Protein folding, modeling cell machinery, and simulations of other biological systems at the molecular level. Think about the number of calculations involved in modeling the interactions between a few million atoms in something as simple as the ribosome. Now imagine adding the water and solute environment that surrounds these sorts of molecules. Oh, you could ignore the water and do the simulation in a vacuum, but let's remember that a driving force in protein conformation is hydrophobicity. And if you want to try this over time, say even a few nanoseconds, then start multiplying baby.
I realize a corporation is an entity that exists to enrich its shareholders, but heaven forbid it should ever do the right thing while risking financial loss.
I understand your intuition that reviving a killed off deadly strain of the flu could be dangerous, but given the mutability of flu viruses, the potential for new deadly strains is very much real and we have to study our epidemiological history to avoid them.
Studying viruses is very difficult, as you can only tell so much from examining the raw sequence information or using simulations. Everything from the exact mechanism of transmission to how this flu caused so many deaths to (and this is probably the most important) how this bug made it from animals to humans is still not precisely known. In order to learn such things, you'd have to directly infect some test organisms or cells and observe the effects and do other lab studies using a live viruses. There is just no substitute. (Another controversial approach involves deliberately crossing human and avian and porcine flus to try and generate one that will cross between the species)
The justification for doing so is clear, and goes beyond a desire for Nobel glory, many scientists agree that we are just a day away from another deadly and widespread flu epidemic. If we are going to predict and prevent such an epidemic, we need to really understand the kinds of features that made the "Spanish" flu possible and so potent. Another massive problem we have is the utter lack of real epidemiological surveillance in large domesticated animal populations (on chicken and pig farms, for example). Not only do we need to do this, but we need to understand the viral features that we need to look for.
It's actually a little more complicated than that.
On the one hand, you have the Nationalists (the Kuomingtang, KMT), who led by Chiang Kei-shek brought a lot of Mainland Chinese Nationalists over to Taiwan back in the 50's after the Chinese Communists drove them out. The KMT settled in Taiwan and plotted their return to China to assert their democratic government there (both they and the Communists asserted that theirs was the legitimate government for the whole of China). This return, of course, has not quite happened although the KMT has claimed that Taiwan is part of China, in as much as they are the legitimate government of China as a whole. For a long time, the largely Mainlander KMT has remained (despite their minority status among the "native" Taiwanese, who are also ethnically Chinese, but have lived on Taiwan for several hundred years) have maintained a one-party system and martial law up until the mid-80's.
In that time there has been a liberalization of political life, leading to the rise of a large opposition party (the Democratic People's Party, DPP), consisting largely of "native" Taiwanese, as well as a change in the KMT's own membership as more "native" Taiwanese rise to positions of power within that party. The DPP could be described supporting Taiwanese interests over the KMT's party-line of reunifying with China under a Nationalist flag. This is intertwined with resentment over the KMT's repressive and corrupt policies over the years and a genuine need to address domestic issues within Taiwan.
Thus the reality of of whether or not the Taiwanese or their government favor reunification or independence can be well summarized by this paragraph from Wikipedia:
"The KMT supports the status quo for the indefinite future because unification under the Communist Party is unacceptable to its members and the public. The Democratic Progressive Party, which supports an independent Taiwan, supports the status quo because the risk of declaring independence and provoking mainland China is unacceptable to its members. However, both parties support taking active steps to advocate Taiwan's participation in international organizations. The numbers who answer favorably toward any particular resolution often changes depending on the particular wording of the question, illustrating the complexity of public opinion on the topic."
It is also important to note that a DPP president is currently in office, although the legislature is still fairly divided. So what's meant by "the government" is rather unclear at the moment.
("Native" is written in quotes to distinguish those Taiwanese who are ethnically Chinese, but have resided in Taiwan for the last few hundred years from the actual aborigineal tribes in Taiwan, who, like many native people, have suffered under a variety of hands.)
