I don't understand why everyone is all hyped up over genes like this. Genes are basically the cell's subroutines or code. I know countless questionable patents that have been made for software - why should genes be any different?
I think they've just forgotten why people cheered them on, when Yahoo and Lycos were the places to go to look for things. Yes, the results were better, but the major drive that got people excited was that the company did things that people just loved. This love is valuable, and since it lacks a way to have any $$$ associated with it, it is easy to be axed when they want to improve profitability.
As someone who has been in telecoms a while.. trust me it has been cracked for years. The difference is M$ gave a legit way to wiretap, whereas before everyone just did it improperly.
It isn't a corner to cut. They are taking a different tact. Rather than having a so so camera with 8mp they opted for a good one with 4mp. The camera captures more light so it is better at low light and gets less noise in the photos. For those being viewed on the phone it will still more than suffice.
There is not an incentive to publish negative results - why help your competitors avoid dead ends? What proportion of scientifically useful R&D doesn't get published for this reason?....
We're on the same page. I like the publications that actually only publish negative results, as they are trying to fix the problem. Science makes a ton of mistakes, and those mistakes are important to note, since hopefully someone won't repeat it. There is going to be no way to ever have everyone share knowledge willingly of failures, although government could make it easier. If a company received R&D tax credits, after x years, make the data published automatically and stored in the public domain. Would be super useful.
I'm from Canada, so the US way of advertising meds just makes me sick. Doctors are a decent one to prescribe, pharmacists are also very valuable (they typically know the drugs better than the doctors)
How many people die every year because they can't afford the expensive medicine they need? Many are impoverished by drug cost and hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money are giving to pharmaceutical companies through socialized medical programs. How many future deaths will be prevented with new patented treatments? Every new treatment cost multiple times more and saves fewer and fewer people because current treatments cure most. Yes, if your disease isn't covered you don't care how much it cost but how much can society pay for one individual? At some point we run out of everybody's money.
People get sick and die - it is a fact of being alive. I do feel bad for those that cannot afford an expensive medical treatment - but here are the two scenarios:
1 - company is not allowed to charge an expensive rate for a new medical treatment. Since they cannot promise they will earn enough to recoup their costs, they don't do the research. Therefore anyone that has that ailment now dies.
2 - company is allowed to charge for an expensive medical treatment. They can now justify the cost of R&D on the project since they may be able to recoup their costs. They do the research. For the life of the patent (~ 20 years, usually 5-10 years once the drug gets on the market), people with funds are able to get treatment, those that can't afford to die. But - once the patent expires, it now suddenly becomes public domain. Now generic companies can come into the picture and make the treatment for much cheaper. Now - rich or poor(er) you can afford the treatment.
It is cold, it is calculating, but you get a better net gain in the world with option 2. Life is unfair and it can suck, but out of those 2 options, it is the better of the two.
You have that exactly backwards. Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all. To a large corporation a patent is a barrier to profit.
In the software world - maybe. My world is pharmaceuticals and patents are needed, and should maybe even be extended in some cases. It isn't like the software world where companies buy patents for the purposes of some weird legal warfare. For pharma, patents represent a way for them to recoup the R&D costs made on a drug. Patents need to exist for pharma since there is such strict testing before it can be used on the general public. All this information has to be handed over to the government, where it doesn't remain a secret. No patents would kill new drug development in a heartbeat.
Actually it isn't your decision. If you want to use credit, you need to have your data shared so they can proper assess how much risk you are to them. If you want to cut up all types of credit and other borrowing abilities, then please by all means gripe about the sharing of your salary. I bet you I could find your rough salary within 5 minutes using linkedin and glassdoor.
I don't think it matters what you study or how good you think your engineers are.
The thought it rather simple - unless you have unlimited defensive ammunition, why couldn't a country just have all of its missiles go on a narrow path over missile defenses to where they become depleted of countermeasures and then go in for the kill.
