One thing that telegrams had in their favor is that most statutes recognized them as legal communications and based on the date they were sent. Many corporate bylaws include notice of meetings, etc. via mail and telegram. While the other alternatives mentioned, particularly email may be more convienent and faster, from a legal point of view, they may not stand the same ground (of course statutes and bylaws can be amended). However, one thing that a telegram would get you that an email won't is a dated receipt from a third party to prove the message was sent. With email, it is all to easy to spoof the headers to make them say whatever and their isn't any independent verification that it was received (even return receipts aren't universal and can still be spoofed).
While I agree with other posters about other mediums being more efficient, there are still reasons to use less efficient means. Otherwise, the USPS would be out of business, too.
My opion: Maybee more research has been done on non-embryonic because of this controversy
Actually, no. They have been working with embryonic stem cells for decades. Just human ones for the last 10 years or so. It appears that the embryonic ones are so undifferentiated that they can't be controlled as to what they will develop into. For example, if they try and make heart muscle with them, they also get hair and teeth cells intermixed (which wouldn't be good for your heart).
The non-embryonic stem cells have already been used successfully to treat or cure 65 different diseases and conditions including leukemia, diabetes, parkinsons, nerve regeneration, spinal cord injury and a host of others. To date, the embryonic stem cells have produced nothing.
That is one of the reasons for pushing for government funding (in the US, anyway). Private research money is pouring into non-embryonic stem cell research because it has been shown to work and the potential for more success is very high (therefore a high return on the investment). Embryonic research has relatively little private funding because the science just doesn't support it and the researchers (ie Universities) want/need government funding.
That's why, if you listen to the hype about embryonic stem cells, it is always emotionally based and not on hard facts. Why? Because the facts don't support it.
That's also why the supporters of embryonic stem cell research try and frame the opposition as because of religious values (similar to the abortion debate). And while that may be an element (religion), the cold hard facts, even without a religious argument is that the science just doesn't work.
Anyway, the logical decision would seem to be that if there are limited research dollars available, then they should be used where there is the most likely success. That would be non-embryonic stem cell research (and is why the private sector funds it as such).
In your opinion an embryo is not a person, because, it doesn't think and feels no pain? Well, that would make an unconcious person not a person, either, since they a) don't think and b) don't feel pain. If I understand correctly, for you, a person is defined by their cognitive and sensory ability.
As for your opinion about God, that's really between you and God. As for embryonic stem cells curing and fighting all these diseases, well, the science actually shows just the opposite -- it's only the non-embryonic stem cells that have shown any kind of success.
As for your question as to why it is morally wrong, well, if you really did read the Bible cover to cover, you should already have your answer.
What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
By stating this question in this way, you have already tainted any conclusions to be drawn. It is only your opinion that Gates is an humanitarian missionaire. Who is to say that he is more so than Jobs? The fact that he started a foundation is only a public showing of giving. How do we know that Jobs doesn't give proportionately more of his wealth? We don't.
It doesn't really matter, because you have, as I have stated, tainted anybody's response by inserting your own subjective value system in the way you described Jobs and Gates.
A more balanced questioned would have been "Who, Gates or Jobs, as an individual (not their company) has had a bigger impact on the world and why?" Then you would have had something valid to discuss.
You've got a good point here and it describes the other side of of Steve Gibson. After reading that site, you'll understand his stories are mostly made of popular speak or disinformation, rather then scientifical information.
And he's different from other mainstream media sources how?
Does not allowing digital restrictions mean that including copyrighted artwork, which is displayed digitally on the screen would be disallowed, too? If so, there won't be much support for GPL3, no icons, no images, no anything.
Long file name use was in place before the 90s, so yes it was before April 1, 1993. As for doing it the same way as described by the patent, well, the patent doesn't actually describe how it's done, only that it is done, so any file system that allows long and short file names or even multiple file names for the same file would fit with the description in the patent. I would surmise that dns lookup tables on the internet are a violation of the patent given how broadly worded it is.
So, the short answer to your questions are "Yes" and "Yes."
My old Mac was using long file names prior to the 1995 date of this patent application. It also had short file names for backward compatability. Wouldn't that constitute prior art?
