Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science News

X Prizes for DNA, Nanotech, Autos, Education 160

Posted by Hemos from the pushing-it-forward dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Larry Page and Craig Venter are now on the X Prize Board of Trustees, and Peter Diamandis, the man behind the $10 million space prize, said new X prizes are in the works for innovations in automobiles, education, nanotech and DNA reseach. Diamandis, from the article: "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon? I think that we'll see some amazing achievements in this area." This is in addition to the foundation's incentive to completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people covered earlier on Slashdot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X Prizes for DNA, Nanotech, Autos, Education More

X Prizes for DNA, Nanotech, Autos, Education

Comments Filter:

  • "Decode DNA"? Oh really? DES or RSA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:25PM (#14600526) Journal
    This is in addition to the foundation's incentive to completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people covered earlier on Slashdot.
    If there's one thing that confuses me, it's why anyone ever uses the verb "decode" when speaking about DNA. Maybe it's just because it sounds cool and "sequence DNA" isn't quite as futuristic. Because that's all their asking for them to do--read the DNA into a form that reflects the ordering of G, T, A or C which are abbreviations for the different possible amino acids.

    Now, to "decode" that would mean that it's encrypted somehow, but it's not. It's there in strands in the center of a cell's nucleus. Maybe "extract" would work as a verb, but we're certainly not cracking any encryption. Do I use RSA encryption to protect my genes from you? No. Even if I did, they'd likely only have to crack it once unless everyone used separate public keys.

    What it would really mean to decode DNA would be to figure out what the sequence is actually telling us [wikipedia.org] and we are a far far way from that. The sequence reveals the three letter nucleotides and these then reveal many different proteins that form upon folding. We need to find out which are junk [wikipedia.org], how recombination works [wikipedia.org], what defines a stop codon, which nucleotides form which proteins [wikipedia.org], understanding the C-value [wikipedia.org], etc. Once that happens, then we can start claiming we've decoded something. Please, people, its function is encrypted, not its sequence.

    When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize. If you take it literally, that's awfully ambitious. Of course, there's no way to reverse the use of this word as I believe the media has made it a permanent house-hold phrase ...
    • If there's one thing that confuses me, it's why anyone ever uses the verb "decode" when speaking about DNA.

      Funny, because what's been confusing me is why anyone would use the word "decode" when they are speaking of a cipher. Wouldn't you say "decipher" instead?

      A code is simply a map from one representation to another, such as:

      -map from DNA to protein
      -map from book attributes to a Library of Congress number
      -map from a packed memory structure to a set of attributes

      I'm just kidding about decode not applying t
      • If you really want to nitpick, let's do this. From here [webster.com]:

        decode
        Main Entry: decode
        Pronunciation: (")dE-'kOd
        Function: transitive verb
        1 a : to convert (as a coded message) into intelligible form b : to recognize and interpret (an electronic signal)
        2 a : DECIPHER 3a b : to discover the underlying meaning of

        Ok, so if it was an electrical signal, I'd let it slide. Otherwise, it is decoding a messege into something intelligible which GTAAACTTGAAAA isn't ... or it is synonymous with decipher.
        • Actually, one could consider GTAAACTTGAAAA intelligible. If you consider that the without sequencing DNA is just a bit of goo in a cell nucleus. By "decoding" it into a string of letters with a well recognized "code" for mapping between letters and bases you've translated it into something that can be written or spoken.

          Intelligible doesn't mean that everyone who reads it understand it. Open any high level math textbook and show a formula at random to an intelligent person who doesn't study math. Most likely

    • Re:"Decode DNA"? Oh really? DES or RSA? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rac3r5 ( 804639 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:47PM (#14600689)
      very informative first post. Thanks for the info. BTW, decode doesn't necessairly mean something is encrypted, it just means that you're changing stuff from one understood medium to another understood medium. Like the way ppl decode clay tablets that were written 1000 years ago. I write network level code and to me, decode and decryption are two different things. When I decode a network packet, I just strip away the headers depending on whats in it. When I decrypt a network packet, I need to use some keys etc. I guess its all about your POV of things.

      Just my 2 cents. :p

    • Re:"Decode DNA"? Oh really? DES or RSA? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dekortage ( 697532 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:51PM (#14600720) Homepage

      When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize.

