Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA Manufacturing Enters the Age of Mass Production (ieee.org)

Posted by samzenpus on from the making-life-better dept.

the_newsbeagle writes: Now that it's easy and cheap to build strands of DNA, what kinds of strange new organisms will scientists and start-ups build? That's the question raised as synthetic biology companies like Twist Bioscience and Zymergen start up their DNA manufacturing lines. Researchers who order DNA snippets typically pay on a cost-per-nucleobase basis. These companies say their mass-production techniques could bring prices down to 2 cents per base, which would allow researchers to scale up experiments and learn through trial and error.

49 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Weird Science by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Computer, build me a slut with big tits

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Weird Science by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Tits are sagging from overuse.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Weird Science by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Computer, build me a slut with big tits

      "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave. You're married."

    3. Re:Weird Science by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Siri: "Do you want me to build you a slug with big dicks?"

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  2. Uh-oh by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    I can't possibly imagine anything that could go wrong with guys in a lab fucking around with DNA.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  3. Sweet by ekimd · · Score: 1

    I can 3D print a human for only $64 million!

    --
    'Impossible' is a word that humans use far too often. -- Seven of Nine
    1. Re:Sweet by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that there are far easier, faster and more enjoyable methods of making humans.

    2. Re: Sweet by manu144x · · Score: 1

      Yes but that one will have rights. A lab made one might not...

    3. Re: Sweet by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'll bet you money that there are corporation's that have a legal "opinion" by their in-house counsel in their files that an embryo that is inseminated and brought to term entirely outside a human womb is the corporations property and not a human.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Sweet by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Son, the nice girls aren't the ones that make it easiest to build new humans.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re: Sweet by manu144x · · Score: 1

      I really hope not. That would take us back k hundreds of years in terms of slaves, inferior/superior races and all that...

  4. Been waiting for this, but... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    This doesn't cover the things I would want to know--such as what they expect the computer's error rate (think 'mutation' here) because if my cost-per-base is low but I have to order a lot more copies simply to be certain I get the correct sequence, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Having actually done this as an undergrad, the part that I'd stress out about most is the whole process of checking it--getting the gene into the vector and the vector into the host can be annoyingly finicky.

    1. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Chikungunya · · Score: 2

      As mentioned in the article the DNA manufacturing makes cheaper only the first part of the process and the main cost remain the same, the advance will most likely save time but not money. For example instead of running a few reaction with the 8 to 10 oligos you felt you could order that week you just make a 96 well plate of reactions each with a different one and check how many give a successful transformation. Of course if that is above your lab capacity then the advantages are not so good.

      Still, if this manufacturing becomes common then other things will also become cheaper and more experiments could be done with the same grant (until the grants become smaller since DNA is cheap so you should do with half what you asked).

    2. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      As mentioned in the article the DNA manufacturing makes cheaper only the first part of the process and the main cost remain the same, the advance will most likely save time but not money. For example instead of running a few reaction with the 8 to 10 oligos you felt you could order that week you just make a 96 well plate of reactions each with a different one and check how many give a successful transformation. Of course if that is above your lab capacity then the advantages are not so good.

      Still, if this manufacturing becomes common then other things will also become cheaper and more experiments could be done with the same grant (until the grants become smaller since DNA is cheap so you should do with half what you asked).

      I did read the article, and the thing is that it won't necessarily save time or money if the error rate is higher--with what you're suggesting, if I'm going to be optimistic I might get maybe a fifth of those wells actually being a successful transformation, assuming that my host isn't one where using a 96 well plate actually will lower my success rate. I still won't know if any of those are the sequence I want until I sequence them, and the last part is pretty expensive and time-consuming, especially if you're sending it off in bulk. With only a few, my experience is that the time frame is in the month(s) range, especially if the lab doing it for you is swamped. (We were rather lucky in the sense that, for us, the sequence itself was the end goal--we were working to add to the gene database yet another version of a rather conserved plant gene, and yeah, it's about as boring as you'd expect. I also am using the success rate for transformations that we had for this.)

      If your goal is to save time and money, an automated sequencer that is reliable enough and cheap enough that you can do it in-house is probably even more important than this--and that's also a PITA to do right now, since my experience is that you still have to double-check the automated ones by hand because they'll do Weird Things. It's one of those weird things which can't be quite safely left to automation, so you end up in this case with one highly-trained scientist whose job is about as exciting as watching grass grow but also necessary. Doing it by hand requires more people, is slower, and is even more boring. (It's rather like transcribing, by hand, a really bad chatterbot.)

