I'm not saying Thz won't help us eventually reach brain-type computing; what I AM saying is that an ultrafast microprocessor is not going to result a priori in a "thinking machine"...
Recall that the magic of the human brain is not a single blinding fast unit; rather it is by _MAsSiVe_PaRrAlLeLiSm_ that we believe our brains do all that info-crunching.
I agree that the human brain is not a blindlingly fast sequential processing unit, but I think there are several 'secrets' that are often overlooked in 'human brain as thinking machine'
1) We define the problem and the successful outputs. In other words, we humans may be terminally screwed up in how we perceive and analyze our environment or computational problems, but we will *not* accept a machine as "thinking" until it is approximately as screwed up, and in the same peculiar ways as we are.
2) We have highly specialized circuitry for most subtasks like vision, memory, verbal and nonverbal language(nuance, inflection)... we don't even understand what all the tasks are yet. This is not massively parallel processing, it's more like my kitchen (which can toast bread in the toaster, make coffee in the percolator, cook eggs on the stove, preserve food in the 'fridge, and warm a danish in the microwave, clean last nights dishes in the diswasher, and dispense me a glass of water at the same time).
3) While these circuits are complex and specialized, evolution doesn't (strictly speaking) optimize anything by any objective standard. you may argue that we 'out-competed' some other species (say neanderthals), but the very task at which we 'outcompeted' them is undefined. it might be something as trivial as being less susceptible to the Great Mastodon Flu of 50,000BC or having a slick print shop who let us get our IPO brochures out faster.
4) this brings us back to #1: we don't recognize anything as thinking that doesn't closely match our own screwed up thinking. Once upon a time, doing math was enough - but they beat us blotto at that. Then it was chess. Similarly blotto. Then it was conversation (the turing test), which *guess what* means simulating us.
Soon "thinking" will mean the ability to surf pr0n with your left hand, while flaming M$ with your right (without wondering, as a sensible Flesh-o-matic 2020 might, why you were flaming M$ instead of.. never mind)
The article stated "switching arrays running at 100 terahertz", but as many of you seem to have grasped intuitively, this is actually misleading or inaccurate.
For the record, as far as I can tell, after a little background surfing, and some BOTE calculations (similar calulations were often 'background exercises' for the student of molecular biology ) it appears they are talking about:
10 femtosecond (e-14) switching times NOT an operating speed of 100 terahertz (e14) The term "femtosecond switching" will allow you to more accurately find existing work in the field. Switching in sub-10 femtosecond range has been around for years, at this same 'bench theory' level of investigation.
This is a very interesting piece of work, but hardly a breakthrough when 2 femtosecond capacitor switching was announced in 1997 (I had my doubts then, but didn't check it out) and 2-5 femtosecond laser optical switching has probably been around even longer
You can immediately deduct 1+ order of magnitude from the risetime to get a practical operating speed (you want digital square waves, not sawtooths, right?) even when this switching speed becomes a practical reality.
You can also deduct a few orders of magnitude from the operating speed of a single switch to the operating speed of a CPU or RAM. Think about how many sequential transistor operations there are in a single RAM bit (on-chip, on-card, and system transistors)
And now, as a public service to those of you who need a refresher (we'll all need these terms soon enough)
A few press releases, and they could raise prices and make themselves more attractive to the intended core audience.
What would the target audience think when they hear... (just one spin of many)
"In a world where computer prices are always dropping, computer [geeks] have begged one [city] start-up to quadruple prices, just to get their hands on them. They're called i-Opener, and here's their story... [cut to reporter. interviews include]
[Obvious techie: They were targetted at a non-technical market, but the design was so cool -- and was expandable. When world got out, the hardware types basically bought every machine on the market in two days. I know *I* want one. ]
[Lots of sexy promo footage]
[i-Opener spokesperson: Everyone loves them. We were buried in requests for more. We've decided to make a version of our product available to the technical hobbyist, at a competitive price. It has a few internal hobbyist connectors and the option for a different processor, but it's the same unit.
"But we started this computer to be an ultra-easy convenient and, okay, stylish way for ordinary people to use the internet, without having to learn all that computer stuff We're loyal to our original customers -- the casual home internet user -- and will continue to sell our units at our original bargain price of $100 to anyone who signs our x-year internet user contract. You'll need that internet connection anyway, so we think that is a fair way to tell if you're the type of home internet user we started this company for.
"These units are hot, though. We're fighting to keep prices down this summer, but after that... well, with people already snapping them up at four times the price... well, we can only make some many of these things, and this will be a hot Christmas item. If you want some for the grandkids, better get them now]
Take-home for the layman (target market):
This hot hot hot gadget is cheap, and the geeks are fighting over them like cabbage patch dolls. But I can get one for just $100.
They keep saying its easy. It sure looks easy. Maybe I can use one without my neighbors laughing after me -- I mean even hackers use them! It does look kinda cool.
The company sounds nice, too. They're not milking us. That's unusual. Maybe I should buy their stock
Also, are we ever going to find out why slashdot.org was down so long the other day?
Actually, I was very curious about that myself, considering that the slashdot stats claim an uptime of 77 days.
I wouldn't say we're in a position to demand answers, but I've very surprised they haven't been forthcoming, especially since it sounds like it was just a communication link outage.
How do you learn that the author of a manifesto isn't the nutcase your downloaded file makes him seem?
Or that the new scientific theory/application (which the gov't intends to seize and classify, since as a citizen, you and your works are its property - strained, yes, but that's how it works) isn't flawed [Science see a lot more 'incorrect' breakthroughs than correct ones, every year]
Or that the file you downloaded has a 6-mo timebomb?
Ever since I first heard of FreeNet, I've been trying to come up with some 'clean room' attacks (i.e. I don't read the FreeNet discussions)
Here's one I call 'The Info Blockade' that is along the lines you describe, but uses specific Freenet features to defeat FreeNet:
1) Imagine a file that a government wishes to block within its borders (a manifesto, plans for a strike, documents proving massive corruption, etc. Historical example: Daniel Ellsberg's The Pentagon Papers from the 70's)
2) The government creates a false file (it might even be able to forge authentication, if it's the right government, and determined enough)
3) The government massively releases the false file via it's own FreeNet servers (while possibly also pursuing the usual stamp-out tactics). This information would a) likely be the closest server to a domestic requester of the information b) would slowly 'diffuse' onto the larger FreeNet
4) Within hours, the Government makes large numbers of requests for the false file at the communication bottlenecks into the country. This will fill the caches of the foreign (uncontrolled) Freenet sites with the false file (both from copies that 'diffused out of national boundaries in step 3, or copies from Government sites that happened to be the 'nearest' freeNet node with a copy of the file.
5) Eventually, this false data would be largely 'fixed' into a blockade around the communications bottle necks (the virtual border) of the nation. The World at large may see the genuine document, but the high-bandwidth tactics of the gov't would mean that, internally, the nearest available FreeNet copy would be 'false'.
6) The manigfesto's author could e discredited by the forged file, the strike could fail, organizers could even be made to give themselves away through false 'planted' info.
This is not a criticism of FreeNet. it is simply fodder for the 'debugging' of FreeNet I am far more interested in the free speech aspects than the warez/prOn use, and I hope FreeNet will someday stand against a determined opponent with great resources, likie a gov't or multinational
It's been almost 6-10 mos since the adoption of the 'binary' prefixes: kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi
I really thought the whining would stop, but instead both users and the industry have chosen to ignore the new prefixes (summarized below to emphasize the triviality of quibbling) I did not expect everyone to start doing instant conversions, but I did expect them to start using the units as a ballpark indicator of which sort of 'mega' they were using.
True, the difference between terabit and tebibit is only 10%, but if you're going to whine about that 10% (or the 5% megabit gap), presumably you should be using the new standards.
I'd like to apologize for my remark on Multics being the only "B" certified OS
That claim was removed from the Multicians website (possibly as the result of a/.'ing a couple of weeks ago). It stuck in my mind because of the high "You gotta be kidding!" factor.
Indeed, I wasn't actually prepared to submit the entire article. I was running Mozilla M14 on my beta machine, and it hung while I was fact-checking. I guess I hit the wrong key sequence and the article got submitted by mistake.
WinNT advertised itself as having passed Orange Book testing (at C4, not "B"-anything, IIRC), but only for WinNT 3.51 with all patches and explicitly with no other computer connected (no network or modem even installed on the machine)
WinNT4 never even came close. Yet MS often billed NT as 'secure' to Orange Book "C" level.
As far as I know (and per the Multics home page when I last looked -- a few weeks ago) Multics was the only OS ever certified at the "B" level. That may be the only 'multi-user OS' however.
I haven't used Multics since I was 16, in the late 70's, so I'm not really a partisan of it. Still I did learn my first three programming languages on it (Fortran G/WATFOR/WATFIV, APL, and LISP). I wouldn't go bcak (to Multics, age 16, or Fortran) for anything!
"Get rid of transporters, make it all like Space: Above and Beyond was and you will have a show I want to watch."
You raise a very interesting point. Pre-Federation implies pre-"Pax Galaxia". The Earth-allied and -opposed forces would probably be dealing on parallel military/"UN-type" lines. I'd like to see realistic portrayal of the military -- and the rest of society (a very weak point in all the previous series, where non-Federation life was sketchy at best!)
Since the founding of the Federation would be imminent, Earth and the known civilizations would probably be in a postwar or post cold-war state not dissimilar to the current world situation.
I believe that a strong reality-based comparison to current politics could be compelling (well, by ST standards, anyway). They would have their Balkan situation, their third world issues, their period of rapidly exploding technilogy, new open trade frontiers, etc. Among the good points of TOS was how it addressed the sentiments of the era. (I was a very precocious pre-schooler when the original series aired, and loved it. by the time I was 11-12, I thought it was boing geek-fodder. I liked SF, and this wasn't it! It was nicely mainstream "speculative" fiction in its original timeframe, and only the 'big issue' episodes retained their real appeal beyond the 60's)
Change #1: Centralize the Red Shirt The unfamiliar face on the Bridge used to die by the opening credits. I hope the new series has the brains to make the Red Shirt the central character of many episodes, so they can explore the new world (and by reflection, our own) from many vantage points. Episodes might open with an unfamiliar face who was a political refugee, a restauranteur struggling against 'the new Mafia' after the demise of an authoritarian regime, a new-tech entrepreneur, etc.
I'd even go so far as to make the ensemble peripheral, so the show resembled Twilight Zone (to cite an example contemporary to TOS) more than the closed universe of TOS.
