I don't know enough of the biology to know how reliable these "imputed" sequences are, but what is the harm of informing people about their own genome?
Re: A professional would have responded in an adult manner, and not with an infantile refilling of the same document with material blacked out and a snarky footnote added.
When dealing with recalcitrant bureaucrats, there is a certain advantage to being not only on the side of the angels, but on the side of the SCOTUS.
On the merits, EFF is clearly right, and the USPTO is clearly wrong here - SCOTUS has already ruled to that effect in Alice.
The USPTO can be sniffy about it, drag their feet, and delay things. But in the end EFF is going to get their way, because they have the SCOTUS backing them up.
In that situation, there's some merit in going out of your way to humiliate the recalcitrant bureaucrats involved. Because you know you can get away with it. And it will teach them to take you more seriously next time.
I do realize that Americans have deep-ingrained Puritan instincts about sex.
And that people over the age of, say 40, didn't grow up with the Internet, and that influences their thinking.
But stop and have a look at reality. The internet is a ocean of pornography. Is ANYONE going to even notice a few more drops in that ocean?
I'm 100% fine with laws that prevent adults from coercing minors into sex. But are photographs really going to do any harm in themselves?
Is photographing a naked minor (or a minor having sex) really worse for anybody than the very fact of the minor being naked in front of an adult, or having sex with same? Are the photographs going to steal their soul or something? [Rhetorical question. No.]
If it weren't for the Streisand Effect of publicity for child porn prosecutions, who would even notice a few more porno pics on -ferGodsSake- the Internet?
Exactly right - the world has become so safe that people freak out at harmless things.
It's exactly like the allergy epidemic. Our ancestors lived with filth and parasites, and evolved immune defenses against them. Today we live in clean houses, shower, and use disinfectants. Result? Immune system freaks out at nothing, because it's evolved to react to SOMETHING.
Same with danger. Our fears are tuned to react to SOMETHING. Without something real, we react to harmless things.
We either need to end this civilized-living thing (it's unnatural), or start hacking the genome to make ourselves better suited to today's world.
Re: "exactly what African Americans are supposed to do now"
You are supposed to cringe.
As soon as you see a police officer, instantly drop anything that's in your hands, throw your open hands in the air, and bend over in a respectful cringe, head toward the floor.
At no time may your head be higher than that of any officers, or may you make eye contact with an officer.
Remain in that position until the officer is out of sight.
If ordered to leave, do so walking backwards while remaining in the cringe. Never point your back at the officer.
What's worse is that constantly saying that others are driven by self-interest (as a way of attack, whether it's true or not) gives others the idea that such behavior is normal.
The more that people think everyone else is ruthlessly selfish, the more they think they need to be the same (if only in self-defense).
That corrupts morals and wears at the ties that bind society together.
It's a mistake to think that the people on the opposite side of any given issue are driven mainly by self-interest.
Of course, there's always an element of that (mostly self-delusion), but most people genuinely believe that whatever they're advocating is best for everyone.
(That doesn't make them correct, of course, but they believe it honestly.)
I'll bet you think that your political ideas are best for the common good. I do about mine, too.
Misunderstanding this leads to all kinds of problems, including wars. We need to talk to each other, understand the facts and values at stake, and find livable compromises.
Pointing fingers and shouting "evil!" is not productive.
Re: Re: Re: You have no idea what this "Sovereignty" thing is, right?
Wow; I seem to have set off a brushfire.
We don't want a society ruled by corporations whose own interests supersede the public interest or sovereign governments.
Agreed. Neither do we want a society rule by individual people whose interests supersede...
Lots of people think certain kinds of speech should be prohibited because its "bad for society". Is that a valid argument against the right of free speech I don't think so.
There's a huge difference between ruling and having protected rights. I don't rule anybody, but I have rights protected by law. I think that's a good thing.
"That's the point of rights - a majority can't vote them away just because they're a majority."
They prevent a small minority of rulers from taking away the rights of the majority.
In democracies, the rights of majorities don't need protection (by definition).
On the contrary, rights protect minorities, and individuals, from being bullied by majorities.
I do agree the secrecy is a bad sign. On the other hand, as the comments here illustrate, it can be hard to introduce new protections for minorities in democracies. Nobody likes having power taken away, and that includes voters.
For example, this is much of the logic behind the EU - member states could free trade, allow labor movement, etc. without joining the EU. But it's politically impossible to do so because of protectionist instincts among voters. By joining the EU, member governments get to say "we have no choice, the EU made us do it."
