Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 168

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 168

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment Re:Vacuum? (Score 4, Informative) 107

Easy. Masks drop from above you and emergency braking and re-pressurization is started. If braking to a safe velocity (say, 300km/h) is limited to 0.5G then it can be completed in about 40 seconds. Then once everybody have slowed down, emergency vents can open and the tube can be quickly re-pressurized to breathable pressures. You will survive even in the case of immediate complete pressure loss and failure to put on a mask.

Comment Re:Taxis = artificial barriers to competition (Score 1) 204

You get insurance automatically when you drive with a fare. You don't need to spend anything on it.

What you probably _should_ get is an insurance for yourself when you're driving between fares. For AAA it's an additional $20 a _year_. I'm using Metromiles and it's a 5% surcharge on top of the usual premium.

Comment Re:This allows of big modifications (Score 1) 110

No, DNA replication is not energetically expensive for eukaryotic cells. Most of the energy in a cell is spent on protein synthesis (i.e. gene expression), so regulatory mechanisms to suppress or promote DNA transcription are very honed and fine-tuned. These mechanism are also co-opted into fighting DNA parasites but they can't be used to edit away junk DNA completely.

However, for bacterial cells (which are much smaller than eukariotic cells) DNA replication is a significant burden and so they have very little DNA junk. That holds true for intracellular symbiotes like mitochondria and chloroplasts - their genomes are under (some) pressure to get simpler and smaller.

Comment Re:This allows of big modifications (Score 1) 110

Duh. LINEs are basically just promoters with a small payload attached, so a LINE that jumps in front of a protein can work perfectly fine. There are several cases in genome where LINEs actually _replaced_ the regular promoters. Again, it's just a couple of cases out of literally millions. We _expect_ such discoveries.

What we don't expect is that a significant fraction of junk actually has a useful function.

Comment Re:Genetic spare parts? (Score 1) 110

Not a "bunch" but "perhaps tens or hundreds of places out of several million". People really underestimate the amount of junk DNA - it's 95% of the genome, around 3 billions base pairs. In all this junk we sometimes find a few kilobases here and there that actually have some useful functions. Just for reference - all the known regulatory non-coding sequences amount to less than 20 megabases out of that 3 gigabases.

Is it likely that there are more hidden gems out there? Sure. Is it likely that a significant portion of junk DNA is non-junk? Nope.

The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the expense of it. -- Josh Billings