(Rant: Got an ethical problem with that? Fine! Then why not just allow embryonic stem-cell research, which would allow you to grow the desired organ without having to deal with the human life support system surrounding it!)
Yeah, that's it. Let me ask you - what is worth more; money and wealth, or an interesting and traditional way of life?
We Organ leggers are real entrepeneurs; true adventurers, really independent of the authority and the system. It's a glamorous and rewarding life of furniture chewing villainy - how many of you can say you've ever been "Foiled!" in your line of work? Could you have gotten away with it, if not for those meddling kids?
I'm opposed to technology that "benefits" us by taking away the richness of our culture. Organ legging is an art form - however much we could extend our lifespans by making it obsolete, I don't think it's worth it.
Towards that end, stem cells researchers are generally in excellent health - they exercise, they stay fit, they don't get HIV. Therefore, to better the public interest, we're offering a discount on their organs.
If asked the question, "What is my life worth to you?", can you really respond to me with a dollar amount?
$6.25. Read on.
Recall that only Labor has real value; and the Labor it took to make you (nyuck) is commonly available, therefore of low value.
So, what's the value of your life + the labor of trained medical staff? Well, your organs are worth many, many mil. However, I'd probably only be able to extract a portion of them, even with a really good staff. So, depending on circumstances, I might be able to turn around and sell your life for US$ 1 mil plus, of which I'd have to spend half on labor, and a quarter on marginals (bribes, transportation, etc.)
However, YOU only control a natural resource - your life. The bottleneck isn't in people who have lives, but in people with the labor/expertise/contacts to take those lives and turn them into profit.
Leather furtniture is worth a lot of money. However, very little of that money (proportionally) goes to the owner of the Cow (leave alone the Cow itself.) Why? Because Cows are abundant, and leather curing facilities and leatherworkers are rare.
Likewise, I could nab any of those people passing by on the street, and harvest their organs. People = abundant, organ harvesters = rare. Therefore, human life = cheap, my time = dear. Capitalism at it's best.
We talked to two other retired members of MTV's production team, who insisted on anonymity.
Man #1: Yeah, it was great, they'd be all like [wren voice] "Space Madness," and then, all the chicks watching would go crazy and they'd flash their boobs. I'd totally score! Heh heh, heh heh. Man #2: Shut up, fart knocker, that's not what happened. [Smacks other interviewee in the back of the head.] Cause, like, it's on Kid's TV and kids don't have boobs. Heh heh, heh heh. Man #1: Oh yeah. [Joins in laughter.]
When you play Magic at your local card store, you're playing against people you know and respect.
I don't give a damn what Geordie Tait thinks about online magic, I want to know - Where does he go to play cards? Damn, his e-mail is Canadian.
Now, Shadowfist, there's a game. I want to see an online version of Shadowfist+Necromunda. Here's how it would work:
You have a squad, ala X-Com, that fights other people's squads. In addition, you have a virtual deck of Shadowfist cards. The deck of Shadowfist cards contains cards that are tied to the stats of the characters in your Squad; so if a character in your squad gains the Infiltrate skill, his corresponding card in your deck gains the Infiltrator ability from Shadowfist (attack backrow sites.)
Once we've handed over the reigns of root to them, you might claim that only the international community has the power to fire them. At the moment, however, the US government can scrap them and reabsorb their function into the commerce department at any time.
I'm not a Republican - when Sen. what's his name first proposed doing that I thought it was more americocentric bullshit. However, I've come 'round. ICANN is willfully disobeying it's mandate - it should be dissolved and the commerce department should create a new board that will actually carry out the democratic function.
Okay, if you have an interim government and say "Come up with acceptable terms for elections, run the elections and step down."
and they deliberate for a few years and say
"Nope, no elections, sorry. Impractical. Instead, we're going to have an enlightened dictatorship where those qualified to make decisions appoint your rulers. It's better. Democracy is a noble experiment, but doomed to fail."
what do you do?
You fire the interim government; you do so with dispatch! They've violated their charter - they've lost all legitimacy. End of story.
Personally, I'd just as soon keep the five elected members we have, since they have the legitimacy which the rest of the board lacks.
Nostalgia for old pentium jokes
on
Draw!
·
· Score: 5, Funny
It's a perfectly reasonable weight for a full sized fridge (25.5 cubic feet is standard for both GE and whirlpool - I just bought one); there are fridges which are lighter, and I think it's a bit odd that this fridge-computer wouldn't be top-of-the-line, as a fridge.
There's a real downside to this, follow my reasoning: 1) No one will buy these things. 2) Business will conclude that people don't want stuff with computers built into them. 3) The stuff that people would actually like to have a built in computer won't be brought to market because of lack of venture capital.
Sigh. Of all the ridiculous things to equip with a computer. A fridge/television makes sense as a space-savings device; if you have one of those open kitchens with table-space facing into the kitchen area, you can watch TV while eating. A fridge-computer? Please.
