$1500 is not comparable to submission charges of other journals, it's much much higher. Last week, a colleage of mine submitted a paper for publication (not Nature, but nor some shitty never-been-heard-of journal either) and was complaining how they charged him $50 bucks when usually it's free.
You claim to know your history, but it appears that you only have half of the facts. America was born on the backs of immigrants (slaves), and immigrants (legal and illegal or "undesirable") continue to carry America. Without slaves, America never would have become the super power that we are because we would not have half of the economy that we do (I'm not saying I'm for slavery, I'm just pointing out a consequence of it). Without immigrants, America would fall apart. Every job that you and I don't want to do, some immigrant does because he or she is so desperate to live in this country that he or she will clean your toilets, pick up your trash, flip your burgers, do janitorial duties, all the shit you probably consider below you. These are our brothers and sisters who are helping to make America what it is today, and you want to deport them because someone with brown skip killed some people? Shit, better throw me in jail, some white guys blew up a building in Oklahoma, I'm probably guilty too. I don't give a fuck who comes into my country as long as they are willing to work hard, and if it means that 1 in a million immigrants come here to do evil, then so be it. America is supposed to be free, welcoming the poor, tired, and those yearning to breath free. That ideal is worth more than my safety and yours.
The study might not be entirely BS afterall. I work in cell culture, and can say from experience that certain cells will just not live on certain plastic surfaces (for example, many cells refuse to stay on polylysine coated plastics (lysine is a positively charge amino acid)). By charactorizing the bacteria, it might be possible to discover that most of them or some of the more dangerous ones won't grow if you coat the curtain with some chemical/protein/amino acid/just something. The whole 80% are related to part IS totally BS, but the study itself might not be.
While many of you readers obviously think this series of pictures are the most hideous, vile, and unnatural sights in the world, I disagree. I think they are beautiful pictures. What we are really looking at is not some ugly fat man in a unitard, but rather the sharing of ideas. This man created something that we as a community might be interested in, and he had the nuts to post it on the front page. Seriously, look beyond the pictures themselves and look at what they actually show - he's just trying to show his invention and share his ideas with a potentially interested population. I think the site is fabulous, and I applaud the man for sharing with us.
My school (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) requires all undergraduates to have a laptop computer, supposedly for use in the classroom. After almost 4 years of this, I'm divided as to whether it is a benefit or just a distraction in class/waste of money (as opposed to buying a desktop)
I have found that in class, all a laptop does is distract the students. Sure, we're supposed to follow along with the notes on our screens, but the prof can't see them. 90% of the time, everyone is surfing the web, talking on IM, checking their email, playing CS, basically everything but paying attention.
Further, most classes don't even require/use a laptop (it's pretty tough to take linear algebra notes on a computer). I estimate that maybe only 20% of classes or less use laptops actually IN class.
Most of the time when your laptop is required for class, it is just a pain to drag it to class, set it up, not use it for anything but to click through powerpoint slides. However, for the few professors who actually design the class with the use of the student's laptops in mind, it can be a great learning tool. It's nice doing in-class activities where you collect data and display it on your computer changing parameters to see the effect; or running simulations were you get to mess with the settings/initial conditions.
On the whole, I wished I could have saved a grand or so and purchased a desktop that could do the same as my laptop (after all, it spends all but 4 hours a week just sitting on my desk). For the, mmm, maybe 2 classes that the professor has actually incorperated the use of laptop into his lecture (same professor for both classes), it was a very powerful tool. Unfortunately, professors who know how to lecture well, especially incorperating a personal computer, are few and far between. An Unwired (or Wired) classroom can either be a great benefit, or a waste of time.
There was an article in Sciam (August 2002 "The Serious Search for an Anti-Aging Pill") that discussed caloric restriction as a way to prolong life. Across the board, short-lifespan animals (fruit flys, rats, mice, hamsters, spiders, worms, etc), a reduced calorie diet extended the life span (both maximum and group average against the control). The researchers hypothesized that the reduced calories led to reduced sugar metabolism (lower insulin levels in the blood) and that the cells stayed in the Go phase (non-replicating state) as opposed to going through the cell cycle.
