If the author of the code posted it in a forum, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the code. Otherwise, why even post it? To show off his great coding ability? Every programmer (myself included) does this all the time Yes, I thought of implicit consent too. If you post something on the Internet in a way that makes it clear that you intend it to be copied, then you have consent.
Who decides that it's "clear"? If worse comes to worse, a jury would decide. But a statement like, "Here's how you can do it," or a forum where programmers exchange examples for each other, would make it pretty clear.
Of course it would make things simpler and cheaper if you had it in writing. I don't know if it's necessary to have it in writing, since some copyright rights have to be transferred in writing.
IANAL (I'm too logical to get through the law school admissions test), but I've dealt with lawyers extensively. At one company I worked at, we were typing an expensive industry directory into our own database, with the intention of modifying it and using it ourselves. We checked with the company's lawyers, and they told us that it was OK, because the directory was intended to be used that way (they didn't even get into Feith).
If I were a lawyer, and I had to defend a client for infringing on copyright in exactly such a case, I'd use the arguments here in Slashdot to support the idea that it's customary in the industry to share and use code under such circumstances, and I'd get a programmer to testify to that as an expert witness.
There might also be a defense of fair use.
Too bad there aren't more lawyers with nothing better to do than post on Slashdot.
I've been reading the WSJ since 1972. When they went on line I bought a subscription.
Over the years, the news section of the WSJ has been the most reliable source of general news that I've been able to find (and I also read the NYT every day). They've resisted influence by advertisers, government intimidation, and the bullshit that other news sources fall for. I'm in a good position to judge health care, which is my specialty. Here's an example of the kind of coverage which you literally won't find anywhere else: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm
As part of its own coverage of the Murdoch takeover attempt, the WSJ itself had a story summarizing how Murdoch has influenced and distorted the news, for his own selfish or partisan reasons, in his other holdings, and how he's made and broken promises of editorial integrity and independence. The worst example I remember was that he dropped the BBC news off a satellite feed to China, because he wanted to ingratiate the Chinese government to get access to the Chinese market. The BBC was running stories about China's human rights abuses. Oh, the hypocrisy -- a self-proclaimed Reagan conservative selling out his principles to the Communists. (Although you could argue that he has no principles to sell out.)
Past performance is the best predictor of futher performance. I'd rather pay $100 a year to get accurate, unbiased news from the WSJ than get the WSJ free after Murdoch does to it what he's done to all his other media holdings. You get what you pay for, and the WSJ used to be worth paying for.
That works right up until you are diagnosed with a potentially expensive medical condition. Not when you have treatment for it mind you but when you are diagnosed. Try getting affordable private health insurance with rheumatoid arthritis. Exactly right. Or lupus. You'll wind up like this: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm
In this situation, just take it up with your credit card company if you bought using your credit card. Otherwise, you're in trouble, no?
Most of the time, though, your credit card company will be on your side, especially if you are a high-value account that buys lots of stuff and have a high credit limit. Not my credit card company. I use MasterCard, and the one time I tried to cancel a wrong credit card payment, they refused until I went up a couple of levels of supervisors and argued it out with them. One of the flunkeys threatened to cancel my card. (My client had sent me to a hotel, which they paid for at a group rate, but the hotel insisted on a credit card number before I checked in. The hotel mistakenly charged my personal card, which they admitted when I called them.)
MasterCard told me that as long as I gave someone my card number, I was responsible for the charges -- even if it was an authorized overcharge. Finally I told a supervisor (while typing her every word in the background), "Are you saying that I'm responsible for all charges made to my card, even if I didn't authorize them?" It was so patently ridiculous that she backed down.
In the course of my hypotheticals, they also told me that if I ordered something by mail, and it didn't work, they wouldn't reverse the charge, because that's something between me and the vendor, and they can't get involved in determining whether something works the way it should. And yes, even if I order a hard drive and get a brick, they still wouldn't reverse the charges.
See for yourself. Call your own credit card company, on their 800 number, and ask them if you could get a credit for the charges if you ordered a hard drive and it didn't work. Or if you ordered a hard drive and got a brick. You may have a better credit card company than I do. Or you may not.
John Pilger: One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"
In reality, the terrorist threat is a several orders of a magnitude less than being killed by heart-disease. It's my view Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, agrees with you (which is something you might mention if you ever get arrested by Homeland Security).
