Hmmm. When Google products are still in Beta, I still rush to them, as they seem production-quality, with just a disclaimer. This is not true for Microsoft.
Actually there is a specific mention of copyright:
"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
You can copyright a trade secret. You can't patent a trade secret, because patenting something necessarily means it is published, and therefore no longer secret.
I posted a reply to this but my browser seems to have eaten it.
"I can hop on a plane at Stansted and be in Paris or spain for less than £1 (plus taxes) in a couple of hours."
Please tell me you missed a zero or two!
Please check out http://www.ryanair.com/
And you in the UK don't need a passport to visit Scotland or Wales, do you?
You're missing the point. Which is that Americans/Canadians can see a much, much higher percentage of the earth's land mass without a passport than the British.
if you don't want to carry around your birth certificate(!) or naturalization papers(!), you need a passport.
And if you don't want to get a passport(!), you need to carry your birth certificate. Next!
The implication whenever I hear that "only 5 percent of Americans have passports" (which is false) is that they are rubes uninterested in seeing the world around them. I think this is false.
You seem to think that because only 20 percent of Americans have passports, they are not being fully efficient in their bureaucratic obligations. For the sake of argument I will agree with you. So, what's your point?
Well the last TWO times I went to Germany from London (both in 2003), I was asked for my passport. And I was asked for my passport when I wanted to leave Germany and return too.
If you want to compare the percentage of Americans with passports to the percentage of British with passports, that's just silly (and I would say a little snobby). If we here on Britain, want to leave our little island and go to any other country other than Ireland, we have to have a passport. But once we have one it is easy to do so. I can hop on a plane at Stansted and be in Paris or spain for less than £1 (plus taxes) in a couple of hours.
Compare this to what Americans would need to visit a country where a passport would be required. They don't need one to visit Hawaii, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, or various Carribean countries. And the continental U.S. itself is freaking huge (2.5 times the size of the EU). The area of Britain is smaller than that of the State of Oregon. So as an American, you would have to travel a LONG way and spend a lot of money before you even needed a passport. Even moreso if you wanted to visit another "industrialized first world democracy."
A better comparison would be with Canadians, who have a similar situation as to where they can go without a passport to Americans. An estimated 26 percent of Canadians hold passports, compared to about 20 percent of Americans. Big deal. Now tell me that you dislike that 74 percent of Canadians.
So there you go. Not everyone in America is xenophobic, and not everyone in Britain is snobby.:-)
Sorry about the delay in responding--I usually get my crack^H^H^H^H^HSlashdot through Alterslash so I don't see the new messages notice right away.
I don't like though since it seems so restrictive if you don't know what the full length mRNA (or some other RNA) looks like.
My argument is that your proposed meaning is not restrictive enough;-) but I see your point.
How do you know a stretch of DNA is NOT transcribed (discounting the obvious like poly-nucleotide repeats, SINES, etc)?
You can't prove a negative. Particularly you cannot prove that a stretch of DNA is never transcribed--even if you have a high degree of confidence that it is not transcribed over a dozen different dimensions.
And I thought an ORF was defined as 1 single reading frame not all three?
That's correct. That's why even the termination codons would still be in an ORF.
"Transcript" = RNA. I was talking about DNA in my original post.
I think the original post would have worked with "transcript" but if you really wanted to specify a region of the genome you could use "gene" or "locus" (yuck, talk about unnecessary jargon).
The phrase "functional RNA" (fRNA) is also used. But this implies that there is actually some function to the RNA which is a lot harder to prove than just lack of translation.
I don't particularly like the use of "coding" either, since it is undescriptive (should really be "protein-coding").
but even their basic version is free. My original statement still stands: I don't know anyone who pays for IM, and I don't think Trillian Pro is something a typical home user wants/needs when gratis software here is really the default.
It is one that appears to be at odds with what most of the researchers I work with use. An internal coding exon is not an ORF. The whole coding sequence would be a single ORF that excludes the intervening introns.
If I read your above definition correctly, you would call every stretch of DNA that does not include a stop codon an ORF, even without requiring an initiation codon. This would mean the entire genome would be in an ORF! Even nucleotide triplets that match a termination codon would be in an ORF since they cannot be terminated in every frame. This definition is clearly not very useful.
I definitely don't mean transcripts since I was referring to DNA regions that possibly code for ntRNAs.
Huh? All of the ncRNAs[1] transcribed from the human genome are transcripts. Only some of them are ORFs. ORF is a bad term to use when referring to ncRNAs.
[1] "ntRNA" is also a new term for me that does not appear in PubMed. In some ways it seems like a more attractive term than ncRNA, but in others it does not...
An ORF is something that could potentially be a protein-coding gene--it has an in-frame start and termination codon. Most of the non-coding RNAs I am aware of are *not* in ORFs. You probably meant to say transcripts rather than ORF.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=ge no mes.section.6613
Slashdot Mirror
Nit: Cygwin, not Cygwin32.
;-)
Thanks for the explanation though.
Or even octopuses. Not "octopii." Use a freaking dictionary. I wish the plural is two i's meme would just diie.
Never liked it. I wouldn't pay 49 cents for it, let alone $30.
Hmmm. When Google products are still in Beta, I still rush to them, as they seem production-quality, with just a disclaimer. This is not true for Microsoft.
Actually there is a specific mention of copyright:
"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Doesn't that mean Linuxusers ends up dead of a heart attack? =-o
You can copyright a trade secret. You can't patent a trade secret, because patenting something necessarily means it is published, and therefore no longer secret.
