I'd say that we are on track for a lot more 'linked' technology in the future. For starters, better cybernetic replacements for damaged parts, but it won't end there. It must, in due course, come the pass that the technology will enable people to surpass their prior limitations. On the subject of extended vision, you could have prostheses allowing people to see further into the electromagnetic spectrum. You could also, if you wanted to, implant weoponry, communications gear, databases, processors which dictate irrefutable commands, and many other devices inside people, as many a science fiction author has explored. (Personally, I especially like Stephen Donaldson's 'Gap Series, but that's mainly to do with the characters, plot and writing style). It's gonna be a bumpy ride, people.
>(On the other hand, there is the example of the cat. However, that cat was never expected to have long-term survival.)
What cat?
>>I just looked back and realized that they said he had this implanted in 1978 -- Does that seem like an awful long time ago (for this sort of thing) to anyone else?
>Not really.
Well, it must seem that way for 'Jerry'. Can you imagine spending over two decades being a guinea-pig for this kind of device? It makes my skin crawl. And every time there seemed to be something new that might work & might just give him his sight back being unsuccessful? I'd imagine the main consolation for Jerry is not the extremely limited visual experience that he's being offered now, but the possibility that greater and better things might just come as a result of this for other blind people in the future. If this is the case, the man has my sincerest admiration. However, seeing as he must have been hoping for more than this for himself, he also has my pity. Poor noble guy.
Personally I'm quite glad that a computer program can't understand it's environment yet. Can you imagine some more advanced version of a Norn - say a program designed to find out explanations for what it encounters (a computerised scientist, if you will).
Now add self interest - the program is a virus, designed to replicate itself.
Add potential for evolution - the program's replication is designed to be subtly innacurate or random in ways which do not hinder its basic functions.
Eventually, you might have a program capable of 'understanding' that it's in a computer, also understanding how that computer works, and then capable of taking control. Trigger any number of high body-count sci-fi plots.
"... possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis.."
To my mind that would take an inordinate amount of bureaucracy. Even if you were only referring to genetic patents, with the amount of patent applications for genes which are going through (over a month ago Celera filed an application for patents on 5600 potentially useful genes) there would have to be a significant extra price tag attached.
"...or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs..."
I think that you would be sacrificing innovation for more effective use of existing treatments. This might well be a worthwhile trade off, as long as the powers to regulate the prices of the drugs are within reasonable limits, because otherwise you make "necessary drugs" unprofitable to research, which would be counter-productive in the extreme.
I agree. With the company for the OS being seperate to the other(s) incompatability between different software and different OS systems becomes inviable and the software groups will release versions of their programs for Linux while the OS system suddenly finds it has to stay competitive without the software tie-ins and will either improve in areas thus far neglected such as reliability, or founder.
Pratchett's Discworld Saga can be divided into several central elements running through it, around one of which most of his books are centred. The main four can be loosely described as Rincewind, Death, The Witches and The Guards. I would suggest starting with the first book from one of these, which would be The Colour Of Magic, Mort, Equal Rites, or Guards, Guards! Alternatively a stand alone work such as Pyramids or Small Gods would also be a fair introduction to the ethos. Choose whichever subject matter suits you best, I reckon.
This is my favourite work of anything I've read from the pens of either Pratchett or Gaiman (though perhaps 5 years on I might think differently if I were to dip into it again). The film would also have much more potential than Dogma, which was a bit of a disappointment.
Still, I find it hard to see how the film could match the gloriously irreverant 'Life of Brian' which I predict will rule the roost in comedies on religion for decades to come.
I apologise for not including this in my original submission but I was forced to disconnect for a brief while.
Celera Genomics have been running a massively expensive mapping of the human genome, and in doing so have been in competition with another state-run mapping.
A little over a month ago, they applied for patent rights on 6500 sections of DNA which they had discovered, which was a very controversial application for the reasons pointed out by other responses. It also should be mentioned that Celera plan to release gene sequences which they discover only to paying subscribers.
