I believe a more correct statement is that
real molecular dynamics simulation is in NP, not just proteins (doesn't this boil down to the fact that it is an N-body problem?)?
There are all sorts of ways you can try to fold a protien without molecular dynamics (like homology)...
I imagine that the development environment for Office is setup in a very microsoft oriented manner, I think they'd have to do a lot of changes to their development env. to make itsuitable to produce *NIX packages...
Then again I don't use Visual C++ or whatever microsoft calls their C development environment, but forcing them to develop a Linux office entails a lot more then just forking off another development tree I would think....
King Of The Fighters?
on
Farewell to SNK
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They didn't mention KOF throughout that whole articles, I think this is what SNK was known by in the last few years? I actually didn't like KOF as a game, but the characters, environments, music and general feel are unparalleled in any other fighter....you can feel it in Capcom vs. SNK (although it plays much like a Street Fighter).
Most of the stuff that you are reading about is embellished beyond belief...
His "reality mediator" stuff is just motion tracking (and makes some pretty rigid assumption such as no parallax), all the sequences you see are post processed video (doesn't work in real time)...
Yes yes yes, all science is fueled by imagining the unimaginable etc. etc.
Maybe Hawking is light years beyond my intelligence (I certainly have no more than a layman's understanding of his work), and my degree in biological chemistry meas nothing; but unless this is solely the fault of the press, this is just a lot of intellectual hot air.
People (including me) have thought about how to achieve the thigs he is talking about for a long time, and we have a harder time doing things that are much much simpler; it is not even clear as to what kinds of things you'd want to investigate (as a starting point) to achieve some magical techonology/biology hyrbid; many things that I have come across do not even come close (what happened to erik winfree's self assembling DNA comptuer stuff?)...
I suppose I'd be a little more supportive if he at least suggested something insightful if not practical...
It's funny how much weight a well known man's comments carry regardless of their content.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard.
The cite the fact that these machines are easier to use than PC's (designed for 12 year olds blah blah blah)...but unix is unix (you'll still have to learn it)....$300 console plus TV/monitor isn't much cheaper than a PC....not to mention the fact there will be a number of apps you can't run....all so you can educate them about AIDS? Give me a break...
These are the kind of articles that are insulting 'solutions' to real 3rd world problems....what they really are are free advertising for companies like Sun....
I'm sorry IT is important, but no one has shown it being a factor in reducing AIDS transmission...nor do think it makes sense to talk about it right now....
If a spammer got charged a dime to send an email,
should I get charged a dime for every email I send? ISP's could still argue that it is cheaper than a stamp, but I doubt most would consider it fair...
Brought to you by the good folks at
http://www.kitware.com/, yes its' open source.
VTK has been used in a lot of data viz.
I did get around to using in my project because
it *seems* (could just be my lack of expereience) more difficult to visualize dyanmic data, and things like VAS are more suitable.
But it's a really nice piece of software (wrapped in many languages including python!)
You guys don't get it.
Yes you are violoating a patent, you pay legal costs and risk jail time, but a handful of people could save a whole lot more;yet we do not want to.
Every year we have thousands of university graduates. Among them are people with the knowledge to produce these drugs.
While the companies do have patents on these drugs, it would take a handful of synthetic organic chemists; chemical engineers and a lawyer or two to setup a firm that is producing these drugs (using another companies patented process) and giving them away at cost to people in the thrid world. Many lives could be saved, while the legal implications of copyright infringment could be negotiated. I don't think any court could order a prelimanry injuction, during the legal battle, against such a company given the lives at stake.
But no one does, and no one wants to; heck I barely hear the idea mentioned. The fact that I haven't done such a thing either tells me that I am more worried about a good standard of living than 50 years shaved off of millions of lives. It's scary how this shows how little life is worth.
I have been waiting a long time for this
(but as a news story, this a little outdated no?)
I thought now that Square has shown a project like this is possible, there would be many that would jump on the bandwagon, but it doesn't seem to be the case...
