Firstly I think Apple can rightly claim to have brought the GUI to the industry, yes, it is true that the Xerox team developed it, but Xerox couldn't see the use for it, Steve Jobs did, he aquired it fairly and used it.
Secondly I praise Apple for having the ingenuity to actually design a computer (namly the iMac) that wasn't just a boring grey/beige colour, a box and a monitor.
BUT I am disapointed that Apple have taken this hardline against anyone who designs a system that has the Apple "Look and Feel". I know that Apple went after eMachines, and I feel that they have indeed used the Apple "Look and Feel" in their design. But is it not said that imitation is the sencerist form of flattery. Besides, Apple should be happy that their inivation has spread into the Microsoft/Intel dominated PC market. But I can understand why they are doing it.
Bill Gates was impressed when he saw the Macintosh system for the first time, as much as i do not like the way he does buisness, he is good (no, fantastic) Buisnessman, he saw that this would allow a great deal many more people to use computers inside and outside their workplace. So he (and I'm not about to mince words) went about stealing it, Thus windows was born. Although the Macintosh GUI was far superiour in ALL aspects the Windows/PC combination buired it. I am reminded of the line in "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Steve Jobs points out that the Mac GUI is technically superiour to which Bill Gates replies
"It doesn't Matter"
And that is the truth, it didn't matter. Microsoft had better marketing, more companies onside, Apple was just Apple.
and so the Apple paranoia was born, and Apple's actions of late show that it is alive and well.
Apple need to realise that they can survive and thrive in the marketplace by leading inovation, not owning it. they where badly burnt once by Microsoft, but what major players in the computing field were not, if anything it shows that they were, and still can be, a threat.
Companies like Apple are the reason that the Computing industry still moves forward in the face of corporations like Microsoft, but the paranoia is destroying all their good efforts. It is one thing to protect your Intellictual Property, but it is another to be a whinging bitch. If Apple are not careful they will turn into another Sun
The space program was for one reason. To get up there before the Russians could. There was a rightful fear of what could happen if the Russians established a base in orbit or on the moon and made a nuclear weapons platform up there
It is a little known fact that Kennedy approched the Russians in an attempt to work together to reach the moon. But his advisors (and the Secret Service) decided that this was not good idea and the government vetoed it straight off, it was better for the Americian public to believe that those dirty Commo bastards wanted to put a nuke up there (Anyone seen Space Cowboys...) because "god damn it, we have to protect the rest of the civilised world"
Kennedy was a true believe in what the space program meant, and to a degree so was Regan, is it any wonder that these two presidents were also some of Americia's most, shall we say fair and just, presidents.
Fortunately, so far it looks like right now they'd rather get up into space than threaten everybody with ICBMs.
As it should be really. Space is the next frontier, no point destroying each other before we get there.
Really, we should never have abandoned Skylab after a pitiful three missions. From what I remember seeing of it, it was as spacious as Mir was cramped.
I Agree, it was a poor decision indeed, so much more could have been done with it.
I cannot believe that I am seeing this argument again.
Windows 2000 was a massive install, why, because it's "Plug and Play" driver collection was soooo huge, yet people hearlded it for being so easy and intuative. What a croc of shit.
The reason the there are so many Windows drivers isn't because Windows is a superior operating system, it isn't because it is hard to write drivers for any other platform other than Windows.
It's because
a) Windows has the largest percentage of usage in the market (desktop anyway), so it makes sense to write for it.
b) Microsoft have a nasty habit of turning on companies that do not bow to their demands (such as "Supporting Windows"), they were taken to court for a reason you know.
c) It is what people demand.
Now, a lot of people have said to me that they don't want to install Linux on their machines because it doesn't have the support for their hardware, but they base this decision not on fact, but on the FUD that MS uses
BSD has a lot of industry support, and I don't think that it would be an issue to get manufacture's to support them, and any BSD drivers would be usable by the new Apple OS X. So what is the issue
The issue is that people do not want to see Apple compete with Microsoft, they lost that battle once before. Not because they were technicialy inferior, not because the market demanded it, but because Bill Gates was a caniving scheaming little bastard, It's what makes him a gifted buisnessman and Microsoft a globaly successful company.
