Sometimes you can add certain RNAs and make *less* protein.
Yes, but why don't you quickly say how and why this works, rather than leave it all obscure?
DNA is double stranded: one string of letters glued to a complementary string of letters. If you know one strand, you can deduce the other strand, and the two strands like to stick together. This makes copying DNA especially easy. When DNA is to be converted into a protein, one of the strands is copied into an RNA strand. Such a strand contains the same information but remains single-stranded. It moves out of the cell nucleus and is then translated into protein, according to a well-known code.
Now it turns out that the cell has a machinery that hunts for double-stranded RNA molecules. Once it finds one, it gets primed on that particular string, and proceeds to destroy all copies of that RNA, even single-stranded ones. Why would the cell need a mechanism like that? Most likely to defend against viruses which often employ double-stranded RNA. (Secondarily, the cell also uses this mechanims to turn down certain genes: simply have another gene produce the complementary RNA sequence, let the two strands combine into a double-stranded RNA molecule, and have the machinery take care of the rest.)
Now scientists exploit this machinery for their own purposes: they insert complementary RNA or have the cell produce complementary RNA, again the two strands combine, and the machinery takes care of the rest. This is a very cheap and quick way of suppressing a gene and thereby finding out what exactly the gene does.
The solution is pretty obvious - the passengers have to sign an agreement granting the airline they are flying with to give out the personal information without any guarantees that the information will be protected.
This is not legally possible. You cannot sign away your privacy protections, just like you cannot sign away workplace protection rules for example.
Sanger has been skeptical from the beginning of letting ordinary folk edit an encyclopedia.
That may or may not be true; he certainly never publicly said anything to this effect in the early days of Wikipedia. Sanger almost single-handedly wrote the basic policies, set up the site's basic structure, promoted the project, and got it off the ground, with Jimbo remaining very much in the background for the first year. Luckily the mailing list archives are all public.
Hi Larry, it's been quite a while... I like your new project a lot and wish you all the best; in fact, just the other day I proposed that Wikipedia restrict editing to people who are willing to give their real names.
One little thing: in your manifesto you write that
editors will have the right to place articles in an "approved" category. I think you should say: editors will have the right to declare particular article versions as "approved". After all, later editing of an approved article may make it worse. There are patches for the Mediawiki software which add a feature to mark article versions as approved, see Article validation feature. Once an article version has been marked as approved, the article remains open for editing, and you have to decide whether readers will by default be presented with the approved version, or with the most up-to-date version, carrying a prominent link to the approved one (I prefer the latter approach).
They're admitting anyone as author who is willing to give their real name and a valid email address. Experts get slightly higher privileges than other authors: they can declare articles in their area to be "approved" and they can settle content disputes; other than that they edit like all other authors. See Sanger's Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge.
One word: advertising. Put as much advertising behind gnucleus as there is behind itunes, and the latter would be dead in the water. Feature by feature, itunes loses against gnucleus: DRM vs. mp3, some artists vs. all artists, $1 vs $0.
The children don't own the machines, so they are not free to sell them. Which means that anyone found in possession of a machine who is not a student of a developing country is by necessity in possession of stolen property, and the machine can simply be confiscated and returned to the owner.
The measurement process matters insofar as different measurement processes will yield different minimal programs and therefore, according to Hutter, different optimal AI moves. But in the real world there is only one, or at best a very small number of, optimal AI moves, not the plethora produced by Hutter.
Realign your size measurement to use (e.g.) function points, or processing cycles, or some other non-language-dependent factor.
Whatever notion of size measurement you pick, its formal definition will always have to depend on some underlying formally defined framework, such as Turing machine, lambda calculus, random access machine, or some programming language. These formal frameworks all contain lots of arbitrary conventions, and your notion of size will by necessity depend on those conventions. The notion of "optimal AI move" does not depend on those conventions however.
So you now have 2^512 variants of the Linux kernel, all of which look like a valid kernel. But there are only 2^128 possible hashes, so, on average, there will be four kernels for each hash value,
Make that 2^384 kernels for each hash value, on average.
The basic theory, for which Hutter provides a proof, is that after any set of observations the optimal move by an AI is find the smallest program that predicts those observations and then assume its environment is controlled by that program.
Well, I don't know about Hutter's proof, but I do know that the "basic theory" as described above is surely wrong. The simple reason: the smallest program that predicts those observations will depend on the programming language used; the optimal AI move however obviously does not depend on the programming language.
This is a really nice description of the theorem. I have just two small additions:
simple connected and close means that the surface is well... just an obvious surface
Simply connected means "no holes that you could capture with a loop". For instance, an ordinary sphere (what mathematicians call a 2-sphere, the surface of a ball) is simply connected: if you have any closed loop on the sphere, you can shrink it to a single point without leaving the sphere. The same is true for the 3-sphere. With a torus (surface of a donut) you can't always do that: there are certain loops that you can never shrink to a point without leaving the donut's surface. So the torus is not simply connected.