Are companies taking a 'wait-and-see' approach, or are other making total CG non-cartooinsh 3d movies?
It is tempting to believe that each base codes for
a quatenary 'bit'; and that all the 'information' that the organism needs is stored in an long n bit string. But remember that sequences fold into a wide variety of structures which affect how they are read/what they mean, there are also regulatory systems that prevent/promote certain reigons of DNA being read, DNA in some organims is methylated to prevent digestion by nucleases etc.
In short, DNA is a physical (complicated) thing, and the 'bit' analogy hides this...things just aren't that simple.
The article suggests that we have all the molecular tools and that it is a straightforward matter of hooking them together to make molecular
scale computers/robots....this is misleading.
There have been a number of published papers that
describe molecular logic gates (based on 'inputs'
of ions, or particular DNA strands) and the 'output' is often flouresence...which doens't allow you to hook these components up into large
arrays. I have tones of ref's if anyone cares to look them up. Even things like Adleman's approach, while actually quite brilliant in design, fail to provide either faster more efficient computers or application to control (bio) chemical systems. Winfree's stuff with Seaman's DNA cubes is again quite interesting, but it's difficult to see where it will go or what insight it will provide. Anyone remember bacteria rhodopsin based memories? I think work continues on them, but no one sees practical application. The stuff coming from UCLA and HP (rotaxanes) is actually quite interesting; and given the population of things that has to do with molecular computing; it probably has the greatest chance of actualy realization.
Most real nanotech you see today is just some real nice bio/organic/supramolecular chemistry that has been moving along since the inception of chemistry (a-hemolysin stuff, self replicating peptides, nanotubes etc.). Not to say that it isn't wonderful work or un-useful...but it is just renamed chemistry.
The other thing I have a problem with people like drexler is that suppose one does actually succeed in producing one of the molecular machines he describes through synthesis or AFM techniques...we don't have the technology to characterize such beasts. Ask an enzymoligst how many molecules of enzyme he needs and the things he neeeds to know before he can say what an enzyme is doing (or what it looks like). Enzymes are in many ways much simpler than the kinds of things Drexler proposes. In other words even if you could build a nano-bot; I don't know how you could know it was actually there or convince other scientists given the trouble we have with the molecules that nature has given us.
What is frusturating out the whole molecular computing field is that when you actually try to sit down and do it, it seems impossible to try to figure out a way to do computation on a molecular level....yet natural things like remarkably organized biological cell and the human brain show us that there is a way, but is it the only one?
By calling the people who did this 'script kiddies', one pictures some dumb 16 year old who is gets off on overloading sites he doesn't like. What about all the Evil(tm) people in this world such as scientlogists , groups on one side of a polarized issue hired guns from large companies etc. All of those people could hire anyone to do something like this; and with a diverse enough net of people, it's easy to claim to be hacked when you have access to accounts in many places (universities, institutions etc.)
Funny, I thought the GNU way was relying on people much smarter and harder working than oneself to produce software, without bothering to contribute working on open source projects of their own. Oh I forgot that I also thought the GNU way meant that you had to complain and whine about software that other people write and you don't pay for.
Isn't everyone able to get at the IPO (Initial Public Offering)? I'm clueless about stock markets.
Re:Umm mind providing a reference for that claim?
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
Yes they can. By dissapative strucutures I assume you are reffering to self organization with temprature gradients etc....they are fully explainable without subatomic particles...take a look at some research by Stephen Morris of U of Toronto...
Umm mind providing a reference for that claim?
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
With the exception of people like Judith Klinman's work on nuclear tunneling, I haven't seen much real QM applied to biology...mind providing us a reference as to why one need invoke subatomic particles to explain dissapative structures in biological cells (or in hot liquids for that matter)..10 bucks says you don't have one.
>Let's get a few facts straight here: There are >over a hundred billion DNA/RNA pairs in a typical >human's genotype. A given sample is taken at the >phentypic level, and will contain at most a >single billion. So you've lost 99% of your sample >right there.
