Mayo Clinic, which could have done the research itself, chose not to do so.
Except that according to the article, Mayo Clinic determined its own levels of metabolites and was testing for these other levels, not the numbers that Prometheus tested for.
Either way, the act of testing is not covered by the patent, and the claims that various university labs were being threatened for performing the test should be investigated, unless those university labs were also making decisions on the amount of drug to be administered.
Read the claims, they didn't develop any technology. Their claims pretty much say they're using liquid chromatography to figure out how much of the metabolite is in the blood. The only thing the claims bring to the table is very specific ranges of metabolites to use to decide whether the patient needs more or less drug. Now, maybe someone can argue that the discovery that 230pmol of 6-thioguanine per 8E8 blood cells is "too low" should be patentable, but there is nothing at all in any of the claims that should prevent a laboratory from performing this test since every claim in both patents is specifically applied to that drug dosage decision.
Furthermore, since the metabolite ranges are explicitly listed in the patents, and the "Mayo Clinic developed its own thiopurine-related test that measured the same metabolites but relies on different warning levels," Prometheus should not win its patent suit, period.
I copied the work of Shakespeare out of order in such a way as to make the juxtaposed dialog between plays humorous in a way Shakespeare did not intend them to be, that's a new copyrightable work.
It might be copyrightable, but if you want the masses to buy it, you'll need to add more awesome.
So... you think the NSA should call back to the states to ask a judge "mother may I?" when one of their foreign, hostile targets gets a phone call, just in case it's an American lawyer calling
So... you think the government is too stupid to find the other end of the wire? (Well, they did manage to mail the transcript there...) Maybe you think they're too lazy to bother with all that dumb paperwork? (Well, there were all those wiretaps that were cancelled because the phone company didn't get paid...) Maybe you think they're ignorant of the FISA law allowing them to take several days AFTER the wiretap to call back and ask a judge? (Well, YOU certainly are!)
Except for C having "+" "-" and "=" instead of "MULTIPLY units AND cost GIVING total"
If Perl is the archetypal "write only" language, COBOL is the one true "read only" language.
people are crazy not to get into this field
The whole point of TFA was that entry level jobs where people could "get in" went away, then all the senior staff retired or expired, leaving the companies with nothing.
American lawyers.... based in America, and protected by the Constitution no matter how fast the Republicans spin the word "People".
The lawyers are the aggrieved party here, having received a copy of their own wiretap in the mail and therefore being the only people outside of the government able to prove that these wiretaps occurred. That they just happen to be lawyers for an Islamic foundation that gives all its money to a bunch of murderers would be a good reason to put in a request for a warrant from the secret FISA court that rubber-stamped almost every single request ever, shame Bush's administration just couldn't be bothered to obey the law.
We are? Maybe "we" as in us tech-savvy people on slashdot are aware of this, but "we" as in the masses most certainly do not.
Next thing you'll be telling us is that Osama bin Laden was explicitly giving permission for the US Government to track his whereabouts by using his satellite phone, and that the news reporters talking to him did not "tip him off" to being tracked, because he was already fully aware of it and giving that permission freely.
You and the government keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means, and Scalia's shitfit proves it.
Also, I suspect that the majority of the public do not realize that they can be tracked by their cellphone, so they clearly not "explicitly granting" any such thing.
Simple: you set up a list of only 20 or so permitted websites, and if someone needs to look up regulatory information on some obscure county website somewhere they can file form 128-A in triplicate and submit this to their manager, who submits it and F-39 to their manager, who (if they have not exceeded their department-wide quarterly quota on variances) sends it to the head of the IT department across the hall, whose secretary shreds all three copies of 128-A individually then types F-39 into a web form that times out if all 40 fields are not completed in 1 minute, which is then submitted to the IT support queue, where in 4 to 6 weeks it will be considered, and (assuming it is accepted) the IT department will allow a one hour window for accessing that site.
The IT department will place an interdepartment mail into their outbox as soon as the window opens, letting the submitter know that they have one hour to access the requested site.
The article quotes Keith Lomax as saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane" which strongly implies Lomax is not the engineer. No other individual is named.
The problem with WINDOW/PARTITION functions is that (in postgres) they're applied after WHERE and HAVING, meaning that the value appears on every row of the table. In other words I could get
cust. | avg_charge Joe | $1000 Joe | $1000 Joe | $1000 Joe | $1000 Jim | $80 Jim | $80
etc if there's 4 invoices averaging $1000 for Joe. This isn't fatal, I just have to be sure that I order the table by customer and discard the unwanted rows in my application. Postgres's docs doesn't say whether I could use DISTINCT on it, but I suspect that I could take care of it there.
