Why is there this huge phobia about genetically engineering the human race? What is so wrong about seeking to be better than you are?
After all, we go to school in order to become better than we were - to expand our horizons, to be able to accomplish and learn new things. Through life we're taught that it's good to seek to better yourself, to always strive towards a higher goal. Hell, it's the American Dream!;)
So surely genetic engineering ourselves is nothing more than the ultimate realisation of this wish?
By not engaging in it, we're cheating both ourselves and our children, depriving them of a brighter future.
Unfortunately there are far too many cultural forces out there which are only too happy to spread fear about new technologies. By linking genetic engineering to movements like eugenics they have managed to make something which could benefit everyone into the next big evil. Eugenics was evil, and it is my shame that we in this country practised it, but as long as the benefits are spread to all, then genetic engineering holds the promise of a freedom from the myriad of inherited diseases that kill or cripple millions each year.
And that's even before we move beyond our current capabilities! Just by eliminating flaws like disease and infirmity, we increase our race's fitness massively, making our children better equipped to deal with a world that changes faster and faster each year. And as we move away from the Earth and into new environments, genetic engineering will allow us to adapt ourselves to fit those environments, meaning the human race can thrive for ever...
TiVo managed to come up with an innovative product that plenty of people (especially here) have found to be extremely useful and worth the price. As such, they deserve to have their advances in technology formally protected, and they have.
See - the patent system isn't all bad:) With all the whinging about one-click patents, we forget that every month, hundreds of patents are granted for worthwhile products, ensuring that research and development continue to thrive.
Computers may be increasing intelligence, in whatever abstract measure they're using today, but I don't think it's improving people in an overall sense.
Intelligence is a tricky quantity, and the sort of things that are typically used to measure it may very well be increased through exposure to computing from an early age. But that doesn't mean kids are any smarter in reality or more able to deal with tricky situations.
In fact the anti-social behaviour which almost invariably comes with computer expertise is a far worse handicap than any gain in intelligence. Time and time again studies have shown that social skills are far more important in determining how successful people are in the real world than intelligence. Kids who spend all their time with computers are losing one of the most important aspects of their humanity. Serial killers weren't very social people either.
Kids who are allowed to just rot in front of a computer are being failed by their parents, who obviously don't care enough to have their kids turn out as well-rounded individuals who will be able to go through their lives without the kind of emotional inability we read about in places like this. Parents should encourage their kids to get out and actually interact with their peers.
Geeks here whine about being outcasts. Well is it any wonder if they do nothing other than sit in front of computers? Social bonds don't appear as if by magic after all, they take time and effort. Unsuprisingly, also things that computers tend to destroy. Think about it next time you wonder why nobody likes you.
Ah, those were the days. When we were a nation that actually did something rather than reflect on past glories.
But well done to Austrailia for moving an important step closer to a true space program, something that any nation that wishes to remain or become an economic player needs. Already the economic impact of space is being felt in the expanding telecommunications industry, and we can only expect this to become more important in the coming decades.
Which is why I'm wondering how the hell the Russians keep getting in the news for space-related stuff. First Tito, now this? Where the hell was the US? This isn't a criticism of Russia, but considering the funding difficulties they're having at the moment, they're sure as hell going out there and actually doing stuff. We seem to just be sitting on our asses and spending fifty time as much money to do so!
With the ending of the Cold War it seems that this nation has lost a hell of a lot of gumption and has been content to let things happen without it. The US has gone from being the most respected country in the world to being the whipping boy of third-world nations with poor human rights records, all in the space of a few decades. And what's worse, nobody cares! Read the papers here, and it's all mindless US propaganda aimed at keeping the proletariat happy and patriotic.
And then there's our illustrious president. I honestly can't decide whether he doesn't care about the rest of the world, or if he's trying to recreate the Cold War, but this time with China. Either way, I feel almost ashamed that there are nations out there moving foward, and that we're not one of them.
For once, it's the Russians promoting capitalism rather than the US. After all, they've got trouble with a lack of funds, and rather than bleating to their Government about it, they've done the sensible thing - sold a service for a price people are willing to pay! If only NASA would take its head out of its ass and do something this sensible.
Maybe if NASA ever decided that pretentious, high budget, high beurocracy projects like the Shuttle were the complete waste of money and resources that they were, we'd see more people in space. As it is, the money they waste on that inefficient POS would be far better spent elsewhere, repairing the damage to the image NASA has with the American public after doing absolutely nothing for decades.
