Nope. He has shown that that one configuration requires exotic matter. He hasn't proved that in the general case as that's incredibly hard to do it - the equations of the general relativity do not impose a lot of boundary conditions.
Moreover, even the Alcubierre drive might be possible with only positive matter if one uses a dynamic metric. I've seen a paper about it a few years ago, but I can't find it.
There are no proofs that it's impossible to create a warp drive without exotic matter. It's just that we know several configurations of exotic matter that can produce warp drives.
There were experiments to do exactly this (on mice, of course). We can't remove ALL the junk DNA (it's a complicated task), but they've removed around 2% of junk DNA without any visible effects.
Breaking the ice is only a half of the problem. You also need to push the ice _away_ from your ship, and that's where the mass and shallow angles of ice breakers come handy. Quite a few ships in Arctic were _crushed_ by ice.
Russia is the only country in the world with a significant population on the Arctic-facing shores (Canada and Norway are distant runner ups), so it has a rather rich history of building icebreakers.
Well, we can detect which parts of DNA are transcribed and/or affect transcription. There are multiple ways to do that - we might miss some fine details, but we're pretty sure we're not missing any elephants in the room.
We also know how LINEs and SINEs work on molecular level (i.e. how they propagate within the genome) and we've discovered several mechanisms that inhibit their propagation.
Well, my family traveled from Astana (then Tselinograd) to Moscow by airplane. There were no passport checks at all. We moved a lot between cities in the USSR as well. No passport checks, again.
The joke is, in the USSR you didn't have to carry internal passport (which is just a form of country-wide standardized ID) anywhere. You could fly on airplanes or ride trains without showing ANY form of ID.
Actually, known useless DNA already adds up to the majority (>66%) of the genome. It includes: LTRs (8%), LINEs (17%), SINEs (11%) - that's 45% of known 100% junk. Then we have around 8% of pure viral DNA in our genome (i.e. with remnants of genes encoding viral proteins) - that's already over 50%. And then there are portions of genome with known indirect functions but that don't code anything (padding between proteins, introns, telomeres, etc). In short, over 66% of DNA is known to have no direct functionality.
There was a few surprising discoveries, sure. RNA enzymes were a real shock, for example. All in all, about just about 15-20% of human DNA now has 'putative junk' status that might be changed later with new discoveries.
Nope. We HAVE confirmed it. Like, we've analyzed them it turns out that about 33% of the genome consists of simple repeating sequences (SINEs and LINEs). Yep, your genome consists mostly of copy&pasted crap. Oh, then there are about 8% of viral remains and lots of useless LTRs.
They serve no function at all and can be safely deleted without any effect on viability. In fact, pufferfish genome has almost none of them and it has no discernible effect at all. On the converse, plants have in general much more repeated fragments (with great variation between species) and also no discernible effects on their cell viability. But what do I know? After all, my company just produces a novel sequencing method, so it's not like I know what I'm speaking about.
No, situation is more complicated. Myriad has patented the preparation of the affected gene and then detection of mutations. So if you isolate the BRCA1/2 genes and then do testing on them, you'll be likely infringing Myriad's patent.
However, if you sequence/genotype your genome and then check it for BRCA mutations then you're OK and do not infringe on Myriad's patent. That has been affirmed by the court decision (the very same one that upheld the patent claims on BRCA gene isolation process), because the process of aligning and analyzing sequences is not transformative and thus not patent eligible. So yeah, it's a mess, but not as bad as lots of news sources present it.
SOME non-coding DNA has useful functions. Turns out, there's quite a few "RNA enzymes" there and gene expression regulators. They are much more difficult to find then simple genes, because genes generally have predictable "headers". However, most of non-coding is still junk.
Actually, most molecular biologists KNOW that the majority of _eukaryotic_ DNA has no function. It's junk, deal with it. Fairly small parts of non-coding DNA perform useful functions: gene expression regulation (less than 0.1% of total DNA), mechanic 'handles' for cell replication machinery (about 5% of DNA), various RNA enzymes (less than 1%), etc. But most of it is still junk.
