They're saying that because any quantum state in the computer can be reduced to the null state, an answer can be found before the computation is made. In other words, the quantum state you must input into the computer to program a calculation can instead be used to predict the answer.
If you know how to program a quantum computer, you theoretically can already know what the answer is.
Now, it may take more effort to derive the answer from the input states than to just plug it into the computer and let it churn away. So the computer itself will probably not be superfluous. But it's still an interesting theorem. It seems to be saying that programming a quantum computer will be approximately as difficult as solving the problem you want to program!
2. What examples of fair uses absolutely require access to the work in its most modern, digital, uncorrupted, un-macrovisioned form? The only one that jumped out at me is making a backup copy in case the original is destroyed. But perhaps there are others.
Let's say a scientist is examining artifacts in audio or video data -- something like the ringing around pure tones in MP3s. He finds an artifact of interest in a data file. That artifact may not be detectable -- and certainly will not be worth studying -- at a lower resolution or in an analog representation. The scientist must be able to use and publish portions of the original work at full fidelity.
Similarly, reviewers of music or video may require full fidelity. "Listen to this clip -- you can hear all the fretwork in Framton's latest song!"
Incidentally, I live in the UK and the UK is probably the strongest ally the US has politically. Not even the UK government or the UK press have given Bush any support.
Huh? I watch the BBC news every night (they broadcast it on PBS in America), and they've been very harsh on the Chinese. According to the BBC, the international community -- Britain included -- are siding with the US.
All major countries spy on one another. The Chinese fly the Harbin HZ-5 , a plane whose use is nearly identical to the EP-3 aside from its inferior technology, along the coast of Hawaii.
They're all doing it, they all know they're all doing it. If the Chinese are demanding that the US apologize for spying, they're not only being aggressive but also hypocritical.
I personally blame the EP-3's captain for this whole mess. It is true that landing at an airport was a safe choice for the crew, but he should have ditched his aircraft in international waters.
From news reports, the EP-3 had lost its airspeed indicators in the collision. Without airspeed readouts, any attempt to ditch into the ocean would be suicide.
I don't blame the pilot for not sacrificing himself and his 23 men. He made the right choice. I'm amazed that he was able to put the broken thing down on the ground.
You almost have the incident correct, but from what I recall the Soviet MiG was returned in crates, not reassembled.
I don't blame the Chinese for taking apart our aircraft -- it's a windfall for them, let them have fun with whatever we didn't destroy. What I blame them for is trying to shift the blame, and holding our 24 airmen hostage. The latter is unforgivable.
The SR-71 is a video reconnaissance aircraft. The EP-71 is an electronic sensor plane, reportedly capable of listening in on ground line phone conversations by reading the EM emmissions. Two very different aircraft, used for very different purposes.
I usually don't comment on Jon Katz's stuff -- sometimes he makes good points, sometimes he makes bad ones -- but extending an international incident into the death of globalization is a bit of a reach.
It should be noted, though, that US government servers are currently under attack by chinese hackers. I work for a government contractor, and we've had a couple important (but non-classified) boxes compromised in the past few days. I'm sure that this is just enthusiastic kids in China venting by attacking Evil Uncle Sam, but it's still something to pay attention to.
But regardless of the rhetoric, the diplomatic wrangling, and the internet subterfuge that's going on, *we are not at war*. And if we're able to argue without actual violence -- ignoring network violence, which is not comparable -- that's a *hopeful* omen for future cooperation. By arguing in these ways, we learn about each other, and learn how to stay on each other's good side.
As long as diplomatic relations remain secure between US and China, this incident is a good thing for future globalization. It will prove that although incidents can happen, diplomats will detect the damage, route around it, and learn from the experience.
The American reluctance to apologize for this incident isn't just stubbornness. There are real diplomatic reasons not to apologize here.
First and foremost is China's imperialistic stance toward the China sea. We claim the aircraft was in international airspace, but China claims it was in their airspace. The reason we disagree is because China claims the Paracel islands, which would increase their airspacea good 500 miles into the China sea. No other country in the world recognizes China's claim to those islands, and Vietnam and Indonesia also claim them. If we were to apologize, the US would be officially recognizing China's claim to these islands.
There is also the matter of blame for the accident, which in diplomatic circles carries real responsibility. The US could be forced to pay reparations for the fighter plane and the missing pilot if we apologize, regardless of whether or not we caused the incident. Failure to do so will harm the US's status at the UN, and further cement China's claim on the China sea.
This incident was an accident, and we should not apologize.
