Yeah. All this technology, so you can continue stuffing crap into you and not moving your ass. Got 100 pounds of fat on you, rotting teeth and a dumbed down brain? Just fix it. I'll learn nothing from it and eat that shit again, and again. Got a broken leg? Just fix it. I'll learn nothing from it, and break it again. Just fix it. So I don't have to change or think. Because what world would that be?
I really really wish, there was a large and dangerous predator, who would eat all those who weren't fit enough. Maybe a pandemic. We are so many people, that the individual person does not have to be able to survive anything anymore. Put any of those chubby losers out there, and they can't even find something to eat or live in, in a jungle!
Did you ever imagine, that teeth are made to eat, by nature? So under normal conditions, they will not rot and hurt! But when was the last time, a person form the so-called "developed" countries ate species-appropriate food??
I know for 15 years, that the brain entered a transformation 50-60 years ago. There was a study that showed, that the brain of people after that time significantly differs from that of a person born earlier. The brain adjusted to the overstimulation of ads, and all that stuff happening, be creating a new ability: The ability to shut everything else out. That's the reason people can live with all the ads and lights around them. And that's the reason that people can throw trash on the streets and still be for environmental protection at the same time.
Old people have huge problems with overstimulation not only because they're old, but also because of their old-style brain.
This change happened very quickly for evolutionary scales. And I'm pretty sure it's not over. Give humanity 20-30 years, and our brains will have adapted fine. No need to worry.
Point is: They are not big anymore. More like the Tiny 4. I have had a friend in music business, who was a personal friend of some high music bosses (especially SonyBMG), and he told me, that the whole music industry isn't bigger than some irrelevant industry like the toilet brush industry (can't remember the exact industry, but it was tiny!).
Think of it: Count the income or the people that work for those four. And then compare them so other industies. They're a joke! It would not take long to completely kill them off. Just a little bit more DRM fuckups, and they're gone for good.
Meanwhile, small independent labels are booming, since P2P is the best marketing they ever got (to quote the CEO of such a small label). I can only say that this is true, because since I'm listening to ShoutCast-radios, I've heard of so many new cool bands that never made it to the charts, normal radio or tv. I'm listening to British DnB, French house and Russian big beat. It's the best thing that ever happened to music!
That's what ICQ (or more recently Jabber/XMPP) is for! You can send one-to-many messages there too.
Maybe Twitter is the webmailer of the messenger systems. Just as stupid. Also a step in the wrong direction. I bet this will all continue, as soon as someone writes an OS in "AJAX / Web 2.0", then a "Browser". Then "web"sites for it.... until someone comes up with an "interactive" way of writing "applications" for those "sites".
It's called "the inner platform anti-pattern". Avoid it!;)
You still live in the illusionary world, where companies care for anything other than more money? Why do you think, they call them "human resources"? Because you don't work with resources. You use them. And when you used them up, you throw away the empty shells.
They don't even need to attempt to cover anything. It's just you, thinking they had some kind of conscience.
If Microsoft does anything at all, it is, to make more money. There are no second objectives.
And this is not a MS-specific thing. It's the foundation of all capitalism and all companies. This is why some people hate capitalism. I don't hate. I just think that there is no better alternative yet.
OMG. This is no joke: I thought Richard Stallman and Eric S. Raymond were the same guy, for the last YEARS! I never thought that there would be two crazy bearded men loving weapons and GNU!
Aah... A typical (-1, Disagree). Guys, maybe you've never seen anything better, and for that I pity you, but OOo really is a load of crap.
The usability is stuck in the 80s. The software interfaces are a huge unstructured mess. The code is bloated in a way that makes Vista look lean.
One example are the formatting options. Modal tool boxes, called trough sub-menus? Are they completely insane?? Then the typical icon bars... for a text editor... yeah, right. Have fun jumping between mouse and keyboard like you're a DJ scratching his turntables. Now on to modularity (the interface thing). I took a look at the code structure, and there seems to be no module system, and no proper plug-in interface. (Like in Miranda IM, Firefox, Photoshop, or Cubase (VST)) So for most stuff you end up patching the code anyway. Finally the load times. There are two main indicators that your code is a bloated sluggish mess. Level 1: The splash screen: When your app starts so slow, that users would think it crashed or did not start at all, unless you add something that comes up quicker. Level 2: The preloader: When even the splash screen hangs on the desktop for more than half a minute, while trashing HDD, RAM and putting 100% load on the CPU.
