At 60,000USD, thats not for your home, its just a worktop Electron microscope for labs.
I also wonder if that includes the price of sputter coating, critical point dryer and all the other stuff you might want to be able to see biological stuff.
The summary did mention though that economies of scale might bring that down. The article points out that $60k is already a significant drop from the hundreds of thousands other SEMs cost. Size is also an issue, this rig won't take up half a room, making it more "for the home" than others. Then again if you're willing to spend that much on your own microscope, you're more likely to be willing to sacrifice half your garage or have empty rooms in your mansion already.
Probably a bigger market for it would be individual labs who couldn't quite justify buying their own SEM machines before this. My lab doesn't do SEM, but we do have our own fluorescent microscope that is easily $60,000. A good confocal microscope on the other hand is in the hundred thousands range, we use a shared confocal and often have to wait days for it. $60k is doable for many labs, but 100-200K is often an entire grant.
Better question: So IS there a problem? Sounds like the World Meteorological Organization just hasn't officially said "yeah, new cloud." You have to give experts time to weigh in, the guy quoted in the article as saying this was still going over the data, looking at the weather patterns for those locations. And it's not like this scientific organization sits around in a commune waiting for new meteorological news to come in and act immediately. Next meeting those guys have, I'd guess they will officially put it in their official book unless someone convinces more people that it's shopped or false. Then again, IANAM(eteorologist).
There's a very simple, mutually beneficial solution to this - Google should do Mr. Murdoch a favor and stop indexing his content.
That would hurt fox news fans! How are they supposed to get their fox news when their TV isn't plugged in? Are you suggesting that they bookmark the page or remember to type in "www.foxnews.com" in the other blank space at the top of their screen?
Think of all the poor IT guys who would have to deal with a class of irate users who are even more irate and armed than your usual users.
Think of how Glenn Beck would blame this on Obama and God knows who else.
Think of how Sarah Palin would start including google in her "liberal media" category.
Think of the angry protesters outside of google headquarters. I'm imaginging signs like "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY INTERNETS" and "DOWN WITH SOCIALIST GOOGLE!"
Think of all the right wing organizations that would suddenly start giving ad money to Bing.
The antibody in question binds the EGF receptor. Off the top of my head I can think of..... oh about every stem cell in your body that expresses this receptor.
If I recall, it's also expressed at much, much, much higher levels in many cancers than it is in normal cells.
And the abstract to this paper suggests that as well: "Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is observed in many cancers, sometimes accompanied by gene amplification." That abstract also suggests that in at least one type of cancer, the more EGFR you have the worse the cancer is. I'm not a cancer biologist and I'm not reading any more than abstracts tonight, but this paper and this paper at first glance seemed to indicate the same thing.
While the good cells are wearing targets, the bad cells are wearing many more targets, so if your efficiency at hitting targets is lower than 100%, you're going to be killing more bad cells than good cells.
The author's system is great in a petri dish, but there's a reason it's published in a low tier journal.
And that reason is probably the following: the 80% of cells in a dish is probably not that impressive compared to developed drugs, however this was just a proof of concept. The wright brothers only flew a few hundred feet. There are undoubtedly refinements that could be made to this system that would increase the efficiency, but it's not to that stage yet. This technology might turn out to be a true cure for cancer once it's refined.
And don't criticize them for doing it in a dish just yet, this press release says "So far, tests have been done only on cells in a laboratory setting, but animal testing is planned for the next phase."
They can hardly be blamed for not delivering the magic bullet cure to cancer in one fell swoop, that's just not how these things work.
I hope this method actually works. That wiki article mentions that there is some evidence of stem-cell like cells in GBM. Numerous treatments in other types of cancers have been able to destroy most cancer cells, but the stem cell population in many cancers is thought to be more resistant to those drugs, and therefore the minority of cells that treatment doesn't kill quickly seed new cancers. Most of those treatments though seem to focus on affecting cell division. The thinking as I've heard it is that cancer stem cells divide slower than other cancer cells, so they're less susceptible to it. This treatment though doesn't necessarily.
So while 80% isn't that high, that might be better than it sounds, because it might not be biased against destroying the cells you really want to destroy.