In the same sense that it'd be ALMOST good if the Ayatollah only issued fatwa-death sentences against Iranians? Please.
It'd be better if he'd issued the order against the Germans outside of his jurisdiction - because that would be a tacit acknowledgement that he can't do anything to stop the speech he's trying to censor; the dutch courts don't have freelance assassins to enforce their will. Instead, he's issued a boneheaded ruling that will have an actual, chilling effect on free speech. In what sense is that ALMOST good?
Basically, I've rewriten Bill's uninteresting personal life to be just like Larry Flynt's. Sorry, to be just like the personal life Larry was given in the movie. In Bill's case, we can gloss over the child pornography because it didn't happen.
If someone had asked you before The People vs. Larry Flynt "can Courtney Love act?" you would say "No," but she did. Therefore, Britney Spears will play Mrs. Gates. She will play a heroine addict - she will win an Oscar. If Britney Spears gets an Oscar, it must be God's will. He works in mysterious ways.
Bill Gates, who is every bit as ethical as Larry Flynt, is the hero of the picture. Only one man can make such a part work: Samuel L Jackson. Seth Green ("Scott Evil") spins well among teens - he'll cameo as Ashcroft. We've seen recently that only one man has the radiant malifluousness to play Judge Thomas Penfied Jackson: Christopher Lee. He'll really bring home the senseless brutality of the breakup order. Kevin Costner will produce and direct - he'll also play a fictionalised Gestalt of all of Bill's lawyers. Kevin is the only one who can make this star-bloated, ishtaresque monster expensive enough to actually sink a studio. Running Time: 4 hrs, 11 min.
At the end of the picture, we roll Bill on in a wheelchair and he dedicates the picture to that mousy wife of his. Oh, yeah, she needs to die.
The only question is - how can we convince Bill Gates to go before the court of appeals wearing a diaper?
Thank you for pointing that out. I'll change it back to mousetraps next time around; actually, if you could suggest an accurate, but still slashdot-esque, comparison I'd appreciate it.
I hope you enjoy the latest version of my long running tirade.
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that a method of extracting or purifying a gene consists of an invention, worthy of patent, in and of itself. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal it accomplishes, 2. the unique advances made to achieve that goal. Keep this in mind as I raise the next point.
Now, let us consider two microprocessor designs, each of which is patented seperately; an Intel 8286 and a Motorola 68020, say. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal each of these devices accomplishes (which are, I will assume from here on out, the same,) and 2. the unique advances each devices incorporates in an effort to achieve that goal.
So, Intel has patented an arrangement of transistors and other components intended to do digital computations; it generates less heat per fetch-execute cycle than its predecessor the 8186(I don't actually know that - I'm just assuming). Motorola then comes along and patents another microprocessor design which is totally different, but it, too, generates less heat per cycle than it's predecessor (the 68010, if I remember correctly). Has Motorola violated Intel's patent on processors that generate less heat? Has AMD violated Intel's patent on processors that are fast? Cheap to manufacture? No; in order to violate Intel's patent you need to replicate (at the very least) some identifiable element of their unique design.
Back to genes. Amgen has patented a means of achieving a desired end - the purification of some protein. If I come along and achieve the same end, by some other technique, I'm violating their patent. EVEN IF, and this is important, I use none of their actual inventions at all! I am violating their patent because I am seeking the same end.
This article highlights a practical fallacy in gene patenting (as opposed to an intellectual one). Genes, which are not the only important kind of DNA, are impotant only because they make proteins. Therefore, in order to make gene-patenting worthwhile, you have to control the protein product. In the case of a gene that makes something found in normal healthy people this is an absurd notion - not that this will stop Amgen from trying.
Patenting genes that cause diseases is a seperate intellectual fallacy that deserved coverage in it's own right.
This is like patenting the act of killing germs. If a disease is caused by an abnormal (mutant) protein, than the only true cure is to fix that protein - replace it with functional protein, or remove those cells generating the harmful protein, according to the particular condition. The same argument applies to gene-products (proteins) that cause elevated risk for cancer, heart disease and the like. A patent on the gene is basically a patent on all possible cures for that condition/predilection. A gene that causes a predilection for breast cancer should be viewed as a condition in and of itself (which needs to be at least treated,) and not as some part of a particular treatment for breast cancer.
Finally, I should say our genomes, not just collectively, but individually, are the property of the human race. In a biological sense, they ARE the human race.
Bees are generally black and yellow, and have poisonous stingers. Individual bees, however black or yellow they may be, and poisonous their stingers may be, are all 100% bees - they all possess an equal allotment of beeness. Likewise, the quality of humanity is 100% endowed to each of us.
However, it does not arise from any of us individually. We are all human only because the entire human species exists. The genome of any individual person is NOT sufficient to specify the human race; the genetic diversity of your fellow human beings is part and parcel of YOUR fundamental human identity.
