It is not that necessarily that the weaker ones are killed off. But there has to be some advantage to breeding or survival for a mutation to increase in frequency in a population. Otherwise it just gets diluted out. It is possible that if a mutation isn't a disadvantage it could stick around as a lineage and then later thrive when some outside pressure gets put on the species such that it is now an advantage. So it may not need to happen right way, but it does at some point need to be an advantage for the whole species to evolve.

[I missed this and it is now old, but I'll respond anyway.] Actually, I completely got your point and tried to explain that you are confusing a mutation with cancer. Two points.
1. A single/few cell mutation that is destroyed is not cancer. By definition, cancer is an uncontrolled, invasive growth. If it is controlled right away, it isn't cancer.
2. I am saying that the technique would not detect these single cell mutations because the amount of DNA they would release into the blood would be minimal and the likelihood to detect in a random blood sample infinitesimally small. That is not a concern. The real concern is whether it can detect cancer early enough. Early cancer does not release as much DNA into the bloodstream as later, more invasive cancers. One would ideally like to detect it before it has spread all over the place, and it isn't necessarily clear that this technique will do that.

I really think you guys are worried about the wrong end of this. It is highly unlikely that this test is going to be too sensitive any time soon...quite the opposite, the key will be making it sensitive enough to be useful. One or a few cells aren't going to make enough DNA that you would have any reasonable chance of picking it up in a random blood sample. There would have to be some critical mass there already, and who knows, but I would guess that the amount of DNA released into the blood by even an in situ is going to be too small to detect.

It is true that cells mutate fairly frequently, but most of these are not "cancer". Cancer implies that it grows invasively. These sequencing tests would be looking for certain genes known to be linked with cancer. Perhaps over time they will develop heuristics that will allow for detection of mutations not previously characterized but initially it would probably be limited to cancer genes already understood. But my initial concern is whether early cancers dump enough genetic material into the blood for this to be useful for early detection. I'll bet that it is only after it becomes invasive that it releases enough DNA to detect.

Oh come on.
1) as pointed out above, this is less than a drop in the bucket. I would not call that a dent.
2) It is completely unclear if this would generate any net energy. A case can be made that many of these more inefficient biofuel processes consume more energy than they produce. How does that help.
3) Most importantly, things like this distract from the ONE thing that has a real chance at reducing our dependance on oil, which is nuclear. Solar and wind might help a little, and maybe biofuels can help with energy storage, but what is described here is not a significant part of any real solution.

You can talk about little steps here and there, but it is magical thinking. If we want to get serious about reducing gas usage (I'm not getting into whether this is the right thing, that's a whole separate topic), then nuclear has to be a huge part of the solution.

Actually no. Rate does not necessarily imply a percentage or ratio, it can be with respect to any other measure or unit. A rate can be per unit of time, which would be high. If the GP was using rate as per unit time, which is valid, then the statement is correct.

Hah, sounds like a scene from Austin Powers.

Now many states have have laws requiring essentially that the power company buy or give you credit for anything you produce. So you get the panels installed and apply for a two way meter from the electric company. They keep track of how much you produce and subtract it off your consumption essentially.

Furthermore, some states require utility companies to use so much power from solar, and this is done essentially by buying credits from people making solar. So in NJ if I have 10 kW worth of panels I might generate enough credits in a year to sell for $6000. It is essentially the state dictating that the power company has to pay me money for making solar energy. That is on top of the savings you get from using less electricity.

So with federal rebates, a 10 kw system costs around $35k to $40k to install. But with the credits and electricity savings, it will "pay for itself" in 5 years or so.

In NJ this fell apart a little bit because everyone saw it was a good deal and there is now an oversupply of these credits, so the value of the credits are less than half of what they were last year. Time will tell how it all shakes out. If I got no money for the credits, the panels should pay for themselves in 20 years. So it will be somewhere between a ton of free money and a marginal investment.

While cool, it is really note that close to what the GP is proposing. This is essentially just a defined pattern of water going through a sheet of light to make a pattern.

The GP is proposing a complex combination of water pattern with lasers to illuminate it to create a 3D image.

Perhaps you are missing that your comment demonstrated an astounding combination of ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. Sickle cell TRAIT (heterozygotes) makes you resistant, not immune, to malaria. Sickle cell anemia (homozygotes) makes you die early (and generally have a painful and debilitating life before that without treatment). Says so right in the article you linked to. And to not know that nearly a million Africans are dying from malaria each year is remarkable.

Well, for one, a huge amount of resources now are spent by humanitarian organizations in treating and fighting malaria. If this puts a significant dent in that, some of the expense and effort put into fighting malaria can be used for education, training, building infrastructure, etc.

Well I'm over 35, have met him, and don't think he's an asshole. I'd hang out with him over Steve Jobs (RIP) any day. His egocentricity does not approach that of what Jobs was. He is giving away his money. He already has. You appear to not like how he's using it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he's giving away hundreds of millions to different research groups and charities.

Did anyone else click on the link thinking this was regarding a new Samsung phone?

Well, I'll give them a chance to get it right. Make no mistake that Apple is clearly moving their desktop OS toward the iOS as well.

This needs to happen in some form if we're ever going to be able to get real work done on a tablet. The trick is getting the balance right. Ideally you can made Metro go away if you wish for desktop machines, but it sounds like that may be wishful thinking.

Worst case scenario, I stick with Win 7 on the desktop until they figure it out and get a Win8 tablet. I must say I'm pretty excited about the prospects of a ULV Haswell-based tablet running Win8. I'm thinking of a design like the new Thinkpad tablet that has the keyboard attachment, but with a real OS. Could finally ditch the laptop for good.

Oh come on, copy/paste still sucks on Android 2.2.1 on my Droid X. Works OK for some things (phone numbers) in some applications, but it was still definitely a step back from WinMo 6.5 in this regard. For one, the stylus was just a must better select tool than my fat finger. I still miss it sometimes. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and reason that it was not ready and rather than delay the entire release they are patching it, supposedly soon. Let's see if they come up with something better than Google or Apple. Shouldn't be too hard from what I've seen.

I'm very unlikely to ditch Android at this point because overall I'm quite satisfied, but I think the OS shows promise and choice is good.

A lude is a tranquilizer. We're looking for lewd.