Well yes and no. While you're entirely right that if the genome were randomly based it would still perhaps end up with things that look like human things because humans select them to look like those things, but it would have a harder time getting there. The real kicker for genome based growing like this as described originally in some of Richard Dawkins books is that that variation can such that the forms it creates and the similar but different forms are restricted such that it'll generally cover the design space for most living critters but not other things. For example, without ever seeing the thing, it's likely impossible to evolve a cork screw, but you could certainly make a very charming bowl. Some forms, due to this method, are seriously restricted and other forms are generally able to be stepped towards and the directions you go are limited by generally by natural growth patters. So you can get to natural patterns much more simply than you could with truly random modifications, but it is still humans selecting to get there so we obvious pick the forms we like the best.
We also select the dogs we like the best too, but we somehow can't select for dogs which have chansaws for arms. Doing things like this, generally gets you a next step which tend to fall into more natural patterns. It's not really that it makes the objects look natural, but hampers the EndlessForms into be a discrete set of forms which transverses a lot of natural looking objects.
The problem isn't the fiber. We have a crap ton of it running everywhere. It's really cheap to run fiber. This technology could make us better able to increase the rates further, but seeing as none of that gets to end users our internet will still suck. We have such a glut of fiber that a 100x communication boost means we'd just use less of the already huge amount of fiber. So rather than using only 2 of the 100 fibers we have, we'll use 1 and send even less light down that series of tubes.
Yeah, but CRTs are a form of vacuum tube. And so are, plasma screen TVs. But, I'm seeing more personal computers rather than fewer. They just happen to be more hand held these days, and more personal. So more personal and still computers.
I don't think Ben would believe that surrendering your liberty to an oligarchy of corporations to buy a little temporary safety is acceptable either.
While it's certainly true that the first amendment doesn't restrict corporations from violating the same rights the government would not be permitted to do. You have a right to privacy, but corporations can gather any amount of information about you and nobody can legally stop them. This doesn't mean that giving away your freedom to corporations for the sake of temporary safety is suddenly acceptable.
I mean seriously you think Jack-Booted thugs are something we shouldn't worry about if their Jack-boots have corporate logos on them?
I'm well aware of the GIFT qua Penny Arcade and it's likely true. But, to suppose that Ben's quote only works in the context of government is a little naive.
Yeah. Which is exactly the point. Windows XP installs are going to necessarily be older and have been around longer and perhaps have more malware built up over that time. We just have a correlation between XP and Malware. When the real correlation could be length of time OS installed to Malware and XP installed on systems much longer than Windows 7. There's a lot of things that could explain the data that don't necessarily imply one OS is better than the other or that we need to dish out a lot of cash to upgrade. It could just be that the longer you've had it, the more likely you are to have malware.
And TFA says "rootkits" and the only good way to trash some of those is to reinstall anyhow.
The claims above are likely more due to the length of time of the install than anything to do with the OS itself. I've had my current install of windows for like four years. Nobody with Windows 7 can say that about their OS. And a lot of times spyware ridden machines just stay that way. I demand they look at the data from "time since install" and tell me that that isn't just directly correlated and explains away most of the XP dataset.
I didn't have to. The truth is that a 1 MW/h SMES weighs about as much as a horseshoe. To replace 81 kilos of jet fuel. It's *significantly* lighter. And then you get to rip off a lot of parts of the plane as generally useless and just use a much smaller electric engines. And I calculated it for a 747, rather than any other plane. I'm already using much less weight it's fine. The average weight of the fuel is much less than with the jet fuel. And the values I used for jet-fuel were the averages already so it was taken into account.
I even used older SMES coils, giant planes, and didn't calculate for the reductions of weight and reductions of fuel system requirements. If you've seen what electric cars consist of, you'll see why they are basically batteries on wheels. A jet liner with superconductive batteries would be the same but rely on economies of scale for cooling and be equally reduced across the board, none of which I bothered to take into account, because they only help my case.
You could use superconductive storage today and get the right battery-weight. It would actually weigh much less than jet fuel to add enough power to a series of superconductive coils and store the power. A typical coil of SMES in current use can get about a 1 MW/h which is 3600 Megajoules, typically a kilo of jetfuel has something like 44 megajoules of power, so one coil would replace 81 kilos of jet fuel. You'd need like 57 thousand kilos of jetfuel to go a typical 3,500 statute mile flight. Which is 705 superconductive coils, which would weigh less than the jetfuel currently does and would cost less after being built on a per flight basis and could be refueled as quickly as one could give it new electric power.
