Don't let the headline fool you. By no means does this push back the age of the oldest known life. The paper reports on new evidence of terrestrial life. But, as stated in the article, there is evidence that the oceans were teeming with life as far back as 3.8 billion years ago (just after Heavy Bombardment ended). And by teeming, I mean there are fossilized structures (stromatolites) that can be many meters high, which were created solely by ancient bacteria.
Don't get me wrong. Very old terrestrial life is a big deal. But 2.6-2.7 bya isn't all *that* long ago.
At least, I think they are. I'm still not quite sure if it's a joke or not (given the domain name).
http://www.luddite.com
The site itself has actually been around for over a year, but I've never seen their "custom order" section actually go online, which is another thing that makes me think it might be a joke.
But hey, if it is real, there's your hookup for a no-doubt expensive wooden case.
1) Live in Tacoma, WA. City motto: #1 Wired City. And it's pretty much true. We have cable/DSL providers crawling out of the woodwork, begging you to sign up for broadband. Since there's a lot of competition, some companies make their business just by being incredibly fast/competent at service.
2) Get a business DSL line. This is a more serious solution than #1. I lived in a large house with several other people. Because we had so many people, we had the cash to upgrade to a business line for the house. This not only increased our bandwidth, but TOTALLY changed USWest's attitude towards us as customers. No longer did we show up as a house occupied by average joes. Instead, we showed up as a business requiring a high-speed digital line, possibly with quite a bit of clout. Hookup occurred within 4 days of sign up. Online service was always very prompt (calling the tech support phone number was, of course, an exercise in being put on hold). We also usually got knowledgable tech support assistance that wasn't afraid to suggest solutions that might actually work (but were technically complicated), possibly because they assumed that they were talking to a network engineer within a company, rather than a random clueless guy with DSL.
So, my end recommendation, if you can afford it, is to upgrade to a business line.
Geez, I'm just saturating you with questions, here. Sorry if this is getting to be too much, but I guess I'll ask anyway.... Is the mechanism utilized to change neuronal connections known? Do neurons simply extend new processes and atrophy others to change existing shape/connections (ie - a multipolar neuron becoming a bipolar neuron or vice versa), or do entire neurons become apoptotic to make way for new connections?
Thanks for the info. In terms of storage capacity, I wasn't really referring to "megabytes" or any other computer-related concept, but rather the fact that there is a finite amount of physical space in one's head, and how one can store incredibly rich associations in that finite space. The idea of different encodings for different areas sounds very interesting. Could you recommend any papers/reviews on the subject (that might be understood by a celluar biologist)?
One more quick question though (the answer to which may or may not be in a neurosci text, but I haven't had a chance to borrow one yet). There's the old joke that as you learn more and more, you forget simpler things, leading to the "absent-minded professor" cliche. I've found myself at a loss to perform simple arithmetic as I stuff more and more into my head. But does current theory hold that information (long-term memory, specifically) can be written over? That is, a specific neuron configuration coding for one memory/piece of info being edited to code for a different memory/piece of info, or are the connections permanent once set? Does it just become harder to "remember the path" to the neurons coding for an infrequently-accessed memory as time progresses?
The ability of humans to understand speech in noise is amazing. We're even able to understand speech when the speech *is* noise. What I'm referring to is an experiment performed a few years ago, in which researchers recorded phrases and cut the recordings into small chunks. For example, 1/25 second, 1/15 second, 1/10 second, 1/4 second, 1/2 second etc. chunks. They then reversed each chunk, but left them in the original order. They then had people listen to those phrases with different chunk-lengths, and try to decipher what was being said. It turns out that if the chunk lengths are 1/15 second or less, you can still understand the message.
A few friends and I actually tried this out, and it's eerie. You know that those chunks have been reversed, but at 1/20 second, it sounds almost exactly like the original recording.
I'm sorry to repost this question, but I originally posted it under the wrong parent.
