Something else not specified in this section are viruses. Viruses are not strictly microorganisms, and no mention is made of them, but yet they can be manufactured and used for treatments- recently even for cancer:
If viruses could be excluded from patentability since they aren't mentioned, then any research or manufacturing done would not be patentable, and therefore some companies may hesitate to invest too heavily in research.
Still, seems a little odd / slippery slope-y to me. On the one hand, I understand and, to some extent, agree with the need to protect / profit off what you've developed. On the otherhand, USPTO is pretty bad at biological patent screening and I can see a huge landrush to patent bacteria for no good reason.
(Full disclosure, I am in the process of patenting a modified natural product made by a bacteria)
It just seems like the wrong mechanism. Isn't the goal of restricting copying of your engineered organism better suited to the copyright system, rather than the patent system? Patents are for processes, right? But an organism is a thing, not a process. Isn't making an illegal copy of that thing a copyright violation?
They aren't patenting the organism per se, they're patenting the processes they've developed that make use of the organisms as the scaffold/factory. In the case I outlined previously of a yeast making a drug, you would want the patent on the cellular machinery that you've built to make the drug, which is the process.
This is pretty much the definition of how patents differ from copyright law, if I word-for-word write come up with the same work as you and I can prove that I didn't copy yours, it's not covered by copyright law.
With patents it doesn't matter that I came up with it on my own, you own the rights to the end result.
Discussing exactly how bad the temporary bad result is informs discussion of when that trade-off is worthwhile. And this is true whether or not your conclusion is that patents are never OK or only sometimes OK.
It is a poor time to discuss trade-off generic to all patents. Focusing on them shifts the discussion away from the issue at hand, and toward a political stance that people have already heard.
avar's post does the latter.
Just like in a topic about whether to vote for a specific tax levy, it's inappropriate to talk about whether property taxes as a whole should be abolished.
Making the argument that a given problem is recurrent is very constructive: consideration of the generic problem can provide arguments for prioritizing your problem as it relates to X. This is especially true when present instances of a problem affect future probability of the same problem occurring.
This is notably the case in law where jurisprudence makes laws progressively more difficult to repeal.
> That's an argument against patents existing at all.
It's not an argument for or against patents, I'm pointing out that @aroch is wrong about them "patenting the processes".
That's not true for most of these patents, they're patenting isolated organisms, compounds or genes. I.e. the end result, not the process.
What incentives we should give individuals and corporations to advance biotechnology is another matter.
Organisms and genes are machines. There's nothing new about patenting specific machines.
Could they really get a patent on "bacteria that secretes X" that would stop you from doing it in a completely different manner?
But if you insert the same gene into the same bacteria using different equipment, that's no better than making the same patented gear with a different manufacturing method.
To give an analogy, if somebody invented and patented the reciprocating piston engine, and then somebody else came along and invented a rotary engine, such as the wankel engine, the inventor of the former wouldn't have a claim against the latter because, while the result is the same (a drive shaft gets turned), the mechanism is different. Sure, it's possible that the inventor of the former could threaten the inventor of the former, as many patent trolls do, but legally they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Now, if the gene itself is the critical part of the 'invention', and not the organism, then taking that same gene and inserting it into a different organism still leaves you open to patent infringement. But that assumes the gene itself has been engineered, as opposed to having been found in an existing organism.
Again, I'm not sure how I feel on whether it should be patentable or not. But, at least as I understand it, their intent is protection for something they've spent millions/billions developing -- no different than the process patents we have now.
How would you feel if your body, consciousness, and everything you were was patented?
There are an awful lot of ethical and legal considerations when custom-designed intelligent organisms become possible, I'm not sure if IP is high on the list.
As much of the utility in modified organisms is that they do copy themselves without your help, it seems as though the patent system would be much better suited, because there the enforcement burden is to prevent a human from using the organism to accomplish a specific purpose.
People sometimes forget that laws are pointless if they are not enforceable.
Or worse than pointless; actively harmful.
Is this about "free trade" or about profit-maximizing and guaranteeing for some big corporations?
Very dangerous, and sounds more like "Empire – Colonies" than "Equal partners in trade"
Unbelievable, that the EU does really accept all this! Only explanation: Those politicians are already bought.
> The TPP means that America will write the rules of the road in the 21st century.
It very much sounds like they’re treating the rest of the world as colonies.
It doesn't seem to me that the intellectual property provisions of the agreement are all that important to the overall stated goals of the TPP. Yet they are so fucking regressive and antagonistic that there is some chance (I guess? Again, echo chamber...) that they will sabotage the rest of the agreement. After SOPA, etc., if it were me and I wanted to be sure that the TPP passed in enough Pacific Rim countries to make it effective, I would keep anything remotely like SOPA as far away from my precious treaty as I possibly could.
Instead, the IP portions of the agreement are basically the language that was in SOPA all over again, which pissed a whole lot of people off last time. It's really hard to take seriously the claim that the TPP is so important, when the people drafting it are including language that is pretty much guaranteed to stoke vigorous opposition, for reasons that are mostly orthogonal to their goals.
Either they know, that the other countries will follow anyway (because the politicians are (select one or multiple): incompetent, bought, blackmailed, Pro-US, incompetent, ignoring their own countries interests) -- or the things told about the importance of the treaties are not true, but it is just a vehicle to transport the antagonizing bullshit, because some big corporations want this to be installed.
In the EU (TTIP), my impression is, that at least at the high levels of politicians, the list above just must be applied. Many leading politicians are just hitting so hard to get this installed, that it seems they are mad, when I see what negatives they are ready to swallow. They let the US dictate the treaty and just don't seem to recognize, how the EU is hornswoggled.
What happens to colonies can be seen in the plenty of former colonies that still struggle to get out of poverty.
If the West is moving towards an information economy and is going to let the developing world take over manufacturing, the West wants to protect the information economy. The idea is we want to sell information for goods/services.
This is not about protecting own inventions, but about land-grabbing things that we did not invent, but nature!
The same thing, corporations try again and again. For example, once they copied cures of traditional Indian medicine, patented them in the USA and tried to forbid the free usage.
