Given the recent demonstration that the Encyclopedia Britannica is even more error-prone than Wikipedia, how can we trust those references? Not only that, but how can we trust that the author of the entry hasn't overloaded it with biased references, and omitted (or even removed) references with a bias other than the author's?
I think the AIDS cure scenario is more akin to requiring that a person work as a lifeguard down at the YMCA for minimum wage, on account of they know how to swim.
With the long-term result of nobody bothering to learn to swim, because hey, why be legally liable for all the lives you could be saving with your swimming skill but aren't because you'd rather be a lawyer instead?
For many countries out there, getting rid of their AIDS problem is way more valuable than any trade restriction that the US might impose.
It is not, however, so valuable that these same countries would consider investing their own resources in a cure. Much easier to exploit someone else's hard work, and play the victim whenever someone calls your lazy ass on it, I guess.
If by "owner" you mean the people that invested the money and did the hard work to make it happen, then I hope they can do whatever they please.
If you care so much about an affordable AIDS medicine, do the work yourself. Or at least offer the people willing to do the work something of equal value in exchange for their efforts.
Otherwise, you're just as guilty of putting profits ahead of humanitarian aid as those profit-minded researchers you vilify. Unless, of course, your day job already involves doing hard work for free to help the less fortunate, in which case a little self-righteousness is understandable, although still not strictly a good thing.
You left out the part where nanotechnology will be cheap and easy to use, allowing developing nations to quickly leapfrog their more advanced competitors, while at the same time the big risk of nanotechnology is that only one nation will have it, and that nation will use it to become a superpower.
Maybe it's just me, but hasn't the trend throughout history been that the cheaper and easier and more accessible something is, the harder it is for a single entity to control it?
Especially given that several nations are conducting this research independently of each other, which kinda makes the whole "ein volk, ein nanotechnologie, ein reich" boogeyman obsolete to begin with, neh?
Meh. The problems of today are political, not practical.
It's not a lack of agricultural production or transportation capacity that causes famines anymore, it's politics. In recent times, India has had food supply shortages but no famine due to good management of available resources. And Somalia has had food supply surpluses but rampant famine due to bad management of available resources. And that's just one example.
I figure, politics is good for solving a lot of problems in the world, but not all of them. It also causes a lot of problems. And since it's not going away, at least it can give us some space research as a side effect.
Actually, during the recent Tsunami, the U.S. Navy was first on the scene by several days. Within the first 24-48 hours, the American military-industrial complex was operating mobile desalinization plants, airlifts of humanitarian aid supplies to areas unreachable by ground, and hospital services. All of this was accomplished almost immediately, far in advance of any other aid agencies.
More recently, the U.S. military has been active in Pakistan providing aid to earthquake survivors there. In the refugee camps, "Chinook" has become a byword for the American supply helicopters--the same ones used to put boots on the ground--that bring them supplies on a daily basis.
These are only two examples. The fact is, we see humanitarian aid developed from military resources all the time.
In the U.S., anyway. How many mobile desalinization plants has the French Navy contributed to humanitarian work lately? How many mobile desalinization plants does the French Navy even own?
Dude, here, in the U.S. we oust the Powers that Be every two, six, and four to eight years.
The whole thing is done in public, with intense media coverage and participation. The Powers that Be and the Powers that Wish to Be participate openly in the proceedings, and each faction's ouster plans are hotly debated at all levels of our society for months and even years preceding an ouster event.
Hasn't "tapping one's allies" been an industry standard best practice ever since factions and allies were first invented, more than five thousand years ago?
Pot! So glad you could make it! Still black, I see.
I notice you attacked the style of my comment, rather than the substance. This is the difference between you, a pot, and me, a kettle: I adopt the style of a retarded high school chick because it amuses me to do so; I savor the delicious irony of making substantial points in an ignorant tone. You, on the other hand, have adopted the retarded high school chick style because you have nothing substantial to say; in your case the appearance of ignorance is a side effect of the fact that you're ignorant.
It's my understanding that Verizon is bandwidth usage to network media under its authority.
Likewise, it is my understanding that if Verizon did not have authority over the network media, it would not be able to control bandwidth usage on that media.
If I misunderstand anything, it would be the assignment of authority over different segments of network media, not the nature of the Commons.
The freedom of private individuals and groups to control access to the goods and services they provide, free from government interference, is exactly what Verizon enjoys right now, as do you and I.