The first key is knowing what you actually have to do, and knowing what else will be competing for your time. So let's say you estimate a component will take 8 hours of programming to do. Well don't assume that it will be done in a day. You have some break time in there, emails to answer, possibly a meeting, so 8 hours of work will likely take you closer to 11 or 12 to actually accomplish.
After that - just keep guessing by writing stuff down and comparing actuals with estimates. My rule of thumb for myself is take how long I think I could do the project in, assuming nothing comes up to block it. Now double it. And add an extra half of the original estimate. That is usually in-line with the final product for me, but that does assume nothing else comes up.
Dell made some great smartphones. The "streak" line had Android and WP7. The Dell Venue pro is actually a very good phone. Shame it was never advertised and suffered a horrible death
Take the fallen wages into context however. In the 50s somewhere around 15% of gross household income was spent on food, now it is closer to 4%. Goods and services that people buy now cost LESS than they used to. I can buy a supercomputer (read smartphone) for what someone on minimum wage earns in a couple weeks. 30 years ago, how expensive was a computer?
Also look at what has happened, China and India now have a middle class. The wealth isn't being horded by a few 1%ers (although they are doing very well), but it is shifting into new countries.
A car works for about 10 year... my sister is getting a new "smart home" which links everything to your iphone or android. Ignoring the security aspects of it.. makes me cringe when she doesn't get "your phone has a lifespan of 3 years, your house will last 90. Something is going to give"
*sigh*
You do know there are things called 'shortcuts' that can be made so you don't need to go to the start menu, right? Amazing technology all the way back from Windows 95!
Also, try hovering in the bottom right corner. I haven't had any problems with RDC
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why everyone is all hyped up over genes like this. Genes are basically the cell's subroutines or code. I know countless questionable patents that have been made for software - why should genes be any different?
I think they've just forgotten why people cheered them on, when Yahoo and Lycos were the places to go to look for things. Yes, the results were better, but the major drive that got people excited was that the company did things that people just loved. This love is valuable, and since it lacks a way to have any $$$ associated with it, it is easy to be axed when they want to improve profitability.
As someone who has been in telecoms a while.. trust me it has been cracked for years. The difference is M$ gave a legit way to wiretap, whereas before everyone just did it improperly.
It is a real shame that they don't have all of those available in one place... oh wait! http://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/download/details.aspx?id=11575 Then again, if you're making anything IE6 compatible now a days, you should be shot.
I never thought it possible, but Nokia is actually seeming more stable than a Google backed Motorola...
It isn't a corner to cut. They are taking a different tact. Rather than having a so so camera with 8mp they opted for a good one with 4mp. The camera captures more light so it is better at low light and gets less noise in the photos. For those being viewed on the phone it will still more than suffice.
There is not an incentive to publish negative results - why help your competitors avoid dead ends? What proportion of scientifically useful R&D doesn't get published for this reason? ....
We're on the same page. I like the publications that actually only publish negative results, as they are trying to fix the problem. Science makes a ton of mistakes, and those mistakes are important to note, since hopefully someone won't repeat it. There is going to be no way to ever have everyone share knowledge willingly of failures, although government could make it easier. If a company received R&D tax credits, after x years, make the data published automatically and stored in the public domain. Would be super useful. I'm from Canada, so the US way of advertising meds just makes me sick. Doctors are a decent one to prescribe, pharmacists are also very valuable (they typically know the drugs better than the doctors)
How many people die every year because they can't afford the expensive medicine they need? Many are impoverished by drug cost and hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money are giving to pharmaceutical companies through socialized medical programs. How many future deaths will be prevented with new patented treatments? Every new treatment cost multiple times more and saves fewer and fewer people because current treatments cure most. Yes, if your disease isn't covered you don't care how much it cost but how much can society pay for one individual? At some point we run out of everybody's money.
