While they do not have rights once it has been decided that they are an illegal combatant, this label is supposed to be given to them by a international tribunal, not arbitrarily by the captor. And until the tribunal has ruled them to not be POWs, they are entitled to protection as if they were.
And it doesn't matter whether the war has been officially declared or not. However, did Afghanistan sign on to the Geneva Convention? If not, the whole argument is null and void (as well as offtopic).
I don't believe Venter's idea is to sequence someone's entire genome. I think Venter plans to sequences the sections of people's genomes that contain known genes. You see, even though there are 4 billion base pairs, There are still only about 30,000 genes. Even at 1000bp per gene(which is a good average if you want to include exons and introns), that's still only about 30 million base pairs. All they have to do is have the right set of primers on hand (which they already do because they sequenced the whole thing already). So Celera is in a unique position to do this without too much of a startup or operating cost.
Not only that, but they can use the genes from Venter's sequence as probes, enabling them to map most of the genes in each genome without having to do very much sequencing. The bases they would need to sequence can be restricted to where they differ from the known sequence.
Now, as Venter's own genome is the source of much of the Celera sequence, and the clients will be rich, expect them to be mostly white males whose sequence will be a lot like his (so not much difference to sequence).
Mind you, I wouldn't expect this self-selecting group of clients to produce any decent statistics about gene proportions in the general population, only in the rich population... but perhaps that's all they're concerned about. The Celera science board may not be too pleased, however, as they're already not happy about the effect that including Venter's DNA in their sequence has had on the supposedly general sequence map.
For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.
Sounds like shrinkwrap and click-through EULAs have made Kellner jealous, and he wants something
equivalent for television broadcasts.
There's probably something hidden on
a text feed channel that says something like
"by receiving these broadcasts, you are agreeing
to watch all advertisements, no matter how
inane, annoying, or offensive; start singing
their jingles in public, even if it makes your friends avoid you; buy their products regularly and in preference to all competitors, no matter
how useless they are; etc. To disgree,
you must destroy your television."
Simply finding something is one thing. Doing work to take something else is completely different.
Surely such work should be rewarded. After all, if you find this car that someone left on the street, just lying there, and you go to all the trouble of hotwiring it so you can take it somewhere and keep it safe, surely this effort to ensure its safety should be rewarded.... if the owner ever catches up with it.
It's not your fault you can't break into the glove compartment to get some owner identification, right?
See, this right here demonstrates that you're just trolling, not only because you got the number wrong (6.0E23), but
because your application of it is simplistic and patronizing. Many drugs administered in liquid form have very much under
avogadro's number of molecules per dose. A plainer way to make your point would have been to say, "the concentrations of homeopathic medicines seem too low to be effective." Instead you pushed the lingo to show off. How's that for snake oil?
Except your "rewording" is wrong. The Avogadro's number argument, which still hold for the "clumping" theory, is not that the concentration
is too low to be effective. It's that the concentration is so low that the probability of
any random sample of the water containing anything other than water is very low. Most of the samples sold as homeopathic remedies contain nothing except water. A medicine, alternative or otherwise, can not be effective if it's not there.
It's a bit like a lottery ticket -- buy a sample, win a remedy. Maybe.
I suppose some samples actually do contain the molecule, or perhaps even a clump of them, which just might throw up some statistics based on the people that actually get something that isn't water. That's rather hard on those who don't, though. Anyway, the homeopathic claim is that every sample contains the "memory" of the chemical, and has equal chance of working.
The clumping idea doesn't give you more molecules, it just means that the molecules that exist may clump together in a high enough concentration in a few of the samples that they may actually do something. If anything, it means the probability of getting non-water is even lower.
I don't think it's a question of wanting Amazon to stop selling used books entirely. All the Author's Guild is currently saying is that if Amazon is going to direct business away from new copies that would benefit authors, they shouldn't expect the authors to direct business to Amazon. Why should authors continue to point prospective book buyers to a place where they may get no royalties? Quid pro quo.
Amazon is also overly aggressive with their used book availability -- posting that there are used copies available on the first day of release, or before. Ye average used bookstore will actually have used copies, not be trying to get more business by pretending that they do.
Re:The problem behind the problem
on
Biohackathon
·
· Score: 1
Does the computer really have the same status in biology as the microscope? When was the last time you considered modifying your microscope, or building something else out of one to do something new?
I find it telling that computer science is being equated with programming rather than problem solving. Many people go into computer science because they are fascinated with solving new problems, and devising new techniques, not just with the existing ones. It's these people that you want; people who can be creative about what can be done with your data, and what can be extracted from it.
Better yet, set up academic programs in a way that enables (and encourages) people with interests in both areas, and with minds inclined both for scientific discovery and for problem solving, to bring the disciplines together. The "ultimate" question as to which set of people should be cross-trained in the other discipline is an old question that needs to be transcended by truly interdisciplinary programs. The NIH initiative is right that we have to think outside of traditional discipline boundaries (and potentially outside of the traditional lab organization as well, since these people will need to be treated according to the skills they can offer).
