It's written in C#. Depending on how well it's designed, it should be possible to pull out the WMP 9, put in an open source player, and compile in Linux under Mono.
Probably easier said than done, but it would be a sweet app for mono, and could lower the costs for a PVR/DVD/Music box by $200.
It's ironic to me that many people who are afraid of the coming "1984", could care less about the coming "Brave New World". I think it's up to decent folk to stop both.
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies. Nowhere in that sentence is any mention of controlling people.
"Conservation of existing supplies", in this context implies enacting of laws regulating the amount of water individuals can use and for what purposes they can use it. Regulating = control.
The fact is, people waste water
Right. So when I water my lawn, that water evaporates into nothingness never to be seen again. What's being wasted is not the water, but the energy used to purify it. The difference between you and me is the answer to that problem. You seem to think the answer is for the government to control how much water people use and for what purpose. I think the solution is to find innovative ways to meet the demand- preferably with as little government involvement as possible. Now, maybe desalination is it, or maybe it's not. But I can tell you Big Government stepping in and telling people not to water their lawn is not going to help.
Still think its all about controlling people?
Yes, I do. In fact, you proove my point. You've established that you want individuals to stop watering their lawns, taking showers, and flushing toilets. Your contempt for "corporate types" shows your real purpose, and that of many environmentalists, which is to create a system of state-run enterprise.
Again, it's about control: you percieve that the world would be better off if you- or people like you- control how much water people use, and where and how they work. The thing your pretty little vision of the world forgets is that "political types" are more greedy and wasteful than "corporate types". Before long, we'd be heading to the "Ministry of Water Distribution" and find our ration down to 1 liter a day, because Governor Sideshow was extra thirsty.
In the end, my problem isn't with the idea of conservation (I am a conservative, after all;). My problem is with the state telling me how to conserve.
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies. ...Showing their real aim is not conserving resources, but controling people.
...Roman guards, under orders from Lineius Torvalds, seized Billus Gates as he camped outside the city. Formal charges are yet to be announced, but already crowds of Linux zealots are picketting the courthouse with signs that read "Penguify Him!"
I know this is all circumstantial, but I've really liked Cingular. I go camping and fishing alot, and am typically the only person with coverage even in the middle of a remote trout stream. I get wireless internet in most urban areas, and my bill has never been over $40 or so for 300 minutes, no roaming or LD, and free nights/weekends.
I do think time is ripe for cheap, ubiquitous, high-speed wireless, though. To that end, I think more competition is probably better.
This patent clearly isn't patenting XML itself, but a particular schema. Sounds something like this:
<FILES>
<FILE name="filepatents.vbs" language="VBScript"/>
<FILE name="?" language="JScript"/>
<FILE name="profit.cs" language="CSharp">
</FILES>
Still a silly patent, but clearly not a patent on XML. I'd imagine it's related to XAML or WinFS.
I'll admit this was hyperbole. I disagree though, that any amount of possible benefits to embryonic stem cell research would justify killing a human being. Thus, the question is, is this killing a human being? I say yes. I am not opposed to growing individual tissues from stem cells gathered from umbilical cord blood or liposuction. I am opposed to growing distinct human beings to harvest for organs.
I do not see how my position is relativistic. Rather, the opinion that the ends justify the means is based in relativism. Taken to it's extreme, any means are justified if a positive end result can be dragged up. Hence the exagerated hot-spike and tonail analogy.
One cell may be alive, but does not itself constitute "a life." It is the start of a distinct entity from the parent that I am using as my threshold. It is clearly not the parent (even in the case of cloning), thus it is a new being.
I understand your argument that you use brain activity as a "threshold", but surely you see that is not the prevailing opinion legally or socially. This culture does in alot of ways treat smarter people as superior. I mentioned this in another reply I think, but I have yet to hear a person who supposedly argues for brain activity advocate testing for brain activity before aborting a child.