A desire for freedom and the urge to create are not sufficient motivations for a revolution. They are sufficient motivations for escapism, and escapism is rampant these days. From on-line games to massively multimedia hookups, from consensus-building exercises like AmIHotOrNot to discussion boards like Slashdot, the masses are using the web for escapism everyday. People are escaping troubles in the real world by spouting off about them on-line. The internet has become a safety valve, not a catalyst for revolution.
No, for revolution you need two other things. One is opportunity -- a glimmer of hope that your rants and your violence will actually be a means to your desired end. But no opportunities have presented themselves, as there is yet no way to spread one's on-line opinions or actions into the real world. The other ingredient is hatred -- hatred enough to want to destroy those who have oppressed you. Face it; the public are not downtrodden enough to hate or fear anyone. They're gleefully accepting their ever-shrinking set of rights and freedoms, as long as they are still allowed an escapist relief.
Things are going to have to get a lot worse before people are motivated and able to revolt and make things better.
I'm not going to do your web searches for you. Look for the case of Lisa MacPherson, a scientologist who died under their 'medical care'. You might also look for info on the RAF, a scieno work contract (for a period of One Million Years) that effectively makes you their slave.
Any site that has accurate information on those things will probably also have reams of other accounts of what the clams have done members and ex-members, mentally, legally, financially, and physically.
I attack Scientology because it is evil, not because it is different. Believe me, I can distinguish the two cases.:) The question is, can you?
L Ron Hubbard was a nutcase, was embedded in the sci fi he wrote and I believe, like many in that realm, really disliked humanity as a whole.
Whoa, kemosabe.:) Are you referring to science fiction authors, or just nutcases? Because I belong to one of those groups (arguably both), and I think humanity's just dandy.:)
Don't know if you noticed, but L. Ron Hubbard has put out about three or so novels since his death. If you look closely at the copyright page of these books, you'll see that they were written by the 'L. Ron Hubbard Foundation', or some such nonsense. There is a committee within scientology that is writing books in Hubbard's name. I don't think we'll ever be rid of that hack.
There's a significant difference between Scientology and the other religions you mention. The other religions don't preach that their detractors can be lied to, sued, and destroyed in any way possible. That's one of the central themes of Scientology. The clams (*) have made frivolous lawsuits, threats, and occassional illegal activity (including killing a Judge's dog) into a refined art form. Because their religion *tells* them to.
Scientology is evil. I can't make such a strong judgement against any of the other religions you've mentioned.
They also believe incredibly stupid things. And personally, I believe that mocking irrational religious beliefs is a hobby that every clear-thinking person should engage in.:) If you want to have a belief system, make it self-consistent or be prepared for ridicule.
(* -- 'Clams' are a derogatory term for scientologists. Its origin comes from another part of the 'church' scripture, in which Hubbard theorized that human beings evolved from clams. Folks, I could not make this up.)
While making and importing decoding devices will be banned, their personal use will not.
In other words, if you can get your hands on a device, you are allowed to use it
That's the same type of law they use for pornography here in the states. You're not allowed to make porn or transport porn in any way, but if you happen to have some around you're allowed to watch it. The effect of this law is to make porn (true pornography, failing the three-point test and all that) effectively illegal. The cops *can* bust into your house if they hear you have porn there, because it's assumed there's no way you can get it other than making or transporting it.
circumvention device means a device (including a computer program) having only a limited commercially significant purpose or use, or no such purpose or use, other than the circumvention, or facilitating the circumvention, of an effective technological protection measure
Under that definition, the DeCSS code itself is definitely illegal, but any Linux DVD player is fine because it definitely has a purpose other than simple decryption of the video data.
I disagree. Any Linux software, because it is freely available, would seem to me to fit under the heading of 'limited commercial use'. The above clause could be read as making illegal any Open Source Software that does any kind of decoding whatsoever.
Scary stuff, Aussies. I assume there's a way you can still fight this bill?
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
Every artist has a right to determine how their art is distributed and presented to the public. In the music and movie industry, the artists sign over the distribution rights (and often the copyrights) to consortiums like the MPAA. Therefore, the MPAA is acting like an 'artist', and has a right to determine how 'their' content is enjoyed. If they wanted to exclude blue-eyed left-handed people from seeing Titanic, they have every right to do so.
