From http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/02/21/new-insights-on-that-private-crewed-mars-mission/:

This publication obtained a copy of the paper Tito et al. plan to present at the conference, discussing a crewed free-return Mars mission that would fly by Mars, but not go into orbit around the planet or land on it. This 501-day mission would launch in January 2018, using a modified SpaceX Dragon spacecraft launched on a Falcon Heavy rocket. According to the paper, existing environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) technologies would allow such a spacecraft to support two people for the mission, although in Spartan condition. âoeCrew comfort is limited to survival needs only. For example, sponge baths are acceptable, with no need for showers,â the paper states.

The IEEE Aerospace Conference is in March -- next month. That's pretty interesting timing.

I respectfully disagree. I've been to four LISA conferences (sysadmin conference run by USENIX) since 2006, and I see very little that is comparable; there are the various LOPSA conferences (LOPSA-EAST, Cascadia IT Conference), but they're simply not at LISA's scale. Want to hang out with a thousand other sysadmins? Get training from Ted T'so on recovering borked disks? See what Google is up to -- or the small IT shop at the university down the coast with 1/20000th the budget? There's simply nothing else out there that matches it.

As for the rest of the conferences, all I know is the summaries I've read in ;login: and the material that I've watched/listened to on their website. (And btw, HUGE kudos to USENIX to opening access to their proceedings, talks and papers.) But at the very least, they make damned interesting reading, and have made me very curious about things that are going on outside my narrow focus.

I don't have the breadth of experience you do; I concentrate on system administration because I love it, and I've been doing it less than ten years. I'm definitely an interested amateur (at best) when it comes to topics like security, or file systems, or OS design. But I'm always surprised how much of USENIX conference material touches on areas of interest or direct relevance to me, and at the very least browsing their papers is a wonderful introduction to some research and work I'd miss otherwise. I'm sure (with the exception of LISA) there are more focused conferences, or better known ones (DefCon is one that springs to mind). But I can't agree that USENIX is "past its sell date".

(And in passing, thanks very kindly for all the work you've done for the Open Source/Free Software community. Kinda boggles my mind that I'm debating you...)

Ha...I recognize the panel on the tape drive here:

http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/gallery/#/all/18

I wasn't around then, but I've been reading up on him and all the rest of the Apollo astronauts since. I'm filled with wonder every time I think about it.

Thank you for everything, sir. I hope your eternity is a pleasant one.

Well put. Fare well, Mr. Armstrong.

(Whoops, just saw that you said it was part of textual criticism...)

Thanks for the term "stemmatics" -- I was familiar w/the concept but knew it as "textual criticism", which I think is probably a great deal more broad than this. What's always bugged me about this concept -- perhaps unfairly -- is whether or not it has any experimental evidence to back it up. My impression is that it's a bunch of heuristics based on a preference for simplicity. Is there any experimental evidence to suggest that texts do grow/change the way these rules say? (I'm not asking for you to chip in (although you're welcome to - hey, your journal :-), more just outlining my next bout of reading in my spare time.)

Sorry to jump in, but I happened to read a neat paper in Nature about something like this a while back. It was called Rise and fall of political complexity in island South-East Asia and the Pacific. TThe article is behind a paywall, but there's a general summary from Wired magazine here, and another aimed at fellow researchers here.

My half-assed summary: the researchers use phylogenetic methods -- ways of looking at genomes from organisms and estimating how long ago they had common ancestors (I'm sure Samantha could give a better/actually accurate explanation) -- and see if it can be applied to societies to see how they change over time. In this study, they looked at a bunch of different groups in the south Pacific and tested different models about how political organization could change (would people go from loose tribes to highly-organized kingdoms in one step? what about the other way around?). It was interesting stuff.

Many thanks for the explanations!

The researchers I work with deal with microarray data a lot, and have built a tool to help compare datasets (http://www.chibi.ubc.ca/Gemma). I'm becoming more familiar with the technology as I go along, but the heat maps and the dendrogram legends (is that what they're called?)...man, those are some dense infodumps.

Heyo -- thanks for the heads-up on Twitter. I'm the sysadmin at a small university department, and I work with scientsts studying gene expression. They're good and patient people, but sometimes I feel a bit like I'm questioning the foundations of their work...which feels either rude or ignorant.

First off, I'd always been under the impression that DNA was only/mainly used during reproduction -- a cell divides under DNA direction, some bit of the cell is the machinery that makes whatever protein is needed during its life, and DNA isn't involved much after that. However, I'm starting to understand (I think...) that I've got it all wrong. My understanding now that gene expression can basically turn on a dime, and that *this* is the usual way a cell makes a protein: something happens to a cell, it says "Whoah, I need protein X", and it starts transcribing the DNA so it can manufacture it (modulo things like gene regulation). This process can take very little time (hours or less). Have I got that right?

Second: one of the things they study is datasets of gene expression in post-mortem brains. (Well, technically I guess I've got that wrong, since genes aren't expressed post-mortem... :-) As I understand it, someone dies -- say, someone with schizophrenia -- their brains are donated to science, and at some point someone does microarray sequencing of blendered neurons. This is compared to brains of control subjects, gene X is found to be over/under-expressed in schizophrenic brains, and so gene X is involved somehow in schizophrenia. (This is a gross simplification, especially in the case of schizophrenia; my understanding is that these signatures cover many, many genes, they're subtle at best, and there's nothing like "a gene for schizophrenia".)

What I don't understand:

a) Since time passes between death and sequencing, how much fidelity does/can this have do what was going on at the point of death?

b) Even if it is a good indication of what was going on at death, how does that relate to a long-term illness like schizophrenia when (assuming I've got this bit right) gene expression can turn on and off in a very short time? I realize there are (ahem) ethical problems with doing brain biopsies on living subjects, and that post-mortem is the best that can be done -- but how good can it be?

Many, many thanks for your time. Any questions about system administration, let me know. :-)