...they did not have anything close to an accurate average global temperature to begin with in 1967.
Completely irrelevant, of course. This planet
has a molten nickel-iron core, and frigid upper atmosphere; it doesn't have thermal equilibrium,
nor an 'accurate temperature'. We make
various averages and selections of temperature according to a variety of needs.
There was nothing wrong with any or all of those temperatures in 1967, nor is there now.
If you read about the history of the project, there was more than thousands of man-hours wasted... they were up to a $500 million overrun before congress cut it.
Why would you call any of that 'waste'? The satellites have a 5-year expected life, and the ones still running are aged 8, 11, 14; of COURSE it costs more
to keep servicing the data and guidance for those years of un-planned lifespan of the satellites.
The data from the satellites is important enough that we WANT redundancy. There's a military program that will eventually take over (so costs weren't 'cut', just shifted to folk with different hats).
I have a sister-in-law with a Masterâ(TM)s degree in Chemistry (who, BTW is a high school teacher and shares her thoughts with students) and close friend whoâ(TM)s an Electrical Engineer who both say thereâ(TM)s no proof global warming is caused by man.
But, you personally don't understand how irrelevant
that is. The salient feature of global warming is that there
is no plausible suspect other than human activity.
Knowing that a variety of other causes do NOT account
for global warming requires broad investigation, and doesn't
prove the assertion of human cause. It does, however, support it.
Teamwork in investigation of global warming has yielded lots of
summaries of what we know. From the Vatican, to the UN's IPCC,
to the responsible parties that advise our government, the reality
of human-caused climate change is asserted, because that's
what the evidence DOES support.
Science, unlike formal logic, does not create "proof". Never has. But, it's the best
interpretation we have, based on evidence. Waiting for "proof" is
as silly as waiting for your coffeemaker to lay an egg.
Coax noise affecting the digital signal? Not Gonna happen.
The problem is, a good music system has multiple inputs (TV
being only one), and the AUDIO inputs, like from your game
console, can get noise injected because of the shielded
digital signal wiriing. The "ground loop" noise source is pernicious.
Noise in the digital signal: tiny chance of a problem.
According to the statement, on Oct. 10 brass hats of the U.S. military at the Department of Defense reported to Trump the military options toward the DPRK....
This shows that the U.S. started a war against the DPRK...
Well, no, it just means that military planning for contingencies is
happening. Hey, it's called 'preparedness', and isn't an act of
war. Stockpiling of food, water, blankets against times of catastrophe
isn't starting a disaster, either.
Come on, they're Communications Providers. You'd think that being able to communicate effectively is a core requirement of their business.
Actually, being able to block effective communication that
isn't directly connected with a rent/surcharge/fee payment, is
another core requirement of their business. As for net
neutrality, they want MORE than that, they want to be free
to open/read/tamper with your messages on "their" network,
while claiming to connect you to the Internet.
The Internet doesn't connect a rent, surcharge, fee, to any
traffic, and that drives the business models crazy. It doesn't
preclude encrypted or obscured messaging, and that drives
government crazy. So, it's hardly a surprise that
communication providers talking to governing bodes is
an incoherent babble.
Ultrasonic is a reasonable guess because the wavelength would be short enough to aim and meet the other characteristics described in the summary.
Well, not really. The ability of air to transmit ultrasound is limited (it disperses into heat quickly), and for brain damage to result, the ultrasound has to get inside the skull. If the events happened in a water tank, ultrasound would be more credible.
Infrasound has range, but requires large generating structures, and would have done things (like rattling windows) which are not reported.
...a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were.
Given that we've only had weather satellites for about 50 years, that's exactly why it's impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons over the past 100.
Impossible? No, just hard. Even with the technology
of marks on sticks, you can measure some things (storm surge) at shore locations, and
barometric pressure/windspeed/wind direction can map out a storm path adequately. It isn't
three-color motion picture information, but it's enough to rate a significant number of
landfall-of-a-hurricane events.