The same is true, in fact, of the genetic diveristy of all known living things, who are our cousins.
Many people have a viceral objection to the idea of a gene being owned. Certain of my colleagues are fond of implying that this arises from some degree of scientific ignorance on their part, or a lack of appreciation for the effort that goes into doing molecular biology. I am a molecular biologist myself, fully cognicant of the hard work that is done. I understand all of that quite well, but I come to the same viceral conclusion: you cannot that which makes us human.
In general, biotechnology companies are flush with cash. So, you come to them and ask "can we license your patent for a gene?"
Well, they have no friggin' idea what that license is worth. If they need money, they say "yes." If they're flush with venture capital, and even in this downturn, they are, they just say "no." If you come back with a ridiculous offer, they'd take it anyway, but they just won't deal for a reasonable price because, to them, it's a poor gamble. They've no reason to sell these things, and they know they've got value - because you want 'em. Alternatively, they may be using that gene patent to maintain a monopoly on some drug or treatment. No way they're going to license it to you (for a reasonable amount, once again) so that you can compete with them.
There was a plan by a colleague over at Cornell to do something pro-social with genetic engineering - I think it involved genetically engineering some tropical fruit (Mangos?) to retard spoilage. Whatever it was, it solved an economic problem for poor farmers on Pacific islands. Anyway, they had a way to do it but it involved a bunch of patented genes and processes. Funny thing was, these patents were sitting idle, unused by their owners. However, the owners of these patents wouldn't sell licenses because they had no idea of the value of what they were giving out. So, when in doubt, they refused.
A lot of these gene patenting outfits are (largely failed, because they've patented genes no one really wants) extortion rings. They're actually easier to deal with, since their gene patents are often legally weak, and they don't want to price themselves out of the market.
Discussing this technology itself - this isn't new. We new about zinc finger proteins when I took freshman biology, that would have been seven years ago.
Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, Calif., has made about a fourth of them to bypass patent restrictions by using its "zinc finger protein" transcription factors, proteins that turn genes on and off.
The implication of this sentence is that zinc finger proteins are an innovation developed or discovered by Sangamo. This is not the case.
Athersys didn't develop their technique, either (not implied by the article,) although I've only heard of it used in the past to turn random genes OFF.
That will make me unique, and help to distinguish me from the other slashdotters in attendence.
Also, I'll be sure to pepper my conversation with quotes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Hopefully, someone else will be named Brian - hillarity will surely ensue!
When viewing stereo images in the lab (3D displays of biological molecule structures) we wear special goggles. They work fine; none of that red and blue crap. If you're trying to find early adopters for a new tech, I'd think that 3D goggles plus software to display these movies on a computer would net you much more market penetrance than $25,000 dual-display televisions (or other expensive hardware gimmickry) which are only going to become cheaper if people start buying them, which they'll only do if content is available for them, which will open happen if there's some cheaper way to view the things. One of them vicious things, only good.
Of course, they're using MPEG format. That may mean nothing, or it may mean that they're tied to the MPAA somehow, so encouraging people to watch movies on their computers may not be their business plan. I'm just spouting, I know nothing about "DDD".
In fact, since it looks like HDTV is not going to be a vehicle for DRM, the movie/TV industry could try to develop and deploy some 3D display standard that shut out computers (using patents on the underlying technology), and move all new content into it. Frightening possibility.
Quoth the article: Low-frequency versions of terahertz waves are known as millimeter waves, and they behave much like radio waves, Star Tiger engineers say. At higher frequencies, the terahertz waves straddle the border between radio and optical emissions.
Visible light has wavelengths up to around 750 Nanometers. Infrared has wavelengths extending (depending on who you ask) from there up to some number of micrometers.
At a frequency of 1 terrahertz, light has a wavelength of the speed of light (per second) / 1 trillion.
I don't know why they've decided to start calling them "T-Waves." I'd geuss that they're gearing up to put them into airports, and that somebody decided that they don't want to call them "microwave cameras" so that people aren't afraid of being cooked somehow.
Incidentally, Microwave detection is not a new development; the Military has been using Microwave transmitters since the 70s. What is new about these newer cameras is their sensitivity/accuracy; previous generations of microwave cameras were not sensitive enough to image much of anything.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone in being chilled by that.
The journalist makes another presumptuous statement that bears considering in more detail:
Sales have been hurt largely by a surge in piracy which the National Federation of the Phonographic Industry estimates has cost the music business $4.2 billion in lost revenue last year.
Okay, the second half of the sentence is fine (it's bullshit, but it's really their estimate.) Now, the first half of the sentence, which I've emboldened, clearly takes it as a given that piracy is the primary cause for the meager 11 billion sales figure. That's lousy journalism - printing something as fact which, frankly, most respected members of the relevant profession (economics, not music promotion) don't agree with is shoddy. In this case, he's also being a tool for the Man.
