They do mention in the article that complex organs such as a liver or a kidney are a long way off. It does sound like science fiction, but if they can at least start with what they claim :
"I believe in five years we're going to be able to print simple organs, such as a cardiovascular network or a urethra,"
I think that it is a good step to actually growing organs for people. Just because something is science fiction today doesn't mean it will be in the future.
Of course, the longetivity and compatibility of the organs is always the largest hurdle when dealing with transplants in general. Just like in transplants, these two issues will be paramount in new endeavors. My question is, how long do these organs really last? That is the largest question on whether this will stay science fiction or if it will become routine procedure in 10 years. If the complex procedure only lasts 5 years, it may be more worthwhile to get an actual transplant.
"I've played a few MMO games, and many of them are very repetitive. I myself have considered trying to write some macroing programs, because hey, I'm paying for the time, and I believe in automation.:) Besides, trying to write something to automate such a complicated game system as most MMOs provide is a nontrivial, and tempting, challenge (for me). "
But, this software also keeps hacks, cheats and duping programs at bay. Those are the true things that ruin games such as diablo 2. You can macro all day and hurt no one at all. But a cheat (or hack) can ruin someone else's game experiance. Duping programs are the worse of the bunch as they will ruin trading completly and that in itself will ruin the game for everyone.
Macroing is only a small part of what this software prevents, and is the lesser of the evils it prevents.
" I don't think people who write these kinds of tools that Blizzard is trying to stop are necessarily bad. "
Some may not be. I would be willing to bet that most people who write programs to macro will also write programs to cheat, hack or dupe. I have no sympathy for them. These items do ruin the game for everyone else, and there is no way anyone can defend those types of programs.
The outwitting of humans only works because humans in general are ill-equiped to actually kill smaller rodents. The best thing to kill them is a smaller predator such as a large cat (maybe for smaller rats) and a dog (perferably a dachsund imo).
As for us killing them off, well humans have for years helped them out inadvertantly.
Being scavengers, our food stockpiles are great for them to use for an easy meal.
And killing off their natural predators. Anything from the killing of the cats in the middle ages because they were "witches familiars" to killing off wolves and other predators in nature also helps them survive.
In short, I am not sure if you could credit their survival of humanity to anything other then humans blundering when it comes to rats. Granted they are intelligent, but their survival of humanity has more to do with us not really doing the right things to kill them off. Traps, poison, and even isolation seem to not be enough as evidenced with this miracle rat.
In addition, lots of people have rats as pets now, so the odds are even lower that we will ever rid ourselves of this "menace". Their long-term survival probably has more to do with how well they bond with humans then their intelligence.
The EU did threaten the US. If the US does not change the current system to "something favorable" to the EU, they are going to stop talks on internet cooperation on issues such as spam and other things. This was from a previous article featured on slashdot.
"The current US administration and its whole "business/military/media/lobbyist" political system has really dealt a blow on US standing: it is not trusted in any matter, except by some East Europeans and Tony Blair."
What does that have to do with ICANN? ICANN has been around much longer then the "current US administration".
"Is a private company more trusworthy than the UN? No again."
The UN has been involved in scandals. And since ICANN has yet to be involved in a scandal, I do not see how you can defend the UN over ICANN without any sort of proof.
"The EU is right in its attempt to broke a _fair_ deal to address this, not against the US, but with it"
I agree, at the very least they should work together. But the EU has been threatening the US if they don't turn over control to the UN. How is that "working with" the US? I still have yet to see how the US is at fault here when every other indication seems to scream a power grab attempt by the UN/EU.
And where does this idea that the US threatened anyone with DNS server problems come from? I will not deny it happened, but I haven't read any claims of this from official channels.
"This system is already implemented widely in Japan. There have been several panics about food poisoning in various types of fresh vegetables, which is usually associated with specific batches from specific farms, but the panic causes drops in sales of all vegetables of that type. "
I think that is a great idea for what happens in Japan. Maybe this is a better reason to implement this system in the US/Canada,etc. as well. To implement the system because we can not trust large corporations seems to be spending money on a new system simply because technology can solve every moral dilema out there.