I think you're missing my point here. (Although I may be missing your point instead; if so, correct me please.:) )
Legislators have the power to stop ATM transaction fees -- all they have to do is pass a law against them. But when asked about ATM fees, the average legislator will say 'they're not a problem'...because he never has to pay them. He uses a special ATM the bank installed down the hall from his office. So he never pays a fee, and he never thinks about the fees, and he never considers it an important issue when someone raises the possibility of passing laws against it. The banks are working our lawmakers in order to get the laws they want.
Back to the original post, the RIAA can do the same thing. The speakers and microphones in the Senate will never have secure software as Lanier described, because the RIAA will give them special equipment that works normally, hoping that if the lawmakers don't notice, they won't do anything. Meanwhile the rest of us, of course, will be screwed.
How is this any different than in the past? Vinyl records gave way to cassette tape. All of a sudden we had this NEW
feature of recording. Cassette tapes gave way to CD's. Nobody had CD recorders but that didn't stop them from
becoming mainstream. They offered something to people; better performance. Now we can record again and everyone
is saying that "they" will just force another format on us. It won't sell unless it has something to offer and if it does
become mainstream, then 10 years from now chances are we will be able to copy it.
It's different because now the audio equipment is programmable, and will be checking to see if you're allowed to listen to what you're trying to play on it. If the corporations are allowed to program the equipment, they can force a new format to become mainstream by just disabling your ability to listen to older stuff. You'll be stuck with scavenging old equipment and old recordings. And, as Lanier noted, you won't be able to record your own stuff because the recording equipment will be programmable too.
Did you know that ATM machines in every state senate and the US Congress have no transaction fees? The banking industry is trying to hide how they're stiffing normal people, by not letting the lawmakers see it happening.
Corporations are determined to turn our goverment into an aristocracy, so that they're blind to how the public's being screwed. It can happen with sound equipment too.
The cassette decks are obsolete. The turntable's really obsolete. Not knowing anything about the tape decks, I'd guess that they're specialty equipment for audiophiles and thus meaningless in the mass market we're talking about.
All you have that's modern is the CD equipment. And the RIAA's gunning for that. Yes, I expect CDs to be obsolete within 4 years, due to the machinations of the RIAA.
Note that by 'obsolete', nobody's saying that you can't play things on this equipment anymore. But you won't be able to buy any new media for them. No new releases will be made for any format you own. If a component of your sound system breaks, you won't be able to replace it with anything new -- all the new audio components will have new connectors and secure protocols, and none of it will work with your old stuff.
Since you won't be able to buy music or equipment to play it on anymore, you're going to be left with three choices. You can upgrade to new secure equipment. You can listen only to old stuff on scavenged equipment, mostly by trading with other audiophiles (although that's likely to become illegal, it'll be hard to stop.) Or you can stop spending money on music altogether. The music industry is betting that you won't just stop.
Yes, the future really is as bleak as Lanier's thought experiment.:/
An *ideal* clone is just another copy of a human being. But we can't make those clones yet. The clones we know how to make have a one or two percent success rate -- meaning dozens of embryos are wasted before one goes to term. Many clones die early. And the ones that live, like Dolly the sheep, show some signs of premature aging as a result of shortened telomeres inherited from the original creature.
Right now, to get a human clone, you're going to put the surrogate mother through an average of 50 miscarriages, with a high possibility of infant death, only to create a human being who may suffer progeria and die before they're a teenager. We are not ready to start cloning human beings.
Once those technical problems are worked out, *then* we can talk about the psychological problems that the clone will go through, the sinister possibilities of cloning (like human organ banks), and the incredibly dangerous class inequity that will result when only the rich are able to clone themselves. But those worries, at least, are still a few years away.
I gave up on Orson Scott Card's Ender series after Xenocide. The first two books were terrific...but that book was mostly awful. Card painted himself in a corner, and could only resolve the book by having the protagonists discover a magic spaceship that made wishes come true. (Yes, really!)
Now to escape that corner he's painted his universe into, Card is going back and rehashing the old stories from new points of view. I'm sure they're adequately written novels (meaning I'm sure he's learned a lesson from Xenocide). But I just don't have any interest in reading them.
I'd much rather see Card start a NEW universe...he's sucked all the fun out of this one.
Do you share your name with your father, by any chance?
My father has the same first name as I. This has caused the IRS to mistakenly attribute his income to me when I was 18 (and then threaten to audit me if I didn't pay an extra 3 grand in taxes). His houses has shown up on my credit report (which has been a good thing, as the mortgages are paid.)
Some of these agencies don't look at middle names or SSNs. Not much you can do except be vigilant and correct errors when you find them.
