Can junk DNA be seen as "potentially useful junkyard parts" that some random mutation might re-activate into a gene or part of a gene? Is it actually handy to have these around to allow for rapid bigger changes of set of active genes than just a few small mutations in the active genes can do?
That why they are called junk DNA and not trash DNA, because at least part of it is ready to be reused later.
Some parts will be to control which genes are actually activated, some might even only be necessary to determine how the DNA is folded to determine what genes get more exposure, but the thousends of broken and useless copies of genes around in the junk DNA surely also have the function of collecting mutations until they might get by chance to something useful one day.
While even proteins coded by genes many parts are just filler, the important parts do not allow much changes to still get a surviving organism. You do not want too much mutations on the active genome, or you waste too much with sterile mutants. But to get something truly different, you often need to do many changes at once, and the chances to get there with only active genome are practically not there.
That is, inertial mass determines how much an object will be accelerated by a particular force.
Gravitational Mass comed from Newton's law of graviation:
F = G * m_g1 * mg2 / r ^2
That is, the magnitude of the gravitational forces between two objects.
The question is whether the two definitions of mass are interchangable (e.g. does m_i = m_g1?). That appears to be the case for normal matter, which we can tell because all objects accelrate at the same rate in a given gravitational field regardless of mass. But it doesn't have to be the case.
That assumes "forces" are the real things. if you rather look at accelerations, then the acceleration you get by being in the gravitational field of another body does only depend on their mass, not at all on your mass. That's why general relativity images the gravitational forces as not directly effecting you, but instead the geometry of space.
So in that light the question of "why is gravitational mass the same as inertial mass" boils down to: why is your gravitational force of exactly that size compared to your intertial mass so that gravitational forces are symmetric? i.e. why does earth's gravitational force on you seem to be exactly the same as the force you are enacting on earth? i.e. why does action == reaction hold even if you do no start with forces as the primary physical objects?
While making it harder for terrorists is nice, it might actually increase the rate of accidental fertilizer plant explosions.
See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion for an example what happens if people think their fertilizer cannot explode so the easiest way to get some stuck in a silo out is a little charge of dynamite.
"That would be highly ineffective, since chocolate bars are wrapped in tin foil." Is it really the 1910's in the UK?
I have not seen a tinfoil wrapped candy bar for over 30 years. plastic wrapped with a Metallica plastic? yes!
I don't know about UK, but here in continental Europe, the good chocolare usually has tin foil, while the cheap chocolate and the chocolate-containing-stuff (you are not allowed to call it chocolate if you do not use chocolate butter but some replacement) use some cheap replacement (often not even metallic to make it clear it is a really super-cheap one).
Just because graphene might became useable does not mean it will replace silicon.
Silicon has quite some head start, so might survive the alternatives quite some time even in those use cases where alternatives are bette (just like it happened with spinning hard discs as storage medium, or explosion engines for cars).
And likely it has quite some downsizes that make it unfit for many purposes where silicon shines. Have they for example solved the problem of graphene to always need some current? Being able to build ultra-fast chips is nice, but if there is no way to reduce power usage of parts currently usused that might make it unfit for all but nieche markets. (Well, high-performance needing nieche markets and gamer's PC most likely).
1. Session cookies are key in allowing Google to track and store more data than it should.
Err, no, that would be persistent cookies. Session cookies are deleted whenever the browser session ends, so it makes tracking rather pointless. The cookies Google (and every other company) uses to track are set to expire years in the future.
So you always open your browser for only one site and close it afterwards? And never look at two sites at the same time?
If you like it or not, the problem with cookies is something that can only be solved by law. There are some sites only working with cookies (mostly for stupid reasons), so you cannot disable cookies globally. Almost any site with advertising gives you a tracking cookie, per advertisement, so no browser will ask people to accept cookies by default as people will be utterly confused. And because any browser accepts them by default, sites can just add tracking cookies without many people complaining. So no browser can switch to "ask-before-request" as too many sites use them....
So you either have to accept that any site will track what other sites you visit and give the advertisers your profile (and once one of thoe sites also has your login, connect that profile to your identify), or you have to use regulation. One might differ whether people have a right on privacy or websites have a right to get revenues. But if one considers a right for privacy, regulation is the only solution in this case.
MRSA is no the product of a total war on bacteria, but the product of a careless war.
Our use of antibiotics is like sending a single policeman with a single gun to every incident reporting and not caring if they return. In most cases it will be enough, but in the long run there will be many criminals with police guns in their hands (and even if they do not need the new guns, they still get fresh ammo all the time).