Mac users tend to be a tightknit bunch, they realise that Apple system is a better way, but they can be just as zealous as the Wintel mob. Let's look at the potential benifits.
1- By making the Mac OS avaliable to the Intel platform Apple will increase it's market share, it's stock price and it's reputation.
2- With the Mac OS in wider cirulation more developers will be convinced to develop for the Apple platform, meaning more applications and drivers for use on the Mac. (games anyone?)
3- It will provide Windows with the competition that if really needs, which will, in turn, make Windows a better operating system (It's not that Linux isn't good competition, it's just the MS doesn't treat it that way, nor do Microsoft's consumers)
The only downside that I can see is that it will blur the line between what is Apple and what is MS. Microsoft has dominated the Intel platform for a long time, and many Mac users see Intel as the enemy as well. The Apple's were built with the motorola chip because Woz felt that it was better suited for his design, and fair enough too, But that does not mean that Intel cannot run the Mac OS, this is a software issue not a hardware one.
All in all I cannot see any reason why the Mac OS cannot be ported to the Intel Platform or any reason that this porting could not be view as a positive step for Apple and the computing market in general.
I Remember the the morning of the 29th of Jan 1986. Being in Australia I couldn't actually watch the launch, I was only in primary school, 9 years old, eating breakfast when I heard on the radio news that the Space Shuttle Challanger had exploded, I ran into the lounge and turned on the TV to see that horrific image. We even had a minute of silence at 11:00am at our school (signifigant for Australians on the 11th of november). Most of the kids thought it was tragic, but funny. "Those Bloody Americans can't even get their shuttle right" But I held firm, I KNEW that NASA would find out what went wrong and fix it, and the next launch would be safer...
Well, I have to say that the challanger was really the last launch of the US Space program. Every launch thereafter was for satillites and the like. It was bad PR for the government, so they took the easy way out and gave up.
Look at the russian space program, even though the country was decimated by the shift to democracy They still kept their space program running. Even though they were using the same systems that they used in the sixties.
The point that I am trying to make is that the primary difference between the russian space program and the US space program is determination and resorcefulness. I am not saying the the US don't have these elements, but the russians do in abundance. NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen that could function in zero gravity. Which is a fantastic idea, really and a triumph of human knowledge, however the russians use a pencil. Mir has been in orbit for how many years, and Skylab is where...
In 1988 (two whole years after challanger) the Russians launched their first reusable Space Shuttle, the "Buran". Even in the midst of talk that the space shuttle was unsafe (and the Russian shuttle was designed of the original american plans) the still pushed ahead.
The problem is that the americian public forgot what the space program was for. as exciting as the first moon walk was and as unbelievable the first space shuttle seemed these events where not designed for the public's entertaintment, they where designed to further human knowledge, experience and our reach.
Lets be honest, the ISS should have been built 10 years ago, it's not as if it couldn't have been, it just wasn't.
The challanger disaster highlighted the real challanges of space exploration, the US Space program fell of it's bike and scraped it's knee. But it didn't get back on, it ran home to mummy.
I firmly believe that the problems that are occuring all around the world, but Americia seems to be suffering the worst of it, are social problems, society need to change. The best way to enact a social change is through government
It would seem that the American electrol system has had a lot of attention these last few months, I was rather ammused by David Letterman's coverage of the canadian election crisis (13 days, He is still the winner)
Now, it is my time to rant and rave (Because I like doing that). You see I am a proud Australian , yes, we do have a somewhat retarted government, but I don't think I could ever live in Americia. But I digress. I want to talk about the electrol system
A while ago Cortney Love was in Australia, and she was on a radio station, JJJ, (goverment funded nationwide youth radio) and she was talking about the Americian electrol system. In Australia voting is not an option, it is compulsory. if you don't submit a vote, $50 Dollar fine or a night or two in jail if you prefer. Ms Love commented on this saying that it made a lot more sense because it ensured that the majority of the population (ie 85% and up) casted valid votes (there are ways to "not" vote but still turn up).
