"Actually, if you think about it, this is exactly what software patents are good for."
Well, that would depend on what you mean by 'good' and who it is it is good for. Rest assured, a *monopoly* is only good for the monopolist, not for the enduser, nor the public at large, nor for the stimulation of innovation. There hasn't been a monopoly since its existance which was beneficial for anyone BUT the monopolist; thus, if your viewpoint is that the benefits to the profits of microsoft (or any other monopolist) is the prime measurement for establishing how useful softwarepatents are, then you are right.
However, since a patent is a monopoly granted by the state, and the state has a duty to provide the largest amount of benefits to its citizens as a whole, it is an equally (if not more) valid argument that softwarepatents should be abolished, since the populace doesn't benefit from it, and innovation isn't stimulated by it.
"Except via patent claims, for which independent development is not an adequate defense."
Well, in Europe we still don't have (enforcable) softwarepatents. Though it being an Open Source project, I'm not sure under what jurisdiction it falls.
But you make a good point: more proof that softwarepatents suck.
FUD - ReactOs is legal
on
ReactOS Revealed
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"In what may be a red flag for Microsoft's lawyers, ReactOS is described as "an environment identical to Windows, both visually and internally."
Oh, please... While I have no doubts MS will try to destroy ReactOs when it becomes too popular, the developers have made painstakingly difficult steps to ensure the proper reverse engineering is done ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_testing ). They can sue all they want, they can't win this. (They can however make it an expensive legal wrangling...but then again, since it's open source, it's difficult to imagine any single lawsuit will be able to end the project).
Now, let's face it; thanks to digital media we've actually made a huge step forwards in many respects. In fact, in our times the (possibilities of) digital data is on the same level of the first writings...well...at least as important as the printing press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg#P rinting_press). There is an enormous amount of data and knowledge available from all sort of sources, which would otherwise perhaps disappear or gather dust in some closed room of a university (http://www.verbumvanum.org/), new forms of collaborating knowledge-gathering is possible, as seen with the wikipedia-project, dissimination (copies) can happen on a lot of places and people all over the world can access it almost instantly; something not seen before on this scale.
However, it has also some drawbacks:
- It's not intrinsically readable. Meaning, you can not, as a human, just understand what it means, without the help of additional tools. to a certain degree, this is always true, but, contrary to books, who can be read if you have the book itself and enough light to read, digital media is, in a sense, much more delicate. You need a lot of additional tools; electricity, a computer, the right application to run it, etc. And even then you aren't sure: data may be stored on some former format, which has long since become obsolete. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly#Rese arch_avenues) This has already been a huge problem, especially for organisations that want to archive data and knowledge in the long term. It's not the first time data gets lost because nobody knows how to convert it properly anymore.
- The inherent weak physical carriers of digital data. This has only become worse, since research has shown by now, that half of the recorded data on normal consumer (blanket) CD/DVD's have lost 80% of their data within 5 years. In this respect, the new media is a disaster for long term storage, and libraries or organisation who wish to hold on to their data are obliged to constantly upgrade and transport their data on newer hardware. But even then, it's a losing battle.
The only way to stop this is creating a format (open standard) which will not change (or at least, remains backward compatible) and using storage-hardware which endures time (in that respect, I remember an optical storage technique talked about in a FA on slashdot which was based on rubies or diamonts being used (and 'burning' transparent corridors with lasers). It had a very high data-density and a minimum lifetime of 20.000 years. That would help for long-term storage! )
A frequently occurring debate I have is with the question whether or not we should have space-exploration (and as a subset: human vs. robotic space exploration). This involves the "we should spend the money on other things, like combating worldhunger"-arguments, as the more subtile arguments which is better: human or robotic exploration.
I have pondered a long time about this, and this is my conclusion:
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particular human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise. Or they use non-arguments, like "wouldn't the money be better spend on helping people in Africa"? Well, yes; and money spend on maintaining landscapes and buildings and statues too. And for that matter: the money you spend on your computer could have saved a dozen lifes in africa too.) Those kind of emo-arguments ring *always* true; yet are totally besides the reality of human behaviour, and thus, have little sway as a valid argument. In reality, humans crave comfort and luxe-products, and they will do so, EVEN if they could save dozens of lives with the same amount of money instead. And states spend money on a lot of different things, because a society involves a complex structure where a mix of interwoven activities are taken place, and solely focusing on one aspect would be disasterous.
But anyway, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrow-minded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognize other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonize with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonize new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their spirit of adventure and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxury, etc. The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter. Based on what we truly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen. But of course, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
So, economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is often less good with human space-travel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But, as I have indicated, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonize planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
The math to make the conclusion that an atmosphere would only last a few thousand years is dependend on various parameters who are not well known, or not known at all, yet. For instance, we don't even know how much water and other elements to make an atmosphere are there, on Mars. Obviously, if we don't know the amount of potential atmospheric sources, we can't say much about the time it would take.
Furthermore, is gravity the only aspect of a dissapating atmosphere? Has the math really been done with various degrees and levels of different gasses (it doesn't have to be exactly the same as on earth, after all)? Can you find a link for the math that proves that Mars can't have a sustainable atmosphere?
And as I said, even Earth loses atmosphere, but that is more than compensated for by the influx of dust/ice/etc. particles and micro- (and macro) meteorites. Has ANYONE a clear idea how much influx of material there is on Mars? (I don't think any real math has been done including that variable).
