If life extension requires cellular / genetic modification what can be done, in terms of positively raising awarness about human cellular modification, to prevent governments from banning this nacient science?
Have you ever considered that you might swap out the whole power pack and drop in a fresh one. The old power units would then be shipped to charging points closer to the point of generation.
"Filling stations" become "battery loading stations" "Petrol Tankers" are replaced "battery delivery vehicles"
Now your power packs are charged close to source, and you filling times could be made shorter than those to fill your tank.
To often people say "No can't be done" instead of thinking "how"
It's important to think about the impediments you put forward and not to confuse simple engineering issue with real show stoppers.
Interesting post and thank you for sharing as this also sums up my perception of the media here in the UK too. We assume a free press but events happen which just don't see the light of day in the media or at best are significantly under reported. Particularly in the case of protests if they contradict the medias world view.
After all in 2012 in the UK you'll have:
Tracking technology is being developed that can enable a spectator to be tracked from the venue to his or her home with the tickets, what Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur calls "end-to-end tracking of tickets". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7340174.stm
First, we do have bias in all ways. You just need to read news from multiple sources to get it. You can't expect one source to be biased in multiple ways. Most sources who want something like that just try for unbiased. My post began about bias. I don't see why I should just accept continued bias in my media, just because thats the way its always been? Bias when it contiunally denegrates one race of people is just wrong.
A simple way to avoid bias is to try and put things into context, try and see things through another cultures eyes which is what the rest of my post was about.
You also seem to think that it's ok for the government to censor what its citizens can see because some people died. I don't care what their intentions are. That this is allowed means it can be abused. Context: 40,000 people dead 3 days of mourning declared. The question is, in this instance, is it right to stop people watching entertainment going to clubs and bars watching game shows and generally participating in frivalous activitites and to make them take stock of what has happened?
Yes the process can be abused, But I find it interesting that you feel that this instance is an abuse of something that ultimately all goverment do do some degree.
Maybe when 9/11 happened they only got "we interupt this show to bring you a news flash" before returning viewers to their oblivion of watching "The Price is Right" 5 mins later and maybe some people were upset by the interuption to their entertainment viewing.
The Specific instances of "abuse" here is just a subset of omnipitant control. You quite rightly are rialing against the latter but you have chosen for your example a specific instance which, in one shape or form, is endemic of the more general kind of control that most civilisation exert over media.
Anyway, now on to the more important issue. Let me spell this out, because it seems you don't get it:
Responsibility is not control. Correct "responsibility is not control" Do you have a responsible press or one controlled by laws
You have laws for what you can and can't say and when you can say it. Laws are brought into effect by the government (Lible, Incitement, National Security, etc). The Government control the limits of what is said.... THEY DO NOT rely on responsibility because to differing degress (depending on the government) they believe people will abuse it. The Chinese case is just a particularly heavy handed version where they control the limits and the "word" of what is said.
The way that Governments intereact with media varies across a spectrum. In the west a significant investment is made in Spin and PR to direct the "word" of the press, in china they just slap the button.
Are we really in so much more control in the west, Main stream media is controlled by just a few individuals, editors have varing degrees of control, but are selected by the media's owners?
We were certainly sold a cock and bull story over Iraq which was carried to us by the mainstream media. Even the coverage of that war appears to be dominated by "embedded reporters". Control in that instance is exercised to "preserve moral".
Let me say it even more clearly:
Responsibility cannot exist with control. Are you suggesting that the "free press" can ignore the law. The "free press" has to stick to the rules it is given by Government.
If I don't let you push a button, are you responsible for not pushing it? No. I am. If the press cannot report on certain things, it cannot be responsible. It is just subservient. So the press in the West is subserviant to those who set the laws and those that own the media, believe me this is not trivial.
So if you want to argue further, please learn the terminology and start making sense. You want to warp up a very complicated subject in a few sentences, without taking into account all the side issues.
If this was so easy to deal with then please tell me why we don't have a "completely free" press in the West where everyone can just say exactly what they want without fear of procecution.
