The change you mention (a change in a single character) can be lethal, but more often than not is just fine. In fact, when scientists do genetic screens on model organisms (like fruit flies, worms or yeast) to find mutants, they typically have to make thousands of random changes in the DNA per individual and screen anywhere from hundreds to billions of individuals to find any effect. In yeast, ~16-18% of the genes are essential - which means that the cell will die if these genes are removed. However, there are TONS of mutations that the gene can suffer and the cell can keep working. Most of the mutations will have no effect.
Consider the number of mutations that CAN AND DO happen and how many of them are actually lethal. The answer turns out to be 'very few'. The reason for this is that biological networks are highly insensitive to parameter variation (eg, the rate at which reactions happen and the number of molecules present), and the biological code is redundant in a way that allows mutations to have a no or a negligible effect on protein structure. Now, these rules don't hold for absolutely every single base pair/amino acid in a biological system, but they do for an enormous number of them.
Here's another thought experiment: Compare each human to another and see how many differences there are from human to human (these are due to DNA mutations) - yet each of us operates properly, for the most part.
Also, our DNA is subject to all kinds of insults (UV light, chemicals) continually over our entire lives. So, many errors are introduced in our code, yet we are able to survive for years without rebooting.
The biological code is also amazingly compact. Your entire genetic code fits on a DVD.
Gerry Sussman (one of the authors of the famous 'Wizard' book taught in beginning computer science classes) has been working on biology-inspired programming paradigms over at MIT. The correspondance between the structure of living systems and computing systems was pointed out by John von Neumann quite at the dawn of both fields, and these notions seem to be alive and well today. In this view, the genome is like the assembly code of a program which, when run, is capable of replicating itself, developing from a single cell, maintaining and healing itself. Wouldn't it be great if we could write computer programs that had these same characteristics? It's an inspiring conception of biological systems and an incredible vision for a future for programming.
Jarod is a bit of a galactic gas-bag, having stated publicly that 'nothing good at all will come from biotechnology', but that information technology is 'almost all good' (interview on NBC, as I remember), but in this interview, I think he's on the mark.
'Now this article tells about Longhorn's new filesystem being based on the the future Yukon server. And surprise it will only work with new hardware, which they want to be Palladium enabled.' This is incorrect. Longhorn's new security features will require new hardware, but Longhorn will still run on old hardware
You linux geeks are quick to bash everything from Microsoft without even understanding the facts.
you linux geeks (this means you, slashdot "editors"), take every opportunity to crow about Windows security holes, but conveniently fail to mention the number and frequency of patches issued for linux, which is at least as many as for Windows.
Microsoft has admitted that it has a poor security track record. The frequency (& ease of update) is evidence that Microsoft is making good on its promise of taking security seriously.
Compare ease of patching Windows with that of Linux, please.
Does anything like a publicly updated spammer list exist? I'm not sure what the algorithm might be; I'm thinking of some type of "spammer rank" maintained by a number of trusted servers which share their lists (like the DNS system). Individuals (or software acting automatically on their behalf) would transmit addresses of spammers to a local "anti-spam" server. One vote for each unique sender. I'm agnostic on the transmission protocol - email perhaps.
The obvious problem would be spammers and hackers flooding such a system with garbage. Would it be possible to detect a flood of "garbage" lists? Google seems to manage this problem (self-referencing groups of websites). Another approach would be to require users of the system to register manually. Slashdot, for instance, tries to prevent scripts by having a having the user interpret a graphic during registration. Perhaps there are other more centrally administered ways of doing this - rings of trusted administrators who manage large sets of email accounts could gather lists submitted by users in their system. These central lists are then shared by the larger community.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at my post on Amorphous computing. Folks at MIT are actually trying this kind of thing.
Actually, you're full of it.
The change you mention (a change in a single character) can be lethal, but more often than not is just fine. In fact, when scientists do genetic screens on model organisms (like fruit flies, worms or yeast) to find mutants, they typically have to make thousands of random changes in the DNA per individual and screen anywhere from hundreds to billions of individuals to find any effect. In yeast, ~16-18% of the genes are essential - which means that the cell will die if these genes are removed. However, there are TONS of mutations that the gene can suffer and the cell can keep working. Most of the mutations will have no effect.
Consider the number of mutations that CAN AND DO happen and how many of them are actually lethal. The answer turns out to be 'very few'. The reason for this is that biological networks are highly insensitive to parameter variation (eg, the rate at which reactions happen and the number of molecules present), and the biological code is redundant in a way that allows mutations to have a no or a negligible effect on protein structure. Now, these rules don't hold for absolutely every single base pair/amino acid in a biological system, but they do for an enormous number of them.
Here's another thought experiment: Compare each human to another and see how many differences there are from human to human (these are due to DNA mutations) - yet each of us operates properly, for the most part.
Also, our DNA is subject to all kinds of insults (UV light, chemicals) continually over our entire lives. So, many errors are introduced in our code, yet we are able to survive for years without rebooting.
The biological code is also amazingly compact. Your entire genetic code fits on a DVD.
Gerry Sussman (one of the authors of the famous 'Wizard' book taught in beginning computer science classes) has been working on biology-inspired programming paradigms over at MIT. The correspondance between the structure of living systems and computing systems was pointed out by John von Neumann quite at the dawn of both fields, and these notions seem to be alive and well today. In this view, the genome is like the assembly code of a program which, when run, is capable of replicating itself, developing from a single cell, maintaining and healing itself. Wouldn't it be great if we could write computer programs that had these same characteristics? It's an inspiring conception of biological systems and an incredible vision for a future for programming.
Jarod is a bit of a galactic gas-bag, having stated publicly that 'nothing good at all will come from biotechnology', but that information technology is 'almost all good' (interview on NBC, as I remember), but in this interview, I think he's on the mark.
Right... I'd love to see this response to one of the typical rabid anti-Microsoft rants posted here.
'Now this article tells about Longhorn's new filesystem being based on the the future Yukon server. And surprise it will only work with new hardware, which they want to be Palladium enabled.'
This is incorrect. Longhorn's new security features will require new hardware, but Longhorn will still run on old hardware
You linux geeks are quick to bash everything from Microsoft without even understanding the facts.
you linux geeks (this means you, slashdot "editors"), take every opportunity to crow about Windows security holes, but conveniently fail to mention the number and frequency of patches issued for linux, which is at least as many as for Windows.
Microsoft has admitted that it has a poor security track record. The frequency (& ease of update) is evidence that Microsoft is making good on its promise of taking security seriously.
Compare ease of patching Windows with that of Linux, please.
Does anything like a publicly updated spammer list exist? I'm not sure what the algorithm might be; I'm thinking of some type of "spammer rank" maintained by a number of trusted servers which share their lists (like the DNS system). Individuals (or software acting automatically on their behalf) would transmit addresses of spammers to a local "anti-spam" server. One vote for each unique sender. I'm agnostic on the transmission protocol - email perhaps.
The obvious problem would be spammers and hackers flooding such a system with garbage. Would it be possible to detect a flood of "garbage" lists? Google seems to manage this problem (self-referencing groups of websites). Another approach would be to require users of the system to register manually. Slashdot, for instance, tries to prevent scripts by having a having the user interpret a graphic during registration. Perhaps there are other more centrally administered ways of doing this - rings of trusted administrators who manage large sets of email accounts could gather lists submitted by users in their system. These central lists are then shared by the larger community.
Any opinions on this idea? Stupid or reasonable?