Slashdot Mirror


DNA So Dangerous It Doesn't Exist

Panaqqa writes "A group of researchers at Boise State University is investigating the theory that there are genome sequences so dangerous they are incompatible with life. Greg Hampikian, a professor of genetics, and his team are comparing all possible short sequences of nucleotides to databases of gene sequences to determine which ones don't exist in nature. The New Scientist reports that the US Department of Defense is interested enough in their work to have awarded them a $1 million grant. I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take."

454 comments

  1. Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by ztransform · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just like the Monty Python sketch "the Funniest Joke in the World", developing something that kills itself too quickly isn't going to get propagated far without a lot of effort!

    1. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by zuiraM · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can avoid burnout with a bit of genetic engineering.

      For instance, if you could modify the common cold into two strains that, when combined, cause the original strain to be reassembled in the victim, then you could choose two patient zero groups with a wide geographical spacing and watch the clock tick.

      The real issue is choosing the right way to limit burnout and then finding a way to control them, so they can be applied as anything other than WMDs, although the US has displayed its eagerness to deploy WMDs in the past.

      Of course, such a strain of anything might be a couple of mutations short of an extinction event, but that has never bothered anyone actually working on these things or funding them to the extent that it stopped "progress".

    2. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by De_Boswachter · · Score: 2, Informative

      "developing something that kills itself"

      This is different. Long double-stranded DNA molecules (up to several kilobases) can be synthesized chemically in large quantities without using organisms. These can then be introduced into organisms by transfection. If the organisms die, the DNA is lethal.

    3. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Threni · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Just like the Monty Python sketch "the Funniest Joke in the World", developing something that kills itself too quickly isn't going
      > to get propagated far without a lot of effort!

      It reminds me of the book "A Higher Form of Killing" (by Jeremy Paxman (yeah, *that* Paxman) and Robert Harris) which has this quote from a House Appropriations hearing in 1969:

      "Within the next five to ten years it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease."

      Sounds like AIDS, doesn't it, and the first reported cases of AIDS were discovered in 1982.

    4. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by bloodredsun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But forensic analyses of blood has found cases well before 1969 (the earliest definite is 1959), and current research has the earliest cases at some time in the 1930's.

      So no it doesn't sound like AIDS was manufactured.

    5. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Create deadly AIDS virus.
      2. Release to Africa and homosexuals.
      3. Profit?

      Seriously, let's say the US government possessed such a useless weapon as a blood-borne disease. Let's say they decided to use it. They didn't test it on prisoners or Soviets... no, they went to dirt-poor Africa and infected a bunch of folk there. And maybe they went to San Francisco and infected some gay folks, too. Then the government manages to keep this whole operation a secret and never uses this "weapon" again. The government is terrible at keeping even important things secret - to the point where they redact documents by changing their color in a PDF! Do you really think that the US government was able to develop a virus in secret, and then deploy it in secret?

      That violates Occam's razor. A much simpler explanation is that AIDS evolved to exploit weaknesses in the human immune system, just as many diseases that have come before it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      discovered in the west, yes. However Aids appears to have existed as a localised an minor disease for millenia. It became widespread when western doctors doing mass immunisation programs injected thousands of people a day with the same needle....

    7. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by the_B0fh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, there's another viable theory. There was a tv documentary about it. Try looking up polio research and the use of monkey kidneys (simian hiv is not deadly to simians). Good possibility that the polio used in Africa (but not elsewhere, like US) was contaminated with simian hiv, and that mutated.

    8. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I won't dispute that, especially considering there is other evidence that it originally came from monkeys. I mean, it had to make the jump somehow, and through a vaccine made with monkeys seems as plausible as hunting, eating, or having sex with monkeys. Still, it's a very different thing to argue a vast conspiracy and cover-up.

      My only problem with the polio vaccine theory is that the polio vaccine is oral, no? Even if you had a live AIDS virus, this would not be a very effective way to spread it. On the other hand, if you gave it to infants or people with sores in their mouths, who knows? I ain't no biologist.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by gordyf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just a nitpick, but AIDS cannot evolve as it's not a virus, merely a condition. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

    10. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in effect we as a species are akin to a huge Microsoft Windows OS?

      Medicine can be considered "hot fixes" which just gloss over the symptoms and give us a false sense of security.

      Interesting.

    11. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      That violates Occam's razor.

      But you're forgetting Occam's Shaving Cream.

      Conspiracy theory is the handy-dandy foaming lubricant for avoiding the harsh cut of Occam's Razor.

      Occam's Shaving Cream says that Conspiracy theories can trade off lubrication vs foam factor. If a conspiracy theory is slick enough, you don't need much foam. And if the initial conspiracy isn't very slick, the harder someone tries to rub it away the harder it foams up.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by shish · · Score: 1
      The government is terrible at keeping even important things secret

      That's what they want you to think ;)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    13. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by kaizendojo · · Score: 1
      3. Profit?
      Yes, certainly no profits being made by the altruistic drug companies. And we know they are always putting our health above the bottom line, right?
      http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20031124.html
      So while there may be no conspiracy in it's creation, there seems to be a least some credible evidence of a profit motive in managing the disease versus curing or preventing it.
    14. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it wouldn't have to be spread to a lot of people in that form, just a few promiscuoius people, even just one could be enough

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    15. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by budcub · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Anyone that finds the cure for HIV/AIDS can be guaranteed three things:

      1. Nobel Prize
      2. Their name in the history books
      3. 99% of the world population will want it.

    16. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just translate the DNA into German. Problem Solved!

    17. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Naw man, they make a LOT more money off of YOUR condition. They could have cured paranoid schizophrenia decades ago, but it's much more profitable to just keep feeding you drugs, thereby "managing" your condition. Besides, you're the only thing keeping the tinfoil industry afloat, and everyone knows that Haliburton makes most of it's money from Tin and not Oil.

    18. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A much simpler explanation is that AIDS evolved to exploit weaknesses in the human immune system, just as many diseases that have come before it.

      Damn evolutionists!

      AIDS is obviously a product of Intelligence Design. Just accept it.

    19. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Da_Weasel · · Score: 1

      I love that skit but I never understood how the person who made up the joke survived long enough to put it down on paper...

      --
      If you must!
    20. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by JM78 · · Score: 1

      The government is terrible at keeping even important things secret...

      Sure, they can't keep everything secret but the American government's ability to misdirect and mislead when necessary is incredible. Add to that the area being discussed [military research] which is likely the most guarded and cloaked institution in the world. The simple fact this AIDS-as-a-weapon discussion is taking place is an obvious and perfect example that nobody has a clue what the truth is about the current state of military advance. However unlikely, because current technology has in many cases surpassed science-fiction (as in reality is often stranger than) it leaves enough room to wonder about the if...

      That being said...

      A much simpler explanation is that AIDS evolved to exploit weaknesses in the human immune system, just as many diseases that have come before it.

      By far makes the most sense in a world of (IMHO) constant bombardment of ridiculous conspiracy without constructive or critical thinking.

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
    21. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      3. 99% of the world population will want it.

      Who are the remaining 1% who wouldn't want this cure?

    22. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are the remaining 1% who wouldn't want this cure? The loonies who think that AIDS is some sort of anti-homosexual fire-and-brimstone gift from God, perhaps? Thankfully, there aren't too many people like that.
    23. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by budcub · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who are the remaining 1% who wouldn't want this cure?
      Religious fanatics. There is a new vaccine out now for HPV that can prevent cervical cancer in women, and some religious organizations are debating whether it is "moral" for teenage girls to have the vaccine. They think the threat of getting HPV and cervical cancer may prevent girls from having premarital sex.

    24. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      If the organisms die, the DNA is lethal.

      Lethal to organisms that share the same set of tRNAs.

      In general a tRNA set is unique to a given species although most species have similar tRNAs. But if the organisms in question were to have different ones, then their version of the same poison would have a different base sequence, as it would be translated differently from mRNA by RNA polymerase II.

      So right there is a big grain of salt to take with the idea of "innately poisonous" DNA that is "incompatible with life". Everything in its proper context.

    25. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by sholden · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure religious fanatics make up far more than 1% of the population.

    26. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      This is completely true. For example, lots of people will listen to my conspiracy theories about how the CIA killed JFK and how NASA faked the moon landing. These conspiracy theories can be considered fairly slick and do not need much lubrication to gain a foothold in a listener.

      But whenever I bring up my "Hitler was a Gay Extraterrestrial from the Past" conspiracy, I find that I need lots of the shaving cream to get anyone to listen seriously. I need to talk about the extensive conspiracy theory for hours before I can win anyone over, so I guess that one just isn't slick enough. :(

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    27. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      You'd think the same about the cold, a common rhinovirus that's eminently less complex than the HIV/AIDS virus, that we know so much more about how it is transmitted and has changed very little in it's structure or behaviors. And yet we still lack a cure or prevention in the way of a pill or vaccine.

      Would you rather sell a single, yearly vaccine or a plethora of symptomatic relievers at a much higher and continuous profit.


      I'm no Harvard MBA, but my guess would be the latter.

    28. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      So post some of this information or directions to it. That would be the responsible thing to do.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    29. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by deKernel · · Score: 1

      You comment went from informative to paranoid quite quickly. Gee once again the US is the bad guy.

    30. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by lubricated · · Score: 1

      or a simpler explanation, they ate monkeys.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    31. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is true HIV (the actual virus) is speculated to have been transfered to humans in 1930's http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm from chimps. Some chimps carry SIVcpz (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) and this was spread to humans. Feline immunodeficiency virus, or FIV has been around for thousands of years and many cats (wild or carry the virus but don't ever develop symptoms. Evolution has allowed felines to live with the virus.

    32. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's just weird enough for me to really like.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Caffeinate · · Score: 1
      Slight nitpick, but I don't believe it's "simian HIV", HIV being HUMAN immuno-deficiency virus. I believe you were referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian_Immunodeficien cy_Virus.

      In addition, this virus can cause SAIDS in some monkeys.

      --
      Godless heathen.
    34. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by leladax · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that the US government was able to develop a virus in secret, and then deploy it in secret?

      hm, and if they did keep secrets how would you know?

    35. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oh my God, you are right! They are watching us all! Trust no one!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by jacem · · Score: 1
      --
      DOC Disinformation Obfuscation and Confusion
      The carrot to FUD's stick
    37. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the vaccine for HPV can prevent HPV infection which can cause cervical cancer in women. The vaccine does not prevent cervical cancer. There is no vaccine for cancer. Getting the HPV vaccine is like not smoking; it greatly decreases the likelihood of you developing a particular kind of cancer, but other factors can still cause that same cancer which can kill you all the same.

    38. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by redcane · · Score: 1

      Lovely logic... HPV is not exluded from married couples, nor rape victims. It's also something they check for in women over 18 regardless of whether they have had sex or not.

    39. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm lazy and like efficiency. I'd rather pay $100/year on vaccine than $20/year on cough syrup.

      If I were a drug company CEO, I'd rather make 1 vaccine and charge a lot than make a lot of different placebos and sell them for $3/box. But I'm not a drug company CEO, because I'm lazy.

      If only we could make the drug companies lazy. You don't have to advertise a vaccine. You don't have to pull weird shenanigans with the patent. It'd be so much less work!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    40. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Dude, and that moon landing? I heard from my brother's cousin that it was totally done on a soundstage! And I also heard that the government has totally hidden an alien crash at Area51, and they've got all kinds of technology that we don't know about! The Army has no need to use civilian technology or research...
       
      /sarcasm

    41. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      Well again, you're not thinking like a business man.

      The average Joe would be less likely to pay $100 for a vaccine when he's healthy than to pay $40 for cold related meds when he's sick. Also, you can sell $20 Robitussin to poor people all day long - but those without health care or the means to pay aren't going to be able to afford your $100 vaccine, so now you're going to have to sell two to three times as much to equal the volume profits.

      And as far as 'not having to advertise a vaccine' you apparently are unaware of the copious amounts of money spent marketing and selling doctors on using a particular drug. Many of my clients are in the medical industry and they often tell me to come on 'drug rep days' so I can enjoy the free CATERED LUNCHES in the office provided by the reps that visit ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.

      Charging a lot only works if your largest target demographics can afford it. Otherwise there would be more Ruth Cris Steakhouses and less McDonalds.

    42. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by HiThere · · Score: 1

      To be totally fair, most major countries that are powerful show no restraint in leveraging their use of power. The US is unique only in that it was the first country to implement weapons theoretically capable of wiping out all mammals, or at least all large ones.

      We have no reason to believe that any other country would have acted less extremely than we did. If anything, history appears to label us as unusually hesitant in deploying brute force. (Doubt it? Read some history. Learn about the Assyrians, the Romans, the Mongols, etc.) We have generally been as peaceful as the Egyptians, which some attribute to ours being a commercial empire more than a military one.

      That doesn't make this weapon concept any less dangerous. (Although, it might be less vile than atomic weapons, as it would primarily kill off only people. That could save evolution several million years, and the sun won't last forever.)

      P.S.: This is kind of thing is one of the less pleasant answers to the Fermi paradox.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    43. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by dan828 · · Score: 1

      You can avoid burnout with a bit of genetic engineering.

      For instance, if you could modify the common cold into two strains that, when combined, cause the original strain to be reassembled in the victim, then you could choose two patient zero groups with a wide geographical spacing and watch the clock tick.

      The real issue is choosing the right way to limit burnout and then finding a way to control them, so they can be applied as anything other than WMDs, although the US has displayed its eagerness to deploy WMDs in the past.

      Of course, such a strain of anything might be a couple of mutations short of an extinction event, but that has never bothered anyone actually working on these things or funding them to the extent that it stopped "progress".

      I think you've been watching to many movies. Number one, the state of the art isn't that good. It might be some time in the future, but modifying a virus into a subtly acting binary weapon is way beyond us at this time. Two, with two strains in the wild, which would both have to have extensive genomic DNA that isn't being expressed during the lifecycle of the pathogen, you'd have a number of errors introduced into it, which would likely render it non-effective whenever it meets up with its counterpart. Non-expressed DNA has no reason to be conserved. Also, these engineered viruses would have to compete against their wild-type parents, that don't have the added burden of all this extra, non-functional until signaled, DNA.

      Biology is not computer science.
    44. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know how things work in Pharma currently. It's disgusting. I also think that if a business could be lazy enough and long-sighted enough they could do things differently and prosper. It's this retarded focus on current-quarter profits at the expense of everything else that is making things stupid.

      Take the HPV vaccine. It'll make trillions. Doesn't matter if poor people can't afford it. It'll be given out gratis because emergency rooms would rather pay $100 for a vaccine than $10k for an uninsured person with cervical cancer.

      If there was a wide-range flu vaccine, employers would eagerly pay $100/dose and if it reduced sick days by even 1/year they'd save lots of money. Anyone with insurance would get it courtesy of their greedy insurance company. Anyone without insurance would get it gratis if their last-resort care providers can see the bottom-line benefit.

      I know how things are. I think they can be better, for less money, and more profit if everyone would just look a bit further. Too bad they won't.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    45. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by zuiraM · · Score: 1

      I'm not claiming they're unique in this respect. It is human nature, pure and simple. The US happens to be more empowered to express that nature than many, but power shifts over time and others will be better situated to do the same things in a not too distant future.

      I'm not predicting that any other nation of similar size and economy will do better.

      That said, I don't think any post of mine has received modpoints so far, since I don't spend a whole lot of time here, so that isn't a great loss. The modpoint system is crap. How often do I even see the lowids anymore? It is selfpropagating: I don't bother posting a well put argument, since it'll be lost in the noise anyway, and hence frequently end up adding to the noise myself. Sorry for that.

    46. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "I love that skit but I never understood how the person who made up the joke survived long enough to put it down on paper..."

      Voice Over:
      This man is Ernest Scribbler... writer of jokes.
      In a few moments, he will have written the funniest joke in the world... and, as a consequence, he will die... laughing.

      Ernest stops writing, pauses to look at what he has written... a smile slowly spreads across his face, turning very, very slowly to uncontrolled hysterical laughter... he staggers to his feet and reels across room helpless with mounting mirth and eventually collapses and dies on the floor.

      Voice Over:
      It was obvious that this joke was lethal...
      no one could read it and live...

    47. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by lukesl · · Score: 1

      Obviously you're right, technically, that the HPV vaccine is not a vaccine against cancer, but against the virus that causes the majority of that type of cancer. However, getting the vaccine is not the same as not smoking because smokers make a conscious choice to do something they know is bad for them. People who get infected with HPV do not consciously choose to become infected. Also, it is not true that there are other factors that cause the same cancers as cigarettes and HPV in significant numbers. There can be different types of cancers of the same organs (such as asbestos inhalation, which causes a different type of lung cancer), but that's not the same thing.

    48. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by lukesl · · Score: 1

      I think your anger is a little misplaced. The HPV vaccine is an example of the pharmaceutical industry doing a good thing. You can complain they're just doing it for money, but many, many people will benefit in a very important way. If only more money went toward development of important things like vaccines for important pathogens instead of treatments for baldness, impotence, wrinkles, etc. the world would be a much better place.

    49. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Keep the well reasoned arguments in the sections unless they align with slash-think, then they can go in articles that make the main page index. The political slash-think on the main-page articles is very different than in the sections that don't make main page

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    50. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Apoklypse · · Score: 0

      yes, you are correct, most intelligent persons deal in facts, not political correctness ... and yes once again the US is the bad guy ... stop being bad and stay out of other countries business, stop damaging other nations, stop destroying the world around you, get a grip on yourself and deal with the facts for a change ... or are you too self-centered and arrogant, or merely uneducated about the REAL world to deal with the facts?
      IMPEACH Bush.

    51. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Apoklypse · · Score: 0

      drug companies? twit. treat the symptoms in perpetuity.

    52. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Wait until they find out that it also keeps men from getting anal cancer, the tele-evangelists may change their minds. It may also prove popular with Alter-boys.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    53. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Most health insurance's Rx plans don't cover over-the-counter treatments, which is what most cold meds are, so the real choice is get a $100.00 vaccine and pay a $25.00 Co-Pay for it every year or pay $40.00 in over-the-counter every year.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    54. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the rest of the world stops acting like a bunch of children so the grown-up doesn't have to intervene? We're getting tired of dealing with you brats, so until you yahoos can figure out how to stop psychopaths from wiping out entire swaths of your population we're going to do what we need to do to protect you from yourselves. Say thank you, you ungrateful little twerps.

    55. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you don't believe in evolution - then design by a military is a cute way to ignore some of the obvious examples. Intelligent design can include people as well as God, I guess...

    56. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Codon sequences are good enough to put you on death row so why is it impossible to identify so called AIDS? It is half visna and half bovine leukemia. It was called HTLVIII and renamed HIVI - I wonder why, lol.
      Gallo said it was distally (distantly) related to visna or bleukemia because it was only half those.
      By that argument you are distally related to your parents.
      The virus was hybridized by Litton Bionetics in Louisiana at the request of the WHO for an infectious agent refractory to the immune system as an aid in studying cancer.
      Production was done at Fort Deitrich (spelling?) and then moved to Cold Harbor.
      The rest of the uninformed can believe a monkey shared needles with someone but at least you now now its genesis.

    57. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Cigarettes are a somewhat bad analogy to make. Research has shown that niccotine is a highly-effective antidepressant, and that many smokers are actually self-medicating themselves for depression.

      It's not as clear-cut of a "choice" as you'd think, which is a big part of what makes it hard to quit.

      That said, smoking IS one of the worst things you can do to your body.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    58. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by greengrocer · · Score: 1

      Actually, their is (and I have seen and read) compelling evidence that a "weather balloon" is not what landed in a farmers land near Roswell, New Mexico. To have a Major declare that a UFO crashed and to hear one of his children recount evidence he brought to his home, only to later her him recant in the company of a general that it was a weather balloon...

      I've recently researched the moon landing hoax conspiracy myself and have come to the conclusion that they did occur.

