Have you seen what happens to storage limits? Once there is this much storage, someone will come out with higher res. video. Or 3d video. Or total sensory immersion where all of the neural inputs to the brain are copied. Once that is high res enough, someone will figure out a way to map all of the hormones etc in the body to make a truly realistic experience. And you know what industry will bring this to you? That's right... porn.
Then that's the fault of the sender. Most email clients have three options: plain text, html, or both. Yhis is generally configurable on a per user basis. But, seriously: Why don't you just get a compitent email client? They're free, ya know. You're basically doing the same as complaining that HDTV only puts out color signals and can't view the shows correctly on your 12" B&W tv.
And if you can't be bothered to change to a new viewer, you can always just parse the HTML yourself.
What do you mean no point? Having sex with a hooker restores your health. If I'm not mistaken it can actually raise it above 100% (at which point it gradually drops it back down to 100%.) Running her over means that you don't have to pay for the health, as you would at a pizza place or whatever.
And not to mention that an $800 steadicam is about the very bottom of the barrel. Something professional level can easilly be more like 7000 dollars." And that's a used one...
Just the bracket used to convert the steadicam to a really low to the ground shot can run about $800.
I don't remember who posted it, but someone got a hold of a much more detailed article. That article said that this is just a single base mutation. Hmm... maybe I'll try to find that post. Here it is.
So a single base mutation could easilly (well, maybe not easilly so much as feasibly) be repaired by a protein encoded for somewhere else in the DNA. That kinda moves this from the realm of "Wow, how does that work?" to "That's kinda neat."
He said the effect was turned up to maximum for the demo just so you could see it. Makes sense to make it really flashy when you first see it, then make it subtle for when you actually use it.
Man, scientists are such dorks. From the article you quoted:
The mutation was in a gene known as hothead, one of many related genes -- including fiddlehead, airhead, pothead and deadhead -- that when mutated cause abnormalities in stems and flowers.
how does the RNA exist in the organism to correct the DNA? RNA degrades pretty quickly
While pure RNA might not stick around very long, RNA associated with a protein and/or lipids could be fairly robust. The central dogma, while generally correct, does have some exceptions, namely retroviruses and retrotransposons. If you are of the school of thought that viruses originated as a flaw in the DNA reproduction/repair process (as they can not reproduce without a host) then it is trivial to see that reverse transcriptase could have at one point been created in an organism, allowing for RNA->DNA.
I'm not saying that this is the way it is, I'm just saying that this is one possible explanation. Basically this does not have to be the hand of god coming down and putting the genes back into the plant.
While there was not another copy in DNA, it is possible that there was a backup copy in RNA Maybe the mutation is very simple and repairing could be as simple as inserting a couple of base pairs in the right place, which really wouldn't even need a DNA template. A sophisticated enough protein could "recognise" the spot that repairs need to be made in, especially if it's a protein/RNA hybrid molecule (which is actually quite common.)
I guess it all depends on the specifics of the individual mutations. The mutation may be as simple as one base pair being off.
It may not seem efficient, but there is actually a lot of redundancy in DNA. One place that redundancy often occurs is with proteins that are produced in large quantities over a short period of time. Multiple RNA transcriptions can be made simultaneously which then go and get transcribed into proteins. I don't think that efficiency is much of a concern, anyways. If I recall more than half the DNA in most advanced organism does not actually code for proteins, it's just tagging along. Although some of this is related to timing of transcription, reproduction, and other events.
I really don't see this blowing the lid off of evolutionary science in the way that relativistic/quantum physics did to Newtonian physics. This simply seems to be a repair mechanism which has been put in place to mitigate where a certain mutation (I'm guessing this mutation is harmful) occurs. The body is known to have several DNA repair mechanisms, although most of these seem to be for somatic (not passed down to offspring) mutations.
Think of it this way: this ability stems from a mutation in and of itself. All that it does is checks for a flaw in a certain sequence and fixes it. Probably this particular sequence has a high probability of being detrimentally mutated, and so having the repair mechanism makes it more likely that when the mutation happens, it won't kill the whole organism.