So, as I said, it's a bit early to tell anything, yet. I would be interested in any links you can give to whatever math has been done on the subject, however.
"(e.g. 'Witches' is best interpreted as potion-makers in the Old Testament, homosexuality is usually referred to in regard to rampant sex without regard, which was particularly dangerous in the age before real medicine,[....]"
So, basically, you interpret the bible like you see fit.
That's all fine and good, but if it's up to any individual to interpret it the way it fits him/her, then people who believe 'witches refer to more then potionmakers' and 'homosexuality is about same-sex sexual behaviour' have as much validity then your interpretation of the matter.
I read a lot of critics about the terraformation of Mars like this one: "The conditions that caused the loss of the original atmosphere are still present"
That is far from certain. It seems many people are going with the assumption that the theory that the gravity-field of mars is too puny to hold the watermolecules (and thus the atmosphere dissapeating into space in a copple of thousand years), is a fact. However, this is only one of many theories existing to explain the lack of an (considerable) atmosphere on Mars. Another variant of that theory to explain it is that the atmosphere got largely blown away by meteor-impacts in the first half-billion years of the existence of our solarsystem (there was a period of a large amount of meteor(hits) then, as proven by craters on the moon and other planets).
Now, if that's true, and seen the fact that fase is long since over, then, if we were able to revive a useful atmosphere, it could well be that it could sustain itself, or at least last for millions of years. No more mass amounts of impacts that blow the atmosphere away, after all. (BTW, all atmospheres lose molecules to space, but it gets more then enough back from tiny (and bigger) particles falling down to earth; this may be true for Mars as well, EVEN if the atmosphere dissapeates faster).
I'm not saying this IS true, but it's one of the many theories out there that try to explain the current state of Mars. Untill we know the actual truth about the matter, it's far too soon to claim terraforming isn't possible on Mars. Depending on the cause for Mars' thin atmosphere, and the level of replenishment, it might well be a viable option.
Youtube has carrier status, which means it isn't responsable for the content third parties put on it. According to USA law, it has to remove copyrighted material when it's notified about it by the copyrightholder. It's long been established by the courtsthat one can't sue carriers for what others do with it; you have to sue those who actually put it there (and carriers only need to act when notified about the infringement.
What people might think off, in regard with succesfully sueing a carrier, was in the latest Supreme court decision, which noted that a P2P-program was at fault for copyright-infringement. However, that case was validated with the specific reasoning that (the people behind) the P2P-system *actively* promoted copyright-infringement (e.g.they said 'use us for illegal downloads', etc.). It was not a matter of holding a carrier responsable because it was used for illegal purposes, but it was it's purported goal.
This case is different, since youtube does not actively supports illegal material to be put on there; the question of 'does it do enough?' has no bearing on it, just like Sony v. Universal Studios (aka the Betamax case). What remains is, that youtube has to delete all copyright-infringements it get notified of, just like all other internet- and webproviders/services.
Since youtube is supported by google, they have the muscle to fight back - and win the case. Of course, changes are that, along the line, they well cut a deal which makes both parties happy, and save the legal costs.
"Nobody is doing development of GM'd strains for resistence to infection, pests or drought for free. Look around. No one. Why would that be? No one works for free."
What has that got to do with it? The principle of breeding plants to get better seeds (be it more productive, tasteful, bigger, resistence to diseases, etc.) has been going on for as long as farmers existed. And that's not only done by big companies with huge budgets, but also by local farmers. Did they work for free, then? Nobody is asking anyone to work for free, and I don't see how that remark constitutes a counter-argument to the dangers I pointed out.
"Uh, what orifice did you pull that from? Since when is it a "right" for a farmer to grown anything other than what they themselves have harvested?"
In Europe you have several countries where farmers have indeed the right to use part of their seeds of the earlier harvest to start a new one in the next year. There is a specific name for it, but not being an english-native speaker, I'm not sure how to translate it. Whether they *choose* to do so, or buy starting-seeds of a company is their choice, and doesn't alter that right. They can not use that right anymore if the seeds are patented or if the plants are seedless, obviously.
"Not a stunning endorsement, that. MM, the guy who fabricates? The guy who's film about Flint was based on a complete lie?"
Let me ask the same sort rhetorical question: is that the extend of your counterarguments? Ad hominem attacks, and sneers?
"I think your analysis was indeed "hystorical"."
Meh. Another sneer, is it?
I must say I'm dissapointed; you hardly gave any actual counterarguments, nor provided any links to susbtantiate your claims, nor did you put *any* effort in really trying to have a sensible discussion with logical reasonings. Yeah, you gave me the straw man of 'nobody works for free'(I don't seem to remember that I claimed otherwise and I fail to see how that demonstrates anything about the (non-)dangers of GM crops), a bunch of rhetorical questions and that you don't like MM.
I would claim there are some inherent potential problems with GM crops. It may be true that it's a problem of implementation, but then the implementation should be far more strict, since we're dealing with public health, after all. If GM corporations would adhere to the standards of medical companies that realease new drugs, then mush more security would be added. But you'd still have some problems which is inherent to all GM incorporated in living things. For instance; if a drug turns out to be toxic, you just take that drug of the shelves; if a GM crop or weed turns out to be toxic, it's far harder to put the genie beck in the bottle, especially if that plant has a darwinian advantage. For my other criticism, see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226671&cid=183 63917
I already explained below in the thread why it ended up like that, so I find your comment uncalled for. In short, it's pretty lame, or at least, patronising.
