It won't be long before we're able to identify all kinds of disorders and diseases with a simple genetic screening. Then we just call having a 90% chance to develop cancer a pre-existing condition, and you're screwed.
Congress shall accept no donations but from the People.
Corporations have been banned from donating to candidates in Federal elections since 1907. When you hear "Microsoft donated $27,000 to Jay Inslee", it actually means that individuals associated with Microsoft donated the money. (Well, corporations are allowed to give some to PACs, but it's limited.)
Something tells me that if you do the math, cutting CO2 emissions will be way cheaper and safer than any of the options listed in the article. Seeding the oceans with iron, one of the more reasonable sounding ideas... OK, but how much iron would have to be mixed into the oceans to get rid of billions of tons of atmospheric carbon? At what cost?
No. The math has been done and the geo-engineering solutions are thousands of times cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions.
Showing that someone "is up to no good" has always been more difficult than proving they actually did something wrong. This has been a problem for accusors since the dawn of time. The fact that justice can be difficult is no good excuse to take shortcuts with the process.
On the basis of the briefs, it looks like the law professors have a better case based on the language of the statute. But I have to say that I don't see this as a case of some vague "up to no good" standard. If the distribution actually took place, there was infringement. If the distribution didn't take place, there was no point in making the files available.
It would be like hiding a camera in the girls' locker room, then arguing that no invasion of privacy occurred unless someone was actually watching the monitor while the girls were in the shower. It's hard to prove when someone was watching, but there's no point in putting the camera there unless you want to watch.
If they can't prove the distribution, then how do they know the copyright infringement is happening?
Their argument is that just making a copyrighted work available on a peer-to-peer network is infringement by itself. They argue that they shouldn't have to prove actual distribution, that is, that someone downloaded it. To see what files someone has made available is simple, by the very nature of peer-to-peer networks. Proving that someone has downloaded a particular file from a particular user is much more difficult.
after training, LSA performed at 64.4% correct on a multiple choice test of synonymity taken from TOEFL (in contrast, humans score around 64.5% on average on this test, which is frequently used as a college entrance examination of English proficiency in non-native speakers. By this metric, LSA would be admitted to many major universities!)
calculations of the rate of word learning by 7th graders suggests that they acquire.15 words per 70-word text sample; analogous calculations of LSA's rate of acquisition show that LSA acquires.1500 words per text sample read
the comprehension by college students of several versions of a text sample about heart function is precisely replicated by LSA, when comprehension is measured as the degree of semantic overlap between subsequent sentences;
Humans initially show facilitated processing of all meanings of a previously-presented word, but after 300 ms show priming only of context-appropriate meanings; LSA shows similar effects insofar as similarity is higher between a homograph and two words related to different meanings of the homograph than between a homograph and unrelated words, and in that LSA considers words related to the context-appropriate definition of a homograph as more related than words related to the context-inappropriate definition of the homograph;
Human reaction times in judgments of numerical magnitude suggest that the single digit numerals are represented along a "logarithmic mental number line;" LSA was able to replicate this effect in its ratings of similarity among the single digit numerals, which also conform to a logarithmic function
Latent Semantic Analysis goes back over 20 years (there are expired patents on it). So there's more than just a vague theory that "data mining" is used to learn vocabulary.
Hopefully, trying out XO will involve a few dozen pilot projects in different countries. Given what studies have shown in the U.S. about the value of computers to education, I expect the pilot projects to show that the laptops would be a tremendous waste of money .
Fighting the last war? It's been the opinion of many military analysts for over three decades that carriers are "sitting ducks". This was confirmed during the Falklands War when the tiny Argentine Air Force was able to cause tremendous damage.
Umm, as far as I know the HMS Hermes (a British carrier) was nowhere near the Sheffield when it was hit. Yes the Argentines manged to sink a destroyer on an ASW patrol. What does this have to do with aircraft carriers?
It was only 30 miles away, near enough to dispatch a couple of planes after the Sheffield was hit--hit by a stand-off weapon they never saw coming. And the Sheffield was only the biggest ship brought down. The air cover of the Hermes wasn't enough to protect many other vessels
The defenses may have advanced a bit in the twenty-five years since then, but the stand-off attack capabilities have grown much more. What aircraft carrier is going to be able to survive the onslaught of the 2030 Chinese or Russian equivalent of the Exocet, plus hundreds of rocket-assisted, smart, gravity bombs, dozens of submarine-launched cruise missiles and long-distance torpedoes?
... Again you miss the point. There is NO WAY your aircraft will get within range of my carrier group. If my 24 hour CAP doesn't get you with its over the horizon air to air missiles, plus support from dedicated radar and jamming planes; then my dedicated surface to air missile cruisers will.
Wishful thinking. The range from which a carrier can be hit just keeps expanding. A sophisticated enemy with satellites and submarines won't care much about radar-jamming technology. Sure the chaff and anti-missile systems will stop a few incoming threats, but the carriers are just too big a target. Eventually one will get through, then flight operations will be shut down and sooner or later the carrier will be put out of operation long-term.