When this goes on this way, we all will soon have to pay a life-tax for having some type of DNA or bacteria in our bodies. Already, many cures are not invented, because to many patents on life building blocks make the creation to financially risky.
"In the first step by a developing country to stop multinational companies patenting traditional remedies from local plants and animals, the Indian government has effectively licensed 200,000 local treatments as "public property" free for anyone to use but no one to sell as a "brand"."
I believe that microorganisms patentability would indeed introduce a whole lot of problems for any human being. Starting with what's apparently already happening with plant patents -- see e.g. the story at:
How about not blatantly ignoring all the human misery caused by failed extreme free market experiments, such as Pinochet's Chile and 1990's Russia?
So if 1990s Russia and Pinochet's Chile are examples of extreme free market experiments, I'd take the human misery they cause over the human misery of extreme no-market experiments any day.
You're confused. They're examples of free market experiments, however the Pinochet's deaths had nothing to do with the free market and all with his political power.
If you want to see deaths caused by free market, look at e.g. homeless people who freeze on the street during winter.
Anyway, I don't think anyone excuses dictatorships in this thread.
What do you mean?
IIRC, this is not true. It's a contributor, certainly, but Russian life expectancy is substantially lower than other nations with similar alcohol consumption.
However, that doesn't say anything about validity of ideas of free market or communism. What does say a lot though is that some free market proponents have the need to advocate Pinochet.
That's not what ctlby said. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation of his/her words.
In other words, if someone is killing for individual reasons, he is not following any philosophy, because he doesn't need any; he's just crazy or psychopath. Killing for philosophical reasons always happens to protect some social order (albeit sometimes fictional).
If you don't agree, there is a simple solution. Just provide an example of philosophy that causes killing of people and is not in fact collectivist (by any definition you choose, it doesn't matter very much, and that's why I was able to do the bold claim I did).
Or to put it even simpler, it's contradictory to kill another human to fulfil any philosophy of individual freedom.
Hitler killed because he wanted to protect Germans from Jews, Pinochet killed because communists were danger to his social order, and so on. Even Winston Smith from 1984 was willing to kill in order to replace the social system (which is the passage in the book I really like, because it's one of the places that makes it actually morally ambiguous, just like real world).
Now you argue that killing another human being for philosophical reasons is always collectivist according to your [asgard1024's] definition. That does nothing whatsoever to make the quoted statement true.
[Edit: For that matter, I see nowhere where ctlby gave his/her definition of "collectivist", nor where he/she assented to yours definition.]
To your point in this post:
You are kind of arguing a tautology. If someone expresses a moral philosophy (no matter how twisted), but they are the only one who believes it or adheres to it, they're collectivist, because they're trying to motivate other people to follow their code. But if someone doesn't express their reasons as a moral philosophy, "he's just crazy or a psychopath". You dismiss any possibility that such a person is following an inexpressed philosophy. In fact, you have pretty much defined out the possibility of there even being such a thing. From that starting point, you argue that your position is correct, but in fact it was contained in your starting assumptions, so your argument is of no value.
What I said is true of (almost) any definition of "collectivist", including ctlby's.
> You dismiss any possibility that such a person is following an inexpressed philosophy.
Yes, because any inexpressed philosophies were not subject of the discussion; we can't assign killings due to inexpressed philosophies to any philosophy, since we don't know which one.
I mean, show me one non-collectivist philosophy according to which is OK to kill human (except in unavoidable self-defense). There is no such thing - all of them are collectivist.
No, your definition of collectivist is so expansive, everything fits. My reply is trying to communicate something to you, therefore my reply is collectivist (or else I don't understand your definition). But presuming I do understand, I reject your definition as being so broad as to be meaningless.
> I mean, show me one non-collectivist philosophy according to which is OK to kill human (except in unavoidable self-defense). There is no such thing - all of them are collectivist.
The Marquis de Sade had a philosophy. Since there is no God, whatever is, is right. And, hey, nature made man stronger than woman. Therefore man has the right to do to woman whatever he wants. I can't find any sane way to describe that philosophy as "collectivist", but de Sade lived out his philosophy to the extent of torturing women. (To my knowledge, he did not actually kill any, but certainly he was free to do so, according to his philosophy.)
Now, I will agree with you that collectivist philosophies (conventionally defined) are much more likely to say that it is OK to kill an individual, because those philosophies start from the group being important, and the individual not. (That's kind of the definition of collective.) From that starting point, it's really hard to find a way to stop short of "It's OK to kill an individual if it's for the good of the group."
Individualistic (as opposed to ethical or utilitarian) hedonism: if it brings the holder of that philosophy net pleasure to do a thing, it is right to do it.
Pretty much the most anti-collectivist philosophy possible.
I would like to see an example that would be useful to classify social systems, as ctlby attempted to do. But I don't see it. Once you put "social system" into it, killing happens for collectivist reason.
Life is not black and white. The hardline communists were awful. That doesn't mean that hardline capitalists can't also be awful. Maybe they're less awful, in a "rather be kicked in the face than shot in the head" kind of way, but that's not a positive recommendation.
This is not a rational historical comparison (if such a thing can really exist), these are just random numbers shouted in a pub argument, "My guy killed less people than your guy!"...
Chile and the Chicago Boys is a bit disingenuous to regard as outright failure, it's a controversial subject. Keep in mind that the Chicago School are a unique economic position, but they've been oversimplified to "free market" in common discourse.
If you want sources, just scan Brad Delong's blog; there's a decent chance he's making this point at any given time. There was a wonderful example I can't take time time to dig up right now in which an (Chicago-aligned) economist published a paper with outright deceptive priors and when confronted, explained that his goal was to promote an argument, and it was the reader's problem to make counter arguments. You can call that a lot of things, but academic inquiry isn't one of them.
Mariana Mazzucato's work on The Entrepreneurial State makes frequent appearances in these parts, typically in the shape of references to internet startups not really being innovative, because the internet/GPS/touch screens/Siri have roots in government research programs.
