I once had a ten-post argument with someone about whether or not "weapon" could be applied to something that was not literally intended to cause physical injury. I'd welcome you to Slashdot, but something about your UID makes me think that's redundant.
Save your cynicism for other headlines. The amount of potential variability in this situation is genuinely minuscule, and it is inappropriate to worry about the predicted structure being 'out and out "wrong".' Claiming knowledge of the original structure is not that much of an exaggeration; the researchers demonstrated that none of the differences in the various versions of thioredoxin had a significant impact on its shape.
It's faintly possible that an absolutely essential component of cellular function suddenly worked its way into the genomes of every single organism on Earth one Tuesday afternoon, and that despite every indication of all copies being descendant from a single master source, they were simply made to look that way after the fact, and that the last universal common ancestor got along just merrily without it, despite it being much more logical that this one particular protein happened to be there alongside all the other ancient essential proteins we know and cherish... but that would require an incredibly petty and childish divine being, or one with terrible planning skills. Possibly the divine being that buries dinosaur bones to test the faith of His followers.
With protein sequence evolution it's a little more controlled: the modifications occur more-or-less randomly, and there are almost no cases where a letter (residue) is replaced throughout the entire vocabulary (proteome) due to phonological shifts. As a result, if you have enough datapoints to work from, like with the thioredoxins, it's simply a matter of picking the version most commonly agreed upon by all of the branches. In that sense, it's more like textual criticism than historical linguistics, particularly since you can also use the requirement of "it has to be well-formed language" (i.e. a working protein) to weed out obviously bad combinations of changes.
For some reason, that bewilders a lot of reasonably scientifically-minded people.
Technically there is a bit of a limit—it's probably more like 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago and not four. A pretty severe mistake, yes, but technically the exact date of the last universal common ancestor is still under debate.
And yes, we do have the knowledge to infer, to within a relatively modest degree of error, the correct sequence and structure of certain extremely well-conserved proteins all the way back that far. It's called multiple sequence alignment, and it's honestly pretty basic.
The key is that because thioredoxins are found in all of the kingdoms, and are so conserved, the authors are assuming this is what the thioredoxin in the LUCA looked like. Even if the molecular clock isn't accurate over this one protein because of masked mutations, the number's most likely sound. (To one significant figure, anyway, since the LUCA is held to be 3.5 to 3.8 gya.)
Their real point is, if you have limited resources, prioritize the vulnerabilities that are (a) currently being exploited and (b) most likely to be exploited given the habits of your favourite boogeyman. Sometimes that means not starting on vulnerabilities as soon as they come in, because you're saving your resources for the chance there's a bigger problem later. Their thesis is about saving your money and time for the most important stuff, and assumes that threats only come from lazy blackhats who prefer certain classes/types of vulnerabilities. Buried in this is the assumption that a given piece of software has an infinite number of vulnerabilities that are discovered at random.
Statistically, what they're saying is sound if organized crime is your biggest enemy, assuming organized crime's habits don't change any time soon. It's obviously not good enough if you're concerned about, say, a malicious government organization with an absurd budget.
With all due respect, "by canon" seems like a fantastically flimsy defence for anything Who. It only takes one paragraph of script preamble to decide that there's been a million of them trapped in a pocket dimension or outside of the universe, or to invent a one-use resurrection technology.
For what it's worth, the appropriate wiki seems to think the Corsair exercised control over gender by choosing what to regenerate as, hence suggesting it's technically possible.
That being said, however, I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't seem like something that would align well with the Doctor's established personality and would be better served via a spin-off or successor character.
Three of them, actually. It was basically a clusterfuck of STDs—three different strains of genital warts all causing cervical cancer at the same time. On the big ol' scale of lifetime achievements, considering that there was pretty much no public education on STDs at the time, it's a bit of a downer.
And yet, even when every rule is technically followed to the very ends of correctness, ambiguity in communication still exists. A semicolon is most definitely advisable under the circumstances—or a dash, at least.
For what little it's worth, the "twenty-year-old" figure is a bit misleading; many software platforms didn't endorse or include Unicode support for another five to ten years after that, when many web technologies and popular operating systems were going through their awkward teenage phases. If UTF-8 really had become popular immediately after it was created, we might have much deeper native Unicode support in everything.
