How many Slashdot articles will it take before people are not that impressed with 3D? And isn't it technically incorrect? Shouldn't it be 4D? Real Life! Now in IMAX!!! Please, someone post a article about something more earth-shattering than the conquering of a pesky dimension. It's not like it wasn't in 3D before, it's just a misuse of the language. They should have wrote that they conquered the problem of cell depth, not 3D. Anything but the totally played out 3D.
Everyone (read: 100%) knows that 47.6 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. I mean, sheesh, I haven't had any spyware, virus, trojan, malware, etc on my machine for about six months now. I'm a heavy user and so are my friends. I think it's a testament to just how stupid people are. Oops! I almost said 'americans'. Then I would have been flagged for trolling.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm. I am actually working on the problem of protein folding by solving Ramsey problems in Colored-Graph Theory. Look it up. Thanks for caring enough for the explaination though. It was very nice. Thanks.
I used to get eWeek until I realized that the only people that get eWeek are losers who wish they were CEO's with unlimited power. Then I also realized that eWeek was a fertile ground for hacking real (conceited) CEO's computers. I suspect that's what is happening here. Go hackers!
If DNA twists... is it 3D or 2D? I'm confused. At what point in 'nano-speak' does something go from 2D to 3D? Okay, molecules on a plane -- 2D. Molecules by themselves -- 3D. It all sounds so... jargoned.
Real Life! Now in 3D!!!
Mustard gas isn't a weapon of mass destruction. Killing a lot of people isn't destruction. There is only one weapon of mass destruction, and the whole term WMD is a stupid political way of vaguely saying nuclear bomb. Biological weapons aren't WMD's... yet. Most delivery methods are insufficient and do not cause wide-spread damage. Death is not destruction. Get a dictionary.
In an attempt to strengthen their position, NCR employees released a statement to the press that if negotiations take too long, customers may be subject to a devastating year 2007 bug. One technician explained in an interview, "We never saw our clients hardware lasting that long without constant updates and visits by technicians. Who knows what will happen in a few months? Something could break and no one will be able to fix it, 'cause we're the only technicians on the planet that understand the year 2007 bug. I mean hey, we created the bug after hiring the designers of the storm leevees in New Orleans. Who could have anticipated this?" Aussies have responded by emptying store shelves of duct tape and bottled water.
What? Look, you, like most people on Slashdot are completely missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF GOOGLE IS WRONG!!! They have enough money to win by bankrupting the opposition. This is only found out after certain motions are decided by the judge and the direction of the case is clear to both sides. It's not a matter of winning or losing, but of mootness. The issue is moot if Google can show that changing their practices and offering ANY REASONABLE FORM of recompensation has occurred before a final ruling. This puts the plantiffs in the defensive position of trying to prove that the problem still exists and the recompensation is neither reasonable or adequate. THIS IS THE ISSUE THEY COULD LOSE and is how Google is using the OBVIOUS FACT that they are WRONG. When faced with Google's strong position in this regard, it is clear what I was saying about this being a matter of economics. If the plantiffs decided to take this issue all the way to the mat, and they lose, they are stuck with the legal fees, NOT GOOGLE. Geez, it's not like it's that hard to understand the way the world works... it's all around you everyday.
Basically it's an economics problem that the brilliant people at Google have realized. They could win the suit, but only after spending WAY too much on lawyer fees. Of course both sides would agree to a settlement by the defendant (more money, less work for the lawyers on both sides). This is also an opportunity that can't be passed by a defendant who realizes that their case might not have enough to overcome the amount of money Google can throw at a legal defense (which they could, but again, it's an issue of economics). This problem is clear in Google's blog on the subject:
For the finance folks out there wondering how we'll account for this, we can say that the attorneys' fees (which will be determined by the judge) will be charged as an expense, most likely in the first quarter, once the amount is determined. The credits will be recorded as a reduction to revenue in periods in which they are redeemed.