No, they'll never do it. It's too big a break from the original franchise. But I sure think that this could be a genuinely interesting show. I'd be surprised and pleased if they even went as far as JAG, Law and Order, or ER. (all of which I very much enjoy, but are admittedly rather insular)
I guess there is a tremendous appeal to the strong ensemble cast, and it might be a real risk to fight it, but I think even the myopic ST writers have been feeling the contraints of the "strong ensemble" since TOS. That's why they were so many 'breakaway' episodes (sometimes called showcase episodes) following one or two characters away from the 'main base' for the entire show.
If any ST:BoF writers are reading: don't showcase existing characters when you need a change of pace. The fact that you need to change is a sign that perhaps you've gone too far in the wrong direction. 'Showcases' have been among the weakest episodes.
Imagine you had to introduce a new 'major character' think of what you could say and do -- you'd never need a change of pace. The Federation is a very Big Place. Now subtract the 'excuse' -- the new character doesn't have to become a permanent character (semi-recurring might be a nice touch for continuity)
You promised us a universe. Show it to us. Follow a black marketeer, a young person oppressed by a regime (Taliban, Red Chinese, politics of your choice) that they don't hate (or didn't until now) and which is part of a culture they love, a corrupt official who is human not evil, a subsistence farmer looking for help with an irrigation project (or trying to get last century's flood-plain destroying eco-disaster of a mega-dam removed, so the land can return to its original cycles of renewal)
Show us real soldiers, real civilians. Steal from the best episodes in all of television history. there *were* some good points) but do it in a framework that is loose enough that it doesn't require gimmicks to justify the plot. No holodecks -- just thye multiplicity of life in a big universe where the pre-Federation is just the government, not the raison d'etre
Show us characters that are sincere enough to make us think, even if we decide they are wrong.
1) A person is tried for murder. His lawyer cannot publicly say "This is harrassment! The victim's entire family, the Governor, the Mayor, and Linus Torvalds all said he was at a fundraiser 150 miles away at the time of the crime." Rule 3.6(b)(1)
a) Why should we care? Public pressure is the only force defending against certain miscarriages of justice (alas it can also cause them). I wish the record showed that investigations and prosecutions in relative secrecy were better, but they aren't.
b) However, public pressure (good or bad) is always uncomfortable. This rule is intended to remove the discomfort from police/prosecutors (public servants) without addressing any substantial issues of fairness.
c) The rules muzzle almost any substantive comment on the case.
2) "My client admits his guilt and will throw himself on the mercy of the court. He wishes to apologize to the victims and their families." or "My client will deny all charges in court" Instead, just stony silence from the attorney while the public and media are free to speculate. Rule 3.6(b)(2)
3) "DNA, fingerprints, and blood samples all rule my client out." Rule 3.6(b)(3)
4) "We believe we have the right person in custody for this crime." Rule 3.6(b)(4)
Note that the above examples all refer to paragraph (b). That's because paragraph (d) allows the client's counsel several specific reasonable comments that might be against paragraph (a) but offers no such protection against paragraph (b)
I've had at least one site since 'the early days' and I recall how indexing bots were a real problem long before the web (e.g. gopher, FTP, etc.) Back then we were more worried about server load and bandwidth than content (which was presumed to be open and free)
ROBOT.TXT has some very real problems. One is that the file must be placed at the root directory of a site (per the original spec) and this is not compatible with some hosting services. Another is that it was a one-stop 'shopping list' of targets for the less-than-scrupulous. And of course, as everyone knows, compliance is voluntary.
At the very least, allowing robot.txt as a per-directory access restriction would make far more sense today: it would be a little more flexible, and would not provide a shopping list. (it was not adopted in the original, because it was more bandwidth intensive)
However, we really need a more flexible plan from the ground up, to deal with the needs presented here today. At the very least, it would help the 'cooperating' bot owner to better understand the wishes of the site owner. Today, I suspect that most suites that care about bots at all would allow indexing of some content but not all, and would like to specify access based on use.
The compliance issue, alas, is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. It's up there with Direct Marketing dinnertime phone calls and spam.
For those who didn't catch the reference: ITS was an early timesharing multi-user system at MIT.
On one of those systems -- it may have been ITS -- they gout around the problem of juvenile users crashing the OS (and destroying the work others were doing at the time) by adding a 'kill' command . Now it was no longer cool or clever to crash the OS, it was trivial and juvenile. A yawner.
I really do wish we could implement this on the internet, but it would never work, not with dozens of newbies logging on for the first time every second [there's a scary statistic for you: tens of millions of new users per year divided by half a million seconds a year]
Not to mention the prospects of typos on command line interfaces, people experimenting without RTFM'ing, and all those 'wits' who enjoy telling newbies to rm -rf
Such displays may not do much to discourage the Oppositional-Defiant Personality types, or those who feel so dispossessed that they don't even see themselves as part of the larger Internet community (or many other types we seem to love over-generalizing about)...
...but they do *something* to suggest to the general community that this is a problem -- "our" problem, not "their" problem, where "they" is some highly paid corporate IT professional network manager.
I think the shutdown is a valuable display of solidarity
For example, for diabetes, it might be enough to get the gene (under a proper control sequence) into a fraction of you pancreas B-cells.
For other diseases, like phenylketuria (the inability to process certain amino acids like phenylalanine, it might be enough to get the enzyme gene (suitably activated) into a relatively small number of cells, anywhere in the body. Here the goal is just to break down enough of the a.a. by a harmless pathway to keep the toxicity down.
Sometimes, you don't even need to change the cells in the body. For example, a permeable container of genetically engineered cells implanted in the body would work for some diseases
2) It isn't going to be easy. A test subject for a genetic modification died last month of an unexplainable liver failure, being exposed to a usually harmless virus, loaded with a human gene. the other test subjects were fine. No one knows why.
"New Virus Alert - and this time it's not computers.
"After a legal misunderstanding over a copyright notice, Celera Inc. released a virus that destroys all copies of the human genome.
[Shot of embarrassed-looking laboratory tech] Well, we've been pretty busy lately, what with being right on the verge of being the first to sequence the human genome. [Shot of blackboard with word GATTACA on it] It's a lot shorter than I thought it would be -must be all the repetitive sequences- but we double checked it with our new supercomputer, and management says it's most powerful private comuter in the world [Shot of Amiga 4000] We were so busy that I haven't even had time to read Slashdot in about a year. [turns to colleague] Hey, what's this about 'grits'? Is it some new distribution or something. Sounds Hot [Colleague yes... hot... grits... (falls over dead)
[Reporter looking worried] [Cut to Anchor]
We interviewed Celera's last survivors, a management team that decided to celebrate their victory by going to Disney world
[Cut to man in mickey hat]
Well, the Chief scientist called and said we were infringing on some copyright or something, and that we had to destroy all our human DNA.
So I start getting suspicious, and ask him if he had any hackers or geeks in his lab. And the man ouright admits it! No spin, No apologies, nothing.
So I knew we were in bad shape -- I mean geeks and hackers, you KNOW they have to be in the wrong.
I told him to destroy it all. All human DNA every speck in the entire building. I told him if I found even a single base pair when I got back, he could kiss his stock options goodbye.
He acted like I was crazy. He refused to do it. Fortunately, with the advanced voice capability of our new computer... [shot of Amiga 4000, now labelled "WOPR"] the Work Oriented Peptide Resequencer, I was able to give the command directly. (looks at reporter conspiratorially) You know, I think our chief Scientist was one of *them*, you know, I mean a hacker geek.
[Cut to anchor] The military says the first containment cordon at fifteen miles was breached, but the think they can contain the virus at a radius of 25 miles if they launch a nuclear strike to eliminate all wildlife in the zone. Animals, it seems, are unaffected by the virus, but provide a vector to cross barricades [soldier: I tot I taw a puddy tat! (opens fire)]
Apple says the Airport uses the 2.4 GHz band as an unlicensed ISM user (source: Apple Airport Wireless Technical Manual v1.1)
Without actual access to the modified equipment, we cannot be sure that it meets the general requirements of 18 CFR 18.305 (or section 3 generally)
For 2.4GHz ISM transmitters, used by consumers, under 500W, the transmitter field strength can be no greater that 25 mV/m at 300 m. Replacing a 9tested) nondirectional antenna with directional could cause this limit to be exceeded in some directions
but how can they (or other LANs) use the ISM band? It was my understanding that ISM was intended for quite different use, and that telecommunications was specifically excluded. Isn't a network 'telecommunications"?
I've heard the 2450 MHz mentioned as a LAN freq. before. Is it possible Apple was just being lazy in referring to it as by the general name ISM, when there's a specific authorization for this use elsewhere in the law. Or is everyone just relying on the fact that ISM is relatively unregulated?
Sec. 18.107 (a) Radio frequency (RF) energy... (b) Harmful interference... (c) Industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) equipment. Equipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally RF energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of telecommunication. Typical ISM applications are the production of physical, biological, or chemical effects such as heating, ionization of gases, mechanical vibrations, hair removal and acceleration of charged particles. (d) Industrial heating equipment... (e) Medical diathermy equipment... (f) Ultrasonic equipment... for industrial, scientific, medical or other noncommunication purposes. (g) Consumer ISM equipment... Examples are domestic microwave ovens, jewelry cleaners for home use, ultrasonic humidifiers. (h) ISM frequency.... (i) Marketing... covers leasing, sale, etc (j) Magnetic resonance equipment...
Does someone know the law on this? Because if it's a matter of squatter's rights, the FCC states that even if they certify the equipment, they can yank the equipment off an ISM band, if they decide it isn't a ISM use.
Sec. 18.111 General operating conditions.
(a) Persons operating ISM equipment shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to the continued use of any given frequency, by virtue of any prior equipment authorization and/or compliance with the applicable rules.
You have the intron argument exactly backwards When you read those statistics about 98% similarity, it includes the total genome (introns, exons, non-coding 'junk DNA', telomeric tails and other repeating sequences).
How could we compile a 98% index of similarity in introns? We don't even know a full 98% of the human genes yet, much less their introns? Much less the monkey genes/introns to compare them with?
Even after we have the genome sequenced, it will be many years before we find all the sequences that act as genes, much less the methods of their processing and expression (like introns)
These much-bandied numbers came (years ago) from random sampling techniques, and the sequences of (then) known genes. Predictably, we sequence the important and easily located genes first. These numbers are inaccurate, and should be shot on sight, because, as I will explain, there will never be a single accurate meaningful percentage number for "how much like the chimps are we." Never.
