the off-the-cuff figure tossed around there was that a human geologist on site could accomplish in 45 seconds what an earth-based team driving a Mars rover could do in an hour.
You don't. Gene arrays can only detect genes which they are built to detect. They cannot determine whether unaccounted for genes are or are not there
how much does mutual-exclusive deduction play a role?
Not much, unless you know that their is some gene in your sample that you expect to be detected and want to see if it matches one of the genes on the detector array.
there is not necessarily an existing "slot" for many genes
Correct, in which case you won't detect the unknown gene.
However, the chance that an unaccounted for gene will falsely trigger another detector "slot" is VERY unlikely; each detector is exceptionally specific for what it is supposed to detect.
Maybe we will finally understand how proteins work
The big problem is figuring out how proteins fold. Once we know a proteins structure, it's often trivial to figure out how it works(it's simple chemistry and physics from their).
The biggest contribution that proteomics could make would be to solve the protein folding problem.
Ensure that during uninstallation, system-level components are accurately removed, "leaving no trace."
What if something else depends on that component which you say no trace should be left of?
Re:Biologists and Psychologists Abuse this...
on
Digital Biology
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the poster was saying that biological systems cannot be modelled computationally. Sure, one can design code which evolves much like genomes do. The point is that most code does not behave in this manner, so that comparing most computer algorithms to biological algorithms is weak at best.
Tie that into the social implications of the acceleration of technology in Western civilization and the widening digital divide segregating old, young, rich, and poor, and boom, you're Jon Katz.
WL-5. System and components meet reduced legacy support goals
Linux advocates pride themselves on the ability of the system to run on old systems. However, there is an argument for getting rid of obselete technologies. While M$ windoz's requirement for top of the line system's smacks of promotion of consumerism for consumerism's sake, My question is this:
How do we compromise between supporting legacy systems, without slowing the pace of tech development in order to accomodate them?
How about that scientology thread that we had on slashdot a year back that got removed. Oh just a second, someone's at the door... A lawyer just ordered me to discontinue this comment on scientology.
Closer to current times, who would have thought processor speeds could have gone to what they are now, working on line sizes of 0.13 micron? If you said something like this to someone 10 years ago, they would have laughed at you.
Umm, his name was Gordon Moore, the intel guy who Moore's law is named after, and he proposed the rate at which circuits have been shrinking THIRTY years ago, and was taken seriously for most of that time.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" - Santayana -
The type of bioinformatics described in this book deals with processing long strings of symbols, which much biological sequence data is represented as(eg DNA, RNA and protein sequence data).
There is another area of bioinformatics which uses physics based simulations of biological systems. These types of tasks have little to do with ascii file processing, and are more sheer number crunching, and involve classic simulation modelling techniques.
Some examples of these types of bioinformatics problems are: -simulation of protein folding
-simulation of chemical reaction circuits/control mechanisms in a cell or organ system -cellular automata simulation of a group of cells in a tissue
Because of the number crunching requirements involved, these types of tasks are usually coded in languages which are good at math and have fast compilers, such as fortran and C.
I'm just trying to mention what else is out there, so that people don't get the idea that pattern parsing is the only thing bioinformaticists do
Convergence of info appliances into the computer, remarkable concept, about 15 years ago. That new software and operating systems will have more features, wow, big surprize.
I'm can't believe I actually sat through that whole article. I mean, it's not a bad read for someone new to computers, but I expect something a little more in depth or novel on/.
The first use for nano technology will set the tone for the type of technology it is.
Sure, but things change.
We have laser technology but i dont see people using laser guns which burn through bullet proof vests.
That's because armour piercing bullets are still better and cheaper.
isnt that the point of all technologies? To extend and improve the quality of life?
Technology is used for whatever people decide to use it for, and sometimes the technology does something which nobody intended it to do. Shit happens.
If you have Nano cell repair and Nano technology in hospitals, Nano structures, then making a nano virus or weapon is going to be hard as hell,
Actually, the tech to develop bioweapons is almost identical to the tech used to develop medicines; the two fields feed on each others development. The fact of the matter is, though, its alot easier to destroy something than to create/repair it, given the same level of technology. Which came first, nuclear power or the atom bomb?
The fact of the matter is, though, that some things can be said about what future technologies are possible. Genetic engineering and nuclear weapons were foreseen decades before they were a reality.
When the potential ramifications are large, it makes sense to prepare for them before we find them on our doorstep. Otherwise, we could be blindsided.
just because the human race hasn't done itself in yet, doesn't count one iota towards our chances of future survival
Slashdot Mirror
... DUH!
rover 60 minutes/human 45 seconds = 90 rovers /1 human.
