Getting stem cells from "safe" places is one thing that should not be controversial. Now, doing full clones is a different matter. But if is so easy, just take a few skin cells and could get my own (baby) clone what use will be done for that could lead to some controversy, or at least some redefinition on what is life, what is human (and probably what is soul for the ones that keep thinking that there is one by then), or even what are newborn rights.
There is not so long distance from this to newspapers complaining about Google News. Once you publish to the world your photo it could be used anywhere unless expressly forbidden. If Facebook had such kind of restriction on the photos published in its site, then can sue that advertiser.
Probably also could be a not so long distance from spammers, that usually take real emails from unrelated people to send their offers. In both cases is "you" attached to an unrelated company product/offer because some of your information is somewhat public.
definately they do different than in america, where Windows should be seen as threatening national security (think in a digital pearl harbour, where the defenses have a big sign over saying "Come and attack here").
Anyway, calling something threat to security because protects citizen privacy is not very nice, if something have to motivate citizens to use even more secure communication protocols is hearing government complaining about how hard is to spy on them.
They could go a step further, using the strategy used to crack captchas, putting humans to "solve" the problem of telling what is being said in a sound file to be able to access the next part of a porn image or another kind of non economical incentive. Don't have to be the full message, just parts between pauses or things like that
If that artificial brain somewhat reacts like human one, maybe should have a name, something that reflects its probable deep education and insigfulness. I suggest Abe. Abe Normal.
Another vulnerability could be commanding officers learning new computer languages. Once you dig down enough in windows internals, maybe your mind starts thinking that mass blue screens and deaths are ok, and order a launch when distracted.
Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years. Why create new technology when you can duct tape existing things together?
If something taught us SMTP is that is not panacea, there is a big hole in that specification and is called "real time" (well, if you want, add spam to the mix). Wave goes directly to the heart of it, having communication between one or several people (like smtp), but in real time, adding authentication, easy to use and powerful web interface, multimedia and more things that will be disclosed/developed in time. And takes on instant messaging/xmpp if you want too, adding things that are more from smtp realm.
Could had done it mixing and matching existing protocols? Maybe yes, maybe not. And maybe those alternatives dont have the flexibility needed for wild evolution that this could have.
While I'm teetering on the brink of ranting, so Google is releasing an OS, while they continue to overload the web browser with javascript and flash in an effort to turn it into an operating system. Again, we've already done this. We have these tools already. It's called a Native Application. Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app. Maybe some QT/OpenGL? Writing all these applications for the browser is putting a square peg in a round hole.
Considering how safe proved to be the most used operating system around, taking most of the responsibility into something that they could control and fix is not a very bad move. Native Applications could be faster (faster than all the push google and others had done to have a very fast javascript engines, but not for so much now), but could pass easily the ball to the underlying operating system, and of course, not be future proof (future as in other architectures at the very least, both because be totally new or gains more popularity alternative ones).
And maybe you could be right... for local, very cpu intensive applications. But for writting internet applications building them over existing internet clients (i.e. browser, you have there all the portability, all the security, etc) looks reasonable.
Patent Trolls, legislators that approved that laws, judges that rule that they are right, etc, and their families, in an alternate world where all of them are right, and always been. After living 5 minutes there, where they cant even light a match or have basically any machine, they will enter into reason (or not, and leaving of all them locked there wont hurt exactly).
In fact, probably a disaster movie already used those clouds, or at least things of that zone. In The day after tomorrow, the only way to give some "action" to the movie was to invent some kind of new storm that move down to land levels air from that zone. Probably we are seeing the opposite effect, something that pushes air from down here up there.
You can use them to falsify election results, or justify why you ousted that president. Once you can't trust in what is stored in those computers, both alternatives are valid.
They have a gun, and they have the will to use it.
Next time because you got a problem with a credit card, your grand father comes from Iran, or your name starts with S some of your library will vanish.
Its time to realize who is really the owner of the Kindle you bought.
Could that cloud have hidden, or implicit, or just a consequence of its architecture, that could mean a massive DoS over all of it, and that means your personal PCs? Just the risk of that could make the idea less attractive.
If you change a single moment in your past, will everything change?
In The end of Eternity, Asimov said that there was some "inertia" in time, if something changed in the past things somewhat keep being more or less the same, as most significative changes arent isolated events but more massive trends. If french revolution didnt happened that exact day, could had happened anyway a day or a year after. The apollo program could had been cancelled in a later date anyway.
