By the way warming has nothing to do with the Africanized bees spreading. They were let loose in South america and take time to spread. Africanized bees can currently survive quite well in Canada but they just have not arrived yet. Care to cite any of these studies?
DNA is not a set of instructions. It is a specific chemical compound and therefore a piece of matter. The deliberate creation of a specific piece of patentable matter is covered under patent law. When one hold up a GMO seed created by Monsanto next to a GMO seed created by an farmer who used saved seeds they are the same. Since the farmer did not have a license to create the patented object he violated the patent. It is very different than software patents for obvious processes.
If you mean Maurice (Moe) Parr then you are way off the mark. He is a seed cleaner. He takes seeds from farmers ad removed the waste so that they can be planted efficiently. He has been known to clean Roundup ready seeds and was told several times by Monsanto to stop doing it. The only reason to clean seeds in that way is to make them ready for planting which would create unlicensed new instances of a patented item and violate the patent. He is now under a court injunction to no longer clean Roundup Ready soybean seeds but still can clean any other seed he wants. Monsanto even suspended the monetary settlement as long as he follows the court order.
Parr was by no means an angel. Affidavits from local farmers allege Mr. Parr misled customers into breaking patent law by convincing them to save patented seed so he could clean their patented seed and profit from that activity.
The SCOTUS is there to interpret and uphold the law. There is a law against deliberately creating new instances of a patented item without a license. When Monsanto sells seeds to a farmer that give him a license to create new instances of the seeds for one season. If the farmer uses the seeds in subsequent seasons he is now deliberately creating unlicensed new instances of a patented item. That is what the SCOTUS ruled on and nothing else. If you have an issue with patenting seeds then get the law changed.
. It's an issue of Monsanto using a broken patent system to double-dip into farmers' pockets after locking them into the seeds.
How are farmers locked into the seeds? There is no one holding a gun to farmers heads saying they must use Roundup or Roundup Ready seeds. That is a choice because the combination creates high yields. Why shouldn't the creators of the technology get benefit from it. What would you say if another company had created the Roundup Ready seeds? Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to make a profit on their investment?
There are a couple of major flaws in your argument. 1. Roundup was marketed starting in the 1970's and Roundup ready seeds were created in 1996. Therefore for over 20 years farmers were using Roundup on non-resistant crops. They had to be very careful to spray enough to kill the weeds but not enough to kill the crop. It was a delicate balance and impacted yields. The GM seeds just allowed farmers to use more herbicide without killing their crops.
2. Monsanto brought Roundup to market in the 1970s, and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000. Since Monsanto no longer holds the patent on Roundup they have to compete in the open market to sell that herbicide. Since Monsanto spent money on R&D that money has to be recouped somewhere. It can not be recouped by selling Roundup at a higher price as they would just be undercut by competitors.
I just cant wrap my head around the concept that you can purchase something not under contract, that someone else can then come along and sue you for having purchased under incorrect terms.
The issue is not in the terms of purchase but in the lack of license to create new instances of the patented item. When Monsanto, or affiliate, sells seeds to a farmer they license the farmer to produce new instances of the patented item from those seeds in one growing season. After that season they have no license to create new instances of the patented item. If the farmer saves some of the crop and plants them in subsequent seasons any crops generated from those seeds are now unlicensed copies of a patented item.
The crux of the situation is that one can sell properly licensed copies of patented items, as the elevator operator did, but can not create new copies of a patented item without a license, as the farmer did.
Without that policy Monsanto would have a year to recoup their investment in research and development as subsequent crops would be planted with saved seeds. That would remove any incentive to create the resistant seeds as the investment would never be recouped.
That's a very harsh policy and they probably charge a premium for their seed, it must be tough to be a farmer nowadays.
A premium is quite justified in that there was a lot of expensive research and development that went into creating the seeds. Farmers do not have to use Monsanto seeds; there are others on the market but they are not as high yield.
The part of patent law that allows this to occur is the licensing of the ability to create new copies of the patented item. When Monsanto, or affiliate, sells seeds to a farmer they license the farmer to create one crop from the seeds. If the farmers saves the seeds and plants them he is now creating more copies than he has been licensed to do and has therefore broken the patent. The court held that since the farmer created new copies of the patented item without license he violated the patent and is liable for damages.
