It may be your opinion that it doesn't create a "new person", but how about looking at it from a scientific point of view instead of a religious/philosophical one? "Therapeutic" cloning creates a new human being, not "just cell cultures". All humans, at all stages of development, deserve basic dignity and rights.
Oh, really? Fascinating. On the one hand, you say we should maintain a scientific mindset, and then you foul it all up with notions of "basic dignity and rights". Show me a 'scientific' argument for dignity and rights, and I'll show you a philosophic statement.
To put this another way, what you are saying is that each and every cell of our bodies, because it could theoretically become it's own person, deserves all of the protections and rights afforded to full human beings. Great idea! No, seriously. Next time someone's DNA is used against them in a court case, one could then bring charges of mass murder against the lab that performs the testing.
Your position is neat, but untenable. Personhood is not a question of embodiment, or at least, it shouldn't be. I mean, the first Aliens we meet and we can legally (try to) enslave them. Riiiight.
Or, let's say that the wealthy would like clones made of themselves and then when the clone reached a certain age, say 25, they would be killed and their bodies harvest for doner organs. By your own admission, these clones are real functioning people, but they could be in a situation where they are raised like cattle rather than like people. Don't believe me? Consider this, money talks, period.
"The Clonus Horror", is the film you are describing. And were such a thing to occur, I'm quite certain all parties involved would suffer a backlash of unprecedented proportions. But in reality, they are looking for ways to grow single organs, as it is far more efficeint than keeping a complete person around. This objection is the stuff of cheap films.
That was by
chance, though, not planned. I find it repugnant to purposely create new human life with a known health problem. That human's life is his or hers -- not some scientist's to experiment with.
So you are against individuals with genetic disorders from getting together and having kids? By that logic, only those people whose DNA can guarentee at least 'average' results should breed, no? Which is one of the reasons I am all for genetic engineering, if I can maximize my offspring's chances of survival and happiness, I'll do it.
This is what happens when fucked up notions of morality get in the way of science. I would so DEARLY love to know how they have overcome the various aging issues with current (public) cloning techniques. But of course, in the current climate, were the researchers to step forward, their careers (and possibly their lives) would be over.
Why on earth do people freak so badly over this concept? A clone (theoretically) is no different than an identical twin. It is a fetus until birth, and thence a person. Done. Are identical twins truly identical people? No. Could this offer tremendous hope for both stem cell research and infertility? Yes.
I do not buy objections based on religion. I do not buy objections based on overpopulation.
Let's see if I can simplify this fecal blizzard a bit:
"We can do anything we like to control our users, because we have their best interests at heart.."
Get fucked, pinque boi. How do you know what my best interests are, mmm? You assume you know what's best for me, you paternalistic piece of shit.
Okay, so the swearing isn't helping my point, but I'm just really, really irritated with this. Now, what can I do? Mmm, already have dual-boot goodness. I've pirated my only copy of Win98 several times. What's left, donations to OpenSource groups? Ahh, fuck it. The laws are for-sale in this country, war is brewing in the Middle East, and I'm unemployed. I've got more important things to worry about.
This article is pure noise, but serves to demonstrate that most of you really don't have a fucking clue when it comes to human nature, technological applications, and government.
If you had bothered to do real research into our Gov's goals, you would know that the current long-term goal is to prevent the formation of any possible rival to the US's power. OF COURSE they are going to restrict research they think could give other countries an advantage. It's nothing new to them.
And to those that think that we can't handle it, that our knowledge is outstriping our judgement, I say nuts. What you really fear is the person who has nothing to lose, or who just doesn't care. What we should be focusing on are ways to ensure that everyone maintains a stake in society, that no one is ever pushed to the point of homicidal destruction. Because, you see, there can be quite logical and reasonable thought processes behind mass murder.
Here's a thought experiment for you: One day, someone discovers how to turn normal matter into anti-matter, for a small cost in energy. And they publish this. The process is not terribly difficult, and can be done with off the shelf or cannibalized components. What do you do? Do you slaughter anyone who might know how to do it? Do you prevent anyone from purchasing any electronic components?
It's an extreme case that might never occur, but it illustrates something important: The only way to be 'safe' is to be certain that no one harbors you ill will, and that no one ever will. Otherwise, you'll just have to deal with the notion that your neighboor may be cooking up a nuke. In such a world, thoughts themselves become lethal agents of destruction, because they could convince someone to go nuts and build the superbomb, couldn't they?
