Huh? We're talking about giving USA the keys to the Shuttle - you know, the people currently operate the Shuttle. It's exactly the same arrangement Energia got from Roskosmos.. instead of just being paid to operate, they get to build, own and operate. Partial commercialization to full commercialization. The only difference, of course, is that NASA would no doubt gift USA the Shuttles, the tooling, the factories, the workers, and provide them with free operating advice in perpetuity, whereas Roskosmos was smart enough to demand partial ownership of Energia and charges them by the hour for technical support.
Honestly? The only way to get rid of unelected officials is constitutional reform. I really thought this was going to be the generation to do it, but it seems there's too many of us around who have fond memories of standing on the assembly ground to God Save The Queen.. and we can't talk about changing the constitution without talking about finally pulling our finger out and cutting the safety line to mother England. Or, ya know, we could petition the US to become their 52nd state - right after Israel.. I keed, I keed!
Make higher quality meat than most of the current producers (that's not hard, we're not talking wagyu here) and do it cheaper than them (and that *really* shouldn't be hard, you're basically making beer here).
Hi quantum', how ya been? Forget the karma man, you should login more often. I'd like to hear you rant more on "delusional Space Nuttery pipe dreams", but with your name attached. It's not like anyone is going to harm you for spouting a skeptical opinion about space.. it's something the community thrives on.
It's a shame everyone is still looking for the low hanging fruit rather than putting in the hard effort required to make those 3d point clouds into actual surfaces and producing something that doesn't look like a pile of crap.
Also, describing this as "google streetview like" is just stupid. It's a true 3d point cloud, not a bunch of panoramic images.
"The Police Commissioner would be able to ban violent criminals from possessing knives and other prohibited weapons under proposed laws to be introduced to Parliament next week.
The legislation would also ban the sale of knives to children under 16 and restrict possession of knives near schools."
Yeah.. it's hard for sensible people to imagine anyone actually saying that... or even thinking it.
The idea that someone might use a knife to, say, cut steak and so you really can't practically ban something like that - it's so obvious that you shouldn't ever have to say it. And so maybe you might be thinking that they're talking about some sort Croc Dundee sized knife problem.. but no. They really are talking about kitchen knives. Go check out the article.. see the picture?
any contraband should be thrown-out as illegally-obtained
If it is illegally obtained then it will be.
Your scenario: false arrest -> search -> find something for legitimate arrest.
This is a classic "fruit of the poison tree" and will be thrown out in any court.
The point is: if you're arrested for a crime and they find evidence of that crime on your person, should it be admissible? And the answer is an obvious, resounding, yes. It doesn't matter if that evidence is blood on your watch band or threatening text messages on your cellphone.
Again, another ignorant moron who gets his information from the activists. Go read the court ruling.
Monsanto's patented gene
See? You're an idiot. It doesn't matter if you're using "their gene" or not. If you are using a genetically engineered crop tailored to a pesticide, you lose. That's how broad their patent is.
Maybe you think that patent should never have been issued. I don't exactly disagree with you, but it was issued.
Note that Monsanto is in the habit of suing any farmer that has a crop that resists roundup at all, even if they do not use roundup.
Citation needed you fucking liar.
It also violates the principles that have served agriculture well for centuries. Carried to it's natural conclusion, it will eventually hand ownership of nature itself over to corporate interests (or at least so surround it in a thicket of patents that they might as well own it).
Bullshit. If you don't use their patented method of growing crops then you're not in violation of their patent. And in a couple of decades you can even do that.
oh God. Seriously, you believe that? You think the farmer did careful studies of all the available pesticides and Round Up just happened to be the one that worked on his "special" crops so he decided to go with it? Are you kidding?
The finding of the court was that anyone using Round Up on Round Up Ready crops is exercising the patent. It doesn't matter how they got the Round Up or the Round Up Ready crops. This is entirely consistent with the history of patent infringement. It doesn't matter if you independently discover the covered technique, you're still violating the patent if you exercise it.
Here's another thing that could possibly happen: someone could develop their own pesticide and then genetically engineer a crop which is resistant to it, completely independently from Monsanto's patent. Guess what? That too would be violating Monsanto's patent. That's how patents work.
Agreed. He was using Round Up on those crops.. a pesticide that kills unmodified crops, demonstrating that he knew what he was doing.
It is the use of Round Up on Round Up Ready crops which is what the patent describes and what the farmer was violating.
If he had been just growing Round Up Ready crops without the use of Round Up he wouldn't have been violating the patent. If he had been just using Round Up to kill weeds then he wouldn't have been violating the patent. It's really simple. The only reason I can understand why people have trouble understanding this is just self induced ignorance.
unfair? Sounds like a typical retail store to me. "our RRP is $19.95" "That's nice, we're gunna sell it for $21.99 for three weeks and then slash the price to $17.95 and you take back all the stock we don't sell, ok?" "uhhh.. ummm.. no.." "no sale, later rep."
Slashdot Mirror
It's like arguing with a goldfish..
Can you possibly try to actually convince me rather than just repeating your 1980s era outlook on the world?
Corporations are made up of people... just thought you might like to know.
Huh? We're talking about giving USA the keys to the Shuttle - you know, the people currently operate the Shuttle. It's exactly the same arrangement Energia got from Roskosmos.. instead of just being paid to operate, they get to build, own and operate. Partial commercialization to full commercialization. The only difference, of course, is that NASA would no doubt gift USA the Shuttles, the tooling, the factories, the workers, and provide them with free operating advice in perpetuity, whereas Roskosmos was smart enough to demand partial ownership of Energia and charges them by the hour for technical support.