Uhm, no. "Junk" DNA is really junk. It consists of repeating regions, transposons, inactive and decaying retroviruses, etc. It has no direct functions, and its indirect usability is questionable. For example, pufferfish has almost no junk DNA while some plants (corn, for example) have lots of it without any visible effects on mutation rates or cell viability.
The company holds a patent on a specific method of testing for BRCA1/BRCA2 genes. You are free to use any other method, not infringing on their patent. The problem is that the method they've patented is fairly generic, it's possible to work around it, but not cheaply.
I already have a little thingie called 'automatic registrator' in my car - that's a small camera that continuously makes a record of anything that happens on the road. It helps to establish innocence in case of an accident.
I'm also OK with sharing all of my information (there are several embarrassing things there, yeah) if everyone else also does it. Anyway, Google already has quite a bit of it.
With zero privacy you could be turned down for a job because you use the wrong brand of toothpaste, or because you a black cat crossed your path that morning and you would bring bad luck to the company (of course that wouldn't be the official reason).
So make sure that such behavior is illegal. By supporting, say, worker unions or tougher regulations.
Traffic is safer because of tougher regulation - drunk driving used to be socially acceptable not 30 years ago and because of better "passive" safety systems (ensuring that small mistakes would not be fatal).
You talk like machines are infallible. They're not. They're designed and programmed by humans after all.
Yup. And that means that the improvements we make in their programming would be cumulative over time. While each and every human driver has to learn from scratch.
Nope. We have the same old boring human drivers that are even more unsafe than in the past. And drivers were ALWAYS the weakest point. Always.
And no, noise won't help you (there's plenty of it already). The only real thing that can help is to human completely out of the control loop and/or add systems to compensate for inevitable human errors.
Slashdot Mirror
That omission should have been fixed long ago. Assholes like you really disturb hundreds of people.
And actually there ARE laws in most of the states regulating the noise. If your vehicle is too noisy then it can't be certified.
It's too high, a capsule from ISS won't be able to reach it.
That entirely depends on audience he's speaking to.
"Warp drive" in this case is a region of space that's moving faster-than-light in some frame of reference.
Nope. He has shown that that one configuration requires exotic matter. He hasn't proved that in the general case as that's incredibly hard to do it - the equations of the general relativity do not impose a lot of boundary conditions.
Moreover, even the Alcubierre drive might be possible with only positive matter if one uses a dynamic metric. I've seen a paper about it a few years ago, but I can't find it.
There are no proofs that it's impossible to create a warp drive without exotic matter. It's just that we know several configurations of exotic matter that can produce warp drives.
There were experiments to do exactly this (on mice, of course). We can't remove ALL the junk DNA (it's a complicated task), but they've removed around 2% of junk DNA without any visible effects.
Technically, it's the Arctic Ocean (consisting of numerous seas).
Breaking the ice is only a half of the problem. You also need to push the ice _away_ from your ship, and that's where the mass and shallow angles of ice breakers come handy. Quite a few ships in Arctic were _crushed_ by ice.
Russia is the only country in the world with a significant population on the Arctic-facing shores (Canada and Norway are distant runner ups), so it has a rather rich history of building icebreakers.
For more than 30 days, except for stays associated with vacation and/or medical needs.
Well, we can detect which parts of DNA are transcribed and/or affect transcription. There are multiple ways to do that - we might miss some fine details, but we're pretty sure we're not missing any elephants in the room.
We also know how LINEs and SINEs work on molecular level (i.e. how they propagate within the genome) and we've discovered several mechanisms that inhibit their propagation.
Well, my family traveled from Astana (then Tselinograd) to Moscow by airplane. There were no passport checks at all. We moved a lot between cities in the USSR as well. No passport checks, again.
The joke is, in the USSR you didn't have to carry internal passport (which is just a form of country-wide standardized ID) anywhere. You could fly on airplanes or ride trains without showing ANY form of ID.
