Yes you could be arrested in the UK but only held for 72 hours, that evidence wouldn't be enough take someone to court. However, in the US you could be locked away forever without even so much as a phone call.
Firstly I'd like to say that I find this position incredible and therefore whatever system is in place that has enabled it to happen needs to be adjusted to prevent such cases in the future.
But to my point. I can see the argument for Monsanto to be granted a patent on their product, albeit I don't agree with it but I can see that their investment needs some guarantee or a return. However, if their investment cannot naturally be contained by the users of the product then the product has a flaw and Monsanto should be solely responsible. In the case of a new patented engine part, the improvement is naturally contained within the engine, only those engines that contain the part can benefit from the advantage it brings, the advantage does not leak out.
In the case of Monsanto's product, the "advantage" has leaked out by natural causes that are beyond the control of the users or the recipients and this lack of containment was known by Monsanto before the product was launched; and indeed would have been known before the company embarked upon the research. I know it and I don't work in this field, no pun intended.
The matter is, I believe, much more serious for Monsanto and the correct precedent needs to be set at this stage; to get it wrong now is to do untold damage in the future. There are a good number of farmers that choose not to buy the Monsanto product because it does not fit in with their ethos or business plan. Unfortunately because Monsanto launched an uncontainable product upon the market they are forced to have it and therefore their chosen business will have been damaged, this is through no fault of their own and is solely the responsibility of Monsanto who did know that this would happen.
The case is actually doubly bad for Monsanto because they have demonstrably damaged a number of businesses and they effectively hold a monopoly over local, and possibly widespread, areas that they have forced upon the market. This behaviour is prohibited in most parts of the world.
We have to keep our fingers crossed that the decision on the 31st March supports the motion that there is a case to be answered.
I agree with the vast majority of comments made on this page so far but the problem is that you can't take a single dimensional view of a multi dimensional problem, and, by and large, that's what they each do. That said, of course I'm going to do it.
The real issue is one of the mindset and what's locally important, in poorer areas it's important to have a big "bling" car, it puts you above the pack and makes you feel good. It's only the wealthy that are competing on different levels that don't have anything to prove with their cars and so can afford to have cheaper and stranger solutions.
In Europe and Japan where we have no (very few) native sources of oil and twistier roads, smaller cars have been the norm and these naturally go round corners well. The mantra for many decades from advertising, TV programmes etc. has been that gas guzzlers are bad and so manufacturers have been competing on fuel efficiency and handling. This has led to the introduction of a lot of technology that hits both areas and people are happy with the outcome. We do have SUVs of course, but these are smaller and they go round corners.
In Europe, fuel prices are equivalent to about $8 per U.S. gallon and this is largely due to the level of tax applied. The U.S. can't simply apply the same as it will disproportionately affect poorer people and will create general a outcry. And let's face it, which government is going to try to push that one through the system, even if it were easy to do so. A relaxation on import duties may help as this would allow for more technology to enter the U.S. market but this would bring about pressure from domestic car manufacturers.
I suggest that the U.S. is in it for the long haul, pressure will need to be applied to domestic manufacturers to produce more efficient cars, this needs to be coupled with a new paradigm that says hauling 2 tons of steel to the shops is not a good way to go; only then will there be a climate that allows for greater fuel efficiency. It's not true to say "I know what I like" as we so often do, it's more realistic to say "I like what I know". And if I might add one more note, you'll also get cars that are more fun to drive, start every time, work well in the snow, are easier to park, go round corners without screeching...
So what will they do about Scotland? It seems to be full of bitter, sad people. I didn't know it was a mental condition, I thought it was just how Scottish people were.
Mind you if I lived somewhere where it was cold wet and windy and they made me wear a skirt with nothing under it, I'd be bitter too.
And then there's the beer. Oh, and haggis... and bagpipes...
Now I'm not Scottish, and neither particularly like nor dislike the nation as a whole, the countryside is in parts very pleasant and in others decidedly not so. As a result, when I read your comments they just passed me by, except that is for your condemnation of the beer. Generally I would agree as the beers tend to be very second rate at best, but only last night I was introduced to a wonderful brew which happened to be Scottish through and through. It's name... Bitter and Twisted - now there's coincidence for you!
Link below refers, well worth getting some in.
http://www.beers-scotland.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=137
The article overviews two scenarios: a head-on collision and a collision that was not head-on. If black holes are singularities how can any collision between two black holes be anything other than head-on?
Slashdot Mirror
Well my valve amp goes all the way up to 11.
