Yes, things like: -Halo -Video editing -Statistical analysis for hundreds of thousands of data points -Half-Life -Videoconferencing -Google Earth Sure,
no no no... those are all examples of work which inherantly requires more computational work. What I meant was that it is that there exists no reason what so ever that modern operating systems require at least 300 megabytes of RAM to render a basic GUI when a computer with 32 megs can do it *better* than that. Go ahead, try it some time, try and use a modern OS on 32 megs- see how far you get. Now try loading an old OS, not too old as to not be able to load whatever software you require and you will find that it runs faster on older platforms than it does a modern one. Fascinating isn't it? And before anyone suggests that security is the reason- that's also a lie. Properly configured an old OS is still pretty safe and very usable. Many are supported by long term security patch efforts and work just fine.
Not like these young pups who think that CPU speeds and hard disk space are so large as to be infinite and not worth bothering with.
no, software bloat took care of that. You can't tell me there isn't something wrong with the fact that a computer with 20x less power can do the same basic things as a modern computer.
I thought the same thing although a personal shield and an energy weapon equivalent of a shotgun would be a lot better:P watch things hit the shield making a blue splash of light and the resulting shot from the energy weapon instantly logging the spamatars off. You could use it in your "house" but no where else so it doesn't lead to... what am I saying? that would be an amusing and efficient way to dispose of known spamatars wherever they are. Give a bounty or something and let the players have fun with it. Only let them pick off the spamatars [no random killings]
I didn't mean it that way, I was referring to the fact that if an organism mutates too slowly, it's genetic code tends not to produces useful mutations nearly as fast as it could otherwise. OTOH, a genome that mutates too quickly will produce too many deleterious mutations as to kill that genetic line. So it's a balance between allowing for positive mutations and preventing deleterious ones. Different species evolve different genetic repair mechanisms depending on their environment and selection pressure.
For starters, there is no part of the genome or ribosomes or whatever that actually produces mutations. On the contrary, most of the complexity in your cells is to prevent mutations, to the best of possibilities.
I used to think the same way about it but the more I looked into it the more I realized that there is a way for species to regulate their evolution in a way. Genetic repair mechanisms to be exact. They have evolved to have some level of accuracy; this is different depending on what species you are talking about. Over time, species would evolve genetic repair mechanisms that best suited their survival. A perfect repair mechanism isn't necessarily in a species' best interest. If your genetic code doesn't mutate, your species isn't going anywhere evolutionarily because it can not change- it can't adapt as well as a species whose genetic code could mutate more frequently. Too many mutations kill organisms so over time you would expect there to be an equilibrium between a very efficient genetic repair mechanism and one that allowed for genetic change. That's including a genome where you can fiddle with what is there and be ok- there's nothing preventing that either.
The very fact that you age is, pretty much, a defense against cancer: cells have a maximum division number counter, based on what tumor size still likely wouldn't kill you. (Hence also why larger species tend to live longer: they get a bigger limit there.) When more and more cells have reached that limit, then more and more damage can't be repaired, and you discover the fun of old age. And then you die
The shortening of telemeres with age does indeed protect against cancer although the link between the length of a telemere is a dubious test of longevity. some small rodents for example, lengthen their telemeres because the gene that produces telemerase doesn't switch off in early development like a lot of other species. They don't live that long, not because of the length of their telemeres, but because of other factors.
Consider this: suppose there were a vastly more efficient genetic repair enzyme that caused bacteria to be far less likely to mutate. Would this enzyme give an overall advantage [preventing deleterious mutations] over the current genetic repair enzymes [good but not perfect] in the case of antibiotics? In that case, a lack of genetic change is a disadvantage.
There is a reason religion is expected to mix badly with science here on slashdot. Namely because one requires evidence without faith and the other requires faith without evidence. Religious fundamentalism requires that a person believe unquestionably in a text. Some people take it way too far as to attack anything that opposes their religious views although this is generally a minority view. I will say this though, anyone who blindly opposes scientific principles in favor of their pre-conceived beliefs on the world has my complete contempt.
