In countless ways, spatiotemporally proximal organisms interact bi-directionally. For an extreme example: A student tends a dish of cells and the student's subsequent experiences (including chances of reproducing) are affected.
A succesful student gains momentum for a career boost, rocketing towards a tenure-track job-chase. Unsuccessful students are more likely to reproduce.
There's a wealth of useful equipment on eBay and other places, big expensive equipment is not out of the reach of the dedicated researcher. Ben Krasnow has three (I think) electron microscopes. I personally own a UV/VIS spectrophotometer. a microgram scale, and a Weston cell.
The idea that "research can only be done at the behest of government" or "is only associated with university" is a modern fiction. Government would *like* you to believe that everything depends on their whim and largesse, but it's not the only, nor even the best way.
Build a lab and start tinkering, or join a hackerspace. Lots of people do it. Lots of good science is done this way.
Electron microscopes are pricey. UV/VIS specs, mmg balances, and weston cells, not so much.
High field NMR spectrometers and x-ray crystallography setups? You're dreaming. Thanks for playing!
The chemical layout of Tofacitinib looks fairly similar to estrogen. We've known for ages that giving MPB-afflicted men estrogen will result in hair regrowth. Unfortunately, it also makes them grow breasts, but that's besides the point.
Throwing my moderations in this disccusion to reply to this - there ought to be a "Wrong" mod option;)
Nope, it's nothing like estrogen. One might as well conclude the structures are related to LSD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
I am an organic chemist currently working in drug design and would conclude these compounds are, from a molecular standpoint, extremely disparate.
God this sounds familiar..... and that's because I wrote a PhD thesis about building a system to do something a lot like this. It involved a fairly mediocre web interface wrapping a database of trust relationships specified by end users. A trusts B for 0.7 and B trusts C for 0.6 then you can put together a trust level between A and C by multiplying those together with some user-tweakable distance dropoff. Those trust levels were then measured against the levels required for access to shared data. Maybe you would allow anyone with a 0.7 or higher to read a given document and a 0.9 or higher to contribute to it. It was an interesting idea, but man did I get tired of it by the end. If for some bizarre reason anyone wants to read bits of it google books has some indexed and I probably have a pdf laying around somewhere....
I figured it could be quite useful, but I was so fed up with the work in mid-2007 that I never looked back at it.
Thanks for laboring through a thesis on the topic, it's an occasional daydream of mine and I would love a copy.:-)
Which would work well if you could trust people to consistently submit "trust statements" truthfully and accurately. Sometimes people lie when they tell you who they trust and who they don't.
People lie but no so much when their lies are detremental to them. Such a web of trust could only be conned by 'fake' nodes which would have a very hard time developing any links to 'real' nodes.
People tend to get demetia as a result of brain age in cases where their bodies don't check out first. My hypothesis is that cynicism correlates with good physical health and a long life terminated only by the action of entrophy on the CNS.
Right. Most people in Africa have no electricity. Gotcha. And those without electricity are the ones paying for used PCs, $15k per container, to dump them to save Americans recycling dollars. Gotcha.
The urban electrification rate in Africa is 59%. Nigeria had 6.9 million households with televisions in 2006. You are more likely to be hit by a Mercedes than to die from a machete or burning computer. This e-waste hoax never stops giving.
I don't know what your intent is in that statement but you forgot to mention that the distribution of Africa's population is 2:3 urban:rural, so the overall electrification rate is 24%. If your intent was to highlight that Africa has far bigger needs (and needs coverage of more pressing issues than) live USB thumb drives, you should have mentioned that.
In your own domain -- Molecular Dynamics -- you might wish to send your initial configuration (position and velocities) to a colleague/reviewer who is using a different compiler. He could, in principle, reproduce your trajectory exactly. (Otherwise, there is a compiler error.)
You might not wish to routinely run with IEEE arithmetic, because it is slower. But for those folks who need it, it is right there at their fingertips and totally and completely (ANSI/ISO) standard.
The position and velocities or seed value will allow for reproduction of trajectories up to a certain point. Accumulation-derived errors take quite some time to develop and are acceptable. This is why relatively lossy GPU hybrid single-precision / double precision accumulation codes for CUDA are acceptable (and a game changer). Over an extended time the simulation will sample the same phase space. If the same phase space isn't sampled the simulation isn't run long enough or the model is bunk:-)
Genders, races, and social classes have different genetic makeups and hence different abilities.
