Thus the need for hassling out a sensible system of ethics. Otherwise we may be in trouble.
The question of ethics and morals for intelligent systems has been everpresent since the dawn of time. We have been wrestling with people who act outside of ethical and moral standards at every technological corner. As I write these words, the United States wrestles with one such group of individuals.
Are we going to play God and attempt to teach our brilliant creations morals? Will this really prevent the created from killing the creator? Wiring in an awareness of morals and ethics is a daunting problem. At what point in machine advancement do you plug in the moral chip? Once the robo nannies begin to appear in stores? Once the independent robo warriors hit the battlefield?
It is entirely possible that any system of sufficient awareness will have moral awareness. I hope that this is the case. Whether or not morality and ethics are a fundamental part of thinking systems, we will have to modify our current laws to create a behaviorial framework for humanity's offspring.
After all, the lessons of history indicate that intelligent systems are prone to moral failure.
I don't see how this would be a better use of computing resources than just using your own servers to do the work. What the author of Leech Computing should have done is break the problem down to its measurable elements.
Here is some of what would have to be considered:
1. Length of time the average user will be viewing a page or ad (the computing benefit realized) 2. Computing cost of serving this page up to the user 3. Computing cost of collecting and organizing the data from leeched / mipsucked users 4. Monetary cost of either building an interesting site to attract "hosts" or riding an advertisement or other element of someone else's interesting site
I would say that focusing on maximizing your own server resources would be a far simpler way to get your computing task done. As a "free" alternative to this, the voluntary donation of computing resources (as in the SETI project) answers concern #1 and #4 far better than leeching.
Leech Computing(TM) is as pervasive as html. Ads (especially distracting ads) are leeching off of my brain power. They attempt to influence my browsing and buying behavior by first getting my attention and then communicating something to me. They are the cost for all of the free stuff I use daily, so I'm not complaining.
Would you even notice, or even wonder about that advertisement refreshing? Of course not, because it is so common.
Conclusion
The technology to implement Leech Computing is here, now. Is it being used? I have not found any evidence, but I also do not look at the source code to every web page I download. Maybe I should.
In an astounding discovery, scientists have found wire trails from parasites sunk into carpeting material in an ancient human inhabitance.
Humans were tricked into making copies of the box-like plastic and metal parasites and brought the parasites into their dwellings for their usefulness and entertainment. The parasites proliferated, began making copies of themselves, and eventually became the dominant organism on Earth.
Escape's powers are huge but at its most basic level, it is a command that tells a computer to make a shift in its processing -- allowing a user to move up, down or sideways through files, programs or networks...
Escape also appears in every hyperlink as a slash (/), a programming command that allows Web users to move from computer system to computer system, or from page to page, in a website simply by clicking on a hyperlink.
If they want to keep calling it some sort of contract that you need to agree to, then I want more than what the company decided were the bulleted basic terms - I want the whole thing out there!!!
The problem here is that everyone does not have a law degree. Neither is everyone a professional nutritionist, as in the case of the food labelling.
Hitler was just as morally justified in bombing England as Truman was nuking Hiroshima- it's all a matter of perspective and the fact that Truman wins the opinion poll hands down every time [self included, mind you.].
Bombing England and invading Russia was the outcome of a corrupt moral system and a misapplication of technology. Nazis believed that "the mighty shall inherit the earth". Japanese society at the time also suffered from a similar misconception. Of course, there were elements of the Allies of WWII which were corrupt. In no way should the victory of the "right" in WWII (or in any other war) displace introspection about "wrong" behaviors.
When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed (and Dresden, for that matter), it was an action justified by a far more effective and advanced moral system. It was not a matter or perspective. They were criminals, they got what was coming to them, and then civilization forgave them for their wrongs. The intent was liberation of others from corruption and misconception (so they would, for one thing, stop trying to take over the world). As a large-scale "liberation from mass insanity", the application of technology in this case is in the right.
