Such research often borders on medical research which arguably is beneficial to a lot of people.
You've just thrown out what little point you had. Now you're defending research based on the fact it has some benefit "to a lot of people". The question then becomes is cloning beneficial to "a lot of people."
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but it isn't an ethically neutral question, as you suggested in your original post when you said, "Cloning is just another technology."
His advice: Managers should be honest with their workers about the company's successes and failures, the point of management is to guide and suggest not to be autocratic, let the Einsteins have freedom in work environment, Einsteins are project-focused, not job-focused, they value training and education highly, they require a stimulating and fun work place.
So how does this advice apply to Einsteins more than any other kind worker in any other department?
This advice could be summarized by the Golden Rule of Management: Do unto your staff as you would have your manager do onto you.
He could have also said, when all else fails, raise their salary.
What does he mean by Earth-like? A small planet with an atmosphere? With oxygen and carbon dioxide in its atmophere? With a temperature range that might permit life? With oceans and landmasses?
By some definition of Earth-like, it wasn't long ago in geological time that Earth wasn't very Earth-like. And on the same time scale, it won't be Earth-like for long.
The higher purpose of scientific exploration is to find something weird, not something familiar. The more unEarth-like, the better. A discovery that confirms a theory is useful but a discovery that challenges a theory is the name of the game.
when i hear the word 'culture' i reach for my revolver" - Henry Miller
The quote is actually from Hanns Johst, a Nazi playwright. It is often attributed to Goering, who conceivably repeated it.
It is an unlikely thing for Miller to say. He wrote in a tribute to Kenneth Patchem: "In our society the artist is not encouraged. not lauded, not rewarded, unless he makes use of a weapon more powerful than those employed by his adversaries. Such a weapon is not to be found in shops or arsenals: it has to be forged by the artist himself out of his own tissue."
Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution weren't that stupid
The framers might have been a bit more forthcoming on what those other rights "retained by the people" are.
Amendment IX sounds very grand but in practice it has played no substantial role in
deciding cases.
As it stands, Amendment IX appears to give the courts the power to overturn any piece of legislation on the simple grounds that the legislation violates a right that the courts themselves may define. The idea of a judicial veto is as open to abuse as any other exercise of power that isn't restrained by law or common practice.
As the article suggests, the courts think that in a democracy the legislature should have broad scope to decide things, which is what the framers of the Constitution also thought.
We defeated a nation controlled by left-wing ideology in WWII...
And that nation would be....? The Nazis were anything but left wing. They suppressed the socialist and Communist parties and followed no policies of their own that were founded on Marx or any socialist philosopher or economist. As for Italy and Japan, they were as right-wing as you could want.
Yet at the same time this same "liberal" is generally very much in favor of things like socialism.
You do not appear to know anything about liberals or socialism. Very briefly, socialism advocates public ownership of industry. All of the big Washington liberals (Kennedy, Lieberman, Clinton, Daschle, etc.) are solid free marketers.
Authority that is not accountable and vulnerable to the will of the people is tyrrany.
Every liberal and conservative and all shades in between agree with that bit of bombast. And that "will of the people" demogoguery doesn't sound anything like libertarianism. I thought libertarians were suspicious of mass movements and mob psychology that threaten the rights of individuals, dissidents and minorities. In any case, the Founding Fathers thoughtfully set up an independent judiciary as a check on the will of people in case it ever got out of hand, which it often does.
If history can be used to judge the current computer wars, then Linux will surely win this war in the long run.
Microsoft has a pretty good record of dealing with potential competitors. It not only has its vast development resources, but a superbe marketing department and large cash reserves. It's possible that technical superiority might win in the end, but Microsoft successfully defeated OS/2 and it was backed by a company even larger than Microsoft.
So far, Linux has proved a threat to traditional Unix vendors more than Microsoft.
The article is from March, 2000, and only deals with Explorer 5.0 and the preview release of 5.5.
Internet Explorer 6 fully supports the official W3C XSL Recommendation. The XML Parser 3.0 built onto Internet Explorer 6.0 is based on both the W3C XSLT 1.0 and the W3C XPath 1.0 recommendations.
200 times the valuation relative to earnings means a bubble...
Microsoft's earnings per share is about 1.4 and IBM's is about 4.4. However, Microsoft's growth rate is higher and insofar as the stock price reflects anything, it is anticipated growth. Probably at some point Microsoft's stock price will more closely reflect its EPS but that would be sometime in the future, when its earnings stabilize. Given that it's revenue has more than doubled since 1997 and growth has held up well during the recent downturn, it looks premature to talk about earnings stabilizing. Even then, Microsoft would be an extremely profitable company. Microsoft has about the same profit as IBM on about 30% of the revenue.
