I don't think your average person is going to put down their Glamour/Cosmo/Time/Maxim/Newsweek so they can read about immunoglobin class switch recombination for $30. If your family member is sick with cancer in the hospital, you will not be beside table interpreting the western blots from the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The current, scientifically educated, audience of the NIH funded publications have enough trouble understanding the research. What makes them think the general non-science public will.
Its only a matter of time until we start seeing class action law-suits against video game companies about how they designed their games to make you feel high and get addicted.
I'm a male and I actually read "Are you there God, its me Margaret" when I was 10 or 11 (in my defense, it belonged to my sister and was just lying around). Its about a girl going through this new time in her life with new friends and waiting for her menstrual period and trying to get boys to notice her. The girls do things like open Playboy and say how they want to look like playmates, watch each other change to see how much they've developed.
I remember also reading "And then again maybe I won't" which has on the cover a boy looking out the window with binoculars...spying on the hot girl that lives next door.
Basically her books are about young adults that are normal and trying to adjust to their new hormones and bodies. I think its harmless and interesting stuff to your average pre-teen. But I could see how religious institutions might say that feeling these feelings is sinful. I can see her on the list before Harry Potter. But then again, the existence of this list is crap.
I don't trust the quality and service of Archos. I had horrible experiences with their jukebox MP3 player. It was a terrible product and their customer service to get you a new one under warranty was also impossible.
The fundamental problem is that they rush to get out the latest cool product without hammering out the details and practicality and interface. I'd rather wait until a more solid manufacturer like Apple gets everything right from the right transfer speed, charging, UI, software, etc. Sure it will be more expensive, but I'll probably buy it in the long run anyway.
For what reason she was chosen (either because she was the best-suited president or because MIT wanted to break new grounds) is now irrelevant. Now that she is in that position she is a beacon for women and her/MIT's success will be detrimental in either advancing or digressing how women are seen in science and engineering.
Knowing from experience of attending a technical institute, the president's job is of utmost importance to the success of the institute; her work will be heavily scrutinized. However, every female professor I've ever worked for in science and engineering has been an absolutely outstanding leader.
"I will be a responsible parent and teach my kids about safe computing, let me just open this party-pics.exe attachment from this unspecified sender first."
Last I heard it was the kids that were spanking the adults with the trojan horses.
I think this is another example of where general technology gets a huge boost because of the demand of an insanely rich non-human-essential industry.
There is a lot of money in the Olympics, mostly from advertisers on NBC. These new devices are developed more so to improve the TV watcher's experience; there wasn't a need for smart devices in the first Olympics, there is no need now.
Another example, medical imaging: if it weren't for the millions of you out there who are willing to shell out tons of money for games, better digital radiology technology would have never developed.
Personally, I think its great that technology can be developed and improved and debugged at the expense of entertainment industries and then be taken to other fields. No doubt the Olympics have improved the field of embedded computing as a whole.
I wonder if this is the first string of changes we can expect from Google?
I've always found Google to be like a fun friend: putting fun cartoons on special days, promoting their employee bicyclist, april fools jokes, Zeitgeist, google-toolbar for the benefit of all humanity. This gave me a sense that not only where there normal (albeit brilliant) humans behind this deceptively simple search engine, but that they were passionate about what they did and really cared about your well-being. They dared to change the world and they refused to be bullied around while doing so.
With the words IPO and Playboy in the air and with them having to answer to shareholders instead of their own wit, will we see a change in the Google we have grown to love? Now that they have sucked us into their happy world will they give us huge banner ads and pop-ups? With their stock will they sell their dignity? I sure hope not.
There will always be some new cunning way that atheletes/competitors in any game can possibly beat the system. It just forces the system to evolve and become as advanced as the cheaters. I'm fairly confident that when steroids first started popping up someone said "there's this drug people can take that works just like hormones in your body, and we can't detect it". But, sure enough we have no trouble detecting them.
Just because a chemical is released in the body that is natural doesn't mean we won't be able to detect unhealthy or non-natural levels of it. Cheating has always be an aspect to consider in any competition since the beginning of time. All that must change is the way we detect it.
I think this is great. Not only will we be saved money in the state not having to buy really uneccessarily expensive software, we will have a higher quality of service by the State of California. Furthermore, there is no room for foul play: I really hope voting machines go this route.
For the most part, the people who do MIS, CIS, Northface type approaches to CS are really taking the easy way for a guaranteed comfort level in life. Sure, they can get good consulting jobs and might be future executives, but thats really as far as they can go. They don't have the depth of knowledge to create anything with their bare hands, concoct innovative ideas, or change the world. Companies like google, yahoo, intel, etc. were not founded by a guy who said he wanted to be a trained soldier for powerful companies; they were founded by people who had depth of knowledge, ideas, frusteration with the status quo. People who were passionate about what they did at all costs and put the risk of being poor below all else. So I say go ahead Northface and train your soldiers, it just makes innovation less competitive for the rest of us.
