This really rings a bell with me because I am in that situation, except that I am benefitting from it. I am currently doing research in chemistry at Stony Brook but my research doesn't involve any real chemistry - I just help design algorithims to "solve" the packing problem. It's funny because I am really a philosophy major with a strong science background (i'm pre-med).
The person who I do research under was telling me about this problem. There isn't enough money to attract good CS students into research type stuff.
The one guy who does no CS has so many perks - can come in late, leave early, long lunches, always needed. Its more than just the average "my printer won't print" stuff too. In my case I get an A because otherwise the problem is screwed until they find someone else.
Re:Not acceleration, GRAVITY.
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
No, special relativity means no acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration, in fact, the law of equivalence states that gravity and an acceleration are the same. It means constant velocity because of your own "all inertial frames are created equal" portion - this is true when two bodies are moving at constant velocities. However, if one accelerates you disrupt the inertial frame. Think about it: you can tell whether a train is accelerating because of its change of speed relative to the surroundings. However if the surroundings moved away from you at a constant, albeit slower, velocity and you had a constant velocity there is no test which could tell you whether you were moving or not. Special means no acceleration.
What about Einsteins other works?
on
E=MC
·
· Score: 1
E=mc2 is a nice equation and all, but people often forget that it was a side not to his other works (Einstein himself published it as just an insight from his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects") - the paper that ushered in the theory of special relativity where special meant constant velocity, no acceleration. Most of Einsteins work that has been applied to other problems is his much later General Theory of Relativity, where he concludes that light must follow a bent path because people "fall" when elevators accelerate upwards and therefore space itself is bent. For a more thorough acccount of Einstein I highly recommend Albert Einstein: A Biography
After reading through all the posts I just wanted to point a few things out.
- Congress can overturn a supreme court decision by amending the Constitution. Basic checks-and-balances people. How much more ignorant of the legal process can you be?
- If the Supreme Court makes a decision that the public disagrees with AND the Constitution is not amended THEN nothing happens. The law is the law. No amount of public outcry changes anything. Just think how pissed the South was after the Supremem Court decided to integrate schooling in Brown vs. Board of Ed - there was a lot of outcry but the law stood. And with good reason.
- Just because his son may represent Microsoft does not mean that Rehnquist has to recuse himself. It could be, and is likely the case, that this does not belong before the Supreme Court quite yet. Higher courts often remand cases to lower courts. The Supremem Court is a last-resort NOT the first stop.
- Just because the appellate court may appear to favor Microsoft does not mean that it should not hear the case. That argument makes absolutely no sense. If it was a prima facia anti-MS court you would be all gung ho about remanding it to that court. This case, like every other case, has to follow the legal process in every step. Accept it and move on.
- There are 9 Supreme Court Justices. They often disagree with each other. None is more powerful or important than any other. It would be very difficult for Rehnquist to make the other 8 agree with him "just because it is my Son." Don't believe me - wait until the dissent comes out.
It would help if more scientists read the Bible before trying to explore the secrets of the Universe.
I have read the Bible and although I know that I can not convince you otherwise I wish that you would try an exercise in open mindedness.
Evolution is a theory inasmuch as Gravity is a theory and scientist (including myself) consider it to be as fallible as gravity (so the next time you jump but don't come down we'll all reconsider the Theory of Gravity). It appears that you are ignorant of the basic ideas behind science. When scientists say theory we do not mean it to have the "maybe" connotation that it has in to the lay people of the word. When we want to say maybe we say "hypothesis." A theory is a model that explains a bunch of facts. The best theories are ones that easily explain a lot of different facts in an easily comprehensible way.
Once again I am going to look at the Theory of Gravity because so called "creation" scientists do not argue over this use of the the word theory. Our modern theory of gravity easily explains the followings facts and laws:
The inverse square law that the force of gravity is reduced by x^2 when the distance is reduced by x
The hypothesis of Newton (considered to be correct) that every particle attracts every other particle
Einstein and his Theory of General Relativity which explains space and mass as products of each other (i.e. space bends around mass)
Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity that equates Energy to mass and has as a hypothesis the idea that nothing can go faster than light
Those are some of the different facts and ideas that are all connected by the same umbrella, namely the Theory of Gravity. Most of these were proven by experimentation, and as such, we are really certain that our modern theory of gravity is correct. If we ever find some situation that does not obey these laws then we will have to re-think and correct our theory. That is the way science works.