Nowdays, we observe a lot more storms, in some detail, and the frequency of named-and-measured storms went up markedly with satellites. Since 'Jose' is the tenth
this year, it's safe to say that hundreds of storms have had the satellite
treatment. We know of landfall storms going back a century or two (dozens, at least). That's enough data to make comparisons.
Sticks aren't just good measuring tools for storms, they're GREAT.
We just have to recall the similar situation before rural electrification (sponsored by the Rural
Electrification Act, 1936, and an alphabet agency in FDR's New Deal).
Mostly, cities had local power companies at the time, but those companies had no plan
for long-range power lines (hadn't developed suitable transformers or studied the
problem, even). So, a task force was set up to consider the technical and financial
challenges, using a central plan and with powers, like eminent domain,
that a commercial outfit couldn't wield. Powers that didn't stop at a city limit or county
line or state border.
By the time WWII started, there were dozens of offshoots, and the beginnings of a real national
energy grid. Oak Ridge, Tennessee had enough electric power available to... enrich isotopes.
That wouldn't have happened without federal efforts, and loan guarantees.
So, when we see data channels not reaching the more rural parts of our very large country, we
can find a good precedent for ways to solve the problem. Financing dozens of 'owners' to develop
trade secrets and proprietary hardware with secret innards, isn't how to do it. That way lies
madness, and incompatible networking standards from before TCP/IP (the 'internet') are that
madness. Just as the data standards are public, so the communication channels (like roads)
should, for best benefit, serve as many leaf nodes as possible, with no one excluded from
connection.
Renting from a monopoly landlord isn't working. Buying with municipal funds (like roads)
DOES work.
Us older folks told you not to trust the FCC. We told you that "Net Neutrality" as-a-law was written by the telecoms....
Don't trust anything the federal government does, and especially don't trust anything the FCC does. Its never in your best interests. It never was.
History shows us otherwise. Mail used to be private enterprise but that
encouraged and allowed a lot of problems.. Federal postal service was the solution.
Ben Franklin writes in his autobiography
Bradford; who was rich and easy, did a little printing... he kept the post-office...
tho' I did indeed receive and send papers by the post, yet the publick opinion was otherwise, for what I did send was by bribing the riders, who took them privately, Bradford being unkind enough to forbid it, which occasion'd some resentment on my part
The rest of the story is: Ben Franklin became our country's first postmaster, instituted
postal regulations prohibiting tampering, snooping, and interference,.
Our Constitution
puts post offices, post roads, and navigable waterways firmly under Federal control.
That was because we knew better than to trust all the channels of telecommunication
to local enterprises.
I, for one, STILL know better, but our FCC does not.
The US postal service has been a brilliant success in binding together all parts of
our nation, and cooperates readily with similar common carriers in other countries.
Ben Franklin had to work hard to get past the issues of non-neutrality of mail
delivery, and all we have to do is to have an FCC that takes modern telecommunication
concerns seriously. We pay those bozos a salary, and ought not to
accept misfeasance.
After all, he claims that never has there been an administration that has gotten so much done. So much. Except for this.
Easy answer: We don't think the regulation is good and therefore are abandoning it. It will never be published.
That won't work, the Court knows better.
The regulatory power of the DOE was given by Congress, with instructions on how to
use it. The President, while he has power to appoint and administer, does NOT have
a say in every regulation; Congress made those requirements.
He also cannot direct a court to decide in his favor.
The only president that approved DOE regulations, is the one that ratified
the original enabling laws. If the DOE has inert or obstructive leaders, the donald could
certainly fire them quickly, but the court can hold them in contempt also. The donald
and his appointee at DOE are NOT in legal control of the DOE mission.
This is a red flag, Apple can and will control any and all business that occurs in their domain.
The cut might make good business sense, but it can't be as important to revenue, as it is to confidence. The storefront operator, Apple, will do future renegotiations with the same 'I-have-the-gun' style. Software and data vendors can look forward to an arbitrary set of taxes and fees if they sell in the walled garden.