It is awful the digital manipulation like this is used, however... and it just looks flat out FAKE. You can tell when someone has been over-Photoshopped because they just look "off" somehow.
It is pretty sickening that Madison avenue has so distorted our view of how women should look that they're starting to move INTO the uncanny valley.
It's not hard no, but if you don't care about gamerscore and don't intentionally select games that give easy points, I'm thinking you probably won't find yourself in the 100k range. Therefore, unless you're trying to get as high a gamerscore as you can, your account isn't going to be very attractive to people who sell accounts with high gamerscores, so you wouldn't need to hide it. On the other hand, if you did have a really high gamerscore, you probably worked at it intentionally and do, like OP said, want to show it off.
That's all I was saying. And I'll say again, this shouldn't be the reason why MS doesn't offer you the option to hide your gamerscore.
He complains that there is no way to hide one's gamerscore. NO SHIT. It is called social networking. GAMERSCORE = (imagined) PENILE LENGTH INCREASE. You don't farking hide it, the entire point is to show it off.
For you perhaps. Not for all of us though. I don't care about showing off or even the gamerscore itself. Or rather, I only care about it BECAUSE it could make my account more attractive to steal. In my case, and numerous others, "the entire point" of the gamerscore seems to be to let people know how valuable your account would be to other people.
It's extremely stupid to not be able to turn it off IF YOU DON'T CARE TO SHOW IT OFF.
Granted, you'd have to intentionally work at increasing your gamerscore to make it really attractive to steal, my gamerscore after several years is only at 5,000, no one is going to pay for that when gamescwhores seem to buy games based on how easy the scores are to rack up. So if you have a high gamerscore, you probably had to do it intentionally. And if you're putting in work for it, you undoubtedly want to show yours off, so this is not a huge vulnerability for those of us who don't care about gamerscores. Still, pretty stupid to have them all displayed.
Next up, sending someone a message "g1ve me urz PW and I'll givez you 1,000,000 gamerscores!!" is not hacking. It is exploiting people's greed. There is a big difference.
You know that and I know that, but let's be honest: we're in the minority. It's not just the writer who makes this mistake, most people do. I might have expected better from "internetnews," though.
Fair enough. I work in the dairy food industry, and our hygiene policy has a total ban on the use of scotch-brite pads, because no matter how much you wash and rinse them with industrial bleach, they continue to harbour large colonies of bacteria.
I think bleaching them would kill most of the bacteria in the pad, it just wouldn't remove the food so new bacteria could repopulate the pad in a short time.
Since you can't subject your head to that kind of agressive cleansing, one can only imagine what kind of wildlife will be festering in your dreadlocks. There is just no way you can convince me those damn things are clean.
You rinse YOUR hair with industrial bleach? No matter what type of hairdo you have, or how you clean it, your head is coated in bacteria. The only thing it should take to convince you that dreadlocks are "clean" are 1: is the wearer's head infected and 2: do the locks smell. If not, they're within normal parameters of hair cleanliness.
Eventually every 360 that is actively used will RROD
Every 360 that is used will eventually stop working if given enough time (you have no basis for "rapidly"), but the "red ring of death" is an indicator for a specific hardware malfunction that not every 360 will fall victim to. It's a bit like saying "Eventually, everyone will die of a heart attack." Everyone will die eventually, but not necessarily of a heart attack.
Also, "desperate M$ fanboi"? Seriously? Am I on/. or am I on the gameFAQs boards?
Argh! This country and it's lack of privacy! Big government! I've had it with america! Land of the free indeed! I'm moving to europe!
How do the United States compare to Europe in regards to surveillance and filtering?
Certainly there seems to be more momentum these days towards regulation in Europe. This is prompted by concerns over child welfare and exploitation, and also the perceived danger from radical militant groups. Europe also tends to be more of a surveillance society, particularly the UK. In the US, censorship is more difficult to implement if for no other reason than the court systems offer greater protections for freedom of speech.
Wait... we're doing something right? Yes! WOO! AMERICA NUMBER ONE! LAND OF THE FREE!
[Making fun of myself here, I've often read articles on the sad state of privacy in the US and thought "I quit, totally moving at the next available opportunity." If I'm being honest, I would have to describe myself as a fairweather fan of the US.]