Tellingly, one Israeli newspaper has described Celera as 'The New Microsoft'.
One way in which the patenting system ought to be reformed is to completely and indisputably outrule patenting of sections of the genetic code. Some companies, most notably Celera, have applied for patents on sections of the human genome and if these were passed such actions could be destructive to life-saving research because of the cost of licencing.
Sure, I agree with you about the flaws in mob decisions. But maybe these two syllogisms will serve as justification for this one:
Gun control makes it harder to get hold of guns. Guns make it easier to kill people.
Therefore gun control makes it harder to kill people. When it's harder to kill people, less people get killed.
Therefore gun control results in less people getting killed, which loosely translates as saying that it saves lives. Therefore is it such a bad thing to, say, have background checks at gun fairs?
I can see that many US/. members are rightly appalled by the powers available to their police, and the potential these have for abuse. All I can say is, it's one more things for us Europeans to be snooty about. (Although I'm not saying I like my country either - particularly with regard to some anti-terrorist legislation passed a couple of years ago. Are you listening Mr Blair, you unutterable shit-head?)
One thing I do like though is that our basic policemen - those patrolling the streets, or traffic cops - don't carry guns. As seen in the Stephen Lawrence incident, they do enough harm without them.
Whose statistics? I read an article in the Economist some time back which quoted statistics saying the reverse.
Also you might like to consider that here in the EU we not only have more gun control we also have much less fatal violent crime. A lot of people think these are connected.
What you've said would be valid, were it not that Nicolas MONNET was talking about Europe. BTW, do you like what some voices in your country, such as Southpark, have found to say about hunters or is that a sore topic? Don't get me wrong, I've personally nothing against well-managed hunting, although I don't take part myself.
I have mixed feelings on affirmitive action, or 'positive' discimination as it is generally known this side of the Atlantic. I think it can be useful in pulling people out of an underclass but can also be taken to destructive extremes, as it has threatened to do in South Africa lately (but which I hasten to add are inestimably better to apartheid).
I can't help but feel that you're being irrationally paranoid here. You don't need guns to protect yourself in a civilised society, and in fact the widespread presence of guns is more of a threat to your personal safety than 'invaders'. I live in a country that has not been invaded successfully for 934 years, and feel no threat there. I feel some threat from street crime, yes, as I am currently living in a poor inner-city area, but I would not feel any safer if there were more guns about and least of all if I were carrying one. And as for the government coming down on you, well, maybe, but I don't see that happening soon either in the USA or in any EU country.
Look, when did the RAF ever target people in Ireland? I'm not a patriot - far from it - and I fully appreciate that British forces did many unethical things in Northern Ireland, but do you appreciate that if back in the 70s there had been a referendum as to whether Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK or be given to EIRE the vote would have gone in favour of the UK because the biggest part of the population were Scottish settlers of long standing, among whom Unionist sentiment was strong? The Troubles are not as simple as you seem to imagine, and are only now beginning to be solved, not by gunmen but by politicians. Hell, I wouldn't care if we had give Northern Ireland away - as I said, I'm not a patriot - but do you realise that that would not, could not have been the end to the bloodshed? And that without a referendum decision in its favour, it would be a betrayel of British citizens in Northern Ireland? Think on it. --
So, in your opinion, guns are there to prevent tyranny. Right. How? When? I can, however, think of people who would agree with you - terrorists. Look at the Republican and Unionist groups in Northern Ireland for example. They have cut broad swathes through innocent civilians in their attempts to enforce their political opinion by non-democratic methods. So, flamebait, get real and get out of here.
There is of course a much simpler method of controlling murders than such 'black boxes' which is to take away people's guns. It really works. So shut your face, NRA, you're killing people. (Sorry - my belief in freedom of speech means that I have to allow the NRA to speak on this. I just wish the US situation didn't make their voice so much louder than their opponents').