How can you seriously, with a straight face, compare a RAT sold on hack forums...
There was no 'hack forum', it was a site or sites in an online community which allowed sales of software.
Functionally, it was free advertising and pretty-normal ecommerce.
One can CALL IT a 'hack forum', but that has no significance. Name-calling!
Don't talk about 'serious' if your main point is name-calling.
You post on Slashdot, after all, and under an assumed identity.
As for the bill itself, one issue is what is meant by "replicable". Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Correct. That is why you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on such data.
Err... no, of course if you find a coelocanth alive, you needn't find a second one in order to conclude
that they aren't yet extinct. Reproducing a result can be done for LABORATORY findings, but not for
observations in nature.
There's no logical requirement to ignore what data we DO have, and it would be odd indeed to
create a legal requirement.
The "jumping to conclusions" phrase is an attempt to introduce loaded language into the discussion. Disregard
the phrase, that's NOT in the proposed law, and certainly doesn't describe any real event.
The basic function of the bill is that it makes it really tough for the EPA to cite research, and if the EPA can't cite research it has a much more difficult time justifying regulations.
That is indeed the basic function of the bill: the EPA should be forced to rely on reproducible public research...
The rub there, is not only the EPA
work, but all the cited prior work, becomes subject to formal challenge. An objection without merit
could waste years: courts would have no alternative but to hear it all out.
The lawyers get paid, the company gets indemnified from future lawsuits, the victims get some shitty coupons.
Well, the judge says this particular class action settlement is inadequate on basically those grounds (the victims are NOT getting coupons, or anything else).
The class action lawyers are asked to put in some up-to-date factfinding, and find a way to at least
tell the victims what happened, in exchange for Google telling them
that the worst is over. Well, technically it's over, the victims won't see any
noticeable difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an ammeter need to be put directly in series in the wiring?
Yes. There are inductive ammeters that clamp onto the outside of the wire's insulation, which would be a safer option, but they aren't terribly accurate, and wouldn't be suitable for checking your smart meter's calibration.
One name for an inductive ammeter of that sort, is Rogowski coil (which, according
to the article, is a suspect).
The whole problem here is that the bandpass of the Rogowski coil is very
high, but maybe the voltmeter isn't. The digital
data capture and calculation are flawed. Some electronic power uses (like all the
LED lights, and microwave ovens) are as high frequency as the meters can handle,
and some are higher.
The study's main point, is that 'smart' meters were inadequately tested, and have
flaws that got past the weights and measures inspectors. Those inspectors
need better test methods; fortunately, the researchers just published some of those.
They already had this. It's called citing your sources and peer review.
Having read countless research papers that fit your criteria, I can tell you that citing your sources and being peer reviewed are not nearly sufficient. They're necessary steps, to be sure, but I've read more than my fair share of papers from conferences or journals, some even associated with reputable organizations, that were nothing but complete bunk. What you need are citations to trustworthy sources and to be reviewed by trustworthy peers.
The point of citations and peer review is NOT that it is a one-step solution. It is, rather, a way to enable readers to do the second, third, and fourth steps which will lead to a better appreciation of value (or lack thereof) in the work at hand. It is also a way to
identify small cliques who refer only to themselves, and to identify multiple
mistakes based on a single lie/misconception/myth.
It is telling that the original article assures us that 'the intention is not to
be political', because modern political speech rarely tracks back to citations that
deserve trust. A case in point is the flawed 'weapons of mass destruction' claims made
before the 2003 Iraq invasion: when sources of that information WERE finally
examined, there were many embarassments. What benefits could a better information review have offered? Sadly, we
cannot know.
Secrecy, and small cliques reasoning in circles were the way of alchemy; science is better. Citations and peer review is why. And, it can work in other fields of ideation.
