首页 >> 新闻 >> 正文


2018年01月22日 06:27:28来源:兰州晨报


  • Synthesized Crystalline Bovine Insulin第一个人工合成牛胰岛素Synthetic bovine insulin, which was fully developed in 1965 following 6 years of hard work by a group of Chinese scientists, was the first case of human beings synthesizing live proteins. This is the first time that zoetic protein has been synthesized by human in history. In the past it was a universal belief that man could by no means synthesize living body. The success made it possible for Chinese scientists to deflate the traditional concept. Synthetic bovine insulin marked a significant breakthrough in the fIeld of life science and has substantially influenced human endeavors in finding out the secrets of life.1965年,我国的科学工作者经过6年多坚持不懈的努力,获得了人工合成的牛胰岛素结晶。这是世界上第一个人工合成的蛋白质。过去世界普遍认为生命体是天然的,大都认为人工合成生命体是不可能的,是中国人首次让它变成可能。人工牛胰岛素的合成,是生命科学领域的重大突破,对于人类探索生命奥秘的影响是巨大的。 /201602/419388
  • A breakthrough in electrochemistry at Cambridge university could lead the way to rechargeable super-batteries that pack five times more energy into a given space than today’s best batteries, greatly extending the range of electric vehicles and potentially transforming the economics of electricity storage.剑桥大学(Cambridge University)在电化学领域的一项突破,或将催生可充电的超级电池。这种电池在给定空间内存储的能量是目前最好电池的五倍,可大大拓展电动汽车的续航里程,并可能大幅改观电力存储的经济效益。Chemistry professor Clare Grey and her team have overcome technical challenges in the development of lithium-air batteries — the only cells theoretically capable of giving electric cars the range of petrol and diesel vehicles without having to carry excessively bulky and heavy battery packs.化学教授克莱尔格雷(Clare Grey)和她的团队攻克了锂空气电池开发中的技术难关。理论上说,只有这种电池能让电动汽车在不必携带巨大而笨重的电池组的情况下,拥有可媲美汽油车及柴油车的续航里程。If the technology can be turned from a laboratory demonstrator into a commercial product, it will enable a car to drive from London to Edinburgh on a single charge, with batteries that cost and weigh one-fifth of the lithium-ion cells that power today’s electric cars.如果能把该技术从实验室的演示品转变为商品,将令汽车只充一次电就能从伦敦驶到爱丁堡(约合648公里——译者注),所用电池的成本和重量却只有今日电动汽车所用锂离子电池的五分之一。“What we’ve achieved is a significant advance for this technology and suggests whole new areas for research,” said Prof Grey. “We haven’t solved all the problems inherent to this chemistry but our results do show routes forward.”格雷教授表示:“我们取得的成就使这项技术向前迈出了重要一步,预示着全新的研究领域。我们仍未全盘解决这一化学机制所固有的问题,但我们的成果确实揭示了前行的道路。”Because lithium-air has such a big theoretical advantage over lithium-ion which dominates rechargeable batteries today — its energy density is potentially 10 times greater — researchers around the world are working on lithium-air.和目前的可充电电池中盛行的锂离子技术相比,锂空气电池理论上拥有巨大的优势——其能量密度可能要高10倍——以至于全球的研究人员都在开展锂空气电池的研究。A research paper published in the journal Science shows that the Cambridge group has overcome some of the practical problems of the technology, particularly the chemical instability that led to a rapid fall-off in performance of the lithium-air cells demonstrated previously.发表在《科学》(Science)期刊上的一篇研究论文显示,剑桥的这个团队攻克了这种技术中的部分实际问题——尤其是化学上的不稳定问题。在此之前,由于这种化学上的不稳定,锂空气电池会显示出性能迅速衰退的现象。The basic chemistry of lithium-air batteries is simple. The cell generates electricity by combining lithium with oxygen to form lithium peroxide and is then recharged by applying a current to reverse the reaction. Making these reactions take place reliably over many cycles is the challenge.锂空气电池的基本化学原理十分简单。这种电池通过锂和氧结合成过氧化锂实现放电,再通过施加电流逆转这一过程而完成充电。而如何可靠地令上述反应在许多周期内反复发生,则是该技术面临的挑战。The Cambridge scientists adjusted the chemistry to make it more controllable. For example, they converted lithium peroxide to lithium hydroxide (a compound that is easier to work with), they added lithium iodide to the system and they made a very porous “fluffy” electrode from graphene, a form of carbon discovered 12 years ago at Manchester university.剑桥的科学家对相关化学过程做了调整,以提高其可控性。比如,他们将过氧化锂转变为更易处理的氢氧化锂,还向系统中添加了碘化锂,并用石墨烯制作了渗透性极好的“蓬松”电极。