Some quick calculations:
1 person uploading * 1000 (claimed) downloads * $5/month * (82 years (life expectancy) - 22 years (average age downloading)) * 12 months / year = $3.6M. Yeah, I'm sure the kids are going to try to use this defense in court. That whole monthly charge really is a kicker! Instead of multiplying by the number of songs shared, we multiply by the number of months you have access to all the songs (approximately 720).
Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
[troll] I wish/.ers would realize this when posting about the evil Microsoft "monopoly" too...especially when they then go on to say everyone should switch to Open Office in the same sentence![/troll]
Of course, for certain definitions, if you get too popular...you are a monopoly. It's all about barrier to entry, or something, even when alternatives do already exist. One could thus make the claim that the iPod does have a monopoly on handheld mp3 players, and practices that would prevent others from entering the market (proprietary formats, etc) would be illegal. But now I'm contradicting myself in my own post, and living in a hyphothetical world.
Yes, sure, and health care should be free too. But all these things cost money to provide, and more money to provide well. So even if they were provided for "free," your tax dollars are being spent on them. (Or you are paying for advertisments--the cost of seeing them, and the fact that they cost money driving up the price of what they advertise.)
On top of that, you want the providers to be accountable for what they provide; this is the essence of capitalism vs communism. If the government pays for these free news sources, who decides how much each source gets? Why not let the market decide how much each news source is worth, through the age-old tried and true method of paying for services you deem worthy. Screw your "right" to anything.
An interesting point, but there's a flaw in your basic assumption.
Sure, if an engineer were only designing the flatfish, he would design it without the need for metamorphosis, etc etc. However, an engineer designing the whole universe of life is going to want to reuse parts. You want to design millions of species by hand, or create a general few prototypes and then tweak them?
That's what I thought. Nice try, and I believe in evolution, but you'll need a different argument to hold any water with me.
Please do note that this is not a story about Budweiser not using GMO. In fact, there is nothing that says they are even against GM rice--just rice being modified to produce drugs grow outside, where it can potentially crosspollinate with rice meant for consumption. While the summary states that Anheuser-Busch "will not buy rice from Missouri if genetically modified crops are allowed in the state," the article clearly states they "won't buy rice from Missouri if genetically modified, drug-making crops are allowed to be grown in the state."
The trolling summary then continues on with links to the popularity of Bud and the uprising Tsing Tao for no obvious reason.
If you RTFA, you'd notice that this is not about genetically modifying rice to have to grow better or faster. This is about a drug company that wants to use rice to produce human proteins to be used at drugs--not rice for consumption! The fear here (from Anheuser-Busch) is about cross-pollination with normal rice strains.
You don't just steal sigs, but one-liners too. Sounds an awful lot like Mitch Hedberg: I wrote a script for a guy, and he said he liked it but he thought that I needed to rewrite it. I said, "Fuck that, I'll just make a copy."
From TFA: Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.
Well, that's all fine and good...but this wasn't about corruption or wrongdoing, while the quoted examples (Worldcom, Enron, tobacco industry) are. Why are the big boys stepping in on this unrelated issue?
Bah. Humbug.
Having been in the field for 5 years or so, and matriculating for my PhD next year, I know something about the subject. Unfortunately, the subject "bioinformatics" is way too broad to ever make for a good book.
For example, applying for PhD programs, I found myself looking at program names such as: Biophysics, Bioinformatics and Integrative Genomics, Biomedical Informatics, Computational and Systems Biology, and of course Bioinformatics. And the terms meant something different to each professor I spoke to, and are changing over time yet. Biomedical informatics definitely implies medical databases and EMRs (electronic medical records), while Biophysics implies more of a, well, physical approach (x-ray crystallography, cell movement and membrane forces).
But Bioinformatics and computational biology encompass them all--including other topics such as protein folding, genomics, proteomics, sequence alignment, paper-mining, evolution. Each of these touches on a vastly different aspect of biology and/or computer science and to different degrees. A good book (and plenty long enough for a textbook, I assure you) could be written on any single sub-subject. A book titled bioinformatics isn't going to be worth your while.
From RTA, it sounds like they would use tax dollars to buy equipment, but they would charge for service; i.e. not every citizen has to buy the service.
Perhaps they are estimating the customer base, and figuring out what they would have to charge to cover post-setup expenses.
Actually, it's a lot more like a
Catch-22 than the
Chicken and Egg as the latter is a problem of causality, while the former is dependence.
Maybe the distinction is somewhat foggy and I'm being absurd, but Catch-22 is a good book and references to it should be increased, while the chicken and egg problem is hackneyed and overused:)
Oops...didn't realize it'd come so soon. Errr, I mean, didn't you notice the '!' after the 1999999999? I didn't just put it there for emphasis, I meant factorial; and I somehow doubt you'll be around for that (any clue what date that is?).