Hospitals are then favelas handled like that, i.e. sending one or two policemen with automatic guns into areas where everyone already has guns, perhaps sending them in until they return and bring back all the weapons in one house, but not counting all the weapons you lost, not looking if anyone leaves the house with some of your weapons and hides somewhere else, not caring for people walking around with your weapons in the streets and so on.
The big weapons against MRSA are basic hygiene and checking your employes. Just regularily testing your employees and getting rid of any MRSA they carry around helps a lot. Teaching people to wash your hands between touching patients instead of between touching sterile items is also said to help a lot.
People might be sceptical how big the problem is, but the analysis itself and the diagnosis is sound. Most people are only suprised they did not think about it before.
The math is simple: If you have a buffer that is never empty, every package will have to wait in the buffer. If you have a buffer full all the time, it serves no purpose but only defers every packet. And given that RAM got so cheap that buffers in devices grew so much more than bandwidth, you now often have buffers big enough to hold packets needing full seconds to send them all. Such a buffer running in always-full mode means high latency for no gain.
All additional factors of TCP going harvoc when latency is too high and no longer being able to compute how fast to optimally send if no packages get dropped only make the situation worse, but the basic is simple: A buffer always full is a buffer only having downsizes. The more the bigger it is....
I think, what you haven't understood is, that there are no unlimited freedom. Every freedom is
limited by the freedom of others.
As there is no right to kill people, or no right to call for killing people, there is no right for
propagating racism.
You are right, that the bann against this propagande cannnot work, if not used together
with giving those a future and a life, that do
not have one and are therefore like sheep for
the neo-nazi and the like.
In the USA you have a better situation. Even
most conservative right-wing stupid old person
are in favour of democraty. What they want is
no demokraty, but they will tell it so, due to
the long history of democraty in the US.
But Germany e.g. has seen other things. It has seen Hitler, who could ruin almost the whole
Europe and kill large parts of the German and other populations. Even after killing, arresting
or banning most of the other kandidates he still
got only 30% in elections, but still could overtake Germany and large parts of Europe.
Freedom is the freedom of those thinking an other way, like Rosa Luxenburg said. But freedom always
has to respect the freedom of other people. There can be no freedom to kill people. There can be no freedom to call for a person beeing killed. And there can be no freedom to propagate racism.
Solar cells were never thought as anything else than for remote situations like satalites or something like this.
There are plenty better possibilites. No fision or fusion can get that cheap energie like water.
And together with wind, energie out worts, or taken directly from the sun with collectors on your house to get water warm, to get chemical reactions done, or to heat air, which moves up to
get electricity. (Sorry, did not find an translation for "Auftriebskraftwerk") there are plenty possiblites, which could produce so much energy.
More then really needed, if you built good houses,
that do not need heatet or cooled.
It's quite everything possible. You just have to do it.
Why it is trolling to say, that I do not want radiactive waste?
Why it is trolling to state, that fusion cause large amounts of radioactive waste?
Before you tell someone a troll, please look at the facts: Hydrogen (or normaly heavy isotomes of hydrogen) are fusioned. This causes mostly helium and much other - mostly radioactive - isotopes. But this radioactivity can almost be neglected.
You want to become energie out of the fusionating plasma. But noone will take the plasma out of the reactor directly to boil water. It is too difficult to heat it up, get it clean, get the raction products out of the way, and there is nothing that could transport the energie of outgoing plasma somewhere else without beeing destroyed with the time.
So all planes I have seen till now, plan to have some of those fusion reactions that cause an exmtrem creation of neutrons. This neutrons are catches outside with graphit or the like to get your water boiled.
And those neutrons - that will even be created, if not wanted, but they are wanted - will make everything radioactive in the environment of the plasma.
Ask some engineer that has to to with fusion. He will have to admit, that after 30 years or earlier, you have to decompose the whole reactor chamber, because it is so radioactive and destructed by the neutrons, that the matirial is just to weak.
I think fusion is an nice thing - seen scientific - as atomic reactors or atomic bombs are. I just do not want them built or even used.
Of course, fusion is a nice idea. And I'm curious if it possible, too.
But one of the last things I want to see on earth is an fusion plant. We have enough radiactiv waste on earth. And noone knows what to do with it. The best idea for it today is: Burry it, and hope that in the next million years noone and no water come accross.
And there is created lots of radioaktivity by fusion. First of all most plans have neutrons to
be created in the fusion to get energie out of it.
This neutrons are catched with graphit outside the plasma. And this graphit and the whole reaktor-chamber and the concrete of it get radiaktive by the neutrons. Ask any ingeniere, who has to do with it, and he will hav to admit, that the whole reactor-chamber has to be replaced after 30 years or earlier, because it is so radiactive, that the matrial gets to weak.
