Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Deliver Bee Toxin To Tumors Via "Nanobees"

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the stop-calling-everything-nano dept.

Biotech 98

ScienceDaily is reporting that Washington University School of Medicine researchers have found a way to deliver bee toxin to tumors using nano-spheres they call "nanobees." The results in mice showed a cessation of growth or even shrinkage of tumors while the surrounding tissue was protected from the toxin. "The core of the nanobees is composed of perfluorocarbon, an inert compound used in artificial blood. The research group developed perfluorocarbon nanoparticles several years ago and have been studying their use in various medical applications, including diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerosis and cancer. About six millionths of an inch in diameter, the nanoparticles are large enough to carry thousands of active compounds, yet small enough to pass readily through the bloodstream and to attach to cell membranes."

cancel ×

98 comments

AC Delivers 1st Posts to Slashdot Via Nanoposts (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267049)

nano

Re:AC Delivers 1st Posts to Slashdot Via Nanoposts (1)

furbearntrout (1036146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268341)

I tried that and all i got was a blank screen and this:

Gnu nano 2.0.7 new buffer

--blank screen--

^G Get Help ^O WriteOut ^R Read File ^Y Prev Page ^K Cut Text ^C Cur Pos
^X Exit ^J Justify ^W Where Is ^V Next Page ^U UnCut Text^T To Spell

Is this like notepad?

Re:AC Delivers 1st Posts to Slashdot Via Nanoposts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29269127)

And you're not even running the latest unstable branch! What are you doing on Slashdot?!

Holy dupes batman (2, Insightful)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267059)

Lets get serious now editors, this is a dupe, half the fucking articles posted nowadays are dupes, wtf?

Re:Holy dupes batman (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267211)

Boo hoo.

Nobody likes people who cry and whine over trivial mistakes that don't really matter.

Also, you missed an apostrophe.

Re:Holy dupes batman (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267217)

I don't get it, if you're trying to compliment the editors on the fact that only half the articles are dupes these days, rather than the more historically typical 75 or 80%, why do you seem so angry about it?

Re:Holy dupes batman (3, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268153)

By definition, only half of articles can be duplicates. If you go beyond that, they become "trips".

Re:Holy dupes batman (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268937)

If there really were trips, would 1/3rd be trips, 1/3d be dupes, and the rest, originals?

Re:Holy dupes batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29269075)

There are no originals; it's dupes all the way down.

Re:Holy dupes batman (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#29273821)

If there really were trips, would 1/3rd be trips, 1/3d be dupes, and the rest, originals?

The ratios in this discussion have been simplified for the math challenged.

>> Really if EVERY article was a triplicate, it would be a self-reproducing fractal that went back in time recursively, and would have to destroy duplicates of it self in the present. Likely, this process would destroy reality itself as each duplicate was forced to become a triplicate, and each original a duplicate.

We might want to say; "all of them CANNOT be duplicates" -- but let's just take a pass and keep to the proper Engrish that we use on Slashdot.

Re:Holy dupes batman (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29272851)

By definition, only half of articles can be duplicates. If you go beyond that, they become "trips".

Well, I wouldn't be too surprised if the editors have sometimes been on "trips"...

Re:Holy dupes batman (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267587)

It's Slashdot's management's cost reduction plan. You see, they have their editors post a story two or three times. We all comment on them again and in the meantime, Slashdot get's the ad revenue! See?

The new plan will be they run a bunch of articles in the morning and the morning folks comment on those, then they run the same articles in the afternoon and the afternoon folks comment on those - kinda like how the History Channel does their programming in the middle of the week.

Now, the night folks get tomorrows articles first and the morning folks think they're new - and back we go again. I think it fucking brilliant, if you ask me.

Up next will be posting of highly controversial articles. Some in the queue:

  1. The linkage between Mac use and homosexuality.
  2. Windows IS really better than Mac.
  3. The RiAA has been wrongfully condemned - how they will get us out of this economic mess.
  4. Bush was THE greatest technology President.
  5. The creation of Linux was the last ditch effort of the KGB to bring back the Soviet Empire.

