The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.
As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.
Is patent law broken in the US? Yes. But just because the Law is an Arse does not mean it's not illegal.
Lots of things are illegal. In my state most of them aren't, cause we're not that insane. Except for patents and copyrights, we're still stuck on stupid.
Additionally, the rise of sea levels by 26 feet will almost certainly increase the reduction in the growth of humans, due to a reduction in arable land and all the people who live there.
Unless we become merfolk as in that movie, Water World.
1. The assumption that humans must grow exponentially has been proven false. Ask China or India. 2. The assumption that renewable energy can not be stored has been proven false. Ask China, they project 70 pct storage of wind and solar using compressed air, or 50-70 pct using pumped water. 3. Some nations are already carbon neutral. The fact that you want excuses for your inaction, does not change that basic fact. In fact, in the US alone, if you considered the 12 fast growing states that have 60 pct of the US GDP which are switching to carbon-neutral alternative energy for 20 pct or more of their energy supply, you'd see it's acheivable. It would be too for Canada if you removed Alberta. Just look at BC next door to Alberta, which is already far further than we are, but has more oil and gas than Alberta has.
So, check out real scientific journals like Renewable Energy, or Energy Policy, or any decent journal in the real world, and you'll see it's just a bunch of lazy whiners that come up with excuses for why they don't want to change.
What I am describing is the use of publishing either data or software BEFORE actual publication.
The timing is what is in question, not the (eventual) publication.
In certain cases where we do genetic studies, we find that publication of inheritance trees too specifically identifies specific people, who are still alive, and so we may have to not specifically publish all of the tree, as that would publish data which one is not authorized to publish about the people who inherited the genetic disease trait from. Qualified researchers who sign an NDA for the IRB can see it, but publication - once in the wild - means everyone can figure it out using public records data.
Submission of biochemical structures too early, prior to publication, can also result in similar things.
Same goes for code. If it's too specific, the very naming and methods mean that someone else could rush data to publication before the originator of the methods, code, and data was able to be published. This would be bad - as it incentivizes cheating - where, PRIOR to Publication, one avoids the pitfalls that would make things take years, so that one can do work in months that one did not in fact create. AFTER it is published, this is fine, especially as a check, but not BEFORE.
Sometimes, when you publish the code you used to develop new Biochemistry or Genetics solutions, you find that other scientists in other countries use your code to reverse engineer what you are working on - your results, if you will - to eliminate dead ends and publish a paper on what you invested years finding a solution for, but before you submit your paper that they "effectively" stole.
We had that happen when we deposited ligand results a few times, until we learned to stop submitting such things until AFTER we were approved for print.
This is one reason for hesitancy that I can agree to. Just because I wrote code, doesn't mean I want you to have it, if I haven't published the end result.
After it's in print, you're welcome to have the code. Not before.
Inkjets have been used for years to print living cells and also the scaffolding for cells to adhere to. The problem isn't so much the tech but the sea of patents blocking anyone from bringing a complete system to market. When this problem is solved look for rapid progress on many fronts. Until then maybe it will only be available in countries that favor technological progress over nurturing an obsessive compulsion to hoard money that goes unused.
Patents are the problem with tissue engineering, just as it is with other 3D print applications. I'm not against patents. It's just that the current way it's being run isn't working to help move tech progress forward, it only helps a few to make money and also keep control over the rate of progress.
I think that the UW may hold many of the underlying patents which are licensed for use at a much lower fee than private enterprise may wish to charge. Check with UW Tech on this.
My conclusion: Women are sneakier at committing misconduct.
I believe that we can not conclude any such thing.
The problem is that it may be possible that we have six groups:
A. Men who commit misconduct and get caught. B. Men who commit misconduct and get away with it. C. Men who do not commit misconduct.
D. Women who commit misconduct and get caught. E. Women who commit misconduct and get away with it. F. Women who do not commit misconduct.
The data only show the proportion of group A to combined B and C in comparison to group D to combined E and F.
Without further data, given that women may be. A. more honest, B. more adept in social situations, C. less likely to piss people off forcing them to be found out in public, we cannot actually describe the situation clearly.