Scientific progress has always served whomever wishes to use its power. The outcome of history is about the wielder of power and whether he is working for or against the momentum of history. Tossing cynicism and pathetic moral relativism aside, humanity is advancing on all fronts. This is because, over time, "good" is winning. Face it; we have mostly stopped living in caves.
Be objective and actually *THINK* about it.... rather than *FEEL* about it.
When I invoke the concept of "right" and "wrong", I am not accessing some reptillian vestige which we label "emotion". These concepts, to those who are wise enough to believe in them, are as applicable as F=MA.
Human kind is building something, and we have science and technology as one particular tool in our belt. Through rational introspection, we can know what is "right" and what is "wrong" with accuracy and precision. We can enforce "right" and strike down those who are "wrong" and continue building.
Tech and knowledge are neither good nor bad- they're a tool, a means to an end.
In the case of the artificial womb, I can mostly see a positive outcome in the near-future. Why? Because the "end" will, for the time being, be defined by the "good". Should some group begin having delusions about their place in the world and misapply this technology, we will have to deal with them.
Hell, if anything, deal with the fact that not everyone has or shares your opinion- you'll have a lot less stress in your life!
No stress here; I take much joy in helping those who are confused.
At least the EULA's should be printed on the box where you can see them before buying.
I absolutely agree with this. The fact that people cannot see what they are "buying" (or, in this case, "licensing") is the worst aspect of the present condition of EULA's. Nearly as bad is the sheer length of the EULA's and the ease of "Agreement".
The basic terms should be clearly summarized in bullet-points on the box and on the promotional/support web site. I think a similar situation is the standardization of food labels a few years ago. EULA's should have the same kind of transparency and understandability.
So the reliance on a EULA is in no way better than reliance on the law... unless you're a very greedy publisher and want to have your cake (copyright on the software) and eat it too (more restrictive contractual arrangements).
EULA's are better than reliance on copyright law. They create new limitations on the use of a product, something a manufacturer has (within the scope of the law) the right to impose. Users of proprietary software "agree" with the attached EULA's and hence they are bound by the terms. Don't like it? Use something else. I often do. If enough people refuse terms (or the courts force their hand), the manufacturer will change them.
The only exception I see is to cover those rare, unusual cases, e.g. site licenses.
How much of MS revenue is site-licensed OS? How much of Oracle's revenue is site-licensed databases?
It can be argued that EULA's are designed to prevent a single software sale from becoming an improper site license (all for the price of a single user's license).
"Software just ain't that different from regular stuff we all use every day"
Screw EULA's. Screw UCITA. They're both just ways to tip the balance of power WAY over to the manufacturer/seller. They don't offer any protections that a resonable seller needs.
Software and other "intellectual technologies" are very different than real-world goods when it comes to ownership and control over the good. Unlike most every tangible good, software can be easily copied. Because of this fact, the best means a manufacturer has to control the improper distribution of software is through the issuance of a license to the purchaser.
Without an EULA, the user would be able to do as he pleases with the software, including making copies to his co-workers to his heart's content.
This is not to say that EULA's aren't ever unfair. Softman v. Adobe actually points to clear EULA abuse, an abuse which is being properly addressed. How is it being addressed? By challenging the terms of Adobe's EULA.
This is not proof that EULA's should be dumped. This is proof that EULA's should be fair to buyer and seller.
I walked into Radio Shack a couple of months ago to pick up some thin wire for a project. Not to be found. Then I noticed the cuecats and those nice, looooooooong serial cable tails.
I took a few home and SNIP!
Guess I'll do something with the cuecat guts sooner or later.
"Is it a good idea? Of course; it's advancing science. Medical science and NASA would be about thirty years behind where we are now were it not for German scientific data garnered from the second world war."
You must have mistyped this or have a total lack of understanding about the concept of "good". The advancement of science is a "good idea" as long as those who weild it are "good people".
