|
Carbon dioxide posted:Hey Fathis Munk, how much ($) for a kilogram of restriction enzymes? If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 29, 2020 16:43 |
|
|
Hmm that's not an easy question to answer since enzymes are not sold pure, they are sold suspended in a storage buffer and the quantity is measured in Units (for example for EcoRI, one of the most common restriction enzymes, New England Biolabs defines 1 U as the amount required to digest 1 microgram of Lambda DNA in 1 hour at 37 degrees in a 50 microliter reaction). I guess you could figure out the weight per U, but that's way to much effort and I'm not sure I could even find all the constants I'd need. If we just approximate that 1 mL of resuspended enzyme is 1 g, 1 kg of enzyme+storage buffer (at 20 000 U/mL, which is about the standard stock concentration you'd usually buy) is 91 600 $ at catalog price. For a more expensive enzyme like NotI the same approximation yields 1 128 000 $/kg Similarly 1 kg of Phusion DNA polymerase in its storage buffer (also from NEB) is approximately 1 695 000 $. All those prices are based on buying the largest volume offered on their site (since those usually save you about 20%) but not taking into account the preferential prizes labs usually negotiate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Hmm that's not an easy question to answer since enzymes are not sold pure, they are sold suspended in a storage buffer and the quantity is measured in Units (for example for EcoRI, one of the most common restriction enzymes, New England Biolabs defines 1 U as the amount required to digest 1 microgram of Lambda DNA in 1 hour at 37 degrees in a 50 microliter reaction). Wow, that was way more effort than I was expecting. My 'joke' was that restriction enzymes are worth way, way more than their weight in gold (which is currently around $ 42500 per kg ). Luckily you don't need large volumes of restriction enzymes for experiments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Wow, that was way more effort than I was expecting. My 'joke' was that restriction enzymes are worth way, way more than their weight in gold Are enzymes cheaper than inkjet ink?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Wow, that was way more effort than I was expecting. My 'joke' was that restriction enzymes are worth way, way more than their weight in gold (which is currently around $ 42500 per kg ). Luckily you don't need large volumes of restriction enzymes for experiments. There are so many reagents we use that are hilariously expensive. When you actually start thinking about the value of the things you handle it gets a bit daunting sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:There are so many reagents we use that are hilariously expensive. When you actually start thinking about the value of the things you handle it gets a bit daunting sometimes. What's the price per kg of antimatter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
All the nukes in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
I like this more than I probably should.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
An accurate use of Venn diagramming? How did that get in here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
I'll show you what I know and you can tell me if you think I'm getting better at making graphs
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
I do like how that diagram implies there is some hypothetical overlap between "real doctors" and "real worms".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I do like how that diagram implies there is some hypothetical overlap between "real doctors" and "real worms". Dr. Oz
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:What's the price per kg of antimatter? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Wolfram you are supposed to provide answers, but you have provided nothing but questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I do like how that diagram implies there is some hypothetical overlap between "real doctors" and "real worms". You've never heard of medicinal leeches?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Well that's gonna be stuck in my head for a few days
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
The premodern era is also commonly known among academics as the era of God just constantly loving our poo poo up with lightning bolts. So is a post-ironic meme the part of a meme lifecycle when a meme becomes part of common parlance but loses all original meaning? Like how your local little league team will make team shirts that say "Keep Calm and Fighting Ladybugs Rule!" or some such for some inscrutable reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
dijon du jour posted:The premodern era is also commonly known among academics as the era of God just constantly loving our poo poo up with lightning bolts. I guess so? I actually understand most of what this little graphic is going for aside from the "meme" bits (what do the black/white colours mean? Who knows)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
First of all, I would assume they mean the dictionary definition of a meme, not the 'internet meme' meaning. Then I still don't understand anything in that picture, but it sounds slightly less stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
This doesn't seem that bad, just requiring some explanation. The top part makes a sort of sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
