How can you patent something you didn't create? Copy-pasted genetic sequences are just copy-pasted prior art libraries.
TFA: " For example, Blasiak notes that BASF has been harnessing the genes of some tiny aquatic lifeforms in an effort to produce designer health foods: âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been splicing genes from different microorganisms into grapeseed and canola, then taking the seeds and seeing if they can produce oils that contain omega-3 fatty acids,â he says."
Sounds to me like they created those modified grapeseed and canola plants.
In the United States, since Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013), you cannot obtain patents on "copy-pasted genetic sequences." You can, however, obtain patents on things that you build out of combinations of such sequences, just like you can obtain patents on things that you build out of combinations of pre-existing machine parts.
So you have no problem with sponsored acitvists, reputation-trashing campaigns against businesses, exploiting shootings in order to collect $ and logistical support, partisan fund raising and voting, and emotional leverage in general...
you only have a problem with them when they're used by opponents of things that you support.
Bitcoin has no value. It is just smoke and mirrors.
Paper money is only mildly better, especially now that it has no gold backing.
Gold backed was also not real.
Gold in fact has no real value other than what it can actually be used for to make things of use.
To find something with real value we need to go back to beans, firewood, pork, tools, etc. These sorts of things have real value.
Insightful, yet the analysis of paper money misses the point. The things that have "real" value at the things that other people will accept as payment in exchange. Who will accept paper money as exchange for the taxes that you owe? The government (federal, state, local). Who owes taxes to the government? An awful lot of people. Therefore an awful lot of people need and will accept paper money.
Bitcoin has "real" value, but it's a thinly traded and small market -- not a lot of people will accept it, and also not a lot of people need it. Paper money has "real" value and an immense market. Your examples of other things with "real" value are not better than paper money, but in fact worse -- they're barter -- because fewer people will accept them and they have smaller markets. I do not need a house-load of beans, firewood, pork, tools, etc. and for the most part I will not accept them because I do not want to have deal in them beyond my near-team consumption needs.
You'd have everyone become a barterer or general merchandiser in a bartering system. That is not an improvement.
[The NRA] didn't get shot at, but sure is happy to exploit the fact that other people were in order to collect $ and logistical support from people like [Dennis Veilleux] as it goes out to gin up partisan fund raising and votes. [McConnell] and his types couldn't be more thrilled when a crazy person murders people, because they love a good emotional lever to use when trying to strip away ever more [firearms regulations].
But, as a costumer one can complain with his feet, taking his business with some other bank.
Good luck with that one, since the rule is more common and spreadying more rapidly that the article suggests. It's not exactly a competive and profitable selling point -- "you can use our credit card to purchase virtual currencies that have lost more than half of their value since the beginning of the year."
A lot of people want to go to a cashless society but I don't want a private company telling me what I can or cannot buy with my money, so fuck a cashless society for now.
A debit card is your money. A credit card is the bank's money, with your pinky promise to pay off the balance at the end of the cycle or pay down their loan with interest. Hence, "credit."
Each time this issue comes up, the fact that the rules apply to credit cards manages to slip by a startling number of people who believe that they are financially literate...
> If they come down with the flu, they won't be able to leave until they've tested negative for the virus for two days. So what if they decide to leave? Is this merely a civil breach of contract, or is it an indenture? Will they be bought back in chains by men in hazmat suits?
Well, TFA uses the word Quarantine, so perhaps you should read up on what that means? Even though influenza is naturally occuring and relatively common, it doesn't mean that health authorities are going to want to create and release new sources of infection.
Depending upon how rigorously they construct their protocol, it's cute that you think that a participant would need to be brought back. Most hospitals have a "secure wing" where they can treat people who don't want to be there -- prisoners and people on psychological holds -- and neither simply handcuff people to their beds nor rely upon a pinky-swear. "Deciding to leave" may be more theory than practice.
One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is an attack meant to undermine a system.... Do you see the difference now?
Yes. One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is a use of an intentional feature of the design of the programming.
Of course you've now shifted focus to the programming and not the transactions. The transactions exercising the intentional feature of the design of the programming are not in any way different, especially from a technical perspective. One merely has a "disagreement" as to whether a block was solved by a miner, or whether a coin has actually been spent. The fact that you consider mining the block or wanting the transaction spending the coin to complete to be a prerequisite is irrelevant to the system and design.
