Even in research, most of the sequencing at whole genome level is outsourced to big companies (like, for example, Complete Genomics) since investing in the capabilities, machinery and computer power to sequence whole genomes is simply too big for sequencing one or a few individual genomes (you currently need to invest a few millions to get started with the sequencing of whole genomes). You can DIY sequencing of small fragments (for example, to determine whether a known genetic cause of a hereditary disease that is looming in your family is also affecting you) but it still requires quite a few skills in molecular biology and a few thousand euros/dollars of investment to get to this level.
We've been observing this decrease over the last few years at our sequencing lab too. Some people might find it fascinating, but I, as a bioinformatician, find it frightening.
We're still keeping up at maintaining and analysing our sequenced reads and genomes at work, but the amount of incoming sequencing data (currently a few terabytes of data per month) is increasing four-to-five-fold per year (compared to doubling each 18-24 months in Moore's law). Our lab had the first human genomes at the end of 2009 after waiting for almost 9 years since the world's first human genome, now we're getting a few genomes per month. We're not too far away of running out of installing sufficient processing power (following Moore's law) and no longer being able to process all of this data.
So yes, the more-than-exponential decrease in sequencing costs is cool and offers a lot of possibilities in getting to know your own genome, advances in personalized medicine, and possibilities for population-wide genome sequencing research, but there's no way we'll be able to process all of this interesting data because Moore's law is simply way too slow as compared to advances in biochemical technologies.
Answering this question from the viewpoint of IT, CS or electronics in general, yes, I have the same feeling.
However, if you look at other sciences, like biology, there's an amazing evolution of technologies, methodologies and revolutionizing new insights that are going to change the world around is, possibly in more disruptive ways than computers have. If the 20th century is the century of computers, we're still strongly believing that the 21st century will see (and is seeing) a lot of revolutions in biology.
So if you feel, like me, that CS is dead and still want to go on a technological quest, try something else.
There was an episode where they tested whether a cell phone could blow up a chamber filled with gas. It took a whole lot more than a cell phone for the cabin to blow up.
You already had five, and I couldn't agree more with Nature's podcasts, excellent show on the latest from the magazine. Maybe not independent, but certainly fascinating.
This is quite likely the finest result Nasa has had for a long time.
Don't forget the gigantic success of the Cassini-Huygens mission from January which was a huge success, partly for NASA and the Mars Exploratioon Rovers which are still strolling around Mars!
This is what they replied to my mail. It is very lengthy and they seem to have such letters prepared beforehand. He didn't even feel the need to put my name in the header.
Dear................
Thank you for informing us about the bogus paper.
One of our reviewers had already informed us about a paper that seemed to be a joke, as he named it, and he proposed to start making a list of this kind of persons that are taking valuable time of several reviewers and members of the Program and Organizing committees of the conferences. I am not sure how unethical are these bogus submissions, and if there is some way to detect all of them in a large conference.
In our acceptance e-mails we were very explicit about the reasons we had in accepting a small percentage of papers as "non-reviewed papers". We expressed clearly that by the acceptance deadline we had a small percentage of papers for which we received no feedback from the reviewers, in spite of the fact that the submitted papers were sent to at least three reviewers. The pressure we had in sending an acceptance or non-acceptance to the authors of these papers was increasing. We felt it was not fair, not even ethical, to refuse a paper, which refusal was not suggested by its reviewers. Consequently, we considered that one possibility was to accept them as "non-reviewed papers"; until we can have adequate feedback from the reviewers, in which case the paper status would change. The acceptance policy published in the conference web page allowed this kind of acceptation, because in the call for papers and in the web site we have been always clear and explicit that we were accepting not just research papers, but also position papers, case studies, panels, reports, invited papers (which, by definition do not go through the reviewing process) etc. The author(s) of a fake paper accepted as a non re-reviewed one has complete responsibility on the content of the paper.
Some of the authors to whom we offered the possibility of non-reviewed acceptance preferred to withdraw their paper which is understandable and very respectful. Others preferred to wait until we have some review of their paper that would change their paper status and others did not care about this kind of acceptance. As you know, and as it has been written in several books and articles in the area of Scientific and Technical Communications, the functions of conferences are very different from those of journals, and this is why there are conferences with no paper review at all, and very known ones ask for submission of abstract of no more that 50 words. We are trying to find a place between the high formality of the journal and the informality of the conferences. And with the increasing number of papers submission we have been having we tried to have more automated support simultaneously with some adequate level of reviewing. A computer program selects three reviewers and sends the paper automatically to randomly selected reviewers, from the paper's area. Our intension in doing so was to provide support for this activity and to make it as independent as possible from the Organizing Committee, so the selection is not biased by human selection. This apparently opened the door for some people to send bogus papers. Since we did not receive review for some of these papers, and we thought that it was not fair to reject a non rejected paper, we accepted them as non-reviewed ones, which was allowed by our stated acceptance policy. As you see, with the intention to be fair, we were treated unfairly by those who silently were sending bogus papers.