Yes you could be arrested in the UK but only held for 72 hours, that evidence wouldn't be enough take someone to court. However, in the US you could be locked away forever without even so much as a phone call.
It works with women too, although Rose seems to perform better.
But it's still a very very high price to pay for the pleasure of eating a hot curry!
Firstly I'd like to say that I find this position incredible and therefore whatever system is in place that has enabled it to happen needs to be adjusted to prevent such cases in the future. But to my point. I can see the argument for Monsanto to be granted a patent on their product, albeit I don't agree with it but I can see that their investment needs some guarantee or a return. However, if their investment cannot naturally be contained by the users of the product then the product has a flaw and Monsanto should be solely responsible. In the case of a new patented engine part, the improvement is naturally contained within the engine, only those engines that contain the part can benefit from the advantage it brings, the advantage does not leak out. In the case of Monsanto's product, the "advantage" has leaked out by natural causes that are beyond the control of the users or the recipients and this lack of containment was known by Monsanto before the product was launched; and indeed would have been known before the company embarked upon the research. I know it and I don't work in this field, no pun intended. The matter is, I believe, much more serious for Monsanto and the correct precedent needs to be set at this stage; to get it wrong now is to do untold damage in the future. There are a good number of farmers that choose not to buy the Monsanto product because it does not fit in with their ethos or business plan. Unfortunately because Monsanto launched an uncontainable product upon the market they are forced to have it and therefore their chosen business will have been damaged, this is through no fault of their own and is solely the responsibility of Monsanto who did know that this would happen. The case is actually doubly bad for Monsanto because they have demonstrably damaged a number of businesses and they effectively hold a monopoly over local, and possibly widespread, areas that they have forced upon the market. This behaviour is prohibited in most parts of the world. We have to keep our fingers crossed that the decision on the 31st March supports the motion that there is a case to be answered.
I agree with the vast majority of comments made on this page so far but the problem is that you can't take a single dimensional view of a multi dimensional problem, and, by and large, that's what they each do. That said, of course I'm going to do it. The real issue is one of the mindset and what's locally important, in poorer areas it's important to have a big "bling" car, it puts you above the pack and makes you feel good. It's only the wealthy that are competing on different levels that don't have anything to prove with their cars and so can afford to have cheaper and stranger solutions. In Europe and Japan where we have no (very few) native sources of oil and twistier roads, smaller cars have been the norm and these naturally go round corners well. The mantra for many decades from advertising, TV programmes etc. has been that gas guzzlers are bad and so manufacturers have been competing on fuel efficiency and handling. This has led to the introduction of a lot of technology that hits both areas and people are happy with the outcome. We do have SUVs of course, but these are smaller and they go round corners. In Europe, fuel prices are equivalent to about $8 per U.S. gallon and this is largely due to the level of tax applied. The U.S. can't simply apply the same as it will disproportionately affect poorer people and will create general a outcry. And let's face it, which government is going to try to push that one through the system, even if it were easy to do so. A relaxation on import duties may help as this would allow for more technology to enter the U.S. market but this would bring about pressure from domestic car manufacturers. I suggest that the U.S. is in it for the long haul, pressure will need to be applied to domestic manufacturers to produce more efficient cars, this needs to be coupled with a new paradigm that says hauling 2 tons of steel to the shops is not a good way to go; only then will there be a climate that allows for greater fuel efficiency. It's not true to say "I know what I like" as we so often do, it's more realistic to say "I like what I know". And if I might add one more note, you'll also get cars that are more fun to drive, start every time, work well in the snow, are easier to park, go round corners without screeching...
So what will they do about Scotland? It seems to be full of bitter, sad people. I didn't know it was a mental condition, I thought it was just how Scottish people were.
Mind you if I lived somewhere where it was cold wet and windy and they made me wear a skirt with nothing under it, I'd be bitter too.
And then there's the beer. Oh, and haggis ... and bagpipes ...
Now I'm not Scottish, and neither particularly like nor dislike the nation as a whole, the countryside is in parts very pleasant and in others decidedly not so. As a result, when I read your comments they just passed me by, except that is for your condemnation of the beer. Generally I would agree as the beers tend to be very second rate at best, but only last night I was introduced to a wonderful brew which happened to be Scottish through and through. It's name... Bitter and Twisted - now there's coincidence for you! Link below refers, well worth getting some in. http://www.beers-scotland.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=137
The article overviews two scenarios: a head-on collision and a collision that was not head-on. If black holes are singularities how can any collision between two black holes be anything other than head-on?