It depends on what kind of mutation you are introducing. regions that are more able to withstand point mutations which is much the case with substitutions of glutamic acid for aspartic acid and vice versa would not tolerate an insertion of a transposon or viral genetic material the same way. Point mutations are one thing, insertions of significant sections of genetic material is quite another. There is also the consideration of where exactly the genetic material is located. Genetic material located farther from loci of chromosomes generally mutate faster. You would then expect more mutation tolerant sections of genetic material away from loci because of this effect. Given the fact that over 8% of our genome consists of ancient viral and bacterial DNA, we have a lot of genetic material that can be analyzed through statistics.
"...evolved to the point where they work well with evolution"
ya think?
It doesn't mean what you think it means. What the article was talkin about in this regard is that a genome will tend to evolve in such a way that mutation rates will be at a good rate for the organism. Not too many as to cause irreversable damage to the genetic line and not too few as to cripple the organism's ability to adapt genetically to the environment.
In this first image, you can see the toy's tiny LCD screen. It's small, because it's being forced to fit within the proportions of the Wiimote. The screen is almost too small to be useful at all, and is nearly impossible to play. This gets even worse when playing in the "motion" controlled mode, which supposedly lets you control by moving the thing. I wouldn't know, since it's nearly impossible to move the toy and see the tiny screen at the same time.
I would hope that any parent thinking of buying this would use some fairly rudimentary logic to deduce that it is indeed garbage. Given the sheer number of people who shop at walmart, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if many did actually bother to buy this.
Or maybe it is of interest to chemists because it's some sort of exotic catalytic reaction ?
we have a winner. There are better energy solutions than using alcohols [which are usually made at the expense of food production]. Food that otherwise could have fed millions of people and saved many lives.
Why do people keep supporting these F---s? Stop feeding their legal tirades; stop buying their music, stop copying their music. The last thing you want to do is make their music more popular. Support indie bands instead, put your money where your mouth is and hopefully that will help create a new music-based economy that isn't so draconian.
The reaction rate of oxidizing hydrogen or even many alcohols isn't a problem with the catalysts in current use, the porblem is that the catalysts are based on platinum, rhodium etc.. which are extremely expensive. The catalyst in this case is based on Iridium which is also very expensive, if not more so than Platinum. Lcohols are not an unusual starting material for making water and giving off large amounts of energy in an oxidation reaction. Methanol for example, in contact with Platinum in air will oxidize to formaldehyde and water releasing enough heat to eventually cause the platinum to glow red. This is in fact used to great effect in certain fire-starting mechanisms.
...Anyone notice that the website that this article is on prevents you from navigating away via the browswer back button?
that's what noscript is for. by default it will not execute javascript code unless you actually allow it to do so. Also, middle clicking on a link in firefox opens it in another tab, there is no point in them trying to prevent you from navigating backward since you can just close the tab.
Thomas edison and the war of the currents. Edison did some very cruel experiments on animals to show that AC was more dangerous than DC. He electrocuted dogs, elephants and even advocated for the use of the electric chair powered specifically by AC current. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents
Wouldn't these new battlefield wireless networks give off a radio signal? Couldn't someone with the right equipment then deduce the position of any force using such equipment for a tactical advantage?
the whole point of encryption is to make a signal look like random noise, that being said, with all the background noise around the most you could do is determine that there is something making what appears to be random noise if that, to an outsider it might not even be detectable if you didn't know how to screen it out. Although it also means that because the military has the ability to communicate effectively it gives a much greater advantage than not having any communication most of the time. In the times where it would give no advantage to communicate, there is always radio silence.
The software research in these various areas has been largely academic and still relatively recent, he says. The real challenge will be to bring all these together in a deployable, $500 radio that actually works in the field.