An organism repairing it's own DNA is not unheard of. There are certain somatic (IE: not passed down from generation to generation) mutations and other varieties of DNA damage that lead to cancer. There is a mechanism in place to replace these mutations with another copy. The body also has a way of detecting and removing some viruses and retroviruses that have embedded themselves in the DNA of the host organism, to a limited extent.
Well, access to the speech really isn't being infringed upon, unless you are under 18 and your parents don't want you looking at pictures of boobs. Although if you want to get tinfoil hat, they could just be testing that waters with this bill.
You really don't want your OS to turn off the hard drives. Spin up/Spin down is just about the hardest thing you can do on a computer. Similar to stop and go traffic in an automobile. I believe the rule of thumb is to leave them on if you intend to use the computer again in one day. Considering the automatic updates, virus scans/etc that generally go on behind the scense these days, you'd be lucky if the computer let the hard drives lay silent for half that time. Only time it makes sense to let the OS spin the drive up and down is in a portable computer where battery life is a concern, and I doubt a second drive will go in a laptop just for the swp.
Additionally, adding the second drive will have negative consequences: 1) HEAT: Higher operating temperatures drastically increase hard drive failure rates. Each additional hard drive puts out a lot of energy in the form of heat, which directly heats up the computer. Each additional ribbon cable also obstructs the flow of air through the chasis, leading to a warmer system. The second hard drive itself also may partially obstruct air flow. 2) POWER consumed by the additional drive could tax the PSU, causing it to provide a less consistant voltage level. This is a bad thing.
honestly, spending money on quality RAM to reduce swapping would have more of an effect on hard drive life. And rather than buying a second hard drive now, buy a hard drive when the size is bigger. Copy your important files over to the new drive, and the old one becomes instant backup. Every true geek formats and reinstalls several times a year anyways (at least on their personal machine.) Why not start with a blank slate?
This really wouldn't apply to a redundantly striped RAID array, as the redundancy more than makes up for the slight hit to individual drive reliability.
I personally quite agree with you, except so often that "As long as there is an opt-out method somewhere" part is so often missing or totally broken. Or gets you flagged as a terrorist (I'm not saying that it actually happens, I'm just saying that the perception of it possibly happening is there.)
But most users are far more comfortable with something approaching standard widgets. Even with games. Sure, the interface for playing the game will vary between games, but that doesn't mean that most games aren't closed by the big red X in the right hand corner.
If you are going off of USER INSTALLED BASE (as opposed to installed user base) I'd wager that most games actually follow the standard Windows Widget set in this case. You have to remember that most users don't actually play DOOM3 and the like. Anything full screen is really for the hard-core gamers. Most users play games like Snood and Zuma. Maybe some new version of solitaire that their nephew bought them for Christmas.
This goes moreso for programs actually used, versus installed. I'd be willing to bet that THE most used program on an average computer is Iexplore.exe, followed by the cluster of Minesweeper and The Card Games (solitaire, free cell, spider solitaire, hearts.)
And every time I find some program I really like that has a sort of non-standard widget set, I often times soon find a program with the same functionality that I love using which uses standard widgets.
Hmm... I was just going to go prove that to myself before posting. When I tried to open Spybot and for some reason my link pointed to blindman.exe which, according to spybot's home page, it does absolutely nothing. So, normally I'd trim the post down a bit at this point, make stuff more relevant, but... grr. Now a program that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is definately a program that can get away with a non-standard widget set. And I'm gonna go figure out what changed that this program's getting called instead of, you know, spybot. I bet it was MS Anti-Spyware. I'd better get out my tin-foil hat and lucky chiken!
I dunno, seems like it would still be a bit more expensive to build and maintain than basically: a fabric tent, a couple bags of quickrete and some water.
I'd rather them not actually have a release date in mind over the alternatives: A) Duke Nukem Forever it, where release date keeps getting pushed back again and again or B) Be forced by the date to release a half-assed product.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen what happens to storage limits? Once there is this much storage, someone will come out with higher res. video. Or 3d video. Or total sensory immersion where all of the neural inputs to the brain are copied. Once that is high res enough, someone will figure out a way to map all of the hormones etc in the body to make a truly realistic experience. And you know what industry will bring this to you? That's right... porn.