Again, my main point was to show that "it could save lives" was a weak argument, and that "where a life begins" is the key issue. That you and I disagree on the answer to that question is evidence that we agree it is an important question.
You assume my answer would be that intelligence is what makes humans different from other animals. This is not the case at all. There are several angles one could come from on this-personally mine is a theological perspective, though I've also heard arguments based on culture, creativity, and yes, intelligence, but I figured it was a safe assumption that by some means, the people I was discussing with considered themselves as higher organisms than jellyfish.
Do you agree there is a distinction in the value of a human life versus, say, a bird? If so, then we agree. If not, then I would ask if you applied this consistently by being a vegetarian and opposing animal (and human) research?
Ethics and morals have already been thrown out the window.
Then at least be consistant in your view and also endorse cannibalism to solve the problem of world hunger. Since you are so free of moral limits, you could start by putting yourself on the table. =)
Seriously, it's not even clear what your position is. Are you against the war, but for killing embryos? Are you for both? You seem to say they are the same- supporting my view that this research is killing human life- but then you are opposed to one, but not the other.
That is nonsense.
I didn't mean to imply that more brain waves = smarter people, though I can see how it read that way. But people do measure intelligence, and some do feel superior if they are smarter. If this criteria is used as a minimum, why not take the next logical step and judge the relative value of a person based on their IQ? I'm not saying that you personally do this, just that it seems to me that is the next step if one uses brain activity as the only litmus test for personhood.
I should also point out that most people who share your view do not apply it fully. I have yet to hear anybody advocate testing the embryo for brain activity before abortion.
Good points. As for the exact "moment" being itself a process, I'd think that if one were looking to nail down a nano-second it would be when the new entity becomes something distinct from it's parent. The resolution to which that exact moment is measurable today may be limited, but for practical purposes, it is enough to say that it begins at conception. Preventing it from happening is a technically different thing from halting it once it's occured.
Which brings up your next good point- it happens it nature all the time, so why is it worse if we make it happen? You actually answer this yourself. People die naturally, but we outlaw murder. We do this because most people have moral objections to killing another human being. Some base this on social frameworks (social relativism), some on personal frameworks (individual relativism), some on a theological basis. It is, in my mind, the exact same issue here. If the being is human and alive, then to intentionally end its life is murder. The fact that some die naturally or accidentally does not have a direct impact on the issue, just as the fact that some people die in car accidents does not make vehicular homicide OK.
Thus, the only real question is when does one become a live human being. Personally, I think the extremes are to say it begins before conception or that it begins with self-awareness. I can understand why some would say it begins with brain activity, but this still has illogical conslusions. To me the most logically defensible position is to say it begins at conception.
Does this solve all our ethical problems? Of course not. But my main point was to show the weakness of the argument that "it could save lives", that the real issue is "when does a human life begin?", and to present what I think is the answer to that question.
Perhaps I should have said "when a life begins." Sure life began long ago, but every day new lives are beginning. Obviously sluffed skin is something distinct from a human child. It may contain the potential to become a full child, but it is in its current state not a human life. It may be considered alive, but is not a life.
It is not so obvious to me that an embryo is distinct from a human child, since it is not the same entity as either parent, and defining the "
"line" anywhere else has illogical conclusions if applied consistantly. Like many others, you've taken the "brain waves = life" line, which if applied consistantly means that smarter people are superior to less educated. What would be your objection to genetically engineering a superior human race by sterilizing people with low IQs and cloning people with high IQs?
in fact, life must begin even before conception
Sorry you misunderstood the post. I think life begins when a unique (or in the case of cloning, new) organism is in it's first stage distinguishable from the parent.
As I said in another reply, I do in fact think all life has value, but human life especially so. I believe it is ethical to kill animals and plants for food and within certain limits for research. To turn your argument on you, you must believe that anything is acceptable, even if it harms people. I take it you are a practicing cannibal.
You final argument is that some people were persecuted for research. Indeed. And some people- such as the Nazis- have done irreprehesible things in the name of science because they took the logical conclusions of the very premise you are now advocating.