      Here's some good sarcasm for you:

      1. Your government wouldn't lie to you.
      2. Airliners and jet fuel can cause millions of tons of concrete reinforced steel to turn to a fine powder because that's "just the way fire rolls."
      3. Jesus Christ was born on Dec 25th.
      3a. Just because "Christmas trees" are strictly forbidden by Jeremiah 10:2, doesn't mean that Christmas trees are pagan.
      3b. Christ is not a form of the Greek word "Christos," meaning messiah, but actually the dude's last name.
      3c. Jesus is a Hebrew name.
      4. The Catholic church never sold the papacy. The pope is the man chosen by God to be his mouth on Earth.
      4a. Kings rule by divine right.
      4b. Jesus told George W. Bush to invade Iraq.
      5. Convicted felon lists from Texas were not used to disenfranchise minorities in Florida prior to the 2000 presidential election.
      5a. There is no link between Jeb Bush, the swing state of Florida, "#4", and George W. Bush.
      6. There are more acts of "terror" commited against Americans in South America than the Middle East.
      7. Iraq is connected to 9/11.

      Oh, I got a bunch of them. i gotta stop before I wear myself out! Go back to sleep, though, there's nothing to see here.

      If you think you can actually unentrench yourself from your "I would never be lied to" mentality, I'd be happy to provide copious information that will change the reasoning mind on many issues, including those sarcastic sarcastic comments above.

    59. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by greengrocer · · Score: 1

      oops, in "5a" I meant to associate "5" with 5a, not #4.

    60. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is a new vaccine out now for HPV that can prevent cervical cancer in women"

      No, no it doesn't.

        I seriously wish people would stop touting this thing as a cure for cancer. Not to mention not all of us opposed to this barely tested shot are religious fanatics (I'm agnostic, for starters). I'm sorry if your STD laden daughters/sisters/mothers were whores, but that doesn't mean all women are. Have you even bothered checking into the side effects of this shot? HPV is like AIDS in that is takes work to get it. You don't get it from a drinking fountain; you have to go out and actively work to get infected (baring health care workers).

    61. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by J.Y.Kelly · · Score: 1
      In general a tRNA set is unique to a given species although most species have similar tRNAs. But if the organisms in question were to have different ones, then their version of the same poison would have a different base sequence, as it would be translated differently from mRNA by RNA polymerase II.

      Cobblers! With a few minor exceptions in some of the more obscure microorganisms the genetic code used by all living things is universal. It is completely routine to perform genetic experiments on human DNA in bacteria, yeasts and other higher organisms. Also the basic biochemistry is pretty similar across species (at least across all animals) such that lethal sequences are likely to affect more than one species.

      Oh, and RNA polymerase doesn't translate RNA, it creates mRNA from a DNA template. Ribosomes are the ones which do the translation.

    62. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about the theories of one Dr. Leonard Horowitz, I will say only that he also thinks that the prions that cause mad cow disease were created as a weapon. Not only that, but the prions were created by electromagnetic and sound frequencies based on secret codes found in the bible. His "doctor" credentials come from him being a dentist. He's basically against all current immunizations.

      I'm not saying that a madman doesn't occasionally get things right, but I'd like to see some corroboration by someone of slightly higher scientific standing before I believe that AIDS was created by man.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    63. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Occam's Shaving Cream says that Conspiracy theories can trade off lubrication vs foam factor. If a conspiracy theory is slick enough, you don't need much foam. And if the initial conspiracy isn't very slick, the harder someone tries to rub it away the harder it foams up.

      That's either a brilliant observation or the stupidest thing I've read today. I've gone over it a bunch of times and honestly can't decide. I'm leaning towards brilliant, though.

    64. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      2. Airliners and jet fuel can cause millions of tons of concrete reinforced steel to turn to a fine powder because that's "just the way fire rolls."

      Moonbat alert. Did you also buy one of the tens of different books written on the subject? If so you've just been duped, congrats. I think you're including the wrong party in your conspiracy here but hey that's just my cynical side talking. Take that, sarcasm!

    65. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand. I'm happy about the HPV vaccine. I wish every disease had a vaccine. But our pharmaceutical industry doesn't make vaccines in general. It's all about pills you have to take every day for the rest of your life, often for vanity reasons.

      The thing I'm angry about is that there isn't an HIV vaccine, a vaccine against heart disease, and a whole slew of cancer vaccines. I suspect given how much money is being made on daily treatments for these diseases that only a truly visionary long-term thinking company will even attempt to make a "cure." Our current pharmaceutical behemoths can't afford to cure these diseases, or so they think.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    66. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood." - Source.

      If you have a grandmother, mother, sister and daughter, chances are three out of four of them are or will become whores. What women in your family are whores?

    67. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by lukesl · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely, but to be fair, there are a lot of technical reasons why it's much easier to make a vaccine against one or a few strains of HPV than HIV or the other diseases you mention, which aren't caused by viruses. Also, I don't think it's the job of pharmaceutical companies to do long-term thinking. That what government funding and university research labs are for. There are plenty of short-term things that aren't being adequately researched, like new classes of antibiotics. It's definitely true that pharmaceutical companies aren't always looking out for the common good, but at least they do something good once in a while, unlike a lot of other industries (tobacco, military weapons, etc.)

    68. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Biology is not computer science. Yet.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    69. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by Mad+Tea+Party · · Score: 1

      That does explain his obsession with the V2 rocket program. And maybe the moustache. Hmmm....

    70. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you would suppose that this hypothetical weapon would only kill people. Although the weapons-angle is an obvious one, nothing in the article says anything about using the information to create weapons, but much of the article does mention sequences which may be incompatible with life in general. For example, tens of thousands of the sequences identified so far "have never been reported in any species".

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    71. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Ah.. because I accepted the statement of an ancestral post that the effectiveness would be limited to animals bearing the same set of tRNA molecules. Granted, depending on the particular target chosen this might not limit itself to people, but it easily could. And if it did, then the area conquered would be worth more later, presuming that there was anyone left to take it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    72. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      Aids doesn't kill itself quickly. It can spread far and wide because it is slow to develop - untreated, typically 5 years from HIV infection to AIDS symptomatic.

      "Weapon" diseases are more likely to be like ebola, virulent, exceedingly fast and therefore very localised. I'd be more likely to suspect ebola was manufactured, but viruses evolve so quickly, they all look new after a few years.

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
    73. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by swaha · · Score: 1

      What if it was a vacine to prevent testicular cancer?
      Would the objections be the same?

    74. Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World by JM78 · · Score: 1

      Belief in evolution isn't a requirement for it's existence. Evolution is an indisputable fact. It has been studied and scientifically recorded. The only thing in dispute is WHERE life originated and that's something that likely won't be answered for quite some time.

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
  2. Suicide genes? by BlackMesaLabs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Suicide genes that can be activated at a later date?
    I - am - not - a - machi --*Boom*

    1. Re:Suicide genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't sound like a good idea to me....

    2. Re:Suicide genes? by Andreaskem · · Score: 1

      Erm... why exactly is this modded redundant? I think he might be referring to Impostor, a short story by Philip K. Dick. I thought Slashdot readers would get this reference.

    3. Re:Suicide genes? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he's quoting Deus Ex, when you say the killphrase to the mech guy...

    4. Re:Suicide genes? by badspyro · · Score: 1
      There is already a part of a cell that distroys it on command, usualy when the cell's time is up. This is done to protect against cancers, as the older the cell is, the higher the chance of mutation.

      Now if we could just use a signal of some kind to set thease off...

    5. Re:Suicide genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely. Killphrase: 'Laputan Machine'. Mechanically augmented agent: Gunther Hermann. (Anna Navarre's killphrase was 'Flatlander Woman', if I remember correctly.)

  3. I, for one, by BerkeleyDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new incompatible non-existing overlords.

    1. Re:I, for one, by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, religion claims prior art! Now you owe 1 billion dollars to the catholic church!

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:I, for one, by zerosix · · Score: 1

      relgion != catholic My religion includes licking one stamp every day. Now you owe me one billon dollars!

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
  4. Hmmm... paradox? by liquid_rince · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe these 'dangerous' sequences are simply too broken to allow something to live.

    Imagine a mouse with a DNA sequence that makes it want to run into mousetraps when it reaches a certain age. Obviously something like won't have much of a chance to procreate.

    1. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Imagine a mouse with a DNA sequence that makes it want to run into mousetraps when it reaches a certain age. Obviously something like won't have much of a chance to procreate. You mean, like toxoplasmosis?
    2. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Obviously something like won't have much of a chance to procreate.
      While higher lifeforms will not readily use them, these DNA sequences might be quite handy for a mutating virus to latch onto. I hope they are very careful with their experiments.
    3. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yeah, probably kinda like that in behavior, but encoded genetically as opposed to a parasite's influence.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope they are very careful with their experiments.

      Indeed,we wouldn't want a petri dish to catch cold.

      KFG

    5. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 5, Funny
      Undoubtedly the plot of the fourth Indiana Jones movie.

      "Doctor Jones? We'd like you to find the lost macguffin of death that kills anything with DNA before the Nazis find it. Oh, and the French Dr. Sneeringfart, your longterm rival, is already on the trail."

      A few scenes from the movie:

      Dr S: "Fine wine - too bad you won't live to enjoy it, Jones!"

      Indy: "Snakes on a plane? Why does it always have to be snakes on a plane!?"

      Indy: "There was an ancient legend that the Aztecs put this in the cocoa of their enemies. DNA incompatible with human life! It's like a bad dream of science!"

      Explorer babe: "Oh, Indy, ignore that tiny bottle of deadly DNA and pay some attention to MY DNA!!"

      Er, I expect the title will be, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Lost Biowarfare.

    6. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Tatarize · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, actually no. At a certain point it becomes more fit for an organism to die. The gene pool and species as a whole evolve, not the individuals. There is a reason old people tend to stop healing, and more so when they aren't needed. Taking up resources and dragging down your family is a bad thing, so at a certain age genes tend to help kill off individuals rather than help them live longer.

      Genes which kill you off when you are a drain on the gene pool are more fit. They tend to help the other individuals in the larger group, many with that same gene. So the gene helps itself by helping others... and killing its possessor.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    7. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by zuiraM · · Score: 1

      Actually, if this happens a few weeks past sexual maturity, it will be an enormous advantage for the species, although not for the individual. Such a mutation would be assured survival if the original mutant was allowed to procreate, barring unforseen accidents that wipe out that subpopulation.

    8. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Petrie dish caught a cold over this Rob would be furious and likely to stumble over the couch trying to get to whomever was responsible.

      *40ish year old humor, feel free to ignore it, but Laura was cute.

    9. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .stumble over the couch. . .

      Ottoman.

      Laura was cute.

      At one point Carl had to instruct a young adult Rob that if he grabbed Mary's ass again it would likely cause trouble.

      She might even be inclined to yell "Oh, Roooooooooob."

      KFG

    10. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by AGMW · · Score: 3, Funny
      Er, I expect the title will be, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Lost Biowarfare.

      Other favourites include (but are not limited too) :-
      Indian Jones and the Raiders of the Pension Fund
      Indian Jones and the Sanatogen of Doom
      Indian Jones and the Lost Slippers

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    11. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But you could also say that the elders, by helping taking care of the village children and teaching their wisdom can still be usefull to the community, so maybe ageing is a way to have a longer (but less active) life by reducing the constraints on the body (and perhaps the risk of cancer). Maybe at a certain age you don't heal anymore simply because the needed effort would otherwise kill you.

    12. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Imagine a mouse with a DNA sequence that makes it want to run into
      > mousetraps when it reaches a certain age. Obviously something like
      > won't have much of a chance to procreate.

      Unless that age is, on average, long after it has stopped procreating.

      The reason we still have heart disease is because very few people die of it before squeezing out some puppies. When it does typically occur, the kids are usually teens or later, and thus evolutionary advantage from maintaining a living parent are largely gone. So as far as evolution is concerned, you did your job, and now you're on your own. Here comes the heart disease, strokes, and cancer.

      If only God had thought to put redundant blood vessels in the heart and brain like He did for some of the other organs. Dammit!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    13. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ottoman, empirical evidence of the onslaught of my senility.

      "Oh, Roooooooooob."

      Yelled, sympathetic, disappointed groan, growled, in many ways he heard that but never moaned in the way he would have liked. It is also possible she might have punched him out again.

      Could you imagine the conversation between Rob, Sally and Buddy on the subject of this article? In the middle of the discussion Mel enters, Buddy looks at Mel, eyes widen, mouth opens, turns back to Rob and Sally "ok, you right, it's possible that the government is messing around with DNA that should not exist."

    14. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      All these things and more come into play. For every factor you think of, there are probably 10 you can't. Also remember there are pressures to live longer as a successful reproducer. After you stop reproducing, you are a drag (which you always are as you consume resources) with only the mild help as a social asset to being in your benefit. And that may not be enough.

      Counter to this are pressures to reproduce rapidly (generation to generation) to maximize the search speed of the evolutionary gradient descent space. More reshufflings of features = more likelihood of finding beneficial adaptations. Which is, of course, why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place -- it gave several magnitudes increase to the spead that "new forms" were tried, with organisms no longer waiting for the occasional stray neutron or copy error to much more slowly achieve the same ends.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Thraxen · · Score: 1

      While your comments are correct, you are incorrect in saying "no" to the OP. In his example he didn't specificy the mouse as being old when the bad gene take over.

    16. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, the more and sooner you breed, the more chances you have to propagate your genes.
      But in my post, I wanted to focus on the point that several species, including mankind, are social animals that also rely on group strategies for their survival, and although elders can't breed or hunt anymore, they are not always a drag, since they could at least have a positive impact on group cohesion and strategy, therefore, increasing the chances that their grandchildren live.
      And on medical ground, I read some things that basically said that ageing was some kind of tradeof, you're not as efficient as when you were younger, but it gives you a few more years by stepping down your metabolism and reducing the risk of cancer.
      And before anyone ask, no, I'm not old (30).

    17. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Taking up resources and dragging down your family is a bad thing, so at a certain age genes tend to help kill off individuals rather than help them live longer.

      On the contrary I'd say living longer for wealthy people could be a great boon for their genes as that wealth would not only provide healthcare for their family but would help the family live a safer life.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    18. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by general+scruff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Woohoo! New Poll!

      Indiana Jones and the Lost:

      -Breasts
      -Wii
      -Coyboy Neal

      --
      As a rule, I never trust dark brown ketchup.
    19. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You obviously do not understand Natural Selection. It states that a variant of a species will survive to pass on it's genes if it is more fit to do so. What that ends up meaning is that it has to survive long enough to reproduce. However if a certain group of people could reproduce well into their 50's or 60's then those genes would more likely be passed on. Now culture has an effect here. We are not just predictable animals who procreate at every given opportunity. Still in the Macro-environment more of these genes will be passed on. One could infer that people who are reproductive are also more healthy. This might not be the case.

    20. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by SamSim · · Score: 1

      Actually this has already been used as the plot of the second Tomb Raider movie, the sequel to the movie based on the videogame series inspired by the Indiana Jones franchise. Lara Croft sets out to find Pandora's Box, which supposedly contains the most dangerous plague ever.

      It's not a particularly bad movie, either.

    21. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I get it. Because he's old now. Heh. Haven't heard any of those jokes before, good ones.

    22. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      At a certain point it becomes more fit for an organism to die. The gene pool and species as a whole evolve, not the individuals.

      Maybe it looks this way, but nature certainly isn't "thinking" it. A successful organism is one which passes its genes on to as many offspring as possible. No organism "wants" to die, even those with the brains to think about it.

      But a finite life cycle leads to a quick turnover of genetic combinations. This in turn produces a population that is nimble and adaptable to changing environmental pressures. Such a population, as a whole, survives and outcompetes other populations. So, rather tautologically, the only populations which exist in the world are those which are able to continue existing. But this doesn't imply that the death of organisms is any kind of deliberate mechanism. Each organism still strives to outcompete all others and produce as many offspring as possible. Death just isn't in the equation for a single organism.

      As humans observing these events we want to ascribe purpose where there most likely is none.

    23. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Indy: "Snakes on a plane? Why does it always have to be snakes on a plane!?"

      You, sir, are a genius. I will boycott the new Indy if it does not involve some sort of scene involving a snake on a plane.
    24. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if anybody has done a "hunter gatherer" typical old person stuff analysis of fitness for the group.

      For example, behavior of young males being aggressive, reckless, and willing to charge ahead to a fight, vs mature adults that tend to be conservative and stay with the group has a purpose. Young males are tougher and heal better and faster, and are also somewhat expendable.

      Take the same concept and apply it to the oldsters. Eyesight problems keeps them close to home, rabid love for the grandchildren to the point of spoiling, erratic sleep patterns of waking up super early and sleeping when the youngsters are out running about... the exact opposite of them almost as if they were designed to sit around the fire doing small stuff and watching for hyenas when others sleep.

      Stuff like that.

    25. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      But you could also say that the elders, by helping taking care of the village children and teaching their wisdom can still be usefull to the community,

      That's the soft and fuzzy feel good theory promoted by sociologists. But what we see in the real world is parents taking care of their children (which makes sense, because they are active enough to teach and oversee). The assumption that being an elder automagically provides them with 'wisdom' is equally unfounded.
    26. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      Mother, thank you, but when you post on Slashdot please try to not to be so obvious.

      Your son,

      Walt

      :)

    27. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of lemmings?

    28. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Seedy2 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, that when you reproduce for too long, into older age, you start competing with your own offspring for resources [wives/girlfriends] thus, effectively, reducing you previous contribution. Thus, not actually increasing the likelyhood of passing on those genes. Reproduction into old age is not really a desireable trait in a population.

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
    29. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      While I am no molecular biologist, perhaps prime sequences code for proteins that have strange electrical properties that make them impossible. Just because you can link together arbitrary sequences of amino acids doesn't mean that some of them won't introduce weird 3d foldings. Of course I could just be really wrong as the bond angles might adjust appropriately without severing. Is there someone who really knows what they are talking about that can add to this?

    30. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Ever consider why women not only can have, but desire multiple orgasms, and men only have one, roll over and fall asleep?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    31. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      That's the soft and fuzzy feel good theory promoted by sociologists. But what we see in the real world is parents taking care of their children (which makes sense, because they are active enough to teach and oversee).

      If by "in the real world," you mean, "in industrialized countries in the past 50 years." Not the best time-frame if you want to make claims about evolution.

      The assumption that being an elder automagically provides them with 'wisdom' is equally unfounded.

      It's not an assumption that age will produce wisdom, but that it alone can.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    32. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Apoklypse · · Score: 0

      Er, I expect the title will be, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Lost Biowarfare.
      Bush has prior art on this ...

    33. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      That's the soft and fuzzy feel good theory promoted by sociologists. But what we see in the real world is parents taking care of their children (which makes sense, because they are active enough to teach and oversee).

      If by "in the real world," you mean, "in industrialized countries in the past 50 years." Not the best time-frame if you want to make claims about evolution.
       
      If that had been what I meant - you'd have a point. But since it wasn't, it's a strawman of your own creation.
       
      The assumption that being an elder automagically provides them with 'wisdom' is equally unfounded.

      It's not an assumption that age will produce wisdom, but that it alone can.

      That too, that age alone can produce wisdom, is also an assumption.
    34. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's out of the question. Taking care of a pet makes older people feel useful and improves their quality of life. It could very well be that feeling useless triggers a faster decline. If grandma is helping, genes to kill her off are aptly less fit.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    35. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Thats because in the modern culture the elderly are cut off from the social mainstream. (This is changing as the boomers age.) But in earlier eras - this was not true.

    36. Re:Hmmm... paradox? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      That too, that age alone can produce wisdom, is also an assumption.

      To you maybe, but not to one to whom it is an observation. This is not surprising, since your use of the word "also" implies that you think "strawman" and "assumption" mean the same.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  5. DoD ? by skahshah · · Score: 1, Troll

    Given (most of ?) the research made by the DoD, maybe it should change its name to Department of Attack ? Or Murder Inc. ?

    1. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ministry of peace perhaps?

      I think some of the nice men who work for miniluv would like a word.

    2. Re:DoD ? by pakar · · Score: 4, Funny

      DoD - Dudes of Death

      Why change a working slogan? :)

    3. Re:DoD ? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Or Murder Inc. ?

      Too late, already taken.

      "It's Murder!!"

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    4. Re:DoD ? by richieb · · Score: 4, Informative

      It used to be called the Department of War. It was changed after WW II.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    5. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer "Dial-a-Stab"...

