Two arm transplants were recently carried out. The first one was on the ex-prisoner, who lied and said he was a businessman, when he had infact lost his arm in a prison accident. Well, he now hates his 'arm' and wants them to take it off. He says it is too pink, too long and just hangs there (hey, doesn't that give you an idea?...) Anyway, the doctors say that his problem is psychological not physical. He did not carry out the post-op treatment plan, and did not take the anti-rejection drugs as he said they had bad side effects. I think that his mind is rejecting the arm, as much as his brain.
The second operation was on a man who was transplanted the arm of a executed murderer. He and the arm have taken to each other much better, as he followed the doctors' orders, and he can now pick things up etc with it.
But it all sounds SO Vincent Price to me, what with all these prisoners and murderers having body parts grafted on to them. Creepy.
Imagine a cool computer that strapped comfortably to your wrist that you looked at to tell where the sun was in the sky... you could call it a watch.
Imagine an incredible device that could be implanted directly into your heart to regulate its beating... you could call it a pacemaker.
Imagine a wafer thin piece of plastic that you place *directly* on your eye and which renders your vision robot-accurate... you could call it a contact lens.
Imagine a highly sensitive yet covert listening device you could wear all the time... maybe call it a hearing aid?
We're all cyborgs, and have been for some time now. What's all the fuss about?
Re:Brain dead on delivery
on
WAP Under Fire
·
· Score: 1
Well, over here in Europe, WAP has is catching on in a big way because we use far more advanced mobile phones generally than the Americans. Italy, especially, has taken up the technology. Oh yes, it's WAP for wops! But seriously folks, there's many a time I'd like to check recent emails when I'm out and about, or perhaps find the nearest cinema or restaurant when in a distant on business. With my GSM WAP phone that's easy.
I would, in fact, have to pay the sheet music publisher. And I am happy to pay for artistic effort. What sticks in everyone's craw is paying for the PR, the marketing, the coke up the A&R girl's nose, the law suits, etc etc. My point was that if we were paying.$ instead of $$$ then there would be a lot less incentive to pirate. It is not a conceptual argument anymore - it is happening, just as the printing press made the circulation of writing much cheaper and broader.
I believe that the real issue here is not copyright, which is a fair and just concept, but the distribution of copyrighted material. At the moment, we pay far more for the distribution and packaging aspect of music, literature etc than we do for the actual content. Most artists get only a small percentage of the final selling price, and somehow we keep paying for books and music that are long out of copyright. Mozart, anyone? It's the publishers that make the money, not the artists.
So when the ability to charge for distribution goes away - what remains? An obvious way for copyrighted material to be distributed is over the web, where popular artists can sell adverts to make up for lost revenue. If the selling price is low enough, ie the current 10% that the artist gets instead of the $$ that we pay, then far less pirating will happen. And if the content is available globally instead of in controlled areas (DVD, anyone?) then there is also less incentive to pirate.
TV and radio have been making money from selling adverts for content for years, and it has so far been the way of the web. A little leakage from copying is probably inevitable, but if it serves to increase the popularity and recognition of the artist concerned, then that can only be an advantage. Remember the good ol' Grateful Dead - so much for home taping killing music.
IP is more about plagiarism than copying. If the artist retains copyright then ripping off tunes or copying words will still be actionable, but the distribution issue should just go away.
Well, writing from London UK I would be very happy if they could develop this nose to sniff out semtex/sugar+fertiliser explosives. We just had another "explosive device" go off last week, and once again the City is ringed by traffic checkpoints and the police are stopping anyone driving a transit van (why is it always a transit van?). They could use this device on all vehicles and passengers coming over from Ireland, for instance, and perhaps put back some of the rubbish bins (translation - trash cans) that they took away from all our train and underground stations after the bomb at Victoria Station. Any receptacle in a public place could have a sensor fitted that would set off an alarm if it sensed explosive.
Now that is an interesting point. And a very good way to set up a DDOS, by creating such a file, would be to send it to all your friends and yourself, then when the attack commences you all say "oh, but someone sent it to me and it started itself". And, of course, send it to a few Government agencies (they're bound to download it) so they can all join in. Heh heh.
That would be brill! We are obviously sole mates. Let's get together and have a whale of a time creating powerful new trouters, then relax by diving for perls in the C. That is, until M*crosoft mussel in and we become mere prawns of big business. Others may carp, but we'll plaice our hope in innovation.
Yes, and on thinking about it, it also justifies much nastiness, agression etc etc. So I retract.
What I was trying to say was that it is ridiculous to try to separate us from "Mother Nature", when we too are part of nature, good or bad. However we do seem to have a moral imperative wired in, which is what this whole discussion has begun to be about. So I'd rather hear arguments that appeal to our intrinsic morality rather than some obeisance necessary to a spurious "other" such as Mother Nature or God. It's time we took responsibilities for ourselves and not look to Mummy or Daddy for approval.
Well, unfortunately there's not a lot of money or glamour in artificial limbs. Now, if more people were losing limbs and had to pay for replacements, I'm sure that a lot more R&D would get done. How many of you guys out there have the slightest interest in developing better appendages for invalids? Thought not.
