When I think of the number of kids today who live in neighborhoods where you instinctively duck when a car speeds by; when I consider how many kids walk through metal detectors to go to their classes and watch news reports of school shootings and wonder if they'll be next; and when I reflect upon how many kids spend their days shuttling between two bitter parents who use them as weapons to strike back at their ex-es... I have a hard time viewing this generation as "sheltered".
Yes, this has nothing to do with video games -- and a ban on them is silly -- but kids today DO have to deal with lots of stresses that those of us who are older didn't. The really sad thing is that they have to do it -- too often -- on their own.
Yes, intellectual property is a form of property, but rather different than physical property. It is much easier to draw ownership lines around a car than an idea.
The law correctly recognizes this difference, which is (I think) why "fair use" exists.
After all, isn't throwing a fence up around an idea, and making sure that the fence also surrounds subsequent ideas stimulated by the original idea, also theft of a sort? That's the kind of thing that "fair use" is designed to prevent.
Re:"past custom" = "community standard" = "ethics"
on
Profit vs. Science
·
· Score: 1
Derision of the practice was not my intent. And you may very well be much more knowledgeable about research community expectations than I.
But to attack this publication deal as "unethical", I think, may be missing the important distinction between publically-funded research and privately-funded research.
After all, what makes failure to publish data in Genbank et al unethical? Isn't it the fact that the work was supported by public funds -- and thus it is only right that the data be publically available for unrestricted use? This is, of course, the right thing to do.
But should the same expectation apply to work supported by private funds -- in other words, by people who invest their money expecting some sort of return? How can that return be generated if there is no possibility of gaining profit from the work?
It seems to me that to call the Science deal "unethical" is equivalent to saying that there is no place for profit-oriented private investment in this field of research. Is that your position?
(no, not Science's arrangement with Celera, the Slashdot article)
...Science magazine has made a special agreement with Celera Genomics to allow publication of an article about its research without the requirement that the raw data be made publicly available (through an NIH database), as is done with all other articles.
As was clear from the Science statement,
The "requirement that the raw data be made publicly available" was met.
That the data be made available "through an NIH database" is NOT a requirement, but rather a past custom. (Placing this part in parentheses to insulate against charges of distortion was an interesting touch).
Science clearly felt that it was more beneficial to the research community to have the information available to advance work in the field than to adhere to some artificial standard of economic "purity".
This Slashdot article is at best woefully inaccurate and at worst yellow journalism; it's hard to escape the suspicion that these kind of articles are purposefully intended to stimulate high volumes of indignant postings, thus boosting site ad revenue.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the motivation behind this article is the same old-fashioned capitalistic drive for which Celera is so roundly criticized?
Think of the potential of monitoring multiple sample points with a single optical detector/analyzer connected via optical fibers to hundreds (thousands?) of extremely cheap, easily-replaced sensors. If you tried to use mass-spec, you'd either have to have many spectrometers or a sampling system that brought the sample to a central analyzer. Photons are easier to move than molecules.
This isn't what the
BBC article
says. In it, the author states:
Yahoo!'s French site, www.fr.yahoo.com, currently offers no Nazi memorabilia...
...and goes on to state that the judge wanted Yahoo! to make access to these auctions by French citizens "impossible". This goes beyond changing what's available on the French website.
If you're really concerned about this, be sure you actually browse the
claims of the patent (yes, I know, it's painful). This research doesn't really advance the ability to sample and analyze "auras", it just proposes a way to do it continuously on people walking through a carefully-constructed passage.
It's been possible for years to sample any airspace (including that around people) using various sniffers and traps. The real trick is in the detection and discrimination of substances in the sample, which is a whole 'nuther field of study.
However, understand that the PI here will naturally talk up futuristic and controversial applications of the work; the more press your work gets, the more likely you'll get grant renewals.
The prayer book vanished from the Convent of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople in the 1920s and didn't surface for another decade. The book was then sold at an auction in 1998 to an anonymous buyer for $2 million.
"Vanished"??? What a civilized way of saying "was stolen".
Slashdot Mirror
When I think of the number of kids today who live in neighborhoods where you instinctively duck when a car speeds by; when I consider how many kids walk through metal detectors to go to their classes and watch news reports of school shootings and wonder if they'll be next; and when I reflect upon how many kids spend their days shuttling between two bitter parents who use them as weapons to strike back at their ex-es... I have a hard time viewing this generation as "sheltered".
Yes, this has nothing to do with video games -- and a ban on them is silly -- but kids today DO have to deal with lots of stresses that those of us who are older didn't. The really sad thing is that they have to do it -- too often -- on their own.
The law correctly recognizes this difference, which is (I think) why "fair use" exists.
After all, isn't throwing a fence up around an idea, and making sure that the fence also surrounds subsequent ideas stimulated by the original idea, also theft of a sort? That's the kind of thing that "fair use" is designed to prevent.
It's... it's...
Ethical Behavior(TM).
Here's CNET's report on the story.
After all, what makes failure to publish data in Genbank et al unethical? Isn't it the fact that the work was supported by public funds -- and thus it is only right that the data be publically available for unrestricted use? This is, of course, the right thing to do.
But should the same expectation apply to work supported by private funds -- in other words, by people who invest their money expecting some sort of return? How can that return be generated if there is no possibility of gaining profit from the work?
It seems to me that to call the Science deal "unethical" is equivalent to saying that there is no place for profit-oriented private investment in this field of research. Is that your position?
As was clear from the Science statement,
Science clearly felt that it was more beneficial to the research community to have the information available to advance work in the field than to adhere to some artificial standard of economic "purity".
This Slashdot article is at best woefully inaccurate and at worst yellow journalism; it's hard to escape the suspicion that these kind of articles are purposefully intended to stimulate high volumes of indignant postings, thus boosting site ad revenue.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the motivation behind this article is the same old-fashioned capitalistic drive for which Celera is so roundly criticized?
In a word, it's cheap.
Think of the potential of monitoring multiple sample points with a single optical detector/analyzer connected via optical fibers to hundreds (thousands?) of extremely cheap, easily-replaced sensors. If you tried to use mass-spec, you'd either have to have many spectrometers or a sampling system that brought the sample to a central analyzer. Photons are easier to move than molecules.
Yahoo!'s French site, www.fr.yahoo.com, currently offers no Nazi memorabilia...
The East India Company
It's been possible for years to sample any airspace (including that around people) using various sniffers and traps. The real trick is in the detection and discrimination of substances in the sample, which is a whole 'nuther field of study.
However, understand that the PI here will naturally talk up futuristic and controversial applications of the work; the more press your work gets, the more likely you'll get grant renewals.
"Vanished"??? What a civilized way of saying "was stolen".