Saying that it benefits women by putting them in control is no more valid than saying it is detrimental to women by giving men the power to procreate without them.
Not true. It's possible to give men additional choices while at the same time doing the same for women. This doesn't disenfranchise women in any fashion whatsoever. But without the technology the burden of pregnancy is entirely on the woman, whether she wishes it or not. Currently, men suffer no risk whatsoever from pregnancy - women bear all of this risk, no matter how good the medical technology of the nation in question.
Making this an issue entirely about women is as bad as making an issue solely about men.
In any realistic sense pregnancy is about women, not men, as men are not physically affected nor endangered by the event. With artificial wombs neither sex is affected or endangered any more than the other. This squarely increases the power of women in a major way, only doing so marginally for men (those that want children without the benefit of a woman to provide them).
Notice that the vast majority of folks who complain about these sorts of technologies are men - not because they would be deprived of choices (they aren't), but because women get more choices and more freedom.
In case you haven't noticed there are a great many men out there that possess a 'frat boy' mentality and view women as second class. Anything which challenges their shallow beliefs or provides actual freedom (and thus power) to women threatens their idea of how things should be, which means quite literally that they lose some real ability to control the opposite sex. These are the mysogynists I referred to in the initial post and they are common despite what anyone else may claim.
And you still haven't explained how the technology can be 'abused' without delving into the realm of science fiction.
I would have a hard job watching Attack of the Clones one too many times, as it is not released until May
Attack of the Clones is actually the name of an old, and very bad, SF film released some time during the '60's. Although it may actually be titled Attack of the Killer Clones, now that I think about it.
I am only concerned that the child may suffer, through no fault of its own, for the lack of a natural pregnancy.
How? What empirical evidence is this belief based on? This is my initial question repeated. You have no such evidence since artificial wombs have never been used. To play upon unsubstantiated fears, without even defining what this 'harm' might be, is silly.
Is saying that "There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology." not imposing your view on others?
No, because I'm not forcing them to use the technology. If it's banned, however, they are imposing their views by denying me this choice. Completely unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, if they would just mind their own damned business and stay out of the personal affairs of others then these conversations would be altogether unnecessary.
To which there is no evidence. If you have some, *then provide it*.
Furthermore, this does nothing to address the needs of the poor who can't afford a computer. *Their* children will be disenfranchised of skills *necessary* for a 21st century job market.
But hey! Anything to reduce the influence of the computer in schools! Especially if it means your middle-class brat has a better chance of getting a job for it.
Here come the righteous technophobes, looking to score points for deriding the 'evil' computer and its mind-numbing effects on their children. Forgetting all the while that the computer is just a tool, like a calculator, a pen, a box of crayons, or an abacus.
In fifty years kids will laugh incredulously at this tale and ask "were people back then really that stupid?". To which I'll reply "only on their good days."
Technophobes are the chaff of change, thankfully needing only time to discard.
An interesting idea, for those that wish to opt into it. For those of us who don't, or who participate in distributed computing on a case-by-case basis (e.g., SETI at Home), then not in this lifetime.
It is the first cry of the paranoid to say that a decision has been made in order to harm or opress them.
If that decision results in harm or oppression, there's nothing paranoid about it. Banning this technology would harm women by reducing their choices and forcing natural pregnancy on those who want children when an alternative exists. There's nothing paranoid or non-factual about that.
There are many who have what they see as valid religious/ethical objections to such a technology.
There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology. In this case (as in most others) 'religious' or 'ethical' concerns are simply a way of enforcing one's world view upon others in a fashion that disguises true intent - of making other people do what you want them to do, simply to prove that you can.
The religion of those who object means nothing to me. They can live according to the dictates of their gods but they have no business trying to compel others to conform to those dictates. That is the mark of the fanatic, a true scumbag in every way.
Anyone who thinks through the concept of artificial wombs for, say, 30 seconds or so can see that the technology is beneficial - to women, at least. Not to men. No doubt that's why so many men seem to object to such things.
I think that there is a danger that this development could lead to further trivialisation of parenthood.
The only people who can 'trivialize parenthood', as you put it, are parents. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to punish women as a whole by restricting the technology just because certain folks have no business being parents, yet go out and have kids anyway. This argument is facetious.
A child is not a commodity to be obtained. I think everyone will agree on this. This technology, if abused, could allow just this.
Bullshit. The only thing this technology allows is for women to avoid the discomfort and danger of natural pregnancy. If men were the ones who had to bear the child there wouldn't be even a whisper of an argument against it.
The rest of your points are without redeeming value, vague foreboding language of possible, unsubstantiated horrors no doubt inspired by watching Attack of the Clones one too many times, or thinking that Dark Angel is an actual possibility.
People who shouldn't get pregnant and have children do so all the time, yet no one rationally argues that we should enforce 'licensing' for having children. The opposite is equally ridiculous.
And I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with 'simply providing the genetic material and picking up the child 9 months later'. It may not be something that you want to do, but you don't have any right to impose your views on others. This is simply a variation on the 'if God had wanted us to fly he would've given us wings' argument, modernized for the 21st century.
You don't like the technology, don't use it. That's your right. Anything else isn't your business.
Objections to this kind of technology always boil down to control. The fact is that use of an artificial womb, assuming the thing actually works, would harm *no one*. It would, in fact, make it possible for women who couldn't otherwise safely bear children to do so without a surrogate and the possibility that the surrogate would attempt to steal the child through legal means (as has been done in the past). It would also make it possible for women who didn't want the inconvenience of pregnancy to have a child without that inconvenience - not medically required, but who am I to condemn women to 'natural' pregnancy when an alternative is available? It isn't for me, or you for that matter, to tell a woman how her body has to be used and what she can do with it.
