Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Richard Anthony Hein Richard.Hein Stay on Target
  • My predictions for tech

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    It was part of the robot series that included "I, Robot" and thankfully, it didn't include Will Smith's terrible reimagining of the story.

    It was "The Naked Sun".  Loved that series.

  • My predictions for tech

    @Bass: If practical immortality - nearly perfect healing, organ regeneration, anti-aging technology etc... - comes about before AI, then technological progress may grind to a crawl, if Asimov was right about it.  People with a ton of time on their hands don't rush to market like they used to unless they are desperate for another reason besides dying/aging/trying to make a family and all the other human motivations partly or wholly driven by having a limited lifespan.  That includes sharing research with potential competition with whom you'd normally collaborate with; why share your research if you can take another 5 years to work on it and get all the glory yourself?   Which book was that ... "The Stars, Like Dust"?

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    , cbae wrote

    @Richard.Hein: So really you posted to point out that I used an absolute term. Yes, I shouldn't have used an absolute term. I should have said "nearly impossible". Congratulations. You win.

    Edit:

    *snip*

    * that. I take that back. My statement of impossibility is based on whether or not gold is non-reactive. Given that, how do you separate any type of non-reactive particulate from another using a chemical reaction? Non-reactive elements by definition cannot chemically react. So the statement of impossibility is true under those circumstances.

    So the main issue in that statement is whether or not gold is non-reactive, and I've stated several times already, gold is reactive under certain conditions but effectively non-reactive under the conditions that can exist inside of a living coral specimen.

    Another thing you can argue is whether or not coral has to use a chemical process in the first place as evildictaitor questioned, and I've already stated several times that a mechanical process would require the development of specialized organs.

    EDIT: nvm, idc.

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    @cbae: What I was clearly interested in correcting, was your statement, "But then there would have to be some chemistry involved to distinguish between gold and any other non-reactive particulate in the water, which would be an impossibility since by their very nature they're non-reactive."  This is, experimentally, provably, false.  I like how you try to redefine "impossible" to fit your ego, but you got tempted to use "impossible" to describe something that is actually possible and done, but isn't worth doing.  Some mining companies already use genetically engineered bacteria to extract gold from waste produced during normal gold mining extraction.  There's currently no economical way to extract gold from seawater, because of the density of gold in water (and methods to gather dispersed bacteria that have consumed gold don't exist yet) that makes it economically viable, but that doesn't mean it is impossible, and in fact, it's the opposite of impossible.  I didn't try to get into a flame war here, so I'm done with this thread; all I did was post some correction to your assumption and now you want to argue about what you said or didn't say. 

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    @cbae:  "I can obviously be proven wrong, but I'm pretty confident that I'm correct for now".  Seriously?  If you refuse to turn the light on, then that's your choice.

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    That's what makes all the difference in the world. The fact that gold can be used as a catalyst doesn't help your cause of trying to concentrate or accumulate gold. If you want to state that a catalyst is just as much a part of a chemical reaction as the actual reactants, then that catalyst needs to have an affinity to participate in the reaction (and an even higher affinity than other particulates) if the goal is to concentrate the catalyst in question.

    *snip*

    Great, but merely being different still doesn't necessarily accomplish the goal of trying the acquire the gold in the first place.

    Catalyst shmatalyst, that's not relevant, it's a reaction, and besides that there are other reactions where it's not a catalyst, so that's completely besides the point.  Whether gold can be part of a reaction is what I was responding to, as I was refuting your statement:  "But then there would have to be some chemistry involved to distinguish between gold and any other non-reactive particulate in the water, which would be an impossibility since by their very nature they're non-reactive."  "impossible" eh?  Wrong.  Isn't it nice to be wrong?  The world is amazing, so it's awesome to be wrong about stuff like this.  Embrace it.  ;)  "by their very nature" - wrong again: non-reactivity (at scale) has nothing to do with their very nature.  It's an emergent property of a bunch of gold atoms together, not built into their "very nature".

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    Something being used as a catalyst for a reaction and being reactive itself are two different things.

    No, they are not two different things.  How do you suppose a catalyst has any effect on a chemical reaction unless it's reacting with the chemicals?  Magic?  It's part of the reaction and it's exactly the same thing.  The only thing different between a catalyst and a non-catalyst is that a catalyst comes out of the reaction the same as it was when it went in. 

    Nanoscale chemistry is different and breaks a lot of rules, and there's a lot of textbook rewriting going on.  Gold being inert is a broken rule. 

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    @cbae:  Gold is inert ... unless it's a nanoparticle.  At around 5nm, gold it is no longer inert, and is now used as a catalyst and for other reactions, including targeting cancer cells (when combined with iron oxide).

  • Kinectless Xbox One - $399 & Netflix w/o Gold

    , spivonious wrote

    @MasterPi: Taking Kinect out means that we'll get another generation of games that don't use the Kinect. That's bad news. I think the main reason for it is to get the price down to PS4 levels.

    Not requiring Gold for entertainment apps is fantastic news. It's been one of the items making me hesitate. I already pay for Netflix and can get it free through my PC, my blu-ray player, and my phone. What should I have to pay Microsoft to use it on the Xbox?

    I agree with both paragraphs 100%.  I'll add, that to me, Netflix is the best thing ever for the Xbox One.  Being able to pin my kids shows is awesome for her, for my wife, and for me to launch anything on demand.  Netflix really is by far themost used app in my home and sells the Xbox One, to me.

    However, it is better with the Kinect because I can shout out a favorite for my daughter from the kitchen and BAM, it's playing.  Going back to even Kinect 1 and the Xbox 360, sucks - I've tried it.  The Xbox One Netflix client still needs work, but it's good enough.

    Microsoft, if possible, should buy Netflix, or buy up as much of Netflix as they can, imho.

  • Scientists add Letters to DNA’s Alphabet by The Koyal Group InfoMag News

    , ScanIAm wrote

    *snip*

    It always cracks me up when this is used to justify genetic tinkering.  I'm completely pro-tinkering, but this is obviously a case of picking a good possibility from a myriad of both good and bad.

    They could easily have said "The accomplishment might eventually lead to organisms that reduce our bones to jelly and result in the ruination of all that we hold dear."

    I mean, it's possible, right?

     

    Yes, but it already happens, naturally.  Some viruses and bacteria cause illness and reduce bones to jelly and we need to a) find out how that happens and b) stop it.  Knowing how they work may increase the number of custom, dangerous viruses possible, but it's not the only way to increase the danger.  We could do nothing and some militant group with some reason to hate some people can harvest a dangerous virus without any knowledge of biology at all, and still infect people.  And again, it could just happen naturally.  Viruses cause many health problems and disease, and we're just beginning to understand how many problems, from cancer to birth defects, are caused by viruses.