If you follow the source of that statement from wikipedia, you'll find it's from Monsanto's official webpage where they also describe the conditions under which they will file a suit. Among other things they say:
It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.
Of course, people will say that Monsanto is just flat out lying, but show me just one case somewhere that would contradict them.
Just take a look at the Schmeiser case - the guy had 95% Monsanto crops on his field - and he still did not have to pay anything to Monsanto. Where are the thousands of farmers closing shops because Monsanto finding trace amounts of patented genes in their crops?
People in the middle of nowhere planting nothing but traditional local crops can find that they've been cross contaminated with Monsanto crap.
Sure, they can be contaminated. But the ruling means Monsanto would need to prove farmers are deliberately using the modified crops to their advantage to have a patent breach case. Just finding Monsanto plant in somebody's field is not enough (contrary to what the poster above was implying)
You are probably refering to Monsanto v. Schmeiser case. Correct me if I'm wrong but there were no other cases like that.
There is no-one sued just for having his crops pollinated with Monsanto's Roundup wheat. The farmer was sued because he knowingly planted Monsanto's seeds. On the other hand the judge also ruled against any financial compensation to Monsanto as the farmer did not gain anything by his actions.
It still sucks that the farmer ended up paying a fortune for legal aid while not doing anything wrong, on the other hand the judges made a correct decision - it's not their fault that the legislature is what it is.
From the ruling:
93 Inventions in the field of agriculture may give rise to concerns not raised in other fields -- moral concerns about whether it is right to manipulate genes in order to obtain better weed control or higher yields. It is open to Parliament to consider these concerns and amend the Patent Act should it find them persuasive.
94 Our task, however, is to interpret and apply the Patent Act as it stands, in accordance with settled principles. Under the present Act, an invention in the domain of agriculture is as deserving of protection as an invention in the domain of mechanical science. Where Parliament has not seen fit to distinguish between inventions concerning plants and other inventions, neither should the courts.
The problem is that Hollywood is riding a pricing bubble and they know it. The only way for them to stay on the gravy train is to keep a crushing control on the advertising and the distribution of films. Any new player in distribution is a threat that needs to be dealt with.
Look at it this way. Nowdays the filming equipment is cheaper then ever before, both the pre-production and post-production process is faster and cheaper with the current technology, there are dozens of skilled actors auditioning for every role, the CGI is cheaper every year... All in all the cost to make a movie should be maybe half of what it used to be 20 years ago.
So why aren't movies cheaper? Why doeas a production of a comedy without action scenes, special effects or difficult filming locations cost 80 000 USD?
Because they can sell it. Because they are in control.
Dilute the control and the bubble will burst
Hence the Hollywood's resistance to new distribution schemes.
There is a theoretical model of galactic/stellar system formation, called the top-down formation scenario. It has not really been tested with observational data. You could use the Kepler to test it by orienting it some other way for the next five years but that would be a waste of resources.
In any case, it is an argument against the notion that the orientations of the stellar planes have an even distribution.
No, there is no observational evidence. That's why I used the word 'in theory' in my post. All I'm saying is that you can't just take the results from Kepler and multiply it by a factor of 100 - because you don't know the distribution either.
Similarly, for the kind of planets Kepler is looking at circling around sun-like stars, we are only seeing BY PURE CHANCE 1% of them.
While I really like your post, I must comment on your math here.
You may notice that planets in the Solar System run approximately in the same plane. What's more, the moons of the planets also orbit roughly in the same plane. This is because of the mechanics of solar system formation - things get squashed into a disc-like structure because of the rotation of the initially cloud-shaped proto-star system.
The same mechanics should in theory apply to the whole galaxy - that is not only the stars should orbit the galactical core on roughly the same plane, but also the planets of those stars can be expected to adhere to this plane.
This is why looking across the disc of the Milky Way Galaxy should result in much more planetary transitions (per 1000 stars) than looking perpendicularly away from the disc. There is still variation, of course, but the PURE CHANCE of detecting a planet transiting a star in Kepler's case is much more than 1% due to it's orientation towards the galactic disc.