Teaching biologists how to program is not new. It's very useful for them to be able to automate basic techniques they would otherwise do by hand. But if you want them to be able to create the new computer techniques that are needed, they need to know a lot more about computer science than just how to program, and they need a more creative mindset to seek out and solve new problems. The efficiency of training is not the issue. Obtaining the needed results is.
Slashdot Mirror
And it doesn't matter whether the war has been officially declared or not. However, did Afghanistan sign on to the Geneva Convention? If not, the whole argument is null and void (as well as offtopic).
I don't believe Venter's idea is to sequence someone's entire genome. I think Venter plans to sequences the sections of people's genomes that contain known genes.
You see, even though there are 4 billion base pairs, There are still only about 30,000 genes. Even at 1000bp per gene(which is a good average if you want to include exons and introns), that's still only about 30 million base pairs.
All they have to do is have the right set of primers on hand (which they already do because they sequenced the whole thing already). So Celera is in a unique position to do this without too much of a startup or operating cost.
Not only that, but they can use the genes from Venter's sequence as probes, enabling them to map most of the genes in each genome without having to do very much sequencing. The bases they would need to sequence can be restricted to where they differ from the known sequence.
Now, as Venter's own genome is the source of much of the Celera sequence, and the clients will be rich, expect them to be mostly white males whose sequence will be a lot like his (so not much difference to sequence).
Mind you, I wouldn't expect this self-selecting group of clients to produce any decent statistics about gene proportions in the general population, only in the rich population... but perhaps that's all they're concerned about. The Celera science board may not be too pleased, however, as they're already not happy about the effect that including Venter's DNA in their sequence has had on the supposedly general sequence map.
Sounds like shrinkwrap and click-through EULAs have made Kellner jealous, and he wants something equivalent for television broadcasts.
There's probably something hidden on a text feed channel that says something like "by receiving these broadcasts, you are agreeing to watch all advertisements, no matter how inane, annoying, or offensive; start singing their jingles in public, even if it makes your friends avoid you; buy their products regularly and in preference to all competitors, no matter how useless they are; etc. To disgree, you must destroy your television."
Surely such work should be rewarded. After all, if you find this car that someone left on the street, just lying there, and you go to all the trouble of hotwiring it so you can take it somewhere and keep it safe, surely this effort to ensure its safety should be rewarded.... if the owner ever catches up with it.
It's not your fault you can't break into the glove compartment to get some owner identification, right?
Except your "rewording" is wrong. The Avogadro's number argument, which still hold for the "clumping" theory, is not that the concentration is too low to be effective. It's that the concentration is so low that the probability of any random sample of the water containing anything other than water is very low. Most of the samples sold as homeopathic remedies contain nothing except water. A medicine, alternative or otherwise, can not be effective if it's not there.
It's a bit like a lottery ticket -- buy a sample, win a remedy. Maybe.
I suppose some samples actually do contain the molecule, or perhaps even a clump of them, which just might throw up some statistics based on the people that actually get something that isn't water. That's rather hard on those who don't, though. Anyway, the homeopathic claim is that every sample contains the "memory" of the chemical, and has equal chance of working.
The clumping idea doesn't give you more molecules, it just means that the molecules that exist may clump together in a high enough concentration in a few of the samples that they may actually do something. If anything, it means the probability of getting non-water is even lower.
Since one of the artist's stated purposes is to increase his hits, slashdot is a cheaper method than buying ads on Google.
I don't think it's a question of wanting Amazon to stop selling used books entirely. All the Author's Guild is currently saying is that if Amazon is going to direct business away from new copies that would benefit authors, they shouldn't expect the authors to direct business to Amazon. Why should authors continue to point prospective book buyers to a place where they may get no royalties? Quid pro quo.
Amazon is also overly aggressive with their used book availability -- posting that there are used copies available on the first day of release, or before. Ye average used bookstore will actually have used copies, not be trying to get more business by pretending that they do.
Does the computer really have the same status in biology as the microscope? When was the last time you considered modifying your microscope, or building something else out of one to do something new?
I find it telling that computer science is being equated with programming rather than problem solving. Many people go into computer science because they are fascinated with solving new problems, and devising new techniques, not just with the existing ones. It's these people that you want; people who can be creative about what can be done with your data, and what can be extracted from it.
Better yet, set up academic programs in a way that enables (and encourages) people with interests in both areas, and with minds inclined both for scientific discovery and for problem solving, to bring the disciplines together. The "ultimate" question
as to which set of people should be cross-trained in the other discipline is an old question that needs to be transcended by truly interdisciplinary programs. The NIH initiative is right that we have to think outside of traditional discipline boundaries (and potentially outside of the traditional lab organization as well, since these people will need to be treated according to the skills they can offer).
Teaching biologists how to program is not new. It's very useful for them to be able to automate basic techniques they would otherwise do by hand. But if you want them to be able to create the new computer techniques that are needed, they need to know a lot more about computer science than just how to program, and they need a more creative mindset to seek out and solve new problems. The efficiency of training is not the issue. Obtaining the needed results is.