I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but this summary feels a little over the top.
'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner. 'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"
How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.
Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee. I'm reminded of this recent slashdot story-
"'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent.' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent. The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA."
I think something that's free and easy to use can compete very well against this sort of customer abuse.
p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.
In short, if there's a difference, it's not the sex, it's the sexism. Anyone who can't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.
If I had modpoints I would certainly downmod you for injecting kneejerk hysteria into what should be a reasonable and empirical discussion. Preemptively calling anyone who doesn't share your beliefs bigots and twits is really incredible bad form.
In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination. And every single time, as the residual sexism fades, the third claim is shown to be false as well. Business, politics, medicine: it's a familiar pattern. Now math is next on the list.
I think we can all agree that there has been real sexism in certain careers, and that it's been detrimental to society. We're moving to a better place now. It's not perfect, but it's getting better.
I'm all for equality in opportunity. But I cringe when I see people pointing to an unequal distribution of genders in a career as evidence of evil discrimination. It seems to be outside the realm of allowed possibility that perhaps men, on average, enjoy being computer programmers more than women? Or that women enjoy being preschool teachers more than men? We'd be absolutely wrong to hinder in any way people who wish to pursue any career path, whether it's traditional for their gender or not. And we should encourage both genders to pursue all sorts of goals, especially when there's institutional intertia in the equation. But I think it's naive to think that, different as men and women are, that all careers will equalize out to a 50/50 distribution over time. Men and women are stochastically interested in different things. And that's okay.
Anyway, there's also the possible issue of differing standard deviations in traits between the sexes, which may or may not play into these questions of achievement, and is a scientific, empirical question (and a two-edged sword for any gender with the larger standard deviation, of course).
And yeah, this announcement is a two-part release: first, a system/workflow which uses existing equipment (TEM, methods of metabolic analyses) but does so in a way that automates and streamlines mapping processes which were very time-consuming, and second, a map of the mammalian retina and related neural networks done with this system.
How complete is the map constructed by this workflow? Open question right now I would guess? I haven't dug into the parts of the paper that would answer this if it has a conclusive answer.
Also there's nothing limiting this workflow to brain tissue- that's just arguably the most immediately interesting application.
1. Headline should read, IE8 May Be End of the Line for Internet Explorer Engine.
2. I don't see any reason why ActiveX apps couldn't be sandboxed like anything else. Granted, it has deep hooks into the OS-- but if nothing else, given how beefy computers are going to be by the time IE9 comes out, you could give each ActiveX app its own perfectly compatible virtual copy of XP+IE8 to run on, and just parse the result into IE9 format. Destroy the virtualized OS+browser when the app closes.
Well, yes. The law might have to step in, particularly given that, though it's good for society to vaccinate everyone, sometimes it makes sense for specific individuals *not* to get vaccines.
It's game theory- the more people who get vaccinated, the less important it is for you to get vaccinated. If not getting vaccinated means you have a 20% chance of getting measles, then of course it's rational for you.
But if the vast majority of people in your society are vaccinated, and so not getting vaccinated means you have a.002% chance of getting measles, and getting vaccinated may carry with it a.03% chance of serious autoimmune complications... then it's entirely rational to not get vaccinated.
I'm paid up on vaccines. I would vaccinate my kids if I had any. But the part of the blogosphere that makes a big deal about vaccine myths needs to face up to the fact that sometimes it's *rational* for parents to not vaccinate their kids.
Jones' theory appears based on his extrapolation of the genetic consequences of human mating customs. Hawks' theory is based on a large survey of linkage disequilibrium data.
Hawks' conclusion, after looking at the actual data, is that the rate of adaptive substitution in humans *increased more than 100-fold* within the last 40,000 years.
And actually, due to the methodology, that's a conservative estimate.
Part of the solution to very long-term storage, of course, has to involve a method to read the data you've archived.
I tend to think systems such as the one described in the article aren't good long-term solutions. If their math works on the failure rates, that's fantastic- but just try to hook up a 2028 computer to one of these things to pull the data off.*
(Ever tried to get data off an obsolete tape backup?)
I think the most reliable archival system is going to be an active one, where data is saved on modern storage hardware and always copied to more modern tech as it arrives.
The other side of this is, for anything more advanced than text-- given that you can get at the data, what do you open it with? File types die over time and it's basically impossible to find programs to open certain files nowadays, much less such programs that will run on a modern OS. I think the answer to this has to be virtualization. Store the data *and* programs that can open the filetypes you need opened inside a portable virtual machine (e.g., a Windows vmware image). Over time, you may have to layer virtual machines inside virtual machines as OSes grow obsolete. But that's okay- virtualization is only going to become more elegant, and the end result is that you'd have your data in its original environment, completely accessible by native programs.
