Sorry, but a picture of a molecule to a medicinal and/or organic chemists is about as good as a picture of a house is to a carpenter. He might know how to make it but it would take a long time to do so. Glaxo, narrowing it down to a mere 13,000, doesn't give you much of a start. Narrowing it down to 5 or 10, that's where your little description kicks in.
This is old news in the pharmaceutical world. The general consensus is that this is only a PR stunt and doesn't really offer much at all. They're not offering the compounds as little bottles of powders, but only as pictures of the molecules. Don't be impressed.
I'm surprised to hear that there is a lot of pornography on the Wikipedia Commons. I look at the "Wikipedia Commons:Quality images candidates" page daily. It's where I get my various desktop background images. I've never seen any pr0n. OK, once there was a picture of a woman real close up. I mean real close up. But that's it. Am I looking in the wrong place?
I'm wondering if anybody RTFA. It was amazingly bad. It reminded me of some high school book report rambling from Nimoy and ending on Gene Roddenberry's academic misadventures. Sounded like something I might write.
I don't think we need to worry about the Fed causing job loss by doing anything to Pfizer. Pfizer is doing a great job by themselves. Just ask the former employees of Park-Davis, Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia, Upjohn, Searle, Wyeth and too many to mention small bio-techs which were dissolved on acquisition. For chemists, Pfizer is a job loss machine.
Do your students a real favor. If any of your students are thinking of becoming chemists, you could tell them to use the computer to look for other fields of study. Companies in the US and Europe are firing chemists at unprecedented rates. If they choose that path, they better be ready to compete with Ivy League PhD's for jobs titrating paint samples.
You know what? I don't believe this research is right. It may be correct and we're gonna learn of an interesting mechanism whereby this implementation actually allows a protein to avoid the digestive system and make it's way straight into the bloodstream. That would really be cool. But from what I know of the mechanisms of digestion and what types of molecules get through the whole process, I just don't believe this conclusion is correct. I suspect that it's bogus or a statistical fluke. As I said, there may be something here but my first inclination is to suspect something is wrong. Research has shown many mutually exclusive things to be "true" and so one has to have a mechanism that throws up a "bogus flag". This article does.
I mean, a long time ago people were humming and whistling and stuff. I don't see where this iPod stuff is any different. What's the big deal? I was whistling and humming back in the '70's. I didn't get no man of the decade award.
Lower bit rates can reduce noise if it's of the high frequency, snap, crackle, pop variety. You get less information but it's more soothing. Some people prefer lower quality to higher quality because the high frequency stuff is annoying. One of the nice advantages of getting older is that they can really scrimp on quality and you can no longer tell the difference.
I like Apple. I bought a Mac in 1984 and have bought a bunch of them since then. I own Apple stock. After about 12 years it was worth about half what I paid for it but then it has performed very nicely over the last few years. But let's face it. Apple is thoroughly infused with self-righteous a..holes. That's the image one gets from the top down. I think they may even work on it. It's a valued trait in the company. Ever go into an Apple store. It seems like being a self-righteous a..hole is a core skill required for employment. Heck, even I, when I advise people about what kind of computer they should buy, I can feel that self-righteous a..hole feeling welling up inside me. It even feels good sometimes. Unfortunately, it's part of the price of using Apple computers. You just have to deal with it.
I think it's kind of interesting that in this economy that so many people here in slashdotville find it easy to say just how little a million dollars is.
"A million dollars. Shucks, that ain't nothing. I once........"
It must make you feel rich to dismiss a million dollars as trivial. Just an observation.
People have been working on finding selective inhibitors of the various PKC isozymes for about 20 years. There are, supposedly, a number of diseases that will be cured when the right ones are found. This target has the added difficulty of being behind the blood-brain barrier. Although it is possible that a selective inhibitor of PKC delta that makes it through the blood-brain barrier and does what it is supposed to do and not a lot of other things, will be found in the next ten years; ten years is an entirely speculative number. What it means is somewhere between 5 and forever.
Also, given that there will be no organic chemists left in the US to do the work of this discovery, expect it to be an imported product.
"Muscle weighs more. (But it looks better and takes up less space.)"
Five pounds of muscle weighs the same as five pounds of fat, but it takes up less space.
Or
Five quarts of muscle weighs more than five quarts of fat and occupies the same space.
You can't say both just to reinforce your point. I think the word is dense. It probably does look better, but that depends on where it is.
It will take 5 more years to get another one ready for testing? Clearly someone else (yea, I know, the nazi) was running things back in the old days when they went from speech to stepping on the moon in about 8 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but a picture of a molecule to a medicinal and/or organic chemists is about as good as a picture of a house is to a carpenter. He might know how to make it but it would take a long time to do so. Glaxo, narrowing it down to a mere 13,000, doesn't give you much of a start. Narrowing it down to 5 or 10, that's where your little description kicks in.
This is old news in the pharmaceutical world. The general consensus is that this is only a PR stunt and doesn't really offer much at all. They're not offering the compounds as little bottles of powders, but only as pictures of the molecules. Don't be impressed.
There, I said it. Did I say it first?
