eh... they CAN code DNA at will - we have the first machine that ever did that (quiet a few years back) under glass in one of the hallways here.
and I spent a good portion of the summer writing software to order oligos from several different vendors - you send them a sequence (ie text) they send you back oligos in a tube (ie bits of DNA built to spec).
Yahoo's "one of the simplest computing machines" wasn't too clear. It in fact being the most advanced computing machine doesn't help matters either. Silly Yahoo.
umm.. sorry to break the news, but companies already patent DNA sequences - testing for a certain DNA sequence to find a particular function (or disruption thereof) can and is patented in various ways.
Nature does posses prior art, but because it never shows up in court companies like Chiron always win by default.
The current patent system is ludicrous - DNA doesn't make it any more or less ludicrous.
There isn't much of a differnce between chemistry and physics on this level - it's molecule and atom interactions.
Besides, I am sure you can overclock chemistry to run just as fast as physics, even though physics' stock clock rate will still be higher than that of chemistry. Chemistry will just need a really good heatsink.
Since our mode of thinking in the U.S.A. is that any technology that comes along should be implemented no matter the consequences
It's not just the US, it's how humans do things - what else are you gonna do? Sit on your arse all day long? You won't know the consequences (no matter how long and how many people bitch about it) until it's dont - so take the good with the bad.
No actual facts, no explanations, but lots of hyperboly and waxing poetic about how this will change the future of humanity.
"When it is all mixed together in the test tube, the software and hardware operate on the input molecule to create the output."
Oh, so that's how it works! I see.
Btw, what exactly is the "software" and what is the "hardware"? So far they only mentioned DNA/RNA (it's "cousin" don't you know) and enzymes - did they just pick one to be the "software"?
I also enjoyed "genes stores data on four chemical bases -- known by the letters A, T, C and G -- giving it massive memory capability" - it's the four bases that give it the massive memory capability, not the fact that they are bloody tiny.
More of a quesiton here: "the simplest computing machines -- the automaton which can answer certain yes or no questions" - do they mean a finite automaton here, or what? DFA? NFA? PDA?
It's been said already, but by far the easiest way to circumvent this is to do all the encryption/decryption on a secure system not connected to the internet and transfer the encrypted data to/from it via physical media.
I've been thinking about this for the last 10 minutes or so, and I can see clear ways, with minimal effort, to have completely secure communication, if you are serious about it. I am betting this is mostly targeted at petty script-kiddies and those slobbering internet paedophiles we hear so much about, not actual terrorists or orginized crime of some other fashion.
That and to impress the American public into some sort of false sense of security: "The FBI is using Trojan Horses, keylogging and crypto-viruses to hunt terrorists! Ooh! Aaaah!!! Wow!"
Re:How about an XBox? - I think I got that covered
on
Geek Gift Ideas 2001
·
· Score: 1
yeah well, my PC does some useful things in addition to playing lame games - so I think it evens out in the end.
Re:How about an XBox? - I think I got that covered
on
Geek Gift Ideas 2001
·
· Score: 1
Good point. Then again the only game currently available for the XBox without a superior PC counterpart is Halo.
Kinda makes me glad I don't play games. Sure I'll pick up a game that has made much noise when it comes out (say Max Payne) and then take a few days off work to play it - but gaming doesn't occupy a significant amount of my time anymore - so I would never buy anyther just for a game, period.
Interesting sidenote - how long before XBox games can be played on a PC? I am not sure if "emulation" is the proper term since it's basically the same hardware and software. What actually prevents XBox titles from playing on PCs at the moment? I am sure any impediments there are artificial and will eventually be overcome... just curious.
bloody hell! I am not talking about highlevel conceptual training here - I talking about teaching kids "if you want to get a window out of your way, you minimize it - here's how you do it in Windows, Linux Mac and BeOS would be similar" instead of teaching them "sequence #17 - move mouse to upper right hand corner, click box, repeat until memorized" Bottom line is, you can teach people to use Windows without using Windows - it's a bloody simple thing! And I wasn't even suggesting they get Linux, that was a joke for gods sake.
Yes they are punished for using the same tactics as others except doing it better - for the simple reason of those tactics not being a Good Thing; and the better they do it, the more harmful they are.
