"Of course, categorically dumping an operating system is quite difficult.." - I suppose it will be! When will Microsoft come to its senses and completely abandon its new Os on the basis of this sensible bloggers devastating comments?!!1!
"With Mac OS X hot on its tail, Vista is simply not capable of competing at an OS level.." Of course! It makes such sense!!
This article is unmitigated crap, and I'm typing this on a MacbookPro, so I have a bias towards agreeing with the idiot.
The wormwood example is fundamentally different from homeopathy. The only way that homeopathy could actually work is if the homeopath failed to carry out the procedure properly and gave the patient an undiluted solution of a compound that was an effective treatment./As described/ homeopathy/cannot/ work.
I like the software analogies, but we are talking about someone claiming their computer works even though it is just an empty box. Yes, you could test the hypothesis that empty space is capable of carrying out computation, but the answer is easy to predict.
Actually, software IS maths. So is medicine, and so is everything else. It is just very complex mathematics! For infinite dilutiions to be effective, many other things would have to be false - the 'memory of water' idea would have horrible implications - so, yes, it is reasonable in this case to say that it is logically impossible, given what else we know. Of course, if we are all living inside a simulation, then the world would not have to be consistent, but then there wouldn't be much point in testing anything.
Kevlar is hydrogen bonded, graphene is not. So, "exactly the same mechanism" as what? Normal paper? I guess the cellulose fibers in paper are hydrogen bonded. Perhaps.
50K doesn't seem that much I guess...
on
Obama's MySpace Drama
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And if, as he claims, they suggested a one-time fee, and then rejected his offer as an attempt to moneygrab, that is sneaky.
But why would you need money for this, anyway? Compenstation for work already done?
Anyway, considering the millions raised for campaigning, 50,000 is not so much.
Hmmm. Maybe it depends on whether you can convert from internal coordinates to a 3D structure. What you seem to be suggesting is moving through structure space, matching as you go along.
So at any point, you have to generate images of the 'neighbours' of the current structure. It could work. Maybe.
Just because it can live at such temperatures surely doesn't mean that it has to use these temperatures to carry out the h2 generation.
Enzymes can work at a range of temps, from 0 to 100 degrees C, so there's no reason to suppose that NiFe hydrogenase (or whatever enzyme) has a catalytic requirement for a particular temp.
This is a little off topic......but I have been running a protein structure comparison service (TOPS, if anyone cares:) that is a/kind/ of search engine.
What I think is best about our system is the presentation of the results, not necessarily the engine itself (oh well!).
So I was thinking that it would be cool if other 'search engines' (comparison services) could run a search and submit the results to our servers for display.
Kind of like this? Would need some kind of protocol for describing matches.
The usual explanation is that the remaining species can diversify into the ecological 'space' left after the holocaust.
In this view, in a crowded world, species are constantly in competition with each other, and diversity is held in balance, while in the time after a great extinction, all such constraints disappear, and species are free to do as they please.
Certainly nanotechnology shares a lot of the problems of biology - and component assembly is one of those. However I don't see that there is all that much to be gained from using biological systems in this case.
When you are doing nano-fabricating (IE : you are in a clean lab) there seems to me to be no harm in using purely chemical synthesis. Including, of course, bio-mimicry molecules for templating and scaffolding structures.
The core molecule that is shown in the link is some sort of functionalised zinc porphyrin (I see a nice ferrocene group there too). I think that attaching such bulky substituents to amino acids for further attachement to tRNAs would be cumbersome.
There are probably ways to do much the same thing with similar complex metallo-organic chemicals. Indeed, many groups have made self-assembling structures from just such rigidly units with metal ions as linkers.
The only real reason to use biomaterials is the prospect of using mutations to alter the structure. A bit like er..PROMs (? not sure) so you could 'evolve' circuits by altering the DNA and growing the result (bit like compiling code...:) However, it would seem much more sensible to use proteins as components in the circuit (this is not, I believe, what you are suggesting?). Biological 'circuits' as they are called use metalloproteins to transfer electrical signals and charge (er..'or' charge - not a biophysicist) so it would seem reasonable to make them from protein. However, the replies to the previous version of your post are right - these might have to be thermostable (in fact, probably designed) proteins.
