This is true, I was only thinking of mammalian genomes (which, on the order of several gigabases, take somewhat more effort to sequence than viruses and bacteria).
And there is another distinction to be made: we keep talking about the human genome, whereas we really only are dealing with a human genome (or rather chunks of a few with a lot more coverage for some specific sites). It will get a lot more interesting when we'll have access to thousands of human genomes (along with patient histories) - that will deserve the name "genomic era".
Now that many genomes have been sequenced, they call it the "post-genomic era." I think they're referring to the fact that there's not as much sequencing going on.
I'd say that there is far more sequencing going on right now than ever before, in terms of total output. GenBank provides a nice growth summary (note that the human genome was officially "completed" in 2003). It's just that we now have one nearly complete genome (human) and several largely complete, or getting there.
To me, "post-genomic" sounds like a complete misnomer (probably coined to make it all sound exciting); I mean, finally having a workable genome kinda makes it seem like we just entered the "genomic" era, doesn't it?
Admittedly, Slashdot April Fool's days have gone downhill every year.
I just looked through yesterdays articles (I usually don't bother on April 1st) and it looks like every single goddamn last one of them was a "hillarious" April Fools joke. So, nowhere to go next year really, I think we've made it to the bottom of the hill.
Let's see, the smallest protein product I can find at the moment is NP_871795, a splice variant of C. elegans gene "thioredoxin H", encoding just seven amino acids: MTIYFTV, it weighs in at about 870 daltons (the full gene is 12.5 kD), which is just around the claimed "a few zeptograms" - 1.45 to be more precise.
Looks like for once the irrelevant biological reference is at least accurate. (for reference, the largest product is NP_787974 in drosophila: 2451.35 kilodaltons).
Maybe I'm not getting it, but I don't quite see the medical application of this. Many of the most common techniques in proteomics and molecular biology are based around measuring the weight of proteins (and other molecules), I don't know what benefits direct measurement would add. Unless it were cheaper or less labor intensive, which this doesn't sound like it is.
I'm guessing they just wanted to get the word "cancer" in there somewhere.
Why the hell do you want to do a "press release", especially if you think some nut is going to cap you?
I got the impression he thought it's the FBI that would cap him, rather than the nut in the logs.
Anyway, I think that point was that if he feels he has to roll over for the state, he at least wants to own up to the fact and not make it look like he's hiding it.
Eh dude, I don't care about KDE, I do care about blackbox; you are not better than me (I couldn't be wrong, of course), ergo, it's sufficiently "newsworthy".
Don't worry, they are not going to run out of "digital ink" anytime soon; all these stories you are not interested in are not really impacting your quality of life.
You know, if you are going to resort to a way, way overused cliche, at least use it correctly - to jump the shark, slashdot would have to give us the most awesome posting we've ever seen; a posting so good, that we'll know we'll never see one that good again.
Jumping the shark is the TV show's (and now apparently web site's) greatest moment - meaning that everything afterward is downhill - not it's worst.
How does that make sense? Anyone can get one, the point is that you should be able to match up the certificate to its owner, with some degree of certainty.
And getting one isn't the issue at all - you can generate as many as you want yourself - it's getting one that means something that's the issue.
The time I would've had to spend reading every single EULA, that manufacturers pretended I was agreeing to by installing their software, is worth far more than $1,000.
Or they could just get rid of the patent system and competition will eliminate all those problems.
Um yeah, mostly by eliminating drug companies. Let's see, your company spends about 8 years and roughly a billion dollars developing a drug (that's the R&D costs, before manufacturing and sales and such) and as soon as it hits the market, it's drowned out by "generic" equivalents. Yes, that's pure motivation to get into the drug business.
The OP's lament was "i'm sick of the expectation that every peon end users needs to know what every option does"; I was merely explaining that Firefox has plenty of unexplained options for his enjoyment.
That doesn't change my opinion that it's unusable as it stands.
Why is the option unusable? The explanation seems simple enough (since you bothered to find it); it'll probably be added to the GUI at some point in the future, but then again not that many people need to mess with those settings.
Did you mean bloated as in "has more features at absolutely no memory penalty and at a performance gain"?
Feature bloat can be as bad as any other kind of bloat.
I've used both for quite some time, and I like Firefox better; to me that seems reason enough to pick it. Also it seems there are a more useful extensions for Firefox, at least as far as web development goes.
A while ago I was testing Mozilla 1.7(ish) against IE 6.0, rendering a table with 3,000-5,000 (small) images. Mozilla consistently took about 10% of the time that IE needed; while usually I don't care much about rendering speed, for this app it made the difference between "fine" and "essentially unusable". It seems that the table layout was the important factor, the same content without a table was only about twice as fast on Mozilla.
Of course this is somewhat of an extereme scenario, so I don't know how much use this information is for most people.
Re:Maybe you should read a book / the spec
on
The CSS Anthology
·
· Score: 1
What?? It is called Cascading Style Sheets for exactly that reason, it cascades!
<div class="foo bar">This has red bg color with blue fg color.</div>
You sir, are my favourite person right now - I've been looking for this for years (even remember trying 'class="foo,bar" at some point; so close)! Now can someone tell me why not a single CSS tutorial/reference out there mentions this?
I'd still like to be able to do this in the style definition itself (.bar [foo] { color:blue; }, or somesuch), but I guess that'd be polluting their "designer" ideology with my "coder" mindset, or something.
a real medication "in the wild" thats being discussed....
Hm, never heard of that, but doesn't seem like much of an ethics question - we already have an FDA and regulations for dealing with false medical claims, don't we?
