Well, they did make some attempt at it. Fox picked up the license in the states to do a new series. Paul McGann was picked to be the successor to Sylvester McCoy. They did a pilot episode... McGann was fairly impressive as the Doctor, though the rest of the show wasn't too hot. (Eric Roberts was the bad guy, I think he was the Master. He... was... AWFUL. Does anyone actually thing Eric Roberts is scary, other than in the good-lord-he's-terrible department?) I was, however, hoping they'd go on to do some more - I think McGann would have been excellent. Apparently the response was terrible. Dr. Who fans slagged it as being commercial and American and non-fans couldn't have cared less. So... they cut their losses. They kept McGann on contract should something spectacular happen to make them reconsider, but as of now, it's dead. Anyone have a copy of it?
I think you misunderstand me. They haven't been able to get skin stem cells to differentiate in vitro into as many types of cells as they have been able to differentiate from embryonic stem cells in vitro. This is something that the researchers on this project stated quite clearly when they released their paper.
They may be able to get the skin cells to differentiate into more types, it's just they haven't managed to do it yet. However, some of the most important cells for research are currently able to be derived from skin stem cells. So, while it's not a complete replacement for embryonic stem cells, it is close.
It might just be a skewed perspective because of the obscene number of forms I've had to fill out... the Canadian government's forms in particular all use a day/month/year format.
The problem is that this patent is a patent of process, not cells themselves. They've patented the method of turning one specific line of stem cells into other kinds of cells (which is the thing that makes stem cells so useful). Fortunately, with the advent of newer technologies, embryonic stem cells may no longer be needed. It's hard to say as of right now, though.
Otherwise, I agree with you. I was going to say that most of the patents getting through were on processes and not the cells themselves... but that doesn't explain how naturally occurring molecules (like those in medicinal plants) and genomes could be patented. "I found it, so now it's mine" just isn't a valid rationale for a patent, in my opinion. Patent what you _do_ with something, that's at least vaguely reasonable.
The only problem with this so far is that while the skin stem cells do differentiate into multiple types of cells, so far they haven't been able to get quite the range that you can with embryonic stem cells. It's quite possible that they may be able to differentiate them into more cells as they continue work along these lines. They have, however, ended up with some of the most important ones for research.
My question is... if they don't patent it, how long will it be until someone else does? There's lots of money in stem cell research. That's good in some respects (more research is good!) and bad in others (more money to hire patent lawyers!).
Well, considering that today is in fact August 12th... (the 8th month isn't July)
I just kind of assume that the most likely explanation - that it is the closest date to the current time - is the correct one. I deal with it a lot since I'm American and I'm living in Canada. We have reverse days/months, so I always have to watch for it.
Besides which, the long-form date is on the main news post as well as on every response to it. =)
... I have to admit that I would never have tried it (being more of a just-above-freezing-temperature Coke person myself) without the virus hype going on. Honestly, I wouldn't have known it existed if I wasn't keeping up with Slashdot.
Having tried it though, it's not bad. Sort of a carbonated fruit punch flavor.
When he pled guilty, Mr. Butler admitted that he intentionally and without authorization accessed computers of the U.S. Department of Defense between approximately May 20, 1998, and May 26, 1998. Specifically, from his residence at the time in San Jose, he intentionally used computer programs which conducted automated, unauthorized system compromises on hundreds of computer systems, including the Department of Defense computers referred to above. When his automated attacks were successful, he obtained root (or superuser) access, then downloaded hacking tools to the target computer systems, and installed software which closed the holes he used to gain entry. The Department of Defense computers were exclusively for the use of the U.S. Government and were used in interstate and foreign commerce.
While I realize that the press release is unlikely to cover his side of things, this doesn't sound like an equivalent situation. If you have more info, pass it along... I'm not familiar with the case and may be totally off-base. The primary difference seems to be that the other machines weren't attacking his.
The idea of having machines do directed retaliation against attacks is something the government itself uses, as I believe do some companies. While I will grant that changing things on someone else's computer is on questionable ground, I also think that given the circumstances (a machine is attacking yours with a virus) you are probably on safe ground to respond. I think it would only be legal if it was in non-self-propagating form - that is, only used as an automatic response to an attack.
That said, it would be a lot safer if you could filter out governmental IPs... those are the only ones that would be likely to cause any major fuss.
The cynical decision to show Brass Eye immediately after the wholesome family entertainment of Big Brother so that unsuspecting viewers may be subjected to this piece of televisual excrement is particularly sickening.