Unfortunately, it only works that way in sci-fi. In reality, to clone a body part, you must first create an embryo, either with a sperm and an egg or with nuclear transfer into an unfertilized egg (cloning). Regardless, you have to grow the embryo to create the "body part" you want. Even then, say you are a 40 year old man, a newborn infant's heart will not do you much good. Even with the cloning of the embryo, if the body part needs replaced because of genetics, then the embryo and subsequent organ will have the same genetic defect (using somebody elses nucleus would have the same rejection problems as organ transplants do today).
Regardless, you would still have the same ethical dilemna of creating embryos with the intent of destroying them.
Well if we can multiply existing cells there is no further need to destroy anymore embryos to harvest more cells.
I seriously doubt anyone would claim the cells themselves are somehow more sacred if taken from an embryo than a human. The debate is whether it is ethical to destroy embryos to harvest said cells. As long as we can reproduce the cells already harvested destroying embryos could be outlawed from this point forward and stem cell research could continue unhindered.
That is effectively what Bush did when he allowed government funding to be used for embryonic stem cells. Only those lines already in existance could get research grants.
What has occurred though, is that the lines are not as useful as first thought and they can not be multiplied indefinately.
After all, how is a stem cell in itself anymore sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell? Claiming an embryo is life is one thing, claiming that individual cells taken from an embryo have souls is even more of a stretch.
That is the point, the stem cell itself is not any more sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell. The embryo, however, is not the stem cell and must be destroyed to collect its stem cells. In effect, if you accept that the embryo really is alive, then destroying it to obtain it's cells creates the ethical and moral dillema, regardless of any potential cures that could come from it. That is why there is very little opposition to using non-embryonic stem cells (which actually have cures today) and a lot of controversy over using the embryonic ones (which might produce cures someday).
Unlike Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few or the one," if it involves killing the one. At least that is the moral question.
No, it has nothing to do with the debate, because if one accepts the argument that the embryo is human life and therefore unethical to use or destroy, then any cell lines derived from them are still unethical. The medium used to multiply the stem cell line does not impact that. What it does is makes the stem cells grown in that medium more viable to be put into a human being without causing rejection from the animal proteins.
The ethics are tied up,not in the medium used to propogate the cell line, but in destroying the embryo to obtain the stem cells.
Regardless, this is more likely to be useful for adult stem cells than embryonic ones (which aren't hindered by the ethical discussion).
If you have the service licensed for your home computer, your work computer and your laptop, doesn't that use up your three licenses? How are you also putting songs on your Zen Micro? Doesn't that count as a device?
Only Microsoft would come up with a product branding that most people associate with a bodily function. Maybe their slogan can be "After satisfying your Urge, please be sure to flush."
Are you propsing that all stem cell research is wrong or only embryonic stem cells? Non-embryonic stem cells can come from any number of sources including bone marrow, fat cells, umbilical cord blood, nasal cells, etc. These, non-embryonic stem cells don't destroy an embryo nor require creating an embryo through nuclear transfer to produce them. As such, they are not and never could be a living human being and are truly just cells (just as skin cells and bone cells are).
I only raise the point to raise awarness, because it is from these non-embryonic sources that the real progress has been made in treating diabetes, spinal cord injury, parkinsons, leukemia and a host of other cures and treatments.
Not to jump into the stem cell argument, but I think you have a precarious position in your argument. You talk about existance and appear to define it as being born. And also imply that you would need to be sentient.
The danger in your argument has to do with those two areas. For if a being must be sentient, does that mean someone in a coma no longer exists? How about the severely mentally disabled? As for being born, does that mean a baby that is two months premature exists, but a fetus still in the womb at seven months does not?
Depending on how you view the being born and sentient positions you pose, you might actually be supporting the original poster. For instance, if you say, well the premature baby exists and therefor the seven month fetus exists, since geography (located in the womb or out) really doesn't come in to play, then what about the six month and 28 day fetus? What about the six month and 14 day fetus, etc. You can take this argument all the way back to the moment of conception, which is what the original poster is proposing -- the embryo used to harvest stem cells is just an early version of the human being that will be born nine months later.