One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums.
Interesting choice of phrasing. The executives aren't debating whether or not they should lobby for the legislation, or support the legislation - they're debating the legislation itself. No criticism of Frank Green (author of Union-Tribune piece) is intended; unfortunately, I think he is being totally accurate.
My opinions are becoming more and more important to all of you. Unlike other people, there's no excuse for not listening to me. To foster broader and more informed public discourse on my opinions, I've been posting comments to slashdot with fair regularity. I hope that everyone in the slashdot community will take the time to become informed on the vital question of what I think.
One piece of advice for Doug - split this into three papers. No one wants to read "what Doug thinks - a comprehensive guide." Okay, I just read it, so not nobody, but not people in general.
I happen to think your ideas in Section IV of the paper are thought provoking (more substantial comment maybe later,) but my friends in the free radio community aren't going to read this paper unless it's about "Personal Freedom and Licensing in Radio." I know you must think that your ideas have some common element or underlying relationship that justifies lumping them together into one paper, but they look pretty disparate to me.
If you can give the girl(s) instructions, it's live. In a booth, over the internet, it doesn't matter.
All this culture crap might as well be a DivX.
Seriously - a true virtuoso, a real master, adjusts the sounds she makes (okay, one more joke) to take into account the accoustics of the room and the particular accoustics of the individual piano she's playing. If the Piano is in Japan and she can't hear it, and can't hear the room it's in, I think that would subtract something from the performance of someone who plays at this level.
This is a serious challenge, folks. We need a new strategy.
At first, it seemed that filesharing really would destroy the RIAA. Then, just as it became clear that this was never going to happen, they started throwing fits sufficient to make me think it didn't need to - they were going to destroy themselves. Now, it looks like they may wise up.
So, we have to ask ourselves - since the RIAA has developed some means of distinguishing it's collective ass from the hole they've dug themselves into, what can we do to ensure their destruction? I think filesharing can still be an important part of that plan, but really, we need to look into alternative methods of eroding their strangehold on popular music discourse and promotion. Even if CD sales stay up, if we can really bring people into a genuinely alternative culture of music - free from the RIAA - that can accomplish the same goals. While we're at it, if we can continue to fool the major labels into thinking that Kazaa will somehow eradicate them from the face of the earth, that would be wonderful.
I think we need to start a letter writing campaign! Everyone, assume some l33t speak teenage hacker monicker, and inundate random e-mail addresses at the RIAA/major lables with threatening e-mails about how you've developed a new file sharing app that will somehow cause people to pirate more music. Sensical explanations are not required, or even desirable, but we need a lot of DIVERSITY in the messages so that the RIAA becomes convinved that there's a huge conspiracy out to get them. Brag about the number of your friends that you've convinced never to buy another CD.
If we work together, we can keep them frothing at the mouth until they've lost what little remains of their credibility, and deflect their attention from genuine threats to their hegemony.
Actually, this isn't just a standard for wireless phones - at least, that isn't my reading of the wireless aliance's mission statement, which isn't terribly substance heavy.
My reading is that this is a standards-development-drive for wireless devices in general. The CNN article acts like this would only impact "web enabled" cell phones; but I don't see why that would be. Considering that Walt Disney is involved in the group - a mysterious choice since Walt Disney is not, according to my recollection or the simple research I just did, involved in the cell phone industry in even the most peripheral way - I strongly suspect that the group is going to develop standards related to one of the areas in which Disney does business.
This might be TV or Radio - ABC owns 10 and 55 stations, respectively. Something about spectrum? More likely, Disney is involved because of some percieved impact on wireless "content distribution," and this alliance may very well come up with some standard for DRM they want all portable IP-employing devices to adhere to.
Gaming can take over your life, or it can be an enriching escape from worthwhile, but stressful activities. My Summer is gonna be extra stressful:
10 hrs/day Work (I'm a researcher / grad student)
ouch! Once I've prioritized that, I can use my time management skills to arrange it so that playing this Summer's hot new games doesn't become a substitute for crack.
4 hrs/day Heroes IV: Tournament of Honor 4 hrs/day Neverwinter Nights 4 hrs/day Master of Orion III 2 hrs/day Smoking Crack
all 24 hours a day are filled with stimulating activities, without displacing my drug habit. Also, by deleting wasteful food from my schedule, I'll be able to lose that weight without becoming physically active.
Slashdot Mirror
(Rant: Got an ethical problem with that? Fine! Then why not just allow embryonic stem-cell research, which would allow you to grow the desired organ without having to deal with the human life support system surrounding it!)
Yeah, that's it. Let me ask you - what is worth more; money and wealth, or an interesting and traditional way of life?
