I disagree, we already have PNA - protein + DNA. The protein component is just more complex than a simple helix running parallel to the DNA, instead it functions to regulate the DNA.
For all intents and purposes evolution has done this. The DNA on your chromosomes are PACKED with proteins running all along the major groove of the DNA, just like in this "triple-helix".
The difference here is that this version is simple and pure - a continuous protein helix intertwined within the DNA's double helix. In your own body the protein component consists of smaller parts that are highly dynamic, constantly jumping on and off.
I don't think multi-nest-idea is wrong, but it is unusable in general public as it will not garner support. As such, it shouldn't roam too freely in the internet - my guess is that it will damage the efforts for manned space flight. To science fiction fans the idea is fine of course, we're already excited by the mere idea of off-world colonies. But we are capable of seeing short-term effort having worthwhile long-long-term gains in a way most don't bother about.
But, we simply must come up with more immediate and realistic arguments for society to spend its tax-money on manned spaceflight. It will simply NOT result in funding if this is all we have.
You mention commercial benefit and scientific benefit? These need to be clearly spelled and need to be the central thrust.
The multiple-nest argument will fail in public because of these concerns: 1) It far far too long-term. A self-sustaining off-world colony is hundereds, possibly thousands, of years in the future. Most megabudget-agencies outside the military have trouble with projects on decade-long completion horizons.
2) Any plan that uses as its fundental basis the death of 6 billion people is worrying. Why isn't the money being spent avoiding tragedy rather than getting out with the riches. It reeks too much of giving up. If the environment is crumbling on earth, fix it. The presence of water no matter what its form will still make living on terra easier by far than living in a metal tin on a dry-sterile Mars.
3) Only a tiny number of people will be capable of being moved off world, it will have no day-to-day effect on the rest of us. The "survival of humanity" is an ethos or a philosphy at best. It is difficult to get megadollars for concepts.
4) Even the premise of surviving major cataclysms by moving off world is weak. I would think it would be more cost effective and provide more relevant spin-off technology to develop underwater cities or long-term stasis. These techniques would allow survival of asteroid impacts, near-solar novas and thermonuclear war. Not the loss of the sun though, but realistically if the sun goes boom in the next 5000years - we go too.
Not saying I agree with all these points just that you need to address them and "eggs-in-basket" does not.:)
Yes, the rest of the doctors have been asking for this for some time. I would like to be able to track the good looking nurses throughout the hospital. Do you think you could manage that by pinpointing small increases in the pulse-rate of the seedy-old men in ward B?
What your saying electric cars will be maintance free. All bearings will run without lubrication? And surely selling gas will equate to selling kW, no?
I think I disagree with this hypothesis. Whatever their costs and benefits, electric cars will still have just as much need for spare parts, "energy stations" and your friendly local mechanic.:)
This is not always completely true is it? The cost of fixing a broken arm is more expensive now than in 1950's isn't it? My understanding was that wage costs in the health care industry have exceeded inflation due to a boom in the sector.
Your right in saying that many treatments that are available now just weren't possible 50 years ago.
Re:No its worse than that
on
Evolving Rocks
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Is this not what the word "evolved" means? To change slowly with time. My understanding is that Darwin simply used a word which meant "gradual change" to describe his biological theory of mutation and selection.
Perhaps the authors of the current study made a poor word choice simply due to the connotations associated with "evolved" but technically are they not correct?
No idea about the dark matter question, not my field. However we should always welcome the (respectful) questioning of fundamentals in science.
Heck, you don't think that we scientists got together one day and said "I know, lets make up some goofy theory and then fudge the data to fit it!" do you?
I'm a scientist and see, or catch myself doing, this quite often for the small-questions I am normally involved in working on. Thus I can easily imagine collective-blindness allowing it to occur for the BIG-questions too.
The "fudging" is usually not deliberate of course. It is not like I sit there making up numbers to massage a key graph just because I had a goofy idea and am seeking fame (wrong field for fortune). Instead I would say my "fudging" occours at insideous and difficult to detect stages that are basically the scientific equivalent of sloppy-workmanship:
1) Shaky foundations Assuming a fundamental idea which my work builds upon is proven only to later realise alternative explanations exist for the data from which the fundamental idea was derived. Ideas become more familiar and acceptable with repetition, yet they do not become more scientifically sound without better experiments. This is an easy trap to fall for and I have done so on several occasions.
2) Artifact hunting Selective reporting of "sucessful" experiments based upon a faulty theory. If I propose a theory there are always multiple ways of testing it, each with their own set of controls that I can concieve of. I normally proceed by setting up trial experiments to get an idea for the size of my signal in each case and the background and artifacts of each tecnique. If you fail to concieve of the correct control for one technique it is easy to spend a month or two measuring an artifact.
For example in the current paper I would not be suprised if they searched the sky for cosmic rays with the expected energy spectrum before checking background emmissions at other energies. While you are of course hunting for the signature of dark-matter you are also hunting for artifacts in the right energy-range. Without getting out into the universe it may be some time before we understand all possible mechanisms of cosmic ray production.
3) Alternative explanation blindness. If can be quite difficult to understand all the possible artifacts in any experiment let alone account for them and seek to eliminate their influence.
For eample, the constant reporting of geological evidence for past-water on Mars presupposes that we fully understand martian geology. It took us a lot of effort and measurements to understand mineral formation on earth to the level we do now. There will of course be many parallels between the two planets geological histories. But to me at least the idea that we can understand all possible mechanisms of mineral formation in an atmosphere and planet we have not visited seems a tad hasty.