A closed surface is one that does not allow points to go off to infinity (technical term: compact) and has no boundary. So for instance all of three-space is a nice simply connected 3-dimensional manifold, but it is not closed because points can run off to infinity. It also doesn't have a boundary. How could something without a boundary keep points from moving to infinity? Well, consider the 2-sphere, torus, or 3-sphere. No points in these spaces can shoot to infinity, but yet they don't have a boundary (a boundary point is a point where the surface abruptly stops). Closed manifolds somehow have to fold back on themselves.
that's basically what homeomorphism means. Like you take the object as a piece of putty and stretch and pull it, or fold it, or whatever without cutting or gluing bits together
Not quite: in additions to stretching and pulling, a homeomorphism also allows cutting and gluing, as long as you first cut, then move and stretch, and then glue together in exactly the same way that you cut earlier. So for example, take a little cylinder made from paper (without its top and bottom, just the side). Now cut it open along a straight line from top to bottom: if you unwrap it, you'll have a rectangle. Now create a double twist in that rectangle and glue it together along the same line again. The result is a terribly twisted "cylinder", and it is homeomorphic to the cylinder you started out with. (Had you made only a single twist rather than a double twist, then you wouldn't have glued points together that were earlier cut apart, and the result wouldn't have been homeomorphic to the cylinder--it would have been a Moebius strip.)
...instead of merely being the latest expression of the evolutionary process.
You're just as much "the latest expression of the evolutionary process" as the billions of bacteria that live in your ass and without which you couldn't survive.
Every user can create a "profile" (user page) in Wikipedia, and the talk pages see plenty of socializing. So we're now banning Wikipedia from schools and libraries?
Slashdot Mirror
DNA is double stranded: one string of letters glued to a complementary string of letters. If you know one strand, you can deduce the other strand, and the two strands like to stick together. This makes copying DNA especially easy. When DNA is to be converted into a protein, one of the strands is copied into an RNA strand. Such a strand contains the same information but remains single-stranded. It moves out of the cell nucleus and is then translated into protein, according to a well-known code.
Now it turns out that the cell has a machinery that hunts for double-stranded RNA molecules. Once it finds one, it gets primed on that particular string, and proceeds to destroy all copies of that RNA, even single-stranded ones. Why would the cell need a mechanism like that? Most likely to defend against viruses which often employ double-stranded RNA. (Secondarily, the cell also uses this mechanims to turn down certain genes: simply have another gene produce the complementary RNA sequence, let the two strands combine into a double-stranded RNA molecule, and have the machinery take care of the rest.)
Now scientists exploit this machinery for their own purposes: they insert complementary RNA or have the cell produce complementary RNA, again the two strands combine, and the machinery takes care of the rest. This is a very cheap and quick way of suppressing a gene and thereby finding out what exactly the gene does.
A high quality English translation of the second link can be found here.
One little thing: in your manifesto you write that editors will have the right to place articles in an "approved" category. I think you should say: editors will have the right to declare particular article versions as "approved". After all, later editing of an approved article may make it worse. There are patches for the Mediawiki software which add a feature to mark article versions as approved, see Article validation feature. Once an article version has been marked as approved, the article remains open for editing, and you have to decide whether readers will by default be presented with the approved version, or with the most up-to-date version, carrying a prominent link to the approved one (I prefer the latter approach).
The children don't own the machines, so they are not free to sell them. Which means that anyone found in possession of a machine who is not a student of a developing country is by necessity in possession of stolen property, and the machine can simply be confiscated and returned to the owner.
The measurement process matters insofar as different measurement processes will yield different minimal programs and therefore, according to Hutter, different optimal AI moves. But in the real world there is only one, or at best a very small number of, optimal AI moves, not the plethora produced by Hutter.
Make that 2^384 kernels for each hash value, on average.
Well, I don't know about Hutter's proof, but I do know that the "basic theory" as described above is surely wrong. The simple reason: the smallest program that predicts those observations will depend on the programming language used; the optimal AI move however obviously does not depend on the programming language.
So is inkscape finally able to produce a red arrow with a red tip? Up to now it was impossible.
A closed surface is one that does not allow points to go off to infinity (technical term: compact) and has no boundary. So for instance all of three-space is a nice simply connected 3-dimensional manifold, but it is not closed because points can run off to infinity. It also doesn't have a boundary. How could something without a boundary keep points from moving to infinity? Well, consider the 2-sphere, torus, or 3-sphere. No points in these spaces can shoot to infinity, but yet they don't have a boundary (a boundary point is a point where the surface abruptly stops). Closed manifolds somehow have to fold back on themselves.
Not quite: in additions to stretching and pulling, a homeomorphism also allows cutting and gluing, as long as you first cut, then move and stretch, and then glue together in exactly the same way that you cut earlier. So for example, take a little cylinder made from paper (without its top and bottom, just the side). Now cut it open along a straight line from top to bottom: if you unwrap it, you'll have a rectangle. Now create a double twist in that rectangle and glue it together along the same line again. The result is a terribly twisted "cylinder", and it is homeomorphic to the cylinder you started out with. (Had you made only a single twist rather than a double twist, then you wouldn't have glued points together that were earlier cut apart, and the result wouldn't have been homeomorphic to the cylinder--it would have been a Moebius strip.)So without the pirate bay, what's the best tracker/index left?
You're just as much "the latest expression of the evolutionary process" as the billions of bacteria that live in your ass and without which you couldn't survive.
Every user can create a "profile" (user page) in Wikipedia, and the talk pages see plenty of socializing. So we're now banning Wikipedia from schools and libraries?
Big deal, that's what the "Undo Closed Tab" and "Closed Tabs List" features are for. You're running Tab Mix Plus, right?
I find close buttons on every tab useful to quickly close tabs that I'm not currently reading.