Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media

After 22 Years, Walt Mossberg Writes Final WSJ Column 100

Posted by timothy
from the end-of-year-starts-now dept.
McGruber writes "Walt Mossberg, principal technology columnist for The Wall Street Journal, has written his last column after 22 years of reviewing consumer technology products for the newspaper. His final column discusses the dozen personal-technology products that were most influential over the past two decades."

Comment: Re:right... (Score 1) 174

did you know that after WWI, the german stockpiles were encased in cement and thrown into the ocean somewhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare

After the war, most of the unused German chemical warfare agents were dumped into the Baltic Sea, a common disposal method among all the participants in several bodies of water. Over time, the salt water causes the shell casings to corrode, and mustard gas occasionally leaks from these containers and washes onto shore as a wax-like solid resembling ambergris." So I wouldn't be too worried.

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 1) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45520407) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition

You're splitting hairs. Microsoft spends years and millions (if not billions) developing software, just like Monsanto does for seeds. Both the software and the seeds can be copied with easy, well known techniques that have existed since the dawn of their respective technologies. They are essentially the same idea. The courts are only ruling as such because there is already history of software patents being upheld, and so to rule against Monsanto in this case would set precedence and encourage lawsuits against software companies.

I don't know where you live but I don't know of a single country that doesn't have patent laws.

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 1) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45517841) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition
Except that's never happened. Monsanto has stated numerous times that they will not sue for genetic drift. If you can find a case where the farmer didn't willingly breed the seeds that grew on his property and got sued, then you might have a point. Until you can do that, you're just using baseless fearmongering to try to prove your point. Show me an example.

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 1) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45517797) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition
And seeds aren't data? You don't seem to be grasping this. Maybe I'm just not explaining it right. Basically monsanto owns a copyright on the seeds, because they invested billions making them. In order to use the seeds (legally) you have to sign an agreement saying you'll only use x amount. They will know if you use more/less because the amount of seeds you have will directly relate to the amount of roundup you need to buy from monsanto. That's how they caught Percy Shmeiser (or however you spell his name), the numbers didn't add up. So just like microsoft owns a patent on windows, and has the complete legal right to sue you and your buisiness if they catch you copying their software, monsanto has a similar right to sue you if they catch you copying your (their?) seeds.

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 1) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45511113) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition
how is this +4 insightful?

http://www.osgata.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-MTD-Decision.pdf "defendants reiterated that it is not their policy to exercise their patent rights against farmers whose fields inadvertently contain trace amounts of patented seeds or traits. In particular, the reply letter referenced plaintiffs’ claim that they do not have any intention of using any transgenic seed and noted that, “[t]aking [that] representation as true, any fear of suit or other action is unreasonable, and any decision not to grow certain crops unjustified.”

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 0) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45510929) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition
that's not really 'lying'. That's advertising your product. They never said it wouldn't leech into groundwater. They never said it was 'good for the soil'. They said it has 'favorable environmental characteristics'. Which it does. Lying requires knowledge and then intentionally misinform people on that knowledge. Don't blame monsanto when you're the one who didn't read it correctly.

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 1) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45510473) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition
right, but when you breed the seeds for the specific purpose of attaining more seeds, you are, in fact, COPYING THE SEEDS. You can argue farmers have been doing this for time immemorial but it doesn't change the fact you willingly signed and later violated an agreement. If nothing more its breach of contract. Monsanto has every right to sue you.

Comment: Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score 0) 194

by Deluvianvortex (#45508869) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition
In what universe can you call suing software developers for copying software licenses and installing them on all their computers a sustainable buisiness practice? Oh right, this one. You act like that all monsanto does is sue sue sue but in reality they've only sue the people who willingly violate the license they signed when they did buisiness with monsanto. Or is it okay to violate user agreements in your world?

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...