While I agree that there was a huge lack of common sense applied in this situation, and the 12-day lag time is absurd, I must defend the particulars that you happen to be questioning.
What I don't udnerstand (and doesn't seem to be properly explained) is that surely the log of the phone call made by the 'kid' and the bomb threat won't exactly 1 hour apart to the second? Also, surely the phone calls logs would have showed different call duration figures. Imagine for a second being the person to receive that call. Are you going to remember that the bomb threat took 3 minutes to make, or 5? Will anybody remember that the bomb threat came at 8:02 or 8:09? It's not about the calls landing within a minute of each other, it's about calls that landed close to each other. It's understandable to make THESE mistakes...
The question I would ask, why didn't somebody look at the caller ID during the call? The first thing I would do after a bomb threat is inform somebody else in the office and immediately call the police (who would have logged the time of the call and should have promptly called the phone company).
Call this post redundant if you like, but some things clearly bear repeating...especially to people dumping fortunes on something with a completely imagined value.
...that moderation and doing things that come naturally instead of forcing it will always be better choices.
Just like all things, being moderately clean but not overdoing it will prove the best method. There's nothing wrong with having a bit of clutter, but everybody can be certain that a desk with several stacks (or simply a huge pile) of paper, folders, candy bar wrappers, CD's, pictures of family, nude magazines, post-it notes, immigrants (how did this one get in there?), and Pens where the girls clothes come off if you turn them upside down...well, I think the point is made...that's unlikely to be your most effective or efficient people.
Obviously, the other extreme is somebody who only has 3-5 objects on their desk, every item is categorically stored away in a folder/box with labels and an indexing system that could rival the Library of Congress. These people won't even keep an item out of it's place even if they know they aren't done using it.
Clearly, a middle ground is where the best people reside.
Let's add the security concerns of javascript running natively (without proper sandboxing, as Adobe doesn't like the concept, see Acrobat Reader for details). Anybody doubting this point, just remember that any bugs/weaknesses/flaws in this implementation of javascript will be limited to Appolo and similarly, those discovered to be fairly universal will also require Adobe to fix their own implementation (read: Adobe known for slow response time). For completeness, let's not forget that this will support Flash, adding yet another round of stumbling security concerns.
Also to consider, this is basically a browser app that only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else. This means, in Adobe's typical approach to evil, if anybody wants anything done/improved/added, Adobe is the central source of everything. Just like Acrobat, it's a completely closed "standard".
No Linux support, who are they kidding? Grow a pair and learn to program...Do they even realize they released a runtime that just rehashes existing technology, and it doesn't even run on as many platforms as it could already be used on? Carlos Mencia said it best, Deet Dee Dee!
Finally, why even re-invent the wheel? When Mozilla did it, it was in preparation to compete with IE, which makes sense. And Mozilla aimed at building a nice, large, open development platform that could continue to grow. Adobe does it, and their entire goal is to build something that will never grow very large? Anybody who can call this a good idea and hold a straight face while they do it...well, they've also got a bridge to sell ya'
To answer that question is simple, it's a server platform. If they did an SP update for XP or Vista (gawd knows they should hurry given all the problems), it would show up on ever web page they have. Since win2k3 was never meant to go to an average consumer, it's just not worth advertising through most mediums.
If that isn't a good enough answer, just look at the list of what's new...There's nothing of significant value, and all of the security/bug fixes are already addressed with regular critical updates. Who cares about this update? It's a 'value improvement' update at the very most.
Now for my question...why was this made into a slashdot article? Judging by the number of comments so far, it's clearly not of much interest to anybody...and anybody who's running the os will receive a notification in the next few days anyway.
Apple is a maker of highly capable multimedia PCs with lots of easily configurable connectivity options. That, not barebones commodity hardware, is its business. I believe you just made the point of everybody who is arguing against the article...Apple only wants to make multimedia boxes with high connectivity. Besides a few marketing people and of course the upper management (dilbert's PHB types), corporations don't need multimedia-rich computers.