No, the objections aren't about trying to keep someone from doing something to us (artifical wombs wouldn't adversely affect *any of us reading this*), but rather about forcing others to live according to our views. Don't like the idea of artificial wombs? Pass a law banning them, *even though their use would affect our lives in no fashion whatsoever*. A closet mysogynist would use the same tactics to check any advance made in releasing women from the necessity of biology, since closet mysogynists always oppose any additional freedom that might be had by women. Alas, the technical fields are chock-full of mysogynistic bastards who wax lyrical about the advances of science until such advances are applied to the opposite sex.
A true objector would do the rational thing: refuse to use the artificial womb. An objector with hidden motivations rooted in imposing controls over others (in this case women) would insist that the technology itself be banned. If you want to know who the objectors are and who the women-haters are, it's quite simple to tell them apart in this case. Just read what they post and ask: are they refusing to use the technology for themselves, or are they insisting that others not use it as well? Answer this question and you separate the objectors from the malicious control freaks.
And please, don't give me any crap about how it 'might harm the child', or some such rot. You know no such thing. You have no such evidence. *Because it hasn't been done yet*. Until you have empirical evidence in hand, shut your yaps on the 'save the children!' arguments - it's just another variation on 'do what the hell I tell you!' theme, clothed in false altruism.
No controls are required. It's a basic fact that if you provide adequate living conditions with a basic education then birth rates tend to decline. I provide as evidence the entire First World, any country you choose (including many which are poorer by far per capita than the U.S.).
Putting controls on breeding would require a) a world government - not in my lifetime, buddy; and b) discrimination against every Third World country in existence. Since the First World already has a birth rate so low that in many places even replacement isn't occurring, by definition these controls would only apply, in majority, to Third World nations - and non-whites. Racism by design or racism by accident is still racism.
If you're so concerned with controlling population, if would be a far less fascist solution to attempt to raise the standard of living for the poor world-wide, rather than imposing violent controls over non-whites. I certainly wouldn't be a party to the more fascist solutions, and neither would the vast majority of others in the First World.
What you don't seem to get is that there's a far cry between what the license claims and what the reality of the situation is. I have a Win98 CD; I'll install it on as many goddamn machines as I like. Who's going to stop me? You? Get real.
I *do* own it. Possession is what counts here. You can scream to the high heavens and I'll just blow you off and continue on my merry way.
Really, what *are* you going to do about it? Complain here on Slashdot? Threaten me with the MS police? Don't be ridiculous. The reality of the situation is mine to control, not yours.
A EULA *is not* a legal agreement. I challenge you to find a single scrap of code, federal or state, anywhere in the U.S. that supports your claim. Or a single court case, for that matter.
You can't. There is no such legal code. EULAs *do not* meet the minimal requirements placed by contract law *anywhere in the U.S.*. And there is no court case to refer to because no company has ever attempted to use it's EULA as a binding legal agreement. Why? Because considered legal agreement is that the entire idea behind the EULA would be struck down as invalid, making EULAs *everywhere* illegal.
Hence the popularity of the certain legislation before congress attempting to grandfather EULAs as actual contracts. But as for now *A EULA is not an agreement, legal or otherwise, of any kind*.
In the case of ArsDigita I believe this because I know it to be true. ArsDigita made one hell of a profit prior to VC involvement, and was run into the ground shortly after the VCs came on board. According to *people who were actually there* this is precisely how things worked out. I'm inclined to accept the explanation because a) it's nearly universal amongst former employees, b) they were there before and after the shit hit the fan, and so are in a position to know the facts, and c) you have no information whatsoever to the contrary, other than your own unsubstantiated horseshit.
Get over yourself, kid. You sound like an outraged MBA. If so, get a real job, eh? One that perhaps requires some actual skill?
This account is accurate, according to more folks than just herself and Greenspun. Many of the original pre-VC employees have said much the same thing, i.e., the VCs were complete incompetents both at the business and the technology that made the business. The ArsDigita fun 'n games is old news to those in the field.
Not-so-surprisingly, I've heard *many* accounts along these lines from people in various companies that were ruined by VCs. Formerly profitable endeavors saw an opportunity to expand so long as they relinquished control to MBAs, were grateful to do so (thinking the MBAs would relieve them of the chores of management, accounting, and payroll), and then found to their dismay that the new folks were complete morons interested only in padding their own bank and expense accounts. It sounds somewhat naive in hindsight, but the programmers who built the companies found the business side of it to be a tedious pain in the ass and wanted to do what they loved best, program; turning over these non-programming aspects to a 'professional' seemed logical.
Only the thing is, the 'professionals' in business are often incredibly stupid and even more greedy. My own experiences with executive management in various corporations is one of disbelief combined with wonder: disbelief that someone so stupid could hold such a position of power, and wonder over how they got that position in the first place. Clearly, the world of management *isn't* Darwinian, else all of these fools would've been weeded out of the corporate gene pool a long time ago. Instead, they run the show.
Never underestimate the potential incompetence of an MBA, especially a VC MBA. Years of experience have taught me that the most likely person to stick their fingers in the pie and screw things up are just these kinds of folks. Especially the ones (which seem to constitute the majority) who never progressed beyond the kindergarten level of maturity and are constantly whipping out their peckers to measure them against everyone else they encounter.
Is it my imagination or are the MS whores showing up in greater numbers than usual? Whenever a chance arises to blast Open source, Linux, Linus, or anything not pro-Microsoft they pop out of the woodwork like cockroaches, leaving their infantile rantings scattered about the forum like insect shit. And having about as much value, I might add.
I suggest that we modify the account creation process to identify these pathetic losers so we can filter them, much as (to my incredible joy) we can filter ACs. Questions would include things like:
- do you dream of being Bill Gates?