As it is, maybe Congress should cut their budget some more until they do tighten their belts. The Shuttle is a black hole in terms of funding, and in any corporation it would have been axed years ago. But since NASA haven't managed to come up with anything better in 20 years, they won't get rid of it in case they fall behind other agencies. Well here's news for you - this shows the Russians are already light years ahead in terms of a sensible space policy! NASA should stop whooping it up and get down to some serious work.
Come on, you know that's a logical fallacy. There's no need or reason to assume that this is the start of anything else without further evidence. Sounds like they're getting what they want so why would they need anything else? At the end of the day these people are just that, people, not monsters...
This document is being blatently misrepresented by agencies like statewatch which are always interested in pushing their liberal agendas at the cost of necessary advances in the state of international policing.
Come on people, this information already exists in server logs across the world! It's not like they are proposing something that is novel, just ensuring that everyone comes under the same regulations, which is surely the whole point of joining the EU. The police can get to this information at the moment, you're not losing out in any way. But by making it easier, police can move more swiftly against organisations like the Wonderland child porn ring, who were international in scope, making investigation tricky and time-consuming.
Besides, statewatch is part of the same leftist agenda as organisations like IMC, who fear that if their "privacy" is breached, then they can't continue their terrorist campaigns against innocent people who work towards ensuring global prosperity. You can bet that these organisations will be raising a stink, because it's their "freedom" that allows them to get away with such criminal activities.
Um, we still have that knowledge gap. The vast majority of people who use AOL work on faith and believe in magic... they don't know much about what's going on inside their machines.
More elitism. Why should everyone have to know how their computers work? The fact that people encounter difficulties through not having such knowledge is a flaw in computer systems, not the people using them. Technology after all, should be our tool rather than our master, which is why Windows is still far better on the desktop than Linux.
How is the fact that they enabled the Webification of thousands of pinks and high school girls who just want to chat and meet guys--how is that a GOOD thing?
So what, should only the priviliged few be allowed to be online? How is that a good thing? We live in a modern democracy in which everyone is supposed to be able to have the same opportunities, and services like AOL provided that. Without them there would have been an ever-increasing knowledge gap between the elite "haves" and the masses of "have-nots".
All it does is justify the existance of things like doubleclick and other garbage-producing companies.
What the hell is wrong with advertising? Without it you wouldn't be reading this site and posting such nonsense, because it wouldn't exist. If you don't like this system, move to Cuba.
At this landmark occasion in the web's history we can look back and see just how much things have changed, and for the better, in the last ten years.
To start with, the web was an academic project to allow scientists to communicate more easily without the limitations of email. Since then it has grown massively, shedding the ivory tower textual paradigm to become the most popular part of the net by far, and the driving force behind the massive growth in the amount of people who have net access, a thing which we all agree is good.
Nowadays the web is a reflection of modern life rather than a bastion for the priviliged few. Anyone can grab an AOL CD and get online, put their web page up and chat to people across the world, and without services like AOL we would still be stuck in the situation we had in 93, where there was a marked lack of content and none of the features we take for granted nowadays. Heck, even the IMG tag wasn't in the initial design, which says something about what they intended the web for!
I'm hoping that the continuing growth in ordinary, real people coming online will further fuel the technological advances that have made the web such an interesting place today, and that cheaper and faster access will mean another explosion in useful content for us all.
First off, I applaud the Japanese patent office for forcing Amazon to actually prove that their patent has innovation rather than assuming it as the American office did.
But the different standards for patents in different countries isn't something we need in this day and age where products compete in a global free market. It costs companies more, adds complexity and creates legal problems.
What we need is to standardise on an international patent body which can allow patents to be filed once and once only, and be internationally binding. This way both everyone benefits.
While I think this is a great idea in such a market, I would only want it if it wasn't based upon the USPTO. America has shown itself time and time again to be the enemy of progress and technological innovation, and the EU and Japan have fostered a more balanced approach to what has become a critical concern to companies.
So well done Japan, and I hope that organisations like the WTO start considering patents in a global manner. Having a global body regulating patents can only be a good thing for corporations competing in the free market.
As big a fan of Open Source and Free Software as I am, I don't think that this is the way to go about promoting it or protecting it. Sure we have some kind of implied backing from companies like IBM and HP at the moment, but as Bruce says it's not anything official, and it shouldn't become official.