Predicting stock prices is tricky to say the least, but as a company Microsoft's future seems good. It could be a long time before your prediction comes true.
Why should its userbase and features make me "have second thoughts" when Mozilla is actually *faster*...
What interests me is IE's handling of XML in the browser and its ability to use Web services to download data without refreshing the screen and to update part of the screen without refreshing the whole screen. As far as I know, other browsers are playing catchup in all these areas.
The reason why many managers still keep buying MS is because they can understand it better.
In reality, FUD trumps all technical arguments and FUD favours Microsoft. In practice, technical arguments are covers for political arguments. If a manager who favours one platform is losing on technical merit, he will resort FUD.
...many, many managers do not care enough.
What they don't teach in any business school I ever heard of is that caring is a liability if you want to get ahead. That said, the most ambitious manager I ever worked for interrupted me while I was making a technical presentation for an oddball system and said, "You understand, your job is on the line if this thing doesn't work." I said, "No problem" and he said, "Then go do it."
Microsoft resembles the IBM of old in size and market dominance but not in weaknesses. IBM's fall came about because its core business was undermined by microprocessors. Despite open source, Microsoft faces no such threat. It is continuing to enhance and expand its product line and adapt to new trends as they arise.
But I do not believe that they are going to be number one for more than a few more years
And who will replace them? There's no single company that can duplicate Microsoft's complete product line, certainly not in a few years. One can imagine a number of vendors replacing individual products but could any of them, or instance, exterminate Word the way Word exterminated WordPerfect?
The history of business is one of industrial giants falling and even disappearing altogether. Presumably Microsoft's turn will come as well. However, consider General Electric. It was one of the original Dow Jones Industrials over a hundred years ago and it is still there today. Like Microsoft, it glommed onto a fundamental industry (electricity) and rode out the ups and downs of the business cycles, diversified, and marketed itself well.
When you look at Microsoft's strengths (astute management, large cash reserves, overwhelming market dominance, diverse product line, brandname recognition) and the fact its market is still growing, it's hard to imagine it losing its number one spot in our lifetime. The most likely scenario is that it will use its huge cash reserve to diversity like GE and become even bigger, although perhaps not as a software vendor.
There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product...
These factors include:
Compatibility and interoperability
Stability of vendor
Amount of ongoing development
Feature set
Marketshare and userbase
Adherence to standards
Ease of use
Security
Stability
Microsoft is credible in all these areas and ahead of open source contenders in most. In addition, Microsoft is getting better in all these areas.
The time when open source products had some advantage because of Microsoft's weakness in security and stability is limited.
Even people like me who are simply put off by the idea of proprietary systems are having second thoughts after looking at the feature set of IE and the size of its userbase.
The fall of Microsoft will be truly spectacular...
First, people have been making this statement for years for all the reason you gave and more. In all those years, people who continued to invest in Microsoft made money on the stock. In the stock market there's no skill in simply predicting a stock will fall. The trick is predicting when. There's no reason why Microsoft won't continue to defy the fundamentals for years.
Second, you seem to be equating the value of the stock with the stability of the company. Microsoft is a profitable company with a solid customer base. It in no way resembles Enron.
In fact, M$ would have _lost_ money in all of the past several years if they'd had to expense their stock option grants to employees!
So what? If the accounting rules had been different, presumably Microsoft wouldn't have used this loophole as a way to compensate its employees. Using tax laws and regulations effectively is a sign of good management, not bad management.
And people who discard something that has served the human race for a millenia just because it is "old" and "out moded" is being foolish.
No doubt people who chiseled in stone said the same thing about papyrus.
Things I enjoy about stone tablets:
+ It doesn't crash
+ It rarely loses data
+ 100% availability with proper care
+ Annotations are simple
+ Content doesn't change
+ Extremely quick access and intuitive interface
+ High resolution/easy on the eyes
As for portability, just throw it in the back of the cart and the ox will take it wherever you want.
Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app?
Because technical decisions should never trump marketing decisions. From a business perspective, the way to phrase the question is: Is the extra cost of porting the product to Windows made up by additional sales?
The space race will begin in earnest again very soon. Once the Chinese start their manned missions....
