- HIV non-existentialists should find this interesting
- Posted by Uiopp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3729487.stm
It's not about HIV or AIDS, of course, but this debate over allegedly
disease causing "nannobacteria" should seem more than a little familiar
by now. It certainly involves a lot of the same issues.
- Posted by Baby Peanut
Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote in message news:<uislad-47649B.19352620052004@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
nano not nanno!
$ dict nanno
No definitions found for "nanno", perhaps you mean:
jargon: nano
foldoc: nano
From Jargon File (4.3.1, 29 Jun 2001) [jargon]:
nano- pref. [SI: the next quantifier below {micro-}; meaning * 10^(-9)]
Smaller than {micro-}, and used in the same rather loose and connotative
way. Thus, one has {{nanotechnology}} (coined by hacker K. Eric Drexler)
by analogy with `microtechnology'; and a few machine architectures have
a `nanocode' level below `microcode'. Tom Duff at Bell Labs has also
pointed out that "Pi seconds is a nanocentury". See also
{{quantifiers}}, {pico-}, {nanoacre}, {nanobot}, {nanocomputer},
{nanofortnight}.
- Posted by Baby Peanut
Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote in message news:<uislad-47649B.19352620052004@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
Looking at the article in more detail it appears that this could be a
very early version of life.
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/nanobes/nanoimages.html
Imagine if these were to become infused with RNA (prior to the
existance of DNA) as a stage in the development of life itself. How
much would that simplify the process of getting from non-living
molecules to living ones?
- Posted by Brian Mailman
Baby Peanut wrote:
Book 'em, Nanno.
B/
- Posted by Uiopp
In article <96d83290.0405201003.3a11032e@posting.google.com>,
baby_p_nut2@yahoo.com (Baby Peanut) wrote:
No, seriously, it's nanno. That's the way they spell it, and there's a
very complicated and very boring technical reason for that, I gather.
- Posted by Yana
My first thought when reading this article was “What about rust?” Rust
GROWS. That does not mean it is a living thing. It is a chemical
reaction. I think some of these scientists are too obsessed with finding
living things. They fail to look at the, “terrain” in which the disease
occurred.
- Posted by Baby Peanut
"Yana" <rusty4275@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<8fddcf1d07d3c4a20cb30f2d2777715a@localhost.t alkabouthealthnetwork.com>...
And we all know that life is not a chemical reaction.
I think you are so obsessed with "terrain". You fail to look at the
living things involved in the disease process.