WAND is on a tight schedule. An initial technology demonstration is scheduled for January 2008, a second in September. "That's pretty outrageous even for some simple technologies," Redi admits.
very interesting technology if it ever gets deployed. It would be interesting to see what/if any commercial spin-offs ever get into the hands of civilians too
Using criteria such as whether the candidate was recognized in the national news media as a legitimate candidate
I think what they mean here is whether his attempt to be added to the ballet was to seriously run for office. That is debatable in Colbert's case, he has more than once made the point that he wasn't seriously trying to get elected although had that been incorrect it is a real pity- I'm sure a lot of people at least would vote for him had he had the chance.
The variant of Linux on the gPC is called gOS and is derived from the popular Ubuntu variant. It's heavily oriented toward Google's Web sites and online applications, like YouTube, Gmail and the company's word processing program, all of which can be used only when the computer is connected to a broadband line. The PC comes with a dialup modem, but gOS doesn't support it. So most users likely will get online other ways.
true, more and more people are using broadband but there are a lot of people who can't get it.
At this point I think Google would need a stand alone application to kill MS-powerpoint in particular directly. The two fill different niches, desktop-based applications are mor permanent and generally reliable without a connection while online tools allow the creation/distrobution of information quickly without a need to install or buy software. Very useful in an environment that restricts the installation of software that otherwise is useful for a task.
Let me get this straight... polticians are corrupt, so we shouldn't buy cellphones? Am I reading that correctly? Politicians are corrupt... so in response... we punish ourselves by not using a very convenient technology. Are we really that apathetic? Is that what this country has come to?
Cell phones are not essential to your existence, They are nice to have but life doesn't stop without them. To continue to support a company that engages in overtly illegal practices is not productive. Companies that do this sort of thing are demonstrating that the free market as it stands is not selecting against these kind of practices. By the time you require the intervention of your government in the matter, it is already too late. Refusing to monetarily support a cell phone company because of their illegal practices isn't apathetic, continuing to support them is.
The rest of your post I agree with although many changes in the public's voting behavior will need to occur because at the moment, those who vote for independants/alternatives are in the minority by far. People need to find a way to break the cycle of thought that keeps us locked into two extremely polar political parties, neither of which serve our interests.
Here's the 10 cent version: continuations are used when:
a) your inventor comes up with a new way of extending his invention (continuation in part);
b) you disclosed multiple distinct inventions in the original application, but only filed claims at one of them (continuation);
c) the patent office is being dense, and you have to argue your claims repeatedly (request for continuing examination); or
d) the patent office grants some of your claims, and you want to get an issued patent AND continue to argue about the others (continuation).
ok I get that part, so would I be correct in saying that if Compay A patented something and Company B discovered a new use for company A's invention, it wouldn't be eligible for a continuation from Company A in regard to the patent? that in this case Company B could if they wanted, file a seperate patent detailing a new use/product etc. based in part on the first patent?
The new rules are intended to speed patent reviews by the chronically understaffed USPTO. Among other things, they limit so-called "continuing applications" through which inventors can modify existing patent applications.
Murphy said the new rules would "severely limit the level of patent coverage you can get for an invention" if they are allowed to take effect.
so basically the argument that is being made is that if company A patents a technology/drug whatever and finds a new use for it they can extend the patent to include that finding? To what end?
The drug manufacturer contends that it, and other companies that invest heavily in research and development, needs the freedom to broaden their patent claims when new applications for their inventions are discovered.
so if someone other than them discovers a new application of their drug, who gets the rights to that finding? the company that developed the drug in the first place or the one that made use of it in a compeltely new way?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the same thing although a personal shield and an energy weapon equivalent of a shotgun would be a lot better :P watch things hit the shield making a blue splash of light and the resulting shot from the energy weapon instantly logging the spamatars off. You could use it in your "house" but no where else so it doesn't lead to... what am I saying? that would be an amusing and efficient way to dispose of known spamatars wherever they are. Give a bounty or something and let the players have fun with it. Only let them pick off the spamatars [no random killings]
I didn't mean it that way, I was referring to the fact that if an organism mutates too slowly, it's genetic code tends not to produces useful mutations nearly as fast as it could otherwise. OTOH, a genome that mutates too quickly will produce too many deleterious mutations as to kill that genetic line. So it's a balance between allowing for positive mutations and preventing deleterious ones. Different species evolve different genetic repair mechanisms depending on their environment and selection pressure.
