Or how about this as a worst-case scenario: Celera patents gene XYZ. Lurking in the gene sequence of XYZ is that cure for cancer. The XYZ sequence is licenced by a few people, but none of them recognise that the cure is there. Celera's patent prevents the publication of XYZ's sequence by anyone else.
Again, it depends on whether we are talking about patents or copyrights. If they copyright a set of information that includes the sequence for XYZ, they cannot prevent anyone from publishing that sequence unless it was originally derived from them. Anyone can get their own sequencing equipment, sequence the gene, and do whatever the hell they want.
This is very different from a patent, which would prevent anyone from using the sequence. I am nearly positive they cannot patent an existing sequence, only a new one not found in nature. (At least, I hope so.)
Anyway, patents expire in something like twenty years, not eighty. It is copyrights that expire only after an ungodly long time.
Actually, I think the real issue is not that they want to charge people for creating treatments from their data. They want to charge people for their data. There is a difference. And they certainly have a right to.
In other words, if they sequence gene XYZ, they certainly have the right to sell you this information in any manner they want. What they don't have the right to do is to tell anyone else that they can't sequence gene XYZ. In other words, they don't own the gene itself. They merely own their information about it.
It is no different from me doing lots of anatomical studies on the human heart, and then copyrighting the information and putting it up for sale. I can certainly do that. It doesn't mean that I "own" the human heart. You are free to gather your own information and copyright that. The only thing you can't do is copy mine without my permission.
Same here. All Celera is demanding is the right to be paid for the information they aquired if you get it from them. They are not denying you the right to go aquire the same information.
While I agree with you (mostly) on gene patents, it is important to make a distinction between that a copyrights. What we are talking about here is not the patenting of human genes but the copyrighting of a particular database of human gene descriptions. That is a whole different ball game. And, IMHO, no different from copyrighting an anatomy book.
In terms of patents (not directly related to this story) I do think that some patents might be ok, if they represent a new, genetically engineered sequence not originally found in nature.
Knees are jerking quickly, I'm sure, but people need to understand that there are some rights here that are of concern, but they are not what you think. Not rights to the human genome itself, but rights to a particular map of the human genome.
Today, maps are copyrighted, and for good reason. If I go out and spend millions surveying an area so that I can print an accurate map, I should be protected by copyright. Another person shouldn't be allowed to xerox my maps and then undercut my price. I deserve to be compensated for my investment. I don't own the information the maps are based on (the locations of cities and such). I own the my particular collection of it. While no own can legally copy my maps, they can go survey the area themselves and produce their own map. I suspect most people would find that eminantly fair. The person who does the work gets the money.
This is really no different. If Cerela creates a map of the human genome, they deserve the right to copyright their database of the human genome. That is only fair. However, they do not deserve the right to copyright the human genome itself. And, AFAIK, they aren't trying to.
In other words, if you want a copy of what Celera did, you should have to pay them. That is only fair. If you don't want to pay them, then you are perfectly free to extract your own DNA and create your own map of the human genome. They can't stop you. You can then sell your database, which you can certainly copyright yourself.
This is no different from geographical maps. No one "owns" the arrangement of geographical features in the world. Lots of mapmakers own their own particular collection of data concerning those features. That's the difference.
Perhaps a better example: If I write a book that describes the Linux kernel in detail, I can certainly copyright that description and charge whatever the hell I want for it. No one, not even Linus, can stop me. However, what I've copyrighted is my description of the Linux kernel, not the Linux kernel itself. This is no different. What Celera is talking about is not copyrighting the human genome, but copyrighting their description of the human genome.
Windows 2000 is its own threat. Seriously, from what I've seen, Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98 are currently the biggest competition to Windows 2000 right now. I don't think the business world is to keen on upgrading. (In my own particular little part of it, which is a large Corp. filled with phbs, and edict came down about a month ago saying that Windows 2000 and Office 2000 would not be supported on workstations under any circumstances and that they would be uninstalled if found.)
Ok, well, this has just got to be a troll, but I'm going to respond anyway.
It should be obvious that one of the primary reasons that Linux is as successful as it is is because when it appeared there were hundreds of thousands of coders and millions of lines of code all immediately available.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. You can't just tear it all down and make it perfect. You've got to work with the existing structure and move in little steps, so people aren't left holding the bag with nothing to show. Nobody wants to start from scratch. And really, nobody should have to start from scratch.
