Have you seen the new IE 7 acid 2 test results? http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html# top They made it even better than the old IE. Now there is stuff that moves when you mouse over it and some random scrollbars too! Kudos to microsoft for creativity!
A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent
damage to your computer.
IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL
If this is the first time you've seen this stop error screen,
restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps:
1) Check to make sure any new hardware or software is properly installed.
2) Buy a delicious Coca-Cola beverage at your Neighborhood Mc Donalds.
3) Enlarge your penis with safe, 100% natural pills.
Thank you for the paper references. Maybe they'll shift my view around.
I work in statistical genetics and by no means in a genomics lab, so my experience is quite limited by that. I'm usually working with gene clusters containing 80-1000 SNPs in 3000 or so individuals, so I really haven't had the experience to work in larger scale models.
I just get really upset when I see people using things such as correlation measures of LD across blacks and whites and making a general consensus while in my experience, their genetic makeup is very very heterogeneous. Perhaps that could just be error due to the small samples I work with though.
I'm not saying that everything I feel or am even saying is correct, but it's just my own devil's advocate stance on the project.
I understand that going from having to look at 10 million SNPs for a certain phenotype to 200,000 SNPs would be an extremely important discovery -- it's just that in my experiences, the samples I've looked at certainly aren't homogeneous enough between race, sex, or even field center for me to believe their could be some global LD that can just pop up out of 269 individuals.
I hope I'm wrong. It would sure be a huge breakthrough in genetics to fit a huge percentage of the data to some classification model. I just am skeptical that anything will come from it with that much accuracy. If you have any links to any journal articles that you believe show without a doubt that the project will truely be so groundbreaking I would genuinely like to see them. So far, I haven't found anything concrete enough to make me not be such a skeptic.
There are so many things incorrectly implied about this finding that it's almost hard to begin:
1) The headline and idea: "New DNA Map Will Help Find Bad Genes". There are no bad genes. Evolution didn't just come around and place some miscreant gene in your body just to give you a hard time after living off a diet of pizza and Mt. Dew for ten years. Every gene has its own function. Genetic research is based more upon finding which variation of a gene is more beneficial to an individual and how to change/block the non-beneficial variations. Genes are either more or less successful, but definitely (minus the case or rare genetic diseases) not evil or bad.
2) "The project analyzed DNA samples from 269 people from Nigeria, Beijing, Tokyo and Utah." Well, this would be fine if everyone was of a direct Nigeria, Beijing, Tokyo or Utah decent similar to the test subjects. As for real world population, they probably contain mutations not near those found in any of these people. A native american, a man from agentina, and a guy from India I guarantee you would have completely different results. And that's assuming pure-bread people. Where would someone like Tiger Woods fit in? As an interesting side note, why do you think they picked Utah? Could it be that one of the principal investigators of the study is Mormon and thought it might be nice to bring government funds to his own people? I think that most of us can agree that politics and science rarely mix to give good results...
3) 269 People? You're telling me that out of 3 billion DNA basepairs, we can find all the parts that have changed over the last few hundred thousand (and more) years in only 269 people?
4) "This clustering greatly simplifies the task of analyzing what variations a person carries, because not all of them have to be identified." and "A person with one particular version of a SNP is highly likely to carry particular versions of other SNPs as well." When you begin to think about the error rates contained in "highly likely" and then start to cluster those rates togeter, your model falls apart.
Basically, from my own experience of working with data of thousands of whites, blacks, both male and female, the rates at which certain areas of DNA are linked vary directly upon the strata one looks at and the number of individuals in that strata. This project is a neat theorhetical idea, but until we can sequence the entire genomes of thousands of people overnight for a small fee, there is not enough realy data to really do anything with.
The only real benefit I can see is if one of the sequenced organisms has a very unique DNA makeup. This could change some thoughts about phylogeny/evolutionary trends.
It's pretty unlikely though.
Their criteria for determining species is pretty common for that of asexual organisms. Bacteria, which are prokaryotic, tend to reproduce only by binary fission which (in the absense of meiosis) allows for no genetic variation. Thus, if you see two bacteria that are different, the odds are that they are different species.
When people start repoducing by splitting in half though feel free to call them species.
does the MPAA ever consider the fact that they are getting their DVDs mass produced in a country (china) that has virtually no copyright laws (information for the people)?
maybe they should consider investing on internal, secure companies rather than sending their information into a copyright abyss.
how are trailers to a film supposed to stop film piracy?
don't they understand? pirates don't rip the trailers! and pirates have no need to go to the theators!
or at least that is what i heard... from a friend... because watching pirated movies is wrong and sends you straight to hell.
i know this may sound metaphysical, but what is "trying to be good?" is it the utilitarian bounds of promoting overall hapiness of humanity or more kantian based as promoting good will? or could it even be more virtue theroy based on the individual?
morality is impossible to define. no one can be judged on if they are 100% moral because the lines of morality are skewed inbetween viewpoints. would christ lie if he knew that it would save the life of a friend? isn't lying morally wrong? what if he could have killed one innocent child to save 1000? isn't murder a non-moral act accross all cultures?
how can we judge christ (and humanity) as moral beings if we cannot define morality?
unless he took a dramatic twist of the text, you're still forced reading the same epic that you were forced to read in highschool...
if you are looking for a good twist on the topic, read john gardner's grendel.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen the new IE 7 acid 2 test results? http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html# top They made it even better than the old IE. Now there is stuff that moves when you mouse over it and some random scrollbars too! Kudos to microsoft for creativity!