What we need is technology to help us fight back. I would love to own sort of credit-agency-crawling AI that will monitor my credit and fix mistakes when humans make them.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. Let's see if I understand this correctly.
They're saying that because any quantum state in the computer can be reduced to the null state, an answer can be found before the computation is made. In other words, the quantum state you must input into the computer to program a calculation can instead be used to predict the answer.
If you know how to program a quantum computer, you theoretically can already know what the answer is.
Now, it may take more effort to derive the answer from the input states than to just plug it into the computer and let it churn away. So the computer itself will probably not be superfluous. But it's still an interesting theorem. It seems to be saying that programming a quantum computer will be approximately as difficult as solving the problem you want to program!
2. What examples of fair uses absolutely require access to the work in its most modern, digital, uncorrupted, un-macrovisioned form? The only one that jumped out at me is making a backup copy in case the original is destroyed. But perhaps there are others.
Let's say a scientist is examining artifacts in audio or video data -- something like the ringing around pure tones in MP3s. He finds an artifact of interest in a data file. That artifact may not be detectable -- and certainly will not be worth studying -- at a lower resolution or in an analog representation. The scientist must be able to use and publish portions of the original work at full fidelity.
Similarly, reviewers of music or video may require full fidelity. "Listen to this clip -- you can hear all the fretwork in Framton's latest song!"
Incidentally, I live in the UK and the UK is probably the strongest ally the US has politically. Not even the UK government or the UK press have given Bush any support.
Huh? I watch the BBC news every night (they broadcast it on PBS in America), and they've been very harsh on the Chinese. According to the BBC, the international community -- Britain included -- are siding with the US.
All major countries spy on one another. The Chinese fly the Harbin HZ-5 , a plane whose use is nearly identical to the EP-3 aside from its inferior technology, along the coast of Hawaii.
They're all doing it, they all know they're all doing it. If the Chinese are demanding that the US apologize for spying, they're not only being aggressive but also hypocritical.
Wrong. The US and Taiwan have a treaty that in effect says that if China invade them, we have to go to war with China. We *have* to. Look it up.
I personally blame the EP-3's captain for this whole mess. It is true that landing at an airport was a safe choice for the crew, but he should have ditched his aircraft in international waters.
From news reports, the EP-3 had lost its airspeed indicators in the collision. Without airspeed readouts, any attempt to ditch into the ocean would be suicide.
I don't blame the pilot for not sacrificing himself and his 23 men. He made the right choice. I'm amazed that he was able to put the broken thing down on the ground.
You almost have the incident correct, but from what I recall the Soviet MiG was returned in crates, not reassembled.
I don't blame the Chinese for taking apart our aircraft -- it's a windfall for them, let them have fun with whatever we didn't destroy. What I blame them for is trying to shift the blame, and holding our 24 airmen hostage. The latter is unforgivable.
The SR-71 is a video reconnaissance aircraft. The EP-71 is an electronic sensor plane, reportedly capable of listening in on ground line phone conversations by reading the EM emmissions. Two very different aircraft, used for very different purposes.
I usually don't comment on Jon Katz's stuff -- sometimes he makes good points, sometimes he makes bad ones -- but extending an international incident into the death of globalization is a bit of a reach.
It should be noted, though, that US government servers are currently under attack by chinese hackers. I work for a government contractor, and we've had a couple important (but non-classified) boxes compromised in the past few days. I'm sure that this is just enthusiastic kids in China venting by attacking Evil Uncle Sam, but it's still something to pay attention to.
But regardless of the rhetoric, the diplomatic wrangling, and the internet subterfuge that's going on, *we are not at war*. And if we're able to argue without actual violence -- ignoring network violence, which is not comparable -- that's a *hopeful* omen for future cooperation. By arguing in these ways, we learn about each other, and learn how to stay on each other's good side.
As long as diplomatic relations remain secure between US and China, this incident is a good thing for future globalization. It will prove that although incidents can happen, diplomats will detect the damage, route around it, and learn from the experience.
The American reluctance to apologize for this incident isn't just stubbornness. There are real diplomatic reasons not to apologize here.
First and foremost is China's imperialistic stance toward the China sea. We claim the aircraft was in international airspace, but China claims it was in their airspace. The reason we disagree is because China claims the Paracel islands, which would increase their airspacea good 500 miles into the China sea. No other country in the world recognizes China's claim to those islands, and Vietnam and Indonesia also claim them. If we were to apologize, the US would be officially recognizing China's claim to these islands.
