Yes, it is usually more straightforward to not fight for your rights. Why allow the distinction? Because a shrinking minority dislikes gay people?
Call it marriage because 1. That's what it is 2. It's their right 3. It's embarrassing it's taken us this long to acknowledge that right and 4. A strong stance against hate is required.
I think your idea has merit, but lets save that for another time if for no other reason than to give the far right social regressives less to get worked up into a frenzy about. For years they've been screaming "What's next? Marrying a dog?!? SATAN WORSHIPING!?!?!?" Lets keep the focus on the fact that they're opposing love most people can relate to, THEN try to get platonic and polygametic relationships covered. Jumping to it right now will make them more sure they're right, that we're on a slippery slope to people marrying their dogs and bringing the end of times. Or whatever.
You appear to be ignoring the thread. No, you asked if I was suggesting it, I cited someone else who was suggesting it was possible.
"Is it proven that Hurricane Sandy was caused by climate change" the answer is no, but that's not the question you asked.
"Is it possible that climate change will cause similar storms in the future" the answer appears to be yes. JonBoy appeared to be suggesting that rather than take steps to recover from or prevent damage due to erratic weather caused by climate change, people should just move, which is a stupid suggestion that I was responding to.
I wandered in here because I don't know jack about video cards. AMD's drivers don't work well on WINDOWS? Isn't that the biggest market for video cards?
This is a bit like finding out that goodyear tires don't work well on cars, that they only really work on motorcycles and trucks. Astonishing, but I'd believe it since I don't know anything about them.
I said STUDY iron fertilization, not dump enough iron to make the pacific ocean green (or whatever color phyoplankton is). No one can currently say if iron fertilization will reverse some of the effects of climate change, or if it will be more trouble than it's worth. There will be drawbacks of iron fertilizing, but if they're better than the drawbacks of climate change, then we should do it. But we're evidently not at that point yet. So we must study it, but the studies are not being pursued as much as talks about increasing fuel efficiency in consumer cars.
And iron fertilization isn't mutually exclusive with decreasing emissions either.
It would be nice if we could see some political pressure to put more effort into studying iron fertilization to soak up excess carbon. By most accounts, we missed the boat on preventing climate change through limiting our emissions, we might at least look into more proactive solutions.
I think the problem was the opposite: given the hype, people expected this to be on par with the xbox one or xbox 360 at least. From the reviews I've read, it's actually on par with... a smartphone.
Which is still actually pretty good given that a smartphone costs six times as much and doesn't have a real controller.
Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy.
Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
Are you suggesting that only beach houses were damaged by Hurricane Sandy, or are you suggesting we move NEW YORK FUCKING CITY and every other city that happens to lie in the danger zone, rather than switch to cleaner energy?
Because the first is not true. The second is either insane or ridiculously under-informed.
The plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries
We're doing what? And they wonder why taxpayers hate the federal government...
Does "financing" mean "Here, Foreign version of Koch Brothers! FREE MONEY! Just promise to build a fossil fuel plant near Paris!" or does it mean "Here's a loan, underdeveloped country struggling to keep the lights on, to build a cheap power plant. We're going to expect you to play ball when it comes to fighting terrorists. And by that we mean you won't allow cheap versions of HIV drugs into your country."
Yes. I'm suggesting that with so many voices to listen to out there and little time, I've completely given up on radio show hosts in general. There are exceptions, but skimming through the transcript I found that line, which suggested that this guy was not one of those exceptions.
I too find this questionable. "Well see if it negatively impacts the environment before we approve it," is not at all reassuring given that he's already been told numerous times that it will.
But I suppose saying something is a little bit better than the usual ignoring the issue. And the NRDC certainly seems happy. I'm going to allow myself to hope it's just a more politic way to shut it down, but I'm not going to be surprised if it isn't.
Ah, a radio show transcript. Isn't it funny how the wisest people on earth all have radio shows rather than jobs where they have to do so much as put on clothing for the camera?
You'd think a FEW of them would, I dunno, work as scientists or something.
DP: So you feel that a lot of scientists have sold their souls?
It's that line specifically that makes me feel comfortable totally ignoring anything else he says. I feel a lot of radio talk show hosts never had any souls to begin with.
A niche the size of the US is not really that small of a niche. I realize we tend to be very america-centric, and I apologize for that, but come on, we're not talking about something that only works on the rock of Gibraltar.
And saves me from having to type back a message on my touchscreen when I'm at my computer, I can use the keyboard.
"But app integration!!!" That's stupid. Unless the app somehow sprouts a physical keyboard from the phone, all other messaging systems are second class compared to google voice in my book.
If you're being sarcastic, you're deluded. China improving it's defenses, even against the US is not your loss, and the US successfully spying on the Chinese is not necessarily to your benefit. It's only a problem for you if it becomes one-sided, which will take a lot more than Snowden's actions. Meanwhile, Snowden has brought to light the US government shitting on it's own constitution.
