The other comment that mentioned topology I think was rather off-course on the dimensions of the web. Topology is the study of geometry on surfaces; donuts and teacups are similar because primitive shapes behave in similar ways on them. A second factor is that you must consider what you are calling dimensions. A representative graph may be made in any number of dimenstions - flattened to two, or made in 3d. But the dimension in the fractal since is a different animal. No matter what dimension you draw it in, the fractal dimension stays the same. Yes, the dimension would be between 1 and 2 because as the number of links -> infinity, the 'perimeter' does too, but the lines certainly don't have an area! The shape of the web, however, is not about fractal dimensions. It's about summarizing and arranging the points and connections in such a way that clustering and localization phenomena begin to emerge. With 800 million+ nodes, this task is nearly impossible - however, an analogous structure of fewer nodes and clusters can be made that will have visible patterns.
I am not sure that the web is even that wide. Maybe the scientists did not factor in enough search sites; but I am quite sure that search engines cover at least 150 million web pages total. I don't think that the distance will be that long, except to some hard-to-reach or foreign sites that almost nobody links to. What would be more revelaing is the frequency distribution of distances.
First off, a brain transplant is way too futuristic to even consider (Unless something big happened and I missed it.) Growing a brainless clone is probably the simplest element. Regulator (homeobox) mutations can defeat the growth of most of the brain; although more developments must be made to keep the mutant from dying. Gene therapy is not enough to cure aging (unless a radical method which can fix mutations in an entire genome is developed.) Plants live for a long time because they are not as intradependent as a human. Plants often have giant tumors in certain parts, but because they are much more of a parallel structure, the rest of the plant can live; a human, on the other hand, is far more internally organized and possesses little redundancy. Thus, a plant can have half of its roots die off, and still have half the plant operate, while a human can hardly live with half its body. Gene-based gamete selection is already developed, and has succeeded for not only simple things like gender, but in the avoidance of Hunnington's disease gametes. The major holdback is the primitiveness of artificial insemination (it takes many many tries to get it right.) One must keep in mind that cloning, gene selection, etc... are merely scientific developments. They can be used for the betterment or for the destruction of society. Not developing the technology because some uses of it may be bad is not a wise thing to do.
Hmmm.... that would be a good test for which mechanism is used. Two other possibilities that I did not mention are: 1: Mitochondria are tagged upon the production of the spermatozoa, thus dooming them. This has interesting implications in that it would be a different mechanism that what would destroy those mitochondria in the fused egg. 2: Perhaps cellular mitochondria have a particular cytoskeletal connection needed to operate that foreign mitochondria cannot receive on fusion. However, it is not yet know (AFAIK) which mechanism is used; perhaps it's something I have not listed.
You make a good point, I think I can add to it. A recent study on the fusion of sperm and egg cells has revealed that the sperm mitochondria (which are very numerous) enter the egg cell; however, these are destroyed. It is not yet clear what the system of identification is; however, flourescent markers in the sperm mitochondria revealed that the entering mitochondria were destroyed after the first cycle. A current explanation for this phenomenon deals with the fact that mitochondria do not have complete genomes. Many of the genes of mitochondria have migrated to the main genome; thus, mitochondrial structures are a combined product of host and mitochondrial synthesis. A mechanism could exist that disallows foreign mitochndria from receiving the nuclear support needed to support and reproduce themselves. Another theory is that there is a special differentiating flag on each type of mitochondrion. A glycoprotein on the surface could be used to identify the mt, much like human cells get identified.
I hope that you are aware that this is almost a direct transcript from The Onion's > book. These words are pretty much the same as the comments on the new TV ratings system there. Please give them credit?
I think that the challenge that the Linux community, especially those that contribute Linux programs and system software, should learn from the continued stubborn criticisms of Linux. Although some criticisms point out real flaws that need to be fixed, most of them are based on general distrust and a poor reputation. Now, before I get flamed for the poor reputation part, consider this: how many times have you heard about Linux being a geek/nerd operating system? If linux is to become widely used, it should have a wide usability range. New users should not be forced to learn how to manipulate textfiles and other low level things if they do not want to. In other words, the OS should be as highly customizable as it is now, but those who do not want to customize should not have to or should have an easy and well-documented way of learning to do so. (Much of the current documentation for Linux is written for techies, not for newbies.) The other, more important point that I want to make is that Linux, to overcome the fear of the potential audience, needs to be more than it is now. It must not only beat Microsoft in some areas, it must beat Microsoft in every area, and badly. Until then, we cannot expect Linux to be as popular as Windows. It must get so good that even the most conservative and ignorant Win 3.1 users find it hard not to respect it.
Well, for one thing, the 40 million or so Elbrus is asking for won't be enough, as you said. However, the chip design already exists, so that's already a big part of the program. The investment is to get the system developed enough to get some real companies to invest in it. Plus, keep in mind that Moscow is not that poor, and neither is its mayor.