The Cold War is over and there's no propaganda victory to be had by space travel. The U.S. should base its spending on basic research on something more substantial than international public relations.
The net effect of the U.S. being first to the Moon is that it is not getting criticized for abandoning its lunar landing program. Whoever goes to Mars first is going to wonder how they'll pay for the next trip and what they'll get out of it.
...that tells us that life can make interplanetary (at least) journeys.
Ignoring for a moment the irony of making an interplanetary journey to determine if life can make an interplanetary journey, it would be an an expensive fact to determine at considerable risk to life and limb.
Is this fact worth the risk and expense? Given the finite amount of money for basic research, a trip to Mars would mean delaying research into other areas that are arguably more interesting.
...a manned mission (or two) is the only way to collect enough data to find out.
Considering the difficulty of keeping a tiny research station in operation in Antarctica, which is many times more hospitable than Mars, one can say with reasonable certainty that the cost of colonizing Mars is prohibitive. Generally, in science something must be at least theoretically possible before you attempt to prove it.
The definition you cite shows the fundamental problem with the agnostic position.
If it is impossible to know whether there is a God, then it is because God has made it impossible to know there is a God.
If God exists, why would he make it impossible to know He exists?
Stated a bit more formally: If God exists, it must be possible to know He exists. Therefore, if it is impossible to know whether God exists then He does not exist. QED
They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction...
Using the word "believe" gives Scientology too much credit. It's like saying that McDonalds believes you deserve a break today. Their so-called beliefs are nothing more than marketing techniques.
In any case, if they wanted to foster a sense of persecution, you'd think they'd leave the pages up as evidence rather than trying to suppress them. They're behaving like any other business that faces criticism, which is further evidence that they are a business, not a religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Such research often borders on medical research which arguably is beneficial to a lot of people.
You've just thrown out what little point you had. Now you're defending research based on the fact it has some benefit "to a lot of people". The question then becomes is cloning beneficial to "a lot of people."
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but it isn't an ethically neutral question, as you suggested in your original post when you said, "Cloning is just another technology."
His advice: Managers should be honest with their workers about the company's successes and failures, the point of management is to guide and suggest not to be autocratic, let the Einsteins have freedom in work environment, Einsteins are project-focused, not job-focused, they value training and education highly, they require a stimulating and fun work place.
So how does this advice apply to Einsteins more than any other kind worker in any other department?
This advice could be summarized by the Golden Rule of Management: Do unto your staff as you would have your manager do onto you.
He could have also said, when all else fails, raise their salary.
What does he mean by Earth-like? A small planet with an atmosphere? With oxygen and carbon dioxide in its atmophere? With a temperature range that might permit life? With oceans and landmasses?
By some definition of Earth-like, it wasn't long ago in geological time that Earth wasn't very Earth-like. And on the same time scale, it won't be Earth-like for long.
The higher purpose of scientific exploration is to find something weird, not something familiar. The more unEarth-like, the better. A discovery that confirms a theory is useful but a discovery that challenges a theory is the name of the game.
when i hear the word 'culture' i reach for my revolver" - Henry Miller
The quote is actually from Hanns Johst, a Nazi playwright. It is often attributed to Goering, who conceivably repeated it.
It is an unlikely thing for Miller to say. He wrote in a tribute to Kenneth Patchem: "In our society the artist is not encouraged. not lauded, not rewarded, unless he makes use of a weapon more powerful than those employed by his adversaries. Such a weapon is not to be found in shops or arsenals: it has to be forged by the artist himself out of his own tissue."
Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution weren't that stupid
The framers might have been a bit more forthcoming on what those other rights "retained by the people" are.
Amendment IX sounds very grand but in practice it has played no substantial role in deciding cases.
As it stands, Amendment IX appears to give the courts the power to overturn any piece of legislation on the simple grounds that the legislation violates a right that the courts themselves may define. The idea of a judicial veto is as open to abuse as any other exercise of power that isn't restrained by law or common practice.
As the article suggests, the courts think that in a democracy the legislature should have broad scope to decide things, which is what the framers of the Constitution also thought.
We defeated a nation controlled by left-wing ideology in WWII...
And that nation would be....? The Nazis were anything but left wing. They suppressed the socialist and Communist parties and followed no policies of their own that were founded on Marx or any socialist philosopher or economist. As for Italy and Japan, they were as right-wing as you could want.
Yet at the same time this same "liberal" is generally very much in favor of things like socialism.
