Nope. The point is gone. Proteins are just lots of amino acids, connected by single bonds. The hard part is getting all those constituent atoms to form into the relatively complex amino acids. Then just string the amino acids along and see what you get. True, getting functional proteins that can actually (for example) catalyze a chemical reaction is pretty unlikely when you're just randomly creating proteins by strining aa's together. But remember, not only do you you have most of the history of the universe in which to do it in, but these results suggest that the reactions can take place within most of the area of the universe (ie - deep space). That's a LOT of time, and a LOT of area. It makes me wonder why there isn't MORE life out there, actually.
Re:Why we can't model biology with computers
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 2
Well, I'd personally say that point is arguable. Let's say we're making a system that is capable of responses as complicated as those exhibited as a cell, for example. It's really just a matter of adding in billions of responses. So we'd model a receptor-ligand system by saying "if stimulus X in Y amount then trigger Z." Things get really complicated when you stipulate that stimulus X in Y amount will ONLY trigger Z if your "receptor" is present in the right amount.
When you really get down to it, most biological processes aren't analog. Instead, they're regulated by molecules that can take on a finite number of states. Given, the number of molecules involved is fantastically large, and the number of states they can take is almost always more than 2 (especially since you have to take the effect of things like protein misfolding due to mutation into account).
So yes, it's relatively simple (heh) to produce a computer-based system that's as complicated as a biological one. But to replicate a biological system we'd have to know every X molecule, and all of the resultant Z triggers that can result from Y concentration of X. Then, we'd have to already know how all of the different X molecules connect to eachother (in ways as subtle as "you can't make any more X1 because all of the zinc was used to make X2").
However, while we can't replicate biological systems (and probably never will be able to), we certainly can model them. This is much easier, since we interweave a bunch of different functions in an attempt to arrive at something that generally makes sense. Then try to model some situations where the result is already known. If your model matches reality in almost every case, then you've probably got a winner. Otherwise, Do Not Pass Go.
Re:Why we can't model biology with computers
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 2
Never say never. When you really get down to it, the only thing that allows organisms to register a single photon is that photon tripping some chromophore into a different conformation. So it's just one particle making an atom switch, thereby making an amino acid twist, thereby making an entire protein move. The subsequent amplification all rely on principles of signal transduction.
So computers must be able to measure single photons, otherwise how did the physicists know that they were emitting a single photon? And to go from single-photon-detection to whole-organism-response only requires a long series of amplification cascades. Why is such a setup so hard to envision in a computer system?
What's wrong with the liberal use of a metaphor here and there? The people we're talking about here (biologists and technologists) aren't idiots...they're highly trained and intelligent individuals. As such, most of them can tell when a metaphor is being taken too far.
Let's say I'm trying to explain a concept in molecular biology to a computer scientist. Is it really so bad if I make an analogy connecting something the computer scientist already knows (programming, for example) and something he or she does not know (MAPK pathways, for example)? As long as the analogy holds up on the level that I explain it at, things should work fine.
But because neither the computer scientist nor the biologist are stupid, they won't take the analogy too far. The computer scientist won't immediately think, "I bet obscure programming fact XXXX holds for this biological system he's explaining to me, because he just used programming language YYYY in his metaphor." This won't happen because the computer scientist is a rational person, who knows what a metaphor is and its probable limits.
Yes, it's true that if everyone takes metaphors literally, then we'll run into problems. But the entire reason we can use metaphors for something useful, is that we can also also understand that a metaphor can break down at some point.
I'll admit, I get pissed when popular culture misquotes some arcane (or even general) biological principle. However, that's a totally different thing than using some other subject as a metaphor. Without metaphors, those involved would have to learn these things from scratch, without drawing upon what one already understands. I think it's totally valid to dispense snippets of information through metaphor, since the alternative is working one's way up from ground zero without using metaphor. And that's way too much to ask, considering in biology it takes a PhD for anyone to consider you above zero level.
Someone please mod up this comment. The whole point of my original post was to make someone realize that maybe super-realism (which I was seeing advocated in a few posts) wasn't the most fun thing in the world. Obviously someone got it, but somehow it was my original "devil's advocate" post that got modded up.
Ironically, I moved to California from Washington. So like you implied about us (former) Washingtonians, recycling just seems like the thing to do. I was awfully surprised when people in California gave me those blank-stares you talked about.
