This reminds me of some cool photos I saw of a human ear growing on a mouse's back.
But really, what is the degree of dehumanization that we suffer from scientific advance? Were we made less "human" when Jenner worked on smallpox or Salk established preventive measures against polio? I would dare say that, regardless of how a person sees scientific advance currently, they would dare not declare that they wish to go back to the day when outbreaks and plagues cost hundreds of thousands of lives annually and kept the average lifespan around age 35.
So what about now? Science is necessarily dispassionate in its advance and this is its strength. And if science moves objectively and empirically toward a solution to nervous damange that involves transplantation or whatever, then so be it.
And in 20 years, I'll bet nobody will complain that grandma got 15 more good years to spend with her family because of an effective treatment discovered for stroke that some people back then thought was scary and dehumanizing.
This is neat stuff. Perhaps the transplantation of basic cells (like marrow stem cells in this case) will become the wave of the future.
This sort of thing has already been done with with Parkinson's disease with some success. Cell transplantation into the pancreas is also one of the cures (yes, a real cure) in the work for diabetes.
I'm always excited when we learn that previously uncurable, unfixable problems suddenly can be patched up no problem. Lots of docs out there will still tell you that nervous tissue does not regenerate under any condition
This is great news...
Now we just need to clone Arnold Schwarzenegger and send the clone to mars to unlock the secret alien oxygen generator. Soon, Mars will be a utopia...
Wait. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place for science news.
Oh, I see. And because of this, some sort of symbolic, "I enjoy slumming with the huddled masses," activity (yes, the attitude is clear from your verbage), it's ok to feel extra special and qualified to pass judgement on someone else's behavior.
If people would take more time to consider the personal relevance that a given activity might have for another, perhaps they wouldn't make foolish comments like this. Not that I don't appreciate the irony that this post contains (though I don't think the poster realized it).
It certainly doesn't detract from the kicks that I get from taunting my former social opponents.
This sure brings back memories. I am in my late 20's and I just had the opportunity to attend my 10 year high school reunion.
It was quite an experience. Most interesting of all were the folks who were the more popular sorts during the high school years. Many of them were fat. Some worked in business doing sales or whatnot. A number were involved in real estate. A few were already divorced. Oddly, none seemed to be especially satisfied with what they had accomplished in their post-high school days.
I, having been a steadfast geek since before HS, made sure everyone addressed me as "Doctor."
It goes down as one of my most satisfying high school experiences.
This is the sort of thing that is bound to happen when countries give the big ok on the a priori assumption of guilt.
While the US does have many many flaws in its governmental and legal system (gee..just look at the mess we're in now), the law is bound with the presumption of innocence. Even though I realize that this doesn't always lead to fair and equal treatment for all, it is a principle we must lean on heavily if this sort of fee is pushed in the US.
I hate to respond to clear Flamebait drivel, but there is an important principle here that has to be highlighted:
The legal system is neither above or below technology. In fact, the legal system does not exist for the hell of it. Nor does it exist for lawyers and judges. It exists to enforce the law where disagreements arise between people (in cases like these). In that sense, the law and legal system is in service of the people who it affects and protects. A law or judgement that is otherwise is neither sensible or valid.
It's like saying to potential homebuyers, "Sorry, only lawyers and doctors can live on this street. You'll have to live in the part of town for regular folks."
The point you raise is certainly valid. In fact, I believe that Kaplan did understand the technology, per se, in rendering his opinion.
However, I see the open source movement and, perhaps, the "Average Slashdot Reader" as something that has extended at least a bit beyond technology into a community/subculture. When a judge makes statements lumping Hackers, Crackers, and Open Source proponents into the same group, he clearly does not have a handle on what this group is about or the subcultural issues that may come to play here.
For the DeCSS case, the open source movement as a subculture is certainly at issue as much as the technology.
By reading about Kaplan and some of the other judges who have ruled on these tech/coding cases like the DeCSS business, I wonder how qualified most judges are to rule on technology...
I understand that their primary training and expertise must be in law, but law always exists within a context. Much of the judicial system is made up of older judges who are only marginally competent with technology and who are clearly outside of the context of the internet, open source movement, and so on. Yet they end up ruling on a social subculture using external and often ill-fitting norms and standards.
Really now... would you buy the first judge you looked at? Clearly, it's wise to shop around a little bit first. Compare prices. Contrast features. Make sure the judge you buy is a value.
At present, the voting system in the US is robust when there is a large margin but very weak with close races. While counting may be a simple process, it becomes very error-prone when the numbers go into the tens of millions. So I have a simple solution in mind. Perhaps more resource intensive, but I think worth it.
First of all, use some sort of electronic medium to cast votes. In my county, for example, we voted on LCD notepads that aren't succeptible to these hole-punch, dangling tab issues. These votes can be tabulated quickly and accurately.