The so-called medical knowledge acquired from torturing and killing Jews in concentration camps could not possibly have been a "good thing". Raining Britian and Russia with bombs with airplane and rocket technology in an attempt to subjugate and/or anihilate the British and Russian people was not any good, either. Nor would any "good" have come from their attempt to weild atomic technology.
Be very careful with the label "good". The creation of an artificial womb will no doubt be a "good thing" when it is applied by good people for good purposes. However, while not limiting the progress of science and its powerful outcomes, we the powerful should limit its application by known baddies.
I agree that sentient individuals should apply technology to themselves in any way they please. The problem, of course, arises when technology is imposed by bad people to the interference of the intentions of sentient individuals. These bad people get what is coming to them, as a particular bad man in a cave somewhere (who grossly misapplied airplane technology) is going to find out in a serious way.
Yes, I do believe in good and bad, and you should, too.
Oh, and one last thing. May I challenge you to explain to us all, in detail, exactly how in the world 3 or 4 years of torturous medical experiments in WWII advanced medicine 30 years. Please do this, or print out that paragraph and slowly eat it.
I think I will check into how to submit the entire Perl distribution as an entry (and if it wind, send the 10K to http://www.perl-foundation.org/index.cgi?page=gran ts).
Sandwiches and pizza slices, delivered to your window (just watch out for the blades).
Re:Has he talked about Rod Brooks?
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
I agree that robotics will make possible an AI which can experience the world as we may.
However, the internet may provide a "semantic world" which may be more suitable for the development of an AI based the current computer and software technology.
Systems such as Google which base searches on the connectivity and relevance of web sites immediately come to mind. While such a system may not have "changing motivations" nor very much "self programming", such interesting additions could be engineered in the near future.
This is an interesting episode of "crime jamming" and reminds me of strategies to reduce the population of unwanted insects. Criminals are exposed by dilluting their means to scam people with "neutered" sites.
I could see this successfully applied to illegal online gambling, murder-for-hire, illegal forms of pornography, perhaps even to nab would-be terrorists.
Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, I could see the MPAA and other corporate orgs posting sites which catch people attempting to download software and content that they did not pay for. Hopefully, in this case, would-be bandits would only get Apple's favorite community service message: "Don't Steal Music".
This is an interesting episode of "crime jamming" and reminds me of strategies to reduce the population of unwanted insects. Criminals are exposed by dilluting their means to scam people with "neutered" sites.
I could see this successfully applied to illegal online gambling, murder-for-hire, illegal forms of pornography, perhaps even to nab would-be terrorists.
Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, I could see the MPAA and other corporate orgs posting sites which catch people attempting to download software and content that they did not pay for. Hopefully, in this case, would-be bandits would only get Apple's favorite community service message: "Don't Steal Music".
A game? Remember that steam engines were once toys.
The mythological value extracted from Everquest is highly valuable indeed, and people will pay to participate. Eventually games will become complex and compelling enough to replace the highly valuable service that the movie industry provides.
That service is mythmaking. People need it as much as they need food and air. Storytellers and mythmakers have done pretty well for themselves over the ages and they will continue to do so.
What games like Everquest need is a way to enable others to easily and compellingly tell a story about their adventures in the game. For now, screen snaps and fan fiction will have to do.
As humanity progresses, new layers are added. Each new layer relies on layers below and will run at a higher level of effeciency (i.e. value creation) than thos below.
What we have in this case is an economy which is based on intellectual interactions. People work in the corporate world (service layer on processing layer on manufacturing layer on farming layer) in order to make enough energy to interact on this new plane. It is not the first attempt to build up a new layer of value creation, nor the last.
Everquest is limited by the rules governing it; it will remain on the fringes. Not enough value can be created to liberate this mechanism and let it take over the entire economy as a primary layer (on par with the processing or manufacturing or service economies). It is not flexible eough. I am sure one which is flexible enough will emerge (the web is one very large example).
The same works in ecosystems in which a predator eats grazing animals, which in turn eat vegetation, which in turn eat sunlight and bacteria-processes nutrients.