I don't know all that much about Japanese politics, but given that they currently have twelve or so parties represented in the legislature and twice that vying to get in, the people whose votes had a chance of affecting funding for JAXA projects have a nearly unlimited supply of change.
Just to be clear, there are reasonable uses for them; the music example you gave could be combined with other frequent or real-time applications like turn-by-turn driving instructions. I'm really, genuinely just picking on the rest of your post.
Your "use" is a list of event-driven GUI-based applications that only use a tiny amount of computing power, and even less when in the background. What you describe would be a colossal waste.
The hallmark of what it means to be human and not some other species is that we are not only capable of such things, but much better at doing it than any other. It is in our nature to improve ourselves through cultural and technological innovations. What you're thinking of is much more universal; merely 'animal' or 'mammalian'—perhaps 'great ape' at best. If anything deserves the title of 'human', it should be the struggle between the two. Don't be so cynical as to deny the natural legitimacy of your own idealism.
What was $70,000,000 in 2012 was $44,337,914.10 in 1993. Going the other way, if the NYT had sold the Globe immediately after purchase and made $70M in 1993 dollars, that'd be what we think of as about $103 million today.
Which is the Netherlands. A German company is taking legal action against a Dutch hacker giving a presentation in the US using British law. This is like the poster child for jurisdictional WTFery. Do all laws of all EU member states now apply to every country in the EU? That doesn't sound quite right.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree, actually! Samsung's S4 uses different cores running at different clock speeds for different tasks, and is obviously about improving power utilization. Given that, it really just looks like Qualcomm is trying to spin their business decision (to not do eight-core chips, probably because they don't think they can compete) to their investors as cost-saving for their customers. I didn't get the impression that power consumption was the bigger concern. But, hey, maybe that's their niche.
The reason he gave was one step ahead of that: even if you get apps that can use all eight cores, it's going to be murder on battery life, and most of the cost will be wasted (because most apps won't be using all that core power still.)
Think of it as a licence to pirate! If they want to turn everything into access permissions, then it doesn't really matter where you get the content from.
Slashdot Mirror
I once had a ten-post argument with someone about whether or not "weapon" could be applied to something that was not literally intended to cause physical injury. I'd welcome you to Slashdot, but something about your UID makes me think that's redundant.
Save your cynicism for other headlines. The amount of potential variability in this situation is genuinely minuscule, and it is inappropriate to worry about the predicted structure being 'out and out "wrong".' Claiming knowledge of the original structure is not that much of an exaggeration; the researchers demonstrated that none of the differences in the various versions of thioredoxin had a significant impact on its shape.
It's faintly possible that an absolutely essential component of cellular function suddenly worked its way into the genomes of every single organism on Earth one Tuesday afternoon, and that despite every indication of all copies being descendant from a single master source, they were simply made to look that way after the fact, and that the last universal common ancestor got along just merrily without it, despite it being much more logical that this one particular protein happened to be there alongside all the other ancient essential proteins we know and cherish... but that would require an incredibly petty and childish divine being, or one with terrible planning skills. Possibly the divine being that buries dinosaur bones to test the faith of His followers.
So, no; not really. Why do you ask?
With protein sequence evolution it's a little more controlled: the modifications occur more-or-less randomly, and there are almost no cases where a letter (residue) is replaced throughout the entire vocabulary (proteome) due to phonological shifts. As a result, if you have enough datapoints to work from, like with the thioredoxins, it's simply a matter of picking the version most commonly agreed upon by all of the branches. In that sense, it's more like textual criticism than historical linguistics, particularly since you can also use the requirement of "it has to be well-formed language" (i.e. a working protein) to weed out obviously bad combinations of changes.
For some reason, that bewilders a lot of reasonably scientifically-minded people.
Technically there is a bit of a limit—it's probably more like 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago and not four. A pretty severe mistake, yes, but technically the exact date of the last universal common ancestor is still under debate.
And yes, we do have the knowledge to infer, to within a relatively modest degree of error, the correct sequence and structure of certain extremely well-conserved proteins all the way back that far. It's called multiple sequence alignment, and it's honestly pretty basic.
The key is that because thioredoxins are found in all of the kingdoms, and are so conserved, the authors are assuming this is what the thioredoxin in the LUCA looked like. Even if the molecular clock isn't accurate over this one protein because of masked mutations, the number's most likely sound. (To one significant figure, anyway, since the LUCA is held to be 3.5 to 3.8 gya.)