Next, they tested a drug (2DG) that reduced the cells abilities to process glucose (a similar effect to having lowered insulin levels). At the time of the writing, they were in the middle of rodent testing on whether or not it produced longer lifespans.
I suspect that Yoda, with his lowered insulin levels, does basically the same thing. His caloric intake is essentially reduced, lowering his metabolism (thus the smaller growth, problem with maintaining high body temp). Very interesting.
P.S. They hypothesized in the article that a human would have to reduce a 2,500 calorie a day diet down to 1,750 a day...forever essentially, to obtain similar results.
If you want to insult somebody today for being obsessive about fantasy or sci-fi, you have to resort to calling them a 'nerd', which in polite society has become almost tantamount to using a racist slur.
I don't know about you, but my heart swells up and I brim with pride when someone calls me a nerd (okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration...). But seriously, I enjoy being recognized for my mental abilities in a world where you can get paid hundreds of millions of dollars for hitting a ball with a stick or throwing a dead pig 70 yards. Who would you rather be, the all brawn no brains guy jacked up on designer steroids hitting 75 homeruns a season, or the mastermind that designed the drug and made it all possible?
Personally, I feel to doing quality research and being published in a scientific journal or writing code for a new program is much more of an accomplishment than throwing a 95 mile an hour strike. Call me a nerd all you want.
First, a "rudimentary colony" would not be required to travel to Mars. By sling-shotting the space craft towards the planet and timing the launch based upon the alignment of the planets, it would be possible to get there in under a year (shorter than the time span that some astronauts/cosmonauts spend at the space station or Mir).
Second, you are right that the cost of taking fuel for a return trip from Mars is prohibitive, but it is possible to produce a hydrogen based fuel, extracting the necessary elements from Mars' meager atmosphere. A working prototype of such a device has already been made and successfully tested.
(for points one and two, please see Robert Zubrin's book: The Case for Mars")
Third, it's doubtful as to how much more real science can be done on Mars without getting our hands dirty. One manned mission could collect a million times more data than another satellite or rover even. It's true, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does apply in this situation (the impossibility of observing without affecting the observed), but if careful, contamination of Mars could be prevented/impaired.
Slashdot Mirror
It was JI
$1500 is not comparable to submission charges of other journals, it's much much higher. Last week, a colleage of mine submitted a paper for publication (not Nature, but nor some shitty never-been-heard-of journal either) and was complaining how they charged him $50 bucks when usually it's free.
You claim to know your history, but it appears that you only have half of the facts. America was born on the backs of immigrants (slaves), and immigrants (legal and illegal or "undesirable") continue to carry America. Without slaves, America never would have become the super power that we are because we would not have half of the economy that we do (I'm not saying I'm for slavery, I'm just pointing out a consequence of it). Without immigrants, America would fall apart. Every job that you and I don't want to do, some immigrant does because he or she is so desperate to live in this country that he or she will clean your toilets, pick up your trash, flip your burgers, do janitorial duties, all the shit you probably consider below you. These are our brothers and sisters who are helping to make America what it is today, and you want to deport them because someone with brown skip killed some people? Shit, better throw me in jail, some white guys blew up a building in Oklahoma, I'm probably guilty too. I don't give a fuck who comes into my country as long as they are willing to work hard, and if it means that 1 in a million immigrants come here to do evil, then so be it. America is supposed to be free, welcoming the poor, tired, and those yearning to breath free. That ideal is worth more than my safety and yours.
The study might not be entirely BS afterall. I work in cell culture, and can say from experience that certain cells will just not live on certain plastic surfaces (for example, many cells refuse to stay on polylysine coated plastics (lysine is a positively charge amino acid)). By charactorizing the bacteria, it might be possible to discover that most of them or some of the more dangerous ones won't grow if you coat the curtain with some chemical/protein/amino acid/just something. The whole 80% are related to part IS totally BS, but the study itself might not be.
