755 karma · joined April 1, 2008
contact me: ''.join(['b', 'andrew' , 'fox', '@', 'gmail.com'])
See more evidence of this: http://askubuntu.com/questions/141879/error-1962-no-opertati...
http://askubuntu.com/questions/91484/how-to-boot-ubuntu-from...
That's a good guess regarding the Brad Pitt character. I should add movie character names - those might be more influential than famous people in wikipedia.
Remember that our brains only need a couple thousand kcals per day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7...
I know the reason the moon is always facing the same face toward us is because it has locked its own rotational rate to match it orbital rate due to "tidal like" forces acting back on the moon.
So, maybe I just answered my own question, I guess they purposefully added a rotational component to the ISS so that it is always facing the surface as it orbits? Why do that instead of staying fixed according to the stars? Maybe that is too disorienting for the astronauts.
1. if the whole concept of a "gene patent" (as described in this article) were shut down then drug companies will still be fine, since DNA is not the drug, the protein is the drug.
2. On the other hand, if all 25k human genes were patented by many different parties as diagnostic markers (as described in this article), then it wouldn't hurt drug companies either, since that's not where the money really is. And if something turned out to be important for a drug treatment, then at least there is a patent which can be purchased.
3. Actually, if all human genes (and their proteins) were patented to prevent any use by any other parties, then that would be a good thing, because if it turns out that one of them is really useful to treat a disease, then a drug company would be more likely to pursue that as a drug candidate because they could license the patent and protect themselves from generics for a few years to pay off all the R&D costs.
4. if there is a protein or chemical of some sort which is already in the public domain for your intended use and can't be patented - then there is no way to protect your huge investment. This is the worst case scenario for drug companies. Or, if suddenly there was no way to get a patent for a drug based on a naturally occurring chemical of human protein, then that would be bad for business, too.
Also, this whole gene patent thing becomes a little absurd since it now costs only $4000 to sequence the entire human genome. According to this article, Myriad is charging $3000 to sequence 2 different genes (or maybe just to check for a couple common SNPs in those genes?). So, the problem is, what happens when you get your whole genome sequenced? Does the company who does the sequencing need to withhold the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from their product that they return to you? What about all the other "thousands" of gene patents? Maybe when you get your genome sequenced then the company which does it just can't interpret the patented parts of the genome? Well, from this article it look like the interpretation of the gene sequence is unpatentable since it is an "abstract mental step." So, maybe everything is fine and all these patents can exist and we can go ahead and get our genomes sequenced without any fear of getting sued by a Myriad of companies.
These days with so much spam, I try to avoid domain names with my search keyword in them.