所谓石墨烯,是12年前曼彻斯特大学(Manchester University)发现的一种碳的同素异形体。The system demonstrated in the Cambridge lab is 90 per cent efficient, say the researchers, and it can be recharged 2,000 times. But they say at least another decade of work is likely to be required to turn it into a commercial battery for cars and for grid storage — storing the intermittent output of solar and wind generators for use when needed.研究人员表示,剑桥实验室中展示的电池系统效率达90%,可充电2000次。不过他们表示,可能至少还需10年的工作,才能将该电池变为可用于汽车和电网蓄电的商业电池。电网蓄电装置用于存储太阳能和风能发电站间歇发出的电力,以便在需要的时候使用。“We have patented the technology and the intellectual property is owned by Cambridge Enterprise, the university’s commercialisation arm,” said Prof Grey. “We are working with a number of companies to take it forward.”格雷教授表示:“我们获得了该技术的专利,其知识产权归剑桥大学商业化机构剑桥实业(Cambridge Enterprise)所有。我们正与多家公司合作推进这项技术。” /201511/407175
  • To watch the confrontation between the US’s most valuable company and its top law enforcement agency is to find oneself in a state of nearly permanent cognitive dissonance. 观察一下美国最有价值的公司与美国最高执法机构之间的对峙,你会陷入一种近乎永久性“认知失调”的状态中。 Apparently, America’s government agencies are both omnipotent and helpless. Omnipotent because, as this week’s batch of surveillance revelations from WikiLeaks suggests, they have no problems intercepting highly secretive communications between their European allies. Helpless because, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s bosses keep repeating, they need Apple’s co-operation in order to break into the iPhone of the shooter in the San Bernardino attacks. 显然,美国政府机构既无所不能,又很无助。之所以说无所不能是因为,正如上周维基解密(WikiLeaks)爆料的数起监控案例所表明的那样,它们在拦截欧洲盟友之间高度机密的通信内容方面神通广大。之所以说无助是因为,正如联邦调查局(FBI)的头头们屡次重申的那样,它们需要苹果(Apple)的合作,以解锁圣贝纳迪诺击案凶手的iPhone。 It gets worse. On February 9, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, boasted in his Senate testimony that “in the future, intelligence services might use the [internet of things] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.” Now we learn that such agencies cannot get into our smartphones … let alone our smart fridges. 更糟的还在后面。今年2月9日,美国国家情报总监(DNI)詹姆斯克拉珀(James Clapper)在参议院作时夸耀称,“未来,情报部门可能使用(物联网)来确认、监听、监控、定位以及定向招募,或者进入网络或者用户凭据”。现在我们知道,这些机构无法进入我们的智能手机……更别说我们的智能冰箱了。 Something in the government’s rhetoric does not add up. The FBI either has solid reasons to break into that phone — in which case it is not obvious why the mighty power of the National Security Agency and other government bodies has not yet been mobilised — or it is simply using the San Bernardino case as an excuse to redefine its relationship with Silicon Valley. 美国政府的某些言论并不能自圆其说。FBI要么有解锁那部手机的充足理由——如果是这种情况的话,美国国家安全局(NSA)和其他政府机构的强大能力不知为何没有被动用——要么只是以圣贝纳迪诺击案为借口来重新界定它与硅谷的关系。 Asked by a judge about its willingness to enlist the help of all the federal agencies in a similar case from 2015, the government responded that “federal prosecutors don’t have an obligation to consult the intelligence community in order to investigate crime.” 在2015年的一起类似案件中,当被一名法官问及是否愿意争取所有联邦机构的帮助时,美国政府回应称,“联邦检察机关没有咨询情报部门以调查犯罪行为的义务”。 And since very little is known about the true capabilities of America’s intelligence community, everyone involved in the current debate has to pretend that the world’s most powerful spying agency does not exist. 既然人们对美国情报机关的真实能力知之甚少,所有卷入当前辩论的人不得不假装,这个全球最强大的情报机构并不存在。 While the FBI’s defence has been that their request is extremely narrow — once Apple has facilitated access to that single phone, it is free to destroy the code required to do so — the broader political context in which this battle unfolds suggests that Apple’s stance will have far-reaching implications. 尽管FBI一直辩称,他们的要求极低——一旦苹果帮助解锁了那部手机,就可以销毁为此开发的代码——但这场争斗所处的更广泛的政治环境表明,苹果的立场将具有深远的影响。 First, the FBI’s request comes at a time when the US government is exerting immense pressure on America’s largest technology companies to join it in the fight against Isis. Both the state department and the Department of Defense have recently expanded their presence in Silicon Valley. 