Anyone who is acting like Google isn't paying enough doesn't understand either economics or the american legal system (notice I didn't say justice system). They may understand the difference between right and wrong (and I don't think Google is right), but they fail to understand "the way things work in the real world."
Back when I worked at Apple and they were splitting the OS X project into multiple releases spread out over many years... The Apple AIX team was busy hacking Linux to run on the Mac hardware. So, it's not like they haven't don't similar actions in the past. But it makes you wonder if Maxxus is an ex-Apple/Intel-crossover programmer that was so pervasive back in '96. I know that most of the core code hasn't changed in the ten years it's been around.
Is this going to be the Windows ME between silicon and quantum computing? I hope not. I write ECAD software that will produce around 160 million a year in the current market. Designing chips is still a matter of heat and timing control, and until I get a new model to work with, I can't even say whether this will kill a HUGE market. Goodbye Magma, Synopsys, etc.
Shoot... people are still the weakest link in any security system involving semi-intelligent primates. Even if TFA is talking about merely ID'ing someone accurately, there will always be a system to circumvent "the system."
Yeah... so what? College is about networking with soon-to-be successful people who might give you a leg up in your career choice. Sometimes, for some people, it's about being a research assistant on some cutting edge technology. Otherwise it's a glorified repository of information like... like a library! Who would have thought! I have an honorary degree in CS from Stanford. Rather than waste my time and money at the school, I interacted off campus with the researchers I was interested in, submitted my own paper to be published, and... ahem... that was that. I once heard a comedian say that if you are an economics major, you should quit after your first class (with the knowledge that college is a horrible investment of that amount of money). Local TV broadcasts of local college classes has been around (AND FREE!) for years all over the world. Some of these topics remind me of the bland herd mentality that kept me at a distance from "conditioned" students. Flagging this as flamebait would be like a screeching pod-person.
Memorable Quotes from Flatliners (1990) Nelson Wright: Hello, I'm nice, he's nice, we're both fucking lunatics. Can I come in, please? David Labraccio: He said... he said it wasn't such a good day to die. Nelson Wright: Thank you. Nelson Wright: Today is a good day to die Nelson Wright: You bring the equipment, I'll bring my balls. Joe Hurley: I don't know. Not thinking about the past or the future. I don't know it's difficult to explain, maybe impossible. David Labraccio: Yeah, dying is quite that way. Randy Steckle: I did not come to medical school to murder my class mates no matter how deranged they might be. Nelson Wright: Everything matters, everything we do matters. Nelson Wright: Somehow we've brought our sins back physically. And they're pissed. Randy Steckle: Good thing I didn't flatline. My 350-pound babysitter would be chasing me for the half-eaten pastrami sandwich I stole from her. Nelson Wright: C'mon, Billy Mahoney. C'mon... Gimme your best shot. I dare ya. I fuckin' dare ya. Nelson Wright: Wake up you little shit, you got company! Rachel: See you soon. Nelson Wright: Philosophy failed. Religion failed. Now it's time for medical science to try. David Labraccio: You should have told us, Nelson. Nelson Wright: You wouldn't have done it. David Labraccio: At least we would've had a choice!!! David Labraccio: [screaming at a religious stained-glass portrait] I'm sorry.. we *trespassed* on your... *fucking* territory. God! I'm *sorry*!
How they fold is necessary knowledge to modify a protein. You don't need to know a modified protein's ultimate function BEFORE you make and test it. The testing would tell you that. But the structure IS the function when it comes to proteins, based on how they work. By coupling with complementary receptors, the proteins express themselves many different ways. This is thought to happen with some proteins in the middle of completely folding, thus expressing two separate functions.
Wow, structure, function... everyone has posted good comments. But isn't the real problem understanding how proteins FOLD! We know the make-up of many proteins, but do not understand HOW they work because it is tied up in exactly how they fold. This new method does not address this issue. Scientist are trying to understand how proteins work based on their shape AFTER they have folded. If we could figure out HOW they fold, we wouldn't have to examine each one individually. We could predict the final shape and function based on the knowledge of we have of the protein making intstructions and HOW THEY FOLD. Please people, assume everyone is an idiot before you go debate meaningless crap like how flat the earth is.
