In the news today, the FDA is poised to approve food from cloned animals. Apparently eating clones makes some people uncomfortable. Their thinking goes like this:
"I sure enjoy eating Bob the cow, but I wouldn't feel comfortable eating Bob the other cow."
Eating clones got me thinking about the intellectual property of human supermodel DNA. At some point it seems inevitable that billionaires will start cloning supermodels so they can grow their own girlfriends. Someday it will surely be legal in some country.
If you were a supermodel who had snorted away all of your money and you were now too old to model, and some billionaire offered you a hundred million dollars for your DNA, would you sell it? Assume you know in advance that the billionaire is a disgusting pig who will be raising your clone to be a brainwashed sex slave.
Assume also that your clone won't be forced to do anything against her will. She will simply be raised to believe the billionaire is a godlike creature and the rest will happen naturally. No laws will be broken. And she will live like a princess except for the part about being a clone whore to an old, rich fat guy. In other words, the quality of her life will be in the top 10% of the planet if you consider the wretchedness the average human's life around the world.
"Open" AIM. What a laugh. I'm glad that Google has inspired your marketing folks to spread freedom and democracy, but this is still a long shot from a truly open system (Jabber).
Oh, and by the way - why is your website showing me an ad for Dove deodorant, shampoo, and body wash? Bleh, AOL is doing some nice things lately, but it's way too little, way too late. The only way you're going to keep making money is by charging people's credit cards after they've canceled their subscription. Sorry, you loose.
What are you talking about? Who cares if their "Google pack" is open source? I bet they threw it together in a weekend - it's not that impressive. The contributions Google gives to the OSS community aren't little - check out Google code before you talk. The places where it matters - like an open XMPP-based talk infrastructure, Google is the only company to step up. Try building something useful on top of the MSN chat network, and see how fast MS sues you out of the water.
From my experience, high school admins are usually the very bottom-of-the-barrel when it comes to computer ops. Mine was an english major turned high school english teacher turned highschool sysadmin. He suspended me for for three days just for running a network scan on the servers.
So basically if I say an idea that you like isn't perfect, it's "slanderous".
Nope. The
original post suggested you don't donate money because Jimmy Wales makes a "hefty salary". This is the second time he said it, and it's a lie. I'd say that's defamation (or slander, libel, whatever you wish). He also said that wikipedia is a massive multiplayer online role playing game. That was just stupid, but you thought it was the "[m]ost insightful comment about wikipedia EVER". That makes you an idiot. That makes your opinions less valid than mine (because I'm not an idiot).
My "argument" makes sense whether you're an idiot or not. My choice to point out the obvious can hardly affect my "argument", no? Actually, i think my "argument" is that both you and the original poster were idiots...
Since there is no strict national standard for how any subject is taught in the US, anything that starts this way is pretty worthless. You simply can't claim anything specific about "education in the US", because there is no national standard.
One thing is consistent accross the country, however, and that is international achevement tests showing again and again that the US isn't educating anywhere near as well as our current and future economic rivals. This is the problem. And your personal examples aren't helping.
So lemme get this straight, if something is marked a troll on slashdot, a site famous for promoting groupthink and modding down everything that doesn't go along with said groupthink(whether it is valid or not), then it is automatically a worthless opinion? Last time I checked, slashdot mods do not speak for me, or the world at large for that matter.
A lot of people agreeing does not constitute groupthink. Sometimes something is just a good idea. Like wikipedia: great idea. Sometimes a troll is a slanderous of such an idea, and people that see it as such mod him down. When someone goes ahead and calls something which is a repeated troll and obvious lie "the most insightful comment EVER", that's called flaimbait (and correctly modded, may I add).
The rating system seems to be working pretty well. Not perfect maybe, but well. And last time I checked, slashdot "mods" do not speak for any one person. They are selected by an algorithm from slashdot readers. Hence, they probably represent "the world at large" pretty well... Oh, another good thing about slashdot... the way that those mod-selection algorithms work seem to keep mod points from idiots like you. Good for slashdot.
That is if it hadn't been a re-posted idea that had already been marked as a troll. C'mon buddy, your childish rant was exposed once, so you repost it? Gimme a break...
I always wonder about people that remember/. stories from almost a year back... especially ones like these. I usually forget what I see on/. within a couple of days.
In most jurisdictions if the defendant wins, his legal bills are paid by the claimant.
