Questions answered by Mr Adrian Wood
(Expert Rank: 1870)  |
 |
This is a scientific and medical question so forgive me if it's not in the right spot. I was answering some questions and come across the topic of "anti-matter". Anti-matter cells are exactly the same as their opposing polarity counter parts. They have the ability, or consequence of destroying each other. So, anyone care to comment on the possibility of using this to combat Cancer cells? Can you think of any reason it wouldn't work? |
| Question found in Physics |
 |
|
Wow, that's quite a theory! The good news is that anti-matter (which isn't in cells, unless their somehow exists a lifeform made entirely of anti-matter) would indeed very very effective for destroying cancer cells, and certainly under laboratory conditions it could in theory be tested. The main problems I can see are thus; 1) Creating anti-matter. We have only just started to make any amount of anti-matter, and generally can only keep it in existence for tiny, tiny amounts of time, fractions of a second. 2) Getting the anti-matter to the cancer. Apart from the issues of identifying cancerous and none-cancerous cells (which is almost impossible on a cell-by-cell basis, which is why generally we only talk about the tumours), you would have to get the anti-matter to the cancer cells without touching anything else. And I do mean anything; healthy cells, the edges of a syringe, water, air... Anti-matter will annihilate anything, you can't tailor it to just attack cancerous cells. 3) As mentioned in the other answer, anti-matter does tend to be a bit on the extremely explodey side. 4) Simply put, what advantages does this have over existing methods? We already have devices and substances which can grievously harm whatever they come into contact with. This may sound sarcastic or insulting (and if so I apologise), but honestly even C4 seems like it would be a better choice for this kind of treatment; after all there's far more of it available, it's safer to handle, and it's substantially less explosive. |
 |
| click to see other answers to this question |
| Discuss Answer |
|
Discussion:
I realize this "theory" is at best far far into the future but I'm just wondering about the therory itself. Maybe it's something to work towards. |
 |
|
I have an 80Gb gard disk and I have partitioned it into C,D,E and F drives. My E drive has a capacity of 20Gb (it shows 18.6). My computer engineer tells me that there is always a loss in space. My file system is Fat 32 and I run windows xp. My problem is that though the E drive has a capacity of 18.6 Gb it shows that only 16.2 Gb is free even when it is empty. How is it showing this and what can I do to correct it? I have already run the error checking but it doesn't show any errors. What should I do. Overall I get about 73 Gb space from my 80 Gb hard disk. Is this OK? Thanks |
| Question found in Hardware |
|
|
OK, let's get the minor point out of the way first; your computer engineer is entirely right about the loss of space, and yes, 73 GB from an 80GB hard drive is about right. A minor reason for this is that part of a drive is used as a File Allocation Table... essentially a "map" that tells the computer where files are on the drive. A more major reason is a difference in how a GB is calculated, as some manufacturers and software count a GB as 1000 megabytes (MB), and some count it as 1024 MB. (And this is without considering how many kilobytes go into a megabyte...) So yes, a discrepancy like that is normal. With regards to the missing space on the drive, this may be a silly question but how are you checking how big the drive is? this could potentially be a symptom of the above problem... the method you're using to size how big your E: partition should be may be measuring a GB differently to the software that's telling you how much free space. We can use another, simpler method to see for certain if any space is used. If you use XPs Disk Defragmenter program, and analyze the e: drive, you will get a display on the bottom which shows how the space is used. If the entire drive shows completely white, then there's no problem and no hidden files... your drive is as big as it should be, and really is completely blank. Under these circumstances, I can only presume that this partition is not the size you thought it was. If there are any files on the drive of any type, they will show up as blue, red of green bars. Blue and red bars are normal files, so by your description none of these will be here. However, if there are hidden files on this drive, then they will show as green bars. This is a good indicator that space is being taken up, and gives us another angle to work from. Do you have a pagefile set up on that drive? Or is hibernate mode active on your system and set to use that drive to hold it's data? Perhaps you have drive compression turned on on that drive? Have you deleted files from the drive and not removed them from the recycle bin? All of these features and more could contribute to wasted space on the drive. Happily, we can see what's in there. Go into "My Computer", and open the "E:" drive. once this is open, click the "Tools" menu along the top, and click "Folder Options". once in here, click on the "View" tab along the top. In the advanced box here, make sure that "Show hidden Files and Folders" is selected, and "hide Protected Operating System Files" is NOT selected. This will ensure all files are visible. Click OK, and if any files are in this folder, they should now show up. Depending on what they are, you probably shouldn't delete them, but I advise Googling the fileames to find out what they are if you really want to be rid of them but want to ensure it won't cause a problem. If you're sure files ARE there, but they STILL don't show up... then we may have a problem. Under this circumstance, I can only presume you have a stealthed virus, and you should deal with this appropriately... but that's another question. |
 |
| click to see other answers to this question |
| Discuss Answer |