Important proteins are usually more highly conserved (don't change much) because changing them is often life-threatening. Most changes adversely impact the organism. [Histones, for example, are so highly concerved that they are only a few base pair differentin man, cow, and pea. Such conservation is rare, however]
99.9999999 the same? Give me a break. If that were true, human individuals would only vary by four base pairs on average. Watch your numbers, willya?
In fact (for reasons I will cite below), any two random cells in your own body are probably not 99.99999999% identical
So how much is the difference betwee humans?
There are roughly 10,000 genes in the human genome (an estimate widely used in the field). Since I can name, off the top of my head, a few dozen common variable allelles (e.g. AB blood type, minor blood types, eye color, etc) I'd be very surprised if there weren't hundreds of less known common variable allelles (100/10,000 =1%) So I doubt most humans are 98% identical on an ALLELLE level and 95% may be pushing it (ALLELLES are 'different gene forms' like blue vs brown eyes, or Rh+ vs Rh-)
But you're talking on a BASE PAIR level, and that's purely a philosophical question, not a matter of strict numbers as you suggest If you drop a single base pair, all the subsequent amino acids will be TOTALLY different (this is called a frame-shift mutation, and in fact the gene will usually become nonfunctional because an accidental 'stop codon [3 of the 64 codons are stop codons] will likely be created with a short distance of the change)
One could argue that this is a a one base pair change in the gene, but it wipes the gene out entirely.
Another type of mutation is "conversion" where an A becomes a C, etc. You almost certainly carry thousands of base pair conversions compared to your ancestors, but they have little or no effect on your genes, their products, ot the effectiveness of the function of the protein functions
And how do you count transversion? If a big chunk of a monkey liver enzyme gene is now used in a human brain gene? Is that a match or not? Or if the entire monkey enzyme is now never used in the human liver, but only in the human brain, is that a match? Or what if an enzyme splits into two forms that are used in different tissues and are very similar, and perhaps sometimes even combined (e.g. creatine kinase)? What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Therefore, counting random base pair homology (similarity) is an irrelevant exercise in today's science. If we need to count (and why would we do with that info, except supply ignorant science writers with sound bites?) we need to specify the proper comaprative index: functional allele differences, marker mutations for genealogy, population divergences, identifying founder effect gene fixations, etc
In fact, even counting allelles is a matter of philosophy Is 'redhead' really a different gene from blonde or brunette if the base pairs turn out to be 99% the same (they aren't). On the other hand, your immune system may run on HLA27, while your brothers runs omn HLA8 -- entirely different genes serving the same function, and it won't matter unless one of you needs a transplant (may the The Gods of Immunology forgive me for that oversimplification!)
Basically, an 'Allelle' (different gene form) is whatever we say it it, whatever is important for the specific question we are investigating.
The 95% (98% 99.999%) number is useless and will always be useless except to hack science writers -- though the underlying principle of the commonality of genomes is useful. I've come to believe that the *number* is downright harmful to readers of hack science writers
Suffice it to say that the human 'DNA copying mechanism has roughly an error rate of one per billion base pairs, and the human genome is roughly 3 billion base pairs. Every time a human cell divides, the daughter cells probably are a few base pairs different. The cells in your body now are typically dozens of generations away from your embryonic state and are not exactly identical -- but their divergent mutations are probably less than 1 part per Million
Even most genes you'd die without ('important' genes) only have a few critical regions, and can mutate to varying degrees in the rest of the gene. Think of it this way: binding sites may have to be very precisely conserved, but the 'bricks' that hold them the right distance apart, and at the right orientation aren't so important.
In fact there are entire families that are hypervariable: Immunoglobin genes (antibodies) are different, even between identical twins -- so are olfactory receptor genes (though there may be some fixed 'common' olfactory receptors)
A lot of the confusion arises when people learn that (for example) a single tiny change in the B chain for hemoglobin can cause sickle cell. But that change alters the geometry at a 'corner' of the protein that throws the entire protein off.
[it has been suggested that sickle cell hemoglobin is so widespread because it protects aginst malaria, and therefore served a valuable function. Malaria has been one of the biggest killers of humans since pre-history, possibly *the* biggest]
'Variability of expression' is not the primary reason for the large differences. Subtle differences in genes (and the interactions between their products) can produce significant effects.
It's very important to make the distinction between mapping and sequencing.
SEQUENCING means creating a complete list of the nucleotides in order. If you had this information, you could actually synthesize the entire genome of the individual. [There are some sophisticated niceties like methylation that distinguish the synthesized version from one extracted from a human, but it's essentially complete.] There are other factors (like which regulatory binding sites are actually bound, by what proteins; exact state of histone supercoiling, etc.) that control gene expression enough to keep this from being a working human genome, but it's awfully close.
MAPPING means determining distances between known genes. Using this information, you can deduce where the various genes are, the approximate location of specific unknown genes, and many other useful facts. A detailed map is a good starting place for hunting down a gene, so you can locate and sequence it; it also can tell you what traits are likely to be inherited together, etc.
A "sequence" is a complete blueprint (though there are details that aren't covered by sequence alone) A map is like a geographical map that shows where all the cities and large towns are. There are still many factories, facilities, and industrial complexes off that map -- not to mention all the roads, rivers, mountains and utility lines. ETC.
A sequence is a lot more information, and a wonderfully compact database - at 2 bits per base pair (4 possible cases), you could fit a complete human genome in under a gigabyte. (That's only one human, however.)
Naturally, even once we had the genome (or preferably a few thousand individuals, to let us get a real handle on variations), we could still spend decades or centuries figuring out what it all meant. 3x10^9 bases is a lot of info. You thought it was hard trying to trace western civilization in the first million digits of pi.
I am not a Molecular Biologist - anymore. But I was, about 10 years ago.
This will be the last of the 'Analogy' series. I've been unable to raise Slashdot on any of my primary ISPs for over 8 hours, and I don't want to repost stuff others said im my absence.
This post will cite a few of the Supreme Court precedents (and my idiosyncratic comments) on billboards/mailings -- as an analogy to the Internet IANAL/IALANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer, however I Am a Little ANAL)
PLEASE NOTE: These are federal laws/rulings. the states actually have much more leeway in what they can legislate, and 'regulations' of Federal agencies often survive scrutiny under the thinnest of pretexts. (e.g. the FCC in my post on broadcasting as a legal analogy for Internet) Therefore such 'free Speech niceties' as public access channels on cable TV can vanish at will. They are not First Amendment.
In the interests of laziness, I'll let The Court cite a list of cases for further study, and I'll describe some of these cases below. [from Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)]:
This Court has often faced the problem of applying the broad principles of the First Amendment to unique forums of expression. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 [billing envelope inserts]; Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 [picketing in residential areas]; Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 [door-to-door and on-street solicitation]; Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 [Army bases]; Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 [outdoor movie theaters]; Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 [advertising space within city-owned transit system]. Even a cursory reading of these opinions reveals that at times First Amendment values must yield to other societal interests.
These cases support the cogency of Justice Jackson's remark in Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 97 (1949): Each method of communicating ideas is 'a law unto itself' and that law must reflect the 'differing natures, values, abuses and dangers' of each method. We deal here with the law of billboards.
...law must reflect the 'differing natures, values, abuses and dangers' of each method. Oh! Would that it 'twere so, but instead of actually heeding the special properties of each medium, IMHO, the Court has grasped for any wording in any ruling, from any medium, that allowed them to weaken individual's First Amendment rights to political expression while preserving commercial advertising interests -- Often interpreting the wording in a manner opposite to the original medium ruling, law, or the Constitutional Amendments themselves. I really hate to say that, and it wasn't a conclusion I'd reached until today, but it really does seem to be true. That last sentence of the first paragraph really ticks me off. the courts began watering-down the first and fourteenth amendments long ago with some rather sloppy hand-waving. Some famous examples:
In Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949) (an incorporated (?) Fourteenth Amendment case) Judge Reed tells us that "even the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are not absolute."and "[t]he preferred position of freedom of speech in a society that cherishes liberty for all does not require legislators to be insensible to claims by citizens to comfort and convenience."Sure -- just try selling that 'comfort and convenience' line at any workplace outside the Supreme Court. I have a tough enough time selling my right to "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"!
A famous Supreme Court decision (sorry, I'm blanking on the citation, so I can't pull up the exact quote) began 'It is well established that obscenity is not protected under the first amendment' -- "established", yes, but only by common practice; but it was never rigorously placed on a firm footing by Constitutional review -- Which is the Supreme Court's job. But the Justice writing the majority decision couldn't come up with a solid argument, either, so he swept the whole thing under the rug with pompous hand-waving instead of having his clerk insert a few juicy citations (like a senile math professor who can't remember a key derivation)
And now for the rest of the cases:
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)] is most significant because it explicitly made a distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech (which was a very tenuous reach, IMHO). Fortunately, in Metromedia, the decision was that commercial speech could be denied access in some situations where non-commercial speech could not. Alas, in cases like Lehman (below), the finding was the opposite: political speech was denied access, while commercial speech wasn't.
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 Lehman wanted to buy placard space on the public transit for simple signs with his picture and the words Harry J. Lehman is old fashioned about Honesty, Integrity and Good Government. The Sc ruled that the Transit Authority could refuse to sell because the 'audience was captive' and 'forced to use the public transit' to go to work, home, etc. and therefore not 'free' to avoid the message. Of course, they were also not free to avoid the ads for liquor, cigarettes, automobiles, churches, retail stores, commercial services, and public service organizations (all of which the Transit Authority routinely sold placard space to -- they were the reason placard space was available! Indeed, the Transit Authority argues (and the Court agreed) that selling political space might offend their regular customers, who might lose ad space during the election season!
In a dissent, Judge Brennan pointed out the real rights of the captives: "Commercial and public service advertisements are routinely accepted for display, while political messages are absolutely prohibited. Few examples are required to illustrate the scope of the city's policy and practice. For instance, a commercial advertisement peddling snowmobiles would be accepted, while a counter-advertisement calling upon the public to support legislation controlling the environmental destruction and noise pollution caused by snowmobiles would be rejected. Alternatively, a public service ad by the League of Women Voters would be permitted, advertising the existence of an upcoming election and imploring citizens to vote, but a candidate, such as Lehman, would be barred from informing the public about his candidacy, qualifications for office, or position on particular issues."
This is "impermissible", according to Brennan (but remember, he is the dissenting opinion -- the Court as a whole considered and rejected these arguments!): These, and other examples, make perfectly clear that the selective exclusion of political advertising is not the product of evenhanded application of neutral 'time, place, and manner' regulations. Rather, the operative - and constitutionally impermissible - distinction is the message on the sign.