Example: Consider an office building with 500 people working there, a basic mid-sized office for most companies. The marketing department will make up about 25-30 people, of which only 5-10 will need to use photoshop or any other memory intensive app that is arguably better suited for the mac. Upper management will also manifest about 15-20 people, of which it's likely easier to get them macs. I'd acknowledge that there MAY be as much as another 20 people who could make an excuse for why they need the features that come on the most minimal mac rather than a PC that's slightly scaled down from that level.
At the very most, in this example, I could 70 people (out of 500), that are somehow better served by getting a mac (noting of course that I'm comparing against a completely barebones windows PC). $900 for the mac, let's say $650 for the pc (since we might as well have 512 megs of ram and make sure the monitor is 17 inch). Do I really need to write out the math, or is the point made yet? 900 x 500 = $450,000, or 650 x 500 = $325,000 + $5000 in selective upgrades = $330,000.
A difference of $120,000 will pay for an extra IT guy (if the current group wasn't already enough) and it's cover hardware replacements, and be a good chunk of money towards the next upgrade/replacement cycle (which will come no sooner than it would with the Mac). Certainly a theoretical example, and it's not precise, but it is reasonable and it shows there's a huge difference...which means even if I've got a couple of minor errors, it still proves the point.
50 bucks to the first person who is actually and genuinely surprised by this. Truth is, we should all be a little surprised by this. It was only a couple weeks ago that the big question was, "why doesn't apple want to sell the non-mainstream artists who don't want DRM on their music?" Only to see this line now:
Apple is especially aggressive and has outsize clout when it comes to the slightly out-of-mainstream music it often emphasizes." Certainly the question and that statement aren't exactly the same thing (being that one relates to DRM and the other doesn't), but the relationship beckons some question as to who Apple cares to court. There's nothing unusual about who they want exclusives from or who they are offering special placement/advertising to...but there's certainly something worth questioning in terms of who they are willing to work with and in what ways. This is a good example of how Apple really isn't opposed to DRM, despite Jobs and others' claims.
I'm just confused why they would tell anybody about the new bill in the first place? If they've already been tapping phones without telling the public, who says they couldn't do any other kind of spying without telling the public.
It's not a slippery slope if you're already at the bottom of the hill...
The sheer concept that this is an OS is out and out wrong. It is nothing more than a UI/Shell that links to an environment on the back end. This doesn't even constitute any loose idea of virtualization or emulation because everything still falls under the sandbox/api realm. The idea of the project might not suck (once/if it's ever working), but it sure won't get very far if everybody keeps using the wrong terminology to describe it.
They can file take-down notices against anyone in the US hosting the thing. Certainly true, and they also tried when DeCss turned up several years back. If I remember, the original hosting site was shut down briefly...and then a bill magically turned up that suggested any website linking to a website that hosts something "illegal" can also be taken down.
Of course, it was only a few months later when several thousand t-shirts baring the decss code went out to anybody with a credit card and a sense of irony
Ok, sucks to say, but I have to partially defend the logic here.
Imagine for a second, that some guy (or group) decided to shut off the power to everything during the superbowl...He just cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damages (lost ad revenue, contracts, the stadium, tv network, etc). In this example, nobody was "harmed" (except the players, but they signed up for it). In a similar vein, the software companies argue that they didn't get to make money because piracy groups are making the software available for free and preventing sales from taking place.
Obviously that's not a PERFECT comparison...failing to air the superbowl can be measured pretty precisely in terms of loss, which isn't possible with pirated software. If you base it on the SPA, they say all software pirated is money lost. If you base the estimates on probability to buy, less than 10% of all software pirated would have been purchased even if wasn't available to pirate (read: Photoshop, AutoCAD, MS Office). I'd go so far as to say windows wouldn't even see a huge rise in sales, which also makes it likely that Microsoft wouldn't hold nearly as much market share since many people would opt to pick up linux rather than spend money on windows.
I agree, he's not going to get the max penalty, and he's also not likely to go to anything above minimum security. While I defend the logic (but nothing else) of the of the software companies, and I am a programmer myself, I still want to see this guy somehow get out of it and make a dash for a non-extradition country.