As for 'trustworthy peers', there's a conundrum. In science, we needn't have trustworthy peers,
because authority is not a person, it is an observation. Galileo was forced to recant, but his
published observations of the moons of Jupiter were just as authoritative afterward. The
authority of a person is an unsteady basis; the absence (or death) of such a 'king' is
a cause of uncertainty, which science does not feel deeply, though politics does.
Keep in mind that a big reasons we managed to wire up the whole country with electric, phone, and cable is that we gave those companies local monopolies on delivery of power, telecom, and TV.
Oh no, that DIDN'T get us the results. Rural electrification was always a federal initiative. Local
power companies never would have set up a nationwide grid for power, because that would mean opening their market.
Monopolies always came with regulatory requirements, and when those
are enforced, utilities do good things. Monopoly, traditionally, was NEVER A GIFT.
Internet service in the US is DEVOID of regulatory requirements, despite
being a virtual monopoly in most regions. So, the service is spotty and this utility is priced at 'all the market will bear'.
That's because 'the greater good' doesn't have a commercial competitive
advantage over 'all the market will bear'.
Yes, there's two different processes patented here. One cuts the gene, and is part of an elaboration that applies the genetic cut to a living cell.
So, using CRISPR to make the cut is covered by the Berkeley patent, and using it in the way described by the MIT patent is also covered. To use the MIT procedure, you need a license for the Berkeley procedure as well.
So, neither group has 'lost', in the sense that (as far as I can see) both have
valid patent protection.
Would Snowden have fared any better with the Obama administration?
That's irrelevant, of course. Only a court can decide.
Recall, historically Aaron Burr was thought to be a traitor by Thomas Jefferson; there was a trial, and a not guilty verdict under justice John Marshall.
Later, Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States of America...) was likewise in disfavor,
but was never convicted (in fact, though apprehended, was never tried).
That's because the Constitution holds that a crime must be proved in court, in the place where the
crime was committed. Jefferson Davis, on trial in Virginia, 1866? With a jury of his peers?
So, what difference does a sitting president make on an accusation of this sort? Our history suggests, 'none'.
so they are sore at apple, for what??? being apple? when you buy apple products you better know that you are at their mercy.
No, they're sore at Apple for being... Sony. When the PS3 got 'updates' that disabled OtherOS (Linux,,
usually) , the malfeasance was just TOO much, and owners sued. They won.
Apple isn't entirely in charge. There's law on the subject, so
courts will decide. That's what courts are for.
Republicans respond by trying to make streaming illegal.
Actually, Republicans respond by adding a penalty to the existing rules against photos and videos from the floor. From TFS:
Taking photo or video had already been prohibited on the floor, but was never enforced.
Oh, a 'rule' that has never been enforced? That means there has never been a test in court.
This 'rule', it imposes a fine?
Was the 'rule' ever confirmed by the Senate? Ratified by a sitting president?
That's rather important, with language
in our Constitution about 'No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'.
What's remarkable is that the video while the house was out of session was being done for purely political purposes, something that C-SPAN was created to avoid.
It's common for a politician (or anyone with a message, actually) to speak openly, to show his face to a camera, to write for public
forums, even to make a video. C-SPAN certainly wasn't intended to stop that!
The only real issue here, is using the
legislative chamber as a backdrop, which is being made a monopoly of... not our legislators, but the Speaker of the House, using rules-of-order controls on other legislators outside his/her clique. This whole tempest in a teapot
just means the Republican Speaker wants to be in control during hours when he isn't presiding over a session.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely irrelevant, of course. This planet has a molten nickel-iron core, and frigid upper atmosphere; it doesn't have thermal equilibrium, nor an 'accurate temperature'. We make various averages and selections of temperature according to a variety of needs.
There was nothing wrong with any or all of those temperatures in 1967, nor is there now.
Why would you call any of that 'waste'? The satellites have a 5-year expected life, and the ones still running are aged 8, 11, 14; of COURSE it costs more to keep servicing the data and guidance for those years of un-planned lifespan of the satellites.
