But at least conceptually, there are ways to describe old experiments that don't follow the old rules at all. I'm not sure new theories *must* be reducible to their predecessors in the limit. It's often easiest that way, but I'm not convinced it's the only way.
Yep. It's called the Correspondence Principle when applied to quantum/classical mechanics. Basically, Newton's equations 'fall out' of Einstein's when you assume the speed of light is a big number relative to all other speeds.
Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits. I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.
At the moment, biology is where engineering was a century ago. We NEED standardized parts. We have lots of ground that we could cover very quickly if we didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time we wish to make a small machine.
We now know there are all these different parts. We want to put them together into small mini-machines with anywhere from 2 to 10 parts working together or so. But each one has to be taken from different sources, put together in a completely arbitrary and new manner in order to see where they interact. It would be so useful to take these well-known and established pieces and be able to swap them around to build small machines in a timely manner. We're no where near the current engineering concept of customization.
Oh, and by the way, if there are any ambitious young coders who want to revolutionize bioengineering, all you have to do is write some decent software which can objectively navigate the complicated but exceedingly logical rules of basic cloning. Someone who could write a program with a nice GUI where you just dragged around genes along a plasmid backbone, told it what organism you're to be working in, and have it spit out the plasmid one should use, the oligos & primers needed to be ordered, along with the enzymes to be used could enable a lot of time to be saved in the lab and make a lot of synthetic biology MUCH more accessible. It's a simple kind of code. Great fun for the programming mind. But the current software is god-awful, and exceedingly limited.
Apparently they've streamlined a technique whereby the biological mishmash of understanding is standardized into 'code-like' organization. So instead everyone looking up how to make their own gene of their liking, knowing everything about the whole process from the DNA, to the organism to output, you instead just plug in what you want.
In biology there are known 'promoters' (that say "Start"), terminators ("END"), with the gene in the middle, and a number of other little addons and 'features'. Currently in the lab I have to paste these together on my own, from different sources, using different techniques on each. I have to bring each piece into my local standard before I can put them all together. Because it is MUCH easier to change a few bases, or add/delete, than it is to synthesize de novo entire strands of DNA, there exists a need to have modular, standardized 'code' that can easily be swapped from one project to another. These guys make that easy, I guess. When your goal is not just to change/alter a gene, but to set up a few altered/new/engineered genes (or even an entire pathway) at once, this could save a lot of headache.
China has an interesting version of this. There are 52 minority ethnic groups in China, remember, 52 exactly. What the government has done is allow those groups to get a kind of royalty fee for distribution of those ethnic foods in non-ethnic regions. For example, if a big restaurant wants to serve 'GuiZhou Fish' then the peoples (government, some organization, I'm not sure...) of GuiZhou get some cut of the profits from that food. An interesting concept. Might serve them well. I can see no less reason why it's appropriate than any other intellectual property. If you concede that a product is simply the sum of parts + assembly, then why not ingredient + recipe?
China is a fool's bet right now. Unless a person has lived there or worked directly with a Chinese company for more than a year, they are simply not qualified to assess the benefits of Chinese economics. It's many many years behind where most people think it is. And that deception is intentional. It's amazing how many get repeatedly burned looking for the magic billion-man market.
Most of that was free PR, with a few wiggle-room sentences...
Did you collude with AT&T: "From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration."
It would work, but you'd have to be able to divide it into 5000 bit strands, and be able to reassemble the data from thousands of 'mixed' strands. Also costs a lot... Current HD space is what, as low as $1/8,000,000,000 bits, current DNA sequencing costs about $1/bit for more than 100 bits in a row.
It actually is that easy. You have a vial full of the snippets that you bought for ~$1/base pair if they're long, or much less if they're short. And you mix them. You don't have to even have the original person's DNA. You can send off an ascii text file full of A's, T's, G's, and C's to the right company and within a week have a vial on your desk with a relative shit-ton of DNA in it. Order enough of them, mix them into a spray bottle and spray around a room. Not too hard really. DNA is hardy - you don't need any special stuff to keep it around, preserve, or maintain it.
