Patents are supposed to cover inventions done by Man.
If genes were invented by God, then they are not Man's to patent. Especially considering prior art. They existed long before society even existed, let alone patents. Therefore, genes are are God's, and thus not patentable.
That's what makes this so mind-blowingly stupid. And to have the judge say that this is not a naturally occurring molecule (wait, people *manufacture* cancer genes?) sets bag of shit on the steps of the courthouse alight.
But according to the latest judges, the patents Myriad holds do not reiterate these laws. In the courtâ(TM)s decision, Judge Alan Lourie writes: âoeEach of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter."
Like hell they are. This judge needs to go back to HS biology.
" They paid a fine of $160m for laundering a whopping $378.4bn from Mexican currency exchange houses between 2004 and 2007. Much of this cash is thought to have been drug money, moved without proper documentation from Casa's de Cambio in Mexico to US banks.
And given the size of that fine, they're still doing it. Cost of doing business. No more than getting nailed by a red-light camera.
And both laws encompass "known or should have known" concepts - that if it's obvious and you wilfully or negligently turned a blind eye, you're in trouble anyway.
Essentially the ambassador uses a loaded word for describing an action (a very strong word for the actual physical thing it would probably actually involve) - and/.-ers take it to mean a completely different kind of action (SAS operators blowing and shooting their way in)...
No, it's just that Ledow is simply wrong (and a boot licker I must add) that he has to defend his point to the end, up to and including twisting language and arguing semantics in ways that everyone can see is bullshit.
There are ways of saying "I'm going to burn your house down, fuck your dog and shoot your wife" that don't involve coming right out and saying it, and that's what the letter says. It's just that Ledow is either incapable of reading context or is on a campaign to get people to believe a falsehood. I'm gonna go with both.
That's why it's a breakthrough. Solid state laser diodes got us optical media, fiber optics, 3d scanners, etc, because they're not fragile, big, and expensive like gas lasers. Gas masers are big, expensive, and fragile and need specialized technicians to keep running. Solid state masers you can take out in the field. You can put them in a hand-held device. Plus it's cheap. Really cheap. I just looked up the cost of p-Terphenyl and it's $165 for 100 grams of scintillation grade. That's a lot of crystal, and the dopant is $64 for 100mg. While that's a lot more expensive than platinum, it's a dopant - you only need a tiny amount in a crystal, on the order of.05%. 100mg of dopant can tint 200g of p-Terphenyl.
Applications? It will revolutionize microwave comms and broadcast links. Microwave tower links are everywhere but the problem is there are so many and interference is a huge issue. A tower-to-tower maser link is not going to be as prone to spreading and causing interference and doesn't require the power of current microwave links. Broadcast and comms engineers are already salivating at the prospects. And that's just one application.
It's one thing to simulate a brain in a box with a large enough neural network. It's entirely something different to simulate all the biochemical reactions and physiology *and* be able to hook up your bionic eyeball to it and test it in real world (for as much a lab is real world) conditions.
> If scientists are afraid to publish risky results that have never been observed before, then scientific progress will slow down.
That's not what I'm advocating.
I'm just making the observation that Sturgeon's Law holds true here too. The overwhelming majority of stuff everywhere is mediocre at best. As for scientific studies, I think the problem is a result of publish-or-perish *and* a bias toward positive results, as opposed to negative results (we did this and it didn't work). As if coming up with a result that didn't match your hypothesis is bad science.
Here's the question: does doing science more carefully "slow down" science overall or does it increase the speed of scientific advance due to more reliable results? You may reference Voltaire's "perfect is the enemy of the good."
>53 'landmark' papers, but managed to confirm findings from only six of the studies.
That's 89 percent crap. (88.7%)
Sounds about right.
I repeat Sturgeonâ(TM)s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms. -- Theodore Sturgeon
And as I get older, it seems that this observation holds true more every day, in everything.
> If that student doesn't go on to college (at least right away), and wants to get a job in the community that requires computer literacy, they won't be able to say that they have multi-year experience working in a Windows environment.
So?
"I can use any computer you put in front of me" is a hell of a lot better than "I'm a robot that only learned one way to do things"
>but if you don't develop on Windows, you have no marketable skills.