There's more, but I don't want to tip off the Slashdot management as to who their leak is.

Re:Holy dupes batman (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29269797)

There's more, but I don't want to tip off the Slashdot management as to who their leak is.

Anonymous Coward is the leak? I could have guessed that.

Re:Holy dupes batman (2, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267869)

What evidence do you have that this is a dupe?

Re:Holy dupes batman (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29273469)

It turned me into a newt!

More questions than answers (4, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267071)

Just out of curiosity (totally medically ignorant here) would such things trigger a bee-sting allergy? Someone close to me is extremely sensitive to bee products (milligram of honey is worth a long distance migrane). The delivery mechanism is interesting, but the toxin is scary to me.

Re:More questions than answers (1)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267137)

Just out of curiosity (totally medically ignorant here) would such things trigger a bee-sting allergy? Someone close to me is extremely sensitive to bee products (milligram of honey is worth a long distance migrane). The delivery mechanism is interesting, but the toxin is scary to me.

I don't know if the post was meant as a joke, but this method of drug administration could in no way cause allergy - not unless the "nanobees" were packed with allergens derived from actual bees.

Re:More questions than answers (2, Insightful)

NAR8789 (894504) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267347)

From the title, "Scientists Deliver Bee Toxin To Tumors..."

Although, I did have the same initial reaction. I think the term "nanobee" is just far too distractingly catchy.

OT... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#29269853)

...for the entertainment of the Slashbot:

The bee is such a busy soul,
He has no time for birth control.
And that is why, at times like these,
There are so many sons of bees.

Re:More questions than answers (3, Informative)

jfdawes (254678) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267435)

What exactly do you mean by "bee-sting allergy". These nanobees are filled with melittin, which may or may not be the same thing.

Interestingly, if you inject melittin you'll cause "widespread destruction of red blood cells" but these things don't. That might be because they target "growing blood vessels". Presumably, if the only areas of growing blood cells are tumors, you might be able to get away with injecting someone who is allergic.

Or, assuming your friend is allergic to melittin and not one of the other fun things in a bee string, they might end up a writhing blob of agony.

milligram of honey [causes migraine] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29269199)

It sounds a psychological allergy, so, Yes.

Re:milligram of honey [causes migraine] (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29291989)

Nothing psychological about it. The person in question is my wife of 25 years. If there's any honey at all in the food she eats, even a tiny bit, we generally find out about it after the fact when we trace events back from a bad migrane episode. Results have been consistent over a long period of time. She nearly died from a bee sting a few years ago. Food allergies are no joke, and there's nothing psychological you can attribute to an effect that takes place before the causative event is noticed. And yes, she does keep an epi-pen with her.

We read all the labels - it's a habit. But sometimes you can't prepare all your own food and other people will have their little secret recipes.

Re:milligram of honey [causes migraine] (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29292115)

Another oddiment - there's a difference in where the honey comes from, too. When we lived in the USA it didn't seem to be a problem. Here in Australia (admittedly the histamine capital of the world) the reaction is consistent, severe and any sort of honey will trigger the allergy.

Question time: Would differences between US and Australian honeys offer insight into the bee product allergy mechanism? This question would need to be examined in the US I think, foreign honeys would be binned at the border.

Re:More questions than answers (1)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268479)

I have no idea how you find this scary. Do you think they're going to skip extensive clinical testing that includes people with bee allergies, if they're using the part of the toxin that people can be allergic to? Do you think they're going to stick it into the water without your knowledge or consent when it proves fatal to people with bee allergies?

Or is it just because they're using something potentially dangerous as medicine? Because if so, let me remind you that the current preferred treatment methods include blasting the tumor with fatal doses of radiation...

Re:More questions than answers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268513)

"The results in mice"

More fraud from vivisectionists.
This will only become effective in humans once they have done HUMAN EXPERIMENTS - A.K.A. 'clinical trials'.