It might however have clear health effects with that much localized magnetic fields and break a lot of electronic devices, and refrigeration is a giant pain in the ass without having it 30k feet in the air.
Most of us are still left with the dirty taste in our mouths from the years we were stuck with basically just IE5. We'd typically end up from time to time spending time on carving out malware with a spoon and largely because IE would just load them all up without a second thought to any webpage you visited. After Firefox came out it became clear that that wasn't a requirement for browsers much like the use of Ad Block in Firefox made all the internet ads go away some half a decade ago. To go back to IE will always seem like a step back. It would be like if some modifications made dial up internet go as fast as cable. You could swear up and down that it was true, and it might even be true (save the obvious issues with information theory and the max capacity for the analog channel) but it would *still* feel like we were downgrading even if most of us don't have land lines anymore.
You'd figure with a few gigs of SSD even as much as a silly thumbdrive worth you could get read speeds on par with SSD. SSD are crap for massive amounts of data, for now. Though, I think tying your data to die on a thing with moving parts, vs. and SSD gets the worst of both worlds too. You get the speed of SSD without getting rid of the potential to no longer have the silly things crash.
I'd prefer if people just really understood they are two different technologies and you should have one of each. You should have 20 gigs for your OS of SSD and you should have 2 TB of data for whatever else.
Somebody should invent a form of RAID for drives of radically different sizes and read speeds that just works a bit like stripping but as a cache. Make this silly doohicky here pointless.
The longer answer is do anything you want. I highly recommend spending a lot of time to configure an "administrator" login. Then have it take one to a fake directory with nothing important. Wait until that IP drops off the inevitable giant pile of files to be shared with other people, and then when all the stuff is uploaded. Disable it and keep the files. It seems like pretending to be there for a short while could get you many gigabytes of something. It would be like peer to peer in reverse.
Seriously, the actual science here is that tears lower testosterone levels in men, which in addition to arousal also control anger and rage. The claim that tears make men less aroused, is rather pointless and a terrible explanation for anything. At best the response would nearly certainly be against uxoricide. So that when men beat their wives, they would at some point stop and not beat the potential future mother of their children to death. Also, in social situtuations where men tend to get out of control and fight, women tend to cry. As such, prevention of violence against one's spouse as well as violence to others would be much more likely to be the clear evolutionary explanation.
Did we get this? No. The media are portraying this in the funny "women tears make men feel less sexy" light, rather than the more apparent men are violent and having some kind of general social cue to make them less violent at times would be good and apparently exists in humans. Violent men... boring. Penis... ahahahhahahaahhaahahah.
We can lose at Go. It's just not computers don't typically beat a person who tries and knows how to play. Here we see that this is the first time in human history that a human has managed to lose at this game. It seems like even random moves should be able to happen into defeating some human some time. Human takes dive against random algorithm.
In 2007, a method of inducing cells into being stem cells was developed out of Japan. It involved injecting 4 genes into a cell and resetting it to an embryonic state. So they basically found a reset switch to turn them into stem cells, but were hitting it with a sledge hammer. From there, other methods of changing the cell with less deadly inserts were invented, then without needing to insert anything by dusting them, but these methods make like one stem cell in hundreds of thousands of cells. It's crap and makes it really really hard to use. This method offers the prospect of efficiently and effectively hitting the reset switch.
That said, skin cells are better then embryonic cells. We don't just want tissue that are from some undeveloped embryo. We want tissue that is genetically identical to you. We want to take some skin cells, and turn them into beta pancreatic cells and cure your diabetes. That means we need methods of effectively taking cells, resetting them, and setting them down some specific developmental path to becoming what we want. We want those cells because you'll never reject them because they are genetically you.
The reason we needed to look at embryonic stem cells is to figure out how they work and how we could make them. This is better because it's genetically identical to you, but this isn't a sudden magical ad hoc new thing, it's the result of a lot of very good research much of which was in looking at how embryonic stem cells work, and then looking for how to get them to work.
This method is better because it works with a much higher success rate than the previous methods. We've been long since able to make stem cells from fully differentiated cells. And we're moving towards being able to do so very effectively, which many of the current methods lack. It's really hard to make a stem cell line if only one in a million converts, and it's really hard to make a useful stem cell line if it gives you cancer because you jackhammered genes randomly into a genome that already had them. This method gets passed that and makes the process much more streamlined. Making cancer-free stemcell lines.efficiently.
