illini319

Science prides itself on being objective. We come up with a hypothesis, we test the hypothesis, we make emotion-less conclusions from our experiment. All the while, taking into account that our conclusions (which is independent of the data) is our perception of reality; that there can be other ways to interpret the same data that would still be consistent with all the constraints of the experiment. That is, scientists know that with every experiment, one must remain open minded to ensure an unbiased position towards interpreting the data. So, fundamentally, a scientist is first and foremost an open minded tester of phenomena. And yet when it comes to the oldest questions in humanity, scientists close their eyes, stick fingers in their ears, and essentially close their mind to the possibility that something greater than what they currently understand could be the answer to their questions regarding life, the cosmos, etc. Scientifically, with regards to a god, the answer is simple: we don't know. An answer such is this is derived from the fact that we simply do not have positive data regarding this 'experiment.' There is NO data whatsoever that supports or refutes the idea that a god exists. So why is it that most scientists are atheists? Are they not breaking one of the most fundamental tenets of their practice: no conclusion when there is no data?I should note now that I am a scientist. And like everyone (regardless of camp) I have personally debated the idea of a god. But I think, as a scientist, I owe it to myself to remain objectified and acknowledge that there is simply no good data regarding a god. That, as a scientist, I should not fall to the same DOGMATIC trap of the very people most scientists find ignorant. Hence when it comes to things like creation/evolution... I find myself scratching my head and wonder why soooo many people immediately divide themselves as if the two possibilities are so absolutely mutually exclusive. Why can't both be approximations of the same truth?

I personally will wait it out. I don't intend on buying this generation's Betamax. Sony, in business principle, seems to be doing the right thing: i.e. address piracy more seriously. But as we all know... nothing will be uncrackable for too long. I figure, when the time is right (and the price is low), I'll jump into the mix. Besides, who wants to buy any of the movies listed??? Nothing against these movies, but did anyone miss that none of them were filmed in High-Def? Until that happens, there is no substantial reasons to move to a new media... I don't really care if they add even more 'dvd features' like more mindless commentary to fill all that extra space. I care more about the quality of the movie.

While I think stem cell research should be publicly funded, I don't exactly think that stem cell research is the promise that many proponents seem to attach to this field. Yes, there is theoretically lots of potential for being able to manipulate the lineage of cells into any cell/tissue type one would require. But this is a large assumption: that we can successfully manipulate stem cells to adequately and permanently change them into the cell type we require. stem cells are, by virtue, a cell type that is completely self-renewing and doesn't stop dividing. How is this different from a cancerous cell? The differences are fundamentally slight. In fact many cancerous cells take on a stem-cell like fate. So... in conclusion I think that funding stem cell research is as necessary as funding cancer/cardiovascular/age-related research endeavors; the payoffs will be incremental

As mentioned in the post before me, please keep in mind that the study was done in a bacterium. Having said that, DNA damage sensing/repairing proteins are so critically important to life that it is highly conserved all the way up to humans. It is not their job to directly generate mistakes. The generation of genetic mistakes should not be equated to genetic diversity. The bulk of 'mistakes' that are made are quickly, and faithfully, repaired. Then there is the question of where the genetic lesion occurs. Most of the time, these mistakes occur in regions of our DNA that does not encode any gene. Hence these are neutral mutations and do not contribute to some phenotypic change. On the off chance that DNA damage occurs on coding DNA, then there is STILL the question of which cell this damage occurred in. If it happens on some somatic cell, there is a chance that such a persistent DNA damage can give a selective growth advantage that can lead to cancer. Such an avenue is detrimental to the organism... but does not contribute to genetic diversity. Only when DNA damage occurs (and persists) in our germ cells (sperm or egg) does it ever contribute to genetic diversity, because these changes can actually propagate to the next generation.

I always hated the term 'optical' illusion. It is not an illusion of 'optics.' As mentioned, nothing here is moving. The patterns are static. They remain static as they are emitted by your computer screen, as they enter your eye and hit your retina. They are static as the signal travels down your optical nerve. In fact... it remains static even as it hits your brain. However, it is our perception of that signal that is off. It is simply an example of a stimulus that our brain clearly has limitations on visually interpreting. Hence it is a perceptual illusion.

Yes, I agree... 20 years from now we will be dealing with the impact of global warming. I don't think it will be particularly apocalyptic but our lives will be directly affected. I think 20 years from now we will have either fully converted to a hybrid technology to fuel our cars, or we will have found more efficient ways to utilize existing renewable (and low pollutant) fuels. I think that 20 years from now, computing will only have linearly increased in improvement. We are already facing the physical limitations of the technologies we have in terms of speed. For example, wireless is where everything will head towards but because of line-of-sight and radio frequency limitations, we will be limited on how much faster we can transfer information. Unless, of course, we can find some quantum leap in technology...

that's neat! I was on a plane last month talking to an engineer who worked in telecommunications. We discussed what could possibly be on the horizon for this field. He discussed incremental changes regarding fiber optic technology. Then we discussed how basically, wireless is the inevitable technology. Of course, there are problems with wireless like LoS. I'm wondering if they can use conceptually similar idea of the laser to lengthen/focus the wireless beam for great distances. Perhaps that is what they already did...