The shortening of telemeres with age does indeed protect against cancer although the link between the length of a telemere is a dubious test of longevity. some small rodents for example, lengthen their telemeres because the gene that produces telemerase doesn't switch off in early development like a lot of other species. They don't live that long, not because of the length of their telemeres, but because of other factors. Consider this: suppose there were a vastly more efficient genetic repair enzyme that caused bacteria to be far less likely to mutate. Would this enzyme give an overall advantage [preventing deleterious mutations] over the current genetic repair enzymes [good but not perfect] in the case of antibiotics? In that case, a lack of genetic change is a disadvantage.
There is a reason religion is expected to mix badly with science here on slashdot. Namely because one requires evidence without faith and the other requires faith without evidence. Religious fundamentalism requires that a person believe unquestionably in a text. Some people take it way too far as to attack anything that opposes their religious views although this is generally a minority view. I will say this though, anyone who blindly opposes scientific principles in favor of their pre-conceived beliefs on the world has my complete contempt.
It depends on what kind of mutation you are introducing. regions that are more able to withstand point mutations which is much the case with substitutions of glutamic acid for aspartic acid and vice versa would not tolerate an insertion of a transposon or viral genetic material the same way. Point mutations are one thing, insertions of significant sections of genetic material is quite another. There is also the consideration of where exactly the genetic material is located. Genetic material located farther from loci of chromosomes generally mutate faster. You would then expect more mutation tolerant sections of genetic material away from loci because of this effect. Given the fact that over 8% of our genome consists of ancient viral and bacterial DNA, we have a lot of genetic material that can be analyzed through statistics.
Why do people keep supporting these F---s? Stop feeding their legal tirades; stop buying their music, stop copying their music. The last thing you want to do is make their music more popular. Support indie bands instead, put your money where your mouth is and hopefully that will help create a new music-based economy that isn't so draconian.
The reaction rate of oxidizing hydrogen or even many alcohols isn't a problem with the catalysts in current use, the porblem is that the catalysts are based on platinum, rhodium etc.. which are extremely expensive. The catalyst in this case is based on Iridium which is also very expensive, if not more so than Platinum. Lcohols are not an unusual starting material for making water and giving off large amounts of energy in an oxidation reaction. Methanol for example, in contact with Platinum in air will oxidize to formaldehyde and water releasing enough heat to eventually cause the platinum to glow red. This is in fact used to great effect in certain fire-starting mechanisms.
Thomas edison and the war of the currents. Edison did some very cruel experiments on animals to show that AC was more dangerous than DC. He electrocuted dogs, elephants and even advocated for the use of the electric chair powered specifically by AC current.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents
very interesting technology if it ever gets deployed. It would be interesting to see what/if any commercial spin-offs ever get into the hands of civilians too
No, quoting RedvsBlue: "Bad marketing. not enough repeated letters to be catchy, so it's being replaced with HHDDVVDDBVDs"
then again Bluray is already obsolete er I mean red-ray
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/575487/red_vs_blue_go_go_gadget_video/
true, more and more people are using broadband but there are a lot of people who can't get it.
At this point I think Google would need a stand alone application to kill MS-powerpoint in particular directly. The two fill different niches, desktop-based applications are mor permanent and generally reliable without a connection while online tools allow the creation/distrobution of information quickly without a need to install or buy software. Very useful in an environment that restricts the installation of software that otherwise is useful for a task.
The rest of your post I agree with although many changes in the public's voting behavior will need to occur because at the moment, those who vote for independants/alternatives are in the minority by far. People need to find a way to break the cycle of thought that keeps us locked into two extremely polar political parties, neither of which serve our interests.
thanks. I think by the looks of it, I'll need to do a lot more research. -wizardforce
so if someone other than them discovers a new application of their drug, who gets the rights to that finding? the company that developed the drug in the first place or the one that made use of it in a compeltely new way?