I couldn't resist answering your idiotic post that just asked lots of pointless, stupid questions (without a question mark no less!), that seemed to lead the reader into random circles of thought like a labyrinth with no exit.
A lot of questions because its a complicated subject with many things to take into account.
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot.
Um, do you even read Slashdot? Point to one topic here that isn't covered in a biased manner.
Fair enough lets have bias both ways some stories bias one way some bias the other. If bias is constantly one way then something appears to be wrong.
You didn't need to dig very far to find out that China is in 3 days of mourning.
So if the government declares a day of mourning, I'm not allowed to laugh at a funny television show? That sounds completely unhealthy. I don't care what your culture is.
Maybe they are trying to encourage people to take an interest in their fellow human beaing around them. The general sentiment in many of these articles is that people doggedly believe that the government don't care about its people. My experiance of actually going there and seeing what they are trying to do is that they do care. They may not go about thing in the way that we would like, but they do it in their own way which works for them.
You guys appear intellegent but incapable of independent thought when it comes to China.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
Ooh, this one's easy. Responsible reporting and control have nothing to do with each other. If it's controlled, it's propaganda, not reporting. Deal with it.
Responsible reporting and control have everthing to do with each other.
Take the UK headline "immigrants responsible for most crime in UK" responsible reporting probably not. Look at the situation in South africa where at the moment there is major civil discontent and violence targeted towards immigrants. Would you run the same headline there.
You would argue no one would do it the press would be responsible. You might say publish anything like this and I will proescute you for incitement. In saying that you have just controlled the press.
That is the connection between responsible reporting and control
The difference between their press and ours is that their controls are blunt, unsophiticated and indiscriminantly wielded. Ours are more subtil but there never the less, more of that later.
Control is not just about propoganda, it's also about trying limit damage and also civil unrest
The interesting thing is that you believe that this is not true in the west.
With respect to Propoganda. Do you believe the american press is free of government propoganda?
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means.
Another easy one. It means the press can report whatever they like without fear of being prosecuted for it.
But we know that they can't say whatever they like without being prosecuted even in the west. They have to stick to certain rules.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West?
So what? The US started off with lots of poor farmers, too. I frankly don't see how this can have anything to do with freedom of the press. Do people get docked pay every time a reporter criticizes the government?
Poverty and lack of education combined with ethinic tensions have a lot to do with civic unrest. 800 million people stuggling to live. All you need is someone
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot.
You didn't need to dig very far to find out that China is in 3 days of mourning.
You guys appear intellegent but incapable of independent thought when it comes to China.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West?
Yeah that would really work. Reporting without responsibility great invention.
A truely free press is a dangerous thing. It allows everyone to peddle whatever truth the desire and to encourage others to believe it.
Do you believe that any Western country allows a truely free press in that sense.
Push a negative story a little, someone starts a rumor, and you have a blood bath on your hands.
In the UK many kinds of story are not covered here by agreement between the press and Government. There is a code of practice for journalist and editors covering what should be reported.
The reason you have this is to try to instil some degree of responsibility into the press. Even with this totally ficticious and inflamatory stories are still run.
But in the west we don't have anything like the same kind of ethnic tensions that they have other countries.
And come on tell me you are not sick of reading the papers or watching the news in the West. Why because you know it's bias and not the whole story.
The very reason you come online and use a site like Slashdot is that you want to be able to shout back at those stories.
Only problem is that on the internet there is no code of ehtical practice. So everyone says what they want and we end up with some really nasty hate being shifted around the world fueling people prejudices.
The idea of a totally free press is a noble idea which totally does not take into account human nature.
You miss the point. this article is mearly a chance for the uninformed to take a jab at their current pet hate.
Slashdot seems to have got into the habit of pushing articles with an anti chinese bias lately.
The fact that many commentators know nothing about the subject of their hate other than what everyone else is chanting is totally irrelavant.
Then you should worry about the absolutly huge volumes of gasseous C02 naturally trapped under ground.... and yes these traps can rupture naturally too. Many large gas discoveries are left because they contain too much C02. Generally with gas reserves the CO2 is seperated out till you can get down to about 8% C02 and the rest is vented to the atmosphere.