What I want is a DNA writer that will write realtime. It will look a lot like an old typewriter, but will have only 5 keys, ATCG and U. You push the buttons in the sequence that you want (the keys will actually clack), and then hit the return bar, but instead of the roller sliding over, it will instantly shoot out an eppendorf tube full of that sequence on the side with a nice "ding."
I've asked Santa for one every year, but the one at the mall just said what my parents have been saying "You'll give yourself ebola!"
Some of the stuff is brilliant, though they should have allowed multiple submissions per segment
I disagree. They'd then end up with 400 submissions for "I'm Luke Skywalker: I'm here to save you," and big gaps elsewhere, like that critical 15 seconds early in the movie with Leia just sneaking around.
(They'd also probably end up with 800 takes of "That's no moon" in which there WAS a "moon." And they probably don't want to subject anyone to that.)
It also seems very interesting to me to see a frankenmovie of 15 second stretches of wildly varying quality. That's far more interesting to me than a frankenmovie of entirely medium to high quality 15 second clips.
Anyway, once they get the whole movie covered, then they can start accepting submissions for redoing scenes, then have a rating system for each segment. They'll then be able to make a -complete- movie of all the best scenes, emphasis on complete (the aforementioned Leia sneaking around might be pretty poor quality in the "best of" but at least it would be there).
And, again more interesting to me, they could then have a "worst of" where all the worst clips were strung together. And maybe they could then throw in some of the actual movie, like Mark Hamill's original "I'm here to save you!"
Have to take this DNA test as part of our drug screening. Predisposition towards alcoholism or any other disease or disorder that will send our health care costs through the roof? Well, you don't have the necessary "skills" for this job. Sorry, best of luck finding another job. (Yeah, good luck in proving that we violated the ADA or EEOC!)
nothing but good (TM) can come of this!
Incredibly short sighted. I sequence DNA all the time, it's a valuable tool for biomedical research. If sequencing my samples took a matter of hours instead of days, that would really speed thing up. My research is on neural stem cells. I may be an idiot, but I think my research could eventually lead to some findings that would be useful to many people. Shortening the amount of time it will take me to find stuff is, in my opinion, a good thing, and not just for me. The same is true for most biologists.
So this could speed up a lot of biomedical research. It will also bring new research projects into the realm of feasibility, some of those could be extremely valuable too.
Sarcastically saying nothing but good can come of this technology? That's more ridiculous applied here than it would be about a faster computer processor.
I completely agree that the technology can be used for awesome and amazing things. I just have a feeling that most of the things it's going to be used for are things that aren't going to benefit humanity in such lofty ways.
That second part is true of every single technology ever invented. The first sharpened stick man ever made may have been used to kill food, but the second one was probably used to kill another dude and steal his woman.
Tor isn't a holy technology that can only be used in good ways either. I'm guessing 5 seconds after it was finished, someone said something like "Think of the children! This will be used to transmit child porn." You probably scoff at that objection and, and rightfully so, but that's exactly our reaction to your objection to the DNA reader.
Why is it that multibillion dollar companies are constantly researching exciting new tech that makes it more and more impossible for us to remain annonymous?
Look at it this way, with so many more people's genomes sequenced, there will be that much more data to sort through to find yours. Security through obscurity!
Anyway, DNA is useful, they're developing it for other uses, it's not IBM's fault your ancestors foolishly chose to make everyone have unique DNA that can be used to identify you.
(Yes, this was a joke, but I prefer to believe dyingtolive was also joking.)
Slashdot Mirror
At 60,000USD, thats not for your home, its just a worktop Electron microscope for labs.
I also wonder if that includes the price of sputter coating, critical point dryer and all the other stuff you might want to be able to see biological stuff.
The summary did mention though that economies of scale might bring that down. The article points out that $60k is already a significant drop from the hundreds of thousands other SEMs cost. Size is also an issue, this rig won't take up half a room, making it more "for the home" than others. Then again if you're willing to spend that much on your own microscope, you're more likely to be willing to sacrifice half your garage or have empty rooms in your mansion already.
Probably a bigger market for it would be individual labs who couldn't quite justify buying their own SEM machines before this. My lab doesn't do SEM, but we do have our own fluorescent microscope that is easily $60,000. A good confocal microscope on the other hand is in the hundred thousands range, we use a shared confocal and often have to wait days for it. $60k is doable for many labs, but 100-200K is often an entire grant.