By making the links between open source and these companies explicit, we are basically putting ourselves into legal obligation with these companies, sacrificing freedom for security. And we all know what our Founding Fathers thought of that idea!
No, the strength of free software is that it is free. By tying it into treaties and contracts with companies we lose the strength which makes it far superior to any closed-source equivalent. We all know corporations aren't to be trusted, and despite their current "nice guy" acts, both IBM and HP have in the past abused their positions within the industry for their own gains.
Free software should remain free. And corporate sympathisers such as Bruce Perens should realise that by playing to the whims of their masters, they risk everything we've gained in the last decade.
Yeah, for now, sure. But technology moves on, and human interaction with technology moves on. And when it comes to the point where we can interact with computers in a natural way (most likely through computer-neural links) then adding a third dimension allows us to explore new manners of organising material.
It only makes sense for us to be looking towards the future now, rather than having it catch us unawares. Attitudes like yours aren't what we need...
And looks set to remain so for the forseeable future. Despite a lot of hype generated by Drexler and his fellow zealots, nanotechnology is still a purely theoretical psuedo-science, supported solely by a few developments in molecular manipulation that in reality have little to do with Drexler's ideas of nanoassemblers.
Until an actual working model is proposed I have little time for nanotechnology and its grandiose claims. Every two-bit prophet has claimed that their creations will change the world, and yet they rarely do. Just look at the computer. For all the revolutionary talk about how it will free us from the burdens of work, now all we do is spend more time working, because computers have enabled us to do more!
Nanotech is not the answer to all our future problems. Hell for now it's not the answer to anyone's problems, except maybe Drexler's bank balance and a few labs hoping for Government funding. Maybe you should be looking for a more scientific solution?
But with each additional gene, the number of interactions between its expression and the expressions of other genes rises exponentially, doesn't it? If I'm surprised by anything, it's that people actually thought there might be a "gene for foo".
What suprised me is that there are so many "genes for foo". Time and time again scientists have come across single genes that determine complex factors on their own. This suggests to me that genes are more important on their own than in combinations...
I think that the scientists may have missed something in their rush to get to the end of the human genome, because I really can't see that a human is only half again as complex as a roundworm! I mean come on, the human brain on its own is a marvel of complexity far superior to anything else we've discovered. To ascribe this to such a rediculously small number of genes is a sure sign that they've overlooked something.
Are they really sure that they've got everything? I mean most of the DNA is so-called "junk DNA", but maybe it's time to take another look at it. After all scientists expected 100,000 genes or so, and I think it's doubtful their initial estimates were that wrong.
In a way this is a good thing. Now that we've got this problem, scientists will have to search for more clues, and will make new discoveries about life. Somewhere out there has got to be what makes us so superior to the roundworm.
As much as the/. doomsayers would like us to think so, I personally don't agree with the view that moving to a subscription-based model of software is a bad thing:) In fact, in almost all cases it'll bring numerous advantages to the consumer.
For a start there's the fact that for Joe Sixpack and his family, installing and configuring software is a task that they don't want to be dealing with. And for some packages, especially on Linux where user-friendliness comes second place to adding new features, the task of setting new software up is too technically complex for them to be able to do it. For these users, having this process automated will be a godsend, and one they'll gladly choose.
Then there's the issue of updates. Microsoft has already moved in the direction of automated updates, and BSD provides the ports tree for a relatively easy way of getting updates, but the majority of software gets updated far more often than people bother to get the updates. This leads to security holes which script kiddies can exploit, as we've seen dozens of times in the last few years. With automated updates, this would be avoided and the net would be a far more secure place.
Then there's the fact that the business world has relied on subscription-based software for years. Most large packages are paid for by an annual fee from thier buyers, and they get all of the advantages above included. If these people, with far more to lose, are happy, I think home users will be.
Of course there will be situations where subscriptions are wrong, such as with embedded software, but for 99% of people, moving to subscription-based software will be great. It'll just become another payment made at the end of the month with your cable bill and your insurance, and with no more hassle.
Seems to be as though this letter contains hints of bitterness over having to leave, and that the vision he had for PGP and NAI's vision were somewhat different. The comments about source code and backdoors seem to indicate that he thinks NAI aren't going to be opening the code for review in the future.
Surely he'd be better off staying within NAI and fighting to ensure that the code remains free from backdoors? It seems as though he's willing to compromise his principles to get out of a difficult situation, and it means that many of us are going to have to switch to other, less secure versions that we at least know are free from holes.