A Nobel Economist Analyzes the Strategies Of the Deadly Serious Games Nations Play, Jon E. Hilsenrath, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2005. Interview with Thomas C. Schelling.
Schelling: "With the exception of the Twin Towers in New York, terrorism is an almost minuscule problem. [John] Mueller, at Ohio State University, estimates that the number of people who die from terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of people who die in their bathtubs. If you take the Trade Towers, we lost about 3,000 people. Three thousand people is about 3 1/2 weeks of automobile fatalities in the U.S. If you rank all of the causes of death in the U.S. or around the world, different kinds of accidents, drowning, falling down stairs, automobile accidents, struck by lightning, heart attacks, infections acquired during hospital surgery, terrorism is way down at the bottom."
(He also said that global warming is a problem; if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts, sea level could rise by 20 feet.)
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article for noncommercial use are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Working Paper 11/99
Abstract: How could such industries as software, semiconductors, and computers have been so innovative despite historically weak patent protection? We argue that if innovation is both sequential and complementary -- as it certainly has been in those industries -- competition can increase firms' future profits thus offsetting short-term dissipation of rents. A simple model also shows that in such a dynamic industry, patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. The natural experiment that occurred when patent protection was extended to software in the 1980's provides a test of this model. Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur. Other evidence supporting our model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing in these industries and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry.
What the article fails to point out is the real benefit to getting early diagnosis for Alzheimer's. If people could be diagnosed earlier, they could get better care and avoid accidents. Unfortunately there's no meaningful treatment for Alzheimer's. The FDA-approved drugs will make the difference between a patient being able to name 5 vegetables in a neurological test with the drug and 4 vegetables without the drug. That's what we mean by statistically significant but not clinically significant.
If you have someone who can't find his way home or is forgetting to turn off the burners on the stove, that person needs to go in some kind of supervised living regardless of what the diagnosis is, assuming the condition isn't curable.
If somebody is having symptoms like that, a neurologist should check out all the other things that could be going wrong, like an aneurysm or brain tumor, which sometimes can be treated. http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec06/ch083/ch083a.html If someone has a firm diagnosis of Alzheimer's, the doctor knows not to bother trying out all the other diagnoses.
Cell Metabolism, Vol 6, 320-328, 03 October 2007 Short Article Inhibition of PKC? Improves Glucose-Stimulated Insulin Secretion and Reduces Insulin Clearance
Carsten Schmitz-Peiffer,1, D. Ross Laybutt,1 James G. Burchfield,1 Ebru Gurisik,1 Sakura Narasimhan,1 Christopher J. Mitchell,1 David J. Pedersen,1 Uschi Braun,2 Gregory J. Cooney,1 Michael Leitges,2 and Trevor J. Biden1,
1 Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia 2 Biotechnology Centre of Oslo, University of Oslo, Oslo N-0317, Norway
Corresponding author Trevor J. Biden t.biden@garvan.org.au
Summary
In type 2 diabetes, pancreatic ? cells fail to secrete sufficient insulin to overcome peripheral insulin resistance. Intracellular lipid accumulation contributes to ? cell failure through poorly defined mechanisms. Here we report a role for the lipid-regulated protein kinase C isoform PKC? in ? cell dysfunction. Deletion of PKC? augmented insulin secretion and prevented glucose intolerance in fat-fed mice. Importantly, a PKC?-inhibitory peptide improved insulin availability and glucose tolerance in db/db mice with preexisting diabetes. Functional ablation of PKC? selectively enhanced insulin release ex vivo from diabetic or lipid-pretreated islets and optimized the glucose-regulated lipid partitioning that amplifies the secretory response. Independently, PKC? deletion also augmented insulin availability by reducing both whole-body insulin clearance and insulin uptake by hepatocytes. Our findings implicate PKC? in the etiology of ? cell dysfunction and highlight that enhancement of insulin availability, through separate effects on liver and ? cells, provides a rationale for inhibiting PKC? to treat type 2 diabetes.