So where is the problem?
Better question: So IS there a problem? Sounds like the World Meteorological Organization just hasn't officially said "yeah, new cloud." You have to give experts time to weigh in, the guy quoted in the article as saying this was still going over the data, looking at the weather patterns for those locations. And it's not like this scientific organization sits around in a commune waiting for new meteorological news to come in and act immediately. Next meeting those guys have, I'd guess they will officially put it in their official book unless someone convinces more people that it's shopped or false. Then again, IANAM(eteorologist).
There's a very simple, mutually beneficial solution to this - Google should do Mr. Murdoch a favor and stop indexing his content.
That would hurt fox news fans! How are they supposed to get their fox news when their TV isn't plugged in? Are you suggesting that they bookmark the page or remember to type in "www.foxnews.com" in the other blank space at the top of their screen?
Think of all the poor IT guys who would have to deal with a class of irate users who are even more irate and armed than your usual users.
Think of how Glenn Beck would blame this on Obama and God knows who else.
Think of how Sarah Palin would start including google in her "liberal media" category.
Think of the angry protesters outside of google headquarters. I'm imaginging signs like "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY INTERNETS" and "DOWN WITH SOCIALIST GOOGLE!"
Think of all the right wing organizations that would suddenly start giving ad money to Bing.
Actually, all that would be pretty funny.
You have to look at it from his perspective.
Basically his perspective is "Someone else has money. I want it." ...
Not the best perspective by my standards, but he has many times more money than I do, so who am I to say he's a F*#@#ing idiot.
Or "frost piss".
Not so much for the mental slashdot submission, more because that might cause an unfortunate collaboration between your toilet and freezer.
As a kid I always thought ESP stood for Extra Special Powers. My ability to touch my tongue to my nose counted of course.
The antibody in question binds the EGF receptor. Off the top of my head I can think of..... oh about every stem cell in your body that expresses this receptor.
If I recall, it's also expressed at much, much, much higher levels in many cancers than it is in normal cells.
And the abstract to this paper suggests that as well: "Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is observed in many cancers, sometimes accompanied by gene amplification." That abstract also suggests that in at least one type of cancer, the more EGFR you have the worse the cancer is. I'm not a cancer biologist and I'm not reading any more than abstracts tonight, but this paper and this paper at first glance seemed to indicate the same thing.
While the good cells are wearing targets, the bad cells are wearing many more targets, so if your efficiency at hitting targets is lower than 100%, you're going to be killing more bad cells than good cells.
The author's system is great in a petri dish, but there's a reason it's published in a low tier journal.
And that reason is probably the following: the 80% of cells in a dish is probably not that impressive compared to developed drugs, however this was just a proof of concept. The wright brothers only flew a few hundred feet. There are undoubtedly refinements that could be made to this system that would increase the efficiency, but it's not to that stage yet. This technology might turn out to be a true cure for cancer once it's refined.
And don't criticize them for doing it in a dish just yet, this press release says "So far, tests have been done only on cells in a laboratory setting, but animal testing is planned for the next phase."
They can hardly be blamed for not delivering the magic bullet cure to cancer in one fell swoop, that's just not how these things work.
First slashdot post to bring a tear to my eye.
I hope this method actually works. That wiki article mentions that there is some evidence of stem-cell like cells in GBM. Numerous treatments in other types of cancers have been able to destroy most cancer cells, but the stem cell population in many cancers is thought to be more resistant to those drugs, and therefore the minority of cells that treatment doesn't kill quickly seed new cancers. Most of those treatments though seem to focus on affecting cell division. The thinking as I've heard it is that cancer stem cells divide slower than other cancer cells, so they're less susceptible to it. This treatment though doesn't necessarily.
So while 80% isn't that high, that might be better than it sounds, because it might not be biased against destroying the cells you really want to destroy.
Side effects may include death of 80% of non-cancer cells.
I say kill 'em all, let FACS sort 'em out.
In case you don't get that, fluorescent activated cell sorting sorts out cells, so you see...
Creating a transparent White House? Nope, we gave up on that one [cnet.com] pretty early on.
