I agree with you. the DRM is acceptable because it is not acceptable to have a DAP other than an IPOD, but that will change.
I suspect that Apple agrees. In fact, shareholders agree and the price has dropped a little; they feel that the IPOD bubble is about to burst.
Apple is hedging their bets. They linked up with Intel for software licensing revenues to diversify revenue stream. Eventually, they'll open Itunes.... they'll have to.
I'd rather go to jail then have some judge tell me my rights are less important than those of "Harry Potter Publishers Inc." or whatever.
sounds like you've never been to jail.
just playing devil's advocate and all, but talking about it all over the net is potentially injurious to profit margins, so you can't blame them for trying to keep you from talking. I can't imagine that such an injunction is enforceable under scrutiny, but is that a fight you really want to get into?
also, having a copy of the book before its published and having read it is a position of strength, so maybe you'd do better to negotiate a couple of shares of stock b4 bookstores opened or something? might as well capitalize, right?
their parents probably wouldn't get paid more. The labor cost is part of the attractive nature of international manufacturing. All of our shit gets made in China because there are a billion people there ready to make stuff for dirt cheap. You cut that force in half and costs go up. taking into account tariffs and other monetary valuation issues and it is no longer as attractive an option to produce goods there.
i tend to assume that human will do what they have to do to get the most resources they can get under their control. i don't think corporations are different in that regard.
also, i don't necessarily think that moral regard is so closely tied to human nature.
in the state of nature, you would probably do ANYTHING to make sure your young were fed. the environment in which corporations do trade, especially internationally, is much akin to the state of nature as there is less social stricture and governmental regulation. They indeed do anything to metaphorically feed their young. To say that it's right or wrong obscures the fact that corporations function on a fundamentally different, more primitive playing field where success is the only arbiter. Our outrage is because this process has become more transparent and thus unpalatable to us. It's no different than lions chasing down wildebeasts on the Discovery channel.
my point is that they produce food for 1.3 billion people on a relatively small tract of arable land ~ 7% of their surface area. they have a dubious agriculture and pesticide record, and pollution of their major waterways continues to reduce the viability of their arable land. this is what i mean by not being able to feed their own population.
middle eastern countries can't feed their populations either, but have a stranglehold on oil, which is just as good. china has a workforce advantage, not a commodity advantage.
the US might have a problem with poverty and homelessness, but the issue isn't production... it's distribution. the US produces enough food annually to feed the planet. china's agricultural issues are just beginning; it's why big processed food manufacturers like Con Agra and GMO companies like Monsanto look at China and drool.
See, I read his statement as literal. FEEDING their population.
I'm not certain China can continue to feed its population at the rate the population continues to grow. They definitely can't power their economy or bank it at this rate.
This is why the US doesn't fret so much about China, IMO. There's a lot of talk, but Capitol Hill seems to be taking a wait and see attitude. With the prices of oil skyrocketing with no end in sight, China, a manufacturing powerhouse, is literally a giant with his balls caught in a vice.
China, especially because its economy is so closely tied to its manufacturing prowess, is desperately in need of renewed electrical infrastructure, a benevolent relationship with oil suppliers, etc. In other words... despite their economic growth... they are so dependent on the rest of the world for essentials that they have less power on the world stage than they should have. "Feeding" billions of people is still tough for them to do.
i think that's his point though. not so much the quality of medicines being produced, or the manner in which the pharmaceutical evolutionary process works, in as much as the choices of drugs that seemingly are being developed by drug companies.
Your point about the FDA doesn't obviate the fact that pharmaceutical companies systematically seek to treat symptoms instead of developing promising long term therapies for successful eradication of conditions. What it means is that the system is fscked from the top/down.
The other issue about pharmaceutical companies is their steadfast refusal to look into nutraceuticals because of intellectual property issues. I'd be interested in seeing how much pharm money these researchers get to look into bromelain components. Interestingly enough, indigenous cultures have raved about the anti-inflammatory properties of bromelain forever and it has already been historically used as a medicine. In fact, there are a number of discrete compounds which exhibit medicinal effects that, because of intellectual property issues, don't get the money behind them to get detailed analysis.
