Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Denies Patent on Part-Human Hybrid
jimkski wrote to mention a Boston Globe story involving the refusal of a patent claim on a genetically engineered creature. From the article: "A New York scientist's seven-year effort to win a patent on a laboratory-conceived creature that is part human and part animal ended in failure Friday, closing a historic and somewhat ghoulish chapter in U.S. intellectual property law."
Even better, he bascially applied for it, hoping to set a precendent to stop others patenting living creatures.
Nice to see - my faith in the Patent system has raised slightly from 'completely hopeless' to 'mostly hopeless'
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
I'm not looking for a troll here, i'm just smoking some genetically engineered marijuana and it seems like an odd thought.
.. if he'd hired Disneys lawyers.
You guessed it, Rush Limbaugh
Humans are a subset of animals. Get it? It looks the article actually recognizes this, which is refreshing but rare. It's hard to even have a talk about important issues such as consciousness and genetics when we can't get even get passed a basic fact.
Transcend Humanity. Please.
But aren't a huge number of the alleles in the human genome patented already? It seems like this was done not because of a reasonable understanding on the part of the patent office that living creatures shouldn't be patentable, but purely because of the grossout factor. That's not a step forward.
Could the USPTO finally be gaining a bit of common sense? Nah, this is more likely because of the republican administration and the likely implication of granting this patent.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
In other words, he didn't own a multi-billion dollar corporation that could pay off the right people.
A patent application was denied! Wow! That is news!
If they let Amazon patent one click buying, why not let someone patent this? It's in so many ways more deserving... I mean... patent one click? Who is going to patent double click and triple clicks?
While there may be issues of precedence in the US legal system, does precedence hold importance in the USPTO, particularly with regard to an "inaction" of not granting a patent?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
There goes my retirement plan!!
I was going to have some kids, patent them... then collect royalties off them when they have kids...
That way I could retire with relative ease.
Can't wait to get started on my perfect pet!
the probability of virus/pathogen crossing the species barrier is increased enormously by makeing these things. It is madness and should be internationally outlawed.
I'm not sure I can give the patent office any props, they have sunk so far in public opinion that any good press for them is a drop in the bucket of bad press.
This cannot be lauded as a 'step in the right direction' for the USPO, as that big bohemeth has been going down the wrong road for far too long.
--sig fault--
"...Now that he has been rebuffed by his community the scientist will turn his discovery towards evil - and unleash his unholy creation on the public to seek revenge!..."
I can see the SciFi channel picking up the phone to get the rights right now.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
So this means I can create my army of half-man, half-shark superwarriors without worrying about IP lawyers?
Sweet.
good now they just need to start denying m$'s stupid patents.
I was planning on creating an army of giant half human, half goat warriors that would obey my every command. I would use them in an elaborate plot to rob a bank and hold the UN hostage. Then again, maybe the plan is worth going ahead with even if I cant patent it.
Still, as long as it isnt part human, your chances of prevailing in the patent office seem pretty good. Which means the giant radioactive bees are definitely good to go.
Aside from the fact that this would-be patent dealt with chimeric technologies, this case was a particularly interesting one because the filer, Stuart Newman, sought the patent to block others from creating the technology. By denying him the patent on said terms (that it is too close to a human), he won -- sort of. This means that other companies cannot patent such processes if they "discover" them, but at the same time he cannot block the creation of "chimaera", which was his original purpose.
At the time he filed the patent, the head of the USPTO held a press conference and stated that he would be denying the patent on ethical terms, ground on which the USPTO is not supposed to tread. In actuality, I've heard that he was under pressure from industry, specifically two companies in the business of chimeric technologies (I can't remember their names, but one is located in MA, I believe). In any case, the fact that he was denied a patent is good -- other people/companies cannot patent similar creations. On the other hand, his loss is bad -- other people/companies can feel free to create chimaeras.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
creature that is part human and part animal
wow, talk about prior art.....