In most of the United States, the defendant would have to prove that the lawsuit was frivolous in order for this to happen. This means she has to prove the RIAA had no reasonable cause to believe she was doing whatever they're charging her with.
Also, what makes you think Google would hire manipulators or people who seem like a threat? And if they did don't you think they have security mechanisms in place? You make it seem as if its as simple as someone just walking in and hiijacking the company, its not easy to do a hostile take over of a corporation with an educated workforce.
It's something like a critical mass of bullshitters... if you're below the critical mass, it's really easy to spot them, but when you hit the critical mass is when you start soaking up more. From what I can tell, Google is nowhere near that number, though.
Google's executives and managers are far from business types. During the college fair at my school, I asked the Google rep how they made sure that they don't soak up the same beuracratic business bull other growing companies hit. He said it was easy - you just have to be really careful whom you hire, and as long as you don't screw up too badly, it becomes obvious which managers are too far on the business side - they're the ones that get no respect.
And the better the coders, the less management they require, which is a double whammy for Google.
Re:What the f*** is wrong with these people?
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Google should have charged publishers tens of thousands of dollars to allow their books to be indexed and put in the database. Publishers would be lining up tripping over each other to be included.
IOW, this is a FUD attack on Google no different than what MS does to the linux world.
Absolutely. Just look at the language they use: "Internet behemoth", "$90B Company...", "Google is huge", etc.
That, combined with all of the errors in the article (Google isn't offering ads on the service, and the opt-out process is automated), would rate this prime-grade FUD in my book.
Uh, maybe the part about her being the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of American Publishers is creeping in on her opinion of this...
Google really needs to get a better PR firm.:(
Does anyone else have the feeling that this will be the most important legal case in copyright in recent history? If Google argues the way I think they're going to argue (current copyright laws are hurting more than helping), this could be huge...
Slashdot Mirror
In the news today, the FDA is poised to approve food from cloned animals. Apparently eating clones makes some people uncomfortable. Their thinking goes like this:
0 06/12/deja_food.html
"I sure enjoy eating Bob the cow, but I wouldn't feel comfortable eating Bob the other cow."
Eating clones got me thinking about the intellectual property of human supermodel DNA. At some point it seems inevitable that billionaires will start cloning supermodels so they can grow their own girlfriends. Someday it will surely be legal in some country.
If you were a supermodel who had snorted away all of your money and you were now too old to model, and some billionaire offered you a hundred million dollars for your DNA, would you sell it? Assume you know in advance that the billionaire is a disgusting pig who will be raising your clone to be a brainwashed sex slave.
Assume also that your clone won't be forced to do anything against her will. She will simply be raised to believe the billionaire is a godlike creature and the rest will happen naturally. No laws will be broken. And she will live like a princess except for the part about being a clone whore to an old, rich fat guy. In other words, the quality of her life will be in the top 10% of the planet if you consider the wretchedness the average human's life around the world.
Would you sell your DNA for $100,000,000?
From the Dilber blog: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2
"Open" AIM. What a laugh. I'm glad that Google has inspired your marketing folks to spread freedom and democracy, but this is still a long shot from a truly open system (Jabber).
Oh, and by the way - why is your website showing me an ad for Dove deodorant, shampoo, and body wash? Bleh, AOL is doing some nice things lately, but it's way too little, way too late. The only way you're going to keep making money is by charging people's credit cards after they've canceled their subscription. Sorry, you loose.
The Iraq WAR (not "conflict") is covered under this resolution under section (a) above, as a state harboring terrorist groups.
If the "war" has anything to do with terrorism and freedom, why don't I hear anything about Saudi Arabia in the news?
everything they put out is proprietary
really
What are you talking about? Who cares if their "Google pack" is open source? I bet they threw it together in a weekend - it's not that impressive. The contributions Google gives to the OSS community aren't little - check out Google code before you talk. The places where it matters - like an open XMPP-based talk infrastructure, Google is the only company to step up. Try building something useful on top of the MSN chat network, and see how fast MS sues you out of the water.
-1 Offtopic. +5 Insightful.
From my experience, high school admins are usually the very bottom-of-the-barrel when it comes to computer ops. Mine was an english major turned high school english teacher turned highschool sysadmin. He suspended me for for three days just for running a network scan on the servers.
Does not computer
So basically if I say an idea that you like isn't perfect, it's "slanderous".
