I'll admit, I only know a little about the storage of nuclear waste, but can someone PLEASE explain how it could possibly be so difficult to keep the stuff from leaking?
It's not like these containers are sitting outside exposed to the elements. They're, AFAIK, stored underground in secure facilities.
People make it sound like the government spends millions of dollars to develop these high-tech facilities and then just haphazardly sprays the stuff into old, rusty oil-drums. Surely this isn't the case.... right...?
I wouldn't discount the parent too much though. He has a point. Take Warcraft 3, for instance. It's 3D, but the level of detail is quite good, and the artwork rivals that of any 2D game in my opinion. This shouldn't be surprising, though as Blizzard is known for putting a lot of effort into their games.
Now contrast that with something like SOE's Plantside. The environments feel very empty and "unlived". The same textures are used everywhere. So once you've fought inside one base, you've virtually fought in all of the 100s of bases and towers in the world. Again, this shouldn't be surprising. SOE has a history of merely excreting out games to meet timelines.
My point? How good a game (2D or 3D) ultimately depends upon the effort of the devoloper. I believe the real reason for most of the crappy 3D games out there is that the developers feel they can just slap "3-D !!!" on their box and all effort will have to stop there.
That said, yeah, there are some technical differences that make 3d artwork have the same quality. I won't deny that, but I don't think that minor hurdle is the real problem.
Oh.. it's a real voicemail alright... Yours truly spent the better part of an hour with a group of friends on IRC tring to guess the password.
After enough tries, we eventually managed to lockout the account.
Don't believe me? Dial it up and press 0 then 1, enter a bogus password, press #, and then reenter the phonenumber without the leading 1. It'll tell you it's locked.
I've just spent the past few hours playing this game, and is it just me or is this the most obvious CPU cheating you've ever encountered in a game or what?
After you learn the paper-rock-scissors combos between the units it doesn't seem hard, but at one point in the "easy" game level, it gets ridiculous. My chacter is 5 TIMES the level of any of my opponents, but ALL of them, regardless of class, gain MP faster and have units which attack harder. It's outrageous. Might as well give my units a one-sided die for their attack damage.
You're exactly right, Eskarel. There is no doubt in my mind that our two-party system is the main reason for much of the corruption and downright plutocracy that is American politics. But it's not the only reason.
For instance, as one AC posted in this thread, congressional the lack of term-limits is another big reason. Did you know that the national congressional reelection rate is about 95%? This basically means that, unless you screw up really badly or die (and even then, you still might win) you're virtually assured your seat for, on average, 38 years for a representative or 76 years for a senator. So, what does this mean? We don't have idealistic Thomas Jeffersons or principled George Washingtons anymore. Instead, we have professional politicians whose ultimate goal is to maintain their well-paying, highly-comped jobs.
Term-limits aside, the root of all of our problems is, in my opinion, public apathy. Politicians can get away with selling-out to corporations simply because all they have to do bet on their flashy ad-campaigns because the average Americans don't know or care about the truth. But really, who cam blame them? They're off watching the next mega-blockbuster movie or surfing the internet or grandstanding about Linux on slashdot. Despite the fact that the rich are getting richer in America, the fact is that this difference is only relative deprivation. That is to say that most US citizens live quite comfortably. And until this changes, don't expect our political system to change either.
""Flip flopping" is just a label that arrogant people who can't think for themselves pin on people who admit a mistake and change their position.
Admitting a mistake is acceptable. In fact, I can respect that, but flip-flopping is something entirely different because most just try to slip the change in to their platform unnoticed. Watch, you won't see Orin Hatch (or John Kerry, for that matter) apologize or retract any previous statements even if they are "seemingly" contradictory.
Flip-flopping, for politicians is usually a sign that they follow the polls, and have no concern for the actual public good. Right or wrong, here's the mentality: "If 52% of Americans want me to say this, then that's what I'll say, and if next week, the polls show something different, then I'll say it too, because the public is too stupid to remember I'm contradicting myself. If worse comes to worse, I can always ride the wave of mediocracy and soft-money into reelection."
THAT'S why the American public hates flip-flopping. We like our politics simple. (Sometimes a little too simple. President Bush's "You're either with us or against us." comes to mind.) It's not that we prefer to have a stubbon, principled politician. It's that we DON'T want a self-serving weasel in office.
...if a majority of parents don't like what the school is doing, they should stop.
But freedom of speech, by definition, isn't dictated by the majority. Why would I be afraid of saying what the majority thought? I assert that the true gauge of a society's Freedoms is not measured by how it affects those who follow but those who dissent. The price we pay for this is in untold numbers of Larry Flynts and Howard Sterns, but that's a price I'm willing to pay if it means we don't squelch a Martin Luther King.