      For what it is worth... in the article, the X-prize folks did NOT use the word "decode" when referring to DNA; they said "sequence". Only the LiveScience.com article writer used the word "decode".

      • When an X-prize is issued using this wording, it really makes me think twice if they really even know what they want done to win the prize.

        For what it is worth... in the article, the X-prize folks did NOT use the word "decode" when referring to DNA; they said "sequence". Only the LiveScience.com article writer used the word "decode".
        -----

        I love Slashdot, but I die a little inside each time I see a +5 comment based on a completely incorrect understanding of the article stemming from the poster obviously no
    • read the DNA into a form that reflects the ordering of G, T, A or C which are abbreviations for the different possible amino acids.

      Oh really? Last I checked, G, T, A, and C stood for guanine, thymine, adenine, and cytosine, the four nitrogenous bases of DNA. There are 20 amino acids (no, I won't list them all), none of which are components of DNA (ignoring histones, etc.).
    • Now, to "decode" that would mean that it's encrypted somehow, but it's not. It's there in strands in the center of a cell's nucleus. Maybe "extract" would work as a verb, but we're certainly not cracking any encryption. Do I use RSA encryption to protect my genes from you? No. Even if I did, they'd likely only have to crack it once unless everyone used separate public keys.

      Well there is a bit of encryption of the human body in the DNA. The code itself only is about 20mb, but yet it can some how produce thou
    • it's why anyone ever uses the verb "decode" when speaking about DNA.

      Because that's acceptable terminology in the field.

      Now, what I don't understand is why computer scientists use the term "optimize" for processes that clearly produces suboptimal solutions.
    • I think it's great that the X Prize foundation is finally going to get to the bottom of the genetic causes of Asperger's Syndrome. Kudos.

  • I thought every /.er knew the answer to this one (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:25PM (#14600529)
    "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"

    Because the oil companies buy out/sue out any startup that attempts to make a practical electric car.
    • Because some of us like to drive 500-1000 miles at a time on a somewhat regular basis, and yes its cheaper/more convenient than flying/train/emu. Especially once you have a family.
    • modern American cars. Makes you think!
      Still, there's are some basic laws of thermodynamics getting in the way of huge improvements (>100mpg) without significant changes in what folks consider to be cars.

      Changing to electric power only moves the problem (burn more coal/oil to make electricity).

      • Changing to electric power only moves the problem (burn more coal/oil to make electricity).

        I've seen this argument a number of times for presumably not using electric vehicles. Surely it is better to centralise the power generation allowing for economies of scale and single point of generation to always be as clean as technically and economically possible?

        If everyone's second car (third/fourth/fifth car?) was electric and just used for the local driving it would cut down pollution in the towns and citie

    • Re:I thought every /.er knew the answer to this on (Score:5, Funny)

      by OctoberSky ( 888619 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:24PM (#14601034)
      We need to enhance the moderation format to include "+1 Tinfoil Hat" Everytime we get some qusi-paranoid conspiracy theory we just mod it up +1 Tinfoil Hat, although the rest of the moderation system may get jealous because they will never be used...

      I blame Microsoft for the lack of this feature. I think it is a conspiracy between them and the NSA to keep us from expanding our Tinfoil Army.
    • Well, thermodynamics only let you go so far. And contemporary engines sacrifice mileage in favour of emissions. You could probably improve your mileage with 10-20% or so by running very lean mixtures, but you'd release a whole lot of NOx. Causing smog amongst others.

      Even electric cars don't have that great an efficiency as the combustion process is just deferred to a power station instead. If you replace a high-efficiency biodiesel engine with a coal plant you shoot yourself in the foot badly.

      Personally, I
  • They did all these feats on snowboards. No really. I saw it on ESPN yesterday. You haven't truly recombined DNA till you've done it on the backk of a snowmobile doing 40! Booyah!

  • $1073 per second (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:27PM (#14600549)
    Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?

    clear profit [yahoo.com]

    enjoy those tax cuts
    • Arugments like these always give me a good laugh. I suppose if you live in a fantasy world, it makes perfect sense to assume that Oil Companies have large quantities of assasins looking to cap anyone who comes up with a fuel efficient car.