The whole push-pins on business search results thing is pretty cool (although they need to beef up their database a bit), as is the detailed view of each turn and curve in the driving directions. And the ability to use keyboard shortcuts to move and zoom are pure geek-o-licious.
The things that really blew my hair back were the instant pop-up bubbles with detail information that appeared when you clicked on the individual business listings or the flag on the map.
I suppose I had to respond as the parent got modded all the way up to a 5.
The problem is the establishment of a monoculture, rather than genetic modification. It doesn't matter if you've bred up your plants the old-fashioned way of collecting seeds from the ones the bear the biggest fruit or if you've grown it in a lab; if you've grown all your plants from a small pool of genes, then they're all going to share the same strengths and weaknesses. And given the way that any disease (or any other selective pressure) works, it is difficult to say in advance what will confer an advantage or a disadvantage until the chips fall.
Even if Terminator got loose via cross-pollination (http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminat or.html), I don't think it would be end of agriculture on this planet (although I think it's a horrible way to squeeze out cash from farmers). Terminator bred seeds have to be treated with an inducer chemical, which sets off the genes that sterilze the second generation seeds. Additionally, two genes (the recombinase and the toxin) out of the three genes involved have to be in working order for sterility to occur. Even if the toxin gene itself were to be horizontally transferred into other plants, the gene contains a blocker region which prevents the gene from being expressed until that blocker is excised. The DNA is sort of arranged thusly (promoter and blocker are just regions of the DNA strand with different function):
In order to create (express in biogeekspeak) the toxin, you need both the promoter region and the toxin code. I wonder is how likely is it that the toxin gene gets tranferred via cross-pollination and somehow manage to lose the blocker and yet keep the promoter needed for expression. Additionally, if the toxin gene got mutated such that it didn't work (which is a real possibility with a single gene), then the whole sterility thing is out the door.
The other problem with hobbling the spread of GM foods is that not all GM foods are these monsters you describe, nor is all research into it driven by blind greed. A lot of basic research, particularly agricultural research, still goes on at public technical institutes funded by public money, where there is more transparency and more thought given to the ethical consequences. Crops that can be grown in arid regions, regions with saline groundwater, or that have improved nutritional value can do good where people can't grow their native crops or are undernourished.
I agree with you that Monsanto is one of the poster children for corporate irresponsiblity and that we need to be cautious our food supply's gene pool, but the situation is more subtle than you describe.
N.B. I am involved in human genomics research (no engineering, just studying the structure) and not plant genetics. Make of this what you will, etc.
Though if they did that and then let existing users keep their accounts, either through a forwarding service or actually letting the service continue for a lucky few, imagine the completely insane market there'd be for gmail.com addys.
I used to work for a company of IT analysts, doing the same kind of stuff that Gartner (the firm quoted in the article) does, and I can tell you where these guys get their some of their numbers...
A deep mine nestled in a valley between two gluteus maximi.
I don't think very much changed; the moment you make something, someone else somewhere else could make it cheaper and possibly better. Hell, computer science is math! How did any of the complainers expect Asians not to jump in on that field? Anyways, the distinction between blue collar jobs and white collar jobs is pretty artificial.
I totally realize that I'm speaking from a privileged and non-threatened point of view on this topic, but I don't think the protectionists offer many good arguments for protectionism. The only good ones I can think of are Avoiding the Race to the Bottom, Not Exporting Enviromental Hazards, and Sweat Shops, which hardly apply in this case.
They ask the questions, "Where does it stop?" (a loaded "next one could be you" sort of bogeyman) and "What comes after knowledge?". I'd hold up a hypothetical case (possibly straw-man); what if we'd clamped down with protections on manufacturing during the 60's and 70's? Then manufacturing would be a sure-fire job, more people would stay in it forever, there'd be less pressure to find the next big thing, and we'd stagnate and maybe turn into Germany (huge generalization this). But maybe we wouldn't be inclined to do whatever it took to lead infotech innovation because manufucturing was so much safer.
As a society, we've chosen innovation over stability, which is a double-edged sword as usual. While I'm not sure that it's the best choice for all of America's citizens, it is goddamn exciting.