Qi, as in the Chinese romanization of æ£. This is the same "qi" as Taichi's 'chi'. The life energy It's the same 'chi' as the japanese 'Ki' æ-- as in "Tenki" (weather)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi
*Slashdot really needs to move into the modern era with support for international unicode characters...
It is actually a critical and fundamental pillar of capitalism that the participants be well informed (read Friedman and others). Academically, if the consumer is so bogged down in misinformation or overinformation that they are not well informed than the assumptions that allow capitalism to work so well break down - and the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market.
Must there be the dichotomy between small & interesting vs big & boring though? That's kind of my point (if yes, written a bit impromptu).
There were strings of quality games from these small companies with dedicated fanbases. Then when they got larger they just stopped making quality games for more lucrative, but significantly less innovative titles.
The 'mac' part is mostly in there as context and is not intended to start (a silly) mac vs pc "sellout" flame war. It probably has happened for other game companies - I just don't know them as well.
Battle.net will be an integral part of the StarCraft II experience and will be an essential part of all of our games moving forward
Well Blizzard, I think you just died. It's amazing. As a kid on a Mac there was a heyday when in a few short years Blizzard put out Warcraft, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo II. When Bungie put out the Marathon series, the Myth series, and then Oni. When Sid Meyer put out SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000. And then they all shuttered up, sold-out, and then died of money-poisoning.
Bungie's awesome demo of Halo got it swallowed up by MS, and a decade later there are no more Mac games of any repute. Blizzard had rumors of another Starcraft and everyone looked forward to a new Warcraft and Diablo - but the money-leech WoW came out and stopped those promising ideas cold. Sid, who's always had interesting ideas got caught up in that The Sims, that other massive money making scheme, and put out nothing of interest again until, like salt on a wound, a castrated Spore.
WTF. I think the only exception to these innovative Mac gaming companies going corporate at the expense of their initial fans is Ambrosia Software of Escape Velocity fame. Oh the days...
Check out what their stock did last week. It went from $1.00 to $0.22 in a single day - of course it rebounded back 'up' to 50-60 cent range a few days later.
In that case, you have very little use of the data, as nearly any global predictions will fall outside the limitations of your model. Again, not your model's fault, but your fault in overestimating the model's ability.
"I certainly think they SHOULD be guilty" - but you don't state who 'they' are.
Crimes cannot be committed by 'anonymous' or 'anonymous cowards' or 'Slashdot' or 'TBP'. Individuals commit crimes, individuals must be proven to have committed crimes, individuals are punished.
So it may be that TPB 'should' be guilty, but who would you convict? If evidence cannot be found that these men actually committed a crime themselves (evidence that points to them specifically and individually), then the wrong people were prosecuted.
This seems to be a flaw in the RIAA/Gov's viewpoint of the internet that results in so many 'LOLZ'. That the internet can function without a leader, director, or even a plan. That websites can moderate using masses of individuals rather than being edited by a known hierarchical body. You cut off a domain, and another pops up. And in that way no individual can be pinned as leading TPB - and none can be prosecuted; TPB or it's likeness is the mythical hydra - it cannot be killed by taking down individuals.
I think it could be extended far beyond microsoft, and to a kind of corporate society in general.
And that is why it is so disliked. In the same vein as disliking anything that deprives us of our liberty. There is an alternative, and I wish the power to take it.
As the defacto monopoly (which I personally avoid to the extent of my effort) it is worth complaining about.
Histone modifications and other such epigenetic effects give a tested and possible avenue for exploration. An avenue that is currently being studied in the scientific community.
What biological mechanisms would create 'conditions' with such affects?
Slashdot Mirror
But at least conceptually, there are ways to describe old experiments that don't follow the old rules at all. I'm not sure new theories *must* be reducible to their predecessors in the limit. It's often easiest that way, but I'm not convinced it's the only way.
Yep. It's called the Correspondence Principle when applied to quantum/classical mechanics. Basically, Newton's equations 'fall out' of Einstein's when you assume the speed of light is a big number relative to all other speeds.
Recently, paradigms in physics have been interesting in this respect as the new perfectly subsume the prior in their limits. I am not sure that this is a tautology of science, but it is an elegant means of progression.