Big Brother is considered wholesome family entertaiment in Britain? I think we may have found the problem...
... it's not necessarily a good idea if you are say, waiting on a visa or green card. That's probably only an issue if you get arrested at a protest though, and this looks to be a fairly quiet protest.
I think that's the basic point behind his reviews... that many geeks watch movies, therefore reviews of movies are a reasonable thing to have here. Personally, I'd say that movies are a branch of geekdom just like science or technology. Besides which, movies do tend to intersect technology in a lot of ways.
For the most part, I tend to disagree with his reviews although I find them mostly well-reasoned. They're useful to me in another more important way though... they let me know when that movie I wanted to see is out. =)
It's only really a waste of resources to people who don't think his reviews belong here and feel compelled to post about it. What's the point of getting bent out of shape about it?
Actually, a friend and I were going back and forth about that this morning. We're in BC, and we saw a show on it pre-release that I would have sworn called it a Canadian film. IMDB appears to be listing it as a US movie. (Down the page a bit, where it lists the USA subtitled version as "original".) My friend says he thought Ang Lee emigrated to Canada after making this film, but he's not sure. Do you have a link to more info on it?
"Well, it looks like the House has passed the DOJ Appropriations bill, giving the DOJ authority to use Carnivore for surveillance."
Unless I'm completely mistaken, part of the point about Carnivore getting overt funding was that they would now have to do detailed reports to the House Judiciary Committee on pretty much everything having to do with how the program gets used. While I agree that Carnivore itself sucks, at least this may mean that it isn't used as frequently and they do have to report to someone outside their own agency. Looked like fairly decent reporting too...here's the breakdown if you haven't checked the link:
Carnivore. The bill provides, at Section 306, that the DOJ must provide detailed reports to the Congress regarding its use of the Internet surveillance systems known as both "Carnivore" and "DCS 1000". The bill requires that for FY 2001 and FY 2002 "the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate a report detailing --
(1) the number of times DCS 1000 was used for surveillance during the preceding fiscal year; (2) the Department of Justice official or officials who approved each use of DCS 1000;
(3) the criteria used by the Department of Justice officials to review requests to use of DCS 1000;
(4) a complete description of the process used to submit, review, and approve requests to use DCS 1000;
(5) the specific statutory authority relied on to use DCS 1000;
(6) the court that authorized each use of DCS 1000;
(7) the number of orders, warrants, or subpoenas applied for, to authorize the use of DCS 1000;
(8) the fact that the order, warrant, or subpoena was granted as applied for, was modified, or was denied;
(9) the offense specified in the order, warrant, subpoena, or application; and
(10) the nature of the facilities from which, or the place where the contents of, electronic communications were to be disclosed."
I guess it at least makes me feel a little better that they have to report their use instead of just using it surreptitiously. Then again, I could be totally off base... I haven't followed previous Carnivore stories, so I don't know when, if or how it's been used so far.
It's a great code... I found out about it through the "Rick Brant Science Adventures" series... I think it was the first book, but I'm not sure. As long as you have a book that everyone in on the secret has, then it works wonderfully. But you'd better keep your messages short... it takes a while to decode it.
On a totally unrelated note, it's a great series of books, worth checking out. =)
The reason the methods are important is that if the way this device works is similar enough to a wiretap, then it will be considered one. Without knowing anything about how the device works, the court can't make any kind of a ruling as to whether it's a tap or not. While I understand the FBI would prefer to keep the information hidden because it would make it harder to circumvent, it is necessary for and relevant to this case.
The difference is, they would have required a wiretap order to tap his phone line. A wiretap order also carries a fair amount of restrictions as to how it is applied and what information is usable. In this case, they're doing something that does exactly the same thing as a wiretap, they just don't _call_ it that.
The argument the lawyers are making is that recording his keystrokes is a wiretap, regardless of whether the information is recorded on a phone line or not. The reasons for this include the fact that they will be gaining personal non-crime related information as well as the fact that they're receiving a stream of information (not a snapshot like they would get in a normal search).
For example, if they went into this person's home and searched his computer, that would fall under the warrant that they had. That's legitimate, no argument here.
In a court case, the FBI can require that a defendant give up his password so that they can view the files. In order to do that, they need to have enough evidence to go to trial. Obviously in this case they didn't have enough evidence and they suspected they would if they were able to search the encrypted files. My point being that there were lots of ways that they could have gathered the same information without putting a tap on his machine. (Which is probably why they didn't get a wiretap order - the judge may have said "No, there's other ways you can get this info without doing a tap.")