DNA is DNA, from a molecular standpoint, whether it is in a cow or dog or a non-prokaryotic ocean creature. It is made of the same bases (A,C,G,T) same phosphate backbone, same sugars, same coiling properties, has same physical properties. Technically, its just the sequence and sequence length of bases that is different from organism to organism, genome to genome. I was just trying to make the point that having DNA of ocean organisms doesn't improve DNA computing (the type of DNA computing that relies on physical characteristics of DNA). Sorry, should have made that clearer.
I don't know if this type of research has impact on DNA computing, at least in the sense of using DNA as a massively parallel machine, performing bit operations and what not. Those types of "machines" use basic physical properties of DNA to compute and DNA in an ocean organism is physically the same molecule as DNA in a cow.
Does anyone else see a connection between Venter and Captain Nemo from 20,000 leagues under the sea?
Brilliant and very wealthy scientist fed up with the political/corporate world (Celera) flees to live a life in the unexplored ocean. He makes all types of new discoveries where he won't be held back by his fellow human.
No one ever patented the human genome. I agree, patenting what exists in nature has no merit. Nevertheless, I think gene/DNA sequence patents will be very important and fair. There are a handful of researchers today who engineering new proteins and genes which are better than anything found in nature; others create nano-machines built out of DNA/RNA sequences. After millions/billions of dollars of research, dedication, supercomputing, etc. I think these scientists and engineers have every right to claim a patent on their creation. At the present time writing biocode is many orders of magnitude more expensive than contributing to sourceforge (i.e. expensive scientific equipment vs. a PC). Without gene patents, unless you're Craig Venter or Paul Allen and just have money to play with for the sake of discovery, there is no motivation what-so-ever to create future theraputics and bio-devices.
If only this story hadn't leaked until they actually had advertisers. They'd probably make twice as much from the slashdot effect than from a years worth of normal use.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think your average person is going to put down their Glamour/Cosmo/Time/Maxim/Newsweek so they can read about immunoglobin class switch recombination for $30. If your family member is sick with cancer in the hospital, you will not be beside table interpreting the western blots from the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The current, scientifically educated, audience of the NIH funded publications have enough trouble understanding the research. What makes them think the general non-science public will.
Its only a matter of time until we start seeing class action law-suits against video game companies about how they designed their games to make you feel high and get addicted.
ET Phone Genome
Now with improved accuracy Tinkerbell becomes a more formidable target.
I'm a male and I actually read "Are you there God, its me Margaret" when I was 10 or 11 (in my defense, it belonged to my sister and was just lying around). Its about a girl going through this new time in her life with new friends and waiting for her menstrual period and trying to get boys to notice her. The girls do things like open Playboy and say how they want to look like playmates, watch each other change to see how much they've developed. I remember also reading "And then again maybe I won't" which has on the cover a boy looking out the window with binoculars...spying on the hot girl that lives next door.
Basically her books are about young adults that are normal and trying to adjust to their new hormones and bodies. I think its harmless and interesting stuff to your average pre-teen. But I could see how religious institutions might say that feeling these feelings is sinful. I can see her on the list before Harry Potter. But then again, the existence of this list is crap.
I don't trust the quality and service of Archos. I had horrible experiences with their jukebox MP3 player. It was a terrible product and their customer service to get you a new one under warranty was also impossible.
The fundamental problem is that they rush to get out the latest cool product without hammering out the details and practicality and interface. I'd rather wait until a more solid manufacturer like Apple gets everything right from the right transfer speed, charging, UI, software, etc. Sure it will be more expensive, but I'll probably buy it in the long run anyway.
All new SpaceHouses come with the band Kraftwerk.
For what reason she was chosen (either because she was the best-suited president or because MIT wanted to break new grounds) is now irrelevant.
Now that she is in that position she is a beacon for women and her/MIT's success will be detrimental in either advancing or digressing how women are seen in science and engineering.
Knowing from experience of attending a technical institute, the president's job is of utmost importance to the success of the institute; her work will be heavily scrutinized. However, every female professor I've ever worked for in science and engineering has been an absolutely outstanding leader.
"I will be a responsible parent and teach my kids about safe computing, let me just open this party-pics.exe attachment from this unspecified sender first."
Last I heard it was the kids that were spanking the adults with the trojan horses.
