These questions don't explain the huge difference in numbers between Verizon (100+) and Earthlink (3).
It seems very clear that Verizon is being punished, while their number of subscribers alone should lead to at least one of the indictments being leveled at an AOL subscriber.
"There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group."
Ridiculous. The largest ISP doesn't get a single notice, while Verizon, the only ISP with enough backbone to fight for their customers, gets over 100. The RIAA is selectively punishing those who don't use AOL, because members of AOL put money in the pockets of RIAA members.
The rationale behind patents is that creators need a reason to create, and if anyone can steal their idea once they've created it, they probably won't bother.
This logic is flawed as applied to business process patents, as this one is. Business processes will always be created because the business has an inherent motivation, increased profit, and does not need the increased motive of monopoly protect to jump-start their creation.
This issue was highlighted in Larry Lessig's 'The Future of Ideas' on a section regarding Amazon's One-click patent, and Steve Job's comments that they would have developed the technology in any event, even if it wouldn't have been patentable.
The idea that businesses need any other motivation than the desire to keep themselves afloat is hogwash, but it's what the entire recent history of the US Patent process is based on.
Patents ARE a monopoly. They are a temporary, legal monopoly granted by the government as a reward for the work done by the patent holder toward progess of science and useful arts. The rationale behind patents is that creators need a reason to create, and if anyone can steal their idea once they've created it, they probably won't bother.
This logic is flawed as applied to business process patents, as this one is. Business processes will always be created because the business has an inherent motivation, increased profit, and does not need the increased motive of monopoly protect to jump-start their creation.
This issue was highlighted in Larry Lessig's 'The Future of Ideas' on a section regarding Amazon's One-click patent, and Steve Job's comments that they would have developed the technology in any event, even if it wouldn't have been patentable.
This moderation is obviously someone 'hating'. Check the time stamp, assholes, and see that I was one of the first people to make the suggestion. It's not redundant until it's already been said, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand such a complex concept.
All viruses insert their 'genetic code' into the host cell's, that's how they replicate. What makes a virus a 'retrovirus' is that it carries its 'genetic material' in RNA form, rather than DNA. Thus, a reverse transcriptase has to convert it into DNA before it can assimilate the host cell. As a result of the hasty and high propensity for error in reverse transcription, retrovirii (like AIDS) are prone to mutations, and thus more difficult to treat.
Anyway, to answer the bulk of your question, you could add a marker gene, such as resistance to penicillin, alongside the transgene, and then grow the bacteria on penicillin-laden agar. Thus, the only bacteria that survived would be the ones who had picked up the DNA packet you'd sent.
That "taking bits of dna from one critter and putting it in another in a lab" is done using a host of natural processes.
In the example I proposed for my final project in a recent class, DNA was removed from the Wintergreen plant that codes for the genes that are responsible for the production of the metabolic pathways that produce methyl salicylate (Oil of Wintergreen). This was done using naturally occuring restriction enzymes to extract the identified DNA.
Then these strands were introduced into the environment of Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, a naturally occuring organism which causes tumors in plants via a process of transmitting t-DNA into the plants genome. The t-DNA was replaced with the DNA removed from the Wintergreen, using a T1 plasmid, and then the Agrobacterium was allowed to go about it's business on Coffee plants.
The result, hopefully, would be coffee that produces its own natural flavoring. The tools were all natural processes: naturally occuring enzymes, bacterium, DNA strands.
The fact that they were brought together with motive and method seems to be the only difference between what I did in the experiment and what happens in nature. So, I'm still convinced you're splitting hairs.
I'm not saying it's natural. I'm saying it's a permutation (no pun intended) of something that occurs in nature. The lines are sketchy where something becomes 'genetically engineered'. In this case, I would agree that the result is, but I don't think the lines are as black and white as many people like to draw them.
Is this more GE than the plant that incorporates a part of the genetic code of a virus. Why? Because it occured in a lab? That's not a reasonable argument. Because it's two species that would never swap genes in nature? Now you're getting closer...but I think that still might be splitting hairs.
Go back and reread the first 2 Chapters of Darwin's treatise on Natural Selection. It is all about humans as the major force in natural selection through domestication.
As someone who has taken several courses on Genetic Engineering with scientists deeply involved in the field, I can say that there is little consensus on what exactly 'Genetic Engineer' means, as a term.
There are natural processes by which genes from one organism get inserted into genomes of another. Are you saying that this is not GE? Does it have to occur in a test tube to be GE? How can the location where the transgenetic meeting occurs determine the risk to the ecosystem?
