Brian and Michelle Guthrie liked an update for The Amaranth Chronicles: Deviant Rising

  You guys! WriteBrain podcast just discussed The Amaranth Chronicles on their show!!! I woke up this morning and Twitter was on fire talking about the book! I feel so honored! Check out what they had to say on Episode 21 at 31:00!!! Write Brain Pod Cast
 
At this point we’re only 13 Pre-orders away from getting Published! As promised I’m posting more art! This is the genesis of our character Lithia Boson.

...


 ...
...

...

...
...
......

like · liked by Tleacall and 8 others

People who have liked this reader update

    Brian and Michelle Guthrie liked an update for Phantasia

    Hey all, sorry that it’s been a while... I just wanted to thank those you followed/had backed Phantasia. I know the funding period is over, and it sucks, but that’s okay because I personally would like to improve on the stories that I wrote. I’ve improved a lot and I want these stories to reflect that. 

    Anyway, I also wanted to let you know that I have a website now: https://akwolfuntethered.com so feel free to peruse to your hearts’ content :) 

    like · liked by Brian

    People who have liked this reader update

      Brian and Michelle Guthrie followed William Andrews
      No name
      I have left
      Follow
      Brian and Michelle Guthrie followed Ken Lindsey
      Ken Lindsey
      Author of Clockwork Charlie and reader of so many things, consumer of great quantities of coffee, ea...
      Follow
      Brian and Michelle Guthrie liked an update for Pilot X

      SO CLOSE!

      Order number 700 was just made meaning we’re only 50 preorders away from hitting the full publishing goal.

      Dammit. @iamsteadman just ordered one as I was writing this.

      Meaning we’re only 49 pre-orders away from hitting the publishing goal. (Thanks Mark!! Happy Eurovision!)

      As a huge thank you for being in before the end here’s a little snippet from the book I won’t be putting up on the general page.

      THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!

      LESSONS

      “It’s so easy to teach you since I always know what you learned exactly four years before,” the Secretary had crowed. He instructed each version of Ambassador X in order each day so he would move from least experienced to most experienced.

      The lessons usually came during physical labor.

      Ambassador X would be digging up dirt to cart over for the building’s walls. The Secretary would come up and start drilling him.

      “What are the four major types of Sensaurians?”

      “Overmind, Command, Soldier, Worker.”

      What is the name of the Progon homeworld?”

      “Tiel”

      What are the Sensaurian eating habits.

      “We do not know as they refuse to dine in diplomatic situations.”

      “Should you ever offer Progons food?”

      “It is not necessary but they appreciate the courtesy. Only offer once as they see the insistence as an insult to their machine nature.”

      “What are the Sensaurian wheeled containers properly called?”

      “Buckets. They really are buckets even in translation. Hilarious.”

      “Focus. What is unique about Progon evolution?”

      “They are non-corporeal and had the lowest probability of reaching sentience of any known sentient species.”

      And on and on, day after day, until the day before Ambassador X’s original arrival. 

      like · liked by Tolga and 14 others

      People who have liked this reader update

        Brian and Michelle Guthrie liked an update for After Man

        Wow, we soared past 300 copies sold and are almost to 300 readers!  Amazing.  So much loving all the support.  You are all amazing and awesome and so many other good adjectives!

        For some interesting developments in modern science that contributes to the overall content of some of After Man’s backstory, I leave you with this article, from the New York Times.

        Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome  

        Scientists are now contemplating the fabrication of a human genome, meaning they would use chemicals to manufacture all the DNA contained in human chromosomes.  The prospect is spurring both intrigue and concern in the life sciences community because it might be possible, such as through cloning, to use a synthetic genome to create human beings without biological parents.  While the project is still in the idea phase, and also involves efforts to improve DNA synthesis in general, it was discussed at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The nearly 150 attendees were told not to contact the news media or to post on Twitter during the meeting.  Organizers said the project could have a big scientific payoff and would be a follow-up to the original Human Genome Project, which was aimed at reading the sequence of the three billion chemical letters in the DNA blueprint of human life. The new project, by contrast, would involve not reading, but rather writing the human genome — synthesizing all three billion units from chemicals.  But such an attempt would raise numerous ethical issues. Could scientists create humans with certain kinds of traits, perhaps people born and bred to be soldiers? Or might it be possible to make copies of specific people?  “Would it be O.K., for example, to sequence and then synthesize Einstein’s genome?” Drew Endy, a bioengineer at Stanford, and Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University, wrote in an essay criticizing the proposed project. “If so how many Einstein genomes should be made and installed in cells, and who would get to make them?”  Dr. Endy, though invited, said he deliberately did not attend the meeting at Harvard because it was not being opened to enough people and was not giving enough thought to the ethical implications of the work.

        George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and an organizer of the proposed project, said there had been a misunderstanding. The project was not aimed at creating people, just cells, and would not be restricted to human genomes, he said. Rather it would aim to improve the ability to synthesize DNA in general, which could be applied to various animals, plants and microbes.  “They’re painting a picture which I don’t think represents the project,” Dr. Church said in an interview.  He said the meeting was closed to the news media, and people were asked not to tweet because the project organizers, in an attempt to be transparent, had submitted a paper to a scientific journal. They were therefore not supposed to discuss the idea publicly before publication. He and other organizers said ethical aspects have been amply discussed since the beginning.  The project was initially called HGP2: The Human Genome Synthesis Project, with HGP referring to the Human Genome Project. An invitation to the meeting at Harvard said that the primary goal “would be to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of 10 years.”

        But by the time the meeting was held, the name had been changed to “HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes in Cells.”  The project does not yet have funding, Dr. Church said, though various companies and foundations would be invited to contribute, and some have indicated interest. The federal government will also be asked. A spokeswoman for the National Institutes of Health declined to comment, saying the project was in too early a stage.  Besides Dr. Church, the organizers include Jef Boeke, director of the institute for systems genetics at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Andrew Hessel, a self-described futurist who works at the Bay Area software company Autodesk and who first proposed such a project in 2012.  Scientists and companies can now change the DNA in cells, for example, by adding foreign genes or changing the letters in the existing genes. This technique is routinely used to make drugs, such as insulin for diabetes, inside genetically modified cells, as well as to make genetically modified crops. And scientists are now debating the ethics of new technology that might allow genetic changes to be made in embryos.  But synthesizing a gene, or an entire genome, would provide the opportunity to make even more extensive changes in DNA.  

        For instance, companies are now using organisms like yeast to make complex chemicals, like flavorings and fragrances. That requires adding not just one gene to the yeast, like to make insulin, but numerous genes in order to create an entire chemical production process within the cell. With that much tinkering needed, it can be easier to synthesize the DNA from scratch.  Right now, synthesizing DNA is difficult and error-prone. Existing techniques can reliably make strands that are only about 200 base pairs long, with the base pairs being the chemical units in DNA. A single gene can be hundreds or thousands of base pairs long. To synthesize one of those, multiple 200-unit segments have to be spliced together.  But the cost and capabilities are rapidly improving. Dr. Endy of Stanford, who is a co-founder of a DNA synthesis company called Gen9, said the cost of synthesizing genes has plummeted from $4 per base pair in 2003 to 3 cents now. But even at that rate, the cost for three billion letters would be $90 million. He said if costs continued to decline at the same pace, that figure could reach $100,000 in 20 years.

        J. Craig Venter, the genetic scientist, synthesized a bacterial genomeconsisting of about a million base pairs. The synthetic genome was inserted into a cell and took control of that cell. While his first synthetic genome was mainly a copy of an existing genome, Dr. Venter and colleagues this year synthesized a more original bacterial genome, about 500,000 base pairs long.  Dr. Boeke is leading an international consortium that is synthesizing the genome of yeast, which consists of about 12 million base pairs. The scientists are making changes, such as deleting stretches of DNA that do not have any function, in an attempt to make a more streamlined and stable genome.  But the human genome is more than 200 times as large as that of yeast and it is not clear if such a synthesis would be feasible.