*Some elements of this problem could be solved by having backup servers use wireless and filesharing protocols that might stand the test of time- e.g., 802.11n and SAMBA. No need to just pick one 'most likely to be future-proof' combination, either: run bluetooth and serial access, webdav and a http fileserver, etc. Still, *not* storing data on modern hardware is always going to be a risky kludge.
There's probably room for a lucrative business based around this-- figuring out the most elegant way to archive and retain meaningful access to data under various computing/disaster scenarios. Hey, I do consulting.:)
Keep an open mind as to how you'll be put to use. Lab work is not always glamorous.
Build cred by being competent and getting stuff done. Try to find someone competent who can get you up to speed and answer your questions. Ask lots of questions.
Once you have some cred, if you have ideas on how to do things better, bring them up in a respectful manner. Professors worth their salt value initiative.
Huge YMMVs. Any idea of what working in a lab will be like will probably last 30 seconds once you get there.
Be excited, smart, and ready to get things done, and good things will happen. If they don't, find another lab. Seriously.
1. I applaud your optimism regarding what style of forum you think people will flock to, and can be sustainable in the long-term, in the face of all the discouraging historical precident. May your optimism become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2. I'm quite skeptical as to whether your plan is reasonable for its nominal purpose, to categorize news stories. I tend to find machine-learning approaches to this problem more credible. But I can see the 'hook' for gathering a community around your idea.
3. I would suggest making your karma-like user reputation based more on community-judged merit, and actually count for something. I think karma is a central reason why Slashdot has a good signal-to-noise ratio-- maybe you could have 'liberal karma' and 'conservative karma' as separate quantities.
The blurb makes it sound as if all this use is illegal. I would imagine most isn't: most of these people will have prescriptions but are using them for off-label purposes. Which is legal.
I think your proposal would save lots and lots of bandwidth. That's great. But I think ximenes' point is that it would bring in a culture of scarcity to bandwidth usage, possibly changing peoples' usage patterns for the worse, and that danger outweighs the savings.
The linked article just discusses the 'networking' subset of the report. The full original outlines eight primary research areas:
Deny hiding in any environment and cultural background;
Provide persistent situational awareness and rapid strike;
Beat the OODA (observe-orient-decide-act) loop of modern adversaries;
Provide cyber operations dominance;
Remove the value of using biological weapons;
Increase survival from life-threatening wounds;
Restore injured warfighters to the way they were; and
Develop core technologies that maintain U.S. military superiority.
... and has specific examples of programs within each area. Worth a look-see, particularly since DARPA's one of the few government initiatives that generally gets results.
Postini's a relatively recent Google acquisition. I'm not sure it's fair to say "Google this" and "Google that" when the agreement to acquire Postini is less than a year old. The spokesperson was probably just speaking for their own team and from their own culture.
Certainly the best Slashdot comment I've seen so far in 2008. (The pair of yours, taken together.)
I do have one nitpick. You say,
Another point worth making is that our brains are optimized not for the modern type of information processing that humans engage in - such as writing software for instance. Humans have changed little in the last 50,000 years in terms of intellectual capacity but our societies have changed greatly.
Hawks, Cochran, and a few others have come out with a paper that strongly disagrees with this statement (PNAS, I can dredge it up if you'd like). Their intentionally conservative estimates indicate that selection has been sped up roughly two orders of magnitude in the timeframe you give-- essentially, that culture has provably amplified selection considerably (on some 7% of the genome- with a disproportionate skew towards brain and immune system genes).
I realize, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of cognitive evolution in the past 50,000 years is dwarfed by the amount that has happened previously, so your statement can be taken to be quite correct regardless. But I feel it's important to note that evidence is mounting that we are very cognitively different from even anatomically modern humans of 50,000 years ago, and that even significant cognitive change can probably happen quickly, especially with all the raw material evolution has provided us.
First, a grain of salt. There hardly seems to be anything that doesn't screw mice up. Their physiology is extremely fragile compared to that of humans.
But this seems like a pretty significant argument to take pollution seriously. Perhaps some of the methylation sites in particular will have human analogues that can be easily tested for (though, too, at least from the nutrient studies I've read, mice seem to be ridiculously sensitive to methylation).