And what now, do I have to become equally lame and say somthing like 'I find it to be of supreme irony that you claim I have to learn how to write, to be able to *agrue* effectively.'?
A human with normal intellect will come to the conclusion that shit - such as screwed up layout and spellingsmistakes - happens, and is not indicative of anything which would make one conclude it was done on purpose (or an inability to argue correctly).
In short, I find your sense of supreme irony a bit premature.
If you're not a troll, feel free to look at the same post 'the good (?) of GM food' (under the current nick), and give some sensible comment that deals with the argumentation and not the form, if you please.
* Ok, sorry for having posted this before here, but I had some trouble with my login/emailaccount. Anyways, here I go in a definite version:
Recently, I (re)stumbled upon an article called "Environmental Heresies". A good and interesting read for sure, but, like with all these kind of articles, the author (futurologists, they are called, I believe) makes the same basic mistakes as all his predecessors. I'll give some rebutal and critcism (but since this is about GM food, I'll restrict this post to just that criticism):
As for genetically modified (GM) crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only conveys the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.
It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated a natural area, and the contamination has a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans, or other species and ecological systems.
Now, his counterargument that those won't survive in the wild seems rather weak (many GM corporations claim the same). In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wild' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary (a prominent example of that are some strains of GM corn in south-america). So... it may be that some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some *will*, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to the ecosystem or local species, including humans.
Also, the reductionistic view of "we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries" is somewhat misleading too. Yes, people have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, this trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that "we have always done this" I would like to see any example where this has actually been done before.
No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequences (which we don't know anything about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsely, that we've been using those techniques for millenia. And you can't just merrily test it out in the wild, and see if anything happens.
Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects the author (or GM corporations) claims it has or will have - but more about that at the end.
In conclusion; the author is fully right about some things, but a bit too simplistic (and, perhaps, biased) in other points. . In regard to the GM-crops, I fear he is a bit misguided himself; this is obvious by the naive assumption of how much 'good' GM-crops will do - which is, I suspect, derived from an overly (and typical USA) optimistic viewpoint on capitalism, which I don't share.
GM-corporations do not care about worldhunger, nor about the living quality of poor farmers in third (or first, for that matter) worldcountries. What matters to them is maximising profit for their shareholders. In the authors' view, this is fully compatible with eachother, but I rather think that, in the end, you can't have both: if it's really about maximising profit, then it is about holding control of the market, and if it's about control, then it's not about the freedoms and abilities and rights of the farmer. This already can be seen by the fact many GM corporations have
Meh. There are enough good alternatives: TOR, I2P Freenet (if they ever make a useful thing out of it, because after more then 5 years development, they fall kinda short. Maybe things will get better with their Openet, though - but when will that happen?).
Anyway, public proxies are only haphazard and temporary solutions, and not very good ones at that. First of all, they're often unreachable, unusable or slow. Secondly, you never know WHICH proxy you actually use; I mean; who owns the damn thing? What does he log?
Ofcourse, with enough proxies to choose from, and trying out at randomn, it may be a small chance that you end up with someone that actually makes your privacy more in danger, but still... The systems mentionned above (include JAP to that) are much safer for anonymous browsing.
"The question is, "what are your priorities". If the people putting this thing together think it's worth risking mission success in order to give the ESA more experience, then certainly they should have the ESA do the mission. If, on the other hand, landing a package on mars is the most important aspect of the mission, they should go with NASA."
Obviously, it's a part of both. One should be careful to not make a false dillema out of it (it's OR NASA and succeeding, OR ESA and gaining more experience). I would claim it's perfectly possible to have succes AND provide ESA more experience. It's *always* going to be a mix of priorities, and a huge chunk of that will always be to master new techniques and improve ones' track record, even if it's risky. I mean, you can see that with any single country (or group of countries) which is capable of spaceflight; they *ALL* want to be able to be independend, they *all* want to be able to launch their own probes with their own rockets. This is even true for countries like China and India (and even brazille has those aspirations).
Of course, that doesn't mean those countries will also not be including support in spacemissions or probes from other countries, but it does mean the priorities of space-agencies and countries are pretty much clear (and universal) in this regard: one always strives for independend space-capabilities too.
"It's all about priorities. And the rest of your argument is totally inapplicable, simply because you're seeing things in my comments that simply aren't there."
Well, maybe I did, but I thought I concentrated on your (as I perceived it) viewpoint *we* shouldn't send probes to Mars, because NASA has a better record at it then we. If the same argumentation was applied consistently, such a reasoning would amount to the things I said in my earlier post. Of course, I might be mistaken in that perceived claim, and maybe you weren't alluding to the fact that NASA should rather be trusted with a multi-million dollar space mission instead of ESA, due to their better track-record (?).
If you were, however, then my analogies are correct.
Yes, ok, but that's a non-argument, because you could say that of anything.
Then NASA shouldn't have built probes or send humans into space in the 60ies, because their track-record wasn't any good neither. It were the Russians back then which had the experience, so if they followed your reasoning, they should have had the russians do the job, and Nasa should have provided something they were better in, during that time...say, computers.
You can't have a comfortable track record, if you never try out the track. Say, this succeeds. And the next 10 probes of ESA have a high succes too. Well then, what should budding space-nations like India and China say: well, we'd better leave it too the USA and EU, because they have a better track-record? This is extremely unlikely - perhaps even foolish - and you know it. The track-record for any deep-space mission of the ESA was zero, before 1986. that track-record has steadily been improved upon, *thanks to sending probes*. If we wouldn't have made the effort to send them, it would still be zero today, obviously. Furthermore, you can't have an independent space-program if you're dependent on others to send probes.