However, I believe that it is likely that men are more likely to commit misconduct and that women are less likely to be caught and less likely to commit misconduct. This has not been proven, however.
Here in Seattle, unemployment is 6.1 percent both in the city and in King County, while it's 7.7 percent in the State (or rural and suburban areas).
Industry is growing in Seattle. We make things. Things like fair trade organic chocolate. Things like distilled liquor. Things like planes that have outsourced battery systems from Japan... but the plane made here works fine.
The problem is really that Wages are at a 50 year low and Profits are at a 50 year high. The old split used to be 50/50 for Capital/Labor and right now it's about 90/10.
The problem is not the modification of the genes themselves, which is what selective breeding does, it's the lack of testing of the modified genes on animals and then on humans.
A lot of modifications are being added to "turn off" crops without specific promotors. Mostly to keep revenue - otherwise you could just keep the seeds from the crops and grow your own second and subsequent crops from the first batch. But nobody knows if those "silencers" may have other impacts on humans.
Because the FDA doesn't test that.
I'm not saying it's bad, just that we literally do not know if it does have an actual impact on humans, or if subsequent materials in the environment may cause it to behave differently. That could be harmless. Or it could be bad.
Here, hold this nuclear hand grenade. It's safe. Trust me.
Implicit in "civil disobedience" is "disobedience". Disobedience to what? THE LAW. So, you've just admitted that what you are doing is illegal.
But who made that law? Does that municipal or county or even state law violate the State Constitution or the US Constitution or an International Treaty that the US is a signatory to?
It's illegal to do lots of things. But laws are rarely enforced, and who we choose to enforce them on (black youths mostly) says a lot about our priorities and who we don't enforce them on (Banking CEOs and millionaires in Greece who are not paying taxes on the Lagrande List).
If you give someone "private" information, it isn't private anymore. That is the nature of privacy and information. Once you tell somebody something you are at their mercy to keep it to themselves. If you want to keep a secret, don't tell anyone
I think you're failing to get the point.
The people involved signed legally enforceable consent forms which specifically mandate what data authorization and sharing are permitted.
The problem lies in the interpretation that release of bits of information did not violate these IRB approved contracts, when in fact, as a number of panels at scientific conferences had warned, they did violate these IRB approved contracts.
And yet you just referenced how it is free. Cells replicate siRNA sRNA mRNA and various proteins from one copy of instructions, adapt to environments, and crank out many copies.
It's the challenge of so-called Free Trade with China, which actively copies information and patents but will not permit enforcement regimes.
The original quote was "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive.", which itself is a summation of a longer quote. Just quoting the first part changes the meaning dramatically.
Actually, as anyone working in genetics could tell you, not only does information want to be free, it also is dropping in price each and every day.
Data storage will probably be biological in the near future. We sequence data for less and less and infer more and more each and every day.
Slashdot Mirror
US honoring their trade and privacy treaties? are you visiting Colorado and high as fuck??
No, I live in Seattle. The real Washington, strong and free. We legalized everything too. Have fun living in serfdom.
The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.
As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.
Period.
Is patent law broken in the US? Yes. But just because the Law is an Arse does not mean it's not illegal.
Lots of things are illegal. In my state most of them aren't, cause we're not that insane. Except for patents and copyrights, we're still stuck on stupid.
Theft is theft.
It only affects the jail terms and the final penalties, not the fact that they're guilty.
They're just worried that the US won't ship them our coal or Canada's oil.
Maybe we should cease providing naval, air, and land military protection for China's resource extraction industries worldwide?
I'm down with that.
You spy. We let you die.
Fair trade.
Additionally, the rise of sea levels by 26 feet will almost certainly increase the reduction in the growth of humans, due to a reduction in arable land and all the people who live there.
Unless we become merfolk as in that movie, Water World.
1. The assumption that humans must grow exponentially has been proven false. Ask China or India.
2. The assumption that renewable energy can not be stored has been proven false. Ask China, they project 70 pct storage of wind and solar using compressed air, or 50-70 pct using pumped water.