      Meanwhile, in the Real-World (tm), basic economics dictates that anyone able to produce a more fuel efficient car with similar performance to todays models, or better yet a high-efficiency alternate-fuel vehicle with a convinient power-source, this person or comany would

  • education? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by enjahova ( 812395 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:28PM (#14600559) Homepage
    What kind of prize are they going to offer for education? I can see easily quantifiable results in the other areas, but does anyone know what they are thinking about in education?
    • Well ... its not hard to quantify: require that a teaching method reproducibly improve scores on some standardized tests by some % in some number of days. In other words, if it currently takes 9 months of teaching to move a kid from 4th grade level to 5th grade level on some standardized test, offer the x-prize to a method that will do the same in one month. (Of course, you'll probably want to make it x# hours of targetted instruction to allow for the fact that not all of our schooling is or should be tar

      • Re:education? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by 7macaw ( 933316 )
        Then you'll get children who pass tests well. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the quality of education (as a process that prepares kids to carry on the progress of humanity)
        • Well of course. That's why you have to make an effort to make your tests as relevant to the real world as possible. I'd actually suggest that the existing standardized tests are pretty good: the students we are churning out of the schools can't pass them, and the students suck. If students were doing extremely well in reality, but poorly on the standardized tests, then I'll be concerned about the quality of the tests.

          • one of the problems is that there are no culturely neutral standardised tests that accuratly assess things that you'd normally want assessed. Don't go down the IQ road - those tests are so wacked it's not funny (and can be "trained" for just as lie detectors can).

            Even in our field, IT, there loads of certificate tests that are about as well designed as it is capable to achieve. But we keep coming back to the fact that the only way you can test if someone can fix a DNS server is to give them a broken one an

      • Re:education? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by enjahova ( 812395 )
        Maybe an X Prize for the first one to invent a way to get rid of standardized tests?
    • Someone has come up with an objective criteria for education quality first.
      • The *real* problem is, of course, finding objective criteria on objectiveness. Otherwise you could just set up an X-prize in finding objective criteria for education quality, and then use the results to set up a prize for education quality itself. Simple, no?

  • It's great to see private companies encouraging this kind if creativity! But at the same time its sad to see billions of federal tax dollars going to complete waste. I can't help but imagine if the US put billions into science and technology and not blowing up countries.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

  • Answer: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by localroger ( 258128 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:29PM (#14600569) Homepage
    Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?

    Because cars have to conform to safety and performance standards that preclude making them too underpowered or too light. The compact cars we have now (which regularly do get 40-50 MPG) already fare badly in a collision with a pickup truck, much less a tractor trailer. When all cars are as solid as motorcycles, all cars will be as dangerous as motorcycles. When a car that is only as solid as a motorcycle also can't accelerate or keep up with the other traffic, it makes a motorcycle seem like a Cadillac by comparison. Or would you try the experiment of driving one of the participants in the Solar Challenge on an unrestricted road alongside normal vehicles?

    • Re:Answer: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dal20402 ( 895630 ) * <dal20402 AT mac DOT com> on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:50PM (#14600717) Journal
      This is completely self-perpetuating, and your answer is just "There's nothing we can do about it."

      There is no reason a vehicle has to be 18 feet long and weigh 5000 pounds to be safe or perform adequately. They are that big because people like big vehicles, plain and simple. Why? Who knows. Probably a combination of 1) misguided feelings of safety and 2) dick size.

      Because of its superior responsiveness and its unwillingness to roll or tip, I feel far safer driving a 2500-pound Honda Civic with good tires than a monster Ford truck. Statistics on the frequency (as opposed to severity) of accidents not related to reckless/negligent driving bear my intuition out.

      Half the solution is to make the cost of driving large vehicles reflect their social cost, through increased gas taxes, registration fees based on vehicle weight, and requiring a CDL with the attendant fees and training for all trucks over 5000 lbs. or over 78" high. The other half of the solution is to convince people that driving your 200-pound self to the grocery store in a 5000-pound truck is stupid.

      • Re:Answer: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:24PM (#14601042) Homepage Journal
        The solution is even simpler. Stop the federal government from artificially lowering oil prices in the United States.

