I can just see Steve saying to the record company execs "if we allow other players to use DRMd iTMS files, it'll be only a week before someone has leaked important encryption info all over the net. You wouldn't want your music files to be easily available on the P2P networks do you?"
True or not, they'll believe it and then send their emissaries to Congress to lobby for not opening up Apple's DRM to other players.
The problem with that is that Vorbis encoding seems to be a bit of a moving target. Sure, vorbis aoTuV seems very good but it's only been available since late 2004, isn't the "main" ogg vorbis and seems to be in permanent beta.
If I had begun my digitally encoded music collection in 2000, should I go back and re-encode in 2002 when Ogg Vorbis was released, again in 2003 when it improved, perhaps again in 2004 when vorbis aoTuV was semi-released, and perhaps again in 2006 when I can re-encode in vorbis aoTuV at 64 kbps.
Or should I have just encoded at 192 kbps MP3 in 2000 and be done with it?
While tests aimed at determining the best encoder currently available this month may be useful and interesting to some, in practical terms I can't spend time constantly re-encoding my music (especially the stuff I no longer actually have...) and since transcoding is not an option, then I'll just stick with what I started doing. I suspect most people will do the same.
But an American company has obtained a patent
for "basmati" rice?
An American company, Ricetec Inc., has obtained
a patent in the US for a rice line that mimics the
properties of traditional Basmati rice, a product
of India and Pakistan.
After a legal challenge, the patents were restricted
so that they do not cover the pre-existing traditional
varieties.
It is also important to note that the patent granted
does not give Ricetec authorisation to use the term
basmati. The use of such terms is governed by other
laws in the US and also by international agreements
such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement
on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
(TRIPS).
Can the discovery of DNA and the Human Genome be
patented?
No. Under the Regulations and the Directive, neither
DNA or raw human genome information can be patented
because they are discoveries and not inventions.
The Regulations and the Directive make it clear that
discoveries are not patentable.
Gene-based inventions involve material which already
occur in nature and can therefore under no circumstances
be invented, only discovered?
Discoveries which extend human knowledge but do
not extend human ability, are by their very nature
not patentable. This is certainly the case with raw
fundamental information on the human genetic code.
The Regulations and the Directive confirm and reinforce
this position.
However, it is different if the genetic material
is isolated from its natural environment by means
of an inventive process involving a new technical
solution. Here there is a step taken from knowing
to being able. Therefore, the Regulations and the
Directive make clear that certain gene-based inventions
may be patentable provided that they satisfy the
normal criteria for any invention, namely that they
are new, not obvious to those who understand the
technical field and must embody a technical solution
to a technical problem.
"The RQ-1A/B Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. The fully operational system consists of four air vehicles (with sensors), a ground control station (GCS), a Predator primary satellite link communication suite and 55 people."
That thing is freakin' awesome.
Except for the whole Deathbringing, and suppression of my rights and stuff. But still...
Couldn't the ISP just have 2 proxy servers? One for filtering and one for not. Then teach people how to stop the kids altering the config for the browser.
I went to see the Chemical Brothers live at a festival and I swear that that's exactly what they were doing: bashing some buttons randomly while a whole set was played back. With some local video footage played in the background to show they cared.
That's brilliant. Do you remind him of it at family gatherings? "And my cousin, Bob - that's him over there - actually lost money to these scammers! What a doofus!"
All ours were bar coded too. Even way back then. Our tracking system was pretty good for the 80s/90s.
I suppose that units could be locked out so they can't be processed by the computer, but what auologous units were you storing in the fridge. my experience was that a 1 unit transfusion was a WOFTAM, since the risks of complication (even of an autologous unit) outweighed the benefit a single unit may give (or to put it more succinctly, the risk of transfusion outweighed the risk of living without a pint of blood for a short time).
I'm sure that it could be done, given money and the will to do it, and a big education campaign for the patients and financial incentives for them, but I think that by he time all that rolls around, artificial Hb will be in bottles.
I live in Australia where the Australian Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service (ARCBTS) collects and co-ordinates blood donations.
In the 80s - 90s, I worked in a pathology lab where we both screened the donors and crossmatched for recipients. This was when HIV was well established to be a bit more than "teh ghey dizzez" and the Next Big Worry was Hep C, for which there wasn't a reliable antigen test at the time (remember, cost is everything - a $100 test might not be used for a disease with 0.1% incidence because of the massive cost of it).
The subject of autologous transfusions came up often, and the ARCBTS was generally against it for several reasons: - patient selection - the logistics of collection - the logistics of storage - the logistics of giving it back
Selection Who is able to donate blood prior to surgery? Who isn't? The very old and the very young can't. Those with anaemia can't, neither can those undergoing chemo or radiotherapy. Those with blood-borne diseases shouldn't. Obviously only reasonably health people having elective surgery can. Smallish pool of people that.