By that logic a company could claim the car you use to get to work, or your laptop you use in your workplace. He didn't develop anything.
Analogy Fail. I wonder why this was modded up.
He used the company's resources (company name, the tech they provided for reviews and the web space for the articles) to gain advantage (followers). I don't see anything like that in your case of 'using your car to get to work'. As long as his advantage was aligned with the advantage of his company, everything was fine. Once he stopped working for them, he should have stopped using the twitter account.
If he just tweeted under his name in his own time, he would be like any other blogger posting links to tech sites. But he used the Phonedog name in his handle AND advertised the twitter account in every one of his posts on Phonedog!
I think you already knew what kind of answers you would get from this. There's no handy mind-trick that will make a bad job enjoyable. At best you can try to marginalize the impact the job has on your life and concentrate on your activities outside of your work.
Change the job. Your interview skills can be worked on.
And don't worry about your age (if that is a problem). Our department hired a 50 years old tester last year. Reason? In my area it's hard to find developers and IT people with experience. All people with CS and IT degrees want to work at cool SW companies in Silicon Valley or at least in big cities. Businesses in smaller cities and towns have a hard time attracting engineers. So for our position the guy we hired had little competition. Just foreigners who needed visa sponsoring and people with little or no relevant experience.
Perhaps fundamentalist or overly aggressive is a better word.
See, but that is a problem too.
1) Is there anything 'fundamental' to atheism? You don't believe in god. That's it. In that sense, all atheists are fundamentalist.
2) Overly aggressive has the same problem as militant. Was Gandhi an 'overly aggressive' pacifist?
like most militant atheists -- the more militant, the more childish
Why are you calling people 'militant atheists'? I mean, I can see how you could call Khmer Rouge 'militant atheists' since they had guns and they killed their ideological opposition. But what about people like Jerry Coyne? The only thing he does is speak up against certain ideas and certain ideologies. He never calls for any physical response to anybody. In fact he strictly opposes violence. Why call him 'militant'? Because he speaks up *strongly*? If that was enough to call somebody 'militant' then Gandhi would be a 'militant' nationalist.
Why don't we see a drugs manufacturers killing themselves with an 'oval shaped pills' (or as they would put it 'an anatomically efficient vessel for introduction of effective chemicals into the gastro-intestinal system') patent?
What the hell is the department of the Patent Office responsible for SW doing?!
Look at it this way - when a film is being made, you've got the screenwriters who have written the script, stage designers who put up the set, actors that perform the script, cameramen that shoot it and editors who cut it. Why do you need a director then? Can you imagine a movie made without a director? Unless it's like a 5 person project, it would end up a mess. The thing is, directors matter - in movies but even more so in big companies. To give, you know, direction to people, to establish a uniform vision to all parties involved, the development team, marketing and to the stakeholders.
how does that effect things like the dark energy equations, if it effects them at all?
There are no 'dark energy equations', just standard physics applied to observational data.. Scientists have proved that the universe is expanding and that the expansion of the universe is accelerating based on observational data from a couple of different (you might say 'independent' if you don't try to be too philosophical about it) sources. By running the data through standard physics equations they were able to calculate the magnitude of *an* energy that would be required to support that accelleration. They gave that energy a name - 'Dark Energy'.
Now there are two ways this faster-than-light (FTL) paradigm can change our view on Dark Energy
a) Somebody will come up with a completely new physics based on FTL just like Einstein came up with a new physics 100 years ago. This means we'll have a new set of equations to run our observational data through
b) We will get new observational data based on the fact we have a new information source that is faster than light.
These are awesome courses! Especially if you are new to the field. There are a couple of them that might interest you - the course on Game Theory, taught by a matemetician, focuses on the theory itself, although it gives some real life and historical scenarios of how game theory should be (or was) applied.
Then there is a course on Conflict Resolution which discusses a lot of the themes from Game Theory applied to real life and another course on Leadership that discusses a lot of historical examples of failures or successes of political or entrepreneurial campains.
