Slashdot Mirror

1993 DRAM costs were ~$2/Mbit, so ~$8 for 4MByte. I suppose I was remembering 1997 or so pricing before they finally started putting in decent sized buffers, and a whole CD/MP3 player unit sold for less than $100 retail.

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/Log...

Still, call it $30 system cost - in a 10 disc CD changer that retailed for $900+ they couldn't increase system cost by 3% of retail to have a player that doesn't skip?

RNA World

Mayhaps more important than you think.

Oooops: By Confidence level meant beta or Criterion Level. Check this: http://linkage.rockefeller.edu/wli/glossary/stat.html#beta Most experiments ask for 50%.

Ralph Steinman has died, he might not be awarded the Nobel after all. http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=1192

Look up "The RNA Hypothesis" and for some fun videos: Try these lectures.

TL;DR - DNA was probably not the original genomic material, it was probably RNA. And there is an increasing body of experimental evidence that creates a plausible series of links between likely prebiotic conditions on earth and the subsequent appearance of self replicating chemical entities that could then evolve into Life As We Know It.

Lots of big jumps between the Primordial Ooze and Dancing with the Stars but the general framework is really possible and very interesting.

But are you referring to the hot or cold biosphere as being hostile? Ever hear of the deep, hot biosphere? (PDF)

it's possible that we have to make a choice between a significant economic and technological gain and your beachfront property going underwater

Considering that one third of human population lives at less than 100 meters altitude, I fail to see how there could be a significant economic gain in letting sea level increase.

Here, let me help. This brief blurb discusses Dr. Breaker's research history a bit better and shows where this current research stems from. He is a proponent of the "RNA World" hypothesis and actually has done some seminal research in the field.

Back to the car.... Hmmm.... OK - the RNA World hypothesis states that the first nucleic acid (the chemical responsible to for transmitting genetic information) was RNA. Breaker's hypothesis is that if that is the case, one should find RNA-based control structures somewhere since they are ancestral and nature loves to preserve ancestral things (don't recreate the wheel very often and if you do, keep a copy of the old wheel stashed somewhere).

He did find evidence of this in the coenzyme that helps vitamin B12 activity (see the previous link). So, perhaps these new RNA molecules have some sort of control function.

So, it's like finding a whole class of levers and rods that allow your car to do things when you were expecting that buttons and switches did all of the work.

Does that help?

Nice summary. Better than the summary. More interesting stuff on RNA as the precursor to life here.

the biggest problem is the jump from non-life to life and the fact that you have a system going from less complex to more complex which, as far as I know, still defies the law of entropy.

Lots of research on this. Obviously, until we get the time machine all debugged (Apple, I'm looking at you ...) it's speculative, but very interesting and very amenable to experiment. See, for example, the RNA to Human lectures. Apologies in advance for the link to Quicktime stuff (Apple, I'm still looking at you ....).

I love how you just proclaim those as facts we should all just accept.

It's the same way your claim that "modern medicine has doubled life expectancies in the last 100 years" was presented.

Diet and sanitation are unquestionably important factors but if you are going to pronounce them as "more" important than medicine, public health policy, economic development, or even education you need to provide evidence.

I did not mention public health policy, economic development, or education. And neither did you in your original post: you credited medical care with all of the increase.

Some of the top ten causes of death in 1900 such a diptheria did not significantly decline until a vaccine was widely disseminated.

Incorrect. Diptheria deaths were on the way down (chart from this report) long before the vaccine was first widely used in 1941.

As explained in the report linked above, respiratory diseases are to a large degree associated with crowding and unfavorable living and working conditions. Their decline is due to many factors: the end of tenements and sweatshops, cleaner heating and energy systems, nutrition, and public health measures. Actual medical treatment is just one factor.

Hey, I like my doctor, she's great. But take any major city and have all the garbage collector and plumbers and janitors and handymen go on strike for a year, and it would have an impact on health much greater than if all the doctors went on strike. It has been estimated that medical treatments contributed only about 3.5% of the decline in mortality from disease in the first three-quarters of the 20th century. (Page 21 of the linked PDF.)

Frankly I think you are full of nonsensical opinions, faulty reasoning and your ideas are unsupported by actual facts.

I've given you facts; you've provided nothing but medical technofetishism. That's not science, not disciplined critical thinking based on observation: it's the cultish worship of the secondary or tertiary trappings you associate with science.

