That may sound novel and exciting, but what you've described is how every transcription factor works. enderwig was making a point about the timing mechanism. If you leave a transcription-driven genetic circuit to keep its own clock without any assistance, it generally does a pretty bad job. There has to be something fairly elaborate guiding the chromatin unwinding.
That excuse falls down fast when you look at the genomes themselves. It's very obvious where and how the DNA has mutated, even over hundreds of millions of years. I don't mean to pick on you so much as give you ammunition with which to fire back.
It's almost completely disappointing that someone thought this was a novel or fascinating enough point to base a paper on. Even (mature) creationists claim to be "on the side of" the scientific method, they simply reject particular theories by claiming them to be unscientific, and then invoke the same old appeal to authority.
I mourn the day when the average scientist was someone with a clear grasp of the world outside of the tangibles and theoreticals of their chosen specialization. This "scientization" rubbish, proferred as noteworthy, would not have survived the barest scrap of journalistic scrutiny had it been submitted to a publication with non-scientist editorial staff; instead we would have a nice, straight-forward piece about politics mucking up science, as with everything else.
We're pretty off-topic here, but history answers both questions: profit margin is inversely proportional to rate of innovation. Developing new products, whether they're inventions, movies, or plays, costs money and crowds out the market for their predecessors, often even when they're not in direct competition. Low IP protection permits rapid development of incremental changes (guess how many adaptations of Romeo and Juliet were made before Shakespeare did his?) but reduces the incentive to invent radically new things (one of the arguments for why IP law can spur innovation.)
However, if we want to think about this as adults? No one knows if IP is right, because no one has done a study, because you can't really measure progress—especially when the current system is definitely broken as designed, and doesn't reflect a healthy IP ecosystem.
Nay! It is a cube whose essence is purely of virtue!
...this is the same thing, only centuries older. Kind of like how VirtualBox compares with Q, Xen, VMware... and pretty much every other hypervisor or emulator in existence.
Now back at your post!
Your flamebait is now trollfood!
Where are you? You're on Slashdot, arguing that people should be stratified according to intelligence. What's in your mind? Back at me. I have it. It's the sudden realization that these arguments are blatantly unethical. Now look again. The arguments now violate the constitution! Anything is possible when your schoolboard is run by assholes who crave the ability to persecute others' children, and want to instigate class-based segregation. I'm on a moral high-horse.
Here's the Minecraft wiki article about it. See also this one. The benefits are more prominent in multiplayer, where only affected sections of the map need to be loaded or saved. At large sizes, this sort of planning is quite indispensable, even if it looks dumb at smaller sizes. If it really bugs you that much, though, you could try updating this mod to support the newest version of Minecraft.
And there's good reason for it. A Minecraft world file can have as much as 8 times the surface area of Earth. Keeping that in one file would require hugely complex addressing.
In the levitation boots scene on the Enterprise, where Spock, McCoy, and Kirk fly up the turbo-shaft, the deck numbers are seen going higher as they rise through the ship, in contrast to all other starships ever seen on screen, which have the highest deck number on the lowest actual deck. In addition, Kirk, McCoy and Spock pass a sign for Deck 78 on their way up. They also pass Deck 52 twice, obviously, either an editing error or an attempt to lengthen the scene. After this shot was done, production designer Hermann Zimmerman, pointed this error out to director Shatner. He explained that the Enterprise has only 23 Decks. Counted down from the top, Deck 1. But Shatner refused to change it. He wanted to shoot this scene exactly this way because he was convinced that the shot was so highly dramatic.
Tuned into a radio lately? It's called the retro/nostalgia cycle. Everything nineties is new again! Of course, anyone who wants a 3D web experience is already married to Second Life, but the rest of us can pretend.
Use the Kinect not for age detection, but identity verification. The adults who own the Kinect can see the mature content, the kids can't. No topical algorithms required. (Also, "head width to shoulder width" sort of, y'know, varies drastically between genders. Not a good metric to start from.)
The difference engine wasn't generally programmable, either, but we can still establish a sense of its power usage based on how much kinetic energy was required to perform its calculations. Automatic mechanical calculators are much closer to being true computers than completely manual devices like the slide rule, the abacus, or a book of trigonometric tables.
Koomey's law only relates to the amount of power required to operate an electronic device. The very purpose of laws like Koomey and Moore is to describe advances in electronics. While perhaps the amount of energy involved in the unwinding of the mainspring of a mechanical computer can be analysed, I think you'll find that you'd be hard-pressed to get meaningful figures for the energy involved in the operation of an abacus or slide rule—which aren't even complete calculating devices and rely very heavily on the operator's brain to yield meaningful results. It will be decades before we can definitely point to an MRI of a functioning human brain and be able to say "it took x kilojoules to work through that reasoning process"—and even then the results are still incomparable.
I'm not typically the sort of person to dismiss unusual inquiries; in fact, I rather enjoy exploring them and finding new truths out of strange combinations of inputs. But this question is inherently bogus because pre-mechanical computers were operated in completely different ways. Transistors were direct replacements for vacuum tubes; they performed the same functions at an individual level, and the calculating machines that were made from each were equally Turing-complete. An ENIAC in the proper configuration and with sufficient memory, energy and time could conceivably emulate an iPad. Moreover, so could its components. The same cannot be said of a slide rule or abacus. They're not actually computing machines.
But... why? Those aren't even remotely comparable. What kind of energy do you suppose be measured, the amount of effort it takes to groan when someone makes a comment like this that they think is witty?