And oh yes, the coffee cake (and coffe in general) is one of the things I miss most about Washington. Damn California and their move away from caffeine!
If only this fee would actually make it recycling PCs accesible. I just moved to CA, and I had a monitor that crapped out on me a month or so after the move. I went to a few local computer shops looking for deals on a new monitor, and while I was there I asked all the tech guys where I could recycle the old monitor.
No one had any clue.
I spent a several afternoons trying to find an environmentally-friendly way to get rid of the damn burnt out monitor, but without any luck. Eventually I was forced to just put it out on the curb for the garbage men to pick up.
So I was determined to recycle my old monitor, but still failed in the state of CA. You think people who don't care in the first place will do anything other than just chuck the thing in the trash? If there's a purchase-recycling fee, then they sure as hell need a very robust system to actually do the recycling. And the most important part of such a system would be advertising to let people know the service is available and how to use it. Because otherwise there will be people like me who have the best intentions, but don't know where to take the hardware.
Are you absolutely sure you want a fighting game that's realistic? Millions of people would complain about "play balance" in a realistic game. Face it, if you hit someone, physics dictates they're going down unless they take drastic measures to counteract that. And like you insinuated, if they take drastic measures, it leaves them open for more punishment. That's why, in real fights, it's almost always the guy who connects first that wins. And medical-grade damage modeling is definitely something you don't want. In almost every fighting game ever made, hitting someone in the stomach staggers them back, but that's about it. From (unfortunate) experience, getting hit in the stomach actuallymakes one double over and takes you out of the running for a minute or more.
Let's face it...reality isn't fun. It takes a lot of money put from a special effects budget to make a movie look exciting. And that's because in real-life, things just aren't that cool.
General Approaches to Modeling Macromolecular Interactions
Programming for Proteomics: What Have You Guys Gotten Yourselves Into Now?
With my background, I'd prefer an approach that assumes previous knowledge of the biology behind the systems and focuses more on the programming/tech issues. However (if you have unlimited time and resources), you could always make a 2 editions for each book: 1 for people that are already biologists, and another for people that are already programmers.
I'm sure/. will be inundated by people making this connection, but Arthur C. Clarke came up with the idea for communications satellites in geostationary orbits in 1945 (about 25 years before their actual use). However, his idea wasn't outlined in a novel, but in his paper, "Extra-terrestrial Relays. Which is still an interesting read, almost 57 years after its publishing.
Heh. Of course not. Courier is the only way to go. But it still worries me that a Fed Ex guy would think: "Oh, I bet it's not Hanta virus. I can smash this biohazard around with impunity!"
Thinking of shipping Fed Ex? Maybe not after reading this story.
I'm on my way to a lab at a certain facility (names withheld because of details mentioned later). I happen to notice that the Fed Ex guy is unloading some things on my way up the walk. Suddenly I stop in horror as I watch him unload a small box that is absolutely COVERED in biohazard stickers and DROP it from shoulder height to the pavement at his feet. He then proceeds to pick up heavier, larger boxes and drop the from the same heighs ON TOP of the biohazard box!
Luckily, the contents of the box weren't hazardous: only some non-virulent strains of E. coli that a lab didn't happen to have on hand but needed for some reason. But what if it had been a package for a BSL-3 or BSL-4 lab? (for non-scientists, that's labs that work with bugs like HIV, tuberculosis, and Hanta virus) There are labs working with that nasty stuff at the facility. But the Fed Ex guy didn't really seem to care.
So if Fed Ex is careless with something so obviously marked as dangerous (what is more frightening than a box covered in bright red biohazard symbols?), just think of the loving care your packages much be receiving.
I haven't picked up the autobiography yet, but have greatly enjoyed the rants Campbell posts online (if only I could remember where they're published....damn it!). Sorry for posting a question that's already covered in his book. I'll have to go out and buy it! You've sold me::grin::
I've heard little rumor-snippets about your practical-joke relationship with the Raimi's. For example....that Sam himself threw the dirt on your face during the "burying the Evil Ash" scene in Army of Darkness.
Could you comment on working with the Raimi's? Obviously you're friends, but anecdotes, personal commentary, and so on would be great. Basically I'd like to get some insights into your friendship with them and the sort of chemistry you have with that particular dastardly duo. Comparisons (favorable and otherwise) to other people you've worked with are also more than welcome.
