A lot of developers make it regular practice to use helicopter fly-bys to check out parcels of land they are interested in purchasing/developing - or to find new areas in which they may want to purchase/build.
Not always. Many foreclosure sales are done without the ability to see the property (at least other than a cursory outside view). Sometimes the location covers the price regardless of the building, and often a developer will just knock down any existing buildings anyway.
That said, you better know the area well if you're going to do this.
One thing worth inserting is new gene therapies (as they are developed). HIV is a particularly useful transport mechanism for this, as it's already got infestation of cells, delivery of virus RNA into cells, and suppression of the immune system down. Just take out some of the disease-causing mechanisms...
That's what they *cost* IBM, not what IBM would bill them out to a client at. $50/hr => $100K/yr total cost (maybe $60K salary, after you figure in taxes & benefits)
I doubt they could get away with trying to give their billing rate in court.
The main frequencies being used/considered in public safety (in the US) are the 800-900MHz range (for voice communications, and low-bandwidth high-range/high-penetration data) and the 4.9GHz for wifi (some may use the "standard" wifi frequency at 2.4GHz, for the COTS equipment, dual public use, or lower density of repeaters necessary, but they find the idea of having their own dedicated frequency very attractive).
It gets hairier - wind is general a cent or two higher per kWH than conventional, but that includes tax credits (and I'm discussing *only* the US here - I have no idea what the picture looks like in other countries). But then conventional power is subsidized too, it's just better-hidden in the tax structure.
I looked into raising money and building a wind farm in the Western US over the last year, and I discovered a few things:
1. No utility is interested in buying "green power" unless they are mandated to by their state government. 2. Transmission is the real bottleneck; the costs of the required assessments are so high, that it's not practical to build a small (read ~1 MW) wind farm - you really need to think more like 100MW (=>$100M) to make this cost effective. 3. Home-sized wind turbines generate at considerably more cost than grid power - even with the credits. Practical only for off-grid properties, otherwise it's simply a philosophy thing, but not an economically-driven decision.
I am eagerly watching & waiting for the "market" to ease up and make smaller-time investments & projects possible.
Also hard to maintain, being underwater, and tend to need to be located on spots of coast that people would rather use as beaches. I also imagine a more avid tree-hugger than myself could come up with some marine creature whose habitat and livelihood is damaged by these...
(Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that the CIA and the NSA are different agencies. However, that shouldn't preclude one learning from the other's foul-ups.)
Yes, it should. These are huge, independent agencies. (DHS is a mess, there is *no* meaningful interaction, even now). Why would they "learn" from each other? Especially about something so minor. Seriously, I'd much rather the NSA and CIA compare notes about terrorist plots, than constantly coordinate to make sure that they synch up on minor bits of policy. I'm not giving them a license to break the law, just saying that one screwing up should in no way be an indictment of the other.
Sounds a little like Tradesports.com. They broker bets on non-traditional items like political events. Doesn't seem like a stretch for them to set up a pool on when a particular technology will reach a particular rate of adoption. Turns out that the (dynamically determined) odds that come up do tend to be a pretty good indicator of the likelihood of events.
E-ink, an MIT Media Lab spinoff, has been working on this since ~1997. They have products to market, although you can't yet get your local paper on it...:-\
Nobody should think they'll actually make money at this. The # of hours required for the $ earned is going to far exceed what a competent programmer could earn doing standard contracting work. And that's not to mention that there may be multiple people working towards one "bounty" at the same time, winner-take-all. And don't forget about scope creep - from one of the limewire projects... "The code is done when we say it's done".
That said, I don't disapprove of this - just want to clarify that open source is still basically a volunteer effort, and while this is a nice token and perhaps a nice incentive, it shouldn't be confused with actual contract work or a means of livelihood.
Yes, that's the idea. I think the challenge is finding an engineer with both the CS and the bio background to take advantage. This is an area that really interests me, and as I'm researching it I find that I have trouble really understanding the context and even the problems in biology that need to be solved at anything more than a layman's bird's-eye view.
Hopefully as these tools evolve, they'll do so in a way that helps to abstract the gory details of cellular biology in much the way that high-level programming languages abstract away the bits & registers inside your CPU.
Re:Is it really that synthetic?
on
Writing Genetic Code
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But I don't think you can call an organism synthetic if all you are doing is injecting synthetic DNA into a pre-existing organism.
Can you call a piece of (traditional computer) software your own (i.e. synthetic) if it mostly runs API functions provided by the (pre-existing) OS or a third-party library?
Eventually, with software simulation tools. As soon as we either come up with hardware/algorithms that can perform protein folding and in-silico simulation in a reasonable amount of time, or understand protein functions better to the point that we can use algorithmic "tricks" to simulate it with present-day processing power.
Well these "programs" are likely to reproduce by themselves, given that they are bacteria... what is the ownership of a (computer) virus? It reproduces itself - and if you're not careful, you might be running an unlicensed copy of that virus. Does that mean that you owe the virus writer a license fee?
