Vir[i/ii/a/uses] As Nano-Blueprints? (Updated) 139
Auxon writes: "The Washington Post reports that researchers at the University of Texas "... have discovered that tiny protein-like strands on the surface of common viruses--the sort of molecules that enable germs to identify and grasp their target cells--also bind tightly and very selectively to materials widely used in high-tech electronics ..." They believe that this could be used to make templates with which they can grow circuits, in the same sort of manner that cells use calcium and other materials to produce bones, and oysters build their shells." I bet industrial sabotage could take on a whole new dimension with this as well. [Updated 9 June 3:55GMT by timothy] Pick your favorite plural of "virus" above :) All are supported by at least one comment posted below, but I concede the "ii" is probably best left to computer -- errr -- viruses.
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
Spelling (Score:2)
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
Re:Plural of Virus (Score:1)
no go and do you latin homework before you talk crap again.
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
Clear it up once and for all (Score:1)
(1)First of all, many believe that it should be viri, this is the most wrong - this stems from the Latin second declension masculine vir (gen. viri) which means "man".
(2)The second most wrong is vira - some seem to believe that this would be corect because the plural of bacterium is bacteria. However, bacterium is a neuter word, which means it's nominative and accusitive plural forms in Latin will end with "a". Virus not being a neuter word, it should not end with "a" in its nominitive plural form.
(3)I don't know why the ending "ii" is up there - this is probably because people hear the plural of radius being radii (that is pronounced correctly with a long i for English but for Latin it would still be short). Radius is a second declension word with a genitive stem "radi-" so adding the plural nominitive second declension ending makes it radii.
(4)The only correct form is, of course, viruses. Not only through process of elimination, but also because virus is a third declension word. The third declension nominitive and accusitive plural ending is "es" which is where we get the "s" ending for many English words we wish to pluralize. When you want to make the plural form in the nominitive (that being the only form we would use in English since nouns are non-declinable for us) the proper form is viruses. You might say, "wait, that's not complicated enough - Latin always sounds funky!" but c'est la vie!
Pardon my French.
Re:Virii? (Score:5)
According to Miriam-Webster's, the Oxford English Dictionary (a huge volume I have in print), dictionary.com, Brittanica, and Encarta, the plural for virus - in English now - is viruses. None of these sources have any entry or make any reference to either "viri" or "virii."
Trouble lurks for the computer-building virus (Score:1)
(June 8, 2000. Associated Press.)
Researchers at the University of Texas are suing McAfee and Symantec, noted anti-computer-virus companies, for restraint of trade and industrial sabotage. "We're getting horrible yields at all our domestic fabs because of those bastards," said chemist Angela M. Belcher of the University of Texas at Austin. "It just isn't fair for them to blatently interfere with our manufacturing process like this. If it doesn't stop, we'll have to take matters into our own hands, and design nanites that turn their CEO's brains into cheerios!"
McAfee and Symantec were unavailable for comment.
Re:Virii? (Score:2)
Specifically, we're interested in knowing whether you should refer to more than one virus as virii. Latin-lovers and viral votaries alike know that the noun virus is a borrowing from Latin. In that tongue, a virus (pronounced WEE-russ) is a venom, a poisonous emanation, a slimy liquid, or a stench. In fact, when virus first slithered its way into our language in the late 16th century, it named a "venom emitted by a poisonous animal."
The word's Latin ancestry has given some English speakers the idea that the only logical way to pluralize virus is to replace the terminal -us with the letters -ii . This idea seems especially popular among folks who are referring to more than one computer virus. But before you catch the bug for that new spelling, consider this: the notion that Latin words ending in -us must take an -ii plural is a flat-out fallacy. In fact, there is no evidence that any plural form of the classical Latin virus was ever recorded; some lexicographers even suspect the Latin virus was a mass noun (and thus needed no separate plural).
In addition, when you look at the historical record of English usage, you find viruses, not virii, as the established plural. So although virii has turned up upon recent occasions, that word is far from standard.