Each cell in your body contains the SAME DNA (what do you mean by phenotypic level?); that's the cool thing about it, different cells express different genes though. Sample condition can definately alter the reliability of the results, but in most cases if you have a cell, you have the DNA from who/what it was taken from; you can't only wind up with 1% of a DNA strand from the collection of a sample (DNA comes generally more or less intact, or degraded beyond practical use)..but even that little could be useful in determining a lot of things.
>Then, you have to hope that the genetic material >in your sample will be genuine genes and not >"junk DNA" -- the biological equivalent of line >noise.
Very misleading comment. Although we know it doesn't express protiens, "junk" DNA is still conserved (it isn't just random noise from individual to individual), that is two humans have very similar patterns of junk DNA (as similar as their non-junk DNA). It probably does have a use, we just don't know what yet.
There have been a few embarassments in the reliability of these tests, however they can elminate indiviuals as suspects (if there is a low probabilty of match of from a sperm sample in a rape for example), and are very good at paternity determination to the level of the individual, so it really does work for a lot of things. Just type in DNA testing at google and you can find a lot of links of real applications.
There is definately a practical use for many biologically based cleanup methods...however some people think that nature magically turns over everything and the solution to all the worlds pollution problems is just a lot more trees and geneticaly engineerd bugs.
Fact is that most bio methods only work on breaking down things like hydrocarbs and other organic compunds etc. Things like tritium, heavy metals (mercury, lead etc) plenty of other poisons don't go anywhere, they just go into biostorage in plants, which ends up climbing the food chain anyway...
Biology being inherantly dynamic, thus doesn't tend to come with with particularly good long term storage/distribution methods...one must not let the "Captain Planet" - biology is invincible and can do anything - mentaility take over and realize that most of the toxins do not have efficient biological solutions./P
Slashdot Mirror
I believe a more correct statement is that
real molecular dynamics simulation is in NP, not just proteins (doesn't this boil down to the fact that it is an N-body problem?)?
There are all sorts of ways you can try to fold a protien without molecular dynamics (like homology)...
I imagine that the development environment for Office is setup in a very microsoft oriented manner, I think they'd have to do a lot of changes to their development env. to make itsuitable to produce *NIX packages...
Then again I don't use Visual C++ or whatever microsoft calls their C development environment, but forcing them to develop a Linux office entails a lot more then just forking off another development tree I would think....
They didn't mention KOF throughout that whole articles, I think this is what SNK was known by in the last few years? I actually didn't like KOF as a game, but the characters, environments, music and general feel are unparalleled in any other fighter....you can feel it in Capcom vs. SNK (although it plays much like a Street Fighter).
Read the quote again, let it sink in and then read it again...this is one of those zen-like truths in computing.
But for the sake of discussion, what would you desribe as an OS that is unUNIX?
As someone who once wanted to design his own OS and actually got reasonably far, I came across this quote somewhere (was it Kerrigan?)...
"Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to re-invent it."I worked in this guy's lab for a year.
Most of the stuff that you are reading about is embellished beyond belief...
His "reality mediator" stuff is just motion tracking (and makes some pretty rigid assumption such as no parallax), all the sequences you see are post processed video (doesn't work in real time)...
Yes yes yes, all science is fueled by imagining the unimaginable etc. etc.
Maybe Hawking is light years beyond my intelligence (I certainly have no more than a layman's understanding of his work), and my degree in biological chemistry meas nothing; but unless this is solely the fault of the press, this is just a lot of intellectual hot air.
People (including me) have thought about how to achieve the thigs he is talking about for a long time, and we have a harder time doing things that are much much simpler; it is not even clear as to what kinds of things you'd want to investigate (as a starting point) to achieve some magical techonology/biology hyrbid; many things that I have come across do not even come close (what happened to erik winfree's self assembling DNA comptuer stuff?)...
I suppose I'd be a little more supportive if he at least suggested something insightful if not practical...
It's funny how much weight a well known man's comments carry regardless of their content.
Oh well I guess it's just food for discussion....
