Its my understanding the tape hasn't been used in new flight recorders for quite some time. I think they're all solid state now.
Yeh, I'll get off your lawn.
Still, the summary is atrocious buzz-word bingo. The article is better written but the 'glass box' basically amounts to broadcasting the black box data on the go. Hardly a revolutionary idea, with a sugar coating. If it doesn't exist currently there is probably a reason - technical (bandwidth requirements) or otherwise (cost) - that is not outweighed by the proposed benefits. Rather than address this we get hand waving and straw man rambles about union conspiracies.
Can someone explain why we don't just wait until it adds up to a whole day before adding the 'leap'? We're set up to deal with leap years as it is, would it not be less hassle to deal with similar adjustments (albeit less frequent or regular) than dropping extra seconds in more often?
It's not quite so straightforward. Not all viruses use a cellular-injection technique to achieve infection - in fact the only virus I can thin of which does is tobacco-mosaic (a plant virus).
Viruses use all sorts of nifty tricks to get the host cell to take them up - typically by latching onto normally cellular surface proteins in sequence. The multitude of targets adds redundancy while the similarity to host binding proteins means any attempt to attack the virus nay have serious side effects. In fact this is one possible route for virally-triggered autoimmunity.
In the case of HIV the actual entry-binding site is hidden and only exposed following a primary binding event to a CD4 cell receptor. Ongoing disease kills CD4s but the virus is able to switch to a different target - with a single amino acid change. This switching is a normal pattern of HIV progression.
Not HIV-related but: viruses also exist that can infect without their protein coat being intact - nucleic acid is taken up into cells as part of defense mechanisms in immune cells. In the case of single-stranded RNA viruses they're basically good to go.
For the record, I wrote this (and this reply) from a mobile phone that has an annoying habit of converting its > it's regardless of the context. Please be gentle...
As a recent graduate in biological sciences I can see the benefit of university education pretty clearly. The thought that I could get equivalent education home-schooling myself without access to labs and materials is ridiculous. As an example- I tried to study chemistry via distance-learning to meet requirements for the degree and it was basically impossible-no school wanted to take me (and the risk of explosion on).
Secondly university provides access to thought through and prepared materials,problems and ideas that you could go a whole career without meeting. Yet it does this in a safe environment where danage is minimal.
Finally, it gets you away from home to be yourself and learn your own limitations - and lack thereof when you put your mind to it. You have years of employment to wear that self confidence away, may as well start in credit.
Online study has it's place - and so - should hope it does, I run my own education site ( http://smrtr.org/ ). But what online does for facts, basics, broad understanding, university does for depth and perserverance.
How many of us will study something without an immediate goal? I've taught myself to program (Z80, Sam Coupe anyone?) But always with a goal in mind. University provides those goals before you can do damage.
As always, everything has it's place.
PS. Smrtr is open source and built on Django. Developers wanted!
I'd agree. I did some part-time work transcribing audio a while back for extra pennies. One thing I would add is that instead of using Alt-Tab to switch applications and then hitting space to start/stop I found it was less frustrating to set up global keys for the purpose (I was using KDE at the time, I expect most desktops offer this).
I assigned F12 to skip back 5 seconds and F9 to pause/restart. Using those (esp F12) it was relatively easy to keep up to speed with what was being said without switching away from the editor.
Did the 911 call center actually get GPS coordinates though? I'd be interested in knowing how this looked from the their end. Did it look like a hang-up with no GPS data sent? Isn't the GPS data sent over the same data channel?
I used to work in an ambulance control in the UK and we received mobile phone location information through the same mechanism that gave lookups from phone numbers to street addresses. At the time I don't think GPS in phones was widely available, instead information was passed using a point, ellipse angle, and radius reflecting 'error' in the calculation, with which you could plot on a map a rough area where the call was coming from. When I left in 2004 they were upgrading to software that would do this plotting on maps automatically (address lookups were already plotted automatically).
The triangulation system provides varying degrees of accuracy depending on whether in built up (many antennae) or rural (fewer, more powerful antennae) areas. Thankfully, that also matches the accuracy usually needed for dispatching emergency help: a traffic accident in a rural area, even if giving a 5 mile radius, can sometimes isolate a single road which combined with local knowledge will pinpoint the likely location. In a city where 5 mile radius would be less useful accuracy was usually down to less than 1 mile. On one occasion it was accurate enough, with prompts from what a caller could hear nearby, to pinpoint someone to a back garden in a suburban estate.
