This is about the same thing I said to the FFII: our struggle is too passive; we're just waiting and fending off attempts to get softwarepatents validated.
What we *should* be doing is being more pro-active, and try to get a law passed (or at least proposed) which would unify the patent law (which, on itself, is a good thing), but which explicitly forbids patents on software.
We can never win on the long run, if we only defend, and the megacorps keep attacking: WE have to be pushing forwards with our goal as well, so THEY are in the defense!
"There is one part of patents that I miss in your explanation of them. And that is part of the history behind them."
Well...I thought it was long enough as it is, seen it was originally meant for a MEP to read;-)
In fact some complain it's too long as it is (that's why I made a seperate page of the 'concusion' when I send it).
But anyway, regarding the history: I remember reading a research-paper where it was investigated if the 'innovation' was less in countries that had copy-right, compared to those that didn't (around the 19th century, I believe). It turned out that, contrary to popular wisdom, this wasn't the case, though the countries did differ in the *kind* of area's where they were most innovative in. If this holds true, then even the basic premise whether or not patents (as a whole) are useful in promoting innovation could be false, or at least, not nuanced enough. I believe there was another research during the 1980ies in australia, where the conclusion there too was that there were no indications that patents improved innovation (this was not about software-patents, mind you). Now, this kind of research on the patent-system as a whole is rather rare; it's like no researchers even doubt the premise it's good for promoting innovation.
I sense you are making a different variant, by saying that it keeps things non-secret. But honestly, I don't care about WHET kind of research is kept secret or not, as long as society as a whole gets better, and thus, if innovation and progres is, on the long run, augmenting or not, because of the use of a system. There are indications that the patent system as a whole does not acomplish this, but more research should be done (leaving the question: why isn't it done).
It could be, that the beneficial versus the counterproductive (in terms of innovation) aspects of patents depend strongly on the matter it deals with (R.Stallman has made a video-explanation of that), and of course, how long the period of patents lasts, and how extensive the 'publication' is. Regarding the area or matter it deals with, some products, like physical machineries or new medical drugs may indeed be stimulated by the fact they get a protection (though even there, it is the question how long that protection should last; what is the 'optimum' to get incentive for the corps to go for it (R&D), and the benefit to society. It could well be, that 2 years would be enough as an incentive in some earea's, where 20 is overkill and society is worse off. Seen most profit is made in the first two years by many products, one can not shed the feeling the current patent-system is (for most products) not a good deal for society.
Now, again it must be said: not all that much research has been done about this, exept about one specific area, namely software-patents. This is probably due to the fact it is fairly recent (in europe they are still not allowed), and because, well, IT-nerds can make quite a fuss about it.;-) In any case, swpats *ARE* much more researched, and on top of that, it is very incremental in nature, and differs considerably from physical objects (near zero-cost in multiplying comes to mind), and vry broad claims can be made which are virtually impossible to verify (and the 'publishing' of the 'secret' often is completely useless too, in most cases (souce code is not necessary, after all, for getting the patent; a 'description' suffices).
The fact it got reasonably well researched showed very clearly that, at least for swapts, it *DID NOT* promote innovation and progress in its field, using the current patent-system - on the contrary, there are indications it inhibits it.
That alone is sufficient for me to keep software out of the patent-system. And more-over; I would argue there is a need to research the proclaimed benefits of the patent system as a whole (or at least, in different fields/area's), and if it would be shown that it is not beneficial, or that it would be more so in some fields, if the time-period
Thank you for pointing this out (I'm not native english). If you see other grammar/spelling mistakes, feel free to point them out.
But, ermm..you're really sure, right? I mean, it was not the verb 'answer' on itself that I wanted, rather something like 'to be hold accountable' for what they do. Is there another verb that may convey this better?
For the slashdotters of the 'my attention-span is too short to read it completely'-category; just read the conclusion, then;-).
Or don't read it at all.
If people want to use parts (or the whole thing verbatim) for their own fight against software patents; feel free to do so; it's under the CC licence.
Time to dust off my software patent directive!
on
EU Patent Wars to Resume
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Though...now maybe sending it to MEPs doesn't work anymore.:-/ So..to who should I send it now; the european court?
Anyway, here you go:
The software patents manifesto
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following
Now, on the list that supposedly changed the world, there are site that everyone knows, and there are sites that I even never heard of it (and I'm more IT/web minded then most of my friends).