There is one difference that echoes throughout the responses that both give to each and every question. At every turn, Professor Lessig gives deference to the needs and rights of the Artists and the Recording Industry in an attempt to find middle ground. At the same time, Mr. Oppenheim only recognizes the rights of the companies he represents, completely forgetting the concept of fair-use rights and the necessity of the public domain.
I had to log-in through my campus proxy server to get to the article, so I assume some would have problems getting it. Here's the text:
Number 640 #2, June 5, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein A Plasma Valve
A plasma valve, a device that uses electrically charged particles to act as a barrier between air and vacuum, has been invented by a Brookhaven-Argonne collaboration. These two DOE labs joined forces to provide a needed component for Argonne's Advanced Photon Source and similar facilities worldwide. Inside the walls of accelerators, synchrotrons and storage rings, a good vacuum--empty space mostly devoid of matter--enables particle beams to travel unimpeded for hours. However, if a leak causes air to rush into the vacuum, the particle beam spreads out and deposits its energy onto surrounding walls, disrupting the beam and damaging valuable equipment. The faster the leak can be closed, the less damage will be done to the walls. The plasma valve, which has no moving parts, can activate in a nanosecond, a million times faster than mechanical valves. To keep air from rushing in, the Brookhaven-Argonne team create a dense, high-temperature plasma (collection of charged particles) held together by electric and magnetic fields. Housed inside a hollow copper cylinder, the plasma reaches a temperature of 15,000 degrees Kelvin (about 50 times greater than room temperature)--making the plasma particles bounce around so vigorously that they collide with air molecules and prevent them from passing into the vacuum. Moreover, the valve's confining electromagnetic fields prevent the plasma itself from rushing into the vacuum. (Brookhaven press release, May 28). A much faster, more complex version of a previously introduced "plasma window" (see New Scientist, 12 April 2003), the plasma valve is the latest example of novel uses of plasma for particle-beam applications; other recent ones include plasma acceleration of antimatter (Update 634), a plasma lens (Update 508), and plasma deflection of high-energy beams (Update 540).
Shakespeare is famous for making jokes 'for the groundlings'...low brow humour interjected into serious plots for the purpose of entertaining the people who payed a penny to sit on the ground near the stage. His work was not timeless the second it was penned, it was simply a play.
To your rhetoric, I need only reply A=A. If it's legal, I have the right to do it.
Now, let's consider the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights under your interpretation:
Amendments III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X (and to an extent V) are not rights, according to you, because they do not mention a specific action which the government cannot prevent you from doing.
I hope this highlights for you how ignorant your conception of 'rights' is.
Okay, so...these 'acts' that the law singles out as 'not infringement'. They are acts which are specifically spelled out as legal. How are they not rights? It's not as if the law has this long list of things that you can't do with copyrighted texts and just forgets to include parody or critique. It specifically makes exception for them.
Right n. 1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
The second an author distributes a novel, the law protects me from retribution if I choose to lampoon him, or quote a passage from it for numerous purposes, such as review. (The key is that someone who copys a work without permission has the benefit of showing an affirmative defense, and be exempt from any violation of copyright if they can show that they did so for purely educational, satirical, or critical reasons.)
Check out the artwork of Sherrie Levine. She is famous for making reproductions of famous artwork. Her photographs of famous photographs hang in a art galleries.
I'll agree that there are problems with ownership of IP...I just think that we should err on the side of the consumer, until such time as the law is more clear.
And my point, as you'll see from the conversations below, is that you can't call either 'owning'. There are things that you cannot do with an apple recording, without jumping through hoops and sometimes not at all, that are perfectly legal things to do. You have to forfeit these rights inorder to get content from apple.
Go read the decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft where Ginsburg explicitly states, in a legally binding decision, exactly how and what fair-use is. It hasn't been codified, but that's only a matter of time.
You never own a $20 bill, that's why it's illegal to destroy it.
You have the right to make bombs in your basement. Not all bombs are illegal.
The remainder of your suppositions are false derivatives of my claim.
There are exceptions to copyright, and they're called fair-use provisions. Unless they are allowed by any DRM, then you don't have the same rights over the song you download than you would over the cd you buy. Apples DRM mangles fair use rights on multiple fronts. If you think you own a song you download from Apple, you are sadly mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
These questions don't explain the huge difference in numbers between Verizon (100+) and Earthlink (3).
It seems very clear that Verizon is being punished, while their number of subscribers alone should lead to at least one of the indictments being leveled at an AOL subscriber.
-R
"There were no subpoenas on file sent to AOL Time Warner Inc., the nation's largest Internet provider and also parent company of Warner Music Group."
