More than just that. One of the causes of aging appears to be "tired mitochondria". So you need to make sure that the mitochondira of the cell line is in good shape. Difficult, as (AFAIK) we don't know how to tell when mitochondria aren't acting efficiently in a single cell, only in an organ. And mitochondria are subject to a high rate of mutation, so if you grow a clone*, you want to ensure that all cells in that clone have efficient mitochondria.

*A clone is a cluster of cells grown from a single cell. This would cover an organ as well as an organism. Say, e.g., a new liver or kidney.

OK. Sorry. Make that "canonically isomorphic".

That may be Wikipedia, but it doesn't match standard usage. In neither Norway nor Sweden are the means of production owned by the state...except for some of them, and that's true in the US, too. (E.g., the state owns the Hoover Dam, which is definitely a "means of production".)

And in almost EVERY nation "some sectors of an economy " are "run in a socialist manner, while others" are "run in a capitalist way". Including the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, etc.

Yes, I am claiming that in every state to the extent that social services are supplied by the state, that state is socialist. And it is not one dimensional. Some states cover some areas, other states cover other areas. A few just leave you to die if you can't make it on your own.

Sample areas of coverage:
1) unemployment coverage.
2) minimal housing
3) minimal heat supply
4) minimal food supply
5) clean air
6) clean water
etc. I notice that I left out health care, but it's just one of many areas I left out. I also, e.g., left out public defenders, police protection, emergency rescue, and many others. Note that every one I've explicitly mentioned is provided, at least to an extent, by the US govt. (sometimes indirectly).

I would also disagree with your definiton of capitalism, though that's certainly a lot closer to being accurate. I think Adam Smith might agree with your definition, but to me the ownership is irrelevant. What's relevant is control and personal reward. Thus to me it would make no difference whether the stock in a corporation were owned by private groups or by a collection of states...what matters is that the control is vested in an individual who is not the representative of a government, and is at most an indirect agent of one. (Adam Smith didn't consider such scenarios, because he disliked corporations, though he did admit that they were occasionally needed...e.g., it would have been difficult to come to another means of dealing with the situation handled by "The Lord Mayor and Corporation of London".)

If you accept quantum theory (and just try to disprove it) then the perceptible universe is cannonically isomorphic to a subset of mathematics. If cannonically isomorphic isn't close enough to identity for you, I'd like an explanation of why not. (Well, except that several different things can have aspects that are cannonically isomorphic to the same thing...but perhaps that's just a way of saying that they have certain features that are essentially identical.)

You've been trolled by the GP.

I don't think that's an educated guess. MS took a basically secure operating system and redesigned it by taking out all the secure features. True, this was done before the web was common, but they were the ones that did it. Starting to reimplement them in later versions of MSWind doesn't sufficiently mitigate their creating the problem in the first place.

I've gotten one of them, but I'm afraid I was too impatient to hold him long. Eventually I told him I'd just been reading about them.

If they're cold calling, they're scammers. 90%+ certainty. Some of them may not know it. Perhaps.

I don't think you understand the justification for the existence of copyright. The grant of a temporary monopoly is not the purpose, it's the payment. And the word temporary should be strongly emphasized. Originally it was, IIRC, 17 years, and there are many arguements that this is now too long a period of time.

If people could get a fair trial, then the law wouldn't need to change. But how, pray tell, are you going to accomplish that? One of the purposes of the civil forfeiture laws is to prevent you from being able to hire a decent lawyer. (Mind you, even if you could get a decene lawyer, a fair trial would mean that if you were found not guilty not only would all your expenses be recompensed, but also you would be paid at a fair rate for all the time you were compelled to spend and the personal endangerment that you endured.)

So, yes, the law needs to change. But that is not nearly sufficient. The entire court system needs to be altered so that the accused does not unfairly bear the burden of a corrupt legal system. And somehow this needs to be done without creating a perverse incentive against finding someone innocent.

I think you need to look a bit closer at the history of the US. The persecution of minorities and less powerful is something that has a very long history in the US. They don't tend to cover it in grade school history, but if you read the actual histories, you'll see it.

OTOH, those who romanticize the Indians are equally wrong. They were more done to than doing, but they also weren't innocents. They were, however, less powerful, so they couldn't enforce treaties. You could also investigate how the Chinese and Irish immigrants were treated. Or the Italian, or Spanish, or...well, anyone who wasn't northern European. Also look into the history of child labor (although, to be fair, nobody had decent treatment of poor children near the top of their social concerns...though some claimed to do so, what they meant was religious instruction happened as well as economic bondage).

