Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scrdest]

Had a look up of K. planticola, and I've found a whole load of 'IT WOULD DESTROY THE WOOOOOOOOORLD!' stuff on it. I'm wondering if the danger it posed was actually a realistic thing, or if it's something that's been blown out of proportion?

I mean, obviously if it was as bad as everyone says, life would still go on. Probably suffer a MAJOR extinction event, but it would still go on.

Dr. Elaine Ingham, the scientist responsible for the claims, was eventually forced to retract the claim (and later, along with NZ Green Party, apologize to NZ's Royal Comission for misleading evidence) because, well, good science it wasn't, and she wound up having to undergo a professional review for it. They didn't even have a wild type control, FFS.

She cited an unpublished article, for once, and the bacterium was never, as she asserted, approved for field trials; the plant death thing was found for a single soil type with two bacterial strains (a parent strain and the modified variant) for one species of wheat. The bacterium strain in question was a mutant that was more likely than not unable to produce acetate - which is kinda vital, so they'd be at a disadvantage. Plus, you know, they expend resources to produce something they don't really need.

Finally, considering that's one of *THE* bacterial families whose approach to genes is that sharing is caring, it's almost certain that kind of modification already occurs in nature somewhere; it's just that isolating useful bacteria from soil was a biiiiiiiitch until very very recently.

The most dramatic claims (SPREADING WORLDWIDE ERMAGHERD ERTH IS KILL) were pretty much pulled from the same place the bacteria was.

Here's the full text of the rebuttal, if you're interested.

The really depressing thing is that all those environmentalist organization are running with that outright false story fifteen years after it has been proven to be a load of bull, running on... basically conspiracy theories, more than vaguely similar to anti-vaccination people's own.

[Graknorke]

How is it that aerosol cans manage to remain cold for so long?

[GiglameshDespair]

As temperature increases, pressure increases inside. The expansion of gas causes a cooling effect, so it takes longer before the pressure has increased enough the ambient temperature can be reached, perhaps?<sup>1


1 Based on vague memories of expansion and pressurisation.</sup>

[Bauglir]

How is it that aerosol cans manage to remain cold for so long?

They're actually quite heavy, and the gas contents tend to be poor conductors of heat, while the metal surface is a great one. So there's a lot of very cold mass acting as a heat sink in the middle, I suppose. Even though it'll absorb heat from the metal poorly, the temperature gradient is quite steep, which I'd assume makes up for it.

I have exactly zero relevant training, however, so my suppositions should be treated with approximately the same degree of certainty as the back of a cereal box.

[Arx]

Gas laws, mostly. As pressure increases at the same volume, temperature decreases, which is why it's cold and you're not supposed to leave aerosol cans in the sun - the gas inside will warm, pressure will increase because volume's capped, and the can will explode. Probably.

This is also why deodorant is freaking cold when it sprays out of the tin.

[Sheb]

Why are all the switches to turn molecular biology lab equipment (PCR machines, centrifuge and so on) ALWAYS at the back of the machine where it is a pain to access rather than on the front?

[Trapezohedron]

Does information weigh anything?

Data in harddrives weigh heavier?
Brains engaged in a lot of thought weigh heavier?
etc.

[Sheb]

No.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Why are all the switches to turn molecular biology lab equipment (PCR machines, centrifuge and so on) ALWAYS at the back of the machine where it is a pain to access rather than on the front?

I think it's so you don't accidentally turn them on or off while they're doing whatever it is they do. It could seriously mess up the experiment.

Does information weigh anything?

Information doesn't wiegh anything. However, to be able to use information, you must store it. On stone, you can carve, or paint. On paper, you use ink, or carbon, or paints. In computers, you use electrons, which have a weight.

Data in harddrives weigh heavier?

