 Hey, does anybody, um, does anybody here use HBO now? I do. Yeah. How do you, um, well, it's the same thing as HBO go. Are you, are there any downsides to it? Yeah, sometimes Game of Thrones stops updating. Oh, interesting. Okay. Yeah, very once we were, it was really great before when Game of Thrones every Sunday I'd come back and there was a new Game of Thrones. And all of a sudden you stopped spitting out new Game of Thrones. And I was like, I use this service a lot less. I submit a bug report and see if they answer. Interesting. Um, Justin, I was just basically giving Terry an overview of the show. And I said about the topics, about the discussion topic. Did you have any questions that you wanted to bring up pre? Uh, no, no, no. I'm actually fairly familiar with the basics of 23. So I'm, I'm excited to talk to Terry about it. Cool. I mean, one of the things I would like to do if possible was just basically draw similarities to social media covers like Facebook and, and, um, Twitter and what have you. Yeah, not only, I mean, the idea of 23 and me having access and a database of everybody's information, uh, on one hand, very interesting and yields tremendous results. But on the other hand, you know, what, what does that mean going forward? And also like, what, if previously we didn't really care about, oh, well, we go to this. You might need to bring up the audio on your mic. Justin, is it on your mic, Mike? Check, check, check. One, two, three. Can you hear me? Yeah. Uh, but it's like, you know, what, what is the ad words or pixel tracking of genetic data? Like what is that thing that eventually we're like, oh, I guess there is a cost to this. You know, there's, there's like, there's a, a cost in the, in the trade off. And granted, 23 isn't free, you know, and certainly, uh, it is a really cool benefit. And you know, I'm, I'm one of those gung-ho folks who thinks that they probably should be able to give you more information than the government thinks that they should be allowed to give you. But like, uh, yeah, I mean, I think that that's, that is a conversation. That's one of those like forward thinking conversations. Forward thinking. Uh, a lot of those. A lot of those. I think it's really interesting because it is a company that wants to have a collection of personal data. That's really what they're interested in. But it's not for advertising. Which is the, the one thing that makes it really, really different. It's not about, uh, selling you stuff, at least not directly. Most of the customers are most, are really interested in taking that data to create better or targeted drugs or therapies, which would then be sold to you. Yeah. And then the question is, you know, even, even if it's just for, if it's just for drugs, if it's just like stuff that is done behind the scenes and no one ever sees it, then it's, it's the same for the average consumer as nothing happening. Right. Uh, I think the question is, will there ever be in the future more retail kinds of services and whether or not, I mean, advertising is something that we wrap our head around now because, you know, gigantic companies are built on targeted tracking advertising. But if it's not, is there, is there a world in which it's actually a higher cost, you know, since, since it is something that is far more personal and really you can get into a lot more troubling kind of, uh, uh, allegories of like definition of who we are and, and what are, uh, uh, you know, the, the genetic market. We started to get in those, those Gatica kind of conversation, right? Yeah. Well, the first layer is, you know, how well is the information going to be protected, right? Um, what could, what can people do with it legally now? What can people do with it illegally now? Uh, and what sorts of changes would we have to see in society for that information to, uh, uh, to hurt us coming out? Uh, I think a lot of things have to happen for, uh, to see sort of disastrous effects, right? Like for the, for the release of that data to be, uh, generally a problem. Um, but, you know, having that information, uh, can lead to a lot of unexpected things coming up. There have been people in 23 and me, uh, who have found out about relatives that they didn't know about. Um, and that maybe, uh, the, the, like, under, knowing that that family member is out there, uh, is a difficult thing for a group of people who thought that that was the family to process. Yeah. You know, we did, um, my wife and I, before we got married, uh, we were joking that it was our, our, our final proof to make sure we weren't related, you know, because, uh, your due diligence. Um, we, uh, did, uh, ancestry. Remember, my wife got into, like, ancestry and ancestry, ancestry.com does their own genetic marker, you know, spit in a vial, they give you results kind of thing. And, uh, what was really, really interesting is, you know, so they're matching that data set with, uh, other people who have similar matching genetic data sets that have also done the, the 20th or the ancestry.com and also matching it with your, your, uh, your, your family tree, which is, uh, you know, kind of fascinating. But, you know, I guess, I mean, like, I think that's, that's one of those things where it's like there is this retail kind of thing. But all right. So one thing, if it's like, all right, to develop drugs. I'm not