You do not appear to know anything about liberals or socialism. Very briefly, socialism advocates public ownership of industry. All of the big Washington liberals (Kennedy, Lieberman, Clinton, Daschle, etc.) are solid free marketers.
Authority that is not accountable and vulnerable to the will of the people is tyrrany.
Every liberal and conservative and all shades in between agree with that bit of bombast. And that "will of the people" demogoguery doesn't sound anything like libertarianism. I thought libertarians were suspicious of mass movements and mob psychology that threaten the rights of individuals, dissidents and minorities. In any case, the Founding Fathers thoughtfully set up an independent judiciary as a check on the will of people in case it ever got out of hand, which it often does.
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?
But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
And they said unto him, Caesar's.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
--Mark 12:14-17
There is a similar verse in Luke, 20.
If history can be used to judge the current computer wars, then Linux will surely win this war in the long run.
Microsoft has a pretty good record of dealing with potential competitors. It not only has its vast development resources, but a superbe marketing department and large cash reserves. It's possible that technical superiority might win in the end, but Microsoft successfully defeated OS/2 and it was backed by a company even larger than Microsoft.
So far, Linux has proved a threat to traditional Unix vendors more than Microsoft.
I have never needed this so called "feature".
The features are useful for programmers and ultimately benefit end users by permitting more interactive Web sites.
Another usefull link is this article...
The article is from March, 2000, and only deals with Explorer 5.0 and the preview release of 5.5.
Internet Explorer 6 fully supports the official W3C XSL Recommendation. The XML Parser 3.0 built onto Internet Explorer 6.0 is based on both the W3C XSLT 1.0 and the W3C XPath 1.0 recommendations.
200 times the valuation relative to earnings means a bubble...
Microsoft's earnings per share is about 1.4 and IBM's is about 4.4. However, Microsoft's growth rate is higher and insofar as the stock price reflects anything, it is anticipated growth. Probably at some point Microsoft's stock price will more closely reflect its EPS but that would be sometime in the future, when its earnings stabilize. Given that it's revenue has more than doubled since 1997 and growth has held up well during the recent downturn, it looks premature to talk about earnings stabilizing. Even then, Microsoft would be an extremely profitable company. Microsoft has about the same profit as IBM on about 30% of the revenue.
Predicting stock prices is tricky to say the least, but as a company Microsoft's future seems good. It could be a long time before your prediction comes true.
Why should its userbase and features make me "have second thoughts" when Mozilla is actually *faster*...
What interests me is IE's handling of XML in the browser and its ability to use Web services to download data without refreshing the screen and to update part of the screen without refreshing the whole screen. As far as I know, other browsers are playing catchup in all these areas.
The reason why many managers still keep buying MS is because they can understand it better.
In reality, FUD trumps all technical arguments and FUD favours Microsoft. In practice, technical arguments are covers for political arguments. If a manager who favours one platform is losing on technical merit, he will resort FUD.
What they don't teach in any business school I ever heard of is that caring is a liability if you want to get ahead. That said, the most ambitious manager I ever worked for interrupted me while I was making a technical presentation for an oddball system and said, "You understand, your job is on the line if this thing doesn't work." I said, "No problem" and he said, "Then go do it."
But I was younger then. Today I don't care.
Microsoft resembles IBM, not Enron.
Microsoft resembles the IBM of old in size and market dominance but not in weaknesses. IBM's fall came about because its core business was undermined by microprocessors. Despite open source, Microsoft faces no such threat. It is continuing to enhance and expand its product line and adapt to new trends as they arise.
But I do not believe that they are going to be number one for more than a few more years
And who will replace them? There's no single company that can duplicate Microsoft's complete product line, certainly not in a few years. One can imagine a number of vendors replacing individual products but could any of them, or instance, exterminate Word the way Word exterminated WordPerfect?
The history of business is one of industrial giants falling and even disappearing altogether. Presumably Microsoft's turn will come as well. However, consider General Electric. It was one of the original Dow Jones Industrials over a hundred years ago and it is still there today. Like Microsoft, it glommed onto a fundamental industry (electricity) and rode out the ups and downs of the business cycles, diversified, and marketed itself well.
When you look at Microsoft's strengths (astute management, large cash reserves, overwhelming market dominance, diverse product line, brandname recognition) and the fact its market is still growing, it's hard to imagine it losing its number one spot in our lifetime. The most likely scenario is that it will use its huge cash reserve to diversity like GE and become even bigger, although perhaps not as a software vendor.