We Organ leggers are real entrepeneurs; true adventurers, really independent of the authority and the system. It's a glamorous and rewarding life of furniture chewing villainy - how many of you can say you've ever been "Foiled!" in your line of work? Could you have gotten away with it, if not for those meddling kids?
I'm opposed to technology that "benefits" us by taking away the richness of our culture. Organ legging is an art form - however much we could extend our lifespans by making it obsolete, I don't think it's worth it.
Towards that end, stem cells researchers are generally in excellent health - they exercise, they stay fit, they don't get HIV. Therefore, to better the public interest, we're offering a discount on their organs.
If asked the question, "What is my life worth to you?", can you really respond to me with a dollar amount?
$6.25. Read on.
Recall that only Labor has real value; and the Labor it took to make you (nyuck) is commonly available, therefore of low value.
So, what's the value of your life + the labor of trained medical staff? Well, your organs are worth many, many mil. However, I'd probably only be able to extract a portion of them, even with a really good staff. So, depending on circumstances, I might be able to turn around and sell your life for US$ 1 mil plus, of which I'd have to spend half on labor, and a quarter on marginals (bribes, transportation, etc.)
However, YOU only control a natural resource - your life. The bottleneck isn't in people who have lives, but in people with the labor/expertise/contacts to take those lives and turn them into profit.
Leather furtniture is worth a lot of money. However, very little of that money (proportionally) goes to the owner of the Cow (leave alone the Cow itself.) Why? Because Cows are abundant, and leather curing facilities and leatherworkers are rare.
Likewise, I could nab any of those people passing by on the street, and harvest their organs. People = abundant, organ harvesters = rare. Therefore, human life = cheap, my time = dear. Capitalism at it's best.
We talked to two other retired members of MTV's production team, who insisted on anonymity.
Man #1: Yeah, it was great, they'd be all like [wren voice] "Space Madness," and then, all the chicks watching would go crazy and they'd flash their boobs. I'd totally score! Heh heh, heh heh.
Man #2: Shut up, fart knocker, that's not what happened. [Smacks other interviewee in the back of the head.] Cause, like, it's on Kid's TV and kids don't have boobs. Heh heh, heh heh.
Man #1: Oh yeah. [Joins in laughter.]
When you play Magic at your local card store, you're playing against people you know and respect.
I don't give a damn what Geordie Tait thinks about online magic, I want to know - Where does he go to play cards? Damn, his e-mail is Canadian.
Now, Shadowfist, there's a game. I want to see an online version of Shadowfist+Necromunda. Here's how it would work:
You have a squad, ala X-Com, that fights other people's squads. In addition, you have a virtual deck of Shadowfist cards. The deck of Shadowfist cards contains cards that are tied to the stats of the characters in your Squad; so if a character in your squad gains the Infiltrate skill, his corresponding card in your deck gains the Infiltrator ability from Shadowfist (attack backrow sites.)
That game would rock.
ICANN is appointed by the government (ours.)
They serve at our sufference.
Once we've handed over the reigns of root to them, you might claim that only the international community has the power to fire them. At the moment, however, the US government can scrap them and reabsorb their function into the commerce department at any time.
I'm not a Republican - when Sen. what's his name first proposed doing that I thought it was more americocentric bullshit. However, I've come 'round. ICANN is willfully disobeying it's mandate - it should be dissolved and the commerce department should create a new board that will actually carry out the democratic function.
Okay, if you have an interim government and say
"Come up with acceptable terms for elections, run the elections and step down."
and they deliberate for a few years and say
"Nope, no elections, sorry. Impractical. Instead, we're going to have an enlightened dictatorship where those qualified to make decisions appoint your rulers. It's better. Democracy is a noble experiment, but doomed to fail."
what do you do?
You fire the interim government; you do so with dispatch! They've violated their charter - they've lost all legitimacy. End of story.
Personally, I'd just as soon keep the five elected members we have, since they have the legitimacy which the rest of the board lacks.
Queen's Rook to Queen's Rook 3.999998456
It's about 390 pounds, weight of two people.
It's a perfectly reasonable weight for a full sized fridge (25.5 cubic feet is standard for both GE and whirlpool - I just bought one); there are fridges which are lighter, and I think it's a bit odd that this fridge-computer wouldn't be top-of-the-line, as a fridge.
There's a real downside to this, follow my reasoning:
1) No one will buy these things.
2) Business will conclude that people don't want stuff with computers built into them.
3) The stuff that people would actually like to have a built in computer won't be brought to market because of lack of venture capital.
Sigh. Of all the ridiculous things to equip with a computer. A fridge/television makes sense as a space-savings device; if you have one of those open kitchens with table-space facing into the kitchen area, you can watch TV while eating. A fridge-computer? Please.
In the same sense that it'd be ALMOST good if the Ayatollah only issued fatwa-death sentences against Iranians? Please.