Depends a lot on what kind of IT job are you talking about and on how much time you are willing to spend to stay fresh on CS topics. If you spend the next 3 years installing windows and laying cables, you'll find it hard to get a job in SW development. If you'll work in an IT or CM departments of a large company where they perhaps run som data-mining on their server logs, develop scripts for common IT problems etc, you'll learn a lot of useful things you can present to your future employer.
On top of that, you can run SW projects of your own in your sparetime - there's a lot of opportunities on sourceforge and similar sites. Employers love prospects who enjoy their topic so much they spend their free time working on it.
A precedens like this is bound for a ride on a slippery slope.
Generally things don't get out of hand when a regulatory/restrictive law is well defined. Take for example gun control (in Europe). If you grant people the right to carry hand guns, define what exactly a hand gun is and under what circumstances you may use it, it quickly becomes clear that there is no room for people trying to use the law as an excuse for using rocket launchers and machine guns.
On the other hand if there is no clear definition, things go seriously wrong. Best example of all - the infamous english defamation law. The circumstances under which a plaitiff's motion is accepted are vague, and there is no need for him to provide any proof - it's the defendant who must prove his actions were not libel (that his statements were either true or not referring to the plaintiff). This law has largely been used by large corporation to shut up any kind of criticism - starting with journalists but moving onto scientists and lately even individual bloggers. It's very effective - an individual person does not enough resources to go through a trial even if he/she would eventually win.
So where does 'malicious communication stand'? How well is it defined? Is there a clear delimitation of its applicability? A quick glance through the relevant wikipedia article shows that none of these things are there. The law does not state how far things can go! The effects of such a poorly written law have already surfaced. Here's what the British Asociation of Probation Officers said about it:
"there is ample evidence of the issuing of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Order that was applied to the troll in TFO) by the courts being inconsistent and almost a geographical lottery. There is great concern that people are being jailed following the breach of an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable. There is also evidence that ASBOs have been used where people have mental health problems where treatment would be more appropriate. In NAPO's view the time is right for a fundamental review of the use and appropriateness of Anti-social Behaviour Orders by the Home Office."
Yeah, it sucks that there are assholes that will ridicule you and attempt to infuriate you on the internets. However the alternative is worse - no one can define what exactly is malicious and what is not and therefore you might end up in jail because you talked about christian hell to a hindu.
It's amazing how many scientists and mathematicians conveniently ignore Einsteins's speech on this matter. It's almost as if they sweep it under the rug because it's too uncomfortable to face the fact that all math and science are based on axiomatic "a priori" knowledge, basically it's faith. I have no evidence that my brain is not floating in some vat somewhere with electrodes sticking out of it, but I take it on faith that it's not. My knowledge starts from faith that the world exists as I see it. I can't confirm that independently of my own experience.
If you can't confirm that independently then don't confirm that. Isn't it more honest to say "I don't know whether or not I'm a brain in a vat in some laboratory" than to say "I take it on faith that I'm not"?
I know it kinda sucks that you can't have that 100% certainty about anything but let's face it - taking it on faith is just fooling yourself that there is some kind of absolute certainty.
There's a difference between faith and trust. I can't argue for the existence of Higgs boson but I can argue why you can trust the scientists. Just like I can't argue for the non-existence of god(s) but I can argue why you shouldn't trust the bible.
Everyone can find scandal in something, because most people hold higher standards to others than themselves. It's like the old If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
This is not the case. Wikileaks is not doing an interpretation of the documents (unlike the man in your quote) and they are not trying to measure up the documents to some arbitrary standards. They are giving all a chance to look at the documents and see how they measure up to the proclaimed standards of the people who made them.
Slashdot Mirror
If you follow the source of that statement from wikipedia, you'll find it's from Monsanto's official webpage where they also describe the conditions under which they will file a suit. Among other things they say:
It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means.
Of course, people will say that Monsanto is just flat out lying, but show me just one case somewhere that would contradict them.
Just take a look at the Schmeiser case - the guy had 95% Monsanto crops on his field - and he still did not have to pay anything to Monsanto. Where are the thousands of farmers closing shops because Monsanto finding trace amounts of patented genes in their crops?