If I'm not totally mistaken, the FBI would require some variant of a wiretap order to put a camera in the house and monitor his keystrokes. This shouldn't be any different. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be able to wiretap/record/etc. However, if they're going to be able to do that, then they need to follow the rules. Get a wiretap order, it isn't that much of a pain in the ass and it means that any information you gather will be used in a trial without being thrown out on technicalities.
If a criminal goes free because these agents screwed up, then that's the way the system works. It's something that's designed to make sure that police and the FBI don't overstep their bounds... the knowledge that if they do, the case will be tossed out.
Create a prevention wing in the military--a group of soldiers who would practice Yogic Flying to create an influence of coherence in national consciousness.
And I thought I was left-wing and freaky. I'll admit they have some points I like, but I think they might be just a bit far out on some of these. I find the claim that they're going to "revitalize the aboriginal people's culture" with 10,000 Yogic Flyers to be both presumptuous and patronizing. The idea that all crime is caused by "stress" (it's technically true I suppose, it's just a bizarre way to say it) I find to be incredibly humorous. =)
Thanks for the rundown - I'm going to check out all the sites. I'm not used to all these parties and it's made listening to the news remarkably confusing. I had someone try to explain what all the different parties are in terms of liberal and conservative... it was along the lines of "well, this one's more liberal than that one, and more conservative than this one..." and then I just kind of zoned out. I don't think it helped that the "Liberals" are smack in the middle.
A Mexican national, Miguel Angel Flores, was executed in Texas on 9 November, despite appeals for clemency from the Mexican and other governments. He was denied his treaty-based consular rights, as were most of the 90 foreign nationals on death row in the USA. In November, the International Court of Justice in The Hague heard arguments in a case brought against the USA by Germany following the execution of two German nationals in Arizona in 1999. The Court had not issued a ruling by the end of 2000.
The site says they are looking for comments specifically from Canadian citizens. While this doesn't stop anyone else from responding, be aware that your opinions may be discarded.
Which seems fair enough, I wouldn't want a bunch of say, US companies' comments on the matter to be considered.
If there's no way for you to avoid coming over here, make sure you have legal representation before you come and make sure they know what the issues involved are.
Honestly I don't think it's safe right now. While the Sklyarov case is more extreme (he at least helped author the tool, you only distributed it), the potential for you to be arrested and tried is definitely there.
Fundamentally, if you want anyone to be able to read data in the future, it needs to be recorded in some sort of text format... preferably on a media that doesn't decay too easily. Paper works for a couple hundred years, much longer if conditions are right. In comparison, I don't trust a zip disk to have my information a week later. =)
I'm writing to express my severe disappointment with the opinion piece by Mr. McCollum. The article is entitled "Free Dimitri? Free Information? Free Everything?" and can be found at this address:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12306.html. co m
While I realize that an opinion piece is different from a standard news story (namely in that it's not expected to be unbiased), I found the facts to be severely wanting and the mischaracterizations of respectable persons such as Ms. Robin Gross of the EFF to be just shy of libelous.
A Russian man is being held in a U.S. jail for a program he helped to write and distribute in Russia, where it is quite legal - because it violates a U.S. law. I find that an appalling miscarriage of justice.
Your site is in many ways an excellent news portal, with good information and quite well-written articles. I'm sorry to say that this article falls far short of the expectations I, and I believe many others have of your site.
It's an American right to oppose an issue, but why would anyone be against such laws? There's a bit of Texas wisdom that says: "Anybody that's against hanging a man for adultery is usually the one doing the dirty deed."
How did Ms. Gross get involved with this case? Did she read about this hacker's arrest, raise her eyebrows and then, hypothetically, say: "What? Doing something illegal can get you arrested by the FBI? What kind of ridiculous law is that to have on the books? I shall fight such ill-conceived laws with righteous indignation 'til my last breath!'"
It's appalling enough that I can't even come up with words to respond... I'm working on it though. I wouldn't suggest bothering with the "talkback" forums. Instead, I offer up the contact information for feedback. feedback@newsfactor.com
Please join in to let them know that even as an opinion piece... this is trash.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstand me. They haven't been able to get skin stem cells to differentiate in vitro into as many types of cells as they have been able to differentiate from embryonic stem cells in vitro. This is something that the researchers on this project stated quite clearly when they released their paper.
They may be able to get the skin cells to differentiate into more types, it's just they haven't managed to do it yet. However, some of the most important cells for research are currently able to be derived from skin stem cells. So, while it's not a complete replacement for embryonic stem cells, it is close.