Now let's consider the more controversial theory of evolution. Bearing in mind that theory does not mean "maybe" but instead serves only to easily explain and unite different known facts and ideas we find that it also is correct. This explains why there are transitional fossils (you can find them online) which show an unknown species that is between two known species in both anatomy and the fossil record. The theory of evolution explains the experiments with fruit flies that you yourself brought up. In order to understand the Theory of Evolution you should understand its mechanisms. I highly recommend Biology by Cambell, the most popular freshmen bio book. It will explain the principle of genetic drift, isolation, speciation, mutations that allow for better reproductive success - basically all the different methods that fall under the general category of evolution.
Now let's look at Creation "science" objectively. A big difference between creationism and "real" science is that creationism can not be invalidated. It is not falsifiable. Ask yourself what would you need to see in order to stop believing in the bible and the Genesis account of creation. Chances are nothing will ever make you reject this idea. This violates every law of science. Look at the Bible itself. I've read it. Every page, every word. I think that it is remiss of myself to argue for evolution while being completely ignorant of the other side.
Consider the following: Matthew 17:28 "I tell you solemnly that some of you standing here will not taste death before they see the son of Man coming with his Kingdom" spoken by Jesus. And yet everyone there that he addressed back in ~20 A.D. is now dead. Where is the Kingdom? This is one of many passages that do not turn out true. If this were science and we got 1, just 1, case that contradicted itself we would have to throw the theory out. You base your ideas on old science that has long been discredited.
As my last thought I recommend that you not force this idea on your children. Anyone who believes creation "science" as fervantly as you tends to be a target for ridicule, and in my opinion, rightly so. You are clinging to an ad hoc theory without the tools to even intelligently argue it. You just look foolish is all. That's the reason that this is not taught in schools. It is a patently false idea that does not belong in a science classroom because it is not even remotely scientific. To think otherwise would be to deprive your children of a decent education. Look at the most fervent believes of this crap: Alabama. Then look how often Alabama is at the bottom of everything.
If you are looking for some the real truth please visit the following:
It really depends is the best answer. It depends whether it is water solulable or fat solulable, whether it goes to the muscles [at the cellular level], how fast it is metabolized in the liver, and a bunch of factors.
For caffeine, I think it lingers for approximately 12 hours with the peak fairly early (within 20 mins to 70 mins). After it starts to wear off, just take another sip. Say every 3 - 4 hours.
Yes, that is what it means. They have the whole GATC of a person (actually 4 people I think).
What needs to happen before we can effect any real change on the genetic level is a thorough understanding of where each gene IS. For example we might want to know that eye color is on the 20th chromosome, about 1/3 of the way up. Once we learn where all these genes are (hair color, eye color, "height", etc) we match the GATC sequence to that region of that chromosome and bingo - we can now effectively change gene's and what they produce.
There are a lot of inherent problems though. DNA codes only for proteins so you are at a fundamental loss to change those things that aren't proteins. The best that you can do is modify the enzymes (which are proteins) that in are responsible for the non-protein characteristic (for example you could change the enzyme that "makes" fat so that it would synthesize fat more slowly, but you can't alter the fat itself).
Another problem is that organisms that reproduce sexually are notorious for having complicated chromosomes. During Prophase II of meiosis the chromosome "cross-over" - they basically switch places. The sequence of GATC is conserved but the order may be screwy. This is the reason why there is such variation in sexually reproducing organisms.
Another problem is the issue of multi-factorial phenotypical expression. Some things (like eye color and "height") are not located on one chromosome, but instead may involve different regions of several chromosomes. Decoding these multi-factorial genes is going to be a real pain in the ass.