I'm a convert away from iOS. I had an iphone 3GS and still have an ipad2. Itunes irks the shit out of me.
Do you not realize they all do the same thing? Do you think that Google/Android are some how not EXACTLY the same as you stated above for iOS?
They don't though. I installed a custom firmware on my phone, replacing the stock android system. I can drag and drop media files onto my phone without the software insisting it manage what is on my phone itself, something that is not the case with itunes. I can install apps from elsewhere besides google.
Do you really expect a device to let you do ANYTHING you want? So your phone can make you fly around magically? Do you want your phone to be like a Linux desktop where you constantly spend time maintaining it rather than just using it?
Anything in it's power yes. If my phone came with an antigravity device, I'd expect to be able to fly where I wanted rather than select from a list of destinations allowed to me. The things I'm talking about are well within the realm of "possible."
Oh, so you're just being a disagreeable pain in the ass for no reason other than to have a reason to not like 'the man'? Well great, slashdot will cheer for you. No one else in the rest of the world will give a shit.
Disagreeable? The question was asked "why would you want to replace the screws." And you seem to care quite a bit. Why is that?
Because you should be able to. That's what I find most annoying about iOS as a consumer: whenever I wanted to do something that wasn't default, apple seemed to say "Well, why do you want to do that anyway? You don't really need to. How about you not do that and instead do something else." In iOS 2 or 3, it was the background. "Why do you want to change it? It would just distract from the icons." Alert tones "We give you like five different tones for a text message, why do you want more? The ones we put on there are pretty."
"Why don't you want to use itunes to sync all your files? Itunes looks pretty! Why would you want to change it?"
"Why would you want sources that aren't itunes app store anyway?"
"Why are you concerned about your privacy? You're not doing anything illegal."
No real reason why I'd want to replace the screws in my phone (if I had an iphone) but I'd just want to.
Why that one? That seems like a bandaid solution to the climate change problem. A single bill putting the costs of carbon emissions onto the emitters, no matter what form, would do much more to prevent climate change. Or rather, reduce climate change.
Wouldn't solve the problem completely, and there would be loopholes of course, but no problem as big as climate change has one simple trick to solve it.
I can criticize my government without my government prosecuting me for it. Speaking relative to much of the world and much of history, I have a lot of freedom. That's not satisfying, it can, should, and has been more than that, but lets not get all doom and gloom here. Making absurd overstatements like "Our freedom is a sham!" will make people take us less seriously. It feels good to be cynical when talking about such things, but it's counterproductive if you actually want it to change.
Story went up at 6:42, you posted at 7:01. So you came up with those four problems in about 15 minutes. So which is it that you assume: 1. Google has been working on it for less than 15 minutes 2. Everyone at google who is working on this or signed off on it is collectively dumber than you 3. Google wants their users to get victimized
"Don't make it public by default." Bam, solved that problem in about a minute. There are probably other ways google could try to prevent thefts.
I'm not enough of a virologist to say "Retroviruses accidentally reverse transcribe human mRNAs often when we get a retroviral infection," but I'm willing to bet money they do.
Either way, the sequences of cDNA are fundamentally natural. All of the cDNA sequence is found in the genomic sequence. I can't retype a popular book on a typewriter, exclude a boring chapter or two, and claim it's novel and claim exclusive rights to it based on the fact that no one had previously typed it out on a typewriter. Transcribing and editing is all cDNA is.
If some biotech company comes up with a completely novel protein designed by a computer, they should be able to COPYRIGHT it. That's creating something, not simply copying something that's natural.
If your rather simplistic argument were valid, a vast number of forms of gene manipulation and genetic engineering would become unpatentable, because organisms undergo gene manipulation all the time. (The most extreme example is probably horizontal gene transfer, but there are plenty of other weird things going on, many involving viruses.)
I don't take it as a given that such things SHOULD be patentable. I am especially wary of techniques for manipulating genes and putting those genes into other things being patentable. But it would depend on the specifics. If you invent a completely novel retrovirus, you again should be able to apply copyright to the viral proteins you made to do genetic engineering and get exclusive rights to it, but you can't patent the idea of a retrovirus transfecting genes, nor should you be able to modify an existing virus and patent that. Maybe you should be able to copyright the modifications.
But what I prefer isn't always in line with what current case law decrees is allowable, and I wouldn't call the Supreme Court incompetent just because they didn't reach the conclusion I personally favor.
I was a little hot under the collar, they're not stupid people even when I disagree with them. And you're right, the decision was a win even if it was contradictory. But it was contradictory, and the only way I could see them making that contradiction is if they failed to realize that cDNA is fundamentally the same thing as DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is usually more straightforward to not fight for your rights. Why allow the distinction? Because a shrinking minority dislikes gay people?
