It's called favipiravir, and originates in Japan. It was tested on a few Spanish patients and it seems to have worked. The key difference between favipiravir and the ZMapp mAb is that favipiravir is effective even when given in the later stages of infection.
Umm, how do you truly know she has never cheated? Or does that not matter to you? The only way you can be 100% sure is by "trusting your feelings" and your ability to judge a person's character
No. The scientific theory is that a tokamak design will work if you build one large enough. However there is a risk involved since nobody has actually done it. Therefore, somebody has to spend the $20 billion to prove definitively that it works. After that $20 billion is spent, there is no (meaningful) intellectual property to assert because you can't patent a large version of an existing design especially when it wasn't even your idea that scaling up works. Also, the next guy to build one would be able to do it for cheaper since the guy spending the $20 billion would have made all the mistakes.
Dude, this project (MagLIF) is a few million, not billions.
Why woud the private sector fund it? There is not much to patent as IP in a tokamak that wont be expired by the time it's built, all the private sector would be doing is spending the initial capital while the competitor copies the design.
No, he said:
I am not a kook.
And he was wrong.
We don't have a right to block private citizens filming our property from the air. I don't see it in the constitution. I would like to be protected from police harassment and legal action taking place based on the interpretation of things supposedly filmed from above occurring on my property. Frankly although I normally respect Sotomayer, I feel she is misguided in this and is doing the bidding of the anti-drone lobby. Do you think government will give up its own right to fly drones? HAHAHA! This is to take away the ability to fly drones, and nothing else. I can understand MAYBE an ordinance against zooming in and prolonged observation of a specific property but the right to fly drones with cameras MUST be preserved. If you don't want to be viewed from above, build a roof. Are we to be banned from taking binoculars on aircraft as well?
How is that even possible? Android is essentially a Linux distribution. It's like saying you want it to work on Sprint before it works on a phone network. Though come to think of it Sprint might not be one given their spotty coverage.
Yeah I guess that one was kind of lame -- I wanted something that could charge the watch in 2 minutes or less while keeping the watch super thin since what I knew of the near field, whole room, or induction chargers is that they would add a few mm of thickness. I didn't exactly have the time, budget, tech vendor roadmaps, and team to sit around do nothing for a few months but kick ideas around and come up with practical ideas for a smartwatch.
Gee, I wonder where Apple got the idea of being able to send Vibration messages. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
I bet they would sue the daylights out of Samsung if THEY tried to implement anything similar.
I guess I'll use that feature
What does this have to do with the fact that Apple copied my idea of smartwatch vibration messaging and filed patents on it even though I have proof at this URL right here on slashdot that I came up with it first. http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
Question is, how do we win round 2
The term "intellectual property" is I believe a misnomer. There is first of all no innate right to intellectual property. The right to own a copyright is no different than the right to drive on the roads, you have to be given the right by the government on the basis of meeting certain requirements. This is very different from a fundamental or innate right. You have an innate right to free speech, it is not something the government gives you
According to the constitution Congress has the right
According to that text, it's clear the current Supreme Court is shirking its responsibility by allowing excessive copyright and patent terms. Excessive copyright terms don't meet the fundamental constitutional requirement of advancing the useful arts and sciences. Disney made a lot of money by taking advantage of the expired copyrights of traditional stories such as sleeping beauty, beauty and the beast etc. I mean even The Lion King is a retelling of Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Did Disney compensate Shakespeare for stealing his story??? If Shakespeare's estate still owned the copyright of Hamlet, Disney would not have been able to make Hamlet. This is clearly proof that the useful arts and sciences are being hindered by excessive copyright terms. The first US copyright laws had only a few years in length
The way I see it, id Software's new owners are evil because they even tried to frivolously sue John Carmack, who invented all their games and technology.
In addition to recording, it should stream to the cloud in real time.