    6. Re:DoD ? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      The game Grim Fandango called it Department of Death ;-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it used to be named Department of War. Until people decided war was nasty, around 1930-1940 sometime

    8. Re:DoD ? by kfg · · Score: 1

      The ministry of peace perhaps?

      The UN is already using that one.

      KFG

    9. Re:DoD ? by Brian+Boitano · · Score: 1

      To Ministry of Peace?

      --
      What would Brian Boitano do?
    10. Re:DoD ? by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Yes, and oh my gosh... just think what would happen if they studied super viruses or biological agents that can be weaponized. Oh wait... they do that and it enables them to detect and work to protect against those things.

      Ignorance is not security.

      I'm also not blind to the risks here... it's dangerous stuff that needs to monitored and controlled.

    11. Re:DoD ? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't been reading the papers. It's the "Department of D'oh!".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    12. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can't believe this trite got modded up as insightful. Quit crying. Turn off your computer. Stop using your car. Don't ever fly commercial flight. You had better not ever check the weather channel. And you had absolutely better not ever go to a doctor for anything, definitely any sort of trauma injury. Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas. In fact, it wasn't to long ago that there was a story here about medicine and how the pharm companies just develop symptom treatments to bleed everyone for money, while the military research develops cures and vaccines because they are more interested in fixing the problem quickly.

      I swear to God, its every few stories someone makes some moronic comment about the military on here and the sheep flock to it. If you want to cry about a group cry about the elected body that controls the military. Once again I would like to thank you for helping to stop progress and allow the far right to keep a tight grip by making anyone left of their agenda look stupid.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    13. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Ministry of Peace? The UN is already using that one.
    14. Re:DoD ? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      It's always been called minipeace.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    15. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      smallpeace? That sounds about right, given its record...

    16. Re:DoD ? by thebdj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to agree with another child post. Let me give you some non-violent and important examples of the DoD's research.
      1. The Internet. You are using it now. It was originally created by ARPA, now DARPA, which is part of the DoD. You can thank the need for a interconnected, wired (and unwired) network for computer systems the military was using for the "Birth of the Internet."
      2. GPS. Another advance that came from a military need.
      3. Computers. Not entirely DoD based, but ENIAC was built for calculating artillery firing tables for the US Army, which falls under what is now the DoD.

      Those are just three I can think of pretty readily without having to go digging for information. Do they do other research into weapons? Yes. Is it all to make things more deadly? Not necessarily. It is really to make them more effective and efficient. A lot of these researches are done in an attempt to save soldiers' lives and to prevent civilian casualties. A lot of their medical research is along the same vein. If not for some dumb laws (created by the US government), I wouldn't be surprised if the DoD was dumping tons of money into stem-cell research too. Trust me, it isn't all bad.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    17. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was that??...I couldn't hear you over the rustling of your tin foil hat...

      Seriously though, while such a thing could be used for offensive purposes (though stupidly), knowing about it would not be bad for defensive purposes...unless you know about the offense, it is hard to create a defense.

      Anyhow, my thought on it is, if the point of all this was some nefarious super weapon for world domination....I sincerely doubt we would be seeing it here....or anywhere for that matter.... ...unless they are just trying that reverse psychology on me again...darnit.

    18. Re:DoD ? by indifferent+children · · Score: 0, Troll
      Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas.

      And why was it the DoD that researched those advances? Is it because lefty crybabies didn't want those advances researched, while jingoist fascists did? No. Lefty crybabies support spending tax dollars for beneficial research. But the only way to get a right-wing nutcase to agree to let the government spend tax dollars on research is by promising to kill lots and lots of 'bad people'.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    19. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the Ministry of Peace

    20. Re:DoD ? by saider · · Score: 1

      1. The Internet. You are using it now. It was originally created by ARPA, now DARPA, which is part of the DoD. You can thank the need for a interconnected, wired (and unwired) network for computer systems the military was using for the "Birth of the Internet."

      It was DARPA when the Internet was being developed (in the 60's and 70's). Then came political correctness of the late 80's and 90's and so they dropped the "D" to appeal to neo-hippies who do not want to work for the military industrial complex. Then they came to their senses and put the "D" back in after they realized that the brand name of "DARPA" sounded cooler and wasn't an anagram of AARP.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    21. Re:DoD ? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Oh, friggin' please. There's a benign and all-encompassing plot by the 'peaceful' lefties to subvert the 'harmful' wishes of the righties? Imbicile.

    22. Re:DoD ? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Please describe a method whereby a nation can defend itself indefinitely without resorting to retaliation on those who issue violence in its direction?

      Times up. You can't. When someone is pummeling you, you needs pummel back or lose.

    23. Re:DoD ? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Just imagine how advanced our technology would be if all that money spent on preparing for warfare was actually spent on applied research and development. Certainly much more than feeling good about the "crumbs" falling from a warfare-prioritized R&D program.

    24. Re:DoD ? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Kent Brockman: Just miles from your doorstep, hundreds of men are given weapons and trained to kill. The government calls it the Army, but a more alarmist name would be... The Killbot Factory.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    25. Re:DoD ? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to agree with another child post. Let me give you some non-violent and important examples of the DoD's research.

      There's nothing necessarily wrong with the DoD researching new technologies. Sure, they come up with great new inventions for both military and civilian use. It just says something about our national priorities that the only way a lot of these things could get researched is if they have some sort of potential military application.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    26. Re:DoD ? by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Just imagine how advanced our technology would be if all that money spent on preparing for welfare was actually spent on applied research and development. Certainly much more than feeling good about the "crumbs" falling from a welfare-prioritized budget program.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    27. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thank you. I think its funny I got modded down so harshly. I mean DARPAnet was a jingoistic plot to destroy the world right? This is why the ultra left/right piss me off so much, they use the same stupid blind and moronic crap every time, flinging stupid shit back and forth and making anyone that doesn't agree 100% look like a loony from the other camp.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    28. Re:DoD ? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Well... it's more than that. Defense and wartime budgets/economy allow for spending money on risky endeavors. Lots of money goes out to risky research (little hope of useful return) just on the odd case where one of them will be useful. Corporate research is geared towards return on investment so projects that have little chance of return aren't typically persued. Additionally, defense/wartime research projects will typically push boundaries that the politically correct do not feel comfortable pushing at any other time, for example in medicine.

      Medicine is another area of science that is advanced not only by the military but by actual wars. Most of the types of experiementation required to advance medicine are "frowned upon" normally. Put people in wars where a patient is most likely going to die and some new, theoretical procedure may save him (and it's the only hope) where doctors can attempt these long shots with no additional risk to the patient and you get new medical procedures, for example.

      Others, like radar are pushed out of extreme need they wanted to find the enemy. Luckily, the same thing works good for finding friendlies and other stuff too and because of it, doors are opened to new civilian uses (the Internet is another example of this type).

      Defense spending and wartime push more research in short periods of time than any other times in our history... mostly because of a) budgets, b) the acceptance of more risk, and c) need.

    29. Re:DoD ? by Mr2cents · · Score: 1
      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    30. Re:DoD ? by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      The DOD shouldn't be funding research, period. If the DOD hadn't come up with it then someone else would have, all the dollars that go into the military should go elsewhere.

      The DOD is not the necessity that fosters invention, as you seem to think it is.

    31. Re:DoD ? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course. It's always been called minipax.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    32. Re:DoD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! The best way is to give in. Maybe the terrorists will be turned by our peaceful ways.

    33. Re:DoD ? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Not a valid comparison at all.

      Without some kind of wealth redistribution mechanism, a capitalistic economy is most likely to devolve into a highly-class stratified society, where "research" will be directly mainly on the wasteful frivolities that only the obscenely rich can imagine. This would probably be an even worse situation for progress than depending on the crumbs from a military-industrial complex.

      It is fairly straightforward to argue that the current implementation of the welfare system does not work very well, but you'd better be prepared to propose an entirely different economic system before you can argue that not having such a system would be good for society-benefitting progress.

    34. Re:DoD ? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas.

      While arguably true, that's really nothing but the broken window fallacy.

      Here's a good pdf on the subject. When you add up the costs of the military to the economy, and consider how much else never got invented then your point is shown to be completely ridiculous.

      Nice try. Think it through next time though, ok?

    35. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 1

      It is not a broken window fallacy because the purpose of the military is not to produce anything. If the military was to be designated a producer then it would be absolutely horrific efficiency you are right. Given that those wonderful public officials elected by the populace have deemed it important to have a qualified parts list that forces the military to only but from certain manufacturers granting them an insane monopoly power to sell to the military at absolutely uncompetitive prices based on the congressional buddy system. For example a $3 fiber connector costs the military around $20, and a simple hammer that you could purchase from walmart costs around $60. So military spending is grossly inflated by being forced to buy from the select few on that list. If the military was allowed to purchase from other sources then the numbers involved would be drastically reduced. So any nonsense about how they don't contribute because of the cost/return is grossly disproportionate anyways. These costs go on like this because again, the military is not a economic producer, the goal of the military is to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

      Now, I'm not making any argument one way or the other towards how well its stated goal is being met here. The only fallacy here is blaming the military for the acts of the politicians. The grotesque spending is a byproduct of that horrific parts list, and if you talk to almost anyone in the military responsible for any kind of purchasing they will be able to explain to you at length how god awful of an idea it is. As far as the whole blame the military for killing, once again, why not lay the blame where it belongs, at the elected officials and ultimately the public that put them there or didn't demand their resignation. Blaming the military is a stupid attempt to pass off responsibility by citizens who should have probably been a little more active. We can go back and forth until we are blue in the face about how the government won't listen to the populace, but I seem to remember a handful of guys that made their government listen. Good folks too, wrote a few really good papers...you can go see them in the National Archives until the current administration has them recalled for redacting. Blame the gun not the trigger man right?

      Now just for arguments sake...would you care to explain to me everything that never got invented because of military spending? I mean..can you give specific examples of the uninvented things that makes my point so ridiculous? Or maybe your point is completely ridiculous for attempting to quantify uninvented things against actual expenditures. While we are at it, lets pretend that we are having this discussion in an alien language that the military failed to defeat because of lack of funding. By all means, explain to me how to think it through when pondering uninvented items to use in comparison.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    36. Re:DoD ? by Rallion · · Score: 1
      It just says something about our national priorities that the only way a lot of these things could get researched is if they have some sort of potential military application.


      I think it says more about...uh...all life on earth. Most significant growth is through hardship and competition.
    37. Re:DoD ? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The truth is that for 100 soldiers unavailable for duty during any war, 75 of them are out because of illness, keeping people fit and healthy is serious business for any military organization. It's easy to see the death and destruction during a war, unlike durring times of peace, yet often a country's death rates go down durring a war, right now a man 18- 27 years old is more likely to be shot in Washington DC than he is in Bagdad.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    38. Re:DoD ? by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Capitalism has a wealth redistribution system. It is called "Work". You see, you get what is called a "Job" and they pay you money for doing something. Welfare is the act of getting money for doing nothing.

      We also have these things called "charities" that people give money to of their own free will without having to be taxed to support them. These "charities" then spend their money on helping people in need as well and with a lot less overhead than the fed.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    39. Re:DoD ? by Darby · · Score: 1

      It is not a broken window fallacy because the purpose of the military is not to produce anything.

      Try *reading* the linked article instead of imagining that you know what it says. You clearly don't. *everything* in our entire economy has been shaped by our massive overspending on the military. Given the amount spent on that *and therefore unavailable for any sort of productive use*, how could it, even only in theory, be possible that that isn't true?

      the goal of the military is to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

      If so incredibly naive as to believe that piece of nonsensical marketing fluff, then you're clearly not going to be making any insightful comments on the issue.
      The purpose of the military is to push the interests of various big corporations at gunpoint and to enrich the weapons manufacturers. It's been that way since WW2 at least.
      Would you care to give any examples of the military being used to "support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." since the end of WW2? No, didn't think so.


      Now just for arguments sake...would you care to explain to me everything that never got invented because of military spending? I mean..can you give specific examples of the uninvented things that makes my point so ridiculous?


      Again, had you actually read the linked document, then all of those questions would have been answered already.
      Instead of that, you decided to pretend that you knew what it said when you clearly don't and so you're just continuing to make ignorant statements and asking questions *that have already been answered*.

    40. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 1

      I did read it. It was a nice piece of fluff interspersed with facts. You totally ignored the fact that military spending is probably 10x what it should be at due to it being forced to operate outside of the normal economy. If the military spending was allowed to operate with the economy the costs of military spending would be considerably smaller. Nevermind the vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources that the paper uses to prove that investments in other areas would have paid off more. The military is being used to siphon tax dollars into private defense sector firms.

      Incidentally the support and defend thing isn't marketing fluff that is the purpose. The use of the military is entirely different, and is influenced by kneejerk uninformed voters more than any military decision. The purpose of lobbyists is to influence government contracts to fill the coffers of defense sector companies, not the military.

      However, instead of having any meaninful discussion, you assert that I couldn't possibly do that, that you are absolutely correct in all regards, and that because I disagree with your linked paper that I didn't read it. Also right after it recaps what broken window fallacy is, it explains that the military isn't a producer...if you read my previous post you would notice I said that. Instead you pick out a few stupid lines to quote and go on about how ignorant I am. I guess I shouldn't expect more from someone with a sig like yours. FYI Republicans want small government, less intrusions on the people, less government spending. What we have now calling themselves Republicans aren't that at all. But I guess if you knew what you were talking about you would know that already right?

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    41. Re:DoD ? by Darby · · Score: 1

      You totally ignored the fact that military spending is probably 10x what it should be at due to it being forced to operate outside of the normal economy.

      That's actually one of the major premises of the paper that you're claiming to have read and further claiming is just a fluff piece even though it made several of the points you're trying to make far better than you are.

      Nevermind the vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources that the paper uses to prove that investments in other areas would have paid off more. The military is being used to siphon tax dollars into private defense sector firms.

      Again, that is what that paper *said*, so, no, you didn't read it or your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you read it and failed to even understand the point.

      So, yes, obviously, as my source demonstrated quite convincingly, the military is being used to siphon tax dollars.
      This system *also* has the effect of preventing those resources from being used in a productive manner, *prevents* most major research funding into non-military uses, and generally hurts our economy.

      Now, if my source is such an empty fluff piece, then surely you can actually point out some "vague assertions of ammounts spent with questionable reference sources". Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.

      However, instead of having any meaninful discussion, you assert that I couldn't possibly do that, that you are absolutely correct in all regards, and that because I disagree with your linked paper that I didn't read it.

      Since you've at least twice tried to make claims as if you were coming up with something when they were major points made in the referenced paper, it's crystal clear that you did not read it since otherwise you wouldn't be disagreeing with it while poorly attempting to make the same points it made.

      Had you actually picked something in it to disagree with, and supported your assertion then that paragraph might even make some sort of sense. Since all you did was say "it's wrong" and then go on and try to make one of the points it made, your paragraph doesn't make any sense at all.

      Also right after it recaps what broken window fallacy is, it explains that the military isn't a producer...if you read my previous post you would notice I said that.

      It's meaningless that the military isn't a producer. It's still an example of the broken window fallacy to claim thyat military spending is good for research and the economy. So it doesn't matter what you said about that since it's irrelevant to the point.

      FYI Republicans want small government, less intrusions on the people, less government spending. What we have now calling themselves Republicans aren't that at all. But I guess if you knew what you were talking about you would know that already right?

      FYI, Republicans want the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a fascist theocracy. They want bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats ever dreamed of.
      The fact that once upon a time many many decades ago there was some truth to that statement has nothing to do with reality and it has nothing to do with what it means to be a Republican today. Hell, back in the day, the most vocal, vicious racists were Democrats. They left en masse for the Republican party during the civil rights era.
      Point is that the parties cange what they stand for all the time.
      You apparently haven't clued into that simple fact and so keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

      The fact is that the Republican party stands for big oppressive fascist government. If you vote Republican, then that is all that you are voting for. If you believe in what you delusionally claimed that Republicans believe in and you vote for Republican candidates, then you're an idiot since they are the *least* likely party to do anything to further your goals.
      That goes back at least to 1980, and given the scumbag piece of shit that was Nixo

    42. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 1

      You really need to work on your interpersonal skills as well as your reading comprehension skills. I said there was fact in the paper. My point when I said YOU ignore things is that YOU ignored them, not that the paper did. I am well aware that the paper agreed with many of my assertions. I am also aware that the paper cited rather dubious sources when it came to quoting numbers such as the cost of training a pilot. Further you seem to have a hard time with independent thought. It is indeed possible to agree with parts of a given paper and not all of it. That doesn't negate the fact that a large portion of it is anti military fluff.

      You also seem to be caught up on the team voting concept that has put us in the shitty boat we are in. "If you vote *Team X* then you are evil" is the most ignorant trite. If you vote, vote the issues. I happen to agree with a great number of Republicans who maintain those tenets that you say are gone, I also happen to agree with a great number of Democrats on various issues too. So your little rants about how party X is evil is just stupid and ignorant. The Republicans managed to take the control they had going into the Bush era because the Democrats were the biggest spending hypocritical pieces of corrupt shit...guess what, power corrupts...so a large chunk of the current PEOPLE have been corrupted. Not all of them left for the libertarian party...some of them actually have plans on getting elected. Some of them run as Democrats, some as Republicans, and as long as morons like you team vote and rant about entire parties you just make the problem worse. If you are too blind to see that is what the corrupt ones want then that is your problem. By falling into line and blaming entire parties for stupid shit like this it totally absolves them of personal responsibility and allows party line media spin and other such nonsense to sway folks like you into kneejerk voting.

      So you go back to voting your party lines so we can get a new crop of corrupted shits and continue the cycle. I will actually follow candidates and vote regardless of party based on who is likely to not fuck us. Or did you forget that alot of the bullshit that is coming back to bite us now was built up on the Democratic watch. COPA, DMCA, the list goes on...it comes from asshats party line voting instead of researching issues.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    43. Re:DoD ? by Darby · · Score: 1

      I am also aware that the paper cited rather dubious sources when it came to quoting numbers such as the cost of training a pilot.

      And yet you still have nothing to offer as to what's wrong with the sources. If you feel there is something iaccurate about it, the why are you having such a problem putting it on the table?

      That doesn't negate the fact that a large portion of it is anti military fluff.

      Which is merely self-serving rhetoric with no basis in fact as far as I can tell. Perhaps you'd care to offer anything resembling a fact or figure as opposed to empty worthless opinion?

      I happen to agree with a great number of Republicans who maintain those tenets that you say are gone,

      Yet everything they actually do *disagrees* completely with your stated beliefs. Sounds pretty crazy to me.
      I mean, name one. If they had a scrap of integrity, then they would have left the party decades ago when they completely cast off those old chestnuts. So, no, there are no Republican elected officials that maintain shit of that. Look at the fucking defecit and then lie to me again.

      The Republicans managed to take the control they had going into the Bush era because the Democrats were the biggest spending hypocritical pieces of corrupt shit..

      Which merely demonstrates how far behind the times and how delusional your fatasy world is.
      The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican "values". From him on, the Republicans took the title of biggest spending and ran with it to our current record debt.
      Damn, dude. This is all a matter of public record. Maybe you should actually look at issues instead of having faith in a political party of all things.

      as long as morons like you team vote and rant about entire parties you just make the problem worse.

      See, here's a perfect example of how you just make shit up out of nowhere.
      I've never voted for the scum in either major political party. I do think about the issues, so I certaily don't "team vote". That's mostly a Republica trait as evidenced irrefutably by the last several elections and by the behavior of the scum that Republicans elect.

      Ranting about the Republican party is basic common sense.
      Your failure to be able to deal with reality doesn't change that fact.
      The Republican party base consists of fascists and religious extremists. The fact that you haven't even noticed that is quite telling. Those are the only people who get their voices heard in that party any more. Hell Iraq was the Republican's war entirely. The fact that they were aided by Democrats doesn't change the basic fact that the Republicans made up the entire thing to make a few people rich. You can't get more anti-Classical Republican values than that.

      By falling into line and blaming entire parties for stupid shit like this it totally absolves them of personal responsibility and allows party line media spin and other such nonsense to sway folks like you into kneejerk voting.