Do they need to give blood? Depends on the type of surgery. Most surgery doesn't require a blood transfusion unless something goes wrong. Some surgery (open heart, for example) requires more blood than a single person can be expected to give.
Collection: Since 99% of donations are from anonymous donors, it would be difficult to segregate directed donations to ensure they don't get lost in the system. At the moment, a bag of O+ is just a bag of O+. Once it's cleared, it doesn't matter who it's from or where it ends up as long as it gets transfused into a compatible recipient. Having to track each bag individually would add enormously to the cost of collection, as well as increase the chance of "lost" bags. Just like luggage, these things happen. Also, bags may get mislabelled. If there's a group mismatch, these things will be picked up on crossmatching, but if the're not different groups, then the patient will receive someone else's blood. Because of this, I would never issue autologous blood without performing a crossmatch, so there's no cost saving to be found by using autologous.
These hassles can be overcome, but it's a cost issue.
Storage: Blood is usually separated into plasma which is frozen (I can't remember how long fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is good for - it's a couple of years. hey, it's been a while since I worked in the field...) and red cells, which are refrigerated. The red cells are only good for a month, and even then a month is stretching it. The general rule is not to transfuse someone until they need two units, so a single unit donation that's to be refrigerated is useless. It would be medically negligent to get more than monthly donations from someone prior to surgery, since they'd be going into surgery with volumetric anaemia so you'd have to begin the process quite a few months prior.
Red cells can be successfully frozen, but the process is more difficult than that required by FFP, as is the thawing process. It requires labs to have more expensive equipment, preparing for transfusions will take longer (have to thaw out the cells), and if the surgery is cancelled at the last minute, then I don't think re-freezing the cells would be an option.
Giving it back: The blood will still have to be crossmatched, assuming it can be thawed in time. Surgery schedules get moved all the time, not necessarily for the benefit of the blood transfusion staff.
Although your idea is meritorious and seems logical, it would be difficult and expensive to implement.
I threw the gerrymander in for historical reasons. The branch stacking is party politics - agreed. However in the case cited, there was electoral fraud at the public elections. That's what the enquiry was about.
You know, there was a time when this traditional music you speak of was The Newest Sound Around. And it was probably derided by the traditionalists back then...
Slashdot Mirror
Mini disc. Pffft. The Clik! Disk is here to stay!
I can just see Steve saying to the record company execs "if we allow other players to use DRMd iTMS files, it'll be only a week before someone has leaked important encryption info all over the net. You wouldn't want your music files to be easily available on the P2P networks do you?"
True or not, they'll believe it and then send their emissaries to Congress to lobby for not opening up Apple's DRM to other players.
The problem with that is that Vorbis encoding seems to be a bit of a moving target. Sure, vorbis aoTuV seems very good but it's only been available since late 2004, isn't the "main" ogg vorbis and seems to be in permanent beta.
If I had begun my digitally encoded music collection in 2000, should I go back and re-encode in 2002 when Ogg Vorbis was released, again in 2003 when it improved, perhaps again in 2004 when vorbis aoTuV was semi-released, and perhaps again in 2006 when I can re-encode in vorbis aoTuV at 64 kbps.
Or should I have just encoded at 192 kbps MP3 in 2000 and be done with it?
While tests aimed at determining the best encoder currently available this month may be useful and interesting to some, in practical terms I can't spend time constantly re-encoding my music (especially the stuff I no longer actually have...) and since transcoding is not an option, then I'll just stick with what I started doing. I suspect most people will do the same.
It seems that they are trying but not necessarily succeeding:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/faq/biofaq.htm
But an American company has obtained a patent for "basmati" rice?
Can the discovery of DNA and the Human Genome be patented?
Gene-based inventions involve material which already occur in nature and can therefore under no circumstances be invented, only discovered?
But we should remain ever vigilant.
"The RQ-1A/B Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. The fully operational system consists of four air vehicles (with sensors), a ground control station (GCS), a Predator primary satellite link communication suite and 55 people."
That thing is freakin' awesome.
Except for the whole Deathbringing, and suppression of my rights and stuff. But still...
Never in the history of mankind has the acronym "TMI" been more appropriate. eeewww.
Couldn't the ISP just have 2 proxy servers? One for filtering and one for not. Then teach people how to stop the kids altering the config for the browser.
I AM a drunk fortysomething divorcee you insensitive clod!
:-x
But I'll forgive you if you buy me a mai tai, you cheeky boy
I went to see the Chemical Brothers live at a festival and I swear that that's exactly what they were doing: bashing some buttons randomly while a whole set was played back. With some local video footage played in the background to show they cared.
That's brilliant. Do you remind him of it at family gatherings? "And my cousin, Bob - that's him over there - actually lost money to these scammers! What a doofus!"