A theater may advertise a motion picture that portrays sex and violence, but the Legion for Decency has no right to post a message calling for clean films. A lumber company may advertise its wood products, but a conservation group cannot implore citizens to write to the President or Governor about protecting our natural resources. An oil refinery may advertise its products, but a citizens' organization cannot demand enforcement of existing air pollution statutes. An insurance company may announce its available policies, but a senior citizens' club cannot plead for legislation to improve our social security program.... Advertisements for travel, foods, clothing, toiletries, automobiles, legal drugs - all these are acceptable, but the American Legion would not have the right to place a paid advertisement reading, 'Support Our Boys in Viet Nam. Send Holiday Packages.'
This is a troubling ruling, for those of us who hoped to use the Internet to extend our right of free expression. For the kicker, however, see the next case!
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 was an interesting case, because the Court ruled that the PSC could not stop ConEd from placing circulars touting the benefits of nuclear energy in customer bills (printed and mailed at customer expense, through the electricity rates) 'in the public interest' (of saving money). The courts ruled that the US mail wasn't a public forum and didn't warrant 'protection' like the public transit in Lehman vs. Shaker Heights, but dismissed the argument that a) the customer was charged against his/her will; b) the bills were actually read in homes and businesses, not at the USPO, which should be protected (we are a 'captive audience', even more 'forced' to read our bills for important announcements than we are 'forced' to read streetcar placards.); c) the customer should therefore have the right to block such messages from entering their home if they wished, and certainly to avoid paying for them. This case may have interesting implications for spam. You see how oddly inconsistent this case is with other rulings. The only consistent theme is "political speech is dirty" [I guess 'appointed Justices' are above all that] while 'commerce is pure and unobjectionable'.
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 and Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 basically upheld peaceful picketing and pamphleteering as high hallowed pillars of our democracy. The major stipulation has been that the picketing be 'peaceful' -- The 'Skokie' cases (right of neoNazis to march in a suburb with a high percentage of concentration camp survivors) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (KKK preaching expulsion of Jews from the US, with thinly veiled suggestions for violence0 were both upheld because the 'violent speech' test is very rigorous.
Contrast this attitude towards old-tech (person/print) political speech with the attitude taken with newer tech (e.g. broadcast, in my posting: Analogy 2) where the stance has been consistently "the public must be protected from fusillades of crackpots" and "the government knows what is reasonable, and will make sure the (licensed) broadcasters adhere to that standard" Near-incitement to violence (but not actual incitement or "fighting words") with old tech is acceptable, and even desirable under Justice Holmes' doctrine of "competition in the marketplace of ideas" -- But words alone, in new-tech, are not protected, in the sense that the court has ruled there is no First Amendment right of public access. Alas, Internet is 'newest tech', and is going to experience even more hysterical fear and efforts at regulation.
There's a lot more, but that's enough (rather, way too much) for now... No! Wait!
I think I'll leave you with a Supreme Court ruling that will disturb your sleep: it is very possible that, if the USPS decides to start delivering e-mail, it will become illegal for anyone to send you mail except through them. The precedent is this: it is actually illegal (punishable by $300/count). In other words, if you want to designate the mailbox you've paid for (that is, your private property) to act as a receptacle to receive messages directly from a group... well, sorry you can't
In this case, the Court holds constitutional 18 U.S.C. 1725 which provides: "Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for each such offense be fined not more than $300." The italicized examples [my emphasis] in the statute pertain to commercial speech, but the abstraction refers to "any" mailable matter. They just didn't happen to cite non-commercial examples [Per U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981):"We reject appellees' additional assertion raised below that 18 U.S.C. ? cannot be applied to them because it was intended to bar the deposit of commercial materials only. The statute on its face bars the deposit of "any mailable matter" without proper postage, and... the legislative history makes clear that both Congress and the Postal Service understood the statute would apply to noncommercial as well as commercial materials."
Am I exaggerating? Well, let's hear what Justice Marshal said (in a dissenting opinion):
"I remain troubled by the Court's effort to transform the letterboxes entirely into components of the governmental enterprise despite their private ownership. Under the Court's reasoning, the Postal Service could decline to deliver mail unless the recipients agreed to open their doors to the letter carrier - and then the doorway, or even the room inside could fall within Postal Service control.... The brute force of the criminal sanction and other powers of the Government, I believe, may be deployed to restrict free expression only with greater justification."
So if the USPS ever delivers e-mail, better not send any e-mail directly until the Supreme Court clarifies. Surely going a few months or years without e-mail is a small hardship... right?
Well, why do you think those 'discount circular companies' started hanging their circulars in plastic bags from your mailbox, instead of stuffing them inside? Nonetheless, if they ever start enforceing this law, it'll be a real cash cow at $300/pop. I see it broken almost every day.
So many more examples.. but it's late
"The unequivocal language of the First Amendment prohibits any law 'abridging the freedom of speech.' That language could surely be read to foreclose any law reducing the quantity of communication within a jurisdiction. I am convinced, however, that such a reading would be incorrect. My conviction is supported by a hypothetical example, by the Court's prior cases, and by an appraisal of the healthy character of the communications market."
- Justice Stevens in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)
This series of posts is intendsed only to cite a small handful of the hundreds of surprising Supreme court rulings involving "public" free speech (a distinction which scares me by itself, and was largely invented in the 1900's in response to broadcast media. These issues were already settled for print media, but the new technology scared the courts into setting questionable precedents, many of which still stand, which conflict with the standards for print)
IANAL, and this is not intended to be a full discussion of the topic. It is only a mild 'eye-opener' (I could have used more shocking examples). The broadcast media of the past is a warning to the Internet of today
This post covers CBS, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973). In 1970, the Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM) complained to the FCC that radio station WTOP (Wash,DC) refused to sell it airtime for a series of one-minute spots expressing BEM's views on Vietnam. Four months later, the DNC wanted to buy airtime to express the Democratic patrty's views on Vietnam. Both parties lost. The Supreme Court ruled that no individual or organization had a "right" to express "editorial" views on the public airwaves.
In a famous ruling, they found that the Communications Act of 1934 abridged such right of free speech by giving preferential treatment in the form of broadcast licenses and simultaneously rejecting the "common carrier" model. If you read this ruling, you'll find that much of what you thought you knew about free Speech and public media is very possibly wrong.
You don't have a right to speak on "public" airwaves. Only the licensee does. There are rules and regulations to encourage stations to 'play nice' and do public service, but those are just brownie points for the next license renewal, not constitutional rights
Broadcasters are not 'common carriers' like airlines, railways, buses, and trucking company. None of the above can say "We refuse to take black men to the million man march" but broadcasters can refuse to accept even fully paid ads for it.
There are serious restrictions on the 'equal time for opposing views' rule -- and even then the station gets to pick which 'opposing' view it presents -- e.g. broadcasting "key escrow vs. Clipper chip" with no mention or reasoned defense of "no encryption controls" view could skew the public view dramatically!
There are specific preferences assigned when licenses are issued. "Commercial interest" (i.e. I can make a ton of money off this) actually get a preference over noncommercial interest (do a search on "community service radio" for horror stories)
As the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court noted, '[a]lmost no other private business - almost no other regulated private business - is so intimately bound to government..." So much for free individual speech!
BTW, once being an amateur radio operator was a easy and unfettered as setting up a web page today. Today, licensing is much stricter. It is not so inconceivable that there could be a 'Web Amateur license someday.[2]
Am I the only one who finds the following quote chilling: Once we get away from the bare words of the [First] Amendment, we must construe it as part of a Constitution which creates a government for the purpose of performing several very important tasks. The [First] Amendment should be interpreted so as not to cripple the regular work of the government... Although free speech should weigh heavily in the scale in the event of conflict, still the Commission[the FCC] should be given ample scope to do its job. In other words, "this would be too much work for the FCC (and might reverse some of its policies). Rather than adjust the FCC, we will curtail First Amendment rights
I can only agree with Justice brennan's dissent: "[W]e have consistently held that 'when authority derives in part from Government's thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons becomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by Government itself." and "the Government has selected the persons who will be permitted to operate a broadcast station, extensively regulates those broadcasters, and has specifically approved the challenged broadcaster policy. . . . the Government 'has so far insinuated itself into a position' of participation in the challenged policy as to make the Government itself responsible for its effects."
In other words, the FCC (as noted in the 1973 ruling) has a deliberate, mandated right and interest in making sure that the station's broadcast content is "accountable". The majority decision complained "No such accountability can be attached to an individual, whose only qualifications [to have an 'editorial opinion' aired] is sufficient funds [to buy a 60-second spot] and a point of view" Those unaccountable animals! who knows what they might say!
Please note, that no one ever said radio stations had to accept all comers (or we'd have 24 hour crackpot radio). The DNC/BEM only argued that all comers should have equal access to purchasing radio time. In other words, that stations should not be allowed to refuse to sell a given advertising minute to a 'editorial' if they'd happily sell that same minute to GE to sell lightbulbs.
As Justice Brennan said: [A]s the system now operates, any person wishing to market a particular brand of beer, soap, toothpaste, or deodorant has direct, personal, and instantaneous access to the electronic media. He can present his own message, in his own words, in any format he selects, and at a time of his own choosing. Yet a similar individual seeking to discuss war, peace, pollution, or the suffering of the poor is denied this right to speak. Instead, he is compelled to rely on the beneficence of a corporate 'trustee' appointed by the Government to argue his case for him.
[1] This footnote deleted for space, but damn! it was a good one[3] [2] Damn! This one too! [3] Okay, one snippet of [1]: The ruling notes that "...47 U.S.C. 202 provides that: '(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to... make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.' In rejecting the common carrier model, Congress rejected a sanction that could have been used against any government-licensed broadcaster who did give an "undue" or "unreasonable" preference or advantage to a particular class of persons. The rejection of the common carrier model allowed, therefore, not only censoring of speech, but unreasonable censoring of speech."
1. You can't yell [falsely] "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
[Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) ]
Most people would think this would merely cover viruses and other malicious code. However, the truth of this ruling is much darker and it's implications deeper
Interestingly, Schenk was an espionage case! [Espionage Act of 1917, a Federal law which, among other things, made it a crime to obstruct government draft recruiting and enlistment efforts]
Okay, so espionage is not free speech.
However, Schenck printed leaflets, mostly mailed to draftees. The front side contained the text of Section I of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the back side contained a text including passages like: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your Rights", "your right to assert your opposition to the draft", and "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."
Schenck was convicted (and the conviction upheld) informing fellow citizens of their constitutional rights!