All the time: very often advocates of government action tend to predict an association between specific government actions and specific results, rather than ascribing bad results to "government" generally and good results to "the market", drawing both bad and good results from scenarios where government regulation shapes the market; while anti-government advocates like to pretend that there is a symmetry between their non-specific advocacy against government and some opposing advocacy for government, that's not actually the case.
I have literally never seen that kind of analysis of a government program, still less a group of them. But it's essential, so that we can tell whether the predictions of what the next program will do have any basis in reality.
I know this was a typo and you meant "free market", but it was a hilarious typo.
The notion of blaming the ills of 1991-1999 on free markets is absurd. Were free markets going to magically turn the nation of Stalin right around into a bastion of prosperity? Impossible.
You know what turned Russia's condition around? A debased US dollar and the high oil prices it caused. It wasn't Putin or central planning.
And as for Pinochet: a 17 year, violent military dictatorship in a free market. If that's your political system, what you inherently cannot have is a free market. The two are mutually exclusive.
"Government-controlled banks and the Indian public holding a 49.1 percent stake."
The government and public quite literally owned half of Union Carbide company at the time of the disaster. Fault can't really get more directly placed than that.
The hopes of private industry are that an entirely private corporation, in order to protect its brand's value, needs to avoid this sort of thing. Add government funding to the mix, and everything is up in the air. Lockheed's F-35 project is another example of a disaster, but of the financial sort instead. If funded by another private company, rather than the government, this project would have been shut down and Lockheed would have already been sued into bankruptcy. Instead, Lockheed continues to be paid billions, while their treasonous corporation holds our national security hostage.
Note: All content in this comment is my opinion only.
It's 2015, no-one believes this anymore.
c'mon... your glasses are so rosy it's not even funny.
Article 18.76: Special Requirements related to Border Measures
5. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities
may initiate border measures ex officio  with respect
to goods under customs control that are:
(a) imported; (b) destined for export; (c) in transit,
and that are suspected of being counterfeit trademark
goods or pirated copyright goods.
 For greater certainty, ex officio action does
not require a formal complaint from a third party
or right holder.
And are there any accountability or requirements for being familiar with the thing it is claimed to infringe? Should everything have to carry copyright notice signed by all copyright holders?
For greater certainty, ex officio action does
not require a formal complaint from a third party
or right holder
It isn't unheard of.
Meanwhile, I found the New Zealand and US side letter amusing:
>To the extent contemplated in the Code, New Zealand shall not permit the sale of any
product as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey, unless it has been manufactured in
the United States according to the laws of the United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey and the product complies with all applicable
regulations of the United States for the sale or export as Bourbon Whiskey or Tennessee Whiskey.
I assume this must be quite prevalent in New Zealand if they wrote a letter specific to this one issue. I didn't see a similar letter with France regarding cognac or champagne.
In Europe, many traditional kinds of cheese, alcohol and meat are covered by a system known in various countries as AOC (France, Appellation d'origine contrôlée) or DOC (Italy, Denominazione di origine controllata). Conceptually speaking, the idea goes something like:
1. Large-scale producers can always just create a trademark and market it. Customers will be able to recognize the product and evaluate it based on its reputation.
2. Small-scale producers, however, lack the reach to advertise and be recognized on their own. But what if they're making a traditional, high-end product for which their region is famous? Well, we could set up a shared "brand", where anybody from the right region can agree to follow traditional recipes and have their quality judged. And eventually, customers will realize that Parmigiano-Reggiano means "a certain kind of really good traditional Parmesan cheese from Italy."
Under this system, the right way to think of things like "champagne" and "Tennessee Whiskey" is to treat them as a particular kind of brand. Any company can sell products under this brand, provided (a) they come from the right region, and (b) they meet a certain set of quality standards.
The system of AOC/DOC seems to work well for both "foodie" customers (who want to be able to recognize a high-quality traditional product), and small- to mid-size producers (who get to pool their branding efforts). The only cost of this system is that names like "Tennessee Whiskey" essentially become international trademarks under the control of a regional organization.
Not being allowed to lie isn't a penalty. E.g. if you are raising pigs in Texas you shouldn't be allowed to label your product as being "Ham from Italy." Whether or not it tastes better is completely irrelevant.
What happens when the name of the product _is_ the name of the region though. For example, Champagne or Parmesan? Giving your product another name clearly disadvantages you.
In the case of champagne, I'm usually unwilling to pay for the regional "brand." Instead, I often buy "cava," which is another regional AOC for sparkling wine, this one run by producers in Catalonia (and elsewhere in Spain). It's a bit cheaper, which is probably less than ideal for the producers, but I still know more or less what I'm getting.
You could argue that one or the other of these two situations is less than optimal. But as a customer, I find that AOCs and DOCs generally help me buy products I'll like. And since it would be hard for the producers of "Tennessee Whiskey" to enforce their agreed-upon quality standards on a company in New Zealand, it does make a certain amount of sense to limit participation geographically.
What if nobody bothers making quality "Parmigiano-Reggiano" in the US because they know it is close to impossible to compete against the brand name and the margin are not worth it to even try? Maybe, if Americans were allowed to call theirs "Parmigiano-Reggiano" they'd put a lot more effort into making it high quality given that they'd have a much bigger chance of making a profit.
Champagne is already limited to a region in Europe, but that hasn't stopped, say, Catalonia from making Cava: their own regional brand for what is, in essence, the same thing. If anything, this also allowed local producers to band against the old name, which now indicates it's a product made in France.
So in practice, its not a big deal for good competitors.
One that's currently being litigated in the EU is whether labeling products not from Greece as "Greek yogurt" is misleading. I personally think yes, especially given the capital 'G' and the parallels with other clear origin-designating terms like "Greek wine" and "Greek olive oil" (and mixed origin/style terms like "Scotch whisky"), but it could end up going either way.
That’s what’s done here. You see that it is not the exact original product (sometimes you don’t even want the original product, but a specific fake of it), and you see still what it’s similar to.
The problem we see, if it is a problem, is that regions with big demand buy the product to regions with worst brand and then sell it as their our.