3. Some nations are already carbon neutral. The fact that you want excuses for your inaction, does not change that basic fact. In fact, in the US alone, if you considered the 12 fast growing states that have 60 pct of the US GDP which are switching to carbon-neutral alternative energy for 20 pct or more of their energy supply, you'd see it's acheivable. It would be too for Canada if you removed Alberta. Just look at BC next door to Alberta, which is already far further than we are, but has more oil and gas than Alberta has.
So, check out real scientific journals like Renewable Energy, or Energy Policy, or any decent journal in the real world, and you'll see it's just a bunch of lazy whiners that come up with excuses for why they don't want to change.
Adapt or Die.
Not arguing with you about publishing.
What I am describing is the use of publishing either data or software BEFORE actual publication.
The timing is what is in question, not the (eventual) publication.
In certain cases where we do genetic studies, we find that publication of inheritance trees too specifically identifies specific people, who are still alive, and so we may have to not specifically publish all of the tree, as that would publish data which one is not authorized to publish about the people who inherited the genetic disease trait from. Qualified researchers who sign an NDA for the IRB can see it, but publication - once in the wild - means everyone can figure it out using public records data.
Submission of biochemical structures too early, prior to publication, can also result in similar things.
Same goes for code. If it's too specific, the very naming and methods mean that someone else could rush data to publication before the originator of the methods, code, and data was able to be published. This would be bad - as it incentivizes cheating - where, PRIOR to Publication, one avoids the pitfalls that would make things take years, so that one can do work in months that one did not in fact create. AFTER it is published, this is fine, especially as a check, but not BEFORE.
Sometimes, when you publish the code you used to develop new Biochemistry or Genetics solutions, you find that other scientists in other countries use your code to reverse engineer what you are working on - your results, if you will - to eliminate dead ends and publish a paper on what you invested years finding a solution for, but before you submit your paper that they "effectively" stole.
We had that happen when we deposited ligand results a few times, until we learned to stop submitting such things until AFTER we were approved for print.
This is one reason for hesitancy that I can agree to. Just because I wrote code, doesn't mean I want you to have it, if I haven't published the end result.
After it's in print, you're welcome to have the code. Not before.
We use the print heads to deliver specific measurements of various biological and chemical liquids in our labs here at the UW in Seattle.
Been doing it for years. I remember a seminar around 2005 was the first I saw, but it might precede then.
Inkjets have been used for years to print living cells and also the scaffolding for cells to adhere to. The problem isn't so much the tech but the sea of patents blocking anyone from bringing a complete system to market. When this problem is solved look for rapid progress on many fronts. Until then maybe it will only be available in countries that favor technological progress over nurturing an obsessive compulsion to hoard money that goes unused.
Patents are the problem with tissue engineering, just as it is with other 3D print applications. I'm not against patents. It's just that the current way it's being run isn't working to help move tech progress forward, it only helps a few to make money and also keep control over the rate of progress.
I think that the UW may hold many of the underlying patents which are licensed for use at a much lower fee than private enterprise may wish to charge. Check with UW Tech on this.
Look, various labs at the UW in Seattle have been doing this for a long time, in Biochem, Medical Genetics, and various other departments.
In fact, we paint the print heads purple for our school colors.
Been doing it for at least 8 years now.
Just read any scientific journal with research done by us.
Note: I have no idea if we patented any of this, but that doesn't mean we didn't.
Their conclusion: Men commit more misconduct.
My conclusion: Women are sneakier at committing misconduct.
I believe that we can not conclude any such thing.
The problem is that it may be possible that we have six groups:
A. Men who commit misconduct and get caught.
B. Men who commit misconduct and get away with it.
C. Men who do not commit misconduct.
D. Women who commit misconduct and get caught.
E. Women who commit misconduct and get away with it.
F. Women who do not commit misconduct.
The data only show the proportion of group A to combined B and C in comparison to group D to combined E and F.
Without further data, given that women may be. A. more honest, B. more adept in social situations, C. less likely to piss people off forcing them to be found out in public, we cannot actually describe the situation clearly.
However, I believe that it is likely that men are more likely to commit misconduct and that women are less likely to be caught and less likely to commit misconduct. This has not been proven, however.
It depends on where you live.