It's taboo to say this. You should ask yourself why.
It's widely accepted that there are fewer genetic similiarities between individuals of the same 'race' as there are between individuals from different 'races.'
There is tremendous overlap in most behavioural characteristics and physical abilities between male and female genders - most distributions appear bi-modal but in many cases 40+ % of the population falls on the side of the distribution attributed to the 'other' gender.
You you refer to as taboo is taboo because it's wrong.
I see your point but really, drop the "womyn-born-womyn" thing, it's...weird to read. I assume you must be transgendered? (which is totally fine by me, it's not like you got a choice) .
In that case I get why you say it, but really, women since birth are still the norm, it's off to make the distinction in this context.
Making the distinction is a way of drawing attention to the norm of describing trans-gendered people as trans-gendered rather than as the gender they choose to identify with. Maybe a bit passive agressive, but hardly unwarranted.
Having dwelved in same field (a few years of academic research), I have to point out that there is an infuriating reliance on black-box methodology in computational chemistry and molecular modeling.
Conversely, I've read synthetic methodology chem papers with obvious errors (at least in the supporting information documents); e.g. describing preparing a solution with a final volume of 2.5 mL in a vessel of smaller capacity (1.5 mL or 2 mL).
If a writer provides too little information, there is an implicit assumuption that the writer has the wisdom to determine what's relevant. An alternative is that meaningless yet observed (once) correlations, when observed, lead to publications.
There's no such thing as too much information, but researchers become frustrated and cut corners if obligated to fill in what they perceive as the smallest details, such as the size of a microcentrifuge tube in which a solution was prepared.
I think a more dynamic and accessible peer review system is warranted. A web of trust model, perhaps.
The effect will hopefully be for users to make their own damn vpn (really, it's not hard) and stop trusting third parties for things that should be confidential.
Setting up your own VPN isn't going to fix a thing. Whether you establish your credentials in plaintext or encrypted, there is a MiTM vector for capturing those credentials - unless you're moving data by sneakernet.
The only one that's ripping me off right now is AT&T, and that's only because Comcast would screw me harder. All I'm buying from them is DSL and I'm paying $47 a month. Meanwhile on my phone I not only get unlimited internet* (with email from my 10 year old address, YouTube, Google), but a phone with long distance, voicemail, 411, roaming, all unlimited and included in the $42 I pay them. I'm not going to name them but they're not the only ones and some may even be better. I've been with them for 5 years with no problems except their website is an ugly clusterfuck, but most are these days.
Hell, even my credit card company doesn't screw me over, and I'll bet most of you the people you guys deal with don't screw you, either. But you're nerds, and we're not normal (at least I'm not). I use a small local bank, and they're damned near free. Wasting your money is stupid.
But most people? Hell, I'll tell people what I'm paying for my phone when they're paying three times that for less stuff, and they go on using the expensive carrier they're with. And switching carriers is easy; maybe expensive if you're on a contract but easy.
Why in the hell am I paying seven dollars more for internet alone than a phone WITH internet?? I guess because there's competition in the cell phone business. I wish my phone company sold internet.
* I listen to KSHE on it all day long at work, that's eight hours a day using its radio, plus when I ask it the temperature or read a novel or newspaper
Yikes. My "cell phone" company offers just LTE internet as a service. If I used my device as a phone only (say, 2000-3000 minutes and as many text messages) I'd pay $12/month.
Voice and text data is small data.
Sorry, it was a completely true story, tongue-in-cheek only in delivery (as has become my fashion when relating that particular gem). Perhaps I should be more concerned about what I write since this thread is now "viral" on The Globe and Mail, but I'm not an IT guy or a security contractor or anything.
I learned many (now obsolete) skills but more importantly, learned to work hard to achieve what I wanted (communicating with other people around the world who wouldn't look down upon my diminuitive form and assume I was ignorant), and achieving it with whatever I had available. I suspect my problem solving skills were enhanced by such endeavors as well. I am good at solving both puzzles and real scientific problems.
Dr. Zim's post below about the iPod training device to earn an iPhone is actually pretty decent advice but I don't believe in training my kids. It's probably the pick of the thread for anyone desiring a normative reply.
