What stops this particular organism from naturally coming into being through good ol' evolution? Even if this exact organism does not, what is to stop other, more complex "synthetic life forms" from naturally coming into being? I pity the fool who gets sued for infringement over some "synthetic life patent": "Take him down, he's got an identical bacteria to our synthetic one in his intestine! He must be breeding them for commercial purposes!"
It's happened before if I remember correctly (see Monsanto GM seed).
What seems better than patenting a particular life form would be to patent an application of it. Kind of like how you don't patent the iron atom when you patent a hammer. Oops, better not give anyone any ideas...
Ronald left out the part about the system being powered by cold fusion! Seriously, is it realistic to expect researchers to figure out how to digitize someone's entire personality and knowledge in less than a year?
Allergies are blocking my nose, but I can still smell the stench of sensationalism with this one.
That's actually a really good point. However, if I remember correctly, the plants with high THC levels are unfertilized female plants - if the plants are fertilized (by a male plant) then they don't have that high THC content. I feel like this problem could be relatively easily solved, either by legalization or by making sure there are plenty of male plants out there. And once the price starts rising due to demand for biofuel production the economic incentive will decline.
Before you say it, no, we don't need to think of the children. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, as opposed to the 20%-30% that is found in unfertilized female plants that are grown for drug use. But God forbid anyone grow hemp: we all know what evils marijuana can cause.
Breeder reactors reuse spent nuclear fuel. They only need small amounts of fuel to keep the reaction going. However, what about the waste? Compared to a conventional reactor, how much radioactive waste do they produce?
Problem with tree farms is that most of them are wonderfully homogeneous. Having a monoculture forest planted in rows for easy retrieval of wood is nice, but it can't fill the ecological role of a natural forest. More trees is nice I guess but 1) not all trees are the same and 2) natural wilderness areas contain more than trees which is crucial to maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Thank you for mods for modding this funny... but know I will hunt you down when some Utah lawmaker reads this and thinks it's a good idea from a concerned citizen.
If I remember correctly, Monsanto modified soybeans and corn to be "RoundUp Ready" as they called it. Basically they GE'd the plants so that they would not be affected by Monsanto's RoundUp pesticide, allowing farmers to spray their whole field with the pesticide and leave their crops untouched. So I would venture to say that in order to make these plants resistant, there is probably something being produced by them that is not entirely natural.
But even if this corn does NOT produce anything un-natural, you still have the issue of farmers being able to indiscriminately spray pesticides on their fields without affecting the corn. Undoubtedly this means that more RoundUp is getting on the corn, in the ground, etc., than would otherwise be possible, so I wouldn't doubt that some of the pesticide is moving up through the food chain to us. Either way, you have non-natural chemicals entering the human food supply, which could easily have adverse health effects.
While we're on it, I want to say that Monsanto is about as virulently evil as Greenpeace when it comes to protecting their interests. They have actually made patents on seeds, and have gone after farmers for "patent infringement" if they find evidence of seed on their fields with similar genetic code. Farmers have been jailed over this; Monsanto's kind of like the MPAA of grain. They are even pushing "Terminator" seeds, which are sterile, forcing farmers into purchasing seed from suppliers every year instead of keeping their seed for the next crop. Monsanto tried to cover up reports of the adverse health effects of BGH (bovine growth hormone), the list goes on and on. The wikipedia has decent, somewhat unbiased (IMO) coverage of the issue and I'm sure you can google up some more.
...we can pass a law mandating fines for not being aware of your surroundings. No electronic devices while crossing the street? Be realistic! If we are really concerned with people getting hit by cars while they are crossing the streets, maybe we should find ways to slow the cars down.
Even if you're not on a cell phone or listening to your iPod you can still be killed by a car.
How depressing is it that this type of thing would only happen in an online world? I think if someone did this to Disney they would send Mickey to come eat you or something.
A class like that would be very beneficial to students, even if it does not completely mimic actually working (nothing really can). So much of CS focuses on the technical end of things, and I don't think enough emphasis is placed on the human side of things, be that interaction with the user or interaction with management.
I think it's really an important step for Google to aim for carbon neutrality, starting with green power. Nowadays green power, green building, and other sustainability practices have substantial financial benefits in addition to their environmental ones. Companies are starting to recognize this too, thankfully--Bank of America has a LEED certified building going up in Manhattan that will save massive amounts of emissions of carbon and other pollutants and save massive amounts of money.
What makes me happiest about seeing Google do this is that they are such a role-model for next-generation businesses. If Google achieves carbon neutrality, even partially, the message it will send to corporations, start-ups, and individuals will be, "You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive." That's an important message that is only beginning to spread.
I for one am glad we're finally breaking the nerd in space barrier. I mean, it's not like we've ever seen a molecular biologist or astrophysicist go into space. No, they are far too nerdy for something like that.
In Tennessee there is a state-wide writing assessment given to 11th graders. The grading process and the graders are not disclosed. I remember my English teacher told me once that the way to do well on the assessment (which is an argumentative paper), is to make blatantly clear what side of the issue you are on, include a refutation and a concession, and at least two points of evidence. You can even make up statistics if you want. Lo and behold, those of us who did do that made 5's and 6's on the test (6 is the highest score). All these timed assessments do is teach students how the exams are graded--which most definitely leads to poor writing habits.
There is a point at which information overload takes over. The optimal news portal doesn't include every single story, but just the important ones. That's what makes it so hard to develop the 'ultimate' news portal--there's a bit of an art to it.
I just wanted to point out that the research is not geared toward developing AI technologies based on the structure of the brain. The research is using the brain as a model for more reliable systems, what with the brains ability to keep functioning despite damage to 'component neurons'.
Slashdot Mirror
Lends new meaning to the term "broken pipe."