It'd be better if he'd issued the order against the Germans outside of his jurisdiction - because that would be a tacit acknowledgement that he can't do anything to stop the speech he's trying to censor; the dutch courts don't have freelance assassins to enforce their will. Instead, he's issued a boneheaded ruling that will have an actual, chilling effect on free speech. In what sense is that ALMOST good?
Okay, I've got the script.
Basically, I've rewriten Bill's uninteresting personal life to be just like Larry Flynt's. Sorry, to be just like the personal life Larry was given in the movie. In Bill's case, we can gloss over the child pornography because it didn't happen.
If someone had asked you before The People vs. Larry Flynt "can Courtney Love act?" you would say "No," but she did. Therefore, Britney Spears will play Mrs. Gates. She will play a heroine addict - she will win an Oscar. If Britney Spears gets an Oscar, it must be God's will. He works in mysterious ways.
Bill Gates, who is every bit as ethical as Larry Flynt, is the hero of the picture. Only one man can make such a part work: Samuel L Jackson. Seth Green ("Scott Evil") spins well among teens - he'll cameo as Ashcroft. We've seen recently that only one man has the radiant malifluousness to play Judge Thomas Penfied Jackson: Christopher Lee. He'll really bring home the senseless brutality of the breakup order. Kevin Costner will produce and direct - he'll also play a fictionalised Gestalt of all of Bill's lawyers. Kevin is the only one who can make this star-bloated, ishtaresque monster expensive enough to actually sink a studio. Running Time: 4 hrs, 11 min.
At the end of the picture, we roll Bill on in a wheelchair and he dedicates the picture to that mousy wife of his. Oh, yeah, she needs to die.
The only question is - how can we convince Bill Gates to go before the court of appeals wearing a diaper?
Thank you for pointing that out. I'll change it back to mousetraps next time around; actually, if you could suggest an accurate, but still slashdot-esque, comparison I'd appreciate it.
This is called product patent and applies to all drugs. i.e once some company patents molecule M any other company is forbidden to do it.
This is true, and justified in the case of truly synthetic molecules, which are invented, after all. HOWEVER, genes are NOT invented.
you cannot own that which made me screw up.
Happy?
I hope you enjoy the latest version of my long running tirade.
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that a method of extracting or purifying a gene consists of an invention, worthy of patent, in and of itself. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal it accomplishes, 2. the unique advances made to achieve that goal. Keep this in mind as I raise the next point.
Now, let us consider two microprocessor designs, each of which is patented seperately; an Intel 8286 and a Motorola 68020, say. Let us identify two things: 1. The goal each of these devices accomplishes (which are, I will assume from here on out, the same,) and 2. the unique advances each devices incorporates in an effort to achieve that goal.
So, Intel has patented an arrangement of transistors and other components intended to do digital computations; it generates less heat per fetch-execute cycle than its predecessor the 8186(I don't actually know that - I'm just assuming). Motorola then comes along and patents another microprocessor design which is totally different, but it, too, generates less heat per cycle than it's predecessor (the 68010, if I remember correctly). Has Motorola violated Intel's patent on processors that generate less heat? Has AMD violated Intel's patent on processors that are fast? Cheap to manufacture? No; in order to violate Intel's patent you need to replicate (at the very least) some identifiable element of their unique design.
Back to genes. Amgen has patented a means of achieving a desired end - the purification of some protein. If I come along and achieve the same end, by some other technique, I'm violating their patent. EVEN IF, and this is important, I use none of their actual inventions at all! I am violating their patent because I am seeking the same end.
This article highlights a practical fallacy in gene patenting (as opposed to an intellectual one). Genes, which are not the only important kind of DNA, are impotant only because they make proteins. Therefore, in order to make gene-patenting worthwhile, you have to control the protein product. In the case of a gene that makes something found in normal healthy people this is an absurd notion - not that this will stop Amgen from trying.
Patenting genes that cause diseases is a seperate intellectual fallacy that deserved coverage in it's own right.
This is like patenting the act of killing germs. If a disease is caused by an abnormal (mutant) protein, than the only true cure is to fix that protein - replace it with functional protein, or remove those cells generating the harmful protein, according to the particular condition. The same argument applies to gene-products (proteins) that cause elevated risk for cancer, heart disease and the like. A patent on the gene is basically a patent on all possible cures for that condition/predilection. A gene that causes a predilection for breast cancer should be viewed as a condition in and of itself (which needs to be at least treated,) and not as some part of a particular treatment for breast cancer.
Finally, I should say our genomes, not just collectively, but individually, are the property of the human race. In a biological sense, they ARE the human race.
Bees are generally black and yellow, and have poisonous stingers. Individual bees, however black or yellow they may be, and poisonous their stingers may be, are all 100% bees - they all possess an equal allotment of beeness. Likewise, the quality of humanity is 100% endowed to each of us.
