Re: [ccp4bb] Crystallographic data table

[Marco Bravo]

Here is my data table for the processed data. Would the total reflections be 
the observed reflections summed together? Then the unique reflections summed 
together for the unique reflections? Also do I use the I/sigma value reported 
here for the high and lowest resolution shells for my table? I am not a phenix 
user typically but may need to for the table function.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kkl2fu816q5wae1q81u6f/summary.jpg?rlkey=oaz31dhdxoikstw85waan21wg=0

Thank you
Marco



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Bernhard Rupp]

> what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for your science? 

(a) Embezzle most of and (b) do sociologically relevant research with the rest, 
like
https://www.ruppweb.org/Garland/PICD.html

Best, BR
-
Bernhard Rupp 
k.k. Hofkristallamt
001 (925) 209-7429
+43 (676) 571-0536
b...@ruppweb.org
hofkristall...@gmail.com
http://www.hofkristallamt.org/ 
-
Hope is not a strategy - hope is a mistake.
-



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

[James Holton]

Thank you for spearheading this, Mark,

But, I don't think you are going far enough. It has already been 
expressed by several on this thread that a 5C change is insufficient 
correction for many situations.  I propose a much more productive change 
of lowering "room temperature" to 4 Kelvin.  This would rapidly lead to 
Nobel Prize winning discoveries, such as room-temperature 
superconductors.  I think, in that light, the minor inconvenience of 
being more specific about temperature in our papers is well worth it.


And, as an aside, I hope you don't mind me pointing out that energy 
doesn't always have to come from burning carbon. Carbon doesn't even 
have the highest energy density.  You can see from this table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Reference_Table
that other fuels are much more effective.

HTH,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 4/1/2024 7:29 AM, Mark wrote:

Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

As a member of the inter-society standards commission St-Incent I have 
been asked to take the bearings of the structural biology community 
regarding a proposal to lower the universally understood room 
temperature from 25ºC (77º Fahrenheit) to 20ºC (68º Fahrenheit). 
Obvious advantages would be less heating necessary for experiments at 
this standard temperature. Given that laboratories nowadays are not 
commonly heated to this high temperature anyway, it does appear to 
make sense.


Members of tropical and subtropical countries have already expressed 
opposition to the proposal, because they have to reach room 
temperature by cooling rather than heating, so for them the proposal 
would mean more CO2 emissions, not less.


Please express opinions to this list today, so that I have time to 
collate them before the local deadline of 28 December.



Mark J van Raaij
Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas, lab 20B
Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
calle Darwin 3
E-28049 Madrid, Spain



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1 







To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[David A Case]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024, James Holton wrote:


My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for 
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of 
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural 
science, so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!


One idea: we should start by running a large language model on the complete
archive of Holton posts to the CCP4BB list.

...dave case



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

Of course, Frank!  No amount is too small if it makes a difference in 
the world.


Can you please provide a budget justification?


On 4/1/2024 1:22 AM, Frank Von Delft wrote:
Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi 
schememarket.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?


Sent from tiny silly touch screen

*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific funding!

My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!

I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
grad students, techs. Everybody.

I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
least for today, let's give it a try!

Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a 
mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are 
available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/


*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. 

Re: [ccp4bb] Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

[David J. Schuller]

Looking forward to feedback from the Southern realms as to which should be 
higher; SSRT or WSRT.


===
 All Things Serve the Beam
 ===
 David J. Schuller
 modern man in a post-modern world
 MacCHESS, Cornell University
 schul...@cornell.edu

From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of Nukri Sanishvili 

Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:47 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

Excellent idea, Mark!
I think the solution to your dilemma is rather straightforward: we introduce a 
Winter Standard Room Temperature (WSRT) and a Summer Standard Room Temperature 
(SSRT). This way, the folks from locales closer to the equator can always use 
SSRT, while those from more temperate climates can take advantage of using both 
WSRT and SSRT.
The added benefit of this approach will be inclusion of researchers closer to 
either of the poles (which, forgive me for saying it, you so egregiously 
omitted from your considerations). Similar to the tropics, they could use just 
one standard - WSRT.
Hope it helps your and so many young scientists' careers.
Best wishes,
Nukri



On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:29 AM Mark 
mailto:mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es>> wrote:
Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

As a member of the inter-society standards commission St-Incent I have been 
asked to take the bearings of the structural biology community regarding a 
proposal to lower the universally understood room temperature from 25ºC (77º 
Fahrenheit) to 20ºC (68º Fahrenheit). Obvious advantages would be less heating 
necessary for experiments at this standard temperature. Given that laboratories 
nowadays are not commonly heated to this high temperature anyway, it does 
appear to make sense.

Members of tropical and subtropical countries have already expressed opposition 
to the proposal, because they have to reach room temperature by cooling rather 
than heating, so for them the proposal would mean more CO2 emissions, not less.

Please express opinions to this list today, so that I have time to collate them 
before the local deadline of 28 December.