This is a case of PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO (i.e. incremental revenue increases) at the expense of the future of our society. It's a preserving of an existing infrastructure at the expense of a whole new way of thinking about medicine.
We're the most medicated in the world, but we consistently get beaten in life expectancy by places like Andorra and Okinawa, Japan... places where few medications are taken.
dude... the x-prize guys aren't launching into orbit. shit, the boundary that we use to define "space" is actually rather arbitrary; move it 50 km upwards, and the x-prize guys built really high flying funny looking planes.
Rutan's designs are proof of concept for a different approach to spaceflight. that approach is in its infancy.
the old model for going to space is infrastructure intensive... cost-intensive... it's brute force. Furthermore, because of the cost, it isn't easy to swap out infrastructure for upgrades. I'll wager that an enterprising nation can build from scatch a more modern space program than can now evolve at NASA given the same time frame. That's just the way things work.
Also, NASA is constantly inventing the wheel. Rutan's model for space flight is 50 years old. The air-force has been piggybacking rockets on jets forever. He did nothing new other than provide the template for commercialization of the platform.
Comparing the X-Prize competitors to NASA is like comparing a hare to an elephant.
you're right. in regards to DVDs, the thing that spurns the sales are the behind the scenes, the ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE, the unrated scenes (unrated versions of films tend to sell very well on DVD - Bad Santa and BADDER SANTA are an excellent example).
I freelance in the film industry and I can give you a bit of understanding as to why films are made and what industry thinking is.
1. it's a freelance industry. producers typically earn 10% of the production budget; thus it behooves producers to make big films. the studios prefer to make films that are costly because this prevents serious contention from external investors. For example, HITCH cost 70 million to make - this for a romantic comedy... a seriously bloated budget that precludes the independent investor who is otherwise unaware that you can do the same film on 7 million and not notice the difference on screen.
2. The above noted, most films end theatrical runs in the red. Studios count on significant box office performance because the good word of mouth boosts DVD sales and reduces the cost of an ancillary DVD marketing campaign.
3. The revenue stream over five years (it's now collapsing to 3 as studios are under pressure to show more immediate results and more channels are licensing content) is the moneymaker for studios. Theatrical->DVD->PPV/VOD->Premium Cable->Basic Cable->network TV. Several reasons abound as to why films need the pg-13 rating to remain financially soluble - but first and foremost is that a pg-13 rating makes for an easy sell down the pipeline.
4. Reduction of risk is prime for hollywood. remakes and sequels are risk averse. Independent film companies often cannot compete with the big players because the inflated cost of filmmaking (it's harder to get spoiled name actors, quality film crews and key personnel) precludes many independent producers from acquiring the key elements necessary to get wide distribution (all studies show that the financial solubility of a film to be directly correlational to its wide release and its rating). So the independent product is sparse in the marketplace.
4. let's not forget international box office. International DVDs still lag because of piracy, but international box office for big films tend to be anywhere from 50% to 100% of domestic box office. For some stars like Tom Cruise (who's huge internationally), international box office consistently eclipses domestic.
this vicious cycle produces bloat, but the process is well understood. the prime fear for studios is the collapse of the theatrical model. No wide release for a film means no huge DVD sales, which means low licensing fees... they haven't even started with an alternative model. They are probably grateful for slow broadband uptake in the US and are using the time to throw something up to see what sticks.
Mark Cuban's idea about day and date releases is a good one, but it requires that the film be GOOD. Hollywood simply can't make that assertion because for the most part they have little to do with the making of the films. They finance and distribute. So they need hype and press and gimmicks to sell a film that they invested in, but which turns out to suck.
Finally, the two biggest movie going audiences are the 12-25s and the 45-64s. So hollywood makes movies for those groups almost exclusively... smart adults movies in the fall, and shitty movies in the summer.
Re: downloads. I've used movielink and didn't like it. I'm interested in seeing how this turns out.
I'd actually consider implanting a weatherproof/body-proof storage mod. 4 gigs and up - small form factor... replaceable once a year? I'd do it if it existed.
funny, but with the oh so salient kernel of truth.
this is interesting proof of concept, but with so many variables in writing to a biological substrate, this is where implants come in. I'm so surprised that no one has started doing ports yet - meaning body modifications for things like data storage, etc.