I suspect that if GPS data is fed through to the controls now it will be in the same format, albeit with much lower error rates on the ellipse.
I would have thought a gradual increase in isolation would be more demotivating than starting out at the worst case and staying stable? Every day things get a little harder...
What if one day we'll be able to synthesize a therapy while the patient is waiting in the waiting room?
The problem is the wide variation in viruses even within a single host. Even if you can synthesize a therapy against the most common form in a host, those that are not suppressed will take dominance (as with any drug resistance). The ideal solution, and what will hopefully happen in the future, is the ability to initiate therapy with multiple target drugs to effectively corner the virus out of viability - RNAi is a great way to achieve this because of the (relatively) rapid synthesis of variant molecules.
Viruses that integrate into the genome of host cells would likely not be removed by this mechanism. It may be possible to inhibit the virus enough to prevent spread between cells, but persistence down cell lineages may mean lifetime treatment is required. That said, if we can suppress replication enough to prevent onward transmission eradication would be the result.
I was excited after reading a review the other day. I downloaded it, and went to load it in a VM, expecting speed from my quad core. It wasn't much faster than the full blown Ubuntu. I loaded it on an old laptop. Was faster than Windows XP, but not as much as I had hoped. It's a good idea, perhaps the next version will do better.
The same problem afflicts Xubuntu which, although using the lightweight xfce, is not noticeably faster than the stock Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes with a lot of fluff attached.
If you want something fast/lightweight for your old laptop can I suggest #!, especially the current development releases based on Debian squeeze. You can choose between xfce/openbox and both performed so well on my old laptop I've replaced my desktop with it too.
HIV and influenza can cross species barriers - but neither infects dogs! They are also severely limited on which host cells they can infect and neither makes it into the germline. But, the point you make about asymptomatic viruses is an interesting one - the potential there is certainly underinvestigated - purely because of the large signpost screaming 'infection!' that usually gets the attention. The other side is interesting too - endemic infections that, aside from their obvious pathology, aren't investigated as 'if everyone has it, it must be harmless' - H. pylori fits the bit exactly. A personal favourite on this front is the EBV (glandular fever/infectious mononucleosis) link to multiple sclerosis (there were studies on the Faroes where the disease should be high (due to low UV/Vit-D, another risk factor) but basically only appeared following UK occupation during WWII).
So in that sense, I agree with you. I still find the original premise with the dogs to be a bit far fetched, but I guess stranger things have happened.
To be honest I missed the part in your post about the viral vector - I thought you were suggesting some direct gene transfer human-dog which was bizarre.
It still seems a stretch to suggest that horizontal transfer from human to virus, then virus to dog could occur on anywhere the level required to produce an observable effect on canine intelligence. The vast majority of viruses are species-locked or species-limited and even if the virus can infect a host, the virus is further limited in which cells in the body it is capable to infect - not just by access (blood supply - there is actually a testis-blood barrier, similar to the brain to prevent autoimmunity, but I'll admit to being unsure of it's role in preventing infection) but by receptor specificity. The only canine viral zoonose I know if is rabies (please feel free to correct me), and I can't find any evidence of that infecting germline cells - it's neurotropic. Bacteria and parasites are probably a better bet, but not by much.
Apologies for missing the point of your OP, but I still have a hard time buying it.
In order for genetic material to persist it has to get into the germline cells - that is, sperm or egg - of the host. It's highly unlikely that 'just being around' humans would allow this to happen at all. Bacteria/fungal transfer is possible because, as an infecting pathogen, it can presumably get to where it is in close association with these germline cells - including, and probably limited to, the sexual orifices. So no, I seriously doubt dogs are getting smarter because they're picking up our genes.
Saying that, if you have found some other way of getting your DNA into your dogs semen, I wish you the best of luck. I suspect you'll need it.
Slashdot Mirror
Its my understanding the tape hasn't been used in new flight recorders for quite some time. I think they're all solid state now.
Yeh, I'll get off your lawn.