going to stop. I'm going to stop talking because this is all stuff that should be on the show. So I'm going to ask you this. So, face, um, Len, is your mic open? Yes, it is. Well, I gotta ask you, oh, go ahead. Sorry. I'm not, I'm just sorry. I was just wondering, I was sharing like a little breathing or in and out. I was just wondering if that was your mic. That might have been me. Hang on a second. Let me turn it off. Turn it back on. Was that, was that it? I'm going to mute myself during the show. So anything, hopefully it's, hopefully it was me. And then. So yeah, Terry, that's kind of where the direction of the conversation will go is, um, you know, for a lot of people. Where would you go if you did the ancestry thing and you found out your second cousins? But isn't second cousin safe? Aren't second cousins safe? Yeah, but I, how would that affect the relationship? Well, you know, depending, it's a very culturally specific mentality about marrying a cousin and stuff like, I'll be honest, like Chinese culture is not really considered a bad, bad thing. I mean, it's not, it's not your first choice. But if it happens, it's not like, oh my God, the world, the world ends kind of thing. I think you would put a significant, uh, it would, it would put some significant hurdles in the, at the very least the Western society. The wedding would have been a postpone. I think, uh, without that, that's a split second decision. You would have to do a little soul search. Luckily, my wife and I look like they literally, my wife is effectively transparent and I have a very full complexion. Well, my wife is of a different race. So that wasn't an issue. Although I said when, when we were going, when she was going, uh, for prenatal care, they did a bunch of tests and stuff, you know, genetics to see if the, to, to market where they call it panorama testing or something where they basically try to identify any potential complications because of genes and stuff like that, which, which there wasn't, which was great because the kid came out right. So there you go. Happy story. Happy story. All right. You're in a role. I'm going to mute myself and then I am going to run, uh, the slides. You'll basically see on the screen, Terry is when the news comes in, you'll see basically full screen web shots of the news stories. Then when you guys start talking, I'll just go back to you too. Okay. With maybe a story or two. That's it. All right. You ready to go? Yep. Oh, don't forget your recording. I'm recording. All right, Len, you muted. I am. All right, cool. The Daily Tech News show is powered by its audience and not outside organizations. Find out more on how you can support the show by going to dailytechnewshow.com slash support. This is the Daily Tech News for Friday, September 9th, 2016. I'm Justin Robert Young filling in for the final day while Tom Merritt makes his return trip to our golden shores. Joining me as always on Fridays is the one, the only Len Peralta who will be drawing the stories. Len, welcome back to the show. Thank you so much. It's so it. There's this excitement in the air with Tom coming back, but us doing this incredible show with an incredible guest. So I'm all in. So, well, speaking of the incredible guest, let's go ahead and introduce him now. His name is Terry Johnson, co-author of How to Defeat Your Own Clone and Other Tips for Surviving the Biotech Revolution. He's also an associate teaching professor at the, here we go, of bioengineering at UC Berkeley. Almost got to the end of it without falling on my own face. Let's give a warm round of applause for Terry Johnson. Welcome, Terry. Nice to meet you. Thank you for having me. Well, we have a huge conversation about not only biotech, but also the changing and evolving retail future of it coming up a little later in the show. But first, let's go ahead and get into the top stories. Facebook removed a Vietnam-era napalm girl photo called the Terror of War and suspended the account of a Norwegian writer, Tom Ilgen, who posted it. The photo taken by Nick Ut during the Vietnam War shows a naked nine-year-old girl running away from a napalm attack. The suspension attracted a number of complaints from Afton Polsen, Norway's largest newspaper. Whose article on Facebook was flagged as indecent and subject to removal, as well as the Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Hoiberg. Facebook responded that it was a feature, not a bug, stating it's difficult to create a distinction between allowing the photograph of a new child in one instance and not others. Recode now reports that Facebook has retracted the decision and would reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware that it has been removed, but that it will take some time to adjust these systems. The photo should be available for sharing in the coming days, and the company has made no comments on changes to the policy itself, if any. Terry, this kind of seems like one of those things, stories that pops up every once in a while where the bot with good intentions winds up having a little too good intentions and starts to erode the thing that it is protecting. Having a lot of data is always challenging. It doesn't matter what kind of data you're talking about, but once you get to the point where you can't have people examining every piece of information that is coming in