I love how you just proclaim those as facts we should all just accept.

It's the same way your claim that "modern medicine has doubled life expectancies in the last 100 years" was presented.

Diet and sanitation are unquestionably important factors but if you are going to pronounce them as "more" important than medicine, public health policy, economic development, or even education you need to provide evidence.

I did not mention public health policy, economic development, or education. And neither did you in your original post: you credited medical care with all of the increase.

Some of the top ten causes of death in 1900 such a diptheria did not significantly decline until a vaccine was widely disseminated.

Incorrect. Diptheria deaths were on the way down (chart from this report) long before the vaccine was first widely used in 1941.

As explained in the report linked above, respiratory diseases are to a large degree associated with crowding and unfavorable living and working conditions. Their decline is due to many factors: the end of tenements and sweatshops, cleaner heating and energy systems, nutrition, and public health measures. Actual medical treatment is just one factor.

Hey, I like my doctor, she's great. But take any major city and have all the garbage collector and plumbers and janitors and handymen go on strike for a year, and it would have an impact on health much greater than if all the doctors went on strike. It has been estimated that medical treatments contributed only about 3.5% of the decline in mortality from disease in the first three-quarters of the 20th century. (Page 21 of the linked PDF.)

Frankly I think you are full of nonsensical opinions, faulty reasoning and your ideas are unsupported by actual facts.

I've given you facts; you've provided nothing but medical technofetishism. That's not science, not disciplined critical thinking based on observation: it's the cultish worship of the secondary or tertiary trappings you associate with science.

I think this is the link you're looking for. Apologys to somebody since it's the third time I've posted it on this thread, but it is interesting.

This hypothesis has very little credibility now in the 'real' scientific world. It might still be in high school and college textbooks and some of you armchair scientists might know of them but the probability of it actually happening that way is so very low that even hardcore (read: religionist) evolutionists just look at it and say 'meh, let's look at something else'.

Um, say what? 'Which' particular hypothesis has very little credibility? Abiogenesis? Just because it's a difficult field of study doesn't mean it is either uninteresting, unfunded or un-anything. For your edification and enjoyment a few crackpot lectures.

Prepare to be surprised. And impressed (at least I was - neat series).

Someone else already addressed the windfarm. I have no response to hydro and geothermal.

..... Eventually, solar will work too, but since solar isn't reliable it will never be a primary power source until someone invents a magic battery.

The average idiot only sees solar electric. There are other forms of solar such as solar thermal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy These can store the thermal energy for later use. They will have the standard plumbing maintenance problems that would be similar to any other thermally powered plants(coal, geothermal, nuclear, etc...). Then, there's solar hot water heating for the home which would just be an extra hot water heater.

While solar electric is not a panacea, it can certainly offset peak usage during hot days in areas where heavy air-conditioning is in use. It's perfect for the situation. It generates electricity during peak hours where the average user uses the most electricity. This will reduce the number of peak generation plants that have to be started, reducing overal fossil fuel usage. This reduces our overall reliance on imported oil, which runs peak generation plants. Reducing our foreign dependence will reduce our need to be involved in overseas oil markets. While it won't be good for the oil conglomerates, it's good for the country. Our baseline plants mainly run coal or nuclear which can't be turned on and off so quickly and we have plenty of our own fuel for those.

The disadvantage of solar electric that everyone ignores is that silicon products have a half life and that the manufacture of silicon chips of all kinds does require energy and toxic chemicals that do get leaked into the system. Look up the chemical leaks in the sf bay area and you'll see that there are frequent enough leaks into the bay over the years to make it worrisome. http://phe.rockefeller.edu/comm_risk/commrsk4.html While it's good to do more research, solar electric still has many drawbacks. Although the price is expected to drop with the emerging technologies, that price still hasn't reached the reqular consumer.

Not only is solar electric still quite expensive, the cheaper alternative of solar water heating is frequently ignored. Solar water heating should be pushed quite a bit more especially in California where many electric generation plants use the very same natural gas to produce the electricity. Cutting that gas usage in California would also cut electric bills overall where utilities use gas to generate more than half the electricity. (Basic supply & demand - reduce overall used = reduced price) For some homes that have radiant floor heating, solar thermal would be a much better and cheaper system that provides a faster return than the solar electric.

btw: Solar water heating made headway during the early 20th century, until natural gas provided a cheaper alternative to fuel oil.

