J Larsen

Sorry I can't link the article - this is from a pay site. BTW, Nature, the journal in which this work was originally publised, is one of the three most rigorous scientific journals around in terms of peer review, so this is worth taking seriously. Smart Robot Automates Science Technology Research News January 27, 2004 What better entity to assign repetitive scientific tasks, like working out the function of specific genes, than a robot? Researchers from the University of Wales, Robert Gordon University in Scotland, and the University of Manchester in England have put together a robot scientist that can devise a theory, fashion experiments to test the theory, carry out the experiments, and interpret results. The researchers put the system through its paces testing yeast to determine gene function, and also had a control group of computer scientists and biologists perform the same scientific task. The robot performed as well as the best humans, and was three times cheaper than simply choosing the cheapest experiment and 100 times cheaper than random selection, according to the researchers. The approach could make scientific research less expensive, and could be applied within a few years in areas where the level of laboratory automation is already high, like drug design, according to the researchers. Today's state-of-the-art drug design uses brute force automation. The robot scientist consists of a fluid-handling robot, a plate reader that visually examines yeast, and artificial intelligence software that generates a set of hypotheses from information about biochemistry and plans experiments designed to eliminate potential hypotheses as quickly and cheaply as possible. It conducts experiments by dispensing and mixing liquids and measuring yeast growth. The system could be ready for practical use in three to six years, according to the researchers. The work appeared in the January 15, 2004 issue of Nature.

skeith, I realized after my (drunken) post above that the Poe house was torn down a couple of years ago. I tried to forget about that, I guess. I beleive the Twain house still stands. I passed by it fairly recently.

This closing (which is not official yet, BTW) has NOTHING to do with the post-9/11 NYC economy and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the two worst landlords in NYC are NYU and Columbia University. NYU demolished the Paladium and the Fillmore East long before 9/11, and they've been trying to tear down the Poe and Twain houses for many years. Not mentioned in the article is the fact (admission: I have this "fact" from a bartender at the BL who is an old friend of mine from another context) that the reason BL is so far behind in their rent is that NYU jacked the rent with the specific purpose of forcing them out so that they could use the space.

Bunn probably makes the best home coffee maker, but there's two things you need to know: they are about three times as expensive as a regular coffee maker, and they show up on your electric bill. The later drawback is a function of the fact that it keeps boiling water in reserve at all times (this is also why it makes such good coffee). The home unit generally produces better coffee than their commercial machines that you often see in restaurants. (Actually, I think this has more to do with the fact that many restaurants just don't know how to make a good cup of coffee than anything else. Perhaps restaurants just tend to assume that many people just don't like good coffee.) Someone recommended a French press. If you go that route, do not buy a cheap one. The cheap ones are made of thin glass and do not insulate heat very well at all. Coffee always comes out best when the water is as hot as possible while the grounds are being soaked (this is exactly why the Bunn is such a good machine). However, heat dissipates very quickly through thin, transparent glass. Even if you get one with thick glass, the coffee will come out much better if you wrap a towel around it while the grounds are soaking. Also be sure to press the plunger down slowly and to a slight angle to avoid causing the carafe to explode. I've heard of this happening to other people.

You can be sure that they forked over at least $100K to some consulting firm that told them their market research indicated dropping Latin music prices would not be fruitful...

Fear and George Harrison both had memorable appearances on SNL.

Not much to add to this thread, but I love McCoy's Milestone output as well. For me, Trane's Impulse years and Tyner's Milestone years are two of the greatest runs any jazz artist has ever had. BTW, you can download just about all of Tyner's Milestone cds at emusic.

I think you'd need pretty big harddrive for that!

No point, just an observation.

My understanding is that they made 20 of those and they are never making any more. According to what you've said, you've accounted for 20% of the market.

I think it's a great movie, "politics" and all.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about what makes "collectors" as a whole tick. I also think these assumptions don't necessarily agree with what I've observed. I've never personally known a serious jazz collector, but I have known serious collectors of other genres and I think they'd be depressed if they ever knew they had everything, because it's the hunt that they get their kicks from. (I'll admit I've known one exception who fits your profile very well, but he is very wealthy and very poorly socially adjusted.) Also, your theory clearly doesn't apply to other types of collectors, such as collectors of paintings. It is obviously impractical to collect ALL the paintings of a particular artist, but people seem quite content to collect the few that they can find, afford and enjoy.

But you can say that about anything. The most you can do is make yourself (and perhaps others) happy while you're here. If collecting records makes a guy happy, I'm not going to rain on his parade. It's not really for me, but then again I'm not a rich guy and spending what money I have on travel, sports and the occassional fancy restaurant is what makes me happiest.

...but you would pay $2000 for a litho, which is more similar to a record. A poster would be a cdr at best.

I don't know, $2000 isn't much to spend on a painting, so why shouldn't someone spend that much on a record if they want? Personally, even if I was rich I'd just buy the damn cd, but I'm not judgemental about it.

Hey New Mexicans, would it be feasible to live in Santa Fe and work in Los Alamos, or is that a long, nasty commute? I've been to your state a couple of times, but just for conferences. I haven't really travelled around there.

I don't know how accurate this thing is, but I registered normal.

I was at Wed. night's game when Bobby was in attendance and Saturday's game when his passing was announced (I actually went to every SF home game this week, that was one of the main reasons I wanted to come out here). What a sad note to be leaving the city on. RIP, Bobby, and take care, Barry.

Absolutely, and by the same token it is useful to have threads warning of perceived over/under-ratings.

Dude, it's that bad.

My copy of Jazz on the Barbary Coast just arrived yesterday, just in time for my trip! It looks like the perfect length for my plane trip, too. Thanks for the recommendations. BTW, Bruce, I used to shop at Green Apple all the time as a teen. I'm glad it's still there. I don't know what it's like now, but in the mid-80s it was a, well, off-center shop. They kept copies of the Anarchist Cookbook and the Satanic Verses in the window. It may be pricey overall, but one day in 1988 or so I walked in with about $40 and walked out with a stack of ultra-rare 70s punk singles - like the first Bad Brains 7", the first two Husker Du 7"s, etc. I barely made it around the corner before I started dancing in the street! I still can't believe they didn't know how to price those records!

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I did get to listen to Blue John again today. It's a solid 3.5. The first two tracks are as bad as I remembered, Braith bugs me as much as I remembered, but, IMO, the Patton and Green originals warrant a 3.5 for the album.

Hey Late, I really, really like this album, too. I rate it up there with Trio Fascination 1 and Friendly Fire. I'd like to add some insightful comment so that this is more than just an acknowledgement that someone else on the board really digs the disc, but I'm not too comfortable writing about music and your comments sum up most of what I'd try to say anyway. It's a great disc!

I don't know, I'm sure this will raise some eyebrows, but I find AMG to be accurate much more often than not.

Hey, I said a "tad bit" stingy! It's my least favorite of the four or five Patton cds I have, but I think that's mostly due to the fact that I don't care for George Braith's playing or compositions. Consequently, I find the first two tracks in particular to be pretty dumpy. But the Patton and Grant Green originals on the album are solid, IMO. I interpret 2.5 stars as being on the bad side of average. With that in mind, I'd give Blue John at least 3.5. I'd need to listen to the last four tracks again to see if I'd give it more.