Cloning, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, these are technologies that our science fiction audience has been fantasising over for half a century at least. They have the potential to greatly alter the political environment.
It is easiest to measure political, economical, military success not in terms of some abstract 'quality of life' measurement but in degree of difference between the leaders and the followers. The world leaders (The northern hemisphere, the western world, the USA, the business, political, religious leadership of the USA) are quite comfortable where they are right now and have little to gain and everything to lose from anything that changes the political environment.
In any situation those who think they are the leaders have nothing to gain from change even if the change would benefit all. So change is suppressed.
We, the scientists, the technical people, the geeks, the artists, now alter the environment in which our societies exist. Now we may watch how those unpredictable, nebulous things that are human societies respond to changes in their environments.
This mantra is starting to disturb me. In my opinion any law that allows corporations to sue perfectly normal teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong and needs to be changed.
I think it's good to protect ownership of creative content but protecting the right of a company to make a profit by distributing music made by someone else has little to do with any issue of creativity or authorship.
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Record companies made their money by distributing music to consumers more cheaply than any alternative means. The cost of buying a CD is factors of magnitude less than the cost of hiring your favorite band. In an age where the distribution of recorded music was difficult this made sense. It no longer makes sense. Most of the cost of recorded music goes to promotion and distribution, but the internet has made promotion and distribution cheap and easy.
It's time for a new business model. Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
Judging from the number of posts on this topic, I'd say that there's nothing like the great American passtime of meddling in other peoples' home lives. It's great to know that we all know how to raise other people's children.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there is a general principle in this. The best solution to a problem is the one involving the simplest technology.
It is easiest to measure political, economical, military success not in terms of some abstract 'quality of life' measurement but in degree of difference between the leaders and the followers. The world leaders (The northern hemisphere, the western world, the USA, the business, political, religious leadership of the USA) are quite comfortable where they are right now and have little to gain and everything to lose from anything that changes the political environment.
In any situation those who think they are the leaders have nothing to gain from change even if the change would benefit all. So change is suppressed.
We, the scientists, the technical people, the geeks, the artists, now alter the environment in which our societies exist. Now we may watch how those unpredictable, nebulous things that are human societies respond to changes in their environments.
Is this a good thing?
This mantra is starting to disturb me. In my opinion any law that allows corporations to sue perfectly normal teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong and needs to be changed.
I think it's good to protect ownership of creative content but protecting the right of a company to make a profit by distributing music made by someone else has little to do with any issue of creativity or authorship.
The argument that people are hurting "the artists" by trading music on the internet is extremely weak. Most active musicians make most of their money by playing live shows.
Record companies made their money by distributing music to consumers more cheaply than any alternative means. The cost of buying a CD is factors of magnitude less than the cost of hiring your favorite band. In an age where the distribution of recorded music was difficult this made sense. It no longer makes sense. Most of the cost of recorded music goes to promotion and distribution, but the internet has made promotion and distribution cheap and easy.
It's time for a new business model. Perhaps less music will be recorded if there isn't a profit to be made anymore, but maybe more people will be involved in the creative process.
Judging from the number of posts on this topic, I'd say that there's nothing like the great American passtime of meddling in other peoples' home lives. It's great to know that we all know how to raise other people's children.
Would it interfere with our stereoscopic distance perception?