Every sperm is sacred, eh?
Nope. From zygote on is. I addressed your opinion in my post, but here's a bit more to consider: If brain function is the prerequisite for life, then it also becomes the measure of the quality of life. Those with more brain function are "more alive". Those with little or none have less worthy lives. Continuing down the slippery slope, mentally ill could be justifiably executed. Typically most people don't follow it to that conclusion, but especially us nerd types do tend to think in terms of mental superiority.
By your measure plants and single-celled organisms would not constitute life. Obviously, we're mainly talking about human life in this discussion, but as I see it all life begins at conception (or asexually in some cases)- but humans are a higher form of life. In terms of ethics this means all life demands respect, but certain things do not apply for animals and plants. Most people adhere to this too, since most people are not cannibals.
An argument for this technology strictly from the perspective that it "could save lives" is a weak argument. The human research conducted by Nazi Germany could "save lives". Shoving hot spikes in people's toenails would no doubt teach us alot about pain and perhaps lead to better pain relievers.
Fortunately, most people- even those who deny it-have some sort of moral sense prohibiting the logical conclusion of "anything in the name of science", or more broadly "the ends justify the means".
This argument also has the very un-scientific assumption that the hypothesis is correct. This technology could cost lives. This research could prevent funding on research into umbilical cord stem cells. So the person who says it should be done because it "could save lives" has actually already made up their mind that it will, and refuses to consider any other possibilities.
The question then is not whether this technology can save lives, but whether it is ethical to procede in this fashion. Here, the core issue is when life begins. If it begins at the zygote stage, then this technology is murdering for scientific gain. The trouble is, there is no clear-cut way of drawing that line- is it when the organism is self aware? Then abortion should be acceptable several months- even years- after birth. Is it when heart activity starts? The problem with this is that we know a person may be alive and recussitated for several minutes after his heart has stopped. Brain activity? Then maybe those with less brain activity- Alzheimer's patients, mentally ill etc.- should be killed as well, since their life is of less value by that criteria.
No, the only logical point to say life has started is at the very beginning. Researchers have the unique challenge of finding ways to enhance human life without taking or harming it. Granted this can be difficult, but I have confidence that people can work within ethical limits and still find honorable ways to do the things they are now trying to do through cloning and abortion.
Why do we need them to care? Frankly, I don't care about them either. As a consumer, I want low prices on quality products, not a hug and a lollipop when I walk in the store. And I don't see how that means I'm getting screwed by "big business"- if I don't like their product, or think it cost too much, I don't buy from them. If I can find rebates or haggle a lower price, I could care less what it does to their bottom line. But if some guy can get rich giving me what I want, good for him- we both win.
Way I see it, you have two choices: big business or big government. I think the later is way more likely to screw you over than the former.
In relation to this and the recent post on consumer lashback, I think advertising in general is going to have to make some big changes soon- and not just more annoying pop ups. Jingles, catchy phrases, and screaming salesmen just don't cut it in an age where people are flooded with jingles, catchy phrases, and screaming salesmen. In some ways, it's already changing:
"Guerilla marketing" schemes are taking off
Text-ads are being prooven more effective
Studies are showing consumers are fed up with mass-marketing
I also think consumers are more informed and have more choices than ever. If you put it all together, it seems inevitable that advertising will become more targeted and concise in its message.
That said, plenty of advertisers are way out of touch. For example, there is presently a moronic woman dancing across my TV with her dust mop. You just guaranteed I will never buy your product.
I'm all for a spam solution coming from private enterprise as opposed to legislation- in fact, I think the former is the only method that has a chance of working. Maybe Yahoo's attempt will help, maybe they'll waste a bunch of money trying, but I guaruntee it's less money and less waste than Congress or the FCC doing the same thing.
...Sony also announced today that it's newest CD player will support the superior 8-track and Vinyl formats. In addition, plans are underway to scrap the existing DVD line of products for the ultra-lo definition VHS format.