Still, the summary is atrocious buzz-word bingo. The article is better written but the 'glass box' basically amounts to broadcasting the black box data on the go. Hardly a revolutionary idea, with a sugar coating. If it doesn't exist currently there is probably a reason - technical (bandwidth requirements) or otherwise (cost) - that is not outweighed by the proposed benefits. Rather than address this we get hand waving and straw man rambles about union conspiracies.
Yawn.
So... You look at something, decide you *don't* want to buy it... and then they continue to advertise it to you in case what? You change your mind?
????
Profit
Can someone explain why we don't just wait until it adds up to a whole day before adding the 'leap'? We're set up to deal with leap years as it is, would it not be less hassle to deal with similar adjustments (albeit less frequent or regular) than dropping extra seconds in more often?
Well, duh... That's because they're all in the power plant.
Come on, they're not that bad
You must run up at least 2.7TB a month with your unusual use of the letter S.
It's not quite so straightforward. Not all viruses use a cellular-injection technique to achieve infection - in fact the only virus I can thin of which does is tobacco-mosaic (a plant virus).
Viruses use all sorts of nifty tricks to get the host cell to take them up - typically by latching onto normally cellular surface proteins in sequence. The multitude of targets adds redundancy while the similarity to host binding proteins means any attempt to attack the virus nay have serious side effects. In fact this is one possible route for virally-triggered autoimmunity.
In the case of HIV the actual entry-binding site is hidden and only exposed following a primary binding event to a CD4 cell receptor. Ongoing disease kills CD4s but the virus is able to switch to a different target - with a single amino acid change. This switching is a normal pattern of HIV progression.
Not HIV-related but: viruses also exist that can infect without their protein coat being intact - nucleic acid is taken up into cells as part of defense mechanisms in immune cells. In the case of single-stranded RNA viruses they're basically good to go.
...that I didn't RTFA
I've refreshed to make sure it's not a temporary bug with Lulu that has been fixed. It happens every time.
What happens when the iPad 2 is too small but the iPad 1 is too big?!
BAM! iPad 1.5!
Holy shit. I need my own Apple blog...
Haha I just logged into your IP address and found a load of donkey porn! Pervert!
Wait? What?
For the record, I wrote this (and this reply) from a mobile phone that has an annoying habit of converting its > it's regardless of the context. Please be gentle...
As a recent graduate in biological sciences I can see the benefit of university education pretty clearly. The thought that I could get equivalent education home-schooling myself without access to labs and materials is ridiculous. As an example- I tried to study chemistry via distance-learning to meet requirements for the degree and it was basically impossible-no school wanted to take me (and the risk of explosion on).
Secondly university provides access to thought through and prepared materials,problems and ideas that you could go a whole career without meeting. Yet it does this in a safe environment where danage is minimal.
Finally, it gets you away from home to be yourself and learn your own limitations - and lack thereof when you put your mind to it. You have years of employment to wear that self confidence away, may as well start in credit.
Online study has it's place - and so - should hope it does, I run my own education site ( http://smrtr.org/ ). But what online does for facts, basics, broad understanding, university does for depth and perserverance.
How many of us will study something without an immediate goal? I've taught myself to program (Z80, Sam Coupe anyone?) But always with a goal in mind. University provides those goals before you can do damage.
As always, everything has it's place.
PS. Smrtr is open source and built on Django. Developers wanted!
I'd agree. I did some part-time work transcribing audio a while back for extra pennies. One thing I would add is that instead of using Alt-Tab to switch applications and then hitting space to start/stop I found it was less frustrating to set up global keys for the purpose (I was using KDE at the time, I expect most desktops offer this).
I assigned F12 to skip back 5 seconds and F9 to pause/restart. Using those (esp F12) it was relatively easy to keep up to speed with what was being said without switching away from the editor.
I used to work in an ambulance control in the UK and we received mobile phone location information through the same mechanism that gave lookups from phone numbers to street addresses. At the time I don't think GPS in phones was widely available, instead information was passed using a point, ellipse angle, and radius reflecting 'error' in the calculation, with which you could plot on a map a rough area where the call was coming from. When I left in 2004 they were upgrading to software that would do this plotting on maps automatically (address lookups were already plotted automatically).