Most corporations are not Walmart. My wife and I own a corporation - it employs 11 people including ourselves. The vast majority of corporations are like that. And anybody with $500 can form their own.
Re: Re: You have no idea what this "Sovereignty" thing is, right?
Is this necessarily a terrible thing?
One can argue that the progress of civilization is a function of limiting the power of rulers.
Think of Magna Carta, the separation of powers under the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the UN Declaration of Human Rights. These all limit the power of rulers - that's what we admire about them.
And they "undermine democracy". That's the point of rights - a majority can't vote them away just because they're a majority.
Obviously the details matter tremendously. But is TPP and ISDS necessarily a bad thing? Or is it the next step in limiting the power of rulers to treat people (corporations are made of people) unfairly?
I don't know the answer, but I do wonder if we're jumping to conclusions.
There's a big difference between asking for credit and demanding credit on pain of various possible punishments (under current law, up to and including bankruptcy-inducing lawsuits).
You seem to be implying there might be lesser penalties for failure to credit (as in a fine for parking at the fire station). I'll agree a more modest punishment is better.
Better yet would be no punishment at all if credit is provided upon request.
Reasonable people can differ re exactly where to draw the line between what is a social convention, what merits a small fine (after a warning), etc.
I hope you'll agree that wherever that line should be, it ought to be very, very far from where it is now.
By institutions do you mean institutions like Kickstarter and Patreon, or services like bandcamp and Youtube, which are already being built; or do you mean new forms of publishers, who take control of works for their own profits?
All of the above, and much more.
Personally, I like the idea of "patronage", where fans directly fund their favored artists. And subscription models. And automated donate-per-use models.
Let a thousand flowers bloom. Then let natural selection do its work.
On the post: Should People Be Told Key Results Of Genetic Tests They Never Took?
I don't see the dilemma
I don't know enough of the biology to know how reliable these "imputed" sequences are, but what is the harm of informing people about their own genome?
I guess I don't get it. Can somebody explain?
On the post: USPTO Demands EFF Censor Its Comments On Patentable Subject Matter
Re: A professional would have responded in an adult manner, and not with an infantile refilling of the same document with material blacked out and a snarky footnote added.
On the merits, EFF is clearly right, and the USPTO is clearly wrong here - SCOTUS has already ruled to that effect in Alice.
The USPTO can be sniffy about it, drag their feet, and delay things. But in the end EFF is going to get their way, because they have the SCOTUS backing them up.
In that situation, there's some merit in going out of your way to humiliate the recalcitrant bureaucrats involved. Because you know you can get away with it. And it will teach them to take you more seriously next time.
On the post: USPTO Demands EFF Censor Its Comments On Patentable Subject Matter
Re: Striesand Effect
On the post: Police Chief Unable To Simply Do Nothing Over Reported Teen Sexting, Brings Child Porn Charges Against Four Minors
The internet is a sea of pornography
And that people over the age of, say 40, didn't grow up with the Internet, and that influences their thinking.
But stop and have a look at reality. The internet is a ocean of pornography. Is ANYONE going to even notice a few more drops in that ocean?
I'm 100% fine with laws that prevent adults from coercing minors into sex. But are photographs really going to do any harm in themselves?
Is photographing a naked minor (or a minor having sex) really worse for anybody than the very fact of the minor being naked in front of an adult, or having sex with same? Are the photographs going to steal their soul or something? [Rhetorical question. No.]
If it weren't for the Streisand Effect of publicity for child porn prosecutions, who would even notice a few more porno pics on -ferGodsSake- the Internet?
On the post: 'Mob' Detains, Threatens Photographers Because Single Adults Are Probably All Pedophiles
Re:
On the post: 'Mob' Detains, Threatens Photographers Because Single Adults Are Probably All Pedophiles
Re: People need more threats
It's exactly like the allergy epidemic. Our ancestors lived with filth and parasites, and evolved immune defenses against them. Today we live in clean houses, shower, and use disinfectants. Result? Immune system freaks out at nothing, because it's evolved to react to SOMETHING.
Same with danger. Our fears are tuned to react to SOMETHING. Without something real, we react to harmless things.
We either need to end this civilized-living thing (it's unnatural), or start hacking the genome to make ourselves better suited to today's world.
On the post: DailyDirt: GATTACA, Here We Come
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Calls Out Portland Police For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest/Beating
Re: "exactly what African Americans are supposed to do now"
As soon as you see a police officer, instantly drop anything that's in your hands, throw your open hands in the air, and bend over in a respectful cringe, head toward the floor.
At no time may your head be higher than that of any officers, or may you make eye contact with an officer.
Remain in that position until the officer is out of sight.