Suggesting that the only way a market can function is if it is dominated by one company is somewhat ridiculous - we have diferrent manufacturers for cars, DVD players, stereos and microwaves and they all seem to function; but somehow the entire world of software depends on Microsoft being the only vendor of OS software? Rubbish.
Claiming that development costs somehow figure into the price of high-end hardware like the GF3 is just plain naive, the price is set very simply: units sold * price = revenue; as price rises, units sold decrease, the price that maximizes the revenue is set; higher production costs will decrease profit, raising price will decrease profits even more. In any case, somehow I am not worried about nVidia's profit margins - they'll make ends meet.
There is absolutely no reason why the same OS should be used on every machine (even every desktop machine) regardless of it's function; but it's not even about that - MS wants complete and total control of computers in both the home and business markets, with hardware compatibility, software upgrades, security, etc. managed by MS according to their priorities and discretion. And I would rather see them fold and risk the inevitable return to the dark ages that lack of their brilliant guidance would bring, than to see the market I just described.
Actually, if I remember correctly, the original intent was that you couldn't patent an "idea" but you had to patent a specific device (which makes perfect sense, in preventing just this sort of thing) - of course they didn't have software to consider back then, which is just as easily described as either an idea or a "device" (which it usually is for the purposes of patenting)
The problem isn't just that the system isn't great (or designed with software development in mind, and therefore ill suited for it), but also that the system is horribly implemented, with those deciding on validity of patents being filed, knowing very little about them and generally ending up granting them.
Of course inventors should be paid - but what's an invention? The theme right now seems to be "quick, patent it before everyone else thinks of it" whereas it was supposed to be "patent it so others don't steal it from you."
There is absolutely no reason one the first company to patent an obvious thing should have exclusivity to it. (and of course the whole thing is weighted very heavily against open source development, but that's a different issue)
I not only use them everyday since they are all over KDE/Gnome, but in my projects as well - the lossless compression is great, especially for generating images from vector data (which I do a lot for various stuff) - far better quality and size than JPEG and none of GIF's patent absurdness.
That's not the point, as I've said a few times already - you can either teach a series of keystrokes or you teach the concept of minimizing a window - the former is applicable in one OS, the latter in any GUI.
Well, to use your beautiful Hitler analogy - people like you are those responsible for 60 million people dying during WWII - those who don't care about who they support as long as their conviniences are met. I don't hate MS because they are successful, but because they think I should be paying $250 for an OS, every two years or so.
I still don't get it - how long does it take to "retrain" a person from using MS Office to, lets say, OpenOffice? Or, better yet, from MS Office on Windows to MS Office on Mac?
The problem with people who are "trained" to use Macs not being able to function on Windows is poor traning in the first place. People shouldn't be taught to use an operating system, they should be taught to use computers.
And it doesn't matter what platform you use for that - if you train people properly on either Linux, Mac or Windows they should be able to use the other two without any problems.
As it stands, "training" (especially in public schools) consists of memorizing a few sequences of clicks - monkeys can do that (hell, monkeys have been taught to do that). That's the problem: people aren't "trained to use Windows, so they can't use other OSes", they can't use bloody Windows!
btw, what's with this "hating MS is not cool anymore" bullshit? I don't care if they give every person in the US a free lollypop with no alterior motive - I still hate them. I don't see why I should treat them fairly - they don't do the same for me.
show me a person, that has been taught to use Linux, then, when presented with MS Windows, throws his/her hands up in their air exclaiming "I can't make heads or tails of this!"
The point is, the level of "training" these kids will get is pointing and clicking - still useful, but it doesn't matter if the system was written by an evil corporation with plans for world domination or by smelly geeks - its still point and click.
heck, make it Linux software - for $1 billion they can donate software to every school in the country, and still have about a billion left over (minus the cost of CDRs, what like $0.20 each, now?)
Re:How about an XBox? - I think I got that covered
on
Geek Gift Ideas 2001
·
· Score: 1
Let's see, a GeForce3 is pretty much analogous to the xGPU (or whatever name they made up for it), but I've got bucket's more RAM, roughly 10 times the storage capacity, various other peripherals and CD related devices, and I believe "craps all over in a very embarassing way" is the proper way to describe the relationship between my T'bird 1.3 and their Celery 733.