Many stores like Fry's and Best Buy along with "custom" order computers like Dell and Gateway have all but removed windows XP from their selection. It's been a common point in the news lately that almost everybody out there selling computers has practically ousted XP in favor of Vista. The fact is, the customers don't really have an option to buy a computer with XP and very few are going to jump at the idea of spending an extra $100 to get the old operating system.
Take note, I'm not talking about the average/. reader above, but rather the generic consumer that only understands that they buy a computer, plug some stuff into the wall and their cable modem, and they can read email, hit some websites, and watch some porn. These people are still limited to windows (or a Mac, which probably doesn't suit their needs either). Linux, despite it's headway, isn't ready for the 'lowest common denominator' computer user.
Within a few months, saying "Don't use it" to many of these people will be like telling a one-legged person to "walk it off"
There's real science and there's pop science. You can be certain that this tech will inspire boatloads of pop-sci for a while, especially when this will surely be used to (re-)prove what males want from females. Eventually there are going to be some people who do something useful and valid with this.
Seriously, once you ignore the helpful details of this technology (helping disabled people, or performing real scientific studies), you're only really left with a technology that's not far separated from a lie detector (and likely to have the same success rate and ease of cheating). The results of one of these things will not be admissible in court and it will be VERY easy to cheat it.
I really look forward to seeing the results of this machine tested on clinically defined sociopaths, psychotics, and delusionals who will no doubt prove the machine incapable of accurate results on them. Once those with mental illness disprove it, most mental health spokesmen will be denouncing the technology because they believe almost all humans have varied degrees of these illnesses already.
Briefly about MR: I think there's another large separation here. Actually, a couple. First, Minority Report was only about preventing murder and rape. All other crime was untouched (and even rising). Another distinction is that Minority Report assumes the lack of lawyers and a courtroom, which might be more justified considering their technique relies on psychics, which are theoretically (in cinema) more accurate.
Could this be the end of a monopoly? Or the start of a new one?" It's only a monopoly when there's one ridiculously successful entity (or a group of aligned entities) that holds control over the market. This would only be a monopoly if Microsoft Office crashed and burned. This also completely discounts OpenOffice which has picked up a lot of steam recently. Just because Google has proven the "Do No Evil" catchphrase to be bogus, it doesn't mean that they can create a monopoly out of thin air.
Minority reported didn't include the design documents for that magical technology Patents aren't about the design documents, their office clearly states it's about ideas. The reason most patents include design documents is because a patent can also be dismissed if it's too vague or encompasses a concept that's so large that it's unlikely the originator of the patent could have conceived a use that relates in some way. Many patents are filed without design docs, including quite a few from Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and Novell (just to name some of the worst offenders).
The patent [if any] would cover the design of the solution. What do you mean, "if any"? Read the top again, it links to the patent application right there.
On a side note, after another look at the patent application, while they are trying to patent the idea, which will likely fail if it's ever challenged...they could easily patent their algorithm, which is definitely solid.
I know you're joking, but on a semi-serious note...doesn't that movie constitute 'prior work' or 'prior invention'?
The patent system, as it's defined, says that patentable ideas must not be a logical extension of existing ideas or an idea already created by somebody else. I skimmed both links and I can't find (maybe I missed it?) any mention of a the date related to when this company claims first provable conception of the idea. Unless they built something years ago, this isn't going to hold water.
While I wouldn't stand behind this approach, I'm sure it could also be challenged on the fact that it's a perfectly logical extension of using the eye as a fingerprint which was thought up decades (over a century maybe?) ago. After all, the only real change between the older conception and this is simply the level of unwillingness by the people being scanned. It does also include the multi-camera bit, but that's already in wide use by facial recognition software, which is also in wide use.
You obviously missed the valuable details here...First, this drug is already approved safe for use with a prescription...As such, they get to skip the safety trials (they've already been done). They can go straight to human testing to prove the effectiveness, which is done with case studies. One huge bonus, since it's Canada (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), I believe that their national health care will cover (at least partially) the cost of drugs that are considered safe but still in the human testing stage. Additionally, the first stage of human trials will be run by the college (something I stated earlier), which will be able to acquire large sums of money from benefactors, donations, and all sorts of research grants (especially easy since it's shown some real promise). In other words, the cost of these trial studies is not in the tens of millions, it's more likely in the (upper) tens of thousands.