You might as well try to convince me that I'm not truly "free" until I convince the government to force you to grant me access to your living room on whatever terms I dictate.
Your sarcasm implies that you believe that "killing people" is an unimportant thing.
Contrariwise, I'd argue that killing people is possibly one of the most important actions humans can undertake, and that it should be done with the best possible tools, if it should be done at all.
Actually, I'm of the opinion that, to the extent that humans were "meant" to do anything, we're certainly meant to fly in space. You and I share the same dream.
But I differentiate between "exploration"--something best done by probots--and "adventure"--something best done by humans.
But so what if prices are higher than they could be?
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those that would give up a little telecommunications liberty in exchange for temporary financial freedom deserve neither.
I mean, maybe if the telecom industry was a true government-run monopoly, and the U.S. was a true totalitarian fascist regime, and it was ruled by a thousand-year progression of benevolent dictators, then yeah, maybe the government could make a better telecom tomorrow for all of us.
I still think we'd be better off, in the short run and the long, by leaving the government out of it as long as we can. It's not a tame lion, after all, and never goes back into its cage as enthusiastically as it comes out.
Yes, yes! This is brilliant! Let's just keep adding government authority to the Internet until everybody plays nice!
Hrm.
Actually, wouldn't it make more sense to let Verizon do whatever the hell it wants, including lose all its customers by cutting off their Internet access?
Seems to me that Verizon's bad behavior already contains the solution to its own problem, and asking the government to intervene would be both redundant and retarded, on account of, well, it being the government and all.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the recent demonstration that the Encyclopedia Britannica is even more error-prone than Wikipedia, how can we trust those references? Not only that, but how can we trust that the author of the entry hasn't overloaded it with biased references, and omitted (or even removed) references with a bias other than the author's?
I think the AIDS cure scenario is more akin to requiring that a person work as a lifeguard down at the YMCA for minimum wage, on account of they know how to swim.
With the long-term result of nobody bothering to learn to swim, because hey, why be legally liable for all the lives you could be saving with your swimming skill but aren't because you'd rather be a lawyer instead?
For many countries out there, getting rid of their AIDS problem is way more valuable than any trade restriction that the US might impose.
It is not, however, so valuable that these same countries would consider investing their own resources in a cure. Much easier to exploit someone else's hard work, and play the victim whenever someone calls your lazy ass on it, I guess.
If by "owner" you mean the people that invested the money and did the hard work to make it happen, then I hope they can do whatever they please.
If you care so much about an affordable AIDS medicine, do the work yourself. Or at least offer the people willing to do the work something of equal value in exchange for their efforts.
Otherwise, you're just as guilty of putting profits ahead of humanitarian aid as those profit-minded researchers you vilify. Unless, of course, your day job already involves doing hard work for free to help the less fortunate, in which case a little self-righteousness is understandable, although still not strictly a good thing.
You left out the part where nanotechnology will be cheap and easy to use, allowing developing nations to quickly leapfrog their more advanced competitors, while at the same time the big risk of nanotechnology is that only one nation will have it, and that nation will use it to become a superpower.
Maybe it's just me, but hasn't the trend throughout history been that the cheaper and easier and more accessible something is, the harder it is for a single entity to control it?
Especially given that several nations are conducting this research independently of each other, which kinda makes the whole "ein volk, ein nanotechnologie, ein reich" boogeyman obsolete to begin with, neh?
Heck, I'm not even that sure how many space shuttles we have left, they keep blowing them up all the time.
Once every ten years or so, you mean?
Meh. The problems of today are political, not practical.
It's not a lack of agricultural production or transportation capacity that causes famines anymore, it's politics. In recent times, India has had food supply shortages but no famine due to good management of available resources. And Somalia has had food supply surpluses but rampant famine due to bad management of available resources. And that's just one example.
I figure, politics is good for solving a lot of problems in the world, but not all of them. It also causes a lot of problems. And since it's not going away, at least it can give us some space research as a side effect.
How do we know that the Wikipedia biography of Jim Wales is accurate?
Who is working on this shit anyway? Must be humans - right? Hmh...
Right, like the other animals wouldn't be working on the exact same shit, if they had opposable thumbs instead of built-in weapons.
What? You think Gazelle wouldn't trade their antlers and speed for a chance to frag a lion, if they only had the wit to figure out how?
Please. The flu virus mutates every season. Tell me that's not as sick a weapons development program as any arms race humans have ever put on.