While many of you readers obviously think this series of pictures are the most hideous, vile, and unnatural sights in the world, I disagree. I think they are beautiful pictures. What we are really looking at is not some ugly fat man in a unitard, but rather the sharing of ideas. This man created something that we as a community might be interested in, and he had the nuts to post it on the front page. Seriously, look beyond the pictures themselves and look at what they actually show - he's just trying to show his invention and share his ideas with a potentially interested population. I think the site is fabulous, and I applaud the man for sharing with us.
I have found that in class, all a laptop does is distract the students. Sure, we're supposed to follow along with the notes on our screens, but the prof can't see them. 90% of the time, everyone is surfing the web, talking on IM, checking their email, playing CS, basically everything but paying attention.
Further, most classes don't even require/use a laptop (it's pretty tough to take linear algebra notes on a computer). I estimate that maybe only 20% of classes or less use laptops actually IN class.
Most of the time when your laptop is required for class, it is just a pain to drag it to class, set it up, not use it for anything but to click through powerpoint slides. However, for the few professors who actually design the class with the use of the student's laptops in mind, it can be a great learning tool. It's nice doing in-class activities where you collect data and display it on your computer changing parameters to see the effect; or running simulations were you get to mess with the settings/initial conditions.
On the whole, I wished I could have saved a grand or so and purchased a desktop that could do the same as my laptop (after all, it spends all but 4 hours a week just sitting on my desk). For the, mmm, maybe 2 classes that the professor has actually incorperated the use of laptop into his lecture (same professor for both classes), it was a very powerful tool. Unfortunately, professors who know how to lecture well, especially incorperating a personal computer, are few and far between. An Unwired (or Wired) classroom can either be a great benefit, or a waste of time.
Next, they tested a drug (2DG) that reduced the cells abilities to process glucose (a similar effect to having lowered insulin levels). At the time of the writing, they were in the middle of rodent testing on whether or not it produced longer lifespans.
I suspect that Yoda, with his lowered insulin levels, does basically the same thing. His caloric intake is essentially reduced, lowering his metabolism (thus the smaller growth, problem with maintaining high body temp). Very interesting.
P.S. They hypothesized in the article that a human would have to reduce a 2,500 calorie a day diet down to 1,750 a day...forever essentially, to obtain similar results.
I don't know about you, but my heart swells up and I brim with pride when someone calls me a nerd (okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration...). But seriously, I enjoy being recognized for my mental abilities in a world where you can get paid hundreds of millions of dollars for hitting a ball with a stick or throwing a dead pig 70 yards. Who would you rather be, the all brawn no brains guy jacked up on designer steroids hitting 75 homeruns a season, or the mastermind that designed the drug and made it all possible?
Personally, I feel to doing quality research and being published in a scientific journal or writing code for a new program is much more of an accomplishment than throwing a 95 mile an hour strike. Call me a nerd all you want.
A few points:
First, a "rudimentary colony" would not be required to travel to Mars. By sling-shotting the space craft towards the planet and timing the launch based upon the alignment of the planets, it would be possible to get there in under a year (shorter than the time span that some astronauts/cosmonauts spend at the space station or Mir).
Second, you are right that the cost of taking fuel for a return trip from Mars is prohibitive, but it is possible to produce a hydrogen based fuel, extracting the necessary elements from Mars' meager atmosphere. A working prototype of such a device has already been made and successfully tested.
(for points one and two, please see Robert Zubrin's book: The Case for Mars")
Third, it's doubtful as to how much more real science can be done on Mars without getting our hands dirty. One manned mission could collect a million times more data than another satellite or rover even. It's true, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does apply in this situation (the impossibility of observing without affecting the observed), but if careful, contamination of Mars could be prevented/impaired.