Then that's the fault of the sender. Most email clients have three options: plain text, html, or both. Yhis is generally configurable on a per user basis. But, seriously: Why don't you just get a compitent email client? They're free, ya know. You're basically doing the same as complaining that HDTV only puts out color signals and can't view the shows correctly on your 12" B&W tv.
And if you can't be bothered to change to a new viewer, you can always just parse the HTML yourself.
I wonder if precious features such as multiplayer will get rarer
Not really. Right now multiplayer seems to be the easiest way to implement anti-piracy measures.
What do you mean no point? Having sex with a hooker restores your health. If I'm not mistaken it can actually raise it above 100% (at which point it gradually drops it back down to 100%.) Running her over means that you don't have to pay for the health, as you would at a pizza place or whatever.
And not to mention that an $800 steadicam is about the very bottom of the barrel. Something professional level can easilly be more like 7000 dollars." And that's a used one...
Just the bracket used to convert the steadicam to a really low to the ground shot can run about $800.
I don't remember who posted it, but someone got a hold of a much more detailed article. That article said that this is just a single base mutation. Hmm... maybe I'll try to find that post. Here it is.
So a single base mutation could easilly (well, maybe not easilly so much as feasibly) be repaired by a protein encoded for somewhere else in the DNA. That kinda moves this from the realm of "Wow, how does that work?" to "That's kinda neat."
He said the effect was turned up to maximum for the demo just so you could see it. Makes sense to make it really flashy when you first see it, then make it subtle for when you actually use it.
Man, scientists are such dorks. From the article you quoted:
The mutation was in a gene known as hothead, one of many related genes -- including fiddlehead, airhead, pothead and deadhead -- that when mutated cause abnormalities in stems and flowers.
Gotta love it.
how does the RNA exist in the organism to correct the DNA? RNA degrades pretty quickly
While pure RNA might not stick around very long, RNA associated with a protein and/or lipids could be fairly robust. The central dogma, while generally correct, does have some exceptions, namely retroviruses and retrotransposons. If you are of the school of thought that viruses originated as a flaw in the DNA reproduction/repair process (as they can not reproduce without a host) then it is trivial to see that reverse transcriptase could have at one point been created in an organism, allowing for RNA->DNA.
I'm not saying that this is the way it is, I'm just saying that this is one possible explanation. Basically this does not have to be the hand of god coming down and putting the genes back into the plant.
While there was not another copy in DNA, it is possible that there was a backup copy in RNA Maybe the mutation is very simple and repairing could be as simple as inserting a couple of base pairs in the right place, which really wouldn't even need a DNA template. A sophisticated enough protein could "recognise" the spot that repairs need to be made in, especially if it's a protein/RNA hybrid molecule (which is actually quite common.)
I guess it all depends on the specifics of the individual mutations. The mutation may be as simple as one base pair being off.
Why would a backup copy of genes demonstrate any flaw or hole in the theory?
If anything, the backup genes would help support evolution theory. Why would there be a mechanism to fix the DNA if DNA never changed?
It may not seem efficient, but there is actually a lot of redundancy in DNA. One place that redundancy often occurs is with proteins that are produced in large quantities over a short period of time. Multiple RNA transcriptions can be made simultaneously which then go and get transcribed into proteins. I don't think that efficiency is much of a concern, anyways. If I recall more than half the DNA in most advanced organism does not actually code for proteins, it's just tagging along. Although some of this is related to timing of transcription, reproduction, and other events.
I really don't see this blowing the lid off of evolutionary science in the way that relativistic/quantum physics did to Newtonian physics. This simply seems to be a repair mechanism which has been put in place to mitigate where a certain mutation (I'm guessing this mutation is harmful) occurs. The body is known to have several DNA repair mechanisms, although most of these seem to be for somatic (not passed down to offspring) mutations.
Think of it this way: this ability stems from a mutation in and of itself. All that it does is checks for a flaw in a certain sequence and fixes it. Probably this particular sequence has a high probability of being detrimentally mutated, and so having the repair mechanism makes it more likely that when the mutation happens, it won't kill the whole organism.
An organism repairing it's own DNA is not unheard of. There are certain somatic (IE: not passed down from generation to generation) mutations and other varieties of DNA damage that lead to cancer. There is a mechanism in place to replace these mutations with another copy. The body also has a way of detecting and removing some viruses and retroviruses that have embedded themselves in the DNA of the host organism, to a limited extent.