People get sick and die - it is a fact of being alive. I do feel bad for those that cannot afford an expensive medical treatment - but here are the two scenarios: 1 - company is not allowed to charge an expensive rate for a new medical treatment. Since they cannot promise they will earn enough to recoup their costs, they don't do the research. Therefore anyone that has that ailment now dies. 2 - company is allowed to charge for an expensive medical treatment. They can now justify the cost of R&D on the project since they may be able to recoup their costs. They do the research. For the life of the patent (~ 20 years, usually 5-10 years once the drug gets on the market), people with funds are able to get treatment, those that can't afford to die. But - once the patent expires, it now suddenly becomes public domain. Now generic companies can come into the picture and make the treatment for much cheaper. Now - rich or poor(er) you can afford the treatment. It is cold, it is calculating, but you get a better net gain in the world with option 2. Life is unfair and it can suck, but out of those 2 options, it is the better of the two.
You have that exactly backwards. Large corporations would prefer to have no patent system at all. To a large corporation a patent is a barrier to profit.
In the software world - maybe. My world is pharmaceuticals and patents are needed, and should maybe even be extended in some cases. It isn't like the software world where companies buy patents for the purposes of some weird legal warfare. For pharma, patents represent a way for them to recoup the R&D costs made on a drug. Patents need to exist for pharma since there is such strict testing before it can be used on the general public. All this information has to be handed over to the government, where it doesn't remain a secret. No patents would kill new drug development in a heartbeat.
Actually it isn't your decision. If you want to use credit, you need to have your data shared so they can proper assess how much risk you are to them. If you want to cut up all types of credit and other borrowing abilities, then please by all means gripe about the sharing of your salary. I bet you I could find your rough salary within 5 minutes using linkedin and glassdoor.
I don't think it matters what you study or how good you think your engineers are. The thought it rather simple - unless you have unlimited defensive ammunition, why couldn't a country just have all of its missiles go on a narrow path over missile defenses to where they become depleted of countermeasures and then go in for the kill.
Wow I found another one! (I'm one too - I think there is only a handful of them in my city)
Oddly enough it also helps developers stay on task and not over-build or over-complicate things, meaning projects require less work.
The first key is knowing what you actually have to do, and knowing what else will be competing for your time. So let's say you estimate a component will take 8 hours of programming to do. Well don't assume that it will be done in a day. You have some break time in there, emails to answer, possibly a meeting, so 8 hours of work will likely take you closer to 11 or 12 to actually accomplish. After that - just keep guessing by writing stuff down and comparing actuals with estimates. My rule of thumb for myself is take how long I think I could do the project in, assuming nothing comes up to block it. Now double it. And add an extra half of the original estimate. That is usually in-line with the final product for me, but that does assume nothing else comes up.
Well that took a lot longer than expected.
Dell made some great smartphones. The "streak" line had Android and WP7. The Dell Venue pro is actually a very good phone. Shame it was never advertised and suffered a horrible death
Take the fallen wages into context however. In the 50s somewhere around 15% of gross household income was spent on food, now it is closer to 4%. Goods and services that people buy now cost LESS than they used to. I can buy a supercomputer (read smartphone) for what someone on minimum wage earns in a couple weeks. 30 years ago, how expensive was a computer? Also look at what has happened, China and India now have a middle class. The wealth isn't being horded by a few 1%ers (although they are doing very well), but it is shifting into new countries.
And now I find out /. filters out html comments.... sigh.
Google's blog post notes that "this change has no impact on our existing customers, including those using the free version."
I think this article also explains why the older parts of the population have a better percentage turnout for voting ;)
I'm up north in Canada, we have to worry more about the bears than the termites ;)
A car works for about 10 year... my sister is getting a new "smart home" which links everything to your iphone or android. Ignoring the security aspects of it.. makes me cringe when she doesn't get "your phone has a lifespan of 3 years, your house will last 90. Something is going to give" *sigh*
I find it ironic that my work firewall marked their website as malicious..
You do know there are things called 'shortcuts' that can be made so you don't need to go to the start menu, right? Amazing technology all the way back from Windows 95! Also, try hovering in the bottom right corner. I haven't had any problems with RDC
Well 20 to 30,000 pages is a huge range. If he only sent 25 pages it could have been just some part of 50 shades of grey ;)