What OOo is missing, is the 5 years of completely rewriting the whole code, that NN had to do, to become Firefox. And even Firefox is bad for needing five years.
As soon as I have some free cash-throwaway-time from what I'm developing now, I'll help solve this mess.:)
In Germany, we have 3 different words for "free" when used as in beer, and a law defining what each word means, when used in business. There is "gratis", "kostenlos" (no cost), and some other term I forgot. Then of course there is the word "frei" (free) too. I noticed, that translating to German, and then translating all terms back to English, (both with dict.leo.org) gives me a pretty nice thesaurus.:)
The problem is, that we only have one earth. You can't just try something, an if the patient dies, know not to do it to the next one. There is no next one for a very loooong time. You deciding otherwise does not change this fact.
So we have to live with what we've got and be as careful as we can. What would you do when you would have to put a kernel update on the world bank server? Either you would try to avoid it, or you would make damn sure it works, by setting up a controlled mirror environment which comes as close to the original as possible. Which is nearly impossible for global effects.
I've never heard of any church preaches sex is inherently sinful, just that it should be within marriage [...]
Sex is not just "doing your job", by making the missionary's position (or how is it called in English) once a month. Sex is letting go. Doing whatever you crave for. With sex you get dirty without being dirty!
So every healthy human gets to be a sinner sooner or later. Every person is, as soon as he/she masturbates, which is a must for a healthy person. And there are tons of other things that are "sinful" for no real reason, other that to make you a sinner.
And yet, what have they got. A free (as in freely usable) iPhone. But still an iPhone. Who the fuck seriously wants that piece of shit (old but funny)?
Scientists should be able to get funding. Full stop!:)
Think of what happened if you exchanged the military and the science budget! The USA could become a country of geniuses with a very successful economy and education in 10-20 years. Same thing with Iran supporting the retardization (Is that how you would write it in English?) of their people so they become better followers. On a smaller scale.
Damn Slashdot. I lost the whole reply just now. I'll try to re-create it.
There isn't.
There are several problems with gene therapy,
So there is. You just contradicted yourself.:P
The problem is to "do it right". Granted, some cells are easier to target with specific virii, and some erroneous genes are easier to displace than others. But there's always an error margin in such a therapy, there always will be side-effects.
Maybe I'm more of a risk-taker, but if I'm faced with cancer... I mean, what's the worst side effect I could get from the therapy?
And when talking about modifying genes of multicellular organisms, the most common side-effect is this: cancer.
Cancer?
You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
As far as I know, the virus searches in the DNA for (a) specific marker sequence(s), and then replaces that exact part. A change in how your body works after this is the whole point of this. You have to decide, which version of that microcode you want. The one with the prostate cancer risk or the one where you always get cold a bit faster for example.:)
Gene therapy is not ready yet for prime time, the benefits don't outweigh the faults we introduce.
Your prime time is not my prime time. Just replace one short sequence. The exact one where the difference is. Nothing else. Then the only fault that can happen, is that the virus shell inserts that part in a wrong way. Guess what: That can happen on any transcription process. Or do you mean, that the virus would still insert it wrongly on a very large part of the cells? Then that original virus would not a very successful one would it...?
You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
That last part, that you commented on with this, was not meant as "We could do this today", but more like "In the future, we could possibly do all this". Of course I mean a future where the negative aspects oven on huge changes are pretty small. Or did you really think I would go to my geneticist, tell him to put a bit of starfish DNA in this virus, and then put it inside my blood right now?;)
A tiny change (a few base pairs): I'm OK with that right now. A large change (whole gene, more): No way. But in 20 years you can definitely ask me again!
Please elaborate if interested. Me strongly disagreeing with you does not mean that I'm not interested in your arguments. Just remember that I'm not you.:)
...if you 1) include yourself. 2) make it very obvious that this is humor.
Or is it just someone having problems with being overweight, and being angry at me for it instead of at himself.;) Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away, you know...
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
By using your brain. In quantum physics they had this exact problem. And they hated it.;) Maybe you remember the double-slit experiment, where light from one light source creates an interference pattern instead of the previously expected two lines. Every time the scientist tried to measure where the photons went trough, the interference went away. There was no way to measure it and retain the pattern. So they got very very smart and tricked physics with its own methods.
They used the strange effect of quantum entanglement. Before sending the photons trough the two slits, they entangled the photons with another photon. Then they sent both down a similar double-slit set-up... with one small difference. They measured the entangled photon! And because they never measured the actual photon, the interference survived!