The problem isn't about rules. The rules were originally designed that for disagreements so that transactions 51% of the group decides a dispute. Where this becomes an attack vector is it is possible for a large enough group to create bogus transactions and get them accepted into the chain. After a time, the transactions become permanent and cannot be changed.
I love how you believe that "disagreements" and "bogus transactions" are in any way different, especially in any technical way regarding recording into the blockchain.
In each case, attackers have been able to amass enough computing power to compromise these smaller networks, rearrange their transactions and abscond with millions of dollars in an effort that's perhaps the crypto equivalent of a bank heist. More surprising, though, may be that so-called 51% attacks are a well-known and dangerous cryptocurrency attack vector.
That's not an attack vector, that's using the rules to your advantage. The designers expressly adopted a design rule that says that "51% of the current computing power dictates reality." The designer may not have intended for any one group to amass 51% of the current computing power, but intending that nothing "bad" will ever happen is not sufficient in engineering, contracts, law, or any other aspect of human endeavor that has evolved to survive contact with the real world.
A bunch of people who want to make money using blockchain technology are become quite ticked off that a group of other people who want to make money using blockchain technology are using that blockchain technology as expressly designed to take their money.
Thankfully the article seems to be focused on improving the designs rather than demands that governments intervene in these "government not welcome" currency projects.
Interestingly, the FBI is currently alleging that the use of communications platforms with encryption such as WhatsApp amounts to obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent when used to communicate with people who might eventually become witnesses - even if they are witnesses for the defense.
The FBI is also currently alleging that the use of communications platforms generally amounts to obstruction of justice when used to communicate with people who might eventually become witnesses - even if they are witnesses for the defense - when attempting to coach instruct witnesses as to what they should testify and such testimony is false.
You've lumped "and evidence of criminal intent" in with some elements of the crime, and then omitted a bunch of other elements of the crime, presumably in order to create fear that the use of WhatsApp and other platforms with encryption is per se obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent. But that's not what is happening. Because criminal intent is a state of mind, there can be no objective evidence of criminal intent short of an admission. If you do something that is unusual for you to conceal such tampering - guess what -- that's circumstantial evidence of criminal intent.
Manafort allegedly tried to hide his communications with potential witnesses using the encrypted messaging apps WhatsApp and Telegram, but prosecutors appear to have accessed the messages via his iCloud account.
The prosecutors also had statements and documents from the two potential witnesses, as well as phone records, but the iCloud account helped them confirm the messages and phone calls that Manafort had attempted.
So no, the FBI is currently alleging that witness statements, phone records, and WhatsApp message content amount to obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent."
So all of you folks who poo-poo the slippery slope argument... well, there you go. They are also all over companies like Apple for building encryption into their phones and have used the fact that devices are encrypted as evidence of criminal intent.
Poo-poo. Times ten. Yes, they're all over unbreakable encryption, but use of unbreakable encryption is not concrete evidence of a crime.
England is currently living out the argumentum ad absurdum from the gun control debate - having outlawed guns and the sorts of knives used for hunting or defense and finding that people are still violent, they are now talking about banning kitchen knives with pointed ends.
On public streets. You're losing your mind over a ban on knives with blades longer than ~2.5 inches being carried in public. The same sort of ban that exists with folding knives. The same sort of ban that exists in air travel -- except it covers even shorter blades. But God gave you a right to carry steak knives down the street, just in case you happen upon a steak...
They have what now? As an European, this is the first time I am hearing about "google's shopping platform", ever.
It has something to do with the "Shopping" tab that appears just to the right of the "all" tab in search results and the list of 3-4 places that you could buy a product with price that appears on the right hand side of the screen under "Shop Now."
You won't ever have seen those either since you apparently have never used Google to search and entered a product name. But whether you've seen it is not the sine qua non of whether it exists.
I'm assuming the company suddenly really wanted that handle so they could make and publish iPhone and iPad apps related to their business.
I'm assuming that they wanted the handle and were trying to determine if some employee or marketdroid had unofficially obtained it on their behalf (looking for reset emails being delivered into an employee email account) rather than trying to hack their way into it. I've had occasions where a UID was registered and I honestly thought that I personally might have been the one to do it, and tried a blind password reset to see if the email went to one of my accounts.
Side note: curiously, the student spokesperson of the latest anti-gun movement, Hogg, is the son of a former FBI agent and a CNN reporter, which makes me suspicious as to why he was chosen given that the FBI failed to prevent the perpetrator from shooting up the school, and CNN has a strong anti-gun agenda.