There is also the matter of blame for the accident, which in diplomatic circles carries real responsibility. The US could be forced to pay reparations for the fighter plane and the missing pilot if we apologize, regardless of whether or not we caused the incident. Failure to do so will harm the US's status at the UN, and further cement China's claim on the China sea.
This incident was an accident, and we should not apologize.
A desire for freedom and the urge to create are not sufficient motivations for a revolution. They are sufficient motivations for escapism, and escapism is rampant these days. From on-line games to massively multimedia hookups, from consensus-building exercises like AmIHotOrNot to discussion boards like Slashdot, the masses are using the web for escapism everyday. People are escaping troubles in the real world by spouting off about them on-line. The internet has become a safety valve, not a catalyst for revolution.
No, for revolution you need two other things. One is opportunity -- a glimmer of hope that your rants and your violence will actually be a means to your desired end. But no opportunities have presented themselves, as there is yet no way to spread one's on-line opinions or actions into the real world. The other ingredient is hatred -- hatred enough to want to destroy those who have oppressed you. Face it; the public are not downtrodden enough to hate or fear anyone. They're gleefully accepting their ever-shrinking set of rights and freedoms, as long as they are still allowed an escapist relief.
Things are going to have to get a lot worse before people are motivated and able to revolt and make things better.
I'm not going to do your web searches for you. Look for the case of Lisa MacPherson, a scientologist who died under their 'medical care'. You might also look for info on the RAF, a scieno work contract (for a period of One Million Years) that effectively makes you their slave.
:) The question is, can you?
Any site that has accurate information on those things will probably also have reams of other accounts of what the clams have done members and ex-members, mentally, legally, financially, and physically.
I attack Scientology because it is evil, not because it is different. Believe me, I can distinguish the two cases.
L Ron Hubbard was a nutcase, was embedded in the sci fi he wrote and I believe, like many in that realm, really disliked humanity as a whole.
:) Are you referring to science fiction authors, or just nutcases? Because I belong to one of those groups (arguably both), and I think humanity's just dandy. :)
Whoa, kemosabe.
Don't know if you noticed, but L. Ron Hubbard has put out about three or so novels since his death. If you look closely at the copyright page of these books, you'll see that they were written by the 'L. Ron Hubbard Foundation', or some such nonsense. There is a committee within scientology that is writing books in Hubbard's name. I don't think we'll ever be rid of that hack.
There's a significant difference between Scientology and the other religions you mention. The other religions don't preach that their detractors can be lied to, sued, and destroyed in any way possible. That's one of the central themes of Scientology. The clams (*) have made frivolous lawsuits, threats, and occassional illegal activity (including killing a Judge's dog) into a refined art form. Because their religion *tells* them to.
:) If you want to have a belief system, make it self-consistent or be prepared for ridicule.
Scientology is evil. I can't make such a strong judgement against any of the other religions you've mentioned.
They also believe incredibly stupid things. And personally, I believe that mocking irrational religious beliefs is a hobby that every clear-thinking person should engage in.
(* -- 'Clams' are a derogatory term for scientologists. Its origin comes from another part of the 'church' scripture, in which Hubbard theorized that human beings evolved from clams. Folks, I could not make this up.)
In other words, if you can get your hands on a device, you are allowed to use it
That's the same type of law they use for pornography here in the states. You're not allowed to make porn or transport porn in any way, but if you happen to have some around you're allowed to watch it. The effect of this law is to make porn (true pornography, failing the three-point test and all that) effectively illegal. The cops *can* bust into your house if they hear you have porn there, because it's assumed there's no way you can get it other than making or transporting it.
circumvention device means a device (including a computer program) having only a limited commercially significant purpose or use, or no such purpose or use, other than the circumvention, or facilitating the circumvention, of an effective technological protection measure
Under that definition, the DeCSS code itself is definitely illegal, but any Linux DVD player is fine because it definitely has a purpose other than simple decryption of the video data.
I disagree. Any Linux software, because it is freely available, would seem to me to fit under the heading of 'limited commercial use'. The above clause could be read as making illegal any Open Source Software that does any kind of decoding whatsoever.
Scary stuff, Aussies. I assume there's a way you can still fight this bill?
One aspect of this which I do not remember seeing justified is why a DVD player should need authorization from the MPAA. Or to put it another way, what gives the MPAA (and others) the right to dictate how their content should be enjoyed?