Has anyone else noticed that it's actually hard to use cash in some situations? For the most part, I'm totally cashless. I have a central checking account and a debit card w/ the Visa logo. So rather than go to the ATM, withdraw some 20s, and spend them. I just go to a place of business and they withdraw the exact amount for me.
But what about the people that prefer to exclusively use cash?
I worked in a computer retail store for a while. And when people came in and bought a high-high-end PC or laptop with just cash, you'd better believe we noticed it. When someone peels 20-30 $100 bills off a stack, everyone in the store craned in for a better look. And we checked all that money verrry carefully.
A similar story was told to me by a friend who worked at a candy factory. The janitor at the place had just bought a brand-new car, but was complaining that the dealership almost wouldn't sell it to him. Why not? Because he had paid in CASH. $26,000 in cash. He actually brought the stacks of bills to the dealership in a briefcase, all ready to go. And, of course, the dealer was a little suspicious about someone carrying that much cash.
So you see my point? How is it that we have come to trust pieces of plastic or signed pieces of paper as opposed to cold, hard, cash? Somehow America has embraced a further level of abstraction from specie to the point of almost rejecting other forms of payment. It just seems like curious situation to me. I'm not sure if I like it or not, though. Like I said, I'm almost totally cashless. But I'd like to believe that if I wanted to switch to cash-only, I'd be able to use that money for whatever I want. Now I'm not so sure I could.
Oh, how I wish this would work for colo. However, a check of their website seems to show that they don't provide a way to rackmount your own machine....it's just that they've got these funky cards (they call them CPU Blades) that contain most of a computer's guts, so they're rackmountable. Then you can stuff a bunch of them together and not have to worry about the users installing tons of software on your nice clean ghost, or trying to ram a floppy disk into a Zip drive.
Since colo customers have their own boxes (that's sort of the definition of colo), they're not going to be able to take advantage of this setup.
ALTHOUGH, this could mean the beginning of a new colo-model. Instead of paying money to have their own box sit on top of the uplink, colo customers could pay money to RENT one of these rackmounted boxes that sits on top of the uplink. If someone could figure out a way to make each machine in this rack secure from other colo customers, it would be a very portable colo, indeed! Instead of requiring a largish room for 30 boxes, you'd only need 1 rack. And instead of the dreaded monitor/keyboard cart, you could use a KVM!
Now that genome projects are hot stuff, people have started to take a good look at the biotech industry. And if they think what's happening now is exciting, wait until they see what's in store.
I'm willing to bet that the protein folding problem will be solved in the next 50 years. Soon after, we should start to see protein design hitting its stride. What does this all mean?
Take a bunch of E. coli bacteria. Use the genomic info you already have to insert a new gene for ProteinX that you've designed. The bacteria then make ProteinX in a huge vat, churning out billions of copies of the protein you need within a few days.
Think nanomachines are hot stuff? ProteinX is only a few nanometers in diameter, has no conventional moving parts (just changes in conformation) and can be regulated just be adding different chemicals into the mix.
OR
Think spider silk is strong? ProteinX could be modified silk fibrin, designed for more elasticity and higher tensile strength.
The sciences will always come out with incredible discoveries. Companies that use these discoveries will always have stock that's worthwhile to own. Maybe in the short-run things might dip, but it'll always make a come back.
That's why, when considering a career in the sciences, you really need to weigh interest a lot more heavily than the job market. Right now I'm seeing a lot of people around me trying to jump into fields that are "hot" at the monent. But, like you said, what's hot and what's not will change before they're done with their schooling.
That's why I chose an area of study that might never be hot [probably because it's so complicated that it makes normal biologists' heads swim (signal transduction and biochemistry)], but happens to interest me greatly. True, I'll probably never make $100,000+ a year. But at least I'll always be happy doing what I do. And after living a student's lifestyle ($8,000 per year), even $30,000 per year will seem like the high life.
I've made a half-way transition to Linux twice, but always ended up coming back to Windows. And both times the reason was some incredible game that I got hooked on.
I hate owning a system where I can't change *exactly* what I want when I want. I hate owning a system that crashes for inexplicable reasons.
But, in the end, it's the games that bring me back. I can word-process, create presentations, analyze data, etc. in both Windows and Linux. But if I want to unwind with a fun game of Tribes or somesuch, I have to turn to Windows.
