Somehow I read this title not once but twice, and my brain registered:
Indiana Jones Nuclear Market
In this one, the Ruskies are trying to sell their Nukes at an outdoor market in Bangledesh. Riots ensue, hats are lost then recovered, bullwhips are used, snakes cursed. move along.
I've tried this out a bit here, beaming lectures to friends unable to attend classes (ie. still in their PJ's on a monday morning). It works remarkably well, and most importantly is free. The downside is that a few (16+) students connecting to one shoutcast server can start to hit the old bandwidth meter pretty hard. Good luck, Id
I'd love to see the war of the worlds remake done from a martian perspective, since it's us invading mars this century- "lets go into the hills there jeb and get us some earthlinings! Damn interplanetary invaders!" - I can see the next scene of the movie, as Oportunity readies the deadly RAT to grind Jeb to bits....
Too bad the US didn't sign that treaty...
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the US never signed that UN treaty...
I have two good tips for people- I recently had to get a rather large line of credit, and had a few tips from the banker:
1) Have all your cheques, and credit cards just use your first and middle inital, and of course your full last name. That way, if someone is trying to forge your signiture, (at least for cheques) they have no idea how you sign your name, ie do you include the intials ect...
2) Use a strange name/password on all your bank accounts instead of your mothers maiden name. With all the info available in a wallet, this is sort of a last line of defence for you, you're better off using something they can't figure out themselves by doing a little research. You dont need to make it a 'strong' password (I can just picture someone talking to the operators at visa:'lower case h, upper case J, 5, ') but make it difficult to guess or research.
While I in some sense understand you viewpoint, I find it very very very hypocritical. Everyone I know who complains about treating animals with equal rights and consideration as humans, while well intentioned, is misguided.
With the exception of a few species, namley (and I might be missing one or 2 here) Orangotanges, Chimpanze, Whales, Dolphins and Humans, animals are not self aware. This means that they are not entitled to the same consideration as those that are self aware. (For the record, I am against non-consentual medical research involving all these species). In terms of treatment of other animals, any vertibrates have a right to be treated in an ethically humane manner. My collegues like to see suffering as much as the next person. Contrary to the view point of animal crusaders, most of us have pets, and do in fact enjoy animals.
I'm an immunologist who studies immune suppresion, in the hope that my research will lead to a cure for autoimmune diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Diabities, and graft rejection. In order to perform my experiments, I have to kill cute little furry mice. Do I like this part of my job? NO. If I did, I would be one sick person, killing another living creature is not fun. I do not take it lightly. In fact, because of this I plan my experiments so that I use each animal as effectivly as possible, and induce the least amount of suffering on them. My Aunt suffers from M.S., and will likely die from it, leaving behind a husband and a daughter. You want to compare the life of an animal to that? Now, you are probably thinking... SICK BASTARD. Well, this is what I have to say to all the hippocrates that protest against animal research:
Have you ever used antibiotics? A drug of any type for your health? How do you suppose we cure diseases, minimize HUMAN suffering without animals to perform research on? Do you volonteer? Should we use prison inmates? Grandma? Seriously, grow up. Everyone out there that wants to see a cure for aids... think we're gonna find that with a computer model? Cell culture? Look, animal research isnt perfect, there are lodes of cures for cancer that work in a mouse but not a human. But animal research is one of the first steps in any form of biomedical breakthrough. Everything you take that comes in one of those pop-top child safe bottles was at some point tested on animals. So if you're really against animal research, dont visit a hospital EVER - or your a terrible hippocrate.
An earlier comment hit the nail on the head, I'm quite sure Mr. Shoemaker sold 80,000 genes to a biotech/pharmacutical company, and now has to explain why he doesn't owe them half their money back (what a funny conversation that would be to listen to).
What many people don't want to address that are trying to sell genomics, is that the differences between a mouse and a human are likely not the result of there being more genes in humans, but rather a difference in regulation of (approximaly) the same number of genes. That is to say that there are likely differences in the promoter (on switch) and repressor (off switch) portions of these genes, that cause one to be active in a certain situation in the human, but not in the mouse. A simple analogy demonstrates the difference: you can have two similar cars with similar horsepower, number of tires, gears etc, but if you put an old grandmother in one, and a formula 1 driver in the other, and watched them drive on the highway, you might make the mistake of thinking one car had more power, a larger engine (genes) than the other- when in fact the difference between the two is due to control of the same equipment(gas=promoter and brake=repressor elements of genes). Further analysis of the control regions of genes, as well as differences in protein-protein interations (proteonomics)will likely explain the differences between a human and a mouse, not 50,000 as yet undiscovered genes.
A waste processing system like this one mentioned is all about recycling the human waste so that it can be used as plant fertilizer: this is something we do all the time, cow paddies make great fertilizer for all kinds of crops.