Further, as Justice Holmes wrote in the Supreme Court Decision: "The defendants were found guilty on all counts. They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and... have argued some other points also of which we must dispose.
Many argue that "fire in a crowded theater may have been a common sense dictum, but it was written to support and perpetuate horrible miscarriages. For example, there was no finding that Schenk wrote anything false.
Justice Holmes crafted one of the most brilliant and memorable analogies in Supreme court history, then used it to justify one of the worst black moments in First Amendment History. [A week later, the Supreme court used this ruling to uphold the Espionage Act itself in Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919), stating that the "First Amendment had been disposed of". The Law of the Land can change lickety split.] Of course, most people who have even heard of the later Alien and Sedition Act (of the following year) know what a terrible abuse it was.
Please propagate this information whenever you see the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy used improperly. (which is most of the time) We geeks need to understand and explore the ramifications of the analogy, or it'll come back to bite us. The First Amendment is not the holy raiment some of us seem to think
Further, the First Amendment specifically addresses Congress and Federal Law. States have at various times argued (sometimes successfully) that they have deeper rights (under the reserved rights clause) to control free speech than the Feds do. I am sure that fact brings endless cheer to geeks in, say, Alabama [Hey, I was born in Georgia]
Finally, I close with more of Holmes words from the Schenk Decision:
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. But when men have realized that time hasupset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
The new federal ruling invokes a large set of analogies and principles to source code law, some new, some old, some widely accepted, and some previously rejected. Whether this result in great change depends on whether the courts are in a mood to change things -- and I mean the court as a whole, as much as any individual judge (i.e. a 'spirit of change')
I have many distinct analogies to present, and each will undoubtedly interest different people and warrants separate discussion,(besides, by the time I get a chance to write them all up, the article will be archived -- I do have other work to do, after all.) so I'm posting each separately in this thread. for your reading and/or ignoring convenience
Sometimes this works on/. Sometimes it doesn't. Often/. tells me I've "already posted" even when the new one has an entirely different title and body (probably a cookie thing) This time, the titles will be similar, so I anticipate slow going -- maybe 15-60 minutes between "Analogies". So drop by later, if you're interested
Excellent point, which deserves to be repeated. [I thought I posted this around many hours ago, but I don't see it now]
If I could, I'd moderate StreetLawyer up in the hopes of starting a discussion (alas moderators don't hit the book reviews often)
While it may smack of a dark corporate culture of ingrained cover-ups to us geek-types, the fact is that excesive records can be a genuine danger even to those of us who feel we have nothing to hide.
IANAL, but I was recently the plaintiff in a civil suit, and I was surprised by the dismay of my attorney at the voluminous records I had kept, documenting every meeting with the defendant for the past two years (all cc'd to the defendant within days of the meeting, with requests for comments). I thought I was being diligent and even praiseworthy.
Not so. It turns out that my words, even if cc'd for comment, can almost always be used against me, but are apparently rather weak support for my version of events.
Fortunately, (much to my lawyer's surprise) we found nothing it those memos to injure my case, but they also were of no help when the defendant (more accurately, the defendant's employees - the defnadant was a large organization) simply pled "I don't know", "I don't remember the letter", and "I skim those things and throw them away. I don't have any of them in my files"
[It was infuriating, somehow we thing Big Outfits file everything -- and they probably do, but how are you going to prove it? This outfit had defended against such suits in the past, and had learned its lession well)
Most of us could stand to improve the organization in our lives, and are bitten by "I wish I had that file" more than "wish I didn't", but "too much data" is potentially harmful. As cases involving e-mail and USENET have shown, casual, ill-framed, or out-of-context remarks can be damning.
The cleaner your backups, the fewer irrelevant details (especially details even *you* didn't know) to mess you up. If you get sued for copying code, you don't want the plaintiff to be able to find a backup showing a bootleg copy of his program on your network -- even if it was just something your summer intern installed to help him/her understand your product.
If you had something in your house that was useless and potentially toxic, I hope you'd get rid of it (even if it is related to you by marriage;->)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying Thz won't help us eventually reach brain-type computing; what I AM saying is that an ultrafast microprocessor is not going to result a priori in a "thinking machine"...
Recall that the magic of the human brain is not a single blinding fast unit; rather it is by _MAsSiVe_PaRrAlLeLiSm_ that we believe our brains do all that info-crunching.
I agree that the human brain is not a blindlingly fast sequential processing unit, but I think there are several 'secrets' that are often overlooked in 'human brain as thinking machine'
1) We define the problem and the successful outputs. In other words, we humans may be terminally screwed up in how we perceive and analyze our environment or computational problems, but we will *not* accept a machine as "thinking" until it is approximately as screwed up, and in the same peculiar ways as we are.
2) We have highly specialized circuitry for most subtasks like vision, memory, verbal and nonverbal language(nuance, inflection)... we don't even understand what all the tasks are yet. This is not massively parallel processing, it's more like my kitchen (which can toast bread in the toaster, make coffee in the percolator, cook eggs on the stove, preserve food in the 'fridge, and warm a danish in the microwave, clean last nights dishes in the diswasher, and dispense me a glass of water at the same time).
3) While these circuits are complex and specialized, evolution doesn't (strictly speaking) optimize anything by any objective standard. you may argue that we 'out-competed' some other species (say neanderthals), but the very task at which we 'outcompeted' them is undefined. it might be something as trivial as being less susceptible to the Great Mastodon Flu of 50,000BC or having a slick print shop who let us get our IPO brochures out faster.
4) this brings us back to #1: we don't recognize anything as thinking that doesn't closely match our own screwed up thinking. Once upon a time, doing math was enough - but they beat us blotto at that. Then it was chess. Similarly blotto. Then it was conversation (the turing test), which *guess what* means simulating us.
Soon "thinking" will mean the ability to surf pr0n with your left hand, while flaming M$ with your right (without wondering, as a sensible Flesh-o-matic 2020 might, why you were flaming M$ instead of.. never mind)
__________
For the record, as far as I can tell, after a little background surfing, and some BOTE calculations (similar calulations were often 'background exercises' for the student of molecular biology ) it appears they are talking about:
10 femtosecond (e-14) switching times NOT an operating speed of 100 terahertz (e14) The term "femtosecond switching" will allow you to more accurately find existing work in the field. Switching in sub-10 femtosecond range has been around for years, at this same 'bench theory' level of investigation.
This is a very interesting piece of work, but hardly a breakthrough when 2 femtosecond capacitor switching was announced in 1997 (I had my doubts then, but didn't check it out) and 2-5 femtosecond laser optical switching has probably been around even longer
You can immediately deduct 1+ order of magnitude from the risetime to get a practical operating speed (you want digital square waves, not sawtooths, right?) even when this switching speed becomes a practical reality.
You can also deduct a few orders of magnitude from the operating speed of a single switch to the operating speed of a CPU or RAM. Think about how many sequential transistor operations there are in a single RAM bit (on-chip, on-card, and system transistors)
And now, as a public service to those of you who need a refresher (we'll all need these terms soon enough)
__________
What would the target audience think when they hear... (just one spin of many)
"In a world where computer prices are always dropping, computer [geeks] have begged one [city] start-up to quadruple prices, just to get their hands on them. They're called i-Opener, and here's their story... [cut to reporter. interviews include]
[Obvious techie: They were targetted at a non-technical market, but the design was so cool -- and was expandable. When world got out, the hardware types basically bought every machine on the market in two days. I know *I* want one. ]
[Lots of sexy promo footage]
[i-Opener spokesperson: Everyone loves them. We were buried in requests for more. We've decided to make a version of our product available to the technical hobbyist, at a competitive price. It has a few internal hobbyist connectors and the option for a different processor, but it's the same unit.
"But we started this computer to be an ultra-easy convenient and, okay, stylish way for ordinary people to use the internet, without having to learn all that computer stuff We're loyal to our original customers -- the casual home internet user -- and will continue to sell our units at our original bargain price of $100 to anyone who signs our x-year internet user contract. You'll need that internet connection anyway, so we think that is a fair way to tell if you're the type of home internet user we started this company for.
"These units are hot, though. We're fighting to keep prices down this summer, but after that... well, with people already snapping them up at four times the price... well, we can only make some many of these things, and this will be a hot Christmas item. If you want some for the grandkids, better get them now]
Take-home for the layman (target market):
This hot hot hot gadget is cheap, and the geeks are fighting over them like cabbage patch dolls. But I can get one for just $100.
They keep saying its easy. It sure looks easy. Maybe I can use one without my neighbors laughing after me -- I mean even hackers use them! It does look kinda cool.
The company sounds nice, too. They're not milking us. That's unusual. Maybe I should buy their stock
__________
Actually, I was very curious about that myself, considering that the slashdot stats claim an uptime of 77 days.
I wouldn't say we're in a position to demand answers, but I've very surprised they haven't been forthcoming, especially since it sounds like it was just a communication link outage.
__________
Or that the new scientific theory/application (which the gov't intends to seize and classify, since as a citizen, you and your works are its property - strained, yes, but that's how it works)
isn't flawed [Science see a lot more 'incorrect' breakthroughs than correct ones, every year]
Or that the file you downloaded has a 6-mo timebomb?
__________
Here's one I call 'The Info Blockade' that is along the lines you describe, but uses specific Freenet features to defeat FreeNet:
1) Imagine a file that a government wishes to block within its borders (a manifesto, plans for a strike, documents proving massive corruption, etc. Historical example: Daniel Ellsberg's The Pentagon Papers from the 70's)
2) The government creates a false file (it might even be able to forge authentication, if it's the right government, and determined enough)
3) The government massively releases the false file via it's own FreeNet servers (while possibly also pursuing the usual stamp-out tactics). This information would
a) likely be the closest server to a domestic requester of the information
b) would slowly 'diffuse' onto the larger FreeNet
4) Within hours, the Government makes large numbers of requests for the false file at the communication bottlenecks into the country. This will fill the caches of the foreign (uncontrolled) Freenet sites with the false file (both from copies that 'diffused out of national boundaries in step 3, or copies from Government sites that happened to be the 'nearest' freeNet node with a copy of the file.
5) Eventually, this false data would be largely 'fixed' into a blockade around the communications bottle necks (the virtual border) of the nation. The World at large may see the genuine document, but the high-bandwidth tactics of the gov't would mean that, internally, the nearest available FreeNet copy would be 'false'.
6) The manigfesto's author could e discredited by the forged file, the strike could fail, organizers could even be made to give themselves away through false 'planted' info.