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
The exact same thing happened in 1980 when someone tried to patent an artificial bacteria. The USPTO rejected the claim, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, where In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court explained that while natural laws, physical phenomena, abstract ideas, or newly discovered minerals are not patentable, a live artificially-engineered microorganism is. So I suspect this is nowhere near over. As a matter of fact, (IANAL), I think the ideas set forth in that case would seem to be on Mr. Newman's side. If the court rules against him, they're going to have to come up with some kind of legal dividing line to explain why artificial bacteria are patentable but artificial humans/humanoids aren't.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
They didn't deny this patent because it's stupid; they denied it because it's a patent on a human being. So, no, this doesn't set any sort of precedent. Sorry.
>Will we create Frenkenstein?
If we have the knowledge, we will. I can't think of one thing that we have the technology and resource to do that we have set as off-limits.
>Will it mean a race of sub-human slaves?
No. At least not in the US, due to the 14th Constitutional Amendment.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Mouse/Human hybridomas have existed for years. They are chimeric cell lines. We have no had massive increases in cancer researchers (the typical person who uses these) getting the mouse flu (kidding, but you see my point).
God help us all :)
If a corporation attempts to patent much the same thing, it will be granted.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Funnier than dwarf tossing, seven of them even. Seriously though, if a group with enough cash to grease the wheels of progress comes along, this patent would be granted in a bio-engineered heartbeat.
Now I can't sue Bill Gates for violating that patent by living.
Go figure that the first truely patentable concept to come up, in the news, in a long time has been deined by the US patent office. Mind you a general patent on the idea of creating geneticaly cross breed creatures may be a bit broad for a patent, but hopefully this does not stop specific creations from being pantented.
Patents should be about things that can actually be done at the time they are patented. So the first person who creates Dog-Man should be able to patent Dog-Man.
On the other hand, if this means the patent office is actually reviewing patents, and rejecting overly broad patents based on concepts mostly fictitious I'm all for it.
The scientist should now go Patent the Idea of having something not patented.
Does dog-man get royalties, or does the guy who patented dog-man?
And if they make a dog-man and a dog-woman, could the patent owner sue if they breed?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Woops. Make that the 13th Constitutional Amendment.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Can't wait to get started on my perfect pet!
:o
what are her measurements going to be?
...top-secret US Government agencies had prior art.
Hey! Was it a Manimal?
And here I was thinking patents couldn't be denied. Wonder how long until they try this "deny" thing with the software patents...
---- Don't lick something unless you really mean it.
Oh, I love it when big web sites screw up their characters trying to be clever.
In the second page we see the "word":
déjÃ
Off to view source. It shows:
For Rifkin, the case was déjà vu
Oops. They meant déjà, and just had to get the snotty accents right. Unfortunately, they fed their UTF-8 text into a web publishing tool that assumed it was ISO Latin 1 or no doubt Win1252. Oops.
The sequence "0xC3 0xA9" is "é" when interpreted as UTF-8, but you can't escape it like that in HTML. Either put those actual UTF-8 octets into your source and declare the charset when serving it, or put in an HTML character reference to the decoded Unicode codepoint.
What they should have written was:
For Rifkin, the case was déjà vu
giving
For Rifkin, the case was déjà vu
God shmod, I want my monkeyman.
--Bart Simpson
-- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.
Unfortunately, not only will big business change the constitution to allow slaves, but they'll make it it illegal for them to marry.
jk
Cat-girls without patent lawsuits! Though it would be kind of fun to try finding the patent number stamp.
....can be seen here:
1 /i mages/michael_jackson.jpg
http://www.histar.com/mornings/starchive/2002/1
Prior Art.
GP's comment had nothing to do with plant patents. GP was cleverly commenting on the fact that a human is an animal, so something that is part human, part animal is entirely animal. Similarly, a tree is a plant, so something that is part tree and part plant is entirely plant.
Although if my memory of Peterson's Field Guide to Eastern Forests is correct, a tree is any woody plant that's main stalk is 3" in diameter at chest hight. So while we can distinguish a human as a distinct species of animal, the tree-plant bit is a bit mushy (i.e., a six inch tall oak plant would be a bush, not a tree).
There's something peculiar about the scientist's name... Newman...
Will we create Frenkenstein?
It's spelled 'Frankenstein.' It's pronounced 'Fronk-en-steen.'
And Frankenstein was the doctor who created the creature, not the creature himself.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Why are we creating partially human-creatures? Didn't Frankenstein settle this? I dunno about the rest of slashdot, but I'm creeped out by the whole idea of mixing genes of creatures and humans. And I do NOT want to know how they create them.
