Slashdot Mirror
X Prizes for DNA, Nanotech, Autos, Education
An anonymous reader writes "Larry Page and Craig Venter are now on the X Prize Board of Trustees, and Peter Diamandis, the man behind the $10 million space prize, said new X prizes are in the works for innovations in automobiles, education, nanotech and DNA reseach. Diamandis, from the article: "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon? I think that we'll see some amazing achievements in this area." This is in addition to the foundation's incentive to completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people covered earlier on Slashdot."
Now, to "decode" that would mean that it's encrypted somehow, but it's not. It's there in strands in the center of a cell's nucleus. Maybe "extract" would work as a verb, but we're certainly not cracking any encryption. Do I use RSA encryption to protect my genes from you? No. Even if I did, they'd likely only have to crack it once unless everyone used separate public keys.
What it would really mean to decode DNA would be to figure out what the sequence is actually telling us and we are a far far way from that. The sequence reveals the three letter nucleotides and these then reveal many different proteins that form upon folding. We need to find out which are junk, how recombination works, what defines a stop codon, which nucleotides form which proteins, understanding the C-value, etc. Once that happens, then we can start claiming we've decoded something. Please, people, its function is encrypted, not its sequence.
When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize. If you take it literally, that's awfully ambitious. Of course, there's no way to reverse the use of this word as I believe the media has made it a permanent house-hold phrase
My work here is dung.
"Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"
Because the oil companies buy out/sue out any startup that attempts to make a practical electric car.
They did all these feats on snowboards. No really. I saw it on ESPN yesterday. You haven't truly recombined DNA till you've done it on the backk of a snowmobile doing 40! Booyah!
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?
clear profit
enjoy those tax cuts
What kind of prize are they going to offer for education? I can see easily quantifiable results in the other areas, but does anyone know what they are thinking about in education?
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Because cars have to conform to safety and performance standards that preclude making them too underpowered or too light. The compact cars we have now (which regularly do get 40-50 MPG) already fare badly in a collision with a pickup truck, much less a tractor trailer. When all cars are as solid as motorcycles, all cars will be as dangerous as motorcycles. When a car that is only as solid as a motorcycle also can't accelerate or keep up with the other traffic, it makes a motorcycle seem like a Cadillac by comparison. Or would you try the experiment of driving one of the participants in the Solar Challenge on an unrestricted road alongside normal vehicles?
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
One interesting thing about these goals is that we do not currently have even a solid hint of an idea as to how to solve them.
While the Personal Spacecraft challenge was indeed a monumental feat, it was largely an engineering challenge. Humans have already sent themselves into space many times. The technology was there; humans have a fair understanding of chemical rocketry and aerodynamics.
These new challenges are in a different league. No one has yet decoded that much human DNA that quickly. No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).
These challenges represent not just break throughs in engineering, but in the fundamental knowledge that underpins them.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
If there's one thing that confuses me, it's why anyone ever uses the verb "decode" when speaking about DNA.
Funny, because what's been confusing me is why anyone would use the word "decode" when they are speaking of a cipher. Wouldn't you say "decipher" instead?
A code is simply a map from one representation to another, such as:
-map from DNA to protein
-map from book attributes to a Library of Congress number
-map from a packed memory structure to a set of attributes
I'm just kidding about decode not applying to ciphers. Obviously it does. The difference here is that a cipher is a specific type of code where the map from one set to the other is meant to be one-way unless specific requirements are met, such as knowing the key sequence. A code is just a mapping, and doesn't need to be a cipher.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I'm well aware the Japanese have a word for it, but please, no more stories about people covered in DNA.
Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are just some of the properties (for the want of a better word) that motivate people. These rewards will help solve these problems, which are not impossible, just technologically difficult.
The more I know, the less I know
very informative first post. Thanks for the info. BTW, decode doesn't necessairly mean something is encrypted, it just means that you're changing stuff from one understood medium to another understood medium. Like the way ppl decode clay tablets that were written 1000 years ago. I write network level code and to me, decode and decryption are two different things. When I decode a network packet, I just strip away the headers depending on whats in it. When I decrypt a network packet, I need to use some keys etc. I guess its all about your POV of things.
:p
Just my 2 cents.
When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize.
For what it is worth... in the article, the X-prize folks did NOT use the word "decode" when referring to DNA; they said "sequence". Only the LiveScience.com article writer used the word "decode".
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
"Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"
The question should be: Why do we still drive cars?
Certainly in urban areas this is the most inefficient way of getting people from point a to b.
Check out http://www.carfree.com/ for a non mainstream look at this issue.
This would be a good chance to address real questions and not just come across as another "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" type endeavor.
Simple, with our current economy and infrastructure it is more profitable to very influential energy companies this way. And since our current President and Vice President are very close to these energy companies, you will see very little in the way of change.
Actually the reason is with our current economy and infrastucture it was more profitable for EVERYBODY. Notice how people are now looking for alternatives to gas powered vehicles at the same time the oil companies are making record profits.
When oil was cheap there was no incentive to look at alternatives, now that it's become more expensive there is a market demand for more efficient/alternative fuel vehicles.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Voice 2: Solution: Simple! Let's advertise some NEW prizes, for things that are basically impossible: either violate basic laws of Physics, or too vague to quantify. Then we can really howl, and never have to pay out another dime!
Chorus: Yes! Yes! Yes!
I R'd TFA and they linked to an article describing cars using around 250 miles/gallon.
That figure is kind of misleading since the car described is a plug-in hybrid. The car drove 250 miles using one gallon of gasoline plus an unspecified amount of coal burned to generate the electricity to charge its batteries...