When it comes to ensuring freedom you can't just cut and run at the first hurdle...
Where's this USia? The proper name of the country I think you're referring to is "The United States of America," and is sometimes referred to as the "USA" or "America." I also happen to like "The United States," although that might be ambiguous.
America is actually a continent I think you'll find. Hence it is a collective term embracing the nations within it - Canada, Mexico, USia, Brazil, Argentina and so on. These are all American countries.
Furthermore, if you intended to use "USia" as you would use "Asia," remember that there are several other countries in North America. Canada and Mexico, for instance. As far as I know, they're still independent, soveriegn nations.
No because Asia is a continent, USia is a country, so they're not equivalent at all.
This would be a more tricky case than it seems if the judge hadn't gone way overboard on his decision, past even what Referee's lawyers wanted. I mean, it basically gives Referee the rights over the use of that word, even in the path. This is (obviouly) wrong.
But their original point does stand. Having two sites Referee.com and eReferee.com is confusing, especially when it comes to things like search engines and so on. There needs to be a way to ensure sites are easily distinguishable so that things like this aren't necessary.
Unfortunately ICANN isn't going to be doing anything about it. They're far too deeply in the pockets of corporate USia, and they are quite happy to let big corporations take anyone to court wherever there's even the slightest hint they might win.
I've got a couple of ideas for fun contests that we can all play, and they're relevent for the/. community as well!
Firstly, we have How long will/. stay up?. Each of us can guess exactly how long (in hours)/. will be up for before it inexplicably dies with no response from the site admins. For bonus points, guess how long it'll take them to get it running again.
Secondly, Why did it go down?. We can all have fun here guessing why/. went down again. Was it a DDoS? Corrupted database? Someone tripped and pulled the power cord out? My guess for the latest one is the fact that there's now over a billion user accounts here...
What concerns me about the push towards "wireless" protocols such as Bluetooth is that it increases the vulnerability of internet traffic, no matter what measures you take to keep it secure. Well, I suppose you could use narrow-beam lasers to transmit the information, but in reality there is going to be far more opportunity to listen in with no chance of such listening being detected.
I'm sure that certain government agencies would love for people to be using this. Rather than actually having to go into peoples houses with all the Fourth Amendment difficulties that entails (or at least should; the Fourth has been gutted by successive governments in the last eighty years), they can simply snoop on you from the comfort of the house across the street if their instruments are good enough.
How is anyone going to keep anything private if this happens? It has been shown time and time again that governments are interested in nothing more than maintaining their own power at the expense of citizens rights. And most people just don't care enough for this to be a problem.
Hopefully our new Attorney General will hold to the Constitution better than the last one did. Because otherwise travesties like Waco will happen again, where our Constitutional rights are taken away by stormtroopers masquerading as law enforcement.
This is another example of how morals have slipped in the current generation of techno-weenies, and how the separation of Church and State in schools has led to a vacuum where once children were taught the proper ways to behave. In case you don't get it, let me spell it out.
Adultery is intent as well as action!!
There, got it? Just because you're only typing at a keyboard, the intent is still there. It's just as immoral to try and fuck someone over the net (if sadder admiteddly) as it is in real life. In both cases, you're guilty of wanting to do something that you should only want to do with your partner!
And it's far more humiliating than just staring at other people is for your partner. I mean, how can people find a few words on a screen more appealing than their partner? It all seems pretty damn tragic to me, but then again, I have a life outside of computing.
And you can't use as a defence the fact that you aren't getting along with your partner. For a start that doesn't excuse immoral behaviour, and besides that if they really are that bad, find another partner! Nobody should be with someone they don't want to be with 100%.
Don't blame the nazis, they had no choice in the matter.
Strawman.
For a start the nazis were individual people who could each make their own decisions, whereas a corporate entity is obliged to act in the best interests of its shareholders.
Secondly, I think persuing a trademark infringemnt is somewhat different from butchering innocents. You may as well say that the RIAA or the MPAA are as bad as the Nazis.
Don't blame him, he has no real choice in this matter. Trademarks have to be protected, no matter how little you care, or else they will become invalid and anyone can use them. If he doesn't go after OpenSSH, tomorrow it'll be Microsoft using the name.
Blame instead the entire trademark system which has perpetuated this kind of attitude. It's gone from a system meant to protect rights to one that encourages, even demands, companies to trample all over their rivals.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is there this huge phobia about genetically engineering the human race? What is so wrong about seeking to be better than you are?
