|
Science
Mar 13, 2006 1:44:42 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 13, 2006 1:44:42 GMT -5
Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell a New Story by Nicholas Wade www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html Scientists have been taking a closer look at 700 regions of the human genome. Their findings have caused them to reevaluate the fluid nature of evolution that is as active today as it was in the past. The genes under scrutiny have all been modified in the past 5-15 thousand years. The new traits connected with these genes may have helped with the transition to agricultural live. This latest study compared genes found in three groups, African, East Asian, and European. Up until now many scientists had considered Human evolution “complete” 10,000 years ago. This new data suggests that evolution is an ongoing process. Dr. Jonathan Pritchard from the University of Chicago is the head of this study, which used statistical analysis to identify genetic traits specific to each group investigated. These non-universal traits are most likely to be recent additions to the genome. Some examples are resistance to malaria and the ability to process lactose. Some other traits involve taste and smell and may relate to domestication of plants and animals for food. Shifts in genes identified with food correspond with the archaeological record regarding the shift to agriculture. Scientist also can see a change in bone structure that took place with the introduction of agriculture. Dr. Pritchard’s research also seems to indicate that differences in skin color did not originate 45,000 years ago as previously thought. The new data suggest European’s pale skin first evolved 6,600 years ago to help with vitamin D production. The genes that result in pale skin in Europeans was not found in the East Asian population studied which suggests different genes at work. Genes that control some aspects of the brain were also tracked in this study. The data collected for this study measured large blocks of DNA, which are passed on with successful genes until present in the entire population. Genes that haven’t yet occurred uniformly across the species are usually new additions. Genes found across the groups studied are present do to migration or independent evolution.
|
|
|
Science
Mar 16, 2006 0:38:30 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 16, 2006 0:38:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Science
Mar 18, 2006 0:39:02 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 18, 2006 0:39:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Science
Mar 22, 2006 2:17:07 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 22, 2006 2:17:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 2:24:27 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 24, 2006 2:24:27 GMT -5
Robert Speers 3/24/6
Summary of “Salt”
This is a great essay examining the difference between gourmet salt and regular salt. It turns out there is no real difference. These salts are chemically identical. The size of the grains vary, but salt is salt. The essay begins by explaining the different size of grains of salts and the corresponding uses. For example, a large grain is good for margarita and a small grain is best for popcorn. The second section of the essay describes the process for producing “Sea” salt. Sea salts are often marketed as beneficial due to the minerals present. Actually the process of separating the salt removes most of the minerals present in the original seawater. The author notes that to match the amount of iron in a grape you would have to consume a fatal amount of salt. The salt crystals are evaporated out of the water and washed leaving a product that is nearly indistinguishable from salt mined on land.
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 14:31:30 GMT -5
Post by Bill on Mar 24, 2006 14:31:30 GMT -5
I wonder why people are paying $300 for flor de sal. Can you answer that Mr Dubois?
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 15:07:02 GMT -5
Post by 11993399ben on Mar 24, 2006 15:07:02 GMT -5
Why do people pay $4000 for an oz of weed?
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 15:08:57 GMT -5
Post by 11993399ben on Mar 24, 2006 15:08:57 GMT -5
Sorry forgot to add the answer:
Because its dank, literally and figuratively
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 17:56:49 GMT -5
Post by Bill on Mar 24, 2006 17:56:49 GMT -5
I didn't think that stuff was that expensive these days but I'll take your word for it.
Remember the good old 60's and 70's? When you could buy a pound of salt for 25c?
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 20:59:44 GMT -5
Post by 1199339911ben on Mar 24, 2006 20:59:44 GMT -5
I feel a bit strange writing about weed costs being a non-smoker myself. I actually have stores built up in my system that will last me another 60 years. I release them by massaging a particular point between my thumb and pointer finger.
Back in my hayday 1993 - 2002 "cannabis cup winning" product i.e. "white widow", "jack herer", "orange cush", etc. retailed for about $4000 per oz. This is not considering the wholesale market. I think most of those guys brought in 30 - 40 percent. And they say you need to go to business school...