People in the middle of nowhere planting nothing but traditional local crops can find that they've been cross contaminated with Monsanto crap.
Sure, they can be contaminated. But the ruling means Monsanto would need to prove farmers are deliberately using the modified crops to their advantage to have a patent breach case. Just finding Monsanto plant in somebody's field is not enough (contrary to what the poster above was implying)
You are probably refering to Monsanto v. Schmeiser case. Correct me if I'm wrong but there were no other cases like that.
There is no-one sued just for having his crops pollinated with Monsanto's Roundup wheat. The farmer was sued because he knowingly planted Monsanto's seeds. On the other hand the judge also ruled against any financial compensation to Monsanto as the farmer did not gain anything by his actions.
It still sucks that the farmer ended up paying a fortune for legal aid while not doing anything wrong, on the other hand the judges made a correct decision - it's not their fault that the legislature is what it is.
From the ruling:
93 Inventions in the field of agriculture may give rise to concerns not raised in other fields -- moral concerns about whether it is right to manipulate genes in order to obtain better weed control or higher yields. It is open to Parliament to consider these concerns and amend the Patent Act should it find them persuasive.
94 Our task, however, is to interpret and apply the Patent Act as it stands, in accordance with settled principles. Under the present Act, an invention in the domain of agriculture is as deserving of protection as an invention in the domain of mechanical science. Where Parliament has not seen fit to distinguish between inventions concerning plants and other inventions, neither should the courts.
The problem is that Hollywood is riding a pricing bubble and they know it. The only way for them to stay on the gravy train is to keep a crushing control on the advertising and the distribution of films. Any new player in distribution is a threat that needs to be dealt with.
Look at it this way. Nowdays the filming equipment is cheaper then ever before, both the pre-production and post-production process is faster and cheaper with the current technology, there are dozens of skilled actors auditioning for every role, the CGI is cheaper every year... All in all the cost to make a movie should be maybe half of what it used to be 20 years ago.
So why aren't movies cheaper? Why doeas a production of a comedy without action scenes, special effects or difficult filming locations cost 80 000 USD?
Because they can sell it. Because they are in control.
Dilute the control and the bubble will burst
Hence the Hollywood's resistance to new distribution schemes.
There is a theoretical model of galactic/stellar system formation, called the top-down formation scenario. It has not really been tested with observational data. You could use the Kepler to test it by orienting it some other way for the next five years but that would be a waste of resources.
In any case, it is an argument against the notion that the orientations of the stellar planes have an even distribution.
No, there is no observational evidence. That's why I used the word 'in theory' in my post. All I'm saying is that you can't just take the results from Kepler and multiply it by a factor of 100 - because you don't know the distribution either.
Similarly, for the kind of planets Kepler is looking at circling around sun-like stars, we are only seeing BY PURE CHANCE 1% of them.
While I really like your post, I must comment on your math here.
You may notice that planets in the Solar System run approximately in the same plane. What's more, the moons of the planets also orbit roughly in the same plane. This is because of the mechanics of solar system formation - things get squashed into a disc-like structure because of the rotation of the initially cloud-shaped proto-star system.
The same mechanics should in theory apply to the whole galaxy - that is not only the stars should orbit the galactical core on roughly the same plane, but also the planets of those stars can be expected to adhere to this plane.
This is why looking across the disc of the Milky Way Galaxy should result in much more planetary transitions (per 1000 stars) than looking perpendicularly away from the disc. There is still variation, of course, but the PURE CHANCE of detecting a planet transiting a star in Kepler's case is much more than 1% due to it's orientation towards the galactic disc.
Just connect it with a gun trigger, point to your head and see what the world is made of!
1) The Lese Majeste law was established in 1908 when the monarchy had absolute power in Thailand
2) Anyone proposing a change to the Lese Majeste law may be charged with Lese Majeste
3) Judges are afraid to dismiss any Lese Majeste case because that of itself can be interpreted as insulting the king
Now where do you see any democratic process in that mess
And how exactly can the defense delay a trial when no charges have been filed? Ask the prosecutor nicely to file them later?
