Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Why Classified a Virus? (Score 1) 158

by TheCrazyMonkey (#47433177) Attached to: Hints of Life's Start Found In a Giant Virus

That's my question exactly. TFA doesn't really answer it clearly. The only similarity mentioned is that the giant virus has a regular geometric shape, presumably due to capsid proteins as in other virus. In addition, other commenters, are saying that they are parasitic they just require much less of the host machinery to reproduce than a classical virus.

Also, the article mentions that there is some debates as to whether these giant viruses represent an new kingdom of life, which if it were true would imply that they aren't viruses, but members of some new classification.

Comment: It's just another tool (Score 5, Interesting) 198

And will the system consider the patients age/cost to treat/insurance level/likelihood of patient paying future insurance premiums to make up for expenses?

It will if you program it to. Things like this are tools. As a relatively young doctor (resident) I welcome things like this. Every doctor I know uses reference material, some are printed on dead trees and some are electronic. Today, there's not much difference. But the point it is that there's too much medical knowledge for one person to keep it all in their head at one time. If something like this were to come to market it wouldn't be replacing doctors, it would be augmenting them. Machines do what we tell them to, always have and (hopefully) always will. False rivalries like this completely miss the point. I would love to have a computer algorithm that could correctly diagnose 99% of the time even if it were flagrently wrong the other 1%. That's why humans are in the loop.

Comment: Re:Why not Protein instead? (Score 2) 21

by TheCrazyMonkey (#42288119) Attached to: Fast DNA Origami Opens Way For Nanoscale Machines
My guess is that custom proteins are harder to synthesize on demand. Generally if you want a custom protein you synthesize the DNA coding it, then insert it into a cell and have it produce the protein. Plus, DNA can be duplicated in vitro through conventional PCR where it's not really viable to transcribe proteins outside of a living cell.

Comment: Re:People are special. (Score 5, Informative) 369

by TheCrazyMonkey (#27117993) Attached to: Wolfram Promises Computing That Answers Questions

Also, until you can claim to solve the halting problem in real life (as opposed to a "theoretical device"), don't go around claiming that the brain is turing-complete. It isn't, and cannot be - not in this universe, anyway.

Of course the brain is turing complete. You can prove it the same way you prove any other machine is turing complete: it has the ability to simulate a turing machine. I can simulate a tape driven turing machine pretty damn easily with a sheet of paper and a pencil. I think you're confused as to what "turing-complete" means. Solving the halting problem is not a requirement. In fact, you can prove that a turing machine cannot solve the halting problem. So the brain's inability to do so doesn't have any bearing on whether it's turing complete.

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Working...