Slashdot Mirror
The other comment that mentioned topology I think was rather off-course on the dimensions of the web. Topology is the study of geometry on surfaces; donuts and teacups are similar because primitive shapes behave in similar ways on them.
A second factor is that you must consider what you are calling dimensions. A representative graph may be made in any number of dimenstions - flattened to two, or made in 3d. But the dimension in the fractal since is a different animal. No matter what dimension you draw it in, the fractal dimension stays the same. Yes, the dimension would be between 1 and 2 because as the number of links -> infinity, the 'perimeter' does too, but the lines certainly don't have an area!
The shape of the web, however, is not about fractal dimensions. It's about summarizing and arranging the points and connections in such a way that clustering and localization phenomena begin to emerge. With 800 million+ nodes, this task is nearly impossible - however, an analogous structure of fewer nodes and clusters can be made that will have visible patterns.
I am not sure that the web is even that wide. Maybe the scientists did not factor in enough search sites; but I am quite sure that search engines cover at least 150 million web pages total. I don't think that the distance will be that long, except to some hard-to-reach or foreign sites that almost nobody links to. What would be more revelaing is the frequency distribution of distances.
First off, a brain transplant is way too futuristic to even consider (Unless something big happened and I missed it.)
Growing a brainless clone is probably the simplest element. Regulator (homeobox) mutations can defeat the growth of most of the brain; although more developments must be made to keep the mutant from dying.
Gene therapy is not enough to cure aging (unless a radical method which can fix mutations in an entire genome is developed.)
Plants live for a long time because they are not as intradependent as a human. Plants often have giant tumors in certain parts, but because they are much more of a parallel structure, the rest of the plant can live; a human, on the other hand, is far more internally organized and possesses little redundancy. Thus, a plant can have half of its roots die off, and still have half the plant operate, while a human can hardly live with half its body.
Gene-based gamete selection is already developed, and has succeeded for not only simple things like gender, but in the avoidance of Hunnington's disease gametes. The major holdback is the primitiveness of artificial insemination (it takes many many tries to get it right.)
One must keep in mind that cloning, gene selection, etc... are merely scientific developments. They can be used for the betterment or for the destruction of society. Not developing the technology because some uses of it may be bad is not a wise thing to do.
Hmmm.... that would be a good test for which mechanism is used. Two other possibilities that I did not mention are:
1: Mitochondria are tagged upon the production of the spermatozoa, thus dooming them. This has interesting implications in that it would be a different mechanism that what would destroy those mitochondria in the fused egg.
2: Perhaps cellular mitochondria have a particular cytoskeletal connection needed to operate that foreign mitochondria cannot receive on fusion.
However, it is not yet know (AFAIK) which mechanism is used; perhaps it's something I have not listed.
You make a good point, I think I can add to it. A recent study on the fusion of sperm and egg cells has revealed that the sperm mitochondria (which are very numerous) enter the egg cell; however, these are destroyed. It is not yet clear what the system of identification is; however, flourescent markers in the sperm mitochondria revealed that the entering mitochondria were destroyed after the first cycle.
A current explanation for this phenomenon deals with the fact that mitochondria do not have complete genomes. Many of the genes of mitochondria have migrated to the main genome; thus, mitochondrial structures are a combined product of host and mitochondrial synthesis. A mechanism could exist that disallows foreign mitochndria from receiving the nuclear support needed to support and reproduce themselves.
Another theory is that there is a special differentiating flag on each type of mitochondrion. A glycoprotein on the surface could be used to identify the mt, much like human cells get identified.
I hope that you are aware that this is almost a direct transcript from The Onion's > book. These words are pretty much the same as the comments on the new TV ratings system there. Please give them credit?
I think that the challenge that the Linux community, especially those that contribute Linux programs and system software, should learn from the continued stubborn criticisms of Linux. Although some criticisms point out real flaws that need to be fixed, most of them are based on general distrust and a poor reputation.
Now, before I get flamed for the poor reputation part, consider this: how many times have you heard about Linux being a geek/nerd operating system? If linux is to become widely used, it should have a wide usability range. New users should not be forced to learn how to manipulate textfiles and other low level things if they do not want to. In other words, the OS should be as highly customizable as it is now, but those who do not want to customize should not have to or should have an easy and well-documented way of learning to do so. (Much of the current documentation for Linux is written for techies, not for newbies.)
The other, more important point that I want to make is that Linux, to overcome the fear of the potential audience, needs to be more than it is now. It must not only beat Microsoft in some areas, it must beat Microsoft in every area, and badly. Until then, we cannot expect Linux to be as popular as Windows. It must get so good that even the most conservative and ignorant Win 3.1 users find it hard not to respect it.
Well, for one thing, the 40 million or so Elbrus is asking for won't be enough, as you said. However, the chip design already exists, so that's already a big part of the program. The investment is to get the system developed enough to get some real companies to invest in it. Plus, keep in mind that Moscow is not that poor, and neither is its mayor.