Cell Metabolism, Vol 6, 307-319, 03 October 2007 Article SIRT1 Improves Insulin Sensitivity under Insulin-Resistant Conditions by Repressing PTP1B
1 Institute for Nutritional Sciences, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China
Corresponding author Qiwei Zhai qwzhai@sibs.ac.cn
Summary
Insulin resistance is often characterized as the most critical factor contributing to the development of type 2 diabetes. SIRT1 has been reported to be involved in the processes of glucose metabolism and insulin secretion. However, whether SIRT1 is directly involved in insulin sensitivity is still largely unknown. Here we show that SIRT1 is downregulated in insulin-resistant cells and tissues and that knockdown or inhibition of SIRT1 induces insulin resistance. Furthermore, increased expression of SIRT1 improved insulin sensitivity, especially under insulin-resistant
Duh. Would you like to pay monopoly prices, which are twice as much or more?
In the wild west of free-market capitalism, a few companies dominate most big industries, the way Carlos Slim took over the Mexican phone industry.
In the U.S., this got so bad that we passed antitrust laws to prevent businesses from doing this. IBM used to sell computers, and make you buy the punch cards from them. Those were the most expensive punch cards ever sold. If you bought a Chevrolet, you had to buy GM parts at twice the price.
So because of these abuses, we passed antitrust laws. You can love or hate the free market, but it works a lot better (for everyone except Carlos Slim) with more competition.
It would be nice if what you are saying is true. Unfortunately, I've had first-hand experience some time ago of what I claim. The first-hand experience was with national publications. That's publications with an "s" on the end.
As I said, I've had first-hand experience too, with my own stories getting killed, and I know national publications that have done all kinds of things for the benefit of their advertisers. But you didn't have first-hand experience with the Wall Street Journal. And for you to accuse Mossberg of doing that is unfair (and libelous).
all kinds of paranoid bullshit..
Call me all the names you want, but it doesn't change the facts, as they happened, to me.
The point you keep missing is that nothing happened to you with the WSJ. Just because other national newspapers do that, it doesn't follow that the WSJ does it too. That's the point of the WSJ. That's why I pay $100 a year for the WSJ online when I could get every other major newspaper free.
Your insults are distasteful and prevent any kind of discussion of the facts. They also reflect poorly on you and expose your unfounded personal bias in this situation.
Let's talk about distasteful insults. Your accusations of Mossberg being influenced by his advertisers and taking payoffs are also distasteful insults (and libelous). Ditto unfounded personal bias etc.
WSJ did write unfavorable reviews
It's not an unfavorable review. Dings, nitpicks, whatever you want to call them are sprinkled throughout the review. Just enough to firmly place the product in the also-ran category. No, there's no quid-pro-quo, but our fine representatives in the House and Senate would say that there aren't any quid-pro-quo's there either.
Payoffs to senators and representatives are reported on public documents (and some of the illegal payments are disclosed in court), so we know that senators and representatives are getting money.
I don't know Mossberg personally, and I wouldn't cover up for him if he was doing it, but I have never heard any evidence that he ever took money from a subject that he was writing about, or that he was influenced by his advertisers. (If you know of any evidence I'd like to hear it. But you don't.) So there's no quid.
Payoffs like this can't be kept secret
Here's a tip. How/Why do you think Steve Jobs and Bill Gates end up at his fine high-priced seminar event this year? http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070531/d5-gates-jobs-transcript/ Is there a smoking gun somewhere? No, probably not. Does it look like elephant sh!t? Does it smell like elephant sh!t? Based on my first-hand experience, it looks and smells like it.
You're claiming that Mossberg is influenced by advertisers and takes money from the people he writes about. This doesn't support that claim at all. This is a WSJ-sponsored conference, and the WSJ -- his employer -- asked Mossberg, and Kara Swisher, to moderate a panel. Jobs and Gates knew that their buyers and investors read the WSJ, so were willing to come to that event as a way of getting their word across to their buyers and investors. That also doesn't support that claim. The WSJ invited them because Jobs and Gates had useful information for their readers and the attendees at that conference. There is absolutely nothing improper or covert here.
I've organized meetings where I invited WSJ reporters to speak, and they showed up without any payoffs.
-I don't buy/read the WSJ,
Is it fair for you to attack the WSJ and Mossberg without actually reading what they print? You're admitting that you're attacking them without knowing the basic facts -- their writing -- about them.
I've got another crazy story for you: It's 1986 and a plane full of weapons crashes in Ni
3. Walt can't piss off Microsoft or Apple. They are major WSJ advertisers. Who knows what else they provide for Walt.
This is absolute bullshit. I know you don't have a shred of evidence for this.
I'm a journalist and I have friends (and non-friends) who went to work for the WSJ, which I read every day.