Ridiculous. The largest ISP doesn't get a single notice, while Verizon, the only ISP with enough backbone to fight for their customers, gets over 100. The RIAA is selectively punishing those who don't use AOL, because members of AOL put money in the pockets of RIAA members.
-R
Sorry, the comments were by Jeff Bezos, not Steve Jobs.
-R
Sorry, obviously the comments were by Jeff Bezos, not Steve Jobs.
-R
The rationale behind patents is that creators need a reason to create, and if anyone can steal their idea once they've created it, they probably won't bother.
This logic is flawed as applied to business process patents, as this one is. Business processes will always be created because the business has an inherent motivation, increased profit, and does not need the increased motive of monopoly protect to jump-start their creation.
This issue was highlighted in Larry Lessig's 'The Future of Ideas' on a section regarding Amazon's One-click patent, and Steve Job's comments that they would have developed the technology in any event, even if it wouldn't have been patentable.
The idea that businesses need any other motivation than the desire to keep themselves afloat is hogwash, but it's what the entire recent history of the US Patent process is based on.
-R
Patents ARE a monopoly. They are a temporary, legal monopoly granted by the government as a reward for the work done by the patent holder toward progess of science and useful arts. The rationale behind patents is that creators need a reason to create, and if anyone can steal their idea once they've created it, they probably won't bother.
This logic is flawed as applied to business process patents, as this one is. Business processes will always be created because the business has an inherent motivation, increased profit, and does not need the increased motive of monopoly protect to jump-start their creation.
This issue was highlighted in Larry Lessig's 'The Future of Ideas' on a section regarding Amazon's One-click patent, and Steve Job's comments that they would have developed the technology in any event, even if it wouldn't have been patentable.
-R
Walmart To Buy NetFlix.
They've succeeded in making themselves worth buying, kudos.
-R
This moderation is obviously someone 'hating'. Check the time stamp, assholes, and see that I was one of the first people to make the suggestion. It's not redundant until it's already been said, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand such a complex concept.
-R
Plain and simple...let others provide the bandwidth for you.
-R
All viruses insert their 'genetic code' into the host cell's, that's how they replicate. What makes a virus a 'retrovirus' is that it carries its 'genetic material' in RNA form, rather than DNA. Thus, a reverse transcriptase has to convert it into DNA before it can assimilate the host cell. As a result of the hasty and high propensity for error in reverse transcription, retrovirii (like AIDS) are prone to mutations, and thus more difficult to treat.
Anyway, to answer the bulk of your question, you could add a marker gene, such as resistance to penicillin, alongside the transgene, and then grow the bacteria on penicillin-laden agar. Thus, the only bacteria that survived would be the ones who had picked up the DNA packet you'd sent.
-R
That "taking bits of dna from one critter and putting it in another in a lab" is done using a host of natural processes.
In the example I proposed for my final project in a recent class, DNA was removed from the Wintergreen plant that codes for the genes that are responsible for the production of the metabolic pathways that produce methyl salicylate (Oil of Wintergreen). This was done using naturally occuring restriction enzymes to extract the identified DNA.
Then these strands were introduced into the environment of Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, a naturally occuring organism which causes tumors in plants via a process of transmitting t-DNA into the plants genome. The t-DNA was replaced with the DNA removed from the Wintergreen, using a T1 plasmid, and then the Agrobacterium was allowed to go about it's business on Coffee plants.
The result, hopefully, would be coffee that produces its own natural flavoring. The tools were all natural processes: naturally occuring enzymes, bacterium, DNA strands.
The fact that they were brought together with motive and method seems to be the only difference between what I did in the experiment and what happens in nature. So, I'm still convinced you're splitting hairs.
-R
I'm not saying it's natural. I'm saying it's a permutation (no pun intended) of something that occurs in nature. The lines are sketchy where something becomes 'genetically engineered'. In this case, I would agree that the result is, but I don't think the lines are as black and white as many people like to draw them.
Is this more GE than the plant that incorporates a part of the genetic code of a virus. Why? Because it occured in a lab? That's not a reasonable argument. Because it's two species that would never swap genes in nature? Now you're getting closer...but I think that still might be splitting hairs.
-R
-R
Go back and reread the first 2 Chapters of Darwin's treatise on Natural Selection. It is all about humans as the major force in natural selection through domestication.
As someone who has taken several courses on Genetic Engineering with scientists deeply involved in the field, I can say that there is little consensus on what exactly 'Genetic Engineer' means, as a term.
There are natural processes by which genes from one organism get inserted into genomes of another. Are you saying that this is not GE? Does it have to occur in a test tube to be GE? How can the location where the transgenetic meeting occurs determine the risk to the ecosystem?