The economic problem is that there is no good way to determine 'good' in any reasonably objective or timely manner.
At the moment, biology is where engineering was a century ago. We NEED standardized parts. We have lots of ground that we could cover very quickly if we didn't have to reinvent the wheel each time we wish to make a small machine.
We now know there are all these different parts. We want to put them together into small mini-machines with anywhere from 2 to 10 parts working together or so. But each one has to be taken from different sources, put together in a completely arbitrary and new manner in order to see where they interact. It would be so useful to take these well-known and established pieces and be able to swap them around to build small machines in a timely manner. We're no where near the current engineering concept of customization.
see my post above.
NEB catalog & technical reference for actual enzyme data and a few conceptual tips at the end: http://www.neb.com/nebecomm/neb_mail_form.asp
Molecular Cloning for actual protocols: http://molecularcloning.com/
Molecular Biology of the Cell for conceptual background: http://www.garlandscience.com/textbooks/0815332181.asp
Oh, and by the way, if there are any ambitious young coders who want to revolutionize bioengineering, all you have to do is write some decent software which can objectively navigate the complicated but exceedingly logical rules of basic cloning. Someone who could write a program with a nice GUI where you just dragged around genes along a plasmid backbone, told it what organism you're to be working in, and have it spit out the plasmid one should use, the oligos & primers needed to be ordered, along with the enzymes to be used could enable a lot of time to be saved in the lab and make a lot of synthetic biology MUCH more accessible. It's a simple kind of code. Great fun for the programming mind. But the current software is god-awful, and exceedingly limited.
Apparently they've streamlined a technique whereby the biological mishmash of understanding is standardized into 'code-like' organization. So instead everyone looking up how to make their own gene of their liking, knowing everything about the whole process from the DNA, to the organism to output, you instead just plug in what you want.
In biology there are known 'promoters' (that say "Start"), terminators ("END"), with the gene in the middle, and a number of other little addons and 'features'. Currently in the lab I have to paste these together on my own, from different sources, using different techniques on each. I have to bring each piece into my local standard before I can put them all together. Because it is MUCH easier to change a few bases, or add/delete, than it is to synthesize de novo entire strands of DNA, there exists a need to have modular, standardized 'code' that can easily be swapped from one project to another. These guys make that easy, I guess. When your goal is not just to change/alter a gene, but to set up a few altered/new/engineered genes (or even an entire pathway) at once, this could save a lot of headache.
China has an interesting version of this. There are 52 minority ethnic groups in China, remember, 52 exactly. What the government has done is allow those groups to get a kind of royalty fee for distribution of those ethnic foods in non-ethnic regions. For example, if a big restaurant wants to serve 'GuiZhou Fish' then the peoples (government, some organization, I'm not sure...) of GuiZhou get some cut of the profits from that food. An interesting concept. Might serve them well. I can see no less reason why it's appropriate than any other intellectual property. If you concede that a product is simply the sum of parts + assembly, then why not ingredient + recipe?
I would absolutely pay $400 for it if my service was $20-30/month.
China is a fool's bet right now. Unless a person has lived there or worked directly with a Chinese company for more than a year, they are simply not qualified to assess the benefits of Chinese economics. It's many many years behind where most people think it is. And that deception is intentional. It's amazing how many get repeatedly burned looking for the magic billion-man market.
Most of that was free PR, with a few wiggle-room sentences...
Did you collude with AT&T:
"From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration."
It would work, but you'd have to be able to divide it into 5000 bit strands, and be able to reassemble the data from thousands of 'mixed' strands. Also costs a lot... Current HD space is what, as low as $1/8,000,000,000 bits, current DNA sequencing costs about $1/bit for more than 100 bits in a row.
It actually is that easy. You have a vial full of the snippets that you bought for ~$1/base pair if they're long, or much less if they're short. And you mix them. You don't have to even have the original person's DNA. You can send off an ascii text file full of A's, T's, G's, and C's to the right company and within a week have a vial on your desk with a relative shit-ton of DNA in it. Order enough of them, mix them into a spray bottle and spray around a room. Not too hard really. DNA is hardy - you don't need any special stuff to keep it around, preserve, or maintain it.