You also missed another detail that I may not have made very clear. I made no implication that it was the name brand companies that would pick up this drug...it very well could be the generic companies that would jump on it. Let's not forget, it's a drug that's already in production (though I forget if it's in use within the US)...if somebody's already making it, all they have to do is increase production and they are set. For any company already producing this stuff, it's going to be like producing a vitamin supplement that is discovered to produce super-powerful orgasms (profits will jump from Zune-level to widescreen iPod in a week)...remember, it is a cure for cancer.
Reality is, a drug that shows promise to cure at least a percentage of people, with studies run by a college instead of a corporation...They will get their funding. If it turns out (which nobody can be certain right now), then somebody will produce it. It's simple economics, the companies to deliver the product are going to make a boatload of money (in sales quantity, not in markup). No matter how you spin it, one of the drug companies will be greedy enough to make it available (knowing how much they can make off of it). Once one guy releases it, everybody who's positioned to put it on the market will follow. Short version, if this stuff is the real deal, it's going to make it.
And the reason it won't get any funding to study whether or not it's a real cure for cancer is because there's no money in it! If it's a cheap solution and it magically cures cancer... where's the profit in that? This may not be entirely accurate. If the drug already exists, companies can mass-produce it cheaply because they also don't have to pay somebody else who owns the patent. That handles the profitability side, at least as to why companies might use it if it's ever shown to be truly successful.
As to funding studies, there are plenty of rich people, or simply the giving types, that would donate towards this. Again, with the drug already in existence, it's not a question of production, simply a question of supply and testing expenses. I've heard the same argument about Linux (why use it? It'll never be updated because there's no money in it...) but it keeps a lot of people pretty happy. Besides, this is a college, they can apply for more grants or funding than anybody would care to count.
The part I'm worried about...while pharmacological companies can mass-produce cheaply and without patent overhead, the bigger concern is that this drug shows some shred of a chance to cure some types/cases of cancer. The problem is, as the old saying goes "There's more money in treating the disease than there is in curing it". Just because there's profit to be made, and real potential here, there's a real chance that it won't happen because it won't induce continual and regular profit.
I can see why you (and others) would want to have Diablo on the list, as it was a very popular game (although I didn't bother picking it up until rather late in its lifespan, so the only multiplayer experience I encountered was thoroughly buggered by all the cheats people were wielding). That does seem a little dubious. Simply because you missed out on the more playable time frame doesn't mean it should be excluded from a list. If somebody figured out a way to hack the hell out of quake 3 arena a year or so after it came out, and you didn't start playing it until after that time, would it have still made the list? Just because a some people have a bad experience (or no experience) with a game, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the list. If that's the mentality, then the list should be coined as "MY Most Important Multiplayer Games Ever".
However, saying that it "paved the road for Everquest" is not exactly accurate. Just because they are both fantasy-themed games and they both allow multiple players doesn't mean that one led to another. I get the sense you weren't a heavy game player during that time period. Let me introduce you to the millions of people who transitioned from Diablo directly to Everquest. Are they the same game? Obviously not, but they are the same players. The significance of a game isn't just measured in it's qualities, it should also be measured in it's timing and relevance. Diablo brought millions of people, not just the hardcore computer geeks, into the online gaming experience...then, upon the release of Everquest, Diablo's player base pretty much bottomed out as players (especially groups of friends on Battle.Net) moved over to EQ, often going back to Diablo's server to tell more people about EQ. If not for Diablo, EQ wouldn't have been likely to see more than 10%-20% of it's customer base. Go back and look up articles written at that time and you'll see that everybody defined EQ as killing Battle.net.