On one hand we have farmers who are trying to make a living growing things. They want to use Roundup Ready seeds as they have a higher yield when used with Roundup.
On the other hand we have Monsanto who spent millions of dollars creating genetically modified seeds that are resistant to their herbicides. There needs to be a way for them to make a profit from that investment.
The issues; If there is no patent protection the seed manufacturer would have to make all their investment back in one year as any subsequent seeds can be saved and re-sold by farmers. Where is the incentive to invest in the technology if there is no way to benefit from it?
On the other side there are lawsuits that being filed against farmers who's crops are infected by stray seeds from nearby fields. Though on closer examination some of the suits are against farmers who are deliberately killing most of their crop with Roundup, by over spraying, so they can isolate the volunteer plants and use their seeds for the next year's crops. That is not normal farming practice and is designed to get around the patent.
Monsanto has gone overboard in a few cases but in many cases it is well justified in protecting its business. Perhaps patent laws could be modified so that the time to recoup investment is shorter and the patent ends sooner.
But it does fit; I've seen it used that way often and it doesn't cause any confusion.
I am in no way "confused". Using the word "ubiquitous" is an exaggeration and untrue. Just because other people misuse the word does not mean that it is a good thing to do.
I am not talking about evolution but that other areas will support plants and animals that it currently can not. There are areas where it is currently to cold to support Maize. When it warms up it will be hot enough. The point is the old area will be unsuitable but other areas will be suitable. Since this study did not look into new areas that can support the plants it only shows part of the picture. I live in Canada and global warming will lengthen our growing season and broaden the kinds of food we can grow here. The study concentrated on decreased suitability of current ranges and ignores increased suitability of currently unsuitable ranges.
I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels(emphasis mine), while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, and their children, and all of humanity.
This is the last part of the speech. Notice the bolded text? Wouldn't taking carbon dioxide levels back to pre-industrial levels solve most of the global warming issues?
If you want to take it literally, almost nothing is ubiquitous.
My point exactly. If the word does not fit then don't use it. If you use an absolute it better fit or you are just sensationalizing to sound better. It weakens your case as one flaw usually indicates more flaws.
I'd much rather risk being killed by an almost nonexistent threat that have cameras or drones everywhere.
Bombers are only one target. There are bank robbers, muggers, drive by shooters, etc. You seem to ignore the point that there is no expectation of privacy an places where cameras and drones have access.
I never said that other scientists don't study changing climates. All I said was that this study is flawed in that it does not show the whole picture of changing climes. It was designed to make thing look a desired way and is therefore skewed science. Politics have nothing to do with my comments. I am questioning the science not the politics.
Ubiquitous is an absolute term and means "everywhere, all the time". I have shown areas that drones can not see into therefore it may be "pervasive" it is not "ubiquitous".
As unmanned drones become cheaper, ubiquitous surveillance (and selective surveillance, which is another problem) becomes easier even if they don't have enough people to constantly watch the videos (they wouldn't need that).
So there are days of video in storage that no one ever looks at. So what? If they need to look through them to find a bomber I say go for it. Maybe fewer bombers will try if they know there is zero chance of getting away with it. I realize it will not stop suicide bombers but it may help track their handlers.
Then allow the government to install cameras throughout your house. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to fear?
I just love how "privacy advocates" jump from cameras in public places to cameras in people's homes. That is a huge leap and fear mongering. There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces but there is an expectation of privacy in one's homes. The expectation has been upheld many time; most recently the ban on using infrared cameras without a search warrant.
Banning night sticks isn't viable, and sometimes we must accept that certain things are necessary evils, but there is no inherent reason to accept drones.
I disagree. Drones can be used in many instances to catch criminals. I see drones the same as I see helicopters or patrol cars. They all need people to run and cost quite a bit of money.
Your privacy line is not the only one. I see a difference between private spaces and public spaces. You seem to think they are the same.
An international team of researchers looked at the impacts of rising temperatures on nearly 50,000 common species of plants and animals.
They looked at both temperature and rainfall records for the habitats that these species now live in and mapped the areas that would remain suitable for them under a number of different climate change scenarios.