"I'm also saying that pointing to past NASA mistakes is foolish, because failure is part of every testing process."
That's the same for ESA. That's exactly why we DO have to try and send probes; it's by trying that we get that 'good record'.
"And if YOU were the one fronting the money for the project, I can pretty much guarantee you'd chose NASA over the ESA."
This argument is spurious. The money is from the State (or States), and since (for the ESA), it are european countries who cough up the money, obviously, they want a strong EU space-program with all the possibilities open to them. As far as I'm being taxed for it, I'm quite content that part of my taxes will be used for ESA sending probes.
I'm really a bit baffled by your kind of reasoning. If we actually (had) followed that, we wouldn't even have a decent launcher today, like Ariane, because we were way behind russia and the usa back then, and our first rockets completely sucked. Should we have said: "oh, well, they have a better record, let's just supply them with some parts, and continue use their foreign rockets"? In that case, we wouldn't stand where we stand today, with Arianespace holding more than 50 percent of the world market for boosting satellites to geostationary transfer orbit. It is exactly by pursuing those difficult tasks that you *can* master them.
"While I understand how you might come to this conclusion, it's actually completely wrong."
Well...*actually*... I didn't make any conclusion, I asked an open question.:-)
It surprises me that the most interesting answer comes from an anonymous coward with score 0; if I had mod points, I'd mod you up. UYou should really post such things with your nick, you know:-). I thought you made a very good rebutal, and it makes it clear there is still use for space-telescopes (and as you say, those that can be done on Earth never get to space, I suppose).
"You demonstrate enough knowledge to intelligently question the case for space (which is relatively rare actually, but probably common here on/.),..."
No, not at all. I'm rather the exeption to the rule, also on slashdot.;-p
"...but not enough to answer it."
Heh. You mean I also have to answer my own question in the same post?:-) As I said earlier, it was actually an open question, to see if any interesting debate could come from it. The question is quite complex, since it involves costs versus benefits.
"I can't let these ideas go unchallenged because the only way new missions will be funded is if lay people continue to support them."
Lay people, huh? *me coughs* Well, anyway, you might have had the impression I'm making a case against space-exploration/colonisation/etc., but actually I'm not. I'm rather pro-space (that's why I'm a member of the planetary society too). But it's a valid question to ask, just like the old human exploration versus robotic exploration.
That said, I doubt many space missions are funded because of the support of lay people, especially if it's about some exotic telescope to measure the background-radiation of the universe. I mean, really: how many people even know anything about what is send up there? I doubt 2% of the populace can name 3 current and ongoing space-projects or missions. Nah...it has more to do with politics and the perceived economic benefits it will bring. John Doe has really little influence on it. (Though, focused lobbying might help some missions, as TPS has already demonstrated.)
As for your exellent points, one small remark, though:
You claim a few times that those big earth-based telescopes could also cost 1 billion. Well, that may be true, but for that price what do you get? Both 10-meter keck-telescopes, which in conjuction can work as a 85 meter telescope (at least in respect to resolution), have costed $140 million; the HST, with a mirror of 2.4 m, has quite a different price-tag, and I quote from the wikipedia:
'From its original total cost estimate of about 400 million dollars, the telescope had by now cost over US$2.5 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, with U.S. expenditure estimated at between 4.5 and 6 billion USD and Europe's financial contribution at 593 million Euros (1999 estimate).'
Now, you made very good points why space-telescopes are still useful in some specific area's, but my question (not conclusion) was more related to the cost/benefits.
I mean, looking at the real price-tags, for the amount of the HST, one could have built 25-30 keck-telescopes (with god knows what resolution with interferometry). Certainly, with such an earth-bound system, the amount of usefull data would have been staggering as well, and may have surpassed that of the HST in many aspects.
I'm actually beginning to wonder if space-telescopes still have their use (in regard to costs/benefits). I mean, thanks to interferometry one can get the resolution (equal or better) with earth based telescopes for a fraction of the price of space-telescopes like hubble and consorts. And thanks to adaptive optics there is hardly any atmospheric blurring which smears out the pictures anymore, neither. And, since the mirrors can be bigger then those send into space, the light-gathering power is way superior for earth-based telescopes.
The only advantages left are for specific wavelengths (like near-infrared), because the atmosphere absorbs most of that, but even that is more and more debatable, now that new instruments and detectors are becomming so sensitive that they can detect and use it on Earth too. I'm wondering, with the multi-billion costs of space-telescopes, if it's really worth the money? With the same amount of money, one could make a huge interferometer-telescope with a diameter of the Earth (though it would need to consist out of many 10-meter telescopes for light-gathering purposes). I'm all for space-exploration, but what still justifies the expense of a space-telescope, if earth-bound ones can do as well for a fraction of the price?
I'm a tenured professor in quantumcomputing and I can assure you the chip works! This is based on a paper I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually, if you think about it, this is exactly what software patents are good for."
e nts-manifesto.html
Well, that would depend on what you mean by 'good' and who it is it is good for. Rest assured, a *monopoly* is only good for the monopolist, not for the enduser, nor the public at large, nor for the stimulation of innovation. There hasn't been a monopoly since its existance which was beneficial for anyone BUT the monopolist; thus, if your viewpoint is that the benefits to the profits of microsoft (or any other monopolist) is the prime measurement for establishing how useful softwarepatents are, then you are right.