Sometimes I think/. readers have little imagination. Magnetic applications in everyday life are entirely different from the maglev application. From field restricted mag-pulses, to rails to reduce friction and noise (I know that would make me more comfortable), it is and always has been possible to upgrade a horribly old technology. Pully anyone? So instead of lamenting about reinventing the wheel, you should try and discover if your imagination can accurately describe *HOW* the maglev will be implemented.
MEDIA CONTACT: Jonathan Sherwood (585) 273-4726, jonathan.sherwood@rochester.edu January 6, 2006 Phase Change in Fluids Finally Simulated After Decades of Effort Eldred Chimowitz and Yonathan Shapir
Everyone knows what happens to water when it boils--everyone, that is, except computers. Modeling the transformation process of matter moving from one phase to another, such as from liquid to gas, has been all but impossible near the critical point. This is due to the increasingly complex way molecules behave as they approach the change from one phase to another. Researchers at the University of Rochester, however, have now created a mathematical model that will allow scientists to simulate and understand phase changes, which could have an impact on everything from decaffeinating coffee to improving fuel cell efficiency in automobiles of the future. The findings have been published in Physical Review Letters.
"This problem has baffled scientists for decades," says Yonathan Shapir, professor of physics and chemical engineering at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. "This is the first time a computer program could simulate a phase transition because the computers would always bog down at what's known as the 'critical slowdown.' We figured out a way to perform a kind of end-run around that critical point slowdown and the results allow us to calculate certain critical point properties for the first time."
"Critical slowdown" is a phenomenon that happens as matter moves from one phase to another near the critical point. As molecules in a gas, for instance, are cooled, they lose some of their motion, but are still moving around and bumping into each other. As the temperature drops to where the gas will change into a liquid, the molecules' motion becomes correlated, or connected, across larger and larger distances. That correlation is a bit like deciding where to go to dinner--quick and easy with two people, but takes forever for a group of 20 to take action. The broadening correlation dramatically increases the time it takes for the gas to reach an overall equilibrium, and that directly leads to an increase in computing time required, approaching infinity and bogging down as the gas crosses the point of phase change.
To illustrate the effect, imagine a perfectly pure and still lake. If you drop a pebble into this lake, its ripples would spread outward, dissipating until the lake had returned to a calm equilibrium again. But, if you were to take this impossibly perfect lake just barely above the critical point and drop your pebble, the ripples would remain as ripples much longer--likely bouncing off the distant shores. This imaginary lake would take seemingly forever to return to its calm equilibrium again.
The research team of Shapir, Eldred Chimowitz, professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering, and physics graduate student Subhranil De created a novel approach to tackle the phase-change process. They devised a computational model consisting of two separate reservoirs of fluid at equilibrium and near the critical point threshold. One reservoir was slightly more pressurized than its neighbor. The reservoirs were opened to each other and the pressure difference caused the fluids to mix. The team let the simulation run until the entire system reached thermodynamic equilibrium. By watching the rate that equilibrium returned, the team was able to calculate the behavior at the critical point. Their simulation findings match predictions and experimental results, including very precise measurements performed in microgravity on the Space Shuttle.
"In principle, it's a difficult calculation," says Chimowitz. "Fluid systems require a different class of models than the common lattice models used by researchers who have studied dynamic critical behavior. These different classes give rise to different dynamic critical exponents and we found them, for the first time, in real fluid systems."
The best known examples of phase changes are perhaps water to ice and
Slashdot Mirror
How many Slashdot articles will it take before people are not that impressed with 3D? And isn't it technically incorrect? Shouldn't it be 4D? Real Life! Now in IMAX!!! Please, someone post a article about something more earth-shattering than the conquering of a pesky dimension. It's not like it wasn't in 3D before, it's just a misuse of the language. They should have wrote that they conquered the problem of cell depth, not 3D. Anything but the totally played out 3D.