If you really want to mention the games that paved the way for Everquest (and every other MMO that's ever existed, for that matter), you'll need to look further back than a simple hack 'n' slash dungeon crawler like Diablo. What you're looking for is Ultima Online and just MUDs in general. In my response I did mean to mention MUDs, unfortunately I'd forgotten about it about half-way through the righting. Additionally, I couldn't remember the name of the one or two most popular MUDs that really dominated the scene.
To begin with, as another poster pointed out, it's limited almost entirely to FPS style or classic 1-screen-2-player arcades. This doesn't even scratch the surface of the multi-player games, and completely misses the fact that the genres are far more varied. Even within the list, it's missing necessary choices like Unreal Tournament and Counterstrike, two of the most influential FPS games to have rolled through history...yet we've got Quake 3 Arena? Not saying it was bad, just that it didn't break any new ground really.
This list, IMHO, is pretty meaningless without having Gauntlet on there. The first real 4-player game for Nintendo, and the newer version was one of the most successful 4-player arcades in history.
Considering how focussed the list is on FPS games, let's put some fighting games on there. Get Mortal Kombat on there. I shouldn't even have to explain why this one belongs.
Leaving out Diablo is also insulting. If you include Tribes, it's absurd to leave out Diablo. This game paved the road for Everquest. I remember when EQ came out, and I remember tons of Diablo players making an almost religious trek from there to EQ. And as another poster pointed out, leaving EQ and WoW off the list is pretty meaningless.
Is the guy writing this article posting to the right site? Should it be on Gamasutra or the Onion?
Moon Base (for the sci-fi fans)
Resort Hotel (most likely modeled in the Las Vegas "style")
Commercial trips to the moon (perfect for advertising agencies to plaster their wares on)
Strip Mining (for the republicans)
Yeah, you can tell the American touch has been put on these plans (Note, I am American). Any chance we can put some government offices, maybe a DMV or something?
Disclaimer: This is written as sarcastic dry comedy, not hateful/spiteful/snotty
I won't argue with your thoughts (in fact I agree that different opinions need to be expressed and taken seriously), but I think there might be a very big message here when considering how things played out.
Just think about you would feel if you had a dissenting opinion and then offered cash to write about how you disagree. I don't know about you, but as long as writing the paper wasn't going to destroy my career, I'd be 100% on board to make the easy money for doing what I believed in.
I don't deny that pop-science has become far too common, but most scientists are chomping at the bit to disprove other scientists and theories. However, when these guys won't take the easy money, it gives me the sense that they must REALLY believe in what they stand behind.
Slashdot Mirror
The question I would ask, why didn't somebody look at the caller ID during the call? The first thing I would do after a bomb threat is inform somebody else in the office and immediately call the police (who would have logged the time of the call and should have promptly called the phone company).
Get a First Life
Call this post redundant if you like, but some things clearly bear repeating...especially to people dumping fortunes on something with a completely imagined value.
...that moderation and doing things that come naturally instead of forcing it will always be better choices.
Just like all things, being moderately clean but not overdoing it will prove the best method. There's nothing wrong with having a bit of clutter, but everybody can be certain that a desk with several stacks (or simply a huge pile) of paper, folders, candy bar wrappers, CD's, pictures of family, nude magazines, post-it notes, immigrants (how did this one get in there?), and Pens where the girls clothes come off if you turn them upside down...well, I think the point is made...that's unlikely to be your most effective or efficient people.
Obviously, the other extreme is somebody who only has 3-5 objects on their desk, every item is categorically stored away in a folder/box with labels and an indexing system that could rival the Library of Congress. These people won't even keep an item out of it's place even if they know they aren't done using it.
Clearly, a middle ground is where the best people reside.
Yes, slow....and....
Let's add the security concerns of javascript running natively (without proper sandboxing, as Adobe doesn't like the concept, see Acrobat Reader for details). Anybody doubting this point, just remember that any bugs/weaknesses/flaws in this implementation of javascript will be limited to Appolo and similarly, those discovered to be fairly universal will also require Adobe to fix their own implementation (read: Adobe known for slow response time). For completeness, let's not forget that this will support Flash, adding yet another round of stumbling security concerns.