--this is only slightly plagerised
Here's a valid question, or several (Score:2)
In the coming world of nanotechnology, will we really be aiming to miniaturize 'macrotechnology' to a molecular level? Or rather will we try to manipulate molecular and biological chemistry in such a way that it acheives the ends we are looking for? Are we just making little robots, or does, say, engineering a -virus- that repairs, I don't know, nerve damage, count as nanotechnology? Are we specifically limiting the term "nanotechnology" to superminiaturized electrical/mechanical technology? Or will nanotech involve elements of both mechanical and chemical engineering in the execution of the nanite's task?
Plenty of interesting questions for someone who knows more about this stuff than me to answer.
medical use (Score:1)
kind of like a roach motel.
Re:Are neural-networks next? (Score:1)
Enough experiments will go wrong and enough people will fight with each other that this branch of science, like others, will more or less keep up with our ability to cope.
This is an oversimpification; if you feel a need to expand upon it, do so. I'm polite to flamers :-)
Re:Moderate the post I'm replying to up!!! (Score:1)
Some of the earliest features of this new language are detailed in a document known as the Jargon File. The Jargon File itself, though, even occasionally fills a role as a hold-back, trying to prevent the evolution of the language (i.e. traditionalists who insist that the meaning of the term hacker hasn't evolved to include usages with negative connotations).
As the new language evolves, it will gradually grow away from it's English roots. As the net continues to internationalize, people from other cultures who do not primarily speak English will find their place at the table and their jargon, phrases, and colloquialisms will find their way into the new language. The new language is NOT English, and people who try to insist it is English are sorely mistaken.
The only thing that is certain at this point is that there is no turning back. Reactionary forces, i.e. spelling pedants, have no place in the future, except to serve as examples to the schoolchildren of the future of lives which have gone bad.
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
Dammit - use a consist syntax!!! (Score:2)
Yeah - everybody wants to have a different plural for virus or virii or whatever. But for crying out loud, use an accepted syntax in your titles- after all this is "News for Nerds". We can cope with your glob expressions! We can compose sonnets using regexps! Perl is our friend and pattern matching is our first language! So it's either:
vir{i,ii,a,uses} or it's
vir(a|ii?|uses)
Thank you and good night
Beyond Geekdom (Score:1)
"Belcher said, her team is hoping to be
able to integrate living cells and
electronic materials for neuroprosthetics
that could substitute for damaged nerve
systems..."
I have a good friend who lost his left arm beneath the elbow, and I know he will certainly be interested in this!!!
Hmm (Score:3)
This gives a whole new meaning to "bugs in the hardware" --- it'll be bugs making the hardware!
Virus vaccine (Score:2)
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
Re:Dictionary link to "viruses" and "virii" (Score:1)
They don't make the language, they make a book of the language. If English was defined by a dictionary, new words could never come into existance.
I WILL CONTINUE TO USE THE WORD VIRII! FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO INVENT NEW TERMS FOR NEW IDEAS!
---
Good job. Too bad we don't speak Latin. (Score:1)
Languages change according to need. Trying to define rules to change them is a ridiculous error made only by academic morons who have no experience in the real world.
---
Re:Virii? (Score:1)
First off, the OED gives nothing but viruses for the plural.
Writers who, searching for a fancy plural to virus, incorrectly write *viri are doubtless blindly applying an overreaching -us => -i rule. This mis-inflects many words. For example, status and hiatus only change the length of the final vowel; genus goes to genera; corpus goes to corpora. Others are even worse if this rule is mis-applied, like syllabus, caucus, octopus, mandamus, and rebus.
Anyway, Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man), which as it turns out is also a 2nd declension noun. I do not believe that writers of English who write viri are intentionally speaking of men. And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular[1], not the nominative plural. And we certainly don't grab for genitive singulars for the plurals when we've started out with a nominative. Such hanky panky would certainly get you talked about, and probably your hand slapped as well.