Slashdot Mirror
The PC version is C#, according to SourceForge, and requires XP with WMP 9. If it were available for Linux, you wouldn't need to pay $200 for XP...
It's written in C#. Depending on how well it's designed, it should be possible to pull out the WMP 9, put in an open source player, and compile in Linux under Mono. Probably easier said than done, but it would be a sweet app for mono, and could lower the costs for a PVR/DVD/Music box by $200.
if any cutting is done, the roof is the only area they touch.
And if the car is upside down?
The obvious next step now will be for college students to steal them and make robotic traffic cone dorm tables.
It's ironic to me that many people who are afraid of the coming "1984", could care less about the coming "Brave New World". I think it's up to decent folk to stop both.
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies.
Nowhere in that sentence is any mention of controlling people.
"Conservation of existing supplies", in this context implies enacting of laws regulating the amount of water individuals can use and for what purposes they can use it. Regulating = control.
The fact is, people waste water
Right. So when I water my lawn, that water evaporates into nothingness never to be seen again. What's being wasted is not the water, but the energy used to purify it. The difference between you and me is the answer to that problem. You seem to think the answer is for the government to control how much water people use and for what purpose. I think the solution is to find innovative ways to meet the demand- preferably with as little government involvement as possible. Now, maybe desalination is it, or maybe it's not. But I can tell you Big Government stepping in and telling people not to water their lawn is not going to help.
Still think its all about controlling people?
;). My problem is with the state telling me how to conserve.
Yes, I do. In fact, you proove my point. You've established that you want individuals to stop watering their lawns, taking showers, and flushing toilets. Your contempt for "corporate types" shows your real purpose, and that of many environmentalists, which is to create a system of state-run enterprise.
Again, it's about control: you percieve that the world would be better off if you- or people like you- control how much water people use, and where and how they work. The thing your pretty little vision of the world forgets is that "political types" are more greedy and wasteful than "corporate types". Before long, we'd be heading to the "Ministry of Water Distribution" and find our ration down to 1 liter a day, because Governor Sideshow was extra thirsty.
In the end, my problem isn't with the idea of conservation (I am a conservative, after all
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies.
...Showing their real aim is not conserving resources, but controling people.
...Roman guards, under orders from Lineius Torvalds, seized Billus Gates as he camped outside the city. Formal charges are yet to be announced, but already crowds of Linux zealots are picketting the courthouse with signs that read "Penguify Him!"
I know this is all circumstantial, but I've really liked Cingular. I go camping and fishing alot, and am typically the only person with coverage even in the middle of a remote trout stream. I get wireless internet in most urban areas, and my bill has never been over $40 or so for 300 minutes, no roaming or LD, and free nights/weekends.
I do think time is ripe for cheap, ubiquitous, high-speed wireless, though. To that end, I think more competition is probably better.
This patent clearly isn't patenting XML itself, but a particular schema. Sounds something like this:
<FILES>
<FILE name="filepatents.vbs" language="VBScript"/>
<FILE name="?" language="JScript"/>
<FILE name="profit.cs" language="CSharp">
</FILES>
Still a silly patent, but clearly not a patent on XML. I'd imagine it's related to XAML or WinFS.
I'll admit this was hyperbole. I disagree though, that any amount of possible benefits to embryonic stem cell research would justify killing a human being. Thus, the question is, is this killing a human being? I say yes. I am not opposed to growing individual tissues from stem cells gathered from umbilical cord blood or liposuction. I am opposed to growing distinct human beings to harvest for organs.
I do not see how my position is relativistic. Rather, the opinion that the ends justify the means is based in relativism. Taken to it's extreme, any means are justified if a positive end result can be dragged up. Hence the exagerated hot-spike and tonail analogy.
One cell may be alive, but does not itself constitute "a life." It is the start of a distinct entity from the parent that I am using as my threshold. It is clearly not the parent (even in the case of cloning), thus it is a new being.
