Scientific knowledge is pretty flimsy compared to some definitions of philosphical or religous knowledge.
We suppose that a thing is intelligent just by looking/talking to it. We are at the Hypothesis stage.
We divine several tests and check over some period of time. We get others to do the same. The thing passes all it's tests with flying colors. We now have a Theory that the thing is intelligent.
Over the years upstarts and whipper-snappers keep trying to break the theory. If they fail for quite long time we now have a Law that the thing is intelligent.
That is it. That is the only way we know ANYTHING in science. Anything at all. As you know quite a few Laws have fallen in recent years; broken by such things as relativity and quantum mechanics.
So be careful when you say something *IS* something else. The meaning depends on what your definition of *IS* is. (LOLOLOLOL I should run for prez! Bring on the interns!) I don't think the more philosphical notion of absolute knowlege should be freely mixed with the more tenous scientific notion of knowledge.
"Manipulation of Majesty" is the phrase that sticks out the most in my mind after reading the article. What the author doesn't not seem to realize is that we are already ALL OVER "Manipulation of Majesty".
Look at us. Then look at the lions and the tigers and the bears. Can there be any question that we have yanked our own asses out of the more typical course of evolution? Evolution is the word used hor "Mother Nature's" genetic engineering program. If we a not completely out of the program we have at least taken to sitting at the back of the class.
What are the evolutionary/genetic consequences of medicines that allow people, who would otherwise die during childhood, to live normal lives? Who knows? We have no other animals to compare notes with.
In my opinon, if humanity is going ignore the teachings of "Mother Nature's" standard evolution/genetic engineering program, we had better start teaching our own version. If you are going to grab the bull by the horns, you had better grab it by BOTH horns. That means cloning people and genetically engeering people. (And food for that matter.)
I belive we risk extinction, or at least very unpleasent large scale deaths, if we do *NOT* agressively pursue the genetic sciences as well as generaly consider and act upon the issues surrounding long-term survival of our species.
I signed a non-compete aggreement. It said I would not compete with my employer for 1 year after leaving. If I leve my current employer to go to work for a competitor, am I competeing or is my new employer? I always assumed I woudl have to go into business for myself to violate the agreement.
We'd better get used to it I we wish to go on thinking of ourselves as high order animals beyond Mother Nature's reach. World population is going up, resources are staying the same or are going down. Mother Nature's all natural and oh so wholesome solution to the problem would be pretty much the same as it for the low order animals: something along the lines of war, famine, or plague. (e.g. people dieing in large numbers)
We NEED genetic engineering of food, animals and people in our species' survivial stategy portfolio to avoid Mother Nature's violent grasp. Work out the morality or face her wrath.
I have to concede that point, insofar as Sun goes. Sun isn't exactly looking out for the Java community when they defend the Java language against Microsoft or a standards commitee. They are looking out only for themselves.
However, it is worth mentioning that they did invent Java. They did not "embrace and extend" Java.
The fact Microsoft picked a not so shiny and white standard (or company) to assualt, I think, does not change the assualt's contribution to the case against Microsoft. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I could see microsoft being forced to allow its applications to run/be developed for OTHER platforms, but making win98/win2000 and future versions be broke up to replaceable components is DUMB. And that will cause problems.
Problems. Even with MS's driver certification program there are still problems with video drivers (a component) and sound drivers (another component). What if MS bought 3dfx, nVidia, and Creative? Don't you think there would be fewer problems? I think there would be fewer. I think the quality of first release drivers would go up substantially. Do you think that scenerio would be a good thing?
What if Microsoft bought every company or division of a company that made anything at all for the PC market? That would bring them to a console-like level of control (or better) over the PC market. That level of control is proven to generate very high quality, high reliability stuff. Do you think this scenerio would be a good thing?
What if we turned the knob the other way? Dozens of Baby Bill Co.'s each write their own tiny fraction. Baby Bill Co. #34 writes the code for the IDirect3DLight interface, Baby Bill Co. #35 writes the code for IDirect3DExecuteBuffer, Baby Bill Co. #36 writes..., etc. Would that be a good thing?
My opinion is that the answers to the STRONG questions are no, no, and no.
Microsoft has demonstrated (Java) and continues to demonstrate (Kerberos) that the price for allowing them bring standards and interoperability to the PC market is strict Microsoft control over implementations of said standards. One of the primary sources of Microsoft's desire to innovate is the desire to "de-commoditize" standards (Halloween docs). So, I think it is fair to say that the more control MS gains, the less they will motivated to innovate. And so I think it is appropriate for the knob to be turned down a notch or two on Microsoft.