I don't have a concrete recommendation on what to buy but want to offset the attacks you're getting with some encouragement. I am a well-adjusted father with a six year old daughter and an eight year old son. I spend lots of time with my kids every day, and don't ever feel like video chatting with them while we're not together, but have no issues with them having their own phones. I'm only 28 so I still remember what it was like to be four years old. I would have loved to have had such a device and wish I did have one at that age.
My first computer was an Apple ][e from a garage sale at the age of eight (circa 1993) and it took me very little time (maybe a year) to figure out how to dial up the local freenet on my 1200/300 baud (couldn't get a stable connection at 1.2 kbaud!) modem, register an account with a completely fabricated credit card number and fictitious identity (I recall I specified my address as 123 Pooskin Rd.), and enjoy several months of access to lynx and pine. Ah, the good old days...
Of course, when my parents found out, they freaked out and made me call up the freenet folks and apologize. I pretended to leave a message on their answering machine but (thanks to text files I'd read) I knew to put my finger on the "hang-up" switch while reciting my apology and explanation. The account worked for several more years (bless those techno-anarchists' hearts for recognizing a kid in need), but my dad went ahead and purchased PPP dial-up service shortly afterwards to prevent any more "incidents."
The moral of this story? If your kid needs mobile LTE internet, better give him a phone. Otherwise, he's going to get an early start on subversive behavior, perhaps stealing other people's phones.
Proteins fold by trial-and-errol, and yes, they can become "stuck" in local minima (become denatured). That they don't routinely do so it due to evolved mechanisms (chaperones, a mostly-downhill energy gradient on the path from synthesis to folded state) and due to the rate of conformational exploration at higher-energy states. These mechanisms aren't obvious to us, and so we have a very difficult time predicting their course of action on a given polypeptide sequence.
Slashdot Mirror
In countless ways, spatiotemporally proximal organisms interact bi-directionally. For an extreme example: A student tends a dish of cells and the student's subsequent experiences (including chances of reproducing) are affected.
A succesful student gains momentum for a career boost, rocketing towards a tenure-track job-chase. Unsuccessful students are more likely to reproduce.
X201 same issue.
There's a wealth of useful equipment on eBay and other places, big expensive equipment is not out of the reach of the dedicated researcher. Ben Krasnow has three (I think) electron microscopes. I personally own a UV/VIS spectrophotometer. a microgram scale, and a Weston cell.
The idea that "research can only be done at the behest of government" or "is only associated with university" is a modern fiction. Government would *like* you to believe that everything depends on their whim and largesse, but it's not the only, nor even the best way.
Build a lab and start tinkering, or join a hackerspace. Lots of people do it. Lots of good science is done this way.
Electron microscopes are pricey. UV/VIS specs, mmg balances, and weston cells, not so much. High field NMR spectrometers and x-ray crystallography setups? You're dreaming. Thanks for playing!
The chemical layout of Tofacitinib looks fairly similar to estrogen. We've known for ages that giving MPB-afflicted men estrogen will result in hair regrowth. Unfortunately, it also makes them grow breasts, but that's besides the point.
Throwing my moderations in this disccusion to reply to this - there ought to be a "Wrong" mod option ;)
Nope, it's nothing like estrogen. One might as well conclude the structures are related to LSD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
I am an organic chemist currently working in drug design and would conclude these compounds are, from a molecular standpoint, extremely disparate.
...Really? They decided to use that acronym?
It's not an acronym.
God this sounds familiar..... and that's because I wrote a PhD thesis about building a system to do something a lot like this. It involved a fairly mediocre web interface wrapping a database of trust relationships specified by end users. A trusts B for 0.7 and B trusts C for 0.6 then you can put together a trust level between A and C by multiplying those together with some user-tweakable distance dropoff. Those trust levels were then measured against the levels required for access to shared data. Maybe you would allow anyone with a 0.7 or higher to read a given document and a 0.9 or higher to contribute to it. It was an interesting idea, but man did I get tired of it by the end. If for some bizarre reason anyone wants to read bits of it google books has some indexed and I probably have a pdf laying around somewhere....
I figured it could be quite useful, but I was so fed up with the work in mid-2007 that I never looked back at it.