Based on the fact, stated in the call for papers and web sites, since the first conference we organized, that we were accepting not just research papers, we had the acceptance policy of accepting a small percentage of non-reviewed papers. We made it explicit in the conference web site that "If the reviewers selected for reviewing a given paper do not make their respective reviews before the papers acceptance deadline,
I think it is really blatant for your conference that a randomly generated paper has been accepted for presentation, without having at least one reviewer to look at the contents of the paper! Academically, you should be ashamed and I'm wondering what your opinion is for what has happened recently with the peer reviewing process of your conference. Note that I will not be the sole person around not to trust any of the other papers accepted for publication, and I can't be more sorry for the people who have submitted their honest and dedicated work to your conference.
This is excellent! I'm constantly using full screen consoles with white text on a black background. This technology may give command line users excellent uptimes!
I just want to point out that Varese, working at Philips labs (of the consumer electronics), has also been experimenting with electronic music, publishing their first results in 1917, far ahead of the tape recording in this article.
I must say the parent post is very inflammatory, partisan, based on interpretations of plausible scenarios and very off topic. This type of discussion belongs in political fora, I don't think it has anything to do with "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters".
Slashdot Mirror
Even in research, most of the sequencing at whole genome level is outsourced to big companies (like, for example, Complete Genomics) since investing in the capabilities, machinery and computer power to sequence whole genomes is simply too big for sequencing one or a few individual genomes (you currently need to invest a few millions to get started with the sequencing of whole genomes). You can DIY sequencing of small fragments (for example, to determine whether a known genetic cause of a hereditary disease that is looming in your family is also affecting you) but it still requires quite a few skills in molecular biology and a few thousand euros/dollars of investment to get to this level.
We've been observing this decrease over the last few years at our sequencing lab too. Some people might find it fascinating, but I, as a bioinformatician, find it frightening.
We're still keeping up at maintaining and analysing our sequenced reads and genomes at work, but the amount of incoming sequencing data (currently a few terabytes of data per month) is increasing four-to-five-fold per year (compared to doubling each 18-24 months in Moore's law). Our lab had the first human genomes at the end of 2009 after waiting for almost 9 years since the world's first human genome, now we're getting a few genomes per month. We're not too far away of running out of installing sufficient processing power (following Moore's law) and no longer being able to process all of this data.
So yes, the more-than-exponential decrease in sequencing costs is cool and offers a lot of possibilities in getting to know your own genome, advances in personalized medicine, and possibilities for population-wide genome sequencing research, but there's no way we'll be able to process all of this interesting data because Moore's law is simply way too slow as compared to advances in biochemical technologies.
Nothing beats http://tweak.tk/ which provides new domain names as shortened URLs!
You're confusing going one-way and the whole trip. Go to Mars = 39 days, stay at mars = 10 days, come back to earth = 39 days, total = about 3 months.
How about getting an electric scooter? It's a proven concept. And it doesn't look as awkward.
Answering this question from the viewpoint of IT, CS or electronics in general, yes, I have the same feeling.
However, if you look at other sciences, like biology, there's an amazing evolution of technologies, methodologies and revolutionizing new insights that are going to change the world around is, possibly in more disruptive ways than computers have. If the 20th century is the century of computers, we're still strongly believing that the 21st century will see (and is seeing) a lot of revolutions in biology.
So if you feel, like me, that CS is dead and still want to go on a technological quest, try something else.
I wasn't aware that was Bono's last name...
There was an episode where they tested whether a cell phone could blow up a chamber filled with gas. It took a whole lot more than a cell phone for the cabin to blow up.
You already had five, and I couldn't agree more with Nature's podcasts, excellent show on the latest from the magazine. Maybe not independent, but certainly fascinating.
There have been 6 explosions on the underground, and one bus has been blasted.
Emergency services are reacting extremely organized and coordinated.
Numbers of casualities are unknown for now.
Please note that the impactor contained electronics and stuff to manoeuver.
The sibling post of this one, which says the object needs to be in orbit in order to be a satellite, gives the correct definition of a satellite.
A block of copper can thus be a satellite, but the impactor was clearly not orbiting the comet.
You see?
This is quite likely the finest result Nasa has had for a long time.