I've worked for publications that have killed my stories because of problems with advertisers, and for publications that went ahead and published embarassing stories in spite of advertisers. I have a low opinion of the news business in general and its relationship to advertisers.
But I've never heard any knowledgeable or credible person claim that the WSJ was influenced by advertisers or that any reporter took payoffs from a source. (One reporter who was trading stock on his insider knowledge was fired and went to jail).
Back in the 1950s, the WSJ got photos of the new line of General Motors cars. GM threatened to pull all their advertising if the WSJ printed them. The WSJ told GM to go fuck themselves and printed the photos. GM pulled their ads, but eventually came back begging. That was when auto advertisers (one of the big 3 advertisers, along with cigarettes and food) could influence other newspapers, even the New York Times. That's how the WSJ got its credibility, and they never gave it up. (Although we'll see what Murdoch does.)
One of the big differences between journalism and Slashdot/Internet postings is that journalists make an effort to check their facts, whereas Internet posters can feel free to shoot their mouths off with all kinds of paranoid bullshit. I don't blame you (too much) for this, it's just not your job to question these stupid accusations. You can probably code better than me. But I think it's your obligation not to be too stupid, which is why I'm trying to educate you. Otherwise we wind up with presidents like GWB.
Incidentally, when a newspaper reporter writes in good faith, without malice, the newspaper has pretty strong protections against libel (see New York Times vs. Sullivan). But if the WSJ did write unfavorable reviews about a product because they were getting advertising from their competitors, or because their reporter was getting paid off, that would be libel, and also malice, so they wouldn't have the good-faith protection from libel. And they would lose. Payoffs like this can't be kept secret, because they would be disclosed in a libel suit. So it's too dangerous for the WSJ to allow that, and if they had we would have known.
Of course your charges against the WSJ and Mossberg are also libelous, but you're too insignificant for them to be concerned with.
The guy sounds like a real straight arrow, super-patriotic American who worked with a Top Secret clearance for U.S. Army Intelligence and with the FBI on the first World Trade Center bombing, and who was particularly valuable because of his fluency in Arabic and Farsi. After doing exempliary work, he applied for a job as FBI special agent, but was rejected and blacklisted elsewhere because a polygraph examiner falsely decided he was lying and rejected him, and the FBI rejected all his appeals.
That's Maschke version, and I'd like to see any response by the FBI or anything to challenge his credibility. I couldn't find anything.
Search and Defend
By BERNARD E. HARCOURT
Published: August 25, 2006
Since then, there have been many studies of the ability to detect truth and deception, but they have been largely disappointing. A review of the literature published in 2000 found that in experiments where subjects were trying to detect whether others were telling the truth or lying, the subjects had an overall success rate of 56.6 percent -- slightly better than a coin toss. In the studies that broke down their data, it was found that subjects were able to determine that they were being lied to only 44 percent of the time -- meaning that they would have done better closing their eyes and guessing.
Suppose I suspect my wife is having an affair, and I sue her for divorce. I can subpoena that license plate database to see where she's been, and who she's been visiting.
Also, what is the evidence that Ludwig De Braeckeleer is an international humanitarian law professor? He must be a law professor who doesn't have anything indexed on Google. Or is he the physics professor of the same name? Is this another John Seigenthaler hoax?
That article can't survive basic fact checking.
A Wikipedia editor is identified as Linda Mack, who was allegedly working for the CIA, with no attempt to check the facts to see if they're true. If this is citizen journalism, real journalists don't have to worry.
In fact, it can't answer the quesition, "What's your point?" There is no point to it. Ludwig can't find a page he thought he remembers seeing in Wikipedia, so it must be the Mossad/CIA deleting it?
Somehow I doubt people hang out with their friends so frequently and follow them around everywhere enough so that they will be dragged to eat more often than they would alone. People hanging out with people with similar tendencies, and being habituated (thereby more tolerant and accepting) to fat people are probably the main "causes". That's basically what the New England Journal of Medicine article http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/4/370 said was their best explanation. When your friends are fat, it makes it socially more acceptable for you to be fat.
Slashdot Mirror
Who decides that it's "clear"? If worse comes to worse, a jury would decide. But a statement like, "Here's how you can do it," or a forum where programmers exchange examples for each other, would make it pretty clear.