Yes, but barely. Electrons weigh 0.00054 amu. That's 8.96691017 × 10^-28 grams, or .000000000000000000000000000896691017 grams. Estimates put the number of electrons in a 1 TB hard drive at 10²³, weighing a total of .0000896691017 grams. The largest hard drive commercially available, according to the first result on Google, is LaCie's 30TB 5big Thunderbolt 2 Series 5-Bay RAID, a monstrous 30 TB hard drive. The weight of the data on this hard drive is 0.00269007305 grams.

Brains engaged in a lot of thought weigh heavier?

I can't answer that properly, because I don't know how brains work and don't want to take the dive into neuroscience today. However, I can confirm that thinking brains weigh heavier, but mostly because of blood.

[Graknorke]

But hard drives don't have more electrons in just because you're storing more data on them.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Ya got me, I don't know how computers work.

[sjm9876]

Does information weigh anything?

Information doesn't wiegh anything. However, to be able to use information, you must store it. On stone, you can carve, or paint. On paper, you use ink, or carbon, or paints. In computers, you use electrons, which have a weight.

Data in harddrives weigh heavier?

Yes, but barely. Electrons weigh 0.00054 amu. That's 8.96691017 × 10^-28 grams, or .000000000000000000000000000896691017 grams. Estimates put the number of electrons in a 1 TB hard drive at 10²³, weighing a total of .0000896691017 grams. The largest hard drive commercially available, according to the first result on Google, is LaCie's 30TB 5big Thunderbolt 2 Series 5-Bay RAID, a monstrous 30 TB hard drive. Filling this up would increase its weight by 0.00269007305 grams.

I thought hard drives stored data by magnetising bits, not through any movement of electrons (aside from the current to power the electromagnet etc...). A hard drive full of data would be no heavier than an 'empty' one to the best of my knowledge, as the bits are there nonetheless.

A brain is a somewhat different matter. Thinking causes no increase in weight directly that I'm aware of - it's nerve signals, which rely on the movement of ions. The ions ending up more or less where they started. However, this takes energy, so there would be an increased blood flow to provide more glucose to power respiration.
However, to store data, in memory, connections must be formed between neural synapses (IIRC) and these connections have mass.

[Baffler]

This might not be the thread for it, but I won a prize elsewhere on the internets. Part of it is that I get to choose between a game called Starbound, and Terraria. I enjoyed Terraria, kinda, but I've never heard of Starbound and besides the fact that there was a lot of hype when it was new and that it looks kinda like Terraria I can't really find too much concrete about it. Does anyone who's got both have any recommendations?

[Frumple]

We've got threads for both over in OG, for what that's worth. I've got both, but it's been a while since I've played starbound -- it's still sorta' in development, and I've been holding off until it's, well, done. Whenever that happens. Biggest problem with asking over OG is there's been a fair amount of negative opinion build up (mostly for fairly trivial reasons, really) against starbound over the last year or so, and asking there is likely to get folks being jackasses instead of constructive. S'a lot of dross to parse through in regards to more recent stuff on the SB thread, too.

If I had to choose between the two, right here and now, though, I'd probably say Terraria. It's a bit more mature, so to speak, with the primary downside to it being that many of the folks that have it are pretty played out at this point, so multiplayer may be somewhat difficult to get in to. Starbound's a bit more thematically coherent (Terraria's ostensibly fantasy, but functionally all over the goddamn place, while SB's more-or-less sci-fi), but it's also still fairly in flux regarding a fair amount of its design and whatnot (which may or may not be an upside, really). Bonus point to SB, it's a lot more mod friendly than terraria, so if that's an issue for you, you may want to keep that in consideration.

Still, you can't really go wrong with either, imo. Neither's really bad, exactly. One's just in development and the other's, well. Not.

[Baffler]

I think I'll go with Starbound. The mod friendliness and coherent sci-fi setting are a big plus for me, and it's free (plus I don't care if I have to start over) so I don't have to worry about having sunk money for an unfinished product. It sounds like the sort of thing I would wait until it's finished to buy, but this offer's good for today and if Terraria is already 'on the way out' I'm not sure I want to go for it. Thanks guys.