According to the Economist, NASA is an industrial subsidy in disguise: Point/Counterpoint
Re:Occam's Razor only cuts one way
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
I'd be interested to take this to email - I'm sure you can figure out what my real email address is.
The point of my "credentials" is that I have some idea what I'm talking about and have given it a lot of thought (unlike a lot of Slashdot posts, unfortunately), not to wow you.
Look over what you're saying - by always deferring to "experts", you are denying others - and yourself - the opportunity to consider the issues themselves. Since the experts are usually devoted to their field, they are likely to agree with certain basic assumptions common to liberals and conservatives in that discipline. One can gain a lot of perspective by talking to those who disagree with those assumptions, and often as a result, are not part of that discipline.
kemokid
Occam's Razor only cuts one way
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
You said:
I used to be one of the people how vowed against all Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO), now I see a great deal of value. For example, in some countries, many people have vitamin deficiencies that can lead to blindness (I think this is vitamin K but I can't remember). Some researchers are working on (or may have finished) corn that grows with the vitamin in it. They did this using genetics. Now go tell a few million parents that their children can grow up without blindess.
Congratulations, you have just fallen for the biotech industry's propaganda.
Finally, why is it necessary to genetic engineer rice? "Because no rice cultivars produce [pro-vitamin A] in the endosperm, recombinant technologies rather than conventional breeding are required." This is the conclusion to the whole fallacious reasoning process. It amounts to this: rice is polished, which removes pro-vitamin A, therefore a hundred million dollars (much of it tax-payers' money) are needed to put pro-vitamin A into polished rice. A more likely explanation is that the geneticists are looking for funding to do their research, and have constructed, as best they could, a series of rationalizations for why they should be supported.
Neither the scientists nor the funders have looked further beyond the technology to people's needs and aspirations, or to what the real solutions are.
The main objection I have is that if the GMO industries suddenly decided to become philanthropists, they could just distribute vitamin A supplements directly rather than push a large-scale switch to a GMO crop. Hmm, I wonder why they didn't go for the simpler solution?
Occam's Razor was originally "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" but in scientific form it is usually stated as "in general, if two theories explain the same phenomena, the simpler one is more correct".
I say "Occam's Razor only cuts one way" because scientists use it to explain natural phenomena but don't apply it to their plans. Of many plans to solve problem X, it is almost certain that the most complex - the most scientifically challenging, the most arrogant - will be selected.
Golden rice is but one example. Further examples upon request.
kemokid
PS To give you some idea of my credentials, I have been interested in biochemistry and biotechnology for some time, I studied some in college, and I strongly considered going for a biochemistry PhD. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that most of the applications of biotechnology are, on the whole, harmful, and that simpler solutions should be pursued.
Re:But will they actually get the money?
on
The Virtual Tip Jar
·
· Score: 1
They seem quite above board. The article is slightly out of date - now the only charge is the Visa charge, which is $0.23. If you aggregate a lot of tips together, the net effect is small - 23 cents is a lot of $1, but a tiny portion of $20.
As far as trust goes, they have a note to the effect that Arthur Andersen will be auditing them.
Although there are obvious flaws in the prose, analyzed by others above, I thought that the chapter was sufficiently thought-provoking that I ordered the book. It is $17 plus shipping. The system used at Left Bank Books, the U.S. distributor, is not very good - like Broadvision, you can't bookmark internal pages.
It was explained in the article - sort of. Basically, any molecule that is not the same as its mirror image is chiral. Very simple molecules like CO2 (O=C=O) are not chiral. DNA, though, winds only one way and is NOT the same as its mirror image (proof: hold a slinky up to a mirror). DNA is therefore chiral.
I think what people often mean by chiral is not only the above definition but the important additional point that you do not have a 50-50 mix of the two mirror image forms (called enantiomers). Most molecules that are manufactured artificially are chiral but you get a 50-50 mix of both forms so it isn't very useful. By contrast, almost all biological molecules are chiral and appear in only one form (all DNA everywhere, in every living thing, winds the same way).