This is the biggest load of bullshit you've said.
There is more to computing than office documents. There is more to computing than the desktop. Indeed, it seems that anywhere *real work* is done like science and engineering, Windows is nowhere to be found.
Out of the Top 500 supercomputers in the world, you know, where the real big problems are solved, there are a token *two* Windows clusters.
Linux owns 92 percent. Proprietary Unix, Mixed, and BSD the rest.
Linux runs embedded devices Linux runs smartphones Linux runs the databases Linux trades your stocks Linux probably runs your car's computer and if Google gets its way, you'll be sharing the road with Linux automatically driven cars. Linux runs the computers that found Higgs and got us to Mars.
Yeah, no marketable skills if you write for Linux.
>no. it's primary advantage is 80X longevity than a hard drive and produce.
Bullshit. Assuming that a hard disk has the life-expectancy of a year, that is 80 years. This is bullshit, because in 30 years you won't be able to find a tape reader that can read the tape, or if you do, it will be a refurb at eye-watering prices.
And speaking as someone who has handled reel-to-reel tape complete with vacuum columns in the past, your only hope to retain that data is to continue to migrate it to ever more modern formats and operating systems "relentlessly, ruthlessly(I wonder where Ruth is?), doggedly (arf arf)."
-- BMO - At 4th and Drucker he turns left, at Drucker and 4th he turns right, he crosses MacArthur Park and walks into a great sandstone building. (smack) "Oh, my nose!"
But as we can't really see in 3 dimensions - we can't see the inside and outside at the same time,
Sure we can. It's called transparency and translucency and computers are pretty good at simulating this as 2D projection on a flat screen. If you were to do it in meatspace, you could use a translucent coloured glass or plastic.
Actually, in Minnesota, you can be charged with a felony for giving people any warning of an upcoming speed trap
Citation needed or GTFO.
Every time someone decides to fight stuff like that, especially "the flashing of headlights is a felony" bullshit, it gets struck down as unconstitutional.
>It's not that much worse than what is widely available online today.
As if malware today is benign. It's sent out by criminals, and states that do this are therefore criminal states. Collective punishment is a war crime in real life because it is indiscriminate. This is collective punishment in e-space.
Why is malware being served up by a government any less criminal? Because it's a government? I'm not a teahadist, and I am not affected by this because I use linux, but I do object to people deliberately polluting e-space deliberately.
Researchers asked true-or-false questions to a group of test subjects about whether a minor celebrity was still alive. When they provided a picture of the celebrity, more people evaluated the statement as 'true' than when no picture was provided. The researchers then switched the question, asking whether it was true or false that the celebrity was dead.
Countries that release stuff like this into the wild are criminal rogue states. It's like dumping agent-orange not just on the jungles of Vietnam during war, but on the entire planet as a whole.
There are no borders on the Internet. What you release is not limited to your target and affects everyone.
One can only hope that the governments that released Flame, Stuxnet, and now this, become victims of their own weapons.
Yes, I do know who that likely means. I certainly hope it comes back to bite us like a torpedo circling around and targeting its own submarine. Maybe then someone will learn a thing or two about not shitting where you eat.
Slashdot Mirror
He's right, the molecules are made by God
Assuming you are right for the sake of argument.
Patents are supposed to cover inventions done by Man.
If genes were invented by God, then they are not Man's to patent. Especially considering prior art. They existed long before society even existed, let alone patents. Therefore, genes are are God's, and thus not patentable.
Petard. Your own. Hoisted.
--
BMO
It's on the gene itself.
That's what makes this so mind-blowingly stupid. And to have the judge say that this is not a naturally occurring molecule (wait, people *manufacture* cancer genes?) sets bag of shit on the steps of the courthouse alight.
--
BMO
Imagine, for the sake of argument that what follows is greentexting.
>go to tech related site like slashdot
>no support for UTF8
>2012
Oh the ironing.
--
BMO
But according to the latest judges, the patents Myriad holds do not reiterate these laws. In the courtâ(TM)s decision, Judge Alan Lourie writes: âoeEach of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter."
Like hell they are. This judge needs to go back to HS biology.
--
BMO
What sort of textbook can you write with nothing but G, A, T, and C?
