I just (barely) graduated from Yale, so I'll bite...
1. Why would Princeton want Yale rejects?
Because Yale (like many other schools of its type) gets so many good applicants that the admissions office claims you could get just as good a freshman class from the rejects each year. Since admissions is pretty much just dumb luck anyway, some quality people get rejected. And, of course, there's quite a bit of competition for applicants. Hell, some people get rejected from Yale and accepted at Harvard.
2. How crap is Yale for allowing something stupid like this?
Without going into too much detail, pretty dumb, yes. Most things here are given more careful thought.
3. How stupid are Yale for getting caught?
That's "Princeton" you meant. I think that's probably dumber. But it's hilarious all around. You just can't make this shit up...
They told them the site was insecure long after accessing all that info, and they barely waited to check it after it came online. That's stupid and criminal. To be fair, I'd say criminal sanctions are unrealistic and unfair, but some people should get sacked.
Needless to say, there's a lot of blame to go around here. . . we're not all as clueless as our admissions office, though.
It's shocking how many people in this thread agree with you. As government property, it was available for research (one of the linked articles has an archived article discussing this) and held in trust for the people. In fact, that article says they get requests from institutions all over the world to study the rocks. Anyone who wants their own personal moon rocks can fund their own expedition to get them. I doubt the feds would have much of a case trying to wrest those away.
At any rate, the point here is that these particular rocks were most certainly US property, and these assholes were trying to sell them to a private collector. I fail to see any gray area.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think China will continue to adapt until it more and more resembles fascism rather than communism, with enough local democracy to let the populace think it's in charge. It hasn't grown significantly less autocratic, but it has become more economically liberal, with the result that the political situation is stabilized. A number of my co-workers are Chinese (and had no problem coming here to work or study), and one said that as long as the economy continues to improve the people won't complain much about the oppressive regime.
I think China has a great deal of potential, but their government is dangerous and needs to change. It doesn't appear likely to fall anytime soon, though- the best hope is for continuing liberalization.
- Under the GPL, if you use someone else's (GPL'd) work in your own, you must release it under the GPL. In the situation you propose, if you use Microsoft's work, Microsoft can take control of your derivative. How is that more permissive? There's no irony here- Microsoft would be limiting the conditions under which you may release your work. And they're doing so in a way that is at least as restrictive, if not more, than the GPL, but doesn't benefit anyone but MS. Besides, the GPL does make software freely available to Microsoft- they just have to follow certain rules.
- There's room for interpretation on the issue of whether this is "Microsoft's technology". I assume SGI actually invented it; furthermore, the software implementation could be independent of the patent. The GPL forces you to release your code under the GPL if you incorporate GPL'd code into it. What we're talking about forces you to release your code under a non-GPL'd license if you use a certain abstract technological concept.
I have no idea what Microsoft's plan is, and I think this story may be overblown. But for them to prohibit GPL-like licenses is certainly more restrictive than the GPL.
Now if we just used those things to do molecular interaction models for AIDS vaccines, maybe Tolkien wouldn't be spinning in his grave right now.
This rests on two dicey assumptions:
- Tolkein would not have approved of the movie. Most of the diehard Tolkein fans I know thought the movie made some annoying errors and changes, but felt the overall product was stunning. But we're talking about visuals, and I can't see any reason for complaint. It wasn't anything like how *I* imagined Middle Earth, but I thought it was just as good.
- Molecular interaction models are actually worthwhile. You do not simply fire up lots of computers and find vaccines. It takes accurate models, and real science, and years of theory and benchwork. It's amazing how many people here think computers are going to make traditional science obsolete. Believe me, there is lots of money being spent on this field. There's no reason why using 400-700 processors, paid for by private investors, is a "waste". By the time we see really worthwhile results from de novo computational drug design, that render farm will be worth $400 on eBay.