Previously, you signed up, they put you on a plan, gave you a one time break on a phone, and that was it for however long your contract was. If you wanted a new phone, you'd have to buy one at full price yourself.
Now they're going to give you a new phone every 12 months, but you have to re-contract for two years.
For those who have been with AT&T wireless and are off-contract, this could be a way to get a new phone, if you're willing to stay with AT&T for two more years and agree to their new plans.
They're not even playing nice with their existing customers.
The day that portability went into effect, they came out with their Customers First deal to convince existing customers to stay. Here's what it consists of:
Sign up or renew on a qualified AT&T Wireless plan with a two-year agreement. Right now, that's most plans $39.99 and above. You'll be eligible to receive a select new phone every 12 months, FREE.*
Free Phone Every Year: One free or discounted phone after mail-in rebate per account available twelve months after qualified activation or acceptance of any free or discounted phone. Phone selection is determined by AT&T Wireless and is subject to change. In order to receive each free or discounted phone after mail-in rebate, a customer must agree to and execute a new two-year agreement and remain on or switch to a qualified plan. Qualified plans are determined by AT&T Wireless and may change at any time. Customers may need to switch plans each year in order to receive program benefits. Program may be terminated at any time.
Whoo whee! Now I can renew my contract every year with AT&T for the privilege of subsidizing the "free" phones for another two years! Gosh, and they can "free" me of any pesky grandfathered-in deals each time I get my "free" phone.
I'm on AT&T wireless and I like their service, but this customer retention effort is pure crap.
But maybe, "Kill the beast. Cut his throat. Spill his blood" is catchier for some people. Though it says something about whether you identify more with Ralph or Jack.
Heh, that's right, I was mainly thinking from the functional point of view. Technically, I'm sure it is mostly off-the-shelf tech they're using to serve up the catalog. But as you said, the benefit of digging out the content that make up the catalog is pretty much nil.
Nope, they don't have any web version of their catalog available. I suppose iTunesMS is a bit of a download, but the entire store really is contained within the application. Once you've got the app, browsing the catalog and listening to snippets is very easy.
The selection itself is pretty broad, which is to say it covers most genres and popular artists. Think typical music store and then some. It's not too deep yet, but things are growing.
Actually, each part is and isn't necessary to life.
Consider mitochondria, which act as the powerhouse for cells by peforming cellular respiration (that useful task of breaking down things like glucose into ATP). They seem to be more closely related to bacteria and have their own DNA and biochemical mechanisms quite apart from the whole cell.
The theory is that mitochondria are actually prokaryotic cells that were engulfed by other procaryotic cells, creating the early eukaryotic cells. The idea is that this ability to perform cellular respiration proved a significant enough evolutionary advantage that the symbiotic relationship was maintained.
Over time, the systems of both host and symbiont evolved to maximize this relationship and shed unnecessary components, thus if you took out the mitochondria now the whole cell would be in pretty bad shape.
It's akin to how most of us have focused on skills other than hunter-gathering or even farming, and would thus be up a creek if someone magically removed all the supermarkets and food warehouses and farms out there.
It's a nice thought, but even these lasers aren't precise enough to alter genes on living chromosomes.
Mitochondria are about 5 micrometers across and your various cytoskeletal filaments and tubules range between 3 - 25 nanometers in diameter.
Human chromosomes, on the other hand, are essentially 2 meters of DNA packed into a 5 micrometer-wide nucleus. Now that's 6 billion base pairs (A/T's and G/C's), which are wrapped up pretty tight.
If you stretched out the DNA to full length, that's 3.4 x 10e-10 meters per base pair. Taking a randomish gene that's 10,000 base pairs long, that would work out to 3.4 micrometers of DNA, which this laser could work on. But if you think refolding maps is hard, imagine trying to repack 2 meters of DNA back into a 5 micrometer nucleus.