However, since a patent is a monopoly granted by the state, and the state has a duty to provide the largest amount of benefits to its citizens as a whole, it is an equally (if not more) valid argument that softwarepatents should be abolished, since the populace doesn't benefit from it, and innovation isn't stimulated by it.
Anyway, I already made an argumentation of the 'use' of softwarepatents (viewed in an EU context) here: http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pat
"Except via patent claims, for which independent development is not an adequate defense."
Well, in Europe we still don't have (enforcable) softwarepatents. Though it being an Open Source project, I'm not sure under what jurisdiction it falls.
But you make a good point: more proof that softwarepatents suck.
"In what may be a red flag for Microsoft's lawyers, ReactOS is described as "an environment identical to Windows, both visually and internally."
Oh, please... While I have no doubts MS will try to destroy ReactOs when it becomes too popular, the developers have made painstakingly difficult steps to ensure the proper reverse engineering is done ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_testing ). They can sue all they want, they can't win this. (They can however make it an expensive legal wrangling...but then again, since it's open source, it's difficult to imagine any single lawsuit will be able to end the project).
Now, let's face it; thanks to digital media we've actually made a huge step forwards in many respects. In fact, in our times the (possibilities of) digital data is on the same level of the first writings...well...at least as important as the printing press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg#P rinting_press). There is an enormous amount of data and knowledge available from all sort of sources, which would otherwise perhaps disappear or gather dust in some closed room of a university (http://www.verbumvanum.org/), new forms of collaborating knowledge-gathering is possible, as seen with the wikipedia-project, dissimination (copies) can happen on a lot of places and people all over the world can access it almost instantly; something not seen before on this scale.
e arch_avenues) This has already been a huge problem, especially for organisations that want to archive data and knowledge in the long term. It's not the first time data gets lost because nobody knows how to convert it properly anymore.
However, it has also some drawbacks:
- It's not intrinsically readable. Meaning, you can not, as a human, just understand what it means, without the help of additional tools. to a certain degree, this is always true, but, contrary to books, who can be read if you have the book itself and enough light to read, digital media is, in a sense, much more delicate. You need a lot of additional tools; electricity, a computer, the right application to run it, etc. And even then you aren't sure: data may be stored on some former format, which has long since become obsolete. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly#Res
- The inherent weak physical carriers of digital data. This has only become worse, since research has shown by now, that half of the recorded data on normal consumer (blanket) CD/DVD's have lost 80% of their data within 5 years. In this respect, the new media is a disaster for long term storage, and libraries or organisation who wish to hold on to their data are obliged to constantly upgrade and transport their data on newer hardware. But even then, it's a losing battle.
The only way to stop this is creating a format (open standard) which will not change (or at least, remains backward compatible) and using storage-hardware which endures time (in that respect, I remember an optical storage technique talked about in a FA on slashdot which was based on rubies or diamonts being used (and 'burning' transparent corridors with lasers). It had a very high data-density and a minimum lifetime of 20.000 years. That would help for long-term storage! )
The why of (human) space-exploration
;-)
A frequently occurring debate I have is with the question whether or not we should have space-exploration (and as a subset: human vs. robotic space exploration). This involves the "we should spend the money on other things, like combating worldhunger"-arguments, as the more subtile arguments which is better: human or robotic exploration.
I have pondered a long time about this, and this is my conclusion:
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particular human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise. Or they use non-arguments, like "wouldn't the money be better spend on helping people in Africa"? Well, yes; and money spend on maintaining landscapes and buildings and statues too. And for that matter: the money you spend on your computer could have saved a dozen lifes in africa too.) Those kind of emo-arguments ring *always* true; yet are totally besides the reality of human behaviour, and thus, have little sway as a valid argument. In reality, humans crave comfort and luxe-products, and they will do so, EVEN if they could save dozens of lives with the same amount of money instead. And states spend money on a lot of different things, because a society involves a complex structure where a mix of interwoven activities are taken place, and solely focusing on one aspect would be disasterous.
But anyway, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrow-minded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognize other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonize with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonize new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their spirit of adventure and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxury, etc. The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter. Based on what we truly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen. But of course, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
So, economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is often less good with human space-travel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But, as I have indicated, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonize planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
The math to make the conclusion that an atmosphere would only last a few thousand years is dependend on various parameters who are not well known, or not known at all, yet. For instance, we don't even know how much water and other elements to make an atmosphere are there, on Mars. Obviously, if we don't know the amount of potential atmospheric sources, we can't say much about the time it would take.
Furthermore, is gravity the only aspect of a dissapating atmosphere? Has the math really been done with various degrees and levels of different gasses (it doesn't have to be exactly the same as on earth, after all)? Can you find a link for the math that proves that Mars can't have a sustainable atmosphere?
And as I said, even Earth loses atmosphere, but that is more than compensated for by the influx of dust/ice/etc. particles and micro- (and macro) meteorites. Has ANYONE a clear idea how much influx of material there is on Mars? (I don't think any real math has been done including that variable).
So, as I said, it's a bit early to tell anything, yet. I would be interested in any links you can give to whatever math has been done on the subject, however.
"(e.g. 'Witches' is best interpreted as potion-makers in the Old Testament, homosexuality is usually referred to in regard to rampant sex without regard, which was particularly dangerous in the age before real medicine,[....]"