        When gas prices rise to the $5+ a gallon the rest of the world already pays, just like the rest of the world, smaller cars will begin to make much more sense those same people driving their fat 200lb asses to the grocery store in their 5,000 lb. trucks.

        • Re:Answer: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Please note that in the U.S., a significant portion of the price of gasoline (at the pump) is due to various federal and state government tax, most of which are specific to gas, rather than general sales tax or value-added tax. In Europe (which, I assume, is what you're thinking of when you say "the rest of the world", and in any case is all I have knowledge of), the governments generally tack on an even higher tax rate than the U.S. does. So, at least as far as consumer prices, rather than from refineries,
          • You're missing something important: In Europe, the reason their taxes on gasoline are so high is because they use that tax money to maintain the roads. In the US, road building and maintenance is subsidized with other taxes. In effect, if for example you live in NYC, don't own a car at all, and use the subway and cabs to get everywhere, a significant amount of the tax money you pay still goes to pay for our nation's highway and road infrastructure.

            Obviously, the European model is more sane. Make the peop
        • This started happening when gas hit $3 per gallon here. A lot of the people I know who drive trucks & SUVs started using their Hondas and Saturns a lot more.

          IMO, owning 2 cars is a good way to go. I'm a sports car guy, and always felt it smart to own an impractical, expensive, inefficent, and absolutly fabulous car for the weekends as well as a reasonable family car for the trek to work.
      • ...but you are just plain wrong about the safety issue. Not because there is a problem with small cars; if you were the only driver on the road and the only hazard to your health was your own skill, you'd be right, the Civic would be much safer than an Expedition. But you also must worry about the skill level of the other driver with an Expedition. If you are in an Expedition too and he T-bones you because he locked up the brakes, you will probably walk away although you'll probably be in the market for
      • There is no reason a vehicle has to be 18 feet long and weigh 5000 pounds to be safe or perform adequately. They are that big because people like big vehicles, plain and simple. Why? Who knows. Probably a combination of 1) misguided feelings of safety and 2) dick size.

        I drive an SUV for two reasons: 1) Room to haul kids and crap, and 2) safety. It is the biggest myth in history that big cars are somehow less safe than small cars. Read my lips (and read the research): WEIGHT = SAFETY. I don't feel like pro

        • Weight IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION equals safety. And only in a two-vehicle accident.

          Low center of gravity also equals safety. Having a vehicle actually engineered from the ground up to carry passengers exclusively equals safety. You don't get that with most SUVs.

          Oh, and you're more dangerous to pedestrians and the occupants of other vehicles REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE DRIVING.

          A large sedan of similar (or even slightly less) mass will stomp your SUV in almost every safety category. The only type of accid
        • I drive an SUV for two reasons: 1) Room to haul kids and crap, and 2) safety. It is the biggest myth in history that big cars are somehow less safe than small cars. Read my lips (and read the research): WEIGHT = SAFETY

          Except that statistics simply don't support your conclusion. Look at any study on nhtsa.gov and you will see that fatality rates are roughly the same for cars, pickups and SUVs despite the larger vehicles' increased weight.

          Why? Poor maneuverability. Yes, you have a better chance of survivi

          • Look at any study on nhtsa.gov and you will see that fatality rates are roughly the same for cars, pickups and SUVs despite the larger vehicles' increased weight.

            Spoken like someone who never actually looks at the studies. Well, I have, and you are Just Plain Wrong. I'm tired of tracking it down everytime someone makes this post of ignorance. Dig out the statistics, and look at the death rates per 100,000 miles.

            Dude, it's simple math. SUV = 15 mpg. Ordinary car = 30 mpg.

            No. My Honda Pilot gets about

            • Dig out the statistics, and look at the death rates per 100,000 miles.

              And that would prove what exactly ? Pretty much nothing. You will have to look at death rates per X actual accidents if you want to get any meaningful statement on which type of vehicle is safer _in a crash_.

              • Dig out the statistics, and look at the death rates per 100,000 miles. [...] And that would prove what exactly ?

                "What is the probability of my death by getting in this car."

                • "What is the probability of my death by getting in this car."



                  Right. And that is influenced by many and more significant factors besides "How well will this car protect me in case of an accident.".