Call it marriage because 1. That's what it is 2. It's their right 3. It's embarrassing it's taken us this long to acknowledge that right and 4. A strong stance against hate is required.
I think your idea has merit, but lets save that for another time if for no other reason than to give the far right social regressives less to get worked up into a frenzy about. For years they've been screaming "What's next? Marrying a dog?!? SATAN WORSHIPING!?!?!?" Lets keep the focus on the fact that they're opposing love most people can relate to, THEN try to get platonic and polygametic relationships covered. Jumping to it right now will make them more sure they're right, that we're on a slippery slope to people marrying their dogs and bringing the end of times. Or whatever.
You appear to be ignoring the thread. No, you asked if I was suggesting it, I cited someone else who was suggesting it was possible.
"Is it proven that Hurricane Sandy was caused by climate change" the answer is no, but that's not the question you asked.
"Is it possible that climate change will cause similar storms in the future" the answer appears to be yes. JonBoy appeared to be suggesting that rather than take steps to recover from or prevent damage due to erratic weather caused by climate change, people should just move, which is a stupid suggestion that I was responding to.
I wandered in here because I don't know jack about video cards. AMD's drivers don't work well on WINDOWS? Isn't that the biggest market for video cards?
This is a bit like finding out that goodyear tires don't work well on cars, that they only really work on motorcycles and trucks. Astonishing, but I'd believe it since I don't know anything about them.
I said STUDY iron fertilization, not dump enough iron to make the pacific ocean green (or whatever color phyoplankton is). No one can currently say if iron fertilization will reverse some of the effects of climate change, or if it will be more trouble than it's worth. There will be drawbacks of iron fertilizing, but if they're better than the drawbacks of climate change, then we should do it. But we're evidently not at that point yet. So we must study it, but the studies are not being pursued as much as talks about increasing fuel efficiency in consumer cars.
And iron fertilization isn't mutually exclusive with decreasing emissions either.
It has been suggested by others as possible. Moreover, climate change is expected to increase unusual weather.
So it is, in fact, in the same room? (I have been to Japan.)
It would be nice if we could see some political pressure to put more effort into studying iron fertilization to soak up excess carbon. By most accounts, we missed the boat on preventing climate change through limiting our emissions, we might at least look into more proactive solutions.
I think the problem was the opposite: given the hype, people expected this to be on par with the xbox one or xbox 360 at least. From the reviews I've read, it's actually on par with... a smartphone.
Which is still actually pretty good given that a smartphone costs six times as much and doesn't have a real controller.
Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy.
Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
Are you suggesting that only beach houses were damaged by Hurricane Sandy, or are you suggesting we move NEW YORK FUCKING CITY and every other city that happens to lie in the danger zone, rather than switch to cleaner energy?
Because the first is not true. The second is either insane or ridiculously under-informed.
The plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries
We're doing what? And they wonder why taxpayers hate the federal government...
Does "financing" mean "Here, Foreign version of Koch Brothers! FREE MONEY! Just promise to build a fossil fuel plant near Paris!" or does it mean "Here's a loan, underdeveloped country struggling to keep the lights on, to build a cheap power plant. We're going to expect you to play ball when it comes to fighting terrorists. And by that we mean you won't allow cheap versions of HIV drugs into your country."
Yes. I'm suggesting that with so many voices to listen to out there and little time, I've completely given up on radio show hosts in general. There are exceptions, but skimming through the transcript I found that line, which suggested that this guy was not one of those exceptions.
I too find this questionable. "Well see if it negatively impacts the environment before we approve it," is not at all reassuring given that he's already been told numerous times that it will.
But I suppose saying something is a little bit better than the usual ignoring the issue. And the NRDC certainly seems happy. I'm going to allow myself to hope it's just a more politic way to shut it down, but I'm not going to be surprised if it isn't.
You'd think a FEW of them would, I dunno, work as scientists or something.
DP: So you feel that a lot of scientists have sold their souls?
It's that line specifically that makes me feel comfortable totally ignoring anything else he says. I feel a lot of radio talk show hosts never had any souls to begin with.
I'm thinking the "land of the free" sig. is just a whitewash
Hey, man, what do you have against the Belizean national anthem
A niche the size of the US is not really that small of a niche. I realize we tend to be very america-centric, and I apologize for that, but come on, we're not talking about something that only works on the rock of Gibraltar.
And saves me from having to type back a message on my touchscreen when I'm at my computer, I can use the keyboard.
"But app integration!!!" That's stupid. Unless the app somehow sprouts a physical keyboard from the phone, all other messaging systems are second class compared to google voice in my book.
If you're being sarcastic, you're deluded. China improving it's defenses, even against the US is not your loss, and the US successfully spying on the Chinese is not necessarily to your benefit. It's only a problem for you if it becomes one-sided, which will take a lot more than Snowden's actions. Meanwhile, Snowden has brought to light the US government shitting on it's own constitution.