Slashdot Mirror
That may sound novel and exciting, but what you've described is how every transcription factor works. enderwig was making a point about the timing mechanism. If you leave a transcription-driven genetic circuit to keep its own clock without any assistance, it generally does a pretty bad job. There has to be something fairly elaborate guiding the chromatin unwinding.
Absurd names are common in molecular biology. Here is the usual example.
That excuse falls down fast when you look at the genomes themselves. It's very obvious where and how the DNA has mutated, even over hundreds of millions of years. I don't mean to pick on you so much as give you ammunition with which to fire back.
Does anyone have any better trolls than this? Just staring at it is making me bored.
It's almost completely disappointing that someone thought this was a novel or fascinating enough point to base a paper on. Even (mature) creationists claim to be "on the side of" the scientific method, they simply reject particular theories by claiming them to be unscientific, and then invoke the same old appeal to authority.
I mourn the day when the average scientist was someone with a clear grasp of the world outside of the tangibles and theoreticals of their chosen specialization. This "scientization" rubbish, proferred as noteworthy, would not have survived the barest scrap of journalistic scrutiny had it been submitted to a publication with non-scientist editorial staff; instead we would have a nice, straight-forward piece about politics mucking up science, as with everything else.
Quiet, infidel! You're questioning the core philosophy of Unix!
We're pretty off-topic here, but history answers both questions: profit margin is inversely proportional to rate of innovation. Developing new products, whether they're inventions, movies, or plays, costs money and crowds out the market for their predecessors, often even when they're not in direct competition. Low IP protection permits rapid development of incremental changes (guess how many adaptations of Romeo and Juliet were made before Shakespeare did his?) but reduces the incentive to invent radically new things (one of the arguments for why IP law can spur innovation.)
However, if we want to think about this as adults? No one knows if IP is right, because no one has done a study, because you can't really measure progress—especially when the current system is definitely broken as designed, and doesn't reflect a healthy IP ecosystem.
Been there. Done that. The algorithms are still where it's at.
Tried it. The usual response is "Slashdot is that way =>". They know.
Nay! It is a cube whose essence is purely of virtue!
...this is the same thing, only centuries older. Kind of like how VirtualBox compares with Q, Xen, VMware... and pretty much every other hypervisor or emulator in existence.
Now back at your post!
Your flamebait is now trollfood!
Where are you? You're on Slashdot, arguing that people should be stratified according to intelligence. What's in your mind? Back at me. I have it. It's the sudden realization that these arguments are blatantly unethical. Now look again. The arguments now violate the constitution! Anything is possible when your schoolboard is run by assholes who crave the ability to persecute others' children, and want to instigate class-based segregation. I'm on a moral high-horse.
Here's the Minecraft wiki article about it. See also this one. The benefits are more prominent in multiplayer, where only affected sections of the map need to be loaded or saved. At large sizes, this sort of planning is quite indispensable, even if it looks dumb at smaller sizes. If it really bugs you that much, though, you could try updating this mod to support the newest version of Minecraft.
And there's good reason for it. A Minecraft world file can have as much as 8 times the surface area of Earth. Keeping that in one file would require hugely complex addressing.
Why stop there? 14.6 million users is also nothing to sneeze at.
You may find this relevant to your interests.
q.v.
Tuned into a radio lately? It's called the retro/nostalgia cycle. Everything nineties is new again! Of course, anyone who wants a 3D web experience is already married to Second Life, but the rest of us can pretend.
I understand your incomprehension. Apparently Zuckerberg is serious about getting into men's fashion, though.
Use the Kinect not for age detection, but identity verification. The adults who own the Kinect can see the mature content, the kids can't. No topical algorithms required. (Also, "head width to shoulder width" sort of, y'know, varies drastically between genders. Not a good metric to start from.)
The difference engine wasn't generally programmable, either, but we can still establish a sense of its power usage based on how much kinetic energy was required to perform its calculations. Automatic mechanical calculators are much closer to being true computers than completely manual devices like the slide rule, the abacus, or a book of trigonometric tables.
I dunno. I think it may have been more corny than cheesy.
Koomey's law only relates to the amount of power required to operate an electronic device. The very purpose of laws like Koomey and Moore is to describe advances in electronics. While perhaps the amount of energy involved in the unwinding of the mainspring of a mechanical computer can be analysed, I think you'll find that you'd be hard-pressed to get meaningful figures for the energy involved in the operation of an abacus or slide rule—which aren't even complete calculating devices and rely very heavily on the operator's brain to yield meaningful results. It will be decades before we can definitely point to an MRI of a functioning human brain and be able to say "it took x kilojoules to work through that reasoning process"—and even then the results are still incomparable.
I'm not typically the sort of person to dismiss unusual inquiries; in fact, I rather enjoy exploring them and finding new truths out of strange combinations of inputs. But this question is inherently bogus because pre-mechanical computers were operated in completely different ways. Transistors were direct replacements for vacuum tubes; they performed the same functions at an individual level, and the calculating machines that were made from each were equally Turing-complete. An ENIAC in the proper configuration and with sufficient memory, energy and time could conceivably emulate an iPad. Moreover, so could its components. The same cannot be said of a slide rule or abacus. They're not actually computing machines.
But... why? Those aren't even remotely comparable. What kind of energy do you suppose be measured, the amount of effort it takes to groan when someone makes a comment like this that they think is witty?
Thank you for that explanation.
And... then I looked even sillier. Thanks.