                  If you want to know that, you will need to look at fatalities/accident instead of fatalities/distance.
                   


                  • Right. And that is influenced by many and more significant factors besides "How well will this car protect me in case of an accident.".

                    Sure, but who cares? What's important is the overall question of safety. And, overall, SUVs (and heavier cars) are safer than light cars, as proven by the death rates. It's somewhat interesting (I guess) to break down all the factors, but the important question is how often I'll die.

    • Re:Answer: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There actually are such vehicles, however none in serial production.
      For example this one: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/vw_abandon s_its.html [greencarcongress.com], which is apparently very dead.
    • Yes but SUV's dont exactly do well in most real life accidents...

      and in fact, for children, an SUV is far more dangerous than a regular car.

      (SUV's have a high roll over problem resulting in children being flung out the window)

    • Re:Answer: (Score:3, Informative)

      by K-Man ( 4117 )
      I ride a "Solar Challenge" vehicle to work every day. It's called a bicycle.
    • When all cars are as solid as motorcycles, all cars will be as dangerous as motorcycles.

      Not true [commutercars.com]
      • The sum total of the information about safety on that page is that the microcar has a roll cage and it isn't nearly as unstable as it looks.

        In any kind of impact, however, there just doesn't appear to be enough room for sufficiently smoothing out impact deceleration or for imact absorbing structures that won't get pushed into the cockpit. Show me the crash test videos and then I'll believe them.
    • That's funny, my car that gets 50 mpg (2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI) has extremely good safety:

      http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-in t/2003/volkswagen/jetta/index.html [internetautoguide.com]

      I also have no problem leaving many other cars behind at stoplights, if I care to waste the gas.
      • My 1998 Jetta TDI with >250,000mi STILL gets 44mpg winter, 47mpg summer.

        My car pays for itself in savings over previously-owned Ford F150's MPG.
    • What you've missed is that horsepower and torque in engines continues to rise while our gas milage stays somewhat constant. It would be realatively easy to trade a few horsepower for better gas milage. Of course then some people would have to wait an extra 1/10 second to get to 60 mph and clearly that would just be unacceptable and nobody would ever buy a new car again.

    • Re:Answer: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )
      There are things we can do.

      Why doesn't ever car have a continuously-variable-transmission (or CVT)? They are more efficient than any manual or automatic transmission because the engine is always operating at peak efficiency. They are simpler than a automatic transmission (have you ever LOOKED at how one of those works?). And you can do 0-60 about 25% faster than with a normal gearbox because you don't need the gear changes and such. Plus, you could probably make 'em smaller than a normal transmission. Ligh

      • I don't disagree with anything you brought up, per se-- but I do want to mention the terribly long lead-times on vehicles. Modern automobiles are such finely-tuned, heavily-regulated beasts that it takes a huge amount of effort to make even a modest change; to switch technologies completely (i.e. building a hybrid) with current processes might take a decade.

        So in the end, I don't think the problem is Detroit's current attitude (the NYT ran a few articles about the changing attitudes of US auto manufacturers

    • You assume... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak&yahoo,com> on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:44PM (#14601255) Homepage Journal
      ...many things. First, you assume that the engine is extracting all the available energy from the fuel. This is probvably not the case. Most car exhaust contains oxides of nitrogen, which uses more energy to form than it releases. The engines are rarely kept at an optimal temperature for combustion. Cylinders are not particularly efficient devices. Because cars only have a very small number of gears, the engines are tuned for a very wide band of speeds, which means you lose efficiency. More gears and tighter bands would produce more usable power.


      Second, you assume iron is the only metal. Titanium, although hard to extract right now, is not only lighter than steel, it is considerably stronger. This means that it should survive impacts very nicely. Vastly better than steel for the same weight.


      Third, you assume that impact resistance requires the vehicle's survival. F1 and Indycar disprove this. You can certainly build vehicles using carbon composites that are designed to shatter, for the explicit purpose of getting energy away from the vehicle's occupant(s). Since a wrecked car is unlikely to be repaired (and even if it is, it'll often be substantially weaker), there is little actual advantage in having the car mostly intact but unusable anyway.