- do you desperately want to meet Bill Gates?
- is one of your top ten goals to give Bill Gates a blow job?
Anyone who answered 'yes' to any one of these would be identified as a Microsoft junkie, subject to filtering. Then we could read slashdot without having to deal with yet another semi-literate rant on why Open Source or Linux is the spawn of the Devil and Bill Gates is the Second Coming (or whatever, so long as they get a taste of the Big Nerd's load).
Hey, I feel the same way. God knows I'd never run Winblows on my own machine. Only a fuckwit of the first order would actually use that sorry excuse of an OS for serious work.
I use Perl and C/C++, because either can do just about anything I like. Why on earth would a programmer of any real skill work in something like VB when more powerful tools are available? It's not like mastering Perl or C or C++ is bloody rocket science.
And I don't use closed source. I can locate an open source equivalent that'll do the job just as well or better 99% of the time. If I can't - hey, I'm a programmer! I'll write it myself! No sense in using a product I can't modify to suit my needs when I can get another that I can modify.
Oooh, wait, you're fanatically *anti*-open source. My bad.
To my knowledge, no evolutionist claims that insects were the first land animals.
No, paleontologists do this through dating fossils. Unless you're willing to completely discount all methods of fossil dating (based on what? personal opinion?) it's rather clear that insects were the first fully terrestrial land animals, and were the only ones for quite some time.
An animal that can survive in a marine environment just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.
Proof? You have none.
If you need an example of an animal that survives perfectly well on both land and in the sea, you can find them on just about any beach in the world. They're called crabs.
not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found
It's called 'random mutation'. Mutation is a observed fact in nature. It is, for example, why new strains of age-old bugbears like the flu and the common cold keep popping up. No magic required.
how the resulting creatures could survive in either land or water.
There are a great many creatures that do just that. Crabs, for instance. Many kinds of shellfish do the same, as do a large number of sea snakes, insects, even mammals (seals, otters, etc.). You don't have to look very far to find a plethora of animals that are at home in both environments.
If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive in water long enough to go ashore?
Again, the aforementioned crabs. But if you need more pictorial examples, I can think of two:
- the lungfish. Many fish have 'floatation bladders' which allow the fish to dive or rise without exerting too much energy. The lungfish has developed a floatation bladder that uses oxygen as it's gas of choice - which also happens to be present in the air. This incidentally allows the lungfish to breath air for limited periods of time. This has proved to be adaptive as the fish can abandon overcrowded or dried up pools and 'crawl' on its fins overland to find better accommodations.
- another kind of fish has hit on a different strategy for doing the same thing. It absorbs oxygen through the skin (not very efficiently, but well enough) and can also use this ability to abandon a poor habitat in search of a better one. Apparently this has worked so well for it that it's front fins have partially evolved into tiny 'legs' to help it move overland more efficiently. It doesn't take much imagination to see this fish evolve into something else - like....
amphibians. They're all around you and are also equally at home in both the water and on land. In fact, they need both to survive.
You can doubt whatever you like. You can believe that the Earth is flat, if you want. Just don't demand that anyone take you seriously, give credence to your beliefs, or that you're 'owed' respect for your choices. You aren't.
I'll dare tell you any damn thing I like. Your religion means nothing to me, my government, or to my Constitution. If you choose to be outraged because others find your Creationist beliefs rather implausible and call you on it, that's your bloody problem.
And thank you for that most fanatical-Christian sentiment. If your God is real, I rather fancy you'll be burning in hell right alongside me.
The theory of evolution fits the observed facts (e.g., the fossil record) better than anything else put forward to date. Creationism is, quite frankly, a crock of shit which attempts to explain nothing but rather shut down any rational thought on the topic altogether.
When someone comes along with a better theory to explain the facts than evolution I'll bite. When someone comes along with a better theory, that is.
Homo Sapiens didn't 'destroy' competing species. With the possible exception of the Neanderthals (and no matter what the Discovery Channel says, there is *no* evidence of widespread violence between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal) successive waves of our ancestors spread out from Africa, partly outcompeting previous waves in terms of their food gathering abilities and partly interbreeding with them. It wasn't so much a 'horde of better barbarians' approach as the steady assimilation of new genes into old stocks, transforming those stocks.
Remember, evolution tends to be a rather slow process in human terms, so the new folks showing up probably didn't appear to be any different than the folks that had been settled for awhile. They were just a little smarter, perhaps a little taller, maybe able to walk upright a little longer without suffering foot injuries - but the same can be said of a random comparison of any two humans you pick out of a crowd today. There are people out there right now whose genes - any way you measure it - are far fitter than those possessed by anyone reading this post, and under non-technological conditions those genes would eventually outcompete yours, resulting in an incremental 'advance' of the species. By this measure there are most likely several hundred subspecies of human wandering about this very moment, the differences only noticeable by which genes win out over time.
In all likelihood, the 'newer' humans assimilated the 'older' lines by screwing them senseless, producing hybrids and over time discarding the less-useful genes. You can do the same thing with animals artificially that is done in nature with selective breeding and back-breeding. No destruction required, no mass warfare needed. In fact, if you insist on following evolution on a micro-timescale then this is happening right now within the human species among those hundreds of subspecies I was talking about previously.
Note to biologists: I'm using the word 'subspecies' here very loosely. I know that these groups can't technically be classed as subspecies, only that over time, if allowed to breed without extinction, they *would* qualify as such because of the different genes they carry.
Intelligence is only positively correlated to professional and/or material success until you reach an IQ of about 120. After that the correlation declines until the very intelligent tend to be only slightly more 'successful' (in terms of professional standing, or more easily measured, material wealth) than those with an IQ of 100.
