Of course, as the authors of the original article (probably login required) themselves admit, the confidence intervals are very wide. This is inevitable for a sample of only 12 individuals. However it indicates, that mutation rate is about 12/10149085=0.000001 (rounded at first non-zero digit).
I would expect mutation rate to be somehow adapted to changes in the environment. But this rate does seem very low. It translates to very long timescales of change.
I think a mutuation rate this low, gives more force to arguments for genetic engineering.
Interestingly, in genetic algorithms, it seems from a recent review that people usually use mutation rates much higher at the orders of 0.01 or 0.001.
Let me defend google. One thing is wanting to reform the status quo, another having to live with it. They are pragmatic. It doesn't make sense to close your eyes to reality. Google has been fighting off patent trolls for a long time. They have to be careful.
I think it would be completely wrong to only allow people to compete who are sufficiently similar to some standard (or average). The better we understand genetic differences the more problematic this issue will become. It's evident that some people have to fight more, some less to become top-class athletes. I predict that as a mediation athletes will compete in different groups of genetic characteristics, similar to the groups at the paralympics. This will make the competition more fair, because within these groups variance will be much smaller than in the big groups (male/female).
I think it is important to see that nobody is predetermined to become a top athlete. It takes a lot of discipline and social support to become an athlete. It is in the interest of humanity to advance physically and mentally, so why not use the competition to our advantage to distinguish the best?
References?
I read articles about nutrition and cognition some time ago. In general high energy expenditure and low energy intake have about the same effect (however rather long-term as far as I recall). "Exercise and the brain: something to chew on" listed this food as potentially beneficial (though effects are not well-studied yet):
- omega-3 fatty acid (e.g. fish oil),
- some teas,
- fruits,
- folate (vitamin B9),
- spices, and
- other vitamins.
If approved by regulators and when ultimately implemented - this agreement would boost Microsoft's search market share to about 25-30% (by June/July data).
It is good that there is more competition in the search market. Any move of Microsoft to take market from google by competition (e.g. Microsoft Office Online) brings immediate advantage to everybody. A question for me however is: will this move affect significantly (read: slow down) the market introduction of Google Chrome OS, which many hope could bring more competition to the OS market?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, as the authors of the original article (probably login required) themselves admit, the confidence intervals are very wide. This is inevitable for a sample of only 12 individuals. However it indicates, that mutation rate is about 12/10149085=0.000001 (rounded at first non-zero digit).
I would expect mutation rate to be somehow adapted to changes in the environment. But this rate does seem very low. It translates to very long timescales of change.
I think a mutuation rate this low, gives more force to arguments for genetic engineering.
Interestingly, in genetic algorithms, it seems from a recent review that people usually use mutation rates much higher at the orders of 0.01 or 0.001.
Let me defend google. One thing is wanting to reform the status quo, another having to live with it. They are pragmatic. It doesn't make sense to close your eyes to reality. Google has been fighting off patent trolls for a long time. They have to be careful.
I think it would be completely wrong to only allow people to compete who are sufficiently similar to some standard (or average). The better we understand genetic differences the more problematic this issue will become. It's evident that some people have to fight more, some less to become top-class athletes. I predict that as a mediation athletes will compete in different groups of genetic characteristics, similar to the groups at the paralympics. This will make the competition more fair, because within these groups variance will be much smaller than in the big groups (male/female).
I think it is important to see that nobody is predetermined to become a top athlete. It takes a lot of discipline and social support to become an athlete. It is in the interest of humanity to advance physically and mentally, so why not use the competition to our advantage to distinguish the best?
Are you really using vi? Tried :help spell in vim?
References?
I read articles about nutrition and cognition some time ago. In general high energy expenditure and low energy intake have about the same effect (however rather long-term as far as I recall). "Exercise and the brain: something to chew on" listed this food as potentially beneficial (though effects are not well-studied yet):
- omega-3 fatty acid (e.g. fish oil),
- some teas,
- fruits,
- folate (vitamin B9),
- spices, and
- other vitamins.
In another article, "Impact of Energy Intake and Expenditure on Neuronal Plasticity", I found that saturated fats and cholesterol increase the risk of cognitive decline.
If nothing else it could make the kids run faster
If approved by regulators and when ultimately implemented - this agreement would boost Microsoft's search market share to about 25-30% (by June/July data). It is good that there is more competition in the search market. Any move of Microsoft to take market from google by competition (e.g. Microsoft Office Online) brings immediate advantage to everybody. A question for me however is: will this move affect significantly (read: slow down) the market introduction of Google Chrome OS, which many hope could bring more competition to the OS market?