It might just be a skewed perspective because of the obscene number of forms I've had to fill out... the Canadian government's forms in particular all use a day/month/year format.
The problem is that this patent is a patent of process, not cells themselves. They've patented the method of turning one specific line of stem cells into other kinds of cells (which is the thing that makes stem cells so useful). Fortunately, with the advent of newer technologies, embryonic stem cells may no longer be needed. It's hard to say as of right now, though.
Otherwise, I agree with you. I was going to say that most of the patents getting through were on processes and not the cells themselves... but that doesn't explain how naturally occurring molecules (like those in medicinal plants) and genomes could be patented. "I found it, so now it's mine" just isn't a valid rationale for a patent, in my opinion. Patent what you _do_ with something, that's at least vaguely reasonable.
The only problem with this so far is that while the skin stem cells do differentiate into multiple types of cells, so far they haven't been able to get quite the range that you can with embryonic stem cells. It's quite possible that they may be able to differentiate them into more cells as they continue work along these lines. They have, however, ended up with some of the most important ones for research.
My question is... if they don't patent it, how long will it be until someone else does? There's lots of money in stem cell research. That's good in some respects (more research is good!) and bad in others (more money to hire patent lawyers!).
Well, considering that today is in fact August 12th... (the 8th month isn't July)
I just kind of assume that the most likely explanation - that it is the closest date to the current time - is the correct one. I deal with it a lot since I'm American and I'm living in Canada. We have reverse days/months, so I always have to watch for it.
Besides which, the long-form date is on the main news post as well as on every response to it. =)
... I have to admit that I would never have tried it (being more of a just-above-freezing-temperature Coke person myself) without the virus hype going on. Honestly, I wouldn't have known it existed if I wasn't keeping up with Slashdot.
Having tried it though, it's not bad. Sort of a carbonated fruit punch flavor.
I don't know... that might be the key to the whole thing. After all, their server requested the file. =)
While I realize that the press release is unlikely to cover his side of things, this doesn't sound like an equivalent situation. If you have more info, pass it along... I'm not familiar with the case and may be totally off-base. The primary difference seems to be that the other machines weren't attacking his.
The idea of having machines do directed retaliation against attacks is something the government itself uses, as I believe do some companies. While I will grant that changing things on someone else's computer is on questionable ground, I also think that given the circumstances (a machine is attacking yours with a virus) you are probably on safe ground to respond. I think it would only be legal if it was in non-self-propagating form - that is, only used as an automatic response to an attack.
That said, it would be a lot safer if you could filter out governmental IPs... those are the only ones that would be likely to cause any major fuss.
Big Brother is considered wholesome family entertaiment in Britain? I think we may have found the problem...
... it's not necessarily a good idea if you are say, waiting on a visa or green card. That's probably only an issue if you get arrested at a protest though, and this looks to be a fairly quiet protest.
I think that's the basic point behind his reviews... that many geeks watch movies, therefore reviews of movies are a reasonable thing to have here. Personally, I'd say that movies are a branch of geekdom just like science or technology. Besides which, movies do tend to intersect technology in a lot of ways.
For the most part, I tend to disagree with his reviews although I find them mostly well-reasoned. They're useful to me in another more important way though... they let me know when that movie I wanted to see is out. =)
It's only really a waste of resources to people who don't think his reviews belong here and feel compelled to post about it. What's the point of getting bent out of shape about it?
Actually, a friend and I were going back and forth about that this morning. We're in BC, and we saw a show on it pre-release that I would have sworn called it a Canadian film. IMDB appears to be listing it as a US movie. (Down the page a bit, where it lists the USA subtitled version as "original".) My friend says he thought Ang Lee emigrated to Canada after making this film, but he's not sure. Do you have a link to more info on it?
Unless I'm completely mistaken, part of the point about Carnivore getting overt funding was that they would now have to do detailed reports to the House Judiciary Committee on pretty much everything having to do with how the program gets used. While I agree that Carnivore itself sucks, at least this may mean that it isn't used as frequently and they do have to report to someone outside their own agency. Looked like fairly decent reporting too...here's the breakdown if you haven't checked the link:
I guess it at least makes me feel a little better that they have to report their use instead of just using it surreptitiously. Then again, I could be totally off base... I haven't followed previous Carnivore stories, so I don't know when, if or how it's been used so far.