What mankind needs are regenerative energies: Water, Wind, and so on. And not another gigantomanic way to prduce atomic waste, that we have today enough of!
If your department "uses open-source projects as a basic part for in-house tools", why don't you give back to the community, you took from, and make your changes also available as open-source.
This way you would have not problems with GPL and the like. If it is "in-house", that you can hav more advantages by the community integrating and bettering your changes, than the possibility to sell something, which I guess as very low.
Though he makes an mistake. Even, if he releases it under GPL, he can still combine it with propriatrary source code. What he can not, it combine contributions by others with propriatary source, if they do not allow it. That's why I an perhaps many others are much more likely to contribute to an GPL-programm than to something else.
I personally see MPL as non-free, because it disriminate against corporations with software-patents.
(If a corporation uses your code, add something
to it, which infridges their patent, and they have lost).
Though I see software-patents, ecspeccily as used in the US as an bad thing, the same holds in my eyes for the producers of wapons or riffles, or those who sell or buy them. And if an licence would discriminate against those, I think noone would call the licence free.
I do not know, which laws have to be used
in space. But I can imagine, that the laws
take place, that make an ship without persons
on it to you property when you find it.
I would prefer when anyone trying to patent something obvious would be jailed up and any patent given which handle something obvious
would be void. And least it "obvious" should be definied as anything one can get to without 2 years research minimum.
When QT becomes GPL, KDE won't be able to be put in debian only because of this. Before this can be done, any program has to fully under the GPL or
fully under QPL.
Programs which main-code is qpl and using libraries under gpl are still illegal, until
the program itself is gpl. And changing a licence of a program with more than one or two developers
last many time. (If it can ever be done)
Re:If you can clone an extinct animal...
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
It can only be for Zoos.
As many animals this animal with "tiger" in his name died because of new animals from the rest of the world. You had to kill these other animals before it could survive.
Slashdot Mirror
Can junk DNA be seen as "potentially useful junkyard parts" that some random mutation might re-activate into a gene or part of a gene? Is it actually handy to have these around to allow for rapid bigger changes of set of active genes than just a few small mutations in the active genes can do?
That why they are called junk DNA and not trash DNA, because at least part of it is ready to be reused later.
Some parts will be to control which genes are actually activated, some might even only be necessary to determine how the DNA is folded to determine what genes get more exposure, but the thousends of broken and useless copies of genes around in the junk DNA surely also have the function of collecting mutations until they might get by chance to something useful one day.
While even proteins coded by genes many parts are just filler, the important parts do not allow much changes to still get a surviving organism. You do not want too much mutations on the active genome, or you waste too much with sterile mutants. But to get something truly different, you often need to do many changes at once, and the chances to get there with only active genome are practically not there.
Inertial Mass comes from Newton's second law:
F = m_i * a
That is, inertial mass determines how much an object will be accelerated by a particular force.
Gravitational Mass comed from Newton's law of graviation:
F = G * m_g1 * mg2 / r ^2
That is, the magnitude of the gravitational forces between two objects.
The question is whether the two definitions of mass are interchangable (e.g. does m_i = m_g1?). That appears to be the case for normal matter, which we can tell because all objects accelrate at the same rate in a given gravitational field regardless of mass. But it doesn't have to be the case.
That assumes "forces" are the real things. if you rather look at accelerations, then the acceleration you get by being in the gravitational field of another body does only depend on their mass, not at all on your mass. That's why general relativity images the gravitational forces as not directly effecting you, but instead the geometry of space.
So in that light the question of "why is gravitational mass the same as inertial mass" boils down to: why is your gravitational force of exactly that size compared to your intertial mass so that gravitational forces are symmetric? i.e. why does earth's gravitational force on you seem to be exactly the same as the force you are enacting on earth? i.e. why does action == reaction hold even if you do no start with forces as the primary physical objects?
While making it harder for terrorists is nice, it might actually increase the rate of accidental fertilizer plant explosions.
See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion for an example what happens if people think their fertilizer cannot explode so the easiest way to get some stuck in a silo out is a little charge of dynamite.
I appreciate their using Sid for development, but part of me thinks Buggy would have been just as appropriate, and hilarious at the same time.
Actually, there is also buggy, or rather rc-buggy. It's the codename for experimental.
see ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/rc-buggy/Release
"That would be highly ineffective, since chocolate bars are wrapped in tin foil."
Is it really the 1910's in the UK?
I have not seen a tinfoil wrapped candy bar for over 30 years. plastic wrapped with a Metallica plastic? yes!