The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels.
In this model, some 34% of animal species and 57% of plants would lose more than half of their current habitat ranges.
The interesting part is that they looked at the "habitats that these species now live in". They did not look at habitats that are not currently suitable for the species to live in. For all we know there could be more area that species could live in when the climate changed. By concentrating on current species ranges the scientists are skewing the results. One should look at the whole system before coming to a conclusion.
But really, the government is not entitled to have ubiquitous surveillance, so this whole thing is meaningless.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous 1. The government does not have enough money for the hundreds of thousands of drones and their pilots, the hundreds of thousands of analysts watching these videos to find wrong doing, and the massive amount of storage needed to log all these video feeds. 2. It has already been ruled illegal to look inside homes, even with FLIR, without a search warrant. 3. One can not be identified inside most buildings even with FLIR.
With the few thousand drones that may be used in the entire US the surveillance is far from ubiquitous. However, the government is entitled to do the things they do today and spend less money doing it.
Furthermore, the information would be available to the entire government, not just a single person.
There are two issues with this statement; 1. The "single person" has access to youtube and the internet and can post the video for anyone to view. Remember the blood in the river caught by a civilian drone? There are also many news outlets that will publicize it if it is important enough. 2. "The government" is not a monolithic organization. There are many competing agencies and departments who are competing with each other to make themselves look more important and therefore get a bigger budget. It is difficult enough to get two local police departments to work together let alone State and Federal agencies.
And unmanned drones are different from helicopters (and I don't think helicopters should be spying on anyone, either) in that they can be used en masse far more easily.
True, it is easier to use drones en masse much the same way it is easier to establish a manned base on the Moon compared with a manned base on Mars (neither of which are going to happen any time soon). To use drones en masse will take a lot of money, mostly in terms of pilot and technician salaries, which most police forces do not have. These slippery slope arguments, "A hundred today means a hundred thousand next year", are invalid. They are not being used en masse today or for the foreseeable future. Until then, and in the numbers they are being used they are a very useful tool.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
There is a lot of truth in that statement. If you don't want to get a speeding ticket then don't speed. I don't generally go about breaking laws but when I do I am willing to take the consequences..
As long as the government doesn't abuse me, all is well!
As long as the government doesn't abuse anyone, all is well! Fixed that for you. Any tool can be abused. Should night sticks taken form police because they could be used to beat up an innocent person? The protection comes in when someone does use the tool improperly. They need to be prosecuted and sent to jail as has happened many times.
You can't use a wrench, because conservation of momentum means you rotate around the bolt.
Unless you have something to hold you, like the Canadarm, or hold onto something to stop your rotation. Using a wrench is space is more complex but not impossible.
To me an emergency spacewalk is "Get in the suits now and get out there" and not "We'll think about it for a while and you may be tasked to go out in a day or two". This is yet another inaccurate headline to bring attention to a minor story.
The only vaguely relevant number in this article is the following quote;
The researchers say that small-scale experiments of this system have yielded a maximum current density that is two orders of magnitude larger than previously reported for similar systems.
Even that is meaningless as there is no basis for comparison. One hundred times a few milliamps at a few microvolts is still not much power.
I just love the following quote;
If we are able to leverage technologies like genetic engineering to enhance stability of the plant photosynthetic machineries, I'm very hopeful that this technology will be competitive to traditional solar panels in the future.
It sounds like they are having issues keeping the thing from breaking down. Considering that the process interrupts the plant's ability to make food for itself longevity might be an issue.
As with many other "scientific breakthroughs" this looks like another "Give me more money for research" announcement.
If one has had a collision and is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated it would be an advantage for the vehicle to know about it so it can call for help. Collision detection is one part of the chain.
Software testing is a component of Software Engineering and need not be a separate major. Fragmenting Computer Science into too many sections is not an advantage. I see Software Engineering as the applied science arm of Computer Science and therefore encompass Software Testing.
Slashdot Mirror
They did not look into it in this study.
By the way warming has nothing to do with the Africanized bees spreading. They were let loose in South america and take time to spread. Africanized bees can currently survive quite well in Canada but they just have not arrived yet. Care to cite any of these studies?
