Cumulative General Science/Technology Quiz

[ori]

Bragg's law of diffraction? X-ray diffraction... Crystal structures and the like...

As for age, my guess is....... 24!

25 - but yes you are up

 

[Mise]

Oooh close! Nobel Prize winners from that era were incredibly young. It's depressing.

Anyway, I can't think of a question that doesn't involve diamonds, so someone else can ask.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Alrighty, more of a tech one:

When was the first version of the Linux kernel released? ( Im fine with year and month)

 

[Catharsis]

I'd wager it was sometime after the invention of the computer.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I'd wager it was sometime after the invention of the computer.

Id wager that you're right. But still damned far off.

 

[Aramazd]

1992? I have no clue at all about the month.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

1992? I have no clue at all about the month.

Quite a bit closer than Catharsis, but still off.

 

[ainwood]

1991 - when I was just starting university, IIRC.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

1991 - when I was just starting university, IIRC.

ooh, so close! Now what month? (Im pretty sure its the same month as when you started uni )

 

[ainwood]

ooh, so close! Now what month? (Im pretty sure its the same month as when you started uni )

Well, I started in February. Given that I'm from the southern hemisphere, and given that it was after, I'll guess august.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Nope. but so far you're closest.

 

[Brighteye]

September 1991?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

September 1991?

Correct. You're up.

 

[Brighteye]

Theobromine is a toxin found (most notably) in what common foodstuff?

Bonus points for explaining why we eat it anyway.

 

[GoodGame]

I'm going to take wild donkey guesses on this one, then google it for myself:

1. Plant-toxin from some common food we eat, I'll guess a legume, and I'll guess "What is The Peanut?", Mr. Trabek.
I'll guess we eat it anyway, because we can develop an immune response to it over time that lessens any discomfort it causes.

2. My other wild donkey guess is that it's a by-product from chemical processing of some common meat, that is only present in minute amounts.

Off to Google for the truth.

Theobromine is a toxin found (most notably) in what common foodstuff?

Bonus points for explaining why we eat it anyway.

EDIT: This is funny example of a toxin. I'm terrified that Wikipedia says it is from one of my favorite food and may correlate to an increase in prostate cancer.

 

[ori]

First off its just as addictive as caffeine - so there are junkies out there not me

Of course it has stimulatory effects just like caffeine (on a molar level its much more potent), it does increase serotonin levels which is usually a good way to feel good - up to a point. Need more info?

 

[Brighteye]

Well, I was thinking more of the fact that we can break it down, whereas our pets, such as cats and dogs, can't.
You got the answer anyway.

 

[ori]

Actually I was under the impression that most of its clearance is unmetabolized anyway - but now that you mentioned it I read a bit on it and the difference is striking - chocolate poisoning in pets - I shudder when thinking of a life without my drug

ok lets have an evolution question:
how does evolution work according to Lamarck - and is there any evidence for mechanisms that follow his proposed process of inheritance?

 

[Aramazd]

ok lets have an evolution question:
how does evolution work according to Lamarck - and is there any evidence for mechanisms that follow his proposed process of inheritance?

Animals adapt during their lifetime and pass down those changes that occured during their lifetime. I have no idea about the second question, so I'll take a shot in the dark. Does it have to do with bacteria and their acquiring plasmids during their lifetime, which are passed down to offspring?

 

[GoodGame]

Lamarckian evolution was mostly disproved in favor of Darwin's system. Though I think I've seen in passing some ideas that intraspecies DNA transfer by viruses (and I guess accessory DNA) resembles Lamarck's view (I'll have to verify that).

Lamarckian 'evolution' was an attempt to keep with the biblical idea that all species existed at the same time of creation. That is, it contradicts the view that species evolved/diverged from earlier species, more complex life evolving from simpler life. The putative mechanicism of Lamarckian
'evolution' was that genetic inheritance was transfered directly and statically from parent to offspring, and I believe involved picking up some factors from the environment (basically a 'you are what you eat' arguement with what is learned into the species being statically transmitted to the next generation).

Strictly, genetic recombination during reproduction is observed on the molecular level, and mostly discovered in recording mating patterns by Gregor Mendel. "Blending" style inheritance patterns (i.e. white + red flower breeding pink) gave some hope to the Lamarck followers, I believe, but that is actually a special case of inheritance, with the main pattern being Mendel's.

ok lets have an evolution question:
how does evolution work according to Lamarck - and is there any evidence for mechanisms that follow his proposed process of inheritance?

EDIT: I see there's a pretty good arguemental analysis of Lamarck's ideas in Wikipedia, way better than my fuzzy recollection.