Of course in the bigger picture of things you should really be looking at the methane. If you think of all the natural gas that humanity has ever burned, this only represents gas that was trapped. The tapped fraction is minute compared to the actual amount generated which generally migrates eventually to the surface,in the absence of a trap, or even more fun is traped at the seafloor as Gas Hydrates.
I wonder if people ever include this stuff in their climate models? Or do they assume that the natural release of methane and CO2 contributes only as a smoothly varying natural background over short periods of time.
This natural release of gas is orders of magnitude greater than human production and the rate at which it is released to the atmosphere in geological time probably does does not vary smoothly but is heightened during periods of high seismic activity, rapid burial or orogeny.
Exactly... Now if I was the American or British government wanting to find out about india I would go go though some easily hacked server in a third party county...er like China
First question you have to ask is who owns all these patents are they americans or foriegn companies/individuals. If its the latter then your patent system is working against you to make you less competivitve. In fact it could even kill whole industries. Is that what you really want?
Maybe a few more comments like George's will help to stimulate the market for cheaper quality camera equipment.
Although equipment is no substitute for a good story, cheaper quality equipment does at least lower the barrier to entry.
A camera that can shoot HD straight to disk or memory while maintaining good dynamic range would make a big impact for those who have to produce on a budget.
I keep trying to think how feasible this is. It can't be that far off:
You would probably need: Minimum 15 megabytes per frame (Raw) Recording at between 30fps and 60fps So that would be 450 - 900 magabytes per second sustained (uncompressed) So uncompressed data transfer seems to be a limitation. Unless you are multiplexing the frames over interfaces in parallel.
Storage: You would probably want to be able to shoot for half an hour before changing cartridges So you would need between 810Gig and 1.62 TB
Sensor cost will be the factor but hey that must be dropping pretty heavily now.
You are dead right and raise an interesting point. A non living thing which encapsulates DNA(or RNA) is the obvious precuror to life. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have a host as long as it can self assemble at some level
The thing that I constantly come back to thinking is that this precursor must still around today, its probably pretty ephemeral and easily missed, but there should still be a lot of it around. It may be limited to areas where conditions are simlilar to early earth conditions. But it must still be there.
Afterall the huge amount biological material floating around the planet would constantly bring some of the precursors together.
Er...not quite...there was follow up research that showed no signs of repair to heart tissue in the mice. Sorry I don't have the link to hand but google around the subject. I think the new research was 2005...oh all right i'll look it up for you.
Try this:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/mcrc/lepore/publications /MRL%20mice%20fail%20to%20heal.pdf
Heart tiussue is notoriously non-regenerative. Thats not to say you can't grow it but that so far it has not been clearly shown that it will regenerate.
I would note that the Wistar Institute mice may have some more genetic changes but if they did I don't think they reported it.
"THEY ARE NOT AFTER *YOU* is the main thing to remember"
While this may be true at the moment it may not be true in the future. You are assuming that government will always be benign and that you will not take a political stance against any non benign government.
Governments especially in times of crisis can change for the worse. How would you oppose a non benign government which has advanced tools which peer into every aspect of your life. Dissenters can be rapidly targeted and removed with ease, freedom of speech won't save you in that situation.
You only have to look at history to see how many times bad political changes have happened in the past and that was before governments had such powerful tools to potentially supress people.
What is a stem cell, it is a bunch of DNA with some surrounding cellular machinary. It is the same DNA, give or take, that you have in every cell. Given the correct chemical stimulus and processing you may be able to encourage many cell types into this state. We just don't have a good handle on the cellular biochemisty to be able to do this at the moment.
On this assumption it may be possible to create new life from any part of you which has it's full compliment of DNA.
In this context, you would seem to be suggest that we should treat everything with Human DNA as a fully fleged human being. Clearly this is impracticle.
"Impractical" may seem a strange word but that is how society is. It tries to be practical and it uses money as it's measure.