The patent on Roundup ended in 2000 therefore any chemical company can make their version of Roundup.
DNA is not a set of instructions. It is a specific chemical compound and therefore a piece of matter. The deliberate creation of a specific piece of patentable matter is covered under patent law. When one hold up a GMO seed created by Monsanto next to a GMO seed created by an farmer who used saved seeds they are the same. Since the farmer did not have a license to create the patented object he violated the patent. It is very different than software patents for obvious processes.
If you mean Maurice (Moe) Parr then you are way off the mark. He is a seed cleaner. He takes seeds from farmers ad removed the waste so that they can be planted efficiently. He has been known to clean Roundup ready seeds and was told several times by Monsanto to stop doing it. The only reason to clean seeds in that way is to make them ready for planting which would create unlicensed new instances of a patented item and violate the patent. He is now under a court injunction to no longer clean Roundup Ready soybean seeds but still can clean any other seed he wants. Monsanto even suspended the monetary settlement as long as he follows the court order.
Parr was by no means an angel. Affidavits from local farmers allege Mr. Parr misled customers into breaking patent law by convincing them to save patented seed so he could clean their patented seed and profit from that activity.
If you mean something else pleas be specific.
The SCOTUS is there to interpret and uphold the law. There is a law against deliberately creating new instances of a patented item without a license. When Monsanto sells seeds to a farmer that give him a license to create new instances of the seeds for one season. If the farmer uses the seeds in subsequent seasons he is now deliberately creating unlicensed new instances of a patented item. That is what the SCOTUS ruled on and nothing else. If you have an issue with patenting seeds then get the law changed.
. It's an issue of Monsanto using a broken patent system to double-dip into farmers' pockets after locking them into the seeds.
How are farmers locked into the seeds? There is no one holding a gun to farmers heads saying they must use Roundup or Roundup Ready seeds. That is a choice because the combination creates high yields. Why shouldn't the creators of the technology get benefit from it.
What would you say if another company had created the Roundup Ready seeds? Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to make a profit on their investment?
There are a couple of major flaws in your argument.
1. Roundup was marketed starting in the 1970's and Roundup ready seeds were created in 1996. Therefore for over 20 years farmers were using Roundup on non-resistant crops. They had to be very careful to spray enough to kill the weeds but not enough to kill the crop. It was a delicate balance and impacted yields. The GM seeds just allowed farmers to use more herbicide without killing their crops.
2. Monsanto brought Roundup to market in the 1970s, and Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000. Since Monsanto no longer holds the patent on Roundup they have to compete in the open market to sell that herbicide. Since Monsanto spent money on R&D that money has to be recouped somewhere. It can not be recouped by selling Roundup at a higher price as they would just be undercut by competitors.
I just cant wrap my head around the concept that you can purchase something not under contract, that someone else can then come along and sue you for having purchased under incorrect terms.
The issue is not in the terms of purchase but in the lack of license to create new instances of the patented item. When Monsanto, or affiliate, sells seeds to a farmer they license the farmer to produce new instances of the patented item from those seeds in one growing season. After that season they have no license to create new instances of the patented item. If the farmer saves some of the crop and plants them in subsequent seasons any crops generated from those seeds are now unlicensed copies of a patented item.
The crux of the situation is that one can sell properly licensed copies of patented items, as the elevator operator did, but can not create new copies of a patented item without a license, as the farmer did.
Without that policy Monsanto would have a year to recoup their investment in research and development as subsequent crops would be planted with saved seeds. That would remove any incentive to create the resistant seeds as the investment would never be recouped.
That's a very harsh policy and they probably charge a premium for their seed, it must be tough to be a farmer nowadays.
A premium is quite justified in that there was a lot of expensive research and development that went into creating the seeds. Farmers do not have to use Monsanto seeds; there are others on the market but they are not as high yield.
The part of patent law that allows this to occur is the licensing of the ability to create new copies of the patented item. When Monsanto, or affiliate, sells seeds to a farmer they license the farmer to create one crop from the seeds. If the farmers saves the seeds and plants them he is now creating more copies than he has been licensed to do and has therefore broken the patent. The court held that since the farmer created new copies of the patented item without license he violated the patent and is liable for damages.
