Ahh,nuts. As long as I'm wasign time on this (the game is boring at the moment).
From your own source:
As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[2] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional three to four acres of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km) of canola.... While the origin of the plants on Schmeisers farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop. And then, from the Supreme Court decision itself,
Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 percent was Roundup Ready Canola.... In this case, the appellants' saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute "utilization" of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42.... By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants' involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature.... Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use.... The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established. Amazing, actually reading the case utterly wipes out the claims made as to what happened (not a rare thing on slashdot).
But wait, it gets better. From reading your post (and the similar ones in oh-so-many-threads, one might think that this farmer that deliberately selected for the monsanto genes had been wiped out.
Now I'll switch to being a *real* wet blanket. Again, from the Canadian Supreme Court:
The appellants' profits were precisely what they would have been had they planted and harvested ordinary canola. Nor did they gain any agricultural advantage from the herbicide resistant nature of the canola since no finding was made that they sprayed with Roundup herbicide to reduce weeds. On this evidence, the appellants earned no profit from the invention and the respondents are entitled to nothing on their claim of account. For those too lazy to read understand the issue, such as the author of the grandparent of this psot, I'll translate to English:
1. The fammrer was not an innocent who happened to have a few stray plants with the Monsanto seed contaminate his crops. Rather, after litigation, the court found that he deliberately selected for the monsanto plants, killing his other crops to generate seed that was 95-98% monsanto.
2. He still paid no damages.
But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good political screed . . .
How odd. It was wikipedia's page that I was summarizing (and, yes, details are lost when you summarize, but if you read the case itself, you find the same thing [yes, I've read more than wikipedia on this]).
That's an "interestng" summary of the court's position, but the fact remains that he used Roundup *multiple* times before harvesting for the next year, resulting in a seed crop that was--surprise!--almost entirely the monsanto crop.
In short, the court found not that he he was liable for not weeding out orr throwing out the monsanto grain, but that he *deliberately* selected to make sure that he had Monsanto. In short, the court considered and rejected the claims that you are making (which was also made by the farmer)
>See Monsanto v. Schmeiser and foreign counterparts.
Please do.
The court there found that it was not a matter of his fields being contaminated, but of him using Roundup to kill the regular plants before harvesting "his" seed . . .
The Super Elf came from Quest (where I bought soem of my parts); it was based on the Popular Electronics articles (Quest also made an earlier elf kit).
Mine was noticeably different, though also derived from the articles. I did make sure to have things on the same ports, though.
Netronics (?) also made a Elf II or some such that also had a small onboard monitor.
In my case, I think that it was getting an entry out of/etc/fstab that was stopping me from going multiuser, combined with a mandatory fsck. But ed was there to save the day:)
If it's the programming of a simple system, rather than the hardware, that interests you, the video game programming board at fries, as well as some of the "postage stamp"? kits may be right up your alley.
And if you do find an 1802, grab an 1861, the crude video chip, to go with it!
wasn't/rescue added in 5.x? My dusty neurons want to say it was added when situations like mine occurred after switching to dynamic linking, but it's been a few years.
It seems to me that it was about $100 altogether, with the biggest chunks being the wire-wrap sockets and the $20 processor. The toggle switches were about a buck and a quarter each, and the memory chips were the same. I gasped at the price for integrated hex-digit displays, and found alternates that drove external seven segment displays. Power came from a filament transformer (before I realized that I could use a spare atari 9v 500ma supply if I left off the second bank of ram).
Actually, if you go to jameco.com, you can still find many of the pieces we used back then. 256x4 ram at a buck or two apiece, z80 and support chips from a couple of bucks a pop (if you use z80 rather than 8080, you can use a single 5v supply and a single-phase clock), 4000 and 7400 series chips (and their descendants), I'm sure that you can find a hex[adecimal] display driver (their search isn't responding right now) [if not, use 8 LEDs], toggle switches should still be a buck or two, data sheets can be downloaded, and you're ready to go.
I think there was a way to key/toggle memory into successive locations on the z80 (there was a mode for this on the 1802). Heck, if you can get your paws on an 1802 (i think they're still used for spacecraft for radiation reasons), it's a better choice for this type of project anyway.
Pull the old "Elf" articles from late 1970's Popular Electronics for the general gist of it.
Not an altair, but the toggles & two hex digits of display, and an 1802 processor. I had to use 2102's instead (they were a *lot* less than the 256x4 chips), so it has 2k (I think I had to order 16 instead of 8 over shipping or minimum order).
Slashdot Mirror
>"GPLv3 allows RMS to rape your puppies")?
*whew*
Fortunately, I only have kittens . . .
hawk
Besides, as God has pointed out, Nietzsche is dead.
hawkk
Damn. They've found our fully operational space station.
Nothing left but for a demonstration of its capacity . . .
Hey, what's that coast with the guy with bad glasses?
From your own source: As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[2] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional three to four acres of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km) of canola.
While the origin of the plants on Schmeisers farm remains unclear, the trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop. And then, from the Supreme Court decision itself, Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 percent was Roundup Ready Canola.
In this case, the appellants' saving and planting seed, then harvesting and selling plants that contained the patented cells and genes appears, on a common sense view, to constitute "utilization" of the patented material for production and advantage, within the meaning of s. 42.
By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, the appellants deprived the respondents of the full enjoyment of the monopoly. The appellants' involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in nature.
Second, the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of use.
The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and infringement is established. Amazing, actually reading the case utterly wipes out the claims made as to what happened (not a rare thing on slashdot).
But wait, it gets better. From reading your post (and the similar ones in oh-so-many-threads, one might think that this farmer that deliberately selected for the monsanto genes had been wiped out.