Also, we already have laws and other entities in place to supposedly oversee this process. I will not argue that the current system is perfect, but to seriously track this many items (even if done at the crate level) will be expensive. The tags themselves will be chump change compared to the databases, readers and other requirements for such a system that need to be installed at every location that the item moves to. Besides the fact that if a corporation is putting addictive illegal substances into the food, they will find some way to hide that aspect from the RFID tags anyway. In that case, you are stuck with a technology that is expensive and worthless.
If we just install the system at the source and destination locations, the cost is much lower, and there is legitimate good that can come from it. if Mad Cow disease or some other disease is a concern, it would be easy to seperate out the infected product much easier. Just like what is currently done in Japan. Plus, a cool feature: You can find out where the beef actually came from in the burger you are about to eat.
I was about to argue against the system because of the cost, but this application of it does show a lot of promise. I just hope it is implemented more like this then in the article version. Installing technology will not change everyone into moral robots who do the right thing.
"The entire idea is that the U.S. going back on its years-old promise to turn DNS over to ICANN is being seen, by itself, as abusing its position as internet governor."
If that was really the issue here, then why isn't the EU simply asking the US to stick to its old promise?
"However, I don't think central control is a good idea."
Please elaborate and tell me why this is better... I have heard this argument in every post in favor of removing ICANN's importance, and yet no one has really told why its such a good idea. I can infer that people resent American control, and are afraid we will take advantage of this, and yet there is no proof that we have or will take advantage of this position.
Personally, I think change may be a good thing in some instances, but changes to fix something should come with some proof of a concept that is better then what is currently implemented.
Come up with a system that is superior, and I will support it. What I want to see is a system that keeps any government body from having a chance to corrupt it. The proposals don't seem to keep that from happening anymore then the current US system. The only difference in the systems seems to be who controls it, and since the UN has also been involved in scandals just like every governing entity in the world, who is to say the UN will be impartial?
One thing I will add, is that I resent the EU in threatening to drop cooperation with the US in fighting spammers. I just deleted 100 spam emails, and seeing someone try to blackmail my country by hurting me and every other internet user seems to be shady. Correct me if I am wrong, but why should the US want to cooperate with someone who threatens us like that?
Studio 321 manufactured software that overcame encryption on DVD's so that you could make legal copies of it for your own use. They went out of the way to keep people from pirating DVD's, and yet they were still shut down in the case 321 studios Vs. MGM. Completly unfair.
And yet, their software has never been deemed illegal to own, its just illegal to sell it and/or distribute it. So, in the context of simply owning the software, you shouldn't get prosecuted. Then again, you never know as was said.
"nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."
That is from the DMCA. Its pretty clear that you are fine as long as what you are doing falls under fair usage. This includes writing your own software to overcome encryption on your legally purchased DVD's.
I am not going to argue with you on the free speech issue. That means I do disagree with you, but what the heck. here are the reasons I think the DMCA should be repealed:
1. The law contradicts itself in at least 2 places. 2. Favors copyright owners more then it should. 3. Circumventing encryption is too general of wording. Makes putting encryption on devices a powerful tool to keep people from enjoying fair usage. Like with DVD's...
"Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "
Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)
Thats one of the reasons I disagree with the DMCA in that you can write software to overcome encryption for fair use, but you can't distribute, or otherwise give it away. Or put another way, the wheel has to be reinvented everytime.
"How is the DMCA even constitutional?"
It was passed by congress, and does not trash any rights promised in the Constitution. There are only two ways to overturn this flawed law. The first is for a constitutional amendment which will probably never happen. And for congress to wake up.
"Oh wait, the Supreme Court just shit on that back in June. "
The supreme court simply interprets laws based on how your congress writes them. Blame congress for making such a flawed law. The only way the Judicial Branch overturns laws is if they are against the Constitution. And guess what, the constitution says that congress decides what rights intellectual property owners get.
So don't blame the Judicial Branch, they are just doing their jobs. They have no authority to overturn the DMCA at all.
"I'd like to see Level 3 get sued for $100M wrongful death as a result of this action."
First, you would have to assume a physician is prudent and has multiple connections. If all of the connections go down at the same time except for one of them, and that one is down because of a certain company refusing traffic, I could very well see this becoming a lawsuit.
Is this probable? No.