I really liked the Starship Troopers movie.
I'm sorry. I'll go away now.
A what release? Who wants to read about corn?
Greetings, fellow lab slave :-)
All ours were bar coded too. Even way back then. Our tracking system was pretty good for the 80s/90s.
I suppose that units could be locked out so they can't be processed by the computer, but what auologous units were you storing in the fridge. my experience was that a 1 unit transfusion was a WOFTAM, since the risks of complication (even of an autologous unit) outweighed the benefit a single unit may give (or to put it more succinctly, the risk of transfusion outweighed the risk of living without a pint of blood for a short time).
I'm sure that it could be done, given money and the will to do it, and a big education campaign for the patients and financial incentives for them, but I think that by he time all that rolls around, artificial Hb will be in bottles.
I live in Australia where the Australian Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service (ARCBTS) collects and co-ordinates blood donations.
In the 80s - 90s, I worked in a pathology lab where we both screened the donors and crossmatched for recipients. This was when HIV was well established to be a bit more than "teh ghey dizzez" and the Next Big Worry was Hep C, for which there wasn't a reliable antigen test at the time (remember, cost is everything - a $100 test might not be used for a disease with 0.1% incidence because of the massive cost of it).
The subject of autologous transfusions came up often, and the ARCBTS was generally against it for several reasons:
- patient selection
- the logistics of collection
- the logistics of storage
- the logistics of giving it back
Selection
Who is able to donate blood prior to surgery? Who isn't? The very old and the very young can't. Those with anaemia can't, neither can those undergoing chemo or radiotherapy. Those with blood-borne diseases shouldn't. Obviously only reasonably health people having elective surgery can. Smallish pool of people that.
Do they need to give blood? Depends on the type of surgery. Most surgery doesn't require a blood transfusion unless something goes wrong. Some surgery (open heart, for example) requires more blood than a single person can be expected to give.
Collection:
Since 99% of donations are from anonymous donors, it would be difficult to segregate directed donations to ensure they don't get lost in the system. At the moment, a bag of O+ is just a bag of O+. Once it's cleared, it doesn't matter who it's from or where it ends up as long as it gets transfused into a compatible recipient. Having to track each bag individually would add enormously to the cost of collection, as well as increase the chance of "lost" bags. Just like luggage, these things happen. Also, bags may get mislabelled. If there's a group mismatch, these things will be picked up on crossmatching, but if the're not different groups, then the patient will receive someone else's blood. Because of this, I would never issue autologous blood without performing a crossmatch, so there's no cost saving to be found by using autologous.
These hassles can be overcome, but it's a cost issue.
Storage:
Blood is usually separated into plasma which is frozen (I can't remember how long fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is good for - it's a couple of years. hey, it's been a while since I worked in the field...) and red cells, which are refrigerated. The red cells are only good for a month, and even then a month is stretching it. The general rule is not to transfuse someone until they need two units, so a single unit donation that's to be refrigerated is useless. It would be medically negligent to get more than monthly donations from someone prior to surgery, since they'd be going into surgery with volumetric anaemia so you'd have to begin the process quite a few months prior.
Red cells can be successfully frozen, but the process is more difficult than that required by FFP, as is the thawing process. It requires labs to have more expensive equipment, preparing for transfusions will take longer (have to thaw out the cells), and if the surgery is cancelled at the last minute, then I don't think re-freezing the cells would be an option.
Giving it back:
The blood will still have to be crossmatched, assuming it can be thawed in time. Surgery schedules get moved all the time, not necessarily for the benefit of the blood transfusion staff.
Although your idea is meritorious and seems logical, it would be difficult and expensive to implement.
I'll believe that when I get my flying car.
Also, in spite of what Ray Kurzweil thinks, most of us reading this will be dead in 200 years. Probably all of us.
Actually, even though they weren't the target audience, they may have been targets...
Yes, but we're the top 2% :-)
I threw the gerrymander in for historical reasons. The branch stacking is party politics - agreed. However in the case cited, there was electoral fraud at the public elections. That's what the enquiry was about.
A Segway. That's what you need.
What people should be scrutinizing is Chinese law
But you can't scrute the inscrutable.
what dead christians? what crushed students? i searched www.google.cn and couldn't find any of this?
Actually, I was in the right field - Immunolgy. Loved it at uni, did very well in it, studied it to bits. Just not the researcher type :-(
Well that's an easy one to debunk:. shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/qld-n27
http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/shepinquiry.html
And Joh's gerrymander (shifting of electoral boundaries, a idea borrowed from the ALP) might count too.
Yep, I'm a Queenslander.
You know, there was a time when this traditional music you speak of was The Newest Sound Around. And it was probably derided by the traditionalists back then...
Disregarding the fact that "irrelavent" is not an English word
Me fail English? That's unpossible!