During metaphase, when the cell has all its chromosomes lined up and ready for splitting, the average size of a chromosome is 2 micrometers from end to end. Basically, your 10k base pair gene is now just 1.7 nanometers long. All of this winding and compacting means that it's blessedly hard to hit a single gene and only that gene within the DNA contained in a living cell with a tool this blunt.
Slashdot Mirror
Biological simulations.
Protein folding, modeling cell machinery, and simulations of other biological systems at the molecular level. Think about the number of calculations involved in modeling the interactions between a few million atoms in something as simple as the ribosome. Now imagine adding the water and solute environment that surrounds these sorts of molecules. Oh, you could ignore the water and do the simulation in a vacuum, but let's remember that a driving force in protein conformation is hydrophobicity. And if you want to try this over time, say even a few nanoseconds, then start multiplying baby.
So yeah, there are some good uses.
I realize a corporation is an entity that exists to enrich its shareholders, but heaven forbid it should ever do the right thing while risking financial loss.
I understand your intuition that reviving a killed off deadly strain of the flu could be dangerous, but given the mutability of flu viruses, the potential for new deadly strains is very much real and we have to study our epidemiological history to avoid them.
Studying viruses is very difficult, as you can only tell so much from examining the raw sequence information or using simulations. Everything from the exact mechanism of transmission to how this flu caused so many deaths to (and this is probably the most important) how this bug made it from animals to humans is still not precisely known. In order to learn such things, you'd have to directly infect some test organisms or cells and observe the effects and do other lab studies using a live viruses. There is just no substitute. (Another controversial approach involves deliberately crossing human and avian and porcine flus to try and generate one that will cross between the species)
The justification for doing so is clear, and goes beyond a desire for Nobel glory, many scientists agree that we are just a day away from another deadly and widespread flu epidemic. If we are going to predict and prevent such an epidemic, we need to really understand the kinds of features that made the "Spanish" flu possible and so potent. Another massive problem we have is the utter lack of real epidemiological surveillance in large domesticated animal populations (on chicken and pig farms, for example). Not only do we need to do this, but we need to understand the viral features that we need to look for.
On the one hand, you have the Nationalists (the Kuomingtang, KMT), who led by Chiang Kei-shek brought a lot of Mainland Chinese Nationalists over to Taiwan back in the 50's after the Chinese Communists drove them out. The KMT settled in Taiwan and plotted their return to China to assert their democratic government there (both they and the Communists asserted that theirs was the legitimate government for the whole of China). This return, of course, has not quite happened although the KMT has claimed that Taiwan is part of China, in as much as they are the legitimate government of China as a whole. For a long time, the largely Mainlander KMT has remained (despite their minority status among the "native" Taiwanese, who are also ethnically Chinese, but have lived on Taiwan for several hundred years) have maintained a one-party system and martial law up until the mid-80's.
In that time there has been a liberalization of political life, leading to the rise of a large opposition party (the Democratic People's Party, DPP), consisting largely of "native" Taiwanese, as well as a change in the KMT's own membership as more "native" Taiwanese rise to positions of power within that party. The DPP could be described supporting Taiwanese interests over the KMT's party-line of reunifying with China under a Nationalist flag. This is intertwined with resentment over the KMT's repressive and corrupt policies over the years and a genuine need to address domestic issues within Taiwan.
Thus the reality of of whether or not the Taiwanese or their government favor reunification or independence can be well summarized by this paragraph from Wikipedia:
It is also important to note that a DPP president is currently in office, although the legislature is still fairly divided. So what's meant by "the government" is rather unclear at the moment.
("Native" is written in quotes to distinguish those Taiwanese who are ethnically Chinese, but have resided in Taiwan for the last few hundred years from the actual aborigineal tribes in Taiwan, who, like many native people, have suffered under a variety of hands.)
Did you not look closely at this? Check ut the tour http://www.google.com/help/maps/tour/!
The whole push-pins on business search results thing is pretty cool (although they need to beef up their database a bit), as is the detailed view of each turn and curve in the driving directions. And the ability to use keyboard shortcuts to move and zoom are pure geek-o-licious.