Their ex-Product Manager is a man, baby!
Ahem, I think you mean:
Ewan McGregor is an actor?
The file share my boss had on his workstation labelled "Die white people" got attention, I can tell you....
;-)
Why? That's German for "The white people." Talk about ignorance.
I should point out that it is a lie to say that Kerry only served for four months.
The U.S. ;-)
I'm not British.
:) Nice country, it is. I like Germany too.
I just live here.
I posted a reply to this but my browser seems to have eaten it.
"I can hop on a plane at Stansted and be in Paris or spain for less than £1 (plus taxes) in a couple of hours."
Please tell me you missed a zero or two!
Please check out http://www.ryanair.com/
And you in the UK don't need a passport to visit Scotland or Wales, do you?
You're missing the point. Which is that Americans/Canadians can see a much, much higher percentage of the earth's land mass without a passport than the British.
if you don't want to carry around your birth certificate(!) or naturalization papers(!), you need a passport.
And if you don't want to get a passport(!), you need to carry your birth certificate. Next!
The implication whenever I hear that "only 5 percent of Americans have passports" (which is false) is that they are rubes uninterested in seeing the world around them. I think this is false.
You seem to think that because only 20 percent of Americans have passports, they are not being fully efficient in their bureaucratic obligations. For the sake of argument I will agree with you. So, what's your point?
Well the last TWO times I went to Germany from London (both in 2003), I was asked for my passport. And I was asked for my passport when I wanted to leave Germany and return too.
I'm French and when I go to the UK I only need to show my ID (I don't have a passport).
e nM arket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029390590& a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1013618385929
Maybe, but I was writing about British nationals going to France:
"British nationals need a valid passport to enter France."
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=Op
If you want to compare the percentage of Americans with passports to the percentage of British with passports, that's just silly (and I would say a little snobby). If we here on Britain, want to leave our little island and go to any other country other than Ireland, we have to have a passport. But once we have one it is easy to do so. I can hop on a plane at Stansted and be in Paris or spain for less than £1 (plus taxes) in a couple of hours.
:-)
Compare this to what Americans would need to visit a country where a passport would be required. They don't need one to visit Hawaii, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, or various Carribean countries. And the continental U.S. itself is freaking huge (2.5 times the size of the EU). The area of Britain is smaller than that of the State of Oregon. So as an American, you would have to travel a LONG way and spend a lot of money before you even needed a passport. Even moreso if you wanted to visit another "industrialized first world democracy."
A better comparison would be with Canadians, who have a similar situation as to where they can go without a passport to Americans. An estimated 26 percent of Canadians hold passports, compared to about 20 percent of Americans. Big deal. Now tell me that you dislike that 74 percent of Canadians.
So there you go. Not everyone in America is xenophobic, and not everyone in Britain is snobby.
Sorry about the delay in responding--I usually get my crack^H^H^H^H^HSlashdot through Alterslash so I don't see the new messages notice right away.
;-) but I see your point.
I don't like though since it seems so restrictive if you don't know what the full length mRNA (or some other RNA) looks like.
My argument is that your proposed meaning is not restrictive enough
How do you know a stretch of DNA is NOT transcribed (discounting the obvious like poly-nucleotide repeats, SINES, etc)?
You can't prove a negative. Particularly you cannot prove that a stretch of DNA is never transcribed--even if you have a high degree of confidence that it is not transcribed over a dozen different dimensions.
And I thought an ORF was defined as 1 single reading frame not all three?
That's correct. That's why even the termination codons would still be in an ORF.
"Transcript" = RNA. I was talking about DNA in my original post.
I think the original post would have worked with "transcript" but if you really wanted to specify a region of the genome you could use "gene" or "locus" (yuck, talk about unnecessary jargon).
The phrase "functional RNA" (fRNA) is also used. But this implies that there is actually some function to the RNA which is a lot harder to prove than just lack of translation.
I don't particularly like the use of "coding" either, since it is undescriptive (should really be "protein-coding").
I think the lameness filter requires some text in the message so this is it.
but even their basic version is free. My original statement still stands: I don't know anyone who pays for IM, and I don't think Trillian Pro is something a typical home user wants/needs when gratis software here is really the default.
It is one that appears to be at odds with what most of the researchers I work with use. An internal coding exon is not an ORF. The whole coding sequence would be a single ORF that excludes the intervening introns.
If I read your above definition correctly, you would call every stretch of DNA that does not include a stop codon an ORF, even without requiring an initiation codon. This would mean the entire genome would be in an ORF! Even nucleotide triplets that match a termination codon would be in an ORF since they cannot be terminated in every frame. This definition is clearly not very useful.
I definitely don't mean transcripts since I was referring to DNA regions that possibly code for ntRNAs.
Huh? All of the ncRNAs[1] transcribed from the human genome are transcripts. Only some of them are ORFs. ORF is a bad term to use when referring to ncRNAs.
[1] "ntRNA" is also a new term for me that does not appear in PubMed. In some ways it seems like a more attractive term than ncRNA, but in others it does not...
And most of the utility stuff here is available for home users for free, even on Windows.
An ORF is something that could potentially be a protein-coding gene--it has an in-frame start and termination codon. Most of the non-coding RNAs I am aware of are *not* in ORFs. You probably meant to say transcripts rather than ORF.
e no mes.section.6613
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=g
IAAGR (I am a genomic researcher)
Anyone want to give us a comparative review?