Every energy source has its advanatages and disadvantages. While it's good to subsidize the systems to get them adopted, we shouldn't just concentrate on the one glamorous system. We should be subsidizing all the reasonable alternatives. We certainly do need to try them all in the right places to reduce overal fossil fuel reliance and mitigate price fluctuations. We shouldn't be ignoring the lesser known systems that will benefit all of us as well.

As for the topic of ULEVs, they cost more and require parts to be shipped all over the world to be processed or made, which all still currently use fossil fuel. Unless that ULEV is used for more than 10 years, those hybrid drivers are just the usual assholes who are using their car to show off their wealth. You're not really cutting back on greenhouse gasses, you're just shifting it to another part of the globe. While battery life may have improved since the first generation, the my brother

but whatever simpler thing existed before it is a mystery,

If you have the time and inclination, you might want to wander through the first four of these lectures. They talk about using simple RNA chemistries as tools for coming with with potential progenitors to Life As We Know It. Quite interesting and of course rather speculative.

Evolution has NOTHING to say about the origin of life.

Run through these lectures and see if you agree with what you just wrote.

Error!
Unable to locate the News Relase you specified.

I get the home page OK. On there is a link to where the video is: http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=763 That page loads too, with the following text where I assume the video would be: "Error! Unable to locate the News Relase you specified."

This has already been debunked with human psychophysics by Leslie Vosshall at The Rockefeller University.

Lay person article: http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/news_notes/rus_ 032604_b.php

Primary research article (pdf): http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/reprints/KellerVos shall2004.pdf

It irks me that this gets no mention anywhere in the goofball parent article.

"This is a big step forward," says Turin, who has now set up his own perfume company Flexitral in Virginia. He says that since he published his theory, "it has been ignored rather than criticized."

Well maybe not ignored; just fully tested and found lacking.

But Horsfield stresses that that's different from a proof of Turin's idea. "So far things look plausible, but we need proper experimental verification. We're beginning to think about what experiments could be performed."

They've already been performed and disproved the theory. Jeesh.

This has already been debunked with human psychophysics by Leslie Vosshall at The Rockefeller University.

Lay person article: http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/news_notes/rus_ 032604_b.php

Primary research article (pdf): http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/reprints/KellerVos shall2004.pdf

It irks me that this gets no mention anywhere in the goofball parent article.

"This is a big step forward," says Turin, who has now set up his own perfume company Flexitral in Virginia. He says that since he published his theory, "it has been ignored rather than criticized."

Well maybe not ignored; just fully tested and found lacking.

But Horsfield stresses that that's different from a proof of Turin's idea. "So far things look plausible, but we need proper experimental verification. We're beginning to think about what experiments could be performed."

They've already been performed and disproved the theory. Jeesh.

Often in managed forests, where, as you triumphantly declare: trees are "specifically grown to supply paper", the trees that have been planted are not indigenous to the region. This endangers native plant and animal species, such as in Chile.

Early this year, some work at Rockefeller University looked promising, but then came a retraction. A lab technique problem made the results look better than they were. Work continues to try to unscramble this mess. Because there are so few people showing this kind of immunity, it's hard to figure out what's really going on.

These people are benign carriers; i.e. they can infect others. This isn't like a vaccine response.

There has been some investigation into the predictive capacity of vibration theory. Results were not consistent with Turin's predictions.

"We didn't disprove the vibration theory. We just didn't find anything to support it," says assistant professor Leslie B. Vosshall, Ph.D., head of the Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Behavior. "All of our data are consistent with the shape theory, but don't prove the shape theory."

One thing in the Nobel prize press release that should jump out at anyone who is familiar with Turin is, "most odours are composed of multiple odorant molecules." They do hedge that claim immediately with, "each odorant molecule activates several odorant receptors."

The major mark against traditional explanations of smell is there are just too many smells for each one to correspond to a unique receptor. Certainly receptors working in combination may explains many thousands of unique smells coming from some 1000 receptors. However we know of many thousands of different smells coming from pure molecules. Any theory of smell should consider mixtures, but cannot depend on mixtures to explain the wide range of smells coming from a limited number of receptors.