Great. It's also the only western country where the government agencies and their subsidiaries can torture you and you cannot sue them for that.
By that logic a company could claim the car you use to get to work, or your laptop you use in your workplace. He didn't develop anything.
Analogy Fail. I wonder why this was modded up.
He used the company's resources (company name, the tech they provided for reviews and the web space for the articles) to gain advantage (followers). I don't see anything like that in your case of 'using your car to get to work'. As long as his advantage was aligned with the advantage of his company, everything was fine. Once he stopped working for them, he should have stopped using the twitter account.
If he just tweeted under his name in his own time, he would be like any other blogger posting links to tech sites. But he used the Phonedog name in his handle AND advertised the twitter account in every one of his posts on Phonedog!
I think you already knew what kind of answers you would get from this. There's no handy mind-trick that will make a bad job enjoyable. At best you can try to marginalize the impact the job has on your life and concentrate on your activities outside of your work.
Change the job. Your interview skills can be worked on.
And don't worry about your age (if that is a problem). Our department hired a 50 years old tester last year. Reason? In my area it's hard to find developers and IT people with experience. All people with CS and IT degrees want to work at cool SW companies in Silicon Valley or at least in big cities. Businesses in smaller cities and towns have a hard time attracting engineers. So for our position the guy we hired had little competition. Just foreigners who needed visa sponsoring and people with little or no relevant experience.
Perhaps fundamentalist or overly aggressive is a better word.
See, but that is a problem too.
1) Is there anything 'fundamental' to atheism? You don't believe in god. That's it. In that sense, all atheists are fundamentalist.
2) Overly aggressive has the same problem as militant. Was Gandhi an 'overly aggressive' pacifist?
I am a theologian
Great, maybe I can finally get an answer.
like most militant atheists -- the more militant, the more childish
Why are you calling people 'militant atheists'? I mean, I can see how you could call Khmer Rouge 'militant atheists' since they had guns and they killed their ideological opposition. But what about people like Jerry Coyne? The only thing he does is speak up against certain ideas and certain ideologies. He never calls for any physical response to anybody. In fact he strictly opposes violence. Why call him 'militant'? Because he speaks up *strongly*? If that was enough to call somebody 'militant' then Gandhi would be a 'militant' nationalist.
Why don't we see a drugs manufacturers killing themselves with an 'oval shaped pills' (or as they would put it 'an anatomically efficient vessel for introduction of effective chemicals into the gastro-intestinal system') patent?
What the hell is the department of the Patent Office responsible for SW doing?!
Look at it this way - when a film is being made, you've got the screenwriters who have written the script, stage designers who put up the set, actors that perform the script, cameramen that shoot it and editors who cut it. Why do you need a director then? Can you imagine a movie made without a director? Unless it's like a 5 person project, it would end up a mess. The thing is, directors matter - in movies but even more so in big companies. To give, you know, direction to people, to establish a uniform vision to all parties involved, the development team, marketing and to the stakeholders.
Good direction makes a big difference.
Steve was a great director
how does that effect things like the dark energy equations, if it effects them at all?
There are no 'dark energy equations', just standard physics applied to observational data.. Scientists have proved that the universe is expanding and that the expansion of the universe is accelerating based on observational data from a couple of different (you might say 'independent' if you don't try to be too philosophical about it) sources. By running the data through standard physics equations they were able to calculate the magnitude of *an* energy that would be required to support that accelleration. They gave that energy a name - 'Dark Energy'.
Now there are two ways this faster-than-light (FTL) paradigm can change our view on Dark Energy
a) Somebody will come up with a completely new physics based on FTL just like Einstein came up with a new physics 100 years ago. This means we'll have a new set of equations to run our observational data through
b) We will get new observational data based on the fact we have a new information source that is faster than light.
c) a combination of above
At this point your guess is as good as mine
These are awesome courses! Especially if you are new to the field. There are a couple of them that might interest you - the course on Game Theory, taught by a matemetician, focuses on the theory itself, although it gives some real life and historical scenarios of how game theory should be (or was) applied.