Thanks for laboring through a thesis on the topic, it's an occasional daydream of mine and I would love a copy. :-)
Which would work well if you could trust people to consistently submit "trust statements" truthfully and accurately. Sometimes people lie when they tell you who they trust and who they don't.
People lie but no so much when their lies are detremental to them. Such a web of trust could only be conned by 'fake' nodes which would have a very hard time developing any links to 'real' nodes.
People tend to get demetia as a result of brain age in cases where their bodies don't check out first. My hypothesis is that cynicism correlates with good physical health and a long life terminated only by the action of entrophy on the CNS.
Right. Most people in Africa have no electricity. Gotcha. And those without electricity are the ones paying for used PCs, $15k per container, to dump them to save Americans recycling dollars. Gotcha. The urban electrification rate in Africa is 59%. Nigeria had 6.9 million households with televisions in 2006. You are more likely to be hit by a Mercedes than to die from a machete or burning computer. This e-waste hoax never stops giving.
I don't know what your intent is in that statement but you forgot to mention that the distribution of Africa's population is 2:3 urban:rural, so the overall electrification rate is 24%. If your intent was to highlight that Africa has far bigger needs (and needs coverage of more pressing issues than) live USB thumb drives, you should have mentioned that.
In your own domain -- Molecular Dynamics -- you might wish to send your initial configuration (position and velocities) to a colleague/reviewer who is using a different compiler. He could, in principle, reproduce your trajectory exactly. (Otherwise, there is a compiler error.)
You might not wish to routinely run with IEEE arithmetic, because it is slower. But for those folks who need it, it is right there at their fingertips and totally and completely (ANSI/ISO) standard.
The position and velocities or seed value will allow for reproduction of trajectories up to a certain point. Accumulation-derived errors take quite some time to develop and are acceptable. This is why relatively lossy GPU hybrid single-precision / double precision accumulation codes for CUDA are acceptable (and a game changer). Over an extended time the simulation will sample the same phase space. If the same phase space isn't sampled the simulation isn't run long enough or the model is bunk :-)
The use of both naming and version numbers to differentiate distribution versions makes searching for bug workarounds harder.
They said (and I think it was unintentional) they'd take up the position of not understanding if presented with specific examples.
When Imperial Oil (Exxon Mobil) sells a piece of property in downtown Calgary for $70M... and you know they don't need the money...
The stock market reflects the prevalent views of entitled stockholders. Even when it reflects their sexism, it never fails. Circular reasoning?
Genders, races, and social classes have different genetic makeups and hence different abilities.
It's taboo to say this. You should ask yourself why.
It's widely accepted that there are fewer genetic similiarities between individuals of the same 'race' as there are between individuals from different 'races.' There is tremendous overlap in most behavioural characteristics and physical abilities between male and female genders - most distributions appear bi-modal but in many cases 40+ % of the population falls on the side of the distribution attributed to the 'other' gender. You you refer to as taboo is taboo because it's wrong.
WTF, it's "fucking great to be a white male" because you're "more likely to be born to rich parents"...even if you weren't? Your think like a racist.
Being born to rich parents is advantageous. Looking like someone who's more likely to be born to rich parents is also a benefit.
I see your point but really, drop the "womyn-born-womyn" thing, it's...weird to read. I assume you must be transgendered? (which is totally fine by me, it's not like you got a choice) . In that case I get why you say it, but really, women since birth are still the norm, it's off to make the distinction in this context.
Making the distinction is a way of drawing attention to the norm of describing trans-gendered people as trans-gendered rather than as the gender they choose to identify with. Maybe a bit passive agressive, but hardly unwarranted.
On the bright side, algorithm-driven machines are unlikely to pull their guns just because they have an attitude problem like some cops do.
No, an algorithm won't have an attitute problem. It might be selected by a human with a so-called algorithm problem, though. Feel safer?
Is this the only place where it matters?
Having dwelved in same field (a few years of academic research), I have to point out that there is an infuriating reliance on black-box methodology in computational chemistry and molecular modeling. Conversely, I've read synthetic methodology chem papers with obvious errors (at least in the supporting information documents); e.g. describing preparing a solution with a final volume of 2.5 mL in a vessel of smaller capacity (1.5 mL or 2 mL). If a writer provides too little information, there is an implicit assumuption that the writer has the wisdom to determine what's relevant. An alternative is that meaningless yet observed (once) correlations, when observed, lead to publications. There's no such thing as too much information, but researchers become frustrated and cut corners if obligated to fill in what they perceive as the smallest details, such as the size of a microcentrifuge tube in which a solution was prepared. I think a more dynamic and accessible peer review system is warranted. A web of trust model, perhaps.
