because he is such a conservative ideologue that no matter who Bush chooses as his replacement, it won't really effect the balance on the Supreme Court.
They should be allowed to vote as citizens of a free country, so why can't they let their freedom of speech ring on the Internet
While I think by committing a particularly egregious crime criminals forfeit their right to vote (i.e. felons), you make an important point.
The government has a duty to protect the "inalienable rights" of all its citizens. As long as the Internet is not used being used to break any laws, restricting prisoners access to it most certainly violates the 1st amendment.
Furthermore, protecting inmates' 1st amendment right is of tantamount importance to democracy. Inmates are those who experience the consequences of breaking the law first-hand; it is they who have valuable insight as to any injustice stemming from the System, any violations of the Social Contract on the part of government.
What if Martin Luther King hadn't been able to write "A Letter From a Birmingham Jail"? What if Mumia Abu Jamal hadn't been able to use media to call international attention the rampant unaccountability of the police force in the U.S.? Society would have lost important opportunities to spur action towards forming "a more perfect union."
This article needs to be under YRO.
Since E=mc^2, m=E/c^2
Thus, a chemical bond (a storehouse of potential energy) can contribute to the mass of a molecule. The more "energetic" the bond, the more energy it stores, and hence the more mass it has to contribute to the overall molecule. Since, some bonds (and hence configurations) are more "energetic" than others then different configurations result in different overall masses for the same molecule.
However, the contribution of mass is so small (by a factor of 1/c^2), it greatly diminishes (relatively) as the size of the molecule increases. Since this weighing machine can only detect the mass of a molecule greater than the equivalent of 30 xenon atoms, the configuration of the molecule doesn't make too much of a difference.
If you had RTFA, then you would have found that the machine is not precise enough to measure SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in DNA--a common cause of or marker for many genetic disorders (sickle cell anemia immediately comes to mind). Indeed, the mutation would have to be extreme (spanning 100s of nucleotides) for there to be an appreciable weight difference. And even if the DNA were that damaged, its corresponding protein would be misshaped enough for scientists to pick up.
Another more practical use for this technology is to screen for mutated proteins already transcribed in cells. Differences in weights of proteins are much easier to detect than differences in weights of DNA molecules simply because amino acids are much larger than nucleotides.
Slashdot Mirror
just add water! I keed, I keed.
Thank god I can sleep easy at night ;) Not if you drink that cup of Java :-P
because he is such a conservative ideologue that no matter who Bush chooses as his replacement, it won't really effect the balance on the Supreme Court.
They should be allowed to vote as citizens of a free country, so why can't they let their freedom of speech ring on the Internet While I think by committing a particularly egregious crime criminals forfeit their right to vote (i.e. felons), you make an important point. The government has a duty to protect the "inalienable rights" of all its citizens. As long as the Internet is not used being used to break any laws, restricting prisoners access to it most certainly violates the 1st amendment. Furthermore, protecting inmates' 1st amendment right is of tantamount importance to democracy. Inmates are those who experience the consequences of breaking the law first-hand; it is they who have valuable insight as to any injustice stemming from the System, any violations of the Social Contract on the part of government. What if Martin Luther King hadn't been able to write "A Letter From a Birmingham Jail"? What if Mumia Abu Jamal hadn't been able to use media to call international attention the rampant unaccountability of the police force in the U.S.? Society would have lost important opportunities to spur action towards forming "a more perfect union." This article needs to be under YRO.
Since E=mc^2, m=E/c^2 Thus, a chemical bond (a storehouse of potential energy) can contribute to the mass of a molecule. The more "energetic" the bond, the more energy it stores, and hence the more mass it has to contribute to the overall molecule. Since, some bonds (and hence configurations) are more "energetic" than others then different configurations result in different overall masses for the same molecule. However, the contribution of mass is so small (by a factor of 1/c^2), it greatly diminishes (relatively) as the size of the molecule increases. Since this weighing machine can only detect the mass of a molecule greater than the equivalent of 30 xenon atoms, the configuration of the molecule doesn't make too much of a difference.
If you had RTFA, then you would have found that the machine is not precise enough to measure SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in DNA--a common cause of or marker for many genetic disorders (sickle cell anemia immediately comes to mind). Indeed, the mutation would have to be extreme (spanning 100s of nucleotides) for there to be an appreciable weight difference. And even if the DNA were that damaged, its corresponding protein would be misshaped enough for scientists to pick up.
Another more practical use for this technology is to screen for mutated proteins already transcribed in cells. Differences in weights of proteins are much easier to detect than differences in weights of DNA molecules simply because amino acids are much larger than nucleotides.