Dealing with variations in standard implementations and getting people to play nice together, insofar as standard implementations go, IS a problem, but Microsoft domination and lock-down of those standards is not the answer.
The license restrictions have some history behind them. First there was only Eclipse (headed by David Stafford) and they made Genesis 1. Genesis 1 was released with a similar license and is still available at www.genesis3d.com. Eclipse started making Genesis 2 with the new features of real time everything (e.g. WYSIWYG map editing) and open terrain capability.
Then Eclipse ran out of money.
WildTangent (Alex St. John (former Direct X guy)) swooped down and bought the rights to Genesis 1 and 2 as well as most of the Eclipse developers. His intent was and is to take Genesis 2 and merge it with his 'real-time-3D-image-transmission-over-http' technology to form what they are calling the "GameDriver". A preview is already available but it is strictly closed source. Nevertheless the license is generous and you might want to check it out.
During the negotiations for the purchase, David Stafford won the right to take the Genesis 2 source, as it stood in its incomplete state, and release it under his particular variant of OpenSource. The catch was that the license had to be amended to prevent people from competeing in the 'presumeably-soon-to-emerge-web-game' arena that WildTangent was targeting. And so Jet3D was born.
Hope this helps. And I hope you all can help too. Jet3D needs work.
I'd like to second that. I've read Time Warner, MPAA, CCIA, EFF, and the various Library Assiociations combined comment. (As well as a few individuals) The library people easily have the most well though out an comprehensive comment. Highlights include: 1. pointing out that the copyright law distinguishes between protecting "access" vs. "use" while the current protection software inextribably combines the concepts. (as mentioned) 2. pointing out the societally important archival function of libraries, long provided for in copyright law, is seriously impaired by protection schemes and quite illegal under DMCA. 3. pointing that the protection schemes, in limiting use along with access trend society away from the long standing "First Sale" model of copyright law and business practice to a "Pay-per-View" model. Something Congress has expressed concern over. 4. It is more general than just DVD's. I The comment documents numerous specific examples where protection schemes interfere with fair-use. It worth the read. I'm sorry Jim's comment hasn't been moderated up, it is certainly worthy of it. Royce
Slashdot Mirror
An uneducated thought:
Scientific knowledge is pretty flimsy compared to some definitions of philosphical or religous knowledge.
We suppose that a thing is intelligent just by looking/talking to it. We are at the Hypothesis stage.
We divine several tests and check over some period of time. We get others to do the same. The thing passes all it's tests with flying colors. We now have a Theory that the thing is intelligent.
Over the years upstarts and whipper-snappers keep trying to break the theory. If they fail for quite long time we now have a Law that the thing is intelligent.
That is it. That is the only way we know ANYTHING in science. Anything at all. As you know quite a few Laws have fallen in recent years; broken by such things as relativity and quantum mechanics.
So be careful when you say something *IS* something else. The meaning depends on what your definition of *IS* is. (LOLOLOLOL I should run for prez! Bring on the interns!) I don't think the more philosphical notion of absolute knowlege should be freely mixed with the more tenous scientific notion of knowledge.
Anyway, thanks to you all for this thread
"Manipulation of Majesty" is the phrase that sticks out the most in my mind after reading the article. What the author doesn't not seem to realize is that we are already ALL OVER "Manipulation of Majesty". Look at us. Then look at the lions and the tigers and the bears. Can there be any question that we have yanked our own asses out of the more typical course of evolution? Evolution is the word used hor "Mother Nature's" genetic engineering program. If we a not completely out of the program we have at least taken to sitting at the back of the class. What are the evolutionary/genetic consequences of medicines that allow people, who would otherwise die during childhood, to live normal lives? Who knows? We have no other animals to compare notes with. In my opinon, if humanity is going ignore the teachings of "Mother Nature's" standard evolution/genetic engineering program, we had better start teaching our own version. If you are going to grab the bull by the horns, you had better grab it by BOTH horns. That means cloning people and genetically engeering people. (And food for that matter.) I belive we risk extinction, or at least very unpleasent large scale deaths, if we do *NOT* agressively pursue the genetic sciences as well as generaly consider and act upon the issues surrounding long-term survival of our species.
I signed a non-compete aggreement. It said I would not compete with my employer for 1 year after leaving. If I leve my current employer to go to work for a competitor, am I competeing or is my new employer? I always assumed I woudl have to go into business for myself to violate the agreement.
