Current odds of smallpox remerging by 2010 is currently a bit less than 30 percent according to Ideosphere's risk analysis.
My question on this issue: why wouldn't PCR allow the DNA for a smallpox virus to be recreated from such a sample(or for that matter from samples dug up from some graveyard someplace)? I'm not that familiar with virology-pointers to the literature would be welcome.
The RPL was designed in response to a feature of the GPL that allows a company to modify Open Source products and not disclose that changed product unless they distribute outside their organization. The resulting license is considerably more viral than the GPL-which means that many corporate users would want to buy the software under a commercial license.
Gates is spending a lot of resources curing diseases. In the short term, this really seems like a "good thing". However, if humanity doesn't similtaneously expand the useful resource base, then eventually, we'll wind up in a situation where there is a conflict over that resource base.
In the short term, Gates is going to get a lot of kudos for helping folks to live longer. The next question though: what do we need to do so those longer lives are really worth living? Do people really want to live in a world where everyplace is like China and dictates that each woman can have only one child-or an ecological basket-case like much of the third world? Gerard O'Neill estimated the resource base of the asteroid belt at several times that of the earth-that is enough to postpone population problems quite a bit(at least for those folks willing to live off-planet).
I see no evidence that globally folks will at present be able to peacefully settle the question of who should and shouldn't reproduce--or for that matter what the right balance is between preservation of various ecosystems and non-human species and expansion of human populations. Development of space potentially gives us more time to work on those kinds of issues.
Well, space development has the potential to eventually create a universe where money just doesn't matter all that much. Most of human history was that way. I can see how that would be rather scary to someone like Allen-who has risen near the top of the heap in a hierarchy where accumulation of money is _the_ big competition that really matters.
Ultimately, money is little more than the ability to mobilize/organize large numbers of people. In terms of the Xprize, had Allen not invested in Rutan, I suspect Carmack would be winning. In closer terms, I can imagine that Carmack represents something substantially different than what Allen does.
I'm glad to see Allen doing _something_ constructive with his money(which is more than I can say about Jobs or Ellison at this point). Still, I think what this experience with the X Prize tells us, space development is too important to be left up just to folks that think in terms of money. Just because Rutan was better able to work with Allen doesn't necessarily mean that Rutan's design is better than that of Carmack--we need to be thinking of how to evaluate these sort of things without letting the pronouncements of lawyers and bean counters get in the way too much. Ideosphere points in that direction a bit-a decision support system that has a little different type of playing field. I can believe that as that area develops more, we'll see that money-based markets are good for organizing some activities but not others.
I think there is an excellent point here. I agree, Allen's money would have a lot more impact if awarded as a prize. Alan has enough money that he could easily afford a prize(or set of prizes) at a level that really would defray the development costs here. If Allen is really concerned with making more money, he could just say something like:
I will award $100 Million for each of the first three separate entries to achieve the XPrize goals in return for a 20% stake in the company in question.
The sounds to me like it might be a decent business proposition(I'm sure some MBA type would have something to say here)--but propertly formulated it could have some serious impact.
Somehow, it just seems that the new guys have lost their nerve compared to the megarich of 70-100 years ago.
It is interesting that the Indian film industry is now selling more tickets than the US film industry. What I would be interested in seeing though:
What is the impact of each film industry outside their home market?--that strikes me as a better measure of the global influence of each film industry. My sense is that the what the Indian film industry has really done here is acheive a significant degree of cultural independence for India. What remains to be seen is if the Indian film industry can start to get real impact outside of India and the community of Indians abroad. I suspect in time, the Indian film industry _will_ start to have serious impact outside its core market. Frankly, a lot of stuff produced in the US just aren't very good films by any measure.
My guess is that the route by which the Indian film industry will have global impact will be through use of computer technology/animation/set production so that "Indian" films don't necessarily appear "Indian". Basically the Indian film industry will be the means by which any national elite can establish a film industry to their liking that appears "local" and is technically at or near the level available from the US/EU.
Which country is _really_ in worse shape Japan or the US? Japan has some serious problems that are up-front and visible. I would personally argue that the United States has even _bigger_ problems that are looming in the not so distant future: the Social Security crisis--which has been slightly forstalled by mass immigration, the fact that disposable income in the US is now in the US for a two income family less than it was for a 1 income family 30 years ago, the social costs associated with mass immigration, the fact that the US government is running $400 Billion in trade deficits and enormous governmental deficits. What I see here: US elites are liquidating assets at an enormous rate(which is what these policies of mass-immigration and budget deficits are really about). Japanese elites don't have those kinds of assets and are closer to facing their problems more head-on.