Unfortunatly, human waste doesn't help out plants much as is, due to the fauna present in the human intestine: most of our fecal waste needs to be further processed by other microorganisms before the nutrients are available to plants as good fertilizers( the first 3-4 systems proposed in the article). The "food" that would be produced from the recyling process could conceivably be regular vegatables, that are simply grown in a soil that is fertilized with recycled (broken down) human waste. The food would taste as close to crap as fresh vegtables grown in soil fertilized with cow manure do.
In a closed system like this, no nutrients should be lost to the system, only the energy of chemical bonds. As long as the astronauts don't gain any weight, what goes in (food) must come out: CO2, urine, and fecal matter. In a system such as that proposed, energy is put back into the system by the formation of chemical bonds (via light) during photosynthesis by plants: resulting in the formation of sugars, and eventually proteins. CO2 is also recycled by the plants (it's used to form sugars and O2) , with the processed human waste being used to provide a good fertilizer: Potasium, Nitrogen and Phosphorus (its what's in 20:20:20 fertilizer) as well as essential trace elements.
I've been looking at this same project for a while now, and have run into several dead ends. The big problem is getting a hold of an IR TX/RX that is soderable. Most of the ones available are meant to be board mounted, and are FAR too small to be of any use to anyone using a sodering gun (no matter how small the tip, TRUST ME).
Here are some very usefull links I managed to track down regarding this project. If anyone finds a source of breadboard mountable/soderable IR RX/TX's, please post!
The best page (diagrams and all): http://tscherwitschke.de/irda.html
Another project page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1475/ re motectrl.html
I'm a little biased on this issue, since I'm currently working on one for some (North and West) Vancouver Realestate Agents (up here in BC, Canada (soon to be up at http://www.recommendedbyfriends.com ) . What I have noticed, is that there is no standard for how much information is included in online listings. Since the web is supposed to be a resource of information, what you often find on "MLS" (multiple listings service) sites is the bare minimum: Cost, squarefootage, address, #of rooms/ bathrooms. If your lucky, you'll get one picture too, usually of the outside of the house. The reason for this, I can tell your from experience, is simple logisitics: the webcompany/mls service, sends around one person to go take all the pics, and often times the current tenanant isn't home (no time to make special arrangements) and you end up with an outside shot only. This is because the person taking the picture has NO intrest in selling the house.
What the realtors I work for have done is to take the pictures themselves with a digital cam once they list the property, since they have access and a rapor with the owner of the house. They then put up their own listings on their own site, with a link from the mls site to theirs. If people want more info on a property, they can get it at their site: pictures of all the rooms, nearby school information, ammenities etc. We get a really good response about our site from overseas clients that are coming to Vancouver to view realestate. The real problem, in my view, of online realestate sites is lack of content. Now is someone gonna buy off the internet without seeing it in real life? Not go through a realestate agent? NO WAY. There are some things you can buy over the net without seeing first in real life. A home is not one of them. Realize that buying a home is the most expensive purchase most people make. I want to deal with a person, not a machine. Online realestate sites are simply about advertising- its like putting out a newspaper ad, only with more info. People are still gonna call to view the house.
There is a prevaling theory in immunlogy that dirt is good. Thats right folks- dirt, and especially germs, are good. Remember that mud pie you had as a kid? Odds are that it helped "educate" your immune system. A perfectly sterile environement (or very sterile, as would be created by this type of surface) would result in a decreased exposure to both pathogenic (rare), and MOSTLY non pathogenic bacteria. Without these types of immune challenges, we are more likley to develop autoimmune disorders such as allergy, multiple sclerosis and rhumatoid arthritis. Unfortunatly, it seems that if our immune system has nothing to attack, it attacks us.
Aside from this, any attempt to wipe out biological organisms, especially bacteria, results in the development of resistance. ALWAYS.
So the real question is not is this a neat polymer, but will we use it responibly? It has GREAT applications for surgical surfaces, but aside from that it is extreme overkill. Just like all those antibacterial soaps. Will I use them after I culture bacteria? YES. Will I use them if I were to perform surgery? YES. Would I use them after putsying in the garden or before I eat? NO! Regular soap works just fine. I don't need to kill all the bacteria that NATURALLY live on my hands. Its overkill, and look how the media, the marketing companies are selling this stuff: Lysol kills 99% of germs dead! Guess what? We don't live in a sterile environement, and getting this "clean" will just leave you with a messed up immune system. Damn, if it were up to some of the moms that have bought in to this unnatural "clean-freakishness-sanitary-nazism" some kids would be living in bubbles. I'm sure the marketing freaks at lysol are drueling at the thought of this product in spray cans..............
