The reason why DVD rentals cost less than buying a DVD is that, the DVD at Block Buster is usually rented out more than once (and sold later). I don't see these use-and-throw DVDs as "rentals".
This is more like the mechanic giving you a rental car while he fixes your own car.
1. Can you hear the screeching sound? No.
2. Will the car stop? No.
Compare your flawed analogy with MS:
1. Is Passport still vulnerable? No.
2. Is the Passport service working now? Yes.
3. Will the users be able to change their passwords while Microsoft is working on it? No.
4. Can MS getaway with disabling the option to change passwords permenantly? No.
One could argue that software can be made perfect because it is based on logic.
It really hard to "prove" any software program of reasonable complexity. Something like a RDBMS or OS is even harder because they interact with the outside world in an unpredictable way. One can only emperically verify the program with software testing, which doesn't guarantee that the software is bug free.
Also, there are many design decisions involved: The overhead of ensuring maximum security might be highly intrusive, and reduce the usability of the program. As a result, some points are best left to the humans - like making the service available only internally, or using a firewall etc.
The bottomline is that, it is impractical to verify a complex software program.
Bad analogy. It's more like having leaky faucets fixed.
Re:what you are fearing...
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
We humans are judgemental already based on race, color, gender and what not. This is worse, because the above biases are illegal (or politically incorrect), where as this could be a perfectly valid bias.
Isn't this brainscan analogous to a PHB deciding which program is better by looking at the hardcopy, instead of actually running the programs?
A better analogy is to compare the DNA to a binary executable. A decent optimizing compiler generates code that isn't easily comprehensible by humans*. The DNA and the binary executable are intended to the same job - just execute. They are not meant for humans to understand.
* Or a few C programs at IOCCC that pack LOT of functionality into a small program?
Most of the Indian languages are phonetic, unlike English. It is difficult to explain the correct pronounciation of an Indian word in English alphabet. This name is pronounced as: si-va vai-dya-naa-than.
si = shift (approximate)
va = vulnerable
vai = why
dya = the + yummy
naa = banana
than = thumb + noun
I see it this way: If it is by choice, it better not have bad consequences. Isn't this something like self-medication - using drugs to cure something that you think might work? Sure it works, but not always. Until we are at a stage where we are actually capable of GM with some degree of confidence, such questions are only philosophical.
Yes, I agree. My point was only this: If I have a House Service Robot, and I tell it in English to do the dishes and clean up the place, I'm not "programming". Programming languages are more closer to Mathematics, than Natural languages. Someone has to supply the machine the formula for computing standard deviation, unless the machine can learn those formulae too on its own. _This_ is programming, in the context of computers. Interestingly, we use the same word for programming in assembly, javascript or programming the VCR;) That's Natural language for you.
As far as the neural nets are concerned, many applications that I can think of need an accuracy of more than "works 98% of the time". We want it to work ALL the time, excepting technical failures. I see the difference between Lisp/C as "Right tool for the right job", a concept which would probably be valid even after 100 years. Maybe we should abstract away from minor irrelevant details, but that happens because of the fact that these paradigms change often (and multiple ones coexist) that there is no universal "layer" that completely eliminates the need for micromanagement. In effect, *someone* has to care about micromanagement, until it's all stable.
Programming your VCR isn't the same as programming a computer, is it? Your Utopian examples are the result of programming - not the programming itself. In other words, who programs _that_ computer that can understand English? And how will _that_ language be?
What is the point? Programming in computers isn't like operating a TV or VCR. It's not something that Joe Sixpack is expected to do, even after 100 years. This is a bit like saying all the Greek alphabet in Math will now be replaced with English. As long as the computers are still Turing Machines, computer languages do a much better job of expressing the intent.
Given the current state of technology, it's a much safer bet to adopt a kid, than cloning, or randomly mixing genes.
Surely there has to be some way to duplicate the process that randomly choses how to mix genes in ordinary births?
No. We are not even close. Firstly, it is not random. Mother Nature achieved a stable way to conserve the important portions of the genome through trial and error for millions of years. We don't the have such a liberty.
If rights are not innate, regardless of culture then they don't exist. A right is something that can be restricted as punishment for a crime, but cannot be taken away. You can take away a felon's right to own a gun during his punishment period, but not so when it is over.
Did it occur to you that WE write that laws that says what are our rights, and they don't drop from Heavens? You think right to own a gun is innate? How about right to own WMD being innate too?
I should have a choice of whom to be friends with, among my neighbors, don't you think? I can damn well not talk to anyone, if I don't want to. By any value system I can think of, being anti-social (assuming that is the case) isn't immoral. However, it is wrong if I kill them. Isn't there a difference? How can you even compare Chinese government developing its own search engine to the Nazis?
From my limited understanding, we haven't really come to a point where we can clone animals successfully. IMO, not being able to children isn't a good case for cloning, yet.
it emerged that caps at her chromosome ends called telomeres, which get shorter each time a cell divides, were 20% shorter than was normal for a sheep her age. This led to speculation that Dolly's biological age might equal that of her and her mother combined.
Dolly's breed, the Finn Dorset, can live to 11 or 12 years of age. Dolly's comparatively premature - if unnatural - death is typical of cloned animals. From conception onwards, clones suffer a higher mortality rate than non-clones. Studies in mice seem to show that this bad health persists throughout life.
Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.
What "selfish" desire? To me, cloning is like crappy remix music - just the same thing, but probably worse. I prefer something original, thank you very much.