By that reasoning, there has never been any real innovation. Of course everything is just a gradual accretion of little ideas changing little ideas. It's when those little ideas get together in just the right way that really innovative things pop out of nowhere. One big example,
PCR: both DNA polymerase and Thermophilus aquaticus had been discovered looong ago. But putting them together in just the right way changed the face of biology so fast that you can't call it anything but innovation.
That's just the way the sciences work. You get lots of little details piling together, and then someone looks at it just right and pulls out something amazing. I'd definitely term those amazing things HUGE ideas, simply because it took someone looking at a problem in a totally different way to see them.
The following is my experience as a technically-savvy student at a small liberal arts college in the Pacific NW.
A year or so ago, during one month the campus network was slowed to a crawl. Data was lost left and right, some days no machine could talk to another, etc. Finally, things got better and the head of the IT staff sent out an email.
It blamed all the problems on a Denial of Service attack that had been in progress against the university for the entire month. What's more, it claimed that the attack was launched from a single computer located inside the network at another university, and was targeted to one of the main routers here.
This was about the same time that DoS attacks were making the news, so many people ate this stuff up and went around grumbling "Damn hackers, I hate them all." But to me, it sounded far more like a case of an internal problem. A few questions I had...
If you're getting attacked by a single machine elsewhere for a solid month, why not just refuse data from that IP?
All data coming to us from the other university would have had to pass through their routers, so why were our routers so weak that they crumpled?
This is the first time I've ever heard of a successful DoS attack coming from a single computer...
When I asked someone in OIS about what went wrong, I was not only given the runaround, but my webspace was removed and my email password changed. So I guess I'm not very happy about how incompetent-but-backstabbing some university IT people can be.
I realize that I reacted with a harsh and unrealistic portrayal of some parties. I was merely trying to provide some counterpoint to the poor-helpless-patient and evil-thieving-scientist characters that I'd been seeing popping up in other posts.
I wholly agree with you on the lawyer/manager point. Unfortunately, though, it will always be true that people who do the grunt work get paid far less than the people supervising them. In this case, however, all the people who do grunt work have PhDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. The point is gone. Proteins are just lots of amino acids, connected by single bonds. The hard part is getting all those constituent atoms to form into the relatively complex amino acids. Then just string the amino acids along and see what you get. True, getting functional proteins that can actually (for example) catalyze a chemical reaction is pretty unlikely when you're just randomly creating proteins by strining aa's together. But remember, not only do you you have most of the history of the universe in which to do it in, but these results suggest that the reactions can take place within most of the area of the universe (ie - deep space). That's a LOT of time, and a LOT of area. It makes me wonder why there isn't MORE life out there, actually.
Well, I'd personally say that point is arguable. Let's say we're making a system that is capable of responses as complicated as those exhibited as a cell, for example. It's really just a matter of adding in billions of responses. So we'd model a receptor-ligand system by saying "if stimulus X in Y amount then trigger Z." Things get really complicated when you stipulate that stimulus X in Y amount will ONLY trigger Z if your "receptor" is present in the right amount.
When you really get down to it, most biological processes aren't analog. Instead, they're regulated by molecules that can take on a finite number of states. Given, the number of molecules involved is fantastically large, and the number of states they can take is almost always more than 2 (especially since you have to take the effect of things like protein misfolding due to mutation into account).
So yes, it's relatively simple (heh) to produce a computer-based system that's as complicated as a biological one. But to replicate a biological system we'd have to know every X molecule, and all of the resultant Z triggers that can result from Y concentration of X. Then, we'd have to already know how all of the different X molecules connect to eachother (in ways as subtle as "you can't make any more X1 because all of the zinc was used to make X2").
However, while we can't replicate biological systems (and probably never will be able to), we certainly can model them. This is much easier, since we interweave a bunch of different functions in an attempt to arrive at something that generally makes sense. Then try to model some situations where the result is already known. If your model matches reality in almost every case, then you've probably got a winner. Otherwise, Do Not Pass Go.
Never say never. When you really get down to it, the only thing that allows organisms to register a single photon is that photon tripping some chromophore into a different conformation. So it's just one particle making an atom switch, thereby making an amino acid twist, thereby making an entire protein move. The subsequent amplification all rely on principles of signal transduction.