Although I'm not an IT worker, I do have a couple suggestions.
First off, your primary issue: "SORE LOSERS". While you might want to protect this ill informed possible client, you dont want to generate a bad name for yourself in doing so. You don't want this label for yourself or your company. So this is my suggestion: accreditation/testing by an unrelated 3rd party. Similair to the (crappy) movie "sneakers" you're going to pay people to mess with your security to prove that you have a secure implementation, likewise recommend the same to this client. As others have suggested, contact your old client/almost client. Have a short meeting, mention that you notice that they have some serious security vunerabilities. Next, rather than you show them those vunerabilities, give them a list of the vunerabilities and some references for some TRUSTWORTHY sucurity firms that are not related to your company to test them out. That way, they're hearing the same message from somebody that has nothing to gain by pointing out the flaws of their implementation. You'll get around the sore loser issue, and hopefully they'll come back to you for buisness. Just my 2 cents...
I find this article just a little too forward thinking and optimistic. I'm a experimental medicine PhD student, and to be honest, I'm pretty sick of hearing all the hype about how knowing the genomic sequence is going to sling shot us into understanding all biological interactions in the next 50 years. Gimmie a break! I really think where we are at this point fits a historical anology:
Discovery of the Rosetta stone in 1799 ( http://www.rosetta.com/RosettaStone.html ) allowed historians/archeoligists to finally understand Egyptian hieroglyphs. Did these historains then understand Egyptian customs, culture and building techniques within the next 50 years? No WAY! Were untrained indivduals, so called hobyists all performing cultural analysis of ancient Egypt? I doubt it. It did, however, launch an era of increased understanding for this lost culture.
We are accelerating in our aquisition of knowledge regarding biological systems, and the genome projects currently underway will no doubt facilitate further acceleration. But knowing the genitic code doesn't mean that everybody is going to be creating transgenic organisms in their garages in 50 years.
Now that we have the genetic code (and remember, it turns out we have FAR fewer genes than we anticipated, 30,000 vs the expected 100,000) the next great leap forward in biology is going to be study of protein protein interactions. How fast will we progress in this regard? To give everyone a yardstick, the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis was identified (without the help of the human genome project) 10 years ago. Are we any closer to a cure for cystic fibrosis? Doesn't look like it (despite the efforts by fantastic researchers in the field). That is one gene, that happens to cause one disease. Its becoming an accepted fact (or at least a paradim) that for many diseases, or biological processes (in the case of biological manufacturing) several genes and therfore proteins interact to produce other products.
A LOT of further study is required in order to understand these interactions, its gonna take a little over 50 years (mabey 100+) for us to understand biology in the manner this author describes. Right now, the following steps need to occur:
1) Linkage of ORFs within the DNA (open reading frames) or full genes (expressed mRNA transcripts) with the proteins they code for. This still needs to be doen for some genes, as the human genome project (as opossed to Celera's efforts-which are "closed source") releyed on sequencing all the DNA as opposed to expressed genes.
2) Study of gene expression and regulation. Much of the DNA sequenced in the human genome project is called "Junk" DNA. In fact, these sequences contain mostifs, called promoter (and in some case suppressor)sequences which regulate the timing of gene expression- in many cases things are produced, or not produced, singnals dampened or aplified based on the timing of gene expression. Much of this work will be performed utilizing "gene chip" technology, for high throughput screening.
3) Study of Protein protein interactions. Much of this work is performed using either immunoprecipitation (mixing together cellular proteins, pulling one your interested in out of solution using immunoprecipitation and seeing what other proteins are stuck to it) and the yeast two-hybrid technique (a very kickass technique for high throughput screening of genomic libraries to identify interacting proteins).
4) Confirmation of function utilizing genetic knockouts, inhibitors or other transgenic model systems.
A lab could easily spend 10 years on performing all of this work on one or two genes of interest, and it would be unlikely they would figure out all the protein-protein interactions. This represents the work of 5 scientists ( a conservative estimate) X 10 years= 50 years of "people" power work per gene. Multiply this by 30,000 (number of human genes identified) =1.5 million years of work. Muliply this by the number of organims you expect to "know" the biology for,(50 is a low estimate) =75 million years of work. Divide this by the number of scientists, and you have the time needed to "understand" all these genes. From my very rough estimation, we'd only need 1.5 million (Very well funded) scientist to complete this work in the next 50 years. Ya right. Don't be expecting a biological version of the replicator for another 100 years at least.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?" Albert Einstein
There is reason to be concerned about cloning, and I'd like to point it out as is seems relativly untouched.
