Troll? Seriously? I don't know if it is more ironic that a) I'm using my iPad in responding to an Apple fanboy's overreaction or b) the next comment jokes about essentially the same thing and got up-moded.

You think this and that guy Chris Sevier is divine retribution for Jobs taking a swipe at Android?

.....but more practically: how much thrust/impulse/whatever would you be able squeeze out of an amount of water that can be carried by a tiny cubesat? The article implicitly compares it favorably to current Xenon/Krypton based systems, but made no effort to explain why. Any slashdoter willing to work out the math?

Understandably, the later half of the article talks about current solutions utilities and governments are considering to protect the infrastructure. However, let us just suppose for a moment that we are a type I civilization on the Kardashev scale. What type of conceptual solutions could be used to protect the whole planet instead of just small patches of people?

Leaking the pre-credit flash-back scene for episode 7...... I get it - Clone War II.... is that you, J J Abrams?

It doesn't necessarily have to be more costly. (Or perhaps trivially so) On the other hand the additional cost could be value added features that enhance the usefulness of the tags. The tags can be engineered and packaged to any degree that can be implemented with current technology. Having thought about this now for a few days, I think one very viable option is to maintain the tags *inside* a bacterial host as part of its chromosome or as discreet plasmids. With all the functions afforded by a living expression host, you now have a lot of options open up.

*Perhaps you can add an additional payload in the form of some kind of "biological ticking clock" that starts counting upon exposure such that investigators can pinpoint "time from crime".

*Ligate an inducible expression system to the plasmid such that living human tissue switches on one traceable gene while fomite and other inanimate objects trigger another. You now have both perpetrator as well as his tools/weapons. Couple it to the "ticking clock" and you have a physical sequential trail of where he/she has been.

*Timed/directed self-destruction/self-inactivation so that beyond a limit of statute, you don't have stray tags persisting in the environment polluting the scene of future crimes.

And this is just off the top of my head. There are LOTS of room for improvement/enhancement.

I would defer on matters pertaining to the specific robustness of forensic analysis to others with more experience in the particular field. However, as someone who has an annoying number of experiments fail due to contamination and other mysteries of the often fragile and fickle nature of DNA/RNA, I wonder why someone would bother *intentionally* use it to construct a tool in this manner. If you were to design a bio-metric ID tagging system from the ground up, you don't have to limit yourself to the means and methods of salvaging physical evidence that were left unintentionally under opportunistic, less-than-reliable circumstances. The basic idea they are proposing may not be so far fetched, but instead of naked DNA as the article suggest, maybe deploy the tags in some kind of nano-packaging that will resist degradation both on the shelf as well as after application?

Maybe the article was badly written, but at face value, it seems like a dumb idea to begin with. DNA molecules of any practical size are much to large to be suspended in the air for long. Any surface that is non-sterile is filled with nucleases released by microorganisms and endogenous enzymes from the human body that will quickly degrade your DNA beyond recognition. It would be as if those dye packs being used by banks are water soluble. All a criminal needs to do is do laundry and take a shower to eliminate the evidence. If these so-called DNA tags are not protected in some way, all you'll end up with is the constituent of nasal mucus.

I'm sorry to exacerbate your concern. But I am not the least bit sorry about speaking truth to ignorance. Which "targetted groups" are you preemptively defending????? Most serious anthropologists will tell you the notion of "race" as a scientific concept is a myth. There is no clean cut genetic signature that will magically identify an African, an Asian, or a Caucasian, or Homosexual, or Islamist, or Jedi. There is no biological basis for ANY of various ways people may choose to culturally self-identify. It makes for entertaining barroom debates, but to see this issue scientifically as being composed of dark side and light side, black/white, is, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong.

Honestly, genomics is no more dangerous than cooking. Would you walk up to jacque pepin and tell him he plays God with the power of life and death because bladed tools like the kitchen knife he used to create culinary works of art has also been used as weapons by mobs to carve up innocent women and children ?

You are not obliged to respect my brand of humor. You have a right to express your own opinion and observe your own convictions. But nor I am not obliged to flatter your preconceptions about me, my chosen profession, or the facts of reality. Your concern for the honor and good name of rednecks, skinheads, religious fundamentalists, uncompromising US congressional representatives, and post-modern literary critics is quixotic but mostly unnecessary. If there is anyone else here on slashdot who thinks I've spoken harshly beyond the boundaries of humor, I will willingly make a public apology for being not nice and hurting others feelings.

But on the flip side: How is it that *you* feel no remorse or culpability for painting the hard work and achievements of so many genomic research professionals as "the road to hell that is paved with good intentions"? In this day and age of connectedness, that acquaintance or loved one of yours who is (or will be) fighting cancer is fighting with an upper hand thanks to the insights gained from the increasing number of cancer genomes that are being decoded. Would you put their oncologists in the same league as Josef Mengele? Do you honestly believe it is sensible to sound the alarm over some anonymous malcontent of dubious existance who is determined to weaponize cancer biology? The real world is *not* as frightening as you make it out to be. Do you get that despite nuclear proliferation, the first two nuclear attacks have also been the last two? For every two Boston bombers, there are scores of selfless Boston heroes ready to step up and put their own safety and security on the line. Being CERT trained myself, I pray for the same courage if I should ever be called upon. In the world I live in, it *is* those with good intentions who make the difference at the end of the day. What does it say about you that your obsession gravitates toward the harm doers rather than the good doers? Humanity wins. Your bio-terrorist-wannabes loose. I'll wager my life on it. Care to deal?