So, basically, you interpret the bible like you see fit.
That's all fine and good, but if it's up to any individual to interpret it the way it fits him/her, then people who believe 'witches refer to more then potionmakers' and 'homosexuality is about same-sex sexual behaviour' have as much validity then your interpretation of the matter.
I read a lot of critics about the terraformation of Mars like this one: "The conditions that caused the loss of the original atmosphere are still present"
That is far from certain. It seems many people are going with the assumption that the theory that the gravity-field of mars is too puny to hold the watermolecules (and thus the atmosphere dissapeating into space in a copple of thousand years), is a fact. However, this is only one of many theories existing to explain the lack of an (considerable) atmosphere on Mars. Another variant of that theory to explain it is that the atmosphere got largely blown away by meteor-impacts in the first half-billion years of the existence of our solarsystem (there was a period of a large amount of meteor(hits) then, as proven by craters on the moon and other planets).
Now, if that's true, and seen the fact that fase is long since over, then, if we were able to revive a useful atmosphere, it could well be that it could sustain itself, or at least last for millions of years. No more mass amounts of impacts that blow the atmosphere away, after all. (BTW, all atmospheres lose molecules to space, but it gets more then enough back from tiny (and bigger) particles falling down to earth; this may be true for Mars as well, EVEN if the atmosphere dissapeates faster).
I'm not saying this IS true, but it's one of the many theories out there that try to explain the current state of Mars. Untill we know the actual truth about the matter, it's far too soon to claim terraforming isn't possible on Mars. Depending on the cause for Mars' thin atmosphere, and the level of replenishment, it might well be a viable option.
Youtube has carrier status, which means it isn't responsable for the content third parties put on it. According to USA law, it has to remove copyrighted material when it's notified about it by the copyrightholder. It's long been established by the courtsthat one can't sue carriers for what others do with it; you have to sue those who actually put it there (and carriers only need to act when notified about the infringement.
What people might think off, in regard with succesfully sueing a carrier, was in the latest Supreme court decision, which noted that a P2P-program was at fault for copyright-infringement. However, that case was validated with the specific reasoning that (the people behind) the P2P-system *actively* promoted copyright-infringement (e.g.they said 'use us for illegal downloads', etc.). It was not a matter of holding a carrier responsable because it was used for illegal purposes, but it was it's purported goal.
This case is different, since youtube does not actively supports illegal material to be put on there; the question of 'does it do enough?' has no bearing on it, just like Sony v. Universal Studios (aka the Betamax case). What remains is, that youtube has to delete all copyright-infringements it get notified of, just like all other internet- and webproviders/services.
Since youtube is supported by google, they have the muscle to fight back - and win the case. Of course, changes are that, along the line, they well cut a deal which makes both parties happy, and save the legal costs.
Does it run apache?
I mean, really, does it?
I've responded to you here:
1 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=1836391 7#18365637
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22667
Not that I have high hopes anymore for this particular discussion, but one never knows.
"Nobody is doing development of GM'd strains for resistence to infection, pests or drought for free. Look around. No one. Why would that be? No one works for free."
What has that got to do with it? The principle of breeding plants to get better seeds (be it more productive, tasteful, bigger, resistence to diseases, etc.) has been going on for as long as farmers existed. And that's not only done by big companies with huge budgets, but also by local farmers. Did they work for free, then? Nobody is asking anyone to work for free, and I don't see how that remark constitutes a counter-argument to the dangers I pointed out.
"Uh, what orifice did you pull that from? Since when is it a "right" for a farmer to grown anything other than what they themselves have harvested?"
In Europe you have several countries where farmers have indeed the right to use part of their seeds of the earlier harvest to start a new one in the next year. There is a specific name for it, but not being an english-native speaker, I'm not sure how to translate it. Whether they *choose* to do so, or buy starting-seeds of a company is their choice, and doesn't alter that right. They can not use that right anymore if the seeds are patented or if the plants are seedless, obviously.
"Not a stunning endorsement, that. MM, the guy who fabricates? The guy who's film about Flint was based on a complete lie?"
Let me ask the same sort rhetorical question: is that the extend of your counterarguments? Ad hominem attacks, and sneers?
"I think your analysis was indeed "hystorical"."
Meh. Another sneer, is it?
I must say I'm dissapointed; you hardly gave any actual counterarguments, nor provided any links to susbtantiate your claims, nor did you put *any* effort in really trying to have a sensible discussion with logical reasonings. Yeah, you gave me the straw man of 'nobody works for free'(I don't seem to remember that I claimed otherwise and I fail to see how that demonstrates anything about the (non-)dangers of GM crops), a bunch of rhetorical questions and that you don't like MM.
Right. Thanks for your thoughtful input!
I would claim there are some inherent potential problems with GM crops. It may be true that it's a problem of implementation, but then the implementation should be far more strict, since we're dealing with public health, after all. If GM corporations would adhere to the standards of medical companies that realease new drugs, then mush more security would be added. But you'd still have some problems which is inherent to all GM incorporated in living things. For instance; if a drug turns out to be toxic, you just take that drug of the shelves; if a GM crop or weed turns out to be toxic, it's far harder to put the genie beck in the bottle, especially if that plant has a darwinian advantage. For my other criticism, see: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226671&cid=183 63917
Look, I *know* it sucks to read the above post, and I explained why below, but still people whine about it, so please read this one instead, then:
3 63917
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226671&cid=18
I already explained below in the thread why it ended up like that, so I find your comment uncalled for. In short, it's pretty lame, or at least, patronising.