1st: Lets go from the premise that clones will be about (or less as one reader pointed out due to mitochondrial DNA) as identical as twins. I know a few sets of twins, and I know a lot about twins studies (seperated at birth vs raised together yada-yada-yada). There are some basic findings: who we are is in almost all situations a result of nature and nurture (ie genes and enviornment). It would be impossible for us to recreate all the enviornmental conditions one individual has faced for another. Therefore, although we will clone a human soon enough, we cannot replicate a PERSON. This is the problem the general public has with cloning, they view cloning as replicating a PERSON. Cloning is replicating the body which is a shell, not the mind or spirit. Therin is the problem: people, society at large, the person who did the cloning, etc. expect a replica. Has anyone grown up in a family where they were expected to be exactly like their parent? Well multiply that by a hundred and you might be able to imagine the difficulty a clone would have in developing their own identity.
2nd: Genetic reproduction for people that have bad genes. Ok, I'm against eugenics, so I don't want to be killed on this point, but if people have gentic disorders that do not allow them to reproduce, why would they want to have children/clones that are afflicted with the same problem? I don't think this is a government issue, but rather an individual one: with all the reporductive technologies and fancy pants science in front of us, the human desire to reproduce ones own flesh and blood is going to ridiculous extremes. As I said, there are two things that make a person, Nature and Nurture. If you have bad genes passing them on to the next generation is detrimental to your offspring- rather pass on a good enviornment: adopt!!
3rd: Old DNA. At a very early stage of fetal development, some cells are 'put away' or saved, to later become gametes (eggs or sperm cells). These cells are saved at this early point in devlopment so they dont undergo to many cell divisions, as the more cell divisions, the greater the chance of mutation (which are almost always null (no effect)or detremental- we're not talking X-MEN here). So, when we develop eggs and sperm, the DNA of these cells is 'new' or fresh. After each cell division, we lose a little bit of the ends of our chromosones, spacer regions that prevent loss of important genes. When we clone, we pass on old DNA. See: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9905/26/dolly.clone.02/
or
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file= /n ature/journal/v399/n6734/full/399316b0_fs.html
(requires login)
So if we clone a 30 year old, the newborn baby will have chromosone ends that look like a 30 year olds- this is a problem, and similair to photocopies: a copy of a copy of a copy- sucks. To much signal loss, random error etc. So why introduce all theses problems in our gene pool? They will not benifit the survival of our species but rather individuals who are obsessed with immortality, who believe that cloning is a good way to reproduce.
4th: Regulation. Who ownes my DNA? This is going to be a huge problem- what about good looking movie stars? Are people going to be able to steal a strand of hear and clone some supermodel so they have attractive, healthy offspring? This is scary, and we need to see some tough regulation in this area
I'd like to add to my previous statement- First, while I agree that the best avenue for research is 'open source' peer reveiw process which occurs in universities, governments do not currently provide enough funding for all scientific reasearch to take place in these facilities, a large portion of biotech research is perfomed by private firms. Secondly, the sucessful patent of gene doesnt just require sequencing as far as I know, you must provide data as to the gene's function. This requires a lot more work.
Patenting discoveries related to the human genome project should be allowed. Originally, patents were intended to allow the company that put the time and money into R&D to recoup their costs, and to gain a commercial advantage in the marketplace. In many cases, the time necissary to go from a research stage (working animal model system)to a market ready product is extensive. For example, discovery of the drug Streptomycin occured in the early 1940's, however it was not avalble to patients until 1955 (these dates are aproximate). That represents about 15 years of R&D, and a hell of a lot of cost. Clinical trails (Phase I thru III) cost a HUGE ammount of money, so much so that smaller companies which already have drug or gene patents must colaberate with larger pharmicutical companies to gain the capital for the process. If companies could not gain $ to recouperate their R&D expenses, why would they continue with private sector research? While I would disagree with a permanent or extremely long running patent on ANY gene found in nature, I think that a 10-20 year patent is fair in this area of work. Being a immunolgy grad student myself, I can appreciate the time and money that goes into this type of work. I don't think the general public has a good concept of the expense of doing biotech research. The other thing worth pointing out, is that if a group does patent a potentailly useful gene, research on this gene will not be quashed, but rather stimulated. Pharmicutical companies conducting R&D often buy such patents so they can continue work on such potentialy interesting (and profitable) genes, and such patents often stimulate colaberation between scientific groups- all good things for turning a newly discovered 'interesting gene' into something which benifits us, a useable end product- whether that takes the form aof a drug, or specific genetic intervention doesnt matter- such work is not profitable unless a patent is possible. Without the patent- you do the R&D, others reap the financail benifits before you have a chance to recoup R&D expenses. They can patent the genes, just not permanently.
