Umm... acid is H+ (or H3O+) ions. Which are not negative. In fact, they are the exact opposite of negative - positive.
You are correct, and it is poorly described in the article, but all acids have what is called a conjugate base, which is the anion (negative ion) that acts as the counterion to the H+. For hydrochloric acid, the counterion is the negatively charged chloride ion, for sulfuric acid, it is sulfate, and for the tartaric acid you'll find in wine (among many others) it is tartarate. If you remove these, you remove your acid component. The fate of the H+? Well, if you are passing a large current through the wine, which they are, you are likely reducing it to hydrogen which will bubble off as a gas. Not an apatizing thought for something you're going to drink, though!
Turn your computer off, get out of the house, have a martini and talk to someone. You'll feel a lot better when you realize that getting your slashdot submissions accepted (or getting first post or what have you) is really not very important.
umm, retard, the bacterium has to get something out of the metabolization. The waste is H2, so unless it can directly metabolize CO2, in which case there are more efficient ways to get it, it is after the carbon and the O2 separately.
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the freaking article, genius? The bacterium gets its energy out of the metabolization. The CO is its food source that it uses to generate ATP, just like you would have used sugar and oxygen to generate ATP if you had any brain cells firing this morning. Both H2 and CO2 are waste products, the bug just wants energy.
Interesting...Singularity is ostensibly supposed to be about stability, but the 44-page paper has no data on this. Kinda like saying, "Our new bulletproof vest is 40% lighter than our leading competitors, and twice as flexible. How well does it stop bullets, you ask? Sorry...we do not yet have results for that benchmark.".
You didn't really read it, did you? From TFA(bstract).
...Singularity demonstrates the practicality of new technologies and architectural decisions, which should lead to the construction of more robust and dependable systems.
The point of the paper is NOT to demonstrate a fully working uber-dependable system, but to validate the practicality of the architecture that is under development, and the new technologies being included. That's why they have the section on performance, with the preface (right above your quote, btw):
If Singularity's goal is more dependable systems, why does this report include performance measurements? The answer is simple: these numbers demonstrate that [the] architecture that we proposed not only does not incur a performance penalty, but is often as fast as or faster than more conventional architecture[s]. In other words, it is a practical basis on which to build a system.
That's the point of the paper. I understand, however, that you might have been in too much of a rush to get first post that you didn't understand the point of the paper...
You are obviously not familiar with the old joke he was referring to. I don't remember it exactly, or where it comes from, but it's something like: Joe-sixpack type steps onto the Harvard campus looking for a restroom and asks a student/professor/degree-up-the-ass-type, "Excuse me, where's the bathroom at?" Student/professor/degree-up-the-ass-type says, "Here at Harvard, we don't end a sentence with a preposition." Joe says, "OK then, where's the bathroom at, asshole?"
More information on the $100 laptop can be found here.
This link is simply copied from the link in the second sentence of TFA. Anyone who read the article, even just two sentences, and investigated the links has already seen it.
Please note: these laptops are not in production. They are not--and will not--be available for purchase by individuals.
Furthermore, anyone who actually read to the bottom of TFA would already have figured this out from this paragraph:
While the initial goal of the project is to work with governments, Negroponte said MIT is considering licensing the design or giving it to a third-party company to build commercial versions of the PC. "Those might be available for $200, and $20 or $30 will come back to us to make the kids' laptops. We're still working on that," he said.
Mods, please read the article before rubber-stamping redundant posts "informative."
So if MS doesn't admit a bug exists (and they usually don't until right before they issue a patch), it doesn't get counted?
No. From the article:
There is one caveat: Symantec counts only those security flaws that have been confirmed by the vendor. According to security monitoring company Secunia, there are 19 security issues that Microsoft still has to deal with for Internet Explorer, while there are only three for Firefox.
all studies are biased and show exactly what the person who is doing them want. much like stats, you can make anything prove anything through working the #'s and asking the right questions
While I agree that some form of bias infects essentially all research, I don't think that's the whole picture here. Publishing new scientific results has two components. One is to put the data out into the literature where other researchers can read it, comment on it, build on it and improve on it. The other is to provide your interpretation of it, to draw what are supposed to be the best conclusions you can based on the data set that you have, even if it's small.
Many conclusions based on initial data or small data sets may well be proved wrong (or may well be biased toward what the investigators want), but that doesn't mean that all of the data is wrong, or that it has no value to other researchers. Scientific literature is a dialog involving the presentation of data along with an explanation. It is expected that the interpretation will be amended as larger data sets become available. The mistake is to take an old, highly referenced paper and treat it as gospel.
THey need better regulation that specifically deals with nanoparticles less than 20nm or even 30nm (safety factor).