Slashdot Mirror
um thanks for clearing that up. i was just throwing words like "Turing Machine" around aimlessly in hopes that I might accidentally use them properly.
eh... they CAN code DNA at will - we have the first machine that ever did that (quiet a few years back) under glass in one of the hallways here.
and I spent a good portion of the summer writing software to order oligos from several different vendors - you send them a sequence (ie text) they send you back oligos in a tube (ie bits of DNA built to spec).
So it is a Turing Machine they are claiming?
Yahoo's "one of the simplest computing machines" wasn't too clear. It in fact being the most advanced computing machine doesn't help matters either. Silly Yahoo.
umm.. sorry to break the news, but companies already patent DNA sequences - testing for a certain DNA sequence to find a particular function (or disruption thereof) can and is patented in various ways.
Nature does posses prior art, but because it never shows up in court companies like Chiron always win by default.
The current patent system is ludicrous - DNA doesn't make it any more or less ludicrous.
Chemistry is much slower than physics
There isn't much of a differnce between chemistry and physics on this level - it's molecule and atom interactions.
Besides, I am sure you can overclock chemistry to run just as fast as physics, even though physics' stock clock rate will still be higher than that of chemistry. Chemistry will just need a really good heatsink.
Since our mode of thinking in the U.S.A. is that any technology that comes along should be implemented no matter the consequences
It's not just the US, it's how humans do things - what else are you gonna do? Sit on your arse all day long? You won't know the consequences (no matter how long and how many people bitch about it) until it's dont - so take the good with the bad.
No actual facts, no explanations, but lots of hyperboly and waxing poetic about how this will change the future of humanity.
"When it is all mixed together in the test tube, the software and hardware operate on the input molecule to create the output."
Oh, so that's how it works! I see. Btw, what exactly is the "software" and what is the "hardware"? So far they only mentioned DNA/RNA (it's "cousin" don't you know) and enzymes - did they just pick one to be the "software"?
I also enjoyed "genes stores data on four chemical bases -- known by the letters A, T, C and G -- giving it massive memory capability" - it's the four bases that give it the massive memory capability, not the fact that they are bloody tiny.
More of a quesiton here: "the simplest computing machines -- the automaton which can answer certain yes or no questions" - do they mean a finite automaton here, or what? DFA? NFA? PDA?
I would love to meet the guy who thought this up.
;)
I think Odysseus has been dead for a few thousand years
It's been said already, but by far the easiest way to circumvent this is to do all the encryption/decryption on a secure system not connected to the internet and transfer the encrypted data to/from it via physical media.
I've been thinking about this for the last 10 minutes or so, and I can see clear ways, with minimal effort, to have completely secure communication, if you are serious about it. I am betting this is mostly targeted at petty script-kiddies and those slobbering internet paedophiles we hear so much about, not actual terrorists or orginized crime of some other fashion.
That and to impress the American public into some sort of false sense of security: "The FBI is using Trojan Horses, keylogging and crypto-viruses to hunt terrorists! Ooh! Aaaah!!! Wow!"
Of course the RIAA and the MPAA are now also law enforcement agencies, right?
yeah, that system would be a bitch to surf for pr0n on!
A common post September 11th question:
"What's a warrant?"
yeah well, my PC does some useful things in addition to playing lame games - so I think it evens out in the end.
Good point. Then again the only game currently available for the XBox without a superior PC counterpart is Halo.
Kinda makes me glad I don't play games. Sure I'll pick up a game that has made much noise when it comes out (say Max Payne) and then take a few days off work to play it - but gaming doesn't occupy a significant amount of my time anymore - so I would never buy anyther just for a game, period.
Interesting sidenote - how long before XBox games can be played on a PC? I am not sure if "emulation" is the proper term since it's basically the same hardware and software. What actually prevents XBox titles from playing on PCs at the moment? I am sure any impediments there are artificial and will eventually be overcome... just curious.
bloody hell! I am not talking about highlevel conceptual training here - I talking about teaching kids "if you want to get a window out of your way, you minimize it - here's how you do it in Windows, Linux Mac and BeOS would be similar" instead of teaching them "sequence #17 - move mouse to upper right hand corner, click box, repeat until memorized" Bottom line is, you can teach people to use Windows without using Windows - it's a bloody simple thing! And I wasn't even suggesting they get Linux, that was a joke for gods sake.
Yes they are punished for using the same tactics as others except doing it better - for the simple reason of those tactics not being a Good Thing; and the better they do it, the more harmful they are.
