His chess level is also a significant part of why he has the political position. If he were just some guy he would likely not have the public standing he does when it comes to politics.
Both the content producers and the networkers will have learned a lot from past experience and will do a much better job than they did this year. We have even seen improvement during these Olympics.
I was going to go in for: the Olympics, and by extension their television coverage, are going to become ever-more-commercialized bullshit that will eventually become completely unwatchable. But perhaps this alternate vision will come true instead.
The PDF reader in Chrome doesn't seem to be purely Google. On this page comparing Chrome to the open-source Chromium distribution, they mention that they can't open-source the Chrome PDF reader because:
The Chrome PDF plugin uses 3rd-party non-free code; no Free Software PDF plugin exists that supports all the PDF features we'd like (such as filling in forms).:(
On cars, too, for that matter. Anything 1980s or earlier can generally be worked on with classic mechanics' tools, but 1990s and later stuff has an increasing amount of custom and electronic parts that need specialized tools.
Agreed; I don't find it convincing for basically the reason the dissent states. The majority opinion tries to distinguish "purifying" from "isolating" on the basis that "isolating" changes chemical bonds and thus produces a new molecule. But that is basically how one "purifies" a gene to remove it from its surrounding, unwanted context.
Dammit, wrong subject. I was going to make a joke about how this decision might lead to a promising future treatment for diseases: now that DNA is patentable, perhaps courts can enjoin viruses from misappropriating it without license.
Instead I ran across something actually interesting in the opinion and thought better of posting a lame joke rather than something serious, but forgot to change the subject.
Here's a fuller explanation from the opinion (not that I agree with it). They appear to be making a distinction between isolated DNA, which is allegedly nonnaturally processed in a way that renders it patent-eligible, and "native DNA" as it exists inside the human body, which is a natural occurring composition of matter.
It is undisputed that Myriad’s claimed isolated DNAs exist in a distinctive chemical form—as distinctive chemical molecules—from DNAs in the human body, i.e., native DNA. Natural DNA exists in the body as one of forty-six large, contiguous DNA molecules. Each of those DNA molecules is condensed and intertwined with various proteins, including histones, to form a complex tertiary structure known as chromatin that makes up a larger structural complex, a chromosome. See supra, Figure 3. Inside living cells, the chromosomes are further encapsulated within a series of membranes and suspended in a complex intracellular milieu.
Isolated DNA, in contrast, is a free-standing portion of a larger, natural DNA molecule. Isolated DNA has been cleaved (i.e., had covalent bonds in its backbone chemically severed) or synthesized to consist of just a fraction of a naturally occurring DNA molecule. For example, the BRCA1 gene in its native state resides on chromosome 17, a DNA molecule of around eighty million nucleotides. Similarly, BRCA2 in its native state is located on chromosome 13, a DNA of approximately 114 million nucleotides. In contrast, isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2, with introns, each consists of just 80,000 or so nucleotides. And without introns, BRCA2 shrinks to approximately 10,200 nucleotides and BRCA1 to just around 5,500 nucleotides. Furthermore, claims 5 and 6 of the ’282 patent cover isolated DNAs, e.g., primers or probes, having as few as fifteen nucleotides of a BRCA sequence. Accordingly, BRCA1 and BRCA2 in their isolated states are different molecules from DNA that exists in the body; isolated DNA results from human intervention to cleave or synthesize a discrete portion of a native chromosomal DNA, imparting on that isolated DNA a distinctive chemical identity as compared to native DNA.
As the above description indicates, isolated DNA is not just purified DNA. Purification makes pure what was the same material, but was combined, or contaminated, with other materials. Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body. Accordingly, this is not a situation, as in Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., in which purification of adrenaline resulted in the identical molecule, albeit being “for every practical purpose a new thing commercially and therapeutically.” 189 F. 95, 103 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1911). Judge Learned Hand’s opinion for the district court in that oft-cited case held the purified “Adrenalin” to be patent-eligible subject matter. Id. The In re Marden cases are similarly inapposite, directed as they are to the patent ineligibility of purified natural elements—ductile uranium, 47 F.2d 957 (CCPA 1931), and vanadium, 47 F.2d 958 (CCPA 1931)—that are inherently ductile in purified form. While purified natural products thus may or may not qualify for patent under 101, the isolated DNAs of the present patents constitute an a fortiori situation, where they are not only purified; they are different from the natural products in “name, character, and use.” Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309-10.11.
That's not clear from what's being reported here. The summary mentions a facility-specific attack on an Iranian oil terminal, but from the description this Saudi virus infection just seems to be an ordinary infection of a bunch of PC workstations.