If you were to attempt to build up an OS to the level of Linux, from scratch, it would likely take you a decade. For what purpose? To end up with something that is a moderate improvement? Why not just improve what we've got?
Anyway, I am constantly amazed at the way people get all hyped out about a particular language or a particular OS. If you are a good coder, you can write good code in any language and on any OS. These are tools, people, and arguing about them is like two construction workers having a heated discussion over which hammer is better. Silly. Just pick the best tool available to you and go with it. If you don't like any of the tools, build your own. But don't whine because everyone else is too stupid to agree with you on what tool is the ultimate hammer. When I hear crap like that, I recall the old saying "it is a poor workman who blames his tools".
Yes, modern Unices are all "hacked together". But then, so is Windows. You see, there are two types of OS, those that people spend a lot of time hacking on, and those that no one uses. The latter have the sort of purity of an unlived in house. Everything is perfect, as the designer intended. But you have to realize that this would not last long were someone to move in.
The difference is that today I have no idea of knowing whether a packet is really coming from where it says it is coming from. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be an optional way to deny packets that have a spoofable source address, and to only allow source addresses to be changed to certain obvious values if you do wish to receive packets without a gauranteed source address.
I'm no protocol expert, so this may make no sense at all. As far as I understand, IPv6 prevents ip spoofing and the like. My thought is to have some sort of "anonymous flag" that, when set, disables all of the protections against spoofing when using certain addresses. Those who didn't want anonymous traffic would leave it unset, and their machines would refuse all packets that couldn't be backtraced. Those that wanted to allow it would set the flag and therefore receive "anonymous" packets.
Obviously, for this to work, backbones and ISPs would need to allow anonymous traffic, but the bulk of users would disallow it. Sites that catered to it would allow it. (Whistleblower agencies, Abuse groups and yes, pr0n sites).
Like "Innocent until Proven Guilty", the fifth amendment, and much of the rest of the bill of rights, anonymity is one of those things that the vast majority don't need, but those who need it need it really, really badly. If you work for a company that is about to secretly dump toxic waste, we, as a society definitely want you to be able to raise a flag without being put under threat of firing, or worse.
The number of whistle-blowers who have had their good deeds punished is legion. We need a way for them to be able to blow those whistles safely, so that those in power, whether governmental or corperate, have to fear that their actions may come to light. Certainly there will be abuses of this anonymity, but it is worth these abuses to get the benefits.
Banning anonymity is bad, but what we have now is bad, too. Currently, we have a sort of half-assed anonymity where holes in the protocol allow those with knowhow to either be anonymous, or to masquerade as someone else. Those not in the know are given an illusion of anonymity that is just that: an illusion. This means that many of those who get the benefits of anonymity are precisely those who don't deserve it (i.e. spammers, crackers, etc) while those that need it (those posting to abuse boards, etc) probably don't really get it.
What we need on the internet scale is something more explicit. We need to move to a protocol where address spoofing is not possible. We then should layer on top of that some sort of explicit "anonymous" packet support. We should then build on top of that explicit anonymity support in applications like e-mail packages and browsers. In other words, as a user, I should be able to simply check "mail anonymously" or "browse anonymously". On the other hand, as a mail recipient or site author, I should be able to check "refuse anonymous mail" or "refuse anonymous browsers". Make sure this support goes all the way down to the protocol level.
This would both allow anonymity and remove the biggest problems with anonymity.
To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.--Soft you now! The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons Be all my sins remember'd.
Beware, for every prediction that underestimates the impact of some future technology, there is another that overestimates the impact of some future technology. The same people who failed to see the impact of the computer in 1950 were busy predicting that nuclear power would make energy so cheap that it would go unmetered.
If you read a lot of that era's SF, you'll notice that nearly all of the exciting trends of the second half of the century were missed while nearly all of the new, exciting technologies the stories talked about didn't pan out. It is like Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, set around now, which has a fully functioning moon base controlled by one computer with 70k of core memory.
If you look at the SF of the fifties (and any other descriptions of the future) you'll see that it is all about atomic power and spaceships. Barely a word about things like computers, biotechnology and the like. It is very possible that "nanotechnology" is the flying car of 2050.
I think we can more or less take it as a given that whatever the world is like in 2035, it won't be much like this story, for the same reason the 1990s weren't like any of the old SF stories that tried to imagine them.
I suspect Sterling knows this. There are certainly reams of "predictions" in SF that are laughable now. But as you say, it is a mistake to assume that true prediction is the point of SF. Really, there are three sorts of SF "predictions".