If that is a sincere thanks to Snowden, I agree.
Do you not realize they all do the same thing? Do you think that Google/Android are some how not EXACTLY the same as you stated above for iOS?
They don't though. I installed a custom firmware on my phone, replacing the stock android system. I can drag and drop media files onto my phone without the software insisting it manage what is on my phone itself, something that is not the case with itunes. I can install apps from elsewhere besides google.
Do you really expect a device to let you do ANYTHING you want? So your phone can make you fly around magically? Do you want your phone to be like a Linux desktop where you constantly spend time maintaining it rather than just using it?
Anything in it's power yes. If my phone came with an antigravity device, I'd expect to be able to fly where I wanted rather than select from a list of destinations allowed to me. The things I'm talking about are well within the realm of "possible."
Oh, so you're just being a disagreeable pain in the ass for no reason other than to have a reason to not like 'the man'? Well great, slashdot will cheer for you. No one else in the rest of the world will give a shit.
Disagreeable? The question was asked "why would you want to replace the screws." And you seem to care quite a bit. Why is that?
Because you should be able to. That's what I find most annoying about iOS as a consumer: whenever I wanted to do something that wasn't default, apple seemed to say "Well, why do you want to do that anyway? You don't really need to. How about you not do that and instead do something else." In iOS 2 or 3, it was the background. "Why do you want to change it? It would just distract from the icons." Alert tones "We give you like five different tones for a text message, why do you want more? The ones we put on there are pretty."
"Why don't you want to use itunes to sync all your files? Itunes looks pretty! Why would you want to change it?"
"Why would you want sources that aren't itunes app store anyway?"
"Why are you concerned about your privacy? You're not doing anything illegal."
No real reason why I'd want to replace the screws in my phone (if I had an iphone) but I'd just want to.
Right, and I'm saying that in the US, we are comparatively less restrictive on our scientists communicating the results of their studies.
I'm suggesting that your statement which included "Canada" in the list of countries that had more freedom than the US, was questionable.
Why that one? That seems like a bandaid solution to the climate change problem. A single bill putting the costs of carbon emissions onto the emitters, no matter what form, would do much more to prevent climate change. Or rather, reduce climate change.
Wouldn't solve the problem completely, and there would be loopholes of course, but no problem as big as climate change has one simple trick to solve it.
Canada? Sure, unless you're a scientist.
I can criticize my government without my government prosecuting me for it. Speaking relative to much of the world and much of history, I have a lot of freedom. That's not satisfying, it can, should, and has been more than that, but lets not get all doom and gloom here. Making absurd overstatements like "Our freedom is a sham!" will make people take us less seriously. It feels good to be cynical when talking about such things, but it's counterproductive if you actually want it to change.
Story went up at 6:42, you posted at 7:01. So you came up with those four problems in about 15 minutes. So which is it that you assume:
1. Google has been working on it for less than 15 minutes
2. Everyone at google who is working on this or signed off on it is collectively dumber than you
3. Google wants their users to get victimized
"Don't make it public by default." Bam, solved that problem in about a minute. There are probably other ways google could try to prevent thefts.
Either way, the sequences of cDNA are fundamentally natural. All of the cDNA sequence is found in the genomic sequence. I can't retype a popular book on a typewriter, exclude a boring chapter or two, and claim it's novel and claim exclusive rights to it based on the fact that no one had previously typed it out on a typewriter. Transcribing and editing is all cDNA is.
If some biotech company comes up with a completely novel protein designed by a computer, they should be able to COPYRIGHT it. That's creating something, not simply copying something that's natural.
If your rather simplistic argument were valid, a vast number of forms of gene manipulation and genetic engineering would become unpatentable, because organisms undergo gene manipulation all the time. (The most extreme example is probably horizontal gene transfer, but there are plenty of other weird things going on, many involving viruses.)
I don't take it as a given that such things SHOULD be patentable. I am especially wary of techniques for manipulating genes and putting those genes into other things being patentable. But it would depend on the specifics. If you invent a completely novel retrovirus, you again should be able to apply copyright to the viral proteins you made to do genetic engineering and get exclusive rights to it, but you can't patent the idea of a retrovirus transfecting genes, nor should you be able to modify an existing virus and patent that. Maybe you should be able to copyright the modifications.
But what I prefer isn't always in line with what current case law decrees is allowable, and I wouldn't call the Supreme Court incompetent just because they didn't reach the conclusion I personally favor.
I was a little hot under the collar, they're not stupid people even when I disagree with them. And you're right, the decision was a win even if it was contradictory. But it was contradictory, and the only way I could see them making that contradiction is if they failed to realize that cDNA is fundamentally the same thing as DNA.