Dude, why choose caffeine as an example? I've never known anyone who could get that fucked up on coffee. Have you ever known anyone to walk into class/work on Monday and say "Man, I did sooo many lattes Saturday night... still feel lightheaded..."
Besides, I've never been desperate enough to break into someone's house and steal their TV so I can afford my Starbucks fix.
Or, given the complete contempt of the cartels for any sort of human suffering, and their overriding greed, they'd probably just form a coalition to artificiall inflate prices anyway, and we'd be just as bad off. I'm not entirely opposed to ending the War on Drugs, but any ending must involve the destruction of the current organizations. As long as the cartels continue to exist, they'll continue to fuck us- legalization won't change that.
I agree with you all, but I'd like to see the cartel leaders strung up by the testicles first. It's hard to imagine a more depraved group of individuals. Sure, the War on Drugs has been awful for the US and Columbia, but this doesn't change the fact that the big drug distributors are genuinely evil. They do not operate in a "free market", they will kill anyone who gets in their way. We ought to be looking at peaceful solutions in Columbia, but only for the "little guys". The gangsters should be shot, quickly.
Of course, by my standards if we bust the cartels we should probably bust Shell Oil and Unocal as well. *sigh*...
I've been wondering about that, though. I think people should be able to use Bibles in these ceremonies- I don't feel like it's a violation of anyone's rights. However, they should be free to use the Koran, etc., or whatever else they like within reason. Certainly we shouldn't force a Muslim/Buddhist/godless freak to swear on the Bible. I'm just not at all offended by the fact that the president is sworn in with a Bible. Nowhere is it said that politicians can't have religion, even if I sometimes wish they'd stop talking about God so much.
I agree completely. These are the people who feel compelled to explain that they're atheists when you wish them "Happy Holidays" in December. They're also the ones who tried to get an atheist chaplain for my university. They're also the ones who say politicians should not base votes on their religious beliefs. Newdow is clearly one of those people. By his standard, C-SPAN is religious programming- can't have his daughter hearing nearly every politician in the country bloviate about God.
Atheism, as commonly practiced, is just as much a religion as Christianity. Most don't simply not believe in God, they firmly believe in the non-existence of God. A subtle difference, but it matters.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some chickens to sacrifice.
Heh. You forget that none of the causes you mention involve playing with huge computers. A lot of these machines are, however, being used to do protein-folding simulations- Blue Gene, or the PNNL's new machine (I think). I'm fine with simulating nukes, because it means fewer Pacific islands get slagged. Protein folding, on the other hand, is often something of a joke- some people get very interesting results that tell us a lot about biophysics, but absolutely nothing whatsoever indicates that we'll be able to do accurate structure prediction anytime soon. It's amazing how many people think completely computerized drug design is right around the corner.
From what I've read, a real useful advance in computational biology would be to automate building and refining of protein structures from crystallography. It's just not as sexy, though.
I'm glad to see so many people I agree with (for a change!). Play was fucking brilliant- and it's some of the only non-classical music that both me, my brother, and my mom can enjoy. '18' is derivative in every way, and I was hoping for some new frontier in music to be reached again. The whole gospel/techno thing was extraordinary; too bad he couldn't follow it up with something equally extraordinary and different.
But give him a little credit. '18' wasn't bad, in fact several of the tracks are wonderful if you don't treat it as anything more than Play II (I'm thinking in particular of "In this world" and "One of these mornings", which are exactly like "Natural Blues" but still as beautiful). Even some of the ones where he insists on singing are pretty good. And frankly, I only like six or so tracks on Play well enough to listen to them repeatedly. So what I'll do is rip the tracks I like from each CD and burn myself a mix containing all my favorites. Besides, we'll be listening to Moby in everywhere (including elevators) for the next few years, and that's far preferrable to most artists out there. It's very easy to filter out as background noise, but in a good way.