      Also, grant money is like having a company credit card with a painfully low limit: You really can't use it to cover your personal bills if you want to keep it (and your job), and if you're lucky it'll actually cover all that it was given to you to cover. So, this might make it for a time easier to actually cover more of the work with the grant money...but you're funny if you think there's going to be any left over for experiments other than what you got the grant for.

    3. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Chikungunya · · Score: 1

      I did read the article, and the thing is that it won't necessarily save time or money if the error rate is higher--with what you're suggesting, if I'm going to be optimistic I might get maybe a fifth of those wells actually being a successful transformation, assuming that my host isn't one where using a 96 well plate actually will lower my success rate. I still won't know if any of those are the sequence I want until I sequence them, and the last part is pretty expensive and time-consuming, especially if you're sending it off in bulk.

      Its not important to increase the error rate if the main product you are wasting is cheap DNA sequences. Lets say that you now can try 5 or 6 of them in one week, then another 5 or 6 the next week until you are successful (so you can save on DNA by ordering only the absolutely minimum amount). If you can get the oligos dirt cheap then you just order a butt load of them and try as many as you can, get this first step results much faster without so much waste. It will not matter if you get only one good transformation from a whole plate if everything you are using is cheap.

      Trying a few every time may get you that single one in the first try or in the 20th try, you may save money in DNA but will have to invest much more time. If you are getting cheap DNA this changes the cost/benefit towards time as the most expensive thing you will use.

      Of course if you are going large scale because you stopped worrying about how much your custom DNA is going to cost you switch into screening your results instead of processing each one all the way. No need to sequence 20 supposedly positive colonies from your plate, do a colony PCR and get maybe a 5th to confirm by sequencing, you would still have saved a lot of time even if you sequence each one so you don't waste sequencing time (or reactives).

      my experience is that the time frame is in the month(s) range, especially if the lab doing it for you is swamped.

      That is why I mentioned that labs without capabilities to handle the increase amount of work that becomes possible the advantages are of course much less

      If your goal is to save time and money, an automated sequencer that is reliable enough and cheap enough that you can do it in-house is probably even more important than this--and that's also a PITA to do right now, since my experience is that you still have to double-check the automated ones by hand because they'll do Weird Things.

      The differences is that manufactured DNA becomes cheaper without you investing anything at all, the prices come down by themselves when the company begins the service, a reliable sequencing robot will of course needs money to be put in order and its not necessary if you screen your samples and process the same number as you are doing now but chosen from a larger pool obtained in a shorter time. In many places the whole process is streamlined and one of the important things that restrict the amount of work that can be finished is doing the first steps slowly in order to avoid wasting money in unnecessary sequences.

      Also, grant money is like having a company credit card with a painfully low limit: You really can't use it to cover your personal bills if you want to keep it (and your job), and if you're lucky it'll actually cover all that it was given to you to cover . So, this might make it for a time easier to actually cover more of the work with the grant money...but you're funny if you think there's going to be any left over for experiments other than what you got the grant for.

      And who talked about any personal bills? I am talking about having more freedom at the first step of your work by expending less than as before but getting much more options to begin with, get results faster and begin the next step with a little more chance of covering your costs with the reduced amount you are given from the beginning (Until the powers almighty

    4. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Your experience may still hold true for small labs, but many research campuses have sequencing cores now with fast turn-around. I give them the tube with DNA and primers, and they email me the sequence data the next day (rarely, it'll take them two days). I hear there's a company in NYC that promises 12-hour turnaround for samples they get in the city. Now, smaller institutions may take more time, but sequencing has been advancing pretty quickly as of late.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    5. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I did read the article, and the thing is that it won't necessarily save time or money if the error rate is higher--with what you're suggesting, if I'm going to be optimistic I might get maybe a fifth of those wells actually being a successful transformation, assuming that my host isn't one where using a 96 well plate actually will lower my success rate. I still won't know if any of those are the sequence I want until I sequence them, and the last part is pretty expensive and time-consuming, especially if you're sending it off in bulk.

      Its not important to increase the error rate if the main product you are wasting is cheap DNA sequences.

      Wait, what? Nobody wants to increase the error rate here, the point is that if the cost of the lower price is a significantly higher rate of errors, then you'll end up wasting everything else involved in getting to the point where you can check to see if you did get the correct gene in. This is only really going to save time and/or money if its accuracy is sufficiently close to being as good as the previous methods that you come out ahead in the end.

      To put it in IT terms which might help here: Since DNA is in fact a means of transmitting data, my question here is entirely how the quality of service is. Do they have equal quality of service? The cheaper method, if it's got better QoS (more likely to get the sequence of bases correct) then it's definitely an improvement and the drop in price is actually probably less important--on the other hand, it might be like going from having your bytes transmitted by a guy operating a switch to attempting to do so via semaphore flags on a foggy day.

      my experience is that the time frame is in the month(s) range, especially if the lab doing it for you is swamped.