I think this is another example of where general technology gets a huge boost because of the demand of an insanely rich non-human-essential industry.
There is a lot of money in the Olympics, mostly from advertisers on NBC. These new devices are developed more so to improve the TV watcher's experience; there wasn't a need for smart devices in the first Olympics, there is no need now.
Another example, medical imaging: if it weren't for the millions of you out there who are willing to shell out tons of money for games, better digital radiology technology would have never developed.
Personally, I think its great that technology can be developed and improved and debugged at the expense of entertainment industries and then be taken to other fields. No doubt the Olympics have improved the field of embedded computing as a whole.
I wonder if this is the first string of changes we can expect from Google?
I've always found Google to be like a fun friend: putting fun cartoons on special days, promoting their employee bicyclist, april fools jokes, Zeitgeist, google-toolbar for the benefit of all humanity. This gave me a sense that not only where there normal (albeit brilliant) humans behind this deceptively simple search engine, but that they were passionate about what they did and really cared about your well-being. They dared to change the world and they refused to be bullied around while doing so.
With the words IPO and Playboy in the air and with them having to answer to shareholders instead of their own wit, will we see a change in the Google we have grown to love? Now that they have sucked us into their happy world will they give us huge banner ads and pop-ups?
With their stock will they sell their dignity? I sure hope not.
I first thought it said Dave Attel, the comedian from Insomniac.
There will always be some new cunning way that atheletes/competitors in any game can possibly beat the system. It just forces the system to evolve and become as advanced as the cheaters. I'm fairly confident that when steroids first started popping up someone said "there's this drug people can take that works just like hormones in your body, and we can't detect it". But, sure enough we have no trouble detecting them.
Just because a chemical is released in the body that is natural doesn't mean we won't be able to detect unhealthy or non-natural levels of it.
Cheating has always be an aspect to consider in any competition since the beginning of time. All that must change is the way we detect it.
I think this is great. Not only will we be saved money in the state not having to buy really uneccessarily expensive software, we will have a higher quality of service by the State of California. Furthermore, there is no room for foul play: I really hope voting machines go this route.
For the most part, the people who do MIS, CIS, Northface type approaches to CS are really taking the easy way for a guaranteed comfort level in life. Sure, they can get good consulting jobs and might be future executives, but thats really as far as they can go. They don't have the depth of knowledge to create anything with their bare hands, concoct innovative ideas, or change the world. Companies like google, yahoo, intel, etc. were not founded by a guy who said he wanted to be a trained soldier for powerful companies; they were founded by people who had depth of knowledge, ideas, frusteration with the status quo. People who were passionate about what they did at all costs and put the risk of being poor below all else. So I say go ahead Northface and train your soldiers, it just makes innovation less competitive for the rest of us.
DNA is DNA, from a molecular standpoint, whether it is in a cow or dog or a non-prokaryotic ocean creature. It is made of the same bases (A,C,G,T) same phosphate backbone, same sugars, same coiling properties, has same physical properties. Technically, its just the sequence and sequence length of bases that is different from organism to organism, genome to genome. I was just trying to make the point that having DNA of ocean organisms doesn't improve DNA computing (the type of DNA computing that relies on physical characteristics of DNA). Sorry, should have made that clearer.
I don't know if this type of research has impact on DNA computing, at least in the sense of using DNA as a massively parallel machine, performing bit operations and what not. Those types of "machines" use basic physical properties of DNA to compute and DNA in an ocean organism is physically the same molecule as DNA in a cow.
Does anyone else see a connection between Venter and Captain Nemo from 20,000 leagues under the sea?
Brilliant and very wealthy scientist fed up with the political/corporate world (Celera) flees to live a life in the unexplored ocean. He makes all types of new discoveries where he won't be held back by his fellow human.
No one ever patented the human genome. I agree, patenting what exists in nature has no merit.
Nevertheless, I think gene/DNA sequence patents will be very important and fair. There are a handful of researchers today who engineering new proteins and genes which are better than anything found in nature; others create nano-machines built out of DNA/RNA sequences. After millions/billions of dollars of research, dedication, supercomputing, etc. I think these scientists and engineers have every right to claim a patent on their creation. At the present time writing biocode is many orders of magnitude more expensive than contributing to sourceforge (i.e. expensive scientific equipment vs. a PC). Without gene patents, unless you're Craig Venter or Paul Allen and just have money to play with for the sake of discovery, there is no motivation what-so-ever to create future theraputics and bio-devices.
If only this story hadn't leaked until they actually had advertisers. They'd probably make twice as much from the slashdot effect than from a years worth of normal use.
I don't even think MSN would publish crap like this. This is neither news nor had any trace of content that mattered.