But because two entangled particles share the same quantum state, they could measure the entangled photon and get the same data as for the actual photon.
I'm sorry, I did not read the rest of your comment after countering your base assumption. It was too long anyway.;)
There actually already is. It works like this: You take a successful virus, and replace its genetic payload with your own snippet. If you do it right, the virus can "infect" erroneous cells, fix them, then reproduce to "infect" more cells. A pandemic of that kind would also be possible.
The problem is, that in genetics, as in psychology, it is a thing of definition what you call a disease, and what not. My brother for example has that "thinness" gene, where you can eat all you like (at least in your young years), you won't get fat. I'm fat. He's not. On the other hand, he quickly gets cold in the water, and can't gain weight trough sports that quickly. I can stay in the water much longer and inflate like a balloon if I even touch something similar to a dumbbell (is that how you call it in English).
Which one do you want to call a disease.
Now let's say, we remove/change the genes that increase the risk for cancer, and then discover a big plus that makes people want to take the cancer risk anyway...
It's not that easy.
In the long run, I'm all for genetic freedom. Change your genetics how you like. You buy specific virii-"mods" that only "infect" you, and then something in your body changes. You could change your hair color, add some starfish-genes to regrow body parts, or why not grow some decorative fairy wings if you are a girl? Some might really fear everything that could go wrong there. But hey, you only live once, and the gains far outweigh the negative aspects.
Give me the first shot! And a sub-cranial-bone-brain-computer-interface for my brain too.
Compare this to the tests available for BRCA, the so called Breast Cancer genes. Finding you have the gene can be devastating, but knowing well in advance of developing cancer allows many more options to be considered.
Very relevant for the typical manboobs wearing Slashdotter.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. All this technology, so you can continue stuffing crap into you and not moving your ass.
Got 100 pounds of fat on you, rotting teeth and a dumbed down brain? Just fix it. I'll learn nothing from it and eat that shit again, and again.
Got a broken leg? Just fix it. I'll learn nothing from it, and break it again.
Just fix it. So I don't have to change or think. Because what world would that be?
I really really wish, there was a large and dangerous predator, who would eat all those who weren't fit enough. Maybe a pandemic.
We are so many people, that the individual person does not have to be able to survive anything anymore.
Put any of those chubby losers out there, and they can't even find something to eat or live in, in a jungle!
Now get off my tree-house! :P
Then STOP EATING THAT FUCKIN' CRAP!
Did you ever imagine, that teeth are made to eat, by nature? So under normal conditions, they will not rot and hurt!
But when was the last time, a person form the so-called "developed" countries ate species-appropriate food??
You can have it now! Just finally, after all these years, go meet your mom! KAZAAAM! :D
I know for 15 years, that the brain entered a transformation 50-60 years ago. There was a study that showed, that the brain of people after that time significantly differs from that of a person born earlier. The brain adjusted to the overstimulation of ads, and all that stuff happening, be creating a new ability: The ability to shut everything else out. That's the reason people can live with all the ads and lights around them. And that's the reason that people can throw trash on the streets and still be for environmental protection at the same time.
Old people have huge problems with overstimulation not only because they're old, but also because of their old-style brain.
This change happened very quickly for evolutionary scales. And I'm pretty sure it's not over. Give humanity 20-30 years, and our brains will have adapted fine. No need to worry.
Point is: They are not big anymore. More like the Tiny 4.
I have had a friend in music business, who was a personal friend of some high music bosses (especially SonyBMG), and he told me, that the whole music industry isn't bigger than some irrelevant industry like the toilet brush industry (can't remember the exact industry, but it was tiny!).
Think of it: Count the income or the people that work for those four. And then compare them so other industies. They're a joke!
It would not take long to completely kill them off. Just a little bit more DRM fuckups, and they're gone for good.
Meanwhile, small independent labels are booming, since P2P is the best marketing they ever got (to quote the CEO of such a small label).
I can only say that this is true, because since I'm listening to ShoutCast-radios, I've heard of so many new cool bands that never made it to the charts, normal radio or tv.
I'm listening to British DnB, French house and Russian big beat. It's the best thing that ever happened to music!
Exactly. The ones who get shot are the good presidents. Lincoln, Kennedy... and I hope not, but it would not surprise me: Obama. :(
You can guess by whom. (Hint: Not the normal people!)