      That is why I mentioned that labs without capabilities to handle the increase amount of work that becomes possible the advantages are of course much less

      If your goal is to save time and money, an automated sequencer that is reliable enough and cheap enough that you can do it in-house is probably even more important than this--and that's also a PITA to do right now, since my experience is that you still have to double-check the automated ones by hand because they'll do Weird Things.

      The differences is that manufactured DNA becomes cheaper without you investing anything at all, the prices come down by themselves when the company begins the service, a reliable sequencing robot will of course needs money to be put in order and its not necessary if you screen your samples and process the same number as you are doing now but chosen from a larger pool obtained in a shorter time. In many places the whole process is streamlined and one of the important things that restrict the amount of work that can be finished is doing the first steps slowly in order to avoid wasting money in unnecessary sequences.

      We're already at the point that we need a 'reliable' sequencing robot. It's worth repeating that the backlogs are pretty much universal--the demand far outstrips current capacity, but it's a laborious process which automation only makes slightly less laborious. Running the PCR machine for a few extra cycles is not really that expensive, having the equipment is, and our 'reliable' sequencing robots still have an error rate because PCR itself has an error rate.

      We just don't have some of the required technology--we've got just short of it, but the last piece is missing and may or may not ever exist. I'm not quite going to complain, because it's a job that pays decently except for the utter mind-numbing nature, but... (Basically, imagine your job being "proofread automatic captions for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.")

      Also, grant money is like having a company credit card with a painfully low limit: You real

    6. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Your experience may still hold true for small labs, but many research campuses have sequencing cores now with fast turn-around. I give them the tube with DNA and primers, and they email me the sequence data the next day (rarely, it'll take them two days). I hear there's a company in NYC that promises 12-hour turnaround for samples they get in the city. Now, smaller institutions may take more time, but sequencing has been advancing pretty quickly as of late.

      I was actually at one of the major research campuses--so they've probably gotten this in, and I've a pretty good guess how the fast turnaround is managed. When I last checked it was in the "whenever we get the bugs worked out" phase of development. It still would be a bit of an annoyance for me, but that's because I loved the parts involved in getting to doing the sequencing, not processing the sequencing data...which is more or less why I gave up being a biochemist when my body decided to no longer react well to ammonia, chlorine, or gloves. (The last lab I worked in was the last lab in large part because the gloves caused part of the skin on my hands to melt off...in very much the literal sense.)

    7. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Chikungunya · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Nobody wants to increase the error rate here, the point is that if the cost of the lower price is a significantly higher rate of errors, then you'll end up wasting everything else involved in getting to the point where you can check to see if you did get the correct gene in. This is only really going to save time and/or money if its accuracy is sufficiently close to being as good as the previous methods that you come out ahead in the end.

      There is no real reason why quality has to drop, but even if that is the case there are quite a lot of methods for screening cheaply for desired results when you get more than you can manage (specific methods of course depending on what you are trying to do), If you already get enough samples to have to wait later then of course there is no value on getting more of them with a supposedly lower quality, but if your bottleneck is the first step then of course manufactured DNA is going to help getting the job done.

      To put it in IT terms which might help here: Since DNA is in fact a means of transmitting data, my question here is entirely how the quality of service is. Do they have equal quality of service? The cheaper method, if it's got better QoS (more likely to get the sequence of bases correct) then it's definitely an improvement and the drop in price is actually probably less important--on the other hand, it might be like going from having your bytes transmitted by a guy operating a switch to attempting to do so via semaphore flags on a foggy day.

      The advantages of DNA manufacturing is not evident for someone that order a single oligo to do all the subsequent job for months as it seems to be your case, because your specific application focus only on the quality of the sequence. But for people that need to try many different sequences to see which one works efficiently its gold. Trying dozens of sequences at once and getting a few positive results is then a huge advantage, even if later you need to do some kind of extra work on them to corroborate.

      We're already at the point that we need a 'reliable' sequencing robot. It's worth repeating that the backlogs are pretty much universal--the demand far outstrips current capacity, but it's a laborious process which automation only makes slightly less laborious. Running the PCR machine for a few extra cycles is not really that expensive, having the equipment is, and our 'reliable' sequencing robots still have an error rate because PCR itself has an error rate.

      Exactly the case when this advantage have no meaning, but a lot of people have the opposite problem, their sequencers are free a lot of time because they can't proceed to that point without first trying a lot of different oligos, something that right now is very expensive (specially when you are ordering oligos of hundreds of mer) so you have to try only a few each time to avoid waste.

