A long time? Maybe for one man, but in all this time small progress was made.
First, W.C. model was under influence of other scientists, and if one reads maybe most available articles, published in Am.Sc., actually three of them, it becomes obvious that they (Watson & Crick & others) were not shure about it how the DNA really looks, when turned in crystals.
How can I say that? Well in two articles one can see only two Hydrogen bonds between chains, but in the last, most quoted, and used, we find 2 (A=T) and 3 (C=-G) hydrogen bonds, introduced without explanation, what was actually just an effect of other articles, who have argued about inconsistancies between double-helix-model, and real world data.
The fact is that other scientists complained (then and later), and proved that DNA can, and does exist as single, double and triple helix, and none of them is EVER simetrical, and any of them CAN duplicate itself in any of those forms.
And don't forget, they were doing crystalography. That means, they destroyed the cells, extracted the DNA from it's native environment, then made it crystalize, and then photographed it with X-rays.
Do we really think that DNA looks like that in our cells?
To make long story short, NOBODY really knows how the hell DNA really looks like, when it is in live, functioning cell.
And as far as "decoding" and finding more about how the protein is made, well things got wound up in pretty silly directions. But that's another story.
Maybe that's why You find Human genome project useless.
So, a Nobell awarded to W.C. is maybe, given a bit too early. No wonder that they give it years after discovery was made.
I agree, but one thing still remains the problem. Example: We have a device/machine that has software written for WinNT4.0 service pack5, and it won't work on any other damn thing.
This machine has to stay on windows, what is not necesary a bad thing, but the problem is when we buy next device, we will (most likley) not be able to buy it with a software for linux.
Most of people are not power-users, and they just want the their job done. And wether their tools are runing on MSWin or within KDE or Gnome, that doesn't metter. There are also some things to be said about maintanence. In my opinion, biggest problem is not going to be keeping linux healthy, quite contrary, that is much easier than in MSWin world. NO, that is not going to be a pain in the back. Biggest problem are and going to be all (third party) proprietary programs. Sometimes they are written in such a way that they want all the control over computer and sometimes they want just one configuration or they won't work, even if something trivial is changed inside computer... So, If You have to use some program that is made by John&Joe&their_friends, be shure, that is going to be problem, not linux or office tools.
I am sorry but this is just plain false. This kind of generalisation is way wrong, since right now there is one first-class office package available for Linux. In my company we have bought 25 new PC's and instead of MS Office, we have OpenOffice.
After two weeks 24 users said that O.O. if equal or better than MS.O. After that, we have removed MS Office from other 17 PC's, and now we have just 4 MS Office packages installed in pur firm, as far as I konw of it.
Next step? Remove Windows95/98 and place linux instead.
Slashdot Mirror
A long time? Maybe for one man, but in all this time small progress was made.
First, W.C. model was under influence of other scientists, and if one reads maybe most available articles, published in Am.Sc., actually three of them, it becomes obvious that they (Watson & Crick & others) were not shure about it how the DNA really looks, when turned in crystals.
How can I say that? Well in two articles one can see only two Hydrogen bonds between chains, but in the last, most quoted, and used, we find 2 (A=T) and 3 (C=-G) hydrogen bonds, introduced without explanation, what was actually just an effect of other articles, who have argued about inconsistancies between double-helix-model, and real world data.
The fact is that other scientists complained (then and later), and proved that DNA can, and does exist as single, double and triple helix, and none of them is EVER simetrical, and any of them CAN duplicate itself in any of those forms.
And don't forget, they were doing crystalography. That means, they destroyed the cells, extracted the DNA from it's native environment, then made it crystalize, and then photographed it with X-rays.
Do we really think that DNA looks like that in our cells?
To make long story short, NOBODY really knows how the hell DNA really looks like, when it is in live, functioning cell.
And as far as "decoding" and finding more about how the protein is made, well things got wound up in pretty silly directions. But that's another story.
Maybe that's why You find Human genome project useless.
So, a Nobell awarded to W.C. is maybe, given a bit too early. No wonder that they give it years after discovery was made.
I agree, but one thing still remains the problem.
Example: We have a device/machine that has software written for WinNT4.0 service pack5, and it won't work on any other damn thing.
This machine has to stay on windows, what is not necesary a bad thing, but the problem is when we buy next device, we will (most likley) not be able to buy it with a software for linux.
Maybe that will change too.
That's right!
Most of people are not power-users, and they just want the their job done. And wether their tools are runing on MSWin or within KDE or Gnome, that doesn't metter.
There are also some things to be said about maintanence. In my opinion, biggest problem is not going to be keeping linux healthy, quite contrary, that is much easier than in MSWin world. NO, that is not going to be a pain in the back.
Biggest problem are and going to be all (third party) proprietary programs. Sometimes they are written in such a way that they want all the control over computer and sometimes they want just one configuration or they won't work, even if something trivial is changed inside computer... So, If You have to use some program that is made by John&Joe&their_friends, be shure, that is going to be problem, not linux or office tools.
I am sorry but this is just plain false. This kind of generalisation is way wrong, since right now there is one first-class office package available for Linux. In my company we have bought 25 new PC's and instead of MS Office, we have OpenOffice.
After two weeks 24 users said that O.O. if equal or better than MS.O. After that, we have removed MS Office from other 17 PC's, and now we have just 4 MS Office packages installed in pur firm, as far as I konw of it.
Next step? Remove Windows95/98 and place linux instead.