Since it is unusual and difficult, it is considered a big deal when scientists preferentially create one mirror image, thereby introducing some asymmetry where previously there had been none.
Regardless of whether this story is a hoax or not, joining the EFF makes sense. I haven't been impressed with them lately, but now that they have started working on the DeCSS case, I've decided to join the EFF. It's an easy way to help them pay the bills, and boost their numbers for purposes of PR, etc.
News for most americans: The rest of the world don't care about your law.
However, DMCA is based on some world-wide treaties. Which just shows that we need to organize not just nationally, but internationally, to adequately protect our rights.
This isn't quite as bad as Unisys, yes, but this still really pisses me off. It's like Fraunhofer with the MPEG-1 Layer III stuff. "Oh look, here's a technology for everybody, an *open* standard."
After it gains acceptance, then the patents are announced. What happens to the open source efforts then? Last I heard Fraunhofer was trying to get free encoder implementations to pay up. Any changes in store for the open-source WAP gateway now?
We need to stress what "open" should mean. An open standard should mean no patents. It should mean "Open Source-friendly". It should also mean as low a barrier to entry as possible. The commoditized protocols and markets that Microsoft fears (see the Halloween documents) are precisely what is best for consumers, and for free software hackers the world over.
This isn't quite as bad as Unisys, yes, but this still really pisses me off. It's like Fraunhofer with the MPEG-1 Layer III stuff. "Oh look, here's a technology for everybody, an *open* standard."
After it gains acceptance, then the patents are announced. What happens to the open source efforts then? Last I heard Fraunhofer was trying to get free encoder implementations to pay up. Any changes in store for the open-source WAP gateway now?
We need to stress what "open" should mean. An open standard should mean no patents. It should mean "Open Source-friendly". It should also mean as low a barrier to entry as possible. The commoditized protocols and markets that Microsoft fears (see the Halloween documents) are precisely what is best for consumers, and for free software hackers the world over.
I suppose no one will see this, as it is at the end of a tedious thread, but here goes anyway:
A lot of people have posted comments like "I don't really see the problem" or "I don't understand". The problem as stated originally is a bit hard to grasp. How about this, though?
A basic issue with the GNU GPL is that it does not cover the use of the program as a service. This has not mattered until recently. The web has now made it possible to deliver such services to large numbers of people cheaply. Pretty soon we will see more fully-featured applications available over the web (MS Office apps, for example.)
Hypothetically, I will create a new company called "Compile.com". I will take GCC, soup it up a little, and provide a handy-dandy web interface so that individuals can (for a fee, or perhaps supported by advertising) select a target architecture, POST a piece of their own source code, and have a piece of object code returned. A linker would also be provided.
Now, accepting and disregarding for the moment the obvious rebuttals to this proposal (it's slow, people won't want to send their source code across the internet, it's a perfect vehicle for trojan horses), imagine if this were a successful service.
Why bother to install or compile GCC (ever tried it?) when the latest version, with proprietary enhancements, is available this way? I never have to release the source for those enhancements, however, since the object code (of the compiler itself) is never distributed to the end user. I could do this with all sorts of GPL'd software and would not be legally entitled to share any of my modifications, even though I would be profiting from them.
Please do not mention that someone could provide this service using a fully-free version of GCC, and incorporate their own, disclosed implementations of my proprietary enhancements. Of course that is possible, but it is irrelevant. And please don't say things like "we'll boycott them" or "companies live by their reputations". It's precisely because things like that do not always work that the GNU GPL was created. The argument, after all, is about the GPL itself, not about the community's reaction after a violation (of the GPL or of the perceived intentions behind the GPL).
kemokid
PS For an interesting article by Tim O'Reilly on the new possibility of open versus proprietary services, see Where the Web Leads Us.