Also to consider, this is basically a browser app that only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else. This means, in Adobe's typical approach to evil, if anybody wants anything done/improved/added, Adobe is the central source of everything. Just like Acrobat, it's a completely closed "standard".
No Linux support, who are they kidding? Grow a pair and learn to program...Do they even realize they released a runtime that just rehashes existing technology, and it doesn't even run on as many platforms as it could already be used on? Carlos Mencia said it best, Deet Dee Dee!
Finally, why even re-invent the wheel? When Mozilla did it, it was in preparation to compete with IE, which makes sense. And Mozilla aimed at building a nice, large, open development platform that could continue to grow. Adobe does it, and their entire goal is to build something that will never grow very large? Anybody who can call this a good idea and hold a straight face while they do it...well, they've also got a bridge to sell ya'
To answer that question is simple, it's a server platform. If they did an SP update for XP or Vista (gawd knows they should hurry given all the problems), it would show up on ever web page they have. Since win2k3 was never meant to go to an average consumer, it's just not worth advertising through most mediums.
If that isn't a good enough answer, just look at the list of what's new...There's nothing of significant value, and all of the security/bug fixes are already addressed with regular critical updates. Who cares about this update? It's a 'value improvement' update at the very most.
Now for my question...why was this made into a slashdot article? Judging by the number of comments so far, it's clearly not of much interest to anybody...and anybody who's running the os will receive a notification in the next few days anyway.
Example: Consider an office building with 500 people working there, a basic mid-sized office for most companies. The marketing department will make up about 25-30 people, of which only 5-10 will need to use photoshop or any other memory intensive app that is arguably better suited for the mac. Upper management will also manifest about 15-20 people, of which it's likely easier to get them macs. I'd acknowledge that there MAY be as much as another 20 people who could make an excuse for why they need the features that come on the most minimal mac rather than a PC that's slightly scaled down from that level.
At the very most, in this example, I could 70 people (out of 500), that are somehow better served by getting a mac (noting of course that I'm comparing against a completely barebones windows PC). $900 for the mac, let's say $650 for the pc (since we might as well have 512 megs of ram and make sure the monitor is 17 inch). Do I really need to write out the math, or is the point made yet? 900 x 500 = $450,000, or 650 x 500 = $325,000 + $5000 in selective upgrades = $330,000.
A difference of $120,000 will pay for an extra IT guy (if the current group wasn't already enough) and it's cover hardware replacements, and be a good chunk of money towards the next upgrade/replacement cycle (which will come no sooner than it would with the Mac). Certainly a theoretical example, and it's not precise, but it is reasonable and it shows there's a huge difference...which means even if I've got a couple of minor errors, it still proves the point.
I'm just confused why they would tell anybody about the new bill in the first place? If they've already been tapping phones without telling the public, who says they couldn't do any other kind of spying without telling the public.
It's not a slippery slope if you're already at the bottom of the hill...
The sheer concept that this is an OS is out and out wrong. It is nothing more than a UI/Shell that links to an environment on the back end. This doesn't even constitute any loose idea of virtualization or emulation because everything still falls under the sandbox/api realm. The idea of the project might not suck (once/if it's ever working), but it sure won't get very far if everybody keeps using the wrong terminology to describe it.
Of course, it was only a few months later when several thousand t-shirts baring the decss code went out to anybody with a credit card and a sense of irony
I like that somebody modded this down...superbowl fan, or just a pirate who doesn't like being told their hero isn't a hero to everybody.
Ok, sucks to say, but I have to partially defend the logic here.
Imagine for a second, that some guy (or group) decided to shut off the power to everything during the superbowl...He just cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damages (lost ad revenue, contracts, the stadium, tv network, etc). In this example, nobody was "harmed" (except the players, but they signed up for it). In a similar vein, the software companies argue that they didn't get to make money because piracy groups are making the software available for free and preventing sales from taking place. Obviously that's not a PERFECT comparison...failing to air the superbowl can be measured pretty precisely in terms of loss, which isn't possible with pirated software. If you base it on the SPA, they say all software pirated is money lost. If you base the estimates on probability to buy, less than 10% of all software pirated would have been purchased even if wasn't available to pirate (read: Photoshop, AutoCAD, MS Office). I'd go so far as to say windows wouldn't even see a huge rise in sales, which also makes it likely that Microsoft wouldn't hold nearly as much market share since many people would opt to pick up linux rather than spend money on windows.