      Fourth, you assume that car bodies are particularly efficient. Many have a lot of drag (which is why cyclists have topped 100 mph by staying close behind cars), the underbody is covered in pipes and gaps creating all kinds of nasty airflows, etc. You also only need significant grip when accelerating (that includes cornering, as it's a change in velocity, and emergency manoevers). If you're going in a straight line at uniform speed, you only have to overcome air resistance, and that's not going to require a whole lot.


      This is not to say that you can build a car that can take advantage of all - or indeed any - of these characteristics. If it's not been done, there is no proof it can be done. However, a lack of proof is not proof of lack. All it proves is that nobody has (yet) established what the "ultimate" car would actually be - even in theory.

  • Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?

    Um, because consumers have never demanded anything different and Detroit and Big Oil have squelched attempts to develop new technologies for fear of cutting into their profit margin?

    If these new X-Prizes bear fruit, it may signal breaking the grip of the big guys on the market, but I think there's less competition for a successful space plane than there is for a fuel-efficient, alternative-fuel car. Even i

    • Who cares about Detroit? Check the business section of the newspaper. GM is already "junk" status, and Ford is headed the same way fast. Both these companies may actually go bankrupt soon. That only leaves Chrysler, which is part German.

      Honda and Toyota have had hybrid vehicles on the market for over 5 years now, and will be propagating the technology to the rest of their products soon. Toyota is also the world's largest automaker.

  • A Different Kind of Goal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MankyD ( 567984 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:31PM (#14600585) Homepage
    One interesting thing about these goals is that we do not currently have even a solid hint of an idea as to how to solve them.

    While the Personal Spacecraft challenge was indeed a monumental feat, it was largely an engineering challenge. Humans have already sent themselves into space many times. The technology was there; humans have a fair understanding of chemical rocketry and aerodynamics.

    These new challenges are in a different league. No one has yet decoded that much human DNA that quickly. No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).

    These challenges represent not just break throughs in engineering, but in the fundamental knowledge that underpins them.

    • Re:A Different Kind of Goal (Score:4, Informative)

      by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:48PM (#14600704) Homepage
      No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).
      70MPG good enough? [vw.com]
      • You conveniently missed the "practical" point. Do a cost analysis on a hybrid and even with the amount of gas you will save over the life of the car you will generally lose.
        • But I linked to the Jetta TDI. It's not a hybrid, it's a diesel
          Although I flubbed the numbers -- it's a 45MPG car, not a 70MPG. Still 50% better than the 30MPG benchmark in the parent post.
          • Even so: do a cost benefit analysis and tell us that you win in the money department, cause that's all that matters to 80+% of drivers. Once you do that you will have the ears of 80+% of us. Until then, the 30ish MPG cars will rule.
            • Cost/benefit analyis is basically X barrels of oil vs. the cost of the car.
              As the price of oil changes, the cost/benefit will change as well.

              If you take the into the cost/benefit analysis the cost of the car over, say, 20 years, then you ought to take not the current gas price, but the average expected gas price over 20 years - which is much, much higher than the current price.
              • If you take the into the cost/benefit analysis the cost of the car over, say, 20 years, then you ought to take not the current gas price, but the average expected gas price over 20 years - which is much, much higher than the current price.

                Yup. You factor in inflation. But you know what? Gas today actually hasn't kept pace with inflation, it is lower than inflation. My dad paid more to fill up his tank when he was my age then I fill it up for now, if you factor inflation. People have been saying for years
      • And that is 70 miles per gallon of fryolator grease, [greengreasemonkey.com] right?
      • 70MPG good enough?

        Parent is lying like a fisherman, if you follow the link the Jetta gets 30 highway mpg (gasoline version), or 41 for the diesel.
        • Not lying, just stupid.
          A bit more googling makes it look like lifetime milage on the TDI is in the 45mpg range, with a few folks reporting *best tank milage* of 51mpg. (that's extrodinary, noteworthy, NOT every tankfull)

          But still not 70MPG by any stretch, sorry for posting before googling.
    • No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).

      Ever hear of the TDI engine from Volkswagon? My wife and I have a 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (Wagon) with the TDI engine and get an *average* of 50 mpg.