There are competing interests here.
On one hand we have farmers who are trying to make a living growing things. They want to use Roundup Ready seeds as they have a higher yield when used with Roundup.
On the other hand we have Monsanto who spent millions of dollars creating genetically modified seeds that are resistant to their herbicides. There needs to be a way for them to make a profit from that investment.
The issues; If there is no patent protection the seed manufacturer would have to make all their investment back in one year as any subsequent seeds can be saved and re-sold by farmers. Where is the incentive to invest in the technology if there is no way to benefit from it?
On the other side there are lawsuits that being filed against farmers who's crops are infected by stray seeds from nearby fields. Though on closer examination some of the suits are against farmers who are deliberately killing most of their crop with Roundup, by over spraying, so they can isolate the volunteer plants and use their seeds for the next year's crops. That is not normal farming practice and is designed to get around the patent.
Monsanto has gone overboard in a few cases but in many cases it is well justified in protecting its business. Perhaps patent laws could be modified so that the time to recoup investment is shorter and the patent ends sooner.
But it does fit; I've seen it used that way often and it doesn't cause any confusion.
I am in no way "confused". Using the word "ubiquitous" is an exaggeration and untrue. Just because other people misuse the word does not mean that it is a good thing to do.
I am not talking about evolution but that other areas will support plants and animals that it currently can not. There are areas where it is currently to cold to support Maize. When it warms up it will be hot enough. The point is the old area will be unsuitable but other areas will be suitable. Since this study did not look into new areas that can support the plants it only shows part of the picture. I live in Canada and global warming will lengthen our growing season and broaden the kinds of food we can grow here. The study concentrated on decreased suitability of current ranges and ignores increased suitability of currently unsuitable ranges.
I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels(emphasis mine), while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, and their children, and all of humanity.
This is the last part of the speech. Notice the bolded text? Wouldn't taking carbon dioxide levels back to pre-industrial levels solve most of the global warming issues?
If you want to take it literally, almost nothing is ubiquitous.
My point exactly. If the word does not fit then don't use it. If you use an absolute it better fit or you are just sensationalizing to sound better. It weakens your case as one flaw usually indicates more flaws.
I'd much rather risk being killed by an almost nonexistent threat that have cameras or drones everywhere.
Bombers are only one target. There are bank robbers, muggers, drive by shooters, etc. You seem to ignore the point that there is no expectation of privacy an places where cameras and drones have access.
I never said that other scientists don't study changing climates. All I said was that this study is flawed in that it does not show the whole picture of changing climes. It was designed to make thing look a desired way and is therefore skewed science. Politics have nothing to do with my comments. I am questioning the science not the politics.
Ubiquitous is an absolute term and means "everywhere, all the time". I have shown areas that drones can not see into therefore it may be "pervasive" it is not "ubiquitous".
As unmanned drones become cheaper, ubiquitous surveillance (and selective surveillance, which is another problem) becomes easier even if they don't have enough people to constantly watch the videos (they wouldn't need that).
So there are days of video in storage that no one ever looks at. So what? If they need to look through them to find a bomber I say go for it. Maybe fewer bombers will try if they know there is zero chance of getting away with it. I realize it will not stop suicide bombers but it may help track their handlers.
Then allow the government to install cameras throughout your house. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to fear?
I just love how "privacy advocates" jump from cameras in public places to cameras in people's homes. That is a huge leap and fear mongering. There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces but there is an expectation of privacy in one's homes. The expectation has been upheld many time; most recently the ban on using infrared cameras without a search warrant.
Banning night sticks isn't viable, and sometimes we must accept that certain things are necessary evils, but there is no inherent reason to accept drones.
I disagree. Drones can be used in many instances to catch criminals. I see drones the same as I see helicopters or patrol cars. They all need people to run and cost quite a bit of money.
Your privacy line is not the only one. I see a difference between private spaces and public spaces. You seem to think they are the same.
An international team of researchers looked at the impacts of rising temperatures on nearly 50,000 common species of plants and animals.
They looked at both temperature and rainfall records for the habitats that these species now live in and mapped the areas that would remain suitable for them under a number of different climate change scenarios.