The distance between an embryonic stem cell and a zygote is basically a kick in the pants. Zygotes and blastocyst are developing and keep developing and are going through a series of changes that lead to individuals, but in theory a totopotent stem cell (which this process makes) can be put into a blastocyst and will develop into the organism (if you use a special type of flawed blastocyst that will not fully develop, you can even clone with this process now (though the previous inefficiencies and cancer inserting methods were highly problematic but hopefully that's yesterdays news). And it might well be possible to kick off the full development process within stem cells. In which case, what is the moral implications of destroying a skin cell?
The question isn't about whether they are identical but rather whether they are totipotent and able to make complete organisms. Early tests involved injecting iPSC into a developing blastcyst creating a chimera and demonstrating that the genetic material works. The gold standard however, is cloning with the iPS cells and a few teams managed that by using a blastocyst that would not fully develop and thus one could be confident that all the cells of the fully living breathing mouse were all iPS derived. And thus putting the question to rest.
Which means that they are identical to embryonic stem cells with the exception that they are older with regard to the telemeres.
You think so? You think if we got rid of needing licensing that deer would continue to thrive? The problem is we could, with a free for all hunt fest, drive them to the point of extinction within a decade or so. They wouldn't have time to evolve around it. As is, they seem to be evolving towards humans because the vast majority of us are harmless and the wolves stay away from human places. Seeing deer in and near towns is pretty common place. Heck they even use crosswalks.
Malaria harms mosquitoes too. An earlier attempt of this concept tried to outcompete factor and found that due to the added immunity the mosquito quickly rose to around 90% after a few generations. In theory, all they need to do is release this mosquito and it should have the immunity gene take over the vast majority of the mosquito population in short order and protect a lot of humans as a consequence.
Also, you can't really evolve past a defense if the wall is instantly 50 feet high. You need some leeway like not taking the full doses of antibiotics or a rather large quasi-species of HIV to have something in the works that kind-of works and then play off that. This makes the mosquitoes rather instantly immune and likely couldn't be evolved around, anymore than a deer could evolve a defense for a high powered sniper rifle that appeared on the scene rather suddenly in evolutionary terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Protecting the privacy of some hasbeen jackass who dumped me. Pah.
Well yes and no. While you're entirely right that if the genome were randomly based it would still perhaps end up with things that look like human things because humans select them to look like those things, but it would have a harder time getting there. The real kicker for genome based growing like this as described originally in some of Richard Dawkins books is that that variation can such that the forms it creates and the similar but different forms are restricted such that it'll generally cover the design space for most living critters but not other things. For example, without ever seeing the thing, it's likely impossible to evolve a cork screw, but you could certainly make a very charming bowl. Some forms, due to this method, are seriously restricted and other forms are generally able to be stepped towards and the directions you go are limited by generally by natural growth patters. So you can get to natural patterns much more simply than you could with truly random modifications, but it is still humans selecting to get there so we obvious pick the forms we like the best.
We also select the dogs we like the best too, but we somehow can't select for dogs which have chansaws for arms. Doing things like this, generally gets you a next step which tend to fall into more natural patterns. It's not really that it makes the objects look natural, but hampers the EndlessForms into be a discrete set of forms which transverses a lot of natural looking objects.
Slashdotting, your evolutionary algorithm site == an Extinction Level Event.
In fact I hear they have hype out on Blue Ray in 3D super HD.
The problem isn't the fiber. We have a crap ton of it running everywhere. It's really cheap to run fiber. This technology could make us better able to increase the rates further, but seeing as none of that gets to end users our internet will still suck. We have such a glut of fiber that a 100x communication boost means we'd just use less of the already huge amount of fiber. So rather than using only 2 of the 100 fibers we have, we'll use 1 and send even less light down that series of tubes.
Yeah, but CRTs are a form of vacuum tube. And so are, plasma screen TVs. But, I'm seeing more personal computers rather than fewer. They just happen to be more hand held these days, and more personal. So more personal and still computers.
With 100W of power, the damned plug in device could have it's own GPU, just send it the render data rather than the entire video stream.
I don't think Ben would believe that surrendering your liberty to an oligarchy of corporations to buy a little temporary safety is acceptable either.
While it's certainly true that the first amendment doesn't restrict corporations from violating the same rights the government would not be permitted to do. You have a right to privacy, but corporations can gather any amount of information about you and nobody can legally stop them. This doesn't mean that giving away your freedom to corporations for the sake of temporary safety is suddenly acceptable.
I mean seriously you think Jack-Booted thugs are something we shouldn't worry about if their Jack-boots have corporate logos on them?