Now people will doubt whatever they are given is real or only placebo, making the placebos ineffective plus reducing the effect of the normal drugs.
Your control group is there to be an accurate point of comparison, not to get cured with placebos. The point is that no one in the study knows which group they are in, the experimental group thinking they might be placebo is just as important as the control group thinking they may be getting the drug. You aren't trying to compare the effects of the drug to those of the sugar, you assume the sugar has no effect.
There are real ethical issues that don't get discussed in the popular press
Holy shit dude, not a day goes by that some self-appointed "expert" doesn't rant on about his hysterical concerns about almost all of the aforementioned topics (the placebo thing is just BS) in the "popular press".
Less hand-wrining and "won't somebeody think of the children!" in the area would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
And there is another distinction to be made: we keep talking about the human genome, whereas we really only are dealing with a human genome (or rather chunks of a few with a lot more coverage for some specific sites). It will get a lot more interesting when we'll have access to thousands of human genomes (along with patient histories) - that will deserve the name "genomic era".
I'd say that there is far more sequencing going on right now than ever before, in terms of total output. GenBank provides a nice growth summary (note that the human genome was officially "completed" in 2003). It's just that we now have one nearly complete genome (human) and several largely complete, or getting there.
To me, "post-genomic" sounds like a complete misnomer (probably coined to make it all sound exciting); I mean, finally having a workable genome kinda makes it seem like we just entered the "genomic" era, doesn't it?
I just looked through yesterdays articles (I usually don't bother on April 1st) and it looks like every single goddamn last one of them was a "hillarious" April Fools joke. So, nowhere to go next year really, I think we've made it to the bottom of the hill.
Let's see, the smallest protein product I can find at the moment is NP_871795, a splice variant of C. elegans gene "thioredoxin H", encoding just seven amino acids: MTIYFTV, it weighs in at about 870 daltons (the full gene is 12.5 kD), which is just around the claimed "a few zeptograms" - 1.45 to be more precise.
Looks like for once the irrelevant biological reference is at least accurate. (for reference, the largest product is NP_787974 in drosophila: 2451.35 kilodaltons).
Maybe I'm not getting it, but I don't quite see the medical application of this. Many of the most common techniques in proteomics and molecular biology are based around measuring the weight of proteins (and other molecules), I don't know what benefits direct measurement would add. Unless it were cheaper or less labor intensive, which this doesn't sound like it is.
I'm guessing they just wanted to get the word "cancer" in there somewhere.
I got the impression he thought it's the FBI that would cap him, rather than the nut in the logs.
Anyway, I think that point was that if he feels he has to roll over for the state, he at least wants to own up to the fact and not make it look like he's hiding it.
Don't worry, they are not going to run out of "digital ink" anytime soon; all these stories you are not interested in are not really impacting your quality of life.
Jumping the shark is the TV show's (and now apparently web site's) greatest moment - meaning that everything afterward is downhill - not it's worst.
And getting one isn't the issue at all - you can generate as many as you want yourself - it's getting one that means something that's the issue.
The time I would've had to spend reading every single EULA, that manufacturers pretended I was agreeing to by installing their software, is worth far more than $1,000.
It's down to "popplers" and "tasticles".
777 seems like a very insecure way to chmod a Boeing.
I think it's actually that the serial killers were closet free software geeks.
Is it just to make sure they get their own TLA? So, the FSF, started by RMS, appointed PTB to replace BMK... and then probably some reference to ESR.
Um yeah, mostly by eliminating drug companies. Let's see, your company spends about 8 years and roughly a billion dollars developing a drug (that's the R&D costs, before manufacturing and sales and such) and as soon as it hits the market, it's drowned out by "generic" equivalents. Yes, that's pure motivation to get into the drug business.
That doesn't change my opinion that it's unusable as it stands.
Why is the option unusable? The explanation seems simple enough (since you bothered to find it); it'll probably be added to the GUI at some point in the future, but then again not that many people need to mess with those settings.
Feature bloat can be as bad as any other kind of bloat.
I've used both for quite some time, and I like Firefox better; to me that seems reason enough to pick it. Also it seems there are a more useful extensions for Firefox, at least as far as web development goes.
about:config - go nuts.
Of course this is somewhat of an extereme scenario, so I don't know how much use this information is for most people.
You sir, are my favourite person right now - I've been looking for this for years (even remember trying 'class="foo,bar" at some point; so close)! Now can someone tell me why not a single CSS tutorial/reference out there mentions this?
I'd still like to be able to do this in the style definition itself (.bar [foo] { color:blue; }, or somesuch), but I guess that'd be polluting their "designer" ideology with my "coder" mindset, or something.
And I don't think that your random opinion on a story's news-worthiness is particularly post-worthy - what's your point?
Well yeah, modifying a game to what you want is a hack. That's the definition of hacking: making things do stuff.
I would be very surprised to hear Gates say that - even most Linux users wouldn't go that far.
Hm, never heard of that, but doesn't seem like much of an ethics question - we already have an FDA and regulations for dealing with false medical claims, don't we?
Your control group is there to be an accurate point of comparison, not to get cured with placebos. The point is that no one in the study knows which group they are in, the experimental group thinking they might be placebo is just as important as the control group thinking they may be getting the drug. You aren't trying to compare the effects of the drug to those of the sugar, you assume the sugar has no effect.
Holy shit dude, not a day goes by that some self-appointed "expert" doesn't rant on about his hysterical concerns about almost all of the aforementioned topics (the placebo thing is just BS) in the "popular press".
Less hand-wrining and "won't somebeody think of the children!" in the area would be nice.