Yes. It's called "natural selection". :P
That's what ICQ (or more recently Jabber/XMPP) is for! You can send one-to-many messages there too.
Maybe Twitter is the webmailer of the messenger systems. Just as stupid. Also a step in the wrong direction.
I bet this will all continue, as soon as someone writes an OS in "AJAX / Web 2.0", then a "Browser". Then "web"sites for it.... until someone comes up with an "interactive" way of writing "applications" for those "sites".
It's called "the inner platform anti-pattern". Avoid it! ;)
You still live in the illusionary world, where companies care for anything other than more money? Why do you think, they call them "human resources"? Because you don't work with resources. You use them. And when you used them up, you throw away the empty shells.
They don't even need to attempt to cover anything. It's just you, thinking they had some kind of conscience.
If Microsoft does anything at all, it is, to make more money. There are no second objectives.
And this is not a MS-specific thing. It's the foundation of all capitalism and all companies.
This is why some people hate capitalism. I don't hate. I just think that there is no better alternative yet.
Yes, "Umsonst" is the word that I meant. Danke! :)
OMG. This is no joke: I thought Richard Stallman and Eric S. Raymond were the same guy, for the last YEARS! I never thought that there would be two crazy bearded men loving weapons and GNU!
Aah... A typical (-1, Disagree). Guys, maybe you've never seen anything better, and for that I pity you, but OOo really is a load of crap.
The usability is stuck in the 80s. The software interfaces are a huge unstructured mess. The code is bloated in a way that makes Vista look lean.
One example are the formatting options. Modal tool boxes, called trough sub-menus? Are they completely insane??
Then the typical icon bars... for a text editor... yeah, right. Have fun jumping between mouse and keyboard like you're a DJ scratching his turntables.
Now on to modularity (the interface thing). I took a look at the code structure, and there seems to be no module system, and no proper plug-in interface. (Like in Miranda IM, Firefox, Photoshop, or Cubase (VST)) So for most stuff you end up patching the code anyway.
Finally the load times. There are two main indicators that your code is a bloated sluggish mess. Level 1: The splash screen: When your app starts so slow, that users would think it crashed or did not start at all, unless you add something that comes up quicker. Level 2: The preloader: When even the splash screen hangs on the desktop for more than half a minute, while trashing HDD, RAM and putting 100% load on the CPU.
What OOo is missing, is the 5 years of completely rewriting the whole code, that NN had to do, to become Firefox. And even Firefox is bad for needing five years.
As soon as I have some free cash-throwaway-time from what I'm developing now, I'll help solve this mess. :)
In Germany, we have 3 different words for "free" when used as in beer, and a law defining what each word means, when used in business. There is "gratis", "kostenlos" (no cost), and some other term I forgot. Then of course there is the word "frei" (free) too. I noticed, that translating to German, and then translating all terms back to English, (both with dict.leo.org) gives me a pretty nice thesaurus. :)
Oh, and "But I already killed people!" is no argument to kill even more people, just because now you use a surgeon knife instead of a sledgehammer.
The problem is, that we only have one earth. You can't just try something, an if the patient dies, know not to do it to the next one. There is no next one for a very loooong time.
You deciding otherwise does not change this fact.
So we have to live with what we've got and be as careful as we can. What would you do when you would have to put a kernel update on the world bank server? Either you would try to avoid it, or you would make damn sure it works, by setting up a controlled mirror environment which comes as close to the original as possible. Which is nearly impossible for global effects.
I've never heard of any church preaches sex is inherently sinful, just that it should be within marriage [...]
Sex is not just "doing your job", by making the missionary's position (or how is it called in English) once a month.
Sex is letting go. Doing whatever you crave for. With sex you get dirty without being dirty!
So every healthy human gets to be a sinner sooner or later. Every person is, as soon as he/she masturbates, which is a must for a healthy person. And there are tons of other things that are "sinful" for no real reason, other that to make you a sinner.
And yet, what have they got. A free (as in freely usable) iPhone. But still an iPhone. Who the fuck seriously wants that piece of shit (old but funny)?
I could completely believe that 25000 of those with a risk for prostate cancer, are either ignorant or badly informed. ;)
Scientists should be able to get funding. Full stop! :)
Think of what happened if you exchanged the military and the science budget!
The USA could become a country of geniuses with a very successful economy and education in 10-20 years.
Same thing with Iran supporting the retardization (Is that how you would write it in English?) of their people so they become better followers. On a smaller scale.
Damn Slashdot. I lost the whole reply just now. I'll try to re-create it.
