The "technology" for controlling others has been around since the dawn of time. It's called persuasive speech.
It's not so much that people seeing the negatives of technology bother me, it's just that they don't come up with more realistic examples (sorry, citing the X-files as a source of "It could happen!" doesn't do it for me).
So, here's a "realistic" bad thing that could be done with this technology, and you wouldn't need that many implanted: seizures on command, and pretty bad ones at that. Use *that* to control people (trust me, having one Grand Mal seizure will make you do pretty much anything not to have another.)
It's a toy. Just a toy. It's not really going to replace living things (unless it was a LOT more sophisticated) in anyone's heart or mind.
That said, I'd love to have one, if only to hack it and make it do things other than the designers intended. But as a pet? Sad. Truly, truly sad.
I don't think anyone is seriously thinking it would provide companionship. Hell, if you want mechanical companionship that's under $2000, just get a vibrator.
Now, not everyone is technically savvy as your common/. user, but I would think these people would just buy the real DVD rather than a degrading one.
Two things... 1) I used to buy VHS tapes without worrying overmuch about whether or not I really, really wanted them. *sigh* Actually *bought* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3 ($8.99, damn you, Wallgreens!) With DVD, I notice that I'm tremendously more discriminating in what I'll buy vs. rent. A quick poll of the cube-farm indicates that my coworkers are similar.
2) I always spend too much on late fees. I hate being limited to "next day" or whatever returns, since I often can't find the time to watch a rental right away cause something comes up. I like the "When you start to watch, your rental time starts" aspect of this for that reason.
The only thing I don't like is the idea of what to do with the depleted disks. Can they be returned ala coke bottles of old for a nickel deposit and then refurbished? I think they'll do wonders for the time constrained and the lazy, but I don't wanna see the earth rendered into a polluted wasteland just so I can avoid returning "Mystery Men" in the middle of a blizzard.
While recent advances have made it possible for the blind to have partial vision, look at the techniques used. The equipment is cumbersome and not nearly as effective as the human body. The most powerful computers cannot begin to model the folding of proteins that naturally occurs. The bottom line is that nature is excellent at finding optimum solutions to the point current technology only begins to rival nature.
Sure, *current* technology. 20 years from now, however? Who can say?
The thing that gets me is that many people seem to have reverance for the way nature does things, kind of like "this is the way it's always been done, therefore this is the best way."
That makes no sense on the face of it. If we just lived "naturally," we'd all be dead by about 40, 45 tops, crippled by minor injuries, etc.
As to how this is relevant to the issue of something as complex as genetic improvement, well, what is DNA except for a remarkably (by today's standards) code? What are genes but tricky, semi-tempermental ways to send that information?
Let me put this into quasi-programmer jargon: Evolution/nature's methods of genetic improvement are about as efficient and effective as bubble sorting (and poorly done bubble sorting, at that).
Nature has design faults that would never be tolerated in a properly run project. Appendix?! WTF! Cross-linking and cell-replication errors? Cancers? Didn't anybody friggin beta-test this thing?
Anyway, to get off the rant... Sure, it does something pretty cool *now,* but if intelligent design were involved from the git-go, we'd be in a much better place.
Nature has been at this for a long long time, and I suspect that it's figured out the best methods for handling the improvement of genes.
Nature isn't all that efficient/good at finding optimal solutions, actually. The human body is riddled with what, if it was engineered rather than evolved, could only be called kludge. (Check out the way our eyes and gonads work, for example)
Evolution is a process of cumulative nudges (and sometimes giant leaps), and we all know what you wind up with when you just pour new work on top of old: legacy systems, in this case legacy genes. How much genetic garbage is in our DNA?
I agree that we don't yet know the full ramifications (hell, we don't even have the full genome mapped *yet*) of tinkering with parts of our genetic code, but I don't agree that "natural design" is at all efficient.
Anyone else think billions of sperm to fertilize *one* egg is innefficient?
Slashdot Mirror
The "technology" for controlling others has been around since the dawn of time. It's called persuasive speech.
It's not so much that people seeing the negatives of technology bother me, it's just that they don't come up with more realistic examples (sorry, citing the X-files as a source of "It could happen!" doesn't do it for me).
