I see a lot of folks throwing around terms like "information" and "complexity" without really understanding the further-reaching concepts of context and meaning.
First off, syntax != semantics.
All of us programmers ought to understand this fundamental statement. It is naive to say "z=z^2-1 (Mandelbrot) is/represents infinite complexity:"
1. It "is" not infinite complexity. It is 7 characters in your web browser.
2. Is does not "represent" infinite complexity.
The semantics you are (subconsciously apparently) attaching to it are a formulaic image, that can be said to represent infinite "complexity". Still, this image (in your mind) cannot exist without an algorithm interpreting and displaying that function. Even here, "complexity" is up for debate, because:
High visual complexity != high information content
Mandelbrots are not complex simply because they do not contain very much information. However, the human genome is HIGHLY complex, with lots of information; moreso than even any human scientist has yet to comprehend (the point of the article). This is because we do not understand the contextual and semantic meanings of the genome sequence. The first step to look at, according to the article, is the context of proteins, but since humans aren't just a bunch of proteins, I doubt it will end there. This will carry on until they begin understanding enough at some level to do some kind of useful work.
And of course, it is nonsensical to compare a human to Windows 2000. Neither can exist solely on a CD-ROM. Windows is not an operating system until it has an operating environment/system to run on (a computer). Humans aren't human until they are living inside a body, have material, etc.
Remember that when you evaluate some object or concept, you are always subconsciously attaching some level of your own subjective interpretation. This interpretative shell can be a significant amount of attached semantics.
The traditional use of.com for businesses has long been ignored. Face it folks, just because something "should be for business" doesn't mean it is. While we're at it, let's change www.sunfreeware.com to www.sunfreeware.org, because I want to setup a company selling Sun freeware on CD and not make it available for download. Therefore the domain is mine? NO.
Also note that the team DOES NOT OWN any relevant trademarks!
The religion issue also should not matter, though it weighs in favor of the current owner. The domain name is MORE RELEVANT to the current subject than the new subject. This also does not matter, but weighs in favor of the current owner.
The fact is, this is just a trampling of rights. The deciding judge for this case should be kicked out of WIPO. He is showing himself to be easily influenced by corporate interests. He is not setting a good judicious example for anyone, anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a lot of folks throwing around terms like "information" and "complexity" without really understanding the further-reaching concepts of context and meaning.
First off, syntax != semantics.
All of us programmers ought to understand this fundamental statement. It is naive to say "z=z^2-1 (Mandelbrot) is/represents infinite complexity:"
1. It "is" not infinite complexity. It is 7 characters in your web browser.
2. Is does not "represent" infinite complexity.
The semantics you are (subconsciously apparently) attaching to it are a formulaic image, that can be said to represent infinite "complexity". Still, this image (in your mind) cannot exist without an algorithm interpreting and displaying that function. Even here, "complexity" is up for debate, because:
High visual complexity != high information content
Mandelbrots are not complex simply because they do not contain very much information. However, the human genome is HIGHLY complex, with lots of information; moreso than even any human scientist has yet to comprehend (the point of the article). This is because we do not understand the contextual and semantic meanings of the genome sequence. The first step to look at, according to the article, is the context of proteins, but since humans aren't just a bunch of proteins, I doubt it will end there. This will carry on until they begin understanding enough at some level to do some kind of useful work.
And of course, it is nonsensical to compare a human to Windows 2000. Neither can exist solely on a CD-ROM. Windows is not an operating system until it has an operating environment/system to run on (a computer). Humans aren't human until they are living inside a body, have material, etc.
Remember that when you evaluate some object or concept, you are always subconsciously attaching some level of your own subjective interpretation. This interpretative shell can be a significant amount of attached semantics.
Jesus lives.
I had a video card that let me do that in college.
The traditional use of .com for businesses has long been ignored. Face it folks, just because something "should be for business" doesn't mean it is. While we're at it, let's change www.sunfreeware.com to www.sunfreeware.org, because I want to setup a company selling Sun freeware on CD and not make it available for download. Therefore the domain is mine?
NO.
Also note that the team DOES NOT OWN any relevant trademarks!
The religion issue also should not matter, though it weighs in favor of the current owner. The domain name is MORE RELEVANT to the current subject than the new subject. This also does not matter, but weighs in favor of the current owner.
The fact is, this is just a trampling of rights. The deciding judge for this case should be kicked out of WIPO. He is showing himself to be easily influenced by corporate interests. He is not setting a good judicious example for anyone, anywhere.
I hope this does enter the US court system.