      As far as the people giving you grant money are concerned, 'extra experiment' and 'personal bill' are the same, and what this might do is raise your chances of getting a grant at all and/or the grant money actually being sufficient for you to do the experiment you were given it for. If you manage to somehow come out with leftovers, returning it actually may be the best idea simply because that may improve your chances in the future. (One thing I covered very, very carefully as an undergrad is what is involved in the grant process--there was rather little doubt that I'd be involved in research, the surprise was that my body decided to inform me that I was going into the computational end; I decided I'd stack and try to move to neuroscience.)

      Not at all, in most grant systems you have to give a very detailed report of all your activities and results. Getting more and better results is more important than saving on money, so If you increase the impact of your results (better Journal) by using your whole grant then you will be much more likely

    8. Re:Been waiting for this, but... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      If it was a major research campus, I'm sure they have it by now. I kind of hate doing mini-preps, but for some reason I don't mind doing giga-preps. And yeah, sequencing data can be annoying to get through, depending on what you're trying to do (and how good your map is...). That's really unfortunate about the gloves. I don't know what I'd do if that happened to me!

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  5. Sometimes a great notion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It is a relief that at most I'll live to be about 100, because human beings are about to fuck everything up in a big way.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. I'd like by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2
    for them to take a stab at artificial meat.

    For while I think that vegans are a bunch of pretentious and annoying fucks, the concept of not having to kill an animal to get the meat protein we need would be interesting.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:I'd like by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

      for them to take a stab at artificial meat.

      For while I think that vegans are a bunch of pretentious and annoying fucks, the concept of not having to kill an animal to get the meat protein we need would be interesting.

      But that's what makes it so delicious.....

      How am I supposed to enjoy my steak if the cow didn't die so that I may live?

      --
      Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    2. Re:I'd like by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      There are multiple companies working on this, at least one in the Bay Area (started by a former Stanford prof). I think it's a great idea, personally, but at least in the US there are far too many people who either oppose GMOs with a near-religious fervor, or oppose reducing their environmental impact with similar fervor, for this to be successful commercially in a domestic market.

    3. Re:I'd like by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ... artificial meat

      Have you ever tried SPAM®?

      Yes, although if you aren't from Hawaii, you aren't supposed to admit it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. POKEMON!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, you were thinking it too...

  8. Used to create replacement penises? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    In all honesty, I think that this technology has some promise when it comes to recreating penises that have been destroyed for one reason or another.

    I'm sure we all know the golfer who had an accident, and as a result of a club impacting him in the groin his penis was completely destroyed. Or we know the skier who skied crotch-first into a tree and had his scrotum and penis turned to mush.

    Now maybe these men don't have to suffer in silence any longer. Maybe this DNA technology could be used to help grow them replacement penises, based on their very own DNA. With some tweaks here and some tweaks there, they wouldn't just have to settle for a replacement for the penis they had before the accident. They could customize their penis to match their specifications.

    Say one of these fellows, despite being white, always wanted a thicker, darker penis. I'm not a geneticist, but I think if you could get the DNA just right, it would be possible to grow him a penis just like he has always wanted.

    So while you crack jokes about this technology, I think we should take it seriously. It has a lot of potential to really better the lives of a lot of victims of penile destruction.

  9. too late by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    while you are analyzing this, a whole bunch of other, "unplanned" humans have been created.

    Smart people think too much, Dumb people fuck too much.

    Evolution's jury is still out, on who "wins", if anyone.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  10. on what time scale? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    The bottom line is that everything comes to an end, at some point. What's the difference how it gets there.

    "May you live in interesting times..."

    Is that really a curse or a blessing?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  11. Gosh I don't know.... by Burz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.theguardian.com/com...

    Egads.

  12. So... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    You don't eat meat?

    Or you just eat the tasty flesh anyhow?

    Every living thing dies, if it dies letting another living thing go on a bit longer, so be it. It is all minor decimal points in the statistics of which thing lived how long.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:So... by minkowski76 · · Score: 1

      So you'd have no real issue if I decided to eat you and your family, because I'm hungry? Oh, that's right. The right to live applies only to humans.

    2. Re:So... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Plants are living things too. They don't like being eaten.

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To me it's about the impact that cattle farms etc have on the environment. Artificial meat could potentially have much less of an impact whilst providing the (hopefully) "same" end product.

    4. Re:So... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You don't eat meat?

      I eat lots of meat, so no need to play pick on the vegan with me. Im hardly one. I love meat, I make lots of good home cured sausages and home made bacon. and barbeque with impunity. I make a seriously kickass smoked venison bologna.