The triangulation system provides varying degrees of accuracy depending on whether in built up (many antennae) or rural (fewer, more powerful antennae) areas. Thankfully, that also matches the accuracy usually needed for dispatching emergency help: a traffic accident in a rural area, even if giving a 5 mile radius, can sometimes isolate a single road which combined with local knowledge will pinpoint the likely location. In a city where 5 mile radius would be less useful accuracy was usually down to less than 1 mile. On one occasion it was accurate enough, with prompts from what a caller could hear nearby, to pinpoint someone to a back garden in a suburban estate.
I suspect that if GPS data is fed through to the controls now it will be in the same format, albeit with much lower error rates on the ellipse.
I would have thought a gradual increase in isolation would be more demotivating than starting out at the worst case and staying stable? Every day things get a little harder...
The problem is the wide variation in viruses even within a single host. Even if you can synthesize a therapy against the most common form in a host, those that are not suppressed will take dominance (as with any drug resistance). The ideal solution, and what will hopefully happen in the future, is the ability to initiate therapy with multiple target drugs to effectively corner the virus out of viability - RNAi is a great way to achieve this because of the (relatively) rapid synthesis of variant molecules.
Viruses that integrate into the genome of host cells would likely not be removed by this mechanism. It may be possible to inhibit the virus enough to prevent spread between cells, but persistence down cell lineages may mean lifetime treatment is required. That said, if we can suppress replication enough to prevent onward transmission eradication would be the result.
Nah. Standard disclaimer ;)
In all seriousness, in my experience it's more stable than the latest Ubuntu release.
The same problem afflicts Xubuntu which, although using the lightweight xfce, is not noticeably faster than the stock Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes with a lot of fluff attached.
If you want something fast/lightweight for your old laptop can I suggest #!, especially the current development releases based on Debian squeeze. You can choose between xfce/openbox and both performed so well on my old laptop I've replaced my desktop with it too.
...must be the 'cloud'
Yes, they're Automated Automated Teller Machines. It's the extra level of automation that is really insecure.
I remember when things were only automated once. Simpler times.
(Your question was so daft I'm half waiting for a 'Whoosh!')
HIV and influenza can cross species barriers - but neither infects dogs! They are also severely limited on which host cells they can infect and neither makes it into the germline. But, the point you make about asymptomatic viruses is an interesting one - the potential there is certainly underinvestigated - purely because of the large signpost screaming 'infection!' that usually gets the attention. The other side is interesting too - endemic infections that, aside from their obvious pathology, aren't investigated as 'if everyone has it, it must be harmless' - H. pylori fits the bit exactly. A personal favourite on this front is the EBV (glandular fever/infectious mononucleosis) link to multiple sclerosis (there were studies on the Faroes where the disease should be high (due to low UV/Vit-D, another risk factor) but basically only appeared following UK occupation during WWII).
So in that sense, I agree with you. I still find the original premise with the dogs to be a bit far fetched, but I guess stranger things have happened.
To be honest I missed the part in your post about the viral vector - I thought you were suggesting some direct gene transfer human-dog which was bizarre.
It still seems a stretch to suggest that horizontal transfer from human to virus, then virus to dog could occur on anywhere the level required to produce an observable effect on canine intelligence. The vast majority of viruses are species-locked or species-limited and even if the virus can infect a host, the virus is further limited in which cells in the body it is capable to infect - not just by access (blood supply - there is actually a testis-blood barrier, similar to the brain to prevent autoimmunity, but I'll admit to being unsure of it's role in preventing infection) but by receptor specificity. The only canine viral zoonose I know if is rabies (please feel free to correct me), and I can't find any evidence of that infecting germline cells - it's neurotropic. Bacteria and parasites are probably a better bet, but not by much.
Apologies for missing the point of your OP, but I still have a hard time buying it.
In order for genetic material to persist it has to get into the germline cells - that is, sperm or egg - of the host. It's highly unlikely that 'just being around' humans would allow this to happen at all. Bacteria/fungal transfer is possible because, as an infecting pathogen, it can presumably get to where it is in close association with these germline cells - including, and probably limited to, the sexual orifices. So no, I seriously doubt dogs are getting smarter because they're picking up our genes.
Saying that, if you have found some other way of getting your DNA into your dogs semen, I wish you the best of luck. I suspect you'll need it.