Of course it would make things simpler and cheaper if you had it in writing. I don't know if it's necessary to have it in writing, since some copyright rights have to be transferred in writing.
IANAL (I'm too logical to get through the law school admissions test), but I've dealt with lawyers extensively. At one company I worked at, we were typing an expensive industry directory into our own database, with the intention of modifying it and using it ourselves. We checked with the company's lawyers, and they told us that it was OK, because the directory was intended to be used that way (they didn't even get into Feith).
If I were a lawyer, and I had to defend a client for infringing on copyright in exactly such a case, I'd use the arguments here in Slashdot to support the idea that it's customary in the industry to share and use code under such circumstances, and I'd get a programmer to testify to that as an expert witness.
There might also be a defense of fair use.
Too bad there aren't more lawyers with nothing better to do than post on Slashdot.
I've been reading the WSJ since 1972. When they went on line I bought a subscription.
Over the years, the news section of the WSJ has been the most reliable source of general news that I've been able to find (and I also read the NYT every day). They've resisted influence by advertisers, government intimidation, and the bullshit that other news sources fall for. I'm in a good position to judge health care, which is my specialty. Here's an example of the kind of coverage which you literally won't find anywhere else: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm
As part of its own coverage of the Murdoch takeover attempt, the WSJ itself had a story summarizing how Murdoch has influenced and distorted the news, for his own selfish or partisan reasons, in his other holdings, and how he's made and broken promises of editorial integrity and independence. The worst example I remember was that he dropped the BBC news off a satellite feed to China, because he wanted to ingratiate the Chinese government to get access to the Chinese market. The BBC was running stories about China's human rights abuses. Oh, the hypocrisy -- a self-proclaimed Reagan conservative selling out his principles to the Communists. (Although you could argue that he has no principles to sell out.)
Past performance is the best predictor of futher performance. I'd rather pay $100 a year to get accurate, unbiased news from the WSJ than get the WSJ free after Murdoch does to it what he's done to all his other media holdings. You get what you pay for, and the WSJ used to be worth paying for.
Most of the time, though, your credit card company will be on your side, especially if you are a high-value account that buys lots of stuff and have a high credit limit. Not my credit card company. I use MasterCard, and the one time I tried to cancel a wrong credit card payment, they refused until I went up a couple of levels of supervisors and argued it out with them. One of the flunkeys threatened to cancel my card. (My client had sent me to a hotel, which they paid for at a group rate, but the hotel insisted on a credit card number before I checked in. The hotel mistakenly charged my personal card, which they admitted when I called them.)
MasterCard told me that as long as I gave someone my card number, I was responsible for the charges -- even if it was an authorized overcharge. Finally I told a supervisor (while typing her every word in the background), "Are you saying that I'm responsible for all charges made to my card, even if I didn't authorize them?" It was so patently ridiculous that she backed down.
In the course of my hypotheticals, they also told me that if I ordered something by mail, and it didn't work, they wouldn't reverse the charge, because that's something between me and the vendor, and they can't get involved in determining whether something works the way it should. And yes, even if I order a hard drive and get a brick, they still wouldn't reverse the charges.
See for yourself. Call your own credit card company, on their 800 number, and ask them if you could get a credit for the charges if you ordered a hard drive and it didn't work. Or if you ordered a hard drive and got a brick. You may have a better credit card company than I do. Or you may not.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130258 Democracy Now!
August 7th, 2007
Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire
John Pilger: One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"
A Nobel Economist Analyzes the Strategies Of the Deadly Serious Games Nations Play, Jon E. Hilsenrath, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2005. Interview with Thomas C. Schelling.
Schelling: "With the exception of the Twin Towers in New York, terrorism is an almost minuscule problem. [John] Mueller, at Ohio State University, estimates that the number of people who die from terrorist attacks is smaller than the number of people who die in their bathtubs. If you take the Trade Towers, we lost about 3,000 people. Three thousand people is about 3 1/2 weeks of automobile fatalities in the U.S. If you rank all of the causes of death in the U.S. or around the world, different kinds of accidents, drowning, falling down stairs, automobile accidents, struck by lightning, heart attacks, infections acquired during hospital surgery, terrorism is way down at the bottom."
