If they focussed on stripping down the size of the Javascript and CSS, and ran it through the YUI compressor, they could make a big difference to site responsiveness for everyone, not just mobile users. It probably wouldn't hurt their bandwidth bill, either.
As it is, there are two CSS/JS files that, uncompressed, are larger than 25kb (and two others that come perilously close). Guess what? This means they don't go into the iPhone cache, and have to be reloaded every time.
You are assuming it was in the public interest to find the person before they died. This is a guy who didn't pay his phone bill. Sounds like a loser to me.
We're working on it. See recent releases about "Goo" and our second-hand game market. It's just not easy to do it in a way that satisfies all the stakeholders (gamers, us, the developers), and on a technical level (how do you stop someone playing a game that they have installed?).
Like some state senator can push the furry lobby around. Has he forgotten who runs the Internets?
If it's your body, you should be able to do what you want to it. If that includes reprogramming your genes so that your offspring have ears and tails, so be it. Once we've had cosmetic surgery provide it for a few years, it won't seem so strange.
It will, but only when we don't have to rely on retail at all. Before that point, it's going to be viewed as screwing over our partners, who have plenty of other games to choose from.
Well, given that I never got a chance to play with the first one . . . you can be damn sure I wouldn't trust it to UNIX, though. Windows Vista all the way!
Well, what is a significant purpose, anyway? Why value the life of an organism - sentient or otherwise - above your own vanity, or anything else? And if you decide to value life, what of the opportunity cost - the lives of the beings that you might create, but decide not to?
I'm reminded of another topic close to my heart: Creatures. The Norns were created by a race of genetic tinkerers, the Shee. It took them a good number of attempts to get it right, and doubtless there were many failures. But they weren't criticized for them - even those considered nuisances, like the Grendels. Instead, they were celebrated for their successes. Without the norns, Albia would have been a poorer place.
Bear in mind that the Shee had no greater goal but create servants to bring them tea and biscuits, or perhaps the intellectual curiosity of seeing what would happen. To them, genetic engineering was just engineering; it was a tool to solve problems, and if they found a problem in their genes they'd fix themselves, as naturally as we would wear a pacemaker or fit a stent. Some would see that as incredibly wrong. Others wouldn't.
As for the systems question - well, it depends on the system. I'm reminded of evolutionary circuits, which were very unstable and might well be impossible to modify with any certainty. Right now, it's easier, if more inefficient, to build our own circuits based on logic. On the other hand, some biological mechanisms, if not straightforward, appear quite amenable to modification. Yes, if you were creating something totally new it might make sense to do it all over, but the whole point of animal-human hybrids is that we aren't - we're building on and adapting what was there already. At some point it may prove more trouble than it's worth, but right now we don't even know enough to estimate the cost.
This comes down to "might is right". Ultimately, you need power to enforce your view of morality. If someone else has the power, then what they say is right, not you.
A single person with a gun thinks he is master of the world, and can do what he likes. Is that right? No, say the majority - and they are right . . . when they have more guns on their side.
This works both ways, but first you have to convince the people with the guns that you're right, or make your own. (This is why remote island laboratories are often surprisingly heavily-armed.)
It depends. If you're reverse-engineering to gain access to a system rather than completely rewrite it, you can achieve a lot without too much work. You just need to know how to work with the system, and then you can subvert it for your own twisted purposes (like making it snow on the desktop). There are limits, but I'm sure we could go a long way with genes.
As for your second question, I guess I'm just a very amoral person in some ways. Maybe I'd feel differently if the subject was right before me, but I don't particularly care for babies either, so . ..
The story is here and there's also a picture.
And guess what: The scientist learned from his painful mistake, and moved on with the next batch, which was better as a result of the mistake. As you say, some doctors face the same issues - but they do face them, and society is better for it.
People only responded in that fashion because Nazi Germany wanted to take over other slices of the world. Everyone else wanted "peace in our time". If you're going to do experiments on your people (and frankly that's a vanishingly small part of what Nazi Germany did), make very sure not to declare war on the rest of the world.
I'm fine with people sorting ethics out in their own minds. It's when they start saying "hey, you can't do this unless and until I think it's OK" that I have a problem.
If you want government grants for this kind of stuff, sure. Your funding comes from taxpayers, they have to approve it. If it's a matter of some guy creating human-animal hybrids on his own personal island, I don't see that it's anyone else's business.
Slashdot Mirror
If they focussed on stripping down the size of the Javascript and CSS, and ran it through the YUI compressor, they could make a big difference to site responsiveness for everyone, not just mobile users. It probably wouldn't hurt their bandwidth bill, either. As it is, there are two CSS/JS files that, uncompressed, are larger than 25kb (and two others that come perilously close). Guess what? This means they don't go into the iPhone cache, and have to be reloaded every time.