Those confused souls who write *virii are tacitly positing the existence of the non-word *virius, and declining it as though it were like filius. It's true that l/r are both linguals that sometimes get interchanged, and that f/v are just a change in voicing[2], but that's just reaching. *Virii is still completely silly, so don't do that; otherwise, everyone will know you're just a blathering script kiddie.
The crucial problem here is that, classically speaking, there appears to be no recorded use of virus in the plural. It was a 2nd declension noun ending in -us, which is rather common, but it was also a neuter, which is rather rare. I could only come up with three such 2nd declension neuters: virus (some poison), pelagus (the sea, usually poetically), and vulgus (the crowd). None appear to admit plurals. Perhaps this is because they are mass nouns, not count nouns. [3]
One citation below wonders whether these -us 2nd declension neuters might have inflected -us => -ora, the way the 3rd declension's neuter plurals for tempus and corpus do. There's really not any support for that notion--that I could find at least. If so, that would end up producing *virora. Most other citations think that these plurals just never happened at all, or that if they did, they didn't jump declensions. Perhaps they were invariant as they oddly are for the vocative and accusative cases. In any event, *virora does not fit comfortably in the mouth of an English speaker, which is a good reason to avoid it.[4]
Another theory holds that virus, being a 2nd declension neuter--which we are 100% certain of because its nominative singular is -us and its genitive singular is -i--must go to *vira in the plural as do its -um neuter brethren in the 2nd declension. However, that assumes that it works like a -um form, not as a -us form does. And it really seems to do neither. If it were a -us form (again, as a 2nd declension nominative), then its vocative would have to be *vire; but it's really only virus. You also expect an accusative form *viros, but that too is missing; it's still just virus in the accusative. And if it were a -um form, then its vocative would have to be *virum. But it's not--here again, it's only virus. (Vocative examples of virus are not particularly common. Apparently the Romans seldom addressed their slime in a personal fashion. :-)
So what we have here is something of a mixed or invariant declension. Trying to find a plural for something that didn't take a plural (possibly because it was not a count but a mass noun), or at least, one for which no plural is classically attested, is a fruitless endeavour. Best to stick with English and use viruses.
----
Re:Clear it up once and for all (Score:1)
Latin is a dead language. English is not.
---
I'll be first in line... (Score:1)
No more pre-calc, its built in. From there, the possiblities are endless. Decide you want Wolverine claws, the processor in your brain assigns the cells in your forearms to start using adamantium (which you are taking supplements of) to build those claws.
I realize this is more like, here's a new way of building circuits, but its kind of a Gibson-esque way of implementing cool tech into our bodies.
Obligatory Slashdot comment - (Score:3)
At-choo!
Or, alternatively, (Score:1)
A clarification (Score:1)
Not the purpose... (Score:1)
Neural networks have nothing to do with connecting people's minds together, nor can people's minds be connected together. Consciousness is a high-level function of the brain, you can't "make a pipe" to let it flow out. Sorry.
And seeing that the comment before yours [slashdot.org] takes a similar tone, as well as comment 28, makes me wonder if there's a new wave of "neural net" trolls (wh@t 1f y0u m4k3 a n3ur41 n37 0f th353?) coming on.
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Re:medical use (Score:1)
Mebbe it could be used to make trickier vaccines, or do general molecular trickery inside cells. Mebbe not.
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
germs (Score:2)
Does this mean wheat germs, bacteria-germs, virus-germs, or what??
One thing is certain:
Domestos (aka Chlorox) kills 99% of all known germs.
... Dead..
Re:Virii? (Score:1)
Mark Duell
As with any new technology... (Score:1)
First: If this is so great why aren't we reading this in a serious science magazine or site?
Second AMD et al have already spent millions on conventional fabs. They will need a lot of convincing before they drop everything.
Chips keep getting better, they are trying to hit a moving target.