that's just not feasible, you have to make some hard decisions, and there's always unintended consequences. And I think that it's tricky, right? I mean, how do you react when your bot, like I think it was the Microsoft bot, very quickly becomes extremely racist on Twitter? Yeah, and I think that there is a difference between something like that that you could criticize, that it was released too early, it's its own little thing, it was attacked in a certain malicious way. As soon as that becomes corrupted, you take it down and you try to retool it. Or something like this where there are filters that are on a lot of content, and whether or not it's internal to Facebook that flags things so somebody else can review it are automatic where it detects copyrighted content and says, no, by our standards, you should not be putting up something like this. There is always some level of screening. The question is getting that screening right in cases where things are automatically removed. And I think that's something that they're going to have to learn here. And whether or not it's some white listed, you know, a database of photos that include new children, but are deemed artistically worthwhile or historically significant or some other algorithmic way where, you know, you can program the sum total of all knowledge into a machine and it determines whether or not napalm girl is different than kitty porn remains to be seen. I will say this, there certainly is, in my mind, we should judge Facebook and nobody really wants to cape up for Facebook because they're gigantic, right? But Facebook should be judged by their reaction here and not necessarily what happened. What happened is going to happen. How they reacted to it and the fact that it seems like they've gotten it right, I think it should be what we build, you know, their reputation with issues like this. I think it's important not to take responsibility because though the code was the one that performed the action, that it's Facebook's code. So I'm always a fan when a company takes responsibility for an action and doesn't simply say, was the bot, what are you going to do? Well, I mean, you know, they certainly like to enforce things when, let's say, one of their employees comes up with an idea that they contractually have ownership on. So they should also go ahead and take responsibility when some of the code goes awry. Comcast has accused FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler of violating the law with his recent proposal of TV for TV providers to develop and offer apps for subscribers to watch content instead of forcing them to rent set top boxes. The issue stems from the FCC's proposal for a licensing system between TV providers and third-party device makers. The industry's main lobby group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said the current licensing proposal would be, quote, subject to intrusive FCC oversight and improperly involving the FCC in private licensing agreements. Or sorry, arrangements. These are the stories that I feel like two years ago, let's say three years ago, before Tom Wheeler and before the net neutrality decisions, we would not care about because these lobbying organizations rail against FCC proposals all the time so they can get them to a certain point that they feel is advantageous to them. If anything, the fact that we're covering this now seems like a ray of optimism that maybe the FCC will push companies like Comcast, which listen, if nobody wants to keep up for Facebook, less than nobody wants to keep up with Comcast and maybe bring things a little closer to consumer-friendly considering how far removed many customers feel about Comcast and a lot of the major telecoms now. But let's stick to what they're talking about. Do you believe that, Terry, that there is, that there should be, rather, a insistence for the FCC to mandate that Comcast make an app so you can watch it on your Apple TV or your Roku instead of renting the machinery and hardware from Comcast directly? This, pretty far from my field of expertise, I definitely do understand that you have this network and the network used to be putting out a very small number of different kinds of data. It was voice, phones. And now there's so many different ways to broadcast. I mean, this is being broadcast and it's being recorded and there's the podcast available. How a network that was really designed or came into being ages ago, how you apply that in a world like today, it's tricky. And I think the rules are shifting faster than the networks are being replaced, certainly. Well, and this is primarily Comcast right now makes X amount of money by saying, you need to buy a cable box. So when you get cable, don't worry, we're going to have a guy come over, he's going to put it in, we're going to make sure it works. And then subsequently you are going to pay X amount of money per month that basically says for the privilege of having our hardware in your life, which works so well and is universally praised, he said facetiously, you will have to pay us this. Now you have a lot of these over the air set top, or sorry, well, you have over the air channels and then you have set top boxes that either have apps like HBO Now or various bundles like Sling that basically the FCC is saying, hey, you should offer something like Sling where all these