Funny thing is that Ghadiri makes self replicating peptides too (honest, see Nature Feb 200, human genome issue)!
That's the dumbest thing I've heard. The cite the fact that these machines are easier to use than PC's (designed for 12 year olds blah blah blah)...but unix is unix (you'll still have to learn it)....$300 console plus TV/monitor isn't much cheaper than a PC....not to mention the fact there will be a number of apps you can't run....all so you can educate them about AIDS? Give me a break... These are the kind of articles that are insulting 'solutions' to real 3rd world problems....what they really are are free advertising for companies like Sun.... I'm sorry IT is important, but no one has shown it being a factor in reducing AIDS transmission...nor do think it makes sense to talk about it right now....
If a spammer got charged a dime to send an email,
should I get charged a dime for every email I send? ISP's could still argue that it is cheaper than a stamp, but I doubt most would consider it fair...
Brought to you by the good folks at
http://www.kitware.com/, yes its' open source.
VTK has been used in a lot of data viz.
I did get around to using in my project because
it *seems* (could just be my lack of expereience) more difficult to visualize dyanmic data, and things like VAS are more suitable.
But it's a really nice piece of software (wrapped in many languages including python!)
You guys don't get it. Yes you are violoating a patent, you pay legal costs and risk jail time, but a handful of people could save a whole lot more;yet we do not want to.
Every year we have thousands of university graduates. Among them are people with the knowledge to produce these drugs.
While the companies do have patents on these drugs, it would take a handful of synthetic organic chemists; chemical engineers and a lawyer or two to setup a firm that is producing these drugs (using another companies patented process) and giving them away at cost to people in the thrid world. Many lives could be saved, while the legal implications of copyright infringment could be negotiated. I don't think any court could order a prelimanry injuction, during the legal battle, against such a company given the lives at stake.
But no one does, and no one wants to; heck I barely hear the idea mentioned. The fact that I haven't done such a thing either tells me that I am more worried about a good standard of living than 50 years shaved off of millions of lives. It's scary how this shows how little life is worth.
Actually it seems to be alive...why the hell was your post rated low? www.rainbowstudios.com
I have been waiting a long time for this
(but as a news story, this a little outdated no?)
I thought now that Square has shown a project like this is possible, there would be many that would jump on the bandwagon, but it doesn't seem to be the case...
Are companies taking a 'wait-and-see' approach, or are other making total CG non-cartooinsh 3d movies?
It is tempting to believe that each base codes for a quatenary 'bit'; and that all the 'information' that the organism needs is stored in an long n bit string. But remember that sequences fold into a wide variety of structures which affect how they are read/what they mean, there are also regulatory systems that prevent/promote certain reigons of DNA being read, DNA in some organims is methylated to prevent digestion by nucleases etc. In short, DNA is a physical (complicated) thing, and the 'bit' analogy hides this...things just aren't that simple.
Umm trying to link Transmeta 'code-morphing' to self assembly is quite a stretch.
The article suggests that we have all the molecular tools and that it is a straightforward matter of hooking them together to make molecular scale computers/robots....this is misleading. There have been a number of published papers that describe molecular logic gates (based on 'inputs' of ions, or particular DNA strands) and the 'output' is often flouresence...which doens't allow you to hook these components up into large arrays. I have tones of ref's if anyone cares to look them up. Even things like Adleman's approach, while actually quite brilliant in design, fail to provide either faster more efficient computers or application to control (bio) chemical systems. Winfree's stuff with Seaman's DNA cubes is again quite interesting, but it's difficult to see where it will go or what insight it will provide. Anyone remember bacteria rhodopsin based memories? I think work continues on them, but no one sees practical application. The stuff coming from UCLA and HP (rotaxanes) is actually quite interesting; and given the population of things that has to do with molecular computing; it probably has the greatest chance of actualy realization.
Most real nanotech you see today is just some real nice bio/organic/supramolecular chemistry that has been moving along since the inception of chemistry (a-hemolysin stuff, self replicating peptides, nanotubes etc.). Not to say that it isn't wonderful work or un-useful...but it is just renamed chemistry.