The second part (and an important part for those folks who tend to get confused by some ballots). Here it is: Each voter casts three votes. Each vote would be cast on a different ballot layout and when all things are done, the computer would present any inconsistencies to the voter to be resolved. While this may take voters two or three times as long to cast their vote, it would make voting more stupid-proof(which we definitely need) and increase reliability and accuracy vastly.
First of all, let me say that I like well-made, coherent, and deeply meaningful movies as much as any stiff-necked critic.
We run into a problem, however when we apply the same standard to all movies. For example, if I were to watch The Matrix and expect American Beauty I would be sorely disappointed. And I would miss the enjoyment of a great movie.
The difference, and I think most people apply this to some extent, is that I go into different movies with different expectations. I enjoyed Waterworld --Believe it or not! But I went to the movie (granted, I payed $1.50 at a late-run theatre) with knowledge that the movie was considered a bomb. However, I expected a little half-assed fantasy and some nifty special effects. I got just what I expected, plus the bonus of seeing Costner drink his own urine...
Anyway, the point is that you can enojoy a much broader range of movies if you go into each one with appropriate expectations.
Regardless of whether this was a hoax or misinformation, the disturbing fact remains that nobody was surprised to hear that AOL was assuming control of yet another aspect of users' machines.
Personally, I think any and all information that is on the internet should be considered "protected." From the truly useful to society, to the geek interest sites, to pure trash.
To do otherwise would be to diminish the beauty of a free exchange of ideas that we currently have.
I'm working on a new system to scan all host-scanning systems out there. On every scan initiated by my system, which I call geoFUBAR the host-scanning system is scanned about 2million times/sec for a few minutes.
It may melt a few servers, but it generates remarkably accurate data. I don't expect any legal troubles.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of some cool photos I saw of a human ear growing on a mouse's back.
But really, what is the degree of dehumanization that we suffer from scientific advance? Were we made less "human" when Jenner worked on smallpox or Salk established preventive measures against polio? I would dare say that, regardless of how a person sees scientific advance currently, they would dare not declare that they wish to go back to the day when outbreaks and plagues cost hundreds of thousands of lives annually and kept the average lifespan around age 35.
So what about now? Science is necessarily dispassionate in its advance and this is its strength. And if science moves objectively and empirically toward a solution to nervous damange that involves transplantation or whatever, then so be it.
And in 20 years, I'll bet nobody will complain that grandma got 15 more good years to spend with her family because of an effective treatment discovered for stroke that some people back then thought was scary and dehumanizing.
This is neat stuff. Perhaps the transplantation of basic cells (like marrow stem cells in this case) will become the wave of the future.
This sort of thing has already been done with with Parkinson's disease with some success. Cell transplantation into the pancreas is also one of the cures (yes, a real cure) in the work for diabetes.
I'm always excited when we learn that previously uncurable, unfixable problems suddenly can be patched up no problem. Lots of docs out there will still tell you that nervous tissue does not regenerate under any condition
This is great news...
Now we just need to clone Arnold Schwarzenegger and send the clone to mars to unlock the secret alien oxygen generator. Soon, Mars will be a utopia...
Wait. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place for science news.
Oh, I see. And because of this, some sort of symbolic, "I enjoy slumming with the huddled masses," activity (yes, the attitude is clear from your verbage), it's ok to feel extra special and qualified to pass judgement on someone else's behavior.
If people would take more time to consider the personal relevance that a given activity might have for another, perhaps they wouldn't make foolish comments like this. Not that I don't appreciate the irony that this post contains (though I don't think the poster realized it).
It certainly doesn't detract from the kicks that I get from taunting my former social opponents.
Take your medication and go back to work.
This sure brings back memories. I am in my late 20's and I just had the opportunity to attend my 10 year high school reunion.
It was quite an experience. Most interesting of all were the folks who were the more popular sorts during the high school years. Many of them were fat. Some worked in business doing sales or whatnot. A number were involved in real estate. A few were already divorced. Oddly, none seemed to be especially satisfied with what they had accomplished in their post-high school days.
I, having been a steadfast geek since before HS, made sure everyone addressed me as "Doctor."
It goes down as one of my most satisfying high school experiences.
Poor guy..
Looks like his life so far has been all about gaming gaming gaming.
Now he's selling it all. Giving it all up. Sad really.
He must be getting married.
I think we need a
This is the sort of thing that is bound to happen when countries give the big ok on the a priori assumption of guilt.
While the US does have many many flaws in its governmental and legal system (gee..just look at the mess we're in now), the law is bound with the presumption of innocence. Even though I realize that this doesn't always lead to fair and equal treatment for all, it is a principle we must lean on heavily if this sort of fee is pushed in the US.
The list included "sneakiest moves," so I would suggest adding:
#11 Cornering the PC market with Microsoft.