Beware, people! You know how all those horror movies go. Just when you think the hybrid human is dead he comes back to life and terrorizes you!
The patent was denied, yet the research and development already exists.
I was wonder if this is a 2 sided blade in that since no patent will exist, no entity can exclusively profit from the technology; as well no entity can hold the responsibilty of the technology either.
I understand that this move is to thwart any malicous or possibly lethal uses of this technology, but is denying a patent of this type the best solution?
If anybody can give insight on this perspective, it would be greatly appreciated.
this also means the world will have to go on without the next patent in this series, the four-assed monkey...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
i know its done wonders for people but that bacteria contains human genes. So does this mean that its no longer convered under a patent or do they get to decide based on who filed the patent?
Humans are animals, so what is a "part human part animal"?
What?
Remember kids, the U.S. will never reject a patent, but the U..S will.
English is easier said than done.
According to well established history, the first application of this will be the porn industry. So it seems to me that the line between human-human sex and human-animal sex is likely to become quite blurred very soon.
The ad that was served with the article was "That's what I call an everything Bagel" from McDonalds.
McDonalds. Now with 50% more cannibalism.
The ______ Agenda
This isn't necessarily a troll. It's a bit racist, but AC has a valid opinion, even if it is just that. Please, reinforce your point with some more substantial facts than a link to propaganda sites.
Regardless of your squick-factor over the nature of the research... it is profoundly ironic that the PATENT DEPARTMENT, of all places, is refusing to grant a patent for something that TRULY IS unique and revolutionary WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY handing out patents like hard-rock candy to every Tom, Dick and Microsoft that comes along with some ridiculous software snippet.
<blinks eyes in complete amazement>
So I guess if anyone on capital hill had any value for independenant creative thought, the thousands of senseless software patents would have been denied.
The pathetic thing about this is it is yet another display of how utterly ignorant the patent office is. They didn't strike this down because of science or law, they struck it down because of politics. It's sadly ironic that the sancticty of almost human life is given more credence than human ideas and creativity, the very things that define our species in the first place.
RFC2119
Whether or not he actually invented the thing. I didn't RTFA, but I know there are companies whose business model is to patent shit that hasn't been invented yet. Then, when someone invents it, they walk in and say, "hand it over."
Bart: How would I go about patenting a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?
Patent Office Official: I'm sorry, that would be playing God.
Bart: God shmod! I want my monkey-man!
insert witty comment here
What IS the U..S? It's written like that TWICE.
Fat lot of fucking good this decision did.
Maybe it's not the most wize investment (not one I would recommend anyway) but a friend of mine copyrighted, supposedly, any media image of or representing his brother's face. Not for any particular reason other than to "get even" with his brother on something. Interesting?
It seems that one Dr. Moreau had prior art. Maybe that's why USPTO refused it.
-- Alastair
Anyone remember that movie? They tried to give Apes human-like abilities by introducing human DNA into them. The Apes, therefore, were ape-human hybirds.
Now that the patent is denied, nobody will have any reason to make an Ape-Human hybrid that will ultimately take over planets and such in the future.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I asked a rabbi about that once. I was working for a catering company in Cleveland that does a lot of Jewish events (weddings, bar mitzvahs, and so on), and the catering company worked with a rabbi who oversaw things to make sure we followed the food laws. So I thought he'd be well qualified to tell me whether a pig-based animal, genetically modified to comply with the Levitical food laws, could be kosher.
I didn't get an answer, though. I couldn't get him to take the question seriously - he seemed to think that no one would go to the trouble of genetically engineering pigs, just to let Jews eat real bacon - which seems oddly naive, given the lengths people have gone to to get around the commandment against working on the Sabbath.
There are lots of questions like this, where advances in science have possibilities that aren't clearly covered under millenia-old religious laws - like how a Muslim on the moon (or worse, a rotating space station) would figure out which way to face to pray.
Will wonders never cease??
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
That figure is out of context. There is a 1.4% difference in DNA. Genes are an abstraction of inheritable traits. Without knowing specifically which combinations of of DNA sequences produce specific inheritable traits, there is no way to calculate percentages.