Public schools aren't just about teaching you reading, writing, and mathematics. In fact, if you look at their history (within the U.S. at least), the main reason (when all the idealistic fluff is put aside) for beginning public schools was to indoctrinate children and teach them to a: follow orders (Quiet! Sit down! Do your homework! Etc.) and b: indoctrinate them. The impact this had upon early Industrial society cannot be stressed enough. People went out from their schools to factories and didn't question why. Since the social revolution in the 1960's, however, the focus of our society has changed. We're not so much about outward success as we are about inward egalitarianism.
So, in light of this, what do we really want to teach our children? That potential embarrassments are more important than the ideals which the nation was founded upon? That covering our own PR-asses is priority number one? I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that there are more important lessons than that.
...though the though of loosing my little girl does make it seem like an "OK" idea. It is a tough choice for a parent.
Which is exactly why all restrictions on freedoms have and always will start there. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It's an emotional device that gets people do what they otherwise wouldn't, but it sets a precedent that can't be taken back.
As of right now, high-school students do not have the right to free speech or privacy. For example, a student cannot write anything in the school paper that goes against the school administration's views, and any student's locker can be searched at any time without warning. And while this may, admittedly, help prevent embarrassments for the school system or drugs in schools, what sense of civil rights does this instill in them?
Similarly, if they schools RFID tagging every student, imagine how much easier it will be to get those same people in twenty years to accept a nationalized RFID card/implant.
QUESTION: Now because its been stated later that to do this, one has to disable https verification, could it be possible for a virus to edit the hosts file and thus either fake a Windows update or disable it?
Yes, it's all very totalitarian, and I wouldn't like to live in such a place... but I do believe that ant and bee colonies are the epitome of a *perfect* society. Note: perfect != nice
Cooperation is NOT the same as societal perfection. In fact, it's in many cases the opposite. We could efficiently cooperate to cannibalize our children or ethnic minorities, but how ethical or "perfect" would that be? I could risk Godwin's law and make a Nazi analogy but I don't have to--you should get the idea.
A "perfect" society, given human nature, probably isn't possible, but at the very least, it would have to be structured in a way similar to John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Note the lack of a totalitarian regime or Islamo-fascism.
Diversity isn't a weakness. In fact, it can be a great strength. Even in your ant colony example, what would happen if a bacterial infection were to hit the colony? Without genetic diversity, the entire colony would probably die. Biodiversity is very important to the viability of any population of organisms--humans included.
Diversity isn't possible if one side is completely intolerant of the other. As the grandparent expressed, Tolerance is a two-way street. I have no problem being intolerant and militarily aggressive towards of a bunch of barbaric cowards if they leave us no choice.
-Grym
*Note: The second link is gruesome, so click at your own discretion.
We aren't talking about guaranteeing the profits of businesses, we are talking about protecting the livelihood of individuals. Protecting their employers against illegal activities may be a means to that end, however. It seems to me that, given that people have their income taxed to support government, they are entitled to a say in what government is "for." There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that outlaws the use of government funds to protect people's income and employment.
Okay... well, going by your standards, why doesn't Congress pass a law criminalizing the eating or drinking of refreshments of non-theater refreshments in the theater? Couldn't it be said that sneaking food into the theater endangers the livlihood of theater-owners?
Come on, let's be reasonable. The government isn't doing this to protect any individuals. (Except for some MPAA CEOs, that is.) They're pandering to a highly lucrative establishment--the people and ethics of it all be damned. Why else would they propose a stiff criminal penalty for what is fundamentally a civil infraction?
...but to extend that logic and say that if someone CREATES a new code based on the old, let's say for an apple that cures cancer, is ridiculous.
The problem with your argument is: nobody has done what you're describing for the very simple reason that the technology isn't at that level yet. With regard to living organisms, the best we can do, at this stage is move genes found in one species to another. That's it.
Nobody is out there assembling genes base-by-base like you or I assemble the letters that form the words (or the HTML code for example) that make up our posts. Instead, they are, at best, slightly modifying/transferring genes and then calling them their own. From an informational standpoint, it's plagiarism. A good/. analogy would be me taking bits and pieces from different open source community projects, modifying them to fit my needs, and then not only calling the resulting work completely my own but then copyrighting it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that gene-patenting scientists' accomplishments are trivial or that the resulting combinations aren't interesting or innovative. What I am saying is that they shouldn't claim ownership to the genetic information which they did not (and could not at this point in time) directly create. This is, by definition, plagiarism.
Patents and "intellectual property", while of debatable legitimacy, hinge upon the author's creation of the information in question. Since this isn't possible given the infancy of genomics, why then do we see patents? It doesn't make sense, even by the patent's own standards. It doesn't make sense that somebody can patent the Hepetitus C or Escheria Coli genome--a sequence he or she did not create. It's akin to a physicist patenting the mathematical formula governing the laws of the universe.