The original post brings up a question that I've been mulling over for a while. Perhaps those neurologists out there can answer this, because I'm completely at a loss. Computer memory works with digital signals stored on a drive. You can look at that drive, and assuming that no access, etc. is going on at the time, those bits/bytes will stay in the same place, i.e. - they are static. Now the human brain works almost nothing at all like a computer. Neurotransmitters cause K/Na gates to open, action potentials race down the neuron, which in turn releases its own neurotransmitters (if the threshold has been reached), and so on. So in the brain, there is NO static info-component! As far as I know, you can't just tell a neuron "Hold that action potential for me" (i.e. - a "1" on a drive). That setup brings me to my question: How the heck does memory (short- and long-term) actually work ! For example, I can remember one particular biking accident on my my driveway when I was a kid. To some extent, I can even recall the smell of cut grass as I whipped around the corner and lost control. Since there are no neurons "holding" that information, how has it remained in my brain for 12 years? Is there some sort of complex neuron-loop the information is going through in order to retain it? When I think about the memory, and "remember" it, how does the conscious portion of my brain access that memory and bring the incredibly detailed signal (still intact) to the surface? This brings up another question about the storage limitations of the brain. There is an awful lot of information involved in the bike accident memory, and I have countless memories that are just as detailed. Is it possible that one stores concepts, rather than the fully-formed sensations (to save space)? For example, when I remember the smell of the grass from that long ago, the actual long-term signal is "smell of grass" and my brain accesses short-term memory to deliver that into the experience of remembering?
This post brings up a question that I've been mulling over for a while. Perhaps those neurologists out there can answer this, because I'm completely at a loss.
Computer memory works with digital signals stored on a drive. You can look at that drive, and assuming that no access, etc. is going on at the time, those bits/bytes will stay in the same place, i.e. - they are static. Now the human brain works almost nothing at all like a computer. Neurotransmitters cause K/Na gates to open, action potentials race down the neuron, which in turn releases its own neurotransmitters (if the threshold has been reached), and so on. So in the brain, there is NO static info-component! As far as I know, you can't just tell a neuron "Hold that action potential for me" (i.e. - a "1" on a drive). That setup brings me to my question: How the heck does memory (short- and long-term) actually work ! For example, I can remember one particular biking accident on my my driveway when I was a kid. To some extent, I can even recall the smell of cut grass as I whipped around the corner and lost control. Since there are no neurons "holding" that information, how has it remained in my brain for 12 years? Is there some sort of complex neuron-loop the information is going through in order to retain it? When I think about the memory, and "remember" it, how does the conscious portion of my brain access that memory and bring the incredibly detailed signal (still intact) to the surface?
This brings up another question about the storage limitations of the brain. There is an awful lot of information involved in the bike accident memory, and I have countless memories that are just as detailed. Is it possible that one stores concepts, rather than the fully-formed sensations (to save space)? For example, when I remember the smell of the grass from that long ago, the actual long-term signal is "smell of grass" and my brain accesses short-term memory to deliver that into the experience of remembering?
I was at a loss to contact them as well, *BUT* then I found this link: Send mail to PETA which was originally listed at the very bottom in tiny letters as "Questions/Comments". I sent my well-reasoned and logical email right away. I encourage others to contact PETA as well, but please don't just flame away....if you present arguments rather than attacks, they might be more inclined to listen.
When you say no one knows how it works, do you mean no one knows exactly how the plasmids are received by the bacterium? Or no one knows how F-factors signal for transduction? Or...? As far as I know, it's been worked out pretty thoroughly...
On the offhand, this undergrad is on his way to publication. So don't underestimate us younger researchers. *wink 'n a grin*
Reminds me of Stephenson's "supreme badass" theme in Cryptonomicon.
But anyway, I think what they were referring to is that cockroaches have been in the same general form for 300 million years. Before we were humans, we were lemurs, and before that something else. Cockroaches have been in the same bodyshape for 300 million years, and have been making incredibly fine adjustments that entire time. That's why they can withstand incredible toxins and even radiation "poisoning."
Think of roaches and humans as two people working on their computers. Humans started out in DOS, then switched to Windows, and finally hit upon Linux, and are even now tweaking for a stable/fast system. Cockroaches started out with an incredibly early UNIX distribution, and never switched. So while humans have been futzing around with different OSes, cockroaches have been fine-tuning and adding-on-to that UNIX distrubition over and over and over and over. Now the cockroach OS looks about the same as when it was first released, but is 1 million times faster, hasn't crashed in 30 years, and can read commands straight from your brain.
This might not be totally complete, but I tried....