      But Yes, the act of killing the animal is not particulaly pleasant.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:So... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plants are living things too. They don't like being eaten.

      Not certain if you are being sarcastic, but yes. All life is amazing and precious, from bacteria through plants and animals. And until we become chemoautotrophs, we do not live except by killing other living things.

      And since I prefer being alive to being dead, I eat what we are designed to eat, which is a mixture of plants and what the vegans call corpse flesh. All very yummy. And all once alive. I prefer the American indian concept of being thankful that something died to allow me to continue living.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:So... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Certain plants have certain parts that rely on being eaten, yes. These are called fruits.
      Other flowering plants rely on bees coming in for that sweet, sweet nectar.

      But eating the plant itself and not just those specific parts is something the plant likes to avoid because it's bad for the plant (and often kills it).
      Potatoes are no more designed to be eaten or to be nutritious than your own flesh is. Onions, garlic, etc. are specifically designed to be unattractive. We've developed a taste for them, however.

    7. Re:So... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Generally no. In fact, I can't think of any plant, typically considered edible or healthy, that is "designed" to be eaten by a human, no. Well, unless you want to go and count the ones we modified to be that way? I can think of exactly zero that are actually reproduced by our biological functions.

      If you direct your browser to the nearest search engine then you should be able to find that plants also make noises when they're distressed. Not only that but the plants around the distressed plants make noises (at a greater level) when one of them is distressed.

      I'll just be over hear gnawing on some charred dead animal flesh. You plant murderers disgust me!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:So... by zgarnog · · Score: 1

      I agree, the concept of respecting the animals who die and respecting their gift is one that makes sense with me as well.

  13. Re:idtdna.com 8bucks for a 23mer by Chikungunya · · Score: 1

    Maybe the people that order sequences of several hundred of bases? If I need 500mer oligos $10+SnH looks much better than 400+SnH.

  14. Re:Woman confesses that all women are wookies! by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Wookiees. All women are wookiees. Not wookies.

  15. Re:Dna manufacturing by geantvert · · Score: 1

    Customer can have any plague that he wants so long as it is black death.

  16. Re:Doomsday, now available my mail order by dan+dan+the+dna+man · · Score: 1

    I like the fact you think we might not already have considered that possibility:

    http://www.genesynthesisconsor...

    --
    I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
  17. Re:Dna manufacturing by peragrin · · Score: 1

    At 2 cents per base than is how many millions per plague cell?

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  18. material cost isn't the problem by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    I've bought DNA snippets for use in experiments for years (DNA is about $0.50/base from existing companies). The cost of DNA has been trivial for scientific work for a long time. The real cost is in the labor and equipment that goes into running an experiment. On a million dollar a year project, reducing the cost of DNA from $1000 a year to $10 a year doesn't really change the pace of research. That's not enough savings to hire another person to get more work done, or buy any of the equipment necessary.

    1. Re:material cost isn't the problem by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      For big projects, you're right, this won't do that much (although $990 is enough to buy a nice repeating pipettor...). However, it does lower the bar for smaller projects, especially those with cheaper initial labor costs (projects for undergrads to play around with, for example). It's not a game-changer, but it'll probably be useful in some scenarios.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  19. Wanna bet? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    It is a relief that at most I'll live to be about 100, because human beings are about to fuck everything up in a big way.

    What makes you think that biological technology won't extend your lifespan until you have to live through at least a couple centuries of "fuck up"? B-)

    But look at the bright side. Even if such technology is developed, the FDA will block deployment until it's determined to be "safe and effective". How long will THAT take with an anti-aging treatment? So you'll probably get to die early anyway.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Wanna bet? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that biological technology won't extend your lifespan until you have to live

      Thanks a lot, Obama.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Wanna bet? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'd not willingly accept anti-aging technology, thanks. I've already pondered this and spoken about it at length. I am not interested. I am 58. I'm good with 7 to 17 more years. It's time to make room for new people and I've already consumed more than my fair share of resources. (In my defense, I generated a *lot* of efficiency.)

      At any rate, no... I don't want to extend my life. I've even got a few bucks and I'm not interested in it. I have a DNR already signed. I carry it with me and those who are close to me know my wishes. I don't fear death, I kind of welcome it. I presume it's the great nothing and I'm okay with that. I've had my fun. I've done everything I want to do - and then some. I've been everywhere I want to go. I've had enough wine, women, and song for ten men. I've lived enough life for ten men. When nature has decided it's time for me to shuffle off this mortal coil then so be it.

      I hope I go out with my pecker in my hand and a smile on my face but mostly 'cause I want one last chance to embarrass my children. Don't worry - they understand.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."