However, it does not arise from any of us individually. We are all human only because the entire human species exists. The genome of any individual person is NOT sufficient to specify the human race; the genetic diversity of your fellow human beings is part and parcel of YOUR fundamental human identity.
The same is true, in fact, of the genetic diveristy of all known living things, who are our cousins.
Many people have a viceral objection to the idea of a gene being owned. Certain of my colleagues are fond of implying that this arises from some degree of scientific ignorance on their part, or a lack of appreciation for the effort that goes into doing molecular biology. I am a molecular biologist myself, fully cognicant of the hard work that is done. I understand all of that quite well, but I come to the same viceral conclusion: you cannot that which makes us human.
Also, the parent is really funny. Mod it up.
In general, biotechnology companies are flush with cash. So, you come to them and ask "can we license your patent for a gene?"
Well, they have no friggin' idea what that license is worth. If they need money, they say "yes." If they're flush with venture capital, and even in this downturn, they are, they just say "no." If you come back with a ridiculous offer, they'd take it anyway, but they just won't deal for a reasonable price because, to them, it's a poor gamble. They've no reason to sell these things, and they know they've got value - because you want 'em. Alternatively, they may be using that gene patent to maintain a monopoly on some drug or treatment. No way they're going to license it to you (for a reasonable amount, once again) so that you can compete with them.
There was a plan by a colleague over at Cornell to do something pro-social with genetic engineering - I think it involved genetically engineering some tropical fruit (Mangos?) to retard spoilage. Whatever it was, it solved an economic problem for poor farmers on Pacific islands. Anyway, they had a way to do it but it involved a bunch of patented genes and processes. Funny thing was, these patents were sitting idle, unused by their owners. However, the owners of these patents wouldn't sell licenses because they had no idea of the value of what they were giving out. So, when in doubt, they refused.
A lot of these gene patenting outfits are (largely failed, because they've patented genes no one really wants) extortion rings. They're actually easier to deal with, since their gene patents are often legally weak, and they don't want to price themselves out of the market.
Discussing this technology itself - this isn't new. We new about zinc finger proteins when I took freshman biology, that would have been seven years ago.
Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, Calif., has made about a fourth of them to bypass patent restrictions by using its "zinc finger protein" transcription factors, proteins that turn genes on and off.
The implication of this sentence is that zinc finger proteins are an innovation developed or discovered by Sangamo. This is not the case.
Athersys didn't develop their technique, either (not implied by the article,) although I've only heard of it used in the past to turn random genes OFF.
That will make me unique, and help to distinguish me from the other slashdotters in attendence.
Also, I'll be sure to pepper my conversation with quotes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Hopefully, someone else will be named Brian - hillarity will surely ensue!
When viewing stereo images in the lab (3D displays of biological molecule structures) we wear special goggles. They work fine; none of that red and blue crap. If you're trying to find early adopters for a new tech, I'd think that 3D goggles plus software to display these movies on a computer would net you much more market penetrance than $25,000 dual-display televisions (or other expensive hardware gimmickry) which are only going to become cheaper if people start buying them, which they'll only do if content is available for them, which will open happen if there's some cheaper way to view the things. One of them vicious things, only good.
Of course, they're using MPEG format. That may mean nothing, or it may mean that they're tied to the MPAA somehow, so encouraging people to watch movies on their computers may not be their business plan. I'm just spouting, I know nothing about "DDD".
In fact, since it looks like HDTV is not going to be a vehicle for DRM, the movie/TV industry could try to develop and deploy some 3D display standard that shut out computers (using patents on the underlying technology), and move all new content into it. Frightening possibility.
Quoth the article:
Low-frequency versions of terahertz waves are known as millimeter waves, and they behave much like radio waves, Star Tiger engineers say. At higher frequencies, the terahertz waves straddle the border between radio and optical emissions.
Visible light has wavelengths up to around 750 Nanometers. Infrared has wavelengths extending (depending on who you ask) from there up to some number of micrometers.
At a frequency of 1 terrahertz, light has a wavelength of the speed of light (per second) / 1 trillion.
c per second is about 300 million meters.
300 million meters divided by 1 trillion is about 300 micrometers. A typical microwave oven uses a wavelength of about 100 micrometers. (The link has some other helpful info about spectrum, but also some typos.)
This IS microwave radiation.
I don't know why they've decided to start calling them "T-Waves." I'd geuss that they're gearing up to put them into airports, and that somebody decided that they don't want to call them "microwave cameras" so that people aren't afraid of being cooked somehow.
Incidentally, Microwave detection is not a new development; the Military has been using Microwave transmitters since the 70s. What is new about these newer cameras is their sensitivity/accuracy; previous generations of microwave cameras were not sensitive enough to image much of anything.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone in being chilled by that.
The journalist makes another presumptuous statement that bears considering in more detail:
Sales have been hurt largely by a surge in piracy which the National Federation of the Phonographic Industry estimates has cost the music business $4.2 billion in lost revenue last year.
