In the open ocean, national and international laws manage to strike a balance. Space, it seems to me, could conceivably be managed in a similar fashion.
Like the Wild West of old, space should have a feel of lawlessness. It should not be without law, but it should have a sparse framework guaranteeing only the most basic freedoms and requiring only the most basic responsibilities.
"The ONLY way potter will lose sales is if an advance copy hits the internet a few days before its for sale"
I for one am waiting for a friend or family member to buy and read it that way I can simply borrow a copy from them. The "only" way it can lose sales as far as I'm concerned is to be too expensive, which it already is.
No, that's just what we tell the computers what to play just like that's what we tell beginning students what to play. The only reason music students don't sound like that is because they don't yet have control of their intruments.
Fast forward a few years and suddenly the student could play that methodically, if they wanted, but by this point in time they've learned to interpret what the composer meant by the notes. The rough outline the the notes record can be filled in by common experience.
Computers are great at doing exactly what we tell them to do. The problem is, us humans can rarely express exactly what we want. Perhaps if only we could better describe the human condition...
Let's do a reality check here:
In all of the situations Moraelin describes, there is physical trespass. Let's try to be a bit less fallacious in our arguements, shall we?
Of course those actions are "wrong". Every child in America is brought up with a notion of "personal space." If I come onto your property and do said things, I'm being an asshole. But what happens when you leave something of yours in my yard?
If you had an apple tree growing on your property with branches hanging over the fence into my yard, you'd be hard pressed to tell me that it was immoral to occasionally pick a few off that branch--I'm not even talking about the rest of the tree. Sure, you may have had to pay to water the tree, but you are also using up space that isn't yours.
Now, to help give some validity to your arguements, I'd like to apply one addtional clause to each of them: I asked for and received permission to do said actions from your 8 year old child.
Now, legally, can your child grant me permission to enter your property and do such things? Perhaps not. But if you found me using your garbage can and your son told you that he had allowed it, who would you have just cause to be angry at: me, for doing something I thought was allowed, or your son, for granting permissions he shouldn't have?
If I'm still at fault, then you have a sick sense of morality. I'm going to assume that you're like most people and would take time to fulfill you responsibilty to teach your son how you would like him to act with your property.
Let's return to the tech world. What does your son represent? Non other than a DHCP server built right into your wireless router. If I ask for permission to use your network and am granted it (in the form of an IP address), you have no one to blame but the DHCP server and yourself. If you couldn't take the time to teach your router a few simple rules, you are to blame.
Does getting an IP address grant me unlimitted privledges? No, of course not. Just because your son didn't say no doesn't mean I can rightly walk off with your new home stereo just like I can't rightly break into your computer and take your files, even though you may have failed to secure it.
The most important rule is common sense. I shouldn't use what I know you probably do not intend for me to use, but you shouldn't offer me services unless you realize that someday I actually might try to use them.
I have to disagree. "Per population" is very important. As that number declines, it gives insight into our culture. We may value inovation, but we're no longer willing to put our money where our mouth is.
Capitalism is good, but now we have allowed companies to hijack our legal system. Businesses are the most powerful lobby in congress--something I feel is a serious flaw. In generally, business only want to improve their bottom line. If that requires innovation, then they will innovate. If they can increase their profits though legal tactics, then most will choose to pursue that route.
The scope of patents should be drastically limited. Patents provide certain protections but also encourage companies to sit on what they've already done and reap the benefits. What we need are more innovative breeding grounds like AT&T and Bell Labs of yesteryear and the Google of today.
The best protection that we can offer businesses is to limit extraneous liability. When institutions create extensive limits on what their constituents are allowed to do for fear of lawsuit, individual action and thus innovation is stifled. Companies should not have to invest a dime in defense until lawsuits have at least passed a basic sanity test.
The most important change that we can make is to fix our school system. Public schools in America need significantly more funding. Teachers should not be teachers because they are the only ones who wanted the job. They should only be teachers because they were the only ones who were able to get the job. Elementary school should be by people with a firm handle on all the basic subjects and an in depth understanding of developmental psychology. High school should taught be persons with real world experience who want to further their career.
The cold war is the best thing that could have ever happened to innovation. We harnessed the production efficacy of a nation at war and redirected it toward the furtherance of science and technology. When the USSR collapsed, so did our drive to be the best. The US was lulled into sleep. Hopefully we will awake before the innovations of other countries will make us irrelevant.