channels that you are already going to offer streaming can now go out over the air through there. Now Comcast doesn't want to be pushed into doing it. I'm sure that they would probably prefer to not to just rush a random app that just sucks because they'd probably still get persecuted for that. And now they're fighting it. And again, it's not necessarily that this is odd. This is not in and of itself exactly man bites dog. However, it is interesting that things are moving in this direction. And to stay on the court cutting, the court cutting carousel, let's go ahead and take this story in an interview with Recode, Turner CEO John Martin wants to sell streaming subscriptions to its channel and build out the capabilities to move and become capable of offering VOD not only domestically, but globally. Martin added that Turner is currently operating on a three prong strategy working with existing distributors like Comcast and Charter, aka traditional cable companies that pay subscription fees to networks like Turner or companies like Turner for networks like TNT and TBS. New online streaming distributors like Sling and Hulu who have similar deals but are in an emerging market and working to offer their own end to end solution direct to the consumer. What is interesting about this is A, a major company like Turner is talking about the idea that this is on their radar where previously quotes from them were more along the lines of we don't believe anybody doesn't want cable. And the idea that it is global, that we might have a future where not everything is hampered by deals that affect regionality, aka Turner would want to sell to somebody in England and Cambodia the same way they sell to Atlanta and Miami. Terry, do you ever wish to get a channel internationally or is it exciting to you that you could maybe get things in other countries that you wouldn't previously be able to get like BBC or something like that? Oh yeah, I love BBC America. And I grew up at a time where if you were really lucky you could catch some of the BBC shows on PBS at about 3 a.m. And that's how I saw the original Doctor Who. Yeah, it would be great. I don't know what I'm missing. And I think that that's true of a lot of people in a lot of places. Apple SVP of marketing Phil Schiller says customers who want to listen to their music with wired headphones and charge their iPhone 7 at the same time will be able to use the Apple Lightning Dock, which comes with a 3.5mm headphone jack and will only cost you $49 to smooth the waiver audio jackless iPhone 7. Apple is building earpods, not the wireless earpods along with the Lightning Adapter. But this has been one of the bugaboos from that announcement. Are the people who say all the time, every day, I'm always charging my phone and listening to it at the same time. Now I'm not saying that the people who are making this claim are liars. I am kind of suspicious that this is the most common thing on the planet. And if it is something that is a deal breaker to get a new phone, that, I don't know, I feel like people would find a way around this. Now Apple is offering a solution for the low, low price of $49. Are you one of these people that listens to your phone and charges it at the same time? I've been through, I have a long history of getting used to new cords. I'm not really worried about it. And I remember back when the iPhone came out and it didn't have buttons, and that was a deal breaker for everybody with a BlackBerry. Life finds a way, as Dr. Ian Malcolm teaches us. Boing Boing reports that the EU Court of Justice has ruled that any commercial side that links to a document that infringes copyright is presumed to be party to the infringement. Boing Boing suggests that the ruling could potentially leave those who link to improperly licensed material also liable for monetary damages. The court case of GS Media BV versus Sonoma centers on Playboy Magazine photos shot by its Dutch unit. Sonoma object being posted illegally online and these pictures being linked to GS Media BV. So let's put this in English. You upload something to a site. Not only are you liable for uploading it, but the site is liable for uploading it. This is the kind of story that Boing Boing is great at following. You got to wonder at the end of the day, though, how much this holds up and whether or not if it does, the EU has a history and reputation to deserve it or not as being anti-business friendly. You have to wonder whether or not this is an onerous yoke to put on some sites, although, again, not exactly new territory for file-sharing sites to deal with copyright claims and restrictions. The White House has named retired Air Force Brigadier General Gregory Toehl as the first Federal Chief Information Security Officer. The position was announced in February as part of a $19 billion cybersecurity national action plan. Origin reports Toehl will lead a team that will be responsible for, quote, helping ensure the right set of policies, strategies, and practices are adopted across agencies and that conducts periodic cyber stat reviews and federal agencies to ensure that implementation plans are effective and achieve the desired outcome. That can be roughly translated in English. Do we need to be better about cybersecurity? And now there's someone we can blame if something goes wrong. So congratulations on the