And what now, do I have to become equally lame and say somthing like 'I find it to be of supreme irony that you claim I have to learn how to write, to be able to *agrue* effectively.'?
A human with normal intellect will come to the conclusion that shit - such as screwed up layout and spellingsmistakes - happens, and is not indicative of anything which would make one conclude it was done on purpose (or an inability to argue correctly).
In short, I find your sense of supreme irony a bit premature.
If you're not a troll, feel free to look at the same post 'the good (?) of GM food' (under the current nick), and give some sensible comment that deals with the argumentation and not the form, if you please.
* Ok, sorry for having posted this before here, but I had some trouble with my login/emailaccount. Anyways, here I go in a definite version:
Recently, I (re)stumbled upon an article called "Environmental Heresies". A good and interesting read for sure, but, like with all these kind of articles, the author (futurologists, they are called, I believe) makes the same basic mistakes as all his predecessors. I'll give some rebutal and critcism (but since this is about GM food, I'll restrict this post to just that criticism):
As for genetically modified (GM) crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only conveys the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.
It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated a natural area, and the contamination has a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans, or other species and ecological systems.
Now, his counterargument that those won't survive in the wild seems rather weak (many GM corporations claim the same). In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wild' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary (a prominent example of that are some strains of GM corn in south-america). So... it may be that some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some *will*, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to the ecosystem or local species, including humans.
Also, the reductionistic view of "we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries" is somewhat misleading too. Yes, people have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, this trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that "we have always done this" I would like to see any example where this has actually been done before.
No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequences (which we don't know anything about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsely, that we've been using those techniques for millenia. And you can't just merrily test it out in the wild, and see if anything happens.
Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects the author (or GM corporations) claims it has or will have - but more about that at the end.
In conclusion; the author is fully right about some things, but a bit too simplistic (and, perhaps, biased) in other points. . In regard to the GM-crops, I fear he is a bit misguided himself; this is obvious by the naive assumption of how much 'good' GM-crops will do - which is, I suspect, derived from an overly (and typical USA) optimistic viewpoint on capitalism, which I don't share.
GM-corporations do not care about worldhunger, nor about the living quality of poor farmers in third (or first, for that matter) worldcountries. What matters to them is maximising profit for their shareholders. In the authors' view, this is fully compatible with eachother, but I rather think that, in the end, you can't have both: if it's really about maximising profit, then it is about holding control of the market, and if it's about control, then it's not about the freedoms and abilities and rights of the farmer. This already can be seen by the fact many GM corporations have
Meh. There are enough good alternatives: TOR, I2P Freenet (if they ever make a useful thing out of it, because after more then 5 years development, they fall kinda short. Maybe things will get better with their Openet, though - but when will that happen?).
Anyway, public proxies are only haphazard and temporary solutions, and not very good ones at that. First of all, they're often unreachable, unusable or slow. Secondly, you never know WHICH proxy you actually use; I mean; who owns the damn thing? What does he log?
Ofcourse, with enough proxies to choose from, and trying out at randomn, it may be a small chance that you end up with someone that actually makes your privacy more in danger, but still... The systems mentionned above (include JAP to that) are much safer for anonymous browsing.
"The question is, "what are your priorities". If the people putting this thing together think it's worth risking mission success in order to give the ESA more experience, then certainly they should have the ESA do the mission. If, on the other hand, landing a package on mars is the most important aspect of the mission, they should go with NASA."
Obviously, it's a part of both. One should be careful to not make a false dillema out of it (it's OR NASA and succeeding, OR ESA and gaining more experience). I would claim it's perfectly possible to have succes AND provide ESA more experience. It's *always* going to be a mix of priorities, and a huge chunk of that will always be to master new techniques and improve ones' track record, even if it's risky. I mean, you can see that with any single country (or group of countries) which is capable of spaceflight; they *ALL* want to be able to be independend, they *all* want to be able to launch their own probes with their own rockets. This is even true for countries like China and India (and even brazille has those aspirations).
Of course, that doesn't mean those countries will also not be including support in spacemissions or probes from other countries, but it does mean the priorities of space-agencies and countries are pretty much clear (and universal) in this regard: one always strives for independend space-capabilities too.
"It's all about priorities. And the rest of your argument is totally inapplicable, simply because you're seeing things in my comments that simply aren't there."
Well, maybe I did, but I thought I concentrated on your (as I perceived it) viewpoint *we* shouldn't send probes to Mars, because NASA has a better record at it then we. If the same argumentation was applied consistently, such a reasoning would amount to the things I said in my earlier post. Of course, I might be mistaken in that perceived claim, and maybe you weren't alluding to the fact that NASA should rather be trusted with a multi-million dollar space mission instead of ESA, due to their better track-record (?).
If you were, however, then my analogies are correct.
Yes, ok, but that's a non-argument, because you could say that of anything.
Then NASA shouldn't have built probes or send humans into space in the 60ies, because their track-record wasn't any good neither. It were the Russians back then which had the experience, so if they followed your reasoning, they should have had the russians do the job, and Nasa should have provided something they were better in, during that time...say, computers.
You can't have a comfortable track record, if you never try out the track. Say, this succeeds. And the next 10 probes of ESA have a high succes too. Well then, what should budding space-nations like India and China say: well, we'd better leave it too the USA and EU, because they have a better track-record? This is extremely unlikely - perhaps even foolish - and you know it. The track-record for any deep-space mission of the ESA was zero, before 1986. that track-record has steadily been improved upon, *thanks to sending probes*. If we wouldn't have made the effort to send them, it would still be zero today, obviously. Furthermore, you can't have an independent space-program if you're dependent on others to send probes.