Slashdot Mirror
Somehow I read this title not once but twice, and my brain registered:
Indiana Jones Nuclear Market
In this one, the Ruskies are trying to sell their Nukes at an outdoor market in Bangledesh. Riots ensue, hats are lost then recovered, bullwhips are used, snakes cursed. move along.
I've tried this out a bit here, beaming lectures to friends unable to attend classes (ie. still in their PJ's on a monday morning). It works remarkably well, and most importantly is free. The downside is that a few (16+) students connecting to one shoutcast server can start to hit the old bandwidth meter pretty hard.
Good luck,
Id
Whoa...
"Innocent Law Firm"
- Shouldn't it be "An innocent until proven guilty law firm?"
I'd love to see the war of the worlds remake done from a martian perspective, since it's us invading mars this century- "lets go into the hills there jeb and get us some earthlinings! Damn interplanetary invaders!" - I can see the next scene of the movie, as Oportunity readies the deadly RAT to grind Jeb to bits....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the US never signed that UN treaty...
You could play some nice pranks with this toy after a scary movie.... aliens perhaps...muhahahahaha
I have two good tips for people- I recently had to get a rather large line of credit, and had a few tips from the banker:
1) Have all your cheques, and credit cards just use your first and middle inital, and of course your full last name. That way, if someone is trying to forge your signiture, (at least for cheques) they have no idea how you sign your name, ie do you include the intials ect...
2) Use a strange name/password on all your bank accounts instead of your mothers maiden name. With all the info available in a wallet, this is sort of a last line of defence for you, you're better off using something they can't figure out themselves by doing a little research. You dont need to make it a 'strong' password (I can just picture someone talking to the operators at visa:'lower case h, upper case J, 5, ') but make it difficult to guess or research.
While I in some sense understand you viewpoint, I find it very very very hypocritical. Everyone I know who complains about treating animals with equal rights and consideration as humans, while well intentioned, is misguided.
With the exception of a few species, namley (and I might be missing one or 2 here) Orangotanges, Chimpanze, Whales, Dolphins and Humans, animals are not self aware. This means that they are not entitled to the same consideration as those that are self aware. (For the record, I am against non-consentual medical research involving all these species). In terms of treatment of other animals, any vertibrates have a right to be treated in an ethically humane manner. My collegues like to see suffering as much as the next person. Contrary to the view point of animal crusaders, most of us have pets, and do in fact enjoy animals.
I'm an immunologist who studies immune suppresion, in the hope that my research will lead to a cure for autoimmune diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Diabities, and graft rejection. In order to perform my experiments, I have to kill cute little furry mice. Do I like this part of my job? NO. If I did, I would be one sick person, killing another living creature is not fun. I do not take it lightly. In fact, because of this I plan my experiments so that I use each animal as effectivly as possible, and induce the least amount of suffering on them. My Aunt suffers from M.S., and will likely die from it, leaving behind a husband and a daughter. You want to compare the life of an animal to that? Now, you are probably thinking... SICK BASTARD. Well, this is what I have to say to all the hippocrates that protest against animal research:
Have you ever used antibiotics? A drug of any type for your health? How do you suppose we cure diseases, minimize HUMAN suffering without animals to perform research on? Do you volonteer? Should we use prison inmates? Grandma? Seriously, grow up. Everyone out there that wants to see a cure for aids... think we're gonna find that with a computer model? Cell culture? Look, animal research isnt perfect, there are lodes of cures for cancer that work in a mouse but not a human. But animal research is one of the first steps in any form of biomedical breakthrough. Everything you take that comes in one of those pop-top child safe bottles was at some point tested on animals. So if you're really against animal research, dont visit a hospital EVER - or your a terrible hippocrate.
Idgrad
An earlier comment hit the nail on the head, I'm quite sure Mr. Shoemaker sold 80,000 genes to a biotech/pharmacutical company, and now has to explain why he doesn't owe them half their money back (what a funny conversation that would be to listen to).
What many people don't want to address that are trying to sell genomics, is that the differences between a mouse and a human are likely not the result of there being more genes in humans, but rather a difference in regulation of (approximaly) the same number of genes. That is to say that there are likely differences in the promoter (on switch) and repressor (off switch) portions of these genes, that cause one to be active in a certain situation in the human, but not in the mouse. A simple analogy demonstrates the difference: you can have two similar cars with similar horsepower, number of tires, gears etc, but if you put an old grandmother in one, and a formula 1 driver in the other, and watched them drive on the highway, you might make the mistake of thinking one car had more power, a larger engine (genes) than the other- when in fact the difference between the two is due to control of the same equipment(gas=promoter and brake=repressor elements of genes). Further analysis of the control regions of genes, as well as differences in protein-protein interations (proteonomics)will likely explain the differences between a human and a mouse, not 50,000 as yet undiscovered genes.