      Again more delusional nonsense. Absolve from personal responsibility?!? Read my sig again, idiot. I do hold them personally resposible for their cowardice and treason.
      Nobody with a scrap of decency would be a Republican, so the fact that scum join the party of scum is a fact. It has othing to do with absolvig them of responsibility for their crimes.


      So you go back to voting your party lines so we can get a new crop of corrupted shits and continue the cycle.


      Except you just pulled that out of your ass. I've never voted party lines, nor will I. You're the one trying to whitewash the Republicans, I'm not trying to whitewash anybody. The fact that you're defending them at this point after 30+ years of blatant robbery (S&L looting by the Bushies), mass murder (your boy Negroponte and his death camps) and the current savage assault on liberty driven by your treasonous dear leader, shows either your complete lack of knowledge about pretty much anything that's

    44. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 1

      I am done. It is obvious you are totally incapable of any discussion beyond screaming and crying about evil Republicans and stupid details. I don't feel like going back and opening the document again, but the gist was they were quoting military budget prices out of things that *surprise* weren't military budget documents, they were other books about how the military spends too much. You say you don't vote party lines and then cry how all Republicans are evil and scum. You sir are a moron. You say stupid shit like "my boy Negroponte"...oh yes that is right...party line team voters don't understand that you don't have to support everyone in a party. I realize that is a tad confusing to you, but its true, there really are still Republicans that aren't right wing religious fanatics. Just FYI, the people that make headline news aren't the only republicans in the world. There are quite a few at local and state government levels that aren't part of the national shenannagins. Just like there are dems at local levels that aren't whiney double talking shits. You wanna be pissed...be pissed at the Democrats that voted for the war and are now trying to back out now that its not going well. The majority up on capitol hill just make policy to fill their own coffers regardless of what party they claim. The reason they claim parties is to get idiot fanatics like you to team vote them in and allow them to keep the populace divided screaming about how your team sucks more than my team, and your team is evil and stupid, so the people are too busy screaming stupid shit at eachother to notice they are being fucked from above. It keeps anyone from popping up in the middle of the road with an agenda of positive change...anyone middle gets attacked by the left as being an evil murderer republican and the right crucifies them for being a godless heathen liberal. I'm not fond of where we are right now, but you have some delusional fantasy where I am to blame for the corrupt asshats that call themselves Republicans.

      However, you have proved my original point better than I could have myself. That there is a horde of irrational screaming lefties around here that would rather "murder a Republican" and "military is evil" than ever look at the individuals responsible and work with people from both parties who haven't been total fuckups to try and get us back on track.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    45. Re:DoD ? by Darby · · Score: 1

      It is obvious you are totally incapable of any discussion beyond screaming and crying about evil Republicans and stupid details.

      Ahhh yes, details. Those utterly meaningless facts and stuff. I'm sure you just feel the truthiness.

      but the gist was they were quoting military budget prices out of things that *surprise* weren't military budget documents, they were other books about how the military spends too much.

      That article was an analysis of another paper. Perhaps you should pay more attention. Heck, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate that the facts are incorrect which you've still done nothing to show.

      You say you don't vote party lines and then cry how all Republicans are evil and scum.

      Where is the inconsistecy there? There is none. Support of evil is still evil. The Republican party's goals are entirely evil, anti-American and entirely inconsistent with a free society. Those are facts which have been made abudantly clear in the last 30 years or so. So, refusing to vote for a person who has actively chose to ally themselves against the best interests of this nation nad its citizens is basic common sense. Voting all Democrat would be voting the party line. Voting against proven murdering, torturing, scum isn't. Pretty simple concepts, really.

      You say stupid shit like "my boy Negroponte"...oh yes that is right...party line team voters don't understand that you don't have to support everyone in a party.

      In point of fact, yes you do.
      Say you don't support him all you want, but the fact is that your support of that party *does* provide support for him and the other mass murdering traitors who are runing the country solely due to the support of people like you.
      That's why political parties and especially our voting system are so contrary to their stated goals.

      Now, obviously you don't want to actually take any responsibility for your actions, since that's like kryptonite to you mother fuckers, so you pretend that you can vote for the Republicans without voting for Republicans?!? Seriously, WTF

      The fact is that The Republican party is a monolithic organization. You don't vote for candidates, you vote for the party. Because as clearly demonstrated with everything dealing with the torture/murder/treason scandals the Republicans closed ranks against the American people.
      So had *you* and those like you not supported these sociopathic mass murderers, then we would not have a death camp commandat as our deputy secretary of state further demonstrating America's complete contempt for anything approximating a moral.

      The fact that you can still support them after they've fucked your ass bloody demonstrates your extreme idiocy.

      Seriously, keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

      I realize that is a tad confusing to you, but its true, there really are still Republicans that aren't right wing religious fanatics.

      Yet the simple fact that they are still Republicans long after the party was taken over by religious extremists back in the Reagan era demonstrates absolutely that they do, in fact, actively support the goals of the religious extremists. Hell, they could be atheists and it wouldn't change that fact.
      The thing Republicans seem most unable to grasp is that actions speak far louder than words.
      You words say that you don't support religious extremists and mass murderers, but your actions make those words lies. There is no ambiguity there and nothing unclear about where your real loyalties lie. It's possible that you're just too stupid to realise that by supporting terrorists and traitors, you becomeresponsible for their actions. There's that personal responsibility that you're dodging as hard as you can again.

      There are quite a few at local and state government levels that aren't part of the national shenannagins.

      No there aren't. It's a national organization. Any support for the party supports the whole thing through numbers, money, voting base and the like.

  6. Last night I had a premonition of racial weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sitting on the bus home, I considered what might happen if chemical weapons could be developed that attacked based on DNA sequences.

    Think about it for a moment, it's horrifying.

  7. Exactly by WasterDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take.

    Well, quite. Gene replacement therapy with ones that aren't compatible with life. At all. A project run by the US DOD. "Bound to end in tears" doesn't even start to cover it. Great.

    Dave

    --
    I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    1. Re:Exactly by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >"Bound to end in tears" doesn't even start to cover it.
      Both a well deserved insightful AND one of the best lines ever on /. Good work dude!

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    2. Re:Exactly by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A project run by the US DOD. "Bound to end in tears" doesn't even start to cover it.

      You are so totally right because DoD funded projects are always massive failures or horrible weapons. Oh wait... there's the Internet and OpenBSD.

    3. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I can agree with your first point, as for the second I'm not sure BSD has killed anyone yet...

    4. Re:Exactly by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the summary? Genes that automatically kill the host are a slightly different kind of thing than the internet.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    5. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's to say the real purpose of the internet wasn't to cause the extintion of the human race due to lack of reproduction?

    6. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfounded.
      Finding what's imcompatible with life, and then insert into model organisms to see what happen may lead to new understandings of why existing seqeunces are, what they meant and how they works.

    7. Re:Exactly by n3m6 · · Score: 1

      There is actually some good that could come out of this project. That is to say, developing immunity to dangerous organisms that have not existed; or finding the possibility space for these dangerous sequences.

    8. Re:Exactly by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      "OpenBSD"

      The DoD's involvement with OpenBSD did end in tears.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    9. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is the OS for baby mulching machines

    10. Re:Exactly by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Because the only possible explanation is that they will weaponize it. Nevermind the fact that there are other potentially/definitely hostile countries who could have access to this as well that we need to defend against. You'd be surprised how much research the DoD does for defensive purposes. And with the current terror scare this seems like it would be the kind of thing they would research to protect our soil from infection so to speak.

      Of course I'm not naive and realise they will also likely study its uses as a weapon for their own purposes but thats the way the cookie crumbles.

      Let me ask you something though...in a world with wars going on and pissed off nations, would you rather be on the side of the guy who has this kind of super deadly weapon and understands how to defend against it, or would you rather be on the side that has no clue what it is, no clue how to react to it, etc? If I was honest with myself my answer is obviously the one that would give me the greatest chance of survival in an international conflict. I just hope there is enough red tape and political pressure to prevent something like this from ever being used on the battlefield.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    11. Re:Exactly by lilnobody · · Score: 1

      Because the only possible explanation is that they will weaponize it.


      If you'd bothered to read TFA, one of the uses they are attempting to create is a DNA 'saftey switch', an easily identifiable string of DNA which marks a DNA sample as sample donated in an investigation and not a forensic sample collected at a crime scene. Such a sample could not be mixed up in a labaratory accident, because no forensic sample could contain that particular DNA sequence.

      Of course, they also mention injecting strings of amino acids into bacteria just to see what happens. Still, almost every technology has both good and bad uses.

      nobody
  8. I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by sodul · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I first read the title I though it was about a new theory of some religious group trying to say that DNA is dangerous because it proves the theory of evolution so some school board declared that it does not exist.

    Maybe there is some DNA that codes for 666 or that translates to "Hell freezes over".

    But I know that DNA is really coding 42.

    1. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah cause it would suck if "some religious" group used science to disprove a scientific theory. Science is science man... it doesn't matter if it's conducted by the most dedicated atheist or a devout Christian. It's the science that matters.

    2. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by SRA8 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Ice-9 from Cat's Cradle, except biological.

    3. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >It's the science that matters.

      only so long as that science is good science.

      and, statistically speaking, it DOES matter whether it's conducted by the most dedicated atheist or a devout Christian. in the general population atheists are about 10%, whereas for top scientists 90% are atheist.

      a big problem is that "science" done by fundamentalists only tries to explain the "observations" found in the Bible, whereas good scientists have to explain all observations at all times in all places.

      science should be done without an agenda. in practice this never happens perfectly but the religious agenda is most dangerous to good science because, unlike money, fame, success etc., it's the only one that will stand up to consistent repeated evidence of it not being true.

    4. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by indifferent+children · · Score: 0, Troll
      Science is science man

      And pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Guess which tool "religious groups" tend to use?

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    5. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like those creationist nutjobs give a damn about that.

    6. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A big problem is idiots like you who make generalizations like "science" done by fundamentalists only tries to explain the "observations" found in the Bible. Again... if the science stands up it's science... it doesn't matter if it was done by a brilliant genious or a druged-out bum who happens to think the FSM is real... if the science is good it's good, period. Just because someone is an athiest doesn't make their science good. Just because someone is a Christian doesn't make their science bad. The science stands on it's own!

      Dump the stupid agendas. If the science can't stand up then it can't stand up. If the science does stand up then it does... unless you're saying "I want to believe in randomly caused macro-evolution so much that I want to ignore scientific evidence from anyone who doesn't agree with me."

    7. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      >unless you're saying "I want to believe in randomly caused macro-evolution so much that I want to ignore scientific evidence from anyone who doesn't agree with me."

      no, I'm not saying this, because
      1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and
      2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused".

      the rest of your post seems to all be about the fact that you don't seem to understand the phrase "statistically speaking".

    8. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sick of this bullshit. You're bias against religious people is obvious. Have you not stuided science enough to realize how many crackpot theories there are out there... how many scientists who ase so certain they know they're right and others who contradict them with complete certainty. Just reading /. frequently it becomes obvious that many scientists report bogus data or overstate their findings. To be so arragoant and biased as to just assign this to religious people ignores the facts.

    9. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Who cares what "those creationist nutjobs" think. It's you who presumably cares about science right. So if good science is presented the findings should matter, not the source. Or does some person's own willingness to ignore scientific evidence give you justification to do the same?

    10. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 0, Troll

      the rest of your post seems to all be about the fact that you don't seem to understand the phrase "statistically speaking".

      No... statistics of the population of scientist have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the science presented is accurate or not. The measure of science is wether or not it's testable in the real world, not the % of scientists who believe one thing or another. If all of the scientists converted to FSMism and began to argue the world is flat it doens't make it true.

      1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and
      Oh I'm sorry... what terms do you use to differentiate between mutations that are caused due to genes that exist within a species genome and mutations that occur by creating new genes that did not exist in the species before?

      2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused".
      Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.

      Really your just picking apart semantics. The point stands. The science is good or it's not. If you have to rely on the source to validate the science then you've stepped into the realm of belief and that's not scientific.

    11. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      >Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.

      don't get angry just because you don't understand something. fortunately there are plenty of people in the world who can understand mechanisms other than "by will or random".

      >The science is good or it's not.

      I've never said otherwise. there is a positive correlation between good science and atheism. fact. deal with.

    12. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by poser101 · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, you are a moron.

      --
      The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.
    13. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      I've never said otherwise. there is a positive correlation between good science and atheism. fact. deal with.

      Oh. I'm sorry what studies were done about that? Are we comparing scientists with scinetific PhDs who are athiests with scientists with PhDs who are not athiests or are we comparing scientists with PhDs against any crackpot who cares to toss out his or her opinion on a scientific topic?

      don't get angry

      I'm not... 'fuck' is a word. It's like a four letter exclamation point... but I'm not angry.

      fortunately there are plenty of people in the world who can understand mechanisms other than "by will or random".

      So educate me... what is the proper term? Then I'll rewrite my original statement with the proper term and come back to the point that you're suggesting that you deny facts because you don't agree with the unrelated beliefs of the person who proved the facts.

    14. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by poser101 · · Score: 0

      Atheists (people who consciously and deliberately reject as falsehood the claim that gods exist) make up about 4% of the world's population. Agnostics (people who lack belief in gods for whatever reason) make up one-fifth (or 20%) of the world's population. Let's assume that this is the same for the US. In 1999 the US population was 272,690,813. At this time the total number of scientists and engineers employed in the US was 10,981,600, although more that half (7,440,800) were not employed in S&E occupations. There were approximately 3.5 million individuals holding S&E occupations that year (or 1.2% of the total US population). The most recent study of religion among scientists shows that 38% of natural scientists held "disbelief" while roughly 60% held belief in God. The ratio of disbelievers is approx 1 athiest for every 5 agnostic, so we can assume that about 7.6% of scientists were athiest, 30.4% were agnostic, and the rest beleived in God. This means that 2.4% of US athiests were scientists... 2.4% of 4% of the total population of the US. Obviously athiests are in the minority in the scientific community.

      --
      The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.
    15. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      >Obviously athiests are in the minority in the scientific community.

      if you read my post you'll notice I said "top scientists" not "the scientific community". if you look at the most successful scientists then atheism rises to about 90%.

    16. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by poser101 · · Score: 0

      Here is a list from the book The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present by John Galbraith Simmons. It has the religion of each scientist listed. Enjoy!

      --
      The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.
    17. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      so?

      number 2 is Einstein and it says "Jewish" though Einstein clearly rejected the idea of a personal god. he was only a Jew in the sense that Hitler would have killed him.

      so even if the information in that list were correct, what would be the point? the further back in time you go, the more religious people are (especially if the consequence of not being religious is being burned to death, tortured or locked up)?

      show me the same list of the top 100 scientists for right now.

    18. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1
      1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and Oh I'm sorry... what terms do you use to differentiate between mutations that are caused due to genes that exist within a species genome and mutations that occur by creating new genes that did not exist in the species before?
      It has been shown that mutation has nearly nothing to do with the evolutionary process. (Before you ask for a "source", please read *any* non-fictional work on evolution written in the last 15 years.)

      2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused". Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.
      Evolution has nothing at all to do with the formation of life, it only deals with the changes of species over time.

      Really your just picking apart semantics. The point stands.
      Yes, the point does stand. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    19. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Um...You are the one making the 90% claim, back it up with scientific proof or shut up, it is not his job to prove you wrong.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    20. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you know of such that lists those active in the field within the last 10-20 years? Well more than half of that list have been dead for more than a century. In fact of the only two names anywhere on that list that could be considered still active one is an atheist the other a Unitarian.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    21. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      It has been shown that mutation has nearly nothing to do with the evolutionary process. (Before you ask for a "source", please read *any* non-fictional work on evolution written in the last 15 years.)

      I'll go do a bit of reading... but why don't you provide a source anyway since they're so readily available.

      Evolution has nothing at all to do with the formation of life, it only deals with the changes of species over time.

      So exactly when does "evolution" start and the processes the form various types of life start? My understanding is the general evolutionary theory basically says the ultimately all life has one source, or basic source and from the, the evolutionary processes, we have all the differnet species we have today. It sounds like you're saying we somehow got all of these species and then from there their they evolved into all types of variants.

      Apart from this side-issue we've gotten into my point stands up that scienctific findings should stand up entirely on their. The source of the findings is 100% completely irrelevant to whether or not the scientific findings are accurate.

    22. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I know the wikipedia is not the most accurate source for all information, but it's a general on point topice and give the intensity that this topic is covered I would expect the article to be fairly accurate. The wikipedia says,

      Mutations that are not affected by natural selection under the prevailing environment are called neutral mutations. The frequency of a neutral mutation in a population is governed by the size of the population, the mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressures on the alleles to which it is linked. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. If the environment later changes, a mutation that was originally neutral may become either deleterious or beneficial.

      So it seems that mutation plays an important role in evolution.

      The term random is tossed around in respect to genetic drift and mutation.

      My source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

      I guess there are three possible conclusions to this semantic argument...
      1) I misunderstood what I read. Possible... I skimmed it. If so... please correct me.
      2) The wikipedia is wrong. If so... why don't you update the wikipedia with the truth.
      3) You're semantic nitpicking was just that... semantic nitpicking.

    23. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Yes poser... and by "top scientists" he means scientists who agree with him completely.

    24. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1
      So exactly when does "evolution" start and the processes the form various types of life start? My understanding is the general evolutionary theory basically says...
      Please, go read any book on the science of the theory of evolution. Evolution has ZERO to do with how life starts or where it comes from. Nada. Evolution says basically this, "Hey, there's a bunch of creatures around, and they seem to be changing over time, let's observe them and see if we can figure out what is makes them change and how they go about it."

      That's it. No more, no less. Please try to recall Darwin's work was called "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life". And the theory has evolved a lot since his day, it is a present vastly different from his original ideas.
      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    25. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      You're correct that my choice of using protiens as an example for randomness in evolution is incorrect since evolution presuposes life. But thanks to you I checked the wikipedia and it's pretty clear that there is plenty of randomness in evolutionary theory, so I made a mistake in my defensive argument, but I guess I was right in my use of the term "random".

      Thanks for helping to clarify the terms used.

    26. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Saying "zero" and "nada" is incorrect. When analyzing evolution you eventually end up at some starting point. Evolution applies to chemical processes as well as it does to living creatures.

      So it would be perfectly valid to describe the formation of self replicating biological matter as evolution.

    27. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by rthille · · Score: 1

      Macroevolution is a bogus concept, it's the bugaboo of a discontinuous mind. Humans look at a human and a chimp and they have a hard time seeing that the current day human could breed with its parents and them parents and so on all the way back to where the human's ancestors and the chimp's ancestors are the same.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    28. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the macro/micro evolution distinction is not valid or that evolution in general is invalid?

    29. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by rthille · · Score: 1

      Bogus list. Einstein & Murray Gell-Mann were/are not Jewish in the religion sense, but in the ethnic sense.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    30. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by rthille · · Score: 1


      The former. 'Macroevolution' is just looking at a large buildup of 'micro' (normal) evolution and calling it something else.
      At least that's what I understand. Rates of speciation may change due to changes in the environment (mammal explosion after the K/T boundry), but the base rate of mutation (due to the actual randomness in the system) doesn't change (as I understand it).
      On the other hand, I'm not sure (because I'm ignorant, not because I disbelieve it) of the mechanism by which different species end up with different number of chromosomes, and if at one parent/child boundary there was a 'jump', and if that could be called 'macroevolution'.

      But in general, I think macroevolution is something trotted about by people who want to believe that bird flu might evolve to become more dangerous to humans, but deny that humans could possibly be decended from a common ancestor with Apes. Speciation is real, and can be observed in salamanders around the California central valley.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    31. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by bmud · · Score: 1

      "Randomly caused macro-evolution" happens to be the only elegant, probable explanation for natural phenomena. Agenda has nothing to do with it. As soon as any other theory has a shred of evidence (as opposed to pointing out the absence of evidence for certain periods of random macro-evolution), then that theory has a legitimate claim. Until then we get to make fun of their posturing. Science requires evidence. Until then we get to make fun of them.

    32. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Ah yes... so HYPOTHETICALLY if we really don't have a fucking clue what happened and evidence indicates that our current theory is bullshit then let's just ignore that evidence and keep on believing our bullshit theory. Why are you so insistant on ignoring the evidence that contradicts your theory and ridiculing those who present that evidence. The tables have turned... you've accepted the Church at Rome's position and persecute Galileo.

