Oh really? Last I checked, not very many people here pay the full price for medicine with their own cash. We have health insurance, medicare, medicaid, etc. to make sure that when people need medicine to avoid dying or getting sick, they can get it. That's the difference. In "some shithole country" the normal people don't have that sort of assistance. If they can't afford medicine, nobody's gonna come running to get it for them. They're basically screwed. That's just the way it works. If your idea of equality involves poor people dying because they can't afford medicine and nobody helps them pay for it, then maybe inequality ain't so bad.
That's true. But in this case, the publisher has essentially refused to take your money. The question is whether you have an obligation to pay a used-book store instead. I say that if both the creator and the publishing company has decided that they don't want my money, I'll fire up BitTorrent and get it for free. It might be different if the used-book store offered copied e-books (since local stores benefit the local economy), but since those copies would by definition be illegal copies, I see no real reason not to save a trip to the store and download it straight to my desk.
9 times out of 10, you can't get science without technology. There are exceptions, like theoretical mathematics and that sort of thing. Science and technology are intrinsically linked.
He wasn't trying to say that we should be afraid of science backfiring and killing people. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it best:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
then why are they blurring the pictures? or maybe they want us to think they're hiding it there when they really have it someplace else? haha > isn't conspiracy theory fun?
I also have noticed military installations being blurred while nearby areas are higher-res. Take, for example, the Fort Knox National Gold Vault. It's barely recognizable as a squarish pixelated gray blob, yet most of the rest of the fort is perfectly visible. I'm not really surprised, after all, there are thousands of tons of solid gold inside that building, so keeping it under wraps makes sense. But the idea that decent resolution satellite images of high-security military installations would be available to the public is blatantly absurd. Ten years ago, the only people with access to satellite images like the ones in Google Maps were government agencies and possibly a few others. Who really thinks that the government is going to hand over aerial pictures without covering its bases first? (pun intended) I don't.
This is very disturbing. I stopped using public libraries years ago. I either buy used books, download e-books, or "borrow" books from the library, read them, and return them on my own time. I do not want the federal government knowing what I read about. Why?
Because it's so easy for a list of book titles to be extrapolated into something it's not. Say I check out a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook for research into the rebellious attitudes if the 70's. Say I also check out a book about Osama bin Laden because I want to learn about the most wanted man on earth. Say I also check out a book about the construction of the White House.
What could be extrapolated from that? That I could be a proto-terrorist building a bomb to kill the president. All they would have to do is read my checkout queue. And it seems that those who supposedly stand for free access to information are beginning to go along with Uncle Sam now too. This just convinces me further that I should not be checking out books from libraries.
The iris scans seem benign to me. I'm not entirely sure how they would scan the insides of your eyeballs without your consent, at least for now. What concerns me is the facial scans. I have a feeling that this is more than just pictures like on a passport. I'm thinking more along the lines of a virtual model of one's physical features, possibly built from various images into a kind of 3-D composite. There are a few problems with this. One is that you could be mistaken for someone else (obviously). Another is that this would only work with a very sophisticated camera surveillance system, or what would be the point? So this could mean that the government is planning to really step up their surveillance program. And of course they'll give us the same bullshit about fighting violent crime and terrorism, and people will eat it up. And then there will be cameras everywhere, like in China. That's what really scares me about this.
So basically, these people want $500 for what amounts to eight thin wires and some plastic? They could've made them out of pure silver and saved some money, considering silver is like 20 dollars per ounce. And does anyone really think that woven jacketing and tin shielding justify the rest of the price? I'd bet they spend about $50 making this and then just go and rip people off. Thanks, but I'll be sticking to my 99-cent ethernet cable.
So, you think that religious leaders are going to tell their legions of followers to go out and KILL KILL KILL in order to stop Provigil and Ritalin?
I sure hope not. But historically they sure seem willing to kill over much less, such as that the neighbors call god by a different name, or that the existence of other religions prevents the return of god and the others need to be exterminated. And if god made us in his perfect image, those who improve on it are effectively saying they can make better beings than god... something tells me that wouldn't be taken lightly.
Why are these things legal when the population opposes them? The court system, of course. A person in a black robe can effectively dictate laws to the popular masses.
And the religions have one weapon that no corporation or political figure can wield. If they can convince someone that doing something will bring someone eternal ecstasy or eternal damnation, they can make that person do anything. Most of the most horrific wars and killings in history have been brought about by religions telling their followers that god wanted them to go kill people.
And nobody I know of is willing to martyr themselves for Halliburton, Wal-Mart or Exxon.
These drugs would be immensely beneficial to the human race. And what sane person wouldn't want to be smarter? Unfortunately, they will be opposed by very powerful religious and conservative forces. it will probably devolve into a cyclic, pointless, and unyielding debate like the one about abortion.