        Jeremy Minshull, chief executive of DNA2.0, a DNA synthesis company, questioned if the effort would be worth it.  “Our ability to understand what to build is so far behind what we can build,” said Dr. Minshull, who was invited to the meeting at Harvard but did not attend. “I just don’t think that being able to make more and more and more and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper is going to get us the understanding we need.”


        like · liked by Thomas and 7 others

        People who have liked this reader update

          Brian and Michelle Guthrie sent an update for After Man

          Wow, we soared past 300 copies sold and are almost to 300 readers!  Amazing.  So much loving all the support.  You are all amazing and awesome and so many other good adjectives!

          For some interesting developments in modern science that contributes to the overall content of some of After Man’s backstory, I leave you with this article, from the New York Times.

          Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome  

          Scientists are now contemplating the fabrication of a human genome, meaning they would use chemicals to manufacture all the DNA contained in human chromosomes.  The prospect is spurring both intrigue and concern in the life sciences community because it might be possible, such as through cloning, to use a synthetic genome to create human beings without biological parents.  While the project is still in the idea phase, and also involves efforts to improve DNA synthesis in general, it was discussed at a closed-door meeting on Tuesday at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The nearly 150 attendees were told not to contact the news media or to post on Twitter during the meeting.  Organizers said the project could have a big scientific payoff and would be a follow-up to the original Human Genome Project, which was aimed at reading the sequence of the three billion chemical letters in the DNA blueprint of human life. The new project, by contrast, would involve not reading, but rather writing the human genome — synthesizing all three billion units from chemicals.  But such an attempt would raise numerous ethical issues. Could scientists create humans with certain kinds of traits, perhaps people born and bred to be soldiers? Or might it be possible to make copies of specific people?  “Would it be O.K., for example, to sequence and then synthesize Einstein’s genome?” Drew Endy, a bioengineer at Stanford, and Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University, wrote in an essay criticizing the proposed project. “If so how many Einstein genomes should be made and installed in cells, and who would get to make them?”  Dr. Endy, though invited, said he deliberately did not attend the meeting at Harvard because it was not being opened to enough people and was not giving enough thought to the ethical implications of the work.

          George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and an organizer of the proposed project, said there had been a misunderstanding. The project was not aimed at creating people, just cells, and would not be restricted to human genomes, he said. Rather it would aim to improve the ability to synthesize DNA in general, which could be applied to various animals, plants and microbes.  “They’re painting a picture which I don’t think represents the project,” Dr. Church said in an interview.  He said the meeting was closed to the news media, and people were asked not to tweet because the project organizers, in an attempt to be transparent, had submitted a paper to a scientific journal. They were therefore not supposed to discuss the idea publicly before publication. He and other organizers said ethical aspects have been amply discussed since the beginning.  The project was initially called HGP2: The Human Genome Synthesis Project, with HGP referring to the Human Genome Project. An invitation to the meeting at Harvard said that the primary goal “would be to synthesize a complete human genome in a cell line within a period of 10 years.”

          But by the time the meeting was held, the name had been changed to “HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes in Cells.”  The project does not yet have funding, Dr. Church said, though various companies and foundations would be invited to contribute, and some have indicated interest. The federal government will also be asked. A spokeswoman for the National Institutes of Health declined to comment, saying the project was in too early a stage.  Besides Dr. Church, the organizers include Jef Boeke, director of the institute for systems genetics at NYU Langone Medical Center, and Andrew Hessel, a self-described futurist who works at the Bay Area software company Autodesk and who first proposed such a project in 2012.  Scientists and companies can now change the DNA in cells, for example, by adding foreign genes or changing the letters in the existing genes. This technique is routinely used to make drugs, such as insulin for diabetes, inside genetically modified cells, as well as to make genetically modified crops. And scientists are now debating the ethics of new technology that might allow genetic changes to be made in embryos.  But synthesizing a gene, or an entire genome, would provide the opportunity to make even more extensive changes in DNA.  