It wasn't a human ear. It was a plastic shape injected with human cells grafted on to a mouse's back. One of the biggest dangers for science is knee-jerk, lazy journalism that is more interested in sensational headlines that hard facts. Because facts are hard sometimes, and most people can't be bothered to discover more about them. But as Aristotle said, "The unexplored life is not worth living."
a rather risque side of mother nature We ARE mother nature, nature made us and we must do what we are impelled to do, just as lions kill gazelles and ants exploit aphids. That's the way that mother nature (or God, take your pick of higher authorities to blame) made us.
Would you trust a machine with your brain? Not me. I can barely trust myself with my brain. And I'd love not to suffer all the pain and misfortune that flesh is heir to. Especially menstruation - what a bore that is.
Science, I feel, is becoming too advanced for it's own good There has never been a time in human civilisation when someone hasn't been saying that science is (a) going too fast or (b) is too advanced for its own good. At what point would you like it to have been stopped? And if we stop it now, what implications does that have for me when I have trouble conceiving because I spent too long messing about with computers, and not enough time making myself pretty and learning how to cook? I'm all for IVF, but that too was considered "playing God" and "too advanced" before it became mainstream.
We spend a huge amount of time/effort/money just coping with our inefficient bodies. And wouldn't it be great to, say, turn up the amplification on pleasure, and consign pain to the trash can?
Perhaps we should first of all address the problem of the corrupt and violent regimes and terrorists that plunge their resource-rich countries into a state of debt, drout and desperation.
Fair enough. But if we want the government to *do something* when a foreign power, like China for instance, wants to cut every pipe that connects them with the rest of the world, or when everyone starts clamouring for bad etailers to be taken to court, or spammers to be prosecuted, where's the money to come from? Seems fair to take it from the people that use the thing.
Um, the internet didn't just happen, you know. A *lot* of government money went into setting it up, and the universities that got the whole thing rolling were funded by the government. All those happy students were using machinery that cost hundreds of thousands. So don't get all "Oh, the internet shouldn't be owned by anyone". The web was developed at a European research centre, and CERN haven't seen a penny from it. So how is it so wrong for governments to now try to reap some of the seeds they sowed?
Slashdot Mirror
Two arm transplants were recently carried out. The first one was on the ex-prisoner, who lied and said he was a businessman, when he had infact lost his arm in a prison accident. Well, he now hates his 'arm' and wants them to take it off. He says it is too pink, too long and just hangs there (hey, doesn't that give you an idea?...) Anyway, the doctors say that his problem is psychological not physical. He did not carry out the post-op treatment plan, and did not take the anti-rejection drugs as he said they had bad side effects. I think that his mind is rejecting the arm, as much as his brain.
The second operation was on a man who was transplanted the arm of a executed murderer. He and the arm have taken to each other much better, as he followed the doctors' orders, and he can now pick things up etc with it.
But it all sounds SO Vincent Price to me, what with all these prisoners and murderers having body parts grafted on to them. Creepy.
Imagine a cool computer that strapped comfortably to your wrist that you looked at to tell where the sun was in the sky... you could call it a watch. Imagine an incredible device that could be implanted directly into your heart to regulate its beating... you could call it a pacemaker. Imagine a wafer thin piece of plastic that you place *directly* on your eye and which renders your vision robot-accurate... you could call it a contact lens. Imagine a highly sensitive yet covert listening device you could wear all the time... maybe call it a hearing aid? We're all cyborgs, and have been for some time now. What's all the fuss about?
Well, over here in Europe, WAP has is catching on in a big way because we use far more advanced mobile phones generally than the Americans. Italy, especially, has taken up the technology. Oh yes, it's WAP for wops!
But seriously folks, there's many a time I'd like to check recent emails when I'm out and about, or perhaps find the nearest cinema or restaurant when in a distant on business. With my GSM WAP phone that's easy.
Yeah, and are they suggesting that we build such a camera with Lego? Proofing, boys, proofing!
A fully functioning Natalie Portman, of course, so all you obsessive geeks could finally get your Legover.
Ow! Lego of me!
You'll be wanting to get along to Vint Cerf's home site, and check out his Computer Haiku Page:
Vint Cerf's Haiku Page
You spring in too fast
Get moderated way down
Beware of the Fall
You shoot from the mouth
Mucus all over your face
But where is the beef?
I would, in fact, have to pay the sheet music publisher. And I am happy to pay for artistic effort. What sticks in everyone's craw is paying for the PR, the marketing, the coke up the A&R girl's nose, the law suits, etc etc. My point was that if we were paying .$ instead of $$$ then there would be a lot less incentive to pirate. It is not a conceptual argument anymore - it is happening, just as the printing press made the circulation of writing much cheaper and broader.
I believe that the real issue here is not copyright, which is a fair and just concept, but the distribution of copyrighted material. At the moment, we pay far more for the distribution and packaging aspect of music, literature etc than we do for the actual content. Most artists get only a small percentage of the final selling price, and somehow we keep paying for books and music that are long out of copyright. Mozart, anyone? It's the publishers that make the money, not the artists.