Simon Peyton Jones (http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/) recently gave a talk on making Excel more like Haskell. In fact, I have no evidence that that's not who Tailhook is...
Yes, I think so, this is an argument adapted from a node on e2.
- Grey goo would be eaten
Why? Well, first, assume that you really can create devices between a nanometer and a micrometer in size that replicate themselves. Now realise that these must be biological - they use materials readily available in the environment to construct themselves.
This doesn't make them 'biological'? Well, they will be eaten just as readily. Basically, if they can construct themselves from elements and molecules that are lying around, they will be made of stuff that biology likes to eat. they will therefore be eaten.
Slashdot Mirror
Er. Isn't the link to a publication called "The Inquirer", not the Register. Great fact checking, there...
"Of course, categorically dumping an operating system is quite difficult.." - I suppose it will be! When will Microsoft come to its senses and completely abandon its new Os on the basis of this sensible bloggers devastating comments?!!1!
"With Mac OS X hot on its tail, Vista is simply not capable of competing at an OS level.."
Of course! It makes such sense!!
This article is unmitigated crap, and I'm typing this on a MacbookPro, so I have a bias towards agreeing with the idiot.
The wormwood example is fundamentally different from homeopathy. The only way that homeopathy could actually work is if the homeopath failed to carry out the procedure properly and gave the patient an undiluted solution of a compound that was an effective treatment. /As described/ homeopathy /cannot/ work.
I like the software analogies, but we are talking about someone claiming their computer works even though it is just an empty box. Yes, you could test the hypothesis that empty space is capable of carrying out computation, but the answer is easy to predict.
Actually, software IS maths. So is medicine, and so is everything else. It is just very complex mathematics! For infinite dilutiions to be effective, many other things would have to be false - the 'memory of water' idea would have horrible implications - so, yes, it is reasonable in this case to say that it is logically impossible, given what else we know. Of course, if we are all living inside a simulation, then the world would not have to be consistent, but then there wouldn't be much point in testing anything.
Kevlar is hydrogen bonded, graphene is not. So, "exactly the same mechanism" as what? Normal paper? I guess the cellulose fibers in paper are hydrogen bonded. Perhaps.
And if, as he claims, they suggested a one-time fee, and then rejected his offer as an attempt to moneygrab, that is sneaky.
But why would you need money for this, anyway? Compenstation for work already done?
Anyway, considering the millions raised for campaigning, 50,000 is not so much.
I understand the 'classical' model of photosynthesis, where it goes something like:
light->chlorophyll->quinone->->proton pump
Very, very vaguely. And the transfer is considered to be an electron 'hopping' from one molecule to the next.
This new, quantum model talks about the transfer occuring through resonance.
Actually, it doesn't make much sense to me, either!
(mindpiss, as they say on b3ta).
Okay, then. Also (vaguely related to quantum mechanics in biology:
Quantum Evolution by Johnjoe McFadden.
The Rainbow and the Worm by Mae-Wan Ho.
The Emperor's New Mind by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose then.
I don't buy it, personally. I don't see why microtubules act as mini quantum computers, but hey.
Although the crystal structure is not the same as the structure in solution, it can't be that far off.
:) Only joking, you may be right. I don't work on drug design, only backbone structure.
Crystals are pretty watery, much like the cell. Unless packing contacts are altering the active site, they are unlikely to be much different.
Also, the bulk of the structure is there to keep the active site residues in a particular orientation.
Perhaps management vitriol was partially justified?
Hmmm. Maybe it depends on whether you can convert from internal coordinates to a 3D structure. What you seem to be suggesting is moving through structure space, matching as you go along.
So at any point, you have to generate images of the 'neighbours' of the current structure. It could work. Maybe.
It's not a protein search engine, it's for small molecules.
Also, the search space for polypeptides is more restricted than that. There are only so many allowed torsion angles.
I would have thought.
Since, as the diameter of the flake increases, the circumference does too.
So, the more possible paths there are around the edge - equivalent to more shapes.
Am I wrong?