The same sort of textbook you can write in zeroes and ones, but in base 4 instead of base 2.
Happy now?
--
BMO
" They paid a fine of $160m for laundering a whopping $378.4bn from Mexican currency exchange houses between 2004 and 2007. Much of this cash is thought to have been drug money, moved without proper documentation from Casa's de Cambio in Mexico to US banks.
And given the size of that fine, they're still doing it. Cost of doing business. No more than getting nailed by a red-light camera.
--
BMO
... grass is green, the sky is blue, and the sun will come up tomorrow.
The entire Silk Road operation is dependent upon bitcoin being used as a method of money laundering.
Any transaction obfuscating the exchange of value for illegal goods is ipso-facto money laundering.
US law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956
Australian law: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tcb/1-20/tcb004.aspx
And both laws encompass "known or should have known" concepts - that if it's obvious and you wilfully or negligently turned a blind eye, you're in trouble anyway.
--
BMO
Essentially the ambassador uses a loaded word for describing an action (a very strong word for the actual physical thing it would probably actually involve) - and /.-ers take it to mean a completely different kind of action (SAS operators blowing and shooting their way in)...
No, it's just that Ledow is simply wrong (and a boot licker I must add) that he has to defend his point to the end, up to and including twisting language and arguing semantics in ways that everyone can see is bullshit.
There are ways of saying "I'm going to burn your house down, fuck your dog and shoot your wife" that don't involve coming right out and saying it, and that's what the letter says. It's just that Ledow is either incapable of reading context or is on a campaign to get people to believe a falsehood. I'm gonna go with both.
--
BMO
But those aren't solid-state. This is.
That's why it's a breakthrough. Solid state laser diodes got us optical media, fiber optics, 3d scanners, etc, because they're not fragile, big, and expensive like gas lasers. Gas masers are big, expensive, and fragile and need specialized technicians to keep running. Solid state masers you can take out in the field. You can put them in a hand-held device. Plus it's cheap. Really cheap. I just looked up the cost of p-Terphenyl and it's $165 for 100 grams of scintillation grade. That's a lot of crystal, and the dopant is $64 for 100mg. While that's a lot more expensive than platinum, it's a dopant - you only need a tiny amount in a crystal, on the order of .05%. 100mg of dopant can tint 200g of p-Terphenyl.
Applications? It will revolutionize microwave comms and broadcast links. Microwave tower links are everywhere but the problem is there are so many and interference is a huge issue. A tower-to-tower maser link is not going to be as prone to spreading and causing interference and doesn't require the power of current microwave links. Broadcast and comms engineers are already salivating at the prospects. And that's just one application.
--
BMO
Nope, not good enough.
It's one thing to simulate a brain in a box with a large enough neural network. It's entirely something different to simulate all the biochemical reactions and physiology *and* be able to hook up your bionic eyeball to it and test it in real world (for as much a lab is real world) conditions.
--
BMO
Now tell me how we could have simulated this and tested it in a computer model, PETA guys.
*crosses arms and taps foot*
--
BMO
> If scientists are afraid to publish risky results that have never been observed before, then scientific progress will slow down.
That's not what I'm advocating.
I'm just making the observation that Sturgeon's Law holds true here too. The overwhelming majority of stuff everywhere is mediocre at best. As for scientific studies, I think the problem is a result of publish-or-perish *and* a bias toward positive results, as opposed to negative results (we did this and it didn't work). As if coming up with a result that didn't match your hypothesis is bad science.
Here's the question: does doing science more carefully "slow down" science overall or does it increase the speed of scientific advance due to more reliable results? You may reference Voltaire's "perfect is the enemy of the good."
--
BMO
>53 'landmark' papers, but managed to confirm findings from only six of the studies.
That's 89 percent crap. (88.7%)
Sounds about right.
And as I get older, it seems that this observation holds true more every day, in everything.
--
BMO
> If that student doesn't go on to college (at least right away), and wants to get a job in the community that requires computer literacy, they won't be able to say that they have multi-year experience working in a Windows environment.
So?
"I can use any computer you put in front of me" is a hell of a lot better than "I'm a robot that only learned one way to do things"
>but if you don't develop on Windows, you have no marketable skills.