Last time I checked, playing it for the family in your own home counted as personal, non-commercial use. What you're not allowed to do is send a copy to your nephew.
Sucks for the nephew, he may just have to put up with you for a while...
From CNN -- "US keeps control over internet computers"
From the Brits -- "US appears to affirm its authority on the internet"
From the Canadians -- "US to control internet traffic"
India -- "US won't cede monopoly on the internet"
You forgot:
FOX News- "Bush saves American Internet from Evil Foreigners!"
One more:
the "evil liberals" at the NY Times -- "Bush alienates allies, endangers future of the internet"
How is it that this process negates the lack of oxygen to the brain?
Damage occurs when metabolism procedes without oxygen (and other molecules are processed instead with nasty biproducts). This technique severly slows metabolism so lack of oxygen is not crucial.
"Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved." followed immediately by "Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." So, which is it?
Both. Due to hibernation, tissues are preserved and tissue damage does not spread. Because of this, it is promising for the future surgery. Imagine a patient with many serious injuries. If you induce hibernation using saline, you now have time to repair one injury without the others becoming worse.
Check out one of the latest Scientific American issues for a better explaination. (I just read it, but I don't remember which issue it was.)
The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept.
This is exactly why I think "marriage" should be stricken from all legal documents in the US. Marriage is a religious idea and thus does not belong in our legal system. (Separation of chuch and state anyone?)
Every legal benefit that is currently bestowed upon "marriages" should be granted to civil unions. A civil union should be a legal document entirely separate from marriage. It's perfectly reasonable that most people who choose to be married would also seek the benefits of a civil union, but unions should not be limited to what churches deem acceptable.
Someone enlighten me: do ATMs leave paper trails?
Seems to me that ATMs work flawlessly. Perhaps we should be inspired by the simple but powerful ATM.
If an ATM screws up, someone is probably out a lot of money.
If eVoting screws up, we get the wrong idiot in the Whitehouse, a erroneous war, and taxpayers are out a lot of money.
The same care that went into designing ATMS should be utilized in designing touch screen voting. Our voting systems should probably be built from the ground up with only one purpose in mind. Basing your software on a fallible OS (*cough* Windows *cough*) is foolhardy.
Our current voting machines and ATMs had to stand up to scrutiny before they were implemented. Rushing to implement a new system by an arbitrary deadline is asking for trouble. Let these machines prove themselves, then legislate their implementation.
...to locking out third party apps is to work with those making the apps.
Third party products likely cause excessive loads: ask people not to check their email too frequently (that's what Northwestern did when I was checking my mail every 5 minutes with Eudora) then ban belligerent accounts.
Assume that the offical gmail notifier creates less load per request than 3rd parties: open up your API and third party apps will use this too (it's probably easier to program anyway).
Loss of ad revenue: require third party apps to displace one ad everytime a pop up notification is displayed. This would be no more intrusive than the ads in gmail itself since you'd only see the ad when you do have email (which is consistent).
Gmail is still in beta: perhaps a lock-out is best until gmail is officially released. Then standards shouldn't change so google could be play "nice".
That said, Google can do whatever they want. You don't like it, find a better service.
Disclaimer: I don't have gmail and am relying on my intuition. If you think I should, send an invite to: jd0g85 at yahoo dot com
Thank you for recognizing that English does have a pronoun for the job: 'it' This does have connotation problems of its own, of course, since we tend to use 'it' with objects instead of people, although one correct use is: "an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant" (google definitions). Once could also look to Spanish, a closely tied language, and realized that when the person's sex is unknown "el" is used. For multiple people, it's 'ellos'. Both are the masculine form, but this form is also used to be gender unspecific.
Has anyone else noticed that prion diseases act like "ice-9" from Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut?
All it seems to take is one super stable "seed crystal" and all the other proteins (or water molecules) conform to is shape (or crystal structure).
This is incorrect. It is the shape of proteins that allows them to function. Their shape is specific for what they do. They are not "read" in the sense that DNA and RNA are read. Once the amino acid string is translated from RNA, it assumes it's folded form. In general, proteins cannot refold once they are denatured (unfolded).
It is true that infections prions cause their normally healthy counterparts to fold incorrectly. Once this happens, they are dead weight b/c they do not interact correctly with other molecules in the cell.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe so, but conspiracy theories are much more fun.
Remember when MSN didn't return results for XFree86? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/03/23 3224&tid=153&tid=109&tid=17
But politically, it must have technical grounding! Oh wait, no, that's not right...