Also, if it continued everything could had changed, even things that could look unrelated. Maybe arpanet and then internet would not exist now, as all could have been more focused in space, or maybe the IBM PC never saw the light, You know, the kind of stuff that make that if you kill a butterfly in the past, you get another president in the present
be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or
Unfortunately, that kind of things become a motivation when it is already too late, either because is somewhat sudden, or because the "right" preparations will take time (and too much money that surely will be expent instead on trying to mitigate whatever is coming). Just suppose, to put a close date, that "something" will happen in 2012. You think that 2-3 years is enough to have i.e. a self-sustained city on the moon? An incoming asteroid, or i.e. yellowstone supervolcano, could give us far less time to prepare.
Anyway, is too expensive right now, unless something dramatic happens that changes numbers. Be a cheap propulsion system, a space elevator, abundant and easily available energy (better yet, if that only happens with materials that could be massively found in moon), or even IAs that could do that for us at a fraction of the cost.
You dont know what will come after opening it. Maybe the system could hold it running even with bigger charges, or maybe not, and be the end of radio, RIAA, music as something commercial or most major artists revolt and just put in Creative Commons all their work. Sometimes change end being good in the middle/long run,
Want Photoshop? Games? (local) Office? virustrojansmailwares? There Microsoft is king.
But want the fastest and more secure full internet based desktop? There that be microsoft or not is not relevant (well, the secure part could matter). You could run Windows, Linux, OS X and you'll get most if not all that will be used thru Chrome OS. What it will be doing is a base reference of speed and security. If Microsoft want to defeat that, should fix those 2 points, not doing a blog campaign all along the media criticizing Google for being big brother, or not being able to run photoshop, or whatever else that they are focusing it leaving away just the 2 critical points that matters there.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder how far your body will end if you are wearing one of those computers on the street and get hit by this slashdot effect.
Beauty is in the eye of the Beerholder
There are smarter ways to disable 4chan, like this one
Getting stem cells from "safe" places is one thing that should not be controversial. Now, doing full clones is a different matter. But if is so easy, just take a few skin cells and could get my own (baby) clone what use will be done for that could lead to some controversy, or at least some redefinition on what is life, what is human (and probably what is soul for the ones that keep thinking that there is one by then), or even what are newborn rights.
There is not so long distance from this to newspapers complaining about Google News. Once you publish to the world your photo it could be used anywhere unless expressly forbidden. If Facebook had such kind of restriction on the photos published in its site, then can sue that advertiser.
Probably also could be a not so long distance from spammers, that usually take real emails from unrelated people to send their offers. In both cases is "you" attached to an unrelated company product/offer because some of your information is somewhat public.
definately they do different than in america, where Windows should be seen as threatening national security (think in a digital pearl harbour, where the defenses have a big sign over saying "Come and attack here"). Anyway, calling something threat to security because protects citizen privacy is not very nice, if something have to motivate citizens to use even more secure communication protocols is hearing government complaining about how hard is to spy on them.
They could go a step further, using the strategy used to crack captchas, putting humans to "solve" the problem of telling what is being said in a sound file to be able to access the next part of a porn image or another kind of non economical incentive. Don't have to be the full message, just parts between pauses or things like that
in book margins, and add that the space is not enough for explain yourself fully. Worked for Fermat for 400 years.
If that artificial brain somewhat reacts like human one, maybe should have a name, something that reflects its probable deep education and insigfulness. I suggest Abe. Abe Normal.
Another vulnerability could be commanding officers learning new computer languages. Once you dig down enough in windows internals, maybe your mind starts thinking that mass blue screens and deaths are ok, and order a launch when distracted.
Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years. Why create new technology when you can duct tape existing things together?
If something taught us SMTP is that is not panacea, there is a big hole in that specification and is called "real time" (well, if you want, add spam to the mix). Wave goes directly to the heart of it, having communication between one or several people (like smtp), but in real time, adding authentication, easy to use and powerful web interface, multimedia and more things that will be disclosed/developed in time. And takes on instant messaging/xmpp if you want too, adding things that are more from smtp realm.
Could had done it mixing and matching existing protocols? Maybe yes, maybe not. And maybe those alternatives dont have the flexibility needed for wild evolution that this could have.