This myth concerning intelligence was debunked more than ten years ago in a study that has yet to be refuted, meaning that the study itself is on pretty solid scientific ground. Genius-level IQs are rarely associated with anything like what we term 'success'. Many hypotheses have been put forward as to *why* this is, but none of these have been proven to be causal in nature. Put forward whatever explanation you like, it's probably as good a guess as anyone else's.
Unfortunately people tend to equate wealth or success in a profession with intelligence. Most of the wildly successful aren't particular bright; smarter than the average, but nothing to write home about. If you want an anecdotal, completely unscientific example, simply look at our current president and you'll see that even the incredibly stupid can reach lofty heights if the conditions are right.
Oh, and to debunk one other myth: the children of the rich tend to be no smarter than anyone else. Better educated, but still solidly average in brainpower.
On the other hand only the government has the right to enact and enforce laws. Adherence to a EULA can only be compelled by a government body - Microsoft can't go out and imprison or fine people on its own, it has to appeal to the government to do so. And the government is, as you put it, bound by the Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were savvy blokes and they thought this through. They even wrote about the very thing you talk about, along with quite a few other interesting items re the Constitution, in a great many papers. You may want to check a few of them out at your local library.
So in conclusion, McAfee can write whatever horseshit it wants into its EULA. But McAfee has no legal authority to enforce it's EULA - only the government can do that and the government must act within the purview of the Constitution. This means that First Amendment rights are UNIVERSAL within the United States of America and cannot be abrogated by anyone not acting on behalf of the government, not even a monied corporation.
No EULA has ever been tested in court. Furthermore, EULA's don't meet standard contract requirements as upheld by nearly every state in the union (there are one or two where the EULA *might* be binding, but again it's never been tested). The current operating legal opinion is that a EULA, if brought before the court, would fail to meet even the minimal requirements of contract law and would be struck down.
It's an urban myth - spread with great joy by companies like Microsoft - that a EULA is a contract, or even an expression of actual law. It isn't and never has been. In fact, most companies are very well aware that their EULAs would go down in flames if they ever saw the light of day before a judge, which is why *no* company has *ever* tried to enforce a EULA in court. If companies like Microsoft thought they could use a EULA like any other legally binding contract, they'd be wielding their EULAs like giant legal clubs - but they aren't. That should tell you just how much faith the companies themselves have in these articles. And why they work so hard to get legislation passed which will make their EULAs real contracts retroactively.
Funny thing is, when companies like Microsoft say "it's the law", even though it's not and that fact can be readily confirmed, most people simply take their word for it. Just like when MS and others go on and on about "intellectual property theft" when there's no such thing - it's copyright infringement, a legal violation which has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the legal act of theft. But still, ignoramuses scream "theft!" because the people they mistakenly trust shout the same thing and they're too lazy to check out the facts for themselves.
EULAs are worth the paper they're printed on. The only laws that actually apply are those incorporated into state or federal code dealing with copyright. None of that code exempts EULAs from having to meet basic requirements to qualify as a legal contract.
Even so, if Microsoft or any software company showed up at my door demanding to prove that I'd purchased their product, they'd get a double-barrel shoved up their ass as they were escorted off the property.
No company has the right to audit me. They aren't a legal arm of the government. If they have a complaint they can file it with the attorney-general and then *he* can try to prove I'm guilty - which he *has* to since in the legal system I'm innocent until he does.
Max
what a load of horseshit
on
Heart of the Net
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And let me say again: what a load of horseshit. As someone who's been involved with the net long before Katz heard the word 'modem' (much less understood it), I can say unequivocally that there has never been a 'heart' as Katz defines it. In fact, the goddamned system was developed so that there could *be* no heart, technically speaking, and that same spec dominated all net-related interactions since the system began to take shape.
The press, in it's infinite stupidity, has many times in the past tried to characterize 'the Net' (with that capital 'N') as being defined by thing X, where thing X is the flashiest and simplest bauble that the press could find *and* understand. Note the last is especially critical, as the press is comprised of people possessing especially low IQs (we call them 'reporters') so they tend to gloss over or discard 95% of what they run into simply because they lack the brain cells to appropriately process the information. The other 5% they usually get wrong.
What the press refuses to accept is that the internet has no center, no locus, either technically, socially, intellectually, or in any other way you can think of. It never has, even back in the bad old days when it belonged to college students who made a hobby, and sometimes a career, of hacking the system while the 'academics' took credit for their innovations.
What Katz talks about has nothing to do with the net and instead has everything to do with the media perception of the net. This media perception has *always* been horribly wrong, in both its assumptions and its conclusions. Here, the assumption being that there is a heart (there isn't) and that this press-inspired delusion has been dominated at various times by groups that never truly existed or never wielded any real power.
What this piece boils down to is yet another whining, self-masturbatory exhibition of baseless assumptions and lies presented as facts. Virtually every line of Katz's article contains something patently false or ludicrous, tripe that only a reporter or a technophobic Boomer could buy into. In fact, the article is so full of shit that my original plan - to refute the statements individually - would haven taken several times the space of the article itself.
Perhaps Jon should give up writing on something he so very clearly knows nothing about. It's getting bloody tired, especially on a site that supposedly caters to the more technically-inclined. Jon clearly couldn't find his ass with both hands, so why is he posting articles on a technology which defies his ability to understand it? Enough is enough, already - hire someone who has at least a glimmering of a clue.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that it benefits women by putting them in control is no more valid than saying it is detrimental to women by giving men the power to procreate without them.
Not true. It's possible to give men additional choices while at the same time doing the same for women. This doesn't disenfranchise women in any fashion whatsoever. But without the technology the burden of pregnancy is entirely on the woman, whether she wishes it or not. Currently, men suffer no risk whatsoever from pregnancy - women bear all of this risk, no matter how good the medical technology of the nation in question.