A lot of the Italian olive oil comes from Spain.
A lot of wine get the grape from other regions.. things like that. Not really a problem, I suppose, just a lie.
Nods to tradition can certainly go too far, but I like allowing the regional names to be a little exclusive.
(But as a Brit I completely approve of your joking, too)
In practice, most TN whiskey is home distilled, and not barrel-aged. (and also, never sold) Instead, you "char" the whiskey by putting charred birch, maple, or oak sticks inside a bottle and then aging for a relatively short time. Commercially-produced TN whiskey is always barrel aged, though.
Process-wise, the key difference is charcoal filtering before aging (Search for "Lincon County Process"). Taste-wise, it varies, but TN whiskey is usually less sweet than bourbon. It's still corn whiskey, so it's relatively sweet and has a hint of that distinct sour mash taste. However, I've never had one that's as "sticky-sweet" as Makers Mark, Woodford Reserve, Four Roses, or the other really sweet bourbons.
The problem is, making real bourbon is very difficult because you have to let so much evaporate off that producers lose a lot of product. E.g. 84% of the Buffalo Trace 2015 George T. Stagg evaporated off. That's a lot of lost product -- so they're opening these 53 gallon barrels and pulling out about 8 gallons of product. Producers don't like those numbers, but that's how you make real bourbon. So it leaves most people thinking they dislike Bourbon before ever having drank a real classic bourbon.
By comparison, Scotch is a very simple, cloying beverage. Scotch's complexity all comes from the peat, it's all show. If you pour enough peat in any whiskey it will taste roughly like Lagavulin. Bourbon is a more honest beverage, you're not covering anything up, which means a bad Bourbon is very bad and a good Bourbon is very, very good.
Scotch is the IPA of whiskey. It's criminal if you ask me.
This isn't even close to true; the entire Speyside region (which produces more Scotch, and more popular Scotch, than any other region) refutes it --- most Speysides have little if any peat.
Drinking an 18 year Bourbon is like drinking a 40 year barrel-aged Speyside. Sure, if you can get your hands on a 40 year old barrel-aged Speyside Scotch, I misspoke. But that's rather outside the budget of even the most die-hard Whiskey fans.
As a result, most Speysides fall roughly into that same category as the shite bourbons. Once you stop covering up their failings, you're left with a boring, watery, lifeless whiskey.
It's like if we were talking beer and I said "Americans just cover up their beer with flavorants so you don't realize they're watery garbage. German and Belgian beers are superior." and you fired back "That's not true! Coors Lite doesn't do that!" No, you're right, Coors Lite doesn't do that.
Is there more crappy Speyside than crappy Islay? Yes, of course: there is more Speyside period, the world's most popular Scotch whiskey comes from Speyside, and most blended Scotch is built from Speyside distilleries.
What any of this has to do with the idea that Scotch is all about peat is past me. Once again: the most popular Scotch in the world has minimal peat, and lots of Speysides have no peat at all. Ergo: it cannot be the case that Scotch is simply peat-flavored whiskey.
People who talk enthusiastically about American beer don't generally think about Coors Lite, let alone talk about it.
The age comment you made about bourbon and Scotch is also weird, since most bourbon is aged less than 12 years to begin with. At 18 years, you're asking me to compare a cask-strength Pappy or Buffalo antique --- bourbons that were built to be aged past the point where most bourbon would suffer for it --- to Scotch. That's a pretty apples/oranges comparison.
To pick up a 40 year barrel-aged Glenrothes you're looking at paying about €4500 a bottle, and that gets you about 90% evaporation. That's only 6% more angel-share than a $70 dollar bottle of BT Antique Collection.
If you can afford that, more power to you, but that's not really in the realm of what I'm talking about. The Scottish climate is just inappropriate for the making of proper whiskey in a timely and cost-effective fashion.
You said, "At 18 years, you're asking me to compare a cask-strength Pappy or Buffalo antique --- bourbons that were built to be aged past the point where most bourbon would suffer for it --- to Scotch."
I've been talking about BT/Pappy, etc. the whole time. Did you read my first comment?
"The problem is, making real bourbon is very difficult because you have to let so much evaporate off that producers lose a lot of product. E.g. 84% of the Buffalo Trace 2015 George T. Stagg evaporated off. That's a lot of lost product -- so they're opening these 53 gallon barrels and pulling out about 8 gallons of product. Producers don't like those numbers, but that's how you make real bourbon. So it leaves most people thinking they dislike bourbon before ever having drank a real classic bourbon."
Second: if you're going to talk about "how you make real bourbon", you're probably better off not bringing a Veblen NDP like Pappy into the discussion.
Third: there is plenty of amazing bourbon to be had that isn't a Buffalo antique at $120 a bottle, so I object to the "real bourbon" notion you're putting forward. 84% of Weller didn't evaporate, it's not aged 18 years, costs $30, and it's the same juice as Pappy, just handled more competently so it doesn't taste like grass clippings.
Fourth: who the hell drinks 40 year old Glenrothes? I'm talking about the Glenrothes you buy at the liquor store.
Fifth: once again, what does any of this have to do with whether Scotch is defined by peat flavor? I'm pretty sure you were just wrong about that.
Why would you throw around NDP like that's a bad thing? NDPs are no better or worse. Pappy, if you're talking Stitzel-Weller Pappy, is one of the best Bourbons you can/could buy, period.
Yes, Weller 12 is great (like Pappy 12). It's not syrupy enough, but that aside, it's a quality Bourbon at a competitive price. Is it as good as a 23 year SW Pappy? You're kidding yourself -- they're in completely different leagues.
What's more, with a Weller 12 you're still looking at 42% angel-share. Considerably higher than anything you'll see out of Scotland.
I'm sorry my peat comment upset you. Maybe it's a regional thing, by and large when we say Scotch we mean Islay or High-land. Either way, it's a lot of watery garbage, peat or no.
I think I don't believe you that viscosity is a simple function of evaporation.