So computers must be able to measure single photons, otherwise how did the physicists know that they were emitting a single photon? And to go from single-photon-detection to whole-organism-response only requires a long series of amplification cascades. Why is such a setup so hard to envision in a computer system?
What's wrong with the liberal use of a metaphor here and there? The people we're talking about here (biologists and technologists) aren't idiots...they're highly trained and intelligent individuals. As such, most of them can tell when a metaphor is being taken too far.
Let's say I'm trying to explain a concept in molecular biology to a computer scientist. Is it really so bad if I make an analogy connecting something the computer scientist already knows (programming, for example) and something he or she does not know (MAPK pathways, for example)? As long as the analogy holds up on the level that I explain it at, things should work fine.
But because neither the computer scientist nor the biologist are stupid, they won't take the analogy too far. The computer scientist won't immediately think, "I bet obscure programming fact XXXX holds for this biological system he's explaining to me, because he just used programming language YYYY in his metaphor." This won't happen because the computer scientist is a rational person, who knows what a metaphor is and its probable limits.
Yes, it's true that if everyone takes metaphors literally, then we'll run into problems. But the entire reason we can use metaphors for something useful, is that we can also also understand that a metaphor can break down at some point.
I'll admit, I get pissed when popular culture misquotes some arcane (or even general) biological principle. However, that's a totally different thing than using some other subject as a metaphor. Without metaphors, those involved would have to learn these things from scratch, without drawing upon what one already understands. I think it's totally valid to dispense snippets of information through metaphor, since the alternative is working one's way up from ground zero without using metaphor. And that's way too much to ask, considering in biology it takes a PhD for anyone to consider you above zero level.
Someone please mod up this comment. The whole point of my original post was to make someone realize that maybe super-realism (which I was seeing advocated in a few posts) wasn't the most fun thing in the world. Obviously someone got it, but somehow it was my original "devil's advocate" post that got modded up.
Ironically, I moved to California from Washington. So like you implied about us (former) Washingtonians, recycling just seems like the thing to do. I was awfully surprised when people in California gave me those blank-stares you talked about.
And oh yes, the coffee cake (and coffe in general) is one of the things I miss most about Washington. Damn California and their move away from caffeine!
If only this fee would actually make it recycling PCs accesible. I just moved to CA, and I had a monitor that crapped out on me a month or so after the move. I went to a few local computer shops looking for deals on a new monitor, and while I was there I asked all the tech guys where I could recycle the old monitor.
No one had any clue.
I spent a several afternoons trying to find an environmentally-friendly way to get rid of the damn burnt out monitor, but without any luck. Eventually I was forced to just put it out on the curb for the garbage men to pick up.
So I was determined to recycle my old monitor, but still failed in the state of CA. You think people who don't care in the first place will do anything other than just chuck the thing in the trash? If there's a purchase-recycling fee, then they sure as hell need a very robust system to actually do the recycling. And the most important part of such a system would be advertising to let people know the service is available and how to use it. Because otherwise there will be people like me who have the best intentions, but don't know where to take the hardware.
Are you absolutely sure you want a fighting game that's realistic? Millions of people would complain about "play balance" in a realistic game. Face it, if you hit someone, physics dictates they're going down unless they take drastic measures to counteract that. And like you insinuated, if they take drastic measures, it leaves them open for more punishment. That's why, in real fights, it's almost always the guy who connects first that wins. And medical-grade damage modeling is definitely something you don't want. In almost every fighting game ever made, hitting someone in the stomach staggers them back, but that's about it. From (unfortunate) experience, getting hit in the stomach actuallymakes one double over and takes you out of the running for a minute or more.
Let's face it...reality isn't fun. It takes a lot of money put from a special effects budget to make a movie look exciting. And that's because in real-life, things just aren't that cool.
I tried to throw it for a loop by barraging it with non sequitor questions that I thought it would never anticipate
You: what is a cat?
Iniaes: A cat is a domesticated animal.
Astounding. A remarkable piece of pet-classification software.
Some suggestions:
With my background, I'd prefer an approach that assumes previous knowledge of the biology behind the systems and focuses more on the programming/tech issues. However (if you have unlimited time and resources), you could always make a 2 editions for each book: 1 for people that are already biologists, and another for people that are already programmers.