I am not arguing that you can trust the internet to be up or down at any time, but I am arguing that forcefully pulling connections down because of a buisness dispute is unethical and is dangerous for liability.
"People used to go to concerts, too, but my last concert was $95/ticket for an fairly-unknown electronica band -- the crowd was thin."
I have went to a few concerts in the last few years, and they were packed. Its probably the band(s) you chose. Although I may buy less CD's with ITunes, etc. out there, I still like to go to concerts just as much as I did before the MP3 revolution.
And I still listen to the radio. When I get tired of my playlists on my MP3 player, I have to find new music I like somewhere. I just haven't springed for the old satellite radio yet.
And yet, your statement here:
"Don't hate the RIAA, they're already not a concern. It's like hating VHS Macrovision."
Is so true. Copy protecting radio is worthless because I don't see why anyone would bother recording a song on the radio when its so easy to download it either for free or from ITunes.
It is absolutly like putting a band-aid on a corpse.
For one, to argue against your idea and the grandparent's post, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Iraq is like Afghanistan.
And yes, there is a difference. The Soviets found out the hard way how truly expensive such a war was. They pulled out due to the toll.
We don't need a draft to win Iraq, we just need about 10 years. Be patient. In fact, they are pulling some troops out of the country. A draft will not happen. And before you say anything about my political leaning (you are partially right), but I believe George W. is an idiot for getting us into the Iraq mess. And for lying.
The scary thing about all of this is that next time we won't know how wrong George W. actually was. Nuke the WMD's. The world is now a safer place with one less city. And the top news story: "We destroyed the evidence, but be assured we were at least 50% sure the WMD's were in that city. "
And the bright side to all of this:
It might help our national debt to nuke someone as opposed to spending millions on military men searching for the fountain of youth. Or WMD's in this case. whichever you want to call it.
"So from a human perspective it would be pissing in the wind trying to change a hurricane."
The theory states two things (from the article)
1. We are using chaos theory. This states that small changes in the beginning of an event can perbutuate and cause large changes later on. Even so, it would take so much power to change the hurricane even in its first steps, that it is not feasible to think about this as a practical theory today.
2. The theory also states you need to accuratly be able to predict weather patterns before this will work. Otherwise, how would you know what to change in order to get the hurricane to go where you want it to?
So, yes, we MIGHT be able to do this far in the future, but today, no.
"I submit to you that there are no materials valuable enough to justify the energy required to move that much mass to the inner solar system, in any reasonable amount of time."
I believe you are making a point that is true today, but 10, 15,100 years from now, who knows? With better technology, you just can't tell.
Mining is all about return vs. investment, and with as much as some things increase in price you can not really predict when it will become profitable to mine something even that far out.
Its especially premature to knock the idea when we are unsure what the composition of these objects is. We still discover valuable resources here on Earth that we had no clue about....
"Even if you dont have the faintest idea about how to produce it you can get a patent and you can reap the benefits as soon as someone manages to make a product out of the idea, even if the idea is a century old"
For one, in order to patent an object, you have to document how to create it. In the words of current law, an expert in the field should be able to recreate your invention without undue experimentation.
And another, patents only last 20 years, so patenting an invention that will not be around for 50 years will do you no good.
Lots of people patent obvious ideas, and they may make money on them. but the law is supposed to work where only non-obvious AND novel ideas can enjoy patent protection.
In our current case, it will probably be rejected, because this is more like a recipe where obvious technology such as an online store and barcode readers are combined to form a cool system. sure, the idea is new, but that does not make the entire process novel and thus patentable.
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
First, there are file sharers who also download music, and there are people who just download music and don't share.
We know that the big music companies are suffering from earnings that are going down yearly at an increasing rate. So they are trying to stop people from downloading music, and therefore the logical conclusion from their perspective is to stop people from sharing the music.
But they are in denial as so many people have said. Their corporate strategy is dead as of the emergence of napster. Instead of changing their distribution method, they try to hold onto an old archaic distribution method that does not work.
The smart thing to do would be to reorganize, but instead they go after file sharers who apperantly support them more then others who just download the music. This really is logical in a sense as I said, but as the thread starter said, they are really shooting themselves in the foot.
