Some guy decided to write an extension. It's interesting research -- can ads be made useful enough that people will actively seek them out? It isn't included with Firefox, and it isn't taking up a single byte of your download space. I think that denigrating the guy is going a little bit over the top. He could just as easily say "I'd like to see AssProphet writing some useful open source instead of wasting his time insulting me."
Judge: "I'll remind you that not disclosing it instantly lands you in jail. And don't give me that 'I forgot' crap; being Bubba's bitch does wonders for the memory, you know."
The United States is not Britain, where refusing to disclose a password or key is grounds for immediate prison. Yet.
If VOIP was mainstream, it would have exactly the same crap tacked onto it.
Really?
Allow me to post something that I wrote last time Slashdot ran a "tapping VoIP" article:
Whoever thinks that they are going to wiretap all VoIP networks at the FBI is living in dreamland. Let's take a brief look at a quick VoIP system that I'm going to design. I'll even publish the source code, right here on Slashdot. It will take me a few seconds to write:
#!/bin/bash # smallvoip.sh # VoIP software capable of bypassing FBI wiretap regulations. # Warning: use or posession of this software may be a federal crime in the United States of America. Download this software at your own risk. # Copyright 2004, 0x0d0a, released under the GPL # Usage: smallvoip remote-username remote-ip-address # You must have a shell account on the remote machine. # Run on each of the two machines involved in the call. # Duplex audio support required. # TODO: pass through lame or oggenc for better bandwidth usage. This will make the second line slightly longer. # LIMITATIONS: only one user per host at once # I recommend setting up public-key ssh authentication with this software.
Hmm. My high-security, encrypted Internet phone doing VoIP.
Now, I have to ask the people in charge of Homeland Security: do you really, truly, honestly think that you have *any* hope of keeping anyone from writing such a two-line program? Any *IX user with a bit of experience could write this piece of software and distribute it to the world. In addition, the fact that it contains voice data is essentially undetectable to the outside world, so there is no practical way to "catch" someone using such a system.
It is true that this is a very simple program, but it can also be very easily extended into a full-blown encrypted voice communication program, without the minor limitations here that make this annoying for day-to-day use. In addition, there are a vast number of extant Internet systems for communicating that cannot be wiretapped by the FBI -- PGP/GPG contains no back doors to allow wiretapping of email communications. Frost (on the Freenet platform) can disguise the very fact that an association exists between two users. These systems are rarely used, but they are also not hard to deploy, and if the FBI insists on forcing conventional voice communication to be breakable, there is little incentive not to use systems such as the one that I have demonstrated here.
A "starter" edition that only lets you run 3 apps while crippling the network features? Are they , MS, trying to encourage people to rip off their software or run off to the competition in droves!?
Using a naive free-market economic model (assuming no PR backlash and the like) this should not cost them any market share, since the people who want the real version of Windows and can afford it can still buy it.
This has a fairly small risk for MS, and provides their customers an additional alternative to Linux. It's not that bad of an idea.
(b) is not an example of dumping at all. The only illegal thing involved here is when a company engages in predatory pricing, which is illegal. To do that, the company *must be selling below cost* (and not as a hook to make money off something else) -- it must really be using nonsustainable tactics. The idea is that a company in that situation is trying to drive others out of business. There is nothing illegal (under US law, at any rate) about use of price discrimination. I can charge twice regular price to every Texan that walks into my store, if I feel like doing so. I can charge half the price for a crippled Thai version of my software.
Until he passes init=/bin/bash to the kernel from the bootloader, and your problems start again.
Actually, on a modern system, the kernel will probably not boot with this size process table. There are too many kernel-level processes -- I have 19 kernel processes running on Liux 2.6.6 at the moment.
It is probably not hard to hack this up so that it supports higher resolutions and more applications. it is also legal. Networking and perhaps DX 9 may be a bit of a problem.