Someone will put a 12 gauge ring through his face but not augment with an upgradeable bluetooth flash drive? Interesting times we live in.
Well, I'll google body mods to see if someone's doing it. somebody's gotta be doing it.
The sciences are evolutionary. We need the early, shitty models to direct and focus ensuing research and modeling. In the beginning of the research cycle for every branch, all of it amounts to guesstimated shots in the dark. Fine tuning then comes from that, then more spohisticated models, etc.
Re: just because we can. That's the greatest and best reason to do anything.
I think you make a salient point though, in that the publication of such preliminary research tends to be injurious to the general public... especially medical research.
I'm African American with moderately dark skin, and I've never sunburned.
I work in the film industry, and I worked on a set last summer on the island of St. Lucia. We were working 16-17 hour days, much of it with full on sun. Our crew was dropping like flies the first couple of days.
It got to the point where we actually hired a few locals, and quickly trained them for a lot of grunt work. A lot of our techs and electrical guys (who we couldn't do without) were covered with wide brim hats, long sleeves and sunscreen.
I think you bring up an interesting point about genetics, in as much that modern medicine, in my experience, is more effective when tailored to genetic differences. I would imagine that my primary care provider would be interested in medical conditions that disproportionately affect African Americans, i.e. heart disease and diabetes. Usually however, my doctor(s) never bring up what I'd need to do to stay healthy longer. It tends to be more generic information which doesn't seem to allow for statistical overrepresentation.
my point is that while there is much to learn about superconductivity, it has been discovered. We have easily-replicated experiments that we can consistently perform; we can predict results with some accuracy. In other words, superconductivity has already been discovered (the tree); the details you mention (the branches) merely add to the precision to which we can fine tune its mechanism and commercially exploit its science.
An analogy is learning to ride a bike. Once I've learned to ride a bike, the major aspect of discovery is gone. There are minutiae (wheelies, tricks, racing, etc) - there are details, but I can now ride a bike. My point is that it might just be possible that we've discovered a good number of innovations. Our ability to fully exploit them is hindered by our engineering, which in my opinion has seriously lagged behind our ability to collect and analyze data.
And another note. We live, as of now, too short a life to advance the science far more then we already do. It takes a lot of time to learn science of your predecessors, and by the time you are ready to do your own research you are dead. We either have to prolong life of our current biological bodies, or we have to move our minds into a faster machine, so that one can learn most of modern physics in an hour or so. Otherwise we hit a gnostic barrier just as solid as the light speed.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's such a huge ramp up time to be ready to take the baton, and such a short amount of time for you to do the actual running. Agreed. Completely.
The real issue here is that people who deny progress can not expect to lead those who embrace progress.
But that's precisely the case. Those who deny progress will continue to lead because those who promote progression tend to be a numerical minority (Actually funny is another article posted above this one where Bill Gates said he won't be interested in getting computer implants when they become available). It's gonna be tough getting those guys into office.
why does everything end up with some form of personal attack?
I've actually studied a lot of physics. How this is relevant is uncertain. My argument is that the branches of physics in which we stand to make these discoveries ALREADY exist. We've already discovered those branches. If each discrete branch of physics is a tree, one argument might be that we've discovered all the trees and are now determining the branches and leaves. The details.
String theory? Not new. Dark Matter? That was Einstein's cosmological constant a hundred years ago. Shit, we can already theorize about how to manipulate gravitational wells to bend time. I can sit down and think of fifteen different things I can apply a hypothetical gravitational lens to. My nine year old nephew understands what a Bose-einstein condensate is, which was actually predicted in the 20s.
That's precisely my point. This is what nanotech seeks to solve. Despite what seems like our limited knowledge, our knowledge is far more vast that our ability to engineer. So if innovation is described as when the possibility of something new comes within our conceptual grasp, then innovation proceeds faster than ever. But if innovation is defined as our ability to make something tangible that is new, then we are moving at a snail's pace.
Cell phones are still telephones. We still sit humans on top of controlled explosions to send them into space.
btw, those people who would want to die themselves of old age... count amongst them the Catholics (a billion) and assorted Christians, the Hindi, the Jews, and the Muslims. This is a significant percentage of the human population.