The data from the satellites is important enough that we WANT redundancy. There's a military program that will eventually take over (so costs weren't 'cut', just shifted to folk with different hats).
But, you personally don't understand how irrelevant that is. The salient feature of global warming is that there is no plausible suspect other than human activity.
Knowing that a variety of other causes do NOT account for global warming requires broad investigation, and doesn't prove the assertion of human cause. It does, however, support it.
Teamwork in investigation of global warming has yielded lots of summaries of what we know. From the Vatican, to the UN's IPCC, to the responsible parties that advise our government, the reality of human-caused climate change is asserted, because that's what the evidence DOES support.
Science, unlike formal logic, does not create "proof". Never has. But, it's the best interpretation we have, based on evidence. Waiting for "proof" is as silly as waiting for your coffeemaker to lay an egg.
Weak argument, that. Firstly, there's Brunel's "atmosperic railway" of yesteryear, with a few very similar features.
Then there's the snide dig at 'just theoretical'. All the ideas of mankind start that way.
Would you stand next to the gadget at the Trinity test? Some people "claimed" it would go ... boom.
That's pretty much meaningless, of course.
First, 'expensive' never got defined. Some suppliers (pimfg.com) will sell you a Toslink cable under $2.
Fragile? How so?
Varies in quality? Like socks, and everything else?
The problem is, a good music system has multiple inputs (TV being only one), and the AUDIO inputs, like from your game console, can get noise injected because of the shielded digital signal wiriing. The "ground loop" noise source is pernicious.
Noise in the digital signal: tiny chance of a problem.
Noise caused by the digital wiring: very likely.
Noise caused by a Toslink plastic cable: none.
Too little question, too late. The original article included observed CO2 increase, and cited the World Meteorological Organization.
Observation, in science, is the authoritative source.
Well, no, it just means that military planning for contingencies is happening. Hey, it's called 'preparedness', and isn't an act of war. Stockpiling of food, water, blankets against times of catastrophe isn't starting a disaster, either.
Actually, being able to block effective communication that isn't directly connected with a rent/surcharge/fee payment, is another core requirement of their business. As for net neutrality, they want MORE than that, they want to be free to open/read/tamper with your messages on "their" network, while claiming to connect you to the Internet. The Internet doesn't connect a rent, surcharge, fee, to any traffic, and that drives the business models crazy. It doesn't preclude encrypted or obscured messaging, and that drives government crazy. So, it's hardly a surprise that communication providers talking to governing bodes is an incoherent babble.
Well, not really. The ability of air to transmit ultrasound is limited (it disperses into heat quickly), and for brain damage to result, the ultrasound has to get inside the skull. If the events happened in a water tank, ultrasound would be more credible. Infrasound has range, but requires large generating structures, and would have done things (like rattling windows) which are not reported.
Impossible? No, just hard. Even with the technology of marks on sticks, you can measure some things (storm surge) at shore locations, and barometric pressure/windspeed/wind direction can map out a storm path adequately. It isn't three-color motion picture information, but it's enough to rate a significant number of landfall-of-a-hurricane events.
Nowdays, we observe a lot more storms, in some detail, and the frequency of named-and-measured storms went up markedly with satellites. Since 'Jose' is the tenth this year, it's safe to say that hundreds of storms have had the satellite treatment. We know of landfall storms going back a century or two (dozens, at least). That's enough data to make comparisons.
Sticks aren't just good measuring tools for storms, they're GREAT.
We just have to recall the similar situation before rural electrification (sponsored by the Rural Electrification Act, 1936, and an alphabet agency in FDR's New Deal).
Mostly, cities had local power companies at the time, but those companies had no plan for long-range power lines (hadn't developed suitable transformers or studied the problem, even). So, a task force was set up to consider the technical and financial challenges, using a central plan and with powers, like eminent domain, that a commercial outfit couldn't wield. Powers that didn't stop at a city limit or county line or state border.