new hire for Air Force Brigadier General Gregory Toehl, but I think the bigger issue with this is going to be what happens a year into this specific role as we see where it takes root here in the federal government. Those are your top stories. Of course, we want to thank Philman123isting and everyone else who participates in our subreddit. You too can submit stories and vote for them by visiting to dailytechnewshow.reddit.com. Again, that is dailytechnewshow.reddit.com. Big thank you to everybody who did that work over the last two weeks, speaking from the perspective of somebody that asked you to walk in dad's shoes when Tom Merritt is away. It is certainly, certainly helpful when the community is as active as it is. And I'm sure I speak for Super Producer Roger Chang that he appreciates that as well. Let's get into our discussion story. Of course, you are well versed in this is your area of study in bioengineering. We right now are in kind of a golden age of these kind of companies, startup companies, bioengineering startup companies, having a relationship with more of the retail public, 23 and me, probably the first among equals. Are these kinds of companies the future of healthcare? I think they're part of the future of healthcare. Personal genomics is very new. The idea of being able to take a look at your genetic code and to determine whether you should be particularly cautious in screening for various kinds of diseases. I think later on the possibility of being able to know how likely it is that a particular drug is going to work for you, or a particular treatment is going to work for a given disease. These are the kinds of applications that people are looking into. I don't like to say anything like the future of anything because I'm hoping that the future of medicine is better in 10 or 20 or 30 different ways or more. But I think that this is part of it. 23 and me seem to get very, very hot, very, very fast. It was a company that almost immediately owned mine chair, especially in the technology sector of America, but also seems to have sort of broken through a little bit as just a thing that you do. Why do you think it got so popular so fast? It's new. It was the first opportunity for people who had been reading a lot about genetics for years to participate, to be part of that, and to explore not just in articles in the popular press, what genes mean and what they don't mean, but what their genes mean. It seems to me that there is often kind of a pushback to stuff like this, that for every bot that we think will be super cool or a self-driving car, we also immediately dwell on Skynet or a automated car running over a child. For whatever reason, it seems like we've kind of skipped over some of the dire elements of a company hoarding large amounts of personal genetic information. Do you think people should be more concerned with that element of companies like 23andMe and personal genomics in general? I think that they should be aware. You should certainly be aware of where the data goes and what is going to be done with the data. But if you were to compare, for example, Facebook from one of the previous stories, they're pretty non-transparent. You don't necessarily know exactly what your data is being used for, and you're certain that it's being used to sell you stuff, or to help other people to sell you stuff. I think in personal genomics, just like any sort of sharing of personal information, whether that be genetic or browsing habits, know what you're getting into and how it's likely to be used. You mentioned earlier that part of that use for those data sets are selling it to drug companies, so they can better understand how certain things could be designed to react with certain data for people, so drugs can be more effective. Is that something that you think people are aware of, or will we become more aware of it? I would assume that there are some people listening to this that think, well, I don't know how to feel. I don't know if this is good or bad. What is your personal feeling on stuff like that? I think that that's likely to change when genetic testing becomes more of your standard medical workup. People talk about, but I'm taking statins because I got a blood test, and the blood test told me something about cholesterol levels. I think that there'll be clarity, or more clarity, with most people. If we get to a point, I hope that we do, where you go to the doctor, and as part of those tests, they look at your genes and say, okay, so we've got, for the issue that you have, we have a selection of seven or eight drugs that we can use, and we've done a genotyping that strongly suggests that drug number three is probably the best one for you, and if that doesn't work, we'll start with drug number four. Do you think that in general, people have just a great sense of what biotech even is right now, that a general populace really even has their head wrapped around the ups and downs and the possible pratfalls of not only personal genomic, but really just biotech in general, that if we can have a company like Theranos get as far as they did before there were people trying to poke holes in the press, it almost seems to me, and I would certainly be guilty of it personally, that as much as I'm interested in biotech, and I feel like I read a lot in biotech, that maybe I don't really have a