Making this an issue entirely about women is as bad as making an issue solely about men.
In any realistic sense pregnancy is about women, not men, as men are not physically affected nor endangered by the event. With artificial wombs neither sex is affected or endangered any more than the other. This squarely increases the power of women in a major way, only doing so marginally for men (those that want children without the benefit of a woman to provide them).
Notice that the vast majority of folks who complain about these sorts of technologies are men - not because they would be deprived of choices (they aren't), but because women get more choices and more freedom.
In case you haven't noticed there are a great many men out there that possess a 'frat boy' mentality and view women as second class. Anything which challenges their shallow beliefs or provides actual freedom (and thus power) to women threatens their idea of how things should be, which means quite literally that they lose some real ability to control the opposite sex. These are the mysogynists I referred to in the initial post and they are common despite what anyone else may claim.
And you still haven't explained how the technology can be 'abused' without delving into the realm of science fiction.
I would have a hard job watching Attack of the Clones one too many times, as it is not released until May
Attack of the Clones is actually the name of an old, and very bad, SF film released some time during the '60's. Although it may actually be titled Attack of the Killer Clones, now that I think about it.
I am only concerned that the child may suffer, through no fault of its own, for the lack of a natural pregnancy.
How? What empirical evidence is this belief based on? This is my initial question repeated. You have no such evidence since artificial wombs have never been used. To play upon unsubstantiated fears, without even defining what this 'harm' might be, is silly.
Is saying that "There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology." not imposing your view on others?
No, because I'm not forcing them to use the technology. If it's banned, however, they are imposing their views by denying me this choice. Completely unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if they would just mind their own damned business and stay out of the personal affairs of others then these conversations would be altogether unnecessary.
Max
I demanded evidence, not unsubstantiated personal belief. Which is all this is.
Max
To which there is no evidence. If you have some, *then provide it*.
Furthermore, this does nothing to address the needs of the poor who can't afford a computer. *Their* children will be disenfranchised of skills *necessary* for a 21st century job market.
But hey! Anything to reduce the influence of the computer in schools! Especially if it means your middle-class brat has a better chance of getting a job for it.
Max
Here come the righteous technophobes, looking to score points for deriding the 'evil' computer and its mind-numbing effects on their children. Forgetting all the while that the computer is just a tool, like a calculator, a pen, a box of crayons, or an abacus.
In fifty years kids will laugh incredulously at this tale and ask "were people back then really that stupid?". To which I'll reply "only on their good days."
Technophobes are the chaff of change, thankfully needing only time to discard.
Max
An interesting idea, for those that wish to opt into it. For those of us who don't, or who participate in distributed computing on a case-by-case basis (e.g., SETI at Home), then not in this lifetime.
Max
It is the first cry of the paranoid to say that a decision has been made in order to harm or opress them.
If that decision results in harm or oppression, there's nothing paranoid about it. Banning this technology would harm women by reducing their choices and forcing natural pregnancy on those who want children when an alternative exists. There's nothing paranoid or non-factual about that.
There are many who have what they see as valid religious/ethical objections to such a technology.
There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology. In this case (as in most others) 'religious' or 'ethical' concerns are simply a way of enforcing one's world view upon others in a fashion that disguises true intent - of making other people do what you want them to do, simply to prove that you can.
The religion of those who object means nothing to me. They can live according to the dictates of their gods but they have no business trying to compel others to conform to those dictates. That is the mark of the fanatic, a true scumbag in every way.
Anyone who thinks through the concept of artificial wombs for, say, 30 seconds or so can see that the technology is beneficial - to women, at least. Not to men. No doubt that's why so many men seem to object to such things.
I think that there is a danger that this development could lead to further trivialisation of parenthood.
The only people who can 'trivialize parenthood', as you put it, are parents. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to punish women as a whole by restricting the technology just because certain folks have no business being parents, yet go out and have kids anyway. This argument is facetious.
A child is not a commodity to be obtained. I think everyone will agree on this. This technology, if abused, could allow just this.
Bullshit. The only thing this technology allows is for women to avoid the discomfort and danger of natural pregnancy. If men were the ones who had to bear the child there wouldn't be even a whisper of an argument against it.
The rest of your points are without redeeming value, vague foreboding language of possible, unsubstantiated horrors no doubt inspired by watching Attack of the Clones one too many times, or thinking that Dark Angel is an actual possibility.
People who shouldn't get pregnant and have children do so all the time, yet no one rationally argues that we should enforce 'licensing' for having children. The opposite is equally ridiculous.
And I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with 'simply providing the genetic material and picking up the child 9 months later'. It may not be something that you want to do, but you don't have any right to impose your views on others. This is simply a variation on the 'if God had wanted us to fly he would've given us wings' argument, modernized for the 21st century.
You don't like the technology, don't use it. That's your right. Anything else isn't your business.
Max
Objections to this kind of technology always boil down to control. The fact is that use of an artificial womb, assuming the thing actually works, would harm *no one*. It would, in fact, make it possible for women who couldn't otherwise safely bear children to do so without a surrogate and the possibility that the surrogate would attempt to steal the child through legal means (as has been done in the past). It would also make it possible for women who didn't want the inconvenience of pregnancy to have a child without that inconvenience - not medically required, but who am I to condemn women to 'natural' pregnancy when an alternative is available? It isn't for me, or you for that matter, to tell a woman how her body has to be used and what she can do with it.