This measure is taking road safety a little too far. I know that it will be welcome to many who have lost their nearest and dearest on the roads - as someone whose sister was seriously injured in an accident, I speak from experience - but at the same time, it is worryingly limiting on people's independence. There are times at which it is necessary to break speed limits, and as the RAC spokesman said, it might also create a dangerous tendency for people to drive at the limit when it would be unsafe to do so. Also, who is going to fork out £200 per car? If the government made it obligatory, it might well be the taxpayer. I'd also be interested to see how they expect to justify that statistic about removing 2/3 of serious accidents. --
In an article I chanced upon about a week ago, Geller said one of his main objections was that the character is described as being violent which he thought was associating defamatory statements with his name. Or words to that effect.
I would have to agree with this. With the dramatic increase in average life expectancy brought about by modern medicine, the world's population would today either have ballooned far beyond supportable levels, or in doing so triggered corresponding famines, epidemics and other crises bringing about untold suffering. The infringements on personal liberty which would be required to control population in a medically advanced society without taking recourse to contraception would be perhaps less horrific but still far worse than our present condition.
It should also be pointed out (not that it is entirely relevant, as this is a poll of the gadgets of all time) that contraception is not as new a thing as you might possibly surmise from reading Enoch's statement (no offence meant - I do not suggest that Enoch assumed it was) - it has in fact been practised in many different forms in many different societies for thousands of years.
Of course, I hate to be a party pooper, but the invention of beer was simply an extension of a natural process that long predates humanity. Basically, fruit is good for you. After a certain amount of time, fruit ferments. This releases the pungent odour of alcohol, and attracts creatures of all kinds to feed and get merrily drunk. Hence at certain times of year birds fly into walls, fruit bats fall out of trees and elephants are definitely to be avoided. The flavour of alcohol is intrinsically attractive to us - and without it, beer is not. (Have you ever tried non-alcoholic beer - yeargghhhh!) In fact, in moderation, alcohol is good for you - 'moderate' or 'social' drinkers live significantly longer than the teatotal. So think on this next time you're down the pub with your mates.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that we are on track for a lot more 'linked' technology in the future. For starters, better cybernetic replacements for damaged parts, but it won't end there. It must, in due course, come the pass that the technology will enable people to surpass their prior limitations. On the subject of extended vision, you could have prostheses allowing people to see further into the electromagnetic spectrum. You could also, if you wanted to, implant weoponry, communications gear, databases, processors which dictate irrefutable commands, and many other devices inside people, as many a science fiction author has explored. (Personally, I especially like Stephen Donaldson's 'Gap Series, but that's mainly to do with the characters, plot and writing style). It's gonna be a bumpy ride, people.
>(On the other hand, there is the example of the cat. However, that cat was never expected to have long-term survival.)
What cat?
>>I just looked back and realized that they said he had this implanted in 1978 -- Does that seem like an awful long time ago (for this sort of thing) to anyone else?
>Not really.
Well, it must seem that way for 'Jerry'. Can you imagine spending over two decades being a guinea-pig for this kind of device? It makes my skin crawl. And every time there seemed to be something new that might work & might just give him his sight back being unsuccessful? I'd imagine the main consolation for Jerry is not the extremely limited visual experience that he's being offered now, but the possibility that greater and better things might just come as a result of this for other blind people in the future. If this is the case, the man has my sincerest admiration. However, seeing as he must have been hoping for more than this for himself, he also has my pity. Poor noble guy.
Personally I'm quite glad that a computer program can't understand it's environment yet. Can you imagine some more advanced version of a Norn - say a program designed to find out explanations for what it encounters (a computerised scientist, if you will).
Now add self interest - the program is a virus, designed to replicate itself.
Add potential for evolution - the program's replication is designed to be subtly innacurate or random in ways which do not hinder its basic functions.
Eventually, you might have a program capable of 'understanding' that it's in a computer, also understanding how that computer works, and then capable of taking control. Trigger any number of high body-count sci-fi plots.
"... possible solutions would be to examine each patent on an individual basis.."
To my mind that would take an inordinate amount of bureaucracy. Even if you were only referring to genetic patents, with the amount of patent applications for genes which are going through (over a month ago Celera filed an application for patents on 5600 potentially useful genes) there would have to be a significant extra price tag attached.