What would happen if a human would get infected by a microchip virus? Talk about a nasty cold
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
Mark Duell
Plural of Virus (Score:2)
virus (vrs)
n., pl. viruses.
Any of various simple submicroscopic parasites of plants, animals, and bacteria that often cause disease and that consist essentially of a core of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.
A disease caused by a virus.
Something that poisons one's soul or mind: the pernicious virus of racism.
Computer Science. A computer virus.
-----------------------------------------------
Re:I'll be first in line... (Score:1)
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
It's not "viri" (Score:1)
Chris Hagar
Spelling police (Score:1)
With all this talk about the correct spelling for the plural of virus I thought I would play along.
You spelled tomorrow wrong.
NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!
I know this is flamebait, I just couldn't resist.... Tee Hee...
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
--
Hmmm (Score:1)
FYI (Score:5)
I just read the paper and what the researchers have shown is that they can identify short peptides(<=12 amino acids) that can bind to inorganic surfaces selectively (ie bind to GaAs but not SiO2). They accomplished this feat using a technique that is widely used in the molecular biology research community...Phage Display.
Basically a bacteriophage is a virus that infects bacteria. Viruses are molecular machines that consist of an outer protein shell holding the nucleic acids which contain the instructions for making more copies of the nucleic acids and the protein shell. The Protein shell contains a few copies of the P3 coat protein (5 in the case of the virus used here). This protein recognizes the cell to be infected and triggers the process of cell entry, whereupon the virus enter the cell and hijacks the cellular macinery to produce many copies of the virus. In this way the virus replicates.
These biologists added a random sequence of 36 nucleotides (DNA bases) to the end of the DNA sequence that encodes the P3 coat protein. Now the virus will produce a P3 protein that has 12 additional random amino acids added to the end of P3 (3 DNA bases make a codon that encodes one amino acid), giving 20^12 possible unique P3 proteins (20 amino acids at each position, 12 positions).
Then they created a pool of ~10^9 phage (way fewer than the possible 20^12) and selected for phage with peptide sequences that bound to the desired material (GaAs) by affinity selection. Those viruses that bound were amplified in bacteria following elution from the material. The selection is repeated several times to identify the tightest binding peptide sequences.
Using this process, they found peptides that bound selectively to many different semiconductor surfaces and speculate that somehow this could be used to create new circuitry.
What they have done is use a standard molecular biology technique to find peptides (short polymers of amino acids) that bind selectively to inorganic surfaces of a given composition.
At the end of the article they speculate that by joining two peptides selected for binding to two different materials they can get peptides that would bind selectively at the interface between two material surfaces. I think this is the nano part of the technology as those interfaces must be created by conventional means. This method may allow finer features to be created.
Overall this is an interesting paper that opens up new possibilities but as usual in the nanotech field, it is a long way from being useful.
Hope that made sense
Cheers
Re:Virii? (Score:1)
in a Usenet forum with a gentleman who
really knows his Latin and a copy of my
Cassell's Latin Dictionary. Virus is
*not* second-declension masculine, it's
second-declension neuter. Yes, I *know*
it doesn't end in -um; it's somewhat
irregular. It's a really, really, weird noun,
fairly rare, and, in fact, has never been seen
in the plural form in classic texts. Best
guess for a back-formation plural would be
"vira".
Chris Mattern
security aspects? (Score:1)
or - if computers are built using this method, whose to say a cracker couldn't further the growth/development of these for thier own purposes....ie - the virus no longer exists in software, it lives on your motherboard and finally overtakes it physically!
Whole new dimension to virus 'software' (Score:2)
Also brings a whole new dimension to office angst. Imagine the loss in production solely due to the smell...;-) And of course employies hacking their boxes to turn it off...and putting all the hacked units in the boss' system
interesting... (Score:1)
_________________________
Is it me? (Score:1)
It is time for something new people!
