illini319

The amount of decisions required of those nanorobots (determine bad bacteria from good, don't kill off human cells, don't degrade enamel, if it ends up in the gut it doesn't kill off all your flora there, etc.) are just enormous. nanorobots, to date are pretty much binary in nature. I don't know when they will be able to do complicated maneuvers necessary for brushing ones teeth. For now and in the future, I fear, the tootbrush (electric or otherwise) will remain our most practical means of dental hygiene.

In light of recent news that Stephen Hawking, a prominent contemporary physicist, argues that humanity must colonize 'space,' I think that this topic has become even more relevant. Whether you believe that the US made it to the moon or not is largely pointless now. So, who cares. What we should be considering is the next steps. Is it worth colonizing the moon? And... what would be our goals once we got there. Seeing as the same administration who mandated that the US go back to the moon, can't even 'colonize' Iraq appropriately (cuz he didn't know what the hell to do once he got there), we should really think hard about what the value of going to the moon would be. For example, would there be any natural resources that we could exploit? Could we ever terraform the moon? What about Mars?

Interesting topic On a daily level, I actually do play around with genes. If Mendel were alive today he would just about have a stroke when he realizes how far we've come from staring at peas and peapods. Yes, it is relatively easy to introduce any gene, from any of several species, into a completely different organism. This would include humans. Of course technology has only gone so far as to move genes around, rather than improve them. Hence, we are not yet at the point where one can generate completely new genes, which encode for a completely new protein that has NEVER existed before. Certainly we can mutate genes, but only incrementally and usually to 'mutate' it back to normal. So, it is more likely that things from Star Trek will come to fruition than things from X-men.

Upon closer reading of the original article for this post, the microbiologists do claim that a preliminary test does come up positive for DNA. That is not to say that cells lacking DNA are incapable of reproduction. Last I heard, red blood cells lack a nucleus alltogether; i.e. no nucleic acids floating around those bags of oxygen. They are able to reproduce, per se, through a pluripotent stem cell ancestor that resides in your bone marrow. Not many of these cells, but their job is to continue to divide and replenish dead/dying red/white blood cells and platelets. Just because they have not found overwhelming DNA does not mean that this population of red microbes do not follow a similar strategy of reproduction; that there is a minor population within the larger group that is responsible for all the cell division. Nothing at all alien about this way of life. Interesting article though, and thanks for the post.

In principle, I agree that there will never be conclusive DATA regarding the creation of life here on our rock. (no such thing as conclusive theory.. it's an oxymoron). Even if I could show you a soup of lifeless nothing, put it in my special microwave, and show you that the same solution now harbors life: that itself would not be conclusive data of how life came about. That experiment just demonstrates how life COULD have occured, not how it actually did. And, as responsible humans, one should demand that we pursue scientific endeavors that help us figure out the most basic question of life. But why be so demanding for proof of life in science, and be so complacent in demanding proof in religion? that faith thing must be much more powerful than my science fiction microwave...

At least in the US, the ideas of 'retooling,' or staying abreast in your field still elude many people. People, here, have such a hard time with maintaining their marketability in the workforce. And it's not in the big decisions: I'm not going to learn computing. It's in the small ones: I'll have my friend help me out here, so I won't have to do it myself. Surely, there is nothing wrong with delegating some work. But we really need to re-evaluate, on a constant basis, what we consider core skills.

To clarify, viruses come in all flavors and sizes. Retroviruses such as HIV are in fact RNA based. Viruses, like herpes virus, are DNA based.

This is one of those near self-perpetuating conspiracies... If I said well, why don't we just point the Hubble on the moon! Surely, we would see evidence of humanity if we used a powerful telescope. The obvious retort would be that it's owned by the same organization that faked it in the first place... All i can say is the value of having been on the moon still eludes me. I still can't imagine how such cold war inanities could have captivated the globe. Even more, how the President Shrub intends to blow more gas by putting us back on that rock. Absolutely nonsense!