I don't know about you, but the tour homepage http://www.letour.fr/ looks a little too much like goatse for my comfort.
A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer. IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL If this is the first time you've seen this stop error screen, restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps: 1) Check to make sure any new hardware or software is properly installed. 2) Buy a delicious Coca-Cola beverage at your Neighborhood Mc Donalds. 3) Enlarge your penis with safe, 100% natural pills.
All of our servers run on reliable, inexpensive, sweet beautiful coal!
Thank you for the paper references. Maybe they'll shift my view around. I work in statistical genetics and by no means in a genomics lab, so my experience is quite limited by that. I'm usually working with gene clusters containing 80-1000 SNPs in 3000 or so individuals, so I really haven't had the experience to work in larger scale models. I just get really upset when I see people using things such as correlation measures of LD across blacks and whites and making a general consensus while in my experience, their genetic makeup is very very heterogeneous. Perhaps that could just be error due to the small samples I work with though. I'm not saying that everything I feel or am even saying is correct, but it's just my own devil's advocate stance on the project.
I understand that going from having to look at 10 million SNPs for a certain phenotype to 200,000 SNPs would be an extremely important discovery -- it's just that in my experiences, the samples I've looked at certainly aren't homogeneous enough between race, sex, or even field center for me to believe their could be some global LD that can just pop up out of 269 individuals. I hope I'm wrong. It would sure be a huge breakthrough in genetics to fit a huge percentage of the data to some classification model. I just am skeptical that anything will come from it with that much accuracy. If you have any links to any journal articles that you believe show without a doubt that the project will truely be so groundbreaking I would genuinely like to see them. So far, I haven't found anything concrete enough to make me not be such a skeptic.
There are so many things incorrectly implied about this finding that it's almost hard to begin:
1) The headline and idea: "New DNA Map Will Help Find Bad Genes". There are no bad genes. Evolution didn't just come around and place some miscreant gene in your body just to give you a hard time after living off a diet of pizza and Mt. Dew for ten years. Every gene has its own function. Genetic research is based more upon finding which variation of a gene is more beneficial to an individual and how to change/block the non-beneficial variations. Genes are either more or less successful, but definitely (minus the case or rare genetic diseases) not evil or bad.
2) "The project analyzed DNA samples from 269 people from Nigeria, Beijing, Tokyo and Utah." Well, this would be fine if everyone was of a direct Nigeria, Beijing, Tokyo or Utah decent similar to the test subjects. As for real world population, they probably contain mutations not near those found in any of these people. A native american, a man from agentina, and a guy from India I guarantee you would have completely different results. And that's assuming pure-bread people. Where would someone like Tiger Woods fit in? As an interesting side note, why do you think they picked Utah? Could it be that one of the principal investigators of the study is Mormon and thought it might be nice to bring government funds to his own people? I think that most of us can agree that politics and science rarely mix to give good results...
3) 269 People? You're telling me that out of 3 billion DNA basepairs, we can find all the parts that have changed over the last few hundred thousand (and more) years in only 269 people?
4) "This clustering greatly simplifies the task of analyzing what variations a person carries, because not all of them have to be identified." and "A person with one particular version of a SNP is highly likely to carry particular versions of other SNPs as well." When you begin to think about the error rates contained in "highly likely" and then start to cluster those rates togeter, your model falls apart.
Basically, from my own experience of working with data of thousands of whites, blacks, both male and female, the rates at which certain areas of DNA are linked vary directly upon the strata one looks at and the number of individuals in that strata. This project is a neat theorhetical idea, but until we can sequence the entire genomes of thousands of people overnight for a small fee, there is not enough realy data to really do anything with.
Who would really want thousands of Evangelical Christians switching over to Linux anyways? I don't want to use a mail client called "Creationism."
The only real benefit I can see is if one of the sequenced organisms has a very unique DNA makeup. This could change some thoughts about phylogeny/evolutionary trends. It's pretty unlikely though.
Their criteria for determining species is pretty common for that of asexual organisms. Bacteria, which are prokaryotic, tend to reproduce only by binary fission which (in the absense of meiosis) allows for no genetic variation. Thus, if you see two bacteria that are different, the odds are that they are different species. When people start repoducing by splitting in half though feel free to call them species.
does the MPAA ever consider the fact that they are getting their DVDs mass produced in a country (china) that has virtually no copyright laws (information for the people)?
maybe they should consider investing on internal, secure companies rather than sending their information into a copyright abyss.
how are trailers to a film supposed to stop film piracy? don't they understand? pirates don't rip the trailers! and pirates have no need to go to the theators! or at least that is what i heard... from a friend... because watching pirated movies is wrong and sends you straight to hell.
so is the asia times making a profit by having us read this story?
i know this may sound metaphysical, but what is "trying to be good?" is it the utilitarian bounds of promoting overall hapiness of humanity or more kantian based as promoting good will? or could it even be more virtue theroy based on the individual?
morality is impossible to define. no one can be judged on if they are 100% moral because the lines of morality are skewed inbetween viewpoints. would christ lie if he knew that it would save the life of a friend? isn't lying morally wrong? what if he could have killed one innocent child to save 1000? isn't murder a non-moral act accross all cultures?
how can we judge christ (and humanity) as moral beings if we cannot define morality?
try reading pornographic stories with lynx and then having to hit alt-f2 to switch to a new terminal when your mom walks in!
unless he took a dramatic twist of the text, you're still forced reading the same epic that you were forced to read in highschool... if you are looking for a good twist on the topic, read john gardner's grendel.