By the time WWII started, there were dozens of offshoots, and the beginnings of a real national energy grid. Oak Ridge, Tennessee had enough electric power available to... enrich isotopes. That wouldn't have happened without federal efforts, and loan guarantees.
So, when we see data channels not reaching the more rural parts of our very large country, we can find a good precedent for ways to solve the problem. Financing dozens of 'owners' to develop trade secrets and proprietary hardware with secret innards, isn't how to do it. That way lies madness, and incompatible networking standards from before TCP/IP (the 'internet') are that madness. Just as the data standards are public, so the communication channels (like roads) should, for best benefit, serve as many leaf nodes as possible, with no one excluded from connection.
Renting from a monopoly landlord isn't working. Buying with municipal funds (like roads) DOES work.
History shows us otherwise. Mail used to be private enterprise but that encouraged and allowed a lot of problems.. Federal postal service was the solution.
Ben Franklin writes in his autobiography
The rest of the story is: Ben Franklin became our country's first postmaster, instituted postal regulations prohibiting tampering, snooping, and interference,.
Our Constitution puts post offices, post roads, and navigable waterways firmly under Federal control. That was because we knew better than to trust all the channels of telecommunication to local enterprises. I, for one, STILL know better, but our FCC does not. The US postal service has been a brilliant success in binding together all parts of our nation, and cooperates readily with similar common carriers in other countries.
Ben Franklin had to work hard to get past the issues of non-neutrality of mail delivery, and all we have to do is to have an FCC that takes modern telecommunication concerns seriously. We pay those bozos a salary, and ought not to accept misfeasance.
That won't work, the Court knows better. The regulatory power of the DOE was given by Congress, with instructions on how to use it. The President, while he has power to appoint and administer, does NOT have a say in every regulation; Congress made those requirements. He also cannot direct a court to decide in his favor. The only president that approved DOE regulations, is the one that ratified the original enabling laws. If the DOE has inert or obstructive leaders, the donald could certainly fire them quickly, but the court can hold them in contempt also. The donald and his appointee at DOE are NOT in legal control of the DOE mission.
This is a red flag, Apple can and will control any and all business that occurs in their domain. The cut might make good business sense, but it can't be as important to revenue, as it is to confidence. The storefront operator, Apple, will do future renegotiations with the same 'I-have-the-gun' style. Software and data vendors can look forward to an arbitrary set of taxes and fees if they sell in the walled garden.
There was no 'hack forum', it was a site or sites in an online community which allowed sales of software. Functionally, it was free advertising and pretty-normal ecommerce.
One can CALL IT a 'hack forum', but that has no significance. Name-calling!
Don't talk about 'serious' if your main point is name-calling. You post on Slashdot, after all, and under an assumed identity.
Glass houses, stones... you know.
Err... no, of course if you find a coelocanth alive, you needn't find a second one in order to conclude that they aren't yet extinct. Reproducing a result can be done for LABORATORY findings, but not for observations in nature.
There's no logical requirement to ignore what data we DO have, and it would be odd indeed to create a legal requirement.
The "jumping to conclusions" phrase is an attempt to introduce loaded language into the discussion. Disregard the phrase, that's NOT in the proposed law, and certainly doesn't describe any real event.
The rub there, is not only the EPA work, but all the cited prior work, becomes subject to formal challenge. An objection without merit could waste years: courts would have no alternative but to hear it all out.
Well, the judge says this particular class action settlement is inadequate on basically those grounds (the victims are NOT getting coupons, or anything else).
The class action lawyers are asked to put in some up-to-date factfinding, and find a way to at least tell the victims what happened, in exchange for Google telling them that the worst is over. Well, technically it's over, the victims won't see any noticeable difference.
One name for an inductive ammeter of that sort, is Rogowski coil (which, according to the article, is a suspect).
The whole problem here is that the bandpass of the Rogowski coil is very high, but maybe the voltmeter isn't. The digital data capture and calculation are flawed. Some electronic power uses (like all the LED lights, and microwave ovens) are as high frequency as the meters can handle, and some are higher.