There are also going to be a lot of surprises. We have no clue about how some of the more complex biochemical pathways that run our body (and especially our brain) so we are assured of the fact that we will find the "directions" for enzymes and proteins that we never discovered. What has to happen is that we need to corrolate all of our research to get the different fields to mesh together properly.
Thats not how it works. "This technology will have to be tested on people before it can be used for the good of mankind. Now, in a perfect world, of course, I'd suggest some kind of "lottery" system where they picked a person at random and everyone wanted to volunteer." No, at first we would probably try it on other creatures. We've been genetically engineering bacteria since the 1970s - but then again bacteria dont have more than 10 genes. All testing will have to follow the already established protocol of informed consent (which we have also used since the '70s, genetics and otherwise). All experimentation will be done on a volunteer basis and operating under an informed consent basis. All subjects will be told of the risks, the alternatives (including nothing, non-participation, or "traditional" cures), and all studies have to be approved by an IRB (Institutional Review Board) to make sure that no subject was "tricked" into it. Medical Ethics classes present a lot of scenarios where a subject should not be used despite their volunteering to, most of the time because they didn't fully understand the risks. There are also special protected classes that are extensively reviewed before they are allowed to participate (children, prisoners, terminally ill, and mentally retarded). As for the studies themselves expect simple double-blind placebo tests. Neither the doctor administering the drug nor the patient/subject will know whether they got the treatment or a sugar pill. If you had ALS (Lou Gerighs and Steven Hawkings condition) and 1 little pill might make it all go away I am sure the risk would be worth it.
The next step is the part that is going to be a killer (and also the step that will change the world). Mapping the genome meant figuring out the order of the nitrogen bases on each chromosome (whether it was an A-T or a C-G basegroup). Now they have to figure out what does what.
What will come next is figuring out where each gene resides (for instance hair color might be chromosomes 1 and 10) and then changing only the nitrogen bases in order to change the phenotype.
What it will mean is individual-specific products. Don't like being a blonde? Take this pill and your hair will change itself. Get sunburned easily? Give the pharmacist a swap of salivia and he'll create a suntan specifically for you. Need a new heart? We'll grow one from scratch - guarenteed histologic compatibility. Instead of the few dozen genetic tests given to newborns we will be able to test for diseases that we haven't even discovered yet.
>I have NFI about Chemistry but as far as i know glucose is just a string of amino acids strung together.
Actually, glucose is *generally* a 6 carbon sugar. I think the most common is a-D-glucose. There are really severl forms of "glucose" that can be obtained by switching the various H-OH groups. A string of amino acids is a protein. Proteins are generally harder to make than straight chain sugars, I don't know how hard they are to make relative to cyclic sugars.
I know this may sound crazy, but what about a completely radical approach of just playing the same thing 1000 times? Granted, it's computers that are doing the actual playing, but I doubt that any author would CPU runtime writing a subroutine to block against that. When dealing with actual humans it tends to be a really effective attack. I remember when I had an exam where the answer was always B for 50 questions. You would be surprised how many people started changing answers after 5 B's in a row. Good old mindgames.
As it has already been pointed out, a chiral compound is a compound that has AT LEAST 2 different forms - both of which are mirror images of each other. In terms of organic chemistry, chirality is very important. Organic chemists define chirality to be any carbon atom that has four different "things" bonded to it. The chirality arises because these carbons are said to be sp3-hybridized, meaning that they look like tetrahedrons. This is the basis for the mirror image. In a compound with many carbons, you find all carbons which have 4 different things attachted to them (as carbon has 4 bonds) and call them chirality centers. The number of possible variations of that compound is 2^n, where n is the number of chirality centers. Chirality is important because it forms the basis for most organic reactions. For example, almost all sugars in nature are D-sugars. The reaction will not proceed with an L-sugar. (D & L just mean the different mirror image configuration). On the same note, enzymes only work with one isomer (either D or L) and so on. It isn't particularly hard to change chirality centers either.