Now, their largest supporters are going to turn against them as well, and so their buisness model will crumble even faster. For everyone that said they have every right to do this, I agree, but it still doesn't mean it isn't stupid of them.
Fact is, lots of people choose careers because of how they are portrayed in the media.
Why do so many people try to become actors or professional athletes?
I am sure if all the professional waitors in LA saw what their life was really going to be like, they would have chosen a different field.
Or how about computer science? How many of us computer nerds saw hackers the movie when we were young and turn out to really like it and want to do it as a career? I actually know some people who did that and to this day still work with computers.
Now they aren't hackers, but most people who watch CSI are not going to be technicians who solve every crime and work with beautiful women. I mean, in CSI, even the nerdy technician is cooler then most people I know.
Although increases in efficiency are good, and it would be hard to argue that it had no effect, I still wonder if the underlying reason for the slower growth is less people buying their first computer and getting connected for the first time.
You really can never tell, but P2P is the brunt of so much critisism its kind of hard to mesh out what the truth really is.
"companies will be able to search for an RFID tag without requiring connected links between each point of the tag's travels. "
How do you make sure you connect to the RIGHT RFID tag? Just because a tag has a certain ID does not make it the right one. They need to really address this right now imo.
You are close to what I would think would be interesting, the fact that satellites could position or reposition themselves with sails instead of rockets, and thus save costly refuel missions. This would apply for even geo-stationary orbits in case they get out of correct positions...
I kind of think it is funny, but first I must say that every company has hiccups occasionally when a product first comes out.
But the funny part, IE for years unfairly competed with netscape, and now netscape is doing it back to them by destroying their browser's ability to handle XML documents...
Now the question, did they do this on purpose you think and not think about what would really happen?
Slashdot Mirror
They do mention in the article that complex organs such as a liver or a kidney are a long way off. It does sound like science fiction, but if they can at least start with what they claim :
"I believe in five years we're going to be able to print simple organs, such as a cardiovascular network or a urethra,"
I think that it is a good step to actually growing organs for people. Just because something is science fiction today doesn't mean it will be in the future.
Of course, the longetivity and compatibility of the organs is always the largest hurdle when dealing with transplants in general. Just like in transplants, these two issues will be paramount in new endeavors. My question is, how long do these organs really last? That is the largest question on whether this will stay science fiction or if it will become routine procedure in 10 years. If the complex procedure only lasts 5 years, it may be more worthwhile to get an actual transplant.
"I've played a few MMO games, and many of them are very repetitive. I myself have considered trying to write some macroing programs, because hey, I'm paying for the time, and I believe in automation. :) Besides, trying to write something to automate such a complicated game system as most MMOs provide is a nontrivial, and tempting, challenge (for me). "
But, this software also keeps hacks, cheats and duping programs at bay. Those are the true things that ruin games such as diablo 2. You can macro all day and hurt no one at all. But a cheat (or hack) can ruin someone else's game experiance. Duping programs are the worse of the bunch as they will ruin trading completly and that in itself will ruin the game for everyone.
Macroing is only a small part of what this software prevents, and is the lesser of the evils it prevents.
" I don't think people who write these kinds of tools that Blizzard is trying to stop are necessarily bad. "
Some may not be. I would be willing to bet that most people who write programs to macro will also write programs to cheat, hack or dupe. I have no sympathy for them. These items do ruin the game for everyone else, and there is no way anyone can defend those types of programs.
The outwitting of humans only works because humans in general are ill-equiped to actually kill smaller rodents. The best thing to kill them is a smaller predator such as a large cat (maybe for smaller rats) and a dog (perferably a dachsund imo).
As for us killing them off, well humans have for years helped them out inadvertantly.
Being scavengers, our food stockpiles are great for them to use for an easy meal.
And killing off their natural predators. Anything from the killing of the cats in the middle ages because they were "witches familiars" to killing off wolves and other predators in nature also helps them survive.
In short, I am not sure if you could credit their survival of humanity to anything other then humans blundering when it comes to rats. Granted they are intelligent, but their survival of humanity has more to do with us not really doing the right things to kill them off. Traps, poison, and even isolation seem to not be enough as evidenced with this miracle rat.