That problem aside, even if one could create useful genetic information independent of nature, do we REALLY want it to be owned by profiteering companies who can't be expected to uphold ethical standards? Isn't the fact that some seniors have to choose between dying and paying hundreds of dollars for pills that take pennies to make already a big enough travesty? Do we really want to accept all of the risks mentioned in other posts that accompany the patenting of genetic information? This is a question we as a society need to answer NOW before it becomes too late.
I'm all for the advancement of genomics as a science. In fact, I'm planning a career in the field. However, this is yet another instance where a "free"-market via the use of restricting patents(see: "free") is doing more harm than good.
What some people don't realize is that sampling is part of a very old tradition. Many jazz and classical compositions have been enriched by incorporating material from other sources. Often the borrowed material is just as recognizeable as a sampled song, so it's not like this is something that has been hidden.
This practice is in many ways similar to allusion in literature. By making reference to earlier works, one can enhance the depth of one's own work. Ezra Pound said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and this statement can be generalized to all forms of art.
... which completely undermines the use of copyrights and "intellectual property" in the arts in the first place. Think about it: Much of the idea of the copyright revolves around this notion that men are completely unaffected by previous works--as if their art is somehow independently conjured through the power of the artist's superior intellect.
What bullshit. No man is quite literally an island. We are all affected and shaped, by our language, culture, body of sciences, collection of arts and so on. To say that the artist is the sole "owner" of the resultant art is utterly insulting and ultimately counterproductive.
Champions of Norrath, an admitedly fun game, was absolutely ridden with bugs. I was able to run past nearly every NPC whose purpose was to block a path. I was able to skip quests by doing this and even found myself able to hit the level boss and a Peles (a guy whom you aren't supposed to fight until much later) as they stood there motionless and invunerable. Not only that but some of the NPCs that were supposed to follow you would repeatedly get stuck on terrain or even become invisible. In another section of the game, me and my girlfriend wandered around for an hour in a lavapit before I realized that the much-touted "random-level generator" had randomly generated a dead-end where it shouldn't have. Don't get me started on the cutscene-lockups. (Although, I'm willing to overlook that because my PS2 is old.) But these technical bugs aside, one of the biggest insults was the sheer imbalance of characters in the game. Abilities/spells... hell... even entire classes are completely gimped.
So why all of these obvious bugs? Because, in typical SOE style, Champions of Norrath was rushed out the door to compete with Baldur's Gate 2.
The problem is an industry problem--not just PC games.
Absolutely! An unpatched RedHat 6.2 will become a zombie just as fast (if not faster) then an unpatched Windows XP or 2000 machine.
Here's my experience with exactly what you're talking about. Let me start out by saying that I'm a linux newbie. I'm not new to computers or inept, I've just always stuck to what I've known: DOS/Windows. After having read Slashdot and learned about the wonders of linux, me and a co-worker convinced our boss that the unused Dell server we had would make a perfect specimen for some linux-based services (MRTG, SQL, freeRADIUS, I believe) we were wanting to implement.
After a few hours figuring out the correct way to partition the HDs and install Redhat correctly (yeah yeah... *sigh*), we finally got it up and running. It suggested that we patch our setup but only if we joined RedHat network--which defeated the whole "no-cost" argument we had used to convince our boss. Besides, after reading the zealots on/., I was more than confident our linux-beast was impervious to all but the most educated of hackers.
After a couple of weeks of getting MRTG working--a trial by fire, I might add. We were happy; all was well. That is, until a message popped up on X one day: "Hello friend, I've installed on your server. You probably won't be able to get it off. Have a nice day." Needless to say, the machine now has a patched version of Windows 2000 Server on it. Which, to date, has not been hacked.
My point? The linux advocates on here who point to viruses/worms that exploit Windows Updateable security concerns as proof of the insecurity of Windows do the linux community a disservice by not only providing a false sense of security but also undermining the credibility of the rest of the community.
Sure, and why don't you give them the brochure for your competitor while you're at it?
Listen, ISPs aren't supposed to be some kind of vigilante internet-police. They're providers, and if I pay the internet bill--regardless of whether one or more of my machines is infected--I should get access.
Comcast cable modem customers aren't allowed to run mail servers anyway, so I doubt the side-effects would bother them
Umm... Not true. In addition to having faster service, Comcast BUSINESS customers are allowed to run mail servers. Blocking port 25 on all outbound traffic would definitely affect them.
How on earth is that insightful?? Muslim extremists want to be left alone.
Bullshit. They want to have the wealth of a modern country but without adapting their culture to something even slightly resembling a modern one. They want nuclear technology and, at the same time, a situation where half their population is locked up in houses or under burkas. One problem: it just isn't possible. By definition, things can't change and still be the same. Muslim extremists are idiots; plain and simple. And, not surprisingly, idiots of all types get used and played by politicans for power. You don't honestly think Arafat would EVER put on one of the bomb-vests he blows up teenage kids with, do you?