Don't forget the gigantic success of the Cassini-Huygens mission from January which was a huge success, partly for NASA and the Mars Exploratioon Rovers which are still strolling around Mars!
No one slammed a "satellite" into a comet, but rather a space ship released an impactor that crashed into the comet.
In fact, Tempel 1 will impact on July 4th at 05:52 UTC
developpers, developpers, developpers!
Hm these guys at Nokia forgot putting a mobile phone into this thing...
You can find the stuff you need at amazon for $14.40.
that's like running windows ...
This is what they replied to my mail. It is very lengthy and they seem to have such letters prepared beforehand. He didn't even feel the need to put my name in the header.
................
Dear
Thank you for informing us about the bogus paper.
One of our reviewers had already informed us about a paper that seemed to be a joke, as he named it, and he proposed to start making a list of this kind of persons that are taking valuable time of several reviewers and members of the Program and Organizing committees of the conferences. I am not sure how unethical are these bogus submissions, and if there is some way to detect all of them in a large conference.
In our acceptance e-mails we were very explicit about the reasons we had in accepting a small percentage of papers as "non-reviewed papers". We expressed clearly that by the acceptance deadline we had a small percentage of papers for which we received no feedback from the reviewers, in spite of the fact that the submitted papers were sent to at least three reviewers. The pressure we had in sending an acceptance or non-acceptance to the authors of these papers was increasing. We felt it was not fair, not even ethical, to refuse a paper, which refusal was not suggested by its reviewers. Consequently, we considered that one possibility was to accept them as "non-reviewed papers"; until we can have adequate feedback from the reviewers, in which case the paper status would change. The acceptance policy published in the conference web page allowed this kind of acceptation, because in the call for papers and in the web site we have been always clear and explicit that we were accepting not just research papers, but also position papers, case studies, panels, reports, invited papers (which, by definition do not go through the reviewing process) etc. The author(s) of a fake paper accepted as a non re-reviewed one has complete responsibility on the content of the paper.
Some of the authors to whom we offered the possibility of non-reviewed acceptance preferred to withdraw their paper which is understandable and very respectful. Others preferred to wait until we have some review of their paper that would change their paper status and others did not care about this kind of acceptance. As you know, and as it has been written in several books and articles in the area of Scientific and Technical Communications, the functions of conferences are very different from those of journals, and this is why there are conferences with no paper review at all, and very known ones ask for submission of abstract of no more that 50 words. We are trying to find a place between the high formality of the journal and the informality of the conferences. And with the increasing number of papers submission we have been having we tried to have more automated support simultaneously with some adequate level of reviewing. A computer program selects three reviewers and sends the paper automatically to randomly selected reviewers, from the paper's area. Our intension in doing so was to provide support for this activity and to make it as independent as possible from the Organizing Committee, so the selection is not biased by human selection. This apparently opened the door for some people to send bogus papers. Since we did not receive review for some of these papers, and we thought that it was not fair to reject a non rejected paper, we accepted them as non-reviewed ones, which was allowed by our stated acceptance policy. As you see, with the intention to be fair, we were treated unfairly by those who silently were sending bogus papers.
Based on the fact, stated in the call for papers and web sites, since the first conference we organized, that we were accepting not just research papers, we had the acceptance policy of accepting a small percentage of non-reviewed papers. We made it explicit in the conference web site that "If the reviewers selected for reviewing a given paper do not make their respective reviews before the papers acceptance deadline,
I think it is really blatant for your conference that a randomly generated paper has been accepted for presentation, without having at least one reviewer to look at the contents of the paper! Academically, you should be ashamed and I'm wondering what your opinion is for what has happened recently with the peer reviewing process of your conference. Note that I will not be the sole person around not to trust any of the other papers accepted for publication, and I can't be more sorry for the people who have submitted their honest and dedicated work to your conference.
... when launching such big projects. "Tet" is dutch slang for "boobie". So I read the new bot's name as a "boobie walker"...
This is excellent! I'm constantly using full screen consoles with white text on a black background. This technology may give command line users excellent uptimes!
I just want to point out that Varese, working at Philips labs (of the consumer electronics), has also been experimenting with electronic music, publishing their first results in 1917, far ahead of the tape recording in this article.
You can read more here
I must say the parent post is very inflammatory, partisan, based on interpretations of plausible scenarios and very off topic. This type of discussion belongs in political fora, I don't think it has anything to do with "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters".
Oh, I'm a Belgian citizen too.
As John states in his presentation, he is not a real pollster and his data is awfully skewed, so I can't have one look at it without doubts.