Descriptions of things that the author thinks will happen.
Descriptions of things that the author worries might happen if things don't change, or change in a bad way.
Descriptions of ideas that the author thinks are interesting, but not necessarily at all likely.
And of course most stories are mostly a melding of the three. It might be interesting the speculate on which this essay is.
I suspect that it isn't meant to describe "what will happen" so much as it is meant simply to say "what goes up must come down" in regards to the economy.
This follows many of the same themes as his recent novel, Distraction, though IMHO, the cause he gave for the economic collapse was pretty silly. But anyway, that book expanded on a lot of the same themes, as an examination of a "high-tech" depression. One of the interesting differences between the twentieth century's depression is that he at least implied that things like food weren't necessarily hard to get. That they were cheap enough that even the very poor had enough to eat. (And we already see that trend starting in this country). But the economic depression left people disenfranchised none-the-less.
Not many data entry personel get their hands accidently ripped off by their machines.
That was pretty damn common around, say, 1830 or so. Early industrial revolution factories were very dangerous places.
You can certainly point to sweatshop like conditions in some areas of high tech, but none of them have the some lethality. I suspect that's what he meant.
One of the first machines I ever programmed on was a 4k TRS-80.
The first machine I did substantial programming (an Apple ][+) had only about 16k for BASIC programs before you ran into the video buffer. I still remember hitting that limit and getting all sorts of gibberish (my code) as graphics on the screen.
Though the obvious next steps would be to first alter it genetically to stay constantly in "auxillary power" mode, and then try to improve hydrogen yield with further genetic engineering. Though in all likelihood they'd end up with something to fragile to survive for long in the real world.
UCSD was a nice system, but its performance was mediocre. (Says this UCSD alumni.) And it certanly did not allow you to overload operators or do the sorts of typecasting C allows.
Your example of Pascal is completely out of context. Pascal was designed purely as a teaching language.
The context was that Pascal was the first compiled language available cheaply on the PC. C came a little later. C++ much later. At the time, PC programmers had little knowledge of anything but BASIC. They pretty clearly reacted against strong type, safe arrays and the like in favor of the pragmatism of C, and later, C++.
. First, what exactly do you mean by a language not telling me what to do?
Allows me to use pointers. Allows me to manipulate pointers, do math on them, etc. Allows me to quickly change data types. Etc, etc. Allows me to overload functions and operators. Allows me to nest classes. Allows me to control whether data is kept on the stack, on the heap, or fixed in memory. Basically, allows all those things that are "bad".
Basically, languages like C and C++ let programmers make up their own minds about what is "bad" and what is "good".
Second, are you kidding?
Execution speed, not development speed. And I'll believe those benchmarks when I see sample code. I've never seen it work like that in the real world.
Finally, if you actually bothered to read the critique I linked to in my original post, you would have seen that Ian's critique had nothing to do with changing C++.
I understand that. But you can't just say "X" is bad while ignorning the ramifications. Many of the criticisms went something like "C++ is bad because it does X" where reading "The Design and Evolution of C++", it is clear that it does "X" either because doing it that way improves performance, or because doing it that way gives the programmer more freedom.
For example, the complaint about safe arrays. Safe arrays reduce execution speed. To say that C++ is bad because it allows unsafe arrays is to say that safe arrays are more important than performance.
(Fortunately, we C++ programmers have the freedom to use safe arrays when we want (vector) and plain old fast arrays when we want ([10]).
Anyway, I actually did look at a lot of that critique, and most of the objects boiled down to either one of the two things I mentioned (Reducing programmer freedom, and a lack of concern for programmer efficiency or not things that get a language ) or with C++'s C compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, it depends on whether we are talking about patents or copyrights. If they copyright a set of information that includes the sequence for XYZ, they cannot prevent anyone from publishing that sequence unless it was originally derived from them. Anyone can get their own sequencing equipment, sequence the gene, and do whatever the hell they want.
This is very different from a patent, which would prevent anyone from using the sequence. I am nearly positive they cannot patent an existing sequence, only a new one not found in nature. (At least, I hope so.)
Anyway, patents expire in something like twenty years, not eighty. It is copyrights that expire only after an ungodly long time.
In other words, if they sequence gene XYZ, they certainly have the right to sell you this information in any manner they want. What they don't have the right to do is to tell anyone else that they can't sequence gene XYZ. In other words, they don't own the gene itself. They merely own their information about it.