For "conquering the planet" and "taming the forces of nature" I'd say the ants have far surpassed us. For sheer biomass and diversity, check out the info on beatles. We definitely have it all over the other primates, though. Humans rock!
Yes, but this idiot has to hijack every discussion posted with this crap. It's about time he gets nailed for trolling, that's exactly what he's doing.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Do we have a right to play God?
We're not playing god. We're playing "code monkey". The language just happens to be DNA and we're reverse engineering a set of programs doen by a vastly supurior coder... sorta like a VB programmer trying to understand and modify the vi source code.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Bill Gates cannot be patented...move along, nothing to see here.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
Actually I'm in Psychology! Years ago sociobiology was really exciting field for me, but I've moved on. Are you spouting terms like "dbSNP" to impress me?- There are lie, damed lies, and statistics...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
nina...!
Considering the fact that there already are several hundred patents on living things, his 'precedent' is no more than an example general wasting of perfectly good time that could have been re-inventing the chia-pet, or its theme song... Besides, I had to say something, considering my signature....
Don't you mean.. BIZZARO!
We all know that patents stifle innovation and progress. Now that it isn't patented we will see immense progress and competition in the area, since noone has to fear a lawsuit from this side.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
already holds one for the Monkey boy Steve Ballmer!
Finally, the office noted it is illegal to import products that are made abroad using processes patented in the United States.
Is this true? If I write a s/w product that includes, say, stuff patented by IBM (arithmetic coding) and M$ ('ISNOT'), is importing said s/w illegal? Arithmetic coding is a process to (amongst other things) compress data.
I would understand it would be illegal if I had not licensed the patents. If it legal to import products made using licensed patents then, surely, you can import Monkey Man.
Did he inhale?
...
"No, Bart, that would be playing God"
"God Schmod, I want my monkey-man"
-- Avishalom is usually vish
Microsoft reared their ugly head even in this field, they realised that if anyone patented half-human half-animal freaks, then they might have to pay royalties for Steve Balmer!
Microsoft, bringing you dancing men with sweaty bouncing breasts since 1975.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Do we have the right to play God?
:)
Sure we do.
You should go out and rent Young Frankenstein right away.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
...Similarly, mice that contain up to 1 percent human brain cells in their skulls are clearly mice, said Stanford University biologist Irving Weissman, one of the scientists who helped make hybrid rodents. The tricky part, all agree, is what to do with the middle ground. Weissman and others, for example, have talked about their desire to produce mice whose brains are composed entirely of human cells.
Pinky and the Brain Brain Brain Brain.......lol
From the article: "At what point is something too human to patent?"
Interesting question, but not easy to answer. A related question would be: at what point does a collection of cells become a human being and legal citizen with rights, etc. I think if we could answer that to everyone's satisfaction (or most everyone), then the author's question would also be satisfied. What does it mean to be human, and how closely do we guard nature's original design against scientific advances, personal liberties (abortion, made-to-order children...), etc.? Just questions to answer questions, I know... someone smarter than me can figure it out.
And by introducing abortion-related musings into the conversation, please allow me to apologize for bringing us that much closer to invoking Godwin (as abortion discussions almost always spiral downwards) In my defense, the issue *does* raise similiar concerns/issues/questions.
My sig sucks.
However, even if this sticks, one is still allowed to genetically engineer humans in the US, human genes are still copyrightable in the US, human *genes* are still *patentable* in the US (and many patents on them have been issued) which is effectively the same thing as patenting the actual human (and the same objections should be true), and one is allowed to patent non-human organisms in the US (so if I let my GM crops contaminate your land/crops, I can then sue you into the ground for patent and copyright infringement--uhhh, isn't that the wrong way round).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Well. It shouldn't be very hard do build an inclined platform on the moon pointing more or less to Mecca. As far as you avoid the more "central" regions of the Moon (as seen from Earth), the platform would not even have to be be very inclined. If you consider than, on Earth, muslims miss Mecca's real direction by pointing horizontally (since the Earth is round, people should pray "down" most of the time), you could safely discard the inclined platform and just pray toward the same direction (which, on the Moon, is mostly always the same)
Other planets or moons would, of course, be a little more trouble, but I think that pointing to Earth would be just fine.