Also, much of the impetus for social development is the prospect of death. Our mortality is he reason we do what we do.
This is what I think interesting. What purpose will an artificially intelligent being have to do anything? Why? Maybe this consciousness that we espouse as the greatest and most significant aspect of our development is the exact same thing that will inhibit fundamental change.
dude, i think that's exactly what we're waiting for. For the older conservative leaders to die. Literally. Governments are ultimate arbiters of the reasonable limits on technological progress and the rate at which there is societal uptake.
This is why I've thought it a great idea to do groundbreaking research in 3rd world countries. Not to exploit the local populace, but such countries have a vested interested in novel innovation that might bring about economic boon.
There will be no stem cell research of importance here as long as the red states can keep controlling the white house. I say let them die in peace and do our research in southeast asia or something.
that'a fair argument. the cost of innovation now vs. the "sweet spot" period in the article.
Edison innovated in his shed out back. The cost might have been significant in his day, but not prohibitive.
Some might argue that the cost of innovation now is prohibitive. The fair assessment of this article might be that all the "easy" innovations, or all the "cheap" innovations have already been discovered.
The other thing is this. There are a lot of books circulating about criticality. A big idea in criticality is complexity arising from very simple origins (Gutenberg-Richter Law). So there is the idea that the TREES of our major technologies going forward have already been discovered. The branches are being fleshed out now, but the trunks are all there in plain view. If that is the case, then innovation isn't slowing because of societal reasons, but is slowing because there's less new shit to discover, lending credence to a simple universe.
A sneeze during surgery as a neurosurgeon gets you fired if you're working on a big money patient. Probably not so if it's some disadvantaged kid from the inner city. When large amounts of money are involved, there is no such thing as a simple mistake.
I'm certain this is more common, despite software safeguards, etc.
Re: Unions. I'm reminds of an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer was charged to protect the secret of the truckers' union, which was that they in actuality had trucks that could drive themselves. Given the choice of retooling for different careers, the truckers decided to perpetuate a conspiracy so that no one knew of the trucking AI. I can imagine that unions stifle innovation in order to consistently and artificially inflate work rolls.
I think the point of the quote is that high quality content is likely to dry up because high quality content is often costly. If a return is doubtful, there is no impetus to create it in the first place.
interestingly enough, the reason television is beset with reality shows is because less of the desirable demographic is watching television. thus ad rates are lower, so cheaper programming is necessary to support the business model.
Slashdot is free (at least I've never paid for it); there is no reason to seek out an alternative. A movie costs X, so if someone can get me that same movie (same quality, same content) for free, that is an attractive alternative.
The old adage is true. You get what you pay for.
I freelance in the film industry. I can tell you that, for example, the LOTR franchise is bought to you by the good folks at New Line due in part to movies like the austin powers series, or the Blade series, or the Rush Hour series. Many would argue that these films suck, but New Line generated the cash for LOTR by using the formula (high concept/low to moderate budget) and by having good credit with banking institutions. That is the Hollywood film business model. That's how LOTR gets funded, because LOTR obliterates that model and would never get done otherwise. Interestingly enough, everyone laughed at New Line and predicted their end when they announced that they were giving a hack horror director 300 million to direct 3 fantasy movies at once.
Higher quality ideas are not harder to rip or replicate. They can burn to DVD just fine. And that definitely has an effect on the amount of material released which reduces total revenue. Less revenue means less to spend on quality projects.
Our educational system will benefit from designing programs tailored to the many different ways children learn. For this reason, I resist the notion that these conditions are "mental conditions" in the sense that I don't necessarily think them deviant. I tend to think that more such "conditions" will arise and science will conclude that the developing brain optimizes in different ways, and teach accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you. the DRM is acceptable because it is not acceptable to have a DAP other than an IPOD, but that will change.
I suspect that Apple agrees. In fact, shareholders agree and the price has dropped a little; they feel that the IPOD bubble is about to burst.
