Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Submission + - Should Federally funded projects require sharing revenue on results? (theatlantic.com)

riskkeyesq writes: The Atlantic is running a story about the patent fight between MIT and Berkeley over the invention of CRISPR.
"This week, the biggest science-patent dispute in decades is getting a hearing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office headquarters. The invention in dispute is the gene-editing technique CRISPR, and at stake are millions, maybe even billions, of dollars for the winning side. CRISPR is the hugely hyped technology that could launch life-saving therapies, novel genetically modified crops, new forms of mosquito control, and more. It could—without much exaggeration—change the world."
Shouldn't Federally funded projects return a portion of the proceeds to the people?

Comment Re:Thank You (Score 1) 1095

When I started my transition in 1990, I would have never imagined such support and solidarity. Thank you Pay Pal.

There are many individuals, Brenda, with more than a passing understanding of DNA who wholeheartedly support you, also. I hope your life is happy, fulfilling, and free of souls who feel a right or a need to tell you how to live your life.

Comment Re:Corporate bias? (Score 1) 178

Let me rephrase, if you will: "neither the US Constitution nor the Federalist Papers limit or prohibit a state from providing health care to it's residents."

I agree, but with the stipulation that such care meets the Federal standards. Thanks of taking this in the spirit it was intended; a conversation, and not an arguement. Here's a fun read: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R4...

Comment Re:Corporate bias? (Score 1) 178

Elaborate on that please. How did/does the US Constitution, or the arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers, limit or prohibit a state from providing universal health care to its residents?

It did not. However, in contrast to your statement, "But that is not the role (or should not be the role) of the FEDERAL government.", Madison (and Jay) makes clear that the very definition of "universal" is the Federal purview.

Comment Re:Fact check or PC checking? (Score 1) 337

But I will admit that I am one of those people that believes the Civil War wasn't really about slavery, but that slavery was simply a symptom of larger underlying factors that caused the war. So that probably makes me a racist in some people's eyes.

Evidently you missed a couple of salient declarations.

From South Carolina's secession assertion:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

From the Confederate Vice President's "Cornerstone Speech":

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell." Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. It was about slavery. The attempt to paint it otherwise is disengenous.

Comment Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score 1) 369

You're confused; not only is bacteria not entirely capable of breaking down the bitumen (it's not crude oil they're pumping), but the product is toxic to them. DuckDuckGo Richard Johnson's work for the UofE and you may have a better understanding of the problem. Whilst you may truly believe that running abrasive sand loaded with toxic material that takes (at this point with accelerant acids and microbes) 10 years to clean up through metal pipes over the largest aquifer in North America is a good idea, those that understand the challenges don't. Pretending that this is equal in risk to a "huge, huge volume of oil and petroleum products going through massive pipe system" illustrates your lack of understanding.

Slashdot Top Deals

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759