The reason the methods are important is that if the way this device works is similar enough to a wiretap, then it will be considered one. Without knowing anything about how the device works, the court can't make any kind of a ruling as to whether it's a tap or not. While I understand the FBI would prefer to keep the information hidden because it would make it harder to circumvent, it is necessary for and relevant to this case.
The difference is, they would have required a wiretap order to tap his phone line. A wiretap order also carries a fair amount of restrictions as to how it is applied and what information is usable. In this case, they're doing something that does exactly the same thing as a wiretap, they just don't _call_ it that.
The argument the lawyers are making is that recording his keystrokes is a wiretap, regardless of whether the information is recorded on a phone line or not. The reasons for this include the fact that they will be gaining personal non-crime related information as well as the fact that they're receiving a stream of information (not a snapshot like they would get in a normal search).
For example, if they went into this person's home and searched his computer, that would fall under the warrant that they had. That's legitimate, no argument here.
In a court case, the FBI can require that a defendant give up his password so that they can view the files. In order to do that, they need to have enough evidence to go to trial. Obviously in this case they didn't have enough evidence and they suspected they would if they were able to search the encrypted files. My point being that there were lots of ways that they could have gathered the same information without putting a tap on his machine. (Which is probably why they didn't get a wiretap order - the judge may have said "No, there's other ways you can get this info without doing a tap.")
If I'm not totally mistaken, the FBI would require some variant of a wiretap order to put a camera in the house and monitor his keystrokes. This shouldn't be any different. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be able to wiretap/record/etc. However, if they're going to be able to do that, then they need to follow the rules. Get a wiretap order, it isn't that much of a pain in the ass and it means that any information you gather will be used in a trial without being thrown out on technicalities.
If a criminal goes free because these agents screwed up, then that's the way the system works. It's something that's designed to make sure that police and the FBI don't overstep their bounds... the knowledge that if they do, the case will be tossed out.
From the "Vedic Defense" section of the Natural Law Party's Call for Vedic Leadership.
And I thought I was left-wing and freaky. I'll admit they have some points I like, but I think they might be just a bit far out on some of these. I find the claim that they're going to "revitalize the aboriginal people's culture" with 10,000 Yogic Flyers to be both presumptuous and patronizing. The idea that all crime is caused by "stress" (it's technically true I suppose, it's just a bizarre way to say it) I find to be incredibly humorous. =)
Thanks for the rundown - I'm going to check out all the sites. I'm not used to all these parties and it's made listening to the news remarkably confusing. I had someone try to explain what all the different parties are in terms of liberal and conservative... it was along the lines of "well, this one's more liberal than that one, and more conservative than this one..." and then I just kind of zoned out. I don't think it helped that the "Liberals" are smack in the middle.
This is from the Amnesty International 2001 World Report, the section on the U.S.
The site says they are looking for comments specifically from Canadian citizens. While this doesn't stop anyone else from responding, be aware that your opinions may be discarded.
Which seems fair enough, I wouldn't want a bunch of say, US companies' comments on the matter to be considered.
... retain a good lawyer, in the U.S.
If there's no way for you to avoid coming over here, make sure you have legal representation before you come and make sure they know what the issues involved are.
Honestly I don't think it's safe right now. While the Sklyarov case is more extreme (he at least helped author the tool, you only distributed it), the potential for you to be arrested and tried is definitely there.
Ooh! Ooh!
NDP? Or was that a rhetorical question?
<--- US citizen trying to get the hang of all these darn parties while I wait for Immigration to let me the heck in.
Fundamentally, if you want anyone to be able to read data in the future, it needs to be recorded in some sort of text format... preferably on a media that doesn't decay too easily. Paper works for a couple hundred years, much longer if conditions are right. In comparison, I don't trust a zip disk to have my information a week later. =)
This letter was just sent off.
. co m
I'm writing to express my severe disappointment with the opinion piece by Mr. McCollum. The article is entitled "Free Dimitri? Free Information? Free Everything?" and can be found at this address:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12306.html
While I realize that an opinion piece is different from a standard news story (namely in that it's not expected to be unbiased), I found the facts to be severely wanting and the mischaracterizations of respectable persons such as Ms. Robin Gross of the EFF to be just shy of libelous.
A Russian man is being held in a U.S. jail for a program he helped to write and distribute in Russia, where it is quite legal - because it violates a U.S. law. I find that an appalling miscarriage of justice.
Your site is in many ways an excellent news portal, with good information and quite well-written articles. I'm sorry to say that this article falls far short of the expectations I, and I believe many others have of your site.