Apple is hedging their bets. They linked up with Intel for software licensing revenues to diversify revenue stream. Eventually, they'll open Itunes.... they'll have to.
lol, dude it's not that serious. i don't read the shit anyway, so ruining it for me isn't an issue.
you just sounded REALLY principled when you said you'd rather go to jail and all. lol.
like you said, it's just harry potter.
I'd rather go to jail then have some judge tell me my rights are less important than those of "Harry Potter Publishers Inc." or whatever.
sounds like you've never been to jail.
just playing devil's advocate and all, but talking about it all over the net is potentially injurious to profit margins, so you can't blame them for trying to keep you from talking. I can't imagine that such an injunction is enforceable under scrutiny, but is that a fight you really want to get into?
also, having a copy of the book before its published and having read it is a position of strength, so maybe you'd do better to negotiate a couple of shares of stock b4 bookstores opened or something? might as well capitalize, right?
their parents probably wouldn't get paid more. The labor cost is part of the attractive nature of international manufacturing. All of our shit gets made in China because there are a billion people there ready to make stuff for dirt cheap. You cut that force in half and costs go up. taking into account tariffs and other monetary valuation issues and it is no longer as attractive an option to produce goods there.
i tend to assume that human will do what they have to do to get the most resources they can get under their control. i don't think corporations are different in that regard.
also, i don't necessarily think that moral regard is so closely tied to human nature.
in the state of nature, you would probably do ANYTHING to make sure your young were fed. the environment in which corporations do trade, especially internationally, is much akin to the state of nature as there is less social stricture and governmental regulation. They indeed do anything to metaphorically feed their young. To say that it's right or wrong obscures the fact that corporations function on a fundamentally different, more primitive playing field where success is the only arbiter. Our outrage is because this process has become more transparent and thus unpalatable to us. It's no different than lions chasing down wildebeasts on the Discovery channel.
so some slashdot nerds can come down and dribble on you, why not, you're such a tough New Yorker, right?
dude, did you say dribble? You're so not ready.
lol.
my point is that they produce food for 1.3 billion people on a relatively small tract of arable land ~ 7% of their surface area. they have a dubious agriculture and pesticide record, and pollution of their major waterways continues to reduce the viability of their arable land. this is what i mean by not being able to feed their own population.
middle eastern countries can't feed their populations either, but have a stranglehold on oil, which is just as good. china has a workforce advantage, not a commodity advantage.
the US might have a problem with poverty and homelessness, but the issue isn't production... it's distribution. the US produces enough food annually to feed the planet. china's agricultural issues are just beginning; it's why big processed food manufacturers like Con Agra and GMO companies like Monsanto look at China and drool.
See, I read his statement as literal. FEEDING their population.
I'm not certain China can continue to feed its population at the rate the population continues to grow. They definitely can't power their economy or bank it at this rate.
This is why the US doesn't fret so much about China, IMO. There's a lot of talk, but Capitol Hill seems to be taking a wait and see attitude. With the prices of oil skyrocketing with no end in sight, China, a manufacturing powerhouse, is literally a giant with his balls caught in a vice.
China, especially because its economy is so closely tied to its manufacturing prowess, is desperately in need of renewed electrical infrastructure, a benevolent relationship with oil suppliers, etc. In other words... despite their economic growth... they are so dependent on the rest of the world for essentials that they have less power on the world stage than they should have. "Feeding" billions of people is still tough for them to do.
i think that's his point though. not so much the quality of medicines being produced, or the manner in which the pharmaceutical evolutionary process works, in as much as the choices of drugs that seemingly are being developed by drug companies.
Your point about the FDA doesn't obviate the fact that pharmaceutical companies systematically seek to treat symptoms instead of developing promising long term therapies for successful eradication of conditions. What it means is that the system is fscked from the top/down.
The other issue about pharmaceutical companies is their steadfast refusal to look into nutraceuticals because of intellectual property issues. I'd be interested in seeing how much pharm money these researchers get to look into bromelain components. Interestingly enough, indigenous cultures have raved about the anti-inflammatory properties of bromelain forever and it has already been historically used as a medicine. In fact, there are a number of discrete compounds which exhibit medicinal effects that, because of intellectual property issues, don't get the money behind them to get detailed analysis.