Suggesting that the only way a market can function is if it is dominated by one company is somewhat ridiculous - we have diferrent manufacturers for cars, DVD players, stereos and microwaves and they all seem to function; but somehow the entire world of software depends on Microsoft being the only vendor of OS software? Rubbish.
Claiming that development costs somehow figure into the price of high-end hardware like the GF3 is just plain naive, the price is set very simply: units sold * price = revenue; as price rises, units sold decrease, the price that maximizes the revenue is set; higher production costs will decrease profit, raising price will decrease profits even more. In any case, somehow I am not worried about nVidia's profit margins - they'll make ends meet.
There is absolutely no reason why the same OS should be used on every machine (even every desktop machine) regardless of it's function; but it's not even about that - MS wants complete and total control of computers in both the home and business markets, with hardware compatibility, software upgrades, security, etc. managed by MS according to their priorities and discretion. And I would rather see them fold and risk the inevitable return to the dark ages that lack of their brilliant guidance would bring, than to see the market I just described.
Actually, if I remember correctly, the original intent was that you couldn't patent an "idea" but you had to patent a specific device (which makes perfect sense, in preventing just this sort of thing) - of course they didn't have software to consider back then, which is just as easily described as either an idea or a "device" (which it usually is for the purposes of patenting)
The problem isn't just that the system isn't great (or designed with software development in mind, and therefore ill suited for it), but also that the system is horribly implemented, with those deciding on validity of patents being filed, knowing very little about them and generally ending up granting them.
Of course inventors should be paid - but what's an invention? The theme right now seems to be "quick, patent it before everyone else thinks of it" whereas it was supposed to be "patent it so others don't steal it from you."
There is absolutely no reason one the first company to patent an obvious thing should have exclusivity to it. (and of course the whole thing is weighted very heavily against open source development, but that's a different issue)
I not only use them everyday since they are all over KDE/Gnome, but in my projects as well - the lossless compression is great, especially for generating images from vector data (which I do a lot for various stuff) - far better quality and size than JPEG and none of GIF's patent absurdness.
That's not the point, as I've said a few times already - you can either teach a series of keystrokes or you teach the concept of minimizing a window - the former is applicable in one OS, the latter in any GUI.
Well, to use your beautiful Hitler analogy - people like you are those responsible for 60 million people dying during WWII - those who don't care about who they support as long as their conviniences are met.
I don't hate MS because they are successful, but because they think I should be paying $250 for an OS, every two years or so.
I still don't get it - how long does it take to "retrain" a person from using MS Office to, lets say, OpenOffice? Or, better yet, from MS Office on Windows to MS Office on Mac?
15? 20 minutes? Its the same friggin' thing!
The problem with people who are "trained" to use Macs not being able to function on Windows is poor traning in the first place. People shouldn't be taught to use an operating system, they should be taught to use computers.
And it doesn't matter what platform you use for that - if you train people properly on either Linux, Mac or Windows they should be able to use the other two without any problems.
As it stands, "training" (especially in public schools) consists of memorizing a few sequences of clicks - monkeys can do that (hell, monkeys have been taught to do that). That's the problem: people aren't "trained to use Windows, so they can't use other OSes", they can't use bloody Windows!
btw, what's with this "hating MS is not cool anymore" bullshit? I don't care if they give every person in the US a free lollypop with no alterior motive - I still hate them. I don't see why I should treat them fairly - they don't do the same for me.
show me a person, that has been taught to use Linux, then, when presented with MS Windows, throws his/her hands up in their air exclaiming "I can't make heads or tails of this!"
The point is, the level of "training" these kids will get is pointing and clicking - still useful, but it doesn't matter if the system was written by an evil corporation with plans for world domination or by smelly geeks - its still point and click.
maybe Flight Simulator thrown in.
heck, make it Linux software - for $1 billion they can donate software to every school in the country, and still have about a billion left over (minus the cost of CDRs, what like $0.20 each, now?)
Let's see, a GeForce3 is pretty much analogous to the xGPU (or whatever name they made up for it), but I've got bucket's more RAM, roughly 10 times the storage capacity, various other peripherals and CD related devices, and I believe "craps all over in a very embarassing way" is the proper way to describe the relationship between my T'bird 1.3 and their Celery 733.
I don't think I need an XBox.