There may be a point to Moby's complaint, for a different reason. I first borrowed Play from a friend at work, wore out my burned copy, and bought the album. '18' I just went straight to the store and bought (assuming it'd be brilliant)- and loaned my friend a copy. I'd bet many, many people burned copies of '18' and discovered that it just wasn't up to snuff. Non-techies, on the other hand, don't realistically have this option, and just go ahead and buy the CD. I think the techie way makes more sense, but (for the musician) it only works if people end up either trashing their burned disc or buying a copy. And Christ, I know a hell of a lot of people who don't do this.
"A Deepness in the Sky" is almost as good (but not quite). The human cultures are more interesting in it- the aliens are completely different but no less fascinating. The plot, unfortunately, sort of loses steam whenever he switches focus back to the humans. (Part of the reason for this may have been that it's a sequel, and I know what eventually happens... so it seems that the novel almost ends on a depressing note)
Regardless, I'm amazed at his ability to imagine non-human cultures- and then describe them in familiar terms, even though they're totally different. It's giant spiders in this one.
I cringed when I read that, but it's really cool that they cited "A Fire Upon the Deep". That was one badass book. Even if his galactic USENET doesn't make too much sense the way it's pictured in the book, the idea of an entire planet whose economy is based around routing network traffic is way cool. Vinge's is probably the most fascinating portrayal of a civilized galaxy that I've read, and (despite his odd contrivances, which I won't give away here) one of the most realistic. Certainly far more original than a "Galactic Empire".
Okay, I'm through trolling for Vinge. Anyone know of sci-fi works of comparable merit published in the past decade? I'd given up until I read his last two...
Wrong. The DOE paid for a large chunk of the Human Genome Project, and the NIH paid even more. Assorted federal agencies give money to most biomedical researchers in the US, and we're not expected to do anything classified. It truly is given to advance the cause of science. Although, yes, we don't get the kind of serious money that makes for really nice labs- but the crystallographers down the hall from me did manage to afford an Apple Cinema display. Some wannabe-free-market-conservatives would say that the NIH is a perfect example of government waste, but it's why the US, despite our educational problems, is a scientific giant and attracts people from all over the world. Even colleagues who regularly mock US culture and our "odd" priorities admit that government support of research is nearly unparalleled.
As for the wealthy idealists, there are lots of those, and some have a shitload of money. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Keck Foundation are two of the most prominent. The HHMI gives out so much money that professors under its wing are officially both "Professor of and HHMI Principal Investigator". Good stuff.
Are you joking or not? I sure hope so, because you're on crack if you believe any of what you just wrote. Biomedical research is being held up by gene patents - you'd know that if you'd ever read any of the many related articles that have been posted on Slashdot in the past, or if you were (like me) a molecular biologist. Read a college biochem textbook, it'll clear things up.
Companies can always patent their final therapy, and there's very little that can be done to get around those patents outside of violating the patent outright. Gene patents, on the other hand, simply block other groups from doing research. This includes research done with your tax dollars, that isn't getting done because some biotech patented genes it can't even use.
Finally, just as much real innovation goes on in academia (biotechs end up getting commercial rights- the arrangement has its problems but is generally good for the public). We should eliminate gene patents, and double the NIH budget. (Getting university administrators to stop skimming off the top of research grants would be good too- I'm sure someone else here knows what I'm talking about.)
To a certain extent you're correct, but it's far easier to get unbloated software for Linux. You only have to use the bloated stuff if you want to. I won't touch GNOME if I can help it, and I never use a file manager. I mostly just have a bunch of shells and a web browser open (whether at home or at work). I get my work done just as quickly as anyone- the learning curve was definitely higher, but I'm more efficient in the end.
Windows, OTOH, does not give me this flexibility. This is what I hate about MS products- they force you into a certain way of doing things, more often than not.
Jack Valenti claimed that file-sharing networks were in development on college campuses that the MPAA or RIAA wouldn't even be able to see. Hell, I was getting my mp3's off AppleShare before Napster even existed. Valenti, clearly, has no idea what a network actually is. They fundamentally have no clue what the regulations they're pushing are like- they've claimed (in the DeCSS cases) that open-source developers believe all software should be free, even the copyrighted sort.