Everyone (read: 100%) knows that 47.6 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. I mean, sheesh, I haven't had any spyware, virus, trojan, malware, etc on my machine for about six months now. I'm a heavy user and so are my friends. I think it's a testament to just how stupid people are. Oops! I almost said 'americans'. Then I would have been flagged for trolling.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm. I am actually working on the problem of protein folding by solving Ramsey problems in Colored-Graph Theory. Look it up. Thanks for caring enough for the explaination though. It was very nice. Thanks.
I used to get eWeek until I realized that the only people that get eWeek are losers who wish they were CEO's with unlimited power. Then I also realized that eWeek was a fertile ground for hacking real (conceited) CEO's computers. I suspect that's what is happening here. Go hackers!
If DNA twists... is it 3D or 2D? I'm confused. At what point in 'nano-speak' does something go from 2D to 3D? Okay, molecules on a plane -- 2D. Molecules by themselves -- 3D. It all sounds so... jargoned. Real Life! Now in 3D!!!
Mustard gas isn't a weapon of mass destruction. Killing a lot of people isn't destruction. There is only one weapon of mass destruction, and the whole term WMD is a stupid political way of vaguely saying nuclear bomb. Biological weapons aren't WMD's... yet. Most delivery methods are insufficient and do not cause wide-spread damage. Death is not destruction. Get a dictionary.
In an attempt to strengthen their position, NCR employees released a statement to the press that if negotiations take too long, customers may be subject to a devastating year 2007 bug. One technician explained in an interview, "We never saw our clients hardware lasting that long without constant updates and visits by technicians. Who knows what will happen in a few months? Something could break and no one will be able to fix it, 'cause we're the only technicians on the planet that understand the year 2007 bug. I mean hey, we created the bug after hiring the designers of the storm leevees in New Orleans. Who could have anticipated this?" Aussies have responded by emptying store shelves of duct tape and bottled water.
What? Look, you, like most people on Slashdot are completely missing the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF GOOGLE IS WRONG!!! They have enough money to win by bankrupting the opposition. This is only found out after certain motions are decided by the judge and the direction of the case is clear to both sides. It's not a matter of winning or losing, but of mootness. The issue is moot if Google can show that changing their practices and offering ANY REASONABLE FORM of recompensation has occurred before a final ruling. This puts the plantiffs in the defensive position of trying to prove that the problem still exists and the recompensation is neither reasonable or adequate. THIS IS THE ISSUE THEY COULD LOSE and is how Google is using the OBVIOUS FACT that they are WRONG. When faced with Google's strong position in this regard, it is clear what I was saying about this being a matter of economics. If the plantiffs decided to take this issue all the way to the mat, and they lose, they are stuck with the legal fees, NOT GOOGLE. Geez, it's not like it's that hard to understand the way the world works... it's all around you everyday.
I wonder how much the US millitary could have saved using Google Earth to search for WMD test craters in Iraq...
Basically it's an economics problem that the brilliant people at Google have realized. They could win the suit, but only after spending WAY too much on lawyer fees. Of course both sides would agree to a settlement by the defendant (more money, less work for the lawyers on both sides). This is also an opportunity that can't be passed by a defendant who realizes that their case might not have enough to overcome the amount of money Google can throw at a legal defense (which they could, but again, it's an issue of economics). This problem is clear in Google's blog on the subject:
For the finance folks out there wondering how we'll account for this, we can say that the attorneys' fees (which will be determined by the judge) will be charged as an expense, most likely in the first quarter, once the amount is determined. The credits will be recorded as a reduction to revenue in periods in which they are redeemed.
Anyone who is acting like Google isn't paying enough doesn't understand either economics or the american legal system (notice I didn't say justice system). They may understand the difference between right and wrong (and I don't think Google is right), but they fail to understand "the way things work in the real world."
We've already proven that tinfoil hats won't help the sharks fight the government mind control radio waves. They're totally screwed. Poor sharks.
Although, I wonder if shark bite victims can sue the government? Huh, interesting.