The other thing I have a problem with people like drexler is that suppose one does actually succeed in producing one of the molecular machines he describes through synthesis or AFM techniques...we don't have the technology to characterize such beasts. Ask an enzymoligst how many molecules of enzyme he needs and the things he neeeds to know before he can say what an enzyme is doing (or what it looks like). Enzymes are in many ways much simpler than the kinds of things Drexler proposes. In other words even if you could build a nano-bot; I don't know how you could know it was actually there or convince other scientists given the trouble we have with the molecules that nature has given us.
What is frusturating out the whole molecular computing field is that when you actually try to sit down and do it, it seems impossible to try to figure out a way to do computation on a molecular level....yet natural things like remarkably organized biological cell and the human brain show us that there is a way, but is it the only one?
By calling the people who did this 'script kiddies', one pictures some dumb 16 year old who is gets off on overloading sites he doesn't like. What about all the Evil(tm) people in this world such as scientlogists , groups on one side of a polarized issue hired guns from large companies etc. All of those people could hire anyone to do something like this; and with a diverse enough net of people, it's easy to claim to be hacked when you have access to accounts in many places (universities, institutions etc.)
Funny, I thought the GNU way was relying on people much smarter and harder working than oneself to produce software, without bothering to contribute working on open source projects of their own. Oh I forgot that I also thought the GNU way meant that you had to complain and whine about software that other people write and you don't pay for.
Isn't everyone able to get at the IPO (Initial Public Offering)? I'm clueless about stock markets.
Yes they can. By dissapative strucutures I assume you are reffering to self organization with temprature gradients etc....they are fully explainable without subatomic particles...take a look at some research by Stephen Morris of U of Toronto...
With the exception of people like Judith Klinman's work on nuclear tunneling, I haven't seen much real QM applied to biology...mind providing us a reference as to why one need invoke subatomic particles to explain dissapative structures in biological cells (or in hot liquids for that matter)..10 bucks says you don't have one.
>Let's get a few facts straight here: There are >over a hundred billion DNA/RNA pairs in a typical >human's genotype. A given sample is taken at the >phentypic level, and will contain at most a >single billion. So you've lost 99% of your sample >right there.
Each cell in your body contains the SAME DNA (what do you mean by phenotypic level?); that's the cool thing about it, different cells express different genes though. Sample condition can definately alter the reliability of the results, but in most cases if you have a cell, you have the DNA from who/what it was taken from; you can't only wind up with 1% of a DNA strand from the collection of a sample (DNA comes generally more or less intact, or degraded beyond practical use)..but even that little could be useful in determining a lot of things.
>Then, you have to hope that the genetic material >in your sample will be genuine genes and not >"junk DNA" -- the biological equivalent of line >noise.
Very misleading comment. Although we know it doesn't express protiens, "junk" DNA is still conserved (it isn't just random noise from individual to individual), that is two humans have very similar patterns of junk DNA (as similar as their non-junk DNA). It probably does have a use, we just don't know what yet.
There have been a few embarassments in the reliability of these tests, however they can elminate indiviuals as suspects (if there is a low probabilty of match of from a sperm sample in a rape for example), and are very good at paternity determination to the level of the individual, so it really does work for a lot of things. Just type in DNA testing at google and you can find a lot of links of real applications.
There is definately a practical use for many biologically based cleanup methods...however some people think that nature magically turns over everything and the solution to all the worlds pollution problems is just a lot more trees and geneticaly engineerd bugs.
Fact is that most bio methods only work on breaking down things like hydrocarbs and other organic compunds etc. Things like tritium, heavy metals (mercury, lead etc) plenty of other poisons don't go anywhere, they just go into biostorage in plants, which ends up climbing the food chain anyway...
Biology being inherantly dynamic, thus doesn't tend to come with with particularly good long term storage/distribution methods...one must not let the "Captain Planet" - biology is invincible and can do anything - mentaility take over and realize that most of the toxins do not have efficient biological solutions./P