Looking at the sentient argument, since a coma patient is not sentient -- not aware of his/her context in the universe, etc., then is it alright to kill that person? Would it make a difference if it was only a temporary coma? If so, then sentience can't be a defining factor and something else must be.
Anyway, I understand both the original poster's position and yours, however, I just want to point out that your argument doesn't actually refute his (or hers as the case may be).
This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.
While non-embryonic stem cells can come from aborted fetuses, most actually come from bone marrow, fat cells, nasal and cheek linings, umbilical cords, etc. Stem cells from these sources are not controversial and have been successfully used to treat parkinsons, diabietes, leukemia, spinal injuries and some 61 other diseases. All of which is well documented, but usually not reported. It is only the use of embryonic stem cells derived from cloning a human embryo (nuclear transfer) that are controversial.
To date, the only thing that embryonic stem cells have produced are cancer tumors. Evidently, they are so undifferentiated that they cause uncontrolled cell growth (tumors). The push for having government funding of embryonic stem cells is because businesses and private individuals won't fund it. They are pouring millions into non-embryonic stem cell research, which has been proven to be successful time and time again.
Regardless, the "discovery" reported doesn't impact the moral or ethical discussion, it comes into play after the intitial stem cells are taken (or created, in the case of embryonic ones).
We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth.
When it is the government that mandates the change (instead of the market) and then the same government will pay money to buy equipment, why shouldn't we bitch? The original reason had nothing to do with giving the analog spectrum back. The purpose of the government mandate was to bail out the failing US television manufacturers. The idea being if everyone had to buy a new TV, to the American standard (not Japan or Europe), then they (the manufacturers) would be able to fend off the imports. Unfortunately, by now, there are no TVs manufactured in America and this has become a windfall to the very imports it was meant to protect against.
Case in point, early on, broadcasters realized they could send four analog quality programs down the data stream meant for one high definition program. All that would be required on the receiving end was an inexpensive (sub $50) decoder. Broadcasters were happy, because they could provide four times the content. Consumers were happy because they wouldn't have to junk their existing televisions. Everyone is happy except the membres of the High Tech DTV Coalition, because they can't capitalize on it. So the Coalition (Microsoft, Intel, Dell, etc) lobby congress and what happens? The telecom bill prohibits spliting the high bandwith signal for low bandwith receivers.
The $1.5B transition cost is the tip of the iceberg. How many billions of dollars will shift from consumers to the big players in HDTV? The HDTV bill was nothing more than more corporate welfare given to wealthy companies. This time, however, the government found away to do it where they don't have to be involved in the collection process.
Remember, your current TV has become obsolete not because of technology, but because of government mandate.
If Microsoft runs an online service, then the browser (modified, perhaps) will be all that will be required to run Office on any computer (with internet connection).
Any computer will have a browser (and connectivity), therefore MS Office will be omnipresent. You won't need to carry it around on a flash driver.
No, you won't need to carry around a usb key, but you might need a really long network cable to connect to the internet, since not everywhere has wireless (let alone free wireless). Plus, what happens when your internet is down?
Even with a T-1 connection, what type of response time will there be if there are 50 workers running Office remotely? How about 100 or 250? It would have to scale much better than terminal services does and still provide the "user experience" that people demand.
Of course, requiring the use of a modified Microsoft browser to run Microsoft Office which would probably require an upgrade to Windows Vista or beyond would be just the way to permanently lock people into Microsoft products, upgrade paths and revenue streams. All the more reason to use OpenOffice.org, portable or not.
This article is very misleading. While the comments attributed to Mr. Torvalds are accurate, the context is not. If you go back to the discussion and read the post from Till, you can see that the complaint deal specifically with the printing dialog in not just Gnome, but also firefox and others.
I would be curious as to what browser Mr. Torvalds tells people to use, since Firefox/Mozilla also must suffer from the same philosophy he supposedly is complaining about with Gnome. Of course this assumes that a) he truly is complaining (not something tongue-in-cheek) and b) it truly is Linus Torvalds who posted the message.
Finally, the responses to the posting are most interesting. I particularly like the one that comments that Gnome isn't being designed for dumb users. It goes on that it is designed for smart users, but not necessarily those that are computer techie.
Anyway, the real discussion was on trying to improve the print dialogs of Gnome and some other apps. This slashdot article makes it sound like a GUI discussion/war.