Our military would never settle for a slow blimp, unless it's got anti-grav or some exotic weapon.
Kinda like how our military would never settle for a slow truck, unless it's got anti-grav or some exotic weapon?
How's this for an exotic weapon: Mastery of logistics.
Actually, during the recent Tsunami, the U.S. Navy was first on the scene by several days. Within the first 24-48 hours, the American military-industrial complex was operating mobile desalinization plants, airlifts of humanitarian aid supplies to areas unreachable by ground, and hospital services. All of this was accomplished almost immediately, far in advance of any other aid agencies.
More recently, the U.S. military has been active in Pakistan providing aid to earthquake survivors there. In the refugee camps, "Chinook" has become a byword for the American supply helicopters--the same ones used to put boots on the ground--that bring them supplies on a daily basis.
These are only two examples. The fact is, we see humanitarian aid developed from military resources all the time.
In the U.S., anyway. How many mobile desalinization plants has the French Navy contributed to humanitarian work lately? How many mobile desalinization plants does the French Navy even own?
Dude, here, in the U.S. we oust the Powers that Be every two, six, and four to eight years.
The whole thing is done in public, with intense media coverage and participation. The Powers that Be and the Powers that Wish to Be participate openly in the proceedings, and each faction's ouster plans are hotly debated at all levels of our society for months and even years preceding an ouster event.
Hasn't "tapping one's allies" been an industry standard best practice ever since factions and allies were first invented, more than five thousand years ago?
Pot! So glad you could make it! Still black, I see.
I notice you attacked the style of my comment, rather than the substance. This is the difference between you, a pot, and me, a kettle: I adopt the style of a retarded high school chick because it amuses me to do so; I savor the delicious irony of making substantial points in an ignorant tone. You, on the other hand, have adopted the retarded high school chick style because you have nothing substantial to say; in your case the appearance of ignorance is a side effect of the fact that you're ignorant.
I dispute your claim that Verizon's network media is part of the Commons.
If it turns out that Verizon does not actually have a claim of ownership over the media it controls, then I will concede your point.
It's my understanding that Verizon is bandwidth usage to network media under its authority.
Likewise, it is my understanding that if Verizon did not have authority over the network media, it would not be able to control bandwidth usage on that media.
If I misunderstand anything, it would be the assignment of authority over different segments of network media, not the nature of the Commons.
So where's your link to that?
No more so than I am about people getting involved in anything else.
The freedom of private individuals and groups to control access to the goods and services they provide, free from government interference, is exactly what Verizon enjoys right now, as do you and I.
You might as well try to convince me that I'm not truly "free" until I convince the government to force you to grant me access to your living room on whatever terms I dictate.
Your sarcasm implies that you believe that "killing people" is an unimportant thing.
Contrariwise, I'd argue that killing people is possibly one of the most important actions humans can undertake, and that it should be done with the best possible tools, if it should be done at all.
Actually, I'm of the opinion that, to the extent that humans were "meant" to do anything, we're certainly meant to fly in space. You and I share the same dream.
But I differentiate between "exploration"--something best done by probots--and "adventure"--something best done by humans.
Anyone else worried about militaries getting even more involved in space?
No more worried than I am about the military getting involved in any other area of human endeavor.
Might as well ask if I'm worried about people getting involved in space.
I thought astronauts were meant to gather valuable research data about humans living and working in space.
Space exploration is a job for probots, not people.
Yes, yes, yes.
But so what if prices are higher than they could be?
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those that would give up a little telecommunications liberty in exchange for temporary financial freedom deserve neither.
I mean, maybe if the telecom industry was a true government-run monopoly, and the U.S. was a true totalitarian fascist regime, and it was ruled by a thousand-year progression of benevolent dictators, then yeah, maybe the government could make a better telecom tomorrow for all of us.
I still think we'd be better off, in the short run and the long, by leaving the government out of it as long as we can. It's not a tame lion, after all, and never goes back into its cage as enthusiastically as it comes out.
Yes, yes! This is brilliant! Let's just keep adding government authority to the Internet until everybody plays nice!
Hrm.
Actually, wouldn't it make more sense to let Verizon do whatever the hell it wants, including lose all its customers by cutting off their Internet access?
Seems to me that Verizon's bad behavior already contains the solution to its own problem, and asking the government to intervene would be both redundant and retarded, on account of, well, it being the government and all.
So you're saying that we can make the Internet better by introducing more government oversight and regulation?
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to receive your newsletter.