The country that is pushing hard for use of Robotics right now is Japan. The force driving robotics in Japan is the fact that in Japan high levels of immigration are politically unacceptable--and the economic powers that be want Japan to continue to be economically viable. What that means is that there is a _lot_ more push in the area of robotics and automation now than in the 19th century. Japan is quite literally betting their economic future in this direction.
Organizational Security is typically only as strong as the weakest link. If you have an organization that doesn't do proper background checks on its personnel or uses negative management techniques, the risk imposed by those practices can swamp stuff like the risk associated with a particular version of software.
In areas like the construction industry, insurance companies take a very hard-nosed attitude towards various types of risky practices-and the difference in risks between those practices are reflected in insurance premiums. It would be straightforward to apply similar techniques to organizational security-but I suspect what we have here is a case of managerial resistance. The management types just don't want their practices closely scrutinized-they like things the way they are now. What I see, is a lot of folks taking enormous risks with other people's money.
US trade wasn't historically particularly "free". Until the 1940's, tarriffs were pretty high(in the 1800's, tarriffs were the main source of Federal revenue). From the 40's till the 60's, the US had a rather unusual situation in that it was the only highly developed country with an intact infrastructure. Since then, things have been going downhill-according to one Harvard study, the disposable income of a 2 income family today in the US is less than that of a 1 income family 30 years ago.
When I look at the companies most heavily involved in government subsidized H-1b/L-1 Visas and outsourcing these are universally _closed_ source companies that just can't compete with what the Open Source community is doing. Seriously: Compare the junk the Oracle and BEA are selling compared to what www.jboss.org _gives_ away.
It might be helpful if Microsoft would act like a real business instead of a government subsidized utility and do some real risk analysis of the security risks associated with Windows. Is there any reason to assume that ever major gang tjat conducts financial fraud hasn't infiltrated Micro$oft at this point? What audits of the security of Windows have been conducted that would mitigate this?
Leaders in US worker replacement haven't always fared especially well. The reason is that the MBA's and attorneys that are the figureheads of corporate America frequently don't properly figure in the real security risks involved here. For example, at least $3 Billion of the 12 Billion stolen from Enron's shareholders involved losses in India-which "coincidentally" was the source of the lion's share of the Enron IT staff.
The real way to handle the Larry Ellison problem is to produce Open Source versions of key Oracle products. Postgresql and MySQL are good steps in that direction. The key though to Open Sourcing the Oracle database engine though is creating enough compatibility that folks that have developed in-house products using Oracle can easily port their products to an open source platform. That means a high level of compatibility in the area of interfaces(i.e. OCI) and SQL language variant.
I personally think that Oracle is much more vulnerable to an Open Source attack than is Microsoft. A lot of pro-Oracle managers justify their support based on benchmarks. As Open Source database offerings surpass Oracle in those key areas, we'll see the case for Oracle dramatically weakened. We have already seen that open source companies like JBOSS are beating Oracle in key markets.
When I was working on a mission critical application for an insurance company, the customer wanted applications that would enable folks to continue to handle essential business functions even if their network or database servers were down. The network connections to CE type devices are largely wireless-and you just can't assume they'll always be available. In that situation, having a database that will cache important items locally in a way they can be actually used is quite valuable and allows you to update the central database as it is available which means the users have a sense their application is highly robust and available.
I've seen some alternatives to the Microsoft approach. One involved a database that was written in Javascript-so the database code and the data itself were both stored in the browser cache.
It is strange that the Wright Flyer wound up in the Smithsonian-an organization that sponsored Langely and denied the priority of the Wright Brothers for quite some time.
I suspect that if they were somehow brought into the present era, the Wright Brothers would relate for more to the efforts of folks like Armadillo Aerospace than any of the official government programs.
The prize money isn't really the point. Sure, the money is helpful, but more important is the fact that since serveral teams are trying for the same goal, we'll see which team can actually meet that goal.
Somehow this stuff on not making accusations public reminds me of some of the issues that the American Revolution was supposed to handle. This whole process seems like something out of the Middle Ages. It really looks to me like Trade Secret, Patent and Copyright law all need a serious overhaul.
If SCO wins, we'll be faced with a situation in which a government perfectly campable of overriding public opinion (as they did in the case of H-1b in which 85% of the public opposed expansion and the Senatate supported expansion 96-1) is making major decisions that impact the lives of a lot of people giving no clear explaination. There is this matter of governments rule by "consent of the governed". This isn't want folks like Jefferson intended.
