The competition for tenure track positions is currently insane, since the professors from previous generations have trained too many PhDs. The funding agencies reward large labs under a single PI with large grants, with the labs mostly running on graduate students and post-docs who themselves see no way out. Now we are seeing career post-doctoral positions, especially in the biomedical sciences; see the recent suggestions about making a post-doctoral position more permanent. Not everyone can be a manager (PI), so we are stuck being graduate students or post-docs. I know industry is also a home for PhDs as I am one of those happy campers, but the fact is there are too many PhDs being trained relative to the number of positions available.
Lets have a system where the professor is rewarded for doing their own research, rather than their ability to write grants and farm out the work to their subjugated minions.
To paraphrase Dawkins: "agnosticism is flawed because it assumes that the probability that God exists is equal to the probability that God does not exist".
I think you would rather say that right now you cannot rule out the existence or the non-existence of "God" (provably soon). But to say that they are equally likely (probability) is incredibly naive, since you presumably have to tell me which God you are talking about, which history has shown to be ever-changing (Zeus, Thor, etc.).
Therefore you are neither atheist nor agnostic.
Sorry sir but you are wrong.
I'll reiterate my limited econ 101 experience: we assume perfect information for markets to be perfectly efficient, so having the price across all offerings is a good thing. What you should decide is if the extra cost at the given store is worth the added benefits (customer service, locality, other factors). This is commonplace today, for example when choosing eco-friendly dry cleaning, products without lead etc. Obviously people choosing Walmart are making the choice that the added services are not worth the extra price. Not everyone has the same values (which determine price) as you.
Considering current sequencing technology generates terabytes of data per day (see the Sanger center), then wouldn't it be efficient to maximize the amount of information per pixel (i.e. per byte)? This method is actually is much worse (orders of magnitude) than the current method.
There are many other problems with what they do, but hopefully the cash infusion can last them another 2 years until the write a paper like this.
BTW, the say that appropriate camera tech. will be available in 2-5 years, but they're ready now! They might be buying time...
Fine, but you can't do the research if you don't have the genome. The title of the article wasn't "Cancer Genome Sequence, Cure Eminent."
I am saying if you claim to that you have the genome, you should probably have the genome. They don't. I said nothing about cures for cancer. Again my point stands, since they only have the differences between the tumor genome and a "reference genome" (same for the normal genome of that person). They then compare the two to see the differences in the differences. The have a 10% data missing problem.
I call shenanigans, since at least 7% of the genome is repetitive elements, centromeres, cnvs etc. etc. Also, remember that they use a reference genome, which itself is not complete. What happens if the cancer/person has a sequence not found in the reference genome. I know, it is not reported.
It is more informative to say 90% of the tumor was sequenced. Probably the last 10% was the important part anyways (cnvs and the number of repeats are very important), so this is just anther "first post" in Science and Nature. Can they start publishing proper papers rather than "hot" papers?
This is fantastic, since the amount of money required by an ISP to implement this will sink them. This will filter all "idiot" ISPs, who think they are rulers of the internet.
Yes, yes I do. And it would cost you under $100 bucks (heck they said they need less than
I agree there isn't much thread to someone's DNA privacy. Nonetheless, what about companies like 23andMe or Navigenics, who DO perform these SNP analysis' and DO have the information (they have mirrors of all public data).
Oh yes, you worked on DNA analysis techniques, great specificity. How long ago was that?
Did you see the part about figuring out if relatives are in the mixture from the Science/Nature articles? That blows my mind, since I could see if my Dad/Sister/etc participated in one of these studies (Alzheimer's or Schizophrenia?).
I am paying for X MBps download and Y MBps upload (it is dedicated). If I don't use it, that's fine. Nevertheless, I should be able to have that bandwidth at my leisure at all times (excluding other considerations like the server to which I am connecting). Please (Comcast/TWC/ISP) don't use the excuse that 5% of the users use 50% so we need capped service. It means they are taking full advantage for what they are paying for just like if I had a 50GB download cap (or 1 GB upload cap), I would probably use all of it. I would prefer both options (bandwidth capped or transfer capped) so I can assess my needs and minimize my costs.