I'm well aware of the GIFT qua Penny Arcade and it's likely true. But, to suppose that Ben's quote only works in the context of government is a little naive.
Yeah. Which is exactly the point. Windows XP installs are going to necessarily be older and have been around longer and perhaps have more malware built up over that time. We just have a correlation between XP and Malware. When the real correlation could be length of time OS installed to Malware and XP installed on systems much longer than Windows 7. There's a lot of things that could explain the data that don't necessarily imply one OS is better than the other or that we need to dish out a lot of cash to upgrade. It could just be that the longer you've had it, the more likely you are to have malware.
And TFA says "rootkits" and the only good way to trash some of those is to reinstall anyhow.
The claims above are likely more due to the length of time of the install than anything to do with the OS itself. I've had my current install of windows for like four years. Nobody with Windows 7 can say that about their OS. And a lot of times spyware ridden machines just stay that way. I demand they look at the data from "time since install" and tell me that that isn't just directly correlated and explains away most of the XP dataset.
I didn't have to. The truth is that a 1 MW/h SMES weighs about as much as a horseshoe. To replace 81 kilos of jet fuel. It's *significantly* lighter. And then you get to rip off a lot of parts of the plane as generally useless and just use a much smaller electric engines. And I calculated it for a 747, rather than any other plane. I'm already using much less weight it's fine. The average weight of the fuel is much less than with the jet fuel. And the values I used for jet-fuel were the averages already so it was taken into account.
I even used older SMES coils, giant planes, and didn't calculate for the reductions of weight and reductions of fuel system requirements. If you've seen what electric cars consist of, you'll see why they are basically batteries on wheels. A jet liner with superconductive batteries would be the same but rely on economies of scale for cooling and be equally reduced across the board, none of which I bothered to take into account, because they only help my case.
You could use superconductive storage today and get the right battery-weight. It would actually weigh much less than jet fuel to add enough power to a series of superconductive coils and store the power. A typical coil of SMES in current use can get about a 1 MW/h which is 3600 Megajoules, typically a kilo of jetfuel has something like 44 megajoules of power, so one coil would replace 81 kilos of jet fuel. You'd need like 57 thousand kilos of jetfuel to go a typical 3,500 statute mile flight. Which is 705 superconductive coils, which would weigh less than the jetfuel currently does and would cost less after being built on a per flight basis and could be refueled as quickly as one could give it new electric power.
It might however have clear health effects with that much localized magnetic fields and break a lot of electronic devices, and refrigeration is a giant pain in the ass without having it 30k feet in the air.
Most of us are still left with the dirty taste in our mouths from the years we were stuck with basically just IE5. We'd typically end up from time to time spending time on carving out malware with a spoon and largely because IE would just load them all up without a second thought to any webpage you visited. After Firefox came out it became clear that that wasn't a requirement for browsers much like the use of Ad Block in Firefox made all the internet ads go away some half a decade ago. To go back to IE will always seem like a step back. It would be like if some modifications made dial up internet go as fast as cable. You could swear up and down that it was true, and it might even be true (save the obvious issues with information theory and the max capacity for the analog channel) but it would *still* feel like we were downgrading even if most of us don't have land lines anymore.
You'd figure with a few gigs of SSD even as much as a silly thumbdrive worth you could get read speeds on par with SSD. SSD are crap for massive amounts of data, for now. Though, I think tying your data to die on a thing with moving parts, vs. and SSD gets the worst of both worlds too. You get the speed of SSD without getting rid of the potential to no longer have the silly things crash.
I'd prefer if people just really understood they are two different technologies and you should have one of each. You should have 20 gigs for your OS of SSD and you should have 2 TB of data for whatever else.
Somebody should invent a form of RAID for drives of radically different sizes and read speeds that just works a bit like stripping but as a cache. Make this silly doohicky here pointless.
A: No.
Signed, biology.
The longer answer is do anything you want. I highly recommend spending a lot of time to configure an "administrator" login. Then have it take one to a fake directory with nothing important. Wait until that IP drops off the inevitable giant pile of files to be shared with other people, and then when all the stuff is uploaded. Disable it and keep the files. It seems like pretending to be there for a short while could get you many gigabytes of something. It would be like peer to peer in reverse.
Do I get $25 for parroting the joke?