So, freedom, or Dark Ages? You can't really have it both ways, at some point our advancing knowledge will let anyone do heinous things.. or amazing things. I'd rather take steps to make sure nobody had a grudge against me, than try to supress/repress/oppress the whole world.
I had the same reaction recently. My pop, who I can recall wincing in pain as we stood in line for four hours waiting to get in to see "The Empire Strikes Back", agreed but offered this idea as to why those original three were so popular:
"Until Star Wars I came out, scifi movies were depressing and generally dystopic, and had been that way for quite a while. Star Wars made scifi flicks FUN again.."
Disclosure: I've got four years work experience at $50,000+ doing programming (PHP, Perl) and two years experience as a PC hardware tech, and I can't find a fucking job in my field. 'Course, I dont live in tech paradise either (Tampa, FL), but there's NOTHING around here. So this will color my following remarks.
Do I think the world owes me a living? No. Do I think that a job will just fall off a tree and land in my lap? No. And I am heading to school in the fall so as to beef my resume even further, so it isn't like I'm taking this recession lying down. That said..
God damn human nature which leads to overinflated expectations that propels an entire industry to write checks it's productivity can't cash. But even so, why is it the most technical of people who get the shaft first? I'll answer my own question: We've a lack of common sense, and we're the people that often allow business to function in the first place, so if a business is cutting back, it just doesn't need so many people writing applications/installing hardware/maintaining hardware. Exactly like a factory: Production cuts back, cut workers, cut a few HR folks, but keep the Admin blokes because you'll need those when you ramp up again.
Like it or not, we're producers, and so when production halts, we hit the bricks.
So, if I want to stop worrying about feeding myself and raising a family (should I choose), I need to become a Professional. Like a plumber, or an electrician, or a doctor, or a civil engineer, or a financial adviser, or a lawyer. Something that everyone always needs. You know, all those boring jobs that seem to make up the backbone of our society. Feh.
Life fucking sucks at times. Perhaps my degree seeking adventure shall go long-term.. 'Dr. Fixer, I presume..'
First off, the quote on the submission itself is kind of impenetrable, sort of meaningless and sketchy.
Second, to hear the head of a shambling monstrosity like Micro$oft go on and on about how his company's products will not only cure all ills, promote domestic tranquility and generally create paradise on Earth only IF you buy..
Please, I must stop and go retch..
Why would anyone waste life debating this obvious drek? More importantly, I'd like to know what my representatives were doing there, listening to the guilty party desperately trying to convince all that will listen that no, we're not a monopoly, not really, but even if so, it's good for the country and alright for you...
And in some situations that could be a blessing in disguise. 40 hour military mission, bloody results, file a report go to sleep and forget about it.
I could see this as a boon for engaging in scut work that's just complicated enough that I can't let my mind wander, but boring enough so that I wouldn't want to remember it.
You want to know when "enough is enough"? When the rest of the world's military powers appear to be using muskets as compared to our gear of that future day. Our goal is now to be so far advanced of any other country that it would be sheer fantasy to even entertain the notion of conflict.
How can DRM possibly be enforced on a programmable machine? I read a file into memory. I close that file. I then open a new file, and write the buffer in memory to it. Done, copied.
It would seem that, at least on something programmable, if you can read something, then you can copy it. To try to prevent this would require deep and difficult alterations to all compilers and interpreters in existance, and potentially, the outlawing of programability of small devices where such DRM-aware code can't be feasibly implemented. Like a PIC chip.
Wouldn't that be a great world, where PIC's and Atmel's are classed as burglery tools?
The notion of hardware DRM enforcement is absolutely broken. As someone much more eloquent than I said, DRM will turn your computer into a Media Delivery Device.
The article was short on details, but from what I gather, both the encryptor and decrypter are hardware units with built-in GPS systems.
Last I checked, GPS coordinates were accurate to only tens of meters, though with inertial guidance the accuracy goes to 1 meter. So that is a limited number of possible locations, or keys. Next, as soon as the algorythm is made public knowledge, it would seem to be relatively simple to cycle through all possible GPS coordinates for a given class of potential receivers (geocaching all movie theaters in the US to gain potential keys for StarWars Episode III, for example..)
I mean, isn't one of the hallmarks of a good encryption method the lack of availible clues as to what sorts of keys might have been used? It would seem this method is extremely weak. But hey, it's late, and the article was very thin. Anyone have anything better to add?