Ah interesting, I hadn't seen that until now. This Chronicle of Higher Ed article has a bit more. Apparently the agreement between Coursera and several universities included a section entitled "Possible Company Monetization Strategies" that discusses some of that.
What I'm more curious about is why people even bother plagiarizing at all. If you don't want to do an assignment, can't you just not do it, since there are no consequences to failing to do it? Are people hoping to use the "completed Coursera course" certificate on their CV or something, making it worth the effort of cheating to obtain it?
They track conduits that could possibly carry large amounts of money from questionable sources, and Australian police seem like they've been particularly interested in MMOs for a while. Here's a/. article on a 2011 investigation.
I dunno, 14 people dying of something in eight months is still pretty low even by modern standards. About 100 people have been murdered in Dallas so far this year, so you're still more likely to be shot than die of West Nile.
I assumed Klout was just trying to measure influence on Twitter rather than any kind of "real" influence. The latter isn't even that well-defined, but you could probably use money as a better proxy.
People sometimes forget that this kind of piggyback marketing is his professional expertise, which he's done for longer than he's done the comic. Before he did The Oatmeal, he was an SEO consultant who would get people's domains ranked higher by making infographics to host there that he'd get to "go viral" on Reddit/etc. For example, you have some shady company selling penis-enlargement pills. You hire him, and draws you an infographic along the lines of FIVE CRAZY WACKY FACTS ABOUT PHALLUSES. That gets passed around a lot, and now your penis-enlargement domain has higher PageRank for a bunch of dong-related search terms.
Nowadays a bigger part of his deal is the actual content (since it's popular in its own right), but he's still really good at this kind of marketing.
In North America, toilet paper doesn't even reduce trees, because it comes from fast-growing, low-quality wood grown on tree farms. Average count of trees on those farms stays relatively constant, they just get harvested and replanted every 6-8 years.
Not as sure whether China's paper-production industry is sustainable currently, or involves cutting down new areas of forestland, though.
With that lead-in I expected a significant change in the service, but it sounds more like, "redesigned the website". Wow, they moved some buttons to a toolbar, too!
Slashdot Mirror
His chess level is also a significant part of why he has the political position. If he were just some guy he would likely not have the public standing he does when it comes to politics.
Here's a 2007 /. story on a previous arrest.
riding chill waves of condensed water
I was going to go in for: the Olympics, and by extension their television coverage, are going to become ever-more-commercialized bullshit that will eventually become completely unwatchable. But perhaps this alternate vision will come true instead.
The PDF reader in Chrome doesn't seem to be purely Google. On this page comparing Chrome to the open-source Chromium distribution, they mention that they can't open-source the Chrome PDF reader because:
Whose third-party code? Adobe's? Someone else's?
On cars, too, for that matter. Anything 1980s or earlier can generally be worked on with classic mechanics' tools, but 1990s and later stuff has an increasing amount of custom and electronic parts that need specialized tools.
If their Kansas-City fiber experiment goes well, perhaps they'll expand into markets Verizon is losing interest in with FiOS.
Slashdot story from earlier this week: Touch Interfaces In Cars Difficult To Use
Agreed; I don't find it convincing for basically the reason the dissent states. The majority opinion tries to distinguish "purifying" from "isolating" on the basis that "isolating" changes chemical bonds and thus produces a new molecule. But that is basically how one "purifies" a gene to remove it from its surrounding, unwanted context.
(Reply to self.)
Dammit, wrong subject. I was going to make a joke about how this decision might lead to a promising future treatment for diseases: now that DNA is patentable, perhaps courts can enjoin viruses from misappropriating it without license.
Instead I ran across something actually interesting in the opinion and thought better of posting a lame joke rather than something serious, but forgot to change the subject.
Here's a fuller explanation from the opinion (not that I agree with it). They appear to be making a distinction between isolated DNA, which is allegedly nonnaturally processed in a way that renders it patent-eligible, and "native DNA" as it exists inside the human body, which is a natural occurring composition of matter.
It is undisputed that Myriad’s claimed isolated DNAs exist in a distinctive chemical form—as distinctive chemical molecules—from DNAs in the human body, i.e., native DNA. Natural DNA exists in the body as one of forty-six large, contiguous DNA molecules. Each of those DNA molecules is condensed and intertwined with various proteins, including histones, to form a complex tertiary structure known as chromatin that makes up a larger structural complex, a chromosome. See supra, Figure 3. Inside living cells, the chromosomes are further encapsulated within a series of membranes and suspended in a complex intracellular milieu.