Now I'll switch to being a *real* wet blanket. Again, from the Canadian Supreme Court: The appellants' profits were precisely what they would have been had they planted and harvested ordinary canola. Nor did they gain any agricultural advantage from the herbicide resistant nature of the canola since no finding was made that they sprayed with Roundup herbicide to reduce weeds. On this evidence, the appellants earned no profit from the invention and the respondents are entitled to nothing on their claim of account. For those too lazy to read understand the issue, such as the author of the grandparent of this psot, I'll translate to English:
1. The fammrer was not an innocent who happened to have a few stray plants with the Monsanto seed contaminate his crops. Rather, after litigation, the court found that he deliberately selected for the monsanto plants, killing his other crops to generate seed that was 95-98% monsanto.
2. He still paid no damages.
But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good political screed . . .
hawk, esq., still not giving legal advice.
p.s. you can find the Canadian Supreme Court ruling at http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
How odd. It was wikipedia's page that I was summarizing (and, yes, details are lost when you summarize, but if you read the case itself, you find the same thing [yes, I've read more than wikipedia on this]).
That's an "interestng" summary of the court's position, but the fact remains that he used Roundup *multiple* times before harvesting for the next year, resulting in a seed crop that was--surprise!--almost entirely the monsanto crop.
In short, the court found not that he he was liable for not weeding out orr throwing out the monsanto grain, but that he *deliberately* selected to make sure that he had Monsanto. In short, the court considered and rejected the claims that you are making (which was also made by the farmer)
hawk, esq., not giving legal advice
>See Monsanto v. Schmeiser and foreign counterparts.
Please do.
The court there found that it was not a matter of his fields being contaminated, but of him using Roundup to kill the regular plants before harvesting "his" seed . . .
hawk
>Wind blown dust will do some of that with no effort by the grower.
:)
Fortunately, the FSF has lawyers to stop folks who freeload off others' dust while not returning their own dirt . . .
hawk
I just checked--jameco will ship internationally w. UPS and other methods.
I don't think that digikey comes anywhere close to the range of older parts that Jameco has.
hawk
The Super Elf came from Quest (where I bought soem of my parts); it was based on the Popular Electronics articles (Quest also made an earlier elf kit).
Mine was noticeably different, though also derived from the articles. I did make sure to have things on the same ports, though.
Netronics (?) also made a Elf II or some such that also had a small onboard monitor.
hawk
In my case, I think that it was getting an entry out of /etc/fstab that was stopping me from going multiuser, combined with a mandatory fsck. But ed was there to save the day :)
hawk
>if they didn't have something really MAJOR to hide.
those pictures of Janet Reno come to mind . . .
hawk, assuming that anyone having seen those needs an interface for the blind
I tried once. I couldn't get the voice for the countdown right, though . . .
hawk
If it's the programming of a simple system, rather than the hardware, that interests you, the video game programming board at fries, as well as some of the "postage stamp"? kits may be right up your alley.
And if you do find an 1802, grab an 1861, the crude video chip, to go with it!
hawk
wasn't /rescue added in 5.x? My dusty neurons want to say it was added when situations like mine occurred after switching to dynamic linking, but it's been a few years.
hawk
It seems to me that it was about $100 altogether, with the biggest chunks being the wire-wrap sockets and the $20 processor. The toggle switches were about a buck and a quarter each, and the memory chips were the same. I gasped at the price for integrated hex-digit displays, and found alternates that drove external seven segment displays. Power came from a filament transformer (before I realized that I could use a spare atari 9v 500ma supply if I left off the second bank of ram).
Actually, if you go to jameco.com, you can still find many of the pieces we used back then. 256x4 ram at a buck or two apiece, z80 and support chips from a couple of bucks a pop (if you use z80 rather than 8080, you can use a single 5v supply and a single-phase clock), 4000 and 7400 series chips (and their descendants), I'm sure that you can find a hex[adecimal] display driver (their search isn't responding right now) [if not, use 8 LEDs], toggle switches should still be a buck or two, data sheets can be downloaded, and you're ready to go.
I think there was a way to key/toggle memory into successive locations on the z80 (there was a mode for this on the 1802). Heck, if you can get your paws on an 1802 (i think they're still used for spacecraft for radiation reasons), it's a better choice for this type of project anyway.
Pull the old "Elf" articles from late 1970's Popular Electronics for the general gist of it.
hawk
Oh, c'mon.
:)
France was *desperate* for a military victory after 900 years . . .
hawk
Not an altair, but the toggles & two hex digits of display, and an 1802 processor. I had to use 2102's instead (they were a *lot* less than the 256x4 chips), so it has 2k (I think I had to order 16 instead of 8 over shipping or minimum order).
hawkk
>I remember back when SCO provided a decent PC-based version of UNIX.
:)
I remember further back than that
They dropped off a unit for us to play with at Olivetti--an XT. After waiting for minutes at the login, we all wandered off . . .
hawk
. . . is when it's dynamically linked (e.g., FreeBSD), and your problem is preventing /usr from mounting . . .
hawk, who was surprised to find that he could still use ed
Electing him is not the scary part.
The scary part is that tossing out the governor to put him in was *rational*.
hawk, shuddering years later
Could you send me a copy when you finish? It should prove helpful with my teenagers . . . :)
hawk
*thunk*
:)
Well, you trolled *that* moderator
hawk
for the newbies, the original mac ROM was 64k . . .
bah.
Today's kids.
If you can't flip the core rings with a magnet, you don't deserve your file. Keyboards? What's next, expecting your output on a television???
hawk
>Opera does HTML mail just fine.
How, pray tell, does a web browser inflict serious bodily harm upon the message sender when he is halfway around the world???
hawk
Will EMACS finally be getting a decent editor added to its functionality?
hawk