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 1
Consider this situation: You are at work, and you'd like to know if someone's snooping on you (a valid concern). You install your anti-snooper, and the snooping software disables it. Since the computers are owned by the company, you really have no legal recourse (take your software elsewhere?).
As far as work goes, yes, if it's their computer I am using, I agree.
Alternative situation: You are married (this may be a stretch...), and your wife thinks that your time spent reading slashdot is really time being spent talking to hideous women in yahoo chat rooms. She gets suspicious enough to buy, and install, activate the snooping software on your home computer. It disables anti-snooping software you installed long before. Now, assuming you believe in the concept of marriage, the computer is as much hers as it is yours: why should your software be any more important than hers?
Sticky. I'm really not sure how that works out, especially if the computer was owned prior to marriage, or if that really matters.
So, really, this would be a great case for drawing up a pre-nuptial that specifically mentions ownership of the computer equipment.
Re:Grounds for divorce.
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 1
Fliegenkindershise! Bullocks! Utter nonsense.
How am I supposed to know WHO installed the spyware in the first place, mmmm? Kind of defeats the purpose, dontcha think? C'mon, it's SOFTWARE.. Anything could install it.
And on the personal side, not everybody treats marriage the same way.
Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
IANAL, BIAAIL (But I Am An Interested Layman)..
Okay, this is my computer. I purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on my machine. Said snooping software destroys my anti-snooper, interfering with it's proper operation and generally depriving me of it's service that I have paid for.
Shouldn't I be able to sue the snooper software, as I did not ask for it and did not give any kind of authorization for it's installation into my system? To say nothing of the trespassing charges I'm going to bring against the snooper developer..
I say bring on the wave motion generators! And while you're at it, figure out how to build a gun out of one of them, so we can use that cool name!
I recall a rumor about someone harnessing soliton waves into a weapon. Something about detonating large explosives off the coastline of a city in a specific pattern, causing a small 'directed' wave. The wave motion gun might not be totally insane..
I agree, but you missed my solution: The system needs to be designed such that if the MEMS chip (or other device that is scanning the beam) fails, the entire circuit needs to die as well. Perhaps using the piece that is actually moving the mirror as one of the resistors that controls the current to the diode, perhaps? It fails, resistance changes, diode pops.
Generally I agree with the notion of classifying such tech as a medical device, but I would point out that there HAS to be some safe wattage level for a laser, even if that wattage is lower than the amount of ambient light reaching your eyes on a sunny day. So, as long as the laser is at or below this level, what's the big deal?
Also, a diode laser of sufficently low power would be self-limiting in the case of regulator failure.. they tend to blow if their currents go even slightly beyond their ratings. So, take a page from the nuclear weapons designers: Build such systems with a 'weakest link' mentality.. if any portion of the circuit dies, use components of such low quality that every other one in the chain bites it as well.
It's painful to lose a five thousand dollar device like that, but it's better than going blind, no?
Mmm.. 23 inches tall, can recognize ten people, 60,000 word vocabulary. So, can it be taught new words? And is it's face-rec software geared entirely torward humans?
See, I'd like to get one and program it with my cat's face, then teach it the sounds my cat makes when it is hungry as meaning "food".
"Boss, Niki's hungry." "Damn, forgot to feed her again.."
If they aren't good for the server market, the 120GXP aren't good for anything- since what regular home user ever needs that much space?
'Scuse me? What home user ever needs that much space?! In my sixteen years of personal computer ownership, I have NEVER felt that I have had "enough" space. True, I'm not your typical user these days, but still.
However, your greater point is accurate, 11 hours a day doesn't cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it not strike you a little strange that many modes of travel are considered privileges and not rights? Not even a little?
Oh, really? Fascinating. On the one hand, you say we should maintain a scientific mindset, and then you foul it all up with notions of "basic dignity and rights". Show me a 'scientific' argument for dignity and rights, and I'll show you a philosophic statement.
To put this another way, what you are saying is that each and every cell of our bodies, because it could theoretically become it's own person, deserves all of the protections and rights afforded to full human beings. Great idea! No, seriously. Next time someone's DNA is used against them in a court case, one could then bring charges of mass murder against the lab that performs the testing.
Your position is neat, but untenable. Personhood is not a question of embodiment, or at least, it shouldn't be. I mean, the first Aliens we meet and we can legally (try to) enslave them. Riiiight.