After all, we go to school in order to become better than we were - to expand our horizons, to be able to accomplish and learn new things. Through life we're taught that it's good to seek to better yourself, to always strive towards a higher goal. Hell, it's the American Dream! ;)
So surely genetic engineering ourselves is nothing more than the ultimate realisation of this wish?
By not engaging in it, we're cheating both ourselves and our children, depriving them of a brighter future.
Unfortunately there are far too many cultural forces out there which are only too happy to spread fear about new technologies. By linking genetic engineering to movements like eugenics they have managed to make something which could benefit everyone into the next big evil. Eugenics was evil, and it is my shame that we in this country practised it, but as long as the benefits are spread to all, then genetic engineering holds the promise of a freedom from the myriad of inherited diseases that kill or cripple millions each year.
And that's even before we move beyond our current capabilities! Just by eliminating flaws like disease and infirmity, we increase our race's fitness massively, making our children better equipped to deal with a world that changes faster and faster each year. And as we move away from the Earth and into new environments, genetic engineering will allow us to adapt ourselves to fit those environments, meaning the human race can thrive for ever...
FUD aside, how can this be a bad thing?
TiVo managed to come up with an innovative product that plenty of people (especially here) have found to be extremely useful and worth the price. As such, they deserve to have their advances in technology formally protected, and they have.
See - the patent system isn't all bad :) With all the whinging about one-click patents, we forget that every month, hundreds of patents are granted for worthwhile products, ensuring that research and development continue to thrive.
Computers may be increasing intelligence, in whatever abstract measure they're using today, but I don't think it's improving people in an overall sense.
Intelligence is a tricky quantity, and the sort of things that are typically used to measure it may very well be increased through exposure to computing from an early age. But that doesn't mean kids are any smarter in reality or more able to deal with tricky situations.
In fact the anti-social behaviour which almost invariably comes with computer expertise is a far worse handicap than any gain in intelligence. Time and time again studies have shown that social skills are far more important in determining how successful people are in the real world than intelligence. Kids who spend all their time with computers are losing one of the most important aspects of their humanity. Serial killers weren't very social people either.
Kids who are allowed to just rot in front of a computer are being failed by their parents, who obviously don't care enough to have their kids turn out as well-rounded individuals who will be able to go through their lives without the kind of emotional inability we read about in places like this. Parents should encourage their kids to get out and actually interact with their peers.
Geeks here whine about being outcasts. Well is it any wonder if they do nothing other than sit in front of computers? Social bonds don't appear as if by magic after all, they take time and effort. Unsuprisingly, also things that computers tend to destroy. Think about it next time you wonder why nobody likes you.
Ah, those were the days. When we were a nation that actually did something rather than reflect on past glories.
But well done to Austrailia for moving an important step closer to a true space program, something that any nation that wishes to remain or become an economic player needs. Already the economic impact of space is being felt in the expanding telecommunications industry, and we can only expect this to become more important in the coming decades.
Which is why I'm wondering how the hell the Russians keep getting in the news for space-related stuff. First Tito, now this? Where the hell was the US? This isn't a criticism of Russia, but considering the funding difficulties they're having at the moment, they're sure as hell going out there and actually doing stuff. We seem to just be sitting on our asses and spending fifty time as much money to do so!
With the ending of the Cold War it seems that this nation has lost a hell of a lot of gumption and has been content to let things happen without it. The US has gone from being the most respected country in the world to being the whipping boy of third-world nations with poor human rights records, all in the space of a few decades. And what's worse, nobody cares! Read the papers here, and it's all mindless US propaganda aimed at keeping the proletariat happy and patriotic.
And then there's our illustrious president. I honestly can't decide whether he doesn't care about the rest of the world, or if he's trying to recreate the Cold War, but this time with China. Either way, I feel almost ashamed that there are nations out there moving foward, and that we're not one of them.
For once, it's the Russians promoting capitalism rather than the US. After all, they've got trouble with a lack of funds, and rather than bleating to their Government about it, they've done the sensible thing - sold a service for a price people are willing to pay! If only NASA would take its head out of its ass and do something this sensible.
Maybe if NASA ever decided that pretentious, high budget, high beurocracy projects like the Shuttle were the complete waste of money and resources that they were, we'd see more people in space. As it is, the money they waste on that inefficient POS would be far better spent elsewhere, repairing the damage to the image NASA has with the American public after doing absolutely nothing for decades.