So, here's a "realistic" bad thing that could be done with this technology, and you wouldn't need that many implanted: seizures on command, and pretty bad ones at that. Use *that* to control people (trust me, having one Grand Mal seizure will make you do pretty much anything not to have another.)
Shmoo
Just an FYI, but Haldeman's got "Forever Free" out now. It's the conclusion to "Forever War".
Anyone read James Halperin's "Truth Machine" or "First Immortal" ?
I ate grits this morning, but did not put them down my pants. Shmoooooo.
It's a toy. Just a toy. It's not really going to replace living things (unless it was a LOT more sophisticated) in anyone's heart or mind.
That said, I'd love to have one, if only to hack it and make it do things other than the designers intended. But as a pet? Sad. Truly, truly sad.
I don't think anyone is seriously thinking it would provide companionship. Hell, if you want mechanical companionship that's under $2000, just get a vibrator.
Or, go to (icky) realdoll. Now *that's* sad.
I am the Shmoo. Ku-ku-ka-choo.
Now, not everyone is technically savvy as your common /. user, but I would think these people would just buy the real DVD rather than a degrading one.
Two things...
1) I used to buy VHS tapes without worrying overmuch about whether or not I really, really wanted them. *sigh* Actually *bought* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3 ($8.99, damn you, Wallgreens!) With DVD, I notice that I'm tremendously more discriminating in what I'll buy vs. rent. A quick poll of the cube-farm indicates that my coworkers are similar.
2) I always spend too much on late fees. I hate being limited to "next day" or whatever returns, since I often can't find the time to watch a rental right away cause something comes up. I like the "When you start to watch, your rental time starts" aspect of this for that reason.
The only thing I don't like is the idea of what to do with the depleted disks. Can they be returned ala coke bottles of old for a nickel deposit and then refurbished? I think they'll do wonders for the time constrained and the lazy, but I don't wanna see the earth rendered into a polluted wasteland just so I can avoid returning "Mystery Men" in the middle of a blizzard.
While recent advances have made it possible for the blind to have partial vision, look at the techniques used. The equipment is cumbersome and not nearly as effective as the human body. The most powerful computers cannot begin to model the folding of proteins that naturally occurs. The bottom line is that nature is excellent at finding optimum solutions to the point current technology only begins to rival nature.
Sure, *current* technology. 20 years from now, however? Who can say?
The thing that gets me is that many people seem to have reverance for the way nature does things, kind of like "this is the way it's always been done, therefore this is the best way."
That makes no sense on the face of it. If we just lived "naturally," we'd all be dead by about 40, 45 tops, crippled by minor injuries, etc.
As to how this is relevant to the issue of something as complex as genetic improvement, well, what is DNA except for a remarkably (by today's standards) code? What are genes but tricky, semi-tempermental ways to send that information?
Let me put this into quasi-programmer jargon:
Evolution/nature's methods of genetic improvement are about as efficient and effective as bubble sorting (and poorly done bubble sorting, at that).
Nature has design faults that would never be tolerated in a properly run project. Appendix?! WTF! Cross-linking and cell-replication errors? Cancers? Didn't anybody friggin beta-test this thing?
Anyway, to get off the rant... Sure, it does something pretty cool *now,* but if intelligent design were involved from the git-go, we'd be in a much better place.
Nature has been at this for a long long time, and I suspect that it's figured out the best methods for handling the improvement of genes.
Nature isn't all that efficient/good at finding optimal solutions, actually. The human body is riddled with what, if it was engineered rather than evolved, could only be called kludge. (Check out the way our eyes and gonads work, for example)
Evolution is a process of cumulative nudges (and sometimes giant leaps), and we all know what you wind up with when you just pour new work on top of old: legacy systems, in this case legacy genes. How much genetic garbage is in our DNA?
I agree that we don't yet know the full ramifications (hell, we don't even have the full genome mapped *yet*) of tinkering with parts of our genetic code, but I don't agree that "natural design" is at all efficient.
Anyone else think billions of sperm to fertilize *one* egg is innefficient?