Mark J van Raaij
Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas, lab 20B
Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
calle Darwin 3
E-28049 Madrid, Spain



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Nukri Sanishvili]

Hi James,
The elevator pitch has to be 90 degrees, no? Otherwise it would travel
horizontally as well.
Or, perhaps, we should petition these types of elevators to be added to
building codes for large, multi-entrance buildings?
Best,
Nukri

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 10:08 AM James Holton  wrote:

> For you, Eleanor? Of course!  I look forward to it.
>
> But do you have an "elevator pitch"?
>
> I feel that a lively exchange of short messages conveys ideas much more
> efficiently and effectively than an annual exchange of hyper-dense
> documents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> On 4/1/2024 6:27 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
>
> It. Will probably take me  a. Full year to draft the. Application - is
> that too slow?
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 09:22, Frank Von Delft <
> bcb385fe5582-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi scheme
>> market.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?
>>
>> Sent from tiny silly touch screen
>> --
>> *From:* James Holton 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
>> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
>> formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
>> numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
>> single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
>> indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
>> hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
>> proven that there is not a more efficient way.
>>
>> It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
>> nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
>> fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
>> series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
>> efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
>> There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
>> to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
>> April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
>> certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
>> discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
>> scientific funding!
>>
>> My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
>> your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
>> other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
>> so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!
>>
>> I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
>> large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
>> $100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
>> (adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
>> and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
>> about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
>> crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
>> sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
>> might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
>> buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
>> power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
>> $10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
>> category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
>> grad students, techs. Everybody.
>>
>> I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
>> like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
>> that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
>> science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
>> overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
>> on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
>> least for today, let's give it a try!
>>
>> Looking forward to your applications,
>>
>> -James Holton
>> MAD Scientist
>>
>> 
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>>
>> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a
>> mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are
>> available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
>> --
>> *From:* James Holton 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
>> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
>> formal mathematical proof 

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

I'm sorry Phil, but your application has been administratively rejected 
because it did not conform to the bioscience-only stipulation that was 
clearly stated in the RFA.


We look forward to an improved version of your proposal in the future, 
and please try to read the instructions more carefully next time.


Best of luck,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 4/1/2024 8:03 AM, Phil Jeffrey wrote:

:: I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers.

Presumably via the Bankman-Fried algorithm

Phil

On 4/1/24 3:01 AM, James Holton wrote:

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never 
been a formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of 
very large numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than 
simply trying every single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, 
encryption keys and indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge 
upon how computationally hard it is to find these large prime 
factors. And yet, no one has ever proven that there is not a more 
efficient way.



[snip]






To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

For you, Eleanor? Of course!  I look forward to it.

But do you have an "elevator pitch"?

I feel that a lively exchange of short messages conveys ideas much more 
efficiently and effectively than an annual exchange of hyper-dense 
documents.


Cheers,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 4/1/2024 6:27 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
It. Will probably take me  a. Full year to draft the. Application - is 
that too slow?


On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 09:22, Frank Von Delft 
 wrote:


Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi
schememarket.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?

Sent from tiny silly touch screen

*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never
been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very
large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying
every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how
computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has
ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one
in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it
seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may
have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific funding!

My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural
science,
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!

I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and
unrelated
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from
cloning
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would
only cost
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but
postdocs,
grad students, techs. Everybody.

I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them.
And, I
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to
focus
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale,
but, at
least for today, let's give it a try!

Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1


This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB
, a mailing list hosted by
www.jiscmail.ac.uk , terms & conditions
are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never
been a
formal mathematical 

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Phil Jeffrey]

:: I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers.

Presumably via the Bankman-Fried algorithm

Phil

On 4/1/24 3:01 AM, James Holton wrote:

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a 
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large 
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every 
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and 
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally 
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever 
proven that there is not a more efficient way.



[snip]



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

[Jurgen Bosch]

Hi Mark,

Well, you don't have to look far. Spain (kind of where you are), France, 
Germany they will start cooling as well to reach that temperature for most of 
the year.
I don’t think it will be feasible considering going green is what Europe wants 
to achieve.

Jürgen 

> On Apr 1, 2024, at 10:29 AM, Mark  wrote:
> 
> Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC
> 
> As a member of the inter-society standards commission St-Incent I have been 
> asked to take the bearings of the structural biology community regarding a 
> proposal to lower the universally understood room temperature from 25ºC (77º 
> Fahrenheit) to 20ºC (68º Fahrenheit). Obvious advantages would be less 
> heating necessary for experiments at this standard temperature. Given that 
> laboratories nowadays are not commonly heated to this high temperature 
> anyway, it does appear to make sense.
> 
> Members of tropical and subtropical countries have already expressed 
> opposition to the proposal, because they have to reach room temperature by 
> cooling rather than heating, so for them the proposal would mean more CO2 
> emissions, not less.
> 
> Please express opinions to this list today, so that I have time to collate 
> them before the local deadline of 28 December.
> 
> 
> Mark J van Raaij
> Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas, lab 20B
> Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
> calle Darwin 3
> E-28049 Madrid, Spain
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

[Nukri Sanishvili]