And then ebay and google get weird places, so I guess the list was not made up according to popularity.
Like, with all due respect (nah, not really;-) to slashdot; *I* am pretty fond of it and know what it is, but most people will never have heard of it. Or only from hearsay or in the 'visited once or twice' category, like for me with salon.com and easyjet and the like. I mean sure, I've heard of it, maybe even visited it once in my life, but 'changed the earth' - that's hyperbole. And then there are the sites I truelly didn't even hear about, before this: now, I must say - ego or not - that I truelly doubt a site has actually 'changed the world' that I NEVER even heard about. Now, one might claim it's not the importance/popularity that counts, but the 'impact' it has had on the world. To this I say: the greater the impact, the more it should be noticable. The amount of 'new' things, or 'change' it brought, is fully arbitrarily; according to those lines of thought, google should not even be mentionned, because it was nothing more then a searchengine, which existed long before. A new algorithm and less advertisements are hardly groundbreaking 'changes' of the world. Thus, even to the list, it's about the impact according to importance/popularity it has gained. Google, ebay and wikipedia, and probably amazon certainly merrits a place, then, and sites like youtube are rapidly gaining that status.
But it's pretty ridiculous to lump together sites like google and ebay (known by most of the entire worldpopulace) with sites hardly anyone knows (on a world-scale, that is). And even google & co can not really claim they changed the world: they changed some aspects of how people do things in the world; but most of these things were not 'new' on itself. (though, granted, they made it much easier to do). If they would say 'they changed the internet', then I would totally agree - but changing the world? Well, maybe in some way, depending on how broad you define that.
In a sense, we ALL change the world every second of our lives. We only don't know how, and it's hardly ever noticed, even by ourselves.
"Well, it's refreshing to have a debate with real arguments, for a change, thanks... Even though I suspect we already agree on quite a few points.:-)"
I think so too.
"I assumed that "the best way" was to make the most of a given budget, to do as much of "the stated goal" as possible."
Yes, I can agree to that...but it still remains a bit of a self-fulfilling definition. Even 'the most of a given budget' doesn't really explain anything more, since 'most' can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, say the stated goal IS human exploration. If one sends a human into space for 20.000.000 euro to do some exploration, is that more or less doing as much of the stated goal then waiting untill technology gets cheap enough to send a human for 1/10 that price? I mean, I understand what you're trying to say, but at the end, that definition is dependend on how you interpret that goal. Sure, when doing research and waiting (or developing) on cheaper technology, one might see that as doing as much for the stated goal as possible...exept during that time, you're not really explorinbg anything. And the reverse is also treu: one might claim sending humans to explore and colonize space now is wasting money, and not making the most out of it...exept one IS exploring. there is no defining moment of 'making the most out of it' in economical terms, since you're always going to make more out of it if you wait longer for the price to come down.
But I already said that, and I think we both agree that 'sustainable' is the keyword here (it's my goal, even if it's not Nasa's, at least). Research to develop (self-)sustainable systems to be used on spaceships (like near-zero-waste systems which recycle as much as possible) and engines/converters that use the materials on moons and planets to support human life, is paramount to any goal of long-term sustainable exploration and colonisation. We both agree, I think, that Nasa should divert a big part of their budget to creating such systems. I also agree we shouldn't rush to Mars WITHOUT such technology, because that would amount to a one-time stunt (like with the moonlanding), and not be a step towards true colonisation.
"That's where you state that "if technology gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for robotic missions too", but it is not necessarily true."
This is about the only thing I really disagree with. I can not see how this would not be true, exept in the very unlikely event that space-travel suddenly became SO much cheaper, that all the added life-support, food and water stock, added room and facilities (and thus weight) would be outweighted by the added value of the better in situ research that people still can do above (current days') robots and probes. I'm not sure if that was your point, however.
I mean, what exactly would be the technology that got cheaper for human missions, that wouldn't make it also cheaper for robots to be send? Launcher technology won't do that; if that gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for both, and it still would be more expensive to send humans to the same destination then if you send a probe. Robot technology would not do that neither, for the obvious reason. what then? Human life-support systems? Well, no doubt they will come down in price too, evntually, but a mission will never become more cheap with life-support then without. I mean, the way I see it, a spaceship is ALREADY a probe, only with the huge added cost of maintaining a life-support system for human life.