It is no different from me doing lots of anatomical studies on the human heart, and then copyrighting the information and putting it up for sale. I can certainly do that. It doesn't mean that I "own" the human heart. You are free to gather your own information and copyright that. The only thing you can't do is copy mine without my permission.
Same here. All Celera is demanding is the right to be paid for the information they aquired if you get it from them. They are not denying you the right to go aquire the same information.
In terms of patents (not directly related to this story) I do think that some patents might be ok, if they represent a new, genetically engineered sequence not originally found in nature.
Today, maps are copyrighted, and for good reason. If I go out and spend millions surveying an area so that I can print an accurate map, I should be protected by copyright. Another person shouldn't be allowed to xerox my maps and then undercut my price. I deserve to be compensated for my investment. I don't own the information the maps are based on (the locations of cities and such). I own the my particular collection of it. While no own can legally copy my maps, they can go survey the area themselves and produce their own map. I suspect most people would find that eminantly fair. The person who does the work gets the money.
This is really no different. If Cerela creates a map of the human genome, they deserve the right to copyright their database of the human genome. That is only fair. However, they do not deserve the right to copyright the human genome itself. And, AFAIK, they aren't trying to.
In other words, if you want a copy of what Celera did, you should have to pay them. That is only fair. If you don't want to pay them, then you are perfectly free to extract your own DNA and create your own map of the human genome. They can't stop you. You can then sell your database, which you can certainly copyright yourself.
This is no different from geographical maps. No one "owns" the arrangement of geographical features in the world. Lots of mapmakers own their own particular collection of data concerning those features. That's the difference.
Perhaps a better example: If I write a book that describes the Linux kernel in detail, I can certainly copyright that description and charge whatever the hell I want for it. No one, not even Linus, can stop me. However, what I've copyrighted is my description of the Linux kernel, not the Linux kernel itself. This is no different. What Celera is talking about is not copyrighting the human genome, but copyrighting their description of the human genome.
Those guys need to get a new marketting department though, because their ads are really boring.
It should be obvious that one of the primary reasons that Linux is as successful as it is is because when it appeared there were hundreds of thousands of coders and millions of lines of code all immediately available.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. You can't just tear it all down and make it perfect. You've got to work with the existing structure and move in little steps, so people aren't left holding the bag with nothing to show. Nobody wants to start from scratch. And really, nobody should have to start from scratch.
If you were to attempt to build up an OS to the level of Linux, from scratch, it would likely take you a decade. For what purpose? To end up with something that is a moderate improvement? Why not just improve what we've got?
Anyway, I am constantly amazed at the way people get all hyped out about a particular language or a particular OS. If you are a good coder, you can write good code in any language and on any OS. These are tools, people, and arguing about them is like two construction workers having a heated discussion over which hammer is better. Silly. Just pick the best tool available to you and go with it. If you don't like any of the tools, build your own. But don't whine because everyone else is too stupid to agree with you on what tool is the ultimate hammer. When I hear crap like that, I recall the old saying "it is a poor workman who blames his tools".
Yes, modern Unices are all "hacked together". But then, so is Windows. You see, there are two types of OS, those that people spend a lot of time hacking on, and those that no one uses. The latter have the sort of purity of an unlived in house. Everything is perfect, as the designer intended. But you have to realize that this would not last long were someone to move in.
The difference is that today I have no idea of knowing whether a packet is really coming from where it says it is coming from. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be an optional way to deny packets that have a spoofable source address, and to only allow source addresses to be changed to certain obvious values if you do wish to receive packets without a gauranteed source address.
Obviously, for this to work, backbones and ISPs would need to allow anonymous traffic, but the bulk of users would disallow it. Sites that catered to it would allow it. (Whistleblower agencies, Abuse groups and yes, pr0n sites).
The number of whistle-blowers who have had their good deeds punished is legion. We need a way for them to be able to blow those whistles safely, so that those in power, whether governmental or corperate, have to fear that their actions may come to light. Certainly there will be abuses of this anonymity, but it is worth these abuses to get the benefits.
What we need on the internet scale is something more explicit. We need to move to a protocol where address spoofing is not possible. We then should layer on top of that some sort of explicit "anonymous" packet support. We should then build on top of that explicit anonymity support in applications like e-mail packages and browsers. In other words, as a user, I should be able to simply check "mail anonymously" or "browse anonymously". On the other hand, as a mail recipient or site author, I should be able to check "refuse anonymous mail" or "refuse anonymous browsers". Make sure this support goes all the way down to the protocol level.