One particular predator started thinking about some things and a whole new game of layers got started. He started building farms and powered up enough value to support an entire lattice. It really accelerated once combustion engines started getting built.
The real question is: what is the next layer that will feed on the emerging intellectual economy layer?
I truly hope that the inventors charge whatever they can get away with and perhaps even regulate the use of this process for as long as the patent is in effect. If a university or government arm sponsored the project, then I hope that they do the same.
After all, shouldn't the inventor have at least a temporary say in what is done with their patented invention? Say, 14 years?
We should not sit back in the armchair hoping that the result of their hard work will benefit us on our own terms. Be happy that this team of researchers has done such great work and that we may have an opportunity share in its benefits.
This $155B is the difference between the price "paid" for the combined company by the stockholders and the value of the assets. I am not sure if this represents a "mistake" as much as good old fashioned business foolishness.
Excessive goodwill is a problem common to companies that decided to merge during the irrational exuberence. But, hey, it is easy to overpay when you think that you are paying with monopoly money (no pun intended, heh heh).
This could become a bad case of indigestion for AOL.
Great, except that this company is in a defecit
on
Amazon Makes a Profit
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Yes, profits are always a good thing (when earned and honestly accounted for).
But the big "straight numbers" problem with Amazon can be illustrated as follows:
Quarter ending December 31, 2001
Total assets $ 1,637,547,000
- Total liabilities 3,077,547,000
= Total stockholders' deficit ($1,440,000,000)
Quarter ending Sep 30, 2001
Total Assets $1,346,368,000
- Total Liabilities $2,800,362,000
= Total Stockholder Equity ($1,453,994,000)
Would you pay $4.6B (about its current total market price) for a company that continues to be worth around $-1.4B? Take note that I am not accounting for "hope" and "prospects" here.
If they double, triple, or even quantuple this quarter's $5M take, it will be a long time before Amazon.com can justify the enormous chasm between debt and assets. Amazon.com must have some seriously bright prospects to justify their market cap!
The above fiancial data is based on SEC filings and is from the quarter ending Sep 30, 2001 and today's press release from Amazon.com.
Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig recently wrote in the Ametican Spectator about the broader context of this fight:
s /Lessig/Control.htm
http://www.spectator.org/AmericanSpectatorArticle
Thus the need for hassling out a sensible system of ethics. Otherwise we may be in trouble.
The question of ethics and morals for intelligent systems has been everpresent since the dawn of time. We have been wrestling with people who act outside of ethical and moral standards at every technological corner. As I write these words, the United States wrestles with one such group of individuals.
Are we going to play God and attempt to teach our brilliant creations morals? Will this really prevent the created from killing the creator? Wiring in an awareness of morals and ethics is a daunting problem. At what point in machine advancement do you plug in the moral chip? Once the robo nannies begin to appear in stores? Once the independent robo warriors hit the battlefield?
It is entirely possible that any system of sufficient awareness will have moral awareness. I hope that this is the case. Whether or not morality and ethics are a fundamental part of thinking systems, we will have to modify our current laws to create a behaviorial framework for humanity's offspring.
After all, the lessons of history indicate that intelligent systems are prone to moral failure.
I wonder if they did it using a mac plus and about 100 keystrokes?
The following DVDs ought to come bundled:
Enemy of the State
One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
No Way Out
Pi
The Matrix
The Net
I don't see how this would be a better use of computing resources than just using your own servers to do the work. What the author of Leech Computing should have done is break the problem down to its measurable elements.
Here is some of what would have to be considered:
1. Length of time the average user will be viewing a page or ad (the computing benefit realized)
2. Computing cost of serving this page up to the user
3. Computing cost of collecting and organizing the data from leeched / mipsucked users
4. Monetary cost of either building an interesting site to attract "hosts" or riding an advertisement or other element of someone else's interesting site
I would say that focusing on maximizing your own server resources would be a far simpler way to get your computing task done. As a "free" alternative to this, the voluntary donation of computing resources (as in the SETI project) answers concern #1 and #4 far better than leeching.