      Solid car, great safety record (http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-i nt/2003/volkswagen/jetta/index.html [internetautoguide.com])

      More info:
      http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/03jetta_t di.htm [canadiandriver.com]
    • No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of)

      Your joking right? Try a Volkswagen Turbo Diesel. They sell a Jetta, Golf and Passat. I believe the passat is just under 40. The Volkswagen TDI's are available in the U.S. now. In 2007 you should be able to get a Diesel Honda Accord that will get 45MPG. The Honda is already being sold in Europe. These cars sound pretty pratical as they are the exact same body frame as their petrol couterparts. Unless yo
      • Sigh... First, read the last part of the sentence - "that I know of". I didn't say they didn't exist. Second, I said "much over" 40. I just sort of made a round number up based on the last time I heard high mpg touted. I don't really consider 45 to be significantly over 40.
    • No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).

      My 1994 Geo Metro cost $1300 a year ago and gets 40mpg city and 45mpg highway on gasoline as long as I keep it under 65 (and the Ford Festiva is similar), but it sadly takes 45 seconds to go from 0 to 60. Others have already pointed out the VW alternatives which are newer and perform better on diesel. The Metro is what happened when power was traded for efficiency over a decade ago. A similar car made today would

  • Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?

    Simple, with our current economy and infrastructure it is more profitable to very influential energy companies this way. And since our current President and Vice President are very close to these energy companies, you will see very little in the way of change.

    Let's hope the X-prize will be a catalyst for widespread use of new types of renewable energy.

    • Re:Why not use renewable energy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by servognome ( 738846 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:55PM (#14600749)
      Simple, with our current economy and infrastructure it is more profitable to very influential energy companies this way. And since our current President and Vice President are very close to these energy companies, you will see very little in the way of change.

      Actually the reason is with our current economy and infrastucture it was more profitable for EVERYBODY. Notice how people are now looking for alternatives to gas powered vehicles at the same time the oil companies are making record profits [yahoo.com].
      When oil was cheap there was no incentive to look at alternatives, now that it's become more expensive there is a market demand for more efficient/alternative fuel vehicles.
      • When oil was cheap there was no incentive to look at alternatives

        I beg to differ, air pollution has always been a problem and many people I know would prefer to save money on fuel, no matter how cheap it was.
        I understand that there may have been little incentive for most people, but there was still the concern that the oil would eventually run out and that it was not necessarily a good thing to be exporting so much oil from a chaotic Middle East, Venezuela and far away Norway.
        If there is a more effi

  • ARRGH! Too much information! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:38PM (#14600628)
    ...completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people covered earlier on Slashdot."

    I'm well aware the Japanese have a word for it, but please, no more stories about people covered in DNA.
  • Extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are just some of the properties (for the want of a better word) that motivate people. These rewards will help solve these problems, which are not impossible, just technologically difficult.
  • I R'd TFA and they linked to an article describing cars using around 250 miles/gallon [livescience.com].

    • Re:250 miles per gallon (Score:4, Informative)

      by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:02PM (#14600809)
      I R'd TFA and they linked to an article describing cars using around 250 miles/gallon.

      That figure is kind of misleading since the car described is a plug-in hybrid. The car drove 250 miles using one gallon of gasoline plus an unspecified amount of coal burned to generate the electricity to charge its batteries...

  • wrong question (Score:3, Informative)

    by amuck ( 529908 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @02:54PM (#14600740)
    "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"

    The question should be: Why do we still drive cars?

    Certainly in urban areas this is the most inefficient way of getting people from point a to b.

    Check out http://www.carfree.com/ [carfree.com] for a non mainstream look at this issue.

    This would be a good chance to address real questions and not just come across as another "rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic" type endeavor.

    • Re:wrong question (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jsiren ( 886858 )
      The way to get people out of their cars: Have public transport that goes where people want to go, when they want to go. It must be convenient, comfortable, and cheap to use. This usually implies a rail service.

      Have comfortable, easily accessible stops/stations in good locations.