there are now people trying to generate, with mixed success, DNA based computers. As you have mentioned, because DNA has a base of 4 rather than the binary 1 and 0, it has inherently more computing power than our current machines. Here is an article on a DNA computer: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ In brief, they estimate that their DNA computer can calculate 330 trillion operations per second; a value 100,000 times faster than the average PC (at least in 2003).

well as quick as we are figuring out ways to store more data in a small amount of space, we are equally as fast to make bloated and inefficient software (*cough* windows). So what I would like to know is, when the time comes that 1.2 PB drives are mass marketed, how different will this storage boon really be to our current predicament? I mean, certainly we cannot use our current space requirements as a measurement for a device that won't even be available for 4-5 years (optimistically). That's an eternity in computing. We could have double/tripled/(some ludicrous factor)ed our data storage needs by then!

My question may already be out there (although I did search a bit); I apologize in advance. To a person who has remedial programming know-how, but would like to learn, what is the best PHP reference out there? I don't care if it's a book or a site, I just want to know how to learn in the most efficient way possible. (can it really be buying the book: PHP for dummies)

the settlement blows. especially for pc-users who really don't care if they get store credit from the apple store. I would rather get the same amount of money in check form. finally, like the download progress bar, if you are going to design a battery energy bar, the least you could do is actually make it accurate. Otherwise what's the point?

My prediction would be that iPODs will trend towards integration with all the other peripherals we tote around in our pockets. The video iPOD is clearly an example of this. So was the cellphone iPOD. My guess? there will be 'psp' iPODS with the capability of handheld gaming devices. There will be an XM iPOD. there will be a digital camera/cellphone/PDA/blackberry/iPOD that will literally allow you to take a picture, email it off, call and/or text the recipient to let them know you sent them a picture and finally listen to that song you just downloaded and bought wirelessly while you were waiting for a reply back. Integration is the future. At least i hope so. I'm running out of pockets and electrical sockets to charge up all my goodies!!!

Did everyone forget the question? Where do babies come from? simple, from baby with a 'teensy' amount of help from mother. The mother of a child dissassembles and assembles countless molecules through an orchestration of metabolic processes so conserved a single bacterium possesses much of the same machinery. All of these molecules would normally be destined to be for her own maintenance and growth. So where is the baby in this picture? Where does baby get the building blocks of life? Well, most certainly from mom... But they do not come directly from the hamburger with peanut butter spread (trust me... pregnant women get the strangest cravings...) that she ate earlier in the day. Nope, she broke that winning food combination down and apportioned all of it for herself. The fetus will establish a placenta to be able to obtain all the nutrients from mom it needs to do its own disassembly and assembly of organic compounds. The fetus will grab the building blocks of proteins and DNA, oxygen... oh and some sugar for energy. In return, the fetus will give mommy waste products such as urea and carbon dioxide. In many remarkable ways the two organisms, mom and baby, are quite separate. Lots of trading is going on, to be sure. But since you asked, while mom is certainly helping in the process of the baby, the baby is doing much of the work. The baby is ultimately the one breaking down what mom gives and then rebuilding it into the parts that it needs to make itself.

well argued. I certainly agree with you on how many opposed to religion are as equally dogmatic about their position as the zealots they accuse. I'm not even sure how an atheist can look at themselves in the mirror and say, without a shred of doubt, that there is no God. That is as equally faith requiring as one who believes in a higher power. Perhaps they forget that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. In any case, it should be noted that whatever belief system you ascribe yourself to, you are bound to all its strengths and weaknesses. And as such, can only approach an approximation of truth.

While it is certainly a technological/economical feat to combine all these nice features in a 'somewhat' affordable computer... Do we really think that there is a starving third world child out there that is thinking, at this very moment,"Man, I'm hungry. I could really use a nice laptop right now." Let's not all forget what is most important. Let's deal with that first before attempting the luxuries of life.

Guild Wars is a free online MMORPG. besides paying for the game, and an online service, the gameplay is completely free and absolutely immersive. It's not cheapy in any sense. A new installment of this game is coming out sometime this spring. it's a standalone or can be combined with the first installment. Again... besides paying for this second installment, it's free online play. I recommend it to any RPGers with thinned out wallets because of WoW or whatever else.

Well I've been playing MMO's for over two years now and I can certainly attest to the dangers they pose for addictive play. I actually know someone who owns a doctorate in computer science and recently went to a conference where one of the topics at hand is how to make games more addictive. I also know of a teenager who was recently introduced to WOW and, within a year, was diagnosed as having borderlined ADHD. This and the WoW-related death is absolutely no joke. Who is to blame? Is this like the fast food analogy? Do we blame McDonald's or those who eat at Mcdonald's? Where does corporate responsibility end and personal responsibility begin? Tough questions are asked of all of us. Tough questions to be answered responsibly by all of us gamers...

You can try alienware although you certainly pay for top notch parts. Another way would be to build it yourself. I've gone down this road for my last 3 desktops without any problems and have always been happy with the results. I'm not sure of your skill level, but honestly, building a computer is child's play. Pricewatch.com is a great search engine for hardware. Good luck!