That's not -exactly- something that the comittee probably looks at for nobel peace prizes.
It is awful the digital manipulation like this is used, however... and it just looks flat out FAKE. You can tell when someone has been over-Photoshopped because they just look "off" somehow.
It is pretty sickening that Madison avenue has so distorted our view of how women should look that they're starting to move INTO the uncanny valley.
Ralph Lauren's Legal Case is kinda thin.
Not to mention they obviously let their photoshop skills go to their heads.
Gamerscore isn't that hard to accumulate.
It's not hard no, but if you don't care about gamerscore and don't intentionally select games that give easy points, I'm thinking you probably won't find yourself in the 100k range. Therefore, unless you're trying to get as high a gamerscore as you can, your account isn't going to be very attractive to people who sell accounts with high gamerscores, so you wouldn't need to hide it. On the other hand, if you did have a really high gamerscore, you probably worked at it intentionally and do, like OP said, want to show it off.
That's all I was saying. And I'll say again, this shouldn't be the reason why MS doesn't offer you the option to hide your gamerscore.
He complains that there is no way to hide one's gamerscore. NO SHIT. It is called social networking. GAMERSCORE = (imagined) PENILE LENGTH INCREASE. You don't farking hide it, the entire point is to show it off.
For you perhaps. Not for all of us though. I don't care about showing off or even the gamerscore itself. Or rather, I only care about it BECAUSE it could make my account more attractive to steal. In my case, and numerous others, "the entire point" of the gamerscore seems to be to let people know how valuable your account would be to other people.
It's extremely stupid to not be able to turn it off IF YOU DON'T CARE TO SHOW IT OFF.
Granted, you'd have to intentionally work at increasing your gamerscore to make it really attractive to steal, my gamerscore after several years is only at 5,000, no one is going to pay for that when gamescwhores seem to buy games based on how easy the scores are to rack up. So if you have a high gamerscore, you probably had to do it intentionally. And if you're putting in work for it, you undoubtedly want to show yours off, so this is not a huge vulnerability for those of us who don't care about gamerscores. Still, pretty stupid to have them all displayed.
Next up, sending someone a message "g1ve me urz PW and I'll givez you 1,000,000 gamerscores!!" is not hacking. It is exploiting people's greed. There is a big difference.
You know that and I know that, but let's be honest: we're in the minority. It's not just the writer who makes this mistake, most people do. I might have expected better from "internetnews," though.
Dear sir or madam,
Your post
(x)woosh'd
(x)intentionally woosh'd
( )runs linux
(x)was copy pasted with a few X filled in
(x)was funny
( )???
( )profit
Fair enough. I work in the dairy food industry, and our hygiene policy has a total ban on the use of scotch-brite pads, because no matter how much you wash and rinse them with industrial bleach, they continue to harbour large colonies of bacteria.
I think bleaching them would kill most of the bacteria in the pad, it just wouldn't remove the food so new bacteria could repopulate the pad in a short time.
Since you can't subject your head to that kind of agressive cleansing, one can only imagine what kind of wildlife will be festering in your dreadlocks. There is just no way you can convince me those damn things are clean.
You rinse YOUR hair with industrial bleach? No matter what type of hairdo you have, or how you clean it, your head is coated in bacteria. The only thing it should take to convince you that dreadlocks are "clean" are 1: is the wearer's head infected and 2: do the locks smell. If not, they're within normal parameters of hair cleanliness.
Eventually every 360 that is actively used will RROD
Every 360 that is used will eventually stop working if given enough time (you have no basis for "rapidly"), but the "red ring of death" is an indicator for a specific hardware malfunction that not every 360 will fall victim to. It's a bit like saying "Eventually, everyone will die of a heart attack." Everyone will die eventually, but not necessarily of a heart attack.
Also, "desperate M$ fanboi"? Seriously? Am I on /. or am I on the gameFAQs boards?
Argh! This country and it's lack of privacy! Big government! I've had it with america! Land of the free indeed! I'm moving to europe!
How do the United States compare to Europe in regards to surveillance and filtering?