Think about it: in both US and Scottish whiskey, the spirit going into the barrel is much higher proof than what's in the bottle, or what you should reasonably drink it at if you've got a cask-strength bottle. If "good whiskey" is "thick whiskey", where "thickness" is the amount of water the distillate had lost relative to alcohol, then we'd all just be buying the highest proof spirit; you could treat the ABV like a point score for quality. Both US and Scottish whiskey is diluted to a place the distiller wants it to be at.
We also wouldn't need tasting notes describing the legs, because if it's just about evaporation, then it's purely a function of ABV, and that's printed on the bottle!
Certainly the idea that one should evaluate a whiskey based solely on its legginess finds support in zero whiskey sources I can find.
I don't just think Pappy is overpriced Veblen whiskey that people overpay for because it's the only brand they've heard of --- although people absolutely do that, and secondary market prices, which are the only place you can reliably buy the stuff, make it one of the major rip-offs in all of spirits. I also think Pappy is inferior to Weller. Maybe I've just been given flawed bottles; the 20 literally tastes like grass clippings, and I'd take a FR SB over any of the other Pappies any day.
At any rate: Scotch is not "all about the peat". You have to not drink a lot of Scotch to think that. Which is fine! Just moderate your stridency a bit. :)
It's not just the water loss that matters, but the total evaporation that increases your protein ppm, and the length of time those proteins have had to break down in solution, that provides the complexity to a proper whiskey.
You don't detect that by legs, but by mouth-feel -- surface tension and viscosity are not the same thing.
Scotch is a fine beverage, it's just not Bourbon.
I would like to advocate for a explode-to-frontpage comments feature ... so we could have a new front page item for "that great scotch vs. bourbon argument we had in the TPP comments".
It's why I come here.
'dang, any thoughts?
Everyone has a personal choice, but I'm of the opinion that if you don't like Maker's Mark, you probably won't like bourbon.
Malts from other regions of Scotland vary a lot, and as a point of interest, many are matured in bourbon casks because it imparts sweet notes.
Scotch generally doesn't age in new oak. But all bourbon does, by law. So there's a pipeline of used barrels for Scottish distilleries to use.
If you get a chance to try to Woodford Reserve new/old wood rye sample, you'll see why Scots use our barrels: the first aging in whiskey in a new barrel extracts huge phenolic flavors. Those woody flavors would compete with Scotch, especially since Scotch generally ages much longer than bourbon. Meanwhile, sherry barrels are much more expensive and contribute their own distinctive flavors. So bourbon casks are they way you go when you want a neutral aging environment.
I was moved to nerd out about this because you suggested Scotch is aged in ex-bourbon casks because of the sweet notes they impart. I don't think this is true. I am a fiend for ex-sherry Scotch, and the sweetness generated by an ex-sherry casks is usually unmistakable, club-you-over-the-head powerful.
You'll notice that lots of Scotch releases make a big deal out of the wine casks they age in --- what kind of sherry, what age the barrel --- but few ex-bourbon Scotches will say anything but "aged in bourbon casks".
That's because bourbon casks are boring. :)
(Also, good lord, thank you for tilting at this windmill...Really blocked on Stockfighter?)
I want to like Balvenie more than I do, if only because they're so fussy about barrels. Also from what I understand a more end-to-end vertically integrated operation than most of the other distilleries, which share malt processors and other inputs through their corporate ownership.
The Dailuane is, I think, mediocre as a whisky, but possibly the most drinkable carrier for sherry flavor on my shelf. I run out of and re-buy Dailuane and GlenDronach more than anything else.
I am just a major dork about liquor is all.
Also, it's not Bourbon or single malt, but Templeton Rye is one of my favorite whiskeys (and reasonably priced): http://www.templetonrye.com/
Bulleit Rye, Dickel Rye, Redemption, Whistlepig, High West --- there's like 100 more, but those are the big names --- are all MGPI. You can buy whichever's cheapest; of the MGPIs, Templeton is the one I'd avoid, now that they've confirmed that they're not only quietly relabeling MGP, but also adulterating it.
Now I'm really curious about the "alcohol flavoring agent" from Clarendon Flavor Engineers. I've had Bulleit Rye and High West as well and did not enjoy them.
A good bourbon like Pappy's shouldnt be compared to a smokey peaty scotch like the Laphroaig quater cask I have in my cabinet. For me Bourdons are a daily drink and Scotch is for a celebration.
Anyways Japan and now Taiwan have been winning the most recent awards.
I do like how what I hear about Scotch matches what I know of Tennessee: the best stuff is brewed for locals with the exports being knockoffs. Except a few things like Jack Daniels where the standard brews are widely available. Best stuff comes from the moonshiners, though. :)
* Go to where the locals shop and they're selling the same brands the whiskey specialty stores sell.
* The gas stations have better Scotch selections than most US liquor stores.
* The expensive distillery-only products are generally the most interesting whiskies, and they're the stuff least likely to sell to the locals.
* Virtually all of the distilleries, and most of the best distilleries, are owned by gigantic corporations that own portfolios of distilleries.
The entire Scotch industry is an export industry. No doubt there's quite a lot of bad Scotch exported, but it seems to me like more or less all the good Scotch is exported too.
France is not a signatory to the TPP, so you wouldn't.
Why would they want to brand their whiskey as Tennessee whiskey or Bourbon?
Bourbon is widely recognized as a US whiskey, probably from Kentucky, using that name for something made in NZ is more likely to piss customers off than anything else (Tennessee whiskey has a somewhat more obvious geographic meaning).
I think it would be more principled to either let anyone produce it (subject to style requirements), or to geographically restrict it to only the vicinity of Kentucky. But the U.S.'s position seems to be to want to make it a specifically American brand, but otherwise not regionally restricted. Which I understand the trade motivations for, but honestly I don't see bourbon from Tokyo as any less authentic than bourbon from San Francisco, assuming it's made correctly.
I'm specifically asking if it is going to matter to the distillers outside the US if they can use it in their product names or not (I'm opposed to preventing the use of blah-style to describe foods).
But I'm pretty skeptical that those teenagers care that their cheap whiskey be called Bourbon.
The common conception was that they were distinct drinks, and that Whiskey was too expensive.