"flor de sal" is a blanket term for high quality sea salt. The average goes at 10.99 for 9oz. on the whole foods shelves. Its a fad. People are banking on it. There are some rare and unique varieties that sell at astronomical prices i.e. the red rock salts from Japan. Is it worth it? I think not. Especially for the average diner. For the true "foodie" who seeks out stuff like that I give it an 8 out of 10 on the food sensual experience scale. 10 out of 10's can be as simple as thanksgiving prepared with love or lobster mousse from Chez Panisse. With food I don't think its a matter of the more expensive the better although that's what fashion eaters tend to wind up going along. Statistics on fine dining actually show restaurants can suffer for charging lower costs. I guess the idea is cost reflecting the true ....
oops have to tend to the baby
|
|
|
Science
Mar 24, 2006 23:27:07 GMT -5
Post by Peen or Teller on Mar 24, 2006 23:27:07 GMT -5
feng shway. no idea how to spell it but people are forking over millions to have con artists come out and rearrange your home. they claim it is a science but good old penn and teller paid four different ones to rearange the same house. guess what, they all claimed the feng shway feelings led them to the precise set-up of furniture to maximize the positive energy of the room.
anyway anyone see the new south park? scientology=super adventure club. quite hilarious.
|
|
|
Science
Mar 27, 2006 1:00:02 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 27, 2006 1:00:02 GMT -5
Truly Micro Electronics in a Single Molecule
E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Reprints Save Article
By JOHN MARKOFF Published: March 24, 2006 SAN FRANCISCO, March 23 — In an advance suggesting that a new kind of ultrasmall computing circuit may one day be produced using conventional chip-making equipment, I.B.M. researchers have succeeded in fashioning an electronic circuit around a single carbon nanotube molecule, the company reported Thursday in the journal Science.
The researchers wrote that their approach could be used to simplify the manufacturing of molecular electronic circuits.
Molecular electronics is an effort to build a Lilliputian world of logic and memory circuits that are less than one-tenth the size of today's most advanced microelectronic components.
Researchers pursuing the new technology say they think it will make it possible to continue to scale down component size after the middle of the next decade, when today's technologies are expected to reach fundamental limits.
The I.B.M. researchers said they were pursuing a hybrid approach that might one day blend some aspects of today's microelectronics, which has been optimized by printing circuits on silicon wafers, with new materials that make far smaller transistors possible.
Carbon nanotubes are cylindrical molecules with a diameter of approximately a single nanometer, or one-billionth of a meter, and a length that may be thousands of times that.
The molecules have a range of properties, many of them promising for electronics applications.
"This is the first time that a single carbon nanotube has been used to make an integrated electronic circuit," said Dimitri Antoniadis, a professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It is a demonstration of what can be done, but it is still a long way from being competitive with silicon."
The I.B.M. researchers said one significant advance of their work was that they had been able to generate circuit speeds in the megahertz range for the first time in molecular computing.
Until now, researchers have reported molecular electronics switching speeds no higher than the kilohertz range, or thousand of times per second. In contrast, today's commercial microprocessors routinely have switching speeds of billions of times per second.
The researchers report obtaining switching frequencies of 52 megahertz, which is roughly the equivalent of an Intel 486 microprocessor chip commercially available 15 years ago.
An author of the I.B.M. paper, Zhihong Chen, said she believed that it would ultimately be possible to build molecular devices that reach switching speeds of trillions of operations a second. Such computing performance is obtained today only by the fastest parallel supercomputers.
Carbon nanotube materials are particularly intriguing, the researchers said, because they may have improved ability to carry current without dissipating larger amounts of heat. Waste heat has become the leading enemy of high-speed computing in recent years.