It is not illegal, neither under the DMCA nor (at least US) copyright law to circumvent things like the resolution limitations. Circumventing devices intended to allow price discrimination is quite legal, on par with bypassing the region coding on DVDs.
It will eliminate any support you get from MS, but what support did you have in the first place?
Of course, it's really just as easy to pirate the software, but if legality is a concern (and you're willing to jump through some extra hoops to play by Microsoft's rules), this may be an acceptable choice.
I think that you can like Event Horizon even if you went to see a sci-fi movie.
I don't like horror movies much (matter of fact, Event Horizon was possibly the first that I enjoyed).
When I went to see Event Horizon, I thought that it was like Contact -- a sort of nonviolent sciency sci-fi movie. Then I thought that they were just building up atmosphere. Boy, that made the shock much greater.
I agree that after you see the "flaming human body" too many times, it starts to get a bit old, but overall, I liked the acting, and I think that the environments that they came up with weren't unreasonable. And it has people that don't act like idiots! No "let's split up!"
That's actually an interesting and underrecognized aspect of the "Internet econonmy".
At one point, techies were subsidized by others -- if you knew how to crack a piece of software or use IRC or something, then your goods were paid for by others.
As tools to pirate software and content are made easier and easier to use and distributed, this ceases to be the case -- *everyone* can pirate content. Which eliminates the value of being a techie.
Buying corpses is still a pretty tightly-controlled trade.
There are some issues with selling bodies and body parts. The problem is that everybody has a body, that they can be extremely profitable, and that the taking of someone else's body (while lucrative) causes them quite a bit of damage.
This was actually in the news recently -- killing humans for body parts (not for transplants, but for "medicines" and the like) happens in parts of Africa, and there was a rather gruesome series of serial killings.
This is also a concern with abuse of "mercy killings" -- what if you *need* another hospital bed, and one person is unlikely to wake up from a coma? Sure, an individual mercy killing won't cause a problem, but if people lose their trust of hospitals -- well, that's a different story.
There is significant benefit to adjusting our system to operate in such a way that people have to worry only minimally about the loss of their life -- otherwise, you get inefficiences like people having to always run around with bombs that go off when they die and things like that -- and the associated fatalities.
I think that ownership of organs should be part of a person's estate. Otherwise, we get into nasty property rights issues about who actually owns the organs. If the organs are willed to the family to sell -- so be it.
...how completely awesome iD would have been today if people hadn't pirated all its best games.
Remember that a major driver of id games was multiplayer. The fact that Quake was widely pirated (and subsequently served, played, and modded) resulted in a significant value increase in the game to other players. I know a number of people that pirated Quake and then bought it (for the audio and because having the CD was handy). Admittedly, the lack of broadband back in the day was probably an important factor -- if CD images could have been distributed back then, perhaps id would have done more poorly.
I mean, what they say has zero impact on your life. If they want to go on and on about how AMD stomps Intel or Microsoft is better than Apple on their own website... does it matter? You *know* that someone is doing so somewhere on the Internet, anyway.
And it's even worse than that. Many of those parents knowingly hand over their children to "schools", which are institutions that also attempt to teach the children that they should share.
Schools are an interesting system -- they both indoctrinate and inform. Control of the schools is one of the most powerful long-term institutions to control.
It's not even that I dislike the BSA/RIAA/MPAA that much -- I just don't want *any* corporate marketing taking place in schools. If the BSA/RIAA/MPAA wants to fund a marketing campaign, they can certainly do so, and there are many channels that will let them target children -- but not in the schools, dammit. If schools are filled with marketing drivel, how can children trust anyone? It's not that I'm saying that people shouldn't question what they're taught in schools, but some things have to be at least accepted in the short term in order to operate, while we learn enough to find inconsistencies in arguments -- the stuff in schools is normally less trusted than than in 30 second spots between advertisements.
If the Weekly Reader wants to sell a section of their space to the BSA, I'd at least like to see them have to donate equal space to groups like the ALA and the EFF, to present kids with both sides of an issue and let them think their own way through the issues involved.