"Microsoft said it would remove controversial copy-protection software that CDs from music publisher Sony BMG install on personal computers, deeming it a security risk to PCs running on Windows."
IANAL, but, isn't defeating a vendors copy protection scheme (regardless of how poorly thought out) a violation of the DMCA?
Well, somebody is downloading enough from iTunes to make others want a larger piece of the pie. If there wasn't any money in it why would that be? It's been reported that iTunes has had over 500 million sales at ten cents a song, that's $5 million in profits.
$5 million in profits for running an on-line store is a pretty good return on capital.
You say that this speculation is true because Apple didn't want to damage profits with either the iPod or some future phone they will design. Let's check the math.
While Apple does make a profit on the iPod hardware, it is relatively small compared to the profit made filling the iPod with songs downloaded from iTunes. Assuming Apple makes ten cents per song and over the life of the iPod somebody downloads 10,000 songs, then Apple makes $1,000. It is in their best interest to have as many devices download as many songs as possible from iTunes. A mandatory 100 song limit to protect their iPod doesn't make sense.
As for coming out with their own iPod phone, well, I guess that's possible. However, are they going to develop their own iPod cellular network? If not, it won't work as a phone. On the otherhand, if they partner with Cingular, Sprint or whomever, they don't have to realize manufacturing costs, they get royalties and the sell songs through iTunes.
It is simply not in Apple's best interest to promote a sub-standard product (or one that is perceived to be) that is associated with their iTunes brand. I would imagine that the real story is not that Apple wanted the number of songs restricted, but instead the manufacture only included minimal memory translating to only storing 100 songs.
You may be right on their own phone, though. If they deem that the cell phone companies can't create a phone that truly is what iPod/phone users want/need. They may just design one themself. However, they won't build it. They'll license the design, further adding to the iPod/iTunes revenue stream.
Either way, however, it doesn't change the fact that it is in Apple's best financial interest to not sell a crippled product.
Re:Children, grow up and admit that OSS isn't perf
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
I don't think it's just FOSS advocates that use load times and memory footprints but instead most people do. It's something that on the surface appears to be objective, but in reality is not. Businesses don't care about either. When they evaluate applications, it's based on functionality, productivity, cost, etc. Memory footprints only factor in if additional memory is needed, thus driving up the cost. The only people that really care about load times and memory footprints are the technical people. Average Joe user, isn't even aware of it, or if he is, doesn't understand it.
Case in point. Most new Linux users get all concerned when they check memory usage and see that they are near maximum. They don't understand that the OS is using all available RAM for it's own processes until something in user space requires it.
FOSS may report or quote things like load times and memory footprints, but if so, it's only because people expect them to. FOSS never even mentions any of those kinds of things when describing what FOSS actually is.
In reality, comparing load times and memory footprints is about as meaningful as using MIPS to compare mainframe systems. What's the joke about MIPS? MIPS=Meaningless Indicator of Processing Speed. Likewise, comparing memory footprints and load times is meaningless for the average user.
Re:Children, grow up and admit that OSS isn't perf
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure how valid memory usage for empty documents really is. For example, let's say that there are two identical programs, coded exactly the same way except that one of the two programs allocates a lot of buffer space up front to keep from having to do it on the fly (since memory allocation is usually cpu intensive). Which of the two programs is the better one? Of course, the answer might be different if one is trying to run on 128MB vs 2GB.
Don't get me wrong. OO has lots of room for improvement, but I'm not sure that empty document memory usage is a valid measure. For one thing. All of those Windows DLLs that Office requires but are part of the OS don't get counted in the memory footprint. Now it is true that they are part of the OS but technically, they should be counted. OO doesn't have that luxury -- all of it's memory footprint is displayed, because it can't rely on the Windows DLLs and remain multi-platform. If one day, Microsoft is successful in integrating.Net with the OS, then we'll here the same kind of arguments -- "Look how much memory a java app takes, when C# uses next to none!"