"viruses" vs. "virii" (Score:2)
I'd say that the plural of a biological virus is "viruses" while of a computer virus is "virii". As for a biological virus that builds computers... viruses, because it's biological and not a computer program. This way, "My computer has viruses!" (as in biological things eating it) is differentiated from "My computer has virii!" (as in malicious programs).
This virus-protein binding looks like it could be useful in fabrication, but i wonder how finely they can control the binding. Could they lay out a circuit path, or would the 'wires' be too uneven and too likely to be built short circuited?
-----
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
We take a lot of words from Latin, and often the pluralization is wordus to wordi, radius to radii. It just happens that radius has an i before us in the singular form. Virus goes to viri.
Don't ask me what the roots are, I think vir has something to do with being very small.
There's a little more to it than wordus just being changed to wordi - there were hundreds of years that the Romans kinda spoke the language, it wasn't some arbitrary decision. The most common form of a -us word is in the second declension, where the plural happens to be -i.
Radius, I believe, is actually derived from Greek - a lot of math terms are, if you'll notice. Vir is the Latin word for man or husband. Anyway, my point is, just because radius's plural is radii, don't assume virus's is virii. Besides, I've taken Latin for four years, and I have all this pent-up-Latin-grammar-badassness in me.
thank you for your time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
No, it's radii [m-w.com]. (only two i's)
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
I can settle this argument ONCE AND FOR ALL! (Score:1)
Just think of it:
My computer crashed because of Bob.
My network is down because someone spread Bob all over the server.
Damn, Symantech just doesn't know how to cure Bob anymore...
That silly end user just keeps on activating Bob. He needs a lesson on preventing Bob.
What do you think?
Re:Virii? (Latin FOURTH declension) (Score:1)
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
Re:"viruses" vs. "virii" (Score:1)
Why not?
-----
The grand unifying plural virus theory (Score:1)
But as we know, virus is a neutral form too, of the 3rd group, and not the 2nd. So the plural form is:
Virorum!
Re:Virii? (Score:1)
well duh... (Score:2)
on the off-topic side. interesting fact is that there is no known cure for a single virus on the face of this earth. Sure, we have vaccines and such (we even have a drug coctail that will prevent you from getting aids - although no one in their right mind would want to use it due to the side effects), but there isn't a single cure for a virus...why do you think people still get colds?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Neural Interface? Really flat TV? (Score:1)
Neurons, biologically, are designed to grow and shrink as part of the learning process of the system. This is just one of many reasons why neurons can never be used in machines.
Neurons in you brain, as a rule, can never be pinned down to one specific function (at least, no function anyone would be interested in. Ooh, I made a neural machine to regulate reflexive breathing!). This precludes them from being tied to some ultimate computer interface.
This does open new manufacturing possibilities, but I won't hold my breath until the day we can create systems of computers (as each cell in the paste you would be spreading on the wall would have to be some kind of unit, if it were independent of the paste around it) that are able to organize to that accuracy, on that scale. Our bodies use fractal geometry and chemical gradients to organize cells; you would have to paint the wall with a pattern enabling each cell of the paste to determine its position from the cells around it and the wall below it.
It seems to me that this new process might make LCD screens of incredible density, or electron grilles for CRT monitors. For now, that's what I'll drool over.
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Re:Virii? (Score:1)
Maybe you folks at Slashdot could fix up those titles just to save yourselves some hard drive space? This is seriously pathetic...
Re:well duh... (Score:1)
If the molecules could discriminate (Score:2)
I thought we had a problem with the wavelength of light used in current technologies being too large.
We have to be able to guide these bugs accurately for them to lay paths that are of any use to us.
---
Re:Or, alternatively, (Score:2)
Re:As with any new technology... (Score:2)
(Seriously, just get used to the fact that 90% of the science stuff on Slashdot is complete speculation.)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
What I find interesting... (Score:4)
It could also pave the way for a better version of the bionic ear as well as other biotech.