Hmm, lemme see, smoking harms the kid himself, littering defaces the entire community, and "pirating" copyrighted works hurts -- oh right, the Business Software Alliance.
To be fair, copyright is a mechanism with a purpose other than just enriching the BSA. It's part of a system designed to allow content funding to be produced.
The ALA is just interested in people not having something presented as "right" and something else presented as "wrong" -- they'd rather have people consider the benefits themselves.
I have no problem with copyright per se -- the question is whether it is still practical and useful in its current from in present day, where it is nearly impossible to enforce, and where it has been extended far, far beyond the intent of its creators.
Many Slashdotters may not like Britney Spears. However, she clearly entertains many people, and I don't have a problem with publishers making money off her if they are entertaining people -- if that's what people want, let them have her.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that they should have her for her lifetime and well beyond, nor am I convinced that copyright can be enforced any more, nor am I comfortable with DMCA-based end runs around fair use. That doesn't mean that we should "drop copyright" -- we have a number of content-producing mechanisms that are based around it, and no good systems that will necessarily replace them. It does mean that copyright reform may be necessary, and given that I feel that the ALA is a group of people with a good deal of insight into copyright-related issues, I'm more inclined to listen to what they have to say than a number of the other players in the copyright game.
My brain hurts! It's confusing. Why can't anyone just be EVIL. Why do they have to do something good once and a while to make you question them?
I suspect that the ALA would like to see more people thinking thoughts along these lines in general, where "they" doesn't necessarily have to represent the ALA.
How many lives has fuel saved? How has it lengthened our lifespans! Or do you want to go back to horse and buggy days? When people lived 40-50 years instead of 80 years.
Uh, huh. Read over my post. Realize that I was comparing use of solar power to use of oil power, not use of oil power to horse and buggy.
How can we get vital organs, for instance, cross country in just a few hours?
Use of solar power does not preclude use of oil, gas, fuel cells, or any other form of storage. Elimination of dependendency on oil, however, does *allow* moving away from these.
Solar cells use fossil fuels, more than they output in enrgy for their entire lifetime.
A completely unsupported claim. Feel free to back that up with a link.
What "oil" wars are you speaking of? I am not aware of a single war fought for oil in modern times.
[boggles] You have got to be trolling, because I'm quite sure that you're not serious. You literally have not followed any of the Middle East news for decades now?
I do know however that fuel and oil based products have helped us fight and win wars.
By that logic, I could endorse any technology that could be used in a weapon, even if it's worse in most cases than other technologies.
You know, I know a *ton* of people that drive SUVs, and not a single one needs them. Every person that actually does work in an environent where a rugged vehicle is required drives a pickup (generally an older, battered one).
That doesn't mean that other vehicles don't have a use. Minivans are probably the best way to get around if you have a bunch of kids. However, people comlpaining that they are being exposed to danger by people who hae no reason to own their vehicles are right on the money.
Don't you find it the *least* bit troubling that, in these projects, little to no consideration is given to the safety of the passenger?
First, I disagree -- I *don't* think that "little to no consideration is given to the safety of the passenger". There are a number of posts that have been put up on this article from solar car teams talking about the safety work that *is* done. Furthermore, driving the car was voluntary, and on top of it, he was likely involved in desiging the car. He was not an ignorant victim of neglect or profit-seeking, as might be a concern when someone dies driving their new Ford automobile. This person did something with their eyes wide open that had some risk, something that could benefit mankind. They died for it. That's bad, but I don't think that any researchers should then be forced to adopt some regulations that someone intends to "improve safety", though it's clearly worthwhile for them to be aware of what happened to this car and try to prevent the same thing from happening. People have *always* died in the production of new vehicles. Solar cars are far, far ahead of the game in terms of fatalities if you look at trains, gas cars, airplanes, spacecraft, etc.
The grandparent isn't saying human life is more important than anything else, he's asking whether that 21-year old's life was worth competing in this silly "race".