Back when I worked at Apple and they were splitting the OS X project into multiple releases spread out over many years... The Apple AIX team was busy hacking Linux to run on the Mac hardware. So, it's not like they haven't don't similar actions in the past. But it makes you wonder if Maxxus is an ex-Apple/Intel-crossover programmer that was so pervasive back in '96. I know that most of the core code hasn't changed in the ten years it's been around.
Is this going to be the Windows ME between silicon and quantum computing? I hope not. I write ECAD software that will produce around 160 million a year in the current market. Designing chips is still a matter of heat and timing control, and until I get a new model to work with, I can't even say whether this will kill a HUGE market. Goodbye Magma, Synopsys, etc.
"It's absolutely original; no one has ever seen this before at all," says Edvard Moser.
Except for the rats, of course.
Shoot... people are still the weakest link in any security system involving semi-intelligent primates. Even if TFA is talking about merely ID'ing someone accurately, there will always be a system to circumvent "the system."
No one knows the pain of fact checking being too costly as those wrongly convicted of crimes.
Yeah... so what? College is about networking with soon-to-be successful people who might give you a leg up in your career choice. Sometimes, for some people, it's about being a research assistant on some cutting edge technology. Otherwise it's a glorified repository of information like... like a library! Who would have thought! I have an honorary degree in CS from Stanford. Rather than waste my time and money at the school, I interacted off campus with the researchers I was interested in, submitted my own paper to be published, and... ahem... that was that. I once heard a comedian say that if you are an economics major, you should quit after your first class (with the knowledge that college is a horrible investment of that amount of money). Local TV broadcasts of local college classes has been around (AND FREE!) for years all over the world. Some of these topics remind me of the bland herd mentality that kept me at a distance from "conditioned" students. Flagging this as flamebait would be like a screeching pod-person.
I watched Orgasmo like, five times! I know what DVDA is... but what is DRM? --shudders--
I have invented a new method of finding patent mistakes which is more accurate and shows that 100% of patents have mistakes.
Memorable Quotes from ... he said it wasn't such a good day to die.
Flatliners (1990)
Nelson Wright: Hello, I'm nice, he's nice, we're both fucking lunatics. Can I come in, please?
David Labraccio: He said
Nelson Wright: Thank you.
Nelson Wright: Today is a good day to die
Nelson Wright: You bring the equipment, I'll bring my balls.
Joe Hurley: I don't know. Not thinking about the past or the future. I don't know it's difficult to explain, maybe impossible.
David Labraccio: Yeah, dying is quite that way.
Randy Steckle: I did not come to medical school to murder my class mates no matter how deranged they might be.
Nelson Wright: Everything matters, everything we do matters.
Nelson Wright: Somehow we've brought our sins back physically. And they're pissed.
Randy Steckle: Good thing I didn't flatline. My 350-pound babysitter would be chasing me for the half-eaten pastrami sandwich I stole from her.
Nelson Wright: C'mon, Billy Mahoney. C'mon... Gimme your best shot. I dare ya. I fuckin' dare ya.
Nelson Wright: Wake up you little shit, you got company!
Rachel: See you soon.
Nelson Wright: Philosophy failed. Religion failed. Now it's time for medical science to try.
David Labraccio: You should have told us, Nelson.
Nelson Wright: You wouldn't have done it.
David Labraccio: At least we would've had a choice!!!
David Labraccio: [screaming at a religious stained-glass portrait] I'm sorry.. we *trespassed* on your... *fucking* territory. God! I'm *sorry*!
Yup, that's me. Been working toward that for ten years now. No joke.
How they fold is necessary knowledge to modify a protein. You don't need to know a modified protein's ultimate function BEFORE you make and test it. The testing would tell you that. But the structure IS the function when it comes to proteins, based on how they work. By coupling with complementary receptors, the proteins express themselves many different ways. This is thought to happen with some proteins in the middle of completely folding, thus expressing two separate functions.