So send 90 rovers instead of one person. I'm sure it will still cost less than a manned mission.
You don't. Gene arrays can only detect genes which they are built to detect. They cannot determine whether unaccounted for genes are or are not there
how much does mutual-exclusive deduction play a role?
Not much, unless you know that their is some gene in your sample that you expect to be detected and want to see if it matches one of the genes on the detector array.
Correct, in which case you won't detect the unknown gene.
However, the chance that an unaccounted for gene will falsely trigger another detector "slot" is VERY unlikely; each detector is exceptionally specific for what it is supposed to detect.
The field is just starting to really contribute to society as a whole, with the first drugs developed using rational drug design being used in medical practice.
Who wants just steady progress? Most people want exponential progress in medicine, and that will only happen if the field grows.
The big problem is figuring out how proteins fold. Once we know a proteins structure, it's often trivial to figure out how it works(it's simple chemistry and physics from their).
The biggest contribution that proteomics could make would be to solve the protein folding problem.
Indeed! I shudder to think of the droves of vampires moving to communities which can't possibly support them!
Ooo! Ooo! Can I come back as a velociraptor? Mmmmmm, scientist flesh
ie it is no different from .class files until they are run(where the CLR is really different from the JVM).
What if something else depends on that component which you say no trace should be left of?
I don't think the poster was saying that biological systems cannot be modelled computationally. Sure, one can design code which evolves much like genomes do. The point is that most code does not behave in this manner, so that comparing most computer algorithms to biological algorithms is weak at best.
Iiieeww, no! Take it back! You don't play right.
I found point 5 particularly interesting:
WL-5. System and components meet reduced legacy support goals
Linux advocates pride themselves on the ability of the system to run on old systems. However, there is an argument for getting rid of obselete technologies. While M$ windoz's requirement for top of the line system's smacks of promotion of consumerism for consumerism's sake, My question is this:
How do we compromise between supporting legacy systems, without slowing the pace of tech development in order to accomodate them?
I tried to submit a story about that, but the "crime against nature" filter rejected my post.
Gotta go!
Umm, his name was Gordon Moore, the intel guy who Moore's law is named after, and he proposed the rate at which circuits have been shrinking THIRTY years ago, and was taken seriously for most of that time.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" - Santayana -
There is another area of bioinformatics which uses physics based simulations of biological systems. These types of tasks have little to do with ascii file processing, and are more sheer number crunching, and involve classic simulation modelling techniques.
Some examples of these types of bioinformatics problems are:
-simulation of protein folding
-simulation of chemical reaction circuits/control mechanisms in a cell or organ system
-cellular automata simulation of a group of cells in a tissue
Because of the number crunching requirements involved, these types of tasks are usually coded in languages which are good at math and have fast compilers, such as fortran and C.
I'm just trying to mention what else is out there, so that people don't get the idea that pattern parsing is the only thing bioinformaticists do
Actually, they're pretty sure it does.
Convergence of info appliances into the computer, remarkable concept, about 15 years ago. That new software and operating systems will have more features, wow, big surprize. I'm can't believe I actually sat through that whole article. I mean, it's not a bad read for someone new to computers, but I expect something a little more in depth or novel on /.
Whatever happened to due process and no trials in absense of the defendant.
Don't get me wrong, I think Bin Laden is guilty, but let's not act like the current actions in Afghanistan have anything like a legal sheen to them.
Engineering an art or a science?
Engineering is engineering, separate catagory, and its a good thing. But its not science or art, regardless of how those might influence it.
The first use for nano technology will set the tone for the type of technology it is. Sure, but things change. We have laser technology but i dont see people using laser guns which burn through bullet proof vests. That's because armour piercing bullets are still better and cheaper. isnt that the point of all technologies? To extend and improve the quality of life? Technology is used for whatever people decide to use it for, and sometimes the technology does something which nobody intended it to do. Shit happens. If you have Nano cell repair and Nano technology in hospitals, Nano structures, then making a nano virus or weapon is going to be hard as hell, Actually, the tech to develop bioweapons is almost identical to the tech used to develop medicines; the two fields feed on each others development. The fact of the matter is, though, its alot easier to destroy something than to create/repair it, given the same level of technology. Which came first, nuclear power or the atom bomb?
The fact of the matter is, though, that some things can be said about what future technologies are possible. Genetic engineering and nuclear weapons were foreseen decades before they were a reality.
When the potential ramifications are large, it makes sense to prepare for them before we find them on our doorstep. Otherwise, we could be blindsided.
just because the human race hasn't done itself in yet, doesn't count one iota towards our chances of future survival