ZOMG! FBI agents and CNN reporters never reproduce in nature, so it was obviously a plot hatched 18 or so years ago to [insert conspiracy theory here].
Suddenly now people like you are concerned about, what, nepotism? But it is fine to have Jared, Ivanka, and half of the Trump Familia slotted into quasi-governmental positions and running things.
The Parkland students are big boys and girls, so tell you what -- why don't you identify even one of them that has complained that Hogg was "chosen" by shadowy outside organizations while still supporting that group's message. I mean, if that's what's happening, it'll be an easy task, right?
Moreover, how is this different than buying an ad in Teen Vogue? Or on Reddit? AARP magazine? Ebony? Cosmo? Any of those magazines has a massively skewed age/race/gender balance. A natural reading of the claim would mean that advertising in any of those would (quoting the pleading [documentcloud.org], section 21): "unlawfully exclude [some protected class] of workers from receiving job ads and other recruitment information". Heck, by this logic, even posting a (paper) job offer on the (physical) bulletin board at a university is discriminatory, since it's overwhelmingly likely to be seen by 18-22 year olds and hence "excludes older workers".
As a stupid question...
When you buy an ad in Teen Vogue, Reddit, AARP, Ebony, or Cosmo, you are buying an ad that is served to every reader of those magazines. The advertiser, the publisher, and the reader take the magazines demographics as it is.
When you buy an ad on Facebook, you down-select from Facebook's demographics based upon categories that are both ordinary and potentially problematic.
As to the rest, I'm sure that everyone who replied to you or engaged in any moderation in connection those posts either misunderstood you or was wrong. Your communication was surely flawless.
Your ability to identify a work-around to viewing a Twitter post when an account has been blocked is awe inspiring, yet jumping through such hoops cannot be required when the posting account is the POTUS.
Since what you literally said addressed only one part of what the parent posted, it addresses exactly that part that you subtextually said via omission.
Good job.
+3 insightful versus -1 troll, so I'll be taking that literally rather than subtextually. Happy to see that you've acknowledged it.
Blocking doesn't prevent people from seeing what he posts. Just log out or use a different account.
Blocking selectively prevents people from replying to what he posts, which he permits so long as the replies are sufficiently approving. Blocking selectively prevents people from retweeting his posts, which he permits so long as he approves of those doing the retweeting.
It's not merely a matter of (easily) seeing what he posts. So long as he posts official business as the officeholder and permits public response to those posts, he does not get to block members of the public merely because they criticize or disagree with what was posted.
It's funny and a bit pathetic how people of a certain age and above are so sentimental about this subject.
Then it must be downright hilarious how anyone with any experience with classification systems could support one in which [adjective]+[noun] can be called "not a [noun]."
That's a red house, not a house.
Amongst those with an interest in astronomy it has nothing to do with sentimentality and quite a lot to do with the slipshod and rushed way in which the change was crammed through as a fait accompli by a minority amongst even professionals in the field.
If they have no way of defending themselves, they will be taken over by mafia or pirates as soon as they seem profitable. Sad reality of this world.
"the self-contained islands are designed to function as business centers that are beyond the influence of government regulation."
Works as designed, unless you mean "beyond the influence of government regulation except for the regulations that we like," in which case one must ask "who gets to decide which regulations we like?"
In a world beyond the influence of government regulation, I might become a big fan of "acutely aggressive acquisition."
it seems vastly more likely that it's because of something they haven't thought of at all.
No. You've merely conclusively assumed that it is something else without evidence and without even being able to suggest what it is.
You don't get to hide behind words like "more likely" when you won't give those words any effect when used by the original researchers. It works both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA: " For example, Blasiak notes that BASF has been harnessing the genes of some tiny aquatic lifeforms in an effort to produce designer health foods: âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been splicing genes from different microorganisms into grapeseed and canola, then taking the seeds and seeing if they can produce oils that contain omega-3 fatty acids,â he says."
Sounds to me like they created those modified grapeseed and canola plants.
In the United States, since Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013), you cannot obtain patents on "copy-pasted genetic sequences." You can, however, obtain patents on things that you build out of combinations of such sequences, just like you can obtain patents on things that you build out of combinations of pre-existing machine parts.