(He also said that global warming is a problem; if the West Antarctic ice sheet melts, sea level could rise by 20 feet.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113132305200889621.html (subscription)
Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation
by James Bessen and Eric Maskin c 1999
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article for noncommercial use are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Working Paper 11/99
Abstract: How could such industries as software, semiconductors, and computers have been so innovative despite historically weak patent protection? We argue that if innovation is both sequential and complementary -- as it certainly has been in those industries -- competition can increase firms' future profits thus offsetting short-term dissipation of rents. A simple model also shows that in such a dynamic industry, patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. The natural experiment that occurred when patent protection was extended to software in the 1980's provides a test of this model. Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur. Other evidence supporting our model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing in these industries and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry.
http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf
(Warning: Uses mathematical equations)
If you have someone who can't find his way home or is forgetting to turn off the burners on the stove, that person needs to go in some kind of supervised living regardless of what the diagnosis is, assuming the condition isn't curable.
If somebody is having symptoms like that, a neurologist should check out all the other things that could be going wrong, like an aneurysm or brain tumor, which sometimes can be treated. http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec06/ch083/ch083a.html If someone has a firm diagnosis of Alzheimer's, the doctor knows not to bother trying out all the other diagnoses.
A doctor friend of mine just called me to talk about computers, so I asked him about this.
He said that in pre-diabetes, you have insulin resistance.
Finally in diabetes, the pancreas begins to fail, and insulin declines.
They treat diabetes with drugs to stimulate the pancreas, and finally with injected insulin.
That's right. My understanding is that diabetes type II is not a problem of the pancreas producing too little insulin, but of the muscle cells and fat cells not responding to insulin properly. But that's not what the investigators are saying. http://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/solving-a-critical-part-of-the-insulin-puzzle.html
Interestingly, the journal Cell Metabolism http://www.cellmetabolism.org/ which published the Australian paper http://www.cellmetabolism.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1550413107002574 has another article in the current issue http://www.cellmetabolism.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1550413107002598 by Chinese scientists about another protein, SIRT1, which regulates insulin resistance by the target cells.
Cell Metabolism, Vol 6, 320-328, 03 October 2007
Short Article
Inhibition of PKC? Improves Glucose-Stimulated Insulin Secretion and Reduces Insulin Clearance
Carsten Schmitz-Peiffer,1, D. Ross Laybutt,1 James G. Burchfield,1 Ebru Gurisik,1 Sakura Narasimhan,1 Christopher J. Mitchell,1 David J. Pedersen,1 Uschi Braun,2 Gregory J. Cooney,1 Michael Leitges,2 and Trevor J. Biden1,
1 Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
2 Biotechnology Centre of Oslo, University of Oslo, Oslo N-0317, Norway
Corresponding author
Carsten Schmitz-Peiffer
c.schmitz-peiffer@garvan.org.au
Corresponding author
Trevor J. Biden
t.biden@garvan.org.au
Summary
In type 2 diabetes, pancreatic ? cells fail to secrete sufficient insulin to overcome peripheral insulin resistance. Intracellular lipid accumulation contributes to ? cell failure through poorly defined mechanisms. Here we report a role for the lipid-regulated protein kinase C isoform PKC? in ? cell dysfunction. Deletion of PKC? augmented insulin secretion and prevented glucose intolerance in fat-fed mice. Importantly, a PKC?-inhibitory peptide improved insulin availability and glucose tolerance in db/db mice with preexisting diabetes. Functional ablation of PKC? selectively enhanced insulin release ex vivo from diabetic or lipid-pretreated islets and optimized the glucose-regulated lipid partitioning that amplifies the secretory response. Independently, PKC? deletion also augmented insulin availability by reducing both whole-body insulin clearance and insulin uptake by hepatocytes. Our findings implicate PKC? in the etiology of ? cell dysfunction and highlight that enhancement of insulin availability, through separate effects on liver and ? cells, provides a rationale for inhibiting PKC? to treat type 2 diabetes.
Cell Metabolism, Vol 6, 307-319, 03 October 2007
Article
SIRT1 Improves Insulin Sensitivity under Insulin-Resistant Conditions by Repressing PTP1B
Cheng Sun,1 Fang Zhang,1 Xinjian Ge,1 Tingting Yan,1 Xingmiao Chen,1 Xianglin Shi,1 and Qiwei Zhai1,
1 Institute for Nutritional Sciences, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200031, China
Corresponding author
Qiwei Zhai
qwzhai@sibs.ac.cn
Summary
Insulin resistance is often characterized as the most critical factor contributing to the development of type 2 diabetes. SIRT1 has been reported to be involved in the processes of glucose metabolism and insulin secretion. However, whether SIRT1 is directly involved in insulin sensitivity is still largely unknown. Here we show that SIRT1 is downregulated in insulin-resistant cells and tissues and that knockdown or inhibition of SIRT1 induces insulin resistance. Furthermore, increased expression of SIRT1 improved insulin sensitivity, especially under insulin-resistant
Duh. Would you like to pay monopoly prices, which are twice as much or more?