The examples in the article like perfect eyesight (and even health) are something that most likely happen AFTER your DNA is decided, not before, as in one's interaction with the environment. Even if you can have designer genes that you can make with point-and-click interface, I don't think it's possible to ask for "Can I have a kid with genes like Stephen Hawking minus the ones responsible for motor neuron disease?". Maybe you can have such a kid, but don't expect him to be Stephen Hawking.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh. It simply means enemies and friends change over time.
The reason why DVD rentals cost less than buying a DVD is that, the DVD at Block Buster is usually rented out more than once (and sold later). I don't see these use-and-throw DVDs as "rentals".
Microsoft buys everyone, I thought.
This is more like the mechanic giving you a rental car while he fixes your own car.
1. Can you hear the screeching sound? No.
2. Will the car stop? No.
Compare your flawed analogy with MS:
1. Is Passport still vulnerable? No.
2. Is the Passport service working now? Yes.
3. Will the users be able to change their passwords while Microsoft is working on it? No.
4. Can MS getaway with disabling the option to change passwords permenantly? No.
What was your point again?
It really hard to "prove" any software program of reasonable complexity. Something like a RDBMS or OS is even harder because they interact with the outside world in an unpredictable way. One can only emperically verify the program with software testing, which doesn't guarantee that the software is bug free.
Also, there are many design decisions involved: The overhead of ensuring maximum security might be highly intrusive, and reduce the usability of the program. As a result, some points are best left to the humans - like making the service available only internally, or using a firewall etc.
The bottomline is that, it is impractical to verify a complex software program.
Bad analogy. It's more like having leaky faucets fixed.
We humans are judgemental already based on race, color, gender and what not. This is worse, because the above biases are illegal (or politically incorrect), where as this could be a perfectly valid bias. Isn't this brainscan analogous to a PHB deciding which program is better by looking at the hardcopy, instead of actually running the programs?
Parent has a point. Websites can be viewed from handhelds too.
Did you ever wonder who put the "I" in "AI"?
* Or a few C programs at IOCCC that pack LOT of functionality into a small program?
I thought genes are under GPL: You can fuc^H^H^H^Hork as many times as you want to modify and distribute the code.
si = shift (approximate)
va = vulnerable
vai = why
dya = the + yummy
naa = banana
than = thumb + noun
I see it this way: If it is by choice, it better not have bad consequences. Isn't this something like self-medication - using drugs to cure something that you think might work? Sure it works, but not always. Until we are at a stage where we are actually capable of GM with some degree of confidence, such questions are only philosophical.
Apprently, someone else was more unemployed than you.
No. You blame Al Gore because he created the Internet.
As far as the neural nets are concerned, many applications that I can think of need an accuracy of more than "works 98% of the time". We want it to work ALL the time, excepting technical failures. I see the difference between Lisp/C as "Right tool for the right job", a concept which would probably be valid even after 100 years. Maybe we should abstract away from minor irrelevant details, but that happens because of the fact that these paradigms change often (and multiple ones coexist) that there is no universal "layer" that completely eliminates the need for micromanagement. In effect, *someone* has to care about micromanagement, until it's all stable.
Then using "linux::" is redudnant :P
Programming your VCR isn't the same as programming a computer, is it? Your Utopian examples are the result of programming - not the programming itself. In other words, who programs _that_ computer that can understand English? And how will _that_ language be?
Hundered years, and STILL non-portable... tsk tsk.
What is the point? Programming in computers isn't like operating a TV or VCR. It's not something that Joe Sixpack is expected to do, even after 100 years. This is a bit like saying all the Greek alphabet in Math will now be replaced with English. As long as the computers are still Turing Machines, computer languages do a much better job of expressing the intent.
Then the computing machines improve on their genetic engineering algorithms involving humans, to pass the Deep Thought Test(TM).
Surely there has to be some way to duplicate the process that randomly choses how to mix genes in ordinary births?
No. We are not even close. Firstly, it is not random. Mother Nature achieved a stable way to conserve the important portions of the genome through trial and error for millions of years. We don't the have such a liberty.
Did it occur to you that WE write that laws that says what are our rights, and they don't drop from Heavens? You think right to own a gun is innate? How about right to own WMD being innate too?
I should have a choice of whom to be friends with, among my neighbors, don't you think? I can damn well not talk to anyone, if I don't want to. By any value system I can think of, being anti-social (assuming that is the case) isn't immoral. However, it is wrong if I kill them. Isn't there a difference? How can you even compare Chinese government developing its own search engine to the Nazis?
From Nature about the sheep Dolly:
it emerged that caps at her chromosome ends called telomeres, which get shorter each time a cell divides, were 20% shorter than was normal for a sheep her age. This led to speculation that Dolly's biological age might equal that of her and her mother combined.
Dolly's breed, the Finn Dorset, can live to 11 or 12 years of age. Dolly's comparatively premature - if unnatural - death is typical of cloned animals. From conception onwards, clones suffer a higher mortality rate than non-clones. Studies in mice seem to show that this bad health persists throughout life.
What "selfish" desire? To me, cloning is like crappy remix music - just the same thing, but probably worse. I prefer something original, thank you very much.
The examples in the article like perfect eyesight (and even health) are something that most likely happen AFTER your DNA is decided, not before, as in one's interaction with the environment. Even if you can have designer genes that you can make with point-and-click interface, I don't think it's possible to ask for "Can I have a kid with genes like Stephen Hawking minus the ones responsible for motor neuron disease?". Maybe you can have such a kid, but don't expect him to be Stephen Hawking.