I agree, he's not going to get the max penalty, and he's also not likely to go to anything above minimum security. While I defend the logic (but nothing else) of the of the software companies, and I am a programmer myself, I still want to see this guy somehow get out of it and make a dash for a non-extradition country.
Many stores like Fry's and Best Buy along with "custom" order computers like Dell and Gateway have all but removed windows XP from their selection. It's been a common point in the news lately that almost everybody out there selling computers has practically ousted XP in favor of Vista. The fact is, the customers don't really have an option to buy a computer with XP and very few are going to jump at the idea of spending an extra $100 to get the old operating system.
/. reader above, but rather the generic consumer that only understands that they buy a computer, plug some stuff into the wall and their cable modem, and they can read email, hit some websites, and watch some porn. These people are still limited to windows (or a Mac, which probably doesn't suit their needs either). Linux, despite it's headway, isn't ready for the 'lowest common denominator' computer user.
Take note, I'm not talking about the average
Within a few months, saying "Don't use it" to many of these people will be like telling a one-legged person to "walk it off"
There's real science and there's pop science. You can be certain that this tech will inspire boatloads of pop-sci for a while, especially when this will surely be used to (re-)prove what males want from females. Eventually there are going to be some people who do something useful and valid with this.
Seriously, once you ignore the helpful details of this technology (helping disabled people, or performing real scientific studies), you're only really left with a technology that's not far separated from a lie detector (and likely to have the same success rate and ease of cheating). The results of one of these things will not be admissible in court and it will be VERY easy to cheat it.
I really look forward to seeing the results of this machine tested on clinically defined sociopaths, psychotics, and delusionals who will no doubt prove the machine incapable of accurate results on them. Once those with mental illness disprove it, most mental health spokesmen will be denouncing the technology because they believe almost all humans have varied degrees of these illnesses already.
Briefly about MR: I think there's another large separation here. Actually, a couple. First, Minority Report was only about preventing murder and rape. All other crime was untouched (and even rising). Another distinction is that Minority Report assumes the lack of lawyers and a courtroom, which might be more justified considering their technique relies on psychics, which are theoretically (in cinema) more accurate.
On a side note, after another look at the patent application, while they are trying to patent the idea, which will likely fail if it's ever challenged...they could easily patent their algorithm, which is definitely solid.
I know you're joking, but on a semi-serious note...doesn't that movie constitute 'prior work' or 'prior invention'?
The patent system, as it's defined, says that patentable ideas must not be a logical extension of existing ideas or an idea already created by somebody else. I skimmed both links and I can't find (maybe I missed it?) any mention of a the date related to when this company claims first provable conception of the idea. Unless they built something years ago, this isn't going to hold water.
While I wouldn't stand behind this approach, I'm sure it could also be challenged on the fact that it's a perfectly logical extension of using the eye as a fingerprint which was thought up decades (over a century maybe?) ago. After all, the only real change between the older conception and this is simply the level of unwillingness by the people being scanned. It does also include the multi-camera bit, but that's already in wide use by facial recognition software, which is also in wide use.
...the super bowl was an incredibly stupid waste of advertising money for a dot.com
I guess they found a way to trump stupid
RTFA my friend
You obviously missed the valuable details here...First, this drug is already approved safe for use with a prescription...As such, they get to skip the safety trials (they've already been done). They can go straight to human testing to prove the effectiveness, which is done with case studies. One huge bonus, since it's Canada (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong), I believe that their national health care will cover (at least partially) the cost of drugs that are considered safe but still in the human testing stage. Additionally, the first stage of human trials will be run by the college (something I stated earlier), which will be able to acquire large sums of money from benefactors, donations, and all sorts of research grants (especially easy since it's shown some real promise). In other words, the cost of these trial studies is not in the tens of millions, it's more likely in the (upper) tens of thousands.