This is not a criticism of FreeNet. it is simply fodder for the 'debugging' of FreeNet I am far more interested in the free speech aspects than the warez/prOn use, and I hope FreeNet will someday stand against a determined opponent with great resources, likie a gov't or multinational
__________
I really thought the whining would stop, but instead both users and the industry have chosen to ignore the new prefixes (summarized below to emphasize the triviality of quibbling) I did not expect everyone to start doing instant conversions, but I did expect them to start using the units as a ballpark indicator of which sort of 'mega' they were using.
True, the difference between terabit and tebibit is only 10%, but if you're going to whine about that 10% (or the 5% megabit gap), presumably you should be using the new standards.
__________
That claim was removed from the Multicians website (possibly as the result of a
Indeed, I wasn't actually prepared to submit the entire article. I was running Mozilla M14 on my beta machine, and it hung while I was fact-checking. I guess I hit the wrong key sequence and the article got submitted by mistake.
__________
WinNT4 never even came close. Yet MS often billed NT as 'secure' to Orange Book "C" level.
As far as I know (and per the Multics home page when I last looked -- a few weeks ago) Multics was the only OS ever certified at the "B" level. That may be the only 'multi-user OS' however.
I haven't used Multics since I was 16, in the late 70's, so I'm not really a partisan of it. Still I did learn my first three programming languages on it (Fortran G/WATFOR/WATFIV, APL, and LISP).
I wouldn't go bcak (to Multics, age 16, or Fortran) for anything!
__________
You raise a very interesting point. Pre-Federation implies pre-"Pax Galaxia". The Earth-allied and -opposed forces would probably be dealing on parallel military/"UN-type" lines. I'd like to see realistic portrayal of the military -- and the rest of society (a very weak point in all the previous series, where non-Federation life was sketchy at best!)
Since the founding of the Federation would be imminent, Earth and the known civilizations would probably be in a postwar or post cold-war state not dissimilar to the current world situation.
I believe that a strong reality-based comparison to current politics could be compelling (well, by ST standards, anyway). They would have their Balkan situation, their third world issues, their period of rapidly exploding technilogy, new open trade frontiers, etc. Among the good points of TOS was how it addressed the sentiments of the era. (I was a very precocious pre-schooler when the original series aired, and loved it. by the time I was 11-12, I thought it was boing geek-fodder. I liked SF, and this wasn't it! It was nicely mainstream "speculative" fiction in its original timeframe, and only the 'big issue' episodes retained their real appeal beyond the 60's)
Change #1: Centralize the Red Shirt
The unfamiliar face on the Bridge used to die by the opening credits. I hope the new series has the brains to make the Red Shirt the central character of many episodes, so they can explore the new world (and by reflection, our own) from many vantage points. Episodes might open with an unfamiliar face who was a political refugee, a restauranteur struggling against 'the new Mafia' after the demise of an authoritarian regime, a new-tech entrepreneur, etc.
I'd even go so far as to make the ensemble peripheral, so the show resembled Twilight Zone (to cite an example contemporary to TOS) more than the closed universe of TOS.
No, they'll never do it. It's too big a break from the original franchise. But I sure think that this could be a genuinely interesting show. I'd be surprised and pleased if they even went as far as JAG, Law and Order, or ER. (all of which I very much enjoy, but are admittedly rather insular)
I guess there is a tremendous appeal to the strong ensemble cast, and it might be a real risk to fight it, but I think even the myopic ST writers have been feeling the contraints of the "strong ensemble" since TOS. That's why they were so many 'breakaway' episodes (sometimes called showcase episodes) following one or two characters away from the 'main base' for the entire show.
If any ST:BoF writers are reading: don't showcase existing characters when you need a change of pace. The fact that you need to change is a sign that perhaps you've gone too far in the wrong direction. 'Showcases' have been among the weakest episodes.
Imagine you had to introduce a new 'major character' think of what you could say and do -- you'd never need a change of pace. The Federation is a very Big Place. Now subtract the 'excuse' -- the new character doesn't have to become a permanent character (semi-recurring might be a nice touch for continuity)
You promised us a universe. Show it to us. Follow a black marketeer, a young person oppressed by a regime (Taliban, Red Chinese, politics of your choice) that they don't hate (or didn't until now) and which is part of a culture they love, a corrupt official who is human not evil, a subsistence farmer looking for help with an irrigation project (or trying to get last century's flood-plain destroying eco-disaster of a mega-dam removed, so the land can return to its original cycles of renewal)
Show us real soldiers, real civilians. Steal from the best episodes in all of television history. there *were* some good points) but do it in a framework that is loose enough that it doesn't require gimmicks to justify the plot. No holodecks -- just thye multiplicity of life in a big universe where the pre-Federation is just the government, not the raison d'etre
Show us characters that are sincere enough to make us think, even if we decide they are wrong.
__________
FreeBSD really rocks,
But only Intel / Alpha box.
The 'Net' one runs on so much more.
The 'Open' one is more secure.
Now I know my BSD's. Won't you come and play with me?
__________
a) Why should we care? Public pressure is the only force defending against certain miscarriages of justice (alas it can also cause them). I wish the record showed that investigations and prosecutions in relative secrecy were better, but they aren't.
b) However, public pressure (good or bad) is always uncomfortable. This rule is intended to remove the discomfort from police/prosecutors (public servants) without addressing any substantial issues of fairness.
c) The rules muzzle almost any substantive comment on the case.
2) "My client admits his guilt and will throw himself on the mercy of the court. He wishes to apologize to the victims and their families." or "My client will deny all charges in court" Instead, just stony silence from the attorney while the public and media are free to speculate. Rule 3.6(b)(2)
3) "DNA, fingerprints, and blood samples all rule my client out." Rule 3.6(b)(3)
4) "We believe we have the right person in custody for this crime." Rule 3.6(b)(4)
Note that the above examples all refer to paragraph (b). That's because paragraph (d) allows the client's counsel several specific reasonable comments that might be against paragraph (a) but offers no such protection against paragraph (b)
__________
ROBOT.TXT has some very real problems. One is that the file must be placed at the root directory of a site (per the original spec) and this is not compatible with some hosting services. Another is that it was a one-stop 'shopping list' of targets for the less-than-scrupulous. And of course, as everyone knows, compliance is voluntary.
At the very least, allowing robot.txt as a per-directory access restriction would make far more sense today: it would be a little more flexible, and would not provide a shopping list. (it was not adopted in the original, because it was more bandwidth intensive)
However, we really need a more flexible plan from the ground up, to deal with the needs presented here today. At the very least, it would help the 'cooperating' bot owner to better understand the wishes of the site owner. Today, I suspect that most suites that care about bots at all would allow indexing of some content but not all, and would like to specify access based on use.
The compliance issue, alas, is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. It's up there with Direct Marketing dinnertime phone calls and spam.
__________
On one of those systems -- it may have been ITS -- they gout around the problem of juvenile users crashing the OS (and destroying the work others were doing at the time) by adding a 'kill' command . Now it was no longer cool or clever to crash the OS, it was trivial and juvenile. A yawner.
I really do wish we could implement this on the internet, but it would never work, not with dozens of newbies logging on for the first time every second [there's a scary statistic for you: tens of millions of new users per year divided by half a million seconds a year]
Not to mention the prospects of typos on command line interfaces, people experimenting without RTFM'ing, and all those 'wits' who enjoy telling newbies to rm -rf
But boy, it's a pleasant thought!
__________
Such displays may not do much to discourage the Oppositional-Defiant Personality types, or those who feel so dispossessed that they don't even see themselves as part of the larger Internet community (or many other types we seem to love over-generalizing about)...
...but they do *something* to suggest to the general community that this is a problem -- "our" problem, not "their" problem, where "they" is some highly paid corporate IT professional network manager.
I think the shutdown is a valuable display of solidarity
__________
For example, for diabetes, it might be enough to get the gene (under a proper control sequence)
into a fraction of you pancreas B-cells.
For other diseases, like phenylketuria (the inability to process certain amino acids like phenylalanine, it might be enough to get the enzyme gene (suitably activated) into a relatively small number of cells, anywhere in the body. Here the goal is just to break down enough of the a.a. by a harmless pathway to keep the toxicity down.
Sometimes, you don't even need to change the cells in the body. For example, a permeable container of genetically engineered cells implanted in the body would work for some diseases
2) It isn't going to be easy. A test subject for a genetic modification died last month of an unexplainable liver failure, being exposed to a usually harmless virus, loaded with a human gene. the other test subjects were fine. No one knows why.
__________
__________
Without actual access to the modified equipment, we cannot be sure that it meets the general requirements of 18 CFR 18.305 (or section 3 generally)
For 2.4GHz ISM transmitters, used by consumers, under 500W, the transmitter field strength can be no greater that 25 mV/m at 300 m. Replacing a 9tested) nondirectional antenna with directional could cause this limit to be exceeded in some directions
but how can they (or other LANs) use the ISM band? It was my understanding that ISM was intended for quite different use, and that telecommunications was specifically excluded. Isn't a network 'telecommunications"?
I've heard the 2450 MHz mentioned as a LAN freq. before. Is it possible Apple was just being lazy in referring to it as by the general name ISM, when there's a specific authorization for this use elsewhere in the law. Or is everyone just relying on the fact that ISM is relatively unregulated?
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 4, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307.
Source: 50 FR 36067, Sept. 5, 1985, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 18.107
(a) Radio frequency (RF) energy...
(b) Harmful interference...
(c) Industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) equipment. Equipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally RF energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of telecommunication. Typical ISM applications are the production of physical, biological, or chemical effects such as heating, ionization of gases, mechanical vibrations, hair removal and acceleration of charged particles.
(d) Industrial heating equipment...
(e) Medical diathermy equipment...
(f) Ultrasonic equipment... for industrial,
scientific, medical or other noncommunication purposes.
(g) Consumer ISM equipment... Examples are domestic microwave ovens, jewelry cleaners for home use, ultrasonic humidifiers.
(h) ISM frequency....
(i) Marketing... covers leasing, sale, etc
(j) Magnetic resonance equipment...
Does someone know the law on this? Because if it's a matter of squatter's rights, the FCC states that even if they certify the equipment, they can yank the equipment off an ISM band, if they decide it isn't a ISM use.
Sec. 18.111 General operating conditions.
(a) Persons operating ISM equipment shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to the continued use of any given frequency, by virtue of any prior equipment authorization and/or
compliance with the applicable rules.
__________
You have the intron argument exactly backwards When you read those statistics about 98% similarity, it includes the total genome (introns, exons, non-coding 'junk DNA', telomeric tails and other repeating sequences).