Slashdot Mirror
This really rings a bell with me because I am in that situation, except that I am benefitting from it. I am currently doing research in chemistry at Stony Brook but my research doesn't involve any real chemistry - I just help design algorithims to "solve" the packing problem. It's funny because I am really a philosophy major with a strong science background (i'm pre-med). The person who I do research under was telling me about this problem. There isn't enough money to attract good CS students into research type stuff. The one guy who does no CS has so many perks - can come in late, leave early, long lunches, always needed. Its more than just the average "my printer won't print" stuff too. In my case I get an A because otherwise the problem is screwed until they find someone else.
No, special relativity means no acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration, in fact, the law of equivalence states that gravity and an acceleration are the same. It means constant velocity because of your own "all inertial frames are created equal" portion - this is true when two bodies are moving at constant velocities. However, if one accelerates you disrupt the inertial frame. Think about it: you can tell whether a train is accelerating because of its change of speed relative to the surroundings. However if the surroundings moved away from you at a constant, albeit slower, velocity and you had a constant velocity there is no test which could tell you whether you were moving or not. Special means no acceleration.
E=mc2 is a nice equation and all, but people often forget that it was a side not to his other works (Einstein himself published it as just an insight from his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects") - the paper that ushered in the theory of special relativity where special meant constant velocity, no acceleration. Most of Einsteins work that has been applied to other problems is his much later General Theory of Relativity, where he concludes that light must follow a bent path because people "fall" when elevators accelerate upwards and therefore space itself is bent. For a more thorough acccount of Einstein I highly recommend Albert Einstein: A Biography
In lieu of our recent VP candidates I think Ralph would more than fit.
"I created the Internet" - Al Gore
"Its potatoe, not potato" - Dan Quayle
"Some people have too much freedom" - George W.
"My cats breath smells like catfood" - Ralph
We need some Voltron action on Battlebots. Voltron would kick the shit out of mauler.
After reading through all the posts I just wanted to point a few things out.
- Congress can overturn a supreme court decision by amending the Constitution. Basic checks-and-balances people. How much more ignorant of the legal process can you be?
- If the Supreme Court makes a decision that the public disagrees with AND the Constitution is not amended THEN nothing happens. The law is the law. No amount of public outcry changes anything. Just think how pissed the South was after the Supremem Court decided to integrate schooling in Brown vs. Board of Ed - there was a lot of outcry but the law stood. And with good reason.
- Just because his son may represent Microsoft does not mean that Rehnquist has to recuse himself. It could be, and is likely the case, that this does not belong before the Supreme Court quite yet. Higher courts often remand cases to lower courts. The Supremem Court is a last-resort NOT the first stop.
- Just because the appellate court may appear to favor Microsoft does not mean that it should not hear the case. That argument makes absolutely no sense. If it was a prima facia anti-MS court you would be all gung ho about remanding it to that court. This case, like every other case, has to follow the legal process in every step. Accept it and move on.
- There are 9 Supreme Court Justices. They often disagree with each other. None is more powerful or important than any other. It would be very difficult for Rehnquist to make the other 8 agree with him "just because it is my Son." Don't believe me - wait until the dissent comes out.
Maybe if we're lucky the FBI will GPL it! OpenSource Carnivore. That might explain the unusually cold weather that hell has been experiencing lately.
I have read the Bible and although I know that I can not convince you otherwise I wish that you would try an exercise in open mindedness.
Evolution is a theory inasmuch as Gravity is a theory and scientist (including myself) consider it to be as fallible as gravity (so the next time you jump but don't come down we'll all reconsider the Theory of Gravity). It appears that you are ignorant of the basic ideas behind science. When scientists say theory we do not mean it to have the "maybe" connotation that it has in to the lay people of the word. When we want to say maybe we say "hypothesis." A theory is a model that explains a bunch of facts. The best theories are ones that easily explain a lot of different facts in an easily comprehensible way.