So you have no problem with sponsored acitvists, reputation-trashing campaigns against businesses, exploiting shootings in order to collect $ and logistical support, partisan fund raising and voting, and emotional leverage in general...
you only have a problem with them when they're used by opponents of things that you support.
Well that's certainly principled.
Insightful, yet the analysis of paper money misses the point. The things that have "real" value at the things that other people will accept as payment in exchange. Who will accept paper money as exchange for the taxes that you owe? The government (federal, state, local). Who owes taxes to the government? An awful lot of people. Therefore an awful lot of people need and will accept paper money.
Bitcoin has "real" value, but it's a thinly traded and small market -- not a lot of people will accept it, and also not a lot of people need it. Paper money has "real" value and an immense market. Your examples of other things with "real" value are not better than paper money, but in fact worse -- they're barter -- because fewer people will accept them and they have smaller markets. I do not need a house-load of beans, firewood, pork, tools, etc. and for the most part I will not accept them because I do not want to have deal in them beyond my near-team consumption needs.
You'd have everyone become a barterer or general merchandiser in a bartering system. That is not an improvement.
You're right, someone should put a stop to that. *sarcasm*
Temperature record, meet the industrial revolution.
5000 years of cooling prior to the 1800s say otherwise, but I'm sure you'll have some explanation for it.
But the charges for return shipping, or sending out a field tech, would be a real bitch.
The acceptable risk of failure was a bit lower for this hardware. You wouldn't want to be that guy.
Good luck with that one, since the rule is more common and spreadying more rapidly that the article suggests. It's not exactly a competive and profitable selling point -- "you can use our credit card to purchase virtual currencies that have lost more than half of their value since the beginning of the year."
A debit card is your money. A credit card is the bank's money, with your pinky promise to pay off the balance at the end of the cycle or pay down their loan with interest. Hence, "credit."
Each time this issue comes up, the fact that the rules apply to credit cards manages to slip by a startling number of people who believe that they are financially literate...
Well, TFA uses the word Quarantine, so perhaps you should read up on what that means? Even though influenza is naturally occuring and relatively common, it doesn't mean that health authorities are going to want to create and release new sources of infection.
Depending upon how rigorously they construct their protocol, it's cute that you think that a participant would need to be brought back. Most hospitals have a "secure wing" where they can treat people who don't want to be there -- prisoners and people on psychological holds -- and neither simply handcuff people to their beds nor rely upon a pinky-swear. "Deciding to leave" may be more theory than practice.
Yes. One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is a use of an intentional feature of the design of the programming.
Of course you've now shifted focus to the programming and not the transactions. The transactions exercising the intentional feature of the design of the programming are not in any way different, especially from a technical perspective. One merely has a "disagreement" as to whether a block was solved by a miner, or whether a coin has actually been spent. The fact that you consider mining the block or wanting the transaction spending the coin to complete to be a prerequisite is irrelevant to the system and design.
I love how you believe that "disagreements" and "bogus transactions" are in any way different, especially in any technical way regarding recording into the blockchain.
That's not an attack vector, that's using the rules to your advantage. The designers expressly adopted a design rule that says that "51% of the current computing power dictates reality." The designer may not have intended for any one group to amass 51% of the current computing power, but intending that nothing "bad" will ever happen is not sufficient in engineering, contracts, law, or any other aspect of human endeavor that has evolved to survive contact with the real world.
A bunch of people who want to make money using blockchain technology are become quite ticked off that a group of other people who want to make money using blockchain technology are using that blockchain technology as expressly designed to take their money.
Thankfully the article seems to be focused on improving the designs rather than demands that governments intervene in these "government not welcome" currency projects.
The FBI is also currently alleging that the use of communications platforms generally amounts to obstruction of justice when used to communicate with people who might eventually become witnesses - even if they are witnesses for the defense - when attempting to coach instruct witnesses as to what they should testify and such testimony is false.
You've lumped "and evidence of criminal intent" in with some elements of the crime, and then omitted a bunch of other elements of the crime, presumably in order to create fear that the use of WhatsApp and other platforms with encryption is per se obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent. But that's not what is happening. Because criminal intent is a state of mind, there can be no objective evidence of criminal intent short of an admission. If you do something that is unusual for you to conceal such tampering - guess what -- that's circumstantial evidence of criminal intent.
