> Or, as Adamala put it: “What else can biology do?”
Oh I dunno, maybe create synthetic organisms capable of rapidly destroying all life?
For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
251–260 of 323 posts
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
My paper demonstrating a side channel attack on RSA via hyperthreading was rejected from the crypto preprint archive on the basis that it was "not cryptography". (Reviewers at J.Crypto subsequently sat on it for a year and then suggested I submit it to a journal on CPU microarchitecture instead.) Novel research is uniquely susceptible to "cool but it's not part of our field", because that critique is entirely correct…
Looking over Journal of Cryptology, they appear to be a theory journal. So an attack on an implementation, based on hardware probably doesn't interest them as much.
> a forum for publication of original results in all areas of modern information security [1]
Seems like info sec to me.
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exoplanets are planets. Also, for clarification, biology is not defined as “the study of things produced exclusively by natural evolution.” Synthetic biology works with biological components and living systems (DNA, proteins, regulatory networks, cells and organisms). It differs from much traditional biology mainly in its constructive, engineering-oriented approach. Synthetic systems are often built precisely to test…
For anyone else that might be curios, the definition of a planet you will often see quoted online applies to bodies in our Solar System. It comes from the International Astronomical Union in 2006. This is the famous definition that dropped Pluto as a planet. While the criteria are widely quoted, that actual resolution isn't. The resolution: The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies, except satellites, in the S…
Eh, that doesn't make sense.
What's a meteor?
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#254Layman, so bear with me. I'm wondering where they got the amino acids and proteins from? I was under the impressino that cells needed them to be "homochiral" to function, and the artificial 'built from scratch' amino acids are 50:50 of each chirality.
In my reading of the NYTimes simplification of this story they mention that the genes were "borrowed from a virus and the ubiquitous microbe Escherichia coli".
Mainly just curious how far they managed to get to the 'from scratch' goal.
Or is what they've done a bit more of an assembly of bits and pieces? Cheers all.
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you think the more critical scientists are more correct? I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle. It literally doesn’t matter if it’s eventually considered groundbreaking research or not, jumping the gun is a bad idea.
> I am not qualified to make a judgement here, the point is following the process is better than jumping the gun on principle . Why? The process is quite obviously net negative; we'd get better results with no process at all.
> we'd get better results with no process at all.
I’m going to give some advice that you probably won’t understand for years, but when you don’t find value in a process you’re missing something about what it’s doing.
A common shortcut is to look past who is making money to who is paying for that process and why they would want to pay for it.
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can’t the scientist and the news outlets be trusted to make the decision about whether to publish or not themselves? Why can’t the general public be trusted to evaluate the quality of the news outlets they read? Because the scientists involved and reporters manifestly do a bad job about picking what is or isn’t groundbreaking and more importantly have various incentives to hype things up. CERN scientists with t…
You didn’t answer the actually interesting question I posed, who should be the gatekeeper instead? Yes, yes, journalists and scientists have bad incentives and the general public is dumb. You’re not exactly setting the world on fire with that observation. The problem is that there is no better alternative. Any conceivable gatekeeper to scientific knowledge will be no smarter than the research scientists producing the…
[deleted]
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can’t the scientist and the news outlets be trusted to make the decision about whether to publish or not themselves? Why can’t the general public be trusted to evaluate the quality of the news outlets they read? Because the scientists involved and reporters manifestly do a bad job about picking what is or isn’t groundbreaking and more importantly have various incentives to hype things up. CERN scientists with t…
You didn’t answer the actually interesting question I posed, who should be the gatekeeper instead? Yes, yes, journalists and scientists have bad incentives and the general public is dumb. You’re not exactly setting the world on fire with that observation. The problem is that there is no better alternative. Any conceivable gatekeeper to scientific knowledge will be no smarter than the research scientists producing the…
Programming reinvented a similar system of peer review before commits. It’s not that the reviewer is more knowledgeable about the bits of the system being changed that makes this work it’s that they have enough expertise to understand what’s involved and a new set of eyes on the problem.
In science having multiple journals acts as a safety valve here, but the underlying principle is very similar. As much as some people bad mouth it, peer review is a very low hurdle before publication that still catches a great number of mistakes.
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
My paper demonstrating a side channel attack on RSA via hyperthreading was rejected from the crypto preprint archive on the basis that it was "not cryptography". (Reviewers at J.Crypto subsequently sat on it for a year and then suggested I submit it to a journal on CPU microarchitecture instead.) Novel research is uniquely susceptible to "cool but it's not part of our field", because that critique is entirely correct…
Looking over Journal of Cryptology, they appear to be a theory journal. So an attack on an implementation, based on hardware probably doesn't interest them as much.
They publish lots of papers about side channel attacks, including very hardware based ones like power consumption analysis.
It just happened that "leak information into microarchitectural state and then retrieve it" didn't exist as a subfield until my work (and the OST work a few weeks behind mine).
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
My paper demonstrating a side channel attack on RSA via hyperthreading was rejected from the crypto preprint archive on the basis that it was "not cryptography". (Reviewers at J.Crypto subsequently sat on it for a year and then suggested I submit it to a journal on CPU microarchitecture instead.) Novel research is uniquely susceptible to "cool but it's not part of our field", because that critique is entirely correct…
I'm not familiar with your work, but a more arch venue does sound like more appropriate to me as someone from arch?
Frankly, there's no way any arch venue at the time would have done anything beyond rejecting it with "caches make RSA fast, what's the problem?"
Security wasn't something CPU designers paid much attention to, and cryptography wasn't something they were even particularly aware of. Even seven years ago, when an Intel VP was giving a talk at re:Invent about "processor technologies for improving security in virtual machines", my question to him about cache collision side channel attacks was met with "what's a side channel attack?"
Re: For first time, a cell built from scratch grows and divides
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
My paper demonstrating a side channel attack on RSA via hyperthreading was rejected from the crypto preprint archive on the basis that it was "not cryptography". (Reviewers at J.Crypto subsequently sat on it for a year and then suggested I submit it to a journal on CPU microarchitecture instead.) Novel research is uniquely susceptible to "cool but it's not part of our field", because that critique is entirely correct…
Submit it as a CVE.
This was CVE-2005-0109.