Hmmm. This spurs the horse of thought (sorry, too much coffee!)
Why don't games console makers (you know who you are...) make a flash player / java game player like wot they do do on mobile device phone things.
I guess it might not get them any prophets, but it could be like a loss-leader or some such marketing term (ie : a mistake).
Just because it can live at such temperatures surely doesn't mean that it has to use these temperatures to carry out the h2 generation.
Enzymes can work at a range of temps, from 0 to 100 degrees C, so there's no reason to suppose that NiFe hydrogenase (or whatever enzyme) has a catalytic requirement for a particular temp.
well, I don't think any game can really be replicated in the real world (legally). Especially not FPS...
But, actually, shiny backdrops in racing games seem a bit pointless, since you are speeding past them at 200 mph, concentrating on the track.
you asked for it...
s im ple?target-name=%3Cdefault%3E&target-body=NEhEhEhE hEhEhEhEC&target-tail=1%3A3P1%3A15P3%3A5P5%3A7P7%3 A9P9%3A11P11%3A13P13%3A15P&topnum=10&pagesize=10&s ubclasses=cath%2Ccrep%2Carep%2Ctrep%2Chrep&targetS ervice=advanced-match
http://balabio.dcs.gla.ac.uk:8180/tops/pattern/
minus the spaces, of course.
hmmm. perhaps I'll clean up the url syntax.
This is a little off topic... ...but I have been running a protein structure comparison service (TOPS, if anyone cares :) that is a /kind/ of search engine.
What I think is best about our system is the presentation of the results, not necessarily the engine itself (oh well!).
So I was thinking that it would be cool if other 'search engines' (comparison services) could run a search and submit the results to our servers for display.
Kind of like this? Would need some kind of protocol for describing matches.
can't you use the google api:
http://www.google.com/apis/
?
The usual explanation is that the remaining species can diversify into the ecological 'space' left after the holocaust.
In this view, in a crowded world, species are constantly in competition with each other, and diversity is held in balance, while in the time after a great extinction, all such constraints disappear, and species are free to do as they please.
I can't see anyone having mentioned this, and I don't know if it has featured before on /. but:
0 20 01.jpg
...
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/treemap-history/all1
show a 'treemap' of usenet. it's kind of inevitable that 'sex' and 'erotica' should be so large
hmmm.
:) However, it would seem much more sensible to use proteins as components in the circuit (this is not, I believe, what you are suggesting?). Biological 'circuits' as they are called use metalloproteins to transfer electrical signals and charge (er..'or' charge - not a biophysicist) so it would seem reasonable to make them from protein. However, the replies to the previous version of your post are right - these might have to be thermostable (in fact, probably designed) proteins.
Certainly nanotechnology shares a lot of the problems of biology - and component assembly is one of those. However I don't see that there is all that much to be gained from using biological systems in this case.
When you are doing nano-fabricating (IE : you are in a clean lab) there seems to me to be no harm in using purely chemical synthesis. Including, of course, bio-mimicry molecules for templating and scaffolding structures.
The core molecule that is shown in the link is some sort of functionalised zinc porphyrin (I see a nice ferrocene group there too). I think that attaching such bulky substituents to amino acids for further attachement to tRNAs would be cumbersome.
There are probably ways to do much the same thing with similar complex metallo-organic chemicals. Indeed, many groups have made self-assembling structures from just such rigidly units with metal ions as linkers.
The only real reason to use biomaterials is the prospect of using mutations to alter the structure. A bit like er..PROMs (? not sure) so you could 'evolve' circuits by altering the DNA and growing the result (bit like compiling code...
Simon Peyton Jones (http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/) recently gave a talk on making Excel more like Haskell. In fact, I have no evidence that that's not who Tailhook is...
- Grey goo would be eaten
Why? Well, first, assume that you really can create devices between a nanometer and a micrometer in size that replicate themselves. Now realise that these must be biological - they use materials readily available in the environment to construct themselves.
This doesn't make them 'biological'? Well, they will be eaten just as readily. Basically, if they can construct themselves from elements and molecules that are lying around, they will be made of stuff that biology likes to eat. they will therefore be eaten.