One of the more interesting recent developments IMHO are advances in decentralized manufacturing. This isn't as dramatic as what the Wright Brothers did-but I suspect it will have quite a bit of impact on the structure of the US economy in 50 years. This stuff is right now at the point where fax machines were in the early 60's--stuff exists and is being used, but is clunkly, unreliable and expansive.
Robotics and biotech are other obvious candidates for areas where some serious technical advancements are taking place.
What futures markets _would_ do is provide reasonable information on how likely a dramatic reduction in the supply of chips might be and do provide funds for rapid creation of alternative supply.
Other industries have various risk factors that are concentrated geographically. They handle this by having future markets. That way major purchasers of a commodity don't have to worry much about highly uncertain stuff like wars and weather. For that matter, there are also futures on specifically related to weather(on the Chicago Board of Trade).
The big question question here: why haven't the wizards of Wall Street done their job and gotten it together that factors like this just couldn't sabotage the Computer industry or western economies? I think the financial types need to do more real work and less politicing.
Look at what it means to a typical user, doing things the way such users typically do. Do some real risk analysis. That is what folks are truly interested in-the difference in risk to them when they plunk down their money for a PC vs. a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also the new H-1b for everybody initiative. I doubt the effects here will be noticed till after the election.
My question on this issue: why wouldn't PCR allow the DNA for a smallpox virus to be recreated from such a sample(or for that matter from samples dug up from some graveyard someplace)? I'm not that familiar with virology-pointers to the literature would be welcome.
The intent here was to make sure that just a single usenet post would be sufficient here. Why do you see that as a problem?
The RPL was designed in response to a feature of the GPL that allows a company to modify Open Source products and not disclose that changed product unless they distribute outside their organization. The resulting license is considerably more viral than the GPL-which means that many corporate users would want to buy the software under a commercial license.
In the short term, Gates is going to get a lot of kudos for helping folks to live longer. The next question though: what do we need to do so those longer lives are really worth living? Do people really want to live in a world where everyplace is like China and dictates that each woman can have only one child-or an ecological basket-case like much of the third world? Gerard O'Neill estimated the resource base of the asteroid belt at several times that of the earth-that is enough to postpone population problems quite a bit(at least for those folks willing to live off-planet).
I see no evidence that globally folks will at present be able to peacefully settle the question of who should and shouldn't reproduce--or for that matter what the right balance is between preservation of various ecosystems and non-human species and expansion of human populations. Development of space potentially gives us more time to work on those kinds of issues.
Ultimately, money is little more than the ability to mobilize/organize large numbers of people. In terms of the Xprize, had Allen not invested in Rutan, I suspect Carmack would be winning. In closer terms, I can imagine that Carmack represents something substantially different than what Allen does.
I'm glad to see Allen doing _something_ constructive with his money(which is more than I can say about Jobs or Ellison at this point). Still, I think what this experience with the X Prize tells us, space development is too important to be left up just to folks that think in terms of money. Just because Rutan was better able to work with Allen doesn't necessarily mean that Rutan's design is better than that of Carmack--we need to be thinking of how to evaluate these sort of things without letting the pronouncements of lawyers and bean counters get in the way too much. Ideosphere points in that direction a bit-a decision support system that has a little different type of playing field. I can believe that as that area develops more, we'll see that money-based markets are good for organizing some activities but not others.
I will award $100 Million for each of the first three separate entries to achieve the XPrize goals in return for a 20% stake in the company in question.
The sounds to me like it might be a decent business proposition(I'm sure some MBA type would have something to say here)--but propertly formulated it could have some serious impact.
Somehow, it just seems that the new guys have lost their nerve compared to the megarich of 70-100 years ago.
What is the impact of each film industry outside their home market?--that strikes me as a better measure of the global influence of each film industry. My sense is that the what the Indian film industry has really done here is acheive a significant degree of cultural independence for India. What remains to be seen is if the Indian film industry can start to get real impact outside of India and the community of Indians abroad. I suspect in time, the Indian film industry _will_ start to have serious impact outside its core market. Frankly, a lot of stuff produced in the US just aren't very good films by any measure.
My guess is that the route by which the Indian film industry will have global impact will be through use of computer technology/animation/set production so that "Indian" films don't necessarily appear "Indian". Basically the Indian film industry will be the means by which any national elite can establish a film industry to their liking that appears "local" and is technically at or near the level available from the US/EU.
