Right, but why go through the trouble and risk of hacking someone else's database when it will soon be cheap enough to sequence directly yourself?

Obtain a used air filter of a building, and you may have the DNA of anyone who has been in that building for the last couple of days . . . legally.

If I were not constantly releasing millions of copies of my DNA in the form of dead skin cells everywhere I go. Either my cells need to also adopt this encryption standard, or I need a lifestyle where I am completely self sufficient (including my waste disposal), never having to leave my home.

Even then, a gust of wind while I am in the backyard might be all that is required one day for someone's reader to catch my DNA and run a simulation to match with facial recognition.

You've got a picture of a photobooth? Do you have a picture collection of photographers, as well? Perhaps it sits on your coffee table, next to a camera catalog.

Sorry, I must get more sleep tonight . . .

I am a financial analyst. Knowing how to program allows me to automate boring things and generate analysis that would otherwise be impossible. It also means I am constantly creating tools that threaten the employment of coworkers who do not know how to program.

When you know programming, you spend most of your time improving the 1st and even 2nd derivative of the productivity function of a given task. When enough people like that are available for a given field, why would employers bother with people who are not capable of that level of productivity?

. . . and a motherf---ing medal of honor.

To be honest, I would not be surprised if he were actually sent by some other part of the federal government to sabotage a rogue NSA. However, you will never see anyone officially admit it until the NSA is neutered. To do so would be political suicide (or more . . .).

energy per unit weight/volume
Sure, but you are stuck at 30% efficiency tops extracting that energy with an ICE. Don't forget that you cannot "create gasoline" when braking or scale down fuel usage to the same degree when idle in traffic, so there is even a greater offset to the raw energy density advantage. Plus, if energy density was EVERYTHING, we'd go nuclear. Clearly there is a "sweet spot" range (probably dependent on each usage case) that, once met, additional range is negligible to the user's purchase decision, compared to things like cost.

cycle life
Does this comparison even make sense? Gasoline has a single life cycle, so batteries win there. Do you mean ICE vs. electric motors? Still afraid EVs win there. Alright, maybe you mean ICE vs batteries. Well, yes, ICEs still beat battery cycle life, but I would argue that is not important. The important question is does a battery replacement 8 years from now (standard Nissan Leaf warranty) cost less than all the repairs and gasoline premiums (over electricity) for an ICE system, over the same period. For my routine use, clearly the EV wins hands down.

and charge speed.
Charge speed can be mitigated by charge flexibility. I do not care about charge speed because my car charges at night in my garage. In fact, I am liberated to never have to "refuel" during my routine schedule. I can also charge while shopping (or sit in the car with the AC on full blast while my wife shops) or even at work, when my employer eventually installs chargers (not required for my use, but a "nice to have"). Long term trips will require new technology, but this, for most people, is an almost negligible use case (most people would just rent for long trips than wait for the technology to reach that point before purchasing an EV).

As with everything, cost will be the main driver. Battery technology is improving faster than ICE technology, so I see EVs winning out long term. For me, I already calculated a better return on a Nissan Leaf, so I got one (JFYI, I also still have an ICE, though). However, these calculations require some financial knowledge, so adoption could be slower than one would expect, like LEDs (How many times have a heard, "I refuse to pay $10 for a light bulb!" . . . but you will break even in 6 months based on your usage . . . oh, well . . .).

"a thousand foo-obsessed types"

Sounds like a place for you, foobar bazbot . . .

tin_foil_hat_mod=1

Maybe Obama does care, but cannot show it because the NSA would destroy his future by revealing some secret information they have found on him or his family. Accordingly, perhaps Snowden was actually a plant by some government official/agency outside of the NSA, trying to expose the monster the agency has become. However, until the NSA powers are reduced enough, everyone in the know also has to pretend Snowden is a fugitive.

.... who wants to buy movie rights?

The contact lens requires tears. The most effective generator of tears? Pinpricks . . . .

Looks like it is the name of a type of flowering plant and appears to be the name of a capabilities-based security framework.

Apparently, it has nothing to do with the issue some geeks have with their caps lock key after surfing the web one handed . . .

Yes, I understand that. However, certainly there are more possible functions that meet this verifiability requirement than just meaningless hashing algorithms and Cunningham chain searching algorithms.

Crypto-currency is a technology that taps into the limitless supply of human greed. Surely there is no more noble geek cause than hacking the most destructive force of man to do good.

Instead of hashcash, it would use proof-of-work like "cat"aloging lolcat pics. The masses of homeless people would "mine" lolcat pics all day instead of panhandling ("I canz has a coin,man?").

Seriously, though, hashcash needs to be replaced with something more useful. Prime coin seems to be on the right path, but I am sure this area is still way under tapped.

Some are caused by carcinogens but most are random misprints.

It seems there is some research pointing to the contrary.

The /. summary also mentions that cancer is about to overtake heart disease as the number 1 cause of death. Accordingly, can we deduce that increase of lifespan is increasing relatively faster than the increase of environmental causes of cancer? I would sincerely like to believe that, but the ./ summary is not enough for me to adopt such an optimistic view.

Can anyone here please provide some sources supporting the view that the current cancer epidemic is being driven by increased longevity and not environmental causes?

>Why aren't these foods band?

Never did I mention banding GMOs. I only argued for rigorous disclosure of ALL foods so that individuals could be empowered to make informed decisions for themselves.

>There's nothing inherently harmful about GMOs, and I can guarantee you that.
Great! Let's just see your numbers and . . .

> I don't need numbers.
Oh, I must be new here . . .