No, the objections aren't about trying to keep someone from doing something to us (artifical wombs wouldn't adversely affect *any of us reading this*), but rather about forcing others to live according to our views. Don't like the idea of artificial wombs? Pass a law banning them, *even though their use would affect our lives in no fashion whatsoever*. A closet mysogynist would use the same tactics to check any advance made in releasing women from the necessity of biology, since closet mysogynists always oppose any additional freedom that might be had by women. Alas, the technical fields are chock-full of mysogynistic bastards who wax lyrical about the advances of science until such advances are applied to the opposite sex.
A true objector would do the rational thing: refuse to use the artificial womb. An objector with hidden motivations rooted in imposing controls over others (in this case women) would insist that the technology itself be banned. If you want to know who the objectors are and who the women-haters are, it's quite simple to tell them apart in this case. Just read what they post and ask: are they refusing to use the technology for themselves, or are they insisting that others not use it as well? Answer this question and you separate the objectors from the malicious control freaks.
And please, don't give me any crap about how it 'might harm the child', or some such rot. You know no such thing. You have no such evidence. *Because it hasn't been done yet*. Until you have empirical evidence in hand, shut your yaps on the 'save the children!' arguments - it's just another variation on 'do what the hell I tell you!' theme, clothed in false altruism.
Max
No controls are required. It's a basic fact that if you provide adequate living conditions with a basic education then birth rates tend to decline. I provide as evidence the entire First World, any country you choose (including many which are poorer by far per capita than the U.S.).
Putting controls on breeding would require a) a world government - not in my lifetime, buddy; and b) discrimination against every Third World country in existence. Since the First World already has a birth rate so low that in many places even replacement isn't occurring, by definition these controls would only apply, in majority, to Third World nations - and non-whites. Racism by design or racism by accident is still racism.
If you're so concerned with controlling population, if would be a far less fascist solution to attempt to raise the standard of living for the poor world-wide, rather than imposing violent controls over non-whites. I certainly wouldn't be a party to the more fascist solutions, and neither would the vast majority of others in the First World.
Max
Oh, don't be such a stupid prick. Now you sound like a whining 4-year-old, threatening someone with the imminent arrival of the jackboots. Grow up.
"Pirates always (get caught)". Christ. And while you're growing up, try living in the real world for a change.
Max
What you don't seem to get is that there's a far cry between what the license claims and what the reality of the situation is. I have a Win98 CD; I'll install it on as many goddamn machines as I like. Who's going to stop me? You? Get real.
I *do* own it. Possession is what counts here. You can scream to the high heavens and I'll just blow you off and continue on my merry way.
Really, what *are* you going to do about it? Complain here on Slashdot? Threaten me with the MS police? Don't be ridiculous. The reality of the situation is mine to control, not yours.
Max
That should be "considered legal opinion...."
Max
A EULA *is not* a legal agreement. I challenge you to find a single scrap of code, federal or state, anywhere in the U.S. that supports your claim. Or a single court case, for that matter.
You can't. There is no such legal code. EULAs *do not* meet the minimal requirements placed by contract law *anywhere in the U.S.*. And there is no court case to refer to because no company has ever attempted to use it's EULA as a binding legal agreement. Why? Because considered legal agreement is that the entire idea behind the EULA would be struck down as invalid, making EULAs *everywhere* illegal.
Hence the popularity of the certain legislation before congress attempting to grandfather EULAs as actual contracts. But as for now *A EULA is not an agreement, legal or otherwise, of any kind*.
Max
In the case of ArsDigita I believe this because I know it to be true. ArsDigita made one hell of a profit prior to VC involvement, and was run into the ground shortly after the VCs came on board. According to *people who were actually there* this is precisely how things worked out. I'm inclined to accept the explanation because a) it's nearly universal amongst former employees, b) they were there before and after the shit hit the fan, and so are in a position to know the facts, and c) you have no information whatsoever to the contrary, other than your own unsubstantiated horseshit.
Get over yourself, kid. You sound like an outraged MBA. If so, get a real job, eh? One that perhaps requires some actual skill?
Max
This account is accurate, according to more folks than just herself and Greenspun. Many of the original pre-VC employees have said much the same thing, i.e., the VCs were complete incompetents both at the business and the technology that made the business. The ArsDigita fun 'n games is old news to those in the field.
Not-so-surprisingly, I've heard *many* accounts along these lines from people in various companies that were ruined by VCs. Formerly profitable endeavors saw an opportunity to expand so long as they relinquished control to MBAs, were grateful to do so (thinking the MBAs would relieve them of the chores of management, accounting, and payroll), and then found to their dismay that the new folks were complete morons interested only in padding their own bank and expense accounts. It sounds somewhat naive in hindsight, but the programmers who built the companies found the business side of it to be a tedious pain in the ass and wanted to do what they loved best, program; turning over these non-programming aspects to a 'professional' seemed logical.
Only the thing is, the 'professionals' in business are often incredibly stupid and even more greedy. My own experiences with executive management in various corporations is one of disbelief combined with wonder: disbelief that someone so stupid could hold such a position of power, and wonder over how they got that position in the first place. Clearly, the world of management *isn't* Darwinian, else all of these fools would've been weeded out of the corporate gene pool a long time ago. Instead, they run the show.
Never underestimate the potential incompetence of an MBA, especially a VC MBA. Years of experience have taught me that the most likely person to stick their fingers in the pie and screw things up are just these kinds of folks. Especially the ones (which seem to constitute the majority) who never progressed beyond the kindergarten level of maturity and are constantly whipping out their peckers to measure them against everyone else they encounter.
Max
Is it my imagination or are the MS whores showing up in greater numbers than usual? Whenever a chance arises to blast Open source, Linux, Linus, or anything not pro-Microsoft they pop out of the woodwork like cockroaches, leaving their infantile rantings scattered about the forum like insect shit. And having about as much value, I might add.