The writeup calls this biological engineering major a biotech major. While there is some overlap between these two, there are also some fundamental differences.
Biotech includes many fields from the bioinformatics domain (gene chips, protein folding, sequence analysis)--while this major focuses on the engineering aspects of biology. Read up on the definitions to learn the differences, which are going to be key to know in the 21st century!
Actually, there is a problem with this. The GPS system would allow CA to tax only those miles driven in the state of California. Even better, they could tax different roads differently if they wanted. However, you certainly wouldn't want them taxing your roadtrip from LA to Boston and back again, when it wasn't their roads you were using!
There is an option for not saving that data. Click "Save as" and change the "save as type" to be.rtf,.txt, or even text with layout:.asc or.ans.
Or, just use emacs or Textpad to begin with:)
I'm not saying that driving slowly isn't dangerous, or that old people and people on cellphones are worse drivers because of it. I'm just saying it's a different kind of dangerous than drunk driving, even though all three have a common symptom of slow reaction time, and that it's important to note those differences--which the article blatantly ignores to be more sensationalist.
If it is a proven scientific fact that old people drive like they are drunk
Old people don't drive like they are drunk--they have the reaction time of a drunk. This article (in order to be more sensationalist) doesn't disambiguate between the two.
However, it's important. Drunk drivers cause accidents (especially accidents that result in deaths) more because they are driving hazardously than because they have impaired reaction times. Old people (and I know this is true for myself when I'm on the phone as well) drive more slowly.
Yes, linking to the data and not hosting it should still be a crime.
Consider the analagous crime of being the driver for a bank robbery. Sure, you aren't robbing the bank. But enabling others to perpetrate a crime is a crime.
One more example: Let's say you have some friends who happen to sell illegal drugs. You want to help them out, so you go around advertising their wares for them, telling people where to go to pick it up, etc. You are now part of the consortium selling the drugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Some quick calculations:
1 person uploading * 1000 (claimed) downloads * $5/month * (82 years (life expectancy) - 22 years (average age downloading)) * 12 months / year = $3.6M. Yeah, I'm sure the kids are going to try to use this defense in court. That whole monthly charge really is a kicker! Instead of multiplying by the number of songs shared, we multiply by the number of months you have access to all the songs (approximately 720).
Or the /. scale (-1 to 5) -- I don't think folk on here have any rights to complain :)
Second, a monopoly means that no-one can buy or use a product or service type by anyone other than a specific company. Ma Bell had a monopoly on phone service. There wasn't an alternative. There are zillions of alternatives to the iPod. The iPod is just really, really popular. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
/.ers would realize this when posting about the evil Microsoft "monopoly" too...especially when they then go on to say everyone should switch to Open Office in the same sentence![/troll]
[troll] I wish
Of course, for certain definitions, if you get too popular...you are a monopoly. It's all about barrier to entry, or something, even when alternatives do already exist. One could thus make the claim that the iPod does have a monopoly on handheld mp3 players, and practices that would prevent others from entering the market (proprietary formats, etc) would be illegal. But now I'm contradicting myself in my own post, and living in a hyphothetical world.
Yes, sure, and health care should be free too. But all these things cost money to provide, and more money to provide well. So even if they were provided for "free," your tax dollars are being spent on them. (Or you are paying for advertisments--the cost of seeing them, and the fact that they cost money driving up the price of what they advertise.)
On top of that, you want the providers to be accountable for what they provide; this is the essence of capitalism vs communism. If the government pays for these free news sources, who decides how much each source gets? Why not let the market decide how much each news source is worth, through the age-old tried and true method of paying for services you deem worthy. Screw your "right" to anything.
An interesting point, but there's a flaw in your basic assumption.
Sure, if an engineer were only designing the flatfish, he would design it without the need for metamorphosis, etc etc. However, an engineer designing the whole universe of life is going to want to reuse parts. You want to design millions of species by hand, or create a general few prototypes and then tweak them?
That's what I thought. Nice try, and I believe in evolution, but you'll need a different argument to hold any water with me.
What do you recommend for people who can't spell?
... use Excel like a pseudodatabase ... Word's horribly random ...
/. messages in it? Thanks!
custom grading scripts, tables.
Does Abiword have autocorrect, or at least spellcheck as you go? Can you compose your
Please do note that this is not a story about Budweiser not using GMO. In fact, there is nothing that says they are even against GM rice--just rice being modified to produce drugs grow outside, where it can potentially crosspollinate with rice meant for consumption. While the summary states that Anheuser-Busch "will not buy rice from Missouri if genetically modified crops are allowed in the state," the article clearly states they "won't buy rice from Missouri if genetically modified, drug-making crops are allowed to be grown in the state."
The trolling summary then continues on with links to the popularity of Bud and the uprising Tsing Tao for no obvious reason.