Well, access to the speech really isn't being infringed upon, unless you are under 18 and your parents don't want you looking at pictures of boobs. Although if you want to get tinfoil hat, they could just be testing that waters with this bill.
You say you nead salt water?
You really don't want your OS to turn off the hard drives. Spin up/Spin down is just about the hardest thing you can do on a computer. Similar to stop and go traffic in an automobile. I believe the rule of thumb is to leave them on if you intend to use the computer again in one day. Considering the automatic updates, virus scans/etc that generally go on behind the scense these days, you'd be lucky if the computer let the hard drives lay silent for half that time. Only time it makes sense to let the OS spin the drive up and down is in a portable computer where battery life is a concern, and I doubt a second drive will go in a laptop just for the swp.
Additionally, adding the second drive will have negative consequences: 1) HEAT: Higher operating temperatures drastically increase hard drive failure rates. Each additional hard drive puts out a lot of energy in the form of heat, which directly heats up the computer. Each additional ribbon cable also obstructs the flow of air through the chasis, leading to a warmer system. The second hard drive itself also may partially obstruct air flow. 2) POWER consumed by the additional drive could tax the PSU, causing it to provide a less consistant voltage level. This is a bad thing.
honestly, spending money on quality RAM to reduce swapping would have more of an effect on hard drive life. And rather than buying a second hard drive now, buy a hard drive when the size is bigger. Copy your important files over to the new drive, and the old one becomes instant backup. Every true geek formats and reinstalls several times a year anyways (at least on their personal machine.) Why not start with a blank slate?
This really wouldn't apply to a redundantly striped RAID array, as the redundancy more than makes up for the slight hit to individual drive reliability.
I personally quite agree with you, except so often that "As long as there is an opt-out method somewhere" part is so often missing or totally broken. Or gets you flagged as a terrorist (I'm not saying that it actually happens, I'm just saying that the perception of it possibly happening is there.)
To offer you things that you (hopefully) will be likely to buy?
We see that you have distrust of large corporations. We suggest Conspiracies and Cover Ups: What the Government Isn't Telling You : A Shocking New Study by David Alexander. Or perhaps you would be interested in an Azurite Mind Power Necklace, 19" which helps absorb thetatronic mind control rays directed at you by an advance alien race.
But most users are far more comfortable with something approaching standard widgets. Even with games. Sure, the interface for playing the game will vary between games, but that doesn't mean that most games aren't closed by the big red X in the right hand corner.
If you are going off of USER INSTALLED BASE (as opposed to installed user base) I'd wager that most games actually follow the standard Windows Widget set in this case. You have to remember that most users don't actually play DOOM3 and the like. Anything full screen is really for the hard-core gamers. Most users play games like Snood and Zuma. Maybe some new version of solitaire that their nephew bought them for Christmas.
This goes moreso for programs actually used, versus installed. I'd be willing to bet that THE most used program on an average computer is Iexplore.exe, followed by the cluster of Minesweeper and The Card Games (solitaire, free cell, spider solitaire, hearts.)
And every time I find some program I really like that has a sort of non-standard widget set, I often times soon find a program with the same functionality that I love using which uses standard widgets.
Hmm... I was just going to go prove that to myself before posting. When I tried to open Spybot and for some reason my link pointed to blindman.exe which, according to spybot's home page, it does absolutely nothing. So, normally I'd trim the post down a bit at this point, make stuff more relevant, but... grr. Now a program that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is definately a program that can get away with a non-standard widget set. And I'm gonna go figure out what changed that this program's getting called instead of, you know, spybot. I bet it was MS Anti-Spyware. I'd better get out my tin-foil hat and lucky chiken!
I dunno, seems like it would still be a bit more expensive to build and maintain than basically: a fabric tent, a couple bags of quickrete and some water.
Or in some parts of the world, instant drinkable water might be kinda convenient.
I'd rather them not actually have a release date in mind over the alternatives: A) Duke Nukem Forever it, where release date keeps getting pushed back again and again or B) Be forced by the date to release a half-assed product.
Ehh... if it's a name he doesn't like, then he just writes some really bad things about the ship.