Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:this is a big mistake (Score 1) 141

Regarding the three stop codons as identical function is like considering two of the three codons to be 'junk'.

Nice try to weasel out. "Junk DNA" is a term with fixed meaning. Also, regarding the three stop codons as being functionally identical means to mean two of them to be redundant, not "junk" (which two of the three would be the junk?). Given the similarity of the three stop codons, I'd guess the redundancy provides some protection against mutations.

I disproved the notion that 'synonymous' codons were interchangeable, in 1990, just about the time 'bioinformatics' was being coined. What I disproved was the basis for Anfinsen's Nobel Prize.

The work you did in 1990 was the basis for Anfinsen's Nobel Prize in 1972? Yeah, sure. I guess you also invented the time machine?

But nice try.

Also, if you were working in the field, you'd for sure know what "junk DNA" means.

Comment Re:this is amazing (Score 1) 141

the growth culture contains things required for the transcription that aren't encoded in the organisms dna?
that would be less scary and interesting.

Unless they additionally added genetic code to produce the extra amino acid (which I don't believe we'd currently be able to, but then, I'm no geneticist), from my understanding that's exactly what they did.

Comment Re:Even a Tea Party can be right occsionally (Score 1) 419

Transferring copyright for example to GNU [gnu.org] is mandatory when contributing, gives the project the flexibility to relicense in case an upgrade is in order (like GPLv2->GPLv3) and avoids having to hunt down all individual contributors in case a change in license is required.

However the copyright transfer contract you sign with GNU explicitly restricts GNU from relicensing to non-free licenses. Does the Canonical contract also guarantee that?

Comment Re:Lost wages? What about back pay? (Score 1) 767

I've got some friends who work for the Fed and they loved the shutdown because they a) didn't have to go to work, b) weren't using up vacation days and c) were guaranteed backpay for the days the gov't was shutdown.

Then, frankly, your friends are either lucky (in that they had no bills to pay with the paycheck they didn't get), or they're stupid.
 
My friends who work for the fed (most of whom were barely recovered from the furloughs over the summer wiping out their savings) hated the shutdown. Many had to work anyhow, and are uncertain when they'll get paid for the shutdown. (The last time this happened, it took five years for some to get paid.) In the meantime, working or not, mortgages and car payments came due, groceries still had to be put on the table, utility bills still came due... etc... etc... The couple next door, between the both of them and the shutdown and the furloughs will have lost nine weeks of pay (presuming, is as likely, they don't get paid for the shutdown anytime soon) - almost a ten percent pay cut.
 
And pretty much all the federal employees I know are talking about cutting their budget to the bone to save money for a potential showdown/slowdown/shutdown in January. Between that, and furloughs over the summer, and the lost business over the last two weeks... the secondary effects on my county (where the Fed is the largest employer by far) are seriously approaching disastrous. The business my wife works at has (as of today, and she's the CFO and knows to the penny) seen a 15% drop over the course of 2013 - on top of not having completely recovered from the recession.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 767

If we'd have left [the terrorists in Afghanistan] there and did absolutely not one damn thing to try and stop/kill them, well, how much did 9/11 cost the economy?

Quite a bit, actually. Took out a lot of infrastructure (including a major telecommunications hub and a number of business headquarters with all their personnel).

Then there was the cost of the reaction. For starters it stopped air traffic for days, and led to the creation of Homeland Security and all its costs - both direct and indirect (such as the large number of people who now drive rather than submit to the airport security theater.)

But I agree it was far less than the cost of the war that followed.

If someone walks in and shoots the party planning committee, how much does the next party cost the company? Trick question, there isn't one. Same with terrorists.

Actually, not the same with terrorists. Look up the term "blowback". Terrorists are hydras: Killing them tends to make martyrs, leading to the recruiting of more new terrorists than were killed

  It also leads to diversification: The longer the tit-for-tat goes on, the less centralized and connected, the more independent and self-sufficient, the factions of the opposition become.

9/11 itself (along with his previous shot at the Twin Towers) was, according to Bin Laden, retaliation for the US bombing of a similar tower on his side of the world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!

Working...