How could we compile a 98% index of similarity in introns? We don't even know a full 98% of the human genes yet, much less their introns? Much less the monkey genes/introns to compare them with?
Even after we have the genome sequenced, it will be many years before we find all the sequences that act as genes, much less the methods of their processing and expression (like introns)
These much-bandied numbers came (years ago) from random sampling techniques, and the sequences of (then) known genes. Predictably, we sequence the important and easily located genes first. These numbers are inaccurate, and should be shot on sight, because, as I will explain, there will never be a single accurate meaningful percentage number for "how much like the chimps are we." Never.
Important proteins are usually more highly conserved (don't change much) because changing them is often life-threatening. Most changes adversely impact the organism. [Histones, for example, are so highly concerved that they are only a few base pair differentin man, cow, and pea. Such conservation is rare, however]
99.9999999 the same? Give me a break. If that were true, human individuals would only vary by four base pairs on average. Watch your numbers, willya?
In fact (for reasons I will cite below), any two random cells in your own body are probably not 99.99999999% identical
So how much is the difference betwee humans?
There are roughly 10,000 genes in the human genome (an estimate widely used in the field). Since I can name, off the top of my head, a few dozen common variable allelles (e.g. AB blood type, minor blood types, eye color, etc) I'd be very surprised if there weren't hundreds of less known common variable allelles (100/10,000 =1%) So I doubt most humans are 98% identical on an ALLELLE level and 95% may be pushing it (ALLELLES are 'different gene forms' like blue vs brown eyes, or Rh+ vs Rh-)
But you're talking on a BASE PAIR level, and that's purely a philosophical question, not a matter of strict numbers as you suggest If you drop a single base pair, all the subsequent amino acids will be TOTALLY different (this is called a frame-shift mutation, and in fact the gene will usually become nonfunctional because an accidental 'stop codon [3 of the 64 codons are stop codons] will likely be created with a short distance of the change)
One could argue that this is a a one base pair change in the gene, but it wipes the gene out entirely.
Another type of mutation is "conversion" where an A becomes a C, etc. You almost certainly carry thousands of base pair conversions compared to your ancestors, but they have little or no effect on your genes, their products, ot the effectiveness of the function of the protein functions
And how do you count transversion? If a big chunk of a monkey liver enzyme gene is now used in a human brain gene? Is that a match or not? Or if the entire monkey enzyme is now never used in the human liver, but only in the human brain, is that a match? Or what if an enzyme splits into two forms that are used in different tissues and are very similar, and perhaps sometimes even combined (e.g. creatine kinase)? What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Therefore, counting random base pair homology (similarity) is an irrelevant exercise in today's science. If we need to count (and why would we do with that info, except supply ignorant science writers with sound bites?) we need to specify the proper comaprative index: functional allele differences, marker mutations for genealogy, population divergences, identifying founder effect gene fixations, etc
In fact, even counting allelles is a matter of philosophy Is 'redhead' really a different gene from blonde or brunette if the base pairs turn out to be 99% the same (they aren't). On the other hand, your immune system may run on HLA27, while your brothers runs omn HLA8 -- entirely different genes serving the same function, and it won't matter unless one of you needs a transplant (may the The Gods of Immunology forgive me for that oversimplification!)
Basically, an 'Allelle' (different gene form) is whatever we say it it, whatever is important for the specific question we are investigating.
The 95% (98% 99.999%) number is useless and will always be useless except to hack science writers -- though the underlying principle of the commonality of genomes is useful. I've come to believe that the *number* is downright harmful to readers of hack science writers
Suffice it to say that the human 'DNA copying mechanism has roughly an error rate of one per billion base pairs, and the human genome is roughly 3 billion base pairs. Every time a human cell divides, the daughter cells probably are a few base pairs different. The cells in your body now are typically dozens of generations away from your embryonic state and are not exactly identical -- but their divergent mutations are probably less than 1 part per Million
Even most genes you'd die without ('important' genes) only have a few critical regions, and can mutate to varying degrees in the rest of the gene. Think of it this way: binding sites may have to be very precisely conserved, but the 'bricks' that hold them the right distance apart, and at the right orientation aren't so important.
In fact there are entire families that are hypervariable: Immunoglobin genes (antibodies) are different, even between identical twins -- so are olfactory receptor genes (though there may be some fixed 'common' olfactory receptors)
A lot of the confusion arises when people learn that (for example) a single tiny change in the B chain for hemoglobin can cause sickle cell. But that change alters the geometry at a 'corner' of the protein that throws the entire protein off.
[it has been suggested that sickle cell hemoglobin is so widespread because it protects aginst malaria, and therefore served a valuable function. Malaria has been one of the biggest killers of humans since pre-history, possibly *the* biggest]
'Variability of expression' is not the primary reason for the large differences. Subtle differences in genes (and the interactions between their products) can produce significant effects.
__________
SEQUENCING means creating a complete list of the nucleotides in order. If you had this information, you could actually synthesize the entire genome of the individual. [There are some sophisticated niceties like methylation that distinguish the synthesized version from one extracted from a human, but it's essentially complete.] There are other factors (like which regulatory binding sites are actually bound, by what proteins; exact state of histone supercoiling, etc.) that control gene expression enough to keep this from being a working human genome, but it's awfully close.
MAPPING means determining distances between known genes. Using this information, you can deduce where the various genes are, the approximate location of specific unknown genes, and many other useful facts. A detailed map is a good starting place for hunting down a gene, so you can locate and sequence it; it also can tell you what traits are likely to be inherited together, etc.
A "sequence" is a complete blueprint (though there are details that aren't covered by sequence alone) A map is like a geographical map that shows where all the cities and large towns are. There are still many factories, facilities, and industrial complexes off that map -- not to mention all the roads, rivers, mountains and utility lines. ETC.
A sequence is a lot more information, and a wonderfully compact database - at 2 bits per base pair (4 possible cases), you could fit a complete human genome in under a gigabyte. (That's only one human, however.)
Naturally, even once we had the genome (or preferably a few thousand individuals, to let us get a real handle on variations), we could still spend decades or centuries figuring out what it all meant. 3x10^9 bases is a lot of info. You thought it was hard trying to trace western civilization in the first million digits of pi.
I am not a Molecular Biologist - anymore. But I was, about 10 years ago.
__________
This post will cite a few of the Supreme Court precedents (and my idiosyncratic comments) on billboards/mailings -- as an analogy to the Internet IANAL/IALANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer, however I Am a Little ANAL)
PLEASE NOTE: These are federal laws/rulings. the states actually have much more leeway in what they can legislate, and 'regulations' of Federal agencies often survive scrutiny under the thinnest of pretexts. (e.g. the FCC in my post on broadcasting as a legal analogy for Internet) Therefore such 'free Speech niceties' as public access channels on cable TV can vanish at will. They are not First Amendment.
In the interests of laziness, I'll let The Court cite a list of cases for further study, and I'll describe some of these cases below. [from Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)]:
This Court has often faced the problem of applying the broad principles of the First Amendment to unique forums of expression. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 [billing envelope inserts]; Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 [picketing in residential areas]; Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 [door-to-door and on-street solicitation]; Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 [Army bases]; Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 [outdoor movie theaters]; Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 [advertising space within city-owned transit system]. Even a cursory reading of these opinions reveals that at times First Amendment values must yield to other societal interests.
These cases support the cogency of Justice Jackson's remark in Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 97 (1949): Each method of communicating ideas is 'a law unto itself' and that law must reflect the 'differing natures, values, abuses and dangers' of each method. We deal here with the law of billboards.
And now for the rest of the cases:
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)] is most significant because it explicitly made a distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech (which was a very tenuous reach, IMHO). Fortunately, in Metromedia, the decision was that commercial speech could be denied access in some situations where non-commercial speech could not. Alas, in cases like Lehman (below), the finding was the opposite: political speech was denied access, while commercial speech wasn't.
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 Lehman wanted to buy placard space on the public transit for simple signs with his picture and the words Harry J. Lehman is old fashioned about Honesty, Integrity and Good Government. The Sc ruled that the Transit Authority could refuse to sell because the 'audience was captive' and 'forced to use the public transit' to go to work, home, etc. and therefore not 'free' to avoid the message. Of course, they were also not free to avoid the ads for liquor, cigarettes, automobiles, churches, retail stores, commercial services, and public service organizations (all of which the Transit Authority routinely sold placard space to -- they were the reason placard space was available! Indeed, the Transit Authority argues (and the Court agreed) that selling political space might offend their regular customers, who might lose ad space during the election season!
In a dissent, Judge Brennan pointed out the real rights of the captives: "Commercial and public service advertisements are routinely accepted for display, while political messages are absolutely prohibited. Few examples are required to illustrate the scope of the city's policy and practice. For instance, a commercial advertisement peddling snowmobiles would be accepted, while a counter-advertisement calling upon the public to support legislation controlling the environmental destruction and noise pollution caused by snowmobiles would be rejected. Alternatively, a public service ad by the League of Women Voters would be permitted, advertising the existence of an upcoming election and imploring citizens to vote, but a candidate, such as Lehman, would be barred from informing the public about his candidacy, qualifications for office, or position on particular issues."
This is "impermissible", according to Brennan (but remember, he is the dissenting opinion -- the Court as a whole considered and rejected these arguments!): These, and other examples, make perfectly clear that the selective exclusion of political advertising is not the product of evenhanded application of neutral 'time, place, and manner' regulations. Rather, the operative - and constitutionally impermissible - distinction is the message on the sign.
A theater may advertise a motion picture that portrays sex and violence, but the Legion for Decency has no right to post a message calling for clean films. A lumber company may advertise its wood products, but a conservation group cannot implore citizens to write to the President or Governor about protecting our natural resources. An oil refinery may advertise its products, but a citizens' organization cannot demand enforcement of existing air pollution statutes. An insurance company may announce its available policies, but a senior citizens' club cannot plead for legislation to improve our social security program.
This is a troubling ruling, for those of us who hoped to use the Internet to extend our right of free expression. For the kicker, however, see the next case!
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 was an interesting case, because the Court ruled that the PSC could not stop ConEd from placing circulars touting the benefits of nuclear energy in customer bills (printed and mailed at customer expense, through the electricity rates) 'in the public interest' (of saving money). The courts ruled that the US mail wasn't a public forum and didn't warrant 'protection' like the public transit in Lehman vs. Shaker Heights, but dismissed the argument that a) the customer was charged against his/her will; b) the bills were actually read in homes and businesses, not at the USPO, which should be protected (we are a 'captive audience', even more 'forced' to read our bills for important announcements than we are 'forced' to read streetcar placards.);
c) the customer should therefore have the right to block such messages from entering their home if they wished, and certainly to avoid paying for them. This case may have interesting implications for spam. You see how oddly inconsistent this case is with other rulings. The only consistent theme is "political speech is dirty" [I guess 'appointed Justices' are above all that] while 'commerce is pure and unobjectionable'.