The things that really blew my hair back were the instant pop-up bubbles with detail information that appeared when you clicked on the individual business listings or the flag on the map.
Oh com'on, by being an HP printing customer I've won big time....
Just look at this fabulous "HP's Dick In My Ass Award"!
The problem is the establishment of a monoculture, rather than genetic modification. It doesn't matter if you've bred up your plants the old-fashioned way of collecting seeds from the ones the bear the biggest fruit or if you've grown it in a lab; if you've grown all your plants from a small pool of genes, then they're all going to share the same strengths and weaknesses. And given the way that any disease (or any other selective pressure) works, it is difficult to say in advance what will confer an advantage or a disadvantage until the chips fall.
Even if Terminator got loose via cross-pollination (http://filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminat or.html), I don't think it would be end of agriculture on this planet (although I think it's a horrible way to squeeze out cash from farmers). Terminator bred seeds have to be treated with an inducer chemical, which sets off the genes that sterilze the second generation seeds. Additionally, two genes (the recombinase and the toxin) out of the three genes involved have to be in working order for sterility to occur. Even if the toxin gene itself were to be horizontally transferred into other plants, the gene contains a blocker region which prevents the gene from being expressed until that blocker is excised. The DNA is sort of arranged thusly (promoter and blocker are just regions of the DNA strand with different function):
---[promoter_region]--[blocker_region]--[toxin_DNA code]---
In order to create (express in biogeekspeak) the toxin, you need both the promoter region and the toxin code. I wonder is how likely is it that the toxin gene gets tranferred via cross-pollination and somehow manage to lose the blocker and yet keep the promoter needed for expression. Additionally, if the toxin gene got mutated such that it didn't work (which is a real possibility with a single gene), then the whole sterility thing is out the door.
The other problem with hobbling the spread of GM foods is that not all GM foods are these monsters you describe, nor is all research into it driven by blind greed. A lot of basic research, particularly agricultural research, still goes on at public technical institutes funded by public money, where there is more transparency and more thought given to the ethical consequences. Crops that can be grown in arid regions, regions with saline groundwater, or that have improved nutritional value can do good where people can't grow their native crops or are undernourished.
I agree with you that Monsanto is one of the poster children for corporate irresponsiblity and that we need to be cautious our food supply's gene pool, but the situation is more subtle than you describe.
N.B. I am involved in human genomics research (no engineering, just studying the structure) and not plant genetics. Make of this what you will, etc.
Dude, clearly it's going to be called the "iCell", which will be exactly what it does.
So that they can make no money at all off the advertising?
That'd be pretty bastardly.
Though if they did that and then let existing users keep their accounts, either through a forwarding service or actually letting the service continue for a lucky few, imagine the completely insane market there'd be for gmail.com addys.
Nice job, and dramatic presentation. Pretty gutsy too if you didn't know about the checksumming system that preserved the chain of evidence.
I used to work for a company of IT analysts, doing the same kind of stuff that Gartner (the firm quoted in the article) does, and I can tell you where these guys get their some of their numbers...
A deep mine nestled in a valley between two gluteus maximi.
I don't think very much changed; the moment you make something, someone else somewhere else could make it cheaper and possibly better. Hell, computer science is math! How did any of the complainers expect Asians not to jump in on that field? Anyways, the distinction between blue collar jobs and white collar jobs is pretty artificial.
I totally realize that I'm speaking from a privileged and non-threatened point of view on this topic, but I don't think the protectionists offer many good arguments for protectionism. The only good ones I can think of are Avoiding the Race to the Bottom, Not Exporting Enviromental Hazards, and Sweat Shops, which hardly apply in this case.
They ask the questions, "Where does it stop?" (a loaded "next one could be you" sort of bogeyman) and "What comes after knowledge?". I'd hold up a hypothetical case (possibly straw-man); what if we'd clamped down with protections on manufacturing during the 60's and 70's? Then manufacturing would be a sure-fire job, more people would stay in it forever, there'd be less pressure to find the next big thing, and we'd stagnate and maybe turn into Germany (huge generalization this). But maybe we wouldn't be inclined to do whatever it took to lead infotech innovation because manufucturing was so much safer.