Qi, as in the Chinese romanization of æ£.
This is the same "qi" as Taichi's 'chi'. The life energy
It's the same 'chi' as the japanese 'Ki' æ-- as in "Tenki" (weather)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi
*Slashdot really needs to move into the modern era with support for international unicode characters...
It is actually a critical and fundamental pillar of capitalism that the participants be well informed (read Friedman and others). Academically, if the consumer is so bogged down in misinformation or overinformation that they are not well informed than the assumptions that allow capitalism to work so well break down - and the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market.
Must there be the dichotomy between small & interesting vs big & boring though? That's kind of my point (if yes, written a bit impromptu).
There were strings of quality games from these small companies with dedicated fanbases. Then when they got larger they just stopped making quality games for more lucrative, but significantly less innovative titles.
The 'mac' part is mostly in there as context and is not intended to start (a silly) mac vs pc "sellout" flame war. It probably has happened for other game companies - I just don't know them as well.
Typing fast with from memory. Bad to do on Slashdot... SidMeier did Civilization (the other 'sim' series). I meant Wil Wright.
Battle.net will be an integral part of the StarCraft II experience and will be an essential part of all of our games moving forward
Well Blizzard, I think you just died. It's amazing. As a kid on a Mac there was a heyday when in a few short years Blizzard put out Warcraft, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo II. When Bungie put out the Marathon series, the Myth series, and then Oni. When Sid Meyer put out SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000. And then they all shuttered up, sold-out, and then died of money-poisoning.
Bungie's awesome demo of Halo got it swallowed up by MS, and a decade later there are no more Mac games of any repute. Blizzard had rumors of another Starcraft and everyone looked forward to a new Warcraft and Diablo - but the money-leech WoW came out and stopped those promising ideas cold. Sid, who's always had interesting ideas got caught up in that The Sims, that other massive money making scheme, and put out nothing of interest again until, like salt on a wound, a castrated Spore.
WTF. I think the only exception to these innovative Mac gaming companies going corporate at the expense of their initial fans is Ambrosia Software of Escape Velocity fame. Oh the days...
Exactly. This is part of our system. He is challenging what he feels to be an unjust law. Let it be upheld or stricken as to its judicial merits.
It is interesting that Massachusetts wiretapping has a two-party consent standard, whereas federal law only requires single-party consent.
US Telephone Recording Laws
Check out what their stock did last week. It went from $1.00 to $0.22 in a single day - of course it rebounded back 'up' to 50-60 cent range a few days later.
Does not bode well for the company.
In that case, you have very little use of the data, as nearly any global predictions will fall outside the limitations of your model. Again, not your model's fault, but your fault in overestimating the model's ability.
You also make another critical mistake:
"I certainly think they SHOULD be guilty" - but you don't state who 'they' are.
Crimes cannot be committed by 'anonymous' or 'anonymous cowards' or 'Slashdot' or 'TBP'. Individuals commit crimes, individuals must be proven to have committed crimes, individuals are punished.
So it may be that TPB 'should' be guilty, but who would you convict? If evidence cannot be found that these men actually committed a crime themselves (evidence that points to them specifically and individually), then the wrong people were prosecuted.
This seems to be a flaw in the RIAA/Gov's viewpoint of the internet that results in so many 'LOLZ'. That the internet can function without a leader, director, or even a plan. That websites can moderate using masses of individuals rather than being edited by a known hierarchical body. You cut off a domain, and another pops up. And in that way no individual can be pinned as leading TPB - and none can be prosecuted; TPB or it's likeness is the mythical hydra - it cannot be killed by taking down individuals.
Really interesting analogy.
I think it could be extended far beyond microsoft, and to a kind of corporate society in general.
And that is why it is so disliked. In the same vein as disliking anything that deprives us of our liberty. There is an alternative, and I wish the power to take it.
As the defacto monopoly (which I personally avoid to the extent of my effort) it is worth complaining about.
How though?
Through what mechanism?
It does make sense. But how do you get there?
Histone modifications and other such epigenetic effects give a tested and possible avenue for exploration. An avenue that is currently being studied in the scientific community.
What biological mechanisms would create 'conditions' with such affects?