The two only logical reasons to send humans anyway is for versatile, specific in situ research, where robots suck at (as yet, that is), and humans are still much better at, and for the reason of colonisation, and the added benefits this brings to the survival of the race (sounds a bit heavy, but at the end, it boils down to that). In neither case, it will be cheaper to send humans, though in the first case, it may be worth more science/buck in some circumstances (though as robotics improve, this will become less and less), and
"I'm not sure about that. Is it now cheaper to send a person or a robot to do some work in Antarctica? After all, an autonomous robot has to be very sophisticated; it may well become cheaper to send a man, including his life support equipment, than to build and test a robot on the complexity level e.g. of the current Mars rovers."
I doubt this is true, and your analogy seems a bit far fetched. The extra costs of getting (and maintaining) a human in space is largely lacking on a base of Antartica. You have an breathable atmosphere, you have necessary resources (like water) in aboundance, you have normal gravity, you have the atmospheric shielding of our atmosphere, you don't have a need for a closed ecological system, food and supplies can be furnished regulary and relatively easily, etc. In short, all the things that make human space colonisation so expensive are not present on Antarica.
And, as I said, a human is more versatile and useful for non-routine exploration then any robot these days, so, seen the lack of cost-adding for a base on Antartica (at least, compared to a space explortion), of course it's more attractive to have humans on Antartica then robots.
But even THAT depend on the costs, really. For routine research, even now people are using robots (and not only on Antartica). That's simply because robots are cheaper and more efficient in routine-tasks. But, lets say, in 500 years they develop an android capable of doing virtually all things a human could do, and pretty much as good as a human. Will it be more affordable to send the android, even to Antarica?
For the first ones; hell no. Price reduction is only for a small part dependend on getting/using cheaper materials, after all; it's foremost a matter of production costs. If those androids are massed produced, then costs will go down, and eventually it becomes more economical interesting to send those androids, even to antartica, then humans.
When that time comes, there is no way that humans can compete in this particular area. The only reason left will be the pure colonisation aspect and the reasons for it that I mentionned in my first post.
Thus, the reason why it's more economical to send humans to Antartica then robots, is because there, the most science per buck comes from humans (as yet). But as you said yourself, the most science per buck in space comes from robots. Only in non-routine research does a human do a far better job, but that particular research becomes more and more a niche the better robots get. (Humans being so versatile, we're still a long way untill there is no scientific advantage left, however).
Now, as said earlier, the relative level of science/buck does not change: if technology gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for robotic missions too. That's why in space exploration, where the science/buck advantage is for robotic missions it will always be more expensive to send a human then to send a robot or probe (unless, as said earlier, for specific research only a human can do; but note that robots and probes not only get cheaper, they get better too).
And that's why humans are in Antartica, because there the science/buck lies with the humans (untill the time robots get so cheap/good their science/buck gets to be better then humans, in which case you will see far more robots on antartica, no doubt).
You make some very good points. I'll try to respond in kind.
"What I should have said is this. First, if the taxpayers are prepared to set aside a fixed amount of money for spaceflight, then you have to take the economic point of view in order to make the most of what you have; the "we should do it anyway" attitude comes down to convincing the government to increase the budget, which is separate from the best way of using it."
Well, yes, but note that you already use a premise about what 'the best way of using it' is. I agree it's the duty of the government not to squander taxmoney away, and I agree they often do that. But, it really all depends on what the goal is you think NASA & co should do. I mean, for the weirdo that thinks government should squander away money, then they are doing a fine job;-). More realistically, you DO have people who feel any money given to space-exploration is squandering money that could be used more useful (you even have some that think everything the governement does is throwing money away, and want to abolish taxes). Then, you have people who are not against it per sé, but have reservations about how it's used, because they think it isn't used in an economical (or most science/per buck) enough way (like you). And you also have people who just think the main goal should be space-exploration, and especially human space-exploration (and eventual colonisation), and think that is worth the money.
Now, in all of these cases, 'the best way to use' the money will inevitably lead to other kinds of actions and decisions. For instance, if you want human space colonisation to happen in your lifetime, then you are less inclined to view money spend on human-based space-efforts as wasted, even if it results in lesser scientific yields then if the same money had been spend on robotic scientific missions.