I don't know about UK, but here in continental Europe, the good chocolare usually has tin foil, while the cheap chocolate and the chocolate-containing-stuff (you are not allowed to call it chocolate if you do not use chocolate butter but some replacement) use some cheap replacement (often not even metallic to make it clear it is a really super-cheap one).
Just because graphene might became useable does not mean it will replace silicon.
Silicon has quite some head start, so might survive the alternatives quite some time even in those use cases where alternatives are bette (just like it happened with spinning hard discs as storage medium, or explosion engines for cars).
And likely it has quite some downsizes that make it unfit for many purposes where silicon shines. Have they for example solved the problem of graphene to always need some current? Being able to build ultra-fast chips is nice, but if there is no way to reduce power usage of parts currently usused that might make it unfit for all but nieche markets. (Well, high-performance needing nieche markets and gamer's PC most likely).
1. Session cookies are key in allowing Google to track and store more data than it should.
Err, no, that would be persistent cookies. Session cookies are deleted whenever the browser session ends, so it makes tracking rather pointless. The cookies Google (and every other company) uses to track are set to expire years in the future.
So you always open your browser for only one site and close it afterwards? And never look at two sites at the same time?
If you like it or not, the problem with cookies is something that can only be solved by law.
There are some sites only working with cookies (mostly for stupid reasons), so you cannot disable cookies globally.
Almost any site with advertising gives you a tracking cookie, per advertisement, so no browser will ask people to accept cookies by default as people will be utterly confused. And because any browser accepts them by default, sites can just add tracking cookies without many people complaining. So no browser can switch to "ask-before-request" as too many sites use them....
So you either have to accept that any site will track what other sites you visit and give the advertisers your profile
(and once one of thoe sites also has your login, connect that profile to your identify), or you have to use regulation.
One might differ whether people have a right on privacy or websites have a right to get revenues. But if one considers a right for privacy, regulation is the only solution in this case.
MRSA is no the product of a total war on bacteria, but the product of a careless war.
Our use of antibiotics is like sending a single policeman with a single gun to every incident reporting and not caring if they return. In most cases it will be enough, but in the long run there will be many criminals with police guns in their hands
(and even if they do not need the new guns, they still get fresh ammo all the time).
Hospitals are then favelas handled like that, i.e. sending one or two policemen with automatic guns into areas where everyone already has guns, perhaps sending them in until they return and bring back all the weapons in one house, but not counting all the weapons you lost, not looking if anyone leaves the house with some of your weapons and hides somewhere else, not caring for people walking around with your weapons in the streets and so on.
The big weapons against MRSA are basic hygiene and checking your employes. Just regularily testing your employees and getting rid of any MRSA they carry around helps a lot. Teaching people to wash your hands between touching patients instead of between touching sterile items is also said to help a lot.
People might be sceptical how big the problem is, but the analysis itself and the diagnosis is sound. Most people are only suprised they did not think about it before.
The math is simple: If you have a buffer that is never empty, every package will have to wait in the buffer. If you have a buffer full all the time, it serves no purpose but only defers every packet. And given that RAM got so cheap that buffers in devices grew so much more than bandwidth, you now often have buffers big enough to hold packets needing full seconds to send them all. Such a buffer running in always-full mode means high latency for no gain.
All additional factors of TCP going harvoc when latency is too high and no longer being able to compute how fast to optimally send if no packages get dropped only make the situation worse, but the basic is simple: A buffer always full is a buffer only having downsizes. The more the bigger it is....
Please do not confuse banning racistic propaganda with fighting against free speach.
This would like confusing running over your neighbor with the right of free movement.
I think, what you haven't understood is, that there are no unlimited freedom. Every freedom is
limited by the freedom of others.
As there is no right to kill people, or no right to call for killing people, there is no right for
propagating racism.
You are right, that the bann against this propagande cannnot work, if not used together
with giving those a future and a life, that do
not have one and are therefore like sheep for
the neo-nazi and the like.
In the USA you have a better situation. Even
most conservative right-wing stupid old person
are in favour of democraty. What they want is
no demokraty, but they will tell it so, due to
the long history of democraty in the US.
But Germany e.g. has seen other things. It has seen Hitler, who could ruin almost the whole
Europe and kill large parts of the German and other populations. Even after killing, arresting
or banning most of the other kandidates he still
got only 30% in elections, but still could overtake Germany and large parts of Europe.
Freedom is the freedom of those thinking an other way, like Rosa Luxenburg said. But freedom always
has to respect the freedom of other people. There can be no freedom to kill people. There can be no freedom to call for a person beeing killed. And there can be no freedom to propagate racism.
