Oh, I see what they're up to! These "Roman Pot Stations" are just another secretive way for scientists to get high. And they get all this funding to cover it up and make it look legit. Ingenious!
Coming from the point of view of natural selection, there would appear to be no selective advantage for our bodily processes to keep going beyond a certain age. Once we have reproduced, and our children have reproduced, our reproductive fitness can't be improved upon. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that many of our maintenance systems begin to deteriorate, since there was little selective advantage for individuals to last longer. As I understand it, increasing longevity postpones or reverses these deterioration processes and hence slows the aging process.
My question is the following: let's say we find a major aging process and reverse it. Who's to say that two more won't appear 2 years later and cause more problems? Could it be that since we did not evolve to live past a certain age, we inevitably will fall apart at an exponential rate?
Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
* Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
That's actually not true. A lot of DNA bases are important in mediating binding to proteins, such as RNA or DNA polymerase, histones, etc. Other bases are important in RNA-based regulator mechanisms, such as anti-terminators.
So the truth is that although we can't really say what we can do with these extra bases right now, the possibilities extend way beyond making new proteins and have many implications for regulation. Why is regulation important? Because differential gene expression is the fundamental principle that allows for cell differentiation and mediating responses to external change.
It's simply not possible to count all of this quickly and accurately by hand in one day.
Who said it has to be all finished in one day? Give them two weeks and let them do it correctly. The problem is we are all obsessed with finding out the results within 24 hours, as though it were a sporting event or something. In order to garner the most advertising revenue, the television networks have turned politics into a spectator sport that takes place every four years, like the Olympics. People apparently no longer have the attention span of even a lizard.
This would be a great way to sell earplugs! Imagine the possibilities! For other products it might not be so good, such as hearing aids. You'd also be in trouble if your target audience was the deaf.
I like big icons - they're easier to see, and easier to click. I like pretty icons - when I'm staring at my screen for hours, they don't look ugly and drab and I can pick them out easily. There is a simple (obvious?) reason for making the user experience aesthetically pleasing: people like attractive things more. And are you really serious about going to xterms? The whole point of having a desktop is so that you don't need to use the command-line, and instead can use a paradigm that is a little more like the natural world. I think that shows you're not the normal computer user already.
Besides, the size is customizable by the user, so if you really want tiny icons then go ahead. Most people prefer them to be larger, hence the default.
I was a participant in the iGEM competition this year (Davidson/Missouri Western, check out our wiki). Some people are talking about the potential dangers these BioBricks have if they are publically available and easy to use. First, it might be important to clarify what they are. Four restriction enzyme sites on plasmids allow the stitching together of DNA sequences into any desired configuration. The registry contains hundreds (soon to be thousands) of parts that can be put together and dropped into cells. Most of these parts, though, already existed in nature. People have just thought of new ways of using them together.
There are no easy answers to the questions about the dangers of engineering life, but we have to think of the benefits of making science accessible and affordable. If you look at the projects these predominantly undergraduate teams have done, they all have so much creativity and show the great potential for engineering life. Teams have worked on developing cures for diseases (HIV, look at Slovenia's project), and this is only within the first couple years of the competition. Imagine what ten years will bring!
Furthermore, the rapid adoption and development of computers was a huge worry to the United States government. The USSR could develop nuclear weapons much more effectively and quickly with computers (think 8086's) than with pen and paper, and we were trying our hardest to prevent them from getting the technology. And yet we see that the benefits of open science in an open society are tremendous, as the internet has permanently shaped how we live in a positive way. There are risks out there, but science marches on, and we have to instead focus on what we can do to accept change and how to use it to our advantage.
Possibly the most important point is to truly understand the concepts. Mathematics in some sense are self-evident - 2+2 will always equal 4, and the derivative of 2x (with respect to x) will always be 2. More complex ideas in math are equally self-evident, but are much harder to understand. As a result, a lot of math classes focus on memorization without understanding the ideas.
Buy a textbook and do the problems. But also be sure to read what the textbook is trying to say - why does the math work the way it does? For some people visualization helps. For others, verbally analyzing the logic is easier. However you go about it, don't try cramming formulas or theorems without understanding them. Memorization is hard, yet learning is more difficult - and more rewarding. Best of luck.
We should note that their are other situations where the "j" pronunciation with "dg" is found, such as the English town of Bridgnorth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgnorth) So there are still places in England where "dg" is the correct spelling. This probably stems from earlier times when spelling in English was less consistent and not as standardized.