This is a case of PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO (i.e. incremental revenue increases) at the expense of the future of our society. It's a preserving of an existing infrastructure at the expense of a whole new way of thinking about medicine.
We're the most medicated in the world, but we consistently get beaten in life expectancy by places like Andorra and Okinawa, Japan... places where few medications are taken.
IMO, that's what the GP was getting at.
dude... the x-prize guys aren't launching into orbit. shit, the boundary that we use to define "space" is actually rather arbitrary; move it 50 km upwards, and the x-prize guys built really high flying funny looking planes.
Rutan's designs are proof of concept for a different approach to spaceflight. that approach is in its infancy.
the old model for going to space is infrastructure intensive... cost-intensive... it's brute force. Furthermore, because of the cost, it isn't easy to swap out infrastructure for upgrades. I'll wager that an enterprising nation can build from scatch a more modern space program than can now evolve at NASA given the same time frame. That's just the way things work.
Also, NASA is constantly inventing the wheel. Rutan's model for space flight is 50 years old. The air-force has been piggybacking rockets on jets forever. He did nothing new other than provide the template for commercialization of the platform.
Comparing the X-Prize competitors to NASA is like comparing a hare to an elephant.
See, it's really interesting that you mention that because I thought the post office should do the same thing.
The post office could be privatized and use its market penetration in many ways.
you could have a low cost no-frills postal telco pretty soon.
you're right. in regards to DVDs, the thing that spurns the sales are the behind the scenes, the ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE, the unrated scenes (unrated versions of films tend to sell very well on DVD - Bad Santa and BADDER SANTA are an excellent example).
I freelance in the film industry and I can give you a bit of understanding as to why films are made and what industry thinking is.
1. it's a freelance industry. producers typically earn 10% of the production budget; thus it behooves producers to make big films. the studios prefer to make films that are costly because this prevents serious contention from external investors. For example, HITCH cost 70 million to make - this for a romantic comedy... a seriously bloated budget that precludes the independent investor who is otherwise unaware that you can do the same film on 7 million and not notice the difference on screen.
2. The above noted, most films end theatrical runs in the red. Studios count on significant box office performance because the good word of mouth boosts DVD sales and reduces the cost of an ancillary DVD marketing campaign.
3. The revenue stream over five years (it's now collapsing to 3 as studios are under pressure to show more immediate results and more channels are licensing content) is the moneymaker for studios. Theatrical->DVD->PPV/VOD->Premium Cable->Basic Cable->network TV. Several reasons abound as to why films need the pg-13 rating to remain financially soluble - but first and foremost is that a pg-13 rating makes for an easy sell down the pipeline.
4. Reduction of risk is prime for hollywood. remakes and sequels are risk averse. Independent film companies often cannot compete with the big players because the inflated cost of filmmaking (it's harder to get spoiled name actors, quality film crews and key personnel) precludes many independent producers from acquiring the key elements necessary to get wide distribution (all studies show that the financial solubility of a film to be directly correlational to its wide release and its rating). So the independent product is sparse in the marketplace.
4. let's not forget international box office. International DVDs still lag because of piracy, but international box office for big films tend to be anywhere from 50% to 100% of domestic box office. For some stars like Tom Cruise (who's huge internationally), international box office consistently eclipses domestic.
this vicious cycle produces bloat, but the process is well understood. the prime fear for studios is the collapse of the theatrical model. No wide release for a film means no huge DVD sales, which means low licensing fees... they haven't even started with an alternative model. They are probably grateful for slow broadband uptake in the US and are using the time to throw something up to see what sticks.
Mark Cuban's idea about day and date releases is a good one, but it requires that the film be GOOD. Hollywood simply can't make that assertion because for the most part they have little to do with the making of the films. They finance and distribute. So they need hype and press and gimmicks to sell a film that they invested in, but which turns out to suck.
Finally, the two biggest movie going audiences are the 12-25s and the 45-64s. So hollywood makes movies for those groups almost exclusively... smart adults movies in the fall, and shitty movies in the summer.
Re: downloads. I've used movielink and didn't like it. I'm interested in seeing how this turns out.
also... can you scan that data remotely? even if encrypted, fingernail data is in plain sight.
oh shit. good fucking find.