It could even lead to implants similar to those depicted in the reality of Shadowrun. Jacked reflexes, skeletal sheathing/alteration, muscular augmentation, variable frequency optical prostheses, datajacks and implanted weaponry.
The optical prostheses have obvious uses as does most of the other stuff but datajacks could be used for more than they are in Shadowrun.
A person with irrepairable spinal damage or someone who has perfect cognitive function but has little or no control over their neuro-muscular system could be fitted with a datajack that could provide a degree of control over their bodies or their movement, either as a partial replacement for their spinal cord or as the control interface for a wheelchair or exoskeleton.
You could also use it for games like Q3 or UT. "You don't just play the game - you live it! (Pain is an optional extra.)"
At any rate I'd be prepared to sign up as a guinea-pig for the experiments as long as I got release equipment at the end. No way I'm getting a datajack until at least the second or thid generation. My wetware's bad enough without people poking wires in it.:)
Another application of the assembly aspect is the construction of nanobots and other nanotech.
I'm not going into a discussion of the possible evils of nanobots but I can see this image: Country A builds or grows a batch of deconstructor nanobots which are delivered to Country B.
The nanobots are programmed to reproduce themselves at a set rate until a preset limit is reached and have the ability to call others to their programmed target.
One day while one of these bots are reproducing an error creeps in. Instead of building a copy that stops reproducing at the preset limit something goes wrong and the copy doesn't have this limit and the error is not registered as such.
It continues to reproduce without stoping. Eventually they will cover the Earth if they cannot be stopped. All it would require is one nanobot to be missed and it starts over.
The severity of this depends on what the nanobots were programmed to destroy. Copper wiring? Aluminium? Steel? People?
Neal Stephenson wrote a book, the title of which I cannot remember. It was about a poor young girl who one-day found a book. Not just any book but a nanotech "Young lady's primer". Esentially it was a nanotech teaching device. The difference was in the actual construction. Instead of todays electrical circuitry it was mechanical. Kind of a vastly superior Babbage engine.
To me this seems more feasible than microscopic versions of todays computers.
In the book nanobots had been released and had propogated so much that on bad days it meant death to go outside without some kind of respiratory protection (a breathing mask).
Thats enough for now, I've spent far too long on this. When I first saw it there were 2 posts showing at a threshold of 0.
This post does contain blatant speculation and a tiny bit of scare-mongering. Any inaccuracies or mistakes are the fault of my insomnia, as is the length and any rambling that occurs.
---
"When I was a kid computers were giant walk-in wardrobes served by a priesthood with punch cards."
demographics (Score:2)
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
the collective (Score:1)
Re:Virii? (Score:2)
No more English, Latin, Russian, Chinese!
The whole world should communicate with Perl!
--
Re:Is it me? (Score:2)
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:2)
And they call Donkey Kong by that name because it was a typo for Monkey Kong, made by someone at Nintendo, and they couldn't be bothered correcting it when they released the game outside Japan.
Viruses seems to be officially it, but ... (Score:1)
See the definition here [ispep.cx]
Free Porn! [ispep.cx] or Laugh [ispep.cx]
let's get this straight. (Score:5)
"Virus" comes from the Latin word "Vi", meaning "crappy text editor". It is pluralised because one is creating the concept of multiple vi, adding feature after feature to create a completely bloated, horrifically crappy text editor.
To then double-pluralise it, one would be creating a concept of a text editor bloated beyond the point of reason, so that you actually question your own sanity.
I therefore submit that the plural of "Virus" is "Emacs".
Dictionary link to "viruses" and "virii" (Score:1)
Enjoy!
Free Porn! [ispep.cx] or Laugh [ispep.cx]
Neurons (Score:2)
Right now I'm trying to research ways of transmitting messages between neurons and implantable electronic devices, maybe someone's got the links here?
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
If the plural of index is indeces, shouldn't the plural of Kleenex be Kleneces? If the plural of mouse is mice, what's the plural of house? If a train station is where the train stops, what happens at a workstation? If corn oil comes from corn and coconut oil comes from coconuts, how do they make baby oil?