All 'clinical trials' are actually HUMAN experiments - because 92% of drugs which pass animal experiments, FAIL human experiments...

beez (2, Funny)

Conditioner (1405031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267073)

are they black and yellow, and do they buzz ?

Nano this! (4, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267087)

Can somebody whip up a Greasemonkey script that replaces the word or prefix "nano" with "really fucking small"? It would be a service to your fellow slashdotter.

Re:Nano this! (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267245)

Seconded. It's exponentially annoying.

Re:Nano this! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267521)

Just convince grant-awarding agencies and organizations that nano =/= OMGFUNDITNOW and the problem will fix itself.

(note that I have no idea if they actually throw money at anything nano, I wasn't willing to test it by writing up a grant with nano thrown in and wait for it to get approved or rejected just to see if this joke works or not)

Re:Nano this! (2, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267547)

Actually I take that footnote back, the NIH just awarded me a $12 million grant to study whether or not grant-writing agencies award more grants to grants that have nano stuck in there, based on that post.

Re:Nano this! (5, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267629)

Done. Just tell your friends about how Shikaku made it for you.

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/56790 [userscripts.org]

Re:Nano this! (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267701)

It has been updated a bit, reinstall it. I worked out the kinks and now it should work flawlessly.

Re:Nano this! (2, Funny)

fightinfilipino (1449273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268765)

oh great, now how am i supposed to explain to people why they see iPod reallyfuckingsmalls for sale at the Apple store?

Re:Nano this! (2, Informative)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267771)

Well, "About six millionths of an inch in diameter" is about 3-4 nm, so at least this one actually is in the nano scale.

Re:Nano this! (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29270513)

My bad. It's about 150nm, not 3-4nm - I took "6 millionth" as 1/6e6, not as the correct 6/1e6.

(six millionths) of (1 inch) = 152.4 nanometers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29271143)

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=six+millionths+of+an+inch&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Re:Nano this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267917)

ScienceDaily is reporting that Washington University School of Medicine researchers have found a way to deliver bee toxin to tumors using Really fucking small-spheres they call "really fucking small overlord bees." The results in mice showed a cessation of growth or even shrinkage of tumors while the surrounding tissue was protected from the toxin.

Re:Nano this! (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 4 years ago | (#29273651)

(...) they call "really fucking small overlord bees." The results in mice showed a cessation of growth or even shrinkage of tumors while the surrounding tissue was protected from the toxin.

No rejection. Seems the mice, for one, welcomed their new overlord bee particles.

Stop using "nano" (1)

MonotremeAttack (982361) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268243)

Or what? You'll release the nanodogs? or the nanobees? or the nanodogs with nanobees in their nanomouths so when they bark they shoot nanobees at you?

Re:Nano this! (1)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268491)

I'd normally agree with you, but this actually does involve nano-scale (0-100 nm) structures instead of the typical "probably microscopic".

correction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268561)

the correct unit of measurement should be bee's dick. :-)

Re:Nano this! (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268747)

Today Apple introduced a new iPod Really fucking small models.

I see it coming (4, Funny)

Maniacal (12626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267121)

Yeah, sure. This will work fine and dandy until some hop on a cargo ship and the US is slowly but surely colonized by Africanized Nanobees. Don't say I didn't warn you

Fortune 500 recruiter here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267123)

I'm an HR recruiter that recruits comp sci majors for a Fortune 500 company here in the US. Man those guys from WashU are SMART. It's my favorite source for quality comp sci grads.

So I'm not really surprised that something like nano-bees should come out of Washington University in Saint Louis.

Re:Fortune 500 recruiter here (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267393)

You sure you aren't a WashU recruiter? ;-)

Re:Fortune 500 recruiter here (1)

mcpkaaos (449561) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267487)

More likely a recent cs grad.

Re:Fortune 500 recruiter here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29273093)

Crap Shoot?

Re:Fortune 500 recruiter here (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#29271979)

To Be or nano bee. Whether to endure the stings and arrows of outrageous Fortune 500's.