I understand your argument that you use brain activity as a "threshold", but surely you see that is not the prevailing opinion legally or socially. This culture does in alot of ways treat smarter people as superior. I mentioned this in another reply I think, but I have yet to hear a person who supposedly argues for brain activity advocate testing for brain activity before aborting a child.
Again, my main point was to show that "it could save lives" was a weak argument, and that "where a life begins" is the key issue. That you and I disagree on the answer to that question is evidence that we agree it is an important question.
You assume my answer would be that intelligence is what makes humans different from other animals. This is not the case at all. There are several angles one could come from on this-personally mine is a theological perspective, though I've also heard arguments based on culture, creativity, and yes, intelligence, but I figured it was a safe assumption that by some means, the people I was discussing with considered themselves as higher organisms than jellyfish.
Do you agree there is a distinction in the value of a human life versus, say, a bird? If so, then we agree. If not, then I would ask if you applied this consistently by being a vegetarian and opposing animal (and human) research?
Ethics and morals have already been thrown out the window.
Then at least be consistant in your view and also endorse cannibalism to solve the problem of world hunger. Since you are so free of moral limits, you could start by putting yourself on the table. =)
Seriously, it's not even clear what your position is. Are you against the war, but for killing embryos? Are you for both? You seem to say they are the same- supporting my view that this research is killing human life- but then you are opposed to one, but not the other.
That is nonsense.
I didn't mean to imply that more brain waves = smarter people, though I can see how it read that way. But people do measure intelligence, and some do feel superior if they are smarter. If this criteria is used as a minimum, why not take the next logical step and judge the relative value of a person based on their IQ? I'm not saying that you personally do this, just that it seems to me that is the next step if one uses brain activity as the only litmus test for personhood.
I should also point out that most people who share your view do not apply it fully. I have yet to hear anybody advocate testing the embryo for brain activity before abortion.
Good points. As for the exact "moment" being itself a process, I'd think that if one were looking to nail down a nano-second it would be when the new entity becomes something distinct from it's parent. The resolution to which that exact moment is measurable today may be limited, but for practical purposes, it is enough to say that it begins at conception. Preventing it from happening is a technically different thing from halting it once it's occured.
Which brings up your next good point- it happens it nature all the time, so why is it worse if we make it happen? You actually answer this yourself. People die naturally, but we outlaw murder. We do this because most people have moral objections to killing another human being. Some base this on social frameworks (social relativism), some on personal frameworks (individual relativism), some on a theological basis. It is, in my mind, the exact same issue here. If the being is human and alive, then to intentionally end its life is murder. The fact that some die naturally or accidentally does not have a direct impact on the issue, just as the fact that some people die in car accidents does not make vehicular homicide OK.
Thus, the only real question is when does one become a live human being. Personally, I think the extremes are to say it begins before conception or that it begins with self-awareness. I can understand why some would say it begins with brain activity, but this still has illogical conslusions. To me the most logically defensible position is to say it begins at conception.
Does this solve all our ethical problems? Of course not. But my main point was to show the weakness of the argument that "it could save lives", that the real issue is "when does a human life begin?", and to present what I think is the answer to that question.
Perhaps I should have said "when a life begins." Sure life began long ago, but every day new lives are beginning. Obviously sluffed skin is something distinct from a human child. It may contain the potential to become a full child, but it is in its current state not a human life. It may be considered alive, but is not a life.
It is not so obvious to me that an embryo is distinct from a human child, since it is not the same entity as either parent, and defining the " "line" anywhere else has illogical conclusions if applied consistantly. Like many others, you've taken the "brain waves = life" line, which if applied consistantly means that smarter people are superior to less educated. What would be your objection to genetically engineering a superior human race by sterilizing people with low IQs and cloning people with high IQs?
in fact, life must begin even before conception
Sorry you misunderstood the post. I think life begins when a unique (or in the case of cloning, new) organism is in it's first stage distinguishable from the parent.