The study's main point, is that 'smart' meters were inadequately tested, and have flaws that got past the weights and measures inspectors. Those inspectors need better test methods; fortunately, the researchers just published some of those.
The point of citations and peer review is NOT that it is a one-step solution. It is, rather, a way to enable readers to do the second, third, and fourth steps which will lead to a better appreciation of value (or lack thereof) in the work at hand. It is also a way to identify small cliques who refer only to themselves, and to identify multiple mistakes based on a single lie/misconception/myth.
It is telling that the original article assures us that 'the intention is not to be political', because modern political speech rarely tracks back to citations that deserve trust. A case in point is the flawed 'weapons of mass destruction' claims made before the 2003 Iraq invasion: when sources of that information WERE finally examined, there were many embarassments. What benefits could a better information review have offered? Sadly, we cannot know.
Secrecy, and small cliques reasoning in circles were the way of alchemy; science is better. Citations and peer review is why. And, it can work in other fields of ideation.
As for 'trustworthy peers', there's a conundrum. In science, we needn't have trustworthy peers, because authority is not a person, it is an observation. Galileo was forced to recant, but his published observations of the moons of Jupiter were just as authoritative afterward. The authority of a person is an unsteady basis; the absence (or death) of such a 'king' is a cause of uncertainty, which science does not feel deeply, though politics does.
Oh no, that DIDN'T get us the results. Rural electrification was always a federal initiative. Local power companies never would have set up a nationwide grid for power, because that would mean opening their market.
Monopolies always came with regulatory requirements, and when those are enforced, utilities do good things. Monopoly, traditionally, was NEVER A GIFT.
Internet service in the US is DEVOID of regulatory requirements, despite being a virtual monopoly in most regions. So, the service is spotty and this utility is priced at 'all the market will bear'.
That's because 'the greater good' doesn't have a commercial competitive advantage over 'all the market will bear'.
Yes, there's two different processes patented here. One cuts the gene, and is part of an elaboration that applies the genetic cut to a living cell. So, using CRISPR to make the cut is covered by the Berkeley patent, and using it in the way described by the MIT patent is also covered. To use the MIT procedure, you need a license for the Berkeley procedure as well. So, neither group has 'lost', in the sense that (as far as I can see) both have valid patent protection.
That's irrelevant, of course. Only a court can decide.
Recall, historically Aaron Burr was thought to be a traitor by Thomas Jefferson; there was a trial, and a not guilty verdict under justice John Marshall.
Later, Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States of America...) was likewise in disfavor, but was never convicted (in fact, though apprehended, was never tried).
That's because the Constitution holds that a crime must be proved in court, in the place where the crime was committed. Jefferson Davis, on trial in Virginia, 1866? With a jury of his peers?
So, what difference does a sitting president make on an accusation of this sort? Our history suggests, 'none'.
No, they're sore at Apple for being... Sony. When the PS3 got 'updates' that disabled OtherOS (Linux,, usually) , the malfeasance was just TOO much, and owners sued. They won. Apple isn't entirely in charge. There's law on the subject, so courts will decide. That's what courts are for.
Oh, a 'rule' that has never been enforced? That means there has never been a test in court.
This 'rule', it imposes a fine? Was the 'rule' ever confirmed by the Senate? Ratified by a sitting president?
That's rather important, with language in our Constitution about 'No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'.
It's common for a politician (or anyone with a message, actually) to speak openly, to show his face to a camera, to write for public forums, even to make a video. C-SPAN certainly wasn't intended to stop that!
The only real issue here, is using the legislative chamber as a backdrop, which is being made a monopoly of ... not our legislators, but the Speaker of the House, using rules-of-order controls on other legislators outside his/her clique. This whole tempest in a teapot
just means the Republican Speaker wants to be in control during hours when he isn't presiding over a session.
Phooey to that!