1) Consumers don't want alternatives (unless your a Californian)
2) Governments don't want alternatives (unless your California)
3) Car companies don't want alternatives (unless you forced to sell in California)
4) Gas companies don't want alternatives. (Because they are Texan)
There are litteraly countless designs out there both to improve fuel efficiency, use alternative fuels or power supplies, or use considerably more environmentally friendly technology then what we use now. They have been around for as long as 30 years or more. I don't understand how the X Prize will be won or even contested when there have been viable alternatives for years. Also this contest is moot because of the 4 conditions above.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Arugments like these always give me a good laugh. I suppose if you live in a fantasy world, it makes perfect sense to assume that Oil Companies have large quantities of assasins looking to cap anyone who comes up with a fuel efficient car.
Meanwhile, in the Real-World (tm), basic economics dictates that anyone able to produce a more fuel efficient car with similar performance to todays models, or better yet a high-efficiency alternate-fuel vehicle with a convinient power-source, this person or comany would "make a killing" as it were. Just like in any other industry, providing the customer with better value for their money increases sales, thereby generating larger profits.
Back in fantasy land, the president of Exxon Mobile is currently issuing orders for the president of Ford to be disembowled because he had the nerve to increase fuel efficiency by 5 miles per galon.
We need to enhance the moderation format to include "+1 Tinfoil Hat" Everytime we get some qusi-paranoid conspiracy theory we just mod it up +1 Tinfoil Hat, although the rest of the moderation system may get jealous because they will never be used...
I blame Microsoft for the lack of this feature. I think it is a conspiracy between them and the NSA to keep us from expanding our Tinfoil Army.
"Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"
2 points, 1 question
1. I guess your 30mpg is an average. I know most SUVs don't come close to that.
2. Frankly, I find it amazing that you can take a 1 gallon jug of liquid and slowly burn it and propel yourself and 3000 pounds of vehicle 30 miles. I know there are vehicles that can even do better, but 30 miles is a lonnnnnnnnng way. To be able to do that will 1 gallon of dinosaur juice seems pretty good.
Q1. If the US decided to move to 1 compact New York style location and didn't require the massive amounts of fuel to move bodies from home to work to the mall to the grocery store to school to etc, how would that affect the economy?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Second, you assume iron is the only metal. Titanium, although hard to extract right now, is not only lighter than steel, it is considerably stronger. This means that it should survive impacts very nicely. Vastly better than steel for the same weight.
Third, you assume that impact resistance requires the vehicle's survival. F1 and Indycar disprove this. You can certainly build vehicles using carbon composites that are designed to shatter, for the explicit purpose of getting energy away from the vehicle's occupant(s). Since a wrecked car is unlikely to be repaired (and even if it is, it'll often be substantially weaker), there is little actual advantage in having the car mostly intact but unusable anyway.
Fourth, you assume that car bodies are particularly efficient. Many have a lot of drag (which is why cyclists have topped 100 mph by staying close behind cars), the underbody is covered in pipes and gaps creating all kinds of nasty airflows, etc. You also only need significant grip when accelerating (that includes cornering, as it's a change in velocity, and emergency manoevers). If you're going in a straight line at uniform speed, you only have to overcome air resistance, and that's not going to require a whole lot.
This is not to say that you can build a car that can take advantage of all - or indeed any - of these characteristics. If it's not been done, there is no proof it can be done. However, a lack of proof is not proof of lack. All it proves is that nobody has (yet) established what the "ultimate" car would actually be - even in theory.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, thermodynamics only let you go so far. And contemporary engines sacrifice mileage in favour of emissions. You could probably improve your mileage with 10-20% or so by running very lean mixtures, but you'd release a whole lot of NOx. Causing smog amongst others.
Even electric cars don't have that great an efficiency as the combustion process is just deferred to a power station instead. If you replace a high-efficiency biodiesel engine with a coal plant you shoot yourself in the foot badly.
Personally, I think biofuel is the key. You can use the entire fleet of vehicles that exist today with a little tweaking of their injection and ignition systems, and it is essentially solar power that takes the route via carbohydrates.
But the oil companies don't like this because they live off petroleum.
And the academic researchers don't like it because they prefer gigantic infrastructure-changing projects that will require billions of dollars in reseach indefinately.
And the car companies don't like it because they want to sell you an entire new car. Not just put a $50 gizmo in your present one.
And governments don't like it because they bow to companies and academic institutes.
Which leaves it to you to start demanding ethanol and biodiesel and pour it in your Buick, today. I do.
PS: The T-Ford had good mileage because it weighted 1200 lb and topped out at 45 mph. You could also get good mileage with such a light car and only 20 BHP. A very big part of fuel consumption come from accelerating the car. Keep a steady speed and have a light car and you can get away rather well even if you have a big strong engine.
Yeah, it's not like car manufacturers haven't spent any money on research in that area (*cough*tens of billions*cough*).
Sheesh, it is astoundingly naive to believe that a mere 10 million dollar prize is going to bring about some "magic motor" that is far more fuel efficient than what we have. Some of the smartest engineers in the world have been working on the problem for at least four decades.
Space is different -- there isn't much of a direct economic incentive to get to space, so giving out a prize for a relatively useless stunt made a little bit of sense. But there is already an immense economic incentive to produce a fuel-efficient motor. The patent on something like that would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions).
While they're at it, why don't they offer a prize for human-level AI. I hear no one has been working on that, either. ::rolls eyes::
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
How about... make a solar panel that's more than N% efficient?