Certainly there seems to be more momentum these days towards regulation in Europe. This is prompted by concerns over child welfare and exploitation, and also the perceived danger from radical militant groups. Europe also tends to be more of a surveillance society, particularly the UK. In the US, censorship is more difficult to implement if for no other reason than the court systems offer greater protections for freedom of speech.
Wait... we're doing something right? Yes! WOO! AMERICA NUMBER ONE! LAND OF THE FREE!
[Making fun of myself here, I've often read articles on the sad state of privacy in the US and thought "I quit, totally moving at the next available opportunity." If I'm being honest, I would have to describe myself as a fairweather fan of the US.]
Not to my exact needs though:
What I want is a DNA writer that will write realtime. It will look a lot like an old typewriter, but will have only 5 keys, ATCG and U. You push the buttons in the sequence that you want (the keys will actually clack), and then hit the return bar, but instead of the roller sliding over, it will instantly shoot out an eppendorf tube full of that sequence on the side with a nice "ding."
I've asked Santa for one every year, but the one at the mall just said what my parents have been saying "You'll give yourself ebola!"
Han cold-bloodedly murdering the handicapped lizard-man.
Well he couldn't very well murder the LIZARD man in WARM blood, now could he?
Some of the stuff is brilliant, though they should have allowed multiple submissions per segment
I disagree. They'd then end up with 400 submissions for "I'm Luke Skywalker: I'm here to save you," and big gaps elsewhere, like that critical 15 seconds early in the movie with Leia just sneaking around.
(They'd also probably end up with 800 takes of "That's no moon" in which there WAS a "moon." And they probably don't want to subject anyone to that.)
It also seems very interesting to me to see a frankenmovie of 15 second stretches of wildly varying quality. That's far more interesting to me than a frankenmovie of entirely medium to high quality 15 second clips.
Anyway, once they get the whole movie covered, then they can start accepting submissions for redoing scenes, then have a rating system for each segment. They'll then be able to make a -complete- movie of all the best scenes, emphasis on complete (the aforementioned Leia sneaking around might be pretty poor quality in the "best of" but at least it would be there).
And, again more interesting to me, they could then have a "worst of" where all the worst clips were strung together. And maybe they could then throw in some of the actual movie, like Mark Hamill's original "I'm here to save you!"
Have to take this DNA test as part of our drug screening. Predisposition towards alcoholism or any other disease or disorder that will send our health care costs through the roof? Well, you don't have the necessary "skills" for this job. Sorry, best of luck finding another job. (Yeah, good luck in proving that we violated the ADA or EEOC!)
nothing but good (TM) can come of this!
Incredibly short sighted. I sequence DNA all the time, it's a valuable tool for biomedical research. If sequencing my samples took a matter of hours instead of days, that would really speed thing up. My research is on neural stem cells. I may be an idiot, but I think my research could eventually lead to some findings that would be useful to many people. Shortening the amount of time it will take me to find stuff is, in my opinion, a good thing, and not just for me. The same is true for most biologists.
So this could speed up a lot of biomedical research. It will also bring new research projects into the realm of feasibility, some of those could be extremely valuable too.
Sarcastically saying nothing but good can come of this technology? That's more ridiculous applied here than it would be about a faster computer processor.
I completely agree that the technology can be used for awesome and amazing things. I just have a feeling that most of the things it's going to be used for are things that aren't going to benefit humanity in such lofty ways.
That second part is true of every single technology ever invented. The first sharpened stick man ever made may have been used to kill food, but the second one was probably used to kill another dude and steal his woman.
Tor isn't a holy technology that can only be used in good ways either. I'm guessing 5 seconds after it was finished, someone said something like "Think of the children! This will be used to transmit child porn." You probably scoff at that objection and, and rightfully so, but that's exactly our reaction to your objection to the DNA reader.
Why is it that multibillion dollar companies are constantly researching exciting new tech that makes it more and more impossible for us to remain annonymous?
Look at it this way, with so many more people's genomes sequenced, there will be that much more data to sort through to find yours. Security through obscurity!
Anyway, DNA is useful, they're developing it for other uses, it's not IBM's fault your ancestors foolishly chose to make everyone have unique DNA that can be used to identify you.
(Yes, this was a joke, but I prefer to believe dyingtolive was also joking.)
if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.
It's okay, I'm mooning each and every one of the cameras they have around my house.