So, yeah, they really are that clueless. I don't think anyone has given any thought to the conflict; those of the Powers That Be that have had it brought to their attention have probably just shrugged it off. "But we're Disney, not a bunch of pimply-faced pirates!"
You may feel differently, but I cannot conceive of a plausible justification. Except that liberty isn't important to you.
Maybe I don't have quite so fucked-up of an idea of "liberty"? Maybe I've not been spending quite so much time smoking weed and reading the GNU Manifesto?
Tell me, do you ever use Shell Oil? Unocal? Chevron? They've done far worse than Disney could ever dream of. Just because free software is important to you, doesn't make your issues with Disney more important than all the problems of millions around the world who face real loss of liberty due to corporate evil.
If you have a good CS degree, you can get a decent job. But the real jobs are for scientists. Even if you're not all that great a programmer, if you're a PhD you can do real "experimentation", insofar as this is possible with computers. Knowing how to investigate a problem is the real problem- how you do it is often secondary. Without real training in the life sciences (and math, and sometimes physics) you'll be lost without someone to direct you.
Of course, there are cases where good programming skills are most important. But if you're the type who needs those O'Reilly books, I wouldn't bother. Those are great for biologists who need to pick up some bioinformatics on the side. Real computer programmers would do better to pick up a serious biochem text, and think about grad school.
Speaking as a bioinformaticist (non-PhD, but with significant academic experience), protein folding simulations are extraordinarily overhyped. The potential for computers in structural biology is immense- every protein structure published has been refined by computer simulation. The theory involved is quite sound and the results are considered excellent. However, this still requires a great deal of experimental work. Folding via computer is still in the realm of pure theory, and while some people can come up with reasonable guesses at very low resolutions for small proteins (which is already quite difficult), this is next to useless for drug design. You need to have a high-res structure (about 3 angstroms, less is better), and computers just can't do that.
It's not a matter of power so much as theory. A lot of people don't seem to understand this, which is why you can get lots of money to solve the folding problem. So sure, it's probably a good field to be in financially speaking. Scientifically speaking, it's comparable to AI in CS research- lots of big talk, few results. You'd be better off working on improving existing tools to help structural biologists, if you want to do something useful. You don't get to play with giant parallel machines, though.
It is theft. You're acting as an unauthorized redistributor of the product. The fact that you're not profiting from the distribution doesn't make it any less wrong than the Taiwanese pirates who burn thousands of copies for sale.
There's also a huge distinction between "fair use" or lending and what you're talking about. Books, and even most types of media, are not easily duplicated by the recipient of the loan, unless he/she is particularly tech-saavy or has free photocopier privileges. When you "lend" computer software or easily-copied digital media, it's going to become a permanant copy. Thus two copies exist where (presumably) one was paid for. (I do make a distinction within a family, though there's no justification for this; we always used the same copy of Word on all our computers. Lending it to a neighbor, on the other hand, would have crossed the line for us. The fine points are, of course, debatable, and the media companies don't care much about these cases.)
Fundamentally, the problem the media companies have is that this "sharing" you describe is done on a massive scale. Remember that there are people out there who take pride in piracy (again, not profiting personally) and intentionally redistribute digital media. It's one thing to lend Unreal to your friend for a weekend so he can see if he wants to buy it, or email an mp3 from a CD you bought. But if someone is serious enough to get into major online gaming, or burns a CD from that mp3, they should just buy the fucking product.
I don't understand why this is so difficult. I don't like paying for software either; that's why I use Linux and don't game. As for the word "piracy", it's common usage. Deal. No use ofone mixes up the teenage warez d00d with Blackbeard.
Slashdot Mirror
I just (barely) graduated from Yale, so I'll bite...