Aphex Twin - Come to Daddy Aphex Twin - Windowlicker Leftfield - Afrika Shox Bjork - All is Full of Love Squarepusher - Come on Selector Portishead - Only You Madonna - Frozen Autechre - Second Bad Vilbel
If you've seen these videos, you've got a good idea of Cunningham's style. He did some commercials, too, but I can't remember what they were for...
The face is just plastered all over, but if I were to put my face on a kid, it would probably just look silly. Similarly, if James just put his face on a kid and put it on a CD cover or a video, we'd probably snicker. But Cunningham's got the eye to arrange characters, backgrounds, colors, etc. in a way that just makes me feel wrong on the inside. Parts of the "Come to Daddy" video (especially the feral kids) made me want to curl into the fetal position.
With Cunningham making Neuromancer, I have no doubt that it will be a good adaptation. Cunningham is one of the freakish prodigies of the film world that most of us never hear about, because they choose to remain unknown. However, here's a little bit about him and the work he's done (what I can remember, at least):
He started in underground film at age 15.
He was working closely with Kubrick on AI at age *19*
He directed many music videos, for artists including Madonna, Leftfield, and Bjork (the videos he's done definitely have an ambiance that that would be great in Neuromancer)
You know the freaky face that Aphex Twin puts on everyone from kids to pimps? That's Cunningham's design.
Another cool Neuromancer movie tidbit...it's rumored that Aphex Twin will be doing the music. Imagining that makes me shiver with joy all over.
However, I am wondering how Cunningham will depict all of the cerebral events in Neuromancer. One of the best parts of that book (for me at lest) was Gibson's amazing way of describing emotion and thought so that it almost felt like you were feeling/thinking those things...
This is just the type of story that I love to see on Slashdot, simply because it is non-applicable science. I guess I'm just a helpless science geek. But your post brings up a very salient point.
The scientific posts on Slashdot (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) sometimes seem to be garbled and misunderstood almost to the point of complete inaccuracy. For example, check out the "Welcome to Gattaca..." article that's still in the Slashdot "Science" section and the comments about Michael's misunderstanding of his source.
Part of this problem is that most of Slashdot's readers and moderators are hardcore techie geeks, as opposed to science geeks. Thus, I may not understand everything about the "Tru64" posting, but judging from the comments, it's all accurate and in-depth. However, when reading through scientific posts, one usually has to ignore the post and go straight to the actual article itself.
Possibly, Slashdot needs to acquire some more scientific moderators, especially biology- and chemistry-oriented moderators. I see quite a few physics articles around, probably because physics has traditionally had quite a bit of application to techie fields, and thus can be quite interesting to the average/. reader. However, now that molecular and chemical computing is emerging, some dedicated chemical/biochemical moderators would really help increase the quality of the posts.
Don't get me wrong. It's by no means bad that most of/. is techie-oriented. That's its basic function, and I learn a lot from carefully reading the in-depth technology posts and comments. However, when it comes to science posts, I'm better off just reading the article and paying attention to the few commenters that actually know what they're talking about.
A professor I know is absolutely sure that one day we'll have people on the moon and Mars. The only thing in the way, though, is relatively low public interest and only moderate space technology.
His solution? Competition. He cites the incredible progress made to get an American on the moon when Russia sent a man in space. In his opinion, what America really needs to get a man on Mars, is a good international incident. And once hostilities have built up to incredible levels, just have one party try to put a man on Mars.
After that, it's just a matter of a few years until one of the countries manages to do it.
Both Michael and I should have read the article more carefully. It's not $100/kit, as the post states. Instead, the article tenatively lists $100/*test* at a hospital, and the kit looks to be good for many, many tests. However, since AMDL reported spending over $10 million on its development, I'm willing to bet the cost of the kit will not be insignificant.
Judging from the >90% accuracy mentioned on the AMDL product info page I have to assume they're using a monoclonal ab (does anyone really use polyclonal for anything other than deactivation anymore?). In that case, how the heck are they selling the entire kit (which includes ab, enzyme, substrate, etc.) for $100? I'm paying over $300 for monoclonal beta-catenin ab's from Trans-Labs! (Given, they're FITC-labeled, but...)
PS - right on about the constant GATTACA references.)