There is also provision to unlock DVDs purchased overseas that is still retained.
I could not see provision to restrict tax free havens or to curb tax avoidance by multinational corporations.
Any Party may withdraw from TPP by providing
six months notice of withdrawal.
Does this make GPL unenforceable, or am I reading too much into this?
It doesn't read like it would prevent an individual from applying the GPL to their software but it might prevent the government from doing the same... Which would be exceptionally strange and problematic.
It could mean that government agencies would be prohibited from contributing to GPL-styled open source software or even using said software since they would be required to distribute it to anyone that asks for the code.
So for example the Japanese government cannot force a US company to release source code as a condition to allow its use/import/sell in Japan. But the Japanese government can write/finance as much GPL software as it wants, and can import as much GPL software as it wants. The Japanese government can even mandate all software for its own procurements to be GPL-only.
What Japan cannot do is outlaw the sell or use of closed source foreign (by a person of another Party) software on its territory. So say if Ford wants to sell cars in Japan, the Japanese government cannot force them to release the source code for a mandatory code-audit as a condition for import...
I really don't think it's a good article.
(IANAL, of course)
It has a bunch of vague hooey about the clause being limited to "mass market software" which I think is designed to deal with that. Of course, it's pathetically poorly defined (if a car is sold to a "mass market" then it's software is too, right?). To me this clause was pretty much written by Microsoft and of course, the negotiators at the TPP table are far to clueless to understand any of the subtlety involved in software licensing and distribution.
Imagine that Google launches a self driving car in Japan, but the Japanese government ask access to its source code... How many hours before Toyota gets it and start "auditing" it?
Why would that be a problem? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me as long as everyone has the right to audit the code. There's a huge public interest in disclosure of source code for things like self-driving cars.
If Toyota, Mitsubishi, and other Japanese companies were given the code but no one else then there would be a problem.
The big problem is the use of "require", because it's a very loose general term. It doesn't matter what basis the "requirement" comes, so even just ordinary old copyright law seems to come into scope there.
I don't think it's a real problem but I do think it is close enough to one that it's a horrible thing to have in the agreement.
EDIT: further to those thoughts, the result would not be that the GPL is unenforceable, rather, the result would be that people would lose the right to distribute GPL software in the country. A working GPL is the only thing that gives them the right to do that in the first place. I doubt there is any nation left on earth that can actually now operate without access to GPL software, this is unlikely to play out even if there is a way to interpret it that seems to violate the GPL.
Governments are not territories: "No Party shall require [...] access to source code [...] as a condition for the import [...] in its territory.". Because a given closed-source software cannot be bought in a specific procurement doesn't mean that it cannot be sold/used in the territory, so the text doesn't apply.
No Russian server situations
"Governments ... will be unable to force companies from those countries to store government data in local datacentres ... governments will not only be prevented from mandating data sovereignty provision, they will also be unable to demand access to source code from companies incorporated in TPP territories."
"For the European Union, that's a hugely sensitive issue. Under data protection laws there, personal data cannot be sent outside the EU unless companies sign up to the self-certification scheme known as the Safe Harbor framework.
TISA Article X.4: Movement of Information
No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party
from transferring, accessing, processing or storing
information, including personal information, within or
outside the Party's territory, where such activity is
carried out in connection with the conduct of the service
Since when are corporations party to a treaty? While the TPP is a huge push toward corporate sovereignty by diluting the power of governments, this is a trade agreement between nations. Just because the treaty is effectively governments hading power over to corporations (sorry, "investors") doesn't mean those corporations ratify the TPP.
 Investor-State Dispute Settlement? Just investors, not corporations in geneal or "other non-state actors"? This isn't even trying to hide that it's all about free movement of capital. Get ready to watch even more money flow out of the country.
The only force that can now stop ratification are the many corporations who did not receive TPP handouts and special TPP privileges for their legacy business models. Since citizens cannot effectively lobby government, the only recourse left is for citizen employees to lobby corporations who can lobby government. If you work in a technology company, ask your company to take a public stand on TPP. Ask Wikipedia to go dark in alternating 30 minute slots, to raise awareness about TPP. Look at examples where SOPA was brought to public attention.
Remember that the lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank,
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wal..., "Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals."
For more on lobbyists, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-..., ".. Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules … This is a very pleasant surprise."
But safe haven is silly. I'm French and I don't care about my data being stored in the US. Why should the government force me to store my data in France? People who want to store their data in France only should be free to do so of course but why bring the government into the equation? Besides, safe haven is incompatible with reality where data is being live replicated across the world to make access to it faster depending on who is accessing it and what timezone they're in.
Because uninformed consent is not consent and most people do not give informed consent to their data being stored overseas as they are not aware of all the laws and regulations that apply to it.
Unless we do want to say that uninformed consent is still consent, but what kind of problems does that create?
It as a method generally works when consumers are aware of all of their options, do their research and stay informed about every single economic purchase they make throughout every moment of their lives, and the consequences of a bad choice are not serious. So nowhere in the real world.
And it's not so horrible when the choices don't matter: when none of them are harmful, and we're simply deciding based on quality. It's still bad, but we tolerate it because nobody dies from it.
But you are acting like this is some mustache-twirling unrealistic liberal fantasy of an evil business person who does this -- not so. This happens ALL THE TIME in real life. People build cars that explode because it's too expensive to build them correctly. The poison on kids toys is not something I invented it is literally a real example from a number of years ago. This behavior is the inevitable consequence of 'caveat emptor' -- thank god we don't employ this awful principle anymore.
In a relationship, it's important to keep the power and the culpability/responsibility divvied up in equal proportions. If you're the powerful one in the relationship, you're also the responsible one. When you are a consumer you have zero power and zero information. You are a consumer of so many things coming from so many different industries you cannot be informed about them. You cannot become an expert on the toilet paper industry, you can simply watch ads and go to the store and pick based on garbage information fed to you by PR firms. Compared to the company selling it, staffed with hundreds of experts who live and breathe the toilet paper industry you are an infant. If they use this asymmetry to abuse or exploit you the culpability lies with THEM not with you. Caveat vendor.