For instance motorway speed limits, knock 10mph off the maximum speed limit and you will save a whole pile of lives, lives are important right you can't put a value on them? However lower the speed limit and people have to move around slower. In the end the speed limit is set at a practicle level even though we know it will cause more deaths than one even 5mph lower. It's practicle
How much is a human life worth, well in the UK it depends entirely on how much it will cost to fix it and how much money your regional health authority is willing to spend on that procedure. If they don't have the money say £20,000 for cancer drugs or an operation and you can't afford it either. Then unlucky you are dead.
Society always puts a practicle value on things, it may be distastful or distubing to you but thats the way life is. Trying to get every cell treated as a human being just won't fly and is even less likely to do so in the future.
er.. almost anything that uses cilla for locamotion harnesses rotory motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_protein If you have not come across these before then check the out they are facinating. Nature is way ahead of what we have achieved so far
I suspect that the problem is that there are a number of labs who are on the brink of achieving this for themselves, or at least that is maybe how the Koreans percieved it. Hence the pressure was on to come up with the result quickly. Which may be why this particular route with all its twists and turns was taken.
Its possible that they came up with some valid results, which can, and will need to be, replicated. Reading the scientific press though it just sounds like somone just wants to discredit the whole thing.
9 out of eleven results altered. Interestingly the scientific press are not interested in having the results verified they are just after blood.
Of course there is a good reason for this in that it maintains standards but I would like to know if the two unaltered results are still valid and statistically of importance.
1. Move your IP standard to match those in the US
2. Patent you new stuff based on your standards at home and abroad
3. Supply your new equipment at cost into new markets
4. Dominate the market
5. Up your prices fractionally
6. Profit until some other country does the same to you
The US IP laws are really a rod for their own backs. IP people just don't seem to get that they can be totally out competed and then have their own IP laws used against them by foriegn companies to exclude them from their own domestic markets..or am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
There are tortoise that live to 200
Clams that live to 400 trees,
Pine trees that live to several thousand,
You would think we would be knee deep in the things by now
If life extension requires cellular / genetic modification what can be done, in terms of positively raising awarness about human cellular modification, to prevent governments from banning this nacient science?
Apologies I didn't see this post and replied to one above but the points i raised there cover much of this.
In summary:
Filling stations simply remove and insert new power packs.
Old power packs are picked up and returned to the charging station by truck.
The Power pack pickup vehicle simply replaces the fuel tanker which did essentially the equivalent job.
Is today national lack of imagination day or something?
How long does it take to charge batteries?
Hmmm
Have you ever considered that you might swap out the whole power pack and drop in a fresh one. The old power units would then be shipped to charging points closer to the point of generation.
"Filling stations" become "battery loading stations"
"Petrol Tankers" are replaced "battery delivery vehicles"
Now your power packs are charged close to source, and you filling times could be made shorter than those to fill your tank.
To often people say "No can't be done" instead of thinking "how"
It's important to think about the impediments you put forward and not to confuse simple engineering issue with real show stoppers.
At work we have showers and a cycle to work plan, which allows you to offset the cost of the bike.
The main problem is the roads around here are to dangerous to cycle on. So despite the companies good intentions cycling is really just not an option.
Interesting post and thank you for sharing as this also sums up my perception of the media here in the UK too. We assume a free press but events happen which just don't see the light of day in the media or at best are significantly under reported. Particularly in the case of protests if they contradict the medias world view.
(Cough)de Menezes (cough) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
(cough) Abu Ghraib(cough) http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/T/torture/index.html
(cough) Guantanamo (cough)
I suggest you read this and see what the Uk is planning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7340174.stm [bbc.co.uk]
I don't see this as being any different
Just go to the 2012 event
After all in 2012 in the UK you'll have: Tracking technology is being developed that can enable a spectator to be tracked from the venue to his or her home with the tickets, what Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur calls "end-to-end tracking of tickets". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7340174.stm
I am sure that can't be abused
A simple way to avoid bias is to try and put things into context, try and see things through another cultures eyes which is what the rest of my post was about. You also seem to think that it's ok for the government to censor what its citizens can see because some people died.
I don't care what their intentions are. That this is allowed means it can be abused. Context: 40,000 people dead 3 days of mourning declared. The question is, in this instance, is it right to stop people watching entertainment going to clubs and bars watching game shows and generally participating in frivalous activitites and to make them take stock of what has happened?