"The Clonus Horror", is the film you are describing. And were such a thing to occur, I'm quite certain all parties involved would suffer a backlash of unprecedented proportions. But in reality, they are looking for ways to grow single organs, as it is far more efficeint than keeping a complete person around. This objection is the stuff of cheap films.
So you are against individuals with genetic disorders from getting together and having kids? By that logic, only those people whose DNA can guarentee at least 'average' results should breed, no? Which is one of the reasons I am all for genetic engineering, if I can maximize my offspring's chances of survival and happiness, I'll do it.
Why on earth do people freak so badly over this concept? A clone (theoretically) is no different than an identical twin. It is a fetus until birth, and thence a person. Done. Are identical twins truly identical people? No. Could this offer tremendous hope for both stem cell research and infertility? Yes.
I do not buy objections based on religion. I do not buy objections based on overpopulation.
So what's the big freaking deal?
Well, I am silly. And it's not like I'm justifying anything, I was simply engaging in useless spleen venting, as %90 of everyone here does.
Let's see if I can simplify this fecal blizzard a bit:
"We can do anything we like to control our users, because we have their best interests at heart.."
Get fucked, pinque boi. How do you know what my best interests are, mmm? You assume you know what's best for me, you paternalistic piece of shit.
Okay, so the swearing isn't helping my point, but I'm just really, really irritated with this. Now, what can I do? Mmm, already have dual-boot goodness. I've pirated my only copy of Win98 several times. What's left, donations to OpenSource groups? Ahh, fuck it. The laws are for-sale in this country, war is brewing in the Middle East, and I'm unemployed. I've got more important things to worry about.
It's automatic balancing and stabilzation system, frankly, is.
If you had bothered to do real research into our Gov's goals, you would know that the current long-term goal is to prevent the formation of any possible rival to the US's power. OF COURSE they are going to restrict research they think could give other countries an advantage. It's nothing new to them.
And to those that think that we can't handle it, that our knowledge is outstriping our judgement, I say nuts. What you really fear is the person who has nothing to lose, or who just doesn't care. What we should be focusing on are ways to ensure that everyone maintains a stake in society, that no one is ever pushed to the point of homicidal destruction. Because, you see, there can be quite logical and reasonable thought processes behind mass murder.
Here's a thought experiment for you: One day, someone discovers how to turn normal matter into anti-matter, for a small cost in energy. And they publish this. The process is not terribly difficult, and can be done with off the shelf or cannibalized components. What do you do? Do you slaughter anyone who might know how to do it? Do you prevent anyone from purchasing any electronic components?
It's an extreme case that might never occur, but it illustrates something important: The only way to be 'safe' is to be certain that no one harbors you ill will, and that no one ever will. Otherwise, you'll just have to deal with the notion that your neighboor may be cooking up a nuke. In such a world, thoughts themselves become lethal agents of destruction, because they could convince someone to go nuts and build the superbomb, couldn't they?
So, freedom, or Dark Ages? You can't really have it both ways, at some point our advancing knowledge will let anyone do heinous things.. or amazing things. I'd rather take steps to make sure nobody had a grudge against me, than try to supress/repress/oppress the whole world.
"Until Star Wars I came out, scifi movies were depressing and generally dystopic, and had been that way for quite a while. Star Wars made scifi flicks FUN again.."
Do I think the world owes me a living? No. Do I think that a job will just fall off a tree and land in my lap? No. And I am heading to school in the fall so as to beef my resume even further, so it isn't like I'm taking this recession lying down. That said..
God damn human nature which leads to overinflated expectations that propels an entire industry to write checks it's productivity can't cash. But even so, why is it the most technical of people who get the shaft first? I'll answer my own question: We've a lack of common sense, and we're the people that often allow business to function in the first place, so if a business is cutting back, it just doesn't need so many people writing applications/installing hardware/maintaining hardware. Exactly like a factory: Production cuts back, cut workers, cut a few HR folks, but keep the Admin blokes because you'll need those when you ramp up again.
Like it or not, we're producers, and so when production halts, we hit the bricks.
So, if I want to stop worrying about feeding myself and raising a family (should I choose), I need to become a Professional. Like a plumber, or an electrician, or a doctor, or a civil engineer, or a financial adviser, or a lawyer. Something that everyone always needs. You know, all those boring jobs that seem to make up the backbone of our society. Feh.