And prayer is usually more about intention than proper execution. I am sure any God out there, not only Allah, would appreciate any reasonable efforts made to pray correctly.
But wait... What will happen when, in a couple billion years, the Sun either swallows or blows up and vaporizes Earth?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Zonk wins best from dept. title of the year award, at least if it can be mine to decide.
I'm actually trying to get a game of it started right now, such a delightful little system even if it's Palladium.
http://www.somethingpositive.net Funny + bitter = comedy gold
This is quite a nice analogy. Genetic engineering at the moment is similar to 'cutting and pasting' pre-existing code, and 'hardcoding'. True genetic engineering will be when synthetic biology will be fleshed out. Then the field of genetics and the field of programming will be remarcably simmilar.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Here's something I wrote the other day:
The Cast:
- Mr. Gates
- A European Commissioner
The SketchA `customer' (with brown envelopes and chequebook aready) enters the €C in Brussels.
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The commisioner does not respond.)
Mr. Gates: 'Ello, Miss?
Commissioner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Gates: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Commissioner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Gates: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this patent law what I purchased not two years ago from this very office.
Commissioner: Oh yes, the, uh, the computer-implemented inventions one...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Gates: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Commissioner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Gates: Look, matey, I know a dead patent law when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Commissioner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable law, idn'it, ay? Beautiful sophistory and ambiguity!
Mr. Gates: The anbiguity don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Commissioner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Mr. Gates: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
...
Mr. Gates: You let the European Parliament kill 'im, didn't you!
Commissioner: I never!!
Mr. Gates: Yes, you did!
Commissioner: I never, never did anything...
(Mr. Gates takes patent law out of briefcase and thumps it on the desk. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
contd...(due to limit on post size)
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
The Sketch (contd...)
Mr. Gates: Now that's what I call a dead patent law. The JURI is no longer out on that patent law...its most definitely deceased.
Commissioner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Gates: STUNNED?!?
Commissioner: Yeah! 'E was stunned by all the public backlash! Patent laws stun easily, major.
Mr. Gates: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That patent law is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not two years ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following prolonged internal diplomacy.
Commissioner: Well...uhhh...we prefer to do things dead slow and sure like in the EU!
Mr. Gates: Well...the dead bit is most certainly right. Look, why did it fall flat on his back the moment I got home last time? I never had these problems with Congress...
Commissioner:Remarkable patent law, id'nit, squire? Lovely contradictions and those beautiful convoluted sentences!
Mr. Gates: Look, I took the liberty of examining that patent law when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had got as far as it had in the first place was that no one had actually READ it.
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, o'course they don't! They're not payed enough for that...at least they are, but we pay 'em NOT to read 'em. That's the trick, you see. Trust me...that patent law will fly straight through as an A-item in the fisheries committee...just like...a parrot, sir...you know parrots love a bit of fish...the great thing is, sir, that the ministers and MEPs avoid it like the plague on account of it stinkin' to 'igh 'eaven...
Mr. Gates: Never find how 'igh your damn committee stinks, this patent law wouldn't fly through your committee if you put four million volts through every minister present! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Commissioner: No no! 'E's just a li'l slow!
Mr. Gates: 'E's not slow! 'E's passed on! This patent law is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! 'E's pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked thebucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PATENT LAW!!
(pause)
Commissioner: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek round the back) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back , and uh, we're right out of patent laws.
Mr. Gates: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Commissioner: I got a HIPC initiative. Uhhh...your good...ummm...friend, Mr. Brown had this idea you see but he hasn't got the means...
(pause)
Mr. Gates: (sweetly) Pray, will it take out my competitors?
Commissioner: Nnnnot really.
Mr. Gates: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Commissioner: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Mr. Gates: Well.
(pause)
Commissioner: (quietly) You know I thought that uhhh...spread in Teen Beat was rather good...uhhh...D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?
Mr. Gates: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.
Copyright
The original dead parrot sketch was written by Graham Chapman, et. al. for Monty Python's Flying Circus and is © 1989 Pantheon Books/Random House, Inc. My modification of it is co
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
It seems a lot of replies are targetting your statement about playing God. I think a more interesting statement is:
Is it moral to enslave those creatures even if they don't have a soul or consciousness as we know it?