Didn't he? Here's his quote:
I don't care how much heart you pour into something safety should always be first. Human life is much more valuable than your measley 750k.
Don't you think that the guy should be the one to decide whether he wants to take the risk to improve mankind's knowledge, rather than someone else? He clearly chose to do so. Why should he not be allowed to make that choice? I have no reason to think that information was being kept secret from him; I would be very surprised if that is the case.
Races, whether you like it or not, are useful to test ideas and build up awareness of the technology -- this is where funding comes from, from. In an ideal world, perhaps researchers would be able to get money without constantly grubbing away or having to impress people and market themselves; however, that is not the case. I remember one of the first solar races, one that crossed the Australian outback -- it generated a huge amount of interest and support for solar cars.
You can demonstrate technology without putting 20kg fiberglass cars (which might as well be made of balsa wood and paperclips, for safety purposes)
A motorcycle or motor scooter provides no more, and probably less protection. Yet we allow people to travel in these.
on the road with minivans.
Perhaps. And I'm sure that their first tests were not immediately done on the road with other vehicles. But at *some point*, you have to demonstrate that something works. Somebody has to be the first person to drive the vehicle. If you're NASA or Lockheed Martin, you can hire test pilots -- someone who is very explicitly in the business for the purpose of exchanging money for a certain risk to their health. Universities aren't given that kind of funding by their sponsors, so if a researcher wants to prove his car on a road, he's put in the position of having to drive it himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it shows how stupid some ACs are.
Clearly the open-source model works. Already we have improvement suggestions. ;-)
What prevents a person from pleading the fifth?
The same thing that restricts the second. New laws that ignore the Constitution.
Some guy decided to write an extension. It's interesting research -- can ads be made useful enough that people will actively seek them out? It isn't included with Firefox, and it isn't taking up a single byte of your download space. I think that denigrating the guy is going a little bit over the top. He could just as easily say "I'd like to see AssProphet writing some useful open source instead of wasting his time insulting me."
Judge: "I'll remind you that not disclosing it instantly lands you in jail. And don't give me that 'I forgot' crap; being Bubba's bitch does wonders for the memory, you know."
The United States is not Britain, where refusing to disclose a password or key is grounds for immediate prison. Yet.
If VOIP was mainstream, it would have exactly the same crap tacked onto it.
/dev/dsp|nc localhost 7000"
Really?
Allow me to post something that I wrote last time Slashdot ran a "tapping VoIP" article:
Whoever thinks that they are going to wiretap all VoIP networks at the FBI is living in dreamland. Let's take a brief look at a quick VoIP system that I'm going to design. I'll even publish the source code, right here on Slashdot. It will take me a few seconds to write:
#!/bin/bash
# smallvoip.sh
# VoIP software capable of bypassing FBI wiretap regulations.
# Warning: use or posession of this software may be a federal crime in the United States of America. Download this software at your own risk.
# Copyright 2004, 0x0d0a, released under the GPL
# Usage: smallvoip remote-username remote-ip-address
# You must have a shell account on the remote machine.
# Run on each of the two machines involved in the call.
# Duplex audio support required.
# TODO: pass through lame or oggenc for better bandwidth usage. This will make the second line slightly longer.
# LIMITATIONS: only one user per host at once
# I recommend setting up public-key ssh authentication with this software.
nc -l -p 7001 >/dev/dsp &
ssh -R 7000:`hostname`:7001 $1@$2 "cat
Hmm. My high-security, encrypted Internet phone doing VoIP.
Now, I have to ask the people in charge of Homeland Security: do you really, truly, honestly think that you have *any* hope of keeping anyone from writing such a two-line program? Any *IX user with a bit of experience could write this piece of software and distribute it to the world. In addition, the fact that it contains voice data is essentially undetectable to the outside world, so there is no practical way to "catch" someone using such a system.
