Carl Kassell, scorekeeper for NPR’s Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, is on Facebook. Thought you should know, although you’re probably too late: He’s already hit the 5,000-friend limit that Facebook still apparently maintains.
Seeing that pretty much every tech blog has written about how crappy the new search engine cuil.com is, I figured I’d give it a try and see for myself.
It’s crappy.
Searching for “nosugrefneb” doesn’t turn up anything remotely related to this site anywhere within the top 11 hits. In fact, nosugrefneb.com/weblog, entitled “/weblog &” according to Cuil, is the last listing on the 4th page—#44—alongside this nifty little image representing my weblog:
Cuil confirms my obvious love of cigarettes.
In fact, a search for “nosugrefneb.com”—something I could find fairly easily myself with very little need for a search engine—shows the actual nosugrefneb.com as the #2 listing, and searching for “nosugrefneb.com/weblog” finally pulls this site up on page 4 of the listings, not with a link to the front page of the site but with one to a post I wrote almost two years ago. The associated image is even more random than cigarettes.
On the other hand, Google lists nosugrefneb.com/weblog—this very site!—and nosugrefneb.com as the top two hits in a search for “nosugrefneb,” which is refreshing because, if you look very closely, you’ll see that my search term is in there. And also they don’t think I look like two days’ worth of cigarettes. Nice touch, Google.
This is probably the worst search engine I have ever used. Suffice it to say that they have a bit of work to do.
The cops in Chicago are sometimes bad, but not this bad.
UPDATE: Unbelievable. “False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law.” Sounds like this cop has no fewer than a dozen misdemeanors coming his way.
A few years ago, I put together this Excel spreadsheet that will calculate protein loading volumes for western blots. It’s pretty useful, and it changes colors automatically based on what loading masses are appropriate for given sample concentrations.
Download it here. Enjoy!
Notes:
1. These figures are for loading small gels. If you want to use it for large gels, change the conditional formatting parameters accordingly based on the max total loading volume per well.
2. The “sample volume” refers to the amount of sample used in Bradford estimation readings, and the “conc.” refers to the output of those readings, not the concentration of undiluted sample. The spreadsheet makes that calculation for you. If you have already calculated the concentrations of your undiluted samples, use 1 for the sample volumes.
The a cappella group I was in in college has their entire 2008 spring show posted on the internet, and you should watch it. Then, as if you weren’t already going to: Become a fan.
The fraternity house I lived in for almost three years in college is being demolished. Finally. Its replacement is going to be modeled after the original, except not fally-aparty.
I’ve watched this video about eight times now…figured I’d post it here. There’s something mesmerizing about it, and I love the song. Watch it if you haven’t already also seen it eight times.
Click the HD button to the right to see it in higher quality. (Vimeo=still awesome.) Also, is it bad that he’s a better dancer than I am?
I’m happy to have the chance to host the Cancer Research Blog Carnival (CRBC, if you’re cool) once again, this time the 12th(!) edition on August 1!
You’re encouraged to submit your posts on current cancer research and therapeutics here (or by emailing me or the bayblab folks—the CRBC godfathers, or including a link in the comment section of this post) before Thursday, July 31(ish).
Spread the word, yo. Please?