Eventually science will eliminate hasty ideas and catch incomplete experiments. But don't underestimate the ease with which these ideas spread in science or the amount of effort it takes to catch them.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree, we already have PNA - protein + DNA. The protein component is just more complex than a simple helix running parallel to the DNA, instead it functions to regulate the DNA.
http://bioweb.wku.edu/courses/biol566/Images/NucleosomeF09-30A.JPG
For all intents and purposes evolution has done this. The DNA on your chromosomes are PACKED with proteins running all along the major groove of the DNA, just like in this "triple-helix".
The difference here is that this version is simple and pure - a continuous protein helix intertwined within the DNA's double helix. In your own body the protein component consists of smaller parts that are highly dynamic, constantly jumping on and off.
I don't think multi-nest-idea is wrong, but it is unusable in general public as it will not garner support. As such, it shouldn't roam too freely in the internet - my guess is that it will damage the efforts for manned space flight. To science fiction fans the idea is fine of course, we're already excited by the mere idea of off-world colonies. But we are capable of seeing short-term effort having worthwhile long-long-term gains in a way most don't bother about.
But, we simply must come up with more immediate and realistic arguments for society to spend its tax-money on manned spaceflight. It will simply NOT result in funding if this is all we have.
You mention commercial benefit and scientific benefit? These need to be clearly spelled and need to be the central thrust.
The multiple-nest argument will fail in public because of these concerns:
1) It far far too long-term. A self-sustaining off-world colony is hundereds, possibly thousands, of years in the future. Most megabudget-agencies outside the military have trouble with projects on decade-long completion horizons.
2) Any plan that uses as its fundental basis the death of 6 billion people is worrying. Why isn't the money being spent avoiding tragedy rather than getting out with the riches. It reeks too much of giving up. If the environment is crumbling on earth, fix it. The presence of water no matter what its form will still make living on terra easier by far than living in a metal tin on a dry-sterile Mars.
3) Only a tiny number of people will be capable of being moved off world, it will have no day-to-day effect on the rest of us. The "survival of humanity" is an ethos or a philosphy at best. It is difficult to get megadollars for concepts.
4) Even the premise of surviving major cataclysms by moving off world is weak. I would think it would be more cost effective and provide more relevant spin-off technology to develop underwater cities or long-term stasis. These techniques would allow survival of asteroid impacts, near-solar novas and thermonuclear war. Not the loss of the sun though, but realistically if the sun goes boom in the next 5000years - we go too.
Not saying I agree with all these points just that you need to address them and "eggs-in-basket" does not. :)
Yes, the rest of the doctors have been asking for this for some time. I would like to be able to track the good looking nurses throughout the hospital. Do you think you could manage that by pinpointing small increases in the pulse-rate of the seedy-old men in ward B?
What your saying electric cars will be maintance free. All bearings will run without lubrication? And surely selling gas will equate to selling kW, no?
I think I disagree with this hypothesis. Whatever their costs and benefits, electric cars will still have just as much need for spare parts, "energy stations" and your friendly local mechanic. :)
This is not always completely true is it? The cost of fixing a broken arm is more expensive now than in 1950's isn't it? My understanding was that wage costs in the health care industry have exceeded inflation due to a boom in the sector.
Your right in saying that many treatments that are available now just weren't possible 50 years ago.
Is this not what the word "evolved" means? To change slowly with time. My understanding is that Darwin simply used a word which meant "gradual change" to describe his biological theory of mutation and selection.
Perhaps the authors of the current study made a poor word choice simply due to the connotations associated with "evolved" but technically are they not correct?
No idea about the dark matter question, not my field. However we should always welcome the (respectful) questioning of fundamentals in science.
Heck, you don't think that we scientists got together one day and said "I know, lets make up some goofy theory and then fudge the data to fit it!" do you?
I'm a scientist and see, or catch myself doing, this quite often for the small-questions I am normally involved in working on. Thus I can easily imagine collective-blindness allowing it to occur for the BIG-questions too.
The "fudging" is usually not deliberate of course. It is not like I sit there making up numbers to massage a key graph just because I had a goofy idea and am seeking fame (wrong field for fortune). Instead I would say my "fudging" occours at insideous and difficult to detect stages that are basically the scientific equivalent of sloppy-workmanship:
1) Shaky foundations
Assuming a fundamental idea which my work builds upon is proven only to later realise alternative explanations exist for the data from which the fundamental idea was derived. Ideas become more familiar and acceptable with repetition, yet they do not become more scientifically sound without better experiments. This is an easy trap to fall for and I have done so on several occasions.
2) Artifact hunting
Selective reporting of "sucessful" experiments based upon a faulty theory. If I propose a theory there are always multiple ways of testing it, each with their own set of controls that I can concieve of. I normally proceed by setting up trial experiments to get an idea for the size of my signal in each case and the background and artifacts of each tecnique. If you fail to concieve of the correct control for one technique it is easy to spend a month or two measuring an artifact.
For example in the current paper I would not be suprised if they searched the sky for cosmic rays with the expected energy spectrum before checking background emmissions at other energies. While you are of course hunting for the signature of dark-matter you are also hunting for artifacts in the right energy-range. Without getting out into the universe it may be some time before we understand all possible mechanisms of cosmic ray production.
3) Alternative explanation blindness.
If can be quite difficult to understand all the possible artifacts in any experiment let alone account for them and seek to eliminate their influence.
For eample, the constant reporting of geological evidence for past-water on Mars presupposes that we fully understand martian geology. It took us a lot of effort and measurements to understand mineral formation on earth to the level we do now. There will of course be many parallels between the two planets geological histories. But to me at least the idea that we can understand all possible mechanisms of mineral formation in an atmosphere and planet we have not visited seems a tad hasty.
Eventually science will eliminate hasty ideas and catch incomplete experiments. But don't underestimate the ease with which these ideas spread in science or the amount of effort it takes to catch them.