1. Why would Princeton want Yale rejects?
Because Yale (like many other schools of its type) gets so many good applicants that the admissions office claims you could get just as good a freshman class from the rejects each year. Since admissions is pretty much just dumb luck anyway, some quality people get rejected. And, of course, there's quite a bit of competition for applicants. Hell, some people get rejected from Yale and accepted at Harvard.
2. How crap is Yale for allowing something stupid like this?
Without going into too much detail, pretty dumb, yes. Most things here are given more careful thought.
3. How stupid are Yale for getting caught?
That's "Princeton" you meant. I think that's probably dumber. But it's hilarious all around. You just can't make this shit up...
Hi, I'm a yalie.
They told them the site was insecure long after accessing all that info, and they barely waited to check it after it came online. That's stupid and criminal. To be fair, I'd say criminal sanctions are unrealistic and unfair, but some people should get sacked.
Needless to say, there's a lot of blame to go around here. . . we're not all as clueless as our admissions office, though.
It's shocking how many people in this thread agree with you. As government property, it was available for research (one of the linked articles has an archived article discussing this) and held in trust for the people. In fact, that article says they get requests from institutions all over the world to study the rocks. Anyone who wants their own personal moon rocks can fund their own expedition to get them. I doubt the feds would have much of a case trying to wrest those away.
At any rate, the point here is that these particular rocks were most certainly US property, and these assholes were trying to sell them to a private collector. I fail to see any gray area.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think China will continue to adapt until it more and more resembles fascism rather than communism, with enough local democracy to let the populace think it's in charge. It hasn't grown significantly less autocratic, but it has become more economically liberal, with the result that the political situation is stabilized. A number of my co-workers are Chinese (and had no problem coming here to work or study), and one said that as long as the economy continues to improve the people won't complain much about the oppressive regime.
I think China has a great deal of potential, but their government is dangerous and needs to change. It doesn't appear likely to fall anytime soon, though- the best hope is for continuing liberalization.
Okay, I have two objections to this:
- Under the GPL, if you use someone else's (GPL'd) work in your own, you must release it under the GPL. In the situation you propose, if you use Microsoft's work, Microsoft can take control of your derivative. How is that more permissive? There's no irony here- Microsoft would be limiting the conditions under which you may release your work. And they're doing so in a way that is at least as restrictive, if not more, than the GPL, but doesn't benefit anyone but MS. Besides, the GPL does make software freely available to Microsoft- they just have to follow certain rules.
- There's room for interpretation on the issue of whether this is "Microsoft's technology". I assume SGI actually invented it; furthermore, the software implementation could be independent of the patent. The GPL forces you to release your code under the GPL if you incorporate GPL'd code into it. What we're talking about forces you to release your code under a non-GPL'd license if you use a certain abstract technological concept.
I have no idea what Microsoft's plan is, and I think this story may be overblown. But for them to prohibit GPL-like licenses is certainly more restrictive than the GPL.
Now if we just used those things to do molecular interaction models for AIDS vaccines, maybe Tolkien wouldn't be spinning in his grave right now.
This rests on two dicey assumptions:
- Tolkein would not have approved of the movie. Most of the diehard Tolkein fans I know thought the movie made some annoying errors and changes, but felt the overall product was stunning. But we're talking about visuals, and I can't see any reason for complaint. It wasn't anything like how *I* imagined Middle Earth, but I thought it was just as good.
- Molecular interaction models are actually worthwhile. You do not simply fire up lots of computers and find vaccines. It takes accurate models, and real science, and years of theory and benchwork. It's amazing how many people here think computers are going to make traditional science obsolete. Believe me, there is lots of money being spent on this field. There's no reason why using 400-700 processors, paid for by private investors, is a "waste". By the time we see really worthwhile results from de novo computational drug design, that render farm will be worth $400 on eBay.
Dude, why choose caffeine as an example? I've never known anyone who could get that fucked up on coffee. Have you ever known anyone to walk into class/work on Monday and say "Man, I did sooo many lattes Saturday night... still feel lightheaded..."