While I'm teetering on the brink of ranting, so Google is releasing an OS, while they continue to overload the web browser with javascript and flash in an effort to turn it into an operating system. Again, we've already done this. We have these tools already. It's called a Native Application. Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app. Maybe some QT/OpenGL? Writing all these applications for the browser is putting a square peg in a round hole.
Considering how safe proved to be the most used operating system around, taking most of the responsibility into something that they could control and fix is not a very bad move. Native Applications could be faster (faster than all the push google and others had done to have a very fast javascript engines, but not for so much now), but could pass easily the ball to the underlying operating system, and of course, not be future proof (future as in other architectures at the very least, both because be totally new or gains more popularity alternative ones).
And maybe you could be right... for local, very cpu intensive applications. But for writting internet applications building them over existing internet clients (i.e. browser, you have there all the portability, all the security, etc) looks reasonable.
Patent Trolls, legislators that approved that laws, judges that rule that they are right, etc, and their families, in an alternate world where all of them are right, and always been. After living 5 minutes there, where they cant even light a match or have basically any machine, they will enter into reason (or not, and leaving of all them locked there wont hurt exactly).
4) ???
5) Profit!
ISS is meant to be just a research facility But surely the next SETI sponsored mission will have exactly 12 passengers when they leave.
To IIS crew, don't panic, and keep a towel close. You don't know what will come next in Murphy's repertory.
monoliths... Wasn't that supposed to happen next year?
In fact, probably a disaster movie already used those clouds, or at least things of that zone. In The day after tomorrow, the only way to give some "action" to the movie was to invent some kind of new storm that move down to land levels air from that zone. Probably we are seeing the opposite effect, something that pushes air from down here up there.
You can use them to falsify election results, or justify why you ousted that president. Once you can't trust in what is stored in those computers, both alternatives are valid.
They have a gun, and they have the will to use it.
Next time because you got a problem with a credit card, your grand father comes from Iran, or your name starts with S some of your library will vanish.
Its time to realize who is really the owner of the Kindle you bought.
Could that cloud have hidden, or implicit, or just a consequence of its architecture, that could mean a massive DoS over all of it, and that means your personal PCs? Just the risk of that could make the idea less attractive.
If you change a single moment in your past, will everything change?
In The end of Eternity, Asimov said that there was some "inertia" in time, if something changed in the past things somewhat keep being more or less the same, as most significative changes arent isolated events but more massive trends. If french revolution didnt happened that exact day, could had happened anyway a day or a year after. The apollo program could had been cancelled in a later date anyway.
Also, if it continued everything could had changed, even things that could look unrelated. Maybe arpanet and then internet would not exist now, as all could have been more focused in space, or maybe the IBM PC never saw the light, You know, the kind of stuff that make that if you kill a butterfly in the past, you get another president in the present
be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or
Unfortunately, that kind of things become a motivation when it is already too late, either because is somewhat sudden, or because the "right" preparations will take time (and too much money that surely will be expent instead on trying to mitigate whatever is coming). Just suppose, to put a close date, that "something" will happen in 2012. You think that 2-3 years is enough to have i.e. a self-sustained city on the moon? An incoming asteroid, or i.e. yellowstone supervolcano, could give us far less time to prepare.
Anyway, is too expensive right now, unless something dramatic happens that changes numbers. Be a cheap propulsion system, a space elevator, abundant and easily available energy (better yet, if that only happens with materials that could be massively found in moon), or even IAs that could do that for us at a fraction of the cost.
As previously Beetles America invasion failed, they now are trying with Zombies. Whats next? Vampires? Werewolves?
You dont know what will come after opening it. Maybe the system could hold it running even with bigger charges, or maybe not, and be the end of radio, RIAA, music as something commercial or most major artists revolt and just put in Creative Commons all their work. Sometimes change end being good in the middle/long run,
Windows=Local Desktop
Chrome OS=Internet Desktop
Want Photoshop? Games? (local) Office? virustrojansmailwares? There Microsoft is king.
But want the fastest and more secure full internet based desktop? There that be microsoft or not is not relevant (well, the secure part could matter). You could run Windows, Linux, OS X and you'll get most if not all that will be used thru Chrome OS. What it will be doing is a base reference of speed and security. If Microsoft want to defeat that, should fix those 2 points, not doing a blog campaign all along the media criticizing Google for being big brother, or not being able to run photoshop, or whatever else that they are focusing it leaving away just the 2 critical points that matters there.