As it is, maybe Congress should cut their budget some more until they do tighten their belts. The Shuttle is a black hole in terms of funding, and in any corporation it would have been axed years ago. But since NASA haven't managed to come up with anything better in 20 years, they won't get rid of it in case they fall behind other agencies. Well here's news for you - this shows the Russians are already light years ahead in terms of a sensible space policy! NASA should stop whooping it up and get down to some serious work.
Slippery slope baby, slippery slope.
Come on, you know that's a logical fallacy. There's no need or reason to assume that this is the start of anything else without further evidence. Sounds like they're getting what they want so why would they need anything else? At the end of the day these people are just that, people, not monsters...
This document is being blatently misrepresented by agencies like statewatch which are always interested in pushing their liberal agendas at the cost of necessary advances in the state of international policing.
Come on people, this information already exists in server logs across the world! It's not like they are proposing something that is novel, just ensuring that everyone comes under the same regulations, which is surely the whole point of joining the EU. The police can get to this information at the moment, you're not losing out in any way. But by making it easier, police can move more swiftly against organisations like the Wonderland child porn ring, who were international in scope, making investigation tricky and time-consuming.
Besides, statewatch is part of the same leftist agenda as organisations like IMC, who fear that if their "privacy" is breached, then they can't continue their terrorist campaigns against innocent people who work towards ensuring global prosperity. You can bet that these organisations will be raising a stink, because it's their "freedom" that allows them to get away with such criminal activities.
Um, we still have that knowledge gap. The vast majority of people who use AOL work on faith and believe in magic... they don't know much about what's going on inside their machines.
More elitism. Why should everyone have to know how their computers work? The fact that people encounter difficulties through not having such knowledge is a flaw in computer systems, not the people using them. Technology after all, should be our tool rather than our master, which is why Windows is still far better on the desktop than Linux.
How is the fact that they enabled the Webification of thousands of pinks and high school girls who just want to chat and meet guys--how is that a GOOD thing?
So what, should only the priviliged few be allowed to be online? How is that a good thing? We live in a modern democracy in which everyone is supposed to be able to have the same opportunities, and services like AOL provided that. Without them there would have been an ever-increasing knowledge gap between the elite "haves" and the masses of "have-nots".
All it does is justify the existance of things like doubleclick and other garbage-producing companies.
What the hell is wrong with advertising? Without it you wouldn't be reading this site and posting such nonsense, because it wouldn't exist. If you don't like this system, move to Cuba.
At this landmark occasion in the web's history we can look back and see just how much things have changed, and for the better, in the last ten years.
To start with, the web was an academic project to allow scientists to communicate more easily without the limitations of email. Since then it has grown massively, shedding the ivory tower textual paradigm to become the most popular part of the net by far, and the driving force behind the massive growth in the amount of people who have net access, a thing which we all agree is good.
Nowadays the web is a reflection of modern life rather than a bastion for the priviliged few. Anyone can grab an AOL CD and get online, put their web page up and chat to people across the world, and without services like AOL we would still be stuck in the situation we had in 93, where there was a marked lack of content and none of the features we take for granted nowadays. Heck, even the IMG tag wasn't in the initial design, which says something about what they intended the web for!
I'm hoping that the continuing growth in ordinary, real people coming online will further fuel the technological advances that have made the web such an interesting place today, and that cheaper and faster access will mean another explosion in useful content for us all.
First off, I applaud the Japanese patent office for forcing Amazon to actually prove that their patent has innovation rather than assuming it as the American office did.
But the different standards for patents in different countries isn't something we need in this day and age where products compete in a global free market. It costs companies more, adds complexity and creates legal problems.
What we need is to standardise on an international patent body which can allow patents to be filed once and once only, and be internationally binding. This way both everyone benefits.
While I think this is a great idea in such a market, I would only want it if it wasn't based upon the USPTO. America has shown itself time and time again to be the enemy of progress and technological innovation, and the EU and Japan have fostered a more balanced approach to what has become a critical concern to companies.
So well done Japan, and I hope that organisations like the WTO start considering patents in a global manner. Having a global body regulating patents can only be a good thing for corporations competing in the free market.
As big a fan of Open Source and Free Software as I am, I don't think that this is the way to go about promoting it or protecting it. Sure we have some kind of implied backing from companies like IBM and HP at the moment, but as Bruce says it's not anything official, and it shouldn't become official.
By making the links between open source and these companies explicit, we are basically putting ourselves into legal obligation with these companies, sacrificing freedom for security. And we all know what our Founding Fathers thought of that idea!