Also, please cite the allegation that "WhatsApp amounts to obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent." Because they have much more than that on Manfort since he's an idiot:
So no, the FBI is currently alleging that witness statements, phone records, and WhatsApp message content amount to obstruction of justice and evidence of criminal intent."
Poo-poo. Times ten. Yes, they're all over unbreakable encryption, but use of unbreakable encryption is not concrete evidence of a crime.
On public streets. You're losing your mind over a ban on knives with blades longer than ~2.5 inches being carried in public. The same sort of ban that exists with folding knives. The same sort of ban that exists in air travel -- except it covers even shorter blades. But God gave you a right to carry steak knives down the street, just in case you happen upon a steak...
It has something to do with the "Shopping" tab that appears just to the right of the "all" tab in search results and the list of 3-4 places that you could buy a product with price that appears on the right hand side of the screen under "Shop Now."
You won't ever have seen those either since you apparently have never used Google to search and entered a product name. But whether you've seen it is not the sine qua non of whether it exists.
Comcast serves the Tri-State Area?
Seriously... do you realize how many tri-state areas there are within the United States? More than a dozen.
Now someone tell Comcast to stop installing self-destruct buttons on their VOIP-inators.
I'm assuming that they wanted the handle and were trying to determine if some employee or marketdroid had unofficially obtained it on their behalf (looking for reset emails being delivered into an employee email account) rather than trying to hack their way into it. I've had occasions where a UID was registered and I honestly thought that I personally might have been the one to do it, and tried a blind password reset to see if the email went to one of my accounts.
ZOMG! FBI agents and CNN reporters never reproduce in nature, so it was obviously a plot hatched 18 or so years ago to [insert conspiracy theory here].
Suddenly now people like you are concerned about, what, nepotism? But it is fine to have Jared, Ivanka, and half of the Trump Familia slotted into quasi-governmental positions and running things.
The Parkland students are big boys and girls, so tell you what -- why don't you identify even one of them that has complained that Hogg was "chosen" by shadowy outside organizations while still supporting that group's message. I mean, if that's what's happening, it'll be an easy task, right?
As a stupid question...
When you buy an ad in Teen Vogue, Reddit, AARP, Ebony, or Cosmo, you are buying an ad that is served to every reader of those magazines. The advertiser, the publisher, and the reader take the magazines demographics as it is.
When you buy an ad on Facebook, you down-select from Facebook's demographics based upon categories that are both ordinary and potentially problematic.
And that ca be a no-no. Because failing to serve an ad based on a discriminatory down-selection can be a violation of civil rights laws.
And I didn't write @POTUS. I wrote POTUS, who issues official tweets through @realDonalTrump.
As to the rest, I'm sure that everyone who replied to you or engaged in any moderation in connection those posts either misunderstood you or was wrong. Your communication was surely flawless.
Your ability to identify a work-around to viewing a Twitter post when an account has been blocked is awe inspiring, yet jumping through such hoops cannot be required when the posting account is the POTUS.
*mic drop*
Since what you literally said addressed only one part of what the parent posted, it addresses exactly that part that you subtextually said via omission.
+3 insightful versus -1 troll, so I'll be taking that literally rather than subtextually. Happy to see that you've acknowledged it.
Blocking selectively prevents people from replying to what he posts, which he permits so long as the replies are sufficiently approving. Blocking selectively prevents people from retweeting his posts, which he permits so long as he approves of those doing the retweeting.
It's not merely a matter of (easily) seeing what he posts. So long as he posts official business as the officeholder and permits public response to those posts, he does not get to block members of the public merely because they criticize or disagree with what was posted.
Then it must be downright hilarious how anyone with any experience with classification systems could support one in which [adjective]+[noun] can be called "not a [noun]."
That's a red house, not a house.
Amongst those with an interest in astronomy it has nothing to do with sentimentality and quite a lot to do with the slipshod and rushed way in which the change was crammed through as a fait accompli by a minority amongst even professionals in the field.
"the self-contained islands are designed to function as business centers that are beyond the influence of government regulation."
Works as designed, unless you mean "beyond the influence of government regulation except for the regulations that we like," in which case one must ask "who gets to decide which regulations we like?"
In a world beyond the influence of government regulation, I might become a big fan of "acutely aggressive acquisition."
No. You've merely conclusively assumed that it is something else without evidence and without even being able to suggest what it is.
You don't get to hide behind words like "more likely" when you won't give those words any effect when used by the original researchers. It works both ways.