Caffeine is one of these substances; probably the most widely available, too. Personally I can think faster, clearer, and longer with about 300mg of caffeine in me. Unfortunately, I'm getting tolerant to it now...:(
Regardless, these drugs have the possibility to change the world. Hopefully people will get these things on the market in time for my SATs!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? Last I checked, not very many people here pay the full price for medicine with their own cash. We have health insurance, medicare, medicaid, etc. to make sure that when people need medicine to avoid dying or getting sick, they can get it. That's the difference. In "some shithole country" the normal people don't have that sort of assistance. If they can't afford medicine, nobody's gonna come running to get it for them. They're basically screwed. That's just the way it works. If your idea of equality involves poor people dying because they can't afford medicine and nobody helps them pay for it, then maybe inequality ain't so bad.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
That's true. But in this case, the publisher has essentially refused to take your money. The question is whether you have an obligation to pay a used-book store instead. I say that if both the creator and the publishing company has decided that they don't want my money, I'll fire up BitTorrent and get it for free. It might be different if the used-book store offered copied e-books (since local stores benefit the local economy), but since those copies would by definition be illegal copies, I see no real reason not to save a trip to the store and download it straight to my desk.
9 times out of 10, you can't get science without technology. There are exceptions, like theoretical mathematics and that sort of thing. Science and technology are intrinsically linked.
He wasn't trying to say that we should be afraid of science backfiring and killing people. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it best: "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
then why are they blurring the pictures? or maybe they want us to think they're hiding it there when they really have it someplace else? haha > isn't conspiracy theory fun?
I also have noticed military installations being blurred while nearby areas are higher-res. Take, for example, the Fort Knox National Gold Vault. It's barely recognizable as a squarish pixelated gray blob, yet most of the rest of the fort is perfectly visible. I'm not really surprised, after all, there are thousands of tons of solid gold inside that building, so keeping it under wraps makes sense. But the idea that decent resolution satellite images of high-security military installations would be available to the public is blatantly absurd. Ten years ago, the only people with access to satellite images like the ones in Google Maps were government agencies and possibly a few others. Who really thinks that the government is going to hand over aerial pictures without covering its bases first? (pun intended) I don't.
This is very disturbing. I stopped using public libraries years ago. I either buy used books, download e-books, or "borrow" books from the library, read them, and return them on my own time. I do not want the federal government knowing what I read about. Why?
Because it's so easy for a list of book titles to be extrapolated into something it's not. Say I check out a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook for research into the rebellious attitudes if the 70's. Say I also check out a book about Osama bin Laden because I want to learn about the most wanted man on earth. Say I also check out a book about the construction of the White House.
What could be extrapolated from that? That I could be a proto-terrorist building a bomb to kill the president. All they would have to do is read my checkout queue. And it seems that those who supposedly stand for free access to information are beginning to go along with Uncle Sam now too. This just convinces me further that I should not be checking out books from libraries.
The iris scans seem benign to me. I'm not entirely sure how they would scan the insides of your eyeballs without your consent, at least for now. What concerns me is the facial scans. I have a feeling that this is more than just pictures like on a passport. I'm thinking more along the lines of a virtual model of one's physical features, possibly built from various images into a kind of 3-D composite. There are a few problems with this. One is that you could be mistaken for someone else (obviously). Another is that this would only work with a very sophisticated camera surveillance system, or what would be the point? So this could mean that the government is planning to really step up their surveillance program. And of course they'll give us the same bullshit about fighting violent crime and terrorism, and people will eat it up. And then there will be cameras everywhere, like in China. That's what really scares me about this.
So basically, these people want $500 for what amounts to eight thin wires and some plastic? They could've made them out of pure silver and saved some money, considering silver is like 20 dollars per ounce. And does anyone really think that woven jacketing and tin shielding justify the rest of the price? I'd bet they spend about $50 making this and then just go and rip people off. Thanks, but I'll be sticking to my 99-cent ethernet cable.
I sure hope not. But historically they sure seem willing to kill over much less, such as that the neighbors call god by a different name, or that the existence of other religions prevents the return of god and the others need to be exterminated. And if god made us in his perfect image, those who improve on it are effectively saying they can make better beings than god... something tells me that wouldn't be taken lightly.
Why are these things legal when the population opposes them? The court system, of course. A person in a black robe can effectively dictate laws to the popular masses.
And the religions have one weapon that no corporation or political figure can wield. If they can convince someone that doing something will bring someone eternal ecstasy or eternal damnation, they can make that person do anything. Most of the most horrific wars and killings in history have been brought about by religions telling their followers that god wanted them to go kill people.
And nobody I know of is willing to martyr themselves for Halliburton, Wal-Mart or Exxon.
These drugs would be immensely beneficial to the human race. And what sane person wouldn't want to be smarter? Unfortunately, they will be opposed by very powerful religious and conservative forces. it will probably devolve into a cyclic, pointless, and unyielding debate like the one about abortion.
:(
Caffeine is one of these substances; probably the most widely available, too. Personally I can think faster, clearer, and longer with about 300mg of caffeine in me. Unfortunately, I'm getting tolerant to it now...
Regardless, these drugs have the possibility to change the world. Hopefully people will get these things on the market in time for my SATs!