The press release is light on methodology, and I have not read the original papers, but it seems the winning work is strictly theoretical.

Buck's research group examined the sensitivity of individual olfactory receptor cells to specific odorants. By means of a pipette, they emptied the contents of each cell and showed exactly which odorant receptor gene was expressed in that cell. In this way, they could correlate the response to a specific odorant with the particular type of receptor carried by that cell.

I don't think it's time to dismiss Turin completely, but I don't expect to see him making any acceptance speeches in Stockholm any time soon.

By the way, have you smelled the perfume he developed?

If you're a die hard Zipf's law fan you probably have Wentian Li's Zipf law page bookmarked.

For a good presentation on the research go to http://www.rockefeller.edu/ and click on the interactive movie.

I recently learned about Zipf's Law, which uses a very simple formula to predict quantities of all sorts of things.

It's truly amazing. For example, it accurately predicts the populations of the 10 most populous cities, the number of appearances of the 10 most oft-used words on the entire Web, etc.

From a quick Google query: "Zipf's law, named after the Harvard linguistic professor George Kingsley Zipf (1902-1950), is the observation that frequency of occurrence of some event ( P ), as a function of the rank ( i) when the rank is determined by the above frequency of occurrence, is a power-law function Pi ~ 1/ia with the exponent a close to unity."

Here is some more information: http://linkage.rockefeller.edu/wli/zipf/

It is not unusual that when the system use is ordered by quantity that Zipf's Law holds. It hapens with most stable, randomly distributed, self-organizing systems.

Scientists at Rockefeller University in New York announced today in the journal Nature that a protein used by a bacteriophage (a virus that kills bacteria) can be used to quickly detect and kill anthrax. Last year, it took days to check a building for anthrax spores, but this method of causing the bacteria's cell wall to burst and yield an easily-detectible dye would cut the uncertainty to a period of minutes. It can also be used in a drug to kill strains of anthrax that have grown resistant to antibiotics. Rockefeller University has additional info, and the NYTimes has an article.

The Nature article also mentions an interesting tidbit about a difference between Western and Russian medicine: "Such 'phage therapy' is routine in Russia - the concept is over 80 years old - but was ousted by antibiotics in the West." A nice reminder that ignoring one approach in favor of another can have disastrous results."

Do you want some statistics? I'll give you some cheap ones. So cheap that I didn't even need to research to get them!!!:-)

If you measure it, you will find that the data follows Zipf's Law. This is the law that reigns the frequency of english words in a text, the most visited web sites, and a lot of other interesting things. It is an exponencial curve, where very few data has a very high frequency (i.e. the word "the" in english texts, yahoo and hotmail in the web), and a huge amount of data has very low frequency.

The most important thing to remember is that although the hundred most visited sites may have 40% of the time users on line, the majority of the web and of the time spend in it are in the small sites. Even if very few have a lot of influence, the web is still the land of diversity. In radio, TV and big newspapers, you just have a hand full of genres and points of view. In the web and napster you have variety.

The idea of making a portal out of it is interesting but BLAST has been around for some time...

True. There's A LOT of sites dealing with various facets of genetic information. Starting from databases containing 'raw' DNA sequences coming off various genome sequencing projects (no, it's not only human; genomes of twenty or so organisms have been or are being sequenced at the moment) all the way to servers trying to interpret the data. Just check Pedro's list or one of the mirrors in Germany or Switzerland. And note that this is not so current (in fact nearly 3 years old) but already pretty long list...

An exponential function? Not hardly.

It's closer to a logistic function, although even that doesn't fit well.

For a real look at forecasting of human populations, check out "Human Population Dynamics Revisited with the Logistic Model: How Much Can Be Modeled and Predicted?"

A couple of extracts:

The use of the logistic model is widely established in many fields of modeling and forecasting. It has a controversial history in population ecology, a point to which we return near the end of this article. One of a family of density-dependent functions, the logistic law of growth assumes simply that systems grow exponentially under the constraints of an upper limit producing a typical S-shaped curve.

The reason why the logistics work well with most animal populations is that the niches that encase the populations are of constant size. When the animals can invent new technologies, such as when bacteria produce a new enzyme to dismantle a sleepy component of their broth, then we face a problem. New logistics suddenly pop up, either growing from the limit of the prior one or, if the invention came early, in the course of the first logistic.