Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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:What about Selection? (Score 2) 112

by rnaiguy (#41241989) Attached to: Function of 80% of the Human Genome Charted
Just because it doesn't code for protein doesn't mean it isn't turned into RNA, or bound by some protein to regulate some other part of the DNA. Some of it is selected for, we just didn't know where to look to find conservation, or the nature of that conservation. It's easy to pick out regions coding for protein because there are some fairly strict rules for these, so it's easy to find conservation. For some of these non-coding regions, the precise sequence and location is not important, and many similar sequences spread over a wide location range can work just as well. Alternatively, some of these regions are selected to have a certain structure at the RNA stage, which can be satisfied by many different sequences, and undetectable by most methods. Lastly, and most excitingly, these are regions that are evolving quickly. While the function of a protein may remain similar between two species, it may need to be produced in a different time and place in different species. These may be the places in our genetic code where we find out what makes us human. Thus some of these regulatory elements are not conserved between species (though many are!).

Now none of that rules out the existence of regions of DNA that do little or nothing and can be mutated without consequence. There are definitely such regions in the genome.

i hope that cleared something up

Comment: Re:How fast? (Score 2) 160

by rnaiguy (#41016299) Attached to: Scientists Store Entire Textbook In DNA
Given the machine they used in the paper to read the data back, it would take about 10 DAYS to read out the data they encoded. The problem is that it takes that time to get any data at all. So they could parrallelize it to get better MB/sec (or realistically MB/hr), but with current tech, the latency is 10 days, with a theoretical maximum of 100gigabits of uncompressed data read out in that time, (but realistically much less since they rely on redundancy to reduce error, and have overhead for their encoding system).

Comment: Re:Isn't it the law already? (Score 2) 884

by rnaiguy (#40446253) Attached to: Arizona H-1B Workers Advised to Carry Papers At All Times
So, what happens when I get pulled over, and the police officer asks for proof that I am here legally, and I inform him that I am a naturalized US citizen (which I am), and thus am not required to carry any such paperwork? What if I was Illegal and said the same thing?

If the police can not question that lie, then the law is a farce anyway. If they can, then a whole lot of citizens are going to have their rights violated.

Comment: Re:heh (Score 1, Insightful) 917

by rnaiguy (#37774996) Attached to: US Student Loans Exceed $1 Trillion
Wow, way to spread misinformation. I can assure you that while there are biases toward the wealthy in the Ivy League (mainly due to inequities in access to primary education, though a small part is due to legacy/connections), there are no financial barriers to entry into these schools for students who are willing to work hard and apply themselves. Most of the people I knew who went to these schools are firmly in the 99%, and many of them in the bottom 50%.

Comment: Re:Question (Score 1) 172

by rnaiguy (#37193620) Attached to: Google Reaches $500 Million Settlement With Feds
from TFA:

"Drug and health care advertising generated about $1 billion in Internet spending last year and is expected to grow to nearly $1.9 billion by 2015, according to the research firm eMarketer Inc."

That's $1 billion total spending, not profit, and not only Google. I don't think Google generated anywhere near $500 million from it.

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?