I suggest that we modify the account creation process to identify these pathetic losers so we can filter them, much as (to my incredible joy) we can filter ACs. Questions would include things like:
- do you dream of being Bill Gates?
- do you desperately want to meet Bill Gates?
- is one of your top ten goals to give Bill Gates a blow job?
Anyone who answered 'yes' to any one of these would be identified as a Microsoft junkie, subject to filtering. Then we could read slashdot without having to deal with yet another semi-literate rant on why Open Source or Linux is the spawn of the Devil and Bill Gates is the Second Coming (or whatever, so long as they get a taste of the Big Nerd's load).
Max
Hey, I feel the same way. God knows I'd never run Winblows on my own machine. Only a fuckwit of the first order would actually use that sorry excuse of an OS for serious work.
I use Perl and C/C++, because either can do just about anything I like. Why on earth would a programmer of any real skill work in something like VB when more powerful tools are available? It's not like mastering Perl or C or C++ is bloody rocket science.
And I don't use closed source. I can locate an open source equivalent that'll do the job just as well or better 99% of the time. If I can't - hey, I'm a programmer! I'll write it myself! No sense in using a product I can't modify to suit my needs when I can get another that I can modify.
Oooh, wait, you're fanatically *anti*-open source. My bad.
Max
To my knowledge, no evolutionist claims that insects were the first land animals.
No, paleontologists do this through dating fossils. Unless you're willing to completely discount all methods of fossil dating (based on what? personal opinion?) it's rather clear that insects were the first fully terrestrial land animals, and were the only ones for quite some time.
An animal that can survive in a marine environment just cannot migrate to land, no matter how many legs it has.
Proof? You have none.
If you need an example of an animal that survives perfectly well on both land and in the sea, you can find them on just about any beach in the world. They're called crabs.
not only does a candidate mechanism such as this have to be found
It's called 'random mutation'. Mutation is a observed fact in nature. It is, for example, why new strains of age-old bugbears like the flu and the common cold keep popping up. No magic required.
how the resulting creatures could survive in either land or water.
There are a great many creatures that do just that. Crabs, for instance. Many kinds of shellfish do the same, as do a large number of sea snakes, insects, even mammals (seals, otters, etc.). You don't have to look very far to find a plethora of animals that are at home in both environments.
If a shrimp loses legs and gills, and absorbs oxygen through the skin, can it still survive in water long enough to go ashore?
Again, the aforementioned crabs. But if you need more pictorial examples, I can think of two:
- the lungfish. Many fish have 'floatation bladders' which allow the fish to dive or rise without exerting too much energy. The lungfish has developed a floatation bladder that uses oxygen as it's gas of choice - which also happens to be present in the air. This incidentally allows the lungfish to breath air for limited periods of time. This has proved to be adaptive as the fish can abandon overcrowded or dried up pools and 'crawl' on its fins overland to find better accommodations.
- another kind of fish has hit on a different strategy for doing the same thing. It absorbs oxygen through the skin (not very efficiently, but well enough) and can also use this ability to abandon a poor habitat in search of a better one. Apparently this has worked so well for it that it's front fins have partially evolved into tiny 'legs' to help it move overland more efficiently. It doesn't take much imagination to see this fish evolve into something else - like....
amphibians. They're all around you and are also equally at home in both the water and on land. In fact, they need both to survive.
You can doubt whatever you like. You can believe that the Earth is flat, if you want. Just don't demand that anyone take you seriously, give credence to your beliefs, or that you're 'owed' respect for your choices. You aren't.
Max
I'll dare tell you any damn thing I like. Your religion means nothing to me, my government, or to my Constitution. If you choose to be outraged because others find your Creationist beliefs rather implausible and call you on it, that's your bloody problem.
And thank you for that most fanatical-Christian sentiment. If your God is real, I rather fancy you'll be burning in hell right alongside me.
Max
The theory of evolution fits the observed facts (e.g., the fossil record) better than anything else put forward to date. Creationism is, quite frankly, a crock of shit which attempts to explain nothing but rather shut down any rational thought on the topic altogether.
When someone comes along with a better theory to explain the facts than evolution I'll bite. When someone comes along with a better theory, that is.
Max
Homo Sapiens didn't 'destroy' competing species. With the possible exception of the Neanderthals (and no matter what the Discovery Channel says, there is *no* evidence of widespread violence between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal) successive waves of our ancestors spread out from Africa, partly outcompeting previous waves in terms of their food gathering abilities and partly interbreeding with them. It wasn't so much a 'horde of better barbarians' approach as the steady assimilation of new genes into old stocks, transforming those stocks.
Remember, evolution tends to be a rather slow process in human terms, so the new folks showing up probably didn't appear to be any different than the folks that had been settled for awhile. They were just a little smarter, perhaps a little taller, maybe able to walk upright a little longer without suffering foot injuries - but the same can be said of a random comparison of any two humans you pick out of a crowd today. There are people out there right now whose genes - any way you measure it - are far fitter than those possessed by anyone reading this post, and under non-technological conditions those genes would eventually outcompete yours, resulting in an incremental 'advance' of the species. By this measure there are most likely several hundred subspecies of human wandering about this very moment, the differences only noticeable by which genes win out over time.
In all likelihood, the 'newer' humans assimilated the 'older' lines by screwing them senseless, producing hybrids and over time discarding the less-useful genes. You can do the same thing with animals artificially that is done in nature with selective breeding and back-breeding. No destruction required, no mass warfare needed. In fact, if you insist on following evolution on a micro-timescale then this is happening right now within the human species among those hundreds of subspecies I was talking about previously.
Note to biologists: I'm using the word 'subspecies' here very loosely. I know that these groups can't technically be classed as subspecies, only that over time, if allowed to breed without extinction, they *would* qualify as such because of the different genes they carry.