With the continual, exponential increases in computing power that we are getting, in about 25-30 years we should have the capacity to simulate human brains. And yes, this does have a lot of consequences for how a lot of people view themselves... but already we know that we don't have free will (we make decisions before we are aware of them, for example), and we already have lots of support for reductionist viewpoints. Simulations are just an extension of that.
If you want more solid arguments for this, read The Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil. He makes a convincing argument.
I was a little surprised about your 7 hour time quote from Seattle to San Francisco, so I did some fact checking:
Google maps says that the distance between the two cities is 808 miles, or 12 hours 40 mins by car. Google converts those 808 miles into kilometers: 808 miles = 1 300.34995 kilometers.
The time it takes to travel 1300 kilometers at 300km/hour: 4.33 hours. So you were off by a substantial amount of time - 2 hours and 20 minutes or so.
High speed trains will become more popular when gas prices go up. That will affect both car travel and airplane travel. Gas prices are already high in Europe for car travel, and trains are a lot more comfortable that planes, so that's probably why they are more popular there. Particularly when you take into account all the security checkpoints they force you through at airports these days, it's a royal pain to fly.
One major question for me is: What is the state of KDE support in RHEL5? Redhat has always shown a preference to gnome over kde, but nevertheless included KDE as an option in RHEL4. Do they still?
There is no such thing as "x64." Please quit butchering the use of computer terminology. You might think slashdot editors could catch something like that.
I agree with your question. I was thinking of a few ways to analyze the graphs:
Count the total number of nodes
Count the average number of edges coming out of each node
The first gives us an idea of the total number of calls involved. The second gives us some idea of how many interactions each call is involved with - more branches would indicate more complexity.
The logic used in the summary is terrible. They argue that simply because Neanderthals had big brains, and some subset of Europeans have a gene for big brains, that the cause for big brains is uniform and was derived from intermingling. Furthermore, we could just as easily posit that Europeans derived whiter/lighter skin, compared to their African counterparts, through intermixing with Neanderthals. But that doesn't seem very likely, does it? It amazes me that this kind of thinking gets anywhere at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see what they're up to! These "Roman Pot Stations" are just another secretive way for scientists to get high. And they get all this funding to cover it up and make it look legit. Ingenious!
Coming from the point of view of natural selection, there would appear to be no selective advantage for our bodily processes to keep going beyond a certain age. Once we have reproduced, and our children have reproduced, our reproductive fitness can't be improved upon. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that many of our maintenance systems begin to deteriorate, since there was little selective advantage for individuals to last longer. As I understand it, increasing longevity postpones or reverses these deterioration processes and hence slows the aging process.
My question is the following: let's say we find a major aging process and reverse it. Who's to say that two more won't appear 2 years later and cause more problems? Could it be that since we did not evolve to live past a certain age, we inevitably will fall apart at an exponential rate?
On a humorous note, I have to link this video from Alpha Centauri: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdCB9yE9Hcc
Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
* Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
All the bases do are code for amino acids
That's actually not true. A lot of DNA bases are important in mediating binding to proteins, such as RNA or DNA polymerase, histones, etc. Other bases are important in RNA-based regulator mechanisms, such as anti-terminators.
So the truth is that although we can't really say what we can do with these extra bases right now, the possibilities extend way beyond making new proteins and have many implications for regulation. Why is regulation important? Because differential gene expression is the fundamental principle that allows for cell differentiation and mediating responses to external change.
And for the record, IAAB (I am a biologist).
I bet a lot of people are looking forward to running the "hot coffee" mod on this baby!
Who said it has to be all finished in one day? Give them two weeks and let them do it correctly. The problem is we are all obsessed with finding out the results within 24 hours, as though it were a sporting event or something. In order to garner the most advertising revenue, the television networks have turned politics into a spectator sport that takes place every four years, like the Olympics. People apparently no longer have the attention span of even a lizard.
whoops i modded you redundant by accident. this should clear it up.
This would be a great way to sell earplugs! Imagine the possibilities! For other products it might not be so good, such as hearing aids. You'd also be in trouble if your target audience was the deaf.
I like big icons - they're easier to see, and easier to click. I like pretty icons - when I'm staring at my screen for hours, they don't look ugly and drab and I can pick them out easily. There is a simple (obvious?) reason for making the user experience aesthetically pleasing: people like attractive things more. And are you really serious about going to xterms? The whole point of having a desktop is so that you don't need to use the command-line, and instead can use a paradigm that is a little more like the natural world. I think that shows you're not the normal computer user already.
Besides, the size is customizable by the user, so if you really want tiny icons then go ahead. Most people prefer them to be larger, hence the default.