Absolutely agreed. To put in terms of numbers: there are approximately 10 trillion human cells in your body. there are approximately 10 times as many bacteria (100 trillion) on that same body. Concerning this flora, it is estimated that upwards of a 1000 different species make up this population of bacteria in your body. Okay. that's bacteria. Upon sequencing the human genome, one particularly interesting fact that came out was that the genome is littered with remnants of lysogenic viral DNA. That is, we are also teeming with virus. Between viruses and bacteria, human cells are woefully outnumbered. Thus, it forces us to reconsider the word 'I' doesn't it?

I think a lot of posts here have very good suggestions regarding the details of your services, etc... so I won't add anything on that level. I will say that the frontpage, on the whole, is too busy. Layer your content. Don't be afraid of whitespace. Whitespace will draw attention to the things that you want your customers drawn to. Hence, have only a few absolutely critical items on the frontpage. Don't have a thousand different links on the page all going to the same order page. Have just the one prominent one: ORDER NOW concept. You likely have that order now button somewhere. But I can tell you that I didn't find it in the first 5 seconds of previewing your page. And that's the timeline you should be considering. Hope that helps, and good luck.

For people within any specialized field, I think it comes as a jolting shock when you see things like this and realize that the average non-specialized person is so remedial to something you consider so basic. As I continue down my own path of career specialization, I encounter this stuff all the time. How certain basic concepts/skills can elude so many people... I'm not sure if this speaks of how awful our education system is, or how little depth most people have for things they use at a daily level. In any case, I think that someone who lacks the most basic computer skills, is still someone who can be brilliant in something else. Are we ants?

I won't pretend to know my quantum physics well enough to completely understand all this. BUT!!! In any experimaental approach that causes such type of colllisions between atoms, isn't heat created? And if so, is the heat measured and factored in to balance both sides of the equation?

Our society lives and dies by the metrics it places on itself. For good and bad...I absolutely agree with you. What does it say if someone does well in any standardized exam? Independent of whether there is an inherent intellectual difference between one who did well versus one who didn't do well in, say, the SAT, there are external factors that, as a result of the test scores would allow the person who did well greater opportunity for 'conventional' success. Obviously, bombing the SAT lessens your chances of getting into a competitive college. And, equally obviously, this does not necessarily reflect on whether or not you are an 'intelligent' person. Perhaps, it reflects on your standardized test taking abilities; perhaps on your ability to handle test-related stress. In any case, you are contemplating this notion within the reality of having society reduce the number of opportunities you have BECAUSE of the the exam. Should one demand a re-evaluation of the SAT and similar exams? No need; why? Because, at a regular pace, the IQ test, the SAT and other similar exams are changed to address our initial concerns. Point being: at a societal level, your performance on exams will put you in pre-determined categories throughout your life. Period. It is up to you to be an exception to the 'rule.'

Intelligence is a touchy subject, absolutely. How can one truly measure mental aptitude in as wholistic and unbiased approach as possible? You can't just damn a set of tests because 1. you didn't do well in the exam yourself, 2. you have anecdotal evidence that speaks to the contrary (not very statistical), 3. you happen to know the strategies of an exam (it's not enough to know it; you have to apply it to many different situations under a time constraint) and 4. you can point out other 'intelligence' traits that the test doesn't measure. This is because, with any measurement, there are a set of caveats one must assume. Paramount, is how accurate the test can tease out the information it desires. In any case, the intelligence tests that we have today, while flawed, are an accepted measurement of mental aptitude.