Umm.. are you deliberately trying to be ironic?
You *are* aware that the Soyuz is operated by a "private enterprise" right?
They even have a website.
a senator of a major political party, yes.. two words: proportional representation.
Honestly? The only way to get rid of unelected officials is constitutional reform. I really thought this was going to be the generation to do it, but it seems there's too many of us around who have fond memories of standing on the assembly ground to God Save The Queen.. and we can't talk about changing the constitution without talking about finally pulling our finger out and cutting the safety line to mother England. Or, ya know, we could petition the US to become their 52nd state - right after Israel.. I keed, I keed!
Your imagination.. try using it sometime.
More likely they'll just perfect the techniques and patent them.
.. cause what passes for farming these days will really survive the ability to make food the same way we currently make beer.
Make higher quality meat than most of the current producers (that's not hard, we're not talking wagyu here) and do it cheaper than them (and that *really* shouldn't be hard, you're basically making beer here).
Economics will do the rest.
You mean like AX.25?
Hi quantum', how ya been? Forget the karma man, you should login more often. I'd like to hear you rant more on "delusional Space Nuttery pipe dreams", but with your name attached. It's not like anyone is going to harm you for spouting a skeptical opinion about space.. it's something the community thrives on.
It's a shame everyone is still looking for the low hanging fruit rather than putting in the hard effort required to make those 3d point clouds into actual surfaces and producing something that doesn't look like a pile of crap.
Also, describing this as "google streetview like" is just stupid. It's a true 3d point cloud, not a bunch of panoramic images.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/09/3007320.htm
"The Police Commissioner would be able to ban violent criminals from possessing knives and other prohibited weapons under proposed laws to be introduced to Parliament next week.
The legislation would also ban the sale of knives to children under 16 and restrict possession of knives near schools."
Yeah.. it's hard for sensible people to imagine anyone actually saying that... or even thinking it.
The idea that someone might use a knife to, say, cut steak and so you really can't practically ban something like that - it's so obvious that you shouldn't ever have to say it. And so maybe you might be thinking that they're talking about some sort Croc Dundee sized knife problem.. but no. They really are talking about kitchen knives. Go check out the article.. see the picture?
Welcome to Australia.
any contraband should be thrown-out as illegally-obtained
If it is illegally obtained then it will be.
Your scenario: false arrest -> search -> find something for legitimate arrest.
This is a classic "fruit of the poison tree" and will be thrown out in any court.
The point is: if you're arrested for a crime and they find evidence of that crime on your person, should it be admissible? And the answer is an obvious, resounding, yes. It doesn't matter if that evidence is blood on your watch band or threatening text messages on your cellphone.
That billionaire playboy. He's too busy socializing at cocktail parties and managing the affairs of the Wayne foundation!
They didn't patent plants.
Fucking idiot.
Again, another ignorant moron who gets his information from the activists. Go read the court ruling.
Monsanto's patented gene
See? You're an idiot. It doesn't matter if you're using "their gene" or not. If you are using a genetically engineered crop tailored to a pesticide, you lose. That's how broad their patent is.
Maybe you think that patent should never have been issued. I don't exactly disagree with you, but it was issued.
Understand the law.
Note that Monsanto is in the habit of suing any farmer that has a crop that resists roundup at all, even if they do not use roundup.
Citation needed you fucking liar.
It also violates the principles that have served agriculture well for centuries. Carried to it's natural conclusion, it will eventually hand ownership of nature itself over to corporate interests (or at least so surround it in a thicket of patents that they might as well own it).
Bullshit. If you don't use their patented method of growing crops then you're not in violation of their patent. And in a couple of decades you can even do that.
Get a grip.
Unless your goal happens to be fixing overpopulation
Umm.. you know that is their goal right?
Thankfully they're trying to do it by raising the standard of living in developing countries rather than resorting to mass genocide.
But their ultimate goal is to stabilize the world population.. as quickly as possible.
oh God. Seriously, you believe that? You think the farmer did careful studies of all the available pesticides and Round Up just happened to be the one that worked on his "special" crops so he decided to go with it? Are you kidding?
The finding of the court was that anyone using Round Up on Round Up Ready crops is exercising the patent. It doesn't matter how they got the Round Up or the Round Up Ready crops. This is entirely consistent with the history of patent infringement. It doesn't matter if you independently discover the covered technique, you're still violating the patent if you exercise it.
Here's another thing that could possibly happen: someone could develop their own pesticide and then genetically engineer a crop which is resistant to it, completely independently from Monsanto's patent. Guess what? That too would be violating Monsanto's patent. That's how patents work.
Agreed. He was using Round Up on those crops.. a pesticide that kills unmodified crops, demonstrating that he knew what he was doing.
It is the use of Round Up on Round Up Ready crops which is what the patent describes and what the farmer was violating.
If he had been just growing Round Up Ready crops without the use of Round Up he wouldn't have been violating the patent. If he had been just using Round Up to kill weeds then he wouldn't have been violating the patent. It's really simple. The only reason I can understand why people have trouble understanding this is just self induced ignorance.
unfair? Sounds like a typical retail store to me. "our RRP is $19.95" "That's nice, we're gunna sell it for $21.99 for three weeks and then slash the price to $17.95 and you take back all the stock we don't sell, ok?" "uhhh.. ummm.. no.." "no sale, later rep."
ummm.. TabCandy? It's in the main tree now ya know.
Umm.. most every medical these days has a genetic test or ten.
Where have you been foul mouth coward?