People are currently doing harsh-weather equipment tests in the Arctic deserts, since they approximate some of the conditions on Mars (i.e. - very low temp., strong winds blowing rock grit, etc.). But I'm not sure where you're going with this. I don't think that it's scientifically valid to match the colors of the rocks and then have everything else follow from that...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't let the headline fool you. By no means does this push back the age of the oldest known life. The paper reports on new evidence of terrestrial life. But, as stated in the article, there is evidence that the oceans were teeming with life as far back as 3.8 billion years ago (just after Heavy Bombardment ended). And by teeming, I mean there are fossilized structures (stromatolites) that can be many meters high, which were created solely by ancient bacteria.
Don't get me wrong. Very old terrestrial life is a big deal. But 2.6-2.7 bya isn't all *that* long ago.
http://www.luddite.com
The site itself has actually been around for over a year, but I've never seen their "custom order" section actually go online, which is another thing that makes me think it might be a joke.
But hey, if it is real, there's your hookup for a no-doubt expensive wooden case.
1) Live in Tacoma, WA. City motto: #1 Wired City. And it's pretty much true. We have cable/DSL providers crawling out of the woodwork, begging you to sign up for broadband. Since there's a lot of competition, some companies make their business just by being incredibly fast/competent at service.
2) Get a business DSL line. This is a more serious solution than #1. I lived in a large house with several other people. Because we had so many people, we had the cash to upgrade to a business line for the house. This not only increased our bandwidth, but TOTALLY changed USWest's attitude towards us as customers. No longer did we show up as a house occupied by average joes. Instead, we showed up as a business requiring a high-speed digital line, possibly with quite a bit of clout. Hookup occurred within 4 days of sign up. Online service was always very prompt (calling the tech support phone number was, of course, an exercise in being put on hold). We also usually got knowledgable tech support assistance that wasn't afraid to suggest solutions that might actually work (but were technically complicated), possibly because they assumed that they were talking to a network engineer within a company, rather than a random clueless guy with DSL.
So, my end recommendation, if you can afford it, is to upgrade to a business line.
Geez, I'm just saturating you with questions, here. Sorry if this is getting to be too much, but I guess I'll ask anyway.... Is the mechanism utilized to change neuronal connections known?
Do neurons simply extend new processes and atrophy others to change existing shape/connections (ie - a multipolar neuron becoming a bipolar neuron or vice versa), or do entire neurons become apoptotic to make way for new connections?
Thanks for the info. In terms of storage capacity, I wasn't really referring to "megabytes" or any other computer-related concept, but rather the fact that there is a finite amount of physical space in one's head, and how one can store incredibly rich associations in that finite space. The idea of different encodings for different areas sounds very interesting. Could you recommend any papers/reviews on the subject (that might be understood by a celluar biologist)?
One more quick question though (the answer to which may or may not be in a neurosci text, but I haven't had a chance to borrow one yet).
There's the old joke that as you learn more and more, you forget simpler things, leading to the "absent-minded professor" cliche. I've found myself at a loss to perform simple arithmetic as I stuff more and more into my head. But does current theory hold that information (long-term memory, specifically) can be written over? That is, a specific neuron configuration coding for one memory/piece of info being edited to code for a different memory/piece of info, or are the connections permanent once set? Does it just become harder to "remember the path" to the neurons coding for an infrequently-accessed memory as time progresses?
The ability of humans to understand speech in noise is amazing. We're even able to understand speech when the speech *is* noise.
What I'm referring to is an experiment performed a few years ago, in which researchers recorded phrases and cut the recordings into small chunks. For example, 1/25 second, 1/15 second, 1/10 second, 1/4 second, 1/2 second etc. chunks. They then reversed each chunk, but left them in the original order. They then had people listen to those phrases with different chunk-lengths, and try to decipher what was being said. It turns out that if the chunk lengths are 1/15 second or less, you can still understand the message.
A few friends and I actually tried this out, and it's eerie. You know that those chunks have been reversed, but at 1/20 second, it sounds almost exactly like the original recording.
I'm sorry to repost this question, but I originally posted it under the wrong parent.