Yes the process can be abused, But I find it interesting that you feel that this instance is an abuse of something that ultimately all goverment do do some degree.
Maybe when 9/11 happened they only got "we interupt this show to bring you a news flash" before returning viewers to their oblivion of watching "The Price is Right" 5 mins later and maybe some people were upset by the interuption to their entertainment viewing.
The Specific instances of "abuse" here is just a subset of omnipitant control. You quite rightly are rialing against the latter but you have chosen for your example a specific instance which, in one shape or form, is endemic of the more general kind of control that most civilisation exert over media. Anyway, now on to the more important issue. Let me spell this out, because it seems you don't get it:
Responsibility is not control. Correct "responsibility is not control" Do you have a responsible press or one controlled by laws
You have laws for what you can and can't say and when you can say it. Laws are brought into effect by the government (Lible, Incitement, National Security, etc). The Government control the limits of what is said.... THEY DO NOT rely on responsibility because to differing degress (depending on the government) they believe people will abuse it. The Chinese case is just a particularly heavy handed version where they control the limits and the "word" of what is said.
The way that Governments intereact with media varies across a spectrum. In the west a significant investment is made in Spin and PR to direct the "word" of the press, in china they just slap the button.
Are we really in so much more control in the west, Main stream media is controlled by just a few individuals, editors have varing degrees of control, but are selected by the media's owners?
We were certainly sold a cock and bull story over Iraq which was carried to us by the mainstream media. Even the coverage of that war appears to be dominated by "embedded reporters". Control in that instance is exercised to "preserve moral". Let me say it even more clearly:
Responsibility cannot exist with control. Are you suggesting that the "free press" can ignore the law. The "free press" has to stick to the rules it is given by Government. If I don't let you push a button, are you responsible for not pushing it? No. I am. If the press cannot report on certain things, it cannot be responsible. It is just subservient. So the press in the West is subserviant to those who set the laws and those that own the media, believe me this is not trivial. So if you want to argue further, please learn the terminology and start making sense. You want to warp up a very complicated subject in a few sentences, without taking into account all the side issues.
If this was so easy to deal with then please tell me why we don't have a "completely free" press in the West where everyone can just say exactly what they want without fear of procecution.
I couldn't resist answering your idiotic post that just asked lots of pointless, stupid questions (without a question mark no less!), that seemed to lead the reader into random circles of thought like a labyrinth with no exit.
A lot of questions because its a complicated subject with many things to take into account.
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot.
Um, do you even read Slashdot? Point to one topic here that isn't covered in a biased manner.
Fair enough lets have bias both ways some stories bias one way some bias the other. If bias is constantly one way then something appears to be wrong.
You didn't need to dig very far to find out that China is in 3 days of mourning.
So if the government declares a day of mourning, I'm not allowed to laugh at a funny television show? That sounds completely unhealthy. I don't care what your culture is.
Maybe they are trying to encourage people to take an interest in their fellow human beaing around them. The general sentiment in many of these articles is that people doggedly believe that the government don't care about its people. My experiance of actually going there and seeing what they are trying to do is that they do care. They may not go about thing in the way that we would like, but they do it in their own way which works for them.
You guys appear intellegent but incapable of independent thought when it comes to China.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
Ooh, this one's easy. Responsible reporting and control have nothing to do with each other. If it's controlled, it's propaganda, not reporting. Deal with it.
Responsible reporting and control have everthing to do with each other.
Take the UK headline "immigrants responsible for most crime in UK" responsible reporting probably not. Look at the situation in South africa where at the moment there is major civil discontent and violence targeted towards immigrants. Would you run the same headline there.
You would argue no one would do it the press would be responsible. You might say publish anything like this and I will proescute you for incitement. In saying that you have just controlled the press.
That is the connection between responsible reporting and control
The difference between their press and ours is that their controls are blunt, unsophiticated and indiscriminantly wielded. Ours are more subtil but there never the less, more of that later.
Control is not just about propoganda, it's also about trying limit damage and also civil unrest
The interesting thing is that you believe that this is not true in the west.