Thanks!
Maybe I'm living under a rock here, but I've never really seen evolution demonstrated. Note: too all, please read this Science, Evolution, and Creationism by the National Academies Press before you say stupid thinks like the comment above.
I think it's nice to get 1 million markers genotyped, but what about a comprehensive plan after? My idea would be something like navigenics (www.navigenics.com). Nevertheless, family history is way more informative...
If you are as pissed off as I am you can always contact the Secretary General Claude Majeau whos signature is found on the linked pdf describing the tariff.
The problem is definitely with the primitives and the model. Without them we cannot even solve wait-free consensus (or equivalently elect a leader) in an asynchronous distributed system!
This stuff has been proven really hard a long long time ago,
but not in a galaxy far away.
--
Don't use "Engineer" in your programming job title. When your code fails horribly you definitely will not be held legally accountable.
1. Insurance companies and employers will soon not be able to discrimate based on genetics ("The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (Jan 17) hopes to outlaw genetic discrimination the same as racism, gender and sexual orientation."). So I guess no more Gattaca
2. What happens if you find out about some predisposition to a disease/trait. Should you tell your brother/sister who might have a similar genetic predisposition. Our families are closely related so knowing something about yourself (genetics) tells you something about your relatives.
3. Should you test in the womb, during conception, before sex? Let's create a class system like Brave New World (Huxley not Orwell)?
We should be aware that these are not *deterministic* tests but only give you an OR (odds ratio), an increased likelihood of getting the trait/disease. Yes, the ethics are undefined but the progress of Science will not wait for them to be defined. I know my research isn't going to wait, there's too much to gain.
Slashdot Mirror
The competition for tenure track positions is currently insane, since the professors from previous generations have trained too many PhDs. The funding agencies reward large labs under a single PI with large grants, with the labs mostly running on graduate students and post-docs who themselves see no way out. Now we are seeing career post-doctoral positions, especially in the biomedical sciences; see the recent suggestions about making a post-doctoral position more permanent. Not everyone can be a manager (PI), so we are stuck being graduate students or post-docs. I know industry is also a home for PhDs as I am one of those happy campers, but the fact is there are too many PhDs being trained relative to the number of positions available.
Lets have a system where the professor is rewarded for doing their own research, rather than their ability to write grants and farm out the work to their subjugated minions.
To paraphrase Dawkins: "agnosticism is flawed because it assumes that the probability that God exists is equal to the probability that God does not exist". I think you would rather say that right now you cannot rule out the existence or the non-existence of "God" (provably soon). But to say that they are equally likely (probability) is incredibly naive, since you presumably have to tell me which God you are talking about, which history has shown to be ever-changing (Zeus, Thor, etc.). Therefore you are neither atheist nor agnostic.
Would you pay ...
Woah woah woah. Stop right there. No.
Sorry sir but you are wrong. I'll reiterate my limited econ 101 experience: we assume perfect information for markets to be perfectly efficient, so having the price across all offerings is a good thing. What you should decide is if the extra cost at the given store is worth the added benefits (customer service, locality, other factors). This is commonplace today, for example when choosing eco-friendly dry cleaning, products without lead etc. Obviously people choosing Walmart are making the choice that the added services are not worth the extra price. Not everyone has the same values (which determine price) as you.
Considering current sequencing technology generates terabytes of data per day (see the Sanger center), then wouldn't it be efficient to maximize the amount of information per pixel (i.e. per byte)? This method is actually is much worse (orders of magnitude) than the current method. There are many other problems with what they do, but hopefully the cash infusion can last them another 2 years until the write a paper like this. BTW, the say that appropriate camera tech. will be available in 2-5 years, but they're ready now! They might be buying time...
It should be "It was hard to sequence the whole thing, so we quit after 90%"
Fine, but you can't do the research if you don't have the genome. The title of the article wasn't "Cancer Genome Sequence, Cure Eminent."