In the wild west of free-market capitalism, a few companies dominate most big industries, the way Carlos Slim took over the Mexican phone industry.
In the U.S., this got so bad that we passed antitrust laws to prevent businesses from doing this. IBM used to sell computers, and make you buy the punch cards from them. Those were the most expensive punch cards ever sold. If you bought a Chevrolet, you had to buy GM parts at twice the price.
So because of these abuses, we passed antitrust laws. You can love or hate the free market, but it works a lot better (for everyone except Carlos Slim) with more competition.
We're not safe if our airports are being guarded by security people who aren't savvy enough to know what a proto board is.
It would be nice if what you are saying is true. Unfortunately, I've had first-hand experience some time ago of what I claim. The first-hand experience was with national publications. That's publications with an "s" on the end.
As I said, I've had first-hand experience too, with my own stories getting killed, and I know national publications that have done all kinds of things for the benefit of their advertisers. But you didn't have first-hand experience with the Wall Street Journal. And for you to accuse Mossberg of doing that is unfair (and libelous).
all kinds of paranoid bullshit..
Call me all the names you want, but it doesn't change the facts, as they happened, to me.
The point you keep missing is that nothing happened to you with the WSJ. Just because other national newspapers do that, it doesn't follow that the WSJ does it too. That's the point of the WSJ. That's why I pay $100 a year for the WSJ online when I could get every other major newspaper free.
Your insults are distasteful and prevent any kind of discussion of the facts. They also reflect poorly on you and expose your unfounded personal bias in this situation.
Let's talk about distasteful insults. Your accusations of Mossberg being influenced by his advertisers and taking payoffs are also distasteful insults (and libelous). Ditto unfounded personal bias etc.
WSJ did write unfavorable reviews
It's not an unfavorable review. Dings, nitpicks, whatever you want to call them are sprinkled throughout the review. Just enough to firmly place the product in the also-ran category. No, there's no quid-pro-quo, but our fine representatives in the House and Senate would say that there aren't any quid-pro-quo's there either.
Payoffs to senators and representatives are reported on public documents (and some of the illegal payments are disclosed in court), so we know that senators and representatives are getting money.
I don't know Mossberg personally, and I wouldn't cover up for him if he was doing it, but I have never heard any evidence that he ever took money from a subject that he was writing about, or that he was influenced by his advertisers. (If you know of any evidence I'd like to hear it. But you don't.) So there's no quid.
Payoffs like this can't be kept secret
Here's a tip. How/Why do you think Steve Jobs and Bill Gates end up at his fine high-priced seminar event this year? http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070531/d5-gates-jobs-transcript/ Is there a smoking gun somewhere? No, probably not. Does it look like elephant sh!t? Does it smell like elephant sh!t? Based on my first-hand experience, it looks and smells like it.
You're claiming that Mossberg is influenced by advertisers and takes money from the people he writes about. This doesn't support that claim at all. This is a WSJ-sponsored conference, and the WSJ -- his employer -- asked Mossberg, and Kara Swisher, to moderate a panel. Jobs and Gates knew that their buyers and investors read the WSJ, so were willing to come to that event as a way of getting their word across to their buyers and investors. That also doesn't support that claim. The WSJ invited them because Jobs and Gates had useful information for their readers and the attendees at that conference. There is absolutely nothing improper or covert here.
I've organized meetings where I invited WSJ reporters to speak, and they showed up without any payoffs.
-I don't buy/read the WSJ,
Is it fair for you to attack the WSJ and Mossberg without actually reading what they print? You're admitting that you're attacking them without knowing the basic facts -- their writing -- about them.
I've got another crazy story for you: It's 1986 and a plane full of weapons crashes in Ni
This is absolute bullshit. I know you don't have a shred of evidence for this.
I'm a journalist and I have friends (and non-friends) who went to work for the WSJ, which I read every day.