With respect to Propoganda. Do you believe the american press is free of government propoganda?
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means.
Another easy one. It means the press can report whatever they like without fear of being prosecuted for it.
But we know that they can't say whatever they like without being prosecuted even in the west. They have to stick to certain rules.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West?
So what? The US started off with lots of poor farmers, too. I frankly don't see how this can have anything to do with freedom of the press. Do people get docked pay every time a reporter criticizes the government?
Poverty and lack of education combined with ethinic tensions have a lot to do with civic unrest. 800 million people stuggling to live. All you need is someone
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot.
You didn't need to dig very far to find out that China is in 3 days of mourning.
You guys appear intellegent but incapable of independent thought when it comes to China.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West?
Yeah that would really work. Reporting without responsibility great invention.
A truely free press is a dangerous thing. It allows everyone to peddle whatever truth the desire and to encourage others to believe it.
Do you believe that any Western country allows a truely free press in that sense.
Push a negative story a little, someone starts a rumor, and you have a blood bath on your hands.
In the UK many kinds of story are not covered here by agreement between the press and Government. There is a code of practice for journalist and editors covering what should be reported.
The reason you have this is to try to instil some degree of responsibility into the press. Even with this totally ficticious and inflamatory stories are still run.
But in the west we don't have anything like the same kind of ethnic tensions that they have other countries.
And come on tell me you are not sick of reading the papers or watching the news in the West. Why because you know it's bias and not the whole story.
The very reason you come online and use a site like Slashdot is that you want to be able to shout back at those stories.
Only problem is that on the internet there is no code of ehtical practice. So everyone says what they want and we end up with some really nasty hate being shifted around the world fueling people prejudices.
The idea of a totally free press is a noble idea which totally does not take into account human nature.
You miss the point. this article is mearly a chance for the uninformed to take a jab at their current pet hate. Slashdot seems to have got into the habit of pushing articles with an anti chinese bias lately. The fact that many commentators know nothing about the subject of their hate other than what everyone else is chanting is totally irrelavant.
Then you should worry about the absolutly huge volumes of gasseous C02 naturally trapped under ground.... and yes these traps can rupture naturally too. Many large gas discoveries are left because they contain too much C02. Generally with gas reserves the CO2 is seperated out till you can get down to about 8% C02 and the rest is vented to the atmosphere. Of course in the bigger picture of things you should really be looking at the methane. If you think of all the natural gas that humanity has ever burned, this only represents gas that was trapped. The tapped fraction is minute compared to the actual amount generated which generally migrates eventually to the surface,in the absence of a trap, or even more fun is traped at the seafloor as Gas Hydrates. I wonder if people ever include this stuff in their climate models? Or do they assume that the natural release of methane and CO2 contributes only as a smoothly varying natural background over short periods of time. This natural release of gas is orders of magnitude greater than human production and the rate at which it is released to the atmosphere in geological time probably does does not vary smoothly but is heightened during periods of high seismic activity, rapid burial or orogeny.
Exactly... Now if I was the American or British government wanting to find out about india I would go go though some easily hacked server in a third party county...er like China
First question you have to ask is who owns all these patents are they americans or foriegn companies/individuals. If its the latter then your patent system is working against you to make you less competivitve. In fact it could even kill whole industries. Is that what you really want?
Maybe a few more comments like George's will help to stimulate the market for cheaper quality camera equipment.
Although equipment is no substitute for a good story, cheaper quality equipment does at least lower the barrier to entry.
A camera that can shoot HD straight to disk or memory while maintaining good dynamic range would make a big impact for those who have to produce on a budget.
I keep trying to think how feasible this is. It can't be that far off:
You would probably need:
Minimum 15 megabytes per frame (Raw)
Recording at between 30fps and 60fps
So that would be 450 - 900 magabytes per second sustained (uncompressed)
So uncompressed data transfer seems to be a limitation. Unless you are multiplexing the frames over interfaces in parallel.
Storage:
You would probably want to be able to shoot for half an hour before changing cartridges
So you would need between 810Gig and 1.62 TB
Sensor cost will be the factor but hey that must be dropping pretty heavily now.
