It can't be 'prior art' if no one besides the extractors know about it.
The debate is not over patenting DNA, but DNA sequences. By this, I mean, not the biological manifestation but its representation. You're free to discover it and use it yourself, if you can.
However, if you need to know the sequence, the representation. A case can be made that this accurate representation is the fruit of an ingenious mechanism that is the creation of its discoverer. Should the discoverer be obliged to part with this fruit because of its natural truth ?
P.S. A lot of posts lament about the difference between copyright/patent. While the difference exists, I'm referring to the application of any legal instrument which aims to appropriate exclusivity to a certain group or individual.
Because an 'author' gains copyright. Nobody can author something that other people carry with them from birth as a chemical sequence.
First, the notion of only "authors" having copyright is just the contemporary 'direction' formed from reasoning in the recent past.
Second, what's being debated is copyrighting information. The actual sequence of DNA is a biological manifestation and not information. The information is a representation of that manifestation. Can -> that - be copyrighted ?
Third, my original question regarding the distinction in my original post still stands. I haven't decided either way about it.
Just imagine being told you have cancer....and then being handed a law suite for not licensing the process of mutating human DNA.
That's true only if one's in perfect control of the circumstances whence your DNA mutated. Obviously, we aren't. Otherwise, it would be possible to form a perfect prophylactic guideline.
This brings up again the interesting debate on whether information can be copyrighted by the one whom merely discovered the information,
I agree that DNA shouldn't be copyrighted.
As far as your question goes, it depends on how you look at it.
IS information waiting for a chance happening when its enigma becomes just a past temporal phenomena ? or IS certain information locked unless an ingenious mechanism uncovers it ?
Should the information linked to the second set of circumstances be any more privileged than the first ?
generally he makes the best move for a given situation.
Given that there are 'm' number of possible moves from a given state. After choosing one of those 'm' moves, the computer can make any one of it's 'n' responses. So that's mn possible scenarios. Take this ahead for every deeper level and you get mindboggling numbers. Now, Kasparov has played against people (i.e. humans) all his life. Humans can't think as quickly or as deeply as computers which are dumb machines with awesome calculation prowess and lack of any prejudices via training. They can be reset if those exist.
A human doesn't have those luxuries. When two humans play, neither of them computes all possible combinations to determine a 'best' move. They depend on prior demonstrated prejudices of their opponent, their own training, their limited computation to come up with the 'best' move. This is innately done.
Kasparov can't combat the full repetoire of possibilities that the computer can process. Kasparov can't look at past history and get some clues on how the computer might respond. The computer as a machine isn't bound by those constraints (atleast it doesn't have to be). So Kasparov's best move is essentially a combination of reasoning/pattern recognition AND gut instinct.
Hardly. Knowing your opponent is innately an exercise in psychology and fundamental similarity of the human experience and thought process.
Kasparov can't predict how the computer will move, since then he needs to know how the computer thinks and the input the computer has. He doesn't really have a full idea of either. He has to make judgements based on incomplete information. That's where gut instinct comes in.
Possibly because Kasparov doesn't play soley on raw intellect. Gut instinct and that hint of irrationality creeps in. The computer can't take that into account when anticipating Kasparov's possible countermoves.
Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.
Ads break the continuity and are most unwanted during a gripping part (cfr. Tivo). So some geeks would edit out the ads in movies especially and redistribute those. Make your filename contain ad-free and voila !
Other than that, I like your idea.
Why haven't these companies thought of this yet?
A lot of users still on dial-up. Broadband users get charged by amount of traffic. Would be reluctant to download it from your site. Rather have 1 guy get it and redistribute it to friends. So advertisements on movie websites are underutilized. They also need to create hardware DivX players, or rather an interface/feature-set similar to DVD but with DivX compression.
Most importantly, record and movie companies have a monopoly to uphold and their salaries to protect:-)
Re:Forgive the obvious question...
on
Superbowl XXXVII
·
· Score: 1
Well done, you've picked two sports more boring than american football.
Huh ? I don't see baseball or basketball mentioned anywhere
t that point, my end of the transaction is complete, and the seller should have already updated my feedback profile accordingly.
