But the scientists hope to be able to sequence the DNA of ancient humans, which lived at the same time as cave bears, raising the prospect of perhaps one day being able to "build" a Neanderthal from their genetic blueprint. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4602739.stm
This makes me wonder if we could even "build" a modern Human from a genetic blueprint. Is it possible to physically predict something's appearance from its DNA?
I am less interested in "legality" as defined by congress and the judicial branch and more interested in the "legality" of ethics and morality.
Many things have been legal or illegal in the US over the years (prohibition, slavery, segregation, aboriton), but the enforcement of said laws is not necessarily just.
I love space exploration and I think it is a worthy expenditure, but I do not think that now is the right time. With our economy still rocky and our national budget deficit at record levels, it seems like the US needs to do our homework before we go outside to play.
Yeah, let's call this what it is. It is clearly not blogging (as in Mark Cuban, Josh Marshall blogging), but rather a strange corporate tactic called "advertising."
Did you know that that novel is 36 years old? Perhaps Crichton's writing style has improved in that time. Crichton's scientific discussions may not be 100% accurate, but he is always ahead of the ball on popular trends in science (Jurassic Park - genetics; Timeline - quantum mechanics, time travel; Prey - nanotechnology).
The point is that there actually is a voluminous, appellate-level validated, court document called a "Finding of Facts" that detail, with pain-staking specifics, that the "arguments about a browser monopoly" were (and still are) anything but foolish.
I mean no disrespect to any US Appellate Court, but a judicial ruling does not seal the deal for me.
Yes, I realize the consequences of this. It's way past time for a serious shift in the way we view and use labor in this country. Our current system is slowly destroying us.
I agree, and I can suggest a first step: Since we are in a global economy, we should stop this "us v. them" mentality. We should stop attacking those "illegal immigrants" who take "our jobs."
Is this "small scale" crime really worth millions of dollars per day in fines? Or is this an excuse for EU to turn popular opinion into financial gain?
Has justice been carried out when the organization repsonsible for the judgement is profiting directly from the punishment (even if the accused is guilty)?
Something tells me that these EU fines will not be channeled to help competitors whom Microsoft has crushed. Rather it seems more likely that the money is going straight to the EU coffers. Please correct me if I am wrong (it is a big assumption).
Apparetnly Michael Crichton's newest techo-thriller State of Fear deals with this very issue and offers a counter-hypothesis (i.e. humans are not affecting the earth very much).
Human Beings are as natural a part of the Earth's ecosystem as earthworms and aardvarks. We need to accept that our behavior will affect the planet not unlike any other animals.
However, this is not an excuse for an "anything goes" attitude. We still need to work hard to preserve the earth; it is one of our greatest responsibilities.
Oh yes, wasn't it just about the time that MS dominated the web browser market by using their OS monopoly to fund development, made IE impossible to uninstall, and incorporated code in the OS to specifically break competitors software.
I acknowledge your input and reiterate that Microsoft is clearly an enemy to the computing world. But how does requiring a "Reduced Media Edition" help with the above-stated problem? It just scales back what they offer with the OS, when as far as I can tell, most of the trust/monopoly complaints are about the operating system itself (integration of IE with the OS, breaking competitors software).
In order to level the playing field for software development, the Windows OS must be standardized somehow (that is, Microsoft cannot intentionally make changes for the purpose of squashing to competition). How does the action of the EU actually reduce Microsoft's monolithic stature?
Furthermore, is such a steep monetary fine justified for the damage that Microsoft actually causes to its competitors? Notice that many of the apps which challenge MS products (Mozilla, Opera, Winamp, VLC) are available free of charge. Furthermore, the implicit goal of many of these (especially the Open Source projects - think Firefox) is to destroy Microsoft's market share in each respective category. So Microsoft's damage to the computing community cannot be measured so easily in pounds and pence. So why is the EU charging them so much money? Use your imagination.
Yes, Microsoft is involved in "unfair" business practices. But nailing them for IE and Windows Media Player is sort of like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion.
This seems to be a simple corrolation of Windows penetration into the mainstream computer market. Employees use Windows machines at home, and therefore prefer to use them at work. Business like to use Windows Server 2003 and Exchange to tie their nice WinXP Pro network together. Windows Server 2003 comes with IIS, which you might as well use for ftp and http servers, since it is already included.
So in this case the sales increase is not necessarily based on the quality of the offering but on the convenience.