|
Discussion:
Rather long winded but a good answer. I just want to add that if you ever reinstall Window, don't use FAT32. It is recommended to use the NTFS file system with XP. |
|
|
What does it mean to 'slip stream' an installation of Windows XP? |
| Question found in Computers In General |
|
|
Slip Streaming XP is the process of taking the contents of a standard Windows XP disc, combining them with the latest security fixes and Service packs, and then writing these back to a new XP disc. This new XP disc can be used to install XP as normal, but with all the services packs etc already applied. This saves a lot of time updating afterwards, and is extremely useful if you're doing installation on a lot of machines at once. |
|
| click to see other answers to this question |
| Discuss Answer |
|
Discussion:
You can also "remove" things that normally install from the XP disk and add "drivers" particular to your computer; set up your user name or even pre-enter the "product code" |
|
|
Let's say that the day in which computers/machines can think by themselves arrives, what will then happen to humankind? |
| Question found in Computers In General |
|
|
The trick here is that, even if thinking machines become a reality, what they're capable of thinking is still human controlled. Humans will have written the programs that allow the computer to "think", so can limit this process however they please... and as a result, there wouldn't be any danger involved. The reason questions like this are asked is that popular sci-fi has completely misrepresented what a thinking computer could do. If you believe the latest hollywood blockbusters, the moment a computer becomes sentient, it instantly becomes 1) capable of controlling any computer in the world, 2) more intelligent than any person, 2) decides that it is superior to humans, and 4) decides humans must die because of (3). The truth is that any program, even "sentient" ones, are limited by their programming and their hardware... even a super-evil computer such as the above could be instantly defeated by just unplugging the network cable, immediately disconnecting it from the rest of the world. Hardly threatening. |
|
| click to see other answers to this question |
| Discuss Answer |
|
Discussion:
While I agree, I do have a "what if". What if the sentient program is internet based? There is nothing realistically to unplug. |
|
|
On the radio today was a debate and a poll on whether there should be a partial ban of smoking in public places or a complete ban (in the UK) Surely having a complete ban would take away someones rights. Also while I'm on the subject I've heard also that if your a non-smoker you get preferential treatment in some hospitals/dentists etc over the people that do smoke- surely if it was not for people smoking the hospitals would be worse off because the tax on a packet of cigarettes is sky high. The contribution from the tax on cigarettes purchased would surely far out weigh the cost of treating patients with smoking related illnesses. Am I right in thinking this? Whats your view? |
| Question found in Issues & causes |
|
|
The problem with issues of rights is that there is always a point where giving a right to one person means taking something from someone else, either a right, or security from being affected by that right. A complete ban from smoking in public places would limit a smoker's right to smoke, that's correct. However, having a ban essentially gives none-smokers the security to go to public areas knowing they won't be affected by second-hand smoke. It's a tough decision to make, and both sides make good points. The key issue that's probably going to swing this here is that a complete ban on public smoking won't actually get rid of an individuals right to smoke, it will just limit where it can happen. There are many parts of our life which are considered private matters that shouldn't be shared with the world, and this will simply join their ranks. If you're a smoker, that's probably sad news, but it's increasingly looking like an inevitability. With regards to the question of cost; the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year, according to a report by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York in 1998. In the same year, we received over £10 billion pounds in tax revenue from cigarettes... a significant difference. But it does miss the human factor. The department of transport, in 1997, estimated the value of loss of human life as £680,590 in 1997. With this value in mind, the cost of smoking related mortality in the UK in 1997 was just under £80 billion. This, presumably, includes all future revenue those individuals would have created for the government... Something which gets missed in a direct pound-for-pound comparison of tobacco tax revenue against NHS costs. This is a heated issue, but what it simply boils down to in many people's minds is, even if an individual feels that smoking has a overall positive effect on their life, it does not.... And so the government is, effectively, attempting to wean the populace off cigarettes over a long period whilst not forcing the issue (and rocking the boat) by outright banning it. The other side of the story is, of course, that of rights... do smokers have the right to smoke, regardless of if it's bad for them? Unfortunately, this leads to the same argument being made for various illegal substances too... After all, if someone wants to take cocaine, heroin, or other substances, regardless if it's bad for them, shouldn't they be free to? It's an extremely tricky question to answer. And there's no pleasing everybody. |
|
| click to see other answers to this question |
| Discuss Answer |
|
Discussion:
I think I am right in saying that because cigarettes are so highly taxed that if everyone gave up the government would have to find millions if not billions of pounds a year from somewhere else! |
|
Page -
1 -
|
|
||||||||||
| Top of Page | • | Terms and Conditions | • | Privacy | • | Disclaimer |
© Simply Explained