Why always put solar cells as comparison?
Solar cells were never thought as anything else than for remote situations like satalites or something like this.
There are plenty better possibilites. No fision or fusion can get that cheap energie like water.
And together with wind, energie out worts, or taken directly from the sun with collectors on your house to get water warm, to get chemical reactions done, or to heat air, which moves up to
get electricity. (Sorry, did not find an translation for "Auftriebskraftwerk") there are plenty possiblites, which could produce so much energy.
More then really needed, if you built good houses,
that do not need heatet or cooled.
It's quite everything possible. You just have to do it.
Why it is trolling to say, that I do not want radiactive waste?
Why it is trolling to state, that fusion cause large amounts of radioactive waste?
Before you tell someone a troll, please look at the facts: Hydrogen (or normaly heavy isotomes of hydrogen) are fusioned. This causes mostly helium and much other - mostly radioactive - isotopes. But this radioactivity can almost be neglected.
You want to become energie out of the fusionating plasma. But noone will take the plasma out of the reactor directly to boil water. It is too difficult to heat it up, get it clean, get the raction products out of the way, and there is nothing that could transport the energie of outgoing plasma somewhere else without beeing destroyed with the time.
So all planes I have seen till now, plan to have some of those fusion reactions that cause an exmtrem creation of neutrons. This neutrons are catches outside with graphit or the like to get your water boiled.
And those neutrons - that will even be created, if not wanted, but they are wanted - will make everything radioactive in the environment of the plasma.
Ask some engineer that has to to with fusion. He will have to admit, that after 30 years or earlier, you have to decompose the whole reactor chamber, because it is so radioactive and destructed by the neutrons, that the matirial is just to weak.
I think fusion is an nice thing - seen scientific - as atomic reactors or atomic bombs are. I just do not want them built or even used.
Of course, fusion is a nice idea. And I'm curious if it possible, too.
But one of the last things I want to see on earth is an fusion plant. We have enough radiactiv waste on earth. And noone knows what to do with it. The best idea for it today is: Burry it, and hope that in the next million years noone and no water come accross.
And there is created lots of radioaktivity by fusion. First of all most plans have neutrons to
be created in the fusion to get energie out of it.
This neutrons are catched with graphit outside the plasma. And this graphit and the whole reaktor-chamber and the concrete of it get radiaktive by the neutrons. Ask any ingeniere, who has to do with it, and he will hav to admit, that the whole reactor-chamber has to be replaced after 30 years or earlier, because it is so radiactive, that the matrial gets to weak.
What mankind needs are regenerative energies: Water, Wind, and so on. And not another gigantomanic way to prduce atomic waste, that we have today enough of!
If your department "uses open-source projects as a basic part for in-house tools", why don't you give back to the community, you took from, and make your changes also available as open-source.
This way you would have not problems with GPL and the like. If it is "in-house", that you can hav more advantages by the community integrating and bettering your changes, than the possibility to sell something, which I guess as very low.
Though he makes an mistake. Even, if he releases it under GPL, he can still combine it with propriatrary source code. What he can not, it combine contributions by others with propriatary source, if they do not allow it. That's why I an perhaps many others are much more likely to contribute to an GPL-programm than to something else.
I personally see MPL as non-free, because it disriminate against corporations with software-patents.
(If a corporation uses your code, add something
to it, which infridges their patent, and they have lost).
Though I see software-patents, ecspeccily as used in the US as an bad thing, the same holds in my eyes for the producers of wapons or riffles, or those who sell or buy them. And if an licence would discriminate against those, I think noone would call the licence free.
There should be no need to mention, but ...
Please take care that the site is browseable with
text-only browsers. Blind people, people with an
slow conection will thank.
I do not know, which laws have to be used
in space. But I can imagine, that the laws
take place, that make an ship without persons
on it to you property when you find it.
There are severall theries called Complexity Theory. And one of them is also called chaos theory.
I would prefer when anyone trying to patent something obvious would be jailed up and any patent given which handle something obvious
would be void. And least it "obvious" should be definied as anything one can get to without 2 years research minimum.
When QT becomes GPL, KDE won't be able to be put in debian only because of this. Before this can be done, any program has to fully under the GPL or
fully under QPL.
Programs which main-code is qpl and using libraries under gpl are still illegal, until
the program itself is gpl. And changing a licence of a program with more than one or two developers
last many time. (If it can ever be done)
It can only be for Zoos.
As many animals this animal with "tiger" in his name died because of new animals from the rest of the world. You had to kill these other animals before it could survive.