Every person on this planet values privacy to some degree
Sorry, and strangely, but no. Many, if not all, traditional societies (hunter/gatherers) have little to no sense of privacy. They have sex in front of their kids in small one-room huts for crying out loud. And they find our obsession with privacy very strange. It is much more likely that for the vast majority of man's existence, there was little privacy and little desire for it. It is only in modern times, and particularly in western culture, that we have developed a sense and need for privacy. Being a modern westerner myself, I like my privacy and would like to keep it. But not everyone feels that way.
Pretty much agree. Intelligence Analyst here, since before 9/11, and I've seen the increased emphasis on data-sharing and data collection in order to prevent future attacks, which we've done multiple times contrary to slashdot groupthink. I don't like the direction our country is going any more than anyone else. I wonder what's happened to the 4th amendment, among other amendments. But the focus on gathering data and sharing it with other agencies is not a power grab by nature (some bad eggs not withstanding), but a well-intentioned plan to prevent the next 9/11, or worse attack.
There's no reason why humans would have to have killed every last one. Every species has a minimum population it needs to maintain genetic diversity. Killing a species below this would be enough for it die off eventually. Or cutting off the migratory patterns, so that each half is below the minimum. Say the mammoths needed 50,000 to maintain genetic diversity. A population of 95,000 could be split up by human tribes, such that neither side could migrate and interact with the other. In short order, the species would die off.
Maybe you missed the part about them keeping the patents. This is part of their strategic goals of supporting Android without having to bother with managing a phone company.
For the most part, not particularly, since Google isn't interested in manufacturing.
Except for Motorola, Nest, and who knows how many other branches and acquisitions. Google may have not been involved much with manufacturing in the past, but the future seems more so.
Being a fully ordained Pastafarian Minister, and having paid the requisite $20, I am not only fully qualified but willing and eager to teach this class.
I object. The Theory of Unintelligent Design states that the universe is full of too many mistakes to have been happened by chance, and that the ceator was clearly drunk or stupid. It is well supported by the evidence. How else do you explain the platypus or Jar Jar Binks?!?
I'm fine with that. Teach that the vast overwhelming majority of the world's scientists support the theory of evolution by natural selection, a handful of people support intelligent design, and millions more support unintelligent design, the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. (Disclaimer: I am an ordained Pastafarian Minister)
Agree 1000%. There's some defintions of life out there, and some things like people and badgers and marigolds are clearly alive. But there's a smooth transition from us to molecules, and things like viruses are sometimes defined as living when it suits us and sometimes not. Then there's other complex adaptive systems like ecosystems, organizations, and Gaia that exhibit the same properties as any other living thing. I would agree that a virus is a living thing, and so is the world wide web, Anonymous, Wikipedia, planet Earth, et al.
No, but a car isn't alive because no car can self-replicate.
Who's the one straying off topic? A car isn't alive, not because of its inablity to self-replicate, but because it doesn't respond to stimuli, change in response to its envorinment, grow, etc. It's a simple machine. Life has stuck around for so long on Earth because it self-replicates, but that doesn't mean something needs to self-replicate in order for it to be alive. For me, whether this artificial cell can self-replicate has little bearing on its complexity. It can still be artificial life without that trait. Granted, ability to self replicate would make it more interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us still get classic... for now .
It's been months and there's no sign of stopping. (IAA Defense Contractor).
/. BETA sucks.
Also,
No, I am Guy Fawkes!
Wow, that bolded 'I' doesn't really stand out. I can see why you used asterisks.
Boarder security continues to be a utter joke
Indeed, the Silver Surfer could strike at any moment!
Good on ya, mate. Keep this thread on topic. BETA is teh sux0r!
Seriously considering it, yes.
Is thinking this is new, when it's a dupe.
Every person on this planet values privacy to some degree
Sorry, and strangely, but no. Many, if not all, traditional societies (hunter/gatherers) have little to no sense of privacy. They have sex in front of their kids in small one-room huts for crying out loud. And they find our obsession with privacy very strange. It is much more likely that for the vast majority of man's existence, there was little privacy and little desire for it. It is only in modern times, and particularly in western culture, that we have developed a sense and need for privacy. Being a modern westerner myself, I like my privacy and would like to keep it. But not everyone feels that way.
Pretty much agree. Intelligence Analyst here, since before 9/11, and I've seen the increased emphasis on data-sharing and data collection in order to prevent future attacks, which we've done multiple times contrary to slashdot groupthink. I don't like the direction our country is going any more than anyone else. I wonder what's happened to the 4th amendment, among other amendments. But the focus on gathering data and sharing it with other agencies is not a power grab by nature (some bad eggs not withstanding), but a well-intentioned plan to prevent the next 9/11, or worse attack.
There's no reason why humans would have to have killed every last one. Every species has a minimum population it needs to maintain genetic diversity. Killing a species below this would be enough for it die off eventually. Or cutting off the migratory patterns, so that each half is below the minimum. Say the mammoths needed 50,000 to maintain genetic diversity. A population of 95,000 could be split up by human tribes, such that neither side could migrate and interact with the other. In short order, the species would die off.
Agree. I don't know why there's so many posts here saying this is stupid. I think it's well-thought out plan.
Maybe you missed the part about them keeping the patents. This is part of their strategic goals of supporting Android without having to bother with managing a phone company.
, 128K of RAM!,
I was too young to use computers then. Was that enough for everyone?
And after that, let him run for the office of his choice. He'll have my vote.
For the most part, not particularly, since Google isn't interested in manufacturing.
Except for Motorola, Nest, and who knows how many other branches and acquisitions. Google may have not been involved much with manufacturing in the past, but the future seems more so.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but the tubesteak is right!
Good thing I don't use a VPN on my android phone! I might have been exposing my data!
Not that we know of, yet, on our limited time scale. For all we know, another planet seeded ours, through Panspermia.
Being a fully ordained Pastafarian Minister, and having paid the requisite $20, I am not only fully qualified but willing and eager to teach this class.
I object. The Theory of Unintelligent Design states that the universe is full of too many mistakes to have been happened by chance, and that the ceator was clearly drunk or stupid. It is well supported by the evidence. How else do you explain the platypus or Jar Jar Binks?!?
I'm fine with that. Teach that the vast overwhelming majority of the world's scientists support the theory of evolution by natural selection, a handful of people support intelligent design, and millions more support unintelligent design, the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. (Disclaimer: I am an ordained Pastafarian Minister)
Agree 1000%. There's some defintions of life out there, and some things like people and badgers and marigolds are clearly alive. But there's a smooth transition from us to molecules, and things like viruses are sometimes defined as living when it suits us and sometimes not. Then there's other complex adaptive systems like ecosystems, organizations, and Gaia that exhibit the same properties as any other living thing. I would agree that a virus is a living thing, and so is the world wide web, Anonymous, Wikipedia, planet Earth, et al.
Really?
No, but a car isn't alive because no car can self-replicate.
Who's the one straying off topic? A car isn't alive, not because of its inablity to self-replicate, but because it doesn't respond to stimuli, change in response to its envorinment, grow, etc. It's a simple machine. Life has stuck around for so long on Earth because it self-replicates, but that doesn't mean something needs to self-replicate in order for it to be alive. For me, whether this artificial cell can self-replicate has little bearing on its complexity. It can still be artificial life without that trait. Granted, ability to self replicate would make it more interesting.
I think some things have RNA instead of DNA. And some things that are non-living have DNA, like viruses (or viri? whatever).