They don't want Americans forcing the American(tm) way of life down their throats. They don't want to kill anyone, they just feel they have to to survive.
I've never try to force my way of life on anyone. Apart from a true, long-term military occupation, I don't know if that's even possible. The simple fact is that the world copies us... JUST as we copy things from the rest of the world. It's just the way things are. And as far as I'm concerned, tough shit for the muslims who want their society to be the way it was thousands of years ago while they wave their AK-47s in the air.
You want to end terrorism? Get the US to act like a normal country.
Like a normal country? How about a normal muslim country? When's the last time you heard Pakistan do of something altruistic? Why is it we don't expect Iran or Saudi Arabia to help out if there's an earthquake in Turkey or other need for humanitarian assistance?
The problem is the United States is expected to do the impossible. We're supposed to take BOTH sides on EVERY issue. We're supposed to look out for ourselves and every third-world shithole as well. It's no wonder we're hated when we are held to that kind of standard. Let me assure you, you should FEAR the day the United States acts like a "normal" country, because most countries are purely self-serving. As it turns out, we're only partially self-serving.
By dwelling on minor issues, you just missed the entire point of his post.
It doesn't matter if there was a five year wait or a five day wait. The fact is that patents, by their very nature, unnecessarily stall human acheivement by subscribing to this misguided notion that men just conjure up ideas without any help from their society, sciences, experiences, and so on. By trying to limit what ideas (intangible objects, mind you) are "mine" and "yours", we not only waste time in circular discussions but fail to advance as a whole.
"Curing cancer isn't like brute-forcing an encryption scheme - it's not a matter of pure computational power."
You sure about that? What if we knew exactly how proteins fold? What if we knew what every single gene in the human genome did? These are topics we extensively use computers to help understand and where faster computers are becoming necessary. I assure you, if the above were true and we couldn't cure cancer at that point, we'd at least be damn close.
Interestingly enough, I've heard an electric shock can save your life, though.
A friend of mine who is in the Special Forces told me that when they were in the desert his friend got bitten by a very deadly snake. Were it not for the DC shock they gave him from a nearby car's battery, he would have died. He said that it works because the muscle contraction that results restricts the movement of the venom. Furthermore, the lactic acid produced as a byproduct of the extreme muscle contraction works to destroy the venom. Not sure if it's true, but it's a cool story nonetheless.
"What happens when nobody can sell anything anymore? Why do people ignore the inevitable result of this?"
I'm sorry, but commerce existed long before the idiotic idea of "intellectual property" ever crossed anyone's mind. The inevitable result is what should have been apparent all along: intangible objects will cease to be sold like they're anything similar to tangible ones.
Music existed long before the RIAA and copyrights. I have no doubts that it will continue to do so if both disappeared tomorrow. Musicians, such as yourself, will always have a place in society, and the good ones (think: Mozart, Beethoven, and so on) will always be at the top. It's only a matter of understanding that you're a performer, not an entrepreneur.
In a world where anything that can be seen, heard, read, or thought can be copied and then distributed worldwide at little to no cost, how can you honestly expect the marketing ideas of 100 years ago to work?
This is NASA, not a bunch of 5th graders and a shovel. There is no competent scientist in the world who is not aware of the dangers of contaminating one's results. It's one of the basic tennants of science.
Sure, but what if the whole environmental contamination stuff just gets signed off in one of the thousands of yearly safety waivers? What if the engineers feel pressured not to talk to management because of political concerns? Or what if the whole project fails because somebody forgot to use inches instead of centimeters (something a 5th grader should be learning)?
NASA is a bloated bureaucracy whose innovations and achievements ended decades ago. I'd much rather trust a moderately funded, independent research group for a project like this than NASA.
As ridiculous as it may sound, the parent managed to stumble across a very good point.
Mount Everest, one of the more extreme and isolated locations in the world, has only recently been conquered by mankind. In that short amount of time, what was once completely devoid of pollution of any kind has now become absolutely littered with ropes, food wrappers, batteries, used oxygen canisters, and...yes... human excrement that, in the extremely cold temperatures, does not decompose.
I agree. Whether or not this is an April 1st joke, I think that this idea is great! From Blizzard's perspective, it makes even more sense, because I can think of quite a few people who would buy the game simply to check out such an innovative feature.
It'd be fantastic if come tommorrow the joke was on all the nay-sayers.
Right now, as I understand it, one of the big problems with being a ground solider is your lack of a long-range, indirect firing ability. If somebody is lobbing in mortars at you, the best you can do is hide and call in a artillery/air strike or help from another, better-positioned ground unit.
Now imagine the possibilities if a solider could carry one of these w/ a remote control / viewer? Armed with grenades or something light like poison darts, these things could wreak havoc.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit, I only know a little about the storage of nuclear waste, but can someone PLEASE explain how it could possibly be so difficult to keep the stuff from leaking?