great grasp of it in general. So Theranos is a diagnostics company, and the 23andMe started out talking about diagnostics, and has pulled back from that. They actually had some pretty serious issues with the FDA in that they were towing the line for diagnosing, and if you were to go to the 23andMe webpage today, you'll note that they're focused less on the diagnosis. They're not trying to give you results that will tell you whether you're likely to be a disease, but they're interested in tests that will determine whether you're a carrier, so that they would be the kind of tests that you would take to then discuss with your doctor, especially if you were considering having children. Theranos was straight up a diagnostic, you would take a blood test that would tell you whether you needed to go to the hospital right now. So it's different stakes, different sort of time scales, and also how these things are marketed, how you talk about these tests to the people that you want to buy them. I guess that's the thing, is that 23andMe, and despite the fact that they've gone away from it now, did start out. That was kind of the hook, was that find out whether or not you are more likely to get a certain disease. Famously, obviously, Sergei Brenner used to be married to the CEO, was taking on drastically different habits in his life, because he felt like he was marked for death at a certain age, based on the information that he got back. And then you have Theranos come by, which seems like, oh, okay, well that seems like from a layman's perspective, obviously there were very, very key differences. You're like, oh, okay, well, look, this does this on a long term, this does this on a short term, and then next thing you know, you realize from a layman's perspective, you have no idea whether or not what Theranos was saying was anywhere near plausible or possible, you know, that they were vastly overstating what they could do. That was a bit of a side check. But let's get back to the hoarding of data. I'm curious to look kind of forward, that of course, all right, now let's say 23andMe sells certain amounts of data to Pfizer, so because Pfizer wants to develop a certain drug, and so they're basically requesting certain data sets to make it better. From the end user's perspective, I don't know whether or not that's looked at, especially if it's anonymized, and it's just person one, person two, that that's much of an issue. If they secure it, I think that's another step forward. But let's say we go 20 years in the future, and we started to get into some of this Gatica sort of questions, and now it's not Pfizer looking for data on how people would react to drugs, but rather quick and loans who wants to know whether or not you are likely to live, you know, to survive, to pay a certain mortgage length or something like that. Where do you think those lines are where people are like on one hand, whatever, if it's anonymized it's fine, and then on the other hand, well no, this affects my life, and the way that we think of genetic markers is permanence, right? You are defined forever based on what you would see in these genetic tests. And I think that that's probably the most important thing for us to be thinking of as a society is to have humility. When we talk about genetic causes, there's actually very few situations where you can say, ah, you're going to get this disease. The reality is, pretty much all the time, you're talking statistics, right? For an individual, it's going to be a slightly higher risk, and sometimes the risk is extremely slight. Sometimes it's significant enough to talk to with your doctor, which means that from the standpoint of a society, one of the things that is most important is to talk about these things, right? And to make sure that we push against this idea that your genes really do define you, they're part of a very big equation. From your perspective, is there a troubling trend in kinds of businesses or industries that sites like Ancestry or 23andMe are selling data to, or might be interested in selling data to, or giving data over in the case of the federal government? In terms of the data, not to my knowledge, I think 23andMe a couple of months ago released that they had had four or five requests from law enforcement to take a look at the data, all of which were resisted. And I think reasonably, probably not terribly useful, but that's in part because of the kind of data that 23andMe collects. In terms of things that worry me, I think that the direction that 23andMe has taken makes me feel a little bit better about this, in that instead of following the model, which a lot of tech companies follow, which is get a big market share and then deal with consequences, that's not something you can do in medical tech, right? You can't skirt the line of being a diagnostic and just hope that you get too big for the FDA to say anything, because there is no that big. The FDA is going to say something if you're making claims that are inappropriate based on the kinds of tests that you're doing. And the fact that 23andMe was forced by the system to adjust I think is really important and critical. I think this has been an illuminating discussion. Thank you so much, Terry, for answering my questions. I try to represent the people that wouldn't normally try to ask the dumb questions. I am just that