It's late & I'm feeling pretty incoherent - does my analogy even make any sense?:-)
The way I see it, the existing bacteria is just a DNA-compiler.
Specifically, I think the ribosome corresponds nicely to the compiler - it translates the RNA into the final protein product by performing mappings of codons (DNA/RNA triplets) into the amino acids that make up the proteins. I'd think of the bacteria as a whole more as the operating environment - different systems states, etc.
Now what would be interesting is to re-engineer the ribosome to compile DNA/RNA differently. Check out this blog entry on the subject.
I think one of the biggest challenges isn't in synthesizing strings of DNA, per se - it's in knowing what DNA to synthesize. The real holy grail of synthetic biology is to engineer genetic functions to accomplish a particular goal - design to spec. From the average/. POV, this means "programming" genes in some high-level language (C++ DNA lib, anyone?). Take a look at The Registry of Standard Biological Parts for a first library of genetic "functions".
As I understand it, the current state-of-the-art in terms of programming DNA is basic logic gates that still tend to lose coherence when connected together. Once this is accomplished (best guess, 3-4 years from now to work out the basic science), all of the sophisticated tools and techniques developed by the IT community over the last decade(s) can be rapidly applied, and that goal of design/build to spec will become possible.
The public doesn't line-item vote on each science experiment. Science funding lives or dies as a whole. And the public's general attitude towards science influences the politicians who write the budgets. Incremental improvements in, say, microbiology happen because those improvements came from the public's general desire to push towards cancer & AIDS cures. Not because the public wanted one particular genetic structure examined and sequenced.
Or we could talk about private funding - say a private university that receives the funding for a particular research lab from a wealthy alumnus. Same idea here - that alumnus was wooed and wooed heavily by the university (most major universities have pretty scary "alumni relations" departments), and sold on a general concept. Average alum isn't gonna understand or care about a particular esoteric experiment. He's sold on that lab's stated goals in the big picture.
Finally, let's talk about corporate funding - corporate research lab. Don't think I need to say much here - the corporation does research based almost entirely on what avenues they think will produce profitable products in the future. (And yes, plenty of labs do research that won't generate a short-term product, but they still pick those avenues of inquiry strategically).
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me this would be exactly why Google finds it interesting - providing tools to find the "diamonds in the rough" is exactly what they do!
A lot of developers make it regular practice to use helicopter fly-bys to check out parcels of land they are interested in purchasing/developing - or to find new areas in which they may want to purchase/build.
Not always. Many foreclosure sales are done without the ability to see the property (at least other than a cursory outside view). Sometimes the location covers the price regardless of the building, and often a developer will just knock down any existing buildings anyway.
That said, you better know the area well if you're going to do this.
One thing worth inserting is new gene therapies (as they are developed). HIV is a particularly useful transport mechanism for this, as it's already got infestation of cells, delivery of virus RNA into cells, and suppression of the immune system down. Just take out some of the disease-causing mechanisms...
That's what they *cost* IBM, not what IBM would bill them out to a client at. $50/hr => $100K/yr total cost (maybe $60K salary, after you figure in taxes & benefits)
I doubt they could get away with trying to give their billing rate in court.
Check out Integraf HOLOKITS. Or google "holography kits" - there's plenty.
Similar recommendation: if you find yourself in Boston, the MIT Museum has the world's largest collection of holography.
In the US, most people have an option to purchase only "green" power from the utilities, but they actually have to pay a premium.
The main frequencies being used/considered in public safety (in the US) are the 800-900MHz range (for voice communications, and low-bandwidth high-range/high-penetration data) and the 4.9GHz for wifi (some may use the "standard" wifi frequency at 2.4GHz, for the COTS equipment, dual public use, or lower density of repeaters necessary, but they find the idea of having their own dedicated frequency very attractive).
It gets hairier - wind is general a cent or two higher per kWH than conventional, but that includes tax credits (and I'm discussing *only* the US here - I have no idea what the picture looks like in other countries). But then conventional power is subsidized too, it's just better-hidden in the tax structure.
I looked into raising money and building a wind farm in the Western US over the last year, and I discovered a few things:
1. No utility is interested in buying "green power" unless they are mandated to by their state government.
2. Transmission is the real bottleneck; the costs of the required assessments are so high, that it's not practical to build a small (read ~1 MW) wind farm - you really need to think more like 100MW (=>$100M) to make this cost effective.
3. Home-sized wind turbines generate at considerably more cost than grid power - even with the credits. Practical only for off-grid properties, otherwise it's simply a philosophy thing, but not an economically-driven decision.
I am eagerly watching & waiting for the "market" to ease up and make smaller-time investments & projects possible.
Also hard to maintain, being underwater, and tend to need to be located on spots of coast that people would rather use as beaches. I also imagine a more avid tree-hugger than myself could come up with some marine creature whose habitat and livelihood is damaged by these...
(Disclaimer: Yes, I am aware that the CIA and the NSA are different agencies. However, that shouldn't preclude one learning from the other's foul-ups.)