Once again I am going to look at the Theory of Gravity because so called "creation" scientists do not argue over this use of the the word theory. Our modern theory of gravity easily explains the followings facts and laws:
The inverse square law that the force of gravity is reduced by x^2 when the distance is reduced by x
The hypothesis of Newton (considered to be correct) that every particle attracts every other particle
Einstein and his Theory of General Relativity which explains space and mass as products of each other (i.e. space bends around mass)
Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity that equates Energy to mass and has as a hypothesis the idea that nothing can go faster than light
Those are some of the different facts and ideas that are all connected by the same umbrella, namely the Theory of Gravity. Most of these were proven by experimentation, and as such, we are really certain that our modern theory of gravity is correct. If we ever find some situation that does not obey these laws then we will have to re-think and correct our theory. That is the way science works.
Now let's consider the more controversial theory of evolution. Bearing in mind that theory does not mean "maybe" but instead serves only to easily explain and unite different known facts and ideas we find that it also is correct. This explains why there are transitional fossils (you can find them online) which show an unknown species that is between two known species in both anatomy and the fossil record. The theory of evolution explains the experiments with fruit flies that you yourself brought up. In order to understand the Theory of Evolution you should understand its mechanisms. I highly recommend Biology by Cambell, the most popular freshmen bio book. It will explain the principle of genetic drift, isolation, speciation, mutations that allow for better reproductive success - basically all the different methods that fall under the general category of evolution.
Now let's look at Creation "science" objectively. A big difference between creationism and "real" science is that creationism can not be invalidated. It is not falsifiable. Ask yourself what would you need to see in order to stop believing in the bible and the Genesis account of creation. Chances are nothing will ever make you reject this idea. This violates every law of science. Look at the Bible itself. I've read it. Every page, every word. I think that it is remiss of myself to argue for evolution while being completely ignorant of the other side.
Consider the following:
Matthew 17:28 "I tell you solemnly that some of you standing here will not taste death before they see the son of Man coming with his Kingdom" spoken by Jesus. And yet everyone there that he addressed back in ~20 A.D. is now dead. Where is the Kingdom? This is one of many passages that do not turn out true. If this were science and we got 1, just 1, case that contradicted itself we would have to throw the theory out. You base your ideas on old science that has long been discredited.
As my last thought I recommend that you not force this idea on your children. Anyone who believes creation "science" as fervantly as you tends to be a target for ridicule, and in my opinion, rightly so. You are clinging to an ad hoc theory without the tools to even intelligently argue it. You just look foolish is all. That's the reason that this is not taught in schools. It is a patently false idea that does not belong in a science classroom because it is not even remotely scientific. To think otherwise would be to deprive your children of a decent education. Look at the most fervent believes of this crap: Alabama. Then look how often Alabama is at the bottom of everything.
If you are looking for some the real truth please visit the following:
Myths of Creation "Science"
The Rule Book for Sciene
Biology by Cambell
It really depends is the best answer. It depends whether it is water solulable or fat solulable, whether it goes to the muscles [at the cellular level], how fast it is metabolized in the liver, and a bunch of factors.
For caffeine, I think it lingers for approximately 12 hours with the peak fairly early (within 20 mins to 70 mins). After it starts to wear off, just take another sip. Say every 3 - 4 hours.
Yes, that is what it means. They have the whole GATC of a person (actually 4 people I think).
What needs to happen before we can effect any real change on the genetic level is a thorough understanding of where each gene IS. For example we might want to know that eye color is on the 20th chromosome, about 1/3 of the way up. Once we learn where all these genes are (hair color, eye color, "height", etc) we match the GATC sequence to that region of that chromosome and bingo - we can now effectively change gene's and what they produce.
There are a lot of inherent problems though. DNA codes only for proteins so you are at a fundamental loss to change those things that aren't proteins. The best that you can do is modify the enzymes (which are proteins) that in are responsible for the non-protein characteristic (for example you could change the enzyme that "makes" fat so that it would synthesize fat more slowly, but you can't alter the fat itself).
Another problem is that organisms that reproduce sexually are notorious for having complicated chromosomes. During Prophase II of meiosis the chromosome "cross-over" - they basically switch places. The sequence of GATC is conserved but the order may be screwy. This is the reason why there is such variation in sexually reproducing organisms.
Another problem is the issue of multi-factorial phenotypical expression. Some things (like eye color and "height") are not located on one chromosome, but instead may involve different regions of several chromosomes. Decoding these multi-factorial genes is going to be a real pain in the ass.