I think there'll be lots and lots and lots of things about the 19th-20th centuries that we'll feel really stupid about having done, once we figure out what they do to biological systems.
I think the model release problem is relevant, if only because Creative Commons was sued over it earlier this year. It was (IMO) a meritless case, which was later dropped-- not CC's fault at all, as you say-- but it was a sign that many people probably don't get the license/release distinction. It's not CC's obligation to make that clearer, but Lessig has stated they'll try harder at it.
I think you're right, that this is the problem / "get rich quick scheme" he's trying to get at.
The problem being, it just wouldn't work. There are enough logs of what goes on on the internet that anyone trying this would get tripped up (the existence of archive.org alone would be a death-knell for this strategy... same with the Google cache).
I think this fellow has some valid thoughts, particularly about model releases, and then he has some confused thoughts. It's kind of a shame to have these confused thoughts aired by a place as big as slashdot. But I think this sort of criticism- deserved and undeserved- will allow Creative Commons to do a better job. I know Lessig has said that CC is trying to make things more clear re: model releases, and also to more tightly integrate content and license.
I completely disagree. The calculus on the simulation argument is surprisingly solid when you think about it (Bostrom, for instance, has some pretty good arguments for it). You say, "It's just not a useful avenue for speculation. This guy brings nothing new to the table except the kinda crap the ID people bring." Did you read the paper? This guy Whitworth says some interesting stuff... personally I think the most interesting part of his paper is near the end, where he compares "Virtual Property" with "Physical Outcome".
Diversity of effort in science is good. This guy has a diverse approach to trying to understand the universe. He also says some interesting things and is looking for predictive qualities in his theory. That's good.
The problem is that we know nearly nothing about what simulations "have to be" or "cannot be" in the case of a system advanced enough to simulate our universe. So he might have a long road ahead of him. But it's an approach worth pursuing, if damn difficult to do so.
Well, I think anyone really interested in the idea of reverse surveillance should read Obama's innovation plan.
From the "open government" part of the plan:
Requiring his appointees who lead Executive Branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch a live feed on the Internet as the agencies debate and deliberate the issues that affect American society. He will ensure that these proceedings are archived for all Americans to review, discuss and respond. He will require his appointees to employ all the technological tools available to allow citizens not just to observe, but also to participate and be heard in these meetings.
There's more, as summarized by Ars:
* Put government data online for citizen access, analysis, commentary, and action. The document cites environmental data on pollution as one type that could be made available.
* Effectively "crowd-sourcing" (though that term isn't used) some amount of agency decision-making by tapping the public's distributed expertise.
* Build an online database that enables citizens to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
* Give "the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House web site for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation."
It was a push on legal norms. The recording industry has done it before, and more successfully.
A quote from Lessig's Free Culture:
After Vivendi purchased MP3.com, Vivendi turned around and filed a malpractice lawsuit against the lawyers who had advised it that they had a good faith claim that the service they wanted to offer would be considered legal under copyright law. This lawsuit alleged that it should have been obvious that the courts would find this behavior illegal; therefore, this lawsuit sought to punish any lawyer who had dared to suggest that the law was less restrictive than the labels demanded.
Legal norms are not just about judicial precedent.
The PNAS paper isn't available to the public, technically. As the lead author, he could probably get in trouble for linking to an unofficial (non-PNAS) copy.
Not being under those constraints, I might point you toward this. He also has a faq up on his blog about the paper.
I'll agree with your second point, but I strongly disagree with your first. One of the main roles that 'good' gut flora plays is to outcompete bad bacteria. It's apples and oranges, but I'd place that role slightly ahead of helping with digestion. Perhaps the third most important role for gut flora is to help train and condition the immune system.
There's a constant war going on in peoples' guts, make no mistake.
I think you're a good and very sincere admin, ta bu shi da yu. Take some credit.:)
I remember how you dropped by my talk page and complimented my "News from Citizendium" piece this summer-- it made me feel welcome, and helped give me the peace of mind with which to deal with the german fellow trying to troll me about it. Thanks again, from Citizendium-land.
Besides, that contract isn't even necessary. They can just release it with "this thing is hereby placed in the public domain". If they want to ensure that any changes or derivations are forced to be published, which I don't see as necessary, they can publish it under the GPL, which is easier to defend precisely because it's not new. If it's content, not code, they can publish it under an existing CC.
Ah, but are the various biobrick items content, or code? I would guess they're neither, but something different-enough to require a license that's structured differently than either the GPL or CC-*.