Every artist has a right to determine how their art is distributed and presented to the public. In the music and movie industry, the artists sign over the distribution rights (and often the copyrights) to consortiums like the MPAA. Therefore, the MPAA is acting like an 'artist', and has a right to determine how 'their' content is enjoyed. If they wanted to exclude blue-eyed left-handed people from seeing Titanic, they have every right to do so.
I think you're missing my point here. (Although I may be missing your point instead; if so, correct me please. :) )
Legislators have the power to stop ATM transaction fees -- all they have to do is pass a law against them. But when asked about ATM fees, the average legislator will say 'they're not a problem'...because he never has to pay them. He uses a special ATM the bank installed down the hall from his office. So he never pays a fee, and he never thinks about the fees, and he never considers it an important issue when someone raises the possibility of passing laws against it. The banks are working our lawmakers in order to get the laws they want.
Back to the original post, the RIAA can do the same thing. The speakers and microphones in the Senate will never have secure software as Lanier described, because the RIAA will give them special equipment that works normally, hoping that if the lawmakers don't notice, they won't do anything. Meanwhile the rest of us, of course, will be screwed.
It's different because now the audio equipment is programmable, and will be checking to see if you're allowed to listen to what you're trying to play on it. If the corporations are allowed to program the equipment, they can force a new format to become mainstream by just disabling your ability to listen to older stuff. You'll be stuck with scavenging old equipment and old recordings. And, as Lanier noted, you won't be able to record your own stuff because the recording equipment will be programmable too.
Did you know that ATM machines in every state senate and the US Congress have no transaction fees? The banking industry is trying to hide how they're stiffing normal people, by not letting the lawmakers see it happening.
Corporations are determined to turn our goverment into an aristocracy, so that they're blind to how the public's being screwed. It can happen with sound equipment too.
The cassette decks are obsolete. The turntable's really obsolete. Not knowing anything about the tape decks, I'd guess that they're specialty equipment for audiophiles and thus meaningless in the mass market we're talking about.
:/
All you have that's modern is the CD equipment. And the RIAA's gunning for that. Yes, I expect CDs to be obsolete within 4 years, due to the machinations of the RIAA.
Note that by 'obsolete', nobody's saying that you can't play things on this equipment anymore. But you won't be able to buy any new media for them. No new releases will be made for any format you own. If a component of your sound system breaks, you won't be able to replace it with anything new -- all the new audio components will have new connectors and secure protocols, and none of it will work with your old stuff.
Since you won't be able to buy music or equipment to play it on anymore, you're going to be left with three choices. You can upgrade to new secure equipment. You can listen only to old stuff on scavenged equipment, mostly by trading with other audiophiles (although that's likely to become illegal, it'll be hard to stop.) Or you can stop spending money on music altogether. The music industry is betting that you won't just stop.
Yes, the future really is as bleak as Lanier's thought experiment.
An *ideal* clone is just another copy of a human being. But we can't make those clones yet. The clones we know how to make have a one or two percent success rate -- meaning dozens of embryos are wasted before one goes to term. Many clones die early. And the ones that live, like Dolly the sheep, show some signs of premature aging as a result of shortened telomeres inherited from the original creature.
Right now, to get a human clone, you're going to put the surrogate mother through an average of 50 miscarriages, with a high possibility of infant death, only to create a human being who may suffer progeria and die before they're a teenager. We are not ready to start cloning human beings.
Once those technical problems are worked out, *then* we can talk about the psychological problems that the clone will go through, the sinister possibilities of cloning (like human organ banks), and the incredibly dangerous class inequity that will result when only the rich are able to clone themselves. But those worries, at least, are still a few years away.
Now to escape that corner he's painted his universe into, Card is going back and rehashing the old stories from new points of view. I'm sure they're adequately written novels (meaning I'm sure he's learned a lesson from Xenocide). But I just don't have any interest in reading them.
I'd much rather see Card start a NEW universe...he's sucked all the fun out of this one.
Do you share your name with your father, by any chance?
My father has the same first name as I. This has caused the IRS to mistakenly attribute his income to me when I was 18 (and then threaten to audit me if I didn't pay an extra 3 grand in taxes). His houses has shown up on my credit report (which has been a good thing, as the mortgages are paid.)
Some of these agencies don't look at middle names or SSNs. Not much you can do except be vigilant and correct errors when you find them.
What we need is technology to help us fight back. I would love to own sort of credit-agency-crawling AI that will monitor my credit and fix mistakes when humans make them.
The military are not robots, and the command and control system would not permit an unstable president to use the military as his personal army.
:)
Hmmn, interesting point. But...what happens when, in the future, the military *are* robots?