Technology Predictions for the next decade

[jannievanzyl]

Agreed. Very nice reading. Interesting to see so many commentators who did not read the actual article.

I however do not agree on the 40MHz blocks in the 700Mhz band.

For a while now it's become clear that reading the articles is not a prerequisite to comment on them.

What would you suggest for allocation blocks? More than 40MHz? I won't disagree.

 

[TheBossMan]

Toilet Humor FTW!!!

 

[UnUnOctium]

Agreed. Very nice reading. Interesting to see so many commentators who did not read the actual article.

I however do not agree on the 40MHz blocks in the 700Mhz band.

For a while now it's become clear that reading the articles is not a prerequisite to comment on them.

What would you suggest for allocation blocks? More than 40MHz? I won't disagree.

40 MHz is plenty. IMO would be fair to have multiple smaller blocks than a few large blocks. Under-utilization is a major problem and with the current spectrum licensing models, no one other than the regulator can do anything about it. Imagine the Sentech scenario but with them sitting on half of the spectrum to be given out at 800 MHz. That's some top-demand spectrum that would be sitting empty. That's the main reason behind the move from fixed spectrum transceivers to intelligent, cognitive transceivers (radios).

I believe it's about time the licensing framework moves from the 20th century into the 21st. The rest of the world has already taken the first steps, would be wise for us to follow suit sooner rather than later.

 

[Lord Anubis]

In the 80's it was predicted that by the year 2000 we would fly around with jet backpacks, there would be space stations on the moon...bleh, predictions suck!

 

[Ghost29]

Whoever wrote this was a bit scant on his research, or on just plain common sense. The price per genome may be coming down but the price of next-gen sequencers capable of these tasks runs into the millions. There is also the problem of data storage and interpretation. This is where we are struggling the most at the moment. We are generating terabyte upon terabyte of data but we lack the place to store it let alone the capacity to figure out what it all means.

Also, why on earth would you want a genome sequencer at home? Your genome doesn't change. You would only need to use this device once and then it would become redundant.

 

[j4ck455]

Whoever wrote this was a bit scant on his research, or on just plain common sense. The price per genome may be coming down but the price of next-gen sequencers capable of these tasks runs into the millions. There is also the problem of data storage and interpretation. This is where we are struggling the most at the moment. We are generating terabyte upon terabyte of data but we lack the place to store it let alone the capacity to figure out what it all means.

Also, why on earth would you want a genome sequencer at home? Your genome doesn't change. You would only need to use this device once and then it would become redundant.

I disagree.

Cloud computing will be the answer to the data processing and storage issues you mentioned.

DNA gets damaged by various forms of radiation, e.g. Ultraviolet, and it happens every day, regular analysis of one's DNA would be a very effective preventative measure especially when combined with nanotechnology to weed out rogue DNA that could cause cancer and other diseases.

 

[Ghost29]

I disagree.

Cloud computing will be the answer to the data processing and storage issues you mentioned.

DNA gets damaged by various forms of radiation, e.g. Ultraviolet, and it happens every day, regular analysis of one's DNA would be a very effective preventative measure especially when combined with nanotechnology to weed out rogue DNA that could cause cancer and other diseases.

I respectfully disagree. First of all, even a cloud computing solution needs to have the data stored somewhere. We are nowhere near having that capacity yet at an economically viable rate. Also, I think you may have misunderstood what I mean by interpretation. Basically, we currently don't have a foggy clue what most things mean in your genome and we are currently struggling to even mine the cast quantities of public data which is already available. I am not sure if you are familiar with the field so excuse my jargon, but the real problem at the moment is phenotyping. We can genotype all we like but unless we know what our genotypes mean, it's pointless.

I am also not denying DNA damage. Indeed, we are all cancer survivors when one thinks about it. We all have considerable variation between us so it would be very hard to interpret what is pathogenic and what isn't. It would also be hard to acquire the damaged DNA is sufficient quantities as it would be mixed with an overwhelming portion of normal DNA. Also, if we are talking about cell sloughed off in faeces, you may get an idea of potential colorectal cancer risk with advances in technology, but this is meaningless if the cancer is too advanced by the time we can pick it up.

All in all, I just don't see how this will be economically viable in the next decade. Other screening methods are cheaper and more reliable. I can certainly see the field of proteomics and biomarkers entering the home and genomics will remain in the lab and start to filter more and more into the clinic in the next decade, but don't expect the home any time soon.

 

[entrepr]

Also, why on earth would you want a genome sequencer at home? Your genome doesn't change. You would only need to use this device once and then it would become redundant.

I wondered that too. This article is not entirely thought through. It sounds ridiculous to have this at home and a major threat to personal information as well - anyone you visited or went near could 'steal' your entire sequence and draw all sorts of nefarious conclusions about you.