I've worked for publications that have killed my stories because of problems with advertisers, and for publications that went ahead and published embarassing stories in spite of advertisers. I have a low opinion of the news business in general and its relationship to advertisers.
But I've never heard any knowledgeable or credible person claim that the WSJ was influenced by advertisers or that any reporter took payoffs from a source. (One reporter who was trading stock on his insider knowledge was fired and went to jail).
Back in the 1950s, the WSJ got photos of the new line of General Motors cars. GM threatened to pull all their advertising if the WSJ printed them. The WSJ told GM to go fuck themselves and printed the photos. GM pulled their ads, but eventually came back begging. That was when auto advertisers (one of the big 3 advertisers, along with cigarettes and food) could influence other newspapers, even the New York Times. That's how the WSJ got its credibility, and they never gave it up. (Although we'll see what Murdoch does.)
One of the big differences between journalism and Slashdot/Internet postings is that journalists make an effort to check their facts, whereas Internet posters can feel free to shoot their mouths off with all kinds of paranoid bullshit. I don't blame you (too much) for this, it's just not your job to question these stupid accusations. You can probably code better than me. But I think it's your obligation not to be too stupid, which is why I'm trying to educate you. Otherwise we wind up with presidents like GWB.
Incidentally, when a newspaper reporter writes in good faith, without malice, the newspaper has pretty strong protections against libel (see New York Times vs. Sullivan). But if the WSJ did write unfavorable reviews about a product because they were getting advertising from their competitors, or because their reporter was getting paid off, that would be libel, and also malice, so they wouldn't have the good-faith protection from libel. And they would lose. Payoffs like this can't be kept secret, because they would be disclosed in a libel suit. So it's too dangerous for the WSJ to allow that, and if they had we would have known.
Of course your charges against the WSJ and Mossberg are also libelous, but you're too insignificant for them to be concerned with.
George W. Maschke, the founder of Antipolygraph, posted a nice statement of why he founded his web site. https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003 .shtml
The guy sounds like a real straight arrow, super-patriotic American who worked with a Top Secret clearance for U.S. Army Intelligence and with the FBI on the first World Trade Center bombing, and who was particularly valuable because of his fluency in Arabic and Farsi. After doing exempliary work, he applied for a job as FBI special agent, but was rejected and blacklisted elsewhere because a polygraph examiner falsely decided he was lying and rejected him, and the FBI rejected all his appeals.
That's Maschke version, and I'd like to see any response by the FBI or anything to challenge his credibility. I couldn't find anything.
kdawson got it wrong; it is indeed a pseudo-science.
Here's another one to look up, who quotes Ekman:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/artic
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/harcourt-search
Search and Defend
By BERNARD E. HARCOURT
Published: August 25, 2006
Since then, there have been many studies of the ability to detect truth and deception, but they have been largely disappointing. A review of the literature published in 2000 found that in experiments where subjects were trying to detect whether others were telling the truth or lying, the subjects had an overall success rate of 56.6 percent -- slightly better than a coin toss. In the studies that broke down their data, it was found that subjects were able to determine that they were being lied to only 44 percent of the time -- meaning that they would have done better closing their eyes and guessing.
A pint's a pound the world around,
and damn all foreign measures!
That's free speech and democracy.
You gotta problem with that?
On the comments link to the Washington Post article, the comments are about 5 or 10 to 1 in favor of Sejas, and people have organized a boycott of Regal Cinema. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398_Comments.html
We have it on video.
And we've got some things on you, Mr. "Anonymous Coward".
Suppose I suspect my wife is having an affair, and I sue her for divorce. I can subpoena that license plate database to see where she's been, and who she's been visiting.
Hey, wait -- she can do the same to me!
Also, what is the evidence that Ludwig De Braeckeleer is an international humanitarian law professor? He must be a law professor who doesn't have anything indexed on Google. Or is he the physics professor of the same name? Is this another John Seigenthaler hoax?
That article can't survive basic fact checking.
A Wikipedia editor is identified as Linda Mack, who was allegedly working for the CIA, with no attempt to check the facts to see if they're true. If this is citizen journalism, real journalists don't have to worry.
In fact, it can't answer the quesition, "What's your point?" There is no point to it. Ludwig can't find a page he thought he remembers seeing in Wikipedia, so it must be the Mossad/CIA deleting it?
Ludwig, stick to physics.