It's not like these containers are sitting outside exposed to the elements. They're, AFAIK, stored underground in secure facilities.
People make it sound like the government spends millions of dollars to develop these high-tech facilities and then just haphazardly sprays the stuff into old, rusty oil-drums. Surely this isn't the case.... right...?
-Grym
I wouldn't discount the parent too much though. He has a point. Take Warcraft 3, for instance. It's 3D, but the level of detail is quite good, and the artwork rivals that of any 2D game in my opinion. This shouldn't be surprising, though as Blizzard is known for putting a lot of effort into their games.
Now contrast that with something like SOE's Plantside. The environments feel very empty and "unlived". The same textures are used everywhere. So once you've fought inside one base, you've virtually fought in all of the 100s of bases and towers in the world. Again, this shouldn't be surprising. SOE has a history of merely excreting out games to meet timelines.
My point? How good a game (2D or 3D) ultimately depends upon the effort of the devoloper. I believe the real reason for most of the crappy 3D games out there is that the developers feel they can just slap "3-D !!!" on their box and all effort will have to stop there. That said, yeah, there are some technical differences that make 3d artwork have the same quality. I won't deny that, but I don't think that minor hurdle is the real problem.
-Grym
Oh.. it's a real voicemail alright... Yours truly spent the better part of an hour with a group of friends on IRC tring to guess the password.
After enough tries, we eventually managed to lockout the account.
Don't believe me? Dial it up and press 0 then 1, enter a bogus password, press #, and then reenter the phonenumber without the leading 1. It'll tell you it's locked.
-Grym
I've just spent the past few hours playing this game, and is it just me or is this the most obvious CPU cheating you've ever encountered in a game or what?
After you learn the paper-rock-scissors combos between the units it doesn't seem hard, but at one point in the "easy" game level, it gets ridiculous. My chacter is 5 TIMES the level of any of my opponents, but ALL of them, regardless of class, gain MP faster and have units which attack harder. It's outrageous. Might as well give my units a one-sided die for their attack damage.
Thanks but no thanks, Falcom.
-Grym
You're exactly right, Eskarel. There is no doubt in my mind that our two-party system is the main reason for much of the corruption and downright plutocracy that is American politics. But it's not the only reason.
For instance, as one AC posted in this thread, congressional the lack of term-limits is another big reason. Did you know that the national congressional reelection rate is about 95%? This basically means that, unless you screw up really badly or die (and even then, you still might win) you're virtually assured your seat for, on average, 38 years for a representative or 76 years for a senator. So, what does this mean? We don't have idealistic Thomas Jeffersons or principled George Washingtons anymore. Instead, we have professional politicians whose ultimate goal is to maintain their well-paying, highly-comped jobs.
Term-limits aside, the root of all of our problems is, in my opinion, public apathy. Politicians can get away with selling-out to corporations simply because all they have to do bet on their flashy ad-campaigns because the average Americans don't know or care about the truth. But really, who cam blame them? They're off watching the next mega-blockbuster movie or surfing the internet or grandstanding about Linux on slashdot. Despite the fact that the rich are getting richer in America, the fact is that this difference is only relative deprivation. That is to say that most US citizens live quite comfortably. And until this changes, don't expect our political system to change either.
-Grym
""Flip flopping" is just a label that arrogant people who can't think for themselves pin on people who admit a mistake and change their position.
Admitting a mistake is acceptable. In fact, I can respect that, but flip-flopping is something entirely different because most just try to slip the change in to their platform unnoticed. Watch, you won't see Orin Hatch (or John Kerry, for that matter) apologize or retract any previous statements even if they are "seemingly" contradictory.
Flip-flopping, for politicians is usually a sign that they follow the polls, and have no concern for the actual public good. Right or wrong, here's the mentality: "If 52% of Americans want me to say this, then that's what I'll say, and if next week, the polls show something different, then I'll say it too, because the public is too stupid to remember I'm contradicting myself. If worse comes to worse, I can always ride the wave of mediocracy and soft-money into reelection."
THAT'S why the American public hates flip-flopping. We like our politics simple. (Sometimes a little too simple. President Bush's "You're either with us or against us." comes to mind.) It's not that we prefer to have a stubbon, principled politician. It's that we DON'T want a self-serving weasel in office.
-Grym
But freedom of speech, by definition, isn't dictated by the majority. Why would I be afraid of saying what the majority thought? I assert that the true gauge of a society's Freedoms is not measured by how it affects those who follow but those who dissent. The price we pay for this is in untold numbers of Larry Flynts and Howard Sterns, but that's a price I'm willing to pay if it means we don't squelch a Martin Luther King.
Public schools aren't just about teaching you reading, writing, and mathematics. In fact, if you look at their history (within the U.S. at least), the main reason (when all the idealistic fluff is put aside) for beginning public schools was to indoctrinate children and teach them to a: follow orders (Quiet! Sit down! Do your homework! Etc.) and b: indoctrinate them. The impact this had upon early Industrial society cannot be stressed enough. People went out from their schools to factories and didn't question why. Since the social revolution in the 1960's, however, the focus of our society has changed. We're not so much about outward success as we are about inward egalitarianism.
So, in light of this, what do we really want to teach our children? That potential embarrassments are more important than the ideals which the nation was founded upon? That covering our own PR-asses is priority number one? I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that there are more important lessons than that.
-Grym
Which is exactly why all restrictions on freedoms have and always will start there. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It's an emotional device that gets people do what they otherwise wouldn't, but it sets a precedent that can't be taken back.
As of right now, high-school students do not have the right to free speech or privacy. For example, a student cannot write anything in the school paper that goes against the school administration's views, and any student's locker can be searched at any time without warning. And while this may, admittedly, help prevent embarrassments for the school system or drugs in schools, what sense of civil rights does this instill in them?
Similarly, if they schools RFID tagging every student, imagine how much easier it will be to get those same people in twenty years to accept a nationalized RFID card/implant.
-Grym
Interesting...
QUESTION: Now because its been stated later that to do this, one has to disable https verification, could it be possible for a virus to edit the hosts file and thus either fake a Windows update or disable it?
-Grym
Yes, it's all very totalitarian, and I wouldn't like to live in such a place... but I do believe that ant and bee colonies are the epitome of a *perfect* society. Note: perfect != nice
Cooperation is NOT the same as societal perfection. In fact, it's in many cases the opposite. We could efficiently cooperate to cannibalize our children or ethnic minorities, but how ethical or "perfect" would that be? I could risk Godwin's law and make a Nazi analogy but I don't have to--you should get the idea.
A "perfect" society, given human nature, probably isn't possible, but at the very least, it would have to be structured in a way similar to John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Note the lack of a totalitarian regime or Islamo-fascism.
Diversity isn't a weakness. In fact, it can be a great strength. Even in your ant colony example, what would happen if a bacterial infection were to hit the colony? Without genetic diversity, the entire colony would probably die. Biodiversity is very important to the viability of any population of organisms--humans included.
Diversity isn't possible if one side is completely intolerant of the other. As the grandparent expressed, Tolerance is a two-way street. I have no problem being intolerant and militarily aggressive towards of a bunch of barbaric cowards if they leave us no choice.
-Grym
*Note: The second link is gruesome, so click at your own discretion.
We aren't talking about guaranteeing the profits of businesses, we are talking about protecting the livelihood of individuals. Protecting their employers against illegal activities may be a means to that end, however. It seems to me that, given that people have their income taxed to support government, they are entitled to a say in what government is "for." There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that outlaws the use of government funds to protect people's income and employment.
Okay... well, going by your standards, why doesn't Congress pass a law criminalizing the eating or drinking of refreshments of non-theater refreshments in the theater? Couldn't it be said that sneaking food into the theater endangers the livlihood of theater-owners?
Come on, let's be reasonable. The government isn't doing this to protect any individuals. (Except for some MPAA CEOs, that is.) They're pandering to a highly lucrative establishment--the people and ethics of it all be damned. Why else would they propose a stiff criminal penalty for what is fundamentally a civil infraction?
-Grym
The problem with your argument is: nobody has done what you're describing for the very simple reason that the technology isn't at that level yet. With regard to living organisms, the best we can do, at this stage is move genes found in one species to another. That's it.
Nobody is out there assembling genes base-by-base like you or I assemble the letters that form the words (or the HTML code for example) that make up our posts. Instead, they are, at best, slightly modifying/transferring genes and then calling them their own. From an informational standpoint, it's plagiarism. A good /. analogy would be me taking bits and pieces from different open source community projects, modifying them to fit my needs, and then not only calling the resulting work completely my own but then copyrighting it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that gene-patenting scientists' accomplishments are trivial or that the resulting combinations aren't interesting or innovative. What I am saying is that they shouldn't claim ownership to the genetic information which they did not (and could not at this point in time) directly create. This is, by definition, plagiarism.
Patents and "intellectual property", while of debatable legitimacy, hinge upon the author's creation of the information in question. Since this isn't possible given the infancy of genomics, why then do we see patents? It doesn't make sense, even by the patent's own standards. It doesn't make sense that somebody can patent the Hepetitus C or Escheria Coli genome--a sequence he or she did not create. It's akin to a physicist patenting the mathematical formula governing the laws of the universe.
That problem aside, even if one could create useful genetic information independent of nature, do we REALLY want it to be owned by profiteering companies who can't be expected to uphold ethical standards? Isn't the fact that some seniors have to choose between dying and paying hundreds of dollars for pills that take pennies to make already a big enough travesty? Do we really want to accept all of the risks mentioned in other posts that accompany the patenting of genetic information? This is a question we as a society need to answer NOW before it becomes too late.
I'm all for the advancement of genomics as a science. In fact, I'm planning a career in the field. However, this is yet another instance where a "free"-market via the use of restricting patents(see: "free") is doing more harm than good.
-Grym
What some people don't realize is that sampling is part of a very old tradition. Many jazz and classical compositions have been enriched by incorporating material from other sources. Often the borrowed material is just as recognizeable as a sampled song, so it's not like this is something that has been hidden.
This practice is in many ways similar to allusion in literature. By making reference to earlier works, one can enhance the depth of one's own work. Ezra Pound said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and this statement can be generalized to all forms of art.
... which completely undermines the use of copyrights and "intellectual property" in the arts in the first place. Think about it: Much of the idea of the copyright revolves around this notion that men are completely unaffected by previous works--as if their art is somehow independently conjured through the power of the artist's superior intellect.
What bullshit. No man is quite literally an island. We are all affected and shaped, by our language, culture, body of sciences, collection of arts and so on. To say that the artist is the sole "owner" of the resultant art is utterly insulting and ultimately counterproductive.
-Grym
You're kidding, right?
Champions of Norrath, an admitedly fun game, was absolutely ridden with bugs. I was able to run past nearly every NPC whose purpose was to block a path. I was able to skip quests by doing this and even found myself able to hit the level boss and a Peles (a guy whom you aren't supposed to fight until much later) as they stood there motionless and invunerable. Not only that but some of the NPCs that were supposed to follow you would repeatedly get stuck on terrain or even become invisible. In another section of the game, me and my girlfriend wandered around for an hour in a lavapit before I realized that the much-touted "random-level generator" had randomly generated a dead-end where it shouldn't have. Don't get me started on the cutscene-lockups. (Although, I'm willing to overlook that because my PS2 is old.) But these technical bugs aside, one of the biggest insults was the sheer imbalance of characters in the game. Abilities/spells... hell... even entire classes are completely gimped.
So why all of these obvious bugs? Because, in typical SOE style, Champions of Norrath was rushed out the door to compete with Baldur's Gate 2.
The problem is an industry problem--not just PC games.
-Grym
Absolutely! An unpatched RedHat 6.2 will become a zombie just as fast (if not faster) then an unpatched Windows XP or 2000 machine.
Here's my experience with exactly what you're talking about. Let me start out by saying that I'm a linux newbie. I'm not new to computers or inept, I've just always stuck to what I've known: DOS/Windows. After having read Slashdot and learned about the wonders of linux, me and a co-worker convinced our boss that the unused Dell server we had would make a perfect specimen for some linux-based services (MRTG, SQL, freeRADIUS, I believe) we were wanting to implement.
After a few hours figuring out the correct way to partition the HDs and install Redhat correctly (yeah yeah... *sigh*), we finally got it up and running. It suggested that we patch our setup but only if we joined RedHat network--which defeated the whole "no-cost" argument we had used to convince our boss. Besides, after reading the zealots on /., I was more than confident our linux-beast was impervious to all but the most educated of hackers.
After a couple of weeks of getting MRTG working--a trial by fire, I might add. We were happy; all was well. That is, until a message popped up on X one day: "Hello friend, I've installed on your server. You probably won't be able to get it off. Have a nice day." Needless to say, the machine now has a patched version of Windows 2000 Server on it. Which, to date, has not been hacked.
My point? The linux advocates on here who point to viruses/worms that exploit Windows Updateable security concerns as proof of the insecurity of Windows do the linux community a disservice by not only providing a false sense of security but also undermining the credibility of the rest of the community.
-Grym
Sure, and why don't you give them the brochure for your competitor while you're at it?
Listen, ISPs aren't supposed to be some kind of vigilante internet-police. They're providers, and if I pay the internet bill--regardless of whether one or more of my machines is infected--I should get access.
-Grym
Comcast cable modem customers aren't allowed to run mail servers anyway, so I doubt the side-effects would bother them
Umm... Not true. In addition to having faster service, Comcast BUSINESS customers are allowed to run mail servers. Blocking port 25 on all outbound traffic would definitely affect them.
-Grym
How on earth is that insightful?? Muslim extremists want to be left alone.
Bullshit. They want to have the wealth of a modern country but without adapting their culture to something even slightly resembling a modern one. They want nuclear technology and, at the same time, a situation where half their population is locked up in houses or under burkas. One problem: it just isn't possible. By definition, things can't change and still be the same. Muslim extremists are idiots; plain and simple. And, not surprisingly, idiots of all types get used and played by politicans for power. You don't honestly think Arafat would EVER put on one of the bomb-vests he blows up teenage kids with, do you?
They don't want Americans forcing the American(tm) way of life down their throats. They don't want to kill anyone, they just feel they have to to survive.