Perhaps it's good business, but it's damned scary. Nobody bats an eye when someone else writes "Wintel."
Put some breasts on this thing, teach it a few new tricks, and we will have a winner!
I hate to respond to clear Flamebait drivel, but there is an important principle here that has to be highlighted:
The legal system is neither above or below technology. In fact, the legal system does not exist for the hell of it. Nor does it exist for lawyers and judges. It exists to enforce the law where disagreements arise between people (in cases like these). In that sense, the law and legal system is in service of the people who it affects and protects. A law or judgement that is otherwise is neither sensible or valid.
Man... that's crappy.
It's like saying to potential homebuyers, "Sorry, only lawyers and doctors can live on this street. You'll have to live in the part of town for regular folks."
The point you raise is certainly valid. In fact, I believe that Kaplan did understand the technology, per se, in rendering his opinion.
However, I see the open source movement and, perhaps, the "Average Slashdot Reader" as something that has extended at least a bit beyond technology into a community/subculture. When a judge makes statements lumping Hackers, Crackers, and Open Source proponents into the same group, he clearly does not have a handle on what this group is about or the subcultural issues that may come to play here.
For the DeCSS case, the open source movement as a subculture is certainly at issue as much as the technology.
By reading about Kaplan and some of the other judges who have ruled on these tech/coding cases like the DeCSS business, I wonder how qualified most judges are to rule on technology...
I understand that their primary training and expertise must be in law, but law always exists within a context. Much of the judicial system is made up of older judges who are only marginally competent with technology and who are clearly outside of the context of the internet, open source movement, and so on. Yet they end up ruling on a social subculture using external and often ill-fitting norms and standards.
But what can we do?
Perhaps Yahoo is just trying to generate more revenue to pay for all the television spots they've been buying.
Really now... would you buy the first judge you looked at? Clearly, it's wise to shop around a little bit first. Compare prices. Contrast features. Make sure the judge you buy is a value.
Great! This is just fabulous.
With internet servers going up in satellites, the next thing you know, the earth's orbit will be clouded with porn servers.
Is it just me, or do we get closer and closer to Gibson's grim notion of the future?
Next thing you know, the wealthy corporate types will be buying gene sequences to make their children beautiful and intelligent.
I swear, that man must be a prophet.
At present, the voting system in the US is robust when there is a large margin but very weak with close races. While counting may be a simple process, it becomes very error-prone when the numbers go into the tens of millions. So I have a simple solution in mind. Perhaps more resource intensive, but I think worth it.
First of all, use some sort of electronic medium to cast votes. In my county, for example, we voted on LCD notepads that aren't succeptible to these hole-punch, dangling tab issues. These votes can be tabulated quickly and accurately.
The second part (and an important part for those folks who tend to get confused by some ballots). Here it is: Each voter casts three votes. Each vote would be cast on a different ballot layout and when all things are done, the computer would present any inconsistencies to the voter to be resolved. While this may take voters two or three times as long to cast their vote, it would make voting more stupid-proof(which we definitely need) and increase reliability and accuracy vastly.
First of all, let me say that I like well-made, coherent, and deeply meaningful movies as much as any stiff-necked critic.
We run into a problem, however when we apply the same standard to all movies. For example, if I were to watch The Matrix and expect American Beauty I would be sorely disappointed. And I would miss the enjoyment of a great movie.
The difference, and I think most people apply this to some extent, is that I go into different movies with different expectations. I enjoyed Waterworld --Believe it or not! But I went to the movie (granted, I payed $1.50 at a late-run theatre) with knowledge that the movie was considered a bomb. However, I expected a little half-assed fantasy and some nifty special effects. I got just what I expected, plus the bonus of seeing Costner drink his own urine...
Anyway, the point is that you can enojoy a much broader range of movies if you go into each one with appropriate expectations.
Stupid star...
Too dense to take its time and look around a little.
Imagine if your power company also marketed and sold household appliances, tvs, computer equipment, and so forth.
What would happen if they said to their competition, "No, you cannot use our power grid to run your devices. It is an infringement on our rights!"
Gee.. wouldn't that be wacky and interesting?
Regardless of whether this was a hoax or misinformation, the disturbing fact remains that nobody was surprised to hear that AOL was assuming control of yet another aspect of users' machines.
Personally, I think any and all information that is on the internet should be considered "protected." From the truly useful to society, to the geek interest sites, to pure trash.
To do otherwise would be to diminish the beauty of a free exchange of ideas that we currently have.
I'm working on a new system to scan all host-scanning systems out there. On every scan initiated by my system, which I call geoFUBAR the host-scanning system is scanned about 2million times/sec for a few minutes.
It may melt a few servers, but it generates remarkably accurate data. I don't expect any legal troubles.