Only to show that your premise of how money is best spend, really can not be answered without taking in acount the goal you want to achieve. Note, for instance, that the argument of waiting longer so things become more affordable, could also be used by people who think money on space is wasted anyway; so why not wait until it becomes more cheap before sending anything in space? To some degree, it seems you also agree to the importance of underlying goals.
"If the stated goal is to do science, and robots give you more science on a given budget than people, then you should send robots--possibly many robots. However, if you believe that someday it will be cheaper to send people (more on that below), you may invest some of the money on manned spaceflight--but not to have people do the same kind of science as the robots could do! Fly them to find a way to bring down manned spaceflight costs."
Agreed to some degree. There is some logic in spending money on research in how people can best (and , yes, even more cheaply - even if only because that means it will be sooner within the budget;-) survive and thrive in space and on planets. And I agree space-probes certainly have their uses (scientifically and otherwise) and shouldn't be completely abolished for human space-exploration; rather I see the one complementing the other, and thus money should be spend on both human and robotic missions. But it still is a matter of degree (and of your stated goal). I mean, let's face it, people that think it's worth the extra price to send humans in space this century (or during their lifetime), will not be swayed by the argument that if they wait longer, or you plan for something 3 centuries away, it will be much cheaper (few taxpayers will have that long-term views where they wish to spend money on). Once again, it's a matter of degree. I mean, most people would want to wait a year, if costs would come down with 50% because of the research done during that year, obviously. Or if it yielded a 50% more scientific output, or it meant humans would colonise space in a far more permanent or faster way. But the same people might not agree if
I probably was here before you, even though I lost my first login/pasword under 'newsbyte'.
I know it's often done around here, that's why I don't get upset anymore, only mildly annoyed. The fact that it often happens doesn't it make it less lame, however.
One consolation I have, is that often the more thoughtful posters DO focus on the content rather than the form, so I'm usually not missing much when I ignore an arrogant 'spelling nazi'.;-)
I noticed this too, and it's (mis)used rather frequently on forums. I never feel inclined to do the same, however, but that's just me (or, as I said, maybe a cultural difference): if you can't debate something with arguments, then one better leave it as it is. Let alone focussing on spelling-mistakes. That is so...lame.
Another poster argumented it should be seen as a helpful hand, an oportunity to improve, etc.... but heck, that's rather naive: I can't remember one case where I've seen a person meing corrected because out of genuine interest of the other person to improve the first ones' language.
I had once that experience with somebody that came over from the UK; he DID make an actual correction, and it was for improving my language, but also, and most importantly: he asked if I wanted to be corrected or not, or if it bothered me. even then I said it depended on the context; after all, I wanted to be correctd if I really used the wrong words or if it came to a point that it made it difficult to follow what I meant (my english is usually too good for that anymore, though), but I didn't want to be constantly interupted when I was trying to tell something neither.
I didn't mind it on itself though, since that person did ask in front, and did it out of good intentions. If he were the parent arrogant slashdot-poster however, no doubt he would have demanded perfect english, even if *he* came to *my* country.;-)
"You make some good points, but think of the grammar corrections as a further opportunity to improve your mastery of a foreign language. Too many people on/. get very defensive and start ranting about "grammar nazis" when someone corrects their mistakes. I don't get upset when someone corrects my Spanish or Italian (or my English either)."
I'm not getting upset,,I'm getting mildly annoyed.;-)
My title 'grammar nazism' was meant to be ironic, since, indeed, this is often used to describe it and the poster himself refered to himself as 'grammar ninja'. As said, normally I don't even react to/about spelling and grammar mistakes myself, as long as I understand what is meant.
About the 'think of it as'-remark, I would like to make two points:
1)First of all, it is the question whether in a given context, it is the right place for such 'lessons' of grammar and spelling, and if the person in question actually wants to be spelling&grammar corrected in that particular context (for instance, a post that wants to argumenta certain philosophy or viewpoint) - or does he wants to have a debate about the content instead?
2)Even if the first point would not hold any value, then still the matter about thinking of it as something that is meant to help a person is completely depended on the manner in which it is brought. If it is brought with respect for the person who is trying to speak/write a foreign language, and the other person corrects the mistakes because he wants to improve the language of the first, then it *might* be the case as you argument (still keeping point 1 in mind, though).