There are many factors other than cost which contribute to the success or failure of a computer product...
These factors include:
- Compatibility and interoperability
- Stability of vendor
- Amount of ongoing development
- Feature set
- Marketshare and userbase
- Adherence to standards
- Ease of use
- Security
- Stability
Microsoft is credible in all these areas and ahead of open source contenders in most. In addition, Microsoft is getting better in all these areas.The time when open source products had some advantage because of Microsoft's weakness in security and stability is limited.
Even people like me who are simply put off by the idea of proprietary systems are having second thoughts after looking at the feature set of IE and the size of its userbase.
The fall of Microsoft will be truly spectacular...
First, people have been making this statement for years for all the reason you gave and more. In all those years, people who continued to invest in Microsoft made money on the stock. In the stock market there's no skill in simply predicting a stock will fall. The trick is predicting when. There's no reason why Microsoft won't continue to defy the fundamentals for years.
Second, you seem to be equating the value of the stock with the stability of the company. Microsoft is a profitable company with a solid customer base. It in no way resembles Enron.
In fact, M$ would have _lost_ money in all of the past several years if they'd had to expense their stock option grants to employees!
So what? If the accounting rules had been different, presumably Microsoft wouldn't have used this loophole as a way to compensate its employees. Using tax laws and regulations effectively is a sign of good management, not bad management.
And people who discard something that has served the human race for a millenia just because it is "old" and "out moded" is being foolish.
No doubt people who chiseled in stone said the same thing about papyrus.
Things I enjoy about stone tablets:
+ It doesn't crash
+ It rarely loses data
+ 100% availability with proper care
+ Annotations are simple
+ Content doesn't change
+ Extremely quick access and intuitive interface
+ High resolution/easy on the eyes
As for portability, just throw it in the back of the cart and the ox will take it wherever you want.
Things I enjoy about paper:
+ It doesn't crash
It does burn. Easily.
+ It rarely loses data
Except when it gets lost itself.
+ 100% availability with proper care
Proper care?
+ Annotations are simple
But frequently illegible.
+ Easy to take with you
But not in large quantities.
+ Content doesn't change
What about those annotations?
+ Extremely quick access
If you're in the same room with it.
and intuitive interface
except in matters of layout and typography.
+ High resolution/easy on the eyes
Unless you're looking at a 10th generation photocopy.
People are so used to putting up with the weaknesses of paper documents that they think they're strengths.
Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app?
Because technical decisions should never trump marketing decisions. From a business perspective, the way to phrase the question is: Is the extra cost of porting the product to Windows made up by additional sales?
The answer must have been yes.
The space race will begin in earnest again very soon. Once the Chinese start their manned missions....
The Cold War is over and there's no propaganda victory to be had by space travel. The U.S. should base its spending on basic research on something more substantial than international public relations.
The net effect of the U.S. being first to the Moon is that it is not getting criticized for abandoning its lunar landing program. Whoever goes to Mars first is going to wonder how they'll pay for the next trip and what they'll get out of it.
Ignoring for a moment the irony of making an interplanetary journey to determine if life can make an interplanetary journey, it would be an an expensive fact to determine at considerable risk to life and limb.
Is this fact worth the risk and expense? Given the finite amount of money for basic research, a trip to Mars would mean delaying research into other areas that are arguably more interesting.
Considering the difficulty of keeping a tiny research station in operation in Antarctica, which is many times more hospitable than Mars, one can say with reasonable certainty that the cost of colonizing Mars is prohibitive. Generally, in science something must be at least theoretically possible before you attempt to prove it.
If I may jump in late into this discussion...
The definition you cite shows the fundamental problem with the agnostic position.
If it is impossible to know whether there is a God, then it is because God has made it impossible to know there is a God.
If God exists, why would he make it impossible to know He exists?
Stated a bit more formally: If God exists, it must be possible to know He exists. Therefore, if it is impossible to know whether God exists then He does not exist. QED
sapientia potestas est
Per contra, scientia ipsa est potestas. Sapientia est donum deorum.
They believe that humanity is on a path to immediate self-destruction ...
Using the word "believe" gives Scientology too much credit. It's like saying that McDonalds believes you deserve a break today. Their so-called beliefs are nothing more than marketing techniques.
In any case, if they wanted to foster a sense of persecution, you'd think they'd leave the pages up as evidence rather than trying to suppress them. They're behaving like any other business that faces criticism, which is further evidence that they are a business, not a religion.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Per contra, scientia est potentia.