Leech Computing(TM) is as pervasive as html. Ads (especially distracting ads) are leeching off of my brain power. They attempt to influence my browsing and buying behavior by first getting my attention and then communicating something to me. They are the cost for all of the free stuff I use daily, so I'm not complaining.
Would you even notice, or even wonder about that advertisement refreshing? Of course not, because it is so common.
Conclusion
The technology to implement Leech Computing is here, now. Is it being used? I have not found any evidence, but I also do not look at the source code to every web page I download. Maybe I should.
In an astounding discovery, scientists have found wire trails from parasites sunk into carpeting material in an ancient human inhabitance.
Humans were tricked into making copies of the box-like plastic and metal parasites and brought the parasites into their dwellings for their usefulness and entertainment. The parasites proliferated, began making copies of themselves, and eventually became the dominant organism on Earth.
Escape's powers are huge but at its most basic level, it is a command that tells a computer to make a shift in its processing -- allowing a user to move up, down or sideways through files, programs or networks...
Escape also appears in every hyperlink as a slash (/), a programming command that allows Web users to move from computer system to computer system, or from page to page, in a website simply by clicking on a hyperlink.
The problem here is that everyone does not have a law degree. Neither is everyone a professional nutritionist, as in the case of the food labelling.
This is why we have to summarize the information.
Bombing England and invading Russia was the outcome of a corrupt moral system and a misapplication of technology. Nazis believed that "the mighty shall inherit the earth". Japanese society at the time also suffered from a similar misconception. Of course, there were elements of the Allies of WWII which were corrupt. In no way should the victory of the "right" in WWII (or in any other war) displace introspection about "wrong" behaviors.
When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed (and Dresden, for that matter), it was an action justified by a far more effective and advanced moral system. It was not a matter or perspective. They were criminals, they got what was coming to them, and then civilization forgave them for their wrongs. The intent was liberation of others from corruption and misconception (so they would, for one thing, stop trying to take over the world). As a large-scale "liberation from mass insanity", the application of technology in this case is in the right.
Scientific progress has always served whomever wishes to use its power. The outcome of history is about the wielder of power and whether he is working for or against the momentum of history. Tossing cynicism and pathetic moral relativism aside, humanity is advancing on all fronts. This is because, over time, "good" is winning. Face it; we have mostly stopped living in caves.
Be objective and actually *THINK* about it.... rather than *FEEL* about it.
When I invoke the concept of "right" and "wrong", I am not accessing some reptillian vestige which we label "emotion". These concepts, to those who are wise enough to believe in them, are as applicable as F=MA.
Human kind is building something, and we have science and technology as one particular tool in our belt. Through rational introspection, we can know what is "right" and what is "wrong" with accuracy and precision. We can enforce "right" and strike down those who are "wrong" and continue building.
Tech and knowledge are neither good nor bad- they're a tool, a means to an end.
In the case of the artificial womb, I can mostly see a positive outcome in the near-future. Why? Because the "end" will, for the time being, be defined by the "good". Should some group begin having delusions about their place in the world and misapply this technology, we will have to deal with them.
Hell, if anything, deal with the fact that not everyone has or shares your opinion- you'll have a lot less stress in your life!
No stress here; I take much joy in helping those who are confused.
I absolutely agree with this. The fact that people cannot see what they are "buying" (or, in this case, "licensing") is the worst aspect of the present condition of EULA's. Nearly as bad is the sheer length of the EULA's and the ease of "Agreement".
The basic terms should be clearly summarized in bullet-points on the box and on the promotional/support web site. I think a similar situation is the standardization of food labels a few years ago. EULA's should have the same kind of transparency and understandability.