This is the biggest load of bullshit you've said.
There is more to computing than office documents. There is more to computing than the desktop. Indeed, it seems that anywhere *real work* is done like science and engineering, Windows is nowhere to be found.
Out of the Top 500 supercomputers in the world, you know, where the real big problems are solved, there are a token *two* Windows clusters.
Linux owns 92 percent. Proprietary Unix, Mixed, and BSD the rest.
Linux runs embedded devices
Linux runs smartphones
Linux runs the databases
Linux trades your stocks
Linux probably runs your car's computer and if Google gets its way, you'll be sharing the road with Linux automatically driven cars.
Linux runs the computers that found Higgs and got us to Mars.
Yeah, no marketable skills if you write for Linux.
Troll.
--
BMO
>no. it's primary advantage is 80X longevity than a hard drive and produce.
Bullshit. Assuming that a hard disk has the life-expectancy of a year, that is 80 years. This is bullshit, because in 30 years you won't be able to find a tape reader that can read the tape, or if you do, it will be a refurb at eye-watering prices.
And speaking as someone who has handled reel-to-reel tape complete with vacuum columns in the past, your only hope to retain that data is to continue to migrate it to ever more modern formats and operating systems "relentlessly, ruthlessly(I wonder where Ruth is?), doggedly (arf arf)."
--
BMO - At 4th and Drucker he turns left, at Drucker and 4th he turns right, he crosses MacArthur Park and walks into a great sandstone building. (smack) "Oh, my nose!"
Tell me again how translucency and transparency don't allow you to see through/into something.
Go ahead. Make me laugh more.
--
BMO
But as we can't really see in 3 dimensions - we can't see the inside and outside at the same time,
Sure we can. It's called transparency and translucency and computers are pretty good at simulating this as 2D projection on a flat screen. If you were to do it in meatspace, you could use a translucent coloured glass or plastic.
There is no reason why you can't use spheres.
--
BMO
You are not a conservative.
You are a RINO if you have reasonable views. It has been this way for a while. Barry Goldwater would be called a RINO were he alive today.
The reasonable people have been chased out.
--
BMO
1. That law doesn't apply. Headlights are not automatically flashing and that's what it covers.
2. Choose well, young grasshopper.
GFY.
--
BMO
Actually, in Minnesota, you can be charged with a felony for giving people any warning of an upcoming speed trap
Citation needed or GTFO.
Every time someone decides to fight stuff like that, especially "the flashing of headlights is a felony" bullshit, it gets struck down as unconstitutional.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-23/news/31829713_1_ryan-kintner-speed-trap-free-speech
Legislatures can keep passing these laws, and they can keep getting struck down. If you get hit by one of these laws, fight it.
--
BMO
>It's not that much worse than what is widely available online today.
As if malware today is benign. It's sent out by criminals, and states that do this are therefore criminal states. Collective punishment is a war crime in real life because it is indiscriminate. This is collective punishment in e-space.
Why is malware being served up by a government any less criminal? Because it's a government? I'm not a teahadist, and I am not affected by this because I use linux, but I do object to people deliberately polluting e-space deliberately.
--
BMO
Researchers asked true-or-false questions to a group of test subjects about whether a minor celebrity was still alive. When they provided a picture of the celebrity, more people evaluated the statement as 'true' than when no picture was provided. The researchers then switched the question, asking whether it was true or false that the celebrity was dead.
And the picture of this guy: http://i.imgur.com/C4j2T.jpg made everyone say "yeah, he's dead."
--
BMO
I find it interesting that stating facts as they exist on the ground is now "troll" on slashdot.
Countries that release stuff like this into the wild are criminal rogue states. It's like dumping agent-orange not just on the jungles of Vietnam during war, but on the entire planet as a whole.
There are no borders on the Internet. What you release is not limited to your target and affects everyone.
One can only hope that the governments that released Flame, Stuxnet, and now this, become victims of their own weapons.
Yes, I do know who that likely means. I certainly hope it comes back to bite us like a torpedo circling around and targeting its own submarine. Maybe then someone will learn a thing or two about not shitting where you eat.
--
BMO
>What's IV?
Investor Village
--
BMO