首先,FBI提出请求之际,正值美国政府对美国大型科技公司施加巨大压力,要求它们加入到打击“伊斯兰国”(ISIS)中。FBI和美国国防部最近都扩大了在硅谷的存在。 While many such requests are straightforward — removing jihadist propaganda from YouTube or Twitter, for example — there are concerns that such pressure might extend to modifying their algorithms in order to hide certain types of content from easily susceptible users. 尽管许多此类要求很直接——例如,消除YouTube或Twitter上的圣战宣传标语——但仍有人担心,此类压力可能延展至要求科技公司调整算法,以便向容易受影响的用户屏蔽某些类型的内容。 Google knows what is in your inbox; why should it not modify your search results to make you less of a terrorist? 谷歌(Google)知道你的收件箱里有什么;它为何不应调整你的搜索结果以便降低你发展成恐怖分子的可能性? Second, it is hard to believe that the San Bernardino case will be an isolated episode. Not only are there several similar cases aly pending in US courts but many prosecutors have aly indicated they have their own backlog of phones to unlock. 其次,很难相信圣贝纳迪诺击案会是一个孤立事件。美国法院已有多起类似的案件等待判决,而且很多检察官已表示,他们也有大量手机等待解锁。 Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance said recently that he would “absolutely ... want access to all those phones that are crucial in a criminal investigation.” 曼哈顿地区检察官塞勒斯万斯(Cyrus Vance)最近表示,他“肯定……希望破解所有在刑事调查中起关键作用的手机。” Even if Apple chose to destroy the code it writes to help the FBI on this occasion, it would need to rewrite it for a new request. Should it keep this code forever, it would be holding on to a magic key to its devices — a highly prized asset for any hacker. 即便苹果选择销毁这次为帮助FBI而编写的代码,以后再有新的要求时它还得重写。如果苹果永远保留这个代码,这将为其设备保有一把带有魔力的钥匙:这对于任何黑客而言都是一项十足珍贵的资产。 Given the publicity of the case, any terrorists would probably stop using Apple’s products anyway. The only people to suffer would be ordinary users, stuck with their iPhones and iPads. 鉴于此案的曝光度,所有恐怖主义分子恐怕都不会再用苹果产品。唯一的受害者将是那些离不开iPhone和iPad的普通用户。 Third, the FBI’s rationale in this case would make any other manufacturer of smart devices — including all those smart fridges and smart thermostats in your smart home — subject to similar requests. 第三,联邦调查局在此案中提出的理由将令所有其他生产智能设备的制造商(包括你的智能家居中的智能冰箱和智能恒温器)从类似的要求。 If Apple can be forced to modify security protocols on its phone, what stops the FBI from asking the manufacturer of the smart smoke detector to trigger a fake smoke alarm? Or asking the manufacturer of the smart car to drive suspects directly to the police station? 如果苹果可以被迫修改其手机的安全协议,那么还有什么能阻止FBI要求智能烟雾报警器制造商发出虚假烟雾报警?或者要求生产智能汽车的制造商让嫌疑人乘坐的汽车直接开到警察局? All of this would seem neat so long as the government agencies were competent and nobody else could take advantage of such vulnerabilities. 所有这些似乎都会安然无事,只要政府机构有能力,而且其他人无法利用这些脆弱性。 This is not so. The San Bernardino case — where the FBI had a chance to break into the phone but blew it by changing the suspect’s Apple password — suggests that the FBI’s technical competence does not yet match the NSA’s. 但情况并非如此,在圣贝纳迪诺击案中,联邦调查局曾经有机会破解那部手机,但在修改嫌疑人的苹果密码时搞砸了。这表明,联邦调查局的技术能力还赶不上美国国家安全局。 And it would be suicidal to force technology companies to weaken security at a time when institutions of all sorts are vulnerable to hackers demanding ransoms — earlier this month, a hospital in California paid the bitcoin equivalent of ,000 to hackers who had breached its computer network. 在各类机构容易受到索要赎金的黑客的攻击之际,迫使科技公司削弱产品的安全性无异于自杀。本月早些时候,加州一家医院向攻击其电脑网络的黑客付了价值相当于1.7万美元的比特币。 Apple’s proposed solution is the right one: America needs a comprehensive political debate on the issue — one that would bypass inter-agency squabbling. 苹果提出的解决方案是正确的:美国需要就这个问题展开一场全面的政治辩论,这场辩论将绕开机构之间的争吵。 Alas, given how little the current batch of presidential candidates seems to care, or even understand, these issues, this debate is not likely to happen. 唉,当前的各位总统候选人似乎都不太关心这些问题,甚至不太了解,因此这场辩论不太可能出现。 /201603/429552
分页 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29