Wow!! 616 That's a low number. Is it yours or did you buy it on eBay?
I'm not worthy.
I really don't understand this post at all. Is it me?
I'm surprised to hear that there is a lot of pornography on the Wikipedia Commons. I look at the "Wikipedia Commons:Quality images candidates" page daily. It's where I get my various desktop background images. I've never seen any pr0n. OK, once there was a picture of a woman real close up. I mean real close up. But that's it. Am I looking in the wrong place?
I'm wondering if anybody RTFA. It was amazingly bad. It reminded me of some high school book report rambling from Nimoy and ending on Gene Roddenberry's academic misadventures. Sounded like something I might write.
I quit smoking a few years ago. It was the smartest thing I ever did.
I don't think we need to worry about the Fed causing job loss by doing anything to Pfizer. Pfizer is doing a great job by themselves. Just ask the former employees of Park-Davis, Warner-Lambert, Pharmacia, Upjohn, Searle, Wyeth and too many to mention small bio-techs which were dissolved on acquisition. For chemists, Pfizer is a job loss machine.
If this is so cool as described, why do I need installation instructions? Shouldn't it just run in Chrome or Safari?
Now it's time to go RTFA.
I didn't RTFA, but according to Bob Cringely, this is basically IBM's current business model. Looks like it may be sustainable.
I think the site got slashdotted. Firefox, on my Al 2007 iMac (Snow Leopard), locked up. Will try again later.
Congratulations, Anonymous Coward! From now on, whenever I see a resume with the name "A. Coward" on it, it's going straight to the trash.
Do your students a real favor. If any of your students are thinking of becoming chemists, you could tell them to use the computer to look for other fields of study. Companies in the US and Europe are firing chemists at unprecedented rates. If they choose that path, they better be ready to compete with Ivy League PhD's for jobs titrating paint samples.
I first read this a verified by Vista and I wasn't surprised. Just thought they were beating a dead horse.
You know what? I don't believe this research is right. It may be correct and we're gonna learn of an interesting mechanism whereby this implementation actually allows a protein to avoid the digestive system and make it's way straight into the bloodstream. That would really be cool. But from what I know of the mechanisms of digestion and what types of molecules get through the whole process, I just don't believe this conclusion is correct. I suspect that it's bogus or a statistical fluke. As I said, there may be something here but my first inclination is to suspect something is wrong. Research has shown many mutually exclusive things to be "true" and so one has to have a mechanism that throws up a "bogus flag". This article does.
So I'm gonna call bogus for now.
I mean, a long time ago people were humming and whistling and stuff. I don't see where this iPod stuff is any different. What's the big deal? I was whistling and humming back in the '70's. I didn't get no man of the decade award.
Lower bit rates can reduce noise if it's of the high frequency, snap, crackle, pop variety. You get less information but it's more soothing. Some people prefer lower quality to higher quality because the high frequency stuff is annoying. One of the nice advantages of getting older is that they can really scrimp on quality and you can no longer tell the difference.
And I'll say it again. Yes, I would.
I like Apple. I bought a Mac in 1984 and have bought a bunch of them since then. I own Apple stock. After about 12 years it was worth about half what I paid for it but then it has performed very nicely over the last few years. But let's face it. Apple is thoroughly infused with self-righteous a..holes. That's the image one gets from the top down. I think they may even work on it. It's a valued trait in the company. Ever go into an Apple store. It seems like being a self-righteous a..hole is a core skill required for employment. Heck, even I, when I advise people about what kind of computer they should buy, I can feel that self-righteous a..hole feeling welling up inside me. It even feels good sometimes. Unfortunately, it's part of the price of using Apple computers. You just have to deal with it.
I wonder what happens if you smoke in your BMW.
I think it's kind of interesting that in this economy that so many people here in slashdotville find it easy to say just how little a million dollars is.
........"
"A million dollars. Shucks, that ain't nothing. I once
It must make you feel rich to dismiss a million dollars as trivial. Just an observation.
People have been working on finding selective inhibitors of the various PKC isozymes for about 20 years. There are, supposedly, a number of diseases that will be cured when the right ones are found. This target has the added difficulty of being behind the blood-brain barrier. Although it is possible that a selective inhibitor of PKC delta that makes it through the blood-brain barrier and does what it is supposed to do and not a lot of other things, will be found in the next ten years; ten years is an entirely speculative number. What it means is somewhere between 5 and forever. Also, given that there will be no organic chemists left in the US to do the work of this discovery, expect it to be an imported product.
"Muscle weighs more. (But it looks better and takes up less space.)" Five pounds of muscle weighs the same as five pounds of fat, but it takes up less space. Or Five quarts of muscle weighs more than five quarts of fat and occupies the same space. You can't say both just to reinforce your point. I think the word is dense. It probably does look better, but that depends on where it is.
It will take 5 more years to get another one ready for testing? Clearly someone else (yea, I know, the nazi) was running things back in the old days when they went from speech to stepping on the moon in about 8 years.
This has happened in a lot of businesses. The pharmaceutical industry is in similar shape for the same reasons. Maybe even more so.