No, it's an existing gene. The patent usually works by stating the gene in question has been determined to do x and they write the patent so it loosly covers anything that might interact with that gene to alter or manipulate its function, hence they effectivly hold a patent on the gene.
Sadly, unless the courts in each respective country declare this type of patent to be invalid, this in only the beginning of a long, long process. All those patents. In all the countries. Tested one or two, or even a handful at a time... The patents might expire before the issue of patentability of the human genome (or any naturally occuring genome, for that matter) is resolved.
I believe Keith Cowing from http://nasawatch.com/ put it best when he commented on Senator Hutchison and then Senator Shelby's statements:
Keith's note: This is hilarious. Ares 1-X was a suborbital mission with a fake second stage, a first stage motor different than the final one, and used borrowed avionics. Falcon 9 flew an operational vehicle first time out of the hanagr and put a payload into orbit at a small fraction of the cost that an Ares would require. Falcon 9 has a better chance of closing the gap than Ares 1 will. Apparently the good senator (her staff that is) are utterly unaware of the fact that Ares 1 will not achieve any of its milestones until after Falcon 9 has already done so. Yet we never hear anything from her about that, do we?
As for Sen Shelby's comments, It would seem that SpaceX is better equipped to do what "NASA accomplished in 1964" than the NASA of 2010 can accomplish - and do so faster - and more cheaply. Ares 1 would cost much more and be ready later than Falcon 9.
Since we're guessing... I'm thinking your plan is plan C. I'm thinking plan A is to tie them up and start them on a medication regime using the anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, etc. that they most likely have in their medical kit.
On the real mission, a significant fraction of that 500 days would be spent ON Mars. (how cool would that be!). Want to get away from the hab. and go for a walk, no problem. Just suit up and go. You would NOT be locked up in an enclosed environment like these folks are.
Which is a nice lead in to my question: Do they have duck tape, hand cuffs, drugs (to sedate the aggressor), and stun guns available? You know, in the event one of them go a little crazy and develop some phychopathic tendencies...
Yes, The guys at Samuel Adams have done something special there... I believe they also age their premium stuff in barrels, not unlike whiskey. It's atypical though.
Except for the addition of hops and the lack of aging in a suitable barrel, this high alcohol content beer is... wait for it... whiskey.
Maximum alcohol content via fermentation alone is on the order of 10-15%, after which the yeast tend to die. Higher concentrations are achieved by distillation.
Well, since we're only just starting to understand how memory is stored at a molecular level... Starting with a super simple system (the snail) and looking at how a chemical alters that system, it's not impossible to see how this research might have some value in understanding how memory is processed and stored. There are similarities, even if a snail looks nothing like a human.
OK, a low per capita usage does not mean they can move 1000's of people per gallon. a low per capita usage can be indicative that many of the people simply don't have access to the fuel, or never move beyond walking distance of their birthplace.
as to the CSX commercial... passenger train cars are more lightly loaded and are run in smaller strings than the freight cars on a CSX train. yes, Amtrak is considerably more fuel efficient than the average Chevy; but, it doesn't match the efficiency of bulk freight transport. Amtrak's own website says they're 28% more efficient per passenger mile (at 2835 BTU/passenger mile) than the typical car.
Maybe it's an 11 year cycle on top of a 400 year cycle. Maybe there's a number of cycles at work with odd harmonics and resonances that will appear from time to time.
Plymouth Feather Duster could do 36mpg on the highway. Aluminum instead of steel. 170 cu.in. 6 cyl. Not fast, but that wasn't the point -- if you wanted fast you could order it with a 340 and pay for the fuel.
No, it's not safe to assume that all stars have planets around them... Many stars are binaries and closely orbiting binary stars might tend to toss any planets out of the system. Having said that, our closest neighbor (a trinary system of Proxima, Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B) is calculated to have somewhat stable orbital zones.
The likelyhood is that there will be something orbiting every star, because, as you say, it's all formed out of condensed clouds of stuff. Knowing they're probably there... and actually seeing them. Worlds of difference.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's an existing gene. The patent usually works by stating the gene in question has been determined to do x and they write the patent so it loosly covers anything that might interact with that gene to alter or manipulate its function, hence they effectivly hold a patent on the gene.
Sadly, unless the courts in each respective country declare this type of patent to be invalid, this in only the beginning of a long, long process. All those patents. In all the countries. Tested one or two, or even a handful at a time... The patents might expire before the issue of patentability of the human genome (or any naturally occuring genome, for that matter) is resolved.