There are also going to be a lot of surprises. We have no clue about how some of the more complex biochemical pathways that run our body (and especially our brain) so we are assured of the fact that we will find the "directions" for enzymes and proteins that we never discovered. What has to happen is that we need to corrolate all of our research to get the different fields to mesh together properly.
Thats not how it works. "This technology will have to be tested on people before it can be used for the good of mankind. Now, in a perfect world, of course, I'd suggest some kind of "lottery" system where they picked a person at random and everyone wanted to volunteer." No, at first we would probably try it on other creatures. We've been genetically engineering bacteria since the 1970s - but then again bacteria dont have more than 10 genes. All testing will have to follow the already established protocol of informed consent (which we have also used since the '70s, genetics and otherwise). All experimentation will be done on a volunteer basis and operating under an informed consent basis. All subjects will be told of the risks, the alternatives (including nothing, non-participation, or "traditional" cures), and all studies have to be approved by an IRB (Institutional Review Board) to make sure that no subject was "tricked" into it. Medical Ethics classes present a lot of scenarios where a subject should not be used despite their volunteering to, most of the time because they didn't fully understand the risks. There are also special protected classes that are extensively reviewed before they are allowed to participate (children, prisoners, terminally ill, and mentally retarded). As for the studies themselves expect simple double-blind placebo tests. Neither the doctor administering the drug nor the patient/subject will know whether they got the treatment or a sugar pill. If you had ALS (Lou Gerighs and Steven Hawkings condition) and 1 little pill might make it all go away I am sure the risk would be worth it.
The next step is the part that is going to be a killer (and also the step that will change the world). Mapping the genome meant figuring out the order of the nitrogen bases on each chromosome (whether it was an A-T or a C-G basegroup). Now they have to figure out what does what.
What will come next is figuring out where each gene resides (for instance hair color might be chromosomes 1 and 10) and then changing only the nitrogen bases in order to change the phenotype.
What it will mean is individual-specific products. Don't like being a blonde? Take this pill and your hair will change itself. Get sunburned easily? Give the pharmacist a swap of salivia and he'll create a suntan specifically for you. Need a new heart? We'll grow one from scratch - guarenteed histologic compatibility.
Instead of the few dozen genetic tests given to newborns we will be able to test for diseases that we haven't even discovered yet.
It's a gonna be whole new world.
>I have NFI about Chemistry but as far as i know glucose is just a string of amino acids strung together.
Actually, glucose is *generally* a 6 carbon sugar. I think the most common is a-D-glucose. There are really severl forms of "glucose" that can be obtained by switching the various H-OH groups. A string of amino acids is a protein. Proteins are generally harder to make than straight chain sugars, I don't know how hard they are to make relative to cyclic sugars.
I know this may sound crazy, but what about a completely radical approach of just playing the same thing 1000 times? Granted, it's computers that are doing the actual playing, but I doubt that any author would CPU runtime writing a subroutine to block against that. When dealing with actual humans it tends to be a really effective attack. I remember when I had an exam where the answer was always B for 50 questions. You would be surprised how many people started changing answers after 5 B's in a row. Good old mindgames.
As it has already been pointed out, a chiral compound is a compound that has AT LEAST 2 different forms - both of which are mirror images of each other. In terms of organic chemistry, chirality is very important. Organic chemists define chirality to be any carbon atom that has four different "things" bonded to it. The chirality arises because these carbons are said to be sp3-hybridized, meaning that they look like tetrahedrons. This is the basis for the mirror image. In a compound with many carbons, you find all carbons which have 4 different things attachted to them (as carbon has 4 bonds) and call them chirality centers. The number of possible variations of that compound is 2^n, where n is the number of chirality centers. Chirality is important because it forms the basis for most organic reactions. For example, almost all sugars in nature are D-sugars. The reaction will not proceed with an L-sugar. (D & L just mean the different mirror image configuration). On the same note, enzymes only work with one isomer (either D or L) and so on. It isn't particularly hard to change chirality centers either.