Besides, I've never been desperate enough to break into someone's house and steal their TV so I can afford my Starbucks fix.
government-controlled distribution
Yeah, like the cartels are going to let that happen.
Or, given the complete contempt of the cartels for any sort of human suffering, and their overriding greed, they'd probably just form a coalition to artificiall inflate prices anyway, and we'd be just as bad off. I'm not entirely opposed to ending the War on Drugs, but any ending must involve the destruction of the current organizations. As long as the cartels continue to exist, they'll continue to fuck us- legalization won't change that.
I agree with you all, but I'd like to see the cartel leaders strung up by the testicles first. It's hard to imagine a more depraved group of individuals. Sure, the War on Drugs has been awful for the US and Columbia, but this doesn't change the fact that the big drug distributors are genuinely evil. They do not operate in a "free market", they will kill anyone who gets in their way. We ought to be looking at peaceful solutions in Columbia, but only for the "little guys". The gangsters should be shot, quickly.
Of course, by my standards if we bust the cartels we should probably bust Shell Oil and Unocal as well. *sigh*...
assuming I handled the time zones correctly
Good to see the Slashdot editors have learned from at least one mistake. Now if you'll just stop duplicating stories...
I've been wondering about that, though. I think people should be able to use Bibles in these ceremonies- I don't feel like it's a violation of anyone's rights. However, they should be free to use the Koran, etc., or whatever else they like within reason. Certainly we shouldn't force a Muslim/Buddhist/godless freak to swear on the Bible. I'm just not at all offended by the fact that the president is sworn in with a Bible. Nowhere is it said that politicians can't have religion, even if I sometimes wish they'd stop talking about God so much.
I agree completely. These are the people who feel compelled to explain that they're atheists when you wish them "Happy Holidays" in December. They're also the ones who tried to get an atheist chaplain for my university. They're also the ones who say politicians should not base votes on their religious beliefs. Newdow is clearly one of those people. By his standard, C-SPAN is religious programming- can't have his daughter hearing nearly every politician in the country bloviate about God.
Atheism, as commonly practiced, is just as much a religion as Christianity. Most don't simply not believe in God, they firmly believe in the non-existence of God. A subtle difference, but it matters.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some chickens to sacrifice.
Heh. You forget that none of the causes you mention involve playing with huge computers. A lot of these machines are, however, being used to do protein-folding simulations- Blue Gene, or the PNNL's new machine (I think). I'm fine with simulating nukes, because it means fewer Pacific islands get slagged. Protein folding, on the other hand, is often something of a joke- some people get very interesting results that tell us a lot about biophysics, but absolutely nothing whatsoever indicates that we'll be able to do accurate structure prediction anytime soon. It's amazing how many people think completely computerized drug design is right around the corner.
From what I've read, a real useful advance in computational biology would be to automate building and refining of protein structures from crystallography. It's just not as sexy, though.
I'm glad to see so many people I agree with (for a change!). Play was fucking brilliant- and it's some of the only non-classical music that both me, my brother, and my mom can enjoy. '18' is derivative in every way, and I was hoping for some new frontier in music to be reached again. The whole gospel/techno thing was extraordinary; too bad he couldn't follow it up with something equally extraordinary and different.
But give him a little credit. '18' wasn't bad, in fact several of the tracks are wonderful if you don't treat it as anything more than Play II (I'm thinking in particular of "In this world" and "One of these mornings", which are exactly like "Natural Blues" but still as beautiful). Even some of the ones where he insists on singing are pretty good. And frankly, I only like six or so tracks on Play well enough to listen to them repeatedly. So what I'll do is rip the tracks I like from each CD and burn myself a mix containing all my favorites. Besides, we'll be listening to Moby in everywhere (including elevators) for the next few years, and that's far preferrable to most artists out there. It's very easy to filter out as background noise, but in a good way.