The reason I point this out is that I think it is the americian system's number ONE downfall. How is it correct to say that someone who was voted in by the majority of the minority as a mandate to govern. you could, theoretically obtain the support of 15% of the nation, but still win the election by a landslide. I do think that in a true beautiful democracy voting should be a choice, but it isn't that clear cut, on paper communism is the fairest and most just form of governmet for the people, but we have seen that it doesn't really work that way.
In Australia we do not have a popular vote for our leader. We are divided into regions (only 7 states/territories) and each region elects a representive. that rep may belong to a party (the two major ones are Labor and Liberal). Which ever party has the most members elected can attempt to form government (in some cases there may be a coalition government made up of two or more parties). The leader of that party (who is voted for by the party well before the election) is then the prime minister.
I feel this has one major advantage over the popular elected leader. Whoever the leader is, they got there through politics and policy, they do not need to have bucketloads of cash to run (though most polictions are well off).
But my real point isn't to compare the two systems. it is to explain that there are many many different ways to elect the leader of you country, many ways to run government and many many ways for people to show their power.
I felt somewhat the same about the ending, This movie had a very classic comic feel to it, IMHO, and the end where Price reveals himself to Dunn was an interesting ending. But not without precidence in comic history.
Let me explain myself, I have, and always will be no matter what WB do to him in movies, a huge Batman fan, and i think in a few aspect Dunn's character reflects Batman. Both are resonably ordinary men, both had a turning point in their lives that shaped their destiny forever, although they took it in different directions. both long to be completely normal, but realise that they never will be. But most importantly the Villian aspect
The villians in many comics are meglomaniacs, or bent on the destruction of a superhero. They have an agenda that the superhero constantly interupts and thus restoring normality to the public, but the batman characters are somewhat different (Don't worry, i am going somewhere with this;-)
In Batman, most all of the villians are attracted to batman, not necessarily to destroy him, but to antagonise him, out shine him or even belittle him. In many ways i think that Price's character fits in here.
Price or "Mr Glass" (Because they always have names) realises that you cannot have heros without antagonists for them, it is comic folklore, and Price is a student of upmost standing here. A term i have herad thrown around is anti-hero. Prices intentions may be viewed as good, he is providing a hero for the masses, the public to worship, but he did kill hundreds to find him, and that cannot be denied, he states that he needs to find who he is and he uses Dunn to define himself. In a way it is an increadiably selfish act on his part. It all depends on how you define evil.
Anyway, i think you do have a good theroy, Price does state that villans often come from those the heros are close to (Prof X/Magneto) so in a way the wife could rise here, it would be one hell of a story.
Now I don't mean to sound contradictive but hasn't this happened before, I know that I have to use a phone number to dial into my ISP, surely the only difference here is that instead of connecting to a proxy server the user would be plugged into the web server
I am interested in the implications of this for web surfing, I know that I will load up a page, see some links of it and follow them off the site, but if you were directly connected to this company's web site I would suspect that they wouldn't act as a ISP so could you actually follow links of their site?
Travis
O.K. I would like to submit this patent.
I propose that or current number system (that uses a total of 10 digits) can be represented buy only two digits. These digits can be Zero (0) and one (1). I call this system the "Double number System" and claim royalties from any similar sytem in existance.
Do you think it will make any money?
I don't think that the real issue is so much the comparison between Bill Gates and Dr Hunkapiller. Though in relative power they may be the same this doesn't mean that the two men are driven by the same force, but I digress, I do not know either of them personally. The issue that really gets my blood boiling is not so much the men behind the research but the use of the research.