First, to answer this question, I need to get somebody to explain a soul in terms that we can agree on. Once we have a good, useful definition of soul, and another of consciousness we'll be able to test the new creatures for soul and consciousness "as we know it". Until that point, however, there's no reasonable method to test for the presence of absence of either attribute. Without a valid method for testing for that attribute, we can just as easily assume all creatures (including humans) have them or don't have them. This, of course, turns the moral and ethical dilemma back on to all existing domesticated species. If it's alright to have cats as pets, why not humans? why not half-human hybrids? what's the difference? if we assume the difference to be the ability to communicate in a reliable manner the belief in one's own self-awareness (not to prove the existance, just to indicate the beliefe that it is there) then the solution is easy: if they can't communicate that in any manner at all, then there's no dilemma.
You can delete your programming mistakes. Genetic mistakes are somewhat more graphic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You know, there are probably better choices then a goat for this sort of task. People and their goat fetishes...
The sad thing is that this makes the US Losers in the patent and genetics department. Chimeras are going to be made and I dont think there is a way to stop it. Like the rest of genetic manipulation, cell research, ect we need to regulate it not just put a stamp of disproval over everything. Already the USA is falling behind in telcom, content distribution (thanks a lot MPAA and RIAA), internet technology deployment, and a number of other areas. Bottom line is the USA is suffering from a self emposed brain drain at many levels (especialy the government). Soon the only thing left we will have is our need for resources and military strength. Ya know, kinda like in Ghost in the Shell: Standalone Complex.
...and stop calling me Shirley
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
I wonder what the error bars are with respect to pointing to Mecca. If you are at Mars orbit or beyond praying towards the sun should be the general direction of Earth, give or take a few degrees. The farther out the more likely Earth, and hence Mecca would be in the field of vision if you just pray towards the Sun. I wonder if after a few thousand yearas of that a group of sun worshippers would emerge with the same belief set.
Not sure how to handle it when nearer to the sun than earth orbit. I guess you just have to figure out where earth is.
Oops! BTW I can't help but wonder if there's some weird cosmic link. Anyways, here's a little factoid to go with my mispelling. "The group went through several name changes, surviving monikers like Johnny and the Moondogs, the Beatals, the Silver Beetles, the Silver Beats, and the Silver Beatles, before eventually settling on the Beatles."http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/fil es/bbs/name.html
Grammer mistakes too. BTW I wouldn't necessarily eliminate myself from the pool of fools to ignore.
Where are my 4-assed monkeys?
Laws forbidding the practice, not withstanding; this basically means that anyone can make their own critters and not have to worry about legal ramifications, provided they have the capital, means, and ability.
Now the only thing one needs worry about is that people will get the bright idea to patent the process...(which I don't *think* is possible under current copyright law...but you never know.)
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
Do we have a right to play God?
If it is believed we are made in his image what other role would you suggest?
Life on this planet has evolved from the decay of the environment we inhabit. Research shows the Earth has endured a variety of life prototype. From the soup of evolution condensed from gravity, blasted by the cosmos and motivated by the Sun, life has developed from a simple free radical into what we have today.
From a spare oxygen atom to plankton in the seas, through to the dinosaurs and the Origin of Species there have been periods when the 'prototype' was challenged. Comets, pole shifts and ice ages to mention a few, which resulted with a change in the course of history. From the current data, one could surmise that the human prototype could be facing the 'challenge' of the nuclear age.
The meaning of life is non conclusive, creative development would seem to be the true desire!
Maybe you don't understand English very well then. Give me a definition for a gene! You know, genes gentics. Or perhaps you've come to beleive in your own money-raising public relations bullshit. I don't suppose you could've given a link to dbSNP.
I'm beginning to enjoy this. I have to take your word for your position... but I don't really care (whose on a high horse?) Yeah, I've looked it up, but aren't you just as lazy for not providing a specific point, with the relevent information? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene"Because each discipline models the biology of life differently, the material entity that supports the gene in one discipline is not the same as in the other."
You've been arguing with unemployed, less-educated commoner, who lives right outside of Cambridge. Actually I used to work at Sage Jr convenience store! You'd better move on with your superior intellect, you're obviously too important to assocciate with me.