    33. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by lukesl · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point of how science works. Even though most scientists are wrong most of the time about brand new ideas they come up with, the correct ideas win out over the incorrect ones over time. The arguments between different scientific ideas, each purporting to be correct, is a feature, not a bug. Scientists as individuals can be incorrect or even dishonest, but over time "science" gets the right answer.

    34. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      I understand that. My point was that psuedoscience is by no means limited to "relgious people" and that science itself in general is full of a vast amount of uncertainity. Not acknowledging that uncertainity, not recognizing that we may not actually have it right, being willing to call theories theories is a sign of ignorance and arrogance. I'm sick of it. Take science for what it is. Cite real facts where the exist, openly acnowledge where you're guessing or speculating or making what you think is an educated, and if someone else present contradictory evidence accept it for what it is.

    35. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by jtev · · Score: 1

      Now, I know that this is just broadsiding you, but would you please tell me an experiment that would be able to falsify evolution? If a statment isn't falsafiable it's not a full scientific theory. And so I'm not sure what could be ran to falsify it. If you're going to just be working with tautologies, aren't you being dogmatic as well? I do look forward to your response, and hope that it is well worded and thought out.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    36. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you think this is a broadside but whatever.

      A simple experiment would be a rather classic "control group" style one. Take yourself some bacteria (the shorter the lifespan the easier it is to observe the changes over say 100 generations) and divide it into two groups. Place your control group in a nice contained environment with a plentiful food supply and all that and do the same for the second group except periodically expose the second group to various antibiotics. After a 100 or so generations take both groups and examine. If no evolution has occurred both groups will be identical.

      Come on people, this is stuff they teach in 6th grade science.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    37. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by lukesl · · Score: 1

      I agree with and respect what you're saying. However, I would argue that only a minority of scientifically-minded people are really like that. The flip side of what you're saying is that religion itself is fine, but when religious teaching runs up against facts of the natural world (as determined by scientific evidence), such as evolution or the age of the earth, religious people also need to be able to accept that some of the things written in their books is not literally correct.

    38. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      *sigh* - because - as others have pointed out - this "evidence" against evolution is bad science. Here - let's play a game.

      You give me some evidence against evolution, and I'll refute it. If the evidence is as good as you claim, I should have no recourse but to accept your theory that evolution did not produce the myriad of species on earth today.

    39. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      There are a number of tests that would invalidate evolution, but some are very hard to control. Just remember that an experiment can still be valid even if it were "performed" millions of years ago. If the current theory of evolution states that you will never see a mammal with leaves, and you find a mammal with leaves (or a fossil thereof), then the theory has been invalidated. In all likelihood it would be replaced by a similar theory that takes into account the new evidence.

    40. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok I get you, and I'm sure some people look at it that way... that providing counter-evidence for one theory proves the other. I wouldn't go that far at all. I would say if you have a theory and I provide strong counter evidence to undermine the credibility of your theory then you should consider your theory for what it is... a half-baked questionable thoery... it doesn't make my theory any more right... we may just have to raise our hands in the air and say... well we just don't have a clue now do we.

    41. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by jtev · · Score: 1

      How would a mammal developing leaves invalidate evolution? By evolutionary theory if a mammal has leaves then apparently it's an advantage. Because of the way that evolution is defined "the animal that is more fit to survive in an enviromnemt will" it is imposible to disprive, do to it simply being circular logic. We define the fittest organism as the organism that survives. So once again, we are faced with a tautology, which is scientificaly useless.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    42. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Because according to current evolutionary theory, leaves are purely a plant-thing. Plants diverged from animals millions (billions?) of years ago. So if a mammal - which is a relatively recent invention - has leaves that are clearly related to the leaves plants have, I'd say that that invalidates current theories.

      I'm not talking "leaf-like appendages" that could evolve naturally. I'm talking about actual plant leaves, right down to the DNA level. In a broader sense, one of the main tenets of evolution is that it is a gradual process with each specimen leading to the next. If you were to find an animal with a significant amount of DNA from two completely distinct branches of evolution (plants and mammals, for instance), that would be a pretty strong case for re-evaluating the current theory.

  9. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by WildBlue · · Score: 1

    There are already such animals, only in viral version.

    --
    Life is a Game. Play to Win.
  10. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually, Israel has a project going to identify genetic sequences in Arabs that could be used in biological warfare. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. My worry is that someday they have a lab accident and this stuff gets out and accidently kills off humanity through unforeseen side effects.

  11. A million dollars?? by teslar · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From TFA:
    To do this, Hampikian and his colleage Tim Anderson, also at Boise, have developed software that calculates all the possible sequences of nucleotides - the "letters" of DNA - up to a certain length, and then scans sequence databases such as the US National Institutes of Health's Genbank to identify the smallest sequences that aren't present.
    So, basically, it's one regexp and a database lookup. Which is fine (how else would you do it?) but all this requires is one afternoon of PhD time followed by a lot of computer crunching. Even if you buy a very shiny very fast dedicated computer for this, where do the remaining 990 000 dollars go?
    1. Re:A million dollars?? by teslar · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ah well, reading the rest of TFA (yeah I know, should have done that before, but hey :) ):
      He has already received a $1 million grant from the US Department of Defense to develop a DNA "safety tag" that could be added to voluntary DNA reference samples in criminal cases to distinguish them from forensic samples. Such tags would not necessarily have to consist of lethal sequences, but could be based on primes that would be easy to detect using a simple kit.
      So the /. summary was misleading, the DoD isn't actually after lethal DNA sequences at all and that is not where the money's going.
    2. Re:A million dollars?? by kfg · · Score: 1

      where do the remaining 990 000 dollars go?

      http://www.geographia.com/bahamas/bsnpin01.htm

      KFG

    3. Re:A million dollars?? by Ingolfke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope you're not serious that a "shinny very fast dedicated computer" costs $10k. You can easily spend $100k on a good computer and of course science is driving these massive supercomputing clusters that probably cost $10k/day to operate. Anyways... back to your question.

      where do the remaining 990 000 dollars go?

      Salaries to pay the PhDs to process and analyze the data and tune the software and not go to China or Russia or someone else who'd like to know more about this stuff.

    4. Re:A million dollars?? by Vreejack · · Score: 5, Funny

      So the /. summary was misleading... I'm shocked, shocked to discover sensational flamebait summaries posted here.
      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    5. Re:A million dollars?? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      The article implied that they were going to try to synthesize the sequences that they find. This is where the interesting science would come from; some of those sequences may not be valid DNA strings - syntax errors if you will. Others may create proteins that are deadly - understanding the difference between the two would be a major advance in understanding the encoding that DNA uses.

      Writing some perl to skim through a database of genes and pull out the entries that aren't there is fairly trivial. Doing it in a small length of time for a large database is somewhat harder. Analysing the resultant sequences to try and find commonalities and structure - that's where the majority of the money will go.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    6. Re:A million dollars?? by Otter · · Score: 1
      1) This project absolutely does not require a supercomputer. The OP's estimate of cost and time is pretty accurate.

      2) Wherever that million dollars is going, it's certainly not to the stipends of Idaho grad students and postdocs.

      3) There is zero weapons potential to this work.

    7. Re:A million dollars?? by hadhad69 · · Score: 1
      I wonder what's wrong with radiolabelling and fluorescence tagging that have been used for genetic marking in labs for as long as I've known.
      Also, I'm fairly certain that primers can already be manufactured to a chosen spec(i.e a readily identifible sequence) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_%28molecular_ biology%29)

      Further down the line there is the possibility of constructing a "suicide gene" to code for deadly amino acid primes. It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous, Hampikian suggests.
      This seems to be the only innovative part of this research as far as I can tell.
      --
      If you can read this, it's already too late.
    8. Re:A million dollars?? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      So, basically, it's one regexp and a database lookup. Which is fine (how else would you do it?) but all this requires is one afternoon of PhD time followed by a lot of computer crunching. Even if you buy a very shiny very fast dedicated computer for this, where do the remaining 990 000 dollars go?

      Grad students, and Phd's budget for the next 5-10 years if he budgets right. ;)

    9. Re:A million dollars?? by ozborn · · Score: 1

      The grant is for more than just the list of sequences as someone else mentions. Also 10K doesn't even come close to covering overhead on that kind of money.

    10. Re:A million dollars?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One regexp"? "One Afternoon of PhD time"? I only took undergrad courses in bioinformatics, and I'm pretty sure any solution to this problem would involve, at the least, a lot of using a Needleman-Wunsch algorithm with a protein substitution matrix (e.g. Blosum64) and a lot of tries to be sure one of the "deadly patterns" hadn't arisen.

      Or heck, "A database lookup"? Say what you will about their research goal or paper quality, but on a technical level it's not like a webpage on a LAMP server... How the heck did that get modded "insightful"?

      --Terr, who usually just lurks.

    11. Re:A million dollars?? by KurdtX · · Score: 1
      You can easily spend $100k on a good computer and of course science is driving these massive supercomputing clusters that probably cost $10k/day to operate
      You work for the government, don't you?
      --

      Kurdt
      I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
    12. Re:A million dollars?? by cweber · · Score: 1

      So, basically, it's one regexp and a database lookup. Which is fine (how else would you do it?) but all this requires is one afternoon of PhD time followed by a lot of computer crunching.

      Completely correct. I've done this exact calculation/database lookup a few months ago, and grep was the tool. Due to the size of the dataset, a flexible divide-and-conquer approach was needed, however, and it took a bit more than one afternoon of Ph.D. time to get it to work reliably. In the end, though, it wasn't really rocket science.

      What bugs me in TFA are all the buzzwords and the focus on high level biological mechanisms. Sure, some sequences might be lethal or may cause immune reactions, but the simpler and much more feasible explanation would be that certain sequences just aren't chemically stable, at the DNA, RNA or protein level. My chemist coworker had all sorts of theories.

    13. Re:A million dollars?? by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      But what if the "suicide gene" fails? Does that mean we might have skin jobs walking the streets in the future?

    14. Re:A million dollars?? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Why is the DoD involved in sponsoring research for help in crime-scene forensics? A much more likely scenario is a deadly biological weapon.

  12. stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Insightful
    He is presenting his results at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in Maui, Hawaii, this week.
    That is pathetic claim to importance. The only reason it reached the top /. page is paranoia prevalent at /. The whole research smells pseudo-science at the distance between Hawaii and East Coast (where the government are, but they do not smell it, of course).

    Especially stupid are searches for amino-acid sequences. Some of the sequences do not make structural sense, obviously.

    And what about "dangerous"? Obviously, if the sequence is so crappy that it makes the working conformation of every structural RNA or protein disfunctional then it won't be reproduced. Never.

    More interesting would be to find out why some sequences are not encountered also in non-coding areas. But "danger"???

    Give me a break. This is as stupid as stupid goes.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Pathetic resume of the PI.

      5 references in PubMed! First reference in 1986! Come on. I have more references. And none of his references are him being first or last author.

      In twenty years - 5 publications relevant to the field?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:stupid by kfg · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. This is as stupid as stupid goes.

      No, that would be the idea that their ought to be a law requiring that phonorecordings have lyrics printed on the outside of the cover; so little Johnny wouldn't be exposed to the bad language in the song that just says "Fuck me!" over and over and over for 10 minutes.

      We'll put this guy down for an honorable mention, unless he gets his grant. That might provide prima facie evidence of at least a certain street smarts.

      And that real science really is dead, but we knew that already. Netcraft has confirmed it.

      KFG

    3. Re:stupid by stupid_is · · Score: 1

      More here. Considering his MS in Genetics was awarded in 1986, I would have been surprised to see references from much earlier than that, although maybe when he was an RA in Dermatology he could've done something.

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    4. Re:stupid by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 1

      It will probably find sequences that make human flesh so tasty to predators that evolution sorted them out millions of years ago.
      It's all a ruse - MacDonalds is funding this research - McSoylent Green, McSOYLENT GREEN!!!!!!!

      --
      Nothing witty
    5. Re:stupid by pgolik · · Score: 1

      Still, not much of a publication record for someone so long in the business. Seems he is just very good at getting government money and jumped on the bioterrorism bandwagon. And as others have said - he'll identify mostly amino acid sequences that do not form stable folds. Actually, most proteins are built using a relatively small set of blocks or folds (think Lego) - cf. the CATH database http://www.cathdb.info/, so finding sequences that do not occur naturally would not surprise me.

    6. Re:stupid by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      This is as stupid as stupid goes.
      You're either new here, or else wildly optimistic with an appalling memory.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. This is the worst use of $1M!!! by EvoDevo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all, I am doing research in computational biology. I just read the paper linked from his webpage at http://biology.boisestate.edu/hampikian and I have to say that this is one of the worse papers I have ever read. First of all, I can literally write a program to do all that he proposed in about 10 minutes. Give me the $1 mil, I'll do the research. Although the idea of systematically finding nullomers can have practical applications, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that they are incompatible with life. And wow, isn't this the eye catching title that we see on /. The numbers of nullomers that he found in the human genome, for example, looks like they are in line with expectation given a genome genome that is AT rich (more A and T nucleotides than G / C nucleotide). Because the human genome is finite (only about 3 billion nucleotides), of course you are going to find DNA sequence even at only 11 bases long that do not exist in the human genome. Just do the math! 4^11 = 4.2 billion. It makes me so furious that our government wastes so much money on useless stuff.

    1. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, DoD grants are not subject to a panel or a jury of peers. Projects are granted by the program manager alone. The better you know him, the more likely it is to get your project funded. Also $1 mio is low funding from DoD.

    2. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by hedleyroos · · Score: 1

      4^11 = 4.2 billion. Should be 4.2 million?

    3. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by gargleblast · · Score: 1

      Of course you are going to find DNA sequence even at only 11 bases long that do not exist in the human genome. Just do the math! 4^11 = 4.2 billion

      Beg pardon but 4^11 = 4194304 ~= 4.2 million.

      Of course Hampikian is a tosspot with a $1M grant. Qoth the article:

      There may also be some [DNA or protein sequences] that are lethal in some species, but not others

      There may indeed! Furthermore, they may be commonly known as venoms.
    4. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      You're just jealous because you didn't think of this idea to get a $1mil grant :)

    5. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by cowscows · · Score: 3, Funny

      You missed the last paragraph, obviously. This new DNA will be created out of anti-matter, creating what is essentially anti-DNA. This anti-DNA will annihilate on contact with normal DNA, and release incredible amounts of energy.

      The DOD's goal is to eventually breed entire anti-DNA animals. Imagine an anti-rat, which could infiltrate an enemy building through the sewer lines or hide in a packaging crate or whatever. Once it's entered the compound it would emerge from hiding, and natural instincts would drive it to attempt mating with other rats. Since it's likely that most of the rats it may find will be of the normal, non-anti-matter variety, the commencing of the mating process will result in mutual annihilation of both rats, and the release of ridiculous amounts of energy. So a hugemongous explosion.

      Of course, by breaking this story, slashdot has probably saved millions of lives. Had the pentagon kept this secret as they had hoped, they'd be able to hide their attacks right in public view. Imagine the generous donation by a US "Charity" of a full grown elephant to the Beijing zoo. Little would the chinese government expect that this is actually an anti-elephant, and when it interacted with the normal elephants they already had...let's just say that China wouldn't be challenging the US economy any time soon.

      MWAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    6. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I think he's a dork who discovered that some programs are inconsistent with not writing a core file to your disk, and he wants to check all possible random programs of a certain length to see which ones weren't written by Microsoft.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I was unaware that most buildings had sewer lines that were magnetically isolated from other matter (might be an interesting grant opportunity right there--antimatter sewer lines, stop pollution and provide alternative energy).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    8. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Ubi_NL · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but his publication record is disgusting. All I can really confirm is that pnas paper of which he's 4th author.

      --

      If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    9. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Yes, the world of civil engineering has seen a lot of progress in the past few decades. Not only have most cities quietly replaced all their utility lines with magnetically isolated counterparts, but they've begun trials of new "wireless", or should I say "pipeless" sewer lines, capable of transmitting waste without the need to run lines underground. While these PASN's (Pipeless Area Sewer Networks) will be of great use to engineers and architects, I'm personally more excited about the potential for consumer level, personal "pipeless" systems. Being able to remove wastes from my body without having to utilize my built-in plumbing will better fit my lifestyle, and I'll have to wash my hands a whole lot less.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    10. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Actually, the plan isn't to create antimatter rats, its to create antimatter hamsters and roll them into enemy buildings in magnetic hamster balls. When the enemy sees the hamster roll in they will experience an irresistible urge to squeal 'cute!' and open the ball. When the ball is opened, the magnetic isolation is broken and uArmageddon (tm) ensues.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    11. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's the worst use of $1B!!!

    12. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1
      Yes, the world of civil engineering has seen a lot of progress in the past few decades. Not only have most cities quietly replaced all their utility lines with magnetically isolated counterparts, but they've begun trials of new "wireless", or should I say "pipeless" sewer lines, capable of transmitting waste without the need to run lines underground. While these PASN's (Pipeless Area Sewer Networks) will be of great use to engineers and architects, I'm personally more excited about the potential for consumer level, personal "pipeless" systems. Being able to remove wastes from my body without having to utilize my built-in plumbing will better fit my lifestyle, and I'll have to wash my hands a whole lot less.
      Isn't this what Star Trek uses? Honestly, outside of Star Trek Enterprise you never see a bathroom with a toilet. Some friends had a book with blue-prints for some of the various ships, and ships that carried 5,000+ people would have like 2 toilets. I always figured they had a reverse-replicator put-in at birth (or upon joining the Federation) that would take all the excrements and turn it back into energy to be put back into the system, perhaps to replicate other food (or may be that's where they got their anti-matter from)...any how...it would be neat to see it...and better to have it...

      Or here's an idea - get DARPA funding to build a replicator and de-replicator. The replicator is added to the esophagus so that nutrients can be given to people (soldiers) on scheduled intervals. This would cut down on the need to supply/prepare/cook food for the armies. Then the de-replicator would be added to the anus and urinary tracks, converting the excrements back to energy, which is then used by the replicator to produce the nutrients, creating a cyclic cycle and relieving the need to have waste facilities. People with such systems could go decades without eating. Don't forget to credit Star Trek as prior art when filing the patents.
      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    13. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Nappa48 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly decades, but a damn long time still.
      Remember, most of that food is converted to energy in cells.
      Thats why you don't see people (regular people) frying some shit and drinking some wee with the friends.

      Improving how cells are killed and "recycled" by neighbours would be money better spent IMO, well there is cancer research kinda already doing that.

      But i like your thinking still, you're the kind of people i like.

    14. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thats why you don't see people (regular people) frying some shit and drinking some wee with the friends.

      The part that saddens me about the world today is that this clarification was necessary.
    15. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Saying that food is "converted" to energy is sort of correct, but it's more like food is converted into waste material, and energy is taken from the process. The energy is a result of chemical changes that the body puts the food through, the matter making up the food is not turned directly into energy. That would basically involve fusion and/or fission, and that would likely lead to some very upset stomachs.

      Of course, in the Star Trek universe, converting between matter and energy is pretty easy with their technology. I don't know any specifics as to how that transfer is supposed to work, but it appears that once you've got enough energy, you can make just about any kind of matter that you want from it. So it wouldn't matter what you were de-replicating, you could take the energy from it, and replicate that back into normal food. Really it'd be using technology to internalize and speed up the nutrient cycle. We already know how to turn human waste back into food, we just require bacteria and plants to do it, and it takes a while.

      One of the hardest parts would be dealing with the occasional byproducts that can't be reused, but I would think that it'd be possible to clean out ones body, and then ingest some engineered nutrients designed to not have any unusable and recyclable material. You'd likely also need other supplements to deal with ways that your body loses mass that doesn't involve your digestive system (skin flaking off, sweating, sneezing, etc.)

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    16. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by Nappa48 · · Score: 1

      Crap what was i thinking..i'm losing it!
      Hell i was even thinking of energy as particles from what i remember... oh god never /. on a sore head!