If it is, as with the parent poster did with me, being arrogant and ridiculing the efforts of that person (as with the "Wea kan aford it, sinse we didn't waste mony on colege." - remark), then one should *not* think of it as being meant as a helpful oportunity and correction of my mistakes. That would be naive and untrue. I rather take it as it is meant: an arrogant bastard making ridicule and trying to denigrade somebody that speaks english better then he probably can speak or write any other foreign language himself.
Focussing on spelling and grammar, while obviously the person in question wants to debate the content of what he said, is pretty weak. If it's done in a manner which isn't anything but denigrading, it's even far worse.
"Some opponents of human space exploration set science as the major interest, and go on to say that much more science can be done by robots, *costs being equal*."
And thus, it IS a matter of economics, because no one is seriously going to claim humans are less versatile and able to do in situ research then whatever robot we can create these days, if costs do not matter. Robots do not do a better job then humans; they only do a better job per buck that is being put in (exept for human-biological spaceresearch, of course). With this I agree, as I said.
The argument about 'let's do it when it becomes affordable' is, indeed, also very much heard, but I think this is a bit of false argument. I mean by that, that it can be used all of the time, for everything. For instance, let's imagine in a hundred years technology has become so cheap one can send humans to Mars for a tenth of the price of today. Well, then, if technology has become so cheap, it has become equally cheap for robotic missions, so it STILL will be 1000 times cheaper to send probes and robots then humans. and this will *always* be true: it will always be far more expensive to send humans then robots, nomatter how cheap things get. So, one no distinction for a treshold with this argument since the relative price-difference will always exist, and thus, it becomes rather arbitrary to decide what costs are worth it. I think it's worth the costs now, you may think it's not, but purely base on this 'argument' one can never reach a logical consensus, since the argument merely boils down to an opinion.
Thus, I leave that economic argument for what it is, and, as said earlier, I argue from other reasons beside the purely economical.
"After all, Columbus would not have been granted all the funding necessary for a huge research effort into creating shipbuilding technology; he was given a couple of standard-technology ships. "
Yes, but if they had made that huge research effort&funding, instead of 'waiting' for standard, more affordable ships (in analogy with what you claim), they could have discovered America 100 years sooner!;-)
"Now, add to the mix that the massive investment of NASA credits into making expensive launchers is an economic deterrent for the development of cheaper launchers, and you can well conclude that supporting space exploration implies opposing existing space agencies...;-)"
Well, let's be honest; if it had been up to NASA, the spaceshuttle would never have been made in the first place. That expensive piece of 'launchvehicle' was the result of political compromise. And I'm not counter-arguing that politicians often squander huge amounts of money.;-) But, at the end, I think it's necessary to go ahead with human exploration, and that is so expensive that, aside from space-tourism, the real 'exploration' can only be done by space-agencies. I mean, no company is ever going to waste money for mere exploration; they only will do anything, if they can see a profit (which is what companies do). Thus, *they* only see the economic incentive; something we both seem to agree should not be the case. It's not logical to leave everything up to them, then.
And, as said, if you argument that not only companies (or the economic viewpoint) should matter, then we're back at the starting point: it will always be cheaper to send probes than to send humans, and thus, always that much more science can be done by robots, costs being equal.
That, or I'm not native english, and the spellcheckers I have are in my own language.;-)
It's sometimes funny how people automatically assume everyone should speak/write perfect english, while they would fare far worse, if the international language was something else then their native tongue. And sometimes, it is annoying for non-english speaking people on Slashdot (and anywhere else) to always get those remarks, especially knowing full well *they* often can speak/write hardly any other language at all. That mentality is rather difficult to understand too; I am always thrilled if a foreigner does the trouble of speaking/writing my language; I never chastised one for doing that effort, even when he makes mistakes, since that would rather be presumptious and arrogant of me.
Well, guess it's a 'cultural difference'-thing. I never bothered making a fuss about the spelling or grammatical errors of somebody who didn't speak my language; as long as I understand what he means, I'd rather have a discussion about the content, not the form.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary 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.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, 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 recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise 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 colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit 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 luxery, etc.
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, 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 colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
A trap? I thought we were discussing the pro and cons? I argued that individual countries are viewed as voting entities, just as individual citizens are within a country.
I also said argumenting that it should be according to the population of a country has its logical merrits, but that that was a whole other discussion.
"If the Internet is controlled by population China will control the Internet. That's exaclty what we want (sarcasm)!"