It is true that this is a very simple program, but it can also be very easily extended into a full-blown encrypted voice communication program, without the minor limitations here that make this annoying for day-to-day use. In addition, there are a vast number of extant Internet systems for communicating that cannot be wiretapped by the FBI -- PGP/GPG contains no back doors to allow wiretapping of email communications. Frost (on the Freenet platform) can disguise the very fact that an association exists between two users. These systems are rarely used, but they are also not hard to deploy, and if the FBI insists on forcing conventional voice communication to be breakable, there is little incentive not to use systems such as the one that I have demonstrated here.
Such a thing would not violate any US law that I know of. Things might be different in Thailand.
A "starter" edition that only lets you run 3 apps while crippling the network features? Are they , MS, trying to encourage people to rip off their software or run off to the competition in droves!?
Using a naive free-market economic model (assuming no PR backlash and the like) this should not cost them any market share, since the people who want the real version of Windows and can afford it can still buy it.
This has a fairly small risk for MS, and provides their customers an additional alternative to Linux. It's not that bad of an idea.
(b) is not an example of dumping at all. The only illegal thing involved here is when a company engages in predatory pricing, which is illegal. To do that, the company *must be selling below cost* (and not as a hook to make money off something else) -- it must really be using nonsustainable tactics. The idea is that a company in that situation is trying to drive others out of business. There is nothing illegal (under US law, at any rate) about use of price discrimination. I can charge twice regular price to every Texan that walks into my store, if I feel like doing so. I can charge half the price for a crippled Thai version of my software.
Until he passes init=/bin/bash to the kernel from the bootloader, and your problems start again.
Actually, on a modern system, the kernel will probably not boot with this size process table. There are too many kernel-level processes -- I have 19 kernel processes running on Liux 2.6.6 at the moment.
It is probably not hard to hack this up so that it supports higher resolutions and more applications. it is also legal. Networking and perhaps DX 9 may be a bit of a problem.
It is not illegal, neither under the DMCA nor (at least US) copyright law to circumvent things like the resolution limitations. Circumventing devices intended to allow price discrimination is quite legal, on par with bypassing the region coding on DVDs.
It will eliminate any support you get from MS, but what support did you have in the first place?
Of course, it's really just as easy to pirate the software, but if legality is a concern (and you're willing to jump through some extra hoops to play by Microsoft's rules), this may be an acceptable choice.
Price discrimination is not illegal.
There are related things that are illegal, like price fixing or predatory pricing, but there is nothing illegal about price discrimination.
I think that you can like Event Horizon even if you went to see a sci-fi movie.
I don't like horror movies much (matter of fact, Event Horizon was possibly the first that I enjoyed).
When I went to see Event Horizon, I thought that it was like Contact -- a sort of nonviolent sciency sci-fi movie. Then I thought that they were just building up atmosphere. Boy, that made the shock much greater.
I agree that after you see the "flaming human body" too many times, it starts to get a bit old, but overall, I liked the acting, and I think that the environments that they came up with weren't unreasonable. And it has people that don't act like idiots! No "let's split up!"
That's actually an interesting and underrecognized aspect of the "Internet econonmy".
At one point, techies were subsidized by others -- if you knew how to crack a piece of software or use IRC or something, then your goods were paid for by others.
As tools to pirate software and content are made easier and easier to use and distributed, this ceases to be the case -- *everyone* can pirate content. Which eliminates the value of being a techie.
Buying corpses is still a pretty tightly-controlled trade.
There are some issues with selling bodies and body parts. The problem is that everybody has a body, that they can be extremely profitable, and that the taking of someone else's body (while lucrative) causes them quite a bit of damage.
This was actually in the news recently -- killing humans for body parts (not for transplants, but for "medicines" and the like) happens in parts of Africa, and there was a rather gruesome series of serial killings.
This is also a concern with abuse of "mercy killings" -- what if you *need* another hospital bed, and one person is unlikely to wake up from a coma? Sure, an individual mercy killing won't cause a problem, but if people lose their trust of hospitals -- well, that's a different story.