--

Is there a nano bee in the hole in the rock in the bottom of the sea?

Those ... (1)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267173)

... are Trojan nano-bees, you get injected and out pours honey from every pore in your body.

Re:Those ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267313)

I imagine that some day they will cure acne this way.

Re:Those ... (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267691)

This... might be a good thing.

Re:Those ... (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29271759)

Don't tell your papa, don't tell your sister, little honeybee.

With apologies to Tom Petty.

Anyway, sounds like fun for...specific occasions, but getting licked by co-workers all day long would get tedious pretty fast, even when you work in a callcenter.

Re:Those ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29273825)

the GF would love it! Come to think of it, so would I! Where do I get the hook up?! :D

Nanodogs (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267177)

The scientists are now working on a delivery mechanism they call the 'nanodog,' to shoot the nanobees from a specialized orifice they are calling a 'mouth'.

Re:Nanodogs (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267427)

The successful scientists are cyberneticists working on a robotic Richard Simmons. Truth.

Six millionths of an inch (1, Insightful)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267231)

Six millionths of an inch is 150 nm. Wouldn't it be easier to just write "150 nm", or "six millionths of an inch" is somehow easier to comprehend?
Why not "five trillionths of a feet" then?

Re:Six millionths of an inch (1)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267257)

150nm means something to people who actually study materials and science. I don't think 6/1e6 of an inch makes any visual sense other than (really tiny) to any one who even knows what an inch is anyways.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (3, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267377)

Exactly. Inches? What kind of crazy units are they using? Why not convert it to something easy to understand, like Slashdot International Units. For reference, six millionths of an inch is approximately 41.4 zepto light-fortnights.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267395)

Someone who still hasn't learned the simple maxim of "target your audience." Science Daily is a general science news website. So while the people reading it are interested in science, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are scientists themselves. Once you learn this simple (but useful) maxim, you'll find that you are much more able to easily communicate with a wider range of people.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267437)

Wouldn't a better approach be 150(hyperlinked)nm(/hyperlinked). Then you are clear and you educate. Six millionth's of an inch? Wtf?

Re:Six millionths of an inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267513)

No! You don't want to drive them away from your site, which is what you do by linking 'nm'. Not to mention, the entire point is to say they're "really fucking small", while still giving a relatively accurate measurement. Again, for the general audience of the site, giving units in nanometers doesn't really convey that meaning. Yet just about everyone who reads the site (and the key is 'everyone') knows what an inch is, and also knows that six-millionths of one is really fucking small.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268023)

No, the trick is to hyperlink to your own site then you get an additional hit, too! Either that or as you say just write "really fucking tiny" or "one thousandth of a cunt hair".

Re:Six millionths of an inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268227)

Either that or as you say just write "really fucking tiny" or "one thousandth of a cunt hair".

But I know some cunts with some *really* thick hair.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (1, Funny)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267529)

Why not "five trillionths of a feet" then?

Because there is no such thing as 'a feet'. "Five trillionths of a foot" would be entirely acceptable though. In fact, that would work quite well, because you could look down at your shoe and say 'hmm, about five trillionths of that...' instead of having to try to compare it to that bone in your finger or the graphite in your pencil.

And yes, for those of you who don't get it, this post is entirely sarcastic.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267807)

How did you get that? "six millionths of an inch" is about 4nm.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268263)

Google says otherwise: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=six+millionths+of+an+inch&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Re:Six millionths of an inch (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268317)

Yeah, reading is fundamental, I guess. I'll let myself out now.

Re:Six millionths of an inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268107)

How 'bout 30 beard seconds [google.com] ?

Someone sue them (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267315)

Are these 10^-9 times the size of bees, or only 1/2^30? It's a ripoff, somebody sue Apple into the ground!

Another non-starter? (4, Interesting)

SecondCobra (1628707) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267321)

Sooo tired of reading these "new cancer treatment" stories. Been reading about them for years and yet if you get cancer what happens? You're given a cocktail of drugs and blased with radiation. I would like to see one of these things actually turn into a real treatment that means people have cancer cured without all the suffering that Chemo causes.