Actually, seen the fact there are 7 billion people on earth, they would have 1/7 of the total voting power. It wouldn't be exactly total control, but as I already said: "China would still remain a problem then, however". That's why I found it a bit less logical if one is arguing "All people are entitled to a vote" and that China should be left out because it is undemocratic; voting by population-weight wouldn't solve that.
"The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or *****Slashdot***** from terminals in libraries and schools.
+
"'Social networking sites, [...]'have become *****a haven for online sexual predators***** who have made these corners of the Web their own *****virtual hunting ground******.'""
Now you hear it from someone else (and another example of USA politically finest too!) what this place is all about!
I always felt preyed upon by the preda..I mean, moderators, like they are called around here! And while it's difficult to say for sure, at least many slashdotters *act* as if they are little children having a tantrum!
Now the truth is revealed, just as the WMD were in Iraq! This 'slashdot'-place is the vile pit and hunting ground for sexual predators!
"Our universe is stranger than we can possibly imagine."
oh, I dunno about that...
I can conjure up some real weird stuff, especially if I'm using [CENSORED].
I mean, if I imagine the universe is full of pink elephants with blue spots, drowning in a see of talking mushrooms, is the real universe really stranger than that?;-)
Ok, when we have, like, numerous observations of black holes (which, granted, have only been 'seen' indirectly, but which follow the predictions quite good and at least in one instance, have observed it directly enough to rule out anything else then a black hole) and just one observation of a MECO - especially when scientist themselves say it's not totally convincing - then logic dictates that it's more likely the black-hole theory is correct.
Until further obervations is being done and it is being confirmed it's truelly a MECO (or other MECOs are observed), then we really can't get say anything beyond wild speculation (which is what slashdot is very good at;-).
Most probably, it will turn out to be not a true MECO, but rather an odd variant of a black hole.
If it DOES turn out to be a MECO, then, as theory predicts, there can't be any black holes - so then all our past obsrvations must have been wrong or misinterpreted. And if it turns out we have MECO's AND blak holes...well, then something very, very, very wrong must be going on with our current understanding of the universe and all the theories thusfar.
Which, actually, would be a fantastic thing to science, contrary to what some might believe.
Let's just agree to disagree, because I have the feeling your rationale and reasonings are increasingly being supported with factual inaccuracies, or at least warped and very one-sided viewpoints. When using crap as supportive argumentation to reach a conclusion/reasoning, then that conclusion more often then not will be crap too. Some are even nonsensical and totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, like: "And Russia vetos Iran resolutions, and China vetos North Korea resolutions, and the dictators won't interfere in Rwanda and nothing gets done."
So? That simply demonstrates what I have been saying; it's the veto rights that are one of the biggest obstacles to actually get something agreed upon and done. The USA and european countries (the so called 'democratic ones' you argue) use their veto to block eachother or others, and - indeed -, as you say, does Russia and China. I fail to see any argument here supporting your viewpoint; if everybody uses their veto-right to block something they don't like, then clearly that's the problem.
"The UN supported the creation of Israel, demanded Lebanon takeover it's own security, and did nothing to make it happen."
And 'democratic' countries (especially those with veto-powers) were quibling about what *exactly* needed to be done and how and when as any other country. Once again, this does not support your claim that things would have gone smoother if one leaves china and other 'unsuitable' countries out.
"Again, the UN supported the terms of the Iraq cease fire, threatend force if Iraq didn't comply, then did nothing to make it happen."
And once again the reason that 'nothing was done' is because (also) *democratic* countries didn't agree whether or not the terms were broken (nobody found WMD after all, did they?), and if so, what kind of reaction should be taken (only one or two countries was for an invasion, the rest - including the democratic countries you speak of - were against it, and would have used their veto (France, notably), as the USA was well aware of, etc.
So, yet again, there is no substantiation for your claim things would have gone more smoothly with a UN of only democratic countries. All the above examples do, however, hint at the fact it's often a problem because of the use of the veto-power some countries have.
"People are entitled to a vote. That's my point. All people are entitled to a vote."
Hey, if you want to propose a change in voting weight by the population-count of a country, then that's a whoile other ballgame, and I could see some logic in it. But that wasn't your claim in the beginning, as far as I understood it.