Yes, exactly. We need to get into the 21st century and regulate nanotechnology the same way we have been regulating centitechnology, specifically centiparticles less than 20cm or even 30cm (safety factor) for decades. After all, the threat from centiparticles, such as bullets, knives and some artillery shells, which killed millions of people back in the 20th century, or toothpicks, which are just the right size to lodge in a persons throat causing death by choking, or even some tasty-looking mushrooms that cause irreparable liver damage, have all now been extremely well managed by government regulation. We need to apply the same mentality that we have for regulating objects the size of apples and oranges and some small furry animals to the new size range that has recently been invented that we collectively refer to as nanotechnology. After all, objects 1-30nm in size did not exist before scientists began meddling around in God's domain creating this new menace to society. Call your congressman now and demand that the government immediately and with great urgency pass legislation to regulate all materials between 1 nm and 20 nm (or even 30 nm, safety factor)!
Targeted protein degradation has applicaitons beyond anti-cancer therapies. Alzheimer's Disease seems to be caused by the build-up of amyoloid beta protein in neurons, which is due to the failure to degrade this protein. One potential therapy is to use other ubiquitin ligases to target amyoloid beta for degradation as a method to break up protein plaques.
The problem here is that in order to tag and then transport the beta amyloid proteins to the proteosome for degradation, you first need to break up the plaque, where they are otherwise not accessible/transportable. But if you figure out a way to do that the natural degradation of the proteins will likely take place on it's own, assuming it is still functioning.
Perhaps you could use it as a preventive measure, however, increasing the rate at with the proteins are degraded to normal levels before the plaques ever even form.
As a qualified expert witness, I don't think he needs to show a counter example any more than an expert forensic scientist testifying at a criminal trial needs to provide a counter example when he says that the blood at the crime scene matches the defendent (or doesn't).
It's not like this is the first time he's done this. His counterexamples are in his resume, that's why he's the one examining the code.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... acid is H+ (or H3O+) ions. Which are not negative. In fact, they are the exact opposite of negative - positive.
You are correct, and it is poorly described in the article, but all acids have what is called a conjugate base, which is the anion (negative ion) that acts as the counterion to the H+. For hydrochloric acid, the counterion is the negatively charged chloride ion, for sulfuric acid, it is sulfate, and for the tartaric acid you'll find in wine (among many others) it is tartarate. If you remove these,
you remove your acid component. The fate of the H+? Well, if you are passing a large current through
the wine, which they are, you are likely reducing it to hydrogen which will bubble off as a gas. Not an apatizing thought for something you're going to drink, though!
Dude, you are taking this shit way too seriously.
Turn your computer off, get out of the house, have a martini and talk to someone. You'll feel a lot better when you realize that getting your slashdot submissions accepted (or getting first post or what have you) is really not very important.
Just make sure you take your keys out of your pocket...
That describes some of the mods here well. Perhaps the double entendre was intentional.
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the freaking article, genius? The bacterium gets its energy out of the metabolization. The CO is its food source that it uses to generate ATP, just like you would have used sugar and oxygen to generate ATP if you had any brain cells firing this morning. Both H2 and CO2 are waste products, the bug just wants energy.
You didn't really read it, did you? From TFA(bstract).
The point of the paper is NOT to demonstrate a fully working uber-dependable system, but to validate the practicality of the architecture that is under development, and the new technologies being included. That's why they have the section on performance, with the preface (right above your quote, btw):
That's the point of the paper. I understand, however, that you might have been in too much of a rush to get first post that you didn't understand the point of the paper...
Yeah, it's called the International Space Station and it has a mass of 183283 kg, which would weigh 200 tons on the surface of the earth.
Joe-sixpack type steps onto the Harvard campus looking for a restroom and asks a student/professor/degree-up-the-ass-type, "Excuse me, where's the bathroom at?"
Student/professor/degree-up-the-ass-type says, "Here at Harvard, we don't end a sentence with a preposition."
Joe says, "OK then, where's the bathroom at, asshole?"
Lighten up, asshole. ;-)
Damn, you stole my joke. ;-)
This link is simply copied from the link in the second sentence of TFA. Anyone who read the article, even just two sentences, and investigated the links has already seen it.
Furthermore, anyone who actually read to the bottom of TFA would already have figured this out from this paragraph:
Mods, please read the article before rubber-stamping redundant posts "informative."
No. From the article:
If only that were true. Sadly, money often trumps truth in legal matters.
Forget the pasta. 112lbs is a helluva lot of wheatgrass!
Sodium metal melts at 97.8 degrees C. That's pretty damn near water's boiling point of 100 degrees C.
Perhaps you could use it as a preventive measure, however, increasing the rate at with the proteins are degraded to normal levels before the plaques ever even form.
As a qualified expert witness, I don't think he needs to show a counter example any more than an expert forensic scientist testifying at a criminal trial needs to provide a counter example when he says that the blood at the crime scene matches the defendent (or doesn't).
It's not like this is the first time he's done this. His counterexamples are in his resume, that's why he's the one examining the code.
%thank $DIETY ;)
DIETY: Undefined variable.
%thank $DEITY
You're welcome.
%