"...or to regulate the prices charged for necessary drugs..."
I think that you would be sacrificing innovation for more effective use of existing treatments. This might well be a worthwhile trade off, as long as the powers to regulate the prices of the drugs are within reasonable limits, because otherwise you make "necessary drugs" unprofitable to research, which would be counter-productive in the extreme.
I agree. With the company for the OS being seperate to the other(s) incompatability between different software and different OS systems becomes inviable and the software groups will release versions of their programs for Linux while the OS system suddenly finds it has to stay competitive without the software tie-ins and will either improve in areas thus far neglected such as reliability, or founder.
Pratchett's Discworld Saga can be divided into several central elements running through it, around one of which most of his books are centred. The main four can be loosely described as Rincewind, Death, The Witches and The Guards. I would suggest starting with the first book from one of these, which would be The Colour Of Magic, Mort, Equal Rites, or Guards, Guards! Alternatively a stand alone work such as Pyramids or Small Gods would also be a fair introduction to the ethos. Choose whichever subject matter suits you best, I reckon.
This is my favourite work of anything I've read from the pens of either Pratchett or Gaiman (though perhaps 5 years on I might think differently if I were to dip into it again). The film would also have much more potential than Dogma, which was a bit of a disappointment.
Still, I find it hard to see how the film could match the gloriously irreverant 'Life of Brian' which I predict will rule the roost in comedies on religion for decades to come.
I apologise for not including this in my original submission but I was forced to disconnect for a brief while.
Celera Genomics have been running a massively expensive mapping of the human genome, and in doing so have been in competition with another state-run mapping.
A little over a month ago, they applied for patent rights on 6500 sections of DNA which they had discovered, which was a very controversial application for the reasons pointed out by other responses. It also should be mentioned that Celera plan to release gene sequences which they discover only to paying subscribers.
Tellingly, one Israeli newspaper has described Celera as 'The New Microsoft'.
One way in which the patenting system ought to be reformed is to completely and indisputably outrule patenting of sections of the genetic code. Some companies, most notably Celera, have applied for patents on sections of the human genome and if these were passed such actions could be destructive to life-saving research because of the cost of licencing.
Give me an example of this.
Sure, I agree with you about the flaws in mob decisions. But maybe these two syllogisms will serve as justification for this one:
Gun control makes it harder to get hold of guns.
Guns make it easier to kill people.
Therefore gun control makes it harder to kill people.
When it's harder to kill people, less people get killed.
Therefore gun control results in less people getting killed, which loosely translates as saying that it saves lives. Therefore is it such a bad thing to, say, have background checks at gun fairs?
Fascinating. Somebody mark this guy up.
I can see that many US /. members are rightly appalled by the powers available to their police, and the potential these have for abuse. All I can say is, it's one more things for us Europeans to be snooty about. (Although I'm not saying I like my country either - particularly with regard to some anti-terrorist legislation passed a couple of years ago. Are you listening Mr Blair, you unutterable shit-head?)
One thing I do like though is that our basic policemen - those patrolling the streets, or traffic cops - don't carry guns. As seen in the Stephen Lawrence incident, they do enough harm without them.
Whose statistics? I read an article in the Economist some time back which quoted statistics saying the reverse.
Also you might like to consider that here in the EU we not only have more gun control we also have much less fatal violent crime. A lot of people think these are connected.
What you've said would be valid, were it not that Nicolas MONNET was talking about Europe. BTW, do you like what some voices in your country, such as Southpark, have found to say about hunters or is that a sore topic? Don't get me wrong, I've personally nothing against well-managed hunting, although I don't take part myself.
I have mixed feelings on affirmitive action, or 'positive' discimination as it is generally known this side of the Atlantic. I think it can be useful in pulling people out of an underclass but can also be taken to destructive extremes, as it has threatened to do in South Africa lately (but which I hasten to add are inestimably better to apartheid).