In addition, lots of people have rats as pets now, so the odds are even lower that we will ever rid ourselves of this "menace". Their long-term survival probably has more to do with how well they bond with humans then their intelligence.
The EU did threaten the US. If the US does not change the current system to "something favorable" to the EU, they are going to stop talks on internet cooperation on issues such as spam and other things. This was from a previous article featured on slashdot.
"The current US administration and its whole "business/military/media/lobbyist" political system has really dealt a blow on US standing: it is not trusted in any matter, except by some East Europeans and Tony Blair."
What does that have to do with ICANN? ICANN has been around much longer then the "current US administration".
"Is a private company more trusworthy than the UN? No again."
The UN has been involved in scandals. And since ICANN has yet to be involved in a scandal, I do not see how you can defend the UN over ICANN without any sort of proof.
"The EU is right in its attempt to broke a _fair_ deal to address this, not against the US, but with it"
I agree, at the very least they should work together. But the EU has been threatening the US if they don't turn over control to the UN. How is that "working with" the US? I still have yet to see how the US is at fault here when every other indication seems to scream a power grab attempt by the UN/EU.
And where does this idea that the US threatened anyone with DNS server problems come from? I will not deny it happened, but I haven't read any claims of this from official channels.
"This system is already implemented widely in Japan. There have been several panics about food poisoning in various types of fresh vegetables, which is usually associated with specific batches from specific farms, but the panic causes drops in sales of all vegetables of that type. "
I think that is a great idea for what happens in Japan. Maybe this is a better reason to implement this system in the US/Canada,etc. as well. To implement the system because we can not trust large corporations seems to be spending money on a new system simply because technology can solve every moral dilema out there.
Also, we already have laws and other entities in place to supposedly oversee this process. I will not argue that the current system is perfect, but to seriously track this many items (even if done at the crate level) will be expensive. The tags themselves will be chump change compared to the databases, readers and other requirements for such a system that need to be installed at every location that the item moves to. Besides the fact that if a corporation is putting addictive illegal substances into the food, they will find some way to hide that aspect from the RFID tags anyway. In that case, you are stuck with a technology that is expensive and worthless.
If we just install the system at the source and destination locations, the cost is much lower, and there is legitimate good that can come from it. if Mad Cow disease or some other disease is a concern, it would be easy to seperate out the infected product much easier. Just like what is currently done in Japan. Plus, a cool feature: You can find out where the beef actually came from in the burger you are about to eat.
I was about to argue against the system because of the cost, but this application of it does show a lot of promise. I just hope it is implemented more like this then in the article version. Installing technology will not change everyone into moral robots who do the right thing.
"The entire idea is that the U.S. going back on its years-old promise to turn DNS over to ICANN is being seen, by itself, as abusing its position as internet governor."
If that was really the issue here, then why isn't the EU simply asking the US to stick to its old promise?
"However, I don't think central control is a good idea."
Please elaborate and tell me why this is better... I have heard this argument in every post in favor of removing ICANN's importance, and yet no one has really told why its such a good idea. I can infer that people resent American control, and are afraid we will take advantage of this, and yet there is no proof that we have or will take advantage of this position.
Personally, I think change may be a good thing in some instances, but changes to fix something should come with some proof of a concept that is better then what is currently implemented.
Come up with a system that is superior, and I will support it. What I want to see is a system that keeps any government body from having a chance to corrupt it. The proposals don't seem to keep that from happening anymore then the current US system. The only difference in the systems seems to be who controls it, and since the UN has also been involved in scandals just like every governing entity in the world, who is to say the UN will be impartial?
One thing I will add, is that I resent the EU in threatening to drop cooperation with the US in fighting spammers. I just deleted 100 spam emails, and seeing someone try to blackmail my country by hurting me and every other internet user seems to be shady. Correct me if I am wrong, but why should the US want to cooperate with someone who threatens us like that?
Studio 321 manufactured software that overcame encryption on DVD's so that you could make legal copies of it for your own use. They went out of the way to keep people from pirating DVD's, and yet they were still shut down in the case 321 studios Vs. MGM. Completly unfair.
And yet, their software has never been deemed illegal to own, its just illegal to sell it and/or distribute it. So, in the context of simply owning the software, you shouldn't get prosecuted. Then again, you never know as was said.
"nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."
That is from the DMCA. Its pretty clear that you are fine as long as what you are doing falls under fair usage. This includes writing your own software to overcome encryption on your legally purchased DVD's.
I am not going to argue with you on the free speech issue. That means I do disagree with you, but what the heck. here are the reasons I think the DMCA should be repealed:
1. The law contradicts itself in at least 2 places.
2. Favors copyright owners more then it should.
3. Circumventing encryption is too general of wording. Makes putting encryption on devices a powerful tool to keep people from enjoying fair usage. Like with DVD's...
"Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc? "
Nothing is stopping you from doing just that. The law actually prohibits distributing, selling, and/or giving away such software. You are perfectly within your rights to write your own software to bypass what is on a DVD, etc. That is, as long as you are engaging in fair usage. (archival purposes, educational, etc.)
Thats one of the reasons I disagree with the DMCA in that you can write software to overcome encryption for fair use, but you can't distribute, or otherwise give it away. Or put another way, the wheel has to be reinvented everytime.
"How is the DMCA even constitutional?"
It was passed by congress, and does not trash any rights promised in the Constitution. There are only two ways to overturn this flawed law. The first is for a constitutional amendment which will probably never happen. And for congress to wake up.
"Oh wait, the Supreme Court just shit on that back in June. "
The supreme court simply interprets laws based on how your congress writes them. Blame congress for making such a flawed law. The only way the Judicial Branch overturns laws is if they are against the Constitution. And guess what, the constitution says that congress decides what rights intellectual property owners get.
So don't blame the Judicial Branch, they are just doing their jobs. They have no authority to overturn the DMCA at all.
"I'd like to see Level 3 get sued for $100M wrongful death as a result of this action."
First, you would have to assume a physician is prudent and has multiple connections. If all of the connections go down at the same time except for one of them, and that one is down because of a certain company refusing traffic, I could very well see this becoming a lawsuit.
Is this probable? No.
I am not arguing that you can trust the internet to be up or down at any time, but I am arguing that forcefully pulling connections down because of a buisness dispute is unethical and is dangerous for liability.
I thank you for pointing out that springed ain't a word. I appreciate your diligence.
I also misspelled a word, big deal. You misspelled yeeesh, so there you go.
You missed a big one. In my original post, I started two sentences with "and". What would your English Teacher say about that?
"People used to go to concerts, too, but my last concert was $95/ticket for an fairly-unknown electronica band -- the crowd was thin."
I have went to a few concerts in the last few years, and they were packed. Its probably the band(s) you chose. Although I may buy less CD's with ITunes, etc. out there, I still like to go to concerts just as much as I did before the MP3 revolution.
And I still listen to the radio. When I get tired of my playlists on my MP3 player, I have to find new music I like somewhere. I just haven't springed for the old satellite radio yet.
And yet, your statement here:
"Don't hate the RIAA, they're already not a concern. It's like hating VHS Macrovision."
Is so true. Copy protecting radio is worthless because I don't see why anyone would bother recording a song on the radio when its so easy to download it either for free or from ITunes.
It is absolutly like putting a band-aid on a corpse.
For one, to argue against your idea and the grandparent's post, Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Iraq is like Afghanistan.
And yes, there is a difference. The Soviets found out the hard way how truly expensive such a war was. They pulled out due to the toll.
We don't need a draft to win Iraq, we just need about 10 years. Be patient. In fact, they are pulling some troops out of the country. A draft will not happen. And before you say anything about my political leaning (you are partially right), but I believe George W. is an idiot for getting us into the Iraq mess. And for lying.
The scary thing about all of this is that next time we won't know how wrong George W. actually was. Nuke the WMD's. The world is now a safer place with one less city. And the top news story: "We destroyed the evidence, but be assured we were at least 50% sure the WMD's were in that city. "
And the bright side to all of this:
It might help our national debt to nuke someone as opposed to spending millions on military men searching for the fountain of youth. Or WMD's in this case. whichever you want to call it.
Just makes me want to cry....
"So from a human perspective it would be pissing in the wind trying to change a hurricane."