It's not just the initial "one end" of the transcation. The transaction is over when the two parties have nothing left to do/say for one another.
What if a buyer pays, seller sends, buyer complains & wants refund for a return. Buyer returns box and seller has already refunded. Box contains an older defective item of the same type. Buyer has money back and your new item.
Actually they do. No URLs allowed (I'm not talking about links). Also, if you get suspended from eBay, you can't leave feedback for a legitimate transaction which occured when you weren't suspended. No profanity either.
Point being, they do have rules. If violated, feedback is removed. I suppose you could ask eBay to include libel/slander as well.
First, is FOO an unique product ? There are always multiple products that have the same _end goal or use_. Bar INC can only make keep a high reservation price if others do.
Also, in your example, D & E think FOO is worth $5 at the time of release. Why do you assume they will buy it at that price 30 months after release. Maybe BARcheap INC will have released a cheaper product than FOO called FOOcheap. maybe FOOcheap reaches the $5 mark when FOO reaches the $8 mark. Then, D & E never do purchase FOO.
Safe to say, economics is more complicated than what my or your comment makes it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
It may just be the only OSS tool in the motion picture industry.
That's because feature-set and quality matter much more than software philosophy and even cost at times.
Paper money has to be carefully studied and then duplicated with painstaking attention to detail.
Someone could just probably figure out how money is "stored" and just keep on replenishing. Note the card is anonymous.
Money might not grow on trees, but it can be created by computer
spammers place themselves on this list ?
Does that mean no one can email them to tell them not to spam ?
Where we're going, we don't need roads ... in circles ?
I know it's pretty late. But on the off-chance you catch this reply.
I think he rarely plays by 'gut instinct'.
Read this
Kaparov Loses
It can't be 'prior art' if no one besides the extractors know about it.
The debate is not over patenting DNA, but DNA sequences. By this, I mean, not the biological manifestation but its representation. You're free to discover it and use it yourself, if you can.
However, if you need to know the sequence, the representation. A case can be made that this accurate representation is the fruit of an ingenious mechanism that is the creation of its discoverer. Should the discoverer be obliged to part with this fruit because of its natural truth ?
P.S. A lot of posts lament about the difference between copyright/patent. While the difference exists, I'm referring to the application of any legal instrument which aims to appropriate exclusivity to a certain group or individual.
Because an 'author' gains copyright. Nobody can author something that other people carry with them from birth as a chemical sequence.
First, the notion of only "authors" having copyright is just the contemporary 'direction' formed from reasoning in the recent past.
Second, what's being debated is copyrighting information. The actual sequence of DNA is a biological manifestation and not information. The information is a representation of that manifestation. Can -> that - be copyrighted ?
Third, my original question regarding the distinction in my original post still stands. I haven't decided either way about it.
Just imagine being told you have cancer....and then being handed a law suite for not licensing the process of mutating human DNA.
That's true only if one's in perfect control of the circumstances whence your DNA mutated. Obviously, we aren't. Otherwise, it would be possible to form a perfect prophylactic guideline.
This brings up again the interesting debate on whether information can be copyrighted by the one whom merely discovered the information,
I agree that DNA shouldn't be copyrighted.
As far as your question goes, it depends on how you look at it.
IS information waiting for a chance happening when its enigma becomes just a past temporal phenomena ? or IS certain information locked unless an ingenious mechanism uncovers it ?
Should the information linked to the second set of circumstances be any more privileged than the first ?
The pot sheds its
Ok..bear me out on this
generally he makes the best move for a given situation.
Given that there are 'm' number of possible moves from a given state. After choosing one of those 'm' moves, the computer can make any one of it's 'n' responses. So that's mn possible scenarios. Take this ahead for every deeper level and you get mindboggling numbers. Now, Kasparov has played against people (i.e. humans) all his life. Humans can't think as quickly or as deeply as computers which are dumb machines with awesome calculation prowess and lack of any prejudices via training. They can be reset if those exist.