|
|
|
Science
Mar 27, 2006 1:20:34 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 27, 2006 1:20:34 GMT -5
In Children, Rise in Bacteria Is Linked to Smoke Published: March 21, 2006 www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/health/21reac.html?pagewanted=all This article describes the increase in risk of bacterial infection associated with children exposed to second hand smoke. Streptococcus pneumoniae was found in 76% of children exposed to smoke, while only 60% children not exposed to smoke had streptococcus pneumoniae infections. Dr. David Greenberg, the lead author of this report, believes that smoke disables the “good” bacteria found naturally in the mucus membranes. With this “good” bacterial weakened, invasive streptococcus pneumoniae is able to thrive. This study found that the disparity did not exist in children attending daycare. Dr. Greenberg believes this is because daycares are a smoke free environment
|
|
|
Science
Mar 31, 2006 1:58:09 GMT -5
Post by degicank on Mar 31, 2006 1:58:09 GMT -5
Robert Speers 3/31/06
Summary of “Concerns of Science” by Erst Mayr
This essay compares the difference between Science and Theology. The author notes that the main difference between science and theology is the use of supernatural explanations. Scientists do not use supernatural causation, theology does. The second difference is what the author calls openness. Science allows multiple interpretations of different theories, while theologically different interpretations are not accepted and can cause the destruction or breakdown of a sect. In science new ideas are constantly evolving, allowing science to progress. Scientist benefit from objectivity, the belief that natural world exists outside of human perception. So the tree does make a sound if no hears it. Anthropic principle excluded, most scientist maintain objectivity. Scientists believe the world is structured and can be tested. I think history conflicts with the author’s view of scientists happily yielding to new theories and evidence, but over time the testable explanations prevail. The author next addresses the difference between theories and facts. Facts can be proven, theories can only be strengthened. This explains the time needed for theories to gain acceptance. In conclusion the author notes that scientists only attempt to explain the natural world though that which is observable. Theologians believe in the metaphysical or supernatural, which is beyond the scope of science.
|
|
|
Science
Mar 31, 2006 2:59:02 GMT -5
Post by 5ben on Mar 31, 2006 2:59:02 GMT -5
Thanks for that last post. I want to open discussion on a few points that it made:
From an Islamic perspective: Supernatural causations - In one way the belief that mono-theistic religion sees God as the creator of all things and God as the doer of all things I have to say yes. But the Islamic perspective (I can't speak for other spiritual paths on this) is always fluctuating between multiple levels of reference. So on one level yes God is the source of all happenings (good and evil no less, not so in christianity) but Islamic thought would agree if you said "this electron's charge causes this atom to behave in this specific way". It is blanketed under the Haqq or the truth of created things.
Multiple interpretations - First off I think one of the main problems is people don't bother too much to find out about the other guy before commenting on them. So it becomes a surface level thing. Context, meanings, etc. cannot be understood about a thing unless you delve into it. I am finding more and more and more if a person takes the time and studies the different perspective they find in the end they are talking about the same thing only in a different way. So yes, the language and the terms and the methods are different. But multiple interpretations an Islamic perspective - It was said in the previous post that "this is not allowed" and it breaks down the sect...all I can say to that is...taking the Qu'ran for instance, each verse or Ayat has many differing interpretations all of which can be technically acceptable.
Evolving thought - One of the meanings derived from Qu'ran is that God raises people in degrees according to knowledge. So much like mathmatics where you use a postulate in geometry to be able to navigate certain aspects of the science the same postulate becomes obsolete in Calculus where new postulates and theorems govern the landscape. Its a perceptual change in theology.
Tree falling in the woods and it does make a sound - Well Bohm the quantum physicist's model states, "nothing exists unless it is being wittnessed (conciousness)" Another Qu'ranic meaning states that creation exists because God wittnesses it. With this model sure the tree makes a sound even though no created thing is around to hear it.
testable explainations - I'll use gravity as the example here. You throw water and the laws of gravity cause it to fall to the ground. Same goes for spiritual law but first hand wittnessing is required much of the time, you can test them yourself. Try this, shout angry insults at your girlfriend everyday and see what it does to the quality of love between you. The basic spiritual law you would be violating is politeness. The principle is that politeness supports well being, love, peace, etc. See if you can maintain that love while doing this.
Observing the natural world, "observable things" - It is a matter of perception when it is said the spiritual cannot be wittnessed. Why did all the aboriginal peoples flee to the hills before the tsunami hit? Better yet, why did the animals? Scientists say that the elephants sensed the siesmic activity. But why did they know to go to the hills and not to the surrounding flatlands? These are creatures who are more in sinc with the governing forces at work in nature which like it was mentioned, "are beyond the scope of science".
|
|