All of that said, OO does suffer from having a monolithic architecture. You shouldn't have to have Writer and Impress loaded just to use Calc.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that telegrams had in their favor is that most statutes recognized them as legal communications and based on the date they were sent. Many corporate bylaws include notice of meetings, etc. via mail and telegram. While the other alternatives mentioned, particularly email may be more convienent and faster, from a legal point of view, they may not stand the same ground (of course statutes and bylaws can be amended). However, one thing that a telegram would get you that an email won't is a dated receipt from a third party to prove the message was sent. With email, it is all to easy to spoof the headers to make them say whatever and their isn't any independent verification that it was received (even return receipts aren't universal and can still be spoofed).
While I agree with other posters about other mediums being more efficient, there are still reasons to use less efficient means. Otherwise, the USPS would be out of business, too.
My opion: Maybee more research has been done on non-embryonic because of this controversy
Actually, no. They have been working with embryonic stem cells for decades. Just human ones for the last 10 years or so. It appears that the embryonic ones are so undifferentiated that they can't be controlled as to what they will develop into. For example, if they try and make heart muscle with them, they also get hair and teeth cells intermixed (which wouldn't be good for your heart).
The non-embryonic stem cells have already been used successfully to treat or cure 65 different diseases and conditions including leukemia, diabetes, parkinsons, nerve regeneration, spinal cord injury and a host of others. To date, the embryonic stem cells have produced nothing.
That is one of the reasons for pushing for government funding (in the US, anyway). Private research money is pouring into non-embryonic stem cell research because it has been shown to work and the potential for more success is very high (therefore a high return on the investment). Embryonic research has relatively little private funding because the science just doesn't support it and the researchers (ie Universities) want/need government funding.
That's why, if you listen to the hype about embryonic stem cells, it is always emotionally based and not on hard facts. Why? Because the facts don't support it.
That's also why the supporters of embryonic stem cell research try and frame the opposition as because of religious values (similar to the abortion debate). And while that may be an element (religion), the cold hard facts, even without a religious argument is that the science just doesn't work.
Anyway, the logical decision would seem to be that if there are limited research dollars available, then they should be used where there is the most likely success. That would be non-embryonic stem cell research (and is why the private sector funds it as such).
In your opinion an embryo is not a person, because, it doesn't think and feels no pain? Well, that would make an unconcious person not a person, either, since they a) don't think and b) don't feel pain. If I understand correctly, for you, a person is defined by their cognitive and sensory ability.
As for your opinion about God, that's really between you and God. As for embryonic stem cells curing and fighting all these diseases, well, the science actually shows just the opposite -- it's only the non-embryonic stem cells that have shown any kind of success.
As for your question as to why it is morally wrong, well, if you really did read the Bible cover to cover, you should already have your answer.
What is more important, be a showmen technologist like Jobs or an humanitarian missionaire like Gates?
By stating this question in this way, you have already tainted any conclusions to be drawn. It is only your opinion that Gates is an humanitarian missionaire. Who is to say that he is more so than Jobs? The fact that he started a foundation is only a public showing of giving. How do we know that Jobs doesn't give proportionately more of his wealth? We don't.
It doesn't really matter, because you have, as I have stated, tainted anybody's response by inserting your own subjective value system in the way you described Jobs and Gates.
A more balanced questioned would have been "Who, Gates or Jobs, as an individual (not their company) has had a bigger impact on the world and why?" Then you would have had something valid to discuss.
You've got a good point here and it describes the other side of of Steve Gibson. After reading that site, you'll understand his stories are mostly made of popular speak or disinformation, rather then scientifical information.
And he's different from other mainstream media sources how?
Does not allowing digital restrictions mean that including copyrighted artwork, which is displayed digitally on the screen would be disallowed, too? If so, there won't be much support for GPL3, no icons, no images, no anything.
Long file name use was in place before the 90s, so yes it was before April 1, 1993. As for doing it the same way as described by the patent, well, the patent doesn't actually describe how it's done, only that it is done, so any file system that allows long and short file names or even multiple file names for the same file would fit with the description in the patent. I would surmise that dns lookup tables on the internet are a violation of the patent given how broadly worded it is.
So, the short answer to your questions are "Yes" and "Yes."
My old Mac was using long file names prior to the 1995 date of this patent application. It also had short file names for backward compatability. Wouldn't that constitute prior art?
