What's a guy interested in profit for information supposed to do? Any suggestions?

Seriously! Advertise Murdoch, and give that shit you pedal away for free you dumb billionair!! Oops. Maybe that doesn't work because then your big money advertisers leverage their position of supporting you against your message. What's a guy interested in profit for information supposed to do? Any suggestions?

You are right. I like what you say BUT let's allow for the fact the BBC is also interested in these corporate ideals. And furthermore, Subjectivist's have a powerful and cold argument that leads to another dead end, no less wrong than your evil "Monopoly" or "Cartel". Just because two parties are involved, doesn't mean the two sides to the story should be given equality in reporting. BBC's agenda of "objectivity" feeds the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than any other way to get their message out.

Subjectivism. Just because two parties are involved doesn't mean the two sides to the story should be given equality in reporting. BBC's agenda of "objectivity" feeds the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than FOX news ever did... Now here's where all the people ruled by hatred (self and otherwise) go an equate Bush et. al. to Al-Qaeda. My point is that BBC's s@$t stinks too.

Here's my problem. Subjectivism. Just because two parties are involved doesn't mean the two sides to the story should be given equality in reporting. BBC's agenda of "impartial reporting" feeds the methods of evil despots and hateful extremists with greater facility than FOX news.

Oh please, like the BBC doesn't have an agenda. Murdoch's right, a little competition is a good thing even in the News media. Personally I don't think it even makes sense to assume Truth in any of the drivel they feed us through the TV. The revolution will not be televised precisely because we PAY FOR IT!

New-age hippies.....mmmmmmm, delicious.

Slashdot is bringing it to the people. The unfortunate part of Slasdot's "nerd" image is that it's just preaching to the choir! "Pure" science is altruistic. The value of science is not found in how correct it is but to what effect it has on society. The value of truth has no meaning to the universe. If our lies match observations does that make them truth? Yes. PS. This particular study may be flawed but the study of light and biological communication is a fascinating story. One of many interesting examples is the work of Albrecht-Buehler from Northwestern. His group published observations of 800nm (NIR) light communication in motile fibroblasts many years ago. That's a cell with no obvious light interaction structures! Mitorchondria produce 800nm light as part of their function so there is a reason why an endothelial cell might have such a function.

The "DNA origami" are artificial strands of DNA that are held together at specific locations by staple strands. The strands are made to order from a commercial source. Software we wrote allows us to draw arbitrary (3D and 2D) shapes and have the purchase order automatically generated! It's really a wonderful nanotechnology, ideal for aqueous based situations where specific scale and proximity is required. Drug delivery is not the ideal application but for some reason this author seemed to think so. Specific aptamers allow us to bind a variety of things to the origami including fluorescent dyes, proteins, and other nanoparticles. Two important points: 1. Have no fear of the Grey Goo from this one. Particular DNA strands need to be added for the structures to grow. Self assembly yes but only with the added (and unnatural) building blocks. 2. Our work on DNA "origami" is funded by the NIH. Sorry, no black helicopters. Please feel free to read to your heart's content and contribute if you are able: http://www.biodesign.asu.edu/centers/smb/