Excellent idea, Mark!
I think the solution to your dilemma is rather straightforward: we
introduce a Winter Standard Room Temperature (WSRT) and a Summer Standard
Room Temperature (SSRT). This way, the folks from locales closer to the
equator can always use SSRT, while those from more temperate climates can
take advantage of using both WSRT and SSRT.
The added benefit of this approach will be inclusion of researchers closer
to either of the poles (which, forgive me for saying it, you so egregiously
omitted from your considerations). Similar to the tropics, they could use
just one standard - WSRT.
Hope it helps your and so many young scientists' careers.
Best wishes,
Nukri



On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:29 AM Mark  wrote:

> Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC
>
> As a member of the inter-society standards commission St-Incent I have
> been asked to take the bearings of the structural biology community
> regarding a proposal to lower the universally understood room temperature
> from 25ºC (77º Fahrenheit) to 20ºC (68º Fahrenheit). Obvious advantages
> would be less heating necessary for experiments at this standard
> temperature. Given that laboratories nowadays are not commonly heated to
> this high temperature anyway, it does appear to make sense.
>
> Members of tropical and subtropical countries have already expressed
> opposition to the proposal, because they have to reach room temperature by
> cooling rather than heating, so for them the proposal would mean more CO2
> emissions, not less.
>
> Please express opinions to this list today, so that I have time to collate
> them before the local deadline of 28 December.
>
>
> Mark J van Raaij
> Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas, lab 20B
> Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
> calle Darwin 3
> E-28049 Madrid, Spain
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

[ccp4bb] Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

[Mark]

Room temperature change from 25ºC to 20ºC

As a member of the inter-society standards commission St-Incent I have been 
asked to take the bearings of the structural biology community regarding a 
proposal to lower the universally understood room temperature from 25ºC (77º 
Fahrenheit) to 20ºC (68º Fahrenheit). Obvious advantages would be less heating 
necessary for experiments at this standard temperature. Given that laboratories 
nowadays are not commonly heated to this high temperature anyway, it does 
appear to make sense.

Members of tropical and subtropical countries have already expressed opposition 
to the proposal, because they have to reach room temperature by cooling rather 
than heating, so for them the proposal would mean more CO2 emissions, not less.

Please express opinions to this list today, so that I have time to collate them 
before the local deadline of 28 December.


Mark J van Raaij
Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas, lab 20B
Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC
calle Darwin 3
E-28049 Madrid, Spain



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Eleanor Dodson]

It. Will probably take me  a. Full year to draft the. Application - is that
too slow?

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 09:22, Frank Von Delft <
bcb385fe5582-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote:

> Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi scheme
> market.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?
>
> Sent from tiny silly touch screen
> --
> *From:* James Holton 
> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>
> Hey Everyone,
>
> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
> formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
> numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
> single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
> indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
> hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
> proven that there is not a more efficient way.
>
> It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
> nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
> fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
> series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
> efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
> There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
> to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
> April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
> certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
> discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
> scientific funding!
>
> My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
> your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
> other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
> so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!
>
> I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
> large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
> $100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
> (adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
> and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
> about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
> crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
> sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
> might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
> buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
> power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
> $10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
> category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
> grad students, techs. Everybody.
>
> I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
> like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
> that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
> science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
> overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
> on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
> least for today, let's give it a try!
>
> Looking forward to your applications,
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> 
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>
> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a
> mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are
> available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
> --
> *From:* James Holton 
> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>
> Hey Everyone,
>
> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
> formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
> numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
> single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
> indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
> hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
> proven that there is not a more efficient way.
>
> It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
> nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
> fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
> series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
> efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at 

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Frank Von Delft]

Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi scheme market.  
Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?

Sent from tiny silly touch screen

From: James Holton 
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific funding!

My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!

I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
grad students, techs. Everybody.

I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
least for today, let's give it a try!

Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

From: James Holton 
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific 

[ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a 
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large 
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every 
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and 
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally 
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever 
proven that there is not a more efficient way.


It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are 
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models 
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the 
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more 
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this. 
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems 
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of 
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have 
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to 
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of 
scientific funding!


My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for 
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of 
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science, 
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!


I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a 
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated 
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9 
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning 
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost 
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of 
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a 
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That 
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to 
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to 
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be 
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the 
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs, 
grad students, techs. Everybody.


I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I 
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems 
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in 
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't 
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus 
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at 
least for today, let's give it a try!


Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] Crystallographic data table

[Tom Peat]

Hello Marco,

You can find all of that information in the Aimless log file.
Best regards, Tom

Get Outlook for iOS

From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of Marco 

Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 2:40:06 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK 
Subject: [ccp4bb] Crystallographic data table

[You don't often get email from mbrav...@ucr.edu. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I am trying to put together a crystallographic data table for my data. Where 
can I get the Rsym value for my table? Also where can I get the unique 
reflections and total reflections value for my table? I also need the I/sigma 
for the low and high resolution shells.

Thank you for your help

Marco



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of 
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are 
available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/