      As for waste that can't be converted to anything useful, would that matter much anyway since you are literally converting the particles to energy, then back into particles? You could pretty much make any element in the end, as long as you had enough energy.
      I think the best we could do just now (or any foreseeable future) would be closer to a re-sequencer than a "replicator" to be honest. (unless that teleporter research brings anything useful before we have re-sequencing devices in commercial use...unlikely sadly)

      And even then, it just wouldn't be the same, not eating that is.
      I couldn't see myself never eating a lovely flame-grilled burger again!

    17. Re:This is the worst use of $1M!!! by cweber · · Score: 1

      Why are you so down on the concept? Looking for what does NOT work may be just as illuminating as our more normal way of filtering through the vast amount of sequence information. I was involved in a research effort which asked the same basic question as the one discussed here, except that we didn't dare to think of nullomers as "lethal" or "toxic". Our thoughts were more along the lines of chemically or structurally instable. We did find a large number of peptides not represented in the published databases, but the sheer number and diversity even at the tetramer level made us abandon the analysis.

  14. Run for the hills by Adam+J+Stone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There may also be some that are lethal in some species, but not others. We're looking for those sequences.

    This article reminds me of a doomsday hypothesis I once read. Daniel Pouzzner [mega.nu] posted this some time ago on his website:

    It is quite likely that the Endangered Species Act and similar policies will continue to be enforced, setting large areas of land (and associated natural resources) out of the reach of interested industries. Corporations in these industries will create a demand for black market genetic bullet engineering, by which obstacle species can be purged, freeing the land for industrial exploitation. The profit motive is overwhelming; the resources at issue are worth trillions of today's dollars annually. An engineer who can target species on demand can obviously target humans, or even subsets of humans, if he wants to. Black markets by definition are not subject to regulatory scrutiny, and of course tend to be populated by unsavory and low characters. The environmentalist extremists (many of whom are well-financed or independently wealthy) will retain the services of some of these black market operators, to "fight back" (as they see it) on behalf of the species being targeted for/by the corporations. This will probably culminate in a doomsday bug.

    1. Re:Run for the hills by webbod · · Score: 1

      pft! - you can target groups of humans very easily, all you've got to do is play around with the symptoms of some ethnic diseases - e.g. sickle cell anemics get into difficulty when you mess around with their blood pressure or constrict their blood vessels.You want to wipe out lots of african americans ?: then release a virus that inhibits Parathyroid hormone.

      Not much to it - most traditionally close-knit ethnic groups have inherited skeletons lurking in their genomic cupboards - you've just got the think laterally to explout them.

    2. Re:Run for the hills by Nappa48 · · Score: 1

      SARS anyone?

  15. From a programmers perspective by $pearhead · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'm not a DNA expert by any means, but doesn't DNA sequences bear some similarities to code/machine language (or maybe I'm just a nerd) ? I guess what they're saying is that there are bad/buggy/dangerous DNA sequences (code) that don't exist naturally. Does that mean that God is a good programmer?

    1. Re:From a programmers perspective by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      *** Does that mean that God is a good programmer?***

      Sure -- if your think that making random changes to code then turning the result over to the test organization to see if they work is good programming practice. If you are patient enough, you can surely get decent code that way, but your record of on-time delivery of acceptable products is likely to be poor. Fortunately for God, there is no biblical evidence that he/she has schedule milestones to meet.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:From a programmers perspective by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1, Funny

      Since 90% of DNA is useless junk (warning: figure pulled out of ass, but it's a big number I believe) then it would say he was a rather crappy programmer.

    3. Re:From a programmers perspective by mrjb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that mean that God is a good programmer? Quite a dreadful one, actually. Sure, he wrote this terraforming application in just six days, but a bit more planning would have been wise. Just look at the amount of bugs it has! He's been busy 'fixing' them them ever since, but for every bug eliminated, another was introduced... it's not strange that things haven't evolved since. It's an unmaintainable legacy application by now, a rewrite from scratch would be best.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    4. Re:From a programmers perspective by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      He tried a partial rewrite with project Noah, but it looks like another one is due. Project Armageddon is running late and the last status report kept going on about dragons and fiery pits....

    5. Re:From a programmers perspective by Shadow+Of+The+Sun · · Score: 1

      Maybe the wasted part are comments.

    6. Re:From a programmers perspective by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      I see the light! Bill....Bill, is that you?

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    7. Re:From a programmers perspective by $pearhead · · Score: 1
      Maybe the wasted part are comments.
      Yes, that's what the parent poster wrote; useless junk.
    8. Re:From a programmers perspective by bmajik · · Score: 1

      If you relish this sort of analogy or quest for isomorphism amongst various information codings, read "A New Kind of Science" by Wolfram.

      Would you have guessed that amongst the set of 2 or 3 color nearest neighbor cellular automata programs, you can find designs which are almost exactly replicated in nature?

      The book suggests some interesting implications for the amount of apparent intelligence we see as the result of some informational coding (i.e. DNA), and the required complexity of the underlying program.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    9. Re:From a programmers perspective by jc42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since 90% of DNA is useless junk (warning: figure pulled out of ass, but it's a big number I believe) ...

      The percentage isn't too important (and varies for different species), but there's growing evidence that the "junk DNA" isn't necessarily useless. The phrase really just means DNA that doesn't seem to code for any proteins via any mechanism that we know. But this doesn't mean that it has no function. A few instances of "noncoding" DNA functioning as a regulator of nearby genes have been found, for example.

      An interesting thing came out of the recent sequencing of the DNA of the domestic chicken. It seems that the researchers found a "junk" sequence of around 20,000 base pairs that are identical with a section of human DNA. The common ancestor was around 200 million years ago, and if this DNA weren't useful, random mutations and crossover events would have long since wiped it out. For such a long sequence to be preserved for 200 million years, it has to have a useful function in both species, and will probably be found in most other birds and mammals. Either that, or it's a retrovirus that has colonized both species' genomes. We have no idea what it is, but future research will probably explain it.

      Anyway, researchers are starting to suspect that not all of that "junk DNA" is useless. But we're a long way from understanding it all.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    10. Re:From a programmers perspective by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Larry Niven's short story "What Can You Say About Chocolate-Covered Manhole Covers?" was based on a similar concept. The idea was that this planet is part of a breeding experiment, and periodically the experimenters look around for the "best" humans (by whatever criteria), transport small sets of them to other earthlike planets, and them wipe out the rest of the human population to prepare the planet for re-seeding. The title was one of the questions used to test people for acceptability. It's a fun story; you should read it if you can find it.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    11. Re:From a programmers perspective by Syrrh · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely useless junk. Well, it's useless in terms of expressed genes, but there are also fragments of genes that have been suppressed by evolution but not eliminated completely, theoretically they could come back under an appropriate mutation.

      More realistically, they are buffer zones. DNA gets damaged petty easily, and there are mechanisms to repair it but they aren't perfect. If random passing gamma rays have a 100% chance of screwing up something important, then mutations are going to be uncontrollably frequent. They can bash up the genetic spare-parts box a lot more safely, so there's no big biological incentive to do cleanup in there.

    12. Re:From a programmers perspective by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that God is a good programmer?
      No, it means the resulting implementation gets dropped in the testing phase, which is of course, not his job.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  16. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, as the Israeli say: "Make sure it never happens again... to us!"

  17. suicide attack? by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    DNA makes protein. Let's say there are DNA sequences which lead to protein so poisonous no cell can take it. Implant the DNA in a creature (plant/cell/animal). Whaaaw, now we have a creature which... kills itself??? It is not like there are no proteins available which are lethal to man but can be tolerated by other creatures: snake venom, certain plant extracts. The whole point of this is that no creature can take it.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:suicide attack? by xero314 · · Score: 1
      The whole point of this is that no creature can take it.
      The problem lies in what this research can lead to. Once you know what DNA sequences are incompatible with life, therefor killing anything that has this particular sequence, you could design a virus, probably a retrovirus, which could contain an RNA sequence which when reverse transcription to a host cell takes place causes one of these incompatible sequences in the Host cell. This could even be designed so that it would only produce the incompatible sequence if the host cell contained a specific sequence before transcription, ultimately leading to "designer viruses" that could target specific portions of the population with not possibility of a cure.

      Mind you I don't hold a PhD in genetics so my description may not be technically right, but the premiss is certainly there and this kind of research definitely has negative potential.
    2. Re:suicide attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History Book of 2356.
      The recipe for doomsday virus was posted on the internet( site Slashdot in the year 2007.

  18. Re:Dangerous and nonexistent by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

    Sooo that missile silo that just retracted its cover is obviously non-exis... hey, WHO'S PLAYING GAMES ON WOPR AGAIN?!

    --
    Me failed English...
    FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  19. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by zuiraM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd consider it more likely that a lab "accident" causes it to kill off the Palestinian population, or possibly even the majority of the Arab world. All it takes is one wrong person in the right place at the right time. And the majority of current leaders in Israel fit every criterion but "right time" at the moment.

    Of course, I'd hate for them to pick up this idea, but they've probably thought about it already:

    If they are willing to sacrifice the majority of their population as well, they could create a biological weapon that targets everyone except the Ashkenazi jews. That particular group is probably one of the most studied groups out there because they almost never breed with outsiders, so tons of interesting stuff can be found from their DNA. (Note that I'm using the word "breed" as a technical, not derogatory, term here)

  20. Why I have a better proposition by Kashgarinn · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like a grant to theorise about a few things:

    1) the "Rabbit that is so dangerous it can cut your head off"
    - I believe most of my research will be around the castle Aaaaaargh.
    2) The "Chuck Norris move that's so dangerous that it doesn't exist"
    - Even chuck norris would perhaps have to spend more than 20 minutes researching it.
    3) the "solution to the iraq war which is so useful it doesn't exist"
    - and now I've passed from the plausible to the ridiculous, sorry about that.

    K.

  21. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't Jews and Arabs quite close genetically? They look quite similar. I'd imagine a virus that kills one would probably kill the other as well. Sounds like a good idea anyway.

  22. Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Tatarize · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well that's just stupid. "Race" isn't really anything. There are very few genes which actually differ between such groups. You'd think maybe Asians have genes for their eyes but that same gene exists elsewhere... take a look at Bjork. You'd really be shooting yourself in the foot. As for the difference between Jews and Arabs, there aren't many. As in none, genetically you can't tell them apart.

    Let's say you wanted to kill all blonds. You make a virus that becomes active when it contacts the sequence for blond hair. Assuming you did something to make sure the recessive gene didn't just strike carriers too, you'd end killing blonds and gingers. Ginger is simply red-red, blond-blond genes, whereas blonds are Not-red-* blond-blond. Not-red is a dominate gene, whereas red is recessive.

    Really, you'd want to do the old death camp method. You need to sort them out based on a rather non-existent grouping... that is something only racists can do, not viruses.

    You think there is some gene that defines a race... there really isn't. There are certain genes which exist in varied frequency but none that are that isolated. You might be able to wipe out a village with some rare mutation but, otherwise you're going to create something that just starts killing people off pretty much at random.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    1. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Assuming you did something to make sure the recessive gene didn't just strike carriers too, you'd end killing blonds and gingers. What's so bad about that? We all know that gingers have no souls.

      Red Power!
    2. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too simplistic. If 'Race' wasn't anything we'd all look the same. The Chinese would look like Scandanavians and vice versa. You pick your example of Asian eyes and note Bjork. But what if you select on a combination much like a human would i.e. a combination of eyes, haircolour, and skin colour. Then you can narrow down much more. Much much more. Then you would have a weapon that would by and large be based on race.

    3. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 2, Informative

      Beyond the obvious karma boost, how the hell is this informative?

    4. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "take a look at Bjork"

      I'd really rather not...it's bad enough I had to hear her for about 5 minutes back in the 90's.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    5. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Lisa Simpson.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by zacronos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for the difference between Jews and Arabs, there aren't many. As in none, genetically you can't tell them apart.

      Can you back that up?

      A peer poster mentioned this but didn't really put much force into it: if you remove the restriction of looking at a single gene only, then it becomes much easier to commit bio-genocide.

      You need to sort them out based on a rather non-existent grouping... that is something only racists can do, not viruses. [...] There are certain genes which exist in varied frequency but none that are that isolated.

      Imagine 80% of the population of a particular "non-existent grouping" has a particular gene, while 20% of the population outside of that population has the gene (I think that's being generous -- much more effectively discriminating genes could likely be found). Now imagine there are 10 of those. It would not be hard to believe that 1 in 3 of that "non-existent grouping" has at least 3 of the genes (assuming the "non-existent grouping" is not based purely on appearance, but also evidence of ancestry that ties the group together), while less than 1% of people outside the group has 3 or more of the genes. This is assuming the genes have independent distributions when considered either within the group or outside it; this would almost positively not be the case, but I'll assume that it probably doesn't hurt my case too much (though it may in the Jews/Arabs example, I admit).

      So, can 10 genes like that be found, and can the virus be made to kill someone with several particular genes? If you could make a virus that targets the combination of 3 particular genes (again, assuming the genes have independent distribution within the group), then one virus like that could kill off a third of your group, while killing less than 1% of people outside the group. Make a second virus with a different 3, you kill off ~1% of the remaining outside population while killing of a third of what remains of the group. Do that with 2 more viruses and you've cut the group down to less than 20% of its original size, at the cost of 4% of the outside population.

      Does anything in that scenario sound so implausible? Do those sound like numbers a hard-core racist would go for?

    7. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure there are few genetic differences between one race and another race (and male and female for that matter).

      But there are also few genetic differences between chimps and humans too, and those few differences make chimps very different from humans in our eyes.

      Sure to an alien creature there might be no big difference between chimp, human or even ant - all are DNA based organisms and a subgroup of carbon based lifeforms.

      But to us, there are significant differences.

      Also: though the average specimens may not differ much in various parameters it's often not the average specimens of a group who are significant in many things. It's usually the ones at the extremes. Top 100 scientists, inventors, CEOs, dictators etc. The rest like you and me are just "fillers". Just a very few people own most of the wealth in the world.

      So it's silly to say there's no such thing as "race". There are different breeds of dogs with different tendencies and characteristics, same species but still different. Similarly there are different human races/breeds but they are not as distinct as dog breeds - due to the breeding programs being a bit different ;).

      As for trying to wipe out a race without wiping out other races, the hybrids will probably still survive and there are plenty of hybrids. And what's the point of doing that in the first place? Humans have got to the stage where it is common for culture/religion/belief to supercede race as the most important marker.

      Of course we are also getting close to the stage where a single average person can wipe out tens of thousands or even more people without having to collude with others. Currently it takes a number of people to agree to kill thousands. But if the average person gets access to more and more dangerous technologies, either the average person has to be a lot better or the paths technology takes should change.

      So as technology "progresses", we should no longer be doing things merely because they can be done, we should start to spend a lot more thought on what should be done now, what might be best done later, and what might perhaps not be done at all or at least for the forseeable future.

      Otherwise some idiot/nut will just push the big red "Kill Everybody" button the instant it is made.

      --
    8. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by punissuer · · Score: 1

      Parent should be modded funny, not informative.

    9. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by egyptiankarim · · Score: 1

      Judiasm is NOT a race. Anyone can be Jewish. It's not genetically determined at all.

      --
      Eek!
    10. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by zacronos · · Score: 1

      That depends on who you talk to. Orthodox and (to a lesser extent) conservative Jews follow the "law of matrilineal descent", which means you can only be considered Jewish if your mother is considered Jewish. That's not entirely true for conservative Jews, but it's close. So there *is* a strong common heritage for Orthodox and conservative Jews, if you trace things back far enough. http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisajew/a/amijewish. htm

      And of course, Judaism was originally centered on the Hebrew people, so I think you'll find a strong correlation between people who follow Judaism and people who have Hebrew heritage.

      With all that said though, you're correct that I probably should have said "Israeli", since that was how the topic started; however, the post I was replying to said "Jews and Arabs", so I was merely continuing the mistake.

    11. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Syrrh · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing, such selective genocide is stupid. There will not be another holocaust. Any race-based bioweapon will also kill off a section of populations around the world, EVERYONE will be pissed at whoever did it. Any retard dumb enough to want to use something like that would never be able to develop it.

      Okay, so you know my genes and you want to kill me. Good luck with that. Viruses don't infect someone for their eye color, they can only detect an appropriate host by cell membrane proteins. I'm not too current on genetic engineering, but getting the viral payload to modify multiple specific gene sequences may be flat-out impossible, normally they just stick their data wherever it lands. And of course it has to be capable of replicating *before* the host dies, and also dodge the immune system.

      Never mind the fact that you aren't looking for 10 genes, you're looking for *hundreds*. There is no 'slant-eye' gene or 'small hands' gene. There are a ton of poorly-understood timing controls that affect such minor individual differences, and there's no guarantee they're identical even in a specific group to be targeted. This possibility is securely in the tinfoil-hat realm.

    12. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could quibble over things. If hair is roughly dark, and skin tone contain melanin... but not too much, eye color is on average not blue, eyes are typically slanted then kill individual... but that would be a lot of if-then statements for a biological weapon.

      You'd still be better off just sorting them by hand and shoving them in a gas chamber. Anything else is not that feasible.

      Secondly, we do all pretty look the same. Here and there we have a stray gene, but our species has had a fairly recent founder effect. Some species have each individual look like they should be in their own species. We are pretty well adapted at spotting the differences, but that doesn't make the differences obvious to a biological weapon... unless your giving the virus human intelligence or something.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    13. Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>Any retard dumb enough to want to use something like that would never be able to develop it.

      I think this kind statement is a problem in itself. Some people with extremely damaging and extremely dangerous beliefs are quite intelligent. For example many of the 9/11 hijackers were architects and engineers and several had doctorates.

      It is becoming more plausible that somebody with the expertise needed to create a nuclear weapon could also have the intent to use it as an attack.

      The idea that all fanatics are stupid is as dangerous and fanaticism itself.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  23. Eugenic Wars. by master_p · · Score: 1

    As mankind reaches closer to controlling reality as a computer program, perhaps it is necessary for all countries to sign on a global contract on what should be allowed and what not. It may not ultimately save us from eugenic wars, but it will minimize the risk of someone toggling the life switch off at will.

    1. Re:Eugenic Wars. by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did someone say "Eugenic Wars?" You know where that leads,"KKKKKKhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaann nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn"

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    2. Re:Eugenic Wars. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      ...perhaps it is necessary for all countries to sign on a global contract on what should be allowed and what not.

      Terrific idea, and I can see such a contract being every bit as effective as the Geneva convention, the Nuclear Proliferation treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Germ Warfare treaty...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Eugenic Wars. by master_p · · Score: 1

      ok...so what's your proposal?

  24. Oh no! by kars · · Score: 1

    Run! It's the antichrist!

    --
    Take life easy: one bit at a time.
    1. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, not another one.

      Why is the sky always falling?

  25. In the future... by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

    scientists will have solved the riddle of extending life to 1000 years and will sequence all of our genes so we die at age 72 because it's too expensive to offer state run healthcare to people over the age of 72.

    1. Re:In the future... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well, you've already got end part right. Just skip the first part and get that middle part done.

      P.S. - if you can come up with a modification that will reduce the age to under 6, there's a massive DOD contract in your future.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:In the future... by argent · · Score: 1

      They already made that movie.

    3. Re:In the future... by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do that? Govs can just stop being stupidly trying to ban people from smoking and just keep taxing tobacco heavily.

      They should still keep educating them on the dangers of smoking and make it illegal for kids to start or be sold cigs to.

      But other than that, if you know the dangers and you still like to smoke a few packs a day: "Thank you citizen for your contribution and sacrifice!"

      If you die soon after your productive years or retirement, you are no longer a drag to healthcare - while there's your last 3 or so years where you'd be taking some money out, but your 30-50 years of tobacco tax should have paid for that and a lot more.

      If you don't die soon after retirement but keep smoking, hey thanks for continuing to pay extra taxes after retirement!

      I'm not a smoker, but I find it strange that so many Governments worry about aging populations on one hand but keep trying to stop smokers from smoking. No need to spend so much money preventing them from smoking. Heck, we'd be able to afford to give the long time smokers a special "Patriot" carton every year as a sign of appreciation.

      I'm sure there are plenty of other similar ways to prop up the healthcare/social security system.

      --
    4. Re:In the future... by merreborn · · Score: 1

      That argument smells a bit like a broken window fallacy.