Then there is a course on Conflict Resolution which discusses a lot of the themes from Game Theory applied to real life and another course on Leadership that discusses a lot of historical examples of failures or successes of political or entrepreneurial campains.
The point is that if you can't tell the difference between the four D's in Punjabi, you should not teach stuff in Punjabi.
Depends a lot on what kind of IT job are you talking about and on how much time you are willing to spend to stay fresh on CS topics. If you spend the next 3 years installing windows and laying cables, you'll find it hard to get a job in SW development. If you'll work in an IT or CM departments of a large company where they perhaps run som data-mining on their server logs, develop scripts for common IT problems etc, you'll learn a lot of useful things you can present to your future employer.
On top of that, you can run SW projects of your own in your sparetime - there's a lot of opportunities on sourceforge and similar sites. Employers love prospects who enjoy their topic so much they spend their free time working on it.
A precedens like this is bound for a ride on a slippery slope.
Generally things don't get out of hand when a regulatory/restrictive law is well defined. Take for example gun control (in Europe). If you grant people the right to carry hand guns, define what exactly a hand gun is and under what circumstances you may use it, it quickly becomes clear that there is no room for people trying to use the law as an excuse for using rocket launchers and machine guns.
On the other hand if there is no clear definition, things go seriously wrong. Best example of all - the infamous english defamation law. The circumstances under which a plaitiff's motion is accepted are vague, and there is no need for him to provide any proof - it's the defendant who must prove his actions were not libel (that his statements were either true or not referring to the plaintiff). This law has largely been used by large corporation to shut up any kind of criticism - starting with journalists but moving onto scientists and lately even individual bloggers. It's very effective - an individual person does not enough resources to go through a trial even if he/she would eventually win.
So where does 'malicious communication stand'? How well is it defined? Is there a clear delimitation of its applicability? A quick glance through the relevant wikipedia article shows that none of these things are there. The law does not state how far things can go! The effects of such a poorly written law have already surfaced. Here's what the British Asociation of Probation Officers said about it:
"there is ample evidence of the issuing of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Order that was applied to the troll in TFO) by the courts being inconsistent and almost a geographical lottery. There is great concern that people are being jailed following the breach of an ASBO where the original offence was itself non-imprisonable. There is also evidence that ASBOs have been used where people have mental health problems where treatment would be more appropriate. In NAPO's view the time is right for a fundamental review of the use and appropriateness of Anti-social Behaviour Orders by the Home Office."
Yeah, it sucks that there are assholes that will ridicule you and attempt to infuriate you on the internets. However the alternative is worse - no one can define what exactly is malicious and what is not and therefore you might end up in jail because you talked about christian hell to a hindu.
It's amazing how many scientists and mathematicians conveniently ignore Einsteins's speech on this matter. It's almost as if they sweep it under the rug because it's too uncomfortable to face the fact that all math and science are based on axiomatic "a priori" knowledge, basically it's faith. I have no evidence that my brain is not floating in some vat somewhere with electrodes sticking out of it, but I take it on faith that it's not. My knowledge starts from faith that the world exists as I see it. I can't confirm that independently of my own experience.
If you can't confirm that independently then don't confirm that. Isn't it more honest to say "I don't know whether or not I'm a brain in a vat in some laboratory" than to say "I take it on faith that I'm not"?
I know it kinda sucks that you can't have that 100% certainty about anything but let's face it - taking it on faith is just fooling yourself that there is some kind of absolute certainty.
There's a difference between faith and trust. I can't argue for the existence of Higgs boson but I can argue why you can trust the scientists. Just like I can't argue for the non-existence of god(s) but I can argue why you shouldn't trust the bible.
Everyone can find scandal in something, because most people hold higher standards to others than themselves. It's like the old If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
This is not the case. Wikileaks is not doing an interpretation of the documents (unlike the man in your quote) and they are not trying to measure up the documents to some arbitrary standards. They are giving all a chance to look at the documents and see how they measure up to the proclaimed standards of the people who made them.