No, no. Don't patent it. Get a Statutory Invention Registration!
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155772&cid =13062660
Well, from The Daily Show yesterday: a high schooler was charged with asault after he vommitted on his teacher.
Does that count?
Ever heard of maritime law?
In the open ocean, national and international laws manage to strike a balance. Space, it seems to me, could conceivably be managed in a similar fashion.
Like the Wild West of old, space should have a feel of lawlessness. It should not be without law, but it should have a sparse framework guaranteeing only the most basic freedoms and requiring only the most basic responsibilities.
I for one am waiting for a friend or family member to buy and read it that way I can simply borrow a copy from them. The "only" way it can lose sales as far as I'm concerned is to be too expensive, which it already is.
No, that's just what we tell the computers what to play just like that's what we tell beginning students what to play. The only reason music students don't sound like that is because they don't yet have control of their intruments.
Fast forward a few years and suddenly the student could play that methodically, if they wanted, but by this point in time they've learned to interpret what the composer meant by the notes. The rough outline the the notes record can be filled in by common experience.
Computers are great at doing exactly what we tell them to do. The problem is, us humans can rarely express exactly what we want. Perhaps if only we could better describe the human condition...
Let's do a reality check here: In all of the situations Moraelin describes, there is physical trespass. Let's try to be a bit less fallacious in our arguements, shall we?
Of course those actions are "wrong". Every child in America is brought up with a notion of "personal space." If I come onto your property and do said things, I'm being an asshole. But what happens when you leave something of yours in my yard?
If you had an apple tree growing on your property with branches hanging over the fence into my yard, you'd be hard pressed to tell me that it was immoral to occasionally pick a few off that branch--I'm not even talking about the rest of the tree. Sure, you may have had to pay to water the tree, but you are also using up space that isn't yours.
Now, to help give some validity to your arguements, I'd like to apply one addtional clause to each of them: I asked for and received permission to do said actions from your 8 year old child.
Now, legally, can your child grant me permission to enter your property and do such things? Perhaps not. But if you found me using your garbage can and your son told you that he had allowed it, who would you have just cause to be angry at: me, for doing something I thought was allowed, or your son, for granting permissions he shouldn't have?
If I'm still at fault, then you have a sick sense of morality. I'm going to assume that you're like most people and would take time to fulfill you responsibilty to teach your son how you would like him to act with your property.
Let's return to the tech world. What does your son represent? Non other than a DHCP server built right into your wireless router. If I ask for permission to use your network and am granted it (in the form of an IP address), you have no one to blame but the DHCP server and yourself. If you couldn't take the time to teach your router a few simple rules, you are to blame.
Does getting an IP address grant me unlimitted privledges? No, of course not. Just because your son didn't say no doesn't mean I can rightly walk off with your new home stereo just like I can't rightly break into your computer and take your files, even though you may have failed to secure it.
The most important rule is common sense. I shouldn't use what I know you probably do not intend for me to use, but you shouldn't offer me services unless you realize that someday I actually might try to use them.
I have to disagree. "Per population" is very important. As that number declines, it gives insight into our culture. We may value inovation, but we're no longer willing to put our money where our mouth is.
Capitalism is good, but now we have allowed companies to hijack our legal system. Businesses are the most powerful lobby in congress--something I feel is a serious flaw. In generally, business only want to improve their bottom line. If that requires innovation, then they will innovate. If they can increase their profits though legal tactics, then most will choose to pursue that route.
The scope of patents should be drastically limited. Patents provide certain protections but also encourage companies to sit on what they've already done and reap the benefits. What we need are more innovative breeding grounds like AT&T and Bell Labs of yesteryear and the Google of today.
The best protection that we can offer businesses is to limit extraneous liability. When institutions create extensive limits on what their constituents are allowed to do for fear of lawsuit, individual action and thus innovation is stifled. Companies should not have to invest a dime in defense until lawsuits have at least passed a basic sanity test.
The most important change that we can make is to fix our school system. Public schools in America need significantly more funding. Teachers should not be teachers because they are the only ones who wanted the job. They should only be teachers because they were the only ones who were able to get the job. Elementary school should be by people with a firm handle on all the basic subjects and an in depth understanding of developmental psychology. High school should taught be persons with real world experience who want to further their career.