Wow, structure, function... everyone has posted good comments. But isn't the real problem understanding how proteins FOLD! We know the make-up of many proteins, but do not understand HOW they work because it is tied up in exactly how they fold. This new method does not address this issue. Scientist are trying to understand how proteins work based on their shape AFTER they have folded. If we could figure out HOW they fold, we wouldn't have to examine each one individually. We could predict the final shape and function based on the knowledge of we have of the protein making intstructions and HOW THEY FOLD. Please people, assume everyone is an idiot before you go debate meaningless crap like how flat the earth is.
Sometimes I think /. readers have little imagination. Magnetic applications in everyday life are entirely different from the maglev application. From field restricted mag-pulses, to rails to reduce friction and noise (I know that would make me more comfortable), it is and always has been possible to upgrade a horribly old technology. Pully anyone? So instead of lamenting about reinventing the wheel, you should try and discover if your imagination can accurately describe *HOW* the maglev will be implemented.
MEDIA CONTACT: Jonathan Sherwood (585) 273-4726, jonathan.sherwood@rochester.edu
January 6, 2006
Phase Change in Fluids Finally Simulated After Decades of Effort
Eldred Chimowitz and Yonathan Shapir
Everyone knows what happens to water when it boils--everyone, that is, except computers. Modeling the transformation process of matter moving from one phase to another, such as from liquid to gas, has been all but impossible near the critical point. This is due to the increasingly complex way molecules behave as they approach the change from one phase to another. Researchers at the University of Rochester, however, have now created a mathematical model that will allow scientists to simulate and understand phase changes, which could have an impact on everything from decaffeinating coffee to improving fuel cell efficiency in automobiles of the future. The findings have been published in Physical Review Letters.
"This problem has baffled scientists for decades," says Yonathan Shapir, professor of physics and chemical engineering at the University of Rochester, and co-author of the paper. "This is the first time a computer program could simulate a phase transition because the computers would always bog down at what's known as the 'critical slowdown.' We figured out a way to perform a kind of end-run around that critical point slowdown and the results allow us to calculate certain critical point properties for the first time."
"Critical slowdown" is a phenomenon that happens as matter moves from one phase to another near the critical point. As molecules in a gas, for instance, are cooled, they lose some of their motion, but are still moving around and bumping into each other. As the temperature drops to where the gas will change into a liquid, the molecules' motion becomes correlated, or connected, across larger and larger distances. That correlation is a bit like deciding where to go to dinner--quick and easy with two people, but takes forever for a group of 20 to take action. The broadening correlation dramatically increases the time it takes for the gas to reach an overall equilibrium, and that directly leads to an increase in computing time required, approaching infinity and bogging down as the gas crosses the point of phase change.
To illustrate the effect, imagine a perfectly pure and still lake. If you drop a pebble into this lake, its ripples would spread outward, dissipating until the lake had returned to a calm equilibrium again. But, if you were to take this impossibly perfect lake just barely above the critical point and drop your pebble, the ripples would remain as ripples much longer--likely bouncing off the distant shores. This imaginary lake would take seemingly forever to return to its calm equilibrium again.
The research team of Shapir, Eldred Chimowitz, professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering, and physics graduate student Subhranil De created a novel approach to tackle the phase-change process. They devised a computational model consisting of two separate reservoirs of fluid at equilibrium and near the critical point threshold. One reservoir was slightly more pressurized than its neighbor. The reservoirs were opened to each other and the pressure difference caused the fluids to mix. The team let the simulation run until the entire system reached thermodynamic equilibrium. By watching the rate that equilibrium returned, the team was able to calculate the behavior at the critical point. Their simulation findings match predictions and experimental results, including very precise measurements performed in microgravity on the Space Shuttle.
"In principle, it's a difficult calculation," says Chimowitz. "Fluid systems require a different class of models than the common lattice models used by researchers who have studied dynamic critical behavior. These different classes give rise to different dynamic critical exponents and we found them, for the first time, in real fluid systems."
The best known examples of phase changes are perhaps water to ice and