Isolated DNA, in contrast, is a free-standing portion of a larger, natural DNA molecule. Isolated DNA has been cleaved (i.e., had covalent bonds in its backbone chemically severed) or synthesized to consist of just a fraction of a naturally occurring DNA molecule. For example, the BRCA1 gene in its native state resides on chromosome 17, a DNA molecule of around eighty million nucleotides. Similarly, BRCA2 in its native state is located on chromosome 13, a DNA of approximately 114 million nucleotides. In contrast, isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2, with introns, each consists of just 80,000 or so nucleotides. And without introns, BRCA2 shrinks to approximately 10,200 nucleotides and BRCA1 to just around 5,500 nucleotides. Furthermore, claims 5 and 6 of the ’282 patent cover isolated DNAs, e.g., primers or probes, having as few as fifteen nucleotides of a BRCA sequence. Accordingly, BRCA1 and BRCA2 in their isolated states are different molecules from DNA that exists in the body; isolated DNA results from human intervention to cleave or synthesize a discrete portion of a native chromosomal DNA, imparting on that isolated DNA a distinctive chemical identity as compared to native DNA.
As the above description indicates, isolated DNA is not just purified DNA. Purification makes pure what was the same material, but was combined, or contaminated, with other materials. Although isolated DNA is removed from its native cellular and chromosomal environment, it has also been manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body. Accordingly, this is not a situation, as in Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co., in which purification of adrenaline resulted in the identical molecule, albeit being “for every practical purpose a new thing commercially and therapeutically.” 189 F. 95, 103 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1911). Judge Learned Hand’s opinion for the district court in that oft-cited case held the purified “Adrenalin” to be patent-eligible subject matter. Id. The In re Marden cases are similarly inapposite, directed as they are to the patent ineligibility of purified natural elements—ductile uranium, 47 F.2d 957 (CCPA 1931), and vanadium, 47 F.2d 958 (CCPA 1931)—that are inherently ductile in purified form. While purified natural products thus may or may not qualify for patent under 101, the isolated DNAs of the present patents constitute an a fortiori situation, where they are not only purified; they are different from the natural products in “name, character, and use.” Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309-10.11.
That's not clear from what's being reported here. The summary mentions a facility-specific attack on an Iranian oil terminal, but from the description this Saudi virus infection just seems to be an ordinary infection of a bunch of PC workstations.
Ah interesting, I hadn't seen that until now. This Chronicle of Higher Ed article has a bit more. Apparently the agreement between Coursera and several universities included a section entitled "Possible Company Monetization Strategies" that discusses some of that.
What I'm more curious about is why people even bother plagiarizing at all. If you don't want to do an assignment, can't you just not do it, since there are no consequences to failing to do it? Are people hoping to use the "completed Coursera course" certificate on their CV or something, making it worth the effort of cheating to obtain it?
Offtopic, but see the Legal Tender cases.
They track conduits that could possibly carry large amounts of money from questionable sources, and Australian police seem like they've been particularly interested in MMOs for a while. Here's a /. article on a 2011 investigation.
Previous weakest-links have included cell phones and gullible humans.
I dunno, 14 people dying of something in eight months is still pretty low even by modern standards. About 100 people have been murdered in Dallas so far this year, so you're still more likely to be shot than die of West Nile.
Let's not mention the results of the test though...
I assumed Klout was just trying to measure influence on Twitter rather than any kind of "real" influence. The latter isn't even that well-defined, but you could probably use money as a better proxy.
People sometimes forget that this kind of piggyback marketing is his professional expertise, which he's done for longer than he's done the comic. Before he did The Oatmeal, he was an SEO consultant who would get people's domains ranked higher by making infographics to host there that he'd get to "go viral" on Reddit/etc. For example, you have some shady company selling penis-enlargement pills. You hire him, and draws you an infographic along the lines of FIVE CRAZY WACKY FACTS ABOUT PHALLUSES. That gets passed around a lot, and now your penis-enlargement domain has higher PageRank for a bunch of dong-related search terms.
Nowadays a bigger part of his deal is the actual content (since it's popular in its own right), but he's still really good at this kind of marketing.
In North America, toilet paper doesn't even reduce trees, because it comes from fast-growing, low-quality wood grown on tree farms. Average count of trees on those farms stays relatively constant, they just get harvested and replanted every 6-8 years.
Not as sure whether China's paper-production industry is sustainable currently, or involves cutting down new areas of forestland, though.
With that lead-in I expected a significant change in the service, but it sounds more like, "redesigned the website". Wow, they moved some buttons to a toolbar, too!
Straight Muslim men who don't say anything bad about the Royal Family, anyway.
I don't really plan to patronize mega-chains, and sadly most of the mom-and-pop restaurants around here do not have modern websites.
An exception is some that are so behind on technology that they use 1990s-era web technology, which is actually readable.
Hell is going to freeze over before most of the restaurants I visit build usable websites. Now they won't be viewable from mobile at all!