There's other problems with SQL's aggregation model too: it's usually not possible to join a sum to a sum. Let's say that I've broken payments out into a separate table. (invoice.paid just doesn't cut it anymore when people split the check between two credit cards.) Now the problem is figuring out whether SUM(invoice.owes)=SUM(payment.paid), especially in the case of multiple payments, since just joining invoices against payments would result in an internal table like
cust | owes | paid Jim | $1000| $250 Jim | $1000| $750
Where sum(owes) would be $2000 (even though there's only one invoice) and sum(paid) would be correct. Of course, subselects "fix" this by essentially creating a table of customers and total owed, and customers and total paid, but that's a lot of work for thousands of customers with tens of thousands of invoices, just to find the two delinquent customers.
While I think the Miller Test replaced "I know it when I see it" at the SCOTUS level, the fact of the matter is that the Miller Test is "I know it when I see it", just applied at a lower level. If this gets appealed, I'm sure the SCOTUS will just say "well, after the most dire of voires, the prosecutors managed to find 12 stuck-up prudes that were offended by your movie, so it's obscene". The real problem is that the government has managed to convince everyone that "obscenity" isn't speech. Since they control the definition of obscenity, they control the definition of speech.
SQL isn't the only way possible to query relational databases. It's nice and does a really good job for even mildly complex queries and I would not want to ditch it just yet, but seriously... who hasn't had a business need for multiple levels of aggregates (eg averages of sums across multiple groupings, say "average across all customers' total balances") As it is, you end up splitting the logic between the database and the application, or creating a view of the first level of aggregation, then querying against that and hoping that the performance doesn't suck total ass.
This is not a good work around for me. I like being able to tell which links I've already visited. I suspect a lot of people like it too.
Then perhaps a better idea for you is to set a local style for a:visited that includes background, background-image, size, and so on in addition to the text color.
Slashdot Mirror
You would have a cured spinal injury and you'd look like fuckin' Muadib!
The blue spinal dye must flow!
Let Circle C, within Circle A, but intersecting Circle B, be the set of those who the test identifies as terrorists.
Don't forget: it's possible that B and C don't overlap at all.
Mayo Clinic, which could have done the research itself, chose not to do so.
Except that according to the article, Mayo Clinic determined its own levels of metabolites and was testing for these other levels, not the numbers that Prometheus tested for.
Either way, the act of testing is not covered by the patent, and the claims that various university labs were being threatened for performing the test should be investigated, unless those university labs were also making decisions on the amount of drug to be administered.
technology that THEY developed
Read the claims, they didn't develop any technology. Their claims pretty much say they're using liquid chromatography to figure out how much of the metabolite is in the blood. The only thing the claims bring to the table is very specific ranges of metabolites to use to decide whether the patient needs more or less drug. Now, maybe someone can argue that the discovery that 230pmol of 6-thioguanine per 8E8 blood cells is "too low" should be patentable, but there is nothing at all in any of the claims that should prevent a laboratory from performing this test since every claim in both patents is specifically applied to that drug dosage decision.
Furthermore, since the metabolite ranges are explicitly listed in the patents, and the "Mayo Clinic developed its own thiopurine-related test that measured the same metabolites but relies on different warning levels," Prometheus should not win its patent suit, period.
I copied the work of Shakespeare out of order in such a way as to make the juxtaposed dialog between plays humorous in a way Shakespeare did not intend them to be, that's a new copyrightable work.
It might be copyrightable, but if you want the masses to buy it, you'll need to add more awesome.
created after Steam Boat Willie
This will only work for "company" copyrights (works for hire, etc), since they are strictly based on years from creation.
For anything copyrighted by a real person, you have to factor in the date that person died.
correlationisanecessarybutinsufficientrequirementforcausation
actually one of the meta values that is stored is a quality indicator.
And when you save a max quality copy of a min quality jpeg, the picture still looks like crap.
Dammit, i have mod points but can't find the "+1, X" mod!
Did they have a contest to come up with the most Orwellian sounding name?
Well, they had to find a name that wasn't taken.
So ... you think the NSA should call back to the states to ask a judge "mother may I?" when one of their foreign, hostile targets gets a phone call, just in case it's an American lawyer calling
So ... you think the government is too stupid to find the other end of the wire? (Well, they did manage to mail the transcript there...) Maybe you think they're too lazy to bother with all that dumb paperwork? (Well, there were all those wiretaps that were cancelled because the phone company didn't get paid...) Maybe you think they're ignorant of the FISA law allowing them to take several days AFTER the wiretap to call back and ask a judge? (Well, YOU certainly are!)
no worse than C
Except for C having "+" "-" and "=" instead of "MULTIPLY units AND cost GIVING total"
If Perl is the archetypal "write only" language, COBOL is the one true "read only" language.
people are crazy not to get into this field
The whole point of TFA was that entry level jobs where people could "get in" went away, then all the senior staff retired or expired, leaving the companies with nothing.