Okay, from what I can gather, this company trademarked Linux *defensively*, and they further accuse some of the directors on UYLUG's board of acting in a manner inconsistent with being a true user group. If this is the case, it seems to me that they should promise to transfer the trademark to a certain Torvalds of recent fame. This would guarantee that anyone is able to use it, including this company AND the user group, as well as others.
See the stuff at http://www.xiph.org/. They're working on several things. Right now it seems they're looking at a general design for streaming arbitrary 'stuff', and are also working on a good audio compression format. The hope is to eventually include video and other audio codecs. Martin
I think there's a simple solution to this spectre of genetic engineering. No reproduction allowed! Homo sapiens has been a bloody useless and destructive species.
Maybe we should wait until we create AI first, then they'll wipe us out.:-)
It's interesting to consider this event in the larger light of what free software/open source is all about. It seems to me that many people in the "open source" world think that some other corporation (Sun, IBM, Netscape, etc.) will save them from the Great Satan. But of course the other corporations want to be Great Satan.
This is one reason why some people prefer the phrase "free software" over "open source". Because, as RMS points out here, the phrase "open source" de-emphasizes the community aspect of free software, and has led some companies (most egregiously, Apple) to thinking that they can just open up a little bit of code and then get free development.
For the record, I'm no free software firebrand. But given recent events, I've started re-reading some of RMS's tracts, and they continue to make quite a bit of sense. Sun is one company that just doesn't seem to get it (although the jury's not out yet). Does IBM get it? Too early to tell. It seems that the only ones that do are new companies (e.g. Red Hat/Cygnus, SuSE, etc.) that have started since the free software movement began.
Think on this: one pays for cable access. Yet, even though one could still theoretically put up an antenna for network TV, cable companies are required to broadcast network TV over their lines. Now, here is a new medium; it is conceivable people would only watch 'TV' over the net. Wouldn't the FCC then need to require that such providers also provide network TV in addition to any proprietary content?
One would also think that network TV would lobby the FCC to decree this... but instead, they're suing someone handing them a present.
Probably the only reason they're suing is because they want to do it themselves, and make even more money. =)
I have just started using the Goldtouch keyboard and mouse and recommend them both. (I am not in any way affiliated with the company.) If you buy from them directly, the combo is $170 or so; I got them for about $100 or $120 from a local reseller.
The keyboard is actually not that great; I like the tilting design, but actually wish it would tilt more, say, to almost ninety degrees! Also, these stupid bastards put in two MS 'Start' keys, one of which is directly to the left of F1, so you always hit F1 when you want F2, etc. But I haven't seen anything better that's actually on the market as opposed to being in development. If anyone knows of similar but better products, please let me know.
The mouse I really like. It's three button with the buttons a little rearranged, but I got used to it really quickly. I'm sure the buttons can be reassigned in X anyway. If an ordinary mouse has left, middle, right buttons labeled 1 3 2, then the Goldtouch is 3 1 2. It's very comfortable.
Well, they can have a lot of fun porting that to other architectures. x86 is horrible in comparison with the register rich alphas. Aside from that, benefits ... It really sounds like these guys wrote themselves a rather large and difficult to maintain and debug OS. That's what they said about Linux when it first came out.:-) Now it's possibly the most ridiculously commonly ported OS (what with all the embedded ports). An interesting page on Linux ports, with a couple quotes from the Early Days at the top of the page: Linux's Ports
PS: Hey, BTW, does anyone know of any attempts to put Linux on cell phones? (Just cause we can!) I've been looking around but haven't seen any info out there.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Economist, NASA is an industrial subsidy in disguise: Point/Counterpoint
The point of my "credentials" is that I have some idea what I'm talking about and have given it a lot of thought (unlike a lot of Slashdot posts, unfortunately), not to wow you.