How shall I explain this... Well, I'm sure that many people remember Gattaca, it has been mentioned in this artical. I guess so much that it is a good example. so I am going to make my own example. For the record I am a type one diabetic, this apparantly means that I always had a genetic predisposition to diabetes (well I did get it)
Take this company Celera, what is if they did manage to successfuly aquire a patent. Then lets suppose that they have the 'Diabetes Gene' and they sell it to a company, lets call it 'DiaTreat' (it doesn't exist, I made it up, and if it does, there is no relation to this example, and please do not sue me, I have no money).
So, DiaTreat develop a gene treatment to eliminate the Diabetes gene, but this needs to be done at conception (O.K. I have NO medical training, so if I am wrong, I am sorry) and since they 'own' this treatment they decide to put a sizable charge on this treatment. Now, I know that if I have children there is a high chance that they too will contract diabetes. Now lets suppose that I cannot afford it. So my children have this risk. So, now there is an easy test to find out the DNA (then, the future, not Now today) My children may not contract Diabetes, but insurance companies might not insure them, employers like the Emergency Services, Police and the Defence Forces could refuse to enploy them because of their RISK. Now, I'm not talking every corporation like in Gattaca, these people already have the power to refuse employment to me because i have diabetes... but there is a major difference between having and at a risk. everyone is at risk of everything.
I guess that the point that I am trying to make (oh yes there is one buried in there) is that it isn't the people that develop this technology that are the dangerous ones, it those who manipulate and use it incorrectly that are... look at the motor car, how many millions have did in motor accidents since their introduction? is that the inventors fault, no, is it the motor companies, no. It is those who use the motor car that cause the accidents.
O.K. Begining Rant... We as a society need to take responsability for such issues, this is much deeper than some technology getting out of hand, if our socity was healty (and lets face it, it isn't) such things would not happen, but because as a society (and I am not talking, Australian, American, English or any country, I am talking globally) if we took responsability for what happens within our socity the world would indeed be a much better place. O.K. End of Rant.
Maybe I'm an idealist, maybe I do not understand Social Science, maybe you think that I am a raving idiot, but that is my view and I feel that if people looked at the bigger picture and took note of what was actually going on in the world and not just what they wanted in their world there would be far less wrong with our society.
I tend to agree with the above comments. A while ago i saw a documentry that contained mention to Silicon Valley. Apparantly there is a major social problem with the hight land values, it appears that it is bocominbg increasinly difficult for the area to attract members of other professions (such as teachers, social workers, waiters and other lower paying but socially needed jobs) because of the expense of housing in the area. meaning that it also becomes much more expensive for people of these professions to traverse to work.
Basically saying that Silicon Valley is having a great deal of trouble attracting workers from these fields.
It is refreshing to see that my Government is working hard to ensure that Australia plays a vital role in the development of the global village. Every village needs an Idiot
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly I think Apple can rightly claim to have brought the GUI to the industry, yes, it is true that the Xerox team developed it, but Xerox couldn't see the use for it, Steve Jobs did, he aquired it fairly and used it.
Secondly I praise Apple for having the ingenuity to actually design a computer (namly the iMac) that wasn't just a boring grey/beige colour, a box and a monitor.
BUT I am disapointed that Apple have taken this hardline against anyone who designs a system that has the Apple "Look and Feel". I know that Apple went after eMachines, and I feel that they have indeed used the Apple "Look and Feel" in their design. But is it not said that imitation is the sencerist form of flattery. Besides, Apple should be happy that their inivation has spread into the Microsoft/Intel dominated PC market. But I can understand why they are doing it.
Bill Gates was impressed when he saw the Macintosh system for the first time, as much as i do not like the way he does buisness, he is good (no, fantastic) Buisnessman, he saw that this would allow a great deal many more people to use computers inside and outside their workplace. So he (and I'm not about to mince words) went about stealing it, Thus windows was born. Although the Macintosh GUI was far superiour in ALL aspects the Windows/PC combination buired it. I am reminded of the line in "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Steve Jobs points out that the Mac GUI is technically superiour to which Bill Gates replies
"It doesn't Matter"
And that is the truth, it didn't matter. Microsoft had better marketing, more companies onside, Apple was just Apple.
and so the Apple paranoia was born, and Apple's actions of late show that it is alive and well.