I'd actually consider implanting a weatherproof/body-proof storage mod. 4 gigs and up - small form factor... replaceable once a year? I'd do it if it existed.
funny, but with the oh so salient kernel of truth.
this is interesting proof of concept, but with so many variables in writing to a biological substrate, this is where implants come in. I'm so surprised that no one has started doing ports yet - meaning body modifications for things like data storage, etc.
Someone will put a 12 gauge ring through his face but not augment with an upgradeable bluetooth flash drive? Interesting times we live in.
Well, I'll google body mods to see if someone's doing it. somebody's gotta be doing it.
The sciences are evolutionary. We need the early, shitty models to direct and focus ensuing research and modeling. In the beginning of the research cycle for every branch, all of it amounts to guesstimated shots in the dark. Fine tuning then comes from that, then more spohisticated models, etc.
Re: just because we can. That's the greatest and best reason to do anything.
I think you make a salient point though, in that the publication of such preliminary research tends to be injurious to the general public... especially medical research.
I'm African American with moderately dark skin, and I've never sunburned.
I work in the film industry, and I worked on a set last summer on the island of St. Lucia. We were working 16-17 hour days, much of it with full on sun. Our crew was dropping like flies the first couple of days.
It got to the point where we actually hired a few locals, and quickly trained them for a lot of grunt work. A lot of our techs and electrical guys (who we couldn't do without) were covered with wide brim hats, long sleeves and sunscreen.
I think you bring up an interesting point about genetics, in as much that modern medicine, in my experience, is more effective when tailored to genetic differences. I would imagine that my primary care provider would be interested in medical conditions that disproportionately affect African Americans, i.e. heart disease and diabetes. Usually however, my doctor(s) never bring up what I'd need to do to stay healthy longer. It tends to be more generic information which doesn't seem to allow for statistical overrepresentation.
my point is that while there is much to learn about superconductivity, it has been discovered. We have easily-replicated experiments that we can consistently perform; we can predict results with some accuracy. In other words, superconductivity has already been discovered (the tree); the details you mention (the branches) merely add to the precision to which we can fine tune its mechanism and commercially exploit its science.
An analogy is learning to ride a bike. Once I've learned to ride a bike, the major aspect of discovery is gone. There are minutiae (wheelies, tricks, racing, etc) - there are details, but I can now ride a bike. My point is that it might just be possible that we've discovered a good number of innovations. Our ability to fully exploit them is hindered by our engineering, which in my opinion has seriously lagged behind our ability to collect and analyze data.
And another note. We live, as of now, too short a life to advance the science far more then we already do. It takes a lot of time to learn science of your predecessors, and by the time you are ready to do your own research you are dead. We either have to prolong life of our current biological bodies, or we have to move our minds into a faster machine, so that one can learn most of modern physics in an hour or so. Otherwise we hit a gnostic barrier just as solid as the light speed.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's such a huge ramp up time to be ready to take the baton, and such a short amount of time for you to do the actual running. Agreed. Completely.
The real issue here is that people who deny progress can not expect to lead those who embrace progress. But that's precisely the case. Those who deny progress will continue to lead because those who promote progression tend to be a numerical minority (Actually funny is another article posted above this one where Bill Gates said he won't be interested in getting computer implants when they become available). It's gonna be tough getting those guys into office.
why does everything end up with some form of personal attack?
I've actually studied a lot of physics. How this is relevant is uncertain. My argument is that the branches of physics in which we stand to make these discoveries ALREADY exist. We've already discovered those branches. If each discrete branch of physics is a tree, one argument might be that we've discovered all the trees and are now determining the branches and leaves. The details.
String theory? Not new. Dark Matter? That was Einstein's cosmological constant a hundred years ago. Shit, we can already theorize about how to manipulate gravitational wells to bend time. I can sit down and think of fifteen different things I can apply a hypothetical gravitational lens to. My nine year old nephew understands what a Bose-einstein condensate is, which was actually predicted in the 20s.
That's precisely my point. This is what nanotech seeks to solve. Despite what seems like our limited knowledge, our knowledge is far more vast that our ability to engineer. So if innovation is described as when the possibility of something new comes within our conceptual grasp, then innovation proceeds faster than ever. But if innovation is defined as our ability to make something tangible that is new, then we are moving at a snail's pace.