I'm sure /. will be inundated by people making this connection, but Arthur C. Clarke came up with the idea for communications satellites in geostationary orbits in 1945 (about 25 years before their actual use). However, his idea wasn't outlined in a novel, but in his paper, "Extra-terrestrial Relays. Which is still an interesting read, almost 57 years after its publishing.
Heh. Of course not. Courier is the only way to go. But it still worries me that a Fed Ex guy would think: "Oh, I bet it's not Hanta virus. I can smash this biohazard around with impunity!"
Thinking of shipping Fed Ex? Maybe not after reading this story.
I'm on my way to a lab at a certain facility (names withheld because of details mentioned later). I happen to notice that the Fed Ex guy is unloading some things on my way up the walk. Suddenly I stop in horror as I watch him unload a small box that is absolutely COVERED in biohazard stickers and DROP it from shoulder height to the pavement at his feet. He then proceeds to pick up heavier, larger boxes and drop the from the same heighs ON TOP of the biohazard box!
Luckily, the contents of the box weren't hazardous: only some non-virulent strains of E. coli that a lab didn't happen to have on hand but needed for some reason. But what if it had been a package for a BSL-3 or BSL-4 lab? (for non-scientists, that's labs that work with bugs like HIV, tuberculosis, and Hanta virus) There are labs working with that nasty stuff at the facility. But the Fed Ex guy didn't really seem to care.
So if Fed Ex is careless with something so obviously marked as dangerous (what is more frightening than a box covered in bright red biohazard symbols?), just think of the loving care your packages much be receiving.
I haven't picked up the autobiography yet, but have greatly enjoyed the rants Campbell posts online (if only I could remember where they're published....damn it!). Sorry for posting a question that's already covered in his book. I'll have to go out and buy it! You've sold me ::grin::
I've heard little rumor-snippets about your practical-joke relationship with the Raimi's. For example....that Sam himself threw the dirt on your face during the "burying the Evil Ash" scene in Army of Darkness.
Could you comment on working with the Raimi's? Obviously you're friends, but anecdotes, personal commentary, and so on would be great. Basically I'd like to get some insights into your friendship with them and the sort of chemistry you have with that particular dastardly duo. Comparisons (favorable and otherwise) to other people you've worked with are also more than welcome.
Has anyone else noticed that it's actually hard to use cash in some situations? For the most part, I'm totally cashless. I have a central checking account and a debit card w/ the Visa logo. So rather than go to the ATM, withdraw some 20s, and spend them. I just go to a place of business and they withdraw the exact amount for me.
But what about the people that prefer to exclusively use cash?
I worked in a computer retail store for a while. And when people came in and bought a high-high-end PC or laptop with just cash, you'd better believe we noticed it. When someone peels 20-30 $100 bills off a stack, everyone in the store craned in for a better look. And we checked all that money verrry carefully.
A similar story was told to me by a friend who worked at a candy factory. The janitor at the place had just bought a brand-new car, but was complaining that the dealership almost wouldn't sell it to him. Why not? Because he had paid in CASH. $26,000 in cash. He actually brought the stacks of bills to the dealership in a briefcase, all ready to go. And, of course, the dealer was a little suspicious about someone carrying that much cash.
So you see my point? How is it that we have come to trust pieces of plastic or signed pieces of paper as opposed to cold, hard, cash? Somehow America has embraced a further level of abstraction from specie to the point of almost rejecting other forms of payment. It just seems like curious situation to me. I'm not sure if I like it or not, though. Like I said, I'm almost totally cashless. But I'd like to believe that if I wanted to switch to cash-only, I'd be able to use that money for whatever I want. Now I'm not so sure I could.
Oh, how I wish this would work for colo. However, a check of their website seems to show that they don't provide a way to rackmount your own machine....it's just that they've got these funky cards (they call them CPU Blades) that contain most of a computer's guts, so they're rackmountable. Then you can stuff a bunch of them together and not have to worry about the users installing tons of software on your nice clean ghost, or trying to ram a floppy disk into a Zip drive.
Since colo customers have their own boxes (that's sort of the definition of colo), they're not going to be able to take advantage of this setup.
ALTHOUGH, this could mean the beginning of a new colo-model. Instead of paying money to have their own box sit on top of the uplink, colo customers could pay money to RENT one of these rackmounted boxes that sits on top of the uplink. If someone could figure out a way to make each machine in this rack secure from other colo customers, it would be a very portable colo, indeed! Instead of requiring a largish room for 30 boxes, you'd only need 1 rack. And instead of the dreaded monitor/keyboard cart, you could use a KVM!