Actually, known useless DNA already adds up to the majority (>66%) of the genome. It includes: LTRs (8%), LINEs (17%), SINEs (11%) - that's 45% of known 100% junk. Then we have around 8% of pure viral DNA in our genome (i.e. with remnants of genes encoding viral proteins) - that's already over 50%. And then there are portions of genome with known indirect functions but that don't code anything (padding between proteins, introns, telomeres, etc). In short, over 66% of DNA is known to have no direct functionality.
There was a few surprising discoveries, sure. RNA enzymes were a real shock, for example. All in all, about just about 15-20% of human DNA now has 'putative junk' status that might be changed later with new discoveries.
Nope. We HAVE confirmed it. Like, we've analyzed them it turns out that about 33% of the genome consists of simple repeating sequences (SINEs and LINEs). Yep, your genome consists mostly of copy&pasted crap. Oh, then there are about 8% of viral remains and lots of useless LTRs.
They serve no function at all and can be safely deleted without any effect on viability. In fact, pufferfish genome has almost none of them and it has no discernible effect at all. On the converse, plants have in general much more repeated fragments (with great variation between species) and also no discernible effects on their cell viability. But what do I know? After all, my company just produces a novel sequencing method, so it's not like I know what I'm speaking about.
No, situation is more complicated. Myriad has patented the preparation of the affected gene and then detection of mutations. So if you isolate the BRCA1/2 genes and then do testing on them, you'll be likely infringing Myriad's patent.
However, if you sequence/genotype your genome and then check it for BRCA mutations then you're OK and do not infringe on Myriad's patent. That has been affirmed by the court decision (the very same one that upheld the patent claims on BRCA gene isolation process), because the process of aligning and analyzing sequences is not transformative and thus not patent eligible. So yeah, it's a mess, but not as bad as lots of news sources present it.
SOME non-coding DNA has useful functions. Turns out, there's quite a few "RNA enzymes" there and gene expression regulators. They are much more difficult to find then simple genes, because genes generally have predictable "headers". However, most of non-coding is still junk.
Actually, most molecular biologists KNOW that the majority of _eukaryotic_ DNA has no function. It's junk, deal with it. Fairly small parts of non-coding DNA perform useful functions: gene expression regulation (less than 0.1% of total DNA), mechanic 'handles' for cell replication machinery (about 5% of DNA), various RNA enzymes (less than 1%), etc. But most of it is still junk.
Uhm, no. "Junk" DNA is really junk. It consists of repeating regions, transposons, inactive and decaying retroviruses, etc. It has no direct functions, and its indirect usability is questionable. For example, pufferfish has almost no junk DNA while some plants (corn, for example) have lots of it without any visible effects on mutation rates or cell viability.
Regulatory regions are small. Together they are probably less than 0.5% of the whole DNA, while _confirmed_ junk is about 66% of the DNA.
The company holds a patent on a specific method of testing for BRCA1/BRCA2 genes. You are free to use any other method, not infringing on their patent. The problem is that the method they've patented is fairly generic, it's possible to work around it, but not cheaply.
I already have a little thingie called 'automatic registrator' in my car - that's a small camera that continuously makes a record of anything that happens on the road. It helps to establish innocence in case of an accident.
I'm also OK with sharing all of my information (there are several embarrassing things there, yeah) if everyone else also does it. Anyway, Google already has quite a bit of it.
With zero privacy you could be turned down for a job because you use the wrong brand of toothpaste, or because you a black cat crossed your path that morning and you would bring bad luck to the company (of course that wouldn't be the official reason).
So make sure that such behavior is illegal. By supporting, say, worker unions or tougher regulations.
You talk like machines are infallible. They're not. They're designed and programmed by humans after all.
Yup. And that means that the improvements we make in their programming would be cumulative over time. While each and every human driver has to learn from scratch.
Nope. We have the same old boring human drivers that are even more unsafe than in the past. And drivers were ALWAYS the weakest point. Always.
And no, noise won't help you (there's plenty of it already). The only real thing that can help is to human completely out of the control loop and/or add systems to compensate for inevitable human errors.