There is not such thing as "proper DRM".

One benefit of this ruling is that when (if?) a work goes out of copyright, it will still be available, even though the publisher refuses to sell copies.

That said, current copyright law is so irresponsibly excessive that I have my doubts that (in the US, at least) anything will ever go out of copyright that isn't already out of copyright.

Being incompatible with Marxism doesn't mean it's not socialism. Fascism isn't necessarily socialistic, but it can be. As defined by Mussolini (who coined the word) Fascism is the state working together with the corporations. "The corporate state" for short. IIRC both the Nazis and the Fascisti claimed to be socialists. They seem, to me, to have had a better claim to the term than Stalin's Russia had to being either communist or Marxist.

Basically a Socialist state is one where the state assumes the role of emergency service provider that was previously held by the village. The village failed in this role when the mobility of the population increased. The Socialist state, however, cannot really fill the role because the village worked by everyone knowing everyone, and so they knew who was suffering ill-fortune, who needed material help, and how much, and who needed emotional support, and what kind. It wasn't perfect, but in many ways it was better than the replacement. But it depended on everyone knowing everyone else, and having known them as they grew up together. This is INDEPENDENT of any other economic axis. You can have capitalist socialist countries, fascist socialist countries, marxist socialist countries, and even free-market socialist countries. (Note that I distinguish between free-market countries and capitalist countries. I don't think the first has ever existed, but it is a logical possibility.)

You left out Stalin. Arguably the worst of the tyrants of the 20th century. I do not believe that he has any claim to being a communist.

OTOH, I don't think that genuine communism scales effectively. On an extremely small scale it's one of the most humane systems. A healthy family operates this way. Scaled up to a village, there needs to be a strong ideology backing it. Usually religious, but not always. Even so, the cracks start showing. Larger than a village and there is generally an increasing requirement for force to hold things in place.

Note that communism is not (necessarily) Marxism, and the most successful forms (lasting more than a decade) are NOT Marxism. Marxism wants to be applied at a large scale, where communism does not work without extreme force, and such an application of force tends to lead to tyrants of one stripe or another at the top. Lennin, I believe, was a genuine Communist. (Note the capital C...that denotes Marxist flavored communism.) I did need to use an increasing amount of force, because that's the nature of the beast, but he also used ideology, which reduced the need...though not enough. He did, however, create a situation that was ripe for a non-ideological tyrant to take over. And this was probably unavoidable. Communism of either flavor doesn't work on a large scale. (I don't know about Anarcho-Syndicalism. I have my doubts, but perhaps it could scale to a small country.)

Please note, it's not clear that Democracy (in the US style) is stable when scaled to a large country. It worked pretty well when the power was held by the states, but with the feds holding the power it seems to be rapidly devolving into a plutocratic tyranny. How long the plutocrats will hold power over the tyrant isn't clear, but in Rome it worked for a reasonable while before a tryant seized power. It did cause a few civil wars as the citizenry rebelled against the plutocrats, but the plutocrats won...so when the tyrant seized power, the citizenry didn't care, and were actually hopeful that things would improve. And they, sort of, did. The tyrants didn't oppress the common people as much as the plutocrats had. (Most of the violence was at the upper layers.) OTOH, the romans didn't have robots and didn't have a police force. ISTM that the development of robot soldiers is specifically aimed at making civil war only winnable by the government. Similar considerations may go to the distribution of military equipment to the local police forces. Also the establishment of police checkpoints at such places as the entrances to hospitals, airports, etc. (I was shocked the last time I went to the Emergency Room to find that a checkpoint had been established at the entrance.) Currently many of them seem to be more security theater than real, but such things can, once in place, be tightened at will.

So ISTM that Democracy is currently failing in the US, and steps are already being taken to win an expected civil war. (I'm not commenting on the farce that elections have become. That's an old story by now, except at the very local level.)

ISTM that ALL the prisoners in Gitmo are political prisoners. Clearly the ones held without trial are such. Possibly in some cases there are valid reasons, but that has not be publicly proven, so the defalut position is that they are innocent. I feel that I'm understating the case, but don't know how to properly put it more strongly. Let me try this....

If they have committed a crime, they should be brought to trial. If they have not committed a crime, they should never have been held captive.