He didn't lose the case due to cross pollination. He lost the case because he specifically sought out the plants that had been cross pollinated, and used Roundup overdoses to kill any that *hadn't* been cross pollinated.
No one has been successfully sued due to natural cross pollination.
He did use Roundup, and his plants weren't just accidentally cross pollinated. He killed everything in his field but the cross pollinated plants with an overdose of Roundup, and gathered seed from the plants that survived.
And yes, linking to hulu is a dick move. If you can't find an alternate source, don't link it at all.
You might have a point if he hadn't known his neighbours were using GM rapeseed, or if he didn't know what it did.
He lost the case because he knowingly derived the GM trait from plants he knew had it. The court found that this was no different from seed saving.
Now, you could argue that we shouldn't allow Monsanto to charge an ongoing license, or that they shouldn't be able to prevent what the farmer did and I'd agree with you, but that has nothing to do with GM crops. You can get a patent on a plant strain developed the slow way, too.
The farmer that was sued lost the case because he isolated the plants that were pollinated by his neighbours crop, and specifically selected for the GM trait.
The case you're thinking of involved a farmer who specifically gathered cross pollinated rapeseed and selectively bred them for the Monsanto gene. He wasn't sued for genetic drift.
Oh, and linking to hulu is a real jerk move. They block non-Americans.
If you're really afraid of GM crops stealing your soul, you can grow them in sealed hydroponic gardens.
The Monsanto suit involved a farmer who specifically cultivated Roundup-resistant rapeseed from a cross pollinated field. It wasn't just natural genetic drift.
Lets be honest here. The kill switch isn't to remotely disable malware, it's to remotely disable useful software that threatens some entrenched interest's business model.
Regardless, it will take years to get any sort of power plant operational. People in coal country should be taxed to force them to make such sacrifices, until an alternate is brought online. Asking nicely won't get you anywhere.
We have to reduce C02 emissions. We have to reduce them right fucking now. Solar panels, windmills, or unicorn farts may one day be viable energy sources, but nuclear power is ready now.
You're running MS servers and Unix desktops. Amusing. Not that I wouldn't jump at the chance to use OS X rather than Windows on the desktop in your place.
You have to admit you're a bit of a special case, though. It sounds like you have a very healthy budget. A $700 laptop is perfectly functional for most business cases and so spending more is gravy. Apple doesn't have anything in that segment, which makes them a write off for many.
Slashdot Mirror
People want to pirate. Get over it. It's not going to stop.
If you're a dick about it, you might convince people who would otherwise pay you some of the time to pay you none of the time. That's it.
I'm just not frothing at the mouth over them.
He didn't lose the case due to cross pollination. He lost the case because he specifically sought out the plants that had been cross pollinated, and used Roundup overdoses to kill any that *hadn't* been cross pollinated.
No one has been successfully sued due to natural cross pollination.
He did use Roundup, and his plants weren't just accidentally cross pollinated. He killed everything in his field but the cross pollinated plants with an overdose of Roundup, and gathered seed from the plants that survived.
And yes, linking to hulu is a dick move. If you can't find an alternate source, don't link it at all.
You might have a point if he hadn't known his neighbours were using GM rapeseed, or if he didn't know what it did.
He lost the case because he knowingly derived the GM trait from plants he knew had it. The court found that this was no different from seed saving.
Now, you could argue that we shouldn't allow Monsanto to charge an ongoing license, or that they shouldn't be able to prevent what the farmer did and I'd agree with you, but that has nothing to do with GM crops. You can get a patent on a plant strain developed the slow way, too.
No one has been sued for genetic drift.
The farmer that was sued lost the case because he isolated the plants that were pollinated by his neighbours crop, and specifically selected for the GM trait.
*All* crops cross pollinate. Why should GM growers be held to a higher standard? They're just as "contaminated" by the other farms.
If you really want crops without any cross contamination, you can grow them in a sealed hydroponic facility.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from paying for meat certified not to be from modified stock.
Would you argue that non-Kosher food should have to be labelled as such? If not, why should I have to pay to accommodate your superstitions?
The case you're thinking of involved a farmer who specifically gathered cross pollinated rapeseed and selectively bred them for the Monsanto gene. He wasn't sued for genetic drift.
Oh, and linking to hulu is a real jerk move. They block non-Americans.
If you're really afraid of GM crops stealing your soul, you can grow them in sealed hydroponic gardens.
The Monsanto suit involved a farmer who specifically cultivated Roundup-resistant rapeseed from a cross pollinated field. It wasn't just natural genetic drift.
There are lots of organizations that will cater to your backward luddism and sell you food full of warts and disease, as nature intended.
You just have to pay for it, you cheap asshole.
People who loudly insist that they're "hyper-straight" are usually anything but.
Wow.
But if I want salmon or crab, that's not what I mean.
Being in the Atlantic, after all.
Nonetheless, when selling salmon one downplays origin if Atlantic and advertises it if Pacific. Atlantic is a cheap substitute, like imitation crab.
Atlantic "salmon" isn't really salmon, it's more of a salt water trout.
Lets be honest here. The kill switch isn't to remotely disable malware, it's to remotely disable useful software that threatens some entrenched interest's business model.
Copyright didn't really come into play.
And your chocolate ration has been raised from 50 grams to 20 grams.
So I don't need to make ascetic sacrifices.
Regardless, it will take years to get any sort of power plant operational. People in coal country should be taxed to force them to make such sacrifices, until an alternate is brought online. Asking nicely won't get you anywhere.
We have to reduce C02 emissions. We have to reduce them right fucking now. Solar panels, windmills, or unicorn farts may one day be viable energy sources, but nuclear power is ready now.
So if my accountant holds up a liquor store, can I keep him out of jail because I can't do my taxes without him?
If Microsoft is too big to fail, the answer is to cut it up until the pieces are small enough.
Mac users couldn't read docx files in the latest Office throughout 2007, could they?
You're running MS servers and Unix desktops. Amusing. Not that I wouldn't jump at the chance to use OS X rather than Windows on the desktop in your place.
You have to admit you're a bit of a special case, though. It sounds like you have a very healthy budget. A $700 laptop is perfectly functional for most business cases and so spending more is gravy. Apple doesn't have anything in that segment, which makes them a write off for many.
So you won't be plugging storage into it.
But I'm sure there will be lots of uses for something with 3g, bluetooth and 802.11b/g when they're $50 on ebay.
Want to make it illegal to circumvent something in the US? Just throw something, anything, copyrighted behind it.