"I'm also saying that pointing to past NASA mistakes is foolish, because failure is part of every testing process."
That's the same for ESA. That's exactly why we DO have to try and send probes; it's by trying that we get that 'good record'.
"And if YOU were the one fronting the money for the project, I can pretty much guarantee you'd chose NASA over the ESA."
This argument is spurious. The money is from the State (or States), and since (for the ESA), it are european countries who cough up the money, obviously, they want a strong EU space-program with all the possibilities open to them. As far as I'm being taxed for it, I'm quite content that part of my taxes will be used for ESA sending probes.
I'm really a bit baffled by your kind of reasoning. If we actually (had) followed that, we wouldn't even have a decent launcher today, like Ariane, because we were way behind russia and the usa back then, and our first rockets completely sucked. Should we have said: "oh, well, they have a better record, let's just supply them with some parts, and continue use their foreign rockets"? In that case, we wouldn't stand where we stand today, with Arianespace holding more than 50 percent of the world market for boosting satellites to geostationary transfer orbit. It is exactly by pursuing those difficult tasks that you *can* master them.
"While I understand how you might come to this conclusion, it's actually completely wrong."
:-)
:-). I thought you made a very good rebutal, and it makes it clear there is still use for space-telescopes (and as you say, those that can be done on Earth never get to space, I suppose).
/.),..."
;-p
:-) As I said earlier, it was actually an open question, to see if any interesting debate could come from it. The question is quite complex, since it involves costs versus benefits.
Well...*actually*... I didn't make any conclusion, I asked an open question.
It surprises me that the most interesting answer comes from an anonymous coward with score 0; if I had mod points, I'd mod you up. UYou should really post such things with your nick, you know
"You demonstrate enough knowledge to intelligently question the case for space (which is relatively rare actually, but probably common here on
No, not at all. I'm rather the exeption to the rule, also on slashdot.
"...but not enough to answer it."
Heh. You mean I also have to answer my own question in the same post?
"I can't let these ideas go unchallenged because the only way new missions will be funded is if lay people continue to support them."
Lay people, huh? *me coughs* Well, anyway, you might have had the impression I'm making a case against space-exploration/colonisation/etc., but actually I'm not. I'm rather pro-space (that's why I'm a member of the planetary society too). But it's a valid question to ask, just like the old human exploration versus robotic exploration.
That said, I doubt many space missions are funded because of the support of lay people, especially if it's about some exotic telescope to measure the background-radiation of the universe. I mean, really: how many people even know anything about what is send up there? I doubt 2% of the populace can name 3 current and ongoing space-projects or missions. Nah...it has more to do with politics and the perceived economic benefits it will bring. John Doe has really little influence on it. (Though, focused lobbying might help some missions, as TPS has already demonstrated.)
As for your exellent points, one small remark, though:
You claim a few times that those big earth-based telescopes could also cost 1 billion. Well, that may be true, but for that price what do you get? Both 10-meter keck-telescopes, which in conjuction can work as a 85 meter telescope (at least in respect to resolution), have costed $140 million; the HST, with a mirror of 2.4 m, has quite a different price-tag, and I quote from the wikipedia:
'From its original total cost estimate of about 400 million dollars, the telescope had by now cost over US$2.5 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, with U.S. expenditure estimated at between 4.5 and 6 billion USD and Europe's financial contribution at 593 million Euros (1999 estimate).'
Now, you made very good points why space-telescopes are still useful in some specific area's, but my question (not conclusion) was more related to the cost/benefits.
I mean, looking at the real price-tags, for the amount of the HST, one could have built 25-30 keck-telescopes (with god knows what resolution with interferometry). Certainly, with such an earth-bound system, the amount of usefull data would have been staggering as well, and may have surpassed that of the HST in many aspects.
I'm actually beginning to wonder if space-telescopes still have their use (in regard to costs/benefits). I mean, thanks to interferometry one can get the resolution (equal or better) with earth based telescopes for a fraction of the price of space-telescopes like hubble and consorts. And thanks to adaptive optics there is hardly any atmospheric blurring which smears out the pictures anymore, neither. And, since the mirrors can be bigger then those send into space, the light-gathering power is way superior for earth-based telescopes.
The only advantages left are for specific wavelengths (like near-infrared), because the atmosphere absorbs most of that, but even that is more and more debatable, now that new instruments and detectors are becomming so sensitive that they can detect and use it on Earth too. I'm wondering, with the multi-billion costs of space-telescopes, if it's really worth the money? With the same amount of money, one could make a huge interferometer-telescope with a diameter of the Earth (though it would need to consist out of many 10-meter telescopes for light-gathering purposes). I'm all for space-exploration, but what still justifies the expense of a space-telescope, if earth-bound ones can do as well for a fraction of the price?
You know...sound...ears...
meh. Nevermind, probably wasn't as funny as I thought...
What the...? Nerve impulses are transmitted by sound?! I can't believe my ears!
I'm a tenured professor in quantumcomputing and I can assure you the chip works! This is based on a paper I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility.
1 9
O, wait...
This was meant to be posted here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/14522
Sorry, my mistake!
Government agencies misusing the powers they are given? Who would have thought such a thing possible!?