I was a participant in the iGEM competition this year (Davidson/Missouri Western, check out our wiki). Some people are talking about the potential dangers these BioBricks have if they are publically available and easy to use. First, it might be important to clarify what they are. Four restriction enzyme sites on plasmids allow the stitching together of DNA sequences into any desired configuration. The registry contains hundreds (soon to be thousands) of parts that can be put together and dropped into cells. Most of these parts, though, already existed in nature. People have just thought of new ways of using them together.
There are no easy answers to the questions about the dangers of engineering life, but we have to think of the benefits of making science accessible and affordable. If you look at the projects these predominantly undergraduate teams have done, they all have so much creativity and show the great potential for engineering life. Teams have worked on developing cures for diseases (HIV, look at Slovenia's project), and this is only within the first couple years of the competition. Imagine what ten years will bring!
Furthermore, the rapid adoption and development of computers was a huge worry to the United States government. The USSR could develop nuclear weapons much more effectively and quickly with computers (think 8086's) than with pen and paper, and we were trying our hardest to prevent them from getting the technology. And yet we see that the benefits of open science in an open society are tremendous, as the internet has permanently shaped how we live in a positive way. There are risks out there, but science marches on, and we have to instead focus on what we can do to accept change and how to use it to our advantage.
Possibly the most important point is to truly understand the concepts. Mathematics in some sense are self-evident - 2+2 will always equal 4, and the derivative of 2x (with respect to x) will always be 2. More complex ideas in math are equally self-evident, but are much harder to understand. As a result, a lot of math classes focus on memorization without understanding the ideas.
Buy a textbook and do the problems. But also be sure to read what the textbook is trying to say - why does the math work the way it does? For some people visualization helps. For others, verbally analyzing the logic is easier. However you go about it, don't try cramming formulas or theorems without understanding them. Memorization is hard, yet learning is more difficult - and more rewarding. Best of luck.
Mammalian cells have no cell walls. Do they mean plasma membrane? This is basic biology, guys, please get your facts straight.
I guess he has officially become the phantom of the opera.
Badum tssh!
It looks like Fossett may have gone down the drain. Water we going to do about it!? If we want to find him we may have to tap all our resources.
We should note that their are other situations where the "j" pronunciation with "dg" is found, such as the English town of Bridgnorth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgnorth) So there are still places in England where "dg" is the correct spelling. This probably stems from earlier times when spelling in English was less consistent and not as standardized.
With the continual, exponential increases in computing power that we are getting, in about 25-30 years we should have the capacity to simulate human brains. And yes, this does have a lot of consequences for how a lot of people view themselves... but already we know that we don't have free will (we make decisions before we are aware of them, for example), and we already have lots of support for reductionist viewpoints. Simulations are just an extension of that.
If you want more solid arguments for this, read The Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil. He makes a convincing argument.
I was a little surprised about your 7 hour time quote from Seattle to San Francisco, so I did some fact checking:
Google maps says that the distance between the two cities is 808 miles, or 12 hours 40 mins by car. Google converts those 808 miles into kilometers: 808 miles = 1 300.34995 kilometers.
The time it takes to travel 1300 kilometers at 300km/hour: 4.33 hours. So you were off by a substantial amount of time - 2 hours and 20 minutes or so.
High speed trains will become more popular when gas prices go up. That will affect both car travel and airplane travel. Gas prices are already high in Europe for car travel, and trains are a lot more comfortable that planes, so that's probably why they are more popular there. Particularly when you take into account all the security checkpoints they force you through at airports these days, it's a royal pain to fly.
One major question for me is: What is the state of KDE support in RHEL5? Redhat has always shown a preference to gnome over kde, but nevertheless included KDE as an option in RHEL4. Do they still?
There is no such thing as "x64." Please quit butchering the use of computer terminology. You might think slashdot editors could catch something like that.
I agree with your question. I was thinking of a few ways to analyze the graphs:
The first gives us an idea of the total number of calls involved. The second gives us some idea of how many interactions each call is involved with - more branches would indicate more complexity.
As long as the ATMs in Chicago are secure I'll be fine ;-)
That is a quote from Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights." See more about the Commissioner here:
http://www.firaxis.com/smac/lal.cfm
I like how in 2002 there were 2 dupes, each spaced apart by a couple days. Slashdot will always be the same!
The logic used in the summary is terrible. They argue that simply because Neanderthals had big brains, and some subset of Europeans have a gene for big brains, that the cause for big brains is uniform and was derived from intermingling. Furthermore, we could just as easily posit that Europeans derived whiter/lighter skin, compared to their African counterparts, through intermixing with Neanderthals. But that doesn't seem very likely, does it? It amazes me that this kind of thinking gets anywhere at all.
A few misconceptions to clear up: