... is we are asking more questions and they are in the public eye. See, for example, Slashdot and Wired.
But not all questions are equal.
Some should be decided before hand as policy: "Under what circumstances can we allow the creation of self-replicating robots?"
Some will/should be decided in the courts after the fact: "When is someone responsible for a machine that functions independently, but that they configured?"
Some result in mere speculation: "What resources will be affected by robotic production?"
And some are just silly: "Do we really NEED these robots?"
I dropped my IPod in a puddle a few months after I got it, and after that the screen would come and go. If you've got all your settings the way you like them and you just randomize your whole playlist, it works just fine.
I think one of the things that many people like about it, whether they know it or not, is the die rolling. It all depends on what you consider fun.
If your idea of fun is to see who is best, or who has the best strategy, or who has the maddest skilz, then you don't want an element of chance. But for alot of people, that element of chance gives you a kick of adrenaline even when you've worked out your optimal strategy. You can still play with your brainiac friends (who will always beat you at chess) and still hope to win.
Why do you think gambling is so addictive?
I've held the same idea for quite a while now. Galaxies are like pools of gasoline. We are the spark. (What's the chance of an independent spark occurring elsewhere before we engulf and devour?)
But now I'm wondering about other galaxies. What happens when we take over this galaxy? Will we let all that energy go flying out into space? How long before we start encasing stars in solar panels?
Maybe the SETI people should start looking for the disappearance of stars and/or galaxies.
But then, a disappearing galaxy might be caused not only by the enveloping of their stars but also by the shadow of the robot fleet they've sent our way to start the process here.
Because I see no reason that this technology can't become really cheap, I expect there will soon be people recording not only what they see, but what they don't see. Why not have one facing forward and a second facing backward? And each side?
Enjoy your privacy now, because soon anything you do outside will be recorded by someone or something.
I stand corrected. Almost everyone agrees. Or maybe "almost all reasonable people".
Who cares about stealing numbers from the phone book? That would be RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO.. At least they cared enough to spend a lot of money on legal fees.
And FYI, there are two BIG web publishers of Legal info: West/Thompson (used to be just West) and LexisNexis and a few smaller ones, like VersusLaw (where I work).
Not a sig, but my fav--
There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
While the links at the site mentioned are all biased against this legislation, and many of those links provide only knee-jerk, "the sky is falling", "keep your hands off my facts" reactions (e.g. Phyllis Schlafly's) so typical to slashdot responses found here, there is at least one lucid presentation of the situation. Anyone really interested in this topic should at least read William A. Wulf's testimony. He summarizes the problem well. Here's my summary of the problem (not the testimony).
1. NOBODY is trying to COPYRIGHT ANYTHING! NOBODY is trying to OWN FACTS! (Please repeat this to yourself three times before continuing to read anything anywhere)
2. Big database companies (like West) are worried that other companies can slurp up large parts of their data and turn around and sell it. Everyone agrees this is unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
3. Big companies now KNOW that COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT THEM from situation 2 above because of Feist. (Google it with copyright).
4. Big companies want some law to point to when situation 2 actually happens.
The real problem(s):
a. Situation 2 may not be a real problem. No one has shown that this is actually happening.
b. Big companies (like West) like to sue honest competitors to gain any advantage they can. That's their job. (Google West and Lexis)
c. The new legislation may be addressing a non-problem while facilitating expensive, unnecessary lawsuits designed to harass competition.
d. (The big one for me) The new legislation may chill the activities of companies like Google who might inadvertently become liable.
Hey man, can I bum a sig?
spend $249 and get ... $480, plus
on
iPod Mini Autopsy
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here's a discussion that talks about yanking the ($479.95) Hitachi microdrive inside. More discussion on my original source: boingboing
Er... feedback doesn't necessarily mean success. I see nobody pointed out that Raph Koster of Sony Online headed up StarWars Galaxies. That development group bent over backwards to get community feedback, but look what we got. Game design by committee.
No sig for you.
(now to read the Wired article)
1. you spend time and effort collecting a database
2. you market that database and somehow earn money for marketing it
3. someone else copies a chunk of your database
4. that someone makes that chunk available to your customers
5. you lose money because of # 4
6. you are NOT THE GOVERNMENT
7. that someone else is NOT A SCIENTIST or REPORTER acting appropriately
8. you can PROVE all of the above
If you read the linked articles, you'll see that the biggest discussed objection to this law is that it may not be necessary because you can already sue if someone does the above. The Commerce Department says it's a matter of contract law. When you make your database available, you make the customer agree not to sell copies of it. But the fact is, they're wrong. That's what happened in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Company. Feist wanted Rural's telephone book data so they copied it and provided a competing telephone book. The Supreme Court said Rural can't use copyright to sue, and they were right for saying so, but then Rural was SOL.
Thus, any company that spends time/effort/money collecting useful data in hopes of making some profit is also potentially SOL if someone else copies it and sells it for cheaper. This new law is intended to encourage companies to collect data and make it available. What's wrong with that?
The big question for me is why do Google and Yahoo oppose it. My guess is that they're afraid of inadverdently violating it because they try to collect all the data on the web. What if a company creates a collection of data, but then anyone can get to it through Google? I assume there are ways to shut out Google, but not the public?
Because there are companies out there that spend a lot of time and effort and money gathering information and providing that information to the public, for a fee. See Feist v. Rural Telecom (sorry for missing link. Just google it). It's called business. If company A can't get a fee, they're not gonna be there to provide the information. If company B can come along, copy the database (at a tenth of the cost of the original company), and provide that to the public for half the fee... guess what? Company A won't get it's fee, so it won't gather the data in the first place. Nobody gathers the data. No data for you, even if you think it's worth the fee.
Venter did not create a new virus. He created a copy of a well known virus (the first genome to be sequenced, I think). It's just that he did it from scratch, i.e., outside of a cell, using man-made (well, machine-made) pieces of DNA.
I didn't like what Peter was doing with him anyway. Instead of exploring how a force for good was turned to the dark side (sorry, but it's an apropos, if tired, metaphor), Peter simply uses Saruman as a human face for the big red eye. The movie just doesn't give a good feel for the tragedy (in the Greek play sense) that is the fall of Saruman.
Slashdot Mirror
... is we are asking more questions and they are in the public eye. See, for example, Slashdot and Wired.
But not all questions are equal.
Some should be decided before hand as policy: "Under what circumstances can we allow the creation of self-replicating robots?"
Some will/should be decided in the courts after the fact: "When is someone responsible for a machine that functions independently, but that they configured?"
Some result in mere speculation: "What resources will be affected by robotic production?"
And some are just silly: "Do we really NEED these robots?"
I dropped my IPod in a puddle a few months after I got it, and after that the screen would come and go. If you've got all your settings the way you like them and you just randomize your whole playlist, it works just fine.
I think one of the things that many people like about it, whether they know it or not, is the die rolling. It all depends on what you consider fun.
If your idea of fun is to see who is best, or who has the best strategy, or who has the maddest skilz, then you don't want an element of chance. But for alot of people, that element of chance gives you a kick of adrenaline even when you've worked out your optimal strategy. You can still play with your brainiac friends (who will always beat you at chess) and still hope to win. Why do you think gambling is so addictive?
I've held the same idea for quite a while now. Galaxies are like pools of gasoline. We are the spark. (What's the chance of an independent spark occurring elsewhere before we engulf and devour?)
But now I'm wondering about other galaxies. What happens when we take over this galaxy? Will we let all that energy go flying out into space? How long before we start encasing stars in solar panels?
Maybe the SETI people should start looking for the disappearance of stars and/or galaxies.
But then, a disappearing galaxy might be caused not only by the enveloping of their stars but also by the shadow of the robot fleet they've sent our way to start the process here.
Because I see no reason that this technology can't become really cheap, I expect there will soon be people recording not only what they see, but what they don't see. Why not have one facing forward and a second facing backward? And each side?
Enjoy your privacy now, because soon anything you do outside will be recorded by someone or something.
(From the article) "The technology doesn't suffer from electricity interruptions." Er ... lightning not withstanding.
Err ... nevermind. I Googled again and found it here. No "avatar".
...
Ignore the man behind the iron curtain
I'd swear Vernor Vinge used avatar in True Names (early 80's?), but I don't have a copy and can't seem to Google it or find it in Amazon.
... there ... 4 a.m.
Anybody?
I doubt
I stand corrected. Almost everyone agrees. Or maybe "almost all reasonable people".
Who cares about stealing numbers from the phone book? That would be RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO.. At least they cared enough to spend a lot of money on legal fees.