You also missed another detail that I may not have made very clear. I made no implication that it was the name brand companies that would pick up this drug...it very well could be the generic companies that would jump on it. Let's not forget, it's a drug that's already in production (though I forget if it's in use within the US)...if somebody's already making it, all they have to do is increase production and they are set. For any company already producing this stuff, it's going to be like producing a vitamin supplement that is discovered to produce super-powerful orgasms (profits will jump from Zune-level to widescreen iPod in a week)...remember, it is a cure for cancer.
Reality is, a drug that shows promise to cure at least a percentage of people, with studies run by a college instead of a corporation...They will get their funding. If it turns out (which nobody can be certain right now), then somebody will produce it. It's simple economics, the companies to deliver the product are going to make a boatload of money (in sales quantity, not in markup). No matter how you spin it, one of the drug companies will be greedy enough to make it available (knowing how much they can make off of it). Once one guy releases it, everybody who's positioned to put it on the market will follow. Short version, if this stuff is the real deal, it's going to make it.
As to funding studies, there are plenty of rich people, or simply the giving types, that would donate towards this. Again, with the drug already in existence, it's not a question of production, simply a question of supply and testing expenses. I've heard the same argument about Linux (why use it? It'll never be updated because there's no money in it...) but it keeps a lot of people pretty happy. Besides, this is a college, they can apply for more grants or funding than anybody would care to count.
The part I'm worried about...while pharmacological companies can mass-produce cheaply and without patent overhead, the bigger concern is that this drug shows some shred of a chance to cure some types/cases of cancer. The problem is, as the old saying goes "There's more money in treating the disease than there is in curing it". Just because there's profit to be made, and real potential here, there's a real chance that it won't happen because it won't induce continual and regular profit.
In my response I did mean to mention MUDs, unfortunately I'd forgotten about it about half-way through the righting. Additionally, I couldn't remember the name of the one or two most popular MUDs that really dominated the scene.
To begin with, as another poster pointed out, it's limited almost entirely to FPS style or classic 1-screen-2-player arcades. This doesn't even scratch the surface of the multi-player games, and completely misses the fact that the genres are far more varied. Even within the list, it's missing necessary choices like Unreal Tournament and Counterstrike, two of the most influential FPS games to have rolled through history...yet we've got Quake 3 Arena? Not saying it was bad, just that it didn't break any new ground really.
This list, IMHO, is pretty meaningless without having Gauntlet on there. The first real 4-player game for Nintendo, and the newer version was one of the most successful 4-player arcades in history.
Considering how focussed the list is on FPS games, let's put some fighting games on there. Get Mortal Kombat on there. I shouldn't even have to explain why this one belongs.
Leaving out Diablo is also insulting. If you include Tribes, it's absurd to leave out Diablo. This game paved the road for Everquest. I remember when EQ came out, and I remember tons of Diablo players making an almost religious trek from there to EQ. And as another poster pointed out, leaving EQ and WoW off the list is pretty meaningless.
Is the guy writing this article posting to the right site? Should it be on Gamasutra or the Onion?
Let's see...
Moon Base (for the sci-fi fans)
Resort Hotel (most likely modeled in the Las Vegas "style")
Commercial trips to the moon (perfect for advertising agencies to plaster their wares on)
Strip Mining (for the republicans)
Yeah, you can tell the American touch has been put on these plans (Note, I am American). Any chance we can put some government offices, maybe a DMV or something?
Disclaimer: This is written as sarcastic dry comedy, not hateful/spiteful/snotty
I won't argue with your thoughts (in fact I agree that different opinions need to be expressed and taken seriously), but I think there might be a very big message here when considering how things played out.
Just think about you would feel if you had a dissenting opinion and then offered cash to write about how you disagree. I don't know about you, but as long as writing the paper wasn't going to destroy my career, I'd be 100% on board to make the easy money for doing what I believed in.
I don't deny that pop-science has become far too common, but most scientists are chomping at the bit to disprove other scientists and theories. However, when these guys won't take the easy money, it gives me the sense that they must REALLY believe in what they stand behind.