There isn't.
There are several problems with gene therapy,
So there is. You just contradicted yourself. :P
The problem is to "do it right". Granted, some cells are easier to target with specific virii, and some erroneous genes are easier to displace than others. But there's always an error margin in such a therapy, there always will be side-effects.
Maybe I'm more of a risk-taker, but if I'm faced with cancer... I mean, what's the worst side effect I could get from the therapy?
And when talking about modifying genes of multicellular organisms, the most common side-effect is this: cancer.
Cancer?
You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
As far as I know, the virus searches in the DNA for (a) specific marker sequence(s), and then replaces that exact part. A change in how your body works after this is the whole point of this. You have to decide, which version of that microcode you want. The one with the prostate cancer risk or the one where you always get cold a bit faster for example. :)
Gene therapy is not ready yet for prime time, the benefits don't outweigh the faults we introduce.
Your prime time is not my prime time. Just replace one short sequence. The exact one where the difference is. Nothing else. Then the only fault that can happen, is that the virus shell inserts that part in a wrong way. Guess what: That can happen on any transcription process. Or do you mean, that the virus would still insert it wrongly on a very large part of the cells? Then that original virus would not a very successful one would it...?
You will at some point of the therapy introduce dis-regulation of certain genes and thus you will increase the risk of cancer.
That last part, that you commented on with this, was not meant as "We could do this today", but more like "In the future, we could possibly do all this". Of course I mean a future where the negative aspects oven on huge changes are pretty small. Or did you really think I would go to my geneticist, tell him to put a bit of starfish DNA in this virus, and then put it inside my blood right now? ;)
A tiny change (a few base pairs): I'm OK with that right now.
A large change (whole gene, more): No way. But in 20 years you can definitely ask me again!
Please elaborate if interested. Me strongly disagreeing with you does not mean that I'm not interested in your arguments. Just remember that I'm not you. :)
...if you
1) include yourself.
2) make it very obvious that this is humor.
Or is it just someone having problems with being overweight, and being angry at me for it instead of at himself. ;)
Ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away, you know...
Hey, it was 12:13 CET here, you insensitive clod! ;)
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
By using your brain. In quantum physics they had this exact problem. And they hated it. ;)
Maybe you remember the double-slit experiment, where light from one light source creates an interference pattern instead of the previously expected two lines. Every time the scientist tried to measure where the photons went trough, the interference went away. There was no way to measure it and retain the pattern. So they got very very smart and tricked physics with its own methods.
They used the strange effect of quantum entanglement. Before sending the photons trough the two slits, they entangled the photons with another photon. Then they sent both down a similar double-slit set-up... with one small difference. They measured the entangled photon! And because they never measured the actual photon, the interference survived!
But because two entangled particles share the same quantum state, they could measure the entangled photon and get the same data as for the actual photon.
I'm sorry, I did not read the rest of your comment after countering your base assumption. It was too long anyway. ;)
There actually already is. It works like this: You take a successful virus, and replace its genetic payload with your own snippet. If you do it right, the virus can "infect" erroneous cells, fix them, then reproduce to "infect" more cells. A pandemic of that kind would also be possible.
The problem is, that in genetics, as in psychology, it is a thing of definition what you call a disease, and what not.
My brother for example has that "thinness" gene, where you can eat all you like (at least in your young years), you won't get fat.
I'm fat. He's not.
On the other hand, he quickly gets cold in the water, and can't gain weight trough sports that quickly. I can stay in the water much longer and inflate like a balloon if I even touch something similar to a dumbbell (is that how you call it in English).
Which one do you want to call a disease.
Now let's say, we remove/change the genes that increase the risk for cancer, and then discover a big plus that makes people want to take the cancer risk anyway...
It's not that easy.
In the long run, I'm all for genetic freedom. Change your genetics how you like. You buy specific virii-"mods" that only "infect" you, and then something in your body changes. You could change your hair color, add some starfish-genes to regrow body parts, or why not grow some decorative fairy wings if you are a girl?
Some might really fear everything that could go wrong there. But hey, you only live once, and the gains far outweigh the negative aspects.
Give me the first shot! And a sub-cranial-bone-brain-computer-interface for my brain too.
Compare this to the tests available for BRCA, the so called Breast Cancer genes. Finding you have the gene can be devastating, but knowing well in advance of developing cancer allows many more options to be considered.
Very relevant for the typical manboobs wearing Slashdotter. ;)