Nope. The original post suggested you don't donate money because Jimmy Wales makes a "hefty salary". This is the second time he said it, and it's a lie. I'd say that's defamation (or slander, libel, whatever you wish). He also said that wikipedia is a massive multiplayer online role playing game. That was just stupid, but you thought it was the "[m]ost insightful comment about wikipedia EVER". That makes you an idiot. That makes your opinions less valid than mine (because I'm not an idiot).
My "argument" makes sense whether you're an idiot or not. My choice to point out the obvious can hardly affect my "argument", no? Actually, i think my "argument" is that both you and the original poster were idiots...
Because most slashdot readers think wikipedia is a great project and would want to know when it needs support.
I'm sure they got thousands before the story hit slashdot.
I am from the U.S. and I learned...
Since there is no strict national standard for how any subject is taught in the US, anything that starts this way is pretty worthless. You simply can't claim anything specific about "education in the US", because there is no national standard.
One thing is consistent accross the country, however, and that is international achevement tests showing again and again that the US isn't educating anywhere near as well as our current and future economic rivals. This is the problem. And your personal examples aren't helping.
So lemme get this straight, if something is marked a troll on slashdot, a site famous for promoting groupthink and modding down everything that doesn't go along with said groupthink(whether it is valid or not), then it is automatically a worthless opinion? Last time I checked, slashdot mods do not speak for me, or the world at large for that matter.
A lot of people agreeing does not constitute groupthink. Sometimes something is just a good idea. Like wikipedia: great idea. Sometimes a troll is a slanderous of such an idea, and people that see it as such mod him down. When someone goes ahead and calls something which is a repeated troll and obvious lie "the most insightful comment EVER", that's called flaimbait (and correctly modded, may I add).
The rating system seems to be working pretty well. Not perfect maybe, but well. And last time I checked, slashdot "mods" do not speak for any one person. They are selected by an algorithm from slashdot readers. Hence, they probably represent "the world at large" pretty well... Oh, another good thing about slashdot... the way that those mod-selection algorithms work seem to keep mod points from idiots like you. Good for slashdot.
Most insightful comment about wikipedia EVER!
That is if it hadn't been a re-posted idea that had already been marked as a troll. C'mon buddy, your childish rant was exposed once, so you repost it? Gimme a break...
I always wonder about people that remember /. stories from almost a year back... especially ones like these. I usually forget what I see on /. within a couple of days.
In most jurisdictions if the defendant wins, his legal bills are paid by the claimant.
In most of the United States, the defendant would have to prove that the lawsuit was frivolous in order for this to happen. This means she has to prove the RIAA had no reasonable cause to believe she was doing whatever they're charging her with.
Also, what makes you think Google would hire manipulators or people who seem like a threat? And if they did don't you think they have security mechanisms in place? You make it seem as if its as simple as someone just walking in and hiijacking the company, its not easy to do a hostile take over of a corporation with an educated workforce.
It's something like a critical mass of bullshitters... if you're below the critical mass, it's really easy to spot them, but when you hit the critical mass is when you start soaking up more. From what I can tell, Google is nowhere near that number, though.
Google's executives and managers are far from business types. During the college fair at my school, I asked the Google rep how they made sure that they don't soak up the same beuracratic business bull other growing companies hit. He said it was easy - you just have to be really careful whom you hire, and as long as you don't screw up too badly, it becomes obvious which managers are too far on the business side - they're the ones that get no respect.
And the better the coders, the less management they require, which is a double whammy for Google.
I dont think anyone would want to buy or use an ATM machine without the ability to audit it's transactions and know that that audit is sound.
What's funny is that Diebold also makes ATM's - each one of which has a paper record of everything the machine does.
'nuff said
Google should have charged publishers tens of thousands of dollars to allow their books to be indexed and put in the database. Publishers would be lining up tripping over each other to be included.
IOW, this is a FUD attack on Google no different than what MS does to the linux world.
Absolutely. Just look at the language they use: "Internet behemoth", "$90B Company...", "Google is huge", etc.
That, combined with all of the errors in the article (Google isn't offering ads on the service, and the opt-out process is automated), would rate this prime-grade FUD in my book.
Patricia Scott Schroeder
:(
Uh, maybe the part about her being the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of American Publishers is creeping in on her opinion of this... Google really needs to get a better PR firm.
Does anyone else have the feeling that this will be the most important legal case in copyright in recent history? If Google argues the way I think they're going to argue (current copyright laws are hurting more than helping), this could be huge...