No, the strength of free software is that it is free. By tying it into treaties and contracts with companies we lose the strength which makes it far superior to any closed-source equivalent. We all know corporations aren't to be trusted, and despite their current "nice guy" acts, both IBM and HP have in the past abused their positions within the industry for their own gains.
Free software should remain free. And corporate sympathisers such as Bruce Perens should realise that by playing to the whims of their masters, they risk everything we've gained in the last decade.
Yeah, for now, sure. But technology moves on, and human interaction with technology moves on. And when it comes to the point where we can interact with computers in a natural way (most likely through computer-neural links) then adding a third dimension allows us to explore new manners of organising material.
It only makes sense for us to be looking towards the future now, rather than having it catch us unawares. Attitudes like yours aren't what we need...
And looks set to remain so for the forseeable future. Despite a lot of hype generated by Drexler and his fellow zealots, nanotechnology is still a purely theoretical psuedo-science, supported solely by a few developments in molecular manipulation that in reality have little to do with Drexler's ideas of nanoassemblers.
Until an actual working model is proposed I have little time for nanotechnology and its grandiose claims. Every two-bit prophet has claimed that their creations will change the world, and yet they rarely do. Just look at the computer. For all the revolutionary talk about how it will free us from the burdens of work, now all we do is spend more time working, because computers have enabled us to do more!
Nanotech is not the answer to all our future problems. Hell for now it's not the answer to anyone's problems, except maybe Drexler's bank balance and a few labs hoping for Government funding. Maybe you should be looking for a more scientific solution?
But with each additional gene, the number of interactions between its expression and the expressions of other genes rises exponentially, doesn't it? If I'm surprised by anything, it's that people actually thought there might be a "gene for foo".
What suprised me is that there are so many "genes for foo". Time and time again scientists have come across single genes that determine complex factors on their own. This suggests to me that genes are more important on their own than in combinations...
I think that the scientists may have missed something in their rush to get to the end of the human genome, because I really can't see that a human is only half again as complex as a roundworm! I mean come on, the human brain on its own is a marvel of complexity far superior to anything else we've discovered. To ascribe this to such a rediculously small number of genes is a sure sign that they've overlooked something.
Are they really sure that they've got everything? I mean most of the DNA is so-called "junk DNA", but maybe it's time to take another look at it. After all scientists expected 100,000 genes or so, and I think it's doubtful their initial estimates were that wrong.
In a way this is a good thing. Now that we've got this problem, scientists will have to search for more clues, and will make new discoveries about life. Somewhere out there has got to be what makes us so superior to the roundworm.
As much as the /. doomsayers would like us to think so, I personally don't agree with the view that moving to a subscription-based model of software is a bad thing :) In fact, in almost all cases it'll bring numerous advantages to the consumer.
For a start there's the fact that for Joe Sixpack and his family, installing and configuring software is a task that they don't want to be dealing with. And for some packages, especially on Linux where user-friendliness comes second place to adding new features, the task of setting new software up is too technically complex for them to be able to do it. For these users, having this process automated will be a godsend, and one they'll gladly choose.
Then there's the issue of updates. Microsoft has already moved in the direction of automated updates, and BSD provides the ports tree for a relatively easy way of getting updates, but the majority of software gets updated far more often than people bother to get the updates. This leads to security holes which script kiddies can exploit, as we've seen dozens of times in the last few years. With automated updates, this would be avoided and the net would be a far more secure place.
Then there's the fact that the business world has relied on subscription-based software for years. Most large packages are paid for by an annual fee from thier buyers, and they get all of the advantages above included. If these people, with far more to lose, are happy, I think home users will be.
Of course there will be situations where subscriptions are wrong, such as with embedded software, but for 99% of people, moving to subscription-based software will be great. It'll just become another payment made at the end of the month with your cable bill and your insurance, and with no more hassle.
Seems to be as though this letter contains hints of bitterness over having to leave, and that the vision he had for PGP and NAI's vision were somewhat different. The comments about source code and backdoors seem to indicate that he thinks NAI aren't going to be opening the code for review in the future.
Surely he'd be better off staying within NAI and fighting to ensure that the code remains free from backdoors? It seems as though he's willing to compromise his principles to get out of a difficult situation, and it means that many of us are going to have to switch to other, less secure versions that we at least know are free from holes.
When it comes to ensuring freedom you can't just cut and run at the first hurdle...