Off the top of my head, an open biobrick license would need to deal with a lot of issues dealing with what copyright on biological components (that can't function, or even exist, in a vacuum) means (e.g., where are the boundaries), how any sort of copyleft license would influence the legal status of the organism and what that organism can and cannot be used for, whether an organism is a functional whole or whether (as per e.g., linux) differently-licensed bits can be segregated, and probably many other things I'm missing, all without precedents on what concepts or clauses are enforceable, so it'd have to be written to be bulletproof and as redundant as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan out there, but this summary feels a little over the top.
'We like our chances,' Todd Gebhart, vice president in charge of McAfee's consumer line, said when it was announced OneCare was a goner. 'Consumers have already rejected OneCare,' added Rowan Trollope, senior vice president of consumer software at Symantec. 'Making that same substandard security technology free won't change that equation.'"
How can you say that with a straight face? The difference between for-pay and free is huge. And rebranding can make a big difference-- look at the recent success of Bing, for instance.
Personally, I think people are aching for alternatives to the current big players like McAfee. I'm reminded of this recent slashdot story-
"'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent.' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent. The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA."
I think something that's free and easy to use can compete very well against this sort of customer abuse.
p.s. anyone else find the quotation by John Pescatore completely unintelligible? Either he's very confused with his analogies or was misquoted.
In short, if there's a difference, it's not the sex, it's the sexism. Anyone who can't acknowledge this is a bigot and a twit.
If I had modpoints I would certainly downmod you for injecting kneejerk hysteria into what should be a reasonable and empirical discussion. Preemptively calling anyone who doesn't share your beliefs bigots and twits is really incredible bad form.
In every field which was once exclusively male, but is now no longer, it's been claimed first, that no woman can perform alongside men; second, when the first claim is disproven, that hardly any woman can; and third, when the second claim is disproven, that maybe a few women can, but a majority lack the ability or the inclination. And every single time, as the residual sexism fades, the third claim is shown to be false as well. Business, politics, medicine: it's a familiar pattern. Now math is next on the list.
I think we can all agree that there has been real sexism in certain careers, and that it's been detrimental to society. We're moving to a better place now. It's not perfect, but it's getting better.
I'm all for equality in opportunity. But I cringe when I see people pointing to an unequal distribution of genders in a career as evidence of evil discrimination. It seems to be outside the realm of allowed possibility that perhaps men, on average, enjoy being computer programmers more than women? Or that women enjoy being preschool teachers more than men? We'd be absolutely wrong to hinder in any way people who wish to pursue any career path, whether it's traditional for their gender or not. And we should encourage both genders to pursue all sorts of goals, especially when there's institutional intertia in the equation. But I think it's naive to think that, different as men and women are, that all careers will equalize out to a 50/50 distribution over time. Men and women are stochastically interested in different things. And that's okay.
Anyway, there's also the possible issue of differing standard deviations in traits between the sexes, which may or may not play into these questions of achievement, and is a scientific, empirical question (and a two-edged sword for any gender with the larger standard deviation, of course).
Very true about the title.
And yeah, this announcement is a two-part release: first, a system/workflow which uses existing equipment (TEM, methods of metabolic analyses) but does so in a way that automates and streamlines mapping processes which were very time-consuming, and second, a map of the mammalian retina and related neural networks done with this system.
How complete is the map constructed by this workflow? Open question right now I would guess? I haven't dug into the parts of the paper that would answer this if it has a conclusive answer.
Also there's nothing limiting this workflow to brain tissue- that's just arguably the most immediately interesting application.
Wish you were posting from a named account.
1. Headline should read, IE8 May Be End of the Line for Internet Explorer Engine .
2. I don't see any reason why ActiveX apps couldn't be sandboxed like anything else. Granted, it has deep hooks into the OS-- but if nothing else, given how beefy computers are going to be by the time IE9 comes out, you could give each ActiveX app its own perfectly compatible virtual copy of XP+IE8 to run on, and just parse the result into IE9 format. Destroy the virtualized OS+browser when the app closes.
Moore's Law makes some problems easy, yay. :)
Well, yes. The law might have to step in, particularly given that, though it's good for society to vaccinate everyone, sometimes it makes sense for specific individuals *not* to get vaccines.
It's game theory- the more people who get vaccinated, the less important it is for you to get vaccinated. If not getting vaccinated means you have a 20% chance of getting measles, then of course it's rational for you.
But if the vast majority of people in your society are vaccinated, and so not getting vaccinated means you have a .002% chance of getting measles, and getting vaccinated may carry with it a .03% chance of serious autoimmune complications... then it's entirely rational to not get vaccinated.