What was the point of the government of Country A making their data protection law if there's no way of enforcing those laws?
That’s the issue. User data always is the users data, the company merely has the license to store and access it.
Retroactive more permissible licenses are also not okay.
Meaning, the treaty could not be ratified as long as the clause is valid. The question is now if the clause is null and void, or the whole treaty will be null and void (as in the case of Safe Harbor)
- "freedom of association"
- "a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour"
- "the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation"
- "acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health."
Sounds nice, but there is absolutely no guidance on what types of regulations these incredibly subjective "rights" would require, and I imagine every party will interpret them differently (and probably conclude that their existing regulations already provide all of these guarantees.)
Just the worst. A little child labour, that's OK. I'd love to see the circles any lawyer would have to run to give a legal definition of the "worst" forms of child labour.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but what's wrong with child labor under proper conditions? Only 50 years ago and even today in the country side children have been working the land alongside their parents.
And even though I don't agree with exploited children and this rule sounds good, there is such a thing as the sovereignty of a country, so I'm surprised that such rules made it into a trade agreement at all.
"The most shocking revelation from today’s release is how the TPP's Investment chapter defines "intellectual property" as an asset that can be subject to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process. What this means is that companies could sue any of the TPP nations for introducing rules that they allege harm their right to exploit their copyright interests—such as new rights to use copyrighted works for some public interest purpose. A good example of this might be a country wishing to limit civil penalties for copyright infringement of orphan works ...
... the E-Commerce chapter has the next most serious ramifications for users ... it restricts the use of data localization laws, which are laws that require companies to host servers within a country’s borders, or prohibit them from transferring certain data overseas ... The E-Commerce chapter ... imposes a strict test that such measures must not amount to “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade”—a test that would be applied by an investment court, not by a data protection authority or human rights tribunal."
EFF wrote previously about conflict between TPP and US Copyright Office efforts to improve the situation with Orphan Works, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/users-ustr-dont-sign-a..., "... the Register of Copyrights acknowledges a need to do something about the fact that "orphan works are a frustration, a liability risk, and a major cause of gridlock in the digital marketplace." The report includes a discussion of several proposals that could expand access to orphan works. One proposal is to put limits on the legal consequences for those who do anything technically infringing, in order to make it less daunting to take a chance and use them."
In America trade agreement protects company from you!
1. The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on promoting transparent and reasonable rates for international mobile roaming services that can help promote the growth of trade among the Parties and enhance consumer welfare.
That sounds... great!
1 (b) Seeing as consumer welfare is not limited to cross-border scenarios, the Parties shall also promote fair and reasonable telecom pricing and access in their home territories. The standard for pricing and access shall be calculated by the Parties using the following 'Lossless Commute' formula:
AvgDailyCommuteTimeInMinutes * 11MB * 30DAYS * PerMBCost = .05 * AnnualFederalPovertyLevel / 12
This would allow people in the United States, with average commute times, the ability to obtain the bandwidth necessary for streaming CD Quality Music during their commute for $45 per month. The .05 of the Monthly Federal Poverty Level is set based on the current mandate requiring employers to offer healthcare with the employee contribution not exceeding .095 of the Monthly Federal Poverty Level. In 2015, if it is reasonable to believe that an individual can obtain quality health insurance coverage for ~$93 per month, it is very reasonable to believe an individual can receive 18GB of bandwidth for half of that.
In something this large there will definitely be points that are objectionable, but that doesn't mean TPP as a whole isn't good for the parties involved.
Reaching agreement between governments that span the globe and govern hundreds of millions of citizens requires a lot of horse-trading and compromise. The final agreement can still be good for the world, even if there are objectionable provisions.
You could equally make the opposite point: In something this large there will be points that are good, but that doesn't mean that the TPP as a whole isn't bad for the average citizen.
This is a good thing. We want negotiators to have freedom to throw out unpopular ideas, and the only part where public scrutiny is important is the actual final text that our governments might sign.
What's the point of post-factum public scrunity if the deal can not be modified at this point? It's just a farce.
Even so, TPP will help job-hungry people in other countries (at least slightly) by dumping more jobs into their job markets. So, if we're going to help Americans by ditching TPP, we're going to do so at the expense of people in other countries.
Is that the right trade? Helping Americans by hurting others? Maybe it is.
Or maybe I'm missing something... Thanks for your thoughts!
Some economists believe that ultra cheap container shipping has had more to do with globalization than any FTAs have... if you haven't read "The Box" by Levinson it's worth a checking out.
TPP is actually projected by industry to be a net income to US companies of around 8 billion - a lot of this will be coming from lower import tariffs on shoes and apparel from vietnam.
How much of these 8 billions will go to US workers, though? Last few decades suggest that very little, if any.
Sure there are some questionable copyright/IP details, but there are a lot of benefits here for US manufacturers as well - historically import tariffs in SE asia have been quite high which makes it difficult for US exporters to be competitive there.
The deck is stacked against US manufacturing in several major economies. If you don't believe me, look at import tariffs in china and brazil (and most of south america and asia). It's quite prohibitive to import many finished goods into these countries as they've been very diligent about protecting their manufacturing base.
I don't see TPP as conspiracy. It is perfectly clear what is going on.
I mentioned China and Brazil because these are countries with high tariffs on imported finished goods which encourages manufacturing in-country.
However, I think there are a lot of good concerns raised when these things come up. E.g., why should you lose your career just so I can get mildly cheaper stuff? Thus the common solution of trade adjustment assistance, where tax money is used to pay to retrain you.
Another legitimate concern is the value of those jobs in other countries. Even in countries that are net receivers of existing jobs, those jobs may not be particularly great ones, in that they may harm traditional industries. Or be controlled by (and mainly benefit) foreign capital. Or be jobs that only exist for a while until wages rise a little and jobs shift to yet poorer countries. Or that the external capital flows may increase opportunities for corruption, worsening local governmental problems.
So although I'd agree that some trade opponents feel (or at least play on) American nativism and isolationism, I don't think that's the only motivation for trade limitations, and it's definitely not the most interesting one.