A waste processing system like this one mentioned is all about recycling the human waste so that it can be used as plant fertilizer: this is something we do all the time, cow paddies make great fertilizer for all kinds of crops.
Unfortunatly, human waste doesn't help out plants much as is, due to the fauna present in the human intestine: most of our fecal waste needs to be further processed by other microorganisms before the nutrients are available to plants as good fertilizers( the first 3-4 systems proposed in the article). The "food" that would be produced from the recyling process could conceivably be regular vegatables, that are simply grown in a soil that is fertilized with recycled (broken down) human waste. The food would taste as close to crap as fresh vegtables grown in soil fertilized with cow manure do.
In a closed system like this, no nutrients should be lost to the system, only the energy of chemical bonds. As long as the astronauts don't gain any weight, what goes in (food) must come out: CO2, urine, and fecal matter. In a system such as that proposed, energy is put back into the system by the formation of chemical bonds (via light) during photosynthesis by plants: resulting in the formation of sugars, and eventually proteins. CO2 is also recycled by the plants (it's used to form sugars and O2) , with the processed human waste being used to provide a good fertilizer: Potasium, Nitrogen and Phosphorus (its what's in 20:20:20 fertilizer) as well as essential trace elements.
I've been looking at this same project for a while now, and have run into several dead ends. The big problem is getting a hold of an IR TX/RX that is soderable. Most of the ones available are meant to be board mounted, and are FAR too small to be of any use to anyone using a sodering gun (no matter how small the tip, TRUST ME).
/ re motectrl.html
Here are some very usefull links I managed to track down regarding this project. If anyone finds a source of breadboard mountable/soderable IR RX/TX's, please post!
The best page (diagrams and all): http://tscherwitschke.de/irda.html
Another project page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1475
Retail systems:
http://www.actisys.com/act210.html
http://www.evation.com/
I'm a little biased on this issue, since I'm currently working on one for some (North and West) Vancouver Realestate Agents (up here in BC, Canada (soon to be up at http://www.recommendedbyfriends.com ) . What I have noticed, is that there is no standard for how much information is included in online listings. Since the web is supposed to be a resource of information, what you often find on "MLS" (multiple listings service) sites is the bare minimum: Cost, squarefootage, address, #of rooms/ bathrooms. If your lucky, you'll get one picture too, usually of the outside of the house. The reason for this, I can tell your from experience, is simple logisitics: the webcompany/mls service, sends around one person to go take all the pics, and often times the current tenanant isn't home (no time to make special arrangements) and you end up with an outside shot only. This is because the person taking the picture has NO intrest in selling the house. What the realtors I work for have done is to take the pictures themselves with a digital cam once they list the property, since they have access and a rapor with the owner of the house. They then put up their own listings on their own site, with a link from the mls site to theirs. If people want more info on a property, they can get it at their site: pictures of all the rooms, nearby school information, ammenities etc. We get a really good response about our site from overseas clients that are coming to Vancouver to view realestate. The real problem, in my view, of online realestate sites is lack of content. Now is someone gonna buy off the internet without seeing it in real life? Not go through a realestate agent? NO WAY. There are some things you can buy over the net without seeing first in real life. A home is not one of them. Realize that buying a home is the most expensive purchase most people make. I want to deal with a person, not a machine. Online realestate sites are simply about advertising- its like putting out a newspaper ad, only with more info. People are still gonna call to view the house.
There is a prevaling theory in immunlogy that dirt is good. Thats right folks- dirt, and especially germs, are good. Remember that mud pie you had as a kid? Odds are that it helped "educate" your immune system. A perfectly sterile environement (or very sterile, as would be created by this type of surface) would result in a decreased exposure to both pathogenic (rare), and MOSTLY non pathogenic bacteria. Without these types of immune challenges, we are more likley to develop autoimmune disorders such as allergy, multiple sclerosis and rhumatoid arthritis. Unfortunatly, it seems that if our immune system has nothing to attack, it attacks us.
Aside from this, any attempt to wipe out biological organisms, especially bacteria, results in the development of resistance. ALWAYS.
So the real question is not is this a neat polymer, but will we use it responibly? It has GREAT applications for surgical surfaces, but aside from that it is extreme overkill. Just like all those antibacterial soaps. Will I use them after I culture bacteria? YES. Will I use them if I were to perform surgery? YES. Would I use them after putsying in the garden or before I eat? NO! Regular soap works just fine. I don't need to kill all the bacteria that NATURALLY live on my hands. Its overkill, and look how the media, the marketing companies are selling this stuff: Lysol kills 99% of germs dead! Guess what? We don't live in a sterile environement, and getting this "clean" will just leave you with a messed up immune system. Damn, if it were up to some of the moms that have bought in to this unnatural "clean-freakishness-sanitary-nazism" some kids would be living in bubbles. I'm sure the marketing freaks at lysol are drueling at the thought of this product in spray cans..............