Apple need to realise that they can survive and thrive in the marketplace by leading inovation, not owning it. they where badly burnt once by Microsoft, but what major players in the computing field were not, if anything it shows that they were, and still can be, a threat.
Companies like Apple are the reason that the Computing industry still moves forward in the face of corporations like Microsoft, but the paranoia is destroying all their good efforts. It is one thing to protect your Intellictual Property, but it is another to be a whinging bitch. If Apple are not careful they will turn into another Sun
Trav
It is a little known fact that Kennedy approched the Russians in an attempt to work together to reach the moon. But his advisors (and the Secret Service) decided that this was not good idea and the government vetoed it straight off, it was better for the Americian public to believe that those dirty Commo bastards wanted to put a nuke up there (Anyone seen Space Cowboys...) because "god damn it, we have to protect the rest of the civilised world"
Kennedy was a true believe in what the space program meant, and to a degree so was Regan, is it any wonder that these two presidents were also some of Americia's most, shall we say fair and just, presidents.
Fortunately, so far it looks like right now they'd rather get up into space than threaten everybody with ICBMs.
As it should be really. Space is the next frontier, no point destroying each other before we get there.
Really, we should never have abandoned Skylab after a pitiful three missions. From what I remember seeing of it, it was as spacious as Mir was cramped.
I Agree, it was a poor decision indeed, so much more could have been done with it.
Trav
Windows 2000 was a massive install, why, because it's "Plug and Play" driver collection was soooo huge, yet people hearlded it for being so easy and intuative. What a croc of shit.
The reason the there are so many Windows drivers isn't because Windows is a superior operating system, it isn't because it is hard to write drivers for any other platform other than Windows. It's because
a) Windows has the largest percentage of usage in the market (desktop anyway), so it makes sense to write for it.
b) Microsoft have a nasty habit of turning on companies that do not bow to their demands (such as "Supporting Windows"), they were taken to court for a reason you know.
c) It is what people demand.
Now, a lot of people have said to me that they don't want to install Linux on their machines because it doesn't have the support for their hardware, but they base this decision not on fact, but on the FUD that MS uses
BSD has a lot of industry support, and I don't think that it would be an issue to get manufacture's to support them, and any BSD drivers would be usable by the new Apple OS X. So what is the issue
The issue is that people do not want to see Apple compete with Microsoft, they lost that battle once before. Not because they were technicialy inferior, not because the market demanded it, but because Bill Gates was a caniving scheaming little bastard, It's what makes him a gifted buisnessman and Microsoft a globaly successful company.
Mac users tend to be a tightknit bunch, they realise that Apple system is a better way, but they can be just as zealous as the Wintel mob. Let's look at the potential benifits.
1- By making the Mac OS avaliable to the Intel platform Apple will increase it's market share, it's stock price and it's reputation.
2- With the Mac OS in wider cirulation more developers will be convinced to develop for the Apple platform, meaning more applications and drivers for use on the Mac. (games anyone?)
3- It will provide Windows with the competition that if really needs, which will, in turn, make Windows a better operating system (It's not that Linux isn't good competition, it's just the MS doesn't treat it that way, nor do Microsoft's consumers)
The only downside that I can see is that it will blur the line between what is Apple and what is MS. Microsoft has dominated the Intel platform for a long time, and many Mac users see Intel as the enemy as well. The Apple's were built with the motorola chip because Woz felt that it was better suited for his design, and fair enough too, But that does not mean that Intel cannot run the Mac OS, this is a software issue not a hardware one.
All in all I cannot see any reason why the Mac OS cannot be ported to the Intel Platform or any reason that this porting could not be view as a positive step for Apple and the computing market in general.