The original post brings up a question that I've been mulling over for a while. Perhaps those neurologists out there can answer this, because I'm completely at a loss. Computer memory works with digital signals stored on a drive. You can look at that drive, and assuming that no access, etc. is going on at the time, those bits/bytes will stay in the same place, i.e. - they are static. Now the human brain works almost nothing at all like a computer. Neurotransmitters cause K/Na gates to open, action potentials race down the neuron, which in turn releases its own neurotransmitters (if the threshold has been reached), and so on. So in the brain, there is NO static info-component! As far as I know, you can't just tell a neuron "Hold that action potential for me" (i.e. - a "1" on a drive). That setup brings me to my question: How the heck does memory (short- and long-term) actually work ! For example, I can remember one particular biking accident on my my driveway when I was a kid. To some extent, I can even recall the smell of cut grass as I whipped around the corner and lost control. Since there are no neurons "holding" that information, how has it remained in my brain for 12 years? Is there some sort of complex neuron-loop the information is going through in order to retain it? When I think about the memory, and "remember" it, how does the conscious portion of my brain access that memory and bring the incredibly detailed signal (still intact) to the surface? This brings up another question about the storage limitations of the brain. There is an awful lot of information involved in the bike accident memory, and I have countless memories that are just as detailed. Is it possible that one stores concepts, rather than the fully-formed sensations (to save space)? For example, when I remember the smell of the grass from that long ago, the actual long-term signal is "smell of grass" and my brain accesses short-term memory to deliver that into the experience of remembering?
This post brings up a question that I've been mulling over for a while. Perhaps those neurologists out there can answer this, because I'm completely at a loss.
Computer memory works with digital signals stored on a drive. You can look at that drive, and assuming that no access, etc. is going on at the time, those bits/bytes will stay in the same place, i.e. - they are static.
Now the human brain works almost nothing at all like a computer. Neurotransmitters cause K/Na gates to open, action potentials race down the neuron, which in turn releases its own neurotransmitters (if the threshold has been reached), and so on. So in the brain, there is NO static info-component! As far as I know, you can't just tell a neuron "Hold that action potential for me" (i.e. - a "1" on a drive).
That setup brings me to my question: How the heck does memory (short- and long-term) actually work ! For example, I can remember one particular biking accident on my my driveway when I was a kid. To some extent, I can even recall the smell of cut grass as I whipped around the corner and lost control.
Since there are no neurons "holding" that information, how has it remained in my brain for 12 years? Is there some sort of complex neuron-loop the information is going through in order to retain it? When I think about the memory, and "remember" it, how does the conscious portion of my brain access that memory and bring the incredibly detailed signal (still intact) to the surface?
This brings up another question about the storage limitations of the brain. There is an awful lot of information involved in the bike accident memory, and I have countless memories that are just as detailed. Is it possible that one stores concepts, rather than the fully-formed sensations (to save space)? For example, when I remember the smell of the grass from that long ago, the actual long-term signal is "smell of grass" and my brain accesses short-term memory to deliver that into the experience of remembering?
I was at a loss to contact them as well, *BUT* then I found this link: Send mail to PETA which was originally listed at the very bottom in tiny letters as "Questions/Comments". I sent my well-reasoned and logical email right away. I encourage others to contact PETA as well, but please don't just flame away....if you present arguments rather than attacks, they might be more inclined to listen.
When you say no one knows how it works, do you mean no one knows exactly how the plasmids are received by the bacterium? Or no one knows how F-factors signal for transduction? Or...?
As far as I know, it's been worked out pretty thoroughly...
On the offhand, this undergrad is on his way to publication. So don't underestimate us younger researchers. *wink 'n a grin*
Reminds me of Stephenson's "supreme badass" theme in Cryptonomicon.
But anyway, I think what they were referring to is that cockroaches have been in the same general form for 300 million years. Before we were humans, we were lemurs, and before that something else. Cockroaches have been in the same bodyshape for 300 million years, and have been making incredibly fine adjustments that entire time. That's why they can withstand incredible toxins and even radiation "poisoning."
Think of roaches and humans as two people working on their computers. Humans started out in DOS, then switched to Windows, and finally hit upon Linux, and are even now tweaking for a stable/fast system. Cockroaches started out with an incredibly early UNIX distribution, and never switched. So while humans have been futzing around with different OSes, cockroaches have been fine-tuning and adding-on-to that UNIX distrubition over and over and over and over. Now the cockroach OS looks about the same as when it was first released, but is 1 million times faster, hasn't crashed in 30 years, and can read commands straight from your brain.
