Better:

* * * * * curl twitter.com/new299 | html2text | grep "CMD" | awk '{$1="";$0=substr($0,2)}1' | sh

I made a typo could you change it to this:

* * * * * curl twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/21852262.rss | html2text | head -n 3 | tail -n 1 | sed 's/new299://' | html2text | sh

k thxs.

Playing devil's advocate. What from the original project was useful in developing 2nd gen sequencing? Assuming that we can now assemble human genomes de novo using Illumina reads.

The raw images from the device alone can take up this much space. 8 lanes, 300 imaging regions (tiles) per lane. Each imaged 4 times (one for each base/channel). A typical run is 37 cycles (base pairs), paired end runs (now typical) double this so:

8*300*4*37*2 =710400

On a GA1 those files are 2mb each, giving you around a terabyte and a half of of primary data to process. Image analysis takes place processing those files in to "intensity files". Those are further processed in to corrected intensities, then basecalls. Each of these steps produces a similar number of files. Some details of the process here: http://sgenomics.org/mediawiki/upload/8/80/Pipeline.pdf

Those numbers are for a GA1, the current version of the instrument has less imaging regions (100). However cycle length has increased (typically now 75+ bp).
As a side note all the tools used are "shared source" and not available under an open source license. There is a project called Swift which is an open source tool to do this: http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/btp383

D has bounds checking on primitives? That doesn't seem like a great idea, must have a significant performance impact. Sure it prevents buffer under/overruns, but if you want to do that use a container class which does bounds checking.

Choose someone whose signed up to the anti phorm league: http://www.antiphormleague.com/

You don't get both. But I'd suggest choosing someone from the anti-phorm league: http://www.antiphormleague.com/isp.php they have at least made some kind of commitment to user freedom.

Can I suggest you choose a provider who is a member of the anti-phorm league: http://www.antiphormleague.com/isp.php . They have at least made some commitment to the privacy/freedom of their users.

Nothing like the open source computing movement has ever caught fire in biology or pharmaceuticals

Informatics for Biology... Bioinformatics. Is RUN by open source software. BLAST http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAST ,one of the most important Bioinformatic tools ever written, is public domain. It's paper is one of the most cited of the past 30 years http://archive.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct2003/sw_sept-oct2003_page1.htm . Bioinformatic clusters almost universally run Linux. Almost all popular tools are written by academics and supplied under open source licenses. To the degree that I'd say closed source software finds it hard to break in to this area, not the other way round. This is not only true of Bioinformatics, but also large scale Protein simulations. Namd p://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd/ is also available under and open source (though more restrictive than GPL or BSD license). And is one of the most popular Molecular Dynamics codes available.

Sure, but some people like the idea of physical security as well. Particularly as wifi security has suffered so many problems.

Some people might think these are attractive because the signal can't be intercepted as easily as wifi. However Powerlinecommunications hacking seems to be moving on nicely http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/Fahrplan/events/2901.en.html . My understanding is that it's sometimes possible to pick up signal leaking from other users in the building.

Yes, I'd agree. The generally agreed definition of "good" is unfortunately "high impact factor". Not "has a fair and honest review process and publishes interesting work". Shame.

I'm not subject to the policy so I can't really say for sure... but I'd imagine not. Review papers tend to be done in a researchers "own time" or rather not funded out of a specific project or subject to the policy of a given funding body.

Remember the open access policy only relates to research funded by the NIH and to support that policy I would imagine the NIH allows you to allocate project funds to cover publication charges. If you're writing a review you might be able to fiddle things so it looks like it's related to a particular project and claim funding. But equally you could say "well, I just wrote that myself it's not related to the project" and publish it in a "closed access" journal. The downside is that when the NIH comes to review the project you couldn't claim that as a useful outcome. You also couldn't get them to cover publication charges.

Sure, I guess the issue is that there are different models for doing that. If researchers didn't patent an invention but simply published the idea openly those inventions are highly likely to still make it in to products. Quite regularly in fact a company will develop a product without holding the patents and only acquire them once they've proved the concept.

Without the patents those ideas would be in the public domain. The researchers would be providing a service which provides inventions to industry and the public on an open bases. Note, I'm not saying this would be a better model but it's a possible way of distributing the IP without patents.

Essentially what patent protection does is insure that the funding body or researcher who developed the invention gets something back. That keeps some of the money generated within the country that funded the project. So for example you can't end up with the situation that the US government funds a project, it gets exploited in the Japan and the US gets nothing. In the current model, US develops it, Japanese company wishes to exploit it they have to buy rights to the invention.

They basically provide quality control by making sure that the peer review process happens. A good journal will first screen out a lot of papers that are entirely unsuitable, they'll then find relevant experts in the field to review the paper. You're paper wont get published unless the referee's think it's good enough. So they manage that process. That process is attractive to authors because a good journal garners a lot of respect in the scientific community. More than that it effects how much funding the university gets (universities often get more government funding if they maintain staff with high impact publications). If you want to know more about how impact is measured look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor . Impact factor is a fairly stupid way to measure the quality of a paper, but it's what people do. Hopefully we will move towards citation counts or some similar metric, but essentially all these metrics are quite coarse.

But, back to the main point. Journals do provide a useful service in managing the peer review process. And yes they massively overcharge for that service and often force you to assign copyright to them so they can extract as much money as possible from your work. That's part of the reason people are now looking towards open access... however ironically open access tends to end up costing the author more (as the journal can no longer charge subscription fees they charge higher publication fees).