dummy, and I'm happy that you answered my questions very patiently. There are no dumb questions, and these are things that we all need to decide, right? They shouldn't be up to just scientists or engineers or people that work for these companies. We should think about them as a whole, like what we should be thinking about genes. So I'm happy to discuss. Well, thank you so much. Let's get into our messages of the day. Harold sent us an email regarding last Friday's topic on planned obsolescence. Specifically, he mentions that Scott and Annalie made about modular cell phones. He writes or obsolescence. Sorry, I screwed that one up. Specifically, he mentions Scott and Annalie made about modular cell phones. He writes, Hi, the ethical modular phone does exist already. It's called the Fairphone 2. So head on over there, fairphone.com if you want to follow up about that modular cell phone. It is a smartphone with social values. It says there on the site. So go ahead and check it out. Robbie in very humid Arkansas writes, I am not from the South, but I've lived here for over a decade and have met some fantastic, smart and capable people. And yes, many of them have undeniably Southern accents. Thank you for having a knowledgeable and intelligent guest on your show with a Southern accent. It will hopefully serve as a reminder to listeners that there are more voices in the US tech than on the coast love the show. Hey, I am always as a proud representative from the sunshine state of Florida. I am a huge, huge fan of pointing out that not all tech exists in San Francisco. And it was something that I was bringing up with my friends at four barrel just this morning. If you have any thoughts on today's show, or if you have a software service or hardware pick that you'd like to share with us, send them on over to feedback at daily tech news show.com. Well, we're round in the corner here on our final show without merit. Let's go ahead and check in with Len and his artwork. Len, what do you got for us? Well, you know, if you ever want to feel completely inferior, it's listening to someone like Terry talk about something as awesome as 23 and me. And my reaction to that is to draw something that's a little bit less intelligent. Just a real quick for the audio viewers or audio listeners. There's a gentleman who looks a lot like Terry holding on to a test tube, out comes this weird creature and the guy saying I spit into a test tube. This is what came back. Can I sue? So very interesting. And then I assume that is me in my in my Egor hoodie. Yes. At the very last second, I decided to turn you into have a little hoodie and you looked a little bit freaky. So yeah. So you're in the corner. It's been a while since I've been able to draw people from the show into the into the images. So there you go. As always, it is fantastic. And the speed at which you draw these is just staggering. Where can people find this image if they're listening to it on audio? Well, they can go to lend for all the store.com. It's actually on the front page right now. If you want to purchase it for sale. The other thing you can do is if you want, you can go check out my Patreon page, which is patreon.com forward slash Len. If you back the DTNS lover level, you will get each and every one of these images I do on Fridays as part of your reward. So you'll get a digital copy of them, much more economical than and of course, eco friendly as well. I don't have to print out a piece of paper, send it out to you. It's a good way to do it. So consider that patreon.com forward slash Len or lend for all store.com. I would also suggest as we get in to the the fall and winter seasons, it makes a tremendous gift for somebody that you know and love that loves the show. Go ahead and subscribe on Lens Patreon and make sure that they get that image each and every Friday when they didn't even have to ask. That's right. Let's go ahead and give a big thanks to Terry Johnson. Again, his book that he has co-authored had to defeat your own clone and other tips for surviving the biotech revolution. Terry, is there anywhere else that you write or people can contact you or a best way to buy the book? Oh, I am on Twitter at Terry D Johnson and amazon.com is a great way to buy the book. I'll tell you this. If you listen to Terry explain in his awesome way all these issues and then you go and buy the book, go ahead and support the guests that come on this show by leaving a review. I know that that's always a huge thing on Amazon. Once you're done reading it, go ahead and say, I listened to him on DTNs. I bought the book. That couldn't be happier about it. And if you didn't like it, then stay away from the review section. Thank you again, Terry. Very, very much. You are awesome. Thanks. Speaking of patrons, you can head on over to dailytechnewshow.com slash support and support our Patreon. That is patreon.com slash DTNs. Or if you don't, that's not your bag, buy a mug. That's not your bag. Tell a friend. Review us on any podcasting platform that you particularly listen to. And also if you just want the headlines in a day for less than 10 minutes of your time, then you can subscribe to Daily Tech headlines at dailytechheadlines.com. Of course, our email address is feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. Catch the show live Monday through Friday at 4.30 p.m. Eastern time at Elva Geek radio and diamondclub.tv. And visit our website, dailytechnewshow.com. The old boy, Tom, married his back on Monday and he is joined by Veronica Belmont. Thank you guys for dealing with us, substitute teachers. We will see you then. Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program. And we're out. Awesome. Great show, guys. That was awesome. It was thank you for scrambling, Justin. I know with the weird happenstance with the internet. Yeah, my internet went out. It jumped like right before and then I took a screenshot and threw it just because I know as if Roger needs another data point while we're in total crisis mode. I just went and looked like a meteorological reading of two herds hitting San Francisco and Oakland at the same time, which was Comcast's data outage map that they have on their, their, their detection thing. And I was literally about to run out, go across the street to Brett the Amtrak around Zaville's apartment because I know he's on youverse. And right as I was grabbing everything and putting it in a bag, I saw, you know, the little flickers start going and I'm like, Oh my God, let me go check it. Oh my God. I feel like the adrenaline made the show better. There was like, you know, we got a second chance at doing this podcast. Let's not waste it. Speaking of waste, let's not waste the wonderful titles that all the viewers have so generously created for our voting. Absolutely. And Terry, feel free, from this point on, we're just going to do a process stuff. But thank you one more time for being on the show. Whenever you didn't need to tap out, feel free. I should probably get back to work. Thanks again for the opportunity. This was fun. I am going to go download that picture of me immediately. I'm not the purple one, right? No, no, you're not the purple one. I was worried about that. And yeah, I had a moment when the issues were happening in the beginning where I was trying to figure out how would I close the window if everybody else got dropped, right? Like just I saw everybody go away and I know it's just me. Yeah. How do you stop this? Again, thanks again and have a good weekend. Absolutely. You too. Thank you so much. All right, we have the Facebook of war. I think, I don't know, let's stay away from any of the napalm trials. References. There's a clean up the house. Tom is coming back. Because you might get this disease, we thought you'd like these products. I thought that was actually pretty good. Your DNA shows your like it receives a BAM. That's a good one too. So 23 and mislead. Is that your DNA in your portfolio? 20,000 genes in your pocket. DNA colon, is that naively acquired? Always check the ancestry. I'll take drug number 34,000. I kind of like, because you might get this disease, we thought you'd like these products. I really like that. If it's not too long, I think that's the winner. I think I'm going to go with that. I will add that, you guys had a great discussion. It just occurred to me that in some cultures, knowing your ancestry is considered to be a very, not privileged, but a very accomplished thing to do. Being able to name your ancestors, at least down your patriarchal line, 10, 15, 20 generations down is a mark of pedigree. I'm related to this famous king or someone, like everyone says, I'm a descendant of Charlemagne. And it'll be interesting to see if things like 23 and me will have competitors that will basically fudge results for customers. So they could potentially apply for, yes, I'm a descendant of a king, a sultan or vizier or whatever of some famous period in human history. So they could falsely garner the acclaim or prestige that would come. Well, that would be a weird thing, right? Because you would have to have a platform that was respected enough that you could just print off a thing and people would care about it, right? And yet ethically flexible enough to, to, to fudge something like so. So that's, I mean, because otherwise just get it from 23 and me or ancestry and just, you know, go ahead into Photoshop and, and, you know, make yourself a son of Henry VIII. I mean, like, well, how many, how far along with 23 and me need to be to garner that level of, of notoriety where they could, someone like maybe the fifth CEO says, Hey, you know what? We need to, we need to pad our, pad out our quarter. Let's, let's offer a, an additional service where we could, you know, maybe find, force a connection as it were. That to me seems about as likely as, as, you know, the, the, as, as an accounting firm saying, let's also offer a bonus where we can, you know, cook the books a little bit. Like, like once you start treading on your reputation, you know, I think the Panama papers have proved a lot of that to be pretty. But when they, when, when those accounting firms are revealed to, to have been doing it, very few survive. And of course, you know, the ultimate question is, how do you not get caught? And that's, that's the true, I think the genius of that. And speaking of true genes, thank you everyone for supporting us these past two weeks. Well, Tom has been out. He hasn't been great, especially in the chat room, super helpful, all of you. But I will have to say goodbye to you folks on EGR. I'm going to take you off air. And then I'm going to stop the broadcast. Thank you again. Tom is back Monday with Veronica.