren't cancer cells often under higher oxidative stress to begin with, too? The last thing you'd want would be to ease that pressure on them.
I thought that you were supposed to keep any nominations for a Nobel Prize secret? I know that the Nobel committee keeps them sealed for something like 60 years but I have no idea whether it's a convention, a rule, or just simply not bothering to tell anyone on the nominator's end.
It's completely relevant in this case: they've experimentally demonstrated that the cells are equally pluripotent to embryonic cells. That's why they bother to make the distinction between these and "common-or-garden" induced-pluripotent adult cells.
The GP was asking why NASA had focussed on pilots. I'm not sure what "you could retrain submarine crews to be good in a large space station" has to do with it.
I know this is a joke, but for reference the energy required to accelerate the Earth to escape velocity is ten billion times its gravitational binding energy. Unless you give it a really, really gentle push you'll vapourise it before you get it out of the solar system.
Slashdot Mirror
I should say, "quasiparticles".
These are pseudoparticles. They're like magnetic monopoles in almost all ways, but they arise from the collective motion of other particles rather than actually existing in and of themselves (think about having an electron hole, versus having an actual positron). The breakthrough is that they've made the first pseudoparticle in a quantum mechanical regime that allows it to behave consistently with the real particle.
Even a continuum has extremes.
It's slightly more sophisticated than that; chiral molecules will rotate polarised light one direction or the other, but what makes them chiral is the spatial arrangement of the chemical groups. That has significant implications for reactivity, so for example all life on Earth can only use one chirality of amino acid and not the other. (One of the wonderful effects of common descent.) The upside of the effects on reactivity that you can come up with chirally-controlled syntheses, as you say. And of course not every compound is used by the body in a way that even notices its chirality.
If we want to talk about the vox populi, then that's another story, but the article is about the organisations involved and their supposed eagerness to polarise the issue. I can't say that the Snowden side has done much to make a martyr out of him except provide the documents.
I'm amazed that a politician of all people took the gamble in that direction. Maybe it'll come up at the next election that you blew through a cool couple of million for a snow day that never happened, but everyone will remember the time they wasted a tank of gas trying to travel two miles and their kids were trapped at school overnight.
How can you "build a better browser and they will come" when reliance on Internet Explorer is built into the operating system itself? I mean, Microsoft actually argued - this was their own defense! - that it was so fundamental to the operating system that you simply could not replace it with someone else' browser.
I don't think you understand any of the cases and accusations involved. The issue is not that someone dominated the market with a better product; the issue is that someone dominates the market with one superior product (Search, Windows) and then uses that dominant position to ensure the success of a whole bunch of inferior products, or simply the products their partners want to sell, thereby harming customers.
Name one antioxidant that has been shown to be effective against a cancer.
I can't say I've seen a non-editorial account in the Guardian or the Washington post that paints Snowden as a hero. Certainly not to the same extent that the NSA and GCHQ paint the very acknowledement of the documents' existence as treason. One side is stating cold, dry, unpleasant facts, while the other is engaged in a bunch of red-faced howling about traitors and national security.
The "antitrust" is in the advertising, travel, and sales markets; their success in Search is just the tool Google used to dominate those fields. By analogy, Microsoft used the dominance Windows to make Internet Explorer the dominant browser; the fixes had to be in the Browser field, not operating systems.
What about the ones that document programs's results? That would seem to imply that they made it into the real world.
You're right, I've completely misunderstood the "stalemate": one between body and pathogens, not pathogens and each other.
That's simply not true. You're thinking of your body's healthy and largely harmless microbial ecosystem, which can cause problems, but only when they wind up in parts of the body they're not supposed to be or your body's ability to control them breaks down. It's not like your body is perpetually riddled with would-be tumours and flesh-eating bacteria that are held at bay only by their own contempt for each other.
The "prescription drug industry" has spent most of the last decade buying up supplement manufacturers and making billions of dollars out of them. They've got absolutely no reason to want to undermine that profit centre.
How can a condition which mostly arises outside of reproductive age have anything to do with evolution?
Probably misremembering this, but aren't cancer cells often under higher oxidative stress to begin with, too? The last thing you'd want would be to ease that pressure on them.
I thought that you were supposed to keep any nominations for a Nobel Prize secret? I know that the Nobel committee keeps them sealed for something like 60 years but I have no idea whether it's a convention, a rule, or just simply not bothering to tell anyone on the nominator's end.
How is three different ways to give Samsung your money "competition"?
Nothing about the stem cell ban encouraged it, which was his big "Bush helped science" point.
Ignoring the inconvenient fact that demonstrating this technique in humans will require comparison with human embryonic stem cells.
It's completely relevant in this case: they've experimentally demonstrated that the cells are equally pluripotent to embryonic cells. That's why they bother to make the distinction between these and "common-or-garden" induced-pluripotent adult cells.
Think cheap CF cards, not SSDs. The read-write performance can probably afford to be terrible.
The GP was asking why NASA had focussed on pilots. I'm not sure what "you could retrain submarine crews to be good in a large space station" has to do with it.
I know this is a joke, but for reference the energy required to accelerate the Earth to escape velocity is ten billion times its gravitational binding energy. Unless you give it a really, really gentle push you'll vapourise it before you get it out of the solar system.