We'd better get used to it I we wish to go on thinking of ourselves as high order animals beyond Mother Nature's reach. World population is going up, resources are staying the same or are going down. Mother Nature's all natural and oh so wholesome solution to the problem would be pretty much the same as it for the low order animals: something along the lines of war, famine, or plague. (e.g. people dieing in large numbers)
We NEED genetic engineering of food, animals and people in our species' survivial stategy portfolio to avoid Mother Nature's violent grasp. Work out the morality or face her wrath.
I have to concede that point, insofar as Sun goes. Sun isn't exactly looking out for the Java community when they defend the Java language against Microsoft or a standards commitee. They are looking out only for themselves.
However, it is worth mentioning that they did invent Java. They did not "embrace and extend" Java.
The fact Microsoft picked a not so shiny and white standard (or company) to assualt, I think, does not change the assualt's contribution to the case against Microsoft. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I could see microsoft being forced to allow its applications to run/be developed for OTHER platforms, but making win98/win2000 and future versions be broke up to replaceable components is DUMB. And that will cause problems.
Problems. Even with MS's driver certification program there are still problems with video drivers (a component) and sound drivers (another component). What if MS bought 3dfx, nVidia, and Creative? Don't you think there would be fewer problems? I think there would be fewer. I think the quality of first release drivers would go up substantially. Do you think that scenerio would be a good thing?
What if Microsoft bought every company or division of a company that made anything at all for the PC market? That would bring them to a console-like level of control (or better) over the PC market. That level of control is proven to generate very high quality, high reliability stuff. Do you think this scenerio would be a good thing?
What if we turned the knob the other way? Dozens of Baby Bill Co.'s each write their own tiny fraction. Baby Bill Co. #34 writes the code for the IDirect3DLight interface, Baby Bill Co. #35 writes the code for IDirect3DExecuteBuffer, Baby Bill Co. #36 writes..., etc. Would that be a good thing?
My opinion is that the answers to the STRONG questions are no, no, and no.
Microsoft has demonstrated (Java) and continues to demonstrate (Kerberos) that the price for allowing them bring standards and interoperability to the PC market is strict Microsoft control over implementations of said standards. One of the primary sources of Microsoft's desire to innovate is the desire to "de-commoditize" standards (Halloween docs). So, I think it is fair to say that the more control MS gains, the less they will motivated to innovate. And so I think it is appropriate for the knob to be turned down a notch or two on Microsoft.
Dealing with variations in standard implementations and getting people to play nice together, insofar as standard implementations go, IS a problem, but Microsoft domination and lock-down of those standards is not the answer.
The license restrictions have some history behind them. First there was only Eclipse (headed by David Stafford) and they made Genesis 1. Genesis 1 was released with a similar license and is still available at www.genesis3d.com. Eclipse started making Genesis 2 with the new features of real time everything (e.g. WYSIWYG map editing) and open terrain capability.
Then Eclipse ran out of money.
WildTangent (Alex St. John (former Direct X guy)) swooped down and bought the rights to Genesis 1 and 2 as well as most of the Eclipse developers. His intent was and is to take Genesis 2 and merge it with his 'real-time-3D-image-transmission-over-http' technology to form what they are calling the "GameDriver". A preview is already available but it is strictly closed source. Nevertheless the license is generous and you might want to check it out.
During the negotiations for the purchase, David Stafford won the right to take the Genesis 2 source, as it stood in its incomplete state, and release it under his particular variant of OpenSource. The catch was that the license had to be amended to prevent people from competeing in the 'presumeably-soon-to-emerge-web-game' arena that WildTangent was targeting. And so Jet3D was born.
Hope this helps. And I hope you all can help too. Jet3D needs work.
Royce
Doh!
That was my first ever post on /. Newbie scew-up.
Sorry about that.
Hmm.. preview dosn't seem to be working I hope this msg comes out ok!
I'd like to second that. I've read Time Warner, MPAA, CCIA, EFF, and the various Library Assiociations combined comment. (As well as a few individuals) The library people easily have the most well though out an comprehensive comment. Highlights include: 1. pointing out that the copyright law distinguishes between protecting "access" vs. "use" while the current protection software inextribably combines the concepts. (as mentioned) 2. pointing out the societally important archival function of libraries, long provided for in copyright law, is seriously impaired by protection schemes and quite illegal under DMCA. 3. pointing that the protection schemes, in limiting use along with access trend society away from the long standing "First Sale" model of copyright law and business practice to a "Pay-per-View" model. Something Congress has expressed concern over. 4. It is more general than just DVD's. I The comment documents numerous specific examples where protection schemes interfere with fair-use. It worth the read. I'm sorry Jim's comment hasn't been moderated up, it is certainly worthy of it. Royce