Unfortunately, it only works that way in sci-fi. In reality, to clone a body part, you must first create an embryo, either with a sperm and an egg or with nuclear transfer into an unfertilized egg (cloning). Regardless, you have to grow the embryo to create the "body part" you want. Even then, say you are a 40 year old man, a newborn infant's heart will not do you much good. Even with the cloning of the embryo, if the body part needs replaced because of genetics, then the embryo and subsequent organ will have the same genetic defect (using somebody elses nucleus would have the same rejection problems as organ transplants do today).
Regardless, you would still have the same ethical dilemna of creating embryos with the intent of destroying them.
Well if we can multiply existing cells there is no further need to destroy anymore embryos to harvest more cells.
I seriously doubt anyone would claim the cells themselves are somehow more sacred if taken from an embryo than a human. The debate is whether it is ethical to destroy embryos to harvest said cells. As long as we can reproduce the cells already harvested destroying embryos could be outlawed from this point forward and stem cell research could continue unhindered.
That is effectively what Bush did when he allowed government funding to be used for embryonic stem cells. Only those lines already in existance could get research grants.
What has occurred though, is that the lines are not as useful as first thought and they can not be multiplied indefinately.
After all, how is a stem cell in itself anymore sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell? Claiming an embryo is life is one thing, claiming that individual cells taken from an embryo have souls is even more of a stretch.
That is the point, the stem cell itself is not any more sacred than a skin cell or any other individual cell. The embryo, however, is not the stem cell and must be destroyed to collect its stem cells. In effect, if you accept that the embryo really is alive, then destroying it to obtain it's cells creates the ethical and moral dillema, regardless of any potential cures that could come from it. That is why there is very little opposition to using non-embryonic stem cells (which actually have cures today) and a lot of controversy over using the embryonic ones (which might produce cures someday).
Unlike Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many don't outweigh the needs of the few or the one," if it involves killing the one. At least that is the moral question.
No, it has nothing to do with the debate, because if one accepts the argument that the embryo is human life and therefore unethical to use or destroy, then any cell lines derived from them are still unethical. The medium used to multiply the stem cell line does not impact that. What it does is makes the stem cells grown in that medium more viable to be put into a human being without causing rejection from the animal proteins.
The ethics are tied up,not in the medium used to propogate the cell line, but in destroying the embryo to obtain the stem cells.
Regardless, this is more likely to be useful for adult stem cells than embryonic ones (which aren't hindered by the ethical discussion).
If you have the service licensed for your home computer, your work computer and your laptop, doesn't that use up your three licenses? How are you also putting songs on your Zen Micro? Doesn't that count as a device?
Only Microsoft would come up with a product branding that most people associate with a bodily function. Maybe their slogan can be "After satisfying your Urge, please be sure to flush."
Are you propsing that all stem cell research is wrong or only embryonic stem cells? Non-embryonic stem cells can come from any number of sources including bone marrow, fat cells, umbilical cord blood, nasal cells, etc. These, non-embryonic stem cells don't destroy an embryo nor require creating an embryo through nuclear transfer to produce them. As such, they are not and never could be a living human being and are truly just cells (just as skin cells and bone cells are).
I only raise the point to raise awarness, because it is from these non-embryonic sources that the real progress has been made in treating diabetes, spinal cord injury, parkinsons, leukemia and a host of other cures and treatments.
Not to jump into the stem cell argument, but I think you have a precarious position in your argument. You talk about existance and appear to define it as being born. And also imply that you would need to be sentient.
The danger in your argument has to do with those two areas. For if a being must be sentient, does that mean someone in a coma no longer exists? How about the severely mentally disabled? As for being born, does that mean a baby that is two months premature exists, but a fetus still in the womb at seven months does not?
Depending on how you view the being born and sentient positions you pose, you might actually be supporting the original poster. For instance, if you say, well the premature baby exists and therefor the seven month fetus exists, since geography (located in the womb or out) really doesn't come in to play, then what about the six month and 28 day fetus? What about the six month and 14 day fetus, etc. You can take this argument all the way back to the moment of conception, which is what the original poster is proposing -- the embryo used to harvest stem cells is just an early version of the human being that will be born nine months later.