Treated to tea and cookies?
Keith's note: This is hilarious. Ares 1-X was a suborbital mission with a fake second stage, a first stage motor different than the final one, and used borrowed avionics. Falcon 9 flew an operational vehicle first time out of the hanagr and put a payload into orbit at a small fraction of the cost that an Ares would require. Falcon 9 has a better chance of closing the gap than Ares 1 will. Apparently the good senator (her staff that is) are utterly unaware of the fact that Ares 1 will not achieve any of its milestones until after Falcon 9 has already done so. Yet we never hear anything from her about that, do we?
As for Sen Shelby's comments, It would seem that SpaceX is better equipped to do what "NASA accomplished in 1964" than the NASA of 2010 can accomplish - and do so faster - and more cheaply. Ares 1 would cost much more and be ready later than Falcon 9.
Be better off using a version of Mac OS X that runs on PPC.
Yes. Excellent use of the meme!
Since we're guessing... I'm thinking your plan is plan C. I'm thinking plan A is to tie them up and start them on a medication regime using the anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, etc. that they most likely have in their medical kit.
They all die.
On the real mission, a significant fraction of that 500 days would be spent ON Mars. (how cool would that be!). Want to get away from the hab. and go for a walk, no problem. Just suit up and go. You would NOT be locked up in an enclosed environment like these folks are.
Which is a nice lead in to my question: Do they have duck tape, hand cuffs, drugs (to sedate the aggressor), and stun guns available? You know, in the event one of them go a little crazy and develop some phychopathic tendencies...
Ok, so the primary ingredients are peroxide and sodium bicarbonate. Fine.
Am I the only one thinking I almost don't care how bad it is, as long as the end result is I'm alive?
I could have sworn launching the first set of satellites bankrupted the original Iridium owner. Not that that's ever stopped anyone.
How about: 'runas /user:Administrator "get me a blood test"'
Yes, The guys at Samuel Adams have done something special there... I believe they also age their premium stuff in barrels, not unlike whiskey. It's atypical though.
Except for the addition of hops and the lack of aging in a suitable barrel, this high alcohol content beer is ... wait for it ... whiskey.
Maximum alcohol content via fermentation alone is on the order of 10-15%, after which the yeast tend to die. Higher concentrations are achieved by distillation.
Well, since we're only just starting to understand how memory is stored at a molecular level... Starting with a super simple system (the snail) and looking at how a chemical alters that system, it's not impossible to see how this research might have some value in understanding how memory is processed and stored. There are similarities, even if a snail looks nothing like a human.
OK, a low per capita usage does not mean they can move 1000's of people per gallon. a low per capita usage can be indicative that many of the people simply don't have access to the fuel, or never move beyond walking distance of their birthplace.
as to the CSX commercial... passenger train cars are more lightly loaded and are run in smaller strings than the freight cars on a CSX train. yes, Amtrak is considerably more fuel efficient than the average Chevy; but, it doesn't match the efficiency of bulk freight transport. Amtrak's own website says they're 28% more efficient per passenger mile (at 2835 BTU/passenger mile) than the typical car.
Maybe it's an 11 year cycle on top of a 400 year cycle. Maybe there's a number of cycles at work with odd harmonics and resonances that will appear from time to time.
My keyboard only has 26... I feel robbed.
My v8 Nova got 15 mpg in town and around 20 mpg cruising on the highway.
If China can turn one gallon of fuel into a few hundred miles of transport per person,
I'd like to know where you get that from... Because that's quite literally impossible, unless one of the following is true:
They're walking
They're on a train
They're on a large ferry
In the latter two cases a few hundred miles per gallon per person is still pushing it.
Plymouth Feather Duster could do 36mpg on the highway. Aluminum instead of steel. 170 cu.in. 6 cyl. Not fast, but that wasn't the point -- if you wanted fast you could order it with a 340 and pay for the fuel.
No no no. first they'll run it to the 1,000,000 write cycles. Then they'll to 10,000,000. Then they'll break out the home-made thermite.
The Microsoft Natural did help my typing and reduce the fatigue. I don't mind it being wired since it rarely moves.
No, it's not safe to assume that all stars have planets around them... Many stars are binaries and closely orbiting binary stars might tend to toss any planets out of the system. Having said that, our closest neighbor (a trinary system of Proxima, Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B) is calculated to have somewhat stable orbital zones.
The likelyhood is that there will be something orbiting every star, because, as you say, it's all formed out of condensed clouds of stuff. Knowing they're probably there... and actually seeing them. Worlds of difference.