Which country is _really_ in worse shape Japan or the US? Japan has some serious problems that are up-front and visible. I would personally argue that the United States has even _bigger_ problems that are looming in the not so distant future: the Social Security crisis--which has been slightly forstalled by mass immigration, the fact that disposable income in the US is now in the US for a two income family less than it was for a 1 income family 30 years ago, the social costs associated with mass immigration, the fact that the US government is running $400 Billion in trade deficits and enormous governmental deficits. What I see here: US elites are liquidating assets at an enormous rate(which is what these policies of mass-immigration and budget deficits are really about). Japanese elites don't have those kinds of assets and are closer to facing their problems more head-on.
The country that is pushing hard for use of Robotics right now is Japan. The force driving robotics in Japan is the fact that in Japan high levels of immigration are politically unacceptable--and the economic powers that be want Japan to continue to be economically viable. What that means is that there is a _lot_ more push in the area of robotics and automation now than in the 19th century. Japan is quite literally betting their economic future in this direction.
In areas like the construction industry, insurance companies take a very hard-nosed attitude towards various types of risky practices-and the difference in risks between those practices are reflected in insurance premiums. It would be straightforward to apply similar techniques to organizational security-but I suspect what we have here is a case of managerial resistance. The management types just don't want their practices closely scrutinized-they like things the way they are now. What I see, is a lot of folks taking enormous risks with other people's money.
Popular book that discusses the finding above.
US trade wasn't historically particularly "free". Until the 1940's, tarriffs were pretty high(in the 1800's, tarriffs were the main source of Federal revenue). From the 40's till the 60's, the US had a rather unusual situation in that it was the only highly developed country with an intact infrastructure. Since then, things have been going downhill-according to one Harvard study, the disposable income of a 2 income family today in the US is less than that of a 1 income family 30 years ago.
When I look at the companies most heavily involved in government subsidized H-1b/L-1 Visas and outsourcing these are universally _closed_ source companies that just can't compete with what the Open Source community is doing. Seriously: Compare the junk the Oracle and BEA are selling compared to what www.jboss.org _gives_ away.
It might be helpful if Microsoft would act like a real business instead of a government subsidized utility and do some real risk analysis of the security risks associated with Windows. Is there any reason to assume that ever major gang tjat conducts financial fraud hasn't infiltrated Micro$oft at this point? What audits of the security of Windows have been conducted that would mitigate this?
Leaders in US worker replacement haven't always fared especially well. The reason is that the MBA's and attorneys that are the figureheads of corporate America frequently don't properly figure in the real security risks involved here. For example, at least $3 Billion of the 12 Billion stolen from Enron's shareholders involved losses in India-which "coincidentally" was the source of the lion's share of the Enron IT staff.
I personally think that Oracle is much more vulnerable to an Open Source attack than is Microsoft. A lot of pro-Oracle managers justify their support based on benchmarks. As Open Source database offerings surpass Oracle in those key areas, we'll see the case for Oracle dramatically weakened. We have already seen that open source companies like JBOSS are beating Oracle in key markets.
I've seen some alternatives to the Microsoft approach. One involved a database that was written in Javascript-so the database code and the data itself were both stored in the browser cache.
I suspect that if they were somehow brought into the present era, the Wright Brothers would relate for more to the efforts of folks like Armadillo Aerospace than any of the official government programs.
The prize money isn't really the point. Sure, the money is helpful, but more important is the fact that since serveral teams are trying for the same goal, we'll see which team can actually meet that goal.
If SCO wins, we'll be faced with a situation in which a government perfectly campable of overriding public opinion (as they did in the case of H-1b in which 85% of the public opposed expansion and the Senatate supported expansion 96-1) is making major decisions that impact the lives of a lot of people giving no clear explaination. There is this matter of governments rule by "consent of the governed". This isn't want folks like Jefferson intended.
Robotics and biotech are other obvious candidates for areas where some serious technical advancements are taking place.
What futures markets _would_ do is provide reasonable information on how likely a dramatic reduction in the supply of chips might be and do provide funds for rapid creation of alternative supply.
The big question question here: why haven't the wizards of Wall Street done their job and gotten it together that factors like this just couldn't sabotage the Computer industry or western economies? I think the financial types need to do more real work and less politicing.
Look at what it means to a typical user, doing things the way such users typically do. Do some real risk analysis. That is what folks are truly interested in-the difference in risk to them when they plunk down their money for a PC vs. a Mac.