Where's this USia? The proper name of the country I think you're referring to is "The United States of America," and is sometimes referred to as the "USA" or "America." I also happen to like "The United States," although that might be ambiguous.
America is actually a continent I think you'll find. Hence it is a collective term embracing the nations within it - Canada, Mexico, USia, Brazil, Argentina and so on. These are all American countries.
Furthermore, if you intended to use "USia" as you would use "Asia," remember that there are several other countries in North America. Canada and Mexico, for instance. As far as I know, they're still independent, soveriegn nations.
No because Asia is a continent, USia is a country, so they're not equivalent at all.
Saying "boxen" just makes you look uneducated.
True. Where did I say boxen?
This would be a more tricky case than it seems if the judge hadn't gone way overboard on his decision, past even what Referee's lawyers wanted. I mean, it basically gives Referee the rights over the use of that word, even in the path. This is (obviouly) wrong.
But their original point does stand. Having two sites Referee.com and eReferee.com is confusing, especially when it comes to things like search engines and so on. There needs to be a way to ensure sites are easily distinguishable so that things like this aren't necessary.
Unfortunately ICANN isn't going to be doing anything about it. They're far too deeply in the pockets of corporate USia, and they are quite happy to let big corporations take anyone to court wherever there's even the slightest hint they might win.
I've got a couple of ideas for fun contests that we can all play, and they're relevent for the /. community as well!
Firstly, we have How long will /. stay up?. Each of us can guess exactly how long (in hours) /. will be up for before it inexplicably dies with no response from the site admins. For bonus points, guess how long it'll take them to get it running again.
Secondly, Why did it go down?. We can all have fun here guessing why /. went down again. Was it a DDoS? Corrupted database? Someone tripped and pulled the power cord out? My guess for the latest one is the fact that there's now over a billion user accounts here...
What concerns me about the push towards "wireless" protocols such as Bluetooth is that it increases the vulnerability of internet traffic, no matter what measures you take to keep it secure. Well, I suppose you could use narrow-beam lasers to transmit the information, but in reality there is going to be far more opportunity to listen in with no chance of such listening being detected.
I'm sure that certain government agencies would love for people to be using this. Rather than actually having to go into peoples houses with all the Fourth Amendment difficulties that entails (or at least should; the Fourth has been gutted by successive governments in the last eighty years), they can simply snoop on you from the comfort of the house across the street if their instruments are good enough.
How is anyone going to keep anything private if this happens? It has been shown time and time again that governments are interested in nothing more than maintaining their own power at the expense of citizens rights. And most people just don't care enough for this to be a problem.
Hopefully our new Attorney General will hold to the Constitution better than the last one did. Because otherwise travesties like Waco will happen again, where our Constitutional rights are taken away by stormtroopers masquerading as law enforcement.
This is another example of how morals have slipped in the current generation of techno-weenies, and how the separation of Church and State in schools has led to a vacuum where once children were taught the proper ways to behave. In case you don't get it, let me spell it out.
Adultery is intent as well as action!!
There, got it? Just because you're only typing at a keyboard, the intent is still there. It's just as immoral to try and fuck someone over the net (if sadder admiteddly) as it is in real life. In both cases, you're guilty of wanting to do something that you should only want to do with your partner!
And it's far more humiliating than just staring at other people is for your partner. I mean, how can people find a few words on a screen more appealing than their partner? It all seems pretty damn tragic to me, but then again, I have a life outside of computing.
And you can't use as a defence the fact that you aren't getting along with your partner. For a start that doesn't excuse immoral behaviour, and besides that if they really are that bad, find another partner! Nobody should be with someone they don't want to be with 100%.
I mean come on, this is a stupid question.
Don't blame the nazis, they had no choice in the matter.
Strawman.
For a start the nazis were individual people who could each make their own decisions, whereas a corporate entity is obliged to act in the best interests of its shareholders.
Secondly, I think persuing a trademark infringemnt is somewhat different from butchering innocents. You may as well say that the RIAA or the MPAA are as bad as the Nazis.
Don't blame him, he has no real choice in this matter. Trademarks have to be protected, no matter how little you care, or else they will become invalid and anyone can use them. If he doesn't go after OpenSSH, tomorrow it'll be Microsoft using the name.
Blame instead the entire trademark system which has perpetuated this kind of attitude. It's gone from a system meant to protect rights to one that encourages, even demands, companies to trample all over their rivals.