I'm paid up on vaccines. I would vaccinate my kids if I had any. But the part of the blogosphere that makes a big deal about vaccine myths needs to face up to the fact that sometimes it's *rational* for parents to not vaccinate their kids.
See, for instance, Hawks et al, 2007:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration_embargo_ends_2007.html
Jones' theory appears based on his extrapolation of the genetic consequences of human mating customs. Hawks' theory is based on a large survey of linkage disequilibrium data.
Hawks' conclusion, after looking at the actual data, is that the rate of adaptive substitution in humans *increased more than 100-fold* within the last 40,000 years.
And actually, due to the methodology, that's a conservative estimate.
Part of the solution to very long-term storage, of course, has to involve a method to read the data you've archived.
:)
I tend to think systems such as the one described in the article aren't good long-term solutions. If their math works on the failure rates, that's fantastic- but just try to hook up a 2028 computer to one of these things to pull the data off.*
(Ever tried to get data off an obsolete tape backup?)
I think the most reliable archival system is going to be an active one, where data is saved on modern storage hardware and always copied to more modern tech as it arrives.
The other side of this is, for anything more advanced than text-- given that you can get at the data, what do you open it with? File types die over time and it's basically impossible to find programs to open certain files nowadays, much less such programs that will run on a modern OS. I think the answer to this has to be virtualization. Store the data *and* programs that can open the filetypes you need opened inside a portable virtual machine (e.g., a Windows vmware image). Over time, you may have to layer virtual machines inside virtual machines as OSes grow obsolete. But that's okay- virtualization is only going to become more elegant, and the end result is that you'd have your data in its original environment, completely accessible by native programs.
*Some elements of this problem could be solved by having backup servers use wireless and filesharing protocols that might stand the test of time- e.g., 802.11n and SAMBA. No need to just pick one 'most likely to be future-proof' combination, either: run bluetooth and serial access, webdav and a http fileserver, etc. Still, *not* storing data on modern hardware is always going to be a risky kludge.
There's probably room for a lucrative business based around this-- figuring out the most elegant way to archive and retain meaningful access to data under various computing/disaster scenarios. Hey, I do consulting.
Keep an open mind as to how you'll be put to use. Lab work is not always glamorous.
Build cred by being competent and getting stuff done. Try to find someone competent who can get you up to speed and answer your questions. Ask lots of questions.
Once you have some cred, if you have ideas on how to do things better, bring them up in a respectful manner. Professors worth their salt value initiative.
Huge YMMVs. Any idea of what working in a lab will be like will probably last 30 seconds once you get there.
Be excited, smart, and ready to get things done, and good things will happen. If they don't, find another lab. Seriously.
1. I applaud your optimism regarding what style of forum you think people will flock to, and can be sustainable in the long-term, in the face of all the discouraging historical precident. May your optimism become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2. I'm quite skeptical as to whether your plan is reasonable for its nominal purpose, to categorize news stories. I tend to find machine-learning approaches to this problem more credible. But I can see the 'hook' for gathering a community around your idea.
3. I would suggest making your karma-like user reputation based more on community-judged merit, and actually count for something. I think karma is a central reason why Slashdot has a good signal-to-noise ratio-- maybe you could have 'liberal karma' and 'conservative karma' as separate quantities.
The blurb makes it sound as if all this use is illegal. I would imagine most isn't: most of these people will have prescriptions but are using them for off-label purposes. Which is legal.
I think your proposal would save lots and lots of bandwidth. That's great. But I think ximenes' point is that it would bring in a culture of scarcity to bandwidth usage, possibly changing peoples' usage patterns for the worse, and that danger outweighs the savings.
A better question would be, "why is the market broken?"
Postini's a relatively recent Google acquisition. I'm not sure it's fair to say "Google this" and "Google that" when the agreement to acquire Postini is less than a year old. The spokesperson was probably just speaking for their own team and from their own culture.
I do have one nitpick. You say,
Hawks, Cochran, and a few others have come out with a paper that strongly disagrees with this statement (PNAS, I can dredge it up if you'd like). Their intentionally conservative estimates indicate that selection has been sped up roughly two orders of magnitude in the timeframe you give-- essentially, that culture has provably amplified selection considerably (on some 7% of the genome- with a disproportionate skew towards brain and immune system genes).