Anyone want to help home brew one
You are dead right and raise an interesting point. A non living thing which encapsulates DNA(or RNA) is the obvious precuror to life. It doesn't matter if it doesn't have a host as long as it can self assemble at some level The thing that I constantly come back to thinking is that this precursor must still around today, its probably pretty ephemeral and easily missed, but there should still be a lot of it around. It may be limited to areas where conditions are simlilar to early earth conditions. But it must still be there. Afterall the huge amount biological material floating around the planet would constantly bring some of the precursors together.
Er ...not quite...there was follow up research that showed no signs of repair to heart tissue in the mice. Sorry I don't have the link to hand but google around the subject. I think the new research was 2005...oh all right i'll look it up for you.
Try this:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/mcrc/lepore/publications /MRL%20mice%20fail%20to%20heal.pdf
Heart tiussue is notoriously non-regenerative. Thats not to say you can't grow it but that so far it has not been clearly shown that it will regenerate.
I would note that the Wistar Institute mice may have some more genetic changes but if they did I don't think they reported it.
"THEY ARE NOT AFTER *YOU* is the main thing to remember" While this may be true at the moment it may not be true in the future. You are assuming that government will always be benign and that you will not take a political stance against any non benign government. Governments especially in times of crisis can change for the worse. How would you oppose a non benign government which has advanced tools which peer into every aspect of your life. Dissenters can be rapidly targeted and removed with ease, freedom of speech won't save you in that situation. You only have to look at history to see how many times bad political changes have happened in the past and that was before governments had such powerful tools to potentially supress people.
What is a stem cell, it is a bunch of DNA with some surrounding cellular machinary. It is the same DNA, give or take, that you have in every cell. Given the correct chemical stimulus and processing you may be able to encourage many cell types into this state. We just don't have a good handle on the cellular biochemisty to be able to do this at the moment. On this assumption it may be possible to create new life from any part of you which has it's full compliment of DNA. In this context, you would seem to be suggest that we should treat everything with Human DNA as a fully fleged human being. Clearly this is impracticle. "Impractical" may seem a strange word but that is how society is. It tries to be practical and it uses money as it's measure. For instance motorway speed limits, knock 10mph off the maximum speed limit and you will save a whole pile of lives, lives are important right you can't put a value on them? However lower the speed limit and people have to move around slower. In the end the speed limit is set at a practicle level even though we know it will cause more deaths than one even 5mph lower. It's practicle How much is a human life worth, well in the UK it depends entirely on how much it will cost to fix it and how much money your regional health authority is willing to spend on that procedure. If they don't have the money say £20,000 for cancer drugs or an operation and you can't afford it either. Then unlucky you are dead. Society always puts a practicle value on things, it may be distastful or distubing to you but thats the way life is. Trying to get every cell treated as a human being just won't fly and is even less likely to do so in the future.
er.. almost anything that uses cilla for locamotion harnesses rotory motion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_protein If you have not come across these before then check the out they are facinating. Nature is way ahead of what we have achieved so far
I suspect that the problem is that there are a number of labs who are on the brink of achieving this for themselves, or at least that is maybe how the Koreans percieved it. Hence the pressure was on to come up with the result quickly. Which may be why this particular route with all its twists and turns was taken. Its possible that they came up with some valid results, which can, and will need to be, replicated. Reading the scientific press though it just sounds like somone just wants to discredit the whole thing.
9 out of eleven results altered. Interestingly the scientific press are not interested in having the results verified they are just after blood. Of course there is a good reason for this in that it maintains standards but I would like to know if the two unaltered results are still valid and statistically of importance.
1. Move your IP standard to match those in the US 2. Patent you new stuff based on your standards at home and abroad 3. Supply your new equipment at cost into new markets 4. Dominate the market 5. Up your prices fractionally 6. Profit until some other country does the same to you The US IP laws are really a rod for their own backs. IP people just don't seem to get that they can be totally out competed and then have their own IP laws used against them by foriegn companies to exclude them from their own domestic markets..or am I missing something?