The cold war is the best thing that could have ever happened to innovation. We harnessed the production efficacy of a nation at war and redirected it toward the furtherance of science and technology. When the USSR collapsed, so did our drive to be the best. The US was lulled into sleep. Hopefully we will awake before the innovations of other countries will make us irrelevant.
Last time I checked, playing it for the family in your own home counted as personal, non-commercial use. What you're not allowed to do is send a copy to your nephew.
Sucks for the nephew, he may just have to put up with you for a while...
From CNN -- "US keeps control over internet computers"
From the Brits -- "US appears to affirm its authority on the internet"
From the Canadians -- "US to control internet traffic"
India -- "US won't cede monopoly on the internet"
You forgot:
FOX News- "Bush saves American Internet from Evil Foreigners!"
One more:
the "evil liberals" at the NY Times -- "Bush alienates allies, endangers future of the internet"
Check out one of the latest Scientific American issues for a better explaination. (I just read it, but I don't remember which issue it was.)
The issue is the definition of marriage. It's not just a legal concept.
This is exactly why I think "marriage" should be stricken from all legal documents in the US. Marriage is a religious idea and thus does not belong in our legal system. (Separation of chuch and state anyone?)
Every legal benefit that is currently bestowed upon "marriages" should be granted to civil unions. A civil union should be a legal document entirely separate from marriage. It's perfectly reasonable that most people who choose to be married would also seek the benefits of a civil union, but unions should not be limited to what churches deem acceptable.
Judge first. Ask questions later.
"until there are only 2 companies in the world ? then what do we do ?"
Ever heard of a movie called Rollerball?
http://imdb.com/title/tt0073631/
Someone enlighten me: do ATMs leave paper trails?
Seems to me that ATMs work flawlessly. Perhaps we should be inspired by the simple but powerful ATM.
If an ATM screws up, someone is probably out a lot of money.
If eVoting screws up, we get the wrong idiot in the Whitehouse, a erroneous war, and taxpayers are out a lot of money.
The same care that went into designing ATMS should be utilized in designing touch screen voting. Our voting systems should probably be built from the ground up with only one purpose in mind. Basing your software on a fallible OS (*cough* Windows *cough*) is foolhardy.
Our current voting machines and ATMs had to stand up to scrutiny before they were implemented. Rushing to implement a new system by an arbitrary deadline is asking for trouble. Let these machines prove themselves, then legislate their implementation.
With something so fine you must lose the cord! Maybe then I'd shell out the money...
...to locking out third party apps is to work with those making the apps.
Third party products likely cause excessive loads: ask people not to check their email too frequently (that's what Northwestern did when I was checking my mail every 5 minutes with Eudora) then ban belligerent accounts.
Assume that the offical gmail notifier creates less load per request than 3rd parties: open up your API and third party apps will use this too (it's probably easier to program anyway).
Loss of ad revenue: require third party apps to displace one ad everytime a pop up notification is displayed. This would be no more intrusive than the ads in gmail itself since you'd only see the ad when you do have email (which is consistent).
Gmail is still in beta: perhaps a lock-out is best until gmail is officially released. Then standards shouldn't change so google could be play "nice".
That said, Google can do whatever they want. You don't like it, find a better service.
Disclaimer: I don't have gmail and am relying on my intuition. If you think I should, send an invite to: jd0g85 at yahoo dot com
Thank you for recognizing that English does have a pronoun for the job: 'it'
This does have connotation problems of its own, of course, since we tend to use 'it' with objects instead of people, although one correct use is: "an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant" (google definitions).
Once could also look to Spanish, a closely tied language, and realized that when the person's sex is unknown "el" is used. For multiple people, it's 'ellos'. Both are the masculine form, but this form is also used to be gender unspecific.
Im sad to declare the war on terrorism lost.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
If you're going to be scanning peoples fingers and taking their photos to "verify their identity", don't you have to have a file to compare it to?
Has anyone else noticed that prion diseases act like "ice-9" from Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut? All it seems to take is one super stable "seed crystal" and all the other proteins (or water molecules) conform to is shape (or crystal structure).
This is incorrect. It is the shape of proteins that allows them to function. Their shape is specific for what they do. They are not "read" in the sense that DNA and RNA are read. Once the amino acid string is translated from RNA, it assumes it's folded form. In general, proteins cannot refold once they are denatured (unfolded). It is true that infections prions cause their normally healthy counterparts to fold incorrectly. Once this happens, they are dead weight b/c they do not interact correctly with other molecules in the cell.