Perhaps, 20 years from now we will still be discussing the neo-Dark ages that G.W. Bush has pushed us into. We will be still be dealing with terrorism. We will still be dealing with partisan politics and their peddling of how we could solve the more imminent need for removing ourselves from our petrochemical addiction. While there may be technologies that are closer to fruition regarding newer energy sources, it will be held in purgatory hell due to our brilliant government's inaction because they are too busy lining their pockets with special interest groups' "persuasions." Do we really think that Jack Abramoff is a unique entity in the political landscape???

there is a phenomenon called the hayflick limit; which is considered a limitation of telemoric DNA. Unless you can figure out a way to lengthen this DNA, if one were to 'dodge' every other human malady (including familial derived genetic disorders), then the theoretical limit for a human is around 150. This is a scientific explanation given for a scientific question. I'll ignore the all the other religious mumbo jumbo, where logic is replaced with faith...

There is nothing to 'think' about regarding radiation. It happens. Whether you receive ionizing radiation because of therapeutic needs, nuclear fallout, or plain old cosmic bombardment, radiation is an inevitability. Every organism, all the way down to bacteria are capable of repairing many genetic lesions including ionizing radiation. Obviously, receiving copious amounts of radiation is not good for the human body. Knives aren't good for the human body too; but surgeons use scalpels to fix us. i.e. it is how something is used that makes it detrimental or toxic.

Without giving too much information, logic problems can either be solved all in your head or, more practically, on paper. In this problem, with all the constraints, it is necessary for most people to just write out all the limitations. Although honestly this is less a logical problem, than just a 'logical' progression of exclusions. Similar problems as this are often found, in great frequency, in I.Q. rating exams.

I'd hate to think that only 2% of the world can answer this question... It's not too difficult. Almost like Sudoku really; using logic, within constraints, to solve the missing 'number.' In this case, the nationality. Have fun, and thanks for the puzzle.

I can't, with any technical authority, tell you which standard will win out. But, like any other standard war, better technology doesn't always win out. Money will decide this issue. So, it begs the question, in terms of usage which continent uses cellphones more? Or, which company(ies) in what country(ies) are the most profitable in wireless telecom, and which standards do they use?

To be honest, there are many things in the biomedical industry which has its origins in the military. Particularly viral born vectors. One could argue, there are many every day items we have now that we can thank the military for having first developed. I'm not a pro-military person, but certainly, I am pro-anything that pushes any research forward. Having knowledge is not the same as being reckless with it.

I believe the field of nanotechnology is still at the point where making atomic sized 'gears' is a feat of engineering. Having partially/fully automated automatons performing complex (heck even single) tasks is still beyond the horizon. As such, technologies such as nanotechnology (or even stem-cell) often are labelled as the panacea for all the problems of human kind. The hype is so large because it is as limitless as the imagination. Perhaps when this field matures, we will have a better grasp of what can be done with 'nanobots' at a pragmatic level. Maybe, just maybe, they could be inserted in the eye and be used as a dream camcorder.... Until then, keep funding (or support funding) on such endeavors. They are not just for movies.

Here is an interesting article on human perception and fps. FPS It pretty much doesn't conclude how many fps is necessary for fluidity because it argues that it depends on what your idea of 'fluidity' really is. In any case, it argues that perhaps 4000 fps is enough... or even 24 fps (which is the current cinematic standard). So, our friend from VA is either experiencing severely insignificant return on his investment (law of diminishing returns) or clearly hasn't spent enough!!!

On principle, Firefox is better. If for nothing else but to keep Microsoft developers paranoid that they may lose their command of the browser world. I also find that Firefox, because it is open source, is theoretically better than IE can ever be. It is more adaptable and customizable. When there are serious errors, the community is much faster to react.... etc.

As an earlier post alluded to, any carbon-containing compound could theoretically be sufficient to create diamonds. I should say that there is nothing fake about synthetic diamonds. Diamonds are nothing more than a form of carbon. Regardless of how it was made, if it is molecularly similar, then there is nothing fake about it. But, really, why stop there. The idea of 'alchemy' died a long time ago (you know turning lead into gold). But considering how advanced our technology has become, it really has come full circle to alchemy. It is certainly possible, now, to change lead into gold (in miniscule and cost-ineffective amounts).