You are assuming it was in the public interest to find the person before they died. This is a guy who didn't pay his phone bill. Sounds like a loser to me.
So what is it that you have against robots, anyway?
Yes, but that doesn't help if it's merely the constant requests for entry (which are denied) that are bogging down the servers.
We're working on it. See recent releases about "Goo" and our second-hand game market. It's just not easy to do it in a way that satisfies all the stakeholders (gamers, us, the developers), and on a technical level (how do you stop someone playing a game that they have installed?).
Like some state senator can push the furry lobby around. Has he forgotten who runs the Internets? If it's your body, you should be able to do what you want to it. If that includes reprogramming your genes so that your offspring have ears and tails, so be it. Once we've had cosmetic surgery provide it for a few years, it won't seem so strange.
Our target audience is not exactly the type to install something like KDE on Windows, or anywhere.
We do actually have a small dark "quiet room" with beanbags at Stardock.
Well, it's more that the law is terrible than the ruling, though I don't know if the judge has the power to set aside such law in this case.
It will, but only when we don't have to rely on retail at all. Before that point, it's going to be viewed as screwing over our partners, who have plenty of other games to choose from.
You need to use Yandex in Russia, anyway.
. . . jerkwad.
Well, given that I never got a chance to play with the first one . . . you can be damn sure I wouldn't trust it to UNIX, though. Windows Vista all the way!
Either that or you need to control the government. Or the aforementioned island (presumably outside of government control).
Well, what is a significant purpose, anyway? Why value the life of an organism - sentient or otherwise - above your own vanity, or anything else? And if you decide to value life, what of the opportunity cost - the lives of the beings that you might create, but decide not to?
I'm reminded of another topic close to my heart: Creatures . The Norns were created by a race of genetic tinkerers, the Shee. It took them a good number of attempts to get it right, and doubtless there were many failures. But they weren't criticized for them - even those considered nuisances, like the Grendels. Instead, they were celebrated for their successes. Without the norns, Albia would have been a poorer place.
Bear in mind that the Shee had no greater goal but create servants to bring them tea and biscuits, or perhaps the intellectual curiosity of seeing what would happen. To them, genetic engineering was just engineering; it was a tool to solve problems, and if they found a problem in their genes they'd fix themselves, as naturally as we would wear a pacemaker or fit a stent. Some would see that as incredibly wrong. Others wouldn't.
As for the systems question - well, it depends on the system. I'm reminded of evolutionary circuits, which were very unstable and might well be impossible to modify with any certainty. Right now, it's easier, if more inefficient, to build our own circuits based on logic. On the other hand, some biological mechanisms, if not straightforward, appear quite amenable to modification. Yes, if you were creating something totally new it might make sense to do it all over, but the whole point of animal-human hybrids is that we aren't - we're building on and adapting what was there already. At some point it may prove more trouble than it's worth, but right now we don't even know enough to estimate the cost.
This comes down to "might is right". Ultimately, you need power to enforce your view of morality. If someone else has the power, then what they say is right, not you.
A single person with a gun thinks he is master of the world, and can do what he likes. Is that right? No, say the majority - and they are right . . . when they have more guns on their side.
This works both ways, but first you have to convince the people with the guns that you're right, or make your own. (This is why remote island laboratories are often surprisingly heavily-armed.)
Technically, it's ten wikis, but the non-English-speaking versions have a long way go to catch up.
Furries are fans of each other.
It depends. If you're reverse-engineering to gain access to a system rather than completely rewrite it, you can achieve a lot without too much work. You just need to know how to work with the system, and then you can subvert it for your own twisted purposes (like making it snow on the desktop). There are limits, but I'm sure we could go a long way with genes.
.
As for your second question, I guess I'm just a very amoral person in some ways. Maybe I'd feel differently if the subject was right before me, but I don't particularly care for babies either, so . .
The story is here and there's also a picture. And guess what: The scientist learned from his painful mistake, and moved on with the next batch, which was better as a result of the mistake. As you say, some doctors face the same issues - but they do face them, and society is better for it.
People only responded in that fashion because Nazi Germany wanted to take over other slices of the world. Everyone else wanted "peace in our time". If you're going to do experiments on your people (and frankly that's a vanishingly small part of what Nazi Germany did), make very sure not to declare war on the rest of the world.
You could try, anyway. My legion of giant hamster-men might have something to say about it . . .
I didn't say it was wrong. Don't put words in my mouth.
It's just a lot more fun to imagine that they were talking about making furries.
He already is half cow. That's why it's in his name.
I'm fine with people sorting ethics out in their own minds. It's when they start saying "hey, you can't do this unless and until I think it's OK" that I have a problem.
If you want government grants for this kind of stuff, sure. Your funding comes from taxpayers, they have to approve it. If it's a matter of some guy creating human-animal hybrids on his own personal island, I don't see that it's anyone else's business.