-R
There is one difference that echoes throughout the responses that both give to each and every question. At every turn, Professor Lessig gives deference to the needs and rights of the Artists and the Recording Industry in an attempt to find middle ground. At the same time, Mr. Oppenheim only recognizes the rights of the companies he represents, completely forgetting the concept of fair-use rights and the necessity of the public domain.
-R
I had to log-in through my campus proxy server to get to the article, so I assume some would have problems getting it. Here's the text:
Number 640 #2, June 5, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein
A Plasma Valve
A plasma valve, a device that uses electrically charged particles to act as a barrier between air and vacuum, has been invented by a Brookhaven-Argonne collaboration. These two DOE labs joined forces to provide a needed component for Argonne's Advanced Photon Source and similar facilities worldwide. Inside the walls of accelerators, synchrotrons and storage rings, a good vacuum--empty space mostly devoid of matter--enables particle beams to travel unimpeded for hours. However, if a leak causes air to rush into the vacuum, the particle beam spreads out and deposits its energy onto surrounding walls, disrupting the beam and damaging valuable equipment. The faster the leak can be closed, the less damage will be done to the walls. The plasma valve, which has no moving parts, can activate in a nanosecond, a million times faster than mechanical valves. To keep air from rushing in, the Brookhaven-Argonne team create a dense, high-temperature plasma (collection of charged particles) held together by electric and magnetic fields. Housed inside a hollow copper cylinder, the plasma reaches a temperature of 15,000 degrees Kelvin (about 50 times greater than room temperature)--making the plasma particles bounce around so vigorously that they collide with air molecules and prevent them from passing into the vacuum. Moreover, the valve's confining electromagnetic fields prevent the plasma itself from rushing into the vacuum. (Brookhaven press release, May 28). A much faster, more complex version of a previously introduced "plasma window" (see New Scientist, 12 April 2003), the plasma valve is the latest example of novel uses of plasma for particle-beam applications; other recent ones include plasma acceleration of antimatter (Update 634), a plasma lens (Update 508), and plasma deflection of high-energy beams (Update 540).
-R
barÂraÂtry
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.
3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.
What he's doing is illegal, he should be fined into oblivion or sent up the river to be married to some guy named Bubba.
And, while we're at it, let's get the RIAA up on charges too.
-R
...for making a movie about Philosophy and then charging $9 to see it. No one with a philosophy degree can afford to pay $9.
-R
Shakespeare is famous for making jokes 'for the groundlings'...low brow humour interjected into serious plots for the purpose of entertaining the people who payed a penny to sit on the ground near the stage. His work was not timeless the second it was penned, it was simply a play.
-R
To your rhetoric, I need only reply A=A. If it's legal, I have the right to do it.
Now, let's consider the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights under your interpretation:
Amendments III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X (and to an extent V) are not rights, according to you, because they do not mention a specific action which the government cannot prevent you from doing.
I hope this highlights for you how ignorant your conception of 'rights' is.
-R
Okay, so...these 'acts' that the law singles out as 'not infringement'. They are acts which are specifically spelled out as legal. How are they not rights? It's not as if the law has this long list of things that you can't do with copyrighted texts and just forgets to include parody or critique. It specifically makes exception for them.
-R
Right
n.
1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
The second an author distributes a novel, the law protects me from retribution if I choose to lampoon him, or quote a passage from it for numerous purposes, such as review. (The key is that someone who copys a work without permission has the benefit of showing an affirmative defense, and be exempt from any violation of copyright if they can show that they did so for purely educational, satirical, or critical reasons.)
If that's not a right, I don't know what is.
Check out the artwork of Sherrie Levine. She is famous for making reproductions of famous artwork. Her photographs of famous photographs hang in a art galleries.
I'll agree that there are problems with ownership of IP...I just think that we should err on the side of the consumer, until such time as the law is more clear.
-kd
And my point, as you'll see from the conversations below, is that you can't call either 'owning'. There are things that you cannot do with an apple recording, without jumping through hoops and sometimes not at all, that are perfectly legal things to do. You have to forfeit these rights inorder to get content from apple.
-R
Go read the decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft where Ginsburg explicitly states, in a legally binding decision, exactly how and what fair-use is. It hasn't been codified, but that's only a matter of time.
You never own a $20 bill, that's why it's illegal to destroy it.
You have the right to make bombs in your basement. Not all bombs are illegal.
The remainder of your suppositions are false derivatives of my claim.
There are exceptions to copyright, and they're called fair-use provisions. Unless they are allowed by any DRM, then you don't have the same rights over the song you download than you would over the cd you buy. Apples DRM mangles fair use rights on multiple fronts. If you think you own a song you download from Apple, you are sadly mistaken.
-R