Look over what you're saying - by always deferring to "experts", you are denying others - and yourself - the opportunity to consider the issues themselves. Since the experts are usually devoted to their field, they are likely to agree with certain basic assumptions common to liberals and conservatives in that discipline. One can gain a lot of perspective by talking to those who disagree with those assumptions, and often as a result, are not part of that discipline. kemokid
I could list the objections here myself, but instead I'll point you to this informative article about golden rice. A brief excerpt:
The main objection I have is that if the GMO industries suddenly decided to become philanthropists, they could just distribute vitamin A supplements directly rather than push a large-scale switch to a GMO crop. Hmm, I wonder why they didn't go for the simpler solution?
Occam's Razor was originally "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" but in scientific form it is usually stated as "in general, if two theories explain the same phenomena, the simpler one is more correct".
I say "Occam's Razor only cuts one way" because scientists use it to explain natural phenomena but don't apply it to their plans. Of many plans to solve problem X, it is almost certain that the most complex - the most scientifically challenging, the most arrogant - will be selected. Golden rice is but one example. Further examples upon request.
kemokid
PS To give you some idea of my credentials, I have been interested in biochemistry and biotechnology for some time, I studied some in college, and I strongly considered going for a biochemistry PhD. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that most of the applications of biotechnology are, on the whole, harmful, and that simpler solutions should be pursued.
As far as trust goes, they have a note to the effect that Arthur Andersen will be auditing them.
Here's how you do it:
I think what people often mean by chiral is not only the above definition but the important additional point that you do not have a 50-50 mix of the two mirror image forms (called enantiomers). Most molecules that are manufactured artificially are chiral but you get a 50-50 mix of both forms so it isn't very useful. By contrast, almost all biological molecules are chiral and appear in only one form (all DNA everywhere, in every living thing, winds the same way).
Since it is unusual and difficult, it is considered a big deal when scientists preferentially create one mirror image, thereby introducing some asymmetry where previously there had been none.
I like this guy's link. It's hilarious. Saves me the trouble of being accosted by Jesus-pimpers on a Saturday night.
Regardless of whether this story is a hoax or not, joining the EFF makes sense. I haven't been impressed with them lately, but now that they have started working on the DeCSS case, I've decided to join the EFF. It's an easy way to help them pay the bills, and boost their numbers for purposes of PR, etc.
However, DMCA is based on some world-wide treaties. Which just shows that we need to organize not just nationally, but internationally, to adequately protect our rights.
This isn't quite as bad as Unisys, yes, but this still really pisses me off. It's like Fraunhofer with the MPEG-1 Layer III stuff. "Oh look, here's a technology for everybody, an *open* standard."
After it gains acceptance, then the patents are announced. What happens to the open source efforts then? Last I heard Fraunhofer was trying to get free encoder implementations to pay up. Any changes in store for the open-source WAP gateway now?
We need to stress what "open" should mean. An open standard should mean no patents. It should mean "Open Source-friendly". It should also mean as low a barrier to entry as possible. The commoditized protocols and markets that Microsoft fears (see the Halloween documents) are precisely what is best for consumers, and for free software hackers the world over.
Martin
This isn't quite as bad as Unisys, yes, but this still really pisses me off. It's like Fraunhofer with the MPEG-1 Layer III stuff. "Oh look, here's a technology for everybody, an *open* standard."
After it gains acceptance, then the patents are announced. What happens to the open source efforts then? Last I heard Fraunhofer was trying to get free encoder implementations to pay up. Any changes in store for the open-source WAP gateway now?
We need to stress what "open" should mean. An open standard should mean no patents. It should mean "Open Source-friendly". It should also mean as low a barrier to entry as possible. The commoditized protocols and markets that Microsoft fears (see the Halloween documents) are precisely what is best for consumers, and for free software hackers the world over.
Martin
A lot of people have posted comments like "I don't really see the problem" or "I don't understand". The problem as stated originally is a bit hard to grasp. How about this, though?
A basic issue with the GNU GPL is that it does not cover the use of the program as a service. This has not mattered until recently. The web has now made it possible to deliver such services to large numbers of people cheaply. Pretty soon we will see more fully-featured applications available over the web (MS Office apps, for example.)