---
Anything else you could have robots do would be nowhere near as cool as having them fight. Need proof?
Bob the Angry Flower - The Inner Light
Check it out.
---
Now that genome projects are hot stuff, people have started to take a good look at the biotech industry. And if they think what's happening now is exciting, wait until they see what's in store.
I'm willing to bet that the protein folding problem will be solved in the next 50 years. Soon after, we should start to see protein design hitting its stride. What does this all mean?
Take a bunch of E. coli bacteria. Use the genomic info you already have to insert a new gene for ProteinX that you've designed. The bacteria then make ProteinX in a huge vat, churning out billions of copies of the protein you need within a few days.
Think nanomachines are hot stuff? ProteinX is only a few nanometers in diameter, has no conventional moving parts (just changes in conformation) and can be regulated just be adding different chemicals into the mix.
OR
Think spider silk is strong? ProteinX could be modified silk fibrin, designed for more elasticity and higher tensile strength.
The sciences will always come out with incredible discoveries. Companies that use these discoveries will always have stock that's worthwhile to own. Maybe in the short-run things might dip, but it'll always make a come back.
---
That's why, when considering a career in the sciences, you really need to weigh interest a lot more heavily than the job market. Right now I'm seeing a lot of people around me trying to jump into fields that are "hot" at the monent. But, like you said, what's hot and what's not will change before they're done with their schooling.
That's why I chose an area of study that might never be hot [probably because it's so complicated that it makes normal biologists' heads swim (signal transduction and biochemistry)], but happens to interest me greatly. True, I'll probably never make $100,000+ a year. But at least I'll always be happy doing what I do. And after living a student's lifestyle ($8,000 per year), even $30,000 per year will seem like the high life.
---
I've made a half-way transition to Linux twice, but always ended up coming back to Windows. And both times the reason was some incredible game that I got hooked on.
I hate owning a system where I can't change *exactly* what I want when I want. I hate owning a system that crashes for inexplicable reasons.
But, in the end, it's the games that bring me back. I can word-process, create presentations, analyze data, etc. in both Windows and Linux. But if I want to unwind with a fun game of Tribes or somesuch, I have to turn to Windows.
---
By that reasoning, there has never been any real innovation. Of course everything is just a gradual accretion of little ideas changing little ideas. It's when those little ideas get together in just the right way that really innovative things pop out of nowhere. One big example,
PCR: both DNA polymerase and Thermophilus aquaticus had been discovered looong ago. But putting them together in just the right way changed the face of biology so fast that you can't call it anything but innovation.
That's just the way the sciences work. You get lots of little details piling together, and then someone looks at it just right and pulls out something amazing. I'd definitely term those amazing things HUGE ideas, simply because it took someone looking at a problem in a totally different way to see them.
---
The following is my experience as a technically-savvy student at a small liberal arts college in the Pacific NW.
A year or so ago, during one month the campus network was slowed to a crawl. Data was lost left and right, some days no machine could talk to another, etc. Finally, things got better and the head of the IT staff sent out an email.
It blamed all the problems on a Denial of Service attack that had been in progress against the university for the entire month. What's more, it claimed that the attack was launched from a single computer located inside the network at another university, and was targeted to one of the main routers here.
This was about the same time that DoS attacks were making the news, so many people ate this stuff up and went around grumbling "Damn hackers, I hate them all." But to me, it sounded far more like a case of an internal problem. A few questions I had...
When I asked someone in OIS about what went wrong, I was not only given the runaround, but my webspace was removed and my email password changed. So I guess I'm not very happy about how incompetent-but-backstabbing some university IT people can be.
---
It's called Zerowing. And it looks like the SomethingAwful forums have started a net-wide trend...
---
I realize that I reacted with a harsh and unrealistic portrayal of some parties. I was merely trying to provide some counterpoint to the poor-helpless-patient and evil-thieving-scientist characters that I'd been seeing popping up in other posts.
I wholly agree with you on the lawyer/manager point. Unfortunately, though, it will always be true that people who do the grunt work get paid far less than the people supervising them. In this case, however, all the people who do grunt work have PhDs.
---