IP-heavy jobs in the U.S. tend to have higher salaries and better benefits. Think: software, pharmaceuticals, recorded entertainment, and complex machinery like cars, trucks, airplanes, turbines, etc. We hold competitive advantages in those industries, and export a lot of those things.
In industries with less IP, like textiles, hardware, food, and oil, the U.S. attempted to export some of its labor and environmental standards to other TPP nations. This was the right thing to do, but it also helps the U.S. competitive position because these are non-negotiable costs to U.S. companies.
So I don't think the situation is as simple as strong "IP" protections are thought to benefit the USA economy. Unless you're a big faith-based believer in "IP".
Basically whether it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant because the US government has a duty to put the American people first.
Another side of this is that free trade allows businesses to move production to whatever country has the weakest labour laws and environmental protections. In effect, it rewards countries economically for having lax regulations, and encourages a "race to the bottom". In the short term, it may be good for workers who now have jobs, but in the long term we don't want employment to only be economically competitive if it's indistinguishable from slavery.
Better financial results rarely / never mean higher income or conditions for employees.
Why is it bad if they make us a bunch of stuff for cheap?
Also, I think it's pretty clear that "everyone suffers" isn't an accurate reflection of what's going on in the world: http://bit.ly/1MBTFzC
For the same reason that US food aid destroys agriculture industry in Africa.
For whom? I would say a nation, or should I say a national government, particularly one that is a constitutional republic (republic in this case meaning representative democracy) eg a constitutional representative democracy, which only has power by way of the people (say what you will about the realpolitik current situation, the governments mandate comes from the people and can be revoked by the people, as matter of principle, law, and natural rights), should work to serve the interests of those people. If those peoples interests are so self-sacrificing as to limit their own benefit to help others, then that is what the people say, then sacrifice for the "greater good".
In my opinion the problem is that the Constitution of America has been gutted, the people are no longer properly represented, because corporations, particularly supranational corporations, have gamed the system into a fine art of semi-legal but oft im/amoral bribery, corruption, blackmail, quid-pro-quo, and legal and financial arbitrage.
I knew the TPP was probably going to pass, when I saw my representative, a rep in what is considered the most conservative district in the US, answered concerns about the unconstitutionality of the fast-track with a single line: "I have heard from many constituents who are concerned that TPA would equate to Congress turning over its Constitutional authority to the President. This is untrue."... he continued:
"President Obama and the Administration have currently been negotiating TPP without TPA and can continue to do so as Article II of the Constitution grants President’s that authority—you can read more on this from the Heritage Foundation. If Presidents can and do have the authority on their own to negotiate trade agreements, why is TPA needed? Basically, it’s a tradeoff. Congress gets an enhanced role in the process of approving trade agreements and Presidents get a quicker process to have the agreement approved. Thus, the name “Fast Track”."
...and that was that. No more discussion about the fundamental passing of power from congress to the executive, no nuanced analysis or explanation. Just a half-assed justification that free-trade is good for America (I think NAFTA and similar have disproved this), and that the POTUS would be held accountable (while failing to mention the 150 objectives of POTUS are optional!).
What this is, is the fundamental question about national sovereignty and an ever increasing threat of world government. I understand many will balk at this statement, consider me a conspiracy theorist, or otherwise dismiss the notion, but I think the facts support the idea that the world is increasingly edging towards such a system. At the very least an increase in centralization as we return to a tri-polar world (hello neo-cold war!).
In truth, I have talked to an alarming amount of people who are supportive of such broad supranational government schemes on both sides of the spectrum, and I understand their reasoning. I simply disagree with it.
For the neoconservative, in reality they think that free trade is just a smoke screen for us throwing around our financial, political, legal, and finally military might to get a better deal for ourselves while pretending to be egalitarian to other nations.
For the leftist, they think tend to focus on the abuses and inequality of the world, and think that a world government is what could level that playing field out more, and make life more "fair", primarily economically.
The problem with the first is that when the neocon thinks "America wins", who really wins are the owners and board members of the supranational oligarchy, not the American people. The problem with the second is that centralization of power for altruistic front-purposes almost always leads to easier corruption and eventually abuse... but this time it will be on a global scale! The problem with both is that they ignore the fundamental principles that if they agree to basically accept the end of national sovereignty, the the nations government is technically, NO LONGER LEGITIMATE!
Lot's of people, especially Europeans want to rail on about how American exceptionalism is a myth and a product of jingoistic nationalism and indoctrination, and in many ways it is, but this ignores the fundamental exceptionalism of America that isn't those things: Our bill of rights, our constitution, and our declaration of independence.
I am an Iraq combat vet, and I, like other military members, congress, the president, and some police departments, all swear an oath to the Constitution. Not to the queen, not to the president, not to the United States government, but to the Constitution for which it stands. What I think is that we have forgotten about our "domestic enemies", enemies of the Constitution, and allowed them to take too much power and control inside our own institutions, and the real threats to the constitution are certainly not Islamic, indeed they are generally members of the old-boys-club and wear suits and ties, and reside in the the beltway and on wallstreet. In the foreign realm, I would consider the City of London to be their other haven.
I for one think that we have been exporting war for far too long, and that the best way America could bring more equality and freedom, economically and politically, to the world, would by leading by example. We need to fix our own shit first, before falsely exporting revolutions of power disguised under pretty narratives about democracy.
What the world needs is a constitutional representative democracy, and one that actually works and represents the people. We have the best theoretical structure in place, the only question is if the people will recognize the threat in time to prevent the slip into a totalitarian dystopian future or not.
Honestly, I'm skeptical, but given that I think oaths actually mean something, and perhaps because I was so thoroughly indoctrinated, I will fight the good fight while it is still there to be had. I mean this in a concrete way too, as I am currently exploring my options for running for congress.
Technically the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment is sworn to the Constitution and the President which can create quite the pickle when the President decides to violate the Constitution.
>"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The oath states outright
> will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Going against the constitution would be an unlawful order wouldn't it? Which means it should not be obeyed?