Okay, the second half of the sentence is fine (it's bullshit, but it's really their estimate.) Now, the first half of the sentence, which I've emboldened, clearly takes it as a given that piracy is the primary cause for the meager 11 billion sales figure. That's lousy journalism - printing something as fact which, frankly, most respected members of the relevant profession (economics, not music promotion) don't agree with is shoddy. In this case, he's also being a tool for the Man.
One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums.
Interesting choice of phrasing. The executives aren't debating whether or not they should lobby for the legislation, or support the legislation - they're debating the legislation itself. No criticism of Frank Green (author of Union-Tribune piece) is intended; unfortunately, I think he is being totally accurate.
My opinions are becoming more and more important to all of you. Unlike other people, there's no excuse for not listening to me. To foster broader and more informed public discourse on my opinions, I've been posting comments to slashdot with fair regularity. I hope that everyone in the slashdot community will take the time to become informed on the vital question of what I think.
One piece of advice for Doug - split this into three papers. No one wants to read "what Doug thinks - a comprehensive guide." Okay, I just read it, so not nobody, but not people in general.
I happen to think your ideas in Section IV of the paper are thought provoking (more substantial comment maybe later,) but my friends in the free radio community aren't going to read this paper unless it's about "Personal Freedom and Licensing in Radio." I know you must think that your ideas have some common element or underlying relationship that justifies lumping them together into one paper, but they look pretty disparate to me.
If you can give the girl(s) instructions, it's live. In a booth, over the internet, it doesn't matter.
All this culture crap might as well be a DivX.
Seriously - a true virtuoso, a real master, adjusts the sounds she makes (okay, one more joke) to take into account the accoustics of the room and the particular accoustics of the individual piano she's playing. If the Piano is in Japan and she can't hear it, and can't hear the room it's in, I think that would subtract something from the performance of someone who plays at this level.
This is a serious challenge, folks. We need a new strategy.
At first, it seemed that filesharing really would destroy the RIAA. Then, just as it became clear that this was never going to happen, they started throwing fits sufficient to make me think it didn't need to - they were going to destroy themselves. Now, it looks like they may wise up.
So, we have to ask ourselves - since the RIAA has developed some means of distinguishing it's collective ass from the hole they've dug themselves into, what can we do to ensure their destruction? I think filesharing can still be an important part of that plan, but really, we need to look into alternative methods of eroding their strangehold on popular music discourse and promotion. Even if CD sales stay up, if we can really bring people into a genuinely alternative culture of music - free from the RIAA - that can accomplish the same goals. While we're at it, if we can continue to fool the major labels into thinking that Kazaa will somehow eradicate them from the face of the earth, that would be wonderful.
I think we need to start a letter writing campaign! Everyone, assume some l33t speak teenage hacker monicker, and inundate random e-mail addresses at the RIAA/major lables with threatening e-mails about how you've developed a new file sharing app that will somehow cause people to pirate more music. Sensical explanations are not required, or even desirable, but we need a lot of DIVERSITY in the messages so that the RIAA becomes convinved that there's a huge conspiracy out to get them. Brag about the number of your friends that you've convinced never to buy another CD.
If we work together, we can keep them frothing at the mouth until they've lost what little remains of their credibility, and deflect their attention from genuine threats to their hegemony.
A certain element of humor was intentional.
Actually, this isn't just a standard for wireless phones - at least, that isn't my reading of the wireless aliance's mission statement, which isn't terribly substance heavy.
My reading is that this is a standards-development-drive for wireless devices in general. The CNN article acts like this would only impact "web enabled" cell phones; but I don't see why that would be. Considering that Walt Disney is involved in the group - a mysterious choice since Walt Disney is not, according to my recollection or the simple research I just did, involved in the cell phone industry in even the most peripheral way - I strongly suspect that the group is going to develop standards related to one of the areas in which Disney does business.
This might be TV or Radio - ABC owns 10 and 55 stations, respectively. Something about spectrum? More likely, Disney is involved because of some percieved impact on wireless "content distribution," and this alliance may very well come up with some standard for DRM they want all portable IP-employing devices to adhere to.
Gaming can take over your life, or it can be an enriching escape from worthwhile, but stressful activities. My Summer is gonna be extra stressful:
10 hrs/day Work (I'm a researcher / grad student)
ouch! Once I've prioritized that, I can use my time management skills to arrange it so that playing this Summer's hot new games doesn't become a substitute for crack.
4 hrs/day Heroes IV: Tournament of Honor
4 hrs/day Neverwinter Nights
4 hrs/day Master of Orion III
2 hrs/day Smoking Crack
all 24 hours a day are filled with stimulating activities, without displacing my drug habit. Also, by deleting wasteful food from my schedule, I'll be able to lose that weight without becoming physically active.