Looking at the sentient argument, since a coma patient is not sentient -- not aware of his/her context in the universe, etc., then is it alright to kill that person? Would it make a difference if it was only a temporary coma? If so, then sentience can't be a defining factor and something else must be.
Anyway, I understand both the original poster's position and yours, however, I just want to point out that your argument doesn't actually refute his (or hers as the case may be).
This doesn't change anything wrt the debate about if it's right - which is primarily over the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses, which nearly all anti-abortion advocates think is immoral.
While non-embryonic stem cells can come from aborted fetuses, most actually come from bone marrow, fat cells, nasal and cheek linings, umbilical cords, etc. Stem cells from these sources are not controversial and have been successfully used to treat parkinsons, diabietes, leukemia, spinal injuries and some 61 other diseases. All of which is well documented, but usually not reported. It is only the use of embryonic stem cells derived from cloning a human embryo (nuclear transfer) that are controversial.
To date, the only thing that embryonic stem cells have produced are cancer tumors. Evidently, they are so undifferentiated that they cause uncontrolled cell growth (tumors). The push for having government funding of embryonic stem cells is because businesses and private individuals won't fund it. They are pouring millions into non-embryonic stem cell research, which has been proven to be successful time and time again.
Regardless, the "discovery" reported doesn't impact the moral or ethical discussion, it comes into play after the intitial stem cells are taken (or created, in the case of embryonic ones).
We bitch about and make light of all the delays going digital, and then we bitch when the government propose to help disadvantaged groups to maintain access to broadcast television, for whatever it's worth.
When it is the government that mandates the change (instead of the market) and then the same government will pay money to buy equipment, why shouldn't we bitch? The original reason had nothing to do with giving the analog spectrum back. The purpose of the government mandate was to bail out the failing US television manufacturers. The idea being if everyone had to buy a new TV, to the American standard (not Japan or Europe), then they (the manufacturers) would be able to fend off the imports. Unfortunately, by now, there are no TVs manufactured in America and this has become a windfall to the very imports it was meant to protect against.
Case in point, early on, broadcasters realized they could send four analog quality programs down the data stream meant for one high definition program. All that would be required on the receiving end was an inexpensive (sub $50) decoder. Broadcasters were happy, because they could provide four times the content. Consumers were happy because they wouldn't have to junk their existing televisions. Everyone is happy except the membres of the High Tech DTV Coalition, because they can't capitalize on it. So the Coalition (Microsoft, Intel, Dell, etc) lobby congress and what happens? The telecom bill prohibits spliting the high bandwith signal for low bandwith receivers.
The $1.5B transition cost is the tip of the iceberg. How many billions of dollars will shift from consumers to the big players in HDTV? The HDTV bill was nothing more than more corporate welfare given to wealthy companies. This time, however, the government found away to do it where they don't have to be involved in the collection process.
Remember, your current TV has become obsolete not because of technology, but because of government mandate.
If Microsoft runs an online service, then the browser (modified, perhaps) will be all that will be required to run Office on any computer (with internet connection).
Any computer will have a browser (and connectivity), therefore MS Office will be omnipresent. You won't need to carry it around on a flash driver.
No, you won't need to carry around a usb key, but you might need a really long network cable to connect to the internet, since not everywhere has wireless (let alone free wireless). Plus, what happens when your internet is down?
Even with a T-1 connection, what type of response time will there be if there are 50 workers running Office remotely? How about 100 or 250? It would have to scale much better than terminal services does and still provide the "user experience" that people demand.
Of course, requiring the use of a modified Microsoft browser to run Microsoft Office which would probably require an upgrade to Windows Vista or beyond would be just the way to permanently lock people into Microsoft products, upgrade paths and revenue streams. All the more reason to use OpenOffice.org, portable or not.
This article is very misleading. While the comments attributed to Mr. Torvalds are accurate, the context is not. If you go back to the discussion and read the post from Till, you can see that the complaint deal specifically with the printing dialog in not just Gnome, but also firefox and others.
I would be curious as to what browser Mr. Torvalds tells people to use, since Firefox/Mozilla also must suffer from the same philosophy he supposedly is complaining about with Gnome. Of course this assumes that a) he truly is complaining (not something tongue-in-cheek) and b) it truly is Linus Torvalds who posted the message.