American lawyers.... based in America, and protected by the Constitution no matter how fast the Republicans spin the word "People".
The lawyers are the aggrieved party here, having received a copy of their own wiretap in the mail and therefore being the only people outside of the government able to prove that these wiretaps occurred. That they just happen to be lawyers for an Islamic foundation that gives all its money to a bunch of murderers would be a good reason to put in a request for a warrant from the secret FISA court that rubber-stamped almost every single request ever, shame Bush's administration just couldn't be bothered to obey the law.
well that route takes me past these weigh scales here
You should have shown him how to tell google maps to avoid certain spots when it gives directions.
we're aware cell infrastructure *knows* our whereabouts
We are? Maybe "we" as in us tech-savvy people on slashdot are aware of this, but "we" as in the masses most certainly do not.
Next thing you'll be telling us is that Osama bin Laden was explicitly giving permission for the US Government to track his whereabouts by using his satellite phone, and that the news reporters talking to him did not "tip him off" to being tracked, because he was already fully aware of it and giving that permission freely.
expectation of privacy
You and the government keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means, and Scalia's shitfit proves it.
Also, I suspect that the majority of the public do not realize that they can be tracked by their cellphone, so they clearly not "explicitly granting" any such thing.
Simple: you set up a list of only 20 or so permitted websites, and if someone needs to look up regulatory information on some obscure county website somewhere they can file form 128-A in triplicate and submit this to their manager, who submits it and F-39 to their manager, who (if they have not exceeded their department-wide quarterly quota on variances) sends it to the head of the IT department across the hall, whose secretary shreds all three copies of 128-A individually then types F-39 into a web form that times out if all 40 fields are not completed in 1 minute, which is then submitted to the IT support queue, where in 4 to 6 weeks it will be considered, and (assuming it is accepted) the IT department will allow a one hour window for accessing that site.
The IT department will place an interdepartment mail into their outbox as soon as the window opens, letting the submitter know that they have one hour to access the requested site.
Then they click on either hotsexygal.jpg.exe or hotmanlystud.jpg.exe, depending.
The article quotes Keith Lomax as saying "It was reassuring to know the person who had fixed it was still on the aeroplane" which strongly implies Lomax is not the engineer. No other individual is named.
There is no performance boost from mirroring drives
Actually, there can be for reads, since each drive can be read back independently. Now, as to whether any given implementation does this...
Good compilers still choke on syntax error, you idiot.
And if you downloaded a program and it choked when you tried to use it, you'd download a different one, now wouldn't you?
Your plan only works if all of the browser vendors promise to obey it all at the same time. The first vendor to break the promise wins.
The problem with WINDOW/PARTITION functions is that (in postgres) they're applied after WHERE and HAVING, meaning that the value appears on every row of the table. In other words I could get
etc if there's 4 invoices averaging $1000 for Joe. This isn't fatal, I just have to be sure that I order the table by customer and discard the unwanted rows in my application. Postgres's docs doesn't say whether I could use DISTINCT on it, but I suspect that I could take care of it there.
There's other problems with SQL's aggregation model too: it's usually not possible to join a sum to a sum. Let's say that I've broken payments out into a separate table. (invoice.paid just doesn't cut it anymore when people split the check between two credit cards.) Now the problem is figuring out whether SUM(invoice.owes)=SUM(payment.paid), especially in the case of multiple payments, since just joining invoices against payments would result in an internal table like
Where sum(owes) would be $2000 (even though there's only one invoice) and sum(paid) would be correct. Of course, subselects "fix" this by essentially creating a table of customers and total owed, and customers and total paid, but that's a lot of work for thousands of customers with tens of thousands of invoices, just to find the two delinquent customers.
While I think the Miller Test replaced "I know it when I see it" at the SCOTUS level, the fact of the matter is that the Miller Test is "I know it when I see it", just applied at a lower level. If this gets appealed, I'm sure the SCOTUS will just say "well, after the most dire of voires, the prosecutors managed to find 12 stuck-up prudes that were offended by your movie, so it's obscene". The real problem is that the government has managed to convince everyone that "obscenity" isn't speech. Since they control the definition of obscenity, they control the definition of speech.
SQL isn't the only way possible to query relational databases. It's nice and does a really good job for even mildly complex queries and I would not want to ditch it just yet, but seriously... who hasn't had a business need for multiple levels of aggregates (eg averages of sums across multiple groupings, say "average across all customers' total balances") As it is, you end up splitting the logic between the database and the application, or creating a view of the first level of aggregation, then querying against that and hoping that the performance doesn't suck total ass.
This is not a good work around for me. I like being able to tell which links I've already visited. I suspect a lot of people like it too.
Then perhaps a better idea for you is to set a local style for a:visited that includes background, background-image, size, and so on in addition to the text color.