A carrier costs billions to build, billions to fill with aircraft, and billions to run/maintain. However carriers are still being built - I guess you haven't heard about the "Ford" class, with the first one Gerald R. Ford expected to be ready by 2013 and another two planned up to 2020. Considering that there are only 10 carriers active in the US fleet right now, and they are going produce 30% of that number in the next 13 years, I'd say that carriers are in no danger of being "phased out" as you claim. If anything the current fleet will be maintained, with the newer ships replacing older ones that will be decomissioned.
In the 1930s, navies spent huge amounts building ships that looked awesome from the viewpoint of World War I. They worked fine until some airplane dropped a torpedo or bomb on them. These behemoths have their uses, but won't last long against a sophisticated opponent. The building program we have now is more about congressional pork and admirals' egos than it is about sound budget priorities.
This made me laugh. You obviously have no idea what a carrier battle group can do. It can seriously ruin ANYONE's day. Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway? Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carriers - and not finding those carriers sealed their fate?
Fighting the last war? It's been the opinion of many military analysts for over three decades that carriers are "sitting ducks". This was confirmed during the Falklands War when the tiny Argentine Air Force was able to cause tremendous damage.
A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships. The Navy knows this and is also investing in VTOL aircraft, stealth surface ships, and other survivable technology. It loves the big ships, of course, but knows they wouldn't survive if we have to face a really capable enemy.
That's my guess. Looking at what was changed, other than 'set dressing', I can't think of a good reason to change only the background other than to present an anonymous room or a room that does not exist without having their leader stand in front of a white sheet and look ludicrous.
I can't think of a good reason, period. I don't think Krawetz's analysis proves what he says it does.
Until recently, that hasn't been successful. You really haven't been following this tragic, unreported story-line. See, their [Monsanto] lawyers are bigger than the farmers' lawyers and that's who has historically won. So on one hand, when they sue for their accidental contamination, they use various arguments such as "it can't be helped, it's nature and nature's function" or "these GM seeds had made your crops better and we counter-sue" or "no, you must have stolen it! and we counter-sue" and on and on.
If GM crops nudge out the conventional ones, eventually we'll be in a position where a company can starve millions of people to death at will. Legally.
That's just silly. There are lots of different kinds of seeds and lots of different kinds of crops. The patents in this case would all expire by 2011 even if they are eventually found valid.
You're obviously not up-to-speed with Monsanto. What happens is that a neighboring field cross-pollinates, or some seeds blow off of a passing truck, and all of a sudden, your "grandfather's strain" has been contaminated with the patented Monsanto genes. Somehow, they test your field and they sue you. You can't argue with the DNA, so you are SOL and they shut you down, even though you never wanted their genes to start with.
One Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser claimed that, but that claim was rejected by the courts.
In the cases that are cited in the press release the acts are all intentional.
And yes, the DNA of most animals in the area is pretty effed up, but
surprisingly most of them appear healthy and reproduce normally.
One of the main studies that said that the DNA was effed up was later
retracted. There's a very interesting article "Growing
up with Chernobyl" (PDF) by Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, that
was published in the American Scientist (subscriber
link). Baker is one of the scientists quoted in the featured
article. In the "Growing up with Chernobyl, he says:
Soon after the paper was published, we acquired an automated sequencer
that was more accurate than the manual methods used to sequence DNA. We
had archived the tissues from all the animals used in our Nature study,
so we decided to re-sequence the genes to compare the methods. To our
horror, the automated sequencer failed to replicate the result we
reported in Nature. The more accurate method failed to find an elevated
mutation rate, even though we repeated the sequencing several
times.
Uh, doesnt that seem rather overbroad? I mean, there's nothing about methodology, just 'we own any synthetic life.' What utter bullshit. Why dont they try to patent nonsynthetic life while they're at it?
That's right. The "quote" from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin' made up.
Except she did say it, on tape. And when Palast wrote this story, she had the exact same thing on her own web site! He's beyond biased. He's plain dishonest.
Ocean Tomo, a Chicago-based company that holds auctions for patents, copyrights and other intellectual property, will put a gem on the block in its next auction taking place in London on June 1: film footage of the Rolling Stones guitarist getting electrocuted during a U.S. concert in 1965.
Keith Richards was executed back in 1965! This explains so much. He looks really good for someone who's been dead for over 40 years.
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
When drug cartels conspire to import cocaine to the U.S., should we just arrest the low-level smugglers who set foot here, or should we try to extradite the big fish, like Jaime
Orlando Lara, Fernando
Jose Flores, and Fabio Ochoa?
If someone in Nigeria defrauds someone in the U.S. over the Internet, do you think that no U.S. law has been broken?
This guy did not just exchange floppy disks with his neighbors, he was part of an international conspiracy whose entire purpose was to break the law, not just in the U.S., but of almost every country where they resided. They knew it was illegal in the U.S. They consciously targeted software published in the U.S. and traded files with people in the U.S.
Models or exhibits are not required in most patent applications since the description of the invention in the specification and the drawings must be sufficiently full, clear, and complete and capable of being understood to disclose the invention without the aid of a model.