Seriously, the actual science here is that tears lower testosterone levels in men, which in addition to arousal also control anger and rage. The claim that tears make men less aroused, is rather pointless and a terrible explanation for anything. At best the response would nearly certainly be against uxoricide. So that when men beat their wives, they would at some point stop and not beat the potential future mother of their children to death. Also, in social situtuations where men tend to get out of control and fight, women tend to cry. As such, prevention of violence against one's spouse as well as violence to others would be much more likely to be the clear evolutionary explanation.
Did we get this? No. The media are portraying this in the funny "women tears make men feel less sexy" light, rather than the more apparent men are violent and having some kind of general social cue to make them less violent at times would be good and apparently exists in humans. Violent men... boring. Penis... ahahahhahahaahhaahahah.
We can lose at Go. It's just not computers don't typically beat a person who tries and knows how to play. Here we see that this is the first time in human history that a human has managed to lose at this game. It seems like even random moves should be able to happen into defeating some human some time. Human takes dive against random algorithm.
In 2007, a method of inducing cells into being stem cells was developed out of Japan. It involved injecting 4 genes into a cell and resetting it to an embryonic state. So they basically found a reset switch to turn them into stem cells, but were hitting it with a sledge hammer. From there, other methods of changing the cell with less deadly inserts were invented, then without needing to insert anything by dusting them, but these methods make like one stem cell in hundreds of thousands of cells. It's crap and makes it really really hard to use. This method offers the prospect of efficiently and effectively hitting the reset switch.
That said, skin cells are better then embryonic cells. We don't just want tissue that are from some undeveloped embryo. We want tissue that is genetically identical to you. We want to take some skin cells, and turn them into beta pancreatic cells and cure your diabetes. That means we need methods of effectively taking cells, resetting them, and setting them down some specific developmental path to becoming what we want. We want those cells because you'll never reject them because they are genetically you.
The reason we needed to look at embryonic stem cells is to figure out how they work and how we could make them. This is better because it's genetically identical to you, but this isn't a sudden magical ad hoc new thing, it's the result of a lot of very good research much of which was in looking at how embryonic stem cells work, and then looking for how to get them to work.
This method is better because it works with a much higher success rate than the previous methods. We've been long since able to make stem cells from fully differentiated cells. And we're moving towards being able to do so very effectively, which many of the current methods lack. It's really hard to make a stem cell line if only one in a million converts, and it's really hard to make a useful stem cell line if it gives you cancer because you jackhammered genes randomly into a genome that already had them. This method gets passed that and makes the process much more streamlined. Making cancer-free stemcell lines.efficiently.
The distance between an embryonic stem cell and a zygote is basically a kick in the pants. Zygotes and blastocyst are developing and keep developing and are going through a series of changes that lead to individuals, but in theory a totopotent stem cell (which this process makes) can be put into a blastocyst and will develop into the organism (if you use a special type of flawed blastocyst that will not fully develop, you can even clone with this process now (though the previous inefficiencies and cancer inserting methods were highly problematic but hopefully that's yesterdays news). And it might well be possible to kick off the full development process within stem cells. In which case, what is the moral implications of destroying a skin cell?
The question isn't about whether they are identical but rather whether they are totipotent and able to make complete organisms. Early tests involved injecting iPSC into a developing blastcyst creating a chimera and demonstrating that the genetic material works. The gold standard however, is cloning with the iPS cells and a few teams managed that by using a blastocyst that would not fully develop and thus one could be confident that all the cells of the fully living breathing mouse were all iPS derived. And thus putting the question to rest.
Which means that they are identical to embryonic stem cells with the exception that they are older with regard to the telemeres.
nt.
You think so? You think if we got rid of needing licensing that deer would continue to thrive? The problem is we could, with a free for all hunt fest, drive them to the point of extinction within a decade or so. They wouldn't have time to evolve around it. As is, they seem to be evolving towards humans because the vast majority of us are harmless and the wolves stay away from human places. Seeing deer in and near towns is pretty common place. Heck they even use crosswalks.
Malaria harms mosquitoes too. An earlier attempt of this concept tried to outcompete factor and found that due to the added immunity the mosquito quickly rose to around 90% after a few generations. In theory, all they need to do is release this mosquito and it should have the immunity gene take over the vast majority of the mosquito population in short order and protect a lot of humans as a consequence.
Also, you can't really evolve past a defense if the wall is instantly 50 feet high. You need some leeway like not taking the full doses of antibiotics or a rather large quasi-species of HIV to have something in the works that kind-of works and then play off that. This makes the mosquitoes rather instantly immune and likely couldn't be evolved around, anymore than a deer could evolve a defense for a high powered sniper rifle that appeared on the scene rather suddenly in evolutionary terms.