I've never try to force my way of life on anyone. Apart from a true, long-term military occupation, I don't know if that's even possible. The simple fact is that the world copies us... JUST as we copy things from the rest of the world. It's just the way things are. And as far as I'm concerned, tough shit for the muslims who want their society to be the way it was thousands of years ago while they wave their AK-47s in the air.
You want to end terrorism? Get the US to act like a normal country.
Like a normal country? How about a normal muslim country? When's the last time you heard Pakistan do of something altruistic? Why is it we don't expect Iran or Saudi Arabia to help out if there's an earthquake in Turkey or other need for humanitarian assistance?
The problem is the United States is expected to do the impossible. We're supposed to take BOTH sides on EVERY issue. We're supposed to look out for ourselves and every third-world shithole as well. It's no wonder we're hated when we are held to that kind of standard. Let me assure you, you should FEAR the day the United States acts like a "normal" country, because most countries are purely self-serving. As it turns out, we're only partially self-serving.
-Grym
By dwelling on minor issues, you just missed the entire point of his post.
It doesn't matter if there was a five year wait or a five day wait. The fact is that patents, by their very nature, unnecessarily stall human acheivement by subscribing to this misguided notion that men just conjure up ideas without any help from their society, sciences, experiences, and so on. By trying to limit what ideas (intangible objects, mind you) are "mine" and "yours", we not only waste time in circular discussions but fail to advance as a whole.
"Curing cancer isn't like brute-forcing an encryption scheme - it's not a matter of pure computational power."
You sure about that? What if we knew exactly how proteins fold? What if we knew what every single gene in the human genome did? These are topics we extensively use computers to help understand and where faster computers are becoming necessary. I assure you, if the above were true and we couldn't cure cancer at that point, we'd at least be damn close.
-Grym
Interestingly enough, I've heard an electric shock can save your life, though.
A friend of mine who is in the Special Forces told me that when they were in the desert his friend got bitten by a very deadly snake. Were it not for the DC shock they gave him from a nearby car's battery, he would have died. He said that it works because the muscle contraction that results restricts the movement of the venom. Furthermore, the lactic acid produced as a byproduct of the extreme muscle contraction works to destroy the venom. Not sure if it's true, but it's a cool story nonetheless.
-Grym
"What happens when nobody can sell anything anymore? Why do people ignore the inevitable result of this?"
I'm sorry, but commerce existed long before the idiotic idea of "intellectual property" ever crossed anyone's mind. The inevitable result is what should have been apparent all along: intangible objects will cease to be sold like they're anything similar to tangible ones.
Music existed long before the RIAA and copyrights. I have no doubts that it will continue to do so if both disappeared tomorrow. Musicians, such as yourself, will always have a place in society, and the good ones (think: Mozart, Beethoven, and so on) will always be at the top. It's only a matter of understanding that you're a performer, not an entrepreneur.
In a world where anything that can be seen, heard, read, or thought can be copied and then distributed worldwide at little to no cost, how can you honestly expect the marketing ideas of 100 years ago to work?
-Grym
This is NASA, not a bunch of 5th graders and a shovel. There is no competent scientist in the world who is not aware of the dangers of contaminating one's results. It's one of the basic tennants of science.
Sure, but what if the whole environmental contamination stuff just gets signed off in one of the thousands of yearly safety waivers? What if the engineers feel pressured not to talk to management because of political concerns? Or what if the whole project fails because somebody forgot to use inches instead of centimeters (something a 5th grader should be learning)?
NASA is a bloated bureaucracy whose innovations and achievements ended decades ago. I'd much rather trust a moderately funded, independent research group for a project like this than NASA.
-Grym
1. Bring a pooper-scooper.
As ridiculous as it may sound, the parent managed to stumble across a very good point.
Mount Everest, one of the more extreme and isolated locations in the world, has only recently been conquered by mankind. In that short amount of time, what was once completely devoid of pollution of any kind has now become absolutely littered with ropes, food wrappers, batteries, used oxygen canisters, and...yes... human excrement that, in the extremely cold temperatures, does not decompose.
Mankind: 1 Mother Nature: 0 Huzza!
-Grym
I agree. Whether or not this is an April 1st joke, I think that this idea is great! From Blizzard's perspective, it makes even more sense, because I can think of quite a few people who would buy the game simply to check out such an innovative feature.
It'd be fantastic if come tommorrow the joke was on all the nay-sayers.
-Grym
Exactly.
Right now, as I understand it, one of the big problems with being a ground solider is your lack of a long-range, indirect firing ability. If somebody is lobbing in mortars at you, the best you can do is hide and call in a artillery/air strike or help from another, better-positioned ground unit.
Now imagine the possibilities if a solider could carry one of these w/ a remote control / viewer? Armed with grenades or something light like poison darts, these things could wreak havoc.
-Grym