Cell phones are still telephones. We still sit humans on top of controlled explosions to send them into space.
btw, those people who would want to die themselves of old age... count amongst them the Catholics (a billion) and assorted Christians, the Hindi, the Jews, and the Muslims. This is a significant percentage of the human population.
Also, much of the impetus for social development is the prospect of death. Our mortality is he reason we do what we do.
This is what I think interesting. What purpose will an artificially intelligent being have to do anything? Why? Maybe this consciousness that we espouse as the greatest and most significant aspect of our development is the exact same thing that will inhibit fundamental change.
dude, i think that's exactly what we're waiting for. For the older conservative leaders to die. Literally. Governments are ultimate arbiters of the reasonable limits on technological progress and the rate at which there is societal uptake.
This is why I've thought it a great idea to do groundbreaking research in 3rd world countries. Not to exploit the local populace, but such countries have a vested interested in novel innovation that might bring about economic boon.
There will be no stem cell research of importance here as long as the red states can keep controlling the white house. I say let them die in peace and do our research in southeast asia or something.
that'a fair argument. the cost of innovation now vs. the "sweet spot" period in the article.
Edison innovated in his shed out back. The cost might have been significant in his day, but not prohibitive.
Some might argue that the cost of innovation now is prohibitive. The fair assessment of this article might be that all the "easy" innovations, or all the "cheap" innovations have already been discovered.
The other thing is this. There are a lot of books circulating about criticality. A big idea in criticality is complexity arising from very simple origins (Gutenberg-Richter Law). So there is the idea that the TREES of our major technologies going forward have already been discovered. The branches are being fleshed out now, but the trunks are all there in plain view. If that is the case, then innovation isn't slowing because of societal reasons, but is slowing because there's less new shit to discover, lending credence to a simple universe.
A sneeze during surgery as a neurosurgeon gets you fired if you're working on a big money patient. Probably not so if it's some disadvantaged kid from the inner city. When large amounts of money are involved, there is no such thing as a simple mistake.
I'm certain this is more common, despite software safeguards, etc.
Re: Unions. I'm reminds of an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer was charged to protect the secret of the truckers' union, which was that they in actuality had trucks that could drive themselves. Given the choice of retooling for different careers, the truckers decided to perpetuate a conspiracy so that no one knew of the trucking AI. I can imagine that unions stifle innovation in order to consistently and artificially inflate work rolls.
This is not flamebait, so please be kind.
I think the point of the quote is that high quality content is likely to dry up because high quality content is often costly. If a return is doubtful, there is no impetus to create it in the first place.
interestingly enough, the reason television is beset with reality shows is because less of the desirable demographic is watching television. thus ad rates are lower, so cheaper programming is necessary to support the business model.
Slashdot is free (at least I've never paid for it); there is no reason to seek out an alternative. A movie costs X, so if someone can get me that same movie (same quality, same content) for free, that is an attractive alternative.
The old adage is true. You get what you pay for.
I freelance in the film industry. I can tell you that, for example, the LOTR franchise is bought to you by the good folks at New Line due in part to movies like the austin powers series, or the Blade series, or the Rush Hour series. Many would argue that these films suck, but New Line generated the cash for LOTR by using the formula (high concept/low to moderate budget) and by having good credit with banking institutions. That is the Hollywood film business model. That's how LOTR gets funded, because LOTR obliterates that model and would never get done otherwise. Interestingly enough, everyone laughed at New Line and predicted their end when they announced that they were giving a hack horror director 300 million to direct 3 fantasy movies at once.
Higher quality ideas are not harder to rip or replicate. They can burn to DVD just fine. And that definitely has an effect on the amount of material released which reduces total revenue. Less revenue means less to spend on quality projects.
Our educational system will benefit from designing programs tailored to the many different ways children learn. For this reason, I resist the notion that these conditions are "mental conditions" in the sense that I don't necessarily think them deviant. I tend to think that more such "conditions" will arise and science will conclude that the developing brain optimizes in different ways, and teach accordingly.