      While the system can absolutely be self-supporting, as you've argued, humanity as a whole would be a lot better off doing something else with their time, other than manufacturing goods that kill their users, and then doing everything they can to keep those people alive.

      There are some good arguments for not trying to ban smoking (such as the inevitability of a black market forming, and the right to personal choice), but I'm not sure the one you've presented is one of them.

    5. Re:In the future... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Huh? Who said anything about doing everything we can to keep smokers alive? D'oh, the whole point is smokers are supposed to die earlier!

      We should help about as much as we do for nonsmokers, in fact we should help smokers a little bit more (given their greater contributions).

      It's not "broken window" because smokers are about as productive as nonsmokers. It's just typical that they die earlier and after they start being less "productive".

      "Goods that kill their users"?, tsk tsk. Seems you're just not thinking rationally.

      Tobacco isn't the only _legal_ product out there that shortens lifespans. Unhealthy food does. Alcohol abuse too often doesn't just kill the user - drunk driving, fights etc. Second-hand smoke is nothing in comparison.

      What I'm saying is true. It may not be palatable to many, but it doesn't make it less true. You can stick to more palatable arguments like blackmarkets etc.

      But it's easier to check whether what I'm saying is true or not than to prove the blackmarket etc stuff. You can get hard economic values. You already have tobacco tax/year.

      The only tricky bit is people tend to count the medical costs of treating smoking related problems but conveniently _ignore_ the medical costs of treating nonsmokers for the X years more that the nonsmokers live AND that nonsmokers _eventually_die_,

      You can see it all the time: "Yay, we save X billion/year in smoking related costs because smokers stopped smoking!" as if the nonsmokers just keep on living without incurring any costs, and then drop dead cleanly and far more cheaply than smokers. Take off the rose-tinted glasses and you'll see it's not true. Alzheimer's, cancer, stroke, you name it.

      I know life is not about being "productive". But if you have healthcare/social security systems to maintain, you need to do some beancounting.

      --
  26. Anyone else by franksands · · Score: 1

    thought about the anti-life equation ?

  27. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by TTLof1MIN · · Score: 1

    There was one Racial WMD program against black people in south africa when they had that Apartheid shit going on, it had something to do with circle cells, I think that is a cell type that only black africans have.

  28. Should read: DNA So Useless It Doesn't Exist by Mixel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nature generally selects proteins that fold well, because it leads to some stable function. Nature therefore selects DNA sequences that code for such proteins. Rare/nonexistant DNA sequences code for rare/nonexistant proteins that are unlikely to have a stable fold. It is probably worth investigating just in case a few of those have interesting function. The research equivalent of going through someone's garbage. $1 million doesn't go very far these days, so it sounds about right. Why is this in the headlines, again?

    1. Re:Should read: DNA So Useless It Doesn't Exist by lubricated · · Score: 1

      you are assuming that they are only looking at genes that code for a useful protein. There is non coding dna, dna that codes for a protein that doesn't do anything. etc.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  29. Evil(TM) by Danathar · · Score: 1

    It's like scientifically searching for EVIL(TM).

    Over a couple of Beers at the pub an interesting discussion, but NOT something one should really engage in.

    1. Re:Evil(TM) by Nappa48 · · Score: 1

      Yeh, kinda like that awesome Doom movie, eh?

      Why can't they make sarcasm tags... it would be better than that NSFW crap!

  30. The original article by splox · · Score: 1

    For those of you who would like to read the original article (and not just the summary in New Scientist), it is available here.

  31. Afraid? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ``I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take.''

    You mean that it could be used to manufacture new weapons? I don't know if having n+1 ways to kill is really much worse than having n ways, given that n is already as large as it is.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Afraid? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      So, n + 1 = n for large values of n?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Afraid? by badfish99 · · Score: 1

      Seems reasonable. After all, 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

    3. Re:Afraid? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Exactly. (I was actually remember the 1+1=3 version, but same difference.)

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  32. I know a word that doesn't exist... by highacnumber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like in DNA, there are words so dangerous that they don't exist. Here's one of them: sdlnfnerooij. Use it with care and send me the check. Most DNA does something, or is a slightly mutated version of a sequence that does something (like endogenous retroviruses). So its like a language with some spelling mistakes - of course there are lots of sequences that won't be there. And if you look at long enough strings, there have to be some missing.

    1. Re:I know a word that doesn't exist... by Ingolfke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You just killed Kenny!

    2. Re:I know a word that doesn't exist... by sdlnfnerooij · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ.

    3. Re:I know a word that doesn't exist... by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      "AAAaaaaggghhh...."

      *thump*

      You killed Kenny! You bastard!

    4. Re:I know a word that doesn't exist... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      I'm actually curious. With all the DNA data, what is the -shortest- sequence that doesn't occur anywhere, what is its length, is it statistically significant that it doesn't occur, is there any biological reason why it doesn't occur... (dna data is pretty ``random'' [heh]---doesn't compress well wtih gzip, etc., so if some short sequence doesn't occur, there might be some interesting reason behind it).

      Dunno if it's worth 1m though. I can picture a pretty simple program to find shortest sequences that don't occur anywhere. Maybe I'll do that when I get home... :-)

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  33. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or--knowing Israel--that it will be used, and have unforeseen side effects (as in a certain Babylon 5 episode).

  34. So long & thanks for all the fish by Joebert · · Score: 1

    In conclusion, we were right, it doesn't exist, thanks for the million bucks.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  35. 3 years at BSU has taught me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....that the remaining 990 000 dollars obviously go to BSU's football team.

    1. Re:3 years at BSU has taught me.... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but at least your getting results.

      You could be at Notre Dame, where even with God on their side they can't win a bowl game.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  36. Words so dangerous they dont make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A group of PR hacks at Nowhere University is investigating the theory that there are word sequences so dangerous they are incomprehensible to life. Grog Hanky-napkin, a professor of pressreleaseology, and his team are comparing all possible short sequences of words to databases of soundbytes to determine which ones don't make any sense at all. The New Talking Head reports that the US Department of Defense is interested enough in their work to have awarded them a $1 grant. I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take - because I can't figure out what in the ghod damn they're talking about.

  37. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by crowbarsarefornerdyg · · Score: 2, Informative
    There was one Racial WMD program against black people in south africa when they had that Apartheid shit going on, it had something to do with circle cells, I think that is a cell type that only black africans have.
    You're thinking of Sickle Cell Anemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia). And it affects not only Africans, but affect anyone, regardless of race. Sickle Cell Anemia is an extremely painful disease, because the normally round red blood cells form into a sickle shape, causing them to get trapped in the vessels. It causes swelling due to blood backup in the capillaries, and can seriously damage your organs. Please, before making a comment such as this, do a bit of research.
    --
    "Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
  38. Cancer treatment by slysithesuperspy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could this be used to attack cancer cells?

    1. Re:Cancer treatment by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Theorically yes, but killing the host to starve the tumor raises some ethical questions.

    2. Re:Cancer treatment by julesh · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, yes. If you can find some way of delivering the sequence into the correct cells and inserting it into their DNA without affecting non-cancerous cells. But the same is true of many other solutions which are already known: killing cells isn't hard. Finding the ones to target is.

  39. OH NOES SEW SKARIE! by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

    What are the DoD going to do; shoot me with a bullet impregnated with a mutagen?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:OH NOES SEW SKARIE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the DoD going to do; shoot me with a bullet impregnated with a mutagen?
      or better yet, spread the mutagen-holding virus over the desired population and let nature do the rest. that way, you and all your family will be gone to the betterment of the gene pool.

    2. Re:OH NOES SEW SKARIE! by Jehosephat2k · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, mutagen impregnates BULLET!

  40. Re:stupid - not so stupid by MjDelves · · Score: 1

    I don't know anything about the credentials of this research lab but the project does seem interesting. There are lots of published papers showing that short peptide sequences (~10 amino acids (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db= pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16 135080&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum)have potent effects on processes such as neural development, cell differentiation, cell survival etc. Whilst 10aa equates to 30 base pairs in DNA which is 3x bigger than those going to be investigated in the article, it just goes to show that there could be out there random sequences of DNA which could be translated into toxic peptides. It's not all doom and gloom - Imagine coupling a masked "kill" sequence to an antibody targeted to cancer cells - upon reaching it's target, through proteolytic degradation it could be converted into a potential anticancer drug. Discoveries such as these don't necessarily have to spell destruction to the world.

  41. And if "dangerous DNA" isn't cataclysmic enough... by Two99Point80 · · Score: 1

    ...try feeding invalid parameters to Something Much Bigger, as described here.

  42. All I want.... by MrPBoy · · Score: 1

    is some DNA with laser beams attached to its head. Someone throw me a bone here...?

  43. Here are examples of some strands... by The-Bus · · Score: 1

    I can take a guess as to what strand might be incompatible with life... Here's one famous one:

    H-H-S-O-O-O-O (repeating)

    If I recall, the first test case was the famous "Little Johnny" who was, after the test, a Little Johnny no more.

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  44. >"I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take."

    not sure? possible directions?

    well then get back to us when you ARE sure about something and maybe we'll listen to your opinion then. otherwise sit down and stfu.

  45. Wow, Blade Runner is real by gelfling · · Score: 1, Funny

    Program an organism to self destruct before it becomes a permanent danger.

  46. So, the one bloke said to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wenn ist das Nunstrück git ... Heh. Ha. HA HA HA

    NO CARRIER

  47. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't think that's what he was referring to, I think he was referring to the bucket full of crack he smoked earlier.

  48. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who write "circle cells" instead of "sickle cells" probably don't know what research is, dear. Not that you're helping, with thinking that having sickle cells is the same thing as having sickle-cell anemia. Sickle-cell anemia is caused by an excess of sickle cells. Sickle cells, themselves, are common in people who live in certain regions, as they help protect against malaria. The presence of sickle cells probably would be a useful marker for parts of the black population that descended from certain areas.

  49. Re:stupid - not so stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    To be translated it needs much more than coding sequence for those 10 residues.

    The point is that relating the absence of oliugopeptides or oligonucleotides in genomes to the "danger", "threat", etc. is redefining the phrase "long shot" for me.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  50. How else will we keep the Replicants in line! by Knoman · · Score: 1

    EOM

    --
    "It's an imperfect world,screws fall out..."
  51. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take.

    well, I for one welcome our new bio-engineered overlords...

  52. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that most Arabs in the world would like to see all Jews dead, I can't say that I blame them...

  53. research by zesty42 · · Score: 1

    I think it's important that we research potentially dangerous theories like this. The US has a bad rep as war mongers but so has every superpower in history. I'm not arguing how valid that may be, just saying. Part of a good defense is a good offense, but also a good defense is just knowing more about everything than the other guy. That's why the DoD funds some crazy projects. The million bucks sounds like a lot but not so much compared to the huge budget. Also, in true /. form, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some other initiatives included in the study that aren't as well documented.

    --
    the more miserable you are now, the funnier the story will be later
  54. Nature's way by dimeglio · · Score: 1

    Stop the FUD, nature is already eliminating embryos who have DNA incompatible with life through miscarriages.

    Also, the article states that the 1 million $ grant was to develop "safety tags" which would be like entering a comment in computer code to identify it's version. This would tag the DNA sequence to identify it from forensic samples. Nothing that makes me panic here either.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  55. No one ever gets.... by neimon · · Score: 1

    ...the law of unintended consequences.

    Nor do they understand that people with good intentions can do what will turn out to be very, very bad things simply because they believe We Have To Do It Before Our Enemies Do.

    It's great research with some claimed good intentions. You should be scared.

  56. As long as they don't distribute it in the beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    (spoiler reference. You either know the international TV show or you don't.)

  57. Errrrr.... by drewsup · · Score: 0

    Did'nt we learn anything from Species, (other than Natasha Henstidge is a hottie)

  58. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Froster · · Score: 1

    This is the dumbest thing I've seen posted on /. in a very long time. Lets suppose that you are right, and they are conducting this research. First, the genetic differences between races is very slight, and those very slight differences would be as hard to identify as they would be to target in a method that would kill the enemy (instead of just changing their skin colour). Second, there is such a thing as an Arab with Israeli citizenship, and those people would be killed in the process. Systematically killing an undesirable portion of the population is something that Israelis would likely be VERY against (otherwise it would be a tad hypocritical otherwise, no?). Lastly, there existence of Arabs and Jews in Palestine prior to the formation of the state of Israel would indicate that there is probably a degree of homogeneity between those pre-existing populations. So, if this were true, the Israelis are looking for something that would fit in the eye of a needle in a haystack, would commit genocide (thats a tough pill to swallow for victims of a genocide) and could wipe out a portion of the Jewish population as well.

    Or, you could be talking out of your a$$ and just fear mongering.

  59. You won't say that... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    ... when the first DNA weapon makes you grow donkey ears and a tail. Of course this will be to reflect your political views. Could be worse, you could grow an elephant trunk and ears!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  60. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm worried that such an accident would kill off the Sephardic Jews as well, while leaving the ethnically Eastern European Ashkenazim untouched.

  61. It Comes as No Surprise... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    ...that the U.S. D.O.D. would be interested in this. There are people in this world who are completely wrong in the head; ...to the point where having NO survivors in an all out war would be considered a victory. "Yeah, no one would survive. But at least the enemy would be eliminated". That is the only thing a weapon (bio, nuclear, chemical, etc...) that assures complete destruction of all life would be useful for.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:It Comes as No Surprise... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jeez, don't be an idiot.
      The DOD funds many pieces of research without the idea that it wouold kill people.
      Yes, they also fund research that kills people.
      If You have been paying attention you would note that the DoD focuses on smaller strategic strikes with maximum impact.

      What's the DoD hoping to find? I way to rearange someones genetic structure so the magically turn to goo? There are better, faster, cheaper, and realistic ways of actually killing someone.

      You people knee jerk reaction to these articles is making me sick.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:It Comes as No Surprise... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      What's the DoD hoping to find? I way to rearange someones genetic structure so the magically turn to goo? There are better, faster, cheaper, and realistic ways of actually killing someone.

      Didn't you see Neon Genesis Evangelion? The DoD is obviously in cahoots with SEELE...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:It Comes as No Surprise... by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh I'm well aware of the fact that they research things that aren't used for killing. You're using the fruits of some of that research right now to attack me. ;P (RAR!!!) I'm not saying the D.O.D. is evil. I'm saying that there are some very warped people who work at various levels of our government who are very interested in the ultimate killing technologies. Especially solutions that would exterminate all life on Earth if necessary just to win an ideological argument. Considering how you went off on me, I suspect that you might be one of them. Cheers!

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  62. Anti-Life Gene Promising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I applaud this research. Just think of the possibilities! If this pans out, they'll soon be able to genetically engineer non-living, non-biological materials with absolutely no chance of the substance being able to self-replicate!

    Here's a heading along the same lines: "Researchers seeking a substance so poisonous it might kill you. DOD shows interest. I don't like where this is headed."

  63. I think I have some. by wolff000 · · Score: 1

    Not really but I'm sure this kind of thing exists. Plenty of mutations are not comaptible for life and a lot these mutations are in DNA. It honestly seems like common sense that there are genetic sequences that would cause someone to die. Don't we already know about a lot of these like all the genetic diseases out there that cause death. Like people that are allergic to water or sunlight. Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't seem to deserve a million dollar budget.

    --
    WTF?
  64. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Viruses are not animals. Whether viruses even qualify as life is still hotly debated. Viruses can replicate, but only in the presence of a suitable host and not by themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

  65. Anti-life DNA? by Reidsb · · Score: 1

    Wait, when did Darkseid start working for the DOD?

  66. Efficiency problem by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    It would be better to make a table of flags. Initialize all of them to zero. Scan the genome only once and set the flag corresponding to each sequence that is present. Then scan for flags that are still zero. This would be much faster than searching the whole genome for the presense of each possible sequence. It would probably run to completion in a few minutes. Heck, replace "flag" with "counter" and see which sequences are most common at the same time...

  67. It can't be that dangerous... by Randall311 · · Score: 1

    if it doesn't exist!

  68. Re:The winner is... by Scooby1819 · · Score: 1

    Aw, come on. That was hilarious!

  69. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by pizzaman100 · · Score: 1

    Always nice to see paranoid anti-Semitism on Slashdot.

  70. natural language too by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The statistical distribution of repeated subsequences in natural language follows a power law. Encrption and decryption seeks to distrupt or detect such. DNA seems to follow that pattern too. The non-protein coding parts of DNA- about 98% that of human- seems to indicate it is conveying information, but people haven't quite figured it out. It might be modifying nearby coding DNA or generating short-live RNA (2005 Nobel chemistry and medicine prizes0 or doing something else.

  71. Bond, James Bond by ukdmbfan · · Score: 0

    Bond Villain: Now Mr Bond, prepare to die in the most horrifically evil way known to man as we resequence your genome with incompatible DNA! Let's see you get out of this one! Bond Villain's Aide: Sir, couldn't we just, you know, shoot him?

    --
    "If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
  72. Scare mongering by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

    Most DNA sequences are incompatible with life. For example, it is well known that Down's syndrome is caused by have three copies of chromosome 22 instead of the normal two. Why are there not syndromes associated with having three copies of chromosomes 1 through 21? Because they are not viable past a very early stage, and most spontaneously abort.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  73. Ooooo, a DNA bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It silently explodes but mutates nearby living organisms causing their DNA sequences to produce the deadly combination and whamo!

  74. Ways to kill... by Ruvim · · Score: 1

    So, the old Polonium-210 routine doesn't work any more?

  75. Flush the old stuff down the drain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully is will not mutate and live in the wild and destory all life on the planet. Who needs nuclear weapons anyway, when we can just create a supervirus? http://fbsolawyer.com/

  76. No gays in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    They didn't test it on prisoners ... they went to San Francisco and infected some gay folks.

    Riiiiight. Because there's no homosexual activity going on in prisons at all, thus no way for a venereal disease tested on prisoners to quickly spread to the gay community.

    1. Re:No gays in prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, really, they fixed that one. They installed soap dispensers so nobody could lose their soap in the shower.. :-)

  77. Faulty logic by csoto · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see the reductive reasoning of the researchers? If a sequence doesn't exist in nature, then it must be deadly! Occam would state that no, it's simply that it must have been less useful than any other sequences throughout the history of life on this planet, thus it has been selected for against.

    Were I to use the reserachers' logic, I'd have to conclude that no mail showed up in my mailbox on Tuesday because the mailman was murdered.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
    1. Re:Faulty logic by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      RTFA. That isn't their logic. The logic is: "If a sequence doesn't exist in nature it may have been selected against, possibly because it is injurious. Let's find and synthesize as many of these sequences as we can then we'll test their effects in the laboratory." One of the applications of their work is using these sequences to tag samples because they don't occur in nature. It doesn't seem that bad sci-fi genetic superweapons are topmost in their minds.

  78. Omega Molecule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds a lot like the Omega Molecule.

  79. So it wasn't the last 10 percent of the genome by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    It was the extinct 90 percent.

    DooM

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  80. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an expression. If I compared viruses and bacteria, and you replied that it was comparing apples and oranges, that doesn't mean you're saying either viruses or bacteria are fruit. I can't believe I just wrote this.

  81. Oh, man, this is rich . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    I think this is also called "junk science"? C'mon - the assertion that these genomic sequences don't exist because they are inimical to life is foolhardy - come to think of it, we already have a name for snippets of genetic code which only exist to damage existing life. We call such a gene-snippet a virus. Despite being inimical or at best neutral to all forms of life, there seem to be plenty of them.

    Yes, I know there's more to a virus than the bit of opportunist genetic code - there's a crunchy shell, the sweet polysaccharide component used to gain entry to cell walls, and the creamy DNA/RNA nougat interior. It seems to me that the so-called "missing" sequences are more likely to prove non-viable, posessing no life-giving or life-enhancing properties. That would seem a more likely explaination for their absence in nature than asserting that those sequences are toxic to all other life (since the ability to destroy competing organisms would confer an advantage on an organism, and since no organism has evolved to use these sequences to advantage I find it likelier that the gene sequences in question are useless, not toxic).

    Then again, this could be a Wildire situation, code to read: Andromeda. Green goo, anyone?

    1. Re:Oh, man, this is rich . . . by pclminion · · Score: 1

      come to think of it, we already have a name for snippets of genetic code which only exist to damage existing life. We call such a gene-snippet a virus.