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 and Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 basically upheld peaceful picketing and pamphleteering as high hallowed pillars of our democracy. The major stipulation has been that the picketing be 'peaceful' -- The 'Skokie' cases (right of neoNazis to march in a suburb with a high percentage of concentration camp survivors) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (KKK preaching expulsion of Jews from the US, with thinly veiled suggestions for violence0 were both upheld because the 'violent speech' test is very rigorous.
Contrast this attitude towards old-tech (person/print) political speech with the attitude taken with newer tech (e.g. broadcast, in my posting: Analogy 2) where the stance has been consistently "the public must be protected from fusillades of crackpots" and "the government knows what is reasonable, and will make sure the (licensed) broadcasters adhere to that standard" Near-incitement to violence (but not actual incitement or "fighting words") with old tech is acceptable, and even desirable under Justice Holmes' doctrine of "competition in the marketplace of ideas" -- But words alone, in new-tech, are not protected, in the sense that the court has ruled there is no First Amendment right of public access. Alas, Internet is 'newest tech', and is going to experience even more hysterical fear and efforts at regulation.
There's a lot more, but that's enough (rather, way too much) for now
I think I'll leave you with a Supreme Court ruling that will disturb your sleep: it is very possible that, if the USPS decides to start delivering e-mail, it will become illegal for anyone to send you mail except through them. The precedent is this: it is actually illegal (punishable by $300/count). In other words, if you want to designate the mailbox you've paid for (that is, your private property) to act as a receptacle to receive messages directly from a group... well, sorry you can't
In this case, the Court holds constitutional 18 U.S.C. 1725 which provides: "Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for each such offense be fined not more than $300." The italicized examples [my emphasis] in the statute pertain to commercial speech, but the abstraction refers to "any" mailable matter. They just didn't happen to cite non-commercial examples [Per U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh, 453 U.S. 114 (1981): "We reject appellees' additional assertion raised below that 18 U.S.C. ? cannot be applied to them because it was intended to bar the deposit of commercial materials only. The statute on its face bars the deposit of "any mailable matter" without proper postage, and
Am I exaggerating? Well, let's hear what Justice Marshal said (in a dissenting opinion):
"I remain troubled by the Court's effort to transform the letterboxes entirely into components of the governmental enterprise despite their private ownership. Under the Court's reasoning, the Postal Service could decline to deliver mail unless the recipients agreed to open their doors to the letter carrier - and then the doorway, or even the room inside could fall within Postal Service control.
So if the USPS ever delivers e-mail, better not send any e-mail directly until the Supreme Court clarifies. Surely going a few months or years without e-mail is a small hardship... right?
Well, why do you think those 'discount circular companies' started hanging their circulars in plastic bags from your mailbox, instead of stuffing them inside? Nonetheless, if they ever start enforceing this law, it'll be a real cash cow at $300/pop. I see it broken almost every day.
So many more examples.. but it's late
__________
IANAL, and this is not intended to be a full discussion of the topic. It is only a mild 'eye-opener' (I could have used more shocking examples). The broadcast media of the past is a warning to the Internet of today
This post covers CBS, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973). In 1970, the Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace (BEM) complained to the FCC that radio station WTOP (Wash,DC) refused to sell it airtime for a series of one-minute spots expressing BEM's views on Vietnam. Four months later, the DNC wanted to buy airtime to express the Democratic patrty's views on Vietnam. Both parties lost. The Supreme Court ruled that no individual or organization had a "right" to express "editorial" views on the public airwaves.
In a famous ruling, they found that the Communications Act of 1934 abridged such right of free speech by giving preferential treatment in the form of broadcast licenses and simultaneously rejecting the "common carrier" model. If you read this ruling, you'll find that much of what you thought you knew about free Speech and public media is very possibly wrong.
Am I the only one who finds the following quote chilling: Once we get away from the bare words of the [First] Amendment, we must construe it as part of a Constitution which creates a government for the purpose of performing several very important tasks. The [First] Amendment should be interpreted so as not to cripple the regular work of the government... Although free speech should weigh heavily in the scale in the event of conflict, still the Commission[the FCC] should be given ample scope to do its job. In other words, "this would be too much work for the FCC (and might reverse some of its policies). Rather than adjust the FCC, we will curtail First Amendment rights
I can only agree with Justice brennan's dissent: "[W]e have consistently held that 'when authority derives in part from Government's thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private persons becomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by Government itself." and "the Government has selected the persons who will be permitted to operate a broadcast station, extensively regulates those broadcasters, and has specifically approved the challenged broadcaster policy. . . . the Government 'has so far insinuated itself into a
position' of participation in the challenged policy as to make the Government itself responsible for its effects."
In other words, the FCC (as noted in the 1973 ruling) has a deliberate, mandated right and interest in making sure that the station's broadcast content is "accountable". The majority decision complained "No such accountability can be attached to an individual, whose only qualifications [to have an 'editorial opinion' aired] is sufficient funds [to buy a 60-second spot] and a point of view" Those unaccountable animals! who knows what they might say!
Please note, that no one ever said radio stations had to accept all comers (or we'd have 24 hour crackpot radio). The DNC/BEM only argued that all comers should have equal access to purchasing radio time. In other words, that stations should not be allowed to refuse to sell a given advertising minute to a 'editorial' if they'd happily sell that same minute to GE to sell lightbulbs.
As Justice Brennan said:
[A]s the system now operates, any person wishing to market a particular brand of beer, soap, toothpaste, or deodorant has direct, personal, and instantaneous access to the electronic media. He can present his own message, in his own words, in any format he selects, and at a time of his own choosing. Yet a similar individual seeking to discuss war, peace, pollution, or the suffering of the poor is denied this right to speak. Instead, he is compelled to rely on the beneficence of a corporate 'trustee' appointed by the Government to argue his case for him.
[1]
This footnote deleted for space, but damn! it was a good one[3]
[2]
Damn! This one too!
[3]
Okay, one snippet of [1]:
The ruling notes that "...47 U.S.C. 202 provides that: '(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to... make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.' In rejecting the common carrier model, Congress rejected a sanction that could have been used against any government-licensed broadcaster who did give an "undue" or "unreasonable" preference or advantage to a particular class of persons. The rejection of the common carrier model allowed, therefore, not only censoring of speech, but unreasonable censoring of speech."
__________
[Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) ]
Most people would think this would merely cover viruses and other malicious code. However, the truth of this ruling is much darker and it's implications deeper
Interestingly, Schenk was an espionage case! [Espionage Act of 1917, a Federal law which, among other things, made it a crime to obstruct government draft recruiting and enlistment efforts]
Okay, so espionage is not free speech.
However, Schenck printed leaflets, mostly mailed to draftees. The front side contained the text of Section I of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the back side contained a text including passages like: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your Rights", "your right to assert your opposition to the draft", and "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."
Schenck was convicted (and the conviction upheld) informing fellow citizens of their constitutional rights!
Further, as Justice Holmes wrote in the Supreme Court Decision: "The defendants were found guilty on all counts. They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, and
Many argue that "fire in a crowded theater may have been a common sense dictum, but it was written to support and perpetuate horrible miscarriages. For example, there was no finding that Schenk wrote anything false.
Justice Holmes crafted one of the most brilliant and memorable analogies in Supreme court history, then used it to justify one of the worst black moments in First Amendment History. [A week later, the Supreme court used this ruling to uphold the Espionage Act itself in Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919), stating that the "First Amendment had been disposed of". The Law of the Land can change lickety split.] Of course, most people who have even heard of the later Alien and Sedition Act (of the following year) know what a terrible abuse it was.
Please propagate this information whenever you see the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy used improperly. (which is most of the time) We geeks need to understand and explore the ramifications of the analogy, or it'll come back to bite us. The First Amendment is not the holy raiment some of us seem to think
Further, the First Amendment specifically addresses Congress and Federal Law. States have at various times argued (sometimes successfully) that they have deeper rights (under the reserved rights clause) to control free speech than the Feds do. I am sure that fact brings endless cheer to geeks in, say, Alabama [Hey, I was born in Georgia]
Finally, I close with more of Holmes words from the Schenk Decision:
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. But when men have realized that time hasupset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
__________
I have many distinct analogies to present, and each will undoubtedly interest different people and warrants separate discussion,(besides, by the time I get a chance to write them all up, the article will be archived -- I do have other work to do, after all.) so I'm posting each separately in this thread. for your reading and/or ignoring convenience
Sometimes this works on
__________
If I could, I'd moderate StreetLawyer up in the hopes of starting a discussion (alas moderators don't hit the book reviews often)
While it may smack of a dark corporate culture of ingrained cover-ups to us geek-types, the fact is that excesive records can be a genuine danger even to those of us who feel we have nothing to hide.
IANAL, but I was recently the plaintiff in a civil suit, and I was surprised by the dismay of my attorney at the voluminous records I had kept, documenting every meeting with the defendant for the past two years (all cc'd to the defendant within days of the meeting, with requests for comments). I thought I was being diligent and even praiseworthy.
Not so. It turns out that my words, even if cc'd for comment, can almost always be used against me, but are apparently rather weak support for my version of events.
Fortunately, (much to my lawyer's surprise) we found nothing it those memos to injure my case, but they also were of no help when the defendant (more accurately, the defendant's employees - the defnadant was a large organization) simply pled "I don't know", "I don't remember the letter", and "I skim those things and throw them away. I don't have any of them in my files"
[It was infuriating, somehow we thing Big Outfits file everything -- and they probably do, but how are you going to prove it? This outfit had defended against such suits in the past, and had learned its lession well)
Most of us could stand to improve the organization in our lives, and are bitten by "I wish I had that file" more than "wish I didn't", but "too much data" is potentially harmful. As cases involving e-mail and USENET have shown, casual, ill-framed, or out-of-context remarks can be damning.
The cleaner your backups, the fewer irrelevant details (especially details even *you* didn't know) to mess you up. If you get sued for copying code, you don't want the plaintiff to be able to find a backup showing a bootleg copy of his program on your network -- even if it was just something your summer intern installed to help him/her understand your product.
If you had something in your house that was useless and potentially toxic, I hope you'd get rid of it (even if it is related to you by marriage
__________