The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels.
In this model, some 34% of animal species and 57% of plants would lose more than half of their current habitat ranges.
The interesting part is that they looked at the "habitats that these species now live in". They did not look at habitats that are not currently suitable for the species to live in. For all we know there could be more area that species could live in when the climate changed. By concentrating on current species ranges the scientists are skewing the results. One should look at the whole system before coming to a conclusion.
But really, the government is not entitled to have ubiquitous surveillance, so this whole thing is meaningless.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous
1. The government does not have enough money for the hundreds of thousands of drones and their pilots, the hundreds of thousands of analysts watching these videos to find wrong doing, and the massive amount of storage needed to log all these video feeds.
2. It has already been ruled illegal to look inside homes, even with FLIR, without a search warrant.
3. One can not be identified inside most buildings even with FLIR.
With the few thousand drones that may be used in the entire US the surveillance is far from ubiquitous. However, the government is entitled to do the things they do today and spend less money doing it.
Furthermore, the information would be available to the entire government, not just a single person.
There are two issues with this statement;
1. The "single person" has access to youtube and the internet and can post the video for anyone to view. Remember the blood in the river caught by a civilian drone? There are also many news outlets that will publicize it if it is important enough.
2. "The government" is not a monolithic organization. There are many competing agencies and departments who are competing with each other to make themselves look more important and therefore get a bigger budget. It is difficult enough to get two local police departments to work together let alone State and Federal agencies.
And unmanned drones are different from helicopters (and I don't think helicopters should be spying on anyone, either) in that they can be used en masse far more easily.
True, it is easier to use drones en masse much the same way it is easier to establish a manned base on the Moon compared with a manned base on Mars (neither of which are going to happen any time soon). To use drones en masse will take a lot of money, mostly in terms of pilot and technician salaries, which most police forces do not have. These slippery slope arguments, "A hundred today means a hundred thousand next year", are invalid. They are not being used en masse today or for the foreseeable future. Until then, and in the numbers they are being used they are a very useful tool.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
There is a lot of truth in that statement. If you don't want to get a speeding ticket then don't speed. I don't generally go about breaking laws but when I do I am willing to take the consequences..
As long as the government doesn't abuse me, all is well!
As long as the government doesn't abuse anyone, all is well! Fixed that for you. Any tool can be abused. Should night sticks taken form police because they could be used to beat up an innocent person? The protection comes in when someone does use the tool improperly. They need to be prosecuted and sent to jail as has happened many times.
You can't use a wrench, because conservation of momentum means you rotate around the bolt.
Unless you have something to hold you, like the Canadarm, or hold onto something to stop your rotation. Using a wrench is space is more complex but not impossible.
To me an emergency spacewalk is "Get in the suits now and get out there" and not "We'll think about it for a while and you may be tasked to go out in a day or two". This is yet another inaccurate headline to bring attention to a minor story.
The only vaguely relevant number in this article is the following quote;
The researchers say that small-scale experiments of this system have yielded a maximum current density that is two orders of magnitude larger than previously reported for similar systems.
Even that is meaningless as there is no basis for comparison. One hundred times a few milliamps at a few microvolts is still not much power.
I just love the following quote;
If we are able to leverage technologies like genetic engineering to enhance stability of the plant photosynthetic machineries, I'm very hopeful that this technology will be competitive to traditional solar panels in the future.
It sounds like they are having issues keeping the thing from breaking down. Considering that the process interrupts the plant's ability to make food for itself longevity might be an issue.
As with many other "scientific breakthroughs" this looks like another "Give me more money for research" announcement.
If one has had a collision and is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated it would be an advantage for the vehicle to know about it so it can call for help. Collision detection is one part of the chain.
How much did that Empeg cost?
Prices started at $1,100 US for the 4GB version and went all the way up to a $2,400 28GB
That seems a lot for most cars. Many would say 10% of a car's value for an MP3 player is a bit much.
Software testing is a component of Software Engineering and need not be a separate major. Fragmenting Computer Science into too many sections is not an advantage. I see Software Engineering as the applied science arm of Computer Science and therefore encompass Software Testing.