      Last I understood, the "purpose" of viral DNA was to allow the virus to reproduce itself and continue to exist. Just like every other ORGANISM on the planet. You seem to be trying to put viruses in some special class. We could debate for days about whether a virus is "alive," but there is no question that it is an organism that tends to evolve and reproduce itself.

      Assuredly, if the only DNA present in viruses was DNA that was destructive to the host, then viruses would not reproduce and propagate whatsoever and wouldn't even exist.

  82. Statistical counter-argument by jc42 · · Score: 1

    This sounds a lot like the the concept of "ice-9", the high-temperature water crystal that Kurt Vonnegut wrote about in his famous novel Cat's Cradle. Physicists have suggested an explanation why it can't exist, and the explanation would seem to apply as well to this concept of "kill-everything" DNA, too.

    In the case of ice-9, the argument is that the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years or so, and for at least 4 billion years has been mostly covered with a kilometers-deep ocean. There are trillions and trillions of water molecules in the ocean, mostly at a temperature above 375K and bouncing around against each other in all possible patterns. If there were a possible ice crystal that's stable above the ocean's mean temperature, the random bouncing and quantum fluxuations over 4 billion years would have produced a small crystal at some time, and the oceans would have frozen solid at that point. This hasn't happened, so we have to conclude that no such high-temperature crystalline water form can exist.

    A similar argument could easily be made against the idea of something (DNA, prion, virus, whatever) that kills all living things. The sheer magnitude of DNA and proteins on the planet, plus all the recombination (due to radiation, quantum fluxuations, whatever) that is known to happen, would have long ago produced such a particle, we'd all be extinct, and the Earth would be barren.

    Of course, something a bit less virulent, that only kills its host, is quite likely. You have lots of things inside you that, if they break, you die. But that's not too dangerous to anyone around you, unless you're the one driving the car.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:Statistical counter-argument by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If there were a possible ice crystal that's stable above the ocean's mean temperature, the random bouncing and quantum fluxuations over 4 billion years would have produced a small crystal at some time, and the oceans would have frozen solid at that point. This hasn't happened, so we have to conclude that no such high-temperature crystalline water form can exist.

      But consider the Many-worlds theory of quantum collapse. This theory states that all quantum possibilities exist in parallel as separate universes. Also, consider the anthropic principal, which states that conscious observers can only exist in environments capable of supporting conscious observers (pretty obvious statement). Combine these two ideas and you come to the conclusion that it's possible that in some parallel universe somewhere, the oceans DID freeze up. The reason we see oceans that are not frozen is because we happen to be in one of the parallel universes where it didn't happen. Clearly, in a universe where the oceans froze, humans would not be around to see it, thus, because we ARE here, we see unfrozen oceans.

      Of course, Ice-9 is a fictional substance (well, not really, but it doesn't have the properties described in the book), so this isn't really important. But interesting to think about.

    2. Re:Statistical counter-argument by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      The statistical argument against Ice-9 doesn't hold water (yuk-yuk) without knowing the number of possible permutations that can occur (and how long it takes to try a new one). If there are on the order of 10^45 molecules of water on the planet (16 grams is one mole, and according to this the mass of the oceans is on the order of 10^24 grams), but there are 10^4500 permutations, it's entirely conceivable that such an accident hasn't happened.

      This is the same logic that dictates that no two snowflakes are identical.

      Of course, this is not to say that I believe there is an Ice-9, but I don't like the argument against it.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  83. Not stupid by ozborn · · Score: 1


    Especially stupid are searches for amino-acid sequences. Some of the sequences do not make structural sense, obviously.


    Wouldn't it be nice to know what these are? I'm not too sure how extensive or accurate the current list of structural improbabilities is.

    And what about "dangerous"? Obviously, if the sequence is so crappy that it makes the working conformation of every structural RNA or protein disfunctional then it won't be reproduced.
    I don't think you meant to say that, reproducing organisms often code for nonfunctional RNA and proteins.

    More interesting would be to find out why some sequences are not encountered also in non-coding areas. But "danger"???
    More interesting would be to caluclate on a per organism basis at what frequency such sequences are expected to occur, so we at least know if we are seeing anything significant. The other problem is that sequences may be missing which are formerly lethal, but not currently to the organism.

    Danger is certainly possible too. It is very easy to envision protein, RNA (maybe less so trans acting regulatory elements) that can induce lethality in an organism. Why do you not think this is possible? Knowing these sequences has obvious implications for both gene therapy and drug design. I don't think this research is worthless at all. Of course I work in the field, so perhaps I'm a litle biased. :)

    1. Re:Not stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "It is very easy to envision protein, RNA (maybe less so trans acting regulatory elements) that can induce lethality in an organism. Why do you not think this is possible?"

      Do not forget that "danger" here is D in the DoD. In other words, lethality for organism is well understood, but environmental danger is absurd.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:Not stupid by ozborn · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean it's unlikely that the DoD can use this sequences as a viable weapon? I'd agree with that. There is however a long tradition of scientists taking money from the military to fund basic research whether it is a viable military application or not. Given the war in Iraq... I'm happy they are taking this money from the DoD. It is much better spent.

    3. Re:Not stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      No. I mean using sequences lethal for SURVIVAL of the organism at the genetic level as a weapon is ridiculous. What are they going to do? Inject somebody with a virus and wait until he dies? There are easier way to kill people: chemical and bacteriological weapons. And even their usefullness is dubious.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:Not stupid by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The research may not be useless but the site sure was.
      These prime DNA sequences are kind of interesting. They could be that they are just totally useless but who knows.

      What I would be interested in is idea of alternative nucleotides. Could you replace some of the classic nucleotides in DNA with different molecules and still have a functional cell?
      I don't think we have enough knowlege yet to even try that but the idea of a totally different type of DNA is an interesting idea.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Not stupid by DudeNTenn · · Score: 1

      And what about "dangerous"? Obviously, if the sequence is so crappy that it makes the working conformation of every structural RNA or protein disfunctional then it won't be reproduced.

      Can you say Prions?

  84. ordering online by sir+8ed · · Score: 1

    Given the ease with which oligonucleotides (DNA sequences of varying length) can be ordered these days, how do we determine which sequences will be allowable for purchase and by whom? Currently there are few restrictions on purchasing sequences.

  85. Arabs are semites too... by Shark · · Score: 1

    Arabs are also semites... A more accurate prejudice would make this selective-Semitism, not anti-Semitism

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
  86. Not a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, while this technology could potentially be used as a weapon, just as nearly anything can be, its an important control mechanism.

    Think about it. How can you mitigate a genetic experiment from causing damage? This is it. It is absolutely needed.

  87. DRM FOR PLANTS! by Socguy · · Score: 1

    How can this development be most effectively monetized? To my way of thinking that would be as a terminator sequence to protect someone's intellectual property. Think about it, if I was a seed company or any biotech firm I and everyone was using my stuff how can I enforce payment? If someone doesn't pay the licensing fee, I just turn it off. Better yet, if I can sneak my technology into the wild then I can demand payment from those with no intention of using my patented tech, assuming a sufficient spread, I could turn off large portions of anyone's crops. Make a few examples of farmers and the rest will have to fall in line because they don't want to take a chance that their contaminated too! Alternately, they could make their product dependent on a certain other product they sell to survive, the possibilities are endless.

    This is the danger I see, mainly 'cause it's already happening, albeit to a lesser extent. The trick is just get it legalized with a whole bunch of legitimate, useful applications like tagging.

  88. Wrong Star Trek Reference by abb3w · · Score: 1

    Biogenic Weapons, anyone?

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  89. Done before in WWII with air\planes by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    This is not a new search technique and is actually a very wise one. I remember hearing a story of mathematitians in WWII that were pressed into service by the Air Force to analyze returning planes damage. They mapped all the damage on the planes and they found blank spots on there composite maps of damage. These blank spots were the critical areas that if there was damage, the plane did not return.

    They were looking at for the spots on the planes that needed armor, they only wanted to put armor where it was critical to do so because the minimum weight means maximum range.

    This exploration for missing patterns is the same logic. Because of mutations many sequences will have variations. But if some areas never show mutations or some sequences never come up then these life forms cant sustain life (probably). This would help answer the question what is necesary and sufficient in DNA for a viable life form.

  90. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, South Africa did research bio-weapons that would selectively kill-off black/African folks.

    Unfortunately, the details in this article are slim:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Coast

  91. Re:stupid - not so stupid by ozborn · · Score: 1

    To be translated it needs much more than coding sequence for those 10 residues.

    A larger protein containing that sequence could be spliced after translation.

    The point is that relating the absence of oliugopeptides or oligonucleotides in genomes to the "danger", "threat", etc. is redefining the phrase "long shot" for me.
    You're right, the absence itself doesn't prove anything, but it's a nice jumping off point to the followup study. I'm also not so sure it is a long shot.

  92. so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no dna will be passed on that can't live to make further copies of itself.

  93. Delayed action "too dangerous DNA" by linear+a · · Score: 1

    What about the sequence(s) that code for a brain big enough to create weapons that wipe out the race (or planet)? Already have that....

  94. Re:stupid - not so stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    A larger protein containing that sequence could be spliced after translation.
    That is rear event given the fact that known cases of such post-translational modifications are N-terminal peptides needed for transportation of extracellular proteins to and through the cellular membrane. There are certain structural rules that has to be observed for the leading aminoacid sequence to be detachable from the protein. And it still needs a site for transcription and translation.

    The whole thing reminds me of the "Bible code" games, numerology that it is.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  95. Maybe I'm optimistic... by angelasmark · · Score: 1

    but isn't this kind of research a good thing? If we're going to be screwing around with the genome and playing make glow in the dark piggies wouldn't it be good to know "Hey making this chain causes an organism to eat itself so we shouldn't do it?" It just seems like common sense to look into this kind of thing.

  96. Understatements by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    There are trillions and trillions of water molecules in the ocean

    There are 33.4 billion trillions of water molecules in a gram of the stuff. I think you understated the number in the ocean by a few dozen orders of magnitude.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Understatements by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I just wanted to get in a gratuitous Saganism. What's a few dozen orders of magnitude when there's an obscure techno-literary reference at stake?

      Of course, getting the number of molecules right strengthens the argument aginst ice-9, but doesn't help in the case of DNA. There's a whole lot less DNA on the planet than water. And with DNA you'd count the nucleotides, which are a lot bigger than a water molecule. And nucleotides don't bounce around, rearranging themselves on nanosecond time scales like liquid water does. So the chance of a random kill-all DNA sequence arising is many, many (how's that for precise?) orders of magnitude less than the chance of a random arrangement of a tiny ice seed crystal forming in the oceans. This leaves open the question of whether there's been enough time in our planet's history for such a mutation to arise.

      It's more likely that such rogue actors do arise occasionally, but things like our immune system recognize and dismantle them because they're "foreign". Biological systems have evolved lots of defenses against attacks, especially attacks by small biological things.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  97. YOU DO THE MATH by woolio · · Score: 1

    Just do the math! 4^11 = 4.2 billion.

    COUGH. 4^11 == 2^22 == ~4 MILLION...

    Now that the problem is only 1/1000th as complex as previously thought, is it still a waste of government money?

  98. Give me the million ... by Dragged+Down+by+the · · Score: 1

    and I'll tell you why they don't exist. Actually, I'll tell you for free: they don't exist in nature because they're dead! Gosh, golly, a mutation occurs and the offspring dies in gestation or post-birth because it had a genome sequence that was incompatible with life. That's how it works.

  99. God is a N00bie by woolio · · Score: 1

    I guess what they're saying is that there are bad/buggy/dangerous DNA sequences (code) that don't exist naturally. Does that mean that God is a good programmer?

    Nah... I think it means Evolution is a okay programmer...

    Then again there are: viruses, defects, dead code, all in a long mess of completely uncommented stuff.

    If God exists, he sure hows how to hold on to His "Job Security".

  100. Frank Herbert - Years ahead of his time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you haven't read "White Plague", that's pretty much the plot for the book. A genetic scientist doing research in Ireland has his wife and kids blown away in front of him by an IRA bomb. As revenge on the Irish, he contructs a plague through viral manipulation of bacterial DNA, contructing unnatural DNA sequences. This plague kills only women, and men are carriers.

    Frank wrote this a couple decades ago, and his non- Dune books contain more scientific and social insights than any other author I've read.

    Happy New Year!

  101. Jehovah's Witnesses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I kid, at least I'm not trying to flame / insult.

    Yet, I still post AC ...

    1. Re:Jehovah's Witnesses? by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      I think you're thinking of Christian Scientists. JW's (that I know of) don't have anything against vaccines.

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  102. Your assertion assumes that viruses are alive. by mmell · · Score: 1
    And you're right to point out that such an argument could last for an arbitrarily long (if not infite) period of time.

    It just so happens that I do consider viruses to be a special case - straddling (IMHO) the fine line between animate and inanimate. If one accepts the definition of a virus as a special case, then I believe my assertion is valid.

  103. apokolips now by maczilla · · Score: 1

    Watch out. Darkseid's been looking for the anti-life equation for a looong time.

    --
    'Nature's got a way, brothers, of scraping the bowl'
  104. Re:stupid - not so stupid by ozborn · · Score: 1

    That is rear event given the fact that known cases of such post-translational modifications are N-terminal peptides needed for transportation of extracellular proteins to and through the cellular membrane

    I agree it's likely a rare event. However there are likely other classes of post-translation modification that we haven't discovered, and the protein doesn't have to be extra-cellular.

    Given all the excitement with RNAi over the last decade (which wasn't supposed to happen when I was in grad school) I'm much less likely now to rule out the functionality of smaller macromolecules.

  105. Scaremongering at its finest... by posterlogo · · Score: 1
    "I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take."

    Well gee, way to turn a perfectly benign study into mechanisms of evolution into a fearmongering worst-case scenario. There is very little here that would have potential for "weaponization". The main reason is, and will always be, that biological warfare is more difficult to do than any other type of warfare. Ultimately, it will usually be easier to just shoot somebody.

    From a different perspective, are you worried about some kind of "let's see if we can make a really scary DNA sequence that can kill all life just for the hell of it" scenario, you're not thinking very rationally. Life has been confronted by such variations over and over again in the process of evolution... it is quite robust to "bad" DNA. Even if some "toxic" DNA sequence were created, it would have very limited use, and it is quite impossible to think any one sequence could be toxic to all life. We already have toxins that can kill many animals, why are you "for one not sure you like the possible directions" those toxins can take?? Grow up... it's scaremongering like this that keeps people in a state of fear about biotech research.

  106. fnord by oGMo · · Score: 1

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  107. Re:DoD? love Ned Flanders by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

    I, Ned Flanders, take offense at you lumping others with me. I am a lefty crybaby (please visit me at my store) and I do not oppose the government spending my tax dollars on beneficial research.

    Thanks,
    Ned

  108. Re:This is the worst use of $1M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, 4^11 is 4194304 not 4.2 billion. Even granted your pertinent observations regarding purine to pyrimidine ratios that are skewed in most genomes, it seem to me that your blowoff of this kind of research is off-target.

    While some permuations of nucleotide sequences may not be present due simply to chance alone, it would be interesting to learn WHY particular permuations are absent or in very low frequency. One might presume that they are due to selection against certain kinds of combinations that result from steric hindrance at the time of protein folding, it is not altogether clear WHY specific sequences should under NO CIRCUMSTANCES appear in any genomes.

    Although I am not a molecular biologist, it is my understanding that current mathematical models for protein folding that arise from the nature of physical forces within the atoms making up the resultant polypeptides can not be universally used to predict protein folding. Consequently, from a functional perspective it would be important to know exactly what factors are involved in the apparent absence of specific permutations. One might hypothesize that some may be absent not because the resultant proteins are "dangerous/venomous", even though this may be true for some, but rather that they may be absent because of intrisic limitations of the way they are assembled at the ribosomes and related intracellular machinery.

    Hence, as a means of indirect inference, the proposed research could potentially be valuable in what it might tell us about how that machinery is constructed and operates. It might be that as you suggest such absence can simply be explained by chance error due to sampling. However, given that 4,194,304 is less than ~ 3 billion it is NOT THE CASE that your calculation can be used prima fascie as a reason to rule out the existence of some permuations.

    As far as DOD use, what is moral and what is good depends a lot on what criteria you apply in particular situations. Moral absolutism doesn't really exist except in imaginary enviroments.

  109. Re:This is the worst use of $1M? by Syrrh · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe the DoD's never heard of folding@home. And the 'researcher' just found a nice, cushy way of modifying the FAH client, and blow the rest of his grant money on booze and hookers.

  110. couldn't we use this to kill cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    couldn't we just use this in some way to target cancer cells? I can see the headlines now:
    "NEW VIRUS KILLS CANCER DEAD."

  111. dangerous? or useless? by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

    "Unredeemably dangerous" is just a small subset of "useless". I strongly suspect that a lot of entirely useless sequences will be found, a few novel and interesting ones that aren't particularly harmful and possibly even useful, and not much else.

    --

    DNA just wants to be free...
  112. The Moral Virologist by David+Gould · · Score: 1

    The loonies who think that AIDS is some sort of anti-homosexual fire-and-brimstone gift from God, perhaps? Thankfully, there aren't too many people like that. It wouldn't take very many.

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  113. Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > I'd consider it more likely that a lab "accident" ...

    Along those lines, a short story: The Moral Virologist, Greg Egan.

  114. Occam's LASER! by el_benito · · Score: 1

    Which is exactly why we need to upgrade to Occam's Laser, which probably runs "With all things being equal, lasers are the best solution". For example, see the original case of "Solo vs Greedo"

    --
    http://liquidben.com - Aspiring to an 'under construction' gif
    1. Re:Occam's LASER! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      To the man with a laser, every problem looks like someone else's retina.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  115. Miscarriages and still-births by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    The idea that there are genetic sequences incomapatible with life is quite plausible. Miscarriages, still-births, even embryo death, and even SIDS may have some underlying genetic cause. Maybe there is some mutated gene that when expressed either kills the embryo outright or more slowly over time. This might give us some insight into unexplainable pregnacies failures. If it is like looking for a needle in a haystack that is not there, then maybe they should look in a different haystack. Instead of comparing DNA in living organisms, maybe they should DNA of those that didn't get a chance to live.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  116. That is one big job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for an biotech research organization and that is going to take a long time. We only sequenced only a fair amount of the known naturally occurring protein sequences already and we have yet to map out the rest of the naturally occurring protein sequences. Even with all usable PCR machines in the working a full tilt it may take another 10 to 20 year to sequences naturally occurring proteins an another 10 to 20 years to understand those sequences. Anything "junk" protein left over from this sequencing will be the non-existent proteins.

  117. Re:stupid - not so stupid by jrockway · · Score: 1

    > Discoveries such as these don't necessarily have to spell destruction to the world.

    WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE TERRORISTS?

    --
    My other car is first.
  118. Deep underground...secret DoD command bunker... by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

    I think I heard Rob Gates talking about building a clone army...

  119. All ready been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bullets made of Uranium have a disruptive effect on DNA because Uranium is a heavy metal.

  120. When the Medium and the Message interact. by Guppy · · Score: 1

    I think the actual point of this research is more interesting, and less alarming than it first appears.

    We tend to think of the genetic code the same way we think of writing on a page of paper -- regardless of how much or little sense the letters are made, it has little impact on the way the "paper" works. However, in genetics, the DNA is both the medium, message, and part of the playback device all at once.

    To put it in IT-geekspeak, there may be sequences that are like the "lace" punchcards of yesteryear (A punchcard with all punched-out spaces, thus making a fragile grid that would tend to jam the reader) -- a valid string of information, but which interact badly with the physical part of the apparatus. We already are well familiar with some of the genetic equivalants of punchcard lace, such as certain highly repetitive sequences which cause the "machinery" to jam and stutter (For instance, the repeat codon involved in Fragile X Syndrome), it would be interesting to know if there are more subtle sequences that "don't work".

  121. [OT] care to explain... by hummassa · · Score: 1

    where in

    """ (Jeremiah 10:2) Thus says Yahweh, "Don't learn the way of the nations, and don't be dismayed at the signs of the sky; for the nations are dismayed at them """

    prohibits Christmas Trees???

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048