Silly (in retrospect) Internet Misunderstandings

Wayback machine appears to be broken at the moment.

Ha! Well, color me gobsmacked. I've got to learn not to make assumptions about people. I had no idea you were nearly as old as I am.

In other words it was more neutral, and today we have the Net Neutrality discussions. So in thinking that way, the internet has degraded a lot since its inception.

It's because of my youthful exuberance

I could use a six-pack of that today.

// I think I'll settle for six-pack of Yuengling.

Or Labbatt Blue.

Big business is a just a big bully again. I was just listening to NPR and they were talking about patents on genes; currently, if you discover a gene, you can patent it*. This means certain tests to determine if you have a predilection toward a specific kind of cancer can cost $1000's, because they have to pay a licence fee to the people who have patented the gene (even tho it's in your DNA!). The same goes for anyone who wants to study anything involving that gene.

The other example involved "genetic prospecting"; if you discover a gene that is the key to a plant synthesizing a certain compound (didn't know science got this deep!), you can patent that one to. So some companies just take out tons of patents on particular plant genes, the same way people will buy domain names just to resell them. This lead to a multinational (WR Grace) suing people who grew Neem trees in India, because they were using the compounds produced by the tree that WR Grace held the patents on the genes that produce the compounds!

The excuse, as always, is "we don't have any incentive except GREED, if you incur extra costs on us, we will just pass those on or give up". Okay. I hope you go bankrupt and let someone who is actually interested in science, or bettering civilization, or telecommunications, etc, have a go...

* actually you don't even have to discover it -- you just have to file the patent

They own the gene itself? How can someone own naturally occuring nitrogenous base pairs? It's not the method of detection they're patenting?

Can you post a link. I can't seem to find the article on NPR's site.

Oh, and I remember when Excite was my search engine of choice (pre-google, of course).

I wouldn't go that far. It has matured and developed -- but one clear negative consequence of maturity in this case is that all kinds of "normative" standards have developed that people seem to feel bound to conform to. Whereas before these standards had time to evolve, they didn't have any to look for or conform to.

Maybe that's a gross overphilosophicalization Also, I myself have gotten old and don't take much interest in many things that were like, totally mindblowing in my early twenties. I mean I'd love to have my mind blown again, of course...I do still try. My programming kick is part of that, no doubt.



It was actually a show on WNYC. They "upgraded" their site a while ago and now it is hands down the SLOWEST site I visit

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episod ... nts/142945

The feeds are fine fine AFAICT -- tho I've only listened to one or two, since the radio is on a lot.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure they hold a patent "on the gene itself":

Its kind of the same thing with farmers. You can have your small farm that has been in your family for over a hundred years, and right across the road is a big corporate sell out farm owned by Monsanto. Their scientists will take samples of the crops on your farm and compare them to samples from their field, and if they have the same genes they sue you for "copyright infringement". But pollination from one plant to the next is natural! And it is your fault that the wind blew pollen from their field onto yours, or that a bee landed on one of their plants then on one of yours afterwards. Its all such a sham.

Let's keep this thread on topic. I created a new thread to discuss the gene thing.