What stops this particular organism from naturally coming into being through good ol' evolution? Even if this exact organism does not, what is to stop other, more complex "synthetic life forms" from naturally coming into being? I pity the fool who gets sued for infringement over some "synthetic life patent": "Take him down, he's got an identical bacteria to our synthetic one in his intestine! He must be breeding them for commercial purposes!"
It's happened before if I remember correctly (see Monsanto GM seed).
What seems better than patenting a particular life form would be to patent an application of it. Kind of like how you don't patent the iron atom when you patent a hammer. Oops, better not give anyone any ideas...
Allergies are blocking my nose, but I can still smell the stench of sensationalism with this one.
That's actually a really good point. However, if I remember correctly, the plants with high THC levels are unfertilized female plants - if the plants are fertilized (by a male plant) then they don't have that high THC content. I feel like this problem could be relatively easily solved, either by legalization or by making sure there are plenty of male plants out there. And once the price starts rising due to demand for biofuel production the economic incentive will decline.
"Reefer Madness" bud, 1936 film about the dangers of 'marijuana cigarettes'. Required reading in the history of propaganda.
Before you say it, no, we don't need to think of the children. Industrial hemp contains less than 0.3% THC, as opposed to the 20%-30% that is found in unfertilized female plants that are grown for drug use. But God forbid anyone grow hemp: we all know what evils marijuana can cause.
Breeder reactors reuse spent nuclear fuel. They only need small amounts of fuel to keep the reaction going. However, what about the waste? Compared to a conventional reactor, how much radioactive waste do they produce?
Skittles already has prior art.
Problem with tree farms is that most of them are wonderfully homogeneous. Having a monoculture forest planted in rows for easy retrieval of wood is nice, but it can't fill the ecological role of a natural forest. More trees is nice I guess but 1) not all trees are the same and 2) natural wilderness areas contain more than trees which is crucial to maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Thank you for mods for modding this funny... but know I will hunt you down when some Utah lawmaker reads this and thinks it's a good idea from a concerned citizen.
If I remember correctly, Monsanto modified soybeans and corn to be "RoundUp Ready" as they called it. Basically they GE'd the plants so that they would not be affected by Monsanto's RoundUp pesticide, allowing farmers to spray their whole field with the pesticide and leave their crops untouched. So I would venture to say that in order to make these plants resistant, there is probably something being produced by them that is not entirely natural.
But even if this corn does NOT produce anything un-natural, you still have the issue of farmers being able to indiscriminately spray pesticides on their fields without affecting the corn. Undoubtedly this means that more RoundUp is getting on the corn, in the ground, etc., than would otherwise be possible, so I wouldn't doubt that some of the pesticide is moving up through the food chain to us. Either way, you have non-natural chemicals entering the human food supply, which could easily have adverse health effects.
While we're on it, I want to say that Monsanto is about as virulently evil as Greenpeace when it comes to protecting their interests. They have actually made patents on seeds, and have gone after farmers for "patent infringement" if they find evidence of seed on their fields with similar genetic code. Farmers have been jailed over this; Monsanto's kind of like the MPAA of grain. They are even pushing "Terminator" seeds, which are sterile, forcing farmers into purchasing seed from suppliers every year instead of keeping their seed for the next crop. Monsanto tried to cover up reports of the adverse health effects of BGH (bovine growth hormone), the list goes on and on. The wikipedia has decent, somewhat unbiased (IMO) coverage of the issue and I'm sure you can google up some more.
Even if you're not on a cell phone or listening to your iPod you can still be killed by a car.
licks to the center of a tootsie roll pop?
How depressing is it that this type of thing would only happen in an online world? I think if someone did this to Disney they would send Mickey to come eat you or something.
mirrordot
Now I can build little cities on my motherboard!
A class like that would be very beneficial to students, even if it does not completely mimic actually working (nothing really can). So much of CS focuses on the technical end of things, and I don't think enough emphasis is placed on the human side of things, be that interaction with the user or interaction with management.
Here's the link to Apple's page describing the developer features: http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/index. html
Does anyone know where the full study could be accessed or requested?
I think it's really an important step for Google to aim for carbon neutrality, starting with green power. Nowadays green power, green building, and other sustainability practices have substantial financial benefits in addition to their environmental ones. Companies are starting to recognize this too, thankfully--Bank of America has a LEED certified building going up in Manhattan that will save massive amounts of emissions of carbon and other pollutants and save massive amounts of money.
What makes me happiest about seeing Google do this is that they are such a role-model for next-generation businesses. If Google achieves carbon neutrality, even partially, the message it will send to corporations, start-ups, and individuals will be, "You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive." That's an important message that is only beginning to spread.
I for one am glad we're finally breaking the nerd in space barrier. I mean, it's not like we've ever seen a molecular biologist or astrophysicist go into space. No, they are far too nerdy for something like that.
News from the future: "Yahoo! Messenger blocks links from slashdot.org"
In Tennessee there is a state-wide writing assessment given to 11th graders. The grading process and the graders are not disclosed. I remember my English teacher told me once that the way to do well on the assessment (which is an argumentative paper), is to make blatantly clear what side of the issue you are on, include a refutation and a concession, and at least two points of evidence. You can even make up statistics if you want. Lo and behold, those of us who did do that made 5's and 6's on the test (6 is the highest score). All these timed assessments do is teach students how the exams are graded--which most definitely leads to poor writing habits.
There is a point at which information overload takes over. The optimal news portal doesn't include every single story, but just the important ones. That's what makes it so hard to develop the 'ultimate' news portal--there's a bit of an art to it.
I just wanted to point out that the research is not geared toward developing AI technologies based on the structure of the brain. The research is using the brain as a model for more reliable systems, what with the brains ability to keep functioning despite damage to 'component neurons'.