I realize, in the grand scheme of things, the amount of cognitive evolution in the past 50,000 years is dwarfed by the amount that has happened previously, so your statement can be taken to be quite correct regardless. But I feel it's important to note that evidence is mounting that we are very cognitively different from even anatomically modern humans of 50,000 years ago, and that even significant cognitive change can probably happen quickly, especially with all the raw material evolution has provided us.
First, a grain of salt. There hardly seems to be anything that doesn't screw mice up. Their physiology is extremely fragile compared to that of humans.
But this seems like a pretty significant argument to take pollution seriously. Perhaps some of the methylation sites in particular will have human analogues that can be easily tested for (though, too, at least from the nutrient studies I've read, mice seem to be ridiculously sensitive to methylation).
I think there'll be lots and lots and lots of things about the 19th-20th centuries that we'll feel really stupid about having done, once we figure out what they do to biological systems.
Right, on both counts.
I think the model release problem is relevant, if only because Creative Commons was sued over it earlier this year. It was (IMO) a meritless case, which was later dropped-- not CC's fault at all, as you say-- but it was a sign that many people probably don't get the license/release distinction. It's not CC's obligation to make that clearer, but Lessig has stated they'll try harder at it.
I think you're right, that this is the problem / "get rich quick scheme" he's trying to get at.
The problem being, it just wouldn't work. There are enough logs of what goes on on the internet that anyone trying this would get tripped up (the existence of archive.org alone would be a death-knell for this strategy... same with the Google cache).
I think this fellow has some valid thoughts, particularly about model releases, and then he has some confused thoughts. It's kind of a shame to have these confused thoughts aired by a place as big as slashdot. But I think this sort of criticism- deserved and undeserved- will allow Creative Commons to do a better job. I know Lessig has said that CC is trying to make things more clear re: model releases, and also to more tightly integrate content and license.
I completely disagree. The calculus on the simulation argument is surprisingly solid when you think about it (Bostrom, for instance, has some pretty good arguments for it). You say, "It's just not a useful avenue for speculation. This guy brings nothing new to the table except the kinda crap the ID people bring." Did you read the paper? This guy Whitworth says some interesting stuff... personally I think the most interesting part of his paper is near the end, where he compares "Virtual Property" with "Physical Outcome".
Diversity of effort in science is good. This guy has a diverse approach to trying to understand the universe. He also says some interesting things and is looking for predictive qualities in his theory. That's good.
The problem is that we know nearly nothing about what simulations "have to be" or "cannot be" in the case of a system advanced enough to simulate our universe. So he might have a long road ahead of him. But it's an approach worth pursuing, if damn difficult to do so.
From the "open government" part of the plan:
There's more, as summarized by Ars:
* Put government data online for citizen access, analysis, commentary, and action. The document cites environmental data on pollution as one type that could be made available.
* Effectively "crowd-sourcing" (though that term isn't used) some amount of agency decision-making by tapping the public's distributed expertise.
* Build an online database that enables citizens to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
* Give "the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House web site for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation."
A quote from Lessig's Free Culture:
Legal norms are not just about judicial precedent.
The PNAS paper isn't available to the public, technically. As the lead author, he could probably get in trouble for linking to an unofficial (non-PNAS) copy.
Not being under those constraints, I might point you toward this. He also has a faq up on his blog about the paper.
I'll agree with your second point, but I strongly disagree with your first. One of the main roles that 'good' gut flora plays is to outcompete bad bacteria. It's apples and oranges, but I'd place that role slightly ahead of helping with digestion. Perhaps the third most important role for gut flora is to help train and condition the immune system.
There's a constant war going on in peoples' guts, make no mistake.
I think you're a good and very sincere admin, ta bu shi da yu. Take some credit. :)
I remember how you dropped by my talk page and complimented my "News from Citizendium" piece this summer-- it made me feel welcome, and helped give me the peace of mind with which to deal with the german fellow trying to troll me about it. Thanks again, from Citizendium-land.
Ah, but are the various biobrick items content, or code? I would guess they're neither, but something different-enough to require a license that's structured differently than either the GPL or CC-*.
Off the top of my head, an open biobrick license would need to deal with a lot of issues dealing with what copyright on biological components (that can't function, or even exist, in a vacuum) means (e.g., where are the boundaries), how any sort of copyleft license would influence the legal status of the organism and what that organism can and cannot be used for, whether an organism is a functional whole or whether (as per e.g., linux) differently-licensed bits can be segregated, and probably many other things I'm missing, all without precedents on what concepts or clauses are enforceable, so it'd have to be written to be bulletproof and as redundant as possible.