This would both allow anonymity and remove the biggest problems with anonymity.
To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.--Soft you now! The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons Be all my sins remember'd.
He's talking about the whole half-page soliloqy, not the "to be or not to be, that is the question" excerpt that is always quoted.
If you read a lot of that era's SF, you'll notice that nearly all of the exciting trends of the second half of the century were missed while nearly all of the new, exciting technologies the stories talked about didn't pan out. It is like Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, set around now, which has a fully functioning moon base controlled by one computer with 70k of core memory.
If you look at the SF of the fifties (and any other descriptions of the future) you'll see that it is all about atomic power and spaceships. Barely a word about things like computers, biotechnology and the like. It is very possible that "nanotechnology" is the flying car of 2050.
You don't have to imagine. Just read Bellamy's Looking Backward, which was written in 1887 and describes the world of the year 2000.
A fascinating read.
I suspect Sterling knows this. There are certainly reams of "predictions" in SF that are laughable now. But as you say, it is a mistake to assume that true prediction is the point of SF. Really, there are three sorts of SF "predictions".
- Descriptions of things that the author thinks will happen.
- Descriptions of things that the author worries might happen if things don't change, or change in a bad way.
- Descriptions of ideas that the author thinks are interesting, but not necessarily at all likely.
And of course most stories are mostly a melding of the three. It might be interesting the speculate on which this essay is.I suspect that it isn't meant to describe "what will happen" so much as it is meant simply to say "what goes up must come down" in regards to the economy.
Not many data entry personel get their hands accidently ripped off by their machines.
That was pretty damn common around, say, 1830 or so. Early industrial revolution factories were very dangerous places.
You can certainly point to sweatshop like conditions in some areas of high tech, but none of them have the some lethality. I suspect that's what he meant.
One of the first machines I ever programmed on was a 4k TRS-80.
The first machine I did substantial programming (an Apple ][+) had only about 16k for BASIC programs before you ran into the video buffer. I still remember hitting that limit and getting all sorts of gibberish (my code) as graphics on the screen.
The good news:
The new chip has over ten billion transisters.
The bad news:
The new chip is over 1700 square feet.
Plans for a portable based on the new chip are being put on hold...
Though the obvious next steps would be to first alter it genetically to stay constantly in "auxillary power" mode, and then try to improve hydrogen yield with further genetic engineering. Though in all likelihood they'd end up with something to fragile to survive for long in the real world.
Ignorance. Thanks for the pointer.
UCSD was a nice system, but its performance was mediocre. (Says this UCSD alumni.) And it certanly did not allow you to overload operators or do the sorts of typecasting C allows.
The context was that Pascal was the first compiled language available cheaply on the PC. C came a little later. C++ much later. At the time, PC programmers had little knowledge of anything but BASIC. They pretty clearly reacted against strong type, safe arrays and the like in favor of the pragmatism of C, and later, C++.
. First, what exactly do you mean by a language not telling me what to do?
Allows me to use pointers. Allows me to manipulate pointers, do math on them, etc. Allows me to quickly change data types. Etc, etc. Allows me to overload functions and operators. Allows me to nest classes. Allows me to control whether data is kept on the stack, on the heap, or fixed in memory. Basically, allows all those things that are "bad".
Basically, languages like C and C++ let programmers make up their own minds about what is "bad" and what is "good".
Second, are you kidding?
Execution speed, not development speed. And I'll believe those benchmarks when I see sample code. I've never seen it work like that in the real world.
Finally, if you actually bothered to read the critique I linked to in my original post, you would have seen that Ian's critique had nothing to do with changing C++.
I understand that. But you can't just say "X" is bad while ignorning the ramifications. Many of the criticisms went something like "C++ is bad because it does X" where reading "The Design and Evolution of C++", it is clear that it does "X" either because doing it that way improves performance, or because doing it that way gives the programmer more freedom.
For example, the complaint about safe arrays. Safe arrays reduce execution speed. To say that C++ is bad because it allows unsafe arrays is to say that safe arrays are more important than performance.
(Fortunately, we C++ programmers have the freedom to use safe arrays when we want (vector) and plain old fast arrays when we want ([10]).
Anyway, I actually did look at a lot of that critique, and most of the objects boiled down to either one of the two things I mentioned (Reducing programmer freedom, and a lack of concern for programmer efficiency or not things that get a language ) or with C++'s C compatibility.
There are a fair amount of blatent errors on that page in regards to C++. For example, "super()" is a java construct, not a C++ one.