          For instance, companies are now using organisms like yeast to make complex chemicals, like flavorings and fragrances. That requires adding not just one gene to the yeast, like to make insulin, but numerous genes in order to create an entire chemical production process within the cell. With that much tinkering needed, it can be easier to synthesize the DNA from scratch.  Right now, synthesizing DNA is difficult and error-prone. Existing techniques can reliably make strands that are only about 200 base pairs long, with the base pairs being the chemical units in DNA. A single gene can be hundreds or thousands of base pairs long. To synthesize one of those, multiple 200-unit segments have to be spliced together.  But the cost and capabilities are rapidly improving. Dr. Endy of Stanford, who is a co-founder of a DNA synthesis company called Gen9, said the cost of synthesizing genes has plummeted from $4 per base pair in 2003 to 3 cents now. But even at that rate, the cost for three billion letters would be $90 million. He said if costs continued to decline at the same pace, that figure could reach $100,000 in 20 years.

          J. Craig Venter, the genetic scientist, synthesized a bacterial genomeconsisting of about a million base pairs. The synthetic genome was inserted into a cell and took control of that cell. While his first synthetic genome was mainly a copy of an existing genome, Dr. Venter and colleagues this year synthesized a more original bacterial genome, about 500,000 base pairs long.  Dr. Boeke is leading an international consortium that is synthesizing the genome of yeast, which consists of about 12 million base pairs. The scientists are making changes, such as deleting stretches of DNA that do not have any function, in an attempt to make a more streamlined and stable genome.  But the human genome is more than 200 times as large as that of yeast and it is not clear if such a synthesis would be feasible.

          Jeremy Minshull, chief executive of DNA2.0, a DNA synthesis company, questioned if the effort would be worth it.  “Our ability to understand what to build is so far behind what we can build,” said Dr. Minshull, who was invited to the meeting at Harvard but did not attend. “I just don’t think that being able to make more and more and more and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper is going to get us the understanding we need.”


          like · liked by Thomas and 7 others

          People who have liked this reader update

            Brian and Michelle Guthrie followed T. S. Sgrignuoli
            T. S. Sgrignuoli
            Eater of Stories
            Follow
            Brian and Michelle Guthrie liked an update for Beyond The Code

            Hello there all you wonderful people!!

            Well I said that if we made 260 orders before the campaign ended I would hold another 50 Point Raffle. Guess what!! You amazing people blew that goal right out of the water so here it is. The winner of the final 50 Point Raffle is...

              

            Sarah Bryant!! Congratulations!! You are the last winner of the 50 Point Raffle. Your super soft Beyond the Code blanket will be sent to you as soon as possible. 

            Again thank you all so much for bring this campaign to a successful end. Beyond the Code is going to be published. It still give me goosebumps saying that. 

            Thank you all. 

            Kelsey Rae Barthel

            like · liked by Sharyl and 9 others

            People who have liked this reader update

              Brian and Michelle Guthrie liked an update for The Seventh Age: Dawn

              As tomorrow happens to be my birthday, and I turn the grand ol’ age of 35. I figured I would make this update about something a little more personal. 

              I mentioned once before that The Seventh Age book was inspired by events in a role-playing game universe that I created years ago. Like any LARP, costumes and props play a fantastic roll. I’ve attached only a mere handful of my favorite pictures from the games that were played. 

              Here are some of the pictures that inspired me to turn my imagination into an actual book:

              There are some extremely talented crafters that played in our games over the years.

              And AnotherAnd the final one:

              The box of red buttons was one of my favorite game sessions still. If you like these kind of updates as well, or want to know more about the expanded world of The Seventh Age, follow the project page please. I’m on a quest to achieve 1000 copies as well, so if you know anybody who likes sarcastic urban fantasy... please recommend to a friend. 

              Also, how does everyone feel about me using this update reader feature as sort of a weekly blog? Leave a comment, email me at CrankyBolt@gmail.com, hit up up on twitter @crankybolt and let me know!

              like · liked by Mary and 16 others

              People who have liked this reader update

                More items