Re:Another non-starter? (4, Insightful)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267473)

Sooo tired of reading these "new cancer treatment" stories. Been reading about them for years and yet if you get cancer what happens? You're given a cocktail of drugs and blased with radiation. I would like to see one of these things actually turn into a real treatment that means people have cancer cured without all the suffering that Chemo causes.

The problem with "cure for cancer" is that there are a lot of different cancers and a lot of different causes. There are cancers that have very high cure rates and cancers that you get and know that you will die in 5 years unless someone comes up with a life-saving Eureeka!. Much like how the "common cold" is not a single, treatable virus, rather a list of similar symptoms caused by a variety of weak viruses, cancer as we know it tends to be more a list of symptoms than the actual problem. The more ways we come up with combatting the life-threatening symptoms or the cancer itself, the less "only-defense" our chemotherapy needs to be. Instead of "Kill the patient slowly, hoping the cancer dies first" is a very primitive method of treating a disease which overextends its own energies in multiplying, and has been effective in many cases, we can find better ways, and are finding better ways -- but these usually target specific cancers and their symptoms, or specific symptoms, rather than an all-curing panacea.

Re:Another non-starter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267485)

Then your problem is with the FDA.

Re:Another non-starter? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267533)

And that cocktail is getting better.

When my dad had CLL and then came out of remission and had to get treatment again he said the difference between the 1st treatment and the second was night and day, even though it was only 3-4 years difference.

Things are improving.

Re:Another non-starter? (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267633)

I too want to skip right to the goals of research without having to actually go through the slow, torturous process of getting there, without any of the inevitable dead-ends. Do we really have to research cancer treatments, have an idea, test it on multiple levels to make sure it works and doesn't kill you, develop it, just to cure cancer? Why can't we skip right to the part where we cure cancer?

Along those same lines, why do I have to make a cake or buy one in order to have my cake or eat it? Why can't I just eat a cake without actually procuring one? I keep reading about new cakes and yet if you want a cake what happens? You still have to buy it or bake it. Why? I'll tell you why, stupid causality. If only we could fiat right past that.

~

Sorry for all the sarcasm. The reason there are so many non-starters in learning how to cure cancer is BECAUSE WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW HOW TO CURE CANCER.

Re:Another non-starter? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268101)

Several classes of novel treatment are already in use. Monoclonal antibodies for example. There are several of those approved for use in cancer treatment today, and a few more used "off label" in cancer treatment for specific cases.

We also already routinely treat some cancers with surgery, and even with "watchful waiting" (doing nothing because it might not get any worse). So it's certainly not the case that whatever cancer you're diagnosed with they'll prescribe drugs and radiation. Not at all.

But there is no magic bullet. There won't ever be a magic bullet. Maybe you don't like that, but there it is.

The body is very, very complicated and interconnected, and cancer is a part of the body. So nearly anything powerful enough to damage the tumour will be bad for you.

They came up with a much less horrible chemo treatment for the cancer I had, it ran in parallel trial while I was being treated. Patients recorded less nausea, more days when they were able to go about their lives normally, etc. But unfortunately three times as many of them died as with the previous standard (97% survival vs 99% with gold standard). That's a no-brainer - nausea sucks, but nobody wants to die to avoid it.

Re:Another non-starter? (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29275123)

What the hell do you mean by real treatment? Chemo is a real treatment.

Cancer is more survivable then it's ever been. Of course we are tlaking in generalities. We ahve a vaccines against some cancers, 80% survival rate in other, and some are still very nasty.

There all a little different.

"blased with radiation."

Um, yuo take your chemo pills, and have an exat and precise amount of ratio applied externally.

Not 'blased'(assuming you meant blasted.)