As a society, we've chosen innovation over stability, which is a double-edged sword as usual. While I'm not sure that it's the best choice for all of America's citizens, it is goddamn exciting.
Previously, you signed up, they put you on a plan, gave you a one time break on a phone, and that was it for however long your contract was. If you wanted a new phone, you'd have to buy one at full price yourself.
Now they're going to give you a new phone every 12 months, but you have to re-contract for two years.
For those who have been with AT&T wireless and are off-contract, this could be a way to get a new phone, if you're willing to stay with AT&T for two more years and agree to their new plans.
Maybe I'm missing your question...
The day that portability went into effect, they came out with their Customers First deal to convince existing customers to stay. Here's what it consists of: But check out the fine print: Whoo whee! Now I can renew my contract every year with AT&T for the privilege of subsidizing the "free" phones for another two years! Gosh, and they can "free" me of any pesky grandfathered-in deals each time I get my "free" phone.
I'm on AT&T wireless and I like their service, but this customer retention effort is pure crap.
Heh, dirty bio-geeks.
Heh, I totally agree.
But maybe, "Kill the beast. Cut his throat. Spill his blood" is catchier for some people. Though it says something about whether you identify more with Ralph or Jack.
Heh, I do hazily remember that card, but I first read this proverb somewhere else.
"When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."
Heh, that's right, I was mainly thinking from the functional point of view. Technically, I'm sure it is mostly off-the-shelf tech they're using to serve up the catalog. But as you said, the benefit of digging out the content that make up the catalog is pretty much nil.
Nope, they don't have any web version of their catalog available. I suppose iTunesMS is a bit of a download, but the entire store really is contained within the application. Once you've got the app, browsing the catalog and listening to snippets is very easy.
The selection itself is pretty broad, which is to say it covers most genres and popular artists. Think typical music store and then some. It's not too deep yet, but things are growing.
Consider mitochondria, which act as the powerhouse for cells by peforming cellular respiration (that useful task of breaking down things like glucose into ATP). They seem to be more closely related to bacteria and have their own DNA and biochemical mechanisms quite apart from the whole cell.
The theory is that mitochondria are actually prokaryotic cells that were engulfed by other procaryotic cells, creating the early eukaryotic cells. The idea is that this ability to perform cellular respiration proved a significant enough evolutionary advantage that the symbiotic relationship was maintained.
Over time, the systems of both host and symbiont evolved to maximize this relationship and shed unnecessary components, thus if you took out the mitochondria now the whole cell would be in pretty bad shape.
It's akin to how most of us have focused on skills other than hunter-gathering or even farming, and would thus be up a creek if someone magically removed all the supermarkets and food warehouses and farms out there.
Mitochondria are about 5 micrometers across and your various cytoskeletal filaments and tubules range between 3 - 25 nanometers in diameter.
Human chromosomes, on the other hand, are essentially 2 meters of DNA packed into a 5 micrometer-wide nucleus. Now that's 6 billion base pairs (A/T's and G/C's), which are wrapped up pretty tight.
If you stretched out the DNA to full length, that's 3.4 x 10e-10 meters per base pair. Taking a randomish gene that's 10,000 base pairs long, that would work out to 3.4 micrometers of DNA, which this laser could work on. But if you think refolding maps is hard, imagine trying to repack 2 meters of DNA back into a 5 micrometer nucleus.
During metaphase, when the cell has all its chromosomes lined up and ready for splitting, the average size of a chromosome is 2 micrometers from end to end. Basically, your 10k base pair gene is now just 1.7 nanometers long. All of this winding and compacting means that it's blessedly hard to hit a single gene and only that gene within the DNA contained in a living cell with a tool this blunt.
A toy robot that, when folded up, becomes a plane or car. Strange...
So, it's pretty much license free. See, that's why us bio-geeks are smiling all the time.