Yes, it should. These are huge, independent agencies. (DHS is a mess, there is *no* meaningful interaction, even now). Why would they "learn" from each other? Especially about something so minor. Seriously, I'd much rather the NSA and CIA compare notes about terrorist plots, than constantly coordinate to make sure that they synch up on minor bits of policy. I'm not giving them a license to break the law, just saying that one screwing up should in no way be an indictment of the other.
Sounds a little like Tradesports.com. They broker bets on non-traditional items like political events. Doesn't seem like a stretch for them to set up a pool on when a particular technology will reach a particular rate of adoption. Turns out that the (dynamically determined) odds that come up do tend to be a pretty good indicator of the likelihood of events.
E-ink, an MIT Media Lab spinoff, has been working on this since ~1997. They have products to market, although you can't yet get your local paper on it... :-\
. html
http://www.e-ink.com/products/matrix/imaging_film
Nobody should think they'll actually make money at this. The # of hours required for the $ earned is going to far exceed what a competent programmer could earn doing standard contracting work. And that's not to mention that there may be multiple people working towards one "bounty" at the same time, winner-take-all. And don't forget about scope creep - from one of the limewire projects... "The code is done when we say it's done".
That said, I don't disapprove of this - just want to clarify that open source is still basically a volunteer effort, and while this is a nice token and perhaps a nice incentive, it shouldn't be confused with actual contract work or a means of livelihood.
If you've got another 4 billion years to wait around for your "product"...
Yes, that's the idea. I think the challenge is finding an engineer with both the CS and the bio background to take advantage. This is an area that really interests me, and as I'm researching it I find that I have trouble really understanding the context and even the problems in biology that need to be solved at anything more than a layman's bird's-eye view.
Hopefully as these tools evolve, they'll do so in a way that helps to abstract the gory details of cellular biology in much the way that high-level programming languages abstract away the bits & registers inside your CPU.
But I don't think you can call an organism synthetic if all you are doing is injecting synthetic DNA into a pre-existing organism.
Can you call a piece of (traditional computer) software your own (i.e. synthetic) if it mostly runs API functions provided by the (pre-existing) OS or a third-party library?
Eventually, with software simulation tools. As soon as we either come up with hardware/algorithms that can perform protein folding and in-silico simulation in a reasonable amount of time, or understand protein functions better to the point that we can use algorithmic "tricks" to simulate it with present-day processing power.
Well these "programs" are likely to reproduce by themselves, given that they are bacteria... what is the ownership of a (computer) virus? It reproduces itself - and if you're not careful, you might be running an unlicensed copy of that virus. Does that mean that you owe the virus writer a license fee?
:-)
It's late & I'm feeling pretty incoherent - does my analogy even make any sense?
The way I see it, the existing bacteria is just a DNA-compiler.
Specifically, I think the ribosome corresponds nicely to the compiler - it translates the RNA into the final protein product by performing mappings of codons (DNA/RNA triplets) into the amino acids that make up the proteins. I'd think of the bacteria as a whole more as the operating environment - different systems states, etc.
Now what would be interesting is to re-engineer the ribosome to compile DNA/RNA differently. Check out this blog entry on the subject.
I think one of the biggest challenges isn't in synthesizing strings of DNA, per se - it's in knowing what DNA to synthesize. The real holy grail of synthetic biology is to engineer genetic functions to accomplish a particular goal - design to spec. From the average /. POV, this means "programming" genes in some high-level language (C++ DNA lib, anyone?). Take a look at The Registry of Standard Biological Parts for a first library of genetic "functions".
As I understand it, the current state-of-the-art in terms of programming DNA is basic logic gates that still tend to lose coherence when connected together. Once this is accomplished (best guess, 3-4 years from now to work out the basic science), all of the sophisticated tools and techniques developed by the IT community over the last decade(s) can be rapidly applied, and that goal of design/build to spec will become possible.
He should arrange some of the lights into an electronic billboard to help cover costs. :-)
The public doesn't line-item vote on each science experiment. Science funding lives or dies as a whole. And the public's general attitude towards science influences the politicians who write the budgets. Incremental improvements in, say, microbiology happen because those improvements came from the public's general desire to push towards cancer & AIDS cures. Not because the public wanted one particular genetic structure examined and sequenced.
Or we could talk about private funding - say a private university that receives the funding for a particular research lab from a wealthy alumnus. Same idea here - that alumnus was wooed and wooed heavily by the university (most major universities have pretty scary "alumni relations" departments), and sold on a general concept. Average alum isn't gonna understand or care about a particular esoteric experiment. He's sold on that lab's stated goals in the big picture.
Finally, let's talk about corporate funding - corporate research lab. Don't think I need to say much here - the corporation does research based almost entirely on what avenues they think will produce profitable products in the future. (And yes, plenty of labs do research that won't generate a short-term product, but they still pick those avenues of inquiry strategically).
That's why creationists receive media attention; media obsession with the underdog.
How about a strong lobby with the party in power, and a well-organized, strongly coherent, and rather vocal voting bloc?