The effect will hopefully be for users to make their own damn vpn (really, it's not hard) and stop trusting third parties for things that should be confidential.
Setting up your own VPN isn't going to fix a thing. Whether you establish your credentials in plaintext or encrypted, there is a MiTM vector for capturing those credentials - unless you're moving data by sneakernet.
The only one that's ripping me off right now is AT&T, and that's only because Comcast would screw me harder. All I'm buying from them is DSL and I'm paying $47 a month. Meanwhile on my phone I not only get unlimited internet* (with email from my 10 year old address, YouTube, Google), but a phone with long distance, voicemail, 411, roaming, all unlimited and included in the $42 I pay them. I'm not going to name them but they're not the only ones and some may even be better. I've been with them for 5 years with no problems except their website is an ugly clusterfuck, but most are these days.
Hell, even my credit card company doesn't screw me over, and I'll bet most of you the people you guys deal with don't screw you, either. But you're nerds, and we're not normal (at least I'm not). I use a small local bank, and they're damned near free. Wasting your money is stupid.
But most people? Hell, I'll tell people what I'm paying for my phone when they're paying three times that for less stuff, and they go on using the expensive carrier they're with. And switching carriers is easy; maybe expensive if you're on a contract but easy.
Why in the hell am I paying seven dollars more for internet alone than a phone WITH internet?? I guess because there's competition in the cell phone business. I wish my phone company sold internet.
* I listen to KSHE on it all day long at work, that's eight hours a day using its radio, plus when I ask it the temperature or read a novel or newspaper
Yikes. My "cell phone" company offers just LTE internet as a service. If I used my device as a phone only (say, 2000-3000 minutes and as many text messages) I'd pay $12/month. Voice and text data is small data.
Sorry, it was a completely true story, tongue-in-cheek only in delivery (as has become my fashion when relating that particular gem). Perhaps I should be more concerned about what I write since this thread is now "viral" on The Globe and Mail, but I'm not an IT guy or a security contractor or anything. I learned many (now obsolete) skills but more importantly, learned to work hard to achieve what I wanted (communicating with other people around the world who wouldn't look down upon my diminuitive form and assume I was ignorant), and achieving it with whatever I had available. I suspect my problem solving skills were enhanced by such endeavors as well. I am good at solving both puzzles and real scientific problems. Dr. Zim's post below about the iPod training device to earn an iPhone is actually pretty decent advice but I don't believe in training my kids. It's probably the pick of the thread for anyone desiring a normative reply.
My first computer was an Apple ][e from a garage sale at the age of eight (circa 1993) and it took me very little time (maybe a year) to figure out how to dial up the local freenet on my 1200/300 baud (couldn't get a stable connection at 1.2 kbaud!) modem, register an account with a completely fabricated credit card number and fictitious identity (I recall I specified my address as 123 Pooskin Rd.), and enjoy several months of access to lynx and pine. Ah, the good old days...
Of course, when my parents found out, they freaked out and made me call up the freenet folks and apologize. I pretended to leave a message on their answering machine but (thanks to text files I'd read) I knew to put my finger on the "hang-up" switch while reciting my apology and explanation. The account worked for several more years (bless those techno-anarchists' hearts for recognizing a kid in need), but my dad went ahead and purchased PPP dial-up service shortly afterwards to prevent any more "incidents."
The moral of this story? If your kid needs mobile LTE internet, better give him a phone. Otherwise, he's going to get an early start on subversive behavior, perhaps stealing other people's phones.
Proteins fold by trial-and-errol, and yes, they can become "stuck" in local minima (become denatured). That they don't routinely do so it due to evolved mechanisms (chaperones, a mostly-downhill energy gradient on the path from synthesis to folded state) and due to the rate of conformational exploration at higher-energy states. These mechanisms aren't obvious to us, and so we have a very difficult time predicting their course of action on a given polypeptide sequence.