I can't help but feel that you're being irrationally paranoid here. You don't need guns to protect yourself in a civilised society, and in fact the widespread presence of guns is more of a threat to your personal safety than 'invaders'. I live in a country that has not been invaded successfully for 934 years, and feel no threat there. I feel some threat from street crime, yes, as I am currently living in a poor inner-city area, but I would not feel any safer if there were more guns about and least of all if I were carrying one. And as for the government coming down on you, well, maybe, but I don't see that happening soon either in the USA or in any EU country.
Look, when did the RAF ever target people in Ireland? I'm not a patriot - far from it - and I fully appreciate that British forces did many unethical things in Northern Ireland, but do you appreciate that if back in the 70s there had been a referendum as to whether Northern Ireland should remain a part of the UK or be given to EIRE the vote would have gone in favour of the UK because the biggest part of the population were Scottish settlers of long standing, among whom Unionist sentiment was strong? The Troubles are not as simple as you seem to imagine, and are only now beginning to be solved, not by gunmen but by politicians. Hell, I wouldn't care if we had give Northern Ireland away - as I said, I'm not a patriot - but do you realise that that would not, could not have been the end to the bloodshed? And that without a referendum decision in its favour, it would be a betrayel of British citizens in Northern Ireland? Think on it. --
So, in your opinion, guns are there to prevent tyranny. Right. How? When? I can, however, think of people who would agree with you - terrorists. Look at the Republican and Unionist groups in Northern Ireland for example. They have cut broad swathes through innocent civilians in their attempts to enforce their political opinion by non-democratic methods. So, flamebait, get real and get out of here.
--
There is of course a much simpler method of controlling murders than such 'black boxes' which is to take away people's guns. It really works. So shut your face, NRA, you're killing people. (Sorry - my belief in freedom of speech means that I have to allow the NRA to speak on this. I just wish the US situation didn't make their voice so much louder than their opponents').
--
This measure is taking road safety a little too far. I know that it will be welcome to many who have lost their nearest and dearest on the roads - as someone whose sister was seriously injured in an accident, I speak from experience - but at the same time, it is worryingly limiting on people's independence. There are times at which it is necessary to break speed limits, and as the RAC spokesman said, it might also create a dangerous tendency for people to drive at the limit when it would be unsafe to do so. Also, who is going to fork out £200 per car? If the government made it obligatory, it might well be the taxpayer. I'd also be interested to see how they expect to justify that statistic about removing 2/3 of serious accidents. --
In an article I chanced upon about a week ago, Geller said one of his main objections was that the character is described as being violent which he thought was associating defamatory statements with his name. Or words to that effect.
I would have to agree with this. With the dramatic increase in average life expectancy brought about by modern medicine, the world's population would today either have ballooned far beyond supportable levels, or in doing so triggered corresponding famines, epidemics and other crises bringing about untold suffering. The infringements on personal liberty which would be required to control population in a medically advanced society without taking recourse to contraception would be perhaps less horrific but still far worse than our present condition.
It should also be pointed out (not that it is entirely relevant, as this is a poll of the gadgets of all time) that contraception is not as new a thing as you might possibly surmise from reading Enoch's statement (no offence meant - I do not suggest that Enoch assumed it was) - it has in fact been practised in many different forms in many different societies for thousands of years.
Of course, I hate to be a party pooper, but the invention of beer was simply an extension of a natural process that long predates humanity. Basically, fruit is good for you. After a certain amount of time, fruit ferments. This releases the pungent odour of alcohol, and attracts creatures of all kinds to feed and get merrily drunk. Hence at certain times of year birds fly into walls, fruit bats fall out of trees and elephants are definitely to be avoided. The flavour of alcohol is intrinsically attractive to us - and without it, beer is not. (Have you ever tried non-alcoholic beer - yeargghhhh!) In fact, in moderation, alcohol is good for you - 'moderate' or 'social' drinkers live significantly longer than the teatotal. So think on this next time you're down the pub with your mates.
Ta very much mate.