Thanks, Gallagher...
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
Re:Dictionary link to "viruses" and "virii" (Score:1)
Re:Virii? (Latin FOURTH declension) (Score:1)
As for "most" nouns in -us being 2nd declension, maybe, maybe not; anybody got a Latin wordlist we can grep through? :)
And of course they weren't all masculine; I don't think I claimed they were.
Re:well duh... (Score:1)
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Re:Neural Interface? Really flat TV? (Score:1)
Ramble on!
mfspr r3, pc / lvxl v0, 0, r3 / li r0, 16 / stvxl v0, r3, r0
Come for the trolls, stay for the comments (Score:1)
Then again, you often get really interesting posts by people you might not otherwise get an opinion from...
And then there are the people who will make up eighty-two syllable words just to make themselves look smart.. ah yes, the pseudo-intellects... the ones who bicker about the correct spelling of virui (my version... there are many like it, but this one is mine..). Who the FUCK cares?
I rather like some trolls more than some of the pseudo-intellects... though the truely insightful posts shine through..
Troll on boys..
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
I read one argument that stated that virus has no plaural because in latin (where it comes from, obviously) it had a very similar sense as "air". Ie there really is no plaural, it refers to all of it at once. You may talk of the air inside the house, or the air outside, but you never refer to the two differnt "airs".
The argument goes that virus originally was used in the same way, so there is no plaural.
Plural of Virus (Score:1)
Virus to computer eh?? (Score:1)
Boy, I think my karma just dropped pretty darn hard!
Re:What I find interesting... (Score:1)
Potentially Very Bad (Score:1)
Bah, I've been up for like 36 hours now. I'm probably barely making any sense.
I'm sorry. What I meant to say was 'please excuse me.'
what came out of my mouth was 'Move or I'll kill you!'
So how fast would they grow? (Score:5)
"Don't think so Mike, why?"
"Well, we seem to have a supercomputer where the lab used to be."
Dreamweaver
Re:Virii? (Latin FOURTH declension) (Score:1)
It's not fourth declension at all, it's a very anomalous second declension one with no plural. As other posters have pointed out.
That'll teach me to talk without looking something up....
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
We take a lot of words from Latin, and often the pluralization is wordus to wordi, radius to radii. It just happens that radius has an i before us in the singular form. Virus goes to viri.
Don't ask me what the roots are, I think vir has something to do with being very small.
Re:Virii isn't a word and neither is Viri (Score:1)
To be assinine and provide another, yet wrong, answer:
Let's take the word dorkus (commonly abbreviated DORK). We all know the plural of that is dorks. So, virus in the plural is "virs."
SHOOT THE HOSTAGE!!
Wait a sec... (Score:1)
Hmm...
Re:Pseudo-Latin constructions (Score:1)
It seems logical, (Score:4)
The relevance of this work to nanotechnology particularly interests me. If you haven't read Eric Drexler's
book 'Engines of Creation' it's something you should check out. The book discusses nanotechnology and suggests several things that should be done to prepare for it, none of which anyone has taken the slightest notice of (as far as I can tell). Does anyone else fear what may happen if true nanotechnology is developed in the near future without the slightest move to control it? Once it is here, it's far to late for control.
Re:Wait another second (Score:2)
The answer is 42.
Re:I'll be first in line... (Score:2)
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/ro
http://www.transhumanist.com/volum e1/moravec.htm [transhumanist.com]
Re:Virii? (Score:2)
--
Neural Interface? Really flat TV? (Score:2)
The other interesting part of 'growing' computers is being able to play with the base media. I can imagine going to the electronics store and buying a new viral TV.
Instructions
1. Open Box
2. Spread paste on Desired wall
3. Wait 2 Days
4. Do not ingest leftover paste
Tommorrow is either going to be pretty cool or a nanotechnological wasteland!
Stinkydog