Their real point is, if you have limited resources, prioritize the vulnerabilities that are (a) currently being exploited and (b) most likely to be exploited given the habits of your favourite boogeyman. Sometimes that means not starting on vulnerabilities as soon as they come in, because you're saving your resources for the chance there's a bigger problem later. Their thesis is about saving your money and time for the most important stuff, and assumes that threats only come from lazy blackhats who prefer certain classes/types of vulnerabilities. Buried in this is the assumption that a given piece of software has an infinite number of vulnerabilities that are discovered at random.
Statistically, what they're saying is sound if organized crime is your biggest enemy, assuming organized crime's habits don't change any time soon. It's obviously not good enough if you're concerned about, say, a malicious government organization with an absurd budget.
Nothing that couldn't be served better by dismantling the thing and taking out the chip, probably.
With all due respect, "by canon" seems like a fantastically flimsy defence for anything Who. It only takes one paragraph of script preamble to decide that there's been a million of them trapped in a pocket dimension or outside of the universe, or to invent a one-use resurrection technology.
For what it's worth, the appropriate wiki seems to think the Corsair exercised control over gender by choosing what to regenerate as, hence suggesting it's technically possible.
That being said, however, I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't seem like something that would align well with the Doctor's established personality and would be better served via a spin-off or successor character.
Three of them, actually. It was basically a clusterfuck of STDs—three different strains of genital warts all causing cervical cancer at the same time. On the big ol' scale of lifetime achievements, considering that there was pretty much no public education on STDs at the time, it's a bit of a downer.
And yet, even when every rule is technically followed to the very ends of correctness, ambiguity in communication still exists. A semicolon is most definitely advisable under the circumstances—or a dash, at least.
For what little it's worth, the "twenty-year-old" figure is a bit misleading; many software platforms didn't endorse or include Unicode support for another five to ten years after that, when many web technologies and popular operating systems were going through their awkward teenage phases. If UTF-8 really had become popular immediately after it was created, we might have much deeper native Unicode support in everything.
I don't know all that much about Japanese politics, but given that they currently have twelve or so parties represented in the legislature and twice that vying to get in, the people whose votes had a chance of affecting funding for JAXA projects have a nearly unlimited supply of change.
Just to be clear, there are reasonable uses for them; the music example you gave could be combined with other frequent or real-time applications like turn-by-turn driving instructions. I'm really, genuinely just picking on the rest of your post.
Your "use" is a list of event-driven GUI-based applications that only use a tiny amount of computing power, and even less when in the background. What you describe would be a colossal waste.
The hallmark of what it means to be human and not some other species is that we are not only capable of such things, but much better at doing it than any other. It is in our nature to improve ourselves through cultural and technological innovations. What you're thinking of is much more universal; merely 'animal' or 'mammalian'—perhaps 'great ape' at best. If anything deserves the title of 'human', it should be the struggle between the two. Don't be so cynical as to deny the natural legitimacy of your own idealism.
...why did I type 103. It's $109,549,232.63. Source.
What was $70,000,000 in 2012 was $44,337,914.10 in 1993. Going the other way, if the NYT had sold the Globe immediately after purchase and made $70M in 1993 dollars, that'd be what we think of as about $103 million today.
Which is the Netherlands. A German company is taking legal action against a Dutch hacker giving a presentation in the US using British law. This is like the poster child for jurisdictional WTFery. Do all laws of all EU member states now apply to every country in the EU? That doesn't sound quite right.
Perhaps the fact that you code in Haskell also explains why you think your mail client does so much it needs its own core.
I'm somewhat inclined to agree, actually! Samsung's S4 uses different cores running at different clock speeds for different tasks, and is obviously about improving power utilization. Given that, it really just looks like Qualcomm is trying to spin their business decision (to not do eight-core chips, probably because they don't think they can compete) to their investors as cost-saving for their customers. I didn't get the impression that power consumption was the bigger concern. But, hey, maybe that's their niche.
The reason he gave was one step ahead of that: even if you get apps that can use all eight cores, it's going to be murder on battery life, and most of the cost will be wasted (because most apps won't be using all that core power still.)
Think of it as a licence to pirate! If they want to turn everything into access permissions, then it doesn't really matter where you get the content from.
Actual clip here. Seriously, how out of the loop do you have to be to post this story? Everyone knows already!