This might not be totally complete, but I tried....
Aphex Twin - Come to Daddy
Aphex Twin - Windowlicker
Leftfield - Afrika Shox
Bjork - All is Full of Love
Squarepusher - Come on Selector
Portishead - Only You
Madonna - Frozen
Autechre - Second Bad Vilbel
If you've seen these videos, you've got a good idea of Cunningham's style. He did some commercials, too, but I can't remember what they were for...
yardgnome
The face is just plastered all over, but if I were to put my face on a kid, it would probably just look silly. Similarly, if James just put his face on a kid and put it on a CD cover or a video, we'd probably snicker.
But Cunningham's got the eye to arrange characters, backgrounds, colors, etc. in a way that just makes me feel wrong on the inside. Parts of the "Come to Daddy" video (especially the feral kids) made me want to curl into the fetal position.
Another cool Neuromancer movie tidbit...it's rumored that Aphex Twin will be doing the music. Imagining that makes me shiver with joy all over.
However, I am wondering how Cunningham will depict all of the cerebral events in Neuromancer. One of the best parts of that book (for me at lest) was Gibson's amazing way of describing emotion and thought so that it almost felt like you were feeling/thinking those things...
yardgnome
This is just the type of story that I love to see on Slashdot, simply because it is non-applicable science. I guess I'm just a helpless science geek. But your post brings up a very salient point.
/. reader. However, now that molecular and chemical computing is emerging, some dedicated chemical/biochemical moderators would really help increase the quality of the posts.
/. is techie-oriented. That's its basic function, and I learn a lot from carefully reading the in-depth technology posts and comments.
The scientific posts on Slashdot (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) sometimes seem to be garbled and misunderstood almost to the point of complete inaccuracy. For example, check out the "Welcome to Gattaca..." article that's still in the Slashdot "Science" section and the comments about Michael's misunderstanding of his source.
Part of this problem is that most of Slashdot's readers and moderators are hardcore techie geeks, as opposed to science geeks. Thus, I may not understand everything about the "Tru64" posting, but judging from the comments, it's all accurate and in-depth. However, when reading through scientific posts, one usually has to ignore the post and go straight to the actual article itself.
Possibly, Slashdot needs to acquire some more scientific moderators, especially biology- and chemistry-oriented moderators. I see quite a few physics articles around, probably because physics has traditionally had quite a bit of application to techie fields, and thus can be quite interesting to the average
Don't get me wrong. It's by no means bad that most of
However, when it comes to science posts, I'm better off just reading the article and paying attention to the few commenters that actually know what they're talking about.
A professor I know is absolutely sure that one day we'll have people on the moon and Mars. The only thing in the way, though, is relatively low public interest and only moderate space technology.
His solution? Competition.
He cites the incredible progress made to get an American on the moon when Russia sent a man in space. In his opinion, what America really needs to get a man on Mars, is a good international incident. And once hostilities have built up to incredible levels, just have one party try to put a man on Mars.
After that, it's just a matter of a few years until one of the countries manages to do it.
Both Michael and I should have read the article more carefully. It's not $100/kit, as the post states. Instead, the article tenatively lists $100/*test* at a hospital, and the kit looks to be good for many, many tests. However, since AMDL reported spending over $10 million on its development, I'm willing to bet the cost of the kit will not be insignificant.
Judging from the >90% accuracy mentioned on the AMDL product info page I have to assume they're using a monoclonal ab (does anyone really use polyclonal for anything other than deactivation anymore?). In that case, how the heck are they selling the entire kit (which includes ab, enzyme, substrate, etc.) for $100? I'm paying over $300 for monoclonal beta-catenin ab's from Trans-Labs! (Given, they're FITC-labeled, but...)
PS - right on about the constant GATTACA references.)
People are currently doing harsh-weather equipment tests in the Arctic deserts, since they approximate some of the conditions on Mars (i.e. - very low temp., strong winds blowing rock grit, etc.).
But I'm not sure where you're going with this. I don't think that it's scientifically valid to match the colors of the rocks and then have everything else follow from that...