There may be a point to Moby's complaint, for a different reason. I first borrowed Play from a friend at work, wore out my burned copy, and bought the album. '18' I just went straight to the store and bought (assuming it'd be brilliant)- and loaned my friend a copy. I'd bet many, many people burned copies of '18' and discovered that it just wasn't up to snuff. Non-techies, on the other hand, don't realistically have this option, and just go ahead and buy the CD. I think the techie way makes more sense, but (for the musician) it only works if people end up either trashing their burned disc or buying a copy. And Christ, I know a hell of a lot of people who don't do this.
"A Deepness in the Sky" is almost as good (but not quite). The human cultures are more interesting in it- the aliens are completely different but no less fascinating. The plot, unfortunately, sort of loses steam whenever he switches focus back to the humans. (Part of the reason for this may have been that it's a sequel, and I know what eventually happens... so it seems that the novel almost ends on a depressing note)
Regardless, I'm amazed at his ability to imagine non-human cultures- and then describe them in familiar terms, even though they're totally different. It's giant spiders in this one.
I cringed when I read that, but it's really cool that they cited "A Fire Upon the Deep". That was one badass book. Even if his galactic USENET doesn't make too much sense the way it's pictured in the book, the idea of an entire planet whose economy is based around routing network traffic is way cool. Vinge's is probably the most fascinating portrayal of a civilized galaxy that I've read, and (despite his odd contrivances, which I won't give away here) one of the most realistic. Certainly far more original than a "Galactic Empire".
Okay, I'm through trolling for Vinge. Anyone know of sci-fi works of comparable merit published in the past decade? I'd given up until I read his last two...
Wrong. The DOE paid for a large chunk of the Human Genome Project, and the NIH paid even more. Assorted federal agencies give money to most biomedical researchers in the US, and we're not expected to do anything classified. It truly is given to advance the cause of science. Although, yes, we don't get the kind of serious money that makes for really nice labs- but the crystallographers down the hall from me did manage to afford an Apple Cinema display. Some wannabe-free-market-conservatives would say that the NIH is a perfect example of government waste, but it's why the US, despite our educational problems, is a scientific giant and attracts people from all over the world. Even colleagues who regularly mock US culture and our "odd" priorities admit that government support of research is nearly unparalleled.
As for the wealthy idealists, there are lots of those, and some have a shitload of money. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Keck Foundation are two of the most prominent. The HHMI gives out so much money that professors under its wing are officially both "Professor of and HHMI Principal Investigator". Good stuff.
Are you joking or not? I sure hope so, because you're on crack if you believe any of what you just wrote. Biomedical research is being held up by gene patents - you'd know that if you'd ever read any of the many related articles that have been posted on Slashdot in the past, or if you were (like me) a molecular biologist. Read a college biochem textbook, it'll clear things up.
Companies can always patent their final therapy, and there's very little that can be done to get around those patents outside of violating the patent outright. Gene patents, on the other hand, simply block other groups from doing research. This includes research done with your tax dollars, that isn't getting done because some biotech patented genes it can't even use.
Finally, just as much real innovation goes on in academia (biotechs end up getting commercial rights- the arrangement has its problems but is generally good for the public). We should eliminate gene patents, and double the NIH budget. (Getting university administrators to stop skimming off the top of research grants would be good too- I'm sure someone else here knows what I'm talking about.)
To a certain extent you're correct, but it's far easier to get unbloated software for Linux. You only have to use the bloated stuff if you want to. I won't touch GNOME if I can help it, and I never use a file manager. I mostly just have a bunch of shells and a web browser open (whether at home or at work). I get my work done just as quickly as anyone- the learning curve was definitely higher, but I'm more efficient in the end.
Windows, OTOH, does not give me this flexibility. This is what I hate about MS products- they force you into a certain way of doing things, more often than not.