As I said in another reply, I do in fact think all life has value, but human life especially so. I believe it is ethical to kill animals and plants for food and within certain limits for research. To turn your argument on you, you must believe that anything is acceptable, even if it harms people. I take it you are a practicing cannibal.
You final argument is that some people were persecuted for research. Indeed. And some people- such as the Nazis- have done irreprehesible things in the name of science because they took the logical conclusions of the very premise you are now advocating.
Every sperm is sacred, eh?
Nope. From zygote on is. I addressed your opinion in my post, but here's a bit more to consider: If brain function is the prerequisite for life, then it also becomes the measure of the quality of life. Those with more brain function are "more alive". Those with little or none have less worthy lives. Continuing down the slippery slope, mentally ill could be justifiably executed. Typically most people don't follow it to that conclusion, but especially us nerd types do tend to think in terms of mental superiority.
By your measure plants and single-celled organisms would not constitute life. Obviously, we're mainly talking about human life in this discussion, but as I see it all life begins at conception (or asexually in some cases)- but humans are a higher form of life. In terms of ethics this means all life demands respect, but certain things do not apply for animals and plants. Most people adhere to this too, since most people are not cannibals.
An argument for this technology strictly from the perspective that it "could save lives" is a weak argument. The human research conducted by Nazi Germany could "save lives". Shoving hot spikes in people's toenails would no doubt teach us alot about pain and perhaps lead to better pain relievers.
Fortunately, most people- even those who deny it-have some sort of moral sense prohibiting the logical conclusion of "anything in the name of science", or more broadly "the ends justify the means".
This argument also has the very un-scientific assumption that the hypothesis is correct. This technology could cost lives. This research could prevent funding on research into umbilical cord stem cells. So the person who says it should be done because it "could save lives" has actually already made up their mind that it will, and refuses to consider any other possibilities.
The question then is not whether this technology can save lives, but whether it is ethical to procede in this fashion. Here, the core issue is when life begins. If it begins at the zygote stage, then this technology is murdering for scientific gain. The trouble is, there is no clear-cut way of drawing that line- is it when the organism is self aware? Then abortion should be acceptable several months- even years- after birth. Is it when heart activity starts? The problem with this is that we know a person may be alive and recussitated for several minutes after his heart has stopped. Brain activity? Then maybe those with less brain activity- Alzheimer's patients, mentally ill etc.- should be killed as well, since their life is of less value by that criteria.
No, the only logical point to say life has started is at the very beginning. Researchers have the unique challenge of finding ways to enhance human life without taking or harming it. Granted this can be difficult, but I have confidence that people can work within ethical limits and still find honorable ways to do the things they are now trying to do through cloning and abortion.
Why do we need them to care? Frankly, I don't care about them either. As a consumer, I want low prices on quality products, not a hug and a lollipop when I walk in the store. And I don't see how that means I'm getting screwed by "big business"- if I don't like their product, or think it cost too much, I don't buy from them. If I can find rebates or haggle a lower price, I could care less what it does to their bottom line. But if some guy can get rich giving me what I want, good for him- we both win.
Way I see it, you have two choices: big business or big government. I think the later is way more likely to screw you over than the former.
"Guerilla marketing" schemes are taking off
Text-ads are being prooven more effective
Studies are showing consumers are fed up with mass-marketing
I also think consumers are more informed and have more choices than ever. If you put it all together, it seems inevitable that advertising will become more targeted and concise in its message.
That said, plenty of advertisers are way out of touch. For example, there is presently a moronic woman dancing across my TV with her dust mop. You just guaranteed I will never buy your product.
I'm all for a spam solution coming from private enterprise as opposed to legislation- in fact, I think the former is the only method that has a chance of working. Maybe Yahoo's attempt will help, maybe they'll waste a bunch of money trying, but I guaruntee it's less money and less waste than Congress or the FCC doing the same thing.
...Sony also announced today that it's newest CD player will support the superior 8-track and Vinyl formats. In addition, plans are underway to scrap the existing DVD line of products for the ultra-lo definition VHS format.