A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the applicant may be required to furnish specimens of the composition, or of its ingredients or intermediates, for inspection or experiment. If the invention is a microbiological invention, a deposit of the micro-organism involved is required.
Slashdot Mirror
> Basing emplyment on IQ is pointless as it doesn't actually predict "real-world" performance.
IQ does correlate with job performance, especially for higher-complexity jobs.
See, for example:
http://faculty.washington.edu/mdj3/MGMT580/Readings/Week%202/Schmidt.pdf
I used to use rxvt, but I couldn't get Unicode to work in it, so I switched to puttycyg.
And also not to be confused with Gates of Heaven (1978), Errol Morris's first film, a documentary about pet cemeteries--which is quite good.
There is a law against that that just went into effect.
Also, people don't actually have that many lethal genes. There's the whole natural selection thing going on.
Corporations have been banned from donating to candidates in Federal elections since 1907. When you hear "Microsoft donated $27,000 to Jay Inslee", it actually means that individuals associated with Microsoft donated the money. (Well, corporations are allowed to give some to PACs, but it's limited.)
No. The math has been done and the geo-engineering solutions are thousands of times cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions.
On the basis of the briefs, it looks like the law professors have a better case based on the language of the statute. But I have to say that I don't see this as a case of some vague "up to no good" standard. If the distribution actually took place, there was infringement. If the distribution didn't take place, there was no point in making the files available.
It would be like hiding a camera in the girls' locker room, then arguing that no invasion of privacy occurred unless someone was actually watching the monitor while the girls were in the shower. It's hard to prove when someone was watching, but there's no point in putting the camera there unless you want to watch.
Their argument is that just making a copyrighted work available on a peer-to-peer network is infringement by itself. They argue that they shouldn't have to prove actual distribution, that is, that someone downloaded it. To see what files someone has made available is simple, by the very nature of peer-to-peer networks. Proving that someone has downloaded a particular file from a particular user is much more difficult.
Hopefully, trying out XO will involve a few dozen pilot projects in different countries. Given what studies have shown in the U.S. about the value of computers to education, I expect the pilot projects to show that the laptops would be a tremendous waste of money .
It was only 30 miles away, near enough to dispatch a couple of planes after the Sheffield was hit--hit by a stand-off weapon they never saw coming. And the Sheffield was only the biggest ship brought down. The air cover of the Hermes wasn't enough to protect many other vessels
The defenses may have advanced a bit in the twenty-five years since then, but the stand-off attack capabilities have grown much more. What aircraft carrier is going to be able to survive the onslaught of the 2030 Chinese or Russian equivalent of the Exocet, plus hundreds of rocket-assisted, smart, gravity bombs, dozens of submarine-launched cruise missiles and long-distance torpedoes?
Wishful thinking. The range from which a carrier can be hit just keeps expanding. A sophisticated enemy with satellites and submarines won't care much about radar-jamming technology. Sure the chaff and anti-missile systems will stop a few incoming threats, but the carriers are just too big a target. Eventually one will get through, then flight operations will be shut down and sooner or later the carrier will be put out of operation long-term.
In the 1930s, navies spent huge amounts building ships that looked awesome from the viewpoint of World War I. They worked fine until some airplane dropped a torpedo or bomb on them. These behemoths have their uses, but won't last long against a sophisticated opponent. The building program we have now is more about congressional pork and admirals' egos than it is about sound budget priorities.
A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships. The Navy knows this and is also investing in VTOL aircraft, stealth surface ships, and other survivable technology. It loves the big ships, of course, but knows they wouldn't survive if we have to face a really capable enemy.
You can find the list of Regal cinemas in your state here
In all the cases that are cited in the PubPat press release [prnewswire.com] the acts are intentional. No one is claiming accidental contamination.
That's just silly. There are lots of different kinds of seeds and lots of different kinds of crops. The patents in this case would all expire by 2011 even if they are eventually found valid.
In the cases that are cited in the press release the acts are all intentional.
One of the main studies that said that the DNA was effed up was later retracted. There's a very interesting article "Growing up with Chernobyl" (PDF) by Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, that was published in the American Scientist (subscriber link). Baker is one of the scientists quoted in the featured article. In the "Growing up with Chernobyl, he says:
The patent application looks pretty specific to me, actually.
If someone in Nigeria defrauds someone in the U.S. over the Internet, do you think that no U.S. law has been broken?
This guy did not just exchange floppy disks with his neighbors, he was part of an international conspiracy whose entire purpose was to break the law, not just in the U.S., but of almost every country where they resided. They knew it was illegal in the U.S. They consciously targeted software published in the U.S. and traded files with people in the U.S.
There are some awesome pictures of a Mexican cave that looks like the movie version of the Fortress of Solitude.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#model
Models or exhibits are not required in most patent applications since the description of the invention in the specification and the drawings must be sufficiently full, clear, and complete and capable of being understood to disclose the invention without the aid of a model.
A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.
When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the applicant may be required to furnish specimens of the composition, or of its ingredients or intermediates, for inspection or experiment. If the invention is a microbiological invention, a deposit of the micro-organism involved is required.