Jack Valenti claimed that file-sharing networks were in development on college campuses that the MPAA or RIAA wouldn't even be able to see. Hell, I was getting my mp3's off AppleShare before Napster even existed. Valenti, clearly, has no idea what a network actually is. They fundamentally have no clue what the regulations they're pushing are like- they've claimed (in the DeCSS cases) that open-source developers believe all software should be free, even the copyrighted sort.
So, yeah, they really are that clueless. I don't think anyone has given any thought to the conflict; those of the Powers That Be that have had it brought to their attention have probably just shrugged it off. "But we're Disney, not a bunch of pimply-faced pirates!"
You may feel differently, but I cannot conceive of a plausible justification. Except that liberty isn't important to you.
Maybe I don't have quite so fucked-up of an idea of "liberty"? Maybe I've not been spending quite so much time smoking weed and reading the GNU Manifesto?
Tell me, do you ever use Shell Oil? Unocal? Chevron? They've done far worse than Disney could ever dream of. Just because free software is important to you, doesn't make your issues with Disney more important than all the problems of millions around the world who face real loss of liberty due to corporate evil.
If you have a good CS degree, you can get a decent job. But the real jobs are for scientists. Even if you're not all that great a programmer, if you're a PhD you can do real "experimentation", insofar as this is possible with computers. Knowing how to investigate a problem is the real problem- how you do it is often secondary. Without real training in the life sciences (and math, and sometimes physics) you'll be lost without someone to direct you.
Of course, there are cases where good programming skills are most important. But if you're the type who needs those O'Reilly books, I wouldn't bother. Those are great for biologists who need to pick up some bioinformatics on the side. Real computer programmers would do better to pick up a serious biochem text, and think about grad school.
Speaking as a bioinformaticist (non-PhD, but with significant academic experience), protein folding simulations are extraordinarily overhyped. The potential for computers in structural biology is immense- every protein structure published has been refined by computer simulation. The theory involved is quite sound and the results are considered excellent. However, this still requires a great deal of experimental work. Folding via computer is still in the realm of pure theory, and while some people can come up with reasonable guesses at very low resolutions for small proteins (which is already quite difficult), this is next to useless for drug design. You need to have a high-res structure (about 3 angstroms, less is better), and computers just can't do that.
It's not a matter of power so much as theory. A lot of people don't seem to understand this, which is why you can get lots of money to solve the folding problem. So sure, it's probably a good field to be in financially speaking. Scientifically speaking, it's comparable to AI in CS research- lots of big talk, few results. You'd be better off working on improving existing tools to help structural biologists, if you want to do something useful. You don't get to play with giant parallel machines, though.
It is theft. You're acting as an unauthorized redistributor of the product. The fact that you're not profiting from the distribution doesn't make it any less wrong than the Taiwanese pirates who burn thousands of copies for sale.
There's also a huge distinction between "fair use" or lending and what you're talking about. Books, and even most types of media, are not easily duplicated by the recipient of the loan, unless he/she is particularly tech-saavy or has free photocopier privileges. When you "lend" computer software or easily-copied digital media, it's going to become a permanant copy. Thus two copies exist where (presumably) one was paid for. (I do make a distinction within a family, though there's no justification for this; we always used the same copy of Word on all our computers. Lending it to a neighbor, on the other hand, would have crossed the line for us. The fine points are, of course, debatable, and the media companies don't care much about these cases.)
Fundamentally, the problem the media companies have is that this "sharing" you describe is done on a massive scale. Remember that there are people out there who take pride in piracy (again, not profiting personally) and intentionally redistribute digital media. It's one thing to lend Unreal to your friend for a weekend so he can see if he wants to buy it, or email an mp3 from a CD you bought. But if someone is serious enough to get into major online gaming, or burns a CD from that mp3, they should just buy the fucking product.
I don't understand why this is so difficult. I don't like paying for software either; that's why I use Linux and don't game. As for the word "piracy", it's common usage. Deal. No use ofone mixes up the teenage warez d00d with Blackbeard.