A human doesn't have those luxuries. When two humans play, neither of them computes all possible combinations to determine a 'best' move. They depend on prior demonstrated prejudices of their opponent, their own training, their limited computation to come up with the 'best' move. This is innately done.
Kasparov can't combat the full repetoire of possibilities that the computer can process. Kasparov can't look at past history and get some clues on how the computer might respond. The computer as a machine isn't bound by those constraints (atleast it doesn't have to be).
So Kasparov's best move is essentially a combination of reasoning/pattern recognition AND gut instinct.
Geeks and a family. Go figure.
It's rationality that creeps in.
Hardly. Knowing your opponent is innately an exercise in psychology and fundamental similarity of the human experience and thought process.
Kasparov can't predict how the computer will move, since then he needs to know how the computer thinks and the input the computer has. He doesn't really have a full idea of either. He has to make judgements based on incomplete information. That's where gut instinct comes in.
Although the computer cannot correctly predict the exact move Kasparov is going to make, it can probably narrow it down to 2 or 3 likely moves.
How is 'likely' defined to the computer ? How does the computer figure out likelihood when taking into account a human's gut instinct ?
Possibly because Kasparov doesn't play soley on raw intellect. Gut instinct and that hint of irrationality creeps in. The computer can't take that into account when anticipating Kasparov's possible countermoves.
Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.
:-)
Ads break the continuity and are most unwanted during a gripping part (cfr. Tivo). So some geeks would edit out the ads in movies especially and redistribute those. Make your filename contain ad-free and voila !
Other than that, I like your idea.
Why haven't these companies thought of this yet?
A lot of users still on dial-up. Broadband users get charged by amount of traffic. Would be reluctant to download it from your site. Rather have 1 guy get it and redistribute it to friends. So advertisements on movie websites are underutilized. They also need to create hardware DivX players, or rather an interface/feature-set similar to DVD but with DivX compression.
Most importantly, record and movie companies have a monopoly to uphold and their salaries to protect
Well done, you've picked two sports more boring than american football.
Huh ? I don't see baseball or basketball mentioned anywhere
t that point, my end of the transaction is complete, and the seller should have already updated my feedback profile accordingly.
It's not just the initial "one end" of the transcation. The transaction is over when the two parties have nothing left to do/say for one another.
What if a buyer pays, seller sends, buyer complains & wants refund for a return. Buyer returns box and seller has already refunded. Box contains an older defective item of the same type. Buyer has money back and your new item.
Actually they do. No URLs allowed (I'm not talking about links). Also, if you get suspended from eBay, you can't leave feedback for a legitimate transaction which occured when you weren't suspended. No profanity either.
Point being, they do have rules. If violated, feedback is removed. I suppose you could ask eBay to include libel/slander as well.
but there's this "cost calculator" on the net for publishing an album.
A google doesn't show anything familiar.
IIRC, you need to gross a million dollars just to recieve ANY royalties towards your own pocket.
All the money towards production is a "loan" from the producers towards your effort.
I'm a gamer.
...now how is it ?
I run UT2003.
I own a LCD.
My LCD runs usually at 75 hz, although it can run at 80 hz.
I see no ghosting whatsoever.
Stop blinking so much
That seems a simplistic view.
First, is FOO an unique product ? There are always multiple products that have the same _end goal or use_. Bar INC can only make keep a high reservation price if others do.
Also, in your example, D & E think FOO is worth $5 at the time of release. Why do you assume they will buy it at that price 30 months after release. Maybe BARcheap INC will have released a cheaper product than FOO called FOOcheap. maybe FOOcheap reaches the $5 mark when FOO reaches the $8 mark. Then, D & E never do purchase FOO.
Safe to say, economics is more complicated than what my or your comment makes it to be.
I'm actually curious to see who builds ViewSonic's vertically-flat trinitron-esque tubes (it's definitely not Sony).
Two ways
1) Google for "$model regulatory"
where $model is the Viewsonic model number
2) At the back of the Viewsonic, look for a label containing FCC-ID. That FCC-ID will generally contain the model number of the "reference model"
For prepress and color-sensitive work, I would still want CRTs. Maybe 2-3 years down the line would sound OK, not now.