      Have a service so frequent that people won't have to think about timetables; have direct connections for the majority of customers, and make connections easy to figure, intuitive as it were: well marked on route maps and timetabl

  • What the window-washer heard: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:01PM (#14600795)
    (Window washer outside the X-Prize conference room window): Voice 1: Gentlemen, we're in deep doo-doo. We made the first X-Prize waay too easy. We thought we'd get many years of howls, watching various crazy inventors blow themselves up trying to claim the prize. Instead we've gotten NO laughs and we've actually had to pay out $$$$$$ !!!!

    Voice 2: Solution: Simple! Let's advertise some NEW prizes, for things that are basically impossible: either violate basic laws of Physics, or too vague to quantify. Then we can really howl, and never have to pay out another dime!

    Chorus: Yes! Yes! Yes!

  • completely decode the DNA of 100 or more people ... on Slashdot

    Common results included a disregard for traditional business models, predisposition for processed snack cakes and energy drinks, and an unusual heightened responsiveness to patellar reflex stimulation. Only 1% of the sample set were found to know what a naked woman looks like, which not surprisingly corresponded directly to the 1% determined to actually be women.
  • 1) Consumers don't want alternatives (unless your a Californian)
    2) Governments don't want alternatives (unless your California)
    3) Car companies don't want alternatives (unless you forced to sell in California)
    4) Gas companies don't want alternatives. (Because they are Texan)

    There are litteraly countless designs out there both to improve fuel efficiency, use alternative fuels or power supplies, or use considerably more environmentally friendly technology then what we use now. They have been around for as lo
    • I have a fluid mechanics book that plotted the drag coefficients of different car designs from the Model T to a modern car from 1998 or so (when the book was published, showing basically an inverse exponential curve that started sluffing off in the 70's. It then showed a car that had a much lower drag coefficient that was "the highest theoretical" that was "possible as soon as consumers showed an interest". Its drag coefficient was half the amount of the current generation car. Halving drag would lower fuel
  • "Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon?"

    2 points, 1 question

    1. I guess your 30mpg is an average. I know most SUVs don't come close to that.

    2. Frankly, I find it amazing that you can take a 1 gallon jug of liquid and slowly burn it and propel yourself and 3000 pounds of vehicle 30 miles. I know there are vehicles that can even do better, but 30 miles is a lonnnnnnnnng way. To be able to do that will 1 gallon of dinosaur juice seems pretty good.

    Q1.
    • Frankly, I find it amazing that you can take a 1 gallon jug of liquid and slowly burn it and propel yourself and 3000 pounds of vehicle 30 miles.

      Uh huh. If we finally had a working, energy-producing fusion reactor, you could take a 1 gallon jug of liquid and power the whole world for quite a bit of time. If the US decided to move to 1 compact New York style location and didn't require the massive amounts of fuel to move bodies from home to work to the mall to the grocery store to school to etc, how woul

    • Q1. If the US decided to move to 1 compact New York style location and didn't require the massive amounts of fuel to move bodies from home to work to the mall to the grocery store to school to etc, how would that affect the economy?

      The economy would be decimated, because of the ensuing crime and murders.

  • Give me a break (Score:4, Informative)

    by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .101retsaMytilaeR.> on Monday January 30, 2006 @04:41PM (#14601889) Homepage Journal
    Why do we still drive cars that use an internal combustion engine and only get 30 miles per gallon? I think that we'll see some amazing achievements in this area.

    Yeah, it's not like car manufacturers haven't spent any money on research in that area (*cough*tens of billions*cough*).

    Sheesh, it is astoundingly naive to believe that a mere 10 million dollar prize is going to bring about some "magic motor" that is far more fuel efficient than what we have. Some of the smartest engineers in the world have been working on the problem for at least four decades.

    Space is different -- there isn't much of a direct economic incentive to get to space, so giving out a prize for a relatively useless stunt made a little bit of sense. But there is already an immense economic incentive to produce a fuel-efficient motor. The patent on something like that would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions).

    While they're at it, why don't they offer a prize for human-level AI. I hear no one has been working on that, either. ::rolls eyes::

  • solar panel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @07:50PM (#14603312) Journal
    How about... make a solar panel that's more than N% efficient?
  • A nuclear SUV? All you'd have to do is make an SUV big enough to fit the concrete tower on the back and you'd only have to refuel every 20 years or so! Works for aircraft carriers!

Slashdot Top Deals

"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?" - Post Brothers comics

Close