Being vigilant is not the same as being paranoid. It helps no one for an uninformed voice to be extolling the power and might of some imagined boogie man. In science, many things are possible. Yes I do work in the field. Therefore I feel I have a more realistic view of the situation firmly grounded in what is actually true or achievable. It takes a lot of dedication, discipline, and maturity to do science. That for the most part will weed out a lot of bad elements. On the other hand, you don't need a whole lot of training to build pipe bombs and shrapnel filled pressure cookers. And no one will deny the terror created by events of the Boston marathon. But for you to use the possibility of bio-terrorism as a means to express such a critical perspective to the benefits of investing in genomic research is deeply irresponsible to the enormous good that this emerging field has and will continue to do. Does anyone hold Henry Ford responsible for hundreds of thousands of vehicular deaths? Have the Wright brothers ever been vilified for creating the means to carpet bomb large swaths of civil infrastructure? I would like to think your heart is in the right place. But to be blunt, your foot is firmly planted in your mouth on this subject.

If you believe it is the responsibility of today's genomic research pioneers to fix what is at its heart a social-economic-political problem, *YOU* are delusional. You are not going to abate someone's deep-seated sense of ill will or bigotry by limiting their means to do harm. If you ignore the source of someone's malevolence, no amount of sanctions suppression will stop them from standing against you. That is not the fault of the farmers who grow your food, the mechanics who fix your cars, *OR* the genomics-enabled health care professionals who treats your illness.

The only indication I can discern is that we have a mismatched sense of humor. I speak lightly of this because I find many of your arguments not very sensible and sometimes downright ridiculous. Yes, I singled out rednecks and skinheads as objects of caricature. I supposed I could have chosen any number of groups who would rather curse the darkness than light a match. Religious fundamentalists, uncompromising US congressional representatives, post-modern literary critics - take your pick.

Well, if the point you are trying to make is so superficial, thanks for pointing out the obvious. Every technology is a double edged sword. It doesn't take a genious to realize any tool can be used for good or ill. The story itself simply points out that measurable economic gains have been realized in developing genomic technology. But it would be moronic to take that to mean we are headed for a modern day gold rush where every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a pan can go out and make a mess of things by doing rogue biotech. Throughout human history, Plenty of technological advances have shaped and shifted society in countless ways. You can't deal with it by cowering in fear at the unknown. As a whole, we've adapted and matured. Sure, we will probably make a few mistakes along the way, but we generally learn from those we make and avoid a lot more that the smarter ones among us have already foreseen.

My genes happen to be excellent, thank you very much. I've benefited enormously from choosing my ancestors wisely. However, I place far greater value in the wisdom of civilization and culture. I don't agree with everything he's published, but I think you can gain a bit of perspective by reading a bit of Steven Pinker. I am inclined to believe eugenics of the kind you are afraid of (ie. wholesale crimes against humanity) are obsolete human endeavors that will go the way of such things as institutionalized slavery, human sacrifices, and other social institutions that we as a society have outgrown. I suppose an argument can be made for some types of control over reproduction that can constitute some form of eugenics. For example, it is now possible for couples to receive genetic counseling and manage the risk(s) of possible congenital defects in their children. Ethical or not? That *is* a intelligent discussion worth having.

As someone who has actually participated in iGEM, I'm afraid you have a grossly skewed understanding of how synthetic biology is done. The link you've provided demonstrates in principle how to do genetic engineering. Its akin to how anyone with enough undergraduate physics can in principle construct a fission bomb. Again, that only happens in the movie reality of Hollywood. But seriously, all participating iGEM teams doing this kind of synthetic biology are heavily supported by sponsorship from industry players and academic entities with money, lab facility, and other vital resources such as the wealth of experience provided by project mentors (usually university professors or Ph.Ds in the field). These are not home geneticists, the presenter just makes it look that way by glossing over the critical work that requires a highly controlled environment and lab techniques often hard earned via work as a lab tech or research associate. If you've bothered RTFA, it even says that despite the video clip "......the task of designing and optimizing a functional, useful, and safe gene system is a lot more complicated....". As an optimist, I can only hope that the kind of things I did in iGEM can be as simple and routine as it appears to you. But I assure you, we are far from the day when your average rednecks and skin heads have the means to brew up apocalyptic world-ending dairy products. Just out of curiosity, who of consequence have you come across that shares your worries? Strategic thinkers in our military have assessed issues as broad and comprehensive as global climate change as global security threats. Do you know of any generals loosing sleep over designer fatal yogurt germs? But I've said enough. What do *you* think should be done to address the problem(s) that concerns you? What is your contribution?

A. Are you saying just because a technology can be used for harm it should be abandoned or suppressed? The same has been said of nuclear power, and we are all still here. In this day and age, controlling what information (genomic or otherwise) people can access and how they use it isn't that easy. Just ask the RIAA and MPAA.

B. Don't worry about it! Everyone knows that Kirk, Spock, and Bones will always save us from Khan - regardless of the timeline. Reference JJ Abrams & Gene Roddenberry

C. On a more serious note, eugenics is nothing new - the idea has been around for hundreds of years. Just because the technology makes it more feasible doesn't mean we are reckless enough to flirt with it again. I think the Nazis and an ensuing war in which they lost might have soured the idea in some people's minds.

D. Those of us who actually have lab research experience don't see things that way. Contrary to what Hollywood will have you believe, this stuff is not so easy to do accidentally. It is a little like using Matthew Broderick's War Games as a point of reference for actual computer security. Would *you* like to play a game?? You have a lot more to fear from mother nature which has had more than a Billion years with the entire Earth's biosphere to tinker with ways to implement pathogenic virulence.