The theory states two things (from the article)
1. We are using chaos theory. This states that small changes in the beginning of an event can perbutuate and cause large changes later on. Even so, it would take so much power to change the hurricane even in its first steps, that it is not feasible to think about this as a practical theory today.
2. The theory also states you need to accuratly be able to predict weather patterns before this will work. Otherwise, how would you know what to change in order to get the hurricane to go where you want it to?
So, yes, we MIGHT be able to do this far in the future, but today, no.
"I submit to you that there are no materials valuable enough to justify the energy required to move that much mass to the inner solar system, in any reasonable amount of time."
I believe you are making a point that is true today, but 10, 15,100 years from now, who knows? With better technology, you just can't tell.
Mining is all about return vs. investment, and with as much as some things increase in price you can not really predict when it will become profitable to mine something even that far out.
Its especially premature to knock the idea when we are unsure what the composition of these objects is. We still discover valuable resources here on Earth that we had no clue about....
"Even if you dont have the faintest idea about how to produce it you can get a patent and you can reap the benefits as soon as someone manages to make a product out of the idea, even if the idea is a century old"
For one, in order to patent an object, you have to document how to create it. In the words of current law, an expert in the field should be able to recreate your invention without undue experimentation.
And another, patents only last 20 years, so patenting an invention that will not be around for 50 years will do you no good.
Lots of people patent obvious ideas, and they may make money on them. but the law is supposed to work where only non-obvious AND novel ideas can enjoy patent protection.
In our current case, it will probably be rejected, because this is more like a recipe where obvious technology such as an online store and barcode readers are combined to form a cool system. sure, the idea is new, but that does not make the entire process novel and thus patentable.
"I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
First, there are file sharers who also download music, and there are people who just download music and don't share.
We know that the big music companies are suffering from earnings that are going down yearly at an increasing rate. So they are trying to stop people from downloading music, and therefore the logical conclusion from their perspective is to stop people from sharing the music.
But they are in denial as so many people have said. Their corporate strategy is dead as of the emergence of napster. Instead of changing their distribution method, they try to hold onto an old archaic distribution method that does not work.
The smart thing to do would be to reorganize, but instead they go after file sharers who apperantly support them more then others who just download the music. This really is logical in a sense as I said, but as the thread starter said, they are really shooting themselves in the foot.
Now, their largest supporters are going to turn against them as well, and so their buisness model will crumble even faster. For everyone that said they have every right to do this, I agree, but it still doesn't mean it isn't stupid of them.
2006 budget?
Aren't we still on the 2005 budget?
And how the heck would a study help for this storm when it probably would not have been finished until 2006 at the very least.
As for the hiring freeze, thats the only argument you can use, but still those people would still be inexperianced today.
Fact is, lots of people choose careers because of how they are portrayed in the media.
Why do so many people try to become actors or professional athletes?
I am sure if all the professional waitors in LA saw what their life was really going to be like, they would have chosen a different field.
Or how about computer science? How many of us computer nerds saw hackers the movie when we were young and turn out to really like it and want to do it as a career? I actually know some people who did that and to this day still work with computers.
Now they aren't hackers, but most people who watch CSI are not going to be technicians who solve every crime and work with beautiful women. I mean, in CSI, even the nerdy technician is cooler then most people I know.
Although increases in efficiency are good, and it would be hard to argue that it had no effect, I still wonder if the underlying reason for the slower growth is less people buying their first computer and getting connected for the first time.
You really can never tell, but P2P is the brunt of so much critisism its kind of hard to mesh out what the truth really is.
"companies will be able to search for an RFID tag without requiring connected links between each point of the tag's travels. "
How do you make sure you connect to the RIGHT RFID tag? Just because a tag has a certain ID does not make it the right one. They need to really address this right now imo.
You are close to what I would think would be interesting, the fact that satellites could position or reposition themselves with sails instead of rockets, and thus save costly refuel missions. This would apply for even geo-stationary orbits in case they get out of correct positions...
I kind of think it is funny, but first I must say that every company has hiccups occasionally when a product first comes out.
But the funny part, IE for years unfairly competed with netscape, and now netscape is doing it back to them by destroying their browser's ability to handle XML documents...
Now the question, did they do this on purpose you think and not think about what would really happen?