So when the ability to charge for distribution goes away - what remains? An obvious way for copyrighted material to be distributed is over the web, where popular artists can sell adverts to make up for lost revenue. If the selling price is low enough, ie the current 10% that the artist gets instead of the $$ that we pay, then far less pirating will happen. And if the content is available globally instead of in controlled areas (DVD, anyone?) then there is also less incentive to pirate.
TV and radio have been making money from selling adverts for content for years, and it has so far been the way of the web. A little leakage from copying is probably inevitable, but if it serves to increase the popularity and recognition of the artist concerned, then that can only be an advantage. Remember the good ol' Grateful Dead - so much for home taping killing music.
IP is more about plagiarism than copying. If the artist retains copyright then ripping off tunes or copying words will still be actionable, but the distribution issue should just go away.
Well, writing from London UK I would be very happy if they could develop this nose to sniff out semtex/sugar+fertiliser explosives. We just had another "explosive device" go off last week, and once again the City is ringed by traffic checkpoints and the police are stopping anyone driving a transit van (why is it always a transit van?). They could use this device on all vehicles and passengers coming over from Ireland, for instance, and perhaps put back some of the rubbish bins (translation - trash cans) that they took away from all our train and underground stations after the bomb at Victoria Station. Any receptacle in a public place could have a sensor fitted that would set off an alarm if it sensed explosive.
On the net, no-one can tell you're a sniffer dog...
Yes, but we didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
Now that is an interesting point. And a very good way to set up a DDOS, by creating such a file, would be to send it to all your friends and yourself, then when the attack commences you all say "oh, but someone sent it to me and it started itself". And, of course, send it to a few Government agencies (they're bound to download it) so they can all join in. Heh heh.
That would be brill! We are obviously sole mates. Let's get together and have a whale of a time creating powerful new trouters, then relax by diving for perls in the C. That is, until M*crosoft mussel in and we become mere prawns of big business. Others may carp, but we'll plaice our hope in innovation.
Bream me up, Soctty!
Yes, and on thinking about it, it also justifies much nastiness, agression etc etc. So I retract.
What I was trying to say was that it is ridiculous to try to separate us from "Mother Nature", when we too are part of nature, good or bad. However we do seem to have a moral imperative wired in, which is what this whole discussion has begun to be about. So I'd rather hear arguments that appeal to our intrinsic morality rather than some obeisance necessary to a spurious "other" such as Mother Nature or God. It's time we took responsibilities for ourselves and not look to Mummy or Daddy for approval.
Well, unfortunately there's not a lot of money or glamour in artificial limbs. Now, if more people were losing limbs and had to pay for replacements, I'm sure that a lot more R&D would get done. How many of you guys out there have the slightest interest in developing better appendages for invalids? Thought not.
It wasn't a human ear. It was a plastic shape injected with human cells grafted on to a mouse's back. One of the biggest dangers for science is knee-jerk, lazy journalism that is more interested in sensational headlines that hard facts. Because facts are hard sometimes, and most people can't be bothered to discover more about them. But as Aristotle said, "The unexplored life is not worth living."
a rather risque side of mother nature
We ARE mother nature, nature made us and we must do what we are impelled to do, just as lions kill gazelles and ants exploit aphids. That's the way that mother nature (or God, take your pick of higher authorities to blame) made us.
Funny, why does that make me think of Microsoft?
It was in the UK papers on Thursday, which means they got hold of it on Wednesday. And finally it crawls on to /. on Friday. Disappointing!
Would you trust a machine with your brain? Not me.
I can barely trust myself with my brain. And I'd love not to suffer all the pain and misfortune that flesh is heir to. Especially menstruation - what a bore that is.
Science, I feel, is becoming too advanced for it's own good
There has never been a time in human civilisation when someone hasn't been saying that science is (a) going too fast or (b) is too advanced for its own good. At what point would you like it to have been stopped? And if we stop it now, what implications does that have for me when I have trouble conceiving because I spent too long messing about with computers, and not enough time making myself pretty and learning how to cook? I'm all for IVF, but that too was considered "playing God" and "too advanced" before it became mainstream.
We spend a huge amount of time/effort/money just coping with our inefficient bodies. And wouldn't it be great to, say, turn up the amplification on pleasure, and consign pain to the trash can?
Perhaps we should first of all address the problem of the corrupt and violent regimes and terrorists that plunge their resource-rich countries into a state of debt, drout and desperation.
Well, it should either be GnuveauxRiches, or GnuveauRiche. Good pun, theau.
Fair enough. But if we want the government to *do something* when a foreign power, like China for instance, wants to cut every pipe that connects them with the rest of the world, or when everyone starts clamouring for bad etailers to be taken to court, or spammers to be prosecuted, where's the money to come from? Seems fair to take it from the people that use the thing.
Um, the internet didn't just happen, you know. A *lot* of government money went into setting it up, and the universities that got the whole thing rolling were funded by the government. All those happy students were using machinery that cost hundreds of thousands. So don't get all "Oh, the internet shouldn't be owned by anyone". The web was developed at a European research centre, and CERN haven't seen a penny from it. So how is it so wrong for governments to now try to reap some of the seeds they sowed?