If you RTFA, you'd notice that this is not about genetically modifying rice to have to grow better or faster. This is about a drug company that wants to use rice to produce human proteins to be used at drugs--not rice for consumption! The fear here (from Anheuser-Busch) is about cross-pollination with normal rice strains.
You don't just steal sigs, but one-liners too.
Sounds an awful lot like Mitch Hedberg:
I wrote a script for a guy, and he said he liked it but he thought that I needed to rewrite it. I said, "Fuck that, I'll just make a copy."
From TFA: Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.
Well, that's all fine and good...but this wasn't about corruption or wrongdoing, while the quoted examples (Worldcom, Enron, tobacco industry) are. Why are the big boys stepping in on this unrelated issue?
Bah. Humbug.
Note: IAAB (I am a bioinformaticist)
:)
Having been in the field for 5 years or so, and matriculating for my PhD next year, I know something about the subject. Unfortunately, the subject "bioinformatics" is way too broad to ever make for a good book.
For example, applying for PhD programs, I found myself looking at program names such as: Biophysics, Bioinformatics and Integrative Genomics, Biomedical Informatics, Computational and Systems Biology, and of course Bioinformatics. And the terms meant something different to each professor I spoke to, and are changing over time yet. Biomedical informatics definitely implies medical databases and EMRs (electronic medical records), while Biophysics implies more of a, well, physical approach (x-ray crystallography, cell movement and membrane forces).
But Bioinformatics and computational biology encompass them all--including other topics such as protein folding, genomics, proteomics, sequence alignment, paper-mining, evolution. Each of these touches on a vastly different aspect of biology and/or computer science and to different degrees. A good book (and plenty long enough for a textbook, I assure you) could be written on any single sub-subject. A book titled bioinformatics isn't going to be worth your while.
My 2 cents and rant. Thanks for bearing with me
From RTA, it sounds like they would use tax dollars to buy equipment, but they would charge for service; i.e. not every citizen has to buy the service.
Perhaps they are estimating the customer base, and figuring out what they would have to charge to cover post-setup expenses.
Actually, it's a lot more like a Catch-22 than the Chicken and Egg as the latter is a problem of causality, while the former is dependence.
:)
Maybe the distinction is somewhat foggy and I'm being absurd, but Catch-22 is a good book and references to it should be increased, while the chicken and egg problem is hackneyed and overused
Oops...didn't realize it'd come so soon.
Errr, I mean, didn't you notice the '!' after the 1999999999? I didn't just put it there for emphasis, I meant factorial; and I somehow doubt you'll be around for that (any clue what date that is?).
Except that these seconds aren't counted in binary...1111111112 comes after 1111111111.
Which really makes this event quite unexciting....and none of us will be around for the excitement of 1999999999!
The writeup calls this biological engineering major a biotech major. While there is some overlap between these two, there are also some fundamental differences.
Biotech includes many fields from the bioinformatics domain (gene chips, protein folding, sequence analysis)--while this major focuses on the engineering aspects of biology. Read up on the definitions to learn the differences, which are going to be key to know in the 21st century!
Of course, bikes use the roads too. Are you going to continue biking once they install these GPS trackers on your bike as well?!?
Actually, there is a problem with this. The GPS system would allow CA to tax only those miles driven in the state of California. Even better, they could tax different roads differently if they wanted.
However, you certainly wouldn't want them taxing your roadtrip from LA to Boston and back again, when it wasn't their roads you were using!
There is an option for not saving that data. Click "Save as" and change the "save as type" to be .rtf, .txt, or even text with layout: .asc or .ans. :)
Or, just use emacs or Textpad to begin with
Don't take it from me. The onion has this exclusive story featured appropriately this week.
I'm not saying that driving slowly isn't dangerous, or that old people and people on cellphones are worse drivers because of it. I'm just saying it's a different kind of dangerous than drunk driving, even though all three have a common symptom of slow reaction time, and that it's important to note those differences--which the article blatantly ignores to be more sensationalist.
If it is a proven scientific fact that old people drive like they are drunk
Old people don't drive like they are drunk--they have the reaction time of a drunk. This article (in order to be more sensationalist) doesn't disambiguate between the two.
However, it's important. Drunk drivers cause accidents (especially accidents that result in deaths) more because they are driving hazardously than because they have impaired reaction times.
Old people (and I know this is true for myself when I'm on the phone as well) drive more slowly.
Yes, linking to the data and not hosting it should still be a crime.
Consider the analagous crime of being the driver for a bank robbery. Sure, you aren't robbing the bank. But enabling others to perpetrate a crime is a crime.
One more example: Let's say you have some friends who happen to sell illegal drugs. You want to help them out, so you go around advertising their wares for them, telling people where to go to pick it up, etc. You are now part of the consortium selling the drugs.
See here
While Carl and Michael focus on NetBeans, SunONE Studio Community Edition and Eclipse are also covered.
:)
Next time skim better...or use a Search function