Although I'm not an IT worker, I do have a couple suggestions.
First off, your primary issue: "SORE LOSERS". While you might want to protect this ill informed possible client, you dont want to generate a bad name for yourself in doing so. You don't want this label for yourself or your company. So this is my suggestion: accreditation/testing by an unrelated 3rd party. Similair to the (crappy) movie "sneakers" you're going to pay people to mess with your security to prove that you have a secure implementation, likewise recommend the same to this client. As others have suggested, contact your old client/almost client. Have a short meeting, mention that you notice that they have some serious security vunerabilities. Next, rather than you show them those vunerabilities, give them a list of the vunerabilities and some references for some TRUSTWORTHY sucurity firms that are not related to your company to test them out. That way, they're hearing the same message from somebody that has nothing to gain by pointing out the flaws of their implementation. You'll get around the sore loser issue, and hopefully they'll come back to you for buisness. Just my 2 cents...
I find this article just a little too forward thinking and optimistic. I'm a experimental medicine PhD student, and to be honest, I'm pretty sick of hearing all the hype about how knowing the genomic sequence is going to sling shot us into understanding all biological interactions in the next 50 years. Gimmie a break! I really think where we are at this point fits a historical anology:
Discovery of the Rosetta stone in 1799 ( http://www.rosetta.com/RosettaStone.html ) allowed historians/archeoligists to finally understand Egyptian hieroglyphs. Did these historains then understand Egyptian customs, culture and building techniques within the next 50 years? No WAY! Were untrained indivduals, so called hobyists all performing cultural analysis of ancient Egypt? I doubt it. It did, however, launch an era of increased understanding for this lost culture.
We are accelerating in our aquisition of knowledge regarding biological systems, and the genome projects currently underway will no doubt facilitate further acceleration. But knowing the genitic code doesn't mean that everybody is going to be creating transgenic organisms in their garages in 50 years.
Now that we have the genetic code (and remember, it turns out we have FAR fewer genes than we anticipated, 30,000 vs the expected 100,000) the next great leap forward in biology is going to be study of protein protein interactions. How fast will we progress in this regard? To give everyone a yardstick, the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis was identified (without the help of the human genome project) 10 years ago. Are we any closer to a cure for cystic fibrosis? Doesn't look like it (despite the efforts by fantastic researchers in the field). That is one gene, that happens to cause one disease. Its becoming an accepted fact (or at least a paradim) that for many diseases, or biological processes (in the case of biological manufacturing) several genes and therfore proteins interact to produce other products.
A LOT of further study is required in order to understand these interactions, its gonna take a little over 50 years (mabey 100+) for us to understand biology in the manner this author describes. Right now, the following steps need to occur:
1) Linkage of ORFs within the DNA (open reading frames) or full genes (expressed mRNA transcripts) with the proteins they code for. This still needs to be doen for some genes, as the human genome project (as opossed to Celera's efforts-which are "closed source") releyed on sequencing all the DNA as opposed to expressed genes.
2) Study of gene expression and regulation. Much of the DNA sequenced in the human genome project is called "Junk" DNA. In fact, these sequences contain mostifs, called promoter (and in some case suppressor)sequences which regulate the timing of gene expression- in many cases things are produced, or not produced, singnals dampened or aplified based on the timing of gene expression. Much of this work will be performed utilizing "gene chip" technology, for high throughput screening.
3) Study of Protein protein interactions. Much of this work is performed using either immunoprecipitation (mixing together cellular proteins, pulling one your interested in out of solution using immunoprecipitation and seeing what other proteins are stuck to it) and the yeast two-hybrid technique (a very kickass technique for high throughput screening of genomic libraries to identify interacting proteins).
4) Confirmation of function utilizing genetic knockouts, inhibitors or other transgenic model systems.
A lab could easily spend 10 years on performing all of this work on one or two genes of interest, and it would be unlikely they would figure out all the protein-protein interactions. This represents the work of 5 scientists ( a conservative estimate) X 10 years= 50 years of "people" power work per gene. Multiply this by 30,000 (number of human genes identified) =1.5 million years of work. Muliply this by the number of organims you expect to "know" the biology for,(50 is a low estimate) =75 million years of work. Divide this by the number of scientists, and you have the time needed to "understand" all these genes. From my very rough estimation, we'd only need 1.5 million (Very well funded) scientist to complete this work in the next 50 years. Ya right. Don't be expecting a biological version of the replicator for another 100 years at least.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?" Albert Einstein
There is reason to be concerned about cloning, and I'd like to point it out as is seems relativly untouched.