Call me old fashioned ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267341)

but I'd opt to slice open the patient, grab a bee off the street, force it at knifepoint to sting the tumor, and then sew the patient back up leaving the stinger to work in there. "Nanobees" sound way more expensive than real bees, I thought we were trying to get health care costs under control...

Re:Call me old fashioned ... (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267407)

PETI has a strong lobby. It'll never happen.

Re:Call me old fashioned ... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268495)

Pets for extra terrestrial intelligence???

I'm intrigued....do you have a newsletter?

Re:Call me old fashioned ... (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29268617)

You know what?
I'm tired of PETA. FUCK THEM and the horse they rode in!

Re:Call me old fashioned ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268925)

FUCK THEM and the horse they rode in!

Despite how much it would mean to me to piss off PETA even more, I just can't get behind that sort of fetish =P

Do they (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267351)

Do they call them Eric, or are they too big for that?

Re:Do they (1)

gregraven (574513) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267415)

Arghh, you just beat me. (singing) "Eric, the nano bee."

Since when (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267517)

have small objects measured in millions of an inch, or tenths of a millionth of a meter, been "nano" scale? I think SI already has a prefix for this... Oh, yeah, "micro". Microbees*, perhaps. Nano, not so much.

*Maybe our intrepid scientists were afraid of colliding with the trademark of this [wikipedia.org] obscure microcomputer from Australia. (Yes, from the land Down Under, and released at about the same time as the song [wikipedia.org] with that name. Amazing coincidence, though nothing to do with bees, micro, nano, or otherwise.)

Re:Since when (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#29276751)

Urm, 1/10th of a micro-meter is 100 nano-meters, that is, NANO scale by definition.

In this case, 6E-6 inches = 159e-9 meters = 159 nanometers. Presumably the article translated to inches for the sake of people who suffer an aneurysm if they see a metric unit. Of course on the scale of millionths or billionths, I fail to see why they would have a better conception of the size just because a "familiar" unit like inch was involved. People are often very bad at conceptualizing fractions that small anyway.

Lucasian Medicine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267639)

Can this technology be used to introduce Midichlorians into bloodstream?

We put a bee (1)

awrz (1009247) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267721)

We knew how much you liked flyn'
...So we put a bee inside your bee. So you can fly while you're flyn'
--Xzibit

I heart nanobees. (1)

momerath2003 (606823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267791)

Enough said.

cmin0s 4, Troll) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267793)

How do they create the tumors ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29268957)

Let me guess...

Aspartaam/Nutra Sweet ! HAHA.

can we stop with the (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29269023)

trend of naming complex things anthropomorphically? theyre nanospheres. they dont pollinate, they dont reproduce, and they certainly dont have wings.

calling them "bees" just gives the average american another excuse to avoid reading something other than harry potter novels, the average professor more funding for "shit that sounds fun and awesome" and the average pharmaceutical company advertising ideas that involve more CGI bumblebees.

at the risk of sounding like an asshole, our environmental pollution, culture of fast-food-shit-fed overweight children and ethically bankrupt FDA are likely major factors in cancer today. eliminate or reform these elements and i predict a decline in cancer. and i didnt even call it a bee.

Re:can we stop with the (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29271781)

In other news, Eve Online players around the planet immediately associate bees with Goonswarm [eve-wiki.net] hailing from the something awful forums [somethingawful.com] and run away screaming at the thought of Little Bees [youtube.com] inside their bodies.

Stin'Zorga, King of Bees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29269039)

Pray you don't ever see this error message [cracked.com] .

Dear nanobees (1)

bogjobber (880402) | more than 4 years ago | (#29269171)

Killing me won't bring back your goddamn honey!

Alternate Uses For Nanobees. (1)

bezenek (958723) | more than 4 years ago | (#29270163)

After you have cured your cancer, you can use leftover nanobees to cool your Cray-2 supercomputer.

The Cray-2 was immersed in perfluorocarbon to improve heat dissipation.

-Todd

Enter the tumor chamber (1)

virgil Lante (1382951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29273395)

Wu-Tang nano bees on the swarm
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...