There is significant benefit to adjusting our system to operate in such a way that people have to worry only minimally about the loss of their life -- otherwise, you get inefficiences like people having to always run around with bombs that go off when they die and things like that -- and the associated fatalities.
I think that ownership of organs should be part of a person's estate. Otherwise, we get into nasty property rights issues about who actually owns the organs. If the organs are willed to the family to sell -- so be it.
...how completely awesome iD would have been today if people hadn't pirated all its best games.
Remember that a major driver of id games was multiplayer. The fact that Quake was widely pirated (and subsequently served, played, and modded) resulted in a significant value increase in the game to other players. I know a number of people that pirated Quake and then bought it (for the audio and because having the CD was handy). Admittedly, the lack of broadband back in the day was probably an important factor -- if CD images could have been distributed back then, perhaps id would have done more poorly.
Why do you even care?
... does it matter? You *know* that someone is doing so somewhere on the Internet, anyway.
I mean, what they say has zero impact on your life. If they want to go on and on about how AMD stomps Intel or Microsoft is better than Apple on their own website
the stuff in schools is normally less trusted than than in 30 second spots between advertisements.
:-)
Uh, that should really be "more trusted".
And it's even worse than that. Many of those parents knowingly hand over their children to "schools", which are institutions that also attempt to teach the children that they should share.
Schools are an interesting system -- they both indoctrinate and inform. Control of the schools is one of the most powerful long-term institutions to control.
It's not even that I dislike the BSA/RIAA/MPAA that much -- I just don't want *any* corporate marketing taking place in schools. If the BSA/RIAA/MPAA wants to fund a marketing campaign, they can certainly do so, and there are many channels that will let them target children -- but not in the schools, dammit. If schools are filled with marketing drivel, how can children trust anyone? It's not that I'm saying that people shouldn't question what they're taught in schools, but some things have to be at least accepted in the short term in order to operate, while we learn enough to find inconsistencies in arguments -- the stuff in schools is normally less trusted than than in 30 second spots between advertisements.
If the Weekly Reader wants to sell a section of their space to the BSA, I'd at least like to see them have to donate equal space to groups like the ALA and the EFF, to present kids with both sides of an issue and let them think their own way through the issues involved.
Hmm, lemme see, smoking harms the kid himself, littering defaces the entire community, and "pirating" copyrighted works hurts -- oh right, the Business Software Alliance.
To be fair, copyright is a mechanism with a purpose other than just enriching the BSA. It's part of a system designed to allow content funding to be produced.
The ALA is just interested in people not having something presented as "right" and something else presented as "wrong" -- they'd rather have people consider the benefits themselves.
I have no problem with copyright per se -- the question is whether it is still practical and useful in its current from in present day, where it is nearly impossible to enforce, and where it has been extended far, far beyond the intent of its creators.
Many Slashdotters may not like Britney Spears. However, she clearly entertains many people, and I don't have a problem with publishers making money off her if they are entertaining people -- if that's what people want, let them have her.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that they should have her for her lifetime and well beyond, nor am I convinced that copyright can be enforced any more, nor am I comfortable with DMCA-based end runs around fair use. That doesn't mean that we should "drop copyright" -- we have a number of content-producing mechanisms that are based around it, and no good systems that will necessarily replace them. It does mean that copyright reform may be necessary, and given that I feel that the ALA is a group of people with a good deal of insight into copyright-related issues, I'm more inclined to listen to what they have to say than a number of the other players in the copyright game.
My brain hurts! It's confusing. Why can't anyone just be EVIL. Why do they have to do something good once and a while to make you question them?
I suspect that the ALA would like to see more people thinking thoughts along these lines in general, where "they" doesn't necessarily have to represent the ALA.
No, you are the idiot.
This should be interesting.
How many lives has fuel saved? How has it lengthened our lifespans! Or do you want to go back to horse and buggy days? When people lived 40-50 years instead of 80 years.