EULA's are better than reliance on copyright law. They create new limitations on the use of a product, something a manufacturer has (within the scope of the law) the right to impose. Users of proprietary software "agree" with the attached EULA's and hence they are bound by the terms. Don't like it? Use something else. I often do. If enough people refuse terms (or the courts force their hand), the manufacturer will change them.
The only exception I see is to cover those rare, unusual cases, e.g. site licenses.
How much of MS revenue is site-licensed OS? How much of Oracle's revenue is site-licensed databases?
It can be argued that EULA's are designed to prevent a single software sale from becoming an improper site license (all for the price of a single user's license).
Screw EULA's. Screw UCITA. They're both just ways to tip the balance of power WAY over to the manufacturer/seller. They don't offer any protections that a resonable seller needs.
Software and other "intellectual technologies" are very different than real-world goods when it comes to ownership and control over the good. Unlike most every tangible good, software can be easily copied. Because of this fact, the best means a manufacturer has to control the improper distribution of software is through the issuance of a license to the purchaser.
Without an EULA, the user would be able to do as he pleases with the software, including making copies to his co-workers to his heart's content.
This is not to say that EULA's aren't ever unfair. Softman v. Adobe actually points to clear EULA abuse, an abuse which is being properly addressed. How is it being addressed? By challenging the terms of Adobe's EULA.
This is not proof that EULA's should be dumped. This is proof that EULA's should be fair to buyer and seller.
I walked into Radio Shack a couple of months ago to pick up some thin wire for a project. Not to be found. Then I noticed the cuecats and those nice, looooooooong serial cable tails.
I took a few home and SNIP!
Guess I'll do something with the cuecat guts sooner or later.
- James
"Is it a good idea? Of course; it's advancing science. Medical science and NASA would be about thirty years behind where we are now were it not for German scientific data garnered from the second world war."
You must have mistyped this or have a total lack of understanding about the concept of "good". The advancement of science is a "good idea" as long as those who weild it are "good people".
The so-called medical knowledge acquired from torturing and killing Jews in concentration camps could not possibly have been a "good thing". Raining Britian and Russia with bombs with airplane and rocket technology in an attempt to subjugate and/or anihilate the British and Russian people was not any good, either. Nor would any "good" have come from their attempt to weild atomic technology.
Be very careful with the label "good". The creation of an artificial womb will no doubt be a "good thing" when it is applied by good people for good purposes. However, while not limiting the progress of science and its powerful outcomes, we the powerful should limit its application by known baddies.
I agree that sentient individuals should apply technology to themselves in any way they please. The problem, of course, arises when technology is imposed by bad people to the interference of the intentions of sentient individuals. These bad people get what is coming to them, as a particular bad man in a cave somewhere (who grossly misapplied airplane technology) is going to find out in a serious way.
Yes, I do believe in good and bad, and you should, too.
Oh, and one last thing. May I challenge you to explain to us all, in detail, exactly how in the world 3 or 4 years of torturous medical experiments in WWII advanced medicine 30 years. Please do this, or print out that paragraph and slowly eat it.
I think I will check into how to submit the entire Perl distribution as an entry (and if it wind, send the 10K to http://www.perl-foundation.org/index.cgi?page=gran ts).
Sandwiches and pizza slices, delivered to your window (just watch out for the blades).
I agree that robotics will make possible an AI which can experience the world as we may.
However, the internet may provide a "semantic world" which may be more suitable for the development of an AI based the current computer and software technology.
Systems such as Google which base searches on the connectivity and relevance of web sites immediately come to mind. While such a system may not have "changing motivations" nor very much "self programming", such interesting additions could be engineered in the near future.
This is an interesting episode of "crime jamming" and reminds me of strategies to reduce the population of unwanted insects. Criminals are exposed by dilluting their means to scam people with "neutered" sites.
I could see this successfully applied to illegal online gambling, murder-for-hire, illegal forms of pornography, perhaps even to nab would-be terrorists.
Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, I could see the MPAA and other corporate orgs posting sites which catch people attempting to download software and content that they did not pay for. Hopefully, in this case, would-be bandits would only get Apple's favorite community service message: "Don't Steal Music".
- James
This is an interesting episode of "crime jamming" and reminds me of strategies to reduce the population of unwanted insects. Criminals are exposed by dilluting their means to scam people with "neutered" sites.
I could see this successfully applied to illegal online gambling, murder-for-hire, illegal forms of pornography, perhaps even to nab would-be terrorists.
Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, I could see the MPAA and other corporate orgs posting sites which catch people attempting to download software and content that they did not pay for. Hopefully, in this case, would-be bandits would only get Apple's favorite community service message: "Don't Steal Music".
- James
A game? Remember that steam engines were once toys.
The mythological value extracted from Everquest is highly valuable indeed, and people will pay to participate. Eventually games will become complex and compelling enough to replace the highly valuable service that the movie industry provides.
That service is mythmaking. People need it as much as they need food and air. Storytellers and mythmakers have done pretty well for themselves over the ages and they will continue to do so.
What games like Everquest need is a way to enable others to easily and compellingly tell a story about their adventures in the game. For now, screen snaps and fan fiction will have to do.
As humanity progresses, new layers are added. Each new layer relies on layers below and will run at a higher level of effeciency (i.e. value creation) than thos below.
What we have in this case is an economy which is based on intellectual interactions. People work in the corporate world (service layer on processing layer on manufacturing layer on farming layer) in order to make enough energy to interact on this new plane. It is not the first attempt to build up a new layer of value creation, nor the last.
Everquest is limited by the rules governing it; it will remain on the fringes. Not enough value can be created to liberate this mechanism and let it take over the entire economy as a primary layer (on par with the processing or manufacturing or service economies). It is not flexible eough. I am sure one which is flexible enough will emerge (the web is one very large example).
The same works in ecosystems in which a predator eats grazing animals, which in turn eat vegetation, which in turn eat sunlight and bacteria-processes nutrients.
One particular predator started thinking about some things and a whole new game of layers got started. He started building farms and powered up enough value to support an entire lattice. It really accelerated once combustion engines started getting built.
The real question is: what is the next layer that will feed on the emerging intellectual economy layer?
Many might
I truly hope that the inventors charge whatever they can get away with and perhaps even regulate the use of this process for as long as the patent is in effect. If a university or government arm sponsored the project, then I hope that they do the same.
After all, shouldn't the inventor have at least a temporary say in what is done with their patented invention? Say, 14 years?
We should not sit back in the armchair hoping that the result of their hard work will benefit us on our own terms. Be happy that this team of researchers has done such great work and that we may have an opportunity share in its benefits.
This $155B is the difference between the price "paid" for the combined company by the stockholders and the value of the assets. I am not sure if this represents a "mistake" as much as good old fashioned business foolishness.
Excessive goodwill is a problem common to companies that decided to merge during the irrational exuberence. But, hey, it is easy to overpay when you think that you are paying with monopoly money (no pun intended, heh heh).
This could become a bad case of indigestion for AOL.
But the big "straight numbers" problem with Amazon can be illustrated as follows:
Quarter ending December 31, 2001
Total assets $ 1,637,547,000
- Total liabilities 3,077,547,000
= Total stockholders' deficit ($1,440,000,000)
Quarter ending Sep 30, 2001
Total Assets $1,346,368,000
- Total Liabilities $2,800,362,000
= Total Stockholder Equity ($1,453,994,000)
Would you pay $4.6B (about its current total market price) for a company that continues to be worth around $-1.4B? Take note that I am not accounting for "hope" and "prospects" here.
If they double, triple, or even quantuple this quarter's $5M take, it will be a long time before Amazon.com can justify the enormous chasm between debt and assets. Amazon.com must have some seriously bright prospects to justify their market cap!
The above fiancial data is based on SEC filings and is from the quarter ending Sep 30, 2001 and today's press release from Amazon.com.