If ordered to leave, do so walking backwards while remaining in the cringe. Never point your back at the officer.
Failure is punishable by death.
On the post: Judge Calls Out Portland Police For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest/Beating
Re:
Then, a reprimand. Or a few days off from work (with full pay, of course).
Maybe.
On the post: Judge Calls Out Portland Police For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest/Beating
Re: Time for Citizens arrest, let's show the cops how it's done.
But I agree with the principle - police officers should be held to a higher standard than ordinary civilians.
Not lower.
On the post: Judge Calls Out Portland Police For Bogus 'Contempt Of Cop' Arrest/Beating
Re: Re: Re: See this? Fix it or stop whining
It would incent the non-asshole officers to "police" their asshole brethren.
Somebody has to do it.
On the post: FBI Quietly Removes Recommendation To Encrypt Your Phone... As FBI Director Warns How Encryption Will Lead To Tears
Re: Most criminals don't realize they're criminals
On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Leaked Via Wikileaks: Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty
Re: Re: Re: only thinking of themselves
What's worse is that constantly saying that others are driven by self-interest (as a way of attack, whether it's true or not) gives others the idea that such behavior is normal.
The more that people think everyone else is ruthlessly selfish, the more they think they need to be the same (if only in self-defense).
That corrupts morals and wears at the ties that bind society together.
On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Leaked Via Wikileaks: Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty
Re: only thinking of themselves
Of course, there's always an element of that (mostly self-delusion), but most people genuinely believe that whatever they're advocating is best for everyone.
(That doesn't make them correct, of course, but they believe it honestly.)
I'll bet you think that your political ideas are best for the common good. I do about mine, too.
Misunderstanding this leads to all kinds of problems, including wars. We need to talk to each other, understand the facts and values at stake, and find livable compromises.
Pointing fingers and shouting "evil!" is not productive.
On the post: FBI Quietly Removes Recommendation To Encrypt Your Phone... As FBI Director Warns How Encryption Will Lead To Tears
Because criminals take their security advice from the FBI
Brilliant idea.
On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Leaked Via Wikileaks: Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty
Re: Re: Re: You have no idea what this "Sovereignty" thing is, right?
Agreed. Neither do we want a society rule by individual people whose interests supersede...
Lots of people think certain kinds of speech should be prohibited because its "bad for society". Is that a valid argument against the right of free speech I don't think so.
There's a huge difference between ruling and having protected rights. I don't rule anybody, but I have rights protected by law. I think that's a good thing.
In democracies, the rights of majorities don't need protection (by definition).
On the contrary, rights protect minorities, and individuals, from being bullied by majorities.
I do agree the secrecy is a bad sign. On the other hand, as the comments here illustrate, it can be hard to introduce new protections for minorities in democracies. Nobody likes having power taken away, and that includes voters.
For example, this is much of the logic behind the EU - member states could free trade, allow labor movement, etc. without joining the EU. But it's politically impossible to do so because of protectionist instincts among voters. By joining the EU, member governments get to say "we have no choice, the EU made us do it."
Most corporations are not Walmart. My wife and I own a corporation - it employs 11 people including ourselves. The vast majority of corporations are like that. And anybody with $500 can form their own.
On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Leaked Via Wikileaks: Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty
Re: Re: You have no idea what this "Sovereignty" thing is, right?
One can argue that the progress of civilization is a function of limiting the power of rulers.
Think of Magna Carta, the separation of powers under the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the UN Declaration of Human Rights. These all limit the power of rulers - that's what we admire about them.
And they "undermine democracy". That's the point of rights - a majority can't vote them away just because they're a majority.
Obviously the details matter tremendously. But is TPP and ISDS necessarily a bad thing? Or is it the next step in limiting the power of rulers to treat people (corporations are made of people) unfairly?
I don't know the answer, but I do wonder if we're jumping to conclusions.
On the post: Mary Kay Goes After Retailmenot For Promoting Mary Kay
Re:
On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be implying there might be lesser penalties for failure to credit (as in a fine for parking at the fire station). I'll agree a more modest punishment is better.
Better yet would be no punishment at all if credit is provided upon request.
Reasonable people can differ re exactly where to draw the line between what is a social convention, what merits a small fine (after a warning), etc.
I hope you'll agree that wherever that line should be, it ought to be very, very far from where it is now.
On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Digital versus Physical goods.
All of the above, and much more.
Personally, I like the idea of "patronage", where fans directly fund their favored artists. And subscription models. And automated donate-per-use models.
Let a thousand flowers bloom. Then let natural selection do its work.
Next >>