Despite the silliness of his argument. More collaboration on most opensource software would actually be better, but not when there is no alternative. I believe you need at least two open source alternatives, with development teams that can try different approaches, but from this there should be one collaborative project that combines the best of both. The latter should be the de-facto standard. This would be a good thing for the opensource community as it would unite instead of divide a small pool of resources. Further to the point, it would not diminish options as the truly technical savvy can install either variant, or still make their unique version of either. Creativity would still be able to thrive without needing countless options that are essential the same with a small layer of veneer.
Is it too much to ask that the title matches the description of the article? "Scientists hack photosynthesis"... yet in the very same description: "Plants have a whole complicated chemical assembly line to carry out this detoxification, and the process uses up a lot of energy. This means the plant has less energy for making leaves, or food for us. Cavanagh and her colleagues in a research program called Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), which is based at the University of Illinois, have spent the last five years trying to fix Rubisco's problem. "We're sort of hacking photosynthesis," she says". So they hacked a downstream process not photosynthesis. This type of sloppy journalism is what is making me loose all faith in this profession. Either read what you wrote or don't even bother. Thanks
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the silliness of his argument. More collaboration on most opensource software would actually be better, but not when there is no alternative. I believe you need at least two open source alternatives, with development teams that can try different approaches, but from this there should be one collaborative project that combines the best of both. The latter should be the de-facto standard. This would be a good thing for the opensource community as it would unite instead of divide a small pool of resources. Further to the point, it would not diminish options as the truly technical savvy can install either variant, or still make their unique version of either. Creativity would still be able to thrive without needing countless options that are essential the same with a small layer of veneer.
Is it too much to ask that the title matches the description of the article? "Scientists hack photosynthesis" ... yet in the very same description: "Plants have a whole complicated chemical assembly line to carry out this detoxification, and the process uses up a lot of energy. This means the plant has less energy for making leaves, or food for us. Cavanagh and her colleagues in a research program called Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), which is based at the University of Illinois, have spent the last five years trying to fix Rubisco's problem. "We're sort of hacking photosynthesis," she says". So they hacked a downstream process not photosynthesis. This type of sloppy journalism is what is making me loose all faith in this profession. Either read what you wrote or don't even bother. Thanks