Life fucking sucks at times. Perhaps my degree seeking adventure shall go long-term.. 'Dr. Fixer, I presume..'
Second, to hear the head of a shambling monstrosity like Micro$oft go on and on about how his company's products will not only cure all ills, promote domestic tranquility and generally create paradise on Earth only IF you buy..
Please, I must stop and go retch..
Why would anyone waste life debating this obvious drek? More importantly, I'd like to know what my representatives were doing there, listening to the guilty party desperately trying to convince all that will listen that no, we're not a monopoly, not really, but even if so, it's good for the country and alright for you...
I could see this as a boon for engaging in scut work that's just complicated enough that I can't let my mind wander, but boring enough so that I wouldn't want to remember it.
You want to know when "enough is enough"? When the rest of the world's military powers appear to be using muskets as compared to our gear of that future day. Our goal is now to be so far advanced of any other country that it would be sheer fantasy to even entertain the notion of conflict.
It would seem that, at least on something programmable, if you can read something, then you can copy it. To try to prevent this would require deep and difficult alterations to all compilers and interpreters in existance, and potentially, the outlawing of programability of small devices where such DRM-aware code can't be feasibly implemented. Like a PIC chip.
Wouldn't that be a great world, where PIC's and Atmel's are classed as burglery tools?
The notion of hardware DRM enforcement is absolutely broken. As someone much more eloquent than I said, DRM will turn your computer into a Media Delivery Device.
Last I checked, GPS coordinates were accurate to only tens of meters, though with inertial guidance the accuracy goes to 1 meter. So that is a limited number of possible locations, or keys. Next, as soon as the algorythm is made public knowledge, it would seem to be relatively simple to cycle through all possible GPS coordinates for a given class of potential receivers (geocaching all movie theaters in the US to gain potential keys for StarWars Episode III, for example..)
I mean, isn't one of the hallmarks of a good encryption method the lack of availible clues as to what sorts of keys might have been used? It would seem this method is extremely weak. But hey, it's late, and the article was very thin. Anyone have anything better to add?
As far as work goes, yes, if it's their computer I am using, I agree.
Sticky. I'm really not sure how that works out, especially if the computer was owned prior to marriage, or if that really matters.
So, really, this would be a great case for drawing up a pre-nuptial that specifically mentions ownership of the computer equipment.
How am I supposed to know WHO installed the spyware in the first place, mmmm? Kind of defeats the purpose, dontcha think? C'mon, it's SOFTWARE.. Anything could install it.
And on the personal side, not everybody treats marriage the same way.
Okay, this is my computer. I purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on my machine. Said snooping software destroys my anti-snooper, interfering with it's proper operation and generally depriving me of it's service that I have paid for.
Shouldn't I be able to sue the snooper software, as I did not ask for it and did not give any kind of authorization for it's installation into my system? To say nothing of the trespassing charges I'm going to bring against the snooper developer..
I recall a rumor about someone harnessing soliton waves into a weapon. Something about detonating large explosives off the coastline of a city in a specific pattern, causing a small 'directed' wave. The wave motion gun might not be totally insane..
I agree, but you missed my solution: The system needs to be designed such that if the MEMS chip (or other device that is scanning the beam) fails, the entire circuit needs to die as well. Perhaps using the piece that is actually moving the mirror as one of the resistors that controls the current to the diode, perhaps? It fails, resistance changes, diode pops.
Also, a diode laser of sufficently low power would be self-limiting in the case of regulator failure.. they tend to blow if their currents go even slightly beyond their ratings. So, take a page from the nuclear weapons designers: Build such systems with a 'weakest link' mentality.. if any portion of the circuit dies, use components of such low quality that every other one in the chain bites it as well.
It's painful to lose a five thousand dollar device like that, but it's better than going blind, no?
See, I'd like to get one and program it with my cat's face, then teach it the sounds my cat makes when it is hungry as meaning "food".
"Boss, Niki's hungry." "Damn, forgot to feed her again.."
'Scuse me? What home user ever needs that much space?! In my sixteen years of personal computer ownership, I have NEVER felt that I have had "enough" space. True, I'm not your typical user these days, but still.
However, your greater point is accurate, 11 hours a day doesn't cut it.
Nice looking tech and potentially very useful, if you need a keyboard only occaisonally.
Remember the keyboard on the Atari 400? Ugh..