Uh, huh. Read over my post. Realize that I was comparing use of solar power to use of oil power, not use of oil power to horse and buggy.
How can we get vital organs, for instance, cross country in just a few hours?
Use of solar power does not preclude use of oil, gas, fuel cells, or any other form of storage. Elimination of dependendency on oil, however, does *allow* moving away from these.
Solar cells use fossil fuels, more than they output in enrgy for their entire lifetime.
A completely unsupported claim. Feel free to back that up with a link.
What "oil" wars are you speaking of? I am not aware of a single war fought for oil in modern times.
[boggles] You have got to be trolling, because I'm quite sure that you're not serious. You literally have not followed any of the Middle East news for decades now?
I do know however that fuel and oil based products have helped us fight and win wars.
By that logic, I could endorse any technology that could be used in a weapon, even if it's worse in most cases than other technologies.
As for Hummers having a good reason to exist...How about their being an important part of our military's mobility?
Tanks are too, but we don't let small-penised men and soccer moms drive them around suburbia.
You know, I know a *ton* of people that drive SUVs, and not a single one needs them. Every person that actually does work in an environent where a rugged vehicle is required drives a pickup (generally an older, battered one).
That doesn't mean that other vehicles don't have a use. Minivans are probably the best way to get around if you have a bunch of kids. However, people comlpaining that they are being exposed to danger by people who hae no reason to own their vehicles are right on the money.
Don't you find it the *least* bit troubling that, in these projects, little to no consideration is given to the safety of the passenger?
First, I disagree -- I *don't* think that "little to no consideration is given to the safety of the passenger". There are a number of posts that have been put up on this article from solar car teams talking about the safety work that *is* done. Furthermore, driving the car was voluntary, and on top of it, he was likely involved in desiging the car. He was not an ignorant victim of neglect or profit-seeking, as might be a concern when someone dies driving their new Ford automobile. This person did something with their eyes wide open that had some risk, something that could benefit mankind. They died for it. That's bad, but I don't think that any researchers should then be forced to adopt some regulations that someone intends to "improve safety", though it's clearly worthwhile for them to be aware of what happened to this car and try to prevent the same thing from happening. People have *always* died in the production of new vehicles. Solar cars are far, far ahead of the game in terms of fatalities if you look at trains, gas cars, airplanes, spacecraft, etc.
The grandparent isn't saying human life is more important than anything else, he's asking whether that 21-year old's life was worth competing in this silly "race".
Didn't he? Here's his quote:
I don't care how much heart you pour into something safety should always be first. Human life is much more valuable than your measley 750k.
Don't you think that the guy should be the one to decide whether he wants to take the risk to improve mankind's knowledge, rather than someone else? He clearly chose to do so. Why should he not be allowed to make that choice? I have no reason to think that information was being kept secret from him; I would be very surprised if that is the case.
Races, whether you like it or not, are useful to test ideas and build up awareness of the technology -- this is where funding comes from, from. In an ideal world, perhaps researchers would be able to get money without constantly grubbing away or having to impress people and market themselves; however, that is not the case. I remember one of the first solar races, one that crossed the Australian outback -- it generated a huge amount of interest and support for solar cars.
You can demonstrate technology without putting 20kg fiberglass cars (which might as well be made of balsa wood and paperclips, for safety purposes)
A motorcycle or motor scooter provides no more, and probably less protection. Yet we allow people to travel in these.
on the road with minivans.
Perhaps. And I'm sure that their first tests were not immediately done on the road with other vehicles. But at *some point*, you have to demonstrate that something works. Somebody has to be the first person to drive the vehicle. If you're NASA or Lockheed Martin, you can hire test pilots -- someone who is very explicitly in the business for the purpose of exchanging money for a certain risk to their health. Universities aren't given that kind of funding by their sponsors, so if a researcher wants to prove his car on a road, he's put in the position of having to drive it himself.