I am saying if you claim to that you have the genome, you should probably have the genome. They don't. I said nothing about cures for cancer. Again my point stands, since they only have the differences between the tumor genome and a "reference genome" (same for the normal genome of that person). They then compare the two to see the differences in the differences. The have a 10% data missing problem.
I call shenanigans, since at least 7% of the genome is repetitive elements, centromeres, cnvs etc. etc. Also, remember that they use a reference genome, which itself is not complete. What happens if the cancer/person has a sequence not found in the reference genome. I know, it is not reported. It is more informative to say 90% of the tumor was sequenced. Probably the last 10% was the important part anyways (cnvs and the number of repeats are very important), so this is just anther "first post" in Science and Nature. Can they start publishing proper papers rather than "hot" papers?
This is fantastic, since the amount of money required by an ISP to implement this will sink them. This will filter all "idiot" ISPs, who think they are rulers of the internet.
A theory is testable, Creationism is provably not (see Pascal's wager, or Pearl's Causality). Be careful when you use the word "Theory".
Do you have any idea how much DNA analysis costs?
Yes, yes I do. And it would cost you under $100 bucks (heck they said they need less than
I agree there isn't much thread to someone's DNA privacy. Nonetheless, what about companies like 23andMe or Navigenics, who DO perform these SNP analysis' and DO have the information (they have mirrors of all public data).
Oh yes, you worked on DNA analysis techniques, great specificity. How long ago was that?
Did you see the part about figuring out if relatives are in the mixture from the Science/Nature articles? That blows my mind, since I could see if my Dad/Sister/etc participated in one of these studies (Alzheimer's or Schizophrenia?).
I am paying for X MBps download and Y MBps upload (it is dedicated). If I don't use it, that's fine. Nevertheless, I should be able to have that bandwidth at my leisure at all times (excluding other considerations like the server to which I am connecting). Please (Comcast/TWC/ISP) don't use the excuse that 5% of the users use 50% so we need capped service. It means they are taking full advantage for what they are paying for just like if I had a 50GB download cap (or 1 GB upload cap), I would probably use all of it. I would prefer both options (bandwidth capped or transfer capped) so I can assess my needs and minimize my costs. Thanks!
I think it's nice to get 1 million markers genotyped, but what about a comprehensive plan after? My idea would be something like navigenics (www.navigenics.com). Nevertheless, family history is way more informative...
If you are as pissed off as I am you can always contact the Secretary General Claude Majeau whos signature is found on the linked pdf describing the tariff.
"majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca"
Typical French Canadians or should I say Quebecois. They tried to separate, I didn't try to stop them.
A better response to the Apple Store's request would have been "... but I am le tired".
...because America is better.
No seriously, I'm Canadian.
--
I'll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter.
Dear AT&T,
looks like you need 2x the bandwidth, "get on with it" (Monty Python)
Sincerely,
Net Neutrality
Umm, my Mom is on facebook... that's how awesome it has become.
The problem is definitely with the primitives and the model. Without them we cannot even solve wait-free consensus (or equivalently elect a leader) in an asynchronous distributed system! This stuff has been proven really hard a long long time ago, but not in a galaxy far away. -- Don't use "Engineer" in your programming job title. When your code fails horribly you definitely will not be held legally accountable.
1. Insurance companies and employers will soon not be able to discrimate based on genetics ("The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (Jan 17) hopes to outlaw genetic discrimination the same as racism, gender and sexual orientation."). So I guess no more Gattaca
2. What happens if you find out about some predisposition to a disease/trait. Should you tell your brother/sister who might have a similar genetic predisposition. Our families are closely related so knowing something about yourself (genetics) tells you something about your relatives.
3. Should you test in the womb, during conception, before sex? Let's create a class system like Brave New World (Huxley not Orwell)?
We should be aware that these are not *deterministic* tests but only give you an OR (odds ratio), an increased likelihood of getting the trait/disease. Yes, the ethics are undefined but the progress of Science will not wait for them to be defined. I know my research isn't going to wait, there's too much to gain.