And FYI, there are two BIG web publishers of Legal info: West/Thompson (used to be just West) and LexisNexis and a few smaller ones, like VersusLaw (where I work).
Not a sig, but my fav--
There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
While the links at the site mentioned are all biased against this legislation, and many of those links provide only knee-jerk, "the sky is falling", "keep your hands off my facts" reactions (e.g. Phyllis Schlafly's) so typical to slashdot responses found here, there is at least one lucid presentation of the situation. Anyone really interested in this topic should at least read William A. Wulf's testimony. He summarizes the problem well. Here's my summary of the problem (not the testimony).
1. NOBODY is trying to COPYRIGHT ANYTHING! NOBODY is trying to OWN FACTS! (Please repeat this to yourself three times before continuing to read anything anywhere)
2. Big database companies (like West) are worried that other companies can slurp up large parts of their data and turn around and sell it. Everyone agrees this is unfair and shouldn't be allowed.
3. Big companies now KNOW that COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT THEM from situation 2 above because of Feist. (Google it with copyright).
4. Big companies want some law to point to when situation 2 actually happens.
The real problem(s):
a. Situation 2 may not be a real problem. No one has shown that this is actually happening.
b. Big companies (like West) like to sue honest competitors to gain any advantage they can. That's their job. (Google West and Lexis)
c. The new legislation may be addressing a non-problem while facilitating expensive, unnecessary lawsuits designed to harass competition.
d. (The big one for me) The new legislation may chill the activities of companies like Google who might inadvertently become liable.
Hey man, can I bum a sig?
Here's a discussion that talks about yanking the ($479.95) Hitachi microdrive inside. More discussion on my original source: boingboing
No sig for you!
Er ... feedback doesn't necessarily mean success. I see nobody pointed out that Raph Koster of Sony Online headed up StarWars Galaxies. That development group bent over backwards to get community feedback, but look what we got. Game design by committee.
No sig for you.
(now to read the Wired article)
The sky is not falling!
This law simply let's you sue someone if:
1. you spend time and effort collecting a database
2. you market that database and somehow earn money for marketing it
3. someone else copies a chunk of your database
4. that someone makes that chunk available to your customers
5. you lose money because of # 4
6. you are NOT THE GOVERNMENT
7. that someone else is NOT A SCIENTIST or REPORTER acting appropriately
8. you can PROVE all of the above
If you read the linked articles, you'll see that the biggest discussed objection to this law is that it may not be necessary because you can already sue if someone does the above. The Commerce Department says it's a matter of contract law. When you make your database available, you make the customer agree not to sell copies of it. But the fact is, they're wrong. That's what happened in Feist v. Rural Telephone Service Company. Feist wanted Rural's telephone book data so they copied it and provided a competing telephone book. The Supreme Court said Rural can't use copyright to sue, and they were right for saying so, but then Rural was SOL.
Thus, any company that spends time/effort/money collecting useful data in hopes of making some profit is also potentially SOL if someone else copies it and sells it for cheaper. This new law is intended to encourage companies to collect data and make it available. What's wrong with that?
The big question for me is why do Google and Yahoo oppose it. My guess is that they're afraid of inadverdently violating it because they try to collect all the data on the web. What if a company creates a collection of data, but then anyone can get to it through Google? I assume there are ways to shut out Google, but not the public?
Because there are companies out there that spend a lot of time and effort and money gathering information and providing that information to the public, for a fee. See Feist v. Rural Telecom (sorry for missing link. Just google it). It's called business. If company A can't get a fee, they're not gonna be there to provide the information. If company B can come along, copy the database (at a tenth of the cost of the original company), and provide that to the public for half the fee ... guess what? Company A won't get it's fee, so it won't gather the data in the first place. Nobody gathers the data. No data for you, even if you think it's worth the fee.
(and no sig for you)
Venter did not create a new virus. He created a copy of a well known virus (the first genome to be sequenced, I think). It's just that he did it from scratch, i.e., outside of a cell, using man-made (well, machine-made) pieces of DNA.
I didn't like what Peter was doing with him anyway. Instead of exploring how a force for good was turned to the dark side (sorry, but it's an apropos, if tired, metaphor), Peter simply uses Saruman as a human face for the big red eye. The movie just doesn't give a good feel for the tragedy (in the Greek play sense) that is the fall of Saruman.