Hypothetically, I will create a new company called "Compile.com". I will take GCC, soup it up a little, and provide a handy-dandy web interface so that individuals can (for a fee, or perhaps supported by advertising) select a target architecture, POST a piece of their own source code, and have a piece of object code returned. A linker would also be provided.
Now, accepting and disregarding for the moment the obvious rebuttals to this proposal (it's slow, people won't want to send their source code across the internet, it's a perfect vehicle for trojan horses), imagine if this were a successful service.
Why bother to install or compile GCC (ever tried it?) when the latest version, with proprietary enhancements, is available this way? I never have to release the source for those enhancements, however, since the object code (of the compiler itself) is never distributed to the end user. I could do this with all sorts of GPL'd software and would not be legally entitled to share any of my modifications, even though I would be profiting from them.
Please do not mention that someone could provide this service using a fully-free version of GCC, and incorporate their own, disclosed implementations of my proprietary enhancements. Of course that is possible, but it is irrelevant. And please don't say things like "we'll boycott them" or "companies live by their reputations". It's precisely because things like that do not always work that the GNU GPL was created. The argument, after all, is about the GPL itself, not about the community's reaction after a violation (of the GPL or of the perceived intentions behind the GPL).
kemokid
PS For an interesting article by Tim O'Reilly on the new possibility of open versus proprietary services, see Where the Web Leads Us.
BTW, I loved the M&M breeding story.
Okay, from what I can gather, this company trademarked Linux *defensively*, and they further accuse some of the directors on UYLUG's board of acting in a manner inconsistent with being a true user group. If this is the case, it seems to me that they should promise to transfer the trademark to a certain Torvalds of recent fame. This would guarantee that anyone is able to use it, including this company AND the user group, as well as others.
kemokid
See the stuff at http://www.xiph.org/. They're working on several things. Right now it seems they're looking at a general design for streaming arbitrary 'stuff', and are also working on a good audio compression format. The hope is to eventually include video and other audio codecs. Martin
No, not a palm pilot with phone abilities, a phone. I want Linux on my Nokia, goddam it!
I think there's a simple solution to this spectre of genetic engineering. No reproduction allowed! Homo sapiens has been a bloody useless and destructive species.
:-)
Maybe we should wait until we create AI first, then they'll wipe us out.
This is one reason why some people prefer the phrase "free software" over "open source". Because, as RMS points out here, the phrase "open source" de-emphasizes the community aspect of free software, and has led some companies (most egregiously, Apple) to thinking that they can just open up a little bit of code and then get free development.
For the record, I'm no free software firebrand. But given recent events, I've started re-reading some of RMS's tracts, and they continue to make quite a bit of sense. Sun is one company that just doesn't seem to get it (although the jury's not out yet). Does IBM get it? Too early to tell. It seems that the only ones that do are new companies (e.g. Red Hat/Cygnus, SuSE, etc.) that have started since the free software movement began.
One would also think that network TV would lobby the FCC to decree this ... but instead, they're suing someone handing them a present.
Probably the only reason they're suing is because they want to do it themselves, and make even more money. =)
The keyboard is actually not that great; I like the tilting design, but actually wish it would tilt more, say, to almost ninety degrees! Also, these stupid bastards put in two MS 'Start' keys, one of which is directly to the left of F1, so you always hit F1 when you want F2, etc. But I haven't seen anything better that's actually on the market as opposed to being in development. If anyone knows of similar but better products, please let me know.
The mouse I really like. It's three button with the buttons a little rearranged, but I got used to it really quickly. I'm sure the buttons can be reassigned in X anyway. If an ordinary mouse has left, middle, right buttons labeled 1 3 2, then the Goldtouch is 3 1 2. It's very comfortable.
kemokid
It really sounds like these guys wrote themselves a rather large and difficult to maintain and debug OS. That's what they said about Linux when it first came out.
PS: Hey, BTW, does anyone know of any attempts to put Linux on cell phones? (Just cause we can!) I've been looking around but haven't seen any info out there.