This is pretty mild compared to some other poo poo here, but c'mon:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:This is pretty mild compared to some other poo poo here, but c'mon: All that's missing is a bar labeled, "Tendency to not set your computer on fire".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:This is pretty mild compared to some other poo poo here, but c'mon: Honestly I'd say as a ~gamer~ I'd want the discrepancy between performance to be greater than that between power efficiency. That would make games look/run on ULTRA SUPER SUPREME 60 FPS 200 FOV better than what the competition offers, rather than it being a little easier on my power supply. This post brought to you by videocardz.com
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
I feel like Randall Munroe is phoning it in at this point:
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I feel like Randall Munroe is phoning it in at this point: He was never not phoning it in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Wait, when's the last time someone got killed by a rocket launch? e: I feel like it's longer ago that the last racing driver fatality
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Wait, when's the last time someone got killed by a rocket launch? blah blah something about proportions and ratios blah blah etc, ahaha, lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Wait, when's the last time someone got killed by a rocket launch? Latest fatal F1 accident was in October 2014, and he died in July 2015 after being in a coma. I'm gonna presume that the last rocket launch fatality was farther away than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I feel like Randall Munroe is phoning it in at this point: People love to hate on xkcd on these boards, and for once I'll agree. They've been extremely weak lately. Though it was only some weeks ago we got this one: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:I'm gonna presume that the last rocket launch fatality was farther away than that. Do model rockets count? http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...dcb7c205b389946
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Latest fatal F1 accident was in October 2014, and he died in July 2015 after being in a coma. Nah sweeperbravo had it right. Rockets carrying humans will result in fatalities 99.99% of crashes. F1 cars carrying humans will result in fatalities in maybe (total guess) 1% of crashes. One of these is a more dangerous crash than the other, and it has nothing to do with total number of occurrences or most recent crash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Nah sweeperbravo had it right. Rockets carrying humans will result in fatalities 99.99% of crashes. F1 cars carrying humans will result in fatalities in maybe (total guess) 1% of crashes. One of these is a more dangerous crash than the other, and it has nothing to do with total number of occurrences or most recent crash. True but rockets that aren't the space shuttle have a launch escape system that carries the capsule full of humans far away from the exploding rocket.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:People love to hate on xkcd on these boards, and for once I'll agree. They've been extremely weak lately. I enjoyed this chart. I also love the one that visualizes different amounts of money--like rappers' net worth, nations' GDP, etc--as big boxes. Not gonna post it because this thread is for bad/funny, not just miscellaneous interesting. Maybe someone should make a thread like that, preferably one less insufferable than the D&D picture thread. Anyway, xkcd isn't high art, and I think Munroe knows it. I've never really encountered anybody who puts him on a pedestal or anything, but I see lots on this site who hate him. It's like how much easier it is to find people making fun of tumbler than the batshit transethnic otherkin nonsense they make fun of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:True but rockets that aren't the space shuttle have a launch escape system that carries the capsule full of humans far away from the exploding rocket. Truth. Such a system has even been used once, and it saved the lives of two cosmonauts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:True but rockets that aren't the space shuttle have a launch escape system that carries the capsule full of humans far away from the exploding rocket. The space shuttle had that too. Well, technically it was a jettison for the rockets/fuel tank, then the orbiter would glide away. But the incident happened too fast for that. Byzantine has a new favorite as of 20:20 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Latest fatal F1 accident was in October 2014, and he died in July 2015 after being in a coma. Curiously enough it was also on October 2014, though with only a 50% fatality rate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 29, 2020 16:43 |
|
|
Byzantine posted:The space shuttle had that too. Well, technically it was a jettison for the rockets/fuel tank, then the orbiter would glide away. But the incident happened too fast for that. Not really. The solid rocket boosters couldn't be shut down and would destroy the shuttle (or the parachutes of a hypothetical escape capsule) with rocket exhaust had they been jettisoned while firing. So while it's true that there was an abort procedure, it couldn't be used until the SRBs were finished burning. Contrast this with a capsule design which Nasa requires to be capable of performing an abort anytime from "sitting on the pad" to "we're in space".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:05
|
|