Finally, the responses to the posting are most interesting. I particularly like the one that comments that Gnome isn't being designed for dumb users. It goes on that it is designed for smart users, but not necessarily those that are computer techie.
Anyway, the real discussion was on trying to improve the print dialogs of Gnome and some other apps. This slashdot article makes it sound like a GUI discussion/war.
IANAL, but, isn't defeating a vendors copy protection scheme (regardless of how poorly thought out) a violation of the DMCA?
Oops, that should read $50 million in profits, not $5million.
Well, somebody is downloading enough from iTunes to make others want a larger piece of the pie. If there wasn't any money in it why would that be? It's been reported that iTunes has had over 500 million sales at ten cents a song, that's $5 million in profits.
$5 million in profits for running an on-line store is a pretty good return on capital.
You say that this speculation is true because Apple didn't want to damage profits with either the iPod or some future phone they will design. Let's check the math.
While Apple does make a profit on the iPod hardware, it is relatively small compared to the profit made filling the iPod with songs downloaded from iTunes. Assuming Apple makes ten cents per song and over the life of the iPod somebody downloads 10,000 songs, then Apple makes $1,000. It is in their best interest to have as many devices download as many songs as possible from iTunes. A mandatory 100 song limit to protect their iPod doesn't make sense.
As for coming out with their own iPod phone, well, I guess that's possible. However, are they going to develop their own iPod cellular network? If not, it won't work as a phone. On the otherhand, if they partner with Cingular, Sprint or whomever, they don't have to realize manufacturing costs, they get royalties and the sell songs through iTunes.
It is simply not in Apple's best interest to promote a sub-standard product (or one that is perceived to be) that is associated with their iTunes brand. I would imagine that the real story is not that Apple wanted the number of songs restricted, but instead the manufacture only included minimal memory translating to only storing 100 songs.
You may be right on their own phone, though. If they deem that the cell phone companies can't create a phone that truly is what iPod/phone users want/need. They may just design one themself. However, they won't build it. They'll license the design, further adding to the iPod/iTunes revenue stream.
Either way, however, it doesn't change the fact that it is in Apple's best financial interest to not sell a crippled product.
I don't think it's just FOSS advocates that use load times and memory footprints but instead most people do. It's something that on the surface appears to be objective, but in reality is not. Businesses don't care about either. When they evaluate applications, it's based on functionality, productivity, cost, etc. Memory footprints only factor in if additional memory is needed, thus driving up the cost. The only people that really care about load times and memory footprints are the technical people. Average Joe user, isn't even aware of it, or if he is, doesn't understand it.
Case in point. Most new Linux users get all concerned when they check memory usage and see that they are near maximum. They don't understand that the OS is using all available RAM for it's own processes until something in user space requires it.
FOSS may report or quote things like load times and memory footprints, but if so, it's only because people expect them to. FOSS never even mentions any of those kinds of things when describing what FOSS actually is.
In reality, comparing load times and memory footprints is about as meaningful as using MIPS to compare mainframe systems. What's the joke about MIPS? MIPS=Meaningless Indicator of Processing Speed. Likewise, comparing memory footprints and load times is meaningless for the average user.
I'm not sure how valid memory usage for empty documents really is. For example, let's say that there are two identical programs, coded exactly the same way except that one of the two programs allocates a lot of buffer space up front to keep from having to do it on the fly (since memory allocation is usually cpu intensive). Which of the two programs is the better one? Of course, the answer might be different if one is trying to run on 128MB vs 2GB.
.Net with the OS, then we'll here the same kind of arguments -- "Look how much memory a java app takes, when C# uses next to none!"
Don't get me wrong. OO has lots of room for improvement, but I'm not sure that empty document memory usage is a valid measure. For one thing. All of those Windows DLLs that Office requires but are part of the OS don't get counted in the memory footprint. Now it is true that they are part of the OS but technically, they should be counted. OO doesn't have that luxury -- all of it's memory footprint is displayed, because it can't rely on the Windows DLLs and remain multi-platform. If one day, Microsoft is successful in integrating
All of that said, OO does suffer from having a monolithic architecture. You shouldn't have to have Writer and Impress loaded just to use Calc.