Max
Intelligence is only positively correlated to professional and/or material success until you reach an IQ of about 120. After that the correlation declines until the very intelligent tend to be only slightly more 'successful' (in terms of professional standing, or more easily measured, material wealth) than those with an IQ of 100.
This myth concerning intelligence was debunked more than ten years ago in a study that has yet to be refuted, meaning that the study itself is on pretty solid scientific ground. Genius-level IQs are rarely associated with anything like what we term 'success'. Many hypotheses have been put forward as to *why* this is, but none of these have been proven to be causal in nature. Put forward whatever explanation you like, it's probably as good a guess as anyone else's.
Unfortunately people tend to equate wealth or success in a profession with intelligence. Most of the wildly successful aren't particular bright; smarter than the average, but nothing to write home about. If you want an anecdotal, completely unscientific example, simply look at our current president and you'll see that even the incredibly stupid can reach lofty heights if the conditions are right.
Oh, and to debunk one other myth: the children of the rich tend to be no smarter than anyone else. Better educated, but still solidly average in brainpower.
Max
On the other hand only the government has the right to enact and enforce laws. Adherence to a EULA can only be compelled by a government body - Microsoft can't go out and imprison or fine people on its own, it has to appeal to the government to do so. And the government is, as you put it, bound by the Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were savvy blokes and they thought this through. They even wrote about the very thing you talk about, along with quite a few other interesting items re the Constitution, in a great many papers. You may want to check a few of them out at your local library.
So in conclusion, McAfee can write whatever horseshit it wants into its EULA. But McAfee has no legal authority to enforce it's EULA - only the government can do that and the government must act within the purview of the Constitution. This means that First Amendment rights are UNIVERSAL within the United States of America and cannot be abrogated by anyone not acting on behalf of the government, not even a monied corporation.
Max
No EULA has ever been tested in court. Furthermore, EULA's don't meet standard contract requirements as upheld by nearly every state in the union (there are one or two where the EULA *might* be binding, but again it's never been tested). The current operating legal opinion is that a EULA, if brought before the court, would fail to meet even the minimal requirements of contract law and would be struck down.
It's an urban myth - spread with great joy by companies like Microsoft - that a EULA is a contract, or even an expression of actual law. It isn't and never has been. In fact, most companies are very well aware that their EULAs would go down in flames if they ever saw the light of day before a judge, which is why *no* company has *ever* tried to enforce a EULA in court. If companies like Microsoft thought they could use a EULA like any other legally binding contract, they'd be wielding their EULAs like giant legal clubs - but they aren't. That should tell you just how much faith the companies themselves have in these articles. And why they work so hard to get legislation passed which will make their EULAs real contracts retroactively.
Funny thing is, when companies like Microsoft say "it's the law", even though it's not and that fact can be readily confirmed, most people simply take their word for it. Just like when MS and others go on and on about "intellectual property theft" when there's no such thing - it's copyright infringement, a legal violation which has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the legal act of theft. But still, ignoramuses scream "theft!" because the people they mistakenly trust shout the same thing and they're too lazy to check out the facts for themselves.
EULAs are worth the paper they're printed on. The only laws that actually apply are those incorporated into state or federal code dealing with copyright. None of that code exempts EULAs from having to meet basic requirements to qualify as a legal contract.
Max
Even so, if Microsoft or any software company showed up at my door demanding to prove that I'd purchased their product, they'd get a double-barrel shoved up their ass as they were escorted off the property.
No company has the right to audit me. They aren't a legal arm of the government. If they have a complaint they can file it with the attorney-general and then *he* can try to prove I'm guilty - which he *has* to since in the legal system I'm innocent until he does.
Max
And let me say again: what a load of horseshit. As someone who's been involved with the net long before Katz heard the word 'modem' (much less understood it), I can say unequivocally that there has never been a 'heart' as Katz defines it. In fact, the goddamned system was developed so that there could *be* no heart, technically speaking, and that same spec dominated all net-related interactions since the system began to take shape.
The press, in it's infinite stupidity, has many times in the past tried to characterize 'the Net' (with that capital 'N') as being defined by thing X, where thing X is the flashiest and simplest bauble that the press could find *and* understand. Note the last is especially critical, as the press is comprised of people possessing especially low IQs (we call them 'reporters') so they tend to gloss over or discard 95% of what they run into simply because they lack the brain cells to appropriately process the information. The other 5% they usually get wrong.
What the press refuses to accept is that the internet has no center, no locus, either technically, socially, intellectually, or in any other way you can think of. It never has, even back in the bad old days when it belonged to college students who made a hobby, and sometimes a career, of hacking the system while the 'academics' took credit for their innovations.
What Katz talks about has nothing to do with the net and instead has everything to do with the media perception of the net. This media perception has *always* been horribly wrong, in both its assumptions and its conclusions. Here, the assumption being that there is a heart (there isn't) and that this press-inspired delusion has been dominated at various times by groups that never truly existed or never wielded any real power.
What this piece boils down to is yet another whining, self-masturbatory exhibition of baseless assumptions and lies presented as facts. Virtually every line of Katz's article contains something patently false or ludicrous, tripe that only a reporter or a technophobic Boomer could buy into. In fact, the article is so full of shit that my original plan - to refute the statements individually - would haven taken several times the space of the article itself.
Perhaps Jon should give up writing on something he so very clearly knows nothing about. It's getting bloody tired, especially on a site that supposedly caters to the more technically-inclined. Jon clearly couldn't find his ass with both hands, so why is he posting articles on a technology which defies his ability to understand it? Enough is enough, already - hire someone who has at least a glimmering of a clue.
Max