I am no fan of Microsoft, but I think that they have been unfairly treated in these "anti-trust" cases in Europe and the US. Though I prefer Netscape/Mozilla to IE, I thought the arguments about a browser monopoly were quite foolish. And now the EU is making them produce a reduced-media edition. So does this mean that Microsoft will eventually have to remove every component which can be produced by a competitor from their Windows distros? All the while Linux and Mac users enjoy all the bundled software that comes for free with their OSs.
This is blatently unfair to Microsoft; an obvious exploitation of a wealthy corporation by governments. This is made obvious by the EU's 5% daily sales fine.
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4602739.stm
This makes me wonder if we could even "build" a modern Human from a genetic blueprint. Is it possible to physically predict something's appearance from its DNA?
. . . and found it to be Winnie the Pooh's ancient ancestor.
Not only that, but because the microelectronics could eventually be made out of molecules, some computer parts could be biodegradable since molecules can be broken down into small bits.w s/story.html?id=2fe32839-9b70-4908-967b-5c6610e2ff 2a
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/ne
a = advertised length (hrs)
(a-1)/2
So if your iPod says it will get 4 hours of play time, the actual amount is 90 minutes.
Biodegradable Comptuers.
The human mind is an amazing thing . . .
Is editing genes something we want to make easier? I shudder to think of do-it-yourself genetic engineering kits.
Every day that I don't have to check my email is a blessing.
. . . you get the picture.
Many things have been legal or illegal in the US over the years (prohibition, slavery, segregation, aboriton), but the enforcement of said laws is not necessarily just.
I love space exploration and I think it is a worthy expenditure, but I do not think that now is the right time. With our economy still rocky and our national budget deficit at record levels, it seems like the US needs to do our homework before we go outside to play.
Yeah, let's call this what it is. It is clearly not blogging (as in Mark Cuban, Josh Marshall blogging), but rather a strange corporate tactic called "advertising."
Plus "not unlike" does mean precisely the same thing as "like."
Did you know that that novel is 36 years old? Perhaps Crichton's writing style has improved in that time. Crichton's scientific discussions may not be 100% accurate, but he is always ahead of the ball on popular trends in science (Jurassic Park - genetics; Timeline - quantum mechanics, time travel; Prey - nanotechnology).
I hope that Google is tapping young brilliant minds for good and not evil.
I mean no disrespect to any US Appellate Court, but a judicial ruling does not seal the deal for me.
I agree, and I can suggest a first step: Since we are in a global economy, we should stop this "us v. them" mentality. We should stop attacking those "illegal immigrants" who take "our jobs."
Has justice been carried out when the organization repsonsible for the judgement is profiting directly from the punishment (even if the accused is guilty)?
Something tells me that these EU fines will not be channeled to help competitors whom Microsoft has crushed. Rather it seems more likely that the money is going straight to the EU coffers. Please correct me if I am wrong (it is a big assumption).
Have any /.ers read it?
However, this is not an excuse for an "anything goes" attitude. We still need to work hard to preserve the earth; it is one of our greatest responsibilities.
I am quite sorry, but I do not have time to read that entire document. If you could offer a synopsis, that would be nice. Thanks.
I acknowledge your input and reiterate that Microsoft is clearly an enemy to the computing world. But how does requiring a "Reduced Media Edition" help with the above-stated problem? It just scales back what they offer with the OS, when as far as I can tell, most of the trust/monopoly complaints are about the operating system itself (integration of IE with the OS, breaking competitors software).
In order to level the playing field for software development, the Windows OS must be standardized somehow (that is, Microsoft cannot intentionally make changes for the purpose of squashing to competition). How does the action of the EU actually reduce Microsoft's monolithic stature?
Furthermore, is such a steep monetary fine justified for the damage that Microsoft actually causes to its competitors? Notice that many of the apps which challenge MS products (Mozilla, Opera, Winamp, VLC) are available free of charge. Furthermore, the implicit goal of many of these (especially the Open Source projects - think Firefox) is to destroy Microsoft's market share in each respective category. So Microsoft's damage to the computing community cannot be measured so easily in pounds and pence. So why is the EU charging them so much money? Use your imagination.
Yes, Microsoft is involved in "unfair" business practices. But nailing them for IE and Windows Media Player is sort of like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion.
I was not implying double-jeopardy, just citing two examples though. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, though.
So in this case the sales increase is not necessarily based on the quality of the offering but on the convenience.
This is blatently unfair to Microsoft; an obvious exploitation of a wealthy corporation by governments. This is made obvious by the EU's 5% daily sales fine.