Roll on OS X says I
Trav
I Remember the the morning of the 29th of Jan 1986. Being in Australia I couldn't actually watch the launch, I was only in primary school, 9 years old, eating breakfast when I heard on the radio news that the Space Shuttle Challanger had exploded, I ran into the lounge and turned on the TV to see that horrific image. We even had a minute of silence at 11:00am at our school (signifigant for Australians on the 11th of november). Most of the kids thought it was tragic, but funny. "Those Bloody Americans can't even get their shuttle right" But I held firm, I KNEW that NASA would find out what went wrong and fix it, and the next launch would be safer...
Well, I have to say that the challanger was really the last launch of the US Space program. Every launch thereafter was for satillites and the like. It was bad PR for the government, so they took the easy way out and gave up.
Look at the russian space program, even though the country was decimated by the shift to democracy They still kept their space program running. Even though they were using the same systems that they used in the sixties.
The point that I am trying to make is that the primary difference between the russian space program and the US space program is determination and resorcefulness. I am not saying the the US don't have these elements, but the russians do in abundance. NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen that could function in zero gravity. Which is a fantastic idea, really and a triumph of human knowledge, however the russians use a pencil. Mir has been in orbit for how many years, and Skylab is where...
In 1988 (two whole years after challanger) the Russians launched their first reusable Space Shuttle, the "Buran". Even in the midst of talk that the space shuttle was unsafe (and the Russian shuttle was designed of the original american plans) the still pushed ahead.
The problem is that the americian public forgot what the space program was for. as exciting as the first moon walk was and as unbelievable the first space shuttle seemed these events where not designed for the public's entertaintment, they where designed to further human knowledge, experience and our reach.
Lets be honest, the ISS should have been built 10 years ago, it's not as if it couldn't have been, it just wasn't.
The challanger disaster highlighted the real challanges of space exploration, the US Space program fell of it's bike and scraped it's knee. But it didn't get back on, it ran home to mummy.
Terry Pratchett, the source of all true wisdom. to extend on this, that phrase is actually from an old chinese curse
May you live in interesting times We (and the internet itself) are living in Interesting times indeed
Trav
Now, it is my time to rant and rave (Because I like doing that). You see I am a proud Australian , yes, we do have a somewhat retarted government, but I don't think I could ever live in Americia. But I digress. I want to talk about the electrol system
A while ago Cortney Love was in Australia, and she was on a radio station, JJJ, (goverment funded nationwide youth radio) and she was talking about the Americian electrol system. In Australia voting is not an option, it is compulsory. if you don't submit a vote, $50 Dollar fine or a night or two in jail if you prefer. Ms Love commented on this saying that it made a lot more sense because it ensured that the majority of the population (ie 85% and up) casted valid votes (there are ways to "not" vote but still turn up).
The reason I point this out is that I think it is the americian system's number ONE downfall. How is it correct to say that someone who was voted in by the majority of the minority as a mandate to govern. you could, theoretically obtain the support of 15% of the nation, but still win the election by a landslide. I do think that in a true beautiful democracy voting should be a choice, but it isn't that clear cut, on paper communism is the fairest and most just form of governmet for the people, but we have seen that it doesn't really work that way. In Australia we do not have a popular vote for our leader. We are divided into regions (only 7 states/territories) and each region elects a representive. that rep may belong to a party (the two major ones are Labor and Liberal). Which ever party has the most members elected can attempt to form government (in some cases there may be a coalition government made up of two or more parties). The leader of that party (who is voted for by the party well before the election) is then the prime minister.
I feel this has one major advantage over the popular elected leader. Whoever the leader is, they got there through politics and policy, they do not need to have bucketloads of cash to run (though most polictions are well off).
But my real point isn't to compare the two systems. it is to explain that there are many many different ways to elect the leader of you country, many ways to run government and many many ways for people to show their power.