= /n ature/journal/v399/n6734/full/399316b0_fs.html
1st: Lets go from the premise that clones will be about (or less as one reader pointed out due to mitochondrial DNA) as identical as twins. I know a few sets of twins, and I know a lot about twins studies (seperated at birth vs raised together yada-yada-yada). There are some basic findings: who we are is in almost all situations a result of nature and nurture (ie genes and enviornment). It would be impossible for us to recreate all the enviornmental conditions one individual has faced for another. Therefore, although we will clone a human soon enough, we cannot replicate a PERSON. This is the problem the general public has with cloning, they view cloning as replicating a PERSON. Cloning is replicating the body which is a shell, not the mind or spirit. Therin is the problem: people, society at large, the person who did the cloning, etc. expect a replica. Has anyone grown up in a family where they were expected to be exactly like their parent? Well multiply that by a hundred and you might be able to imagine the difficulty a clone would have in developing their own identity.
2nd: Genetic reproduction for people that have bad genes. Ok, I'm against eugenics, so I don't want to be killed on this point, but if people have gentic disorders that do not allow them to reproduce, why would they want to have children/clones that are afflicted with the same problem? I don't think this is a government issue, but rather an individual one: with all the reporductive technologies and fancy pants science in front of us, the human desire to reproduce ones own flesh and blood is going to ridiculous extremes. As I said, there are two things that make a person, Nature and Nurture. If you have bad genes passing them on to the next generation is detrimental to your offspring- rather pass on a good enviornment: adopt!!
3rd: Old DNA. At a very early stage of fetal development, some cells are 'put away' or saved, to later become gametes (eggs or sperm cells). These cells are saved at this early point in devlopment so they dont undergo to many cell divisions, as the more cell divisions, the greater the chance of mutation (which are almost always null (no effect)or detremental- we're not talking X-MEN here). So, when we develop eggs and sperm, the DNA of these cells is 'new' or fresh. After each cell division, we lose a little bit of the ends of our chromosones, spacer regions that prevent loss of important genes. When we clone, we pass on old DNA. See: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9905/26/dolly.clone.02/
or
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file
(requires login)
So if we clone a 30 year old, the newborn baby will have chromosone ends that look like a 30 year olds- this is a problem, and similair to photocopies: a copy of a copy of a copy- sucks. To much signal loss, random error etc. So why introduce all theses problems in our gene pool? They will not benifit the survival of our species but rather individuals who are obsessed with immortality, who believe that cloning is a good way to reproduce.
4th: Regulation. Who ownes my DNA? This is going to be a huge problem- what about good looking movie stars? Are people going to be able to steal a strand of hear and clone some supermodel so they have attractive, healthy offspring? This is scary, and we need to see some tough regulation in this area
I'd like to add to my previous statement- First, while I agree that the best avenue for research is 'open source' peer reveiw process which occurs in universities, governments do not currently provide enough funding for all scientific reasearch to take place in these facilities, a large portion of biotech research is perfomed by private firms. Secondly, the sucessful patent of gene doesnt just require sequencing as far as I know, you must provide data as to the gene's function. This requires a lot more work.
Patenting discoveries related to the human genome project should be allowed. Originally, patents were intended to allow the company that put the time and money into R&D to recoup their costs, and to gain a commercial advantage in the marketplace. In many cases, the time necissary to go from a research stage (working animal model system)to a market ready product is extensive. For example, discovery of the drug Streptomycin occured in the early 1940's, however it was not avalble to patients until 1955 (these dates are aproximate). That represents about 15 years of R&D, and a hell of a lot of cost. Clinical trails (Phase I thru III) cost a HUGE ammount of money, so much so that smaller companies which already have drug or gene patents must colaberate with larger pharmicutical companies to gain the capital for the process. If companies could not gain $ to recouperate their R&D expenses, why would they continue with private sector research? While I would disagree with a permanent or extremely long running patent on ANY gene found in nature, I think that a 10-20 year patent is fair in this area of work. Being a immunolgy grad student myself, I can appreciate the time and money that goes into this type of work. I don't think the general public has a good concept of the expense of doing biotech research. The other thing worth pointing out, is that if a group does patent a potentailly useful gene, research on this gene will not be quashed, but rather stimulated. Pharmicutical companies conducting R&D often buy such patents so they can continue work on such potentialy interesting (and profitable) genes, and such patents often stimulate colaberation between scientific groups- all good things for turning a newly discovered 'interesting gene' into something which benifits us, a useable end product- whether that takes the form aof a drug, or specific genetic intervention doesnt matter- such work is not profitable unless a patent is possible. Without the patent- you do the R&D, others reap the financail benifits before you have a chance to recoup R&D expenses. They can patent the genes, just not permanently.