Here in Seattle, unemployment is 6.1 percent both in the city and in King County, while it's 7.7 percent in the State (or rural and suburban areas).
Industry is growing in Seattle. We make things. Things like fair trade organic chocolate. Things like distilled liquor. Things like planes that have outsourced battery systems from Japan ... but the plane made here works fine.
The problem is really that Wages are at a 50 year low and Profits are at a 50 year high. The old split used to be 50/50 for Capital/Labor and right now it's about 90/10.
There's your problem.
The problem is not the modification of the genes themselves, which is what selective breeding does, it's the lack of testing of the modified genes on animals and then on humans.
A lot of modifications are being added to "turn off" crops without specific promotors. Mostly to keep revenue - otherwise you could just keep the seeds from the crops and grow your own second and subsequent crops from the first batch. But nobody knows if those "silencers" may have other impacts on humans.
Because the FDA doesn't test that.
I'm not saying it's bad, just that we literally do not know if it does have an actual impact on humans, or if subsequent materials in the environment may cause it to behave differently. That could be harmless. Or it could be bad.
Here, hold this nuclear hand grenade. It's safe. Trust me.
There used to be a "right" to be forgotten in the US.
People used to move a couple states away to reset the clock.
But, sadly, we sold out to the former Reichsmarshals of the world.
One of the bizarre research results is that cooling of the brain after a concussion or explosion, can actually prevent most of this damage.
Various DARPA studies are underway.
"Sarge, Corporal Potter got an IED hit!"
"Pop an ice pack on his head and call the medic, Corporal".
Implicit in "civil disobedience" is "disobedience". Disobedience to what? THE LAW. So, you've just admitted that what you are doing is illegal.
But who made that law? Does that municipal or county or even state law violate the State Constitution or the US Constitution or an International Treaty that the US is a signatory to?
It's illegal to do lots of things. But laws are rarely enforced, and who we choose to enforce them on (black youths mostly) says a lot about our priorities and who we don't enforce them on (Banking CEOs and millionaires in Greece who are not paying taxes on the Lagrande List).
They would be similar only if you were sending the packets manually, even if that was only hitting F5 to refresh a browser.
What if I made a macro Alt-F5 which fired off F5 keypresses? Only one press, yet many submits.
You mean if I give someone 800 megabytes of unique personally identifying information, they might be able to personally identify me?
Shocking!
Thanks for leaving your cup in the diner. I used the DNA on that to sequence your genome.
No harm, no foul, right?
By the way, you should get your liver checked.
If you give someone "private" information, it isn't private anymore. That is the nature of privacy and information. Once you tell somebody something you are at their mercy to keep it to themselves. If you want to keep a secret, don't tell anyone
I think you're failing to get the point.
The people involved signed legally enforceable consent forms which specifically mandate what data authorization and sharing are permitted.
The problem lies in the interpretation that release of bits of information did not violate these IRB approved contracts, when in fact, as a number of panels at scientific conferences had warned, they did violate these IRB approved contracts.
By the way, like your hair.
This, however, ignores the time variable of costing. Information degrades in cost as a function of time.
You can see this in data storage. I remember when the first 10 kb drives came out. Kilobytes. Not Megabytes. Not Gigabytes. Not Terabytes.
They cost a lot more than 2 TB drives do now.
Ignoring time and the effect of time on pricing and value, perceived or otherwise, is foolish.
And yet you just referenced how it is free. Cells replicate siRNA sRNA mRNA and various proteins from one copy of instructions, adapt to environments, and crank out many copies.
It's the challenge of so-called Free Trade with China, which actively copies information and patents but will not permit enforcement regimes.
The barriers are all in your mind, man.
The original quote was "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive.", which itself is a summation of a longer quote. Just quoting the first part changes the meaning dramatically.
Actually, as anyone working in genetics could tell you, not only does information want to be free, it also is dropping in price each and every day.
Data storage will probably be biological in the near future. We sequence data for less and less and infer more and more each and every day.
Put that in your shortened telomeres and cap it.
Civil disobedience means you aren't a CEO of a bank, who will never spend a day in jail for stealing Billions.