If you don't like the system, change it
Travis Matheson
Let me explain myself, I have, and always will be no matter what WB do to him in movies, a huge Batman fan, and i think in a few aspect Dunn's character reflects Batman. Both are resonably ordinary men, both had a turning point in their lives that shaped their destiny forever, although they took it in different directions. both long to be completely normal, but realise that they never will be. But most importantly the Villian aspect
The villians in many comics are meglomaniacs, or bent on the destruction of a superhero. They have an agenda that the superhero constantly interupts and thus restoring normality to the public, but the batman characters are somewhat different (Don't worry, i am going somewhere with this ;-)
In Batman, most all of the villians are attracted to batman, not necessarily to destroy him, but to antagonise him, out shine him or even belittle him. In many ways i think that Price's character fits in here.
Price or "Mr Glass" (Because they always have names) realises that you cannot have heros without antagonists for them, it is comic folklore, and Price is a student of upmost standing here. A term i have herad thrown around is anti-hero. Prices intentions may be viewed as good, he is providing a hero for the masses, the public to worship, but he did kill hundreds to find him, and that cannot be denied, he states that he needs to find who he is and he uses Dunn to define himself. In a way it is an increadiably selfish act on his part. It all depends on how you define evil. Anyway, i think you do have a good theroy, Price does state that villans often come from those the heros are close to (Prof X/Magneto) so in a way the wife could rise here, it would be one hell of a story.
Trav
I am interested in the implications of this for web surfing, I know that I will load up a page, see some links of it and follow them off the site, but if you were directly connected to this company's web site I would suspect that they wouldn't act as a ISP so could you actually follow links of their site? Travis
O.K. I would like to submit this patent. I propose that or current number system (that uses a total of 10 digits) can be represented buy only two digits. These digits can be Zero (0) and one (1). I call this system the "Double number System" and claim royalties from any similar sytem in existance. Do you think it will make any money?
How shall I explain this... Well, I'm sure that many people remember Gattaca, it has been mentioned in this artical. I guess so much that it is a good example. so I am going to make my own example. For the record I am a type one diabetic, this apparantly means that I always had a genetic predisposition to diabetes (well I did get it)
Take this company Celera, what is if they did manage to successfuly aquire a patent. Then lets suppose that they have the 'Diabetes Gene' and they sell it to a company, lets call it 'DiaTreat' (it doesn't exist, I made it up, and if it does, there is no relation to this example, and please do not sue me, I have no money).
So, DiaTreat develop a gene treatment to eliminate the Diabetes gene, but this needs to be done at conception (O.K. I have NO medical training, so if I am wrong, I am sorry) and since they 'own' this treatment they decide to put a sizable charge on this treatment. Now, I know that if I have children there is a high chance that they too will contract diabetes. Now lets suppose that I cannot afford it. So my children have this risk. So, now there is an easy test to find out the DNA (then, the future, not Now today) My children may not contract Diabetes, but insurance companies might not insure them, employers like the Emergency Services, Police and the Defence Forces could refuse to enploy them because of their RISK. Now, I'm not talking every corporation like in Gattaca, these people already have the power to refuse employment to me because i have diabetes... but there is a major difference between having and at a risk. everyone is at risk of everything.
I guess that the point that I am trying to make (oh yes there is one buried in there) is that it isn't the people that develop this technology that are the dangerous ones, it those who manipulate and use it incorrectly that are... look at the motor car, how many millions have did in motor accidents since their introduction? is that the inventors fault, no, is it the motor companies, no. It is those who use the motor car that cause the accidents.
O.K. Begining Rant... We as a society need to take responsability for such issues, this is much deeper than some technology getting out of hand, if our socity was healty (and lets face it, it isn't) such things would not happen, but because as a society (and I am not talking, Australian, American, English or any country, I am talking globally) if we took responsability for what happens within our socity the world would indeed be a much better place. O.K. End of Rant.
Maybe I'm an idealist, maybe I do not understand Social Science, maybe you think that I am a raving idiot, but that is my view and I feel that if people looked at the bigger picture and took note of what was actually going on in the world and not just what they wanted in their world there would be far less wrong with our society.
Basically saying that Silicon Valley is having a great deal of trouble attracting workers from these fields.
I thought this to be relevent
It is refreshing to see that my Government is working hard to ensure that Australia plays a vital role in the development of the global village. Every village needs an Idiot