The current reasoning is this: in a country, the entities that have to vote are individuals, because it's those individuals that constitute the 'members' of that country. In a world-organisation like the UN, the entities that have a vote are the countries, because it's those countries that constitute the 'members' of that organisation. The 'superior morality' of individuals do not matter when they vote, and thus, following the analogy, it shouldn't matter for countries when they vote.
You may agree or disagree with this stance, but it *does* have a certain logic.
But, as said, giving countries a vote-weight according to their populace may be a worthwile thing to ponder about as well. (China would still remain a problem then, however;-)
"There is no standard to join the UN, that's the problem. That's why it's ineffective."
Being a sovereign country is the only standard (exept for some minor bureacratic things that need to be done also). It's ineffectiveness is due to the fact that many abuse their power, and undermine consensus, and it is NOT only the undemocratic ones that are doing this, as the repeated arbitrarily used veto-right by a certain country demonstrates when it comes to condemning Israel. So, we disagree about the major reason of it's ineffectiveness. But I think I and one of the above posters are right, when saying things like the veto-right are more important things obstructing a more effective UN.
If you were right, then, according to your theory, the matter of Isreal and Libanon would long since been dealt with, if the UN only would consist of 'democratic' or 'free' countries. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, since it is exactly those democratic countries that have oposite viewpoints and use their veto-right (at least one did) every time the vast majority of the rest of the democratic countries wants to condemn Israel or take action against it.
So, one could clearly see that it would yield no different result, even according to your own theory. The same goes for when the USA attacked Irak: if they had pushed it through the UN, it was at least France who would put his veto against an invasion. And if other democratic countries would have asked for an action against the USA for it's illegal war, then the USA would have vetoed that. Once again, there is nowhere a more 'competent' UN decision to be seen.
You're dreaming if you think that only choosing a part of the world would make things more smoothly: the last great rows and disagreements (and subsequent veto's) were exactly between democratic countries.
"The majority is ruled by non-democratic countries that will not support any sort of progress that threatens them."
That would involve a subjective measurement of 'progress'. The USA, democratic as it might be (the level of which I will not discuss) often doesn't support 'progress' that may threaten them neither, albeit they might not agree with the definition of progress. Mainly, the USA (but not solely, mind you), has the tendency to see progress for America as progress for the world...alas, the rest of the world doesn't always agree.;-)
Even 'progress' on the level of freedom and democratic values have been actively undermined *by* the USA in other countries, if it was deemed dictators would be more to the benefit of the USA then democratically elected (usually socialist) foreign leaders.
"The UN right now encompases China and it can't come to consensus or agreement."
What I said above: the last years it has been impossible to come to a consensus between democratic countries neither. China is not the real problem; the real problem is the right to veto, and the willingness of countries to screw anything exept their own self-interest. If France and Russia had a little bit more interest in Iran, for instance, it would have vetoed it too (as it has done for a long time, btw). The USA would do the same, if its personal interest are high enough (as is the case with Isreal), *regardless* of the obvious infractions.
"I'm not interested in an organization that represents the world."
Well, there you go; you should have said that from the start. If you don't want an organisation that represents the world, you shouldn't be surprised if that makes peacefull consensus about world-affairs more difficult. (But then again, maybe you're not interested in worldpeace neither, so the point may be mute).
"Your arbitrary 3/4 majority will mean absolutly nothing will ever get done, good or bad."
If you start with good 'constitutional' internetrules in the first place (and the USA could demand that, before giving it to the UN), then that would be rather an advantage. It would mean those good rules wouldn't get changed, and that additional good rules would have to have a broad consensus, and thus be universally seen as good.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about the same thing I said to the FFII: our struggle is too passive; we're just waiting and fending off attempts to get softwarepatents validated.
What we *should* be doing is being more pro-active, and try to get a law passed (or at least proposed) which would unify the patent law (which, on itself, is a good thing), but which explicitly forbids patents on software.
We can never win on the long run, if we only defend, and the megacorps keep attacking: WE have to be pushing forwards with our goal as well, so THEY are in the defense!
"There is one part of patents that I miss in your explanation of them. And that is part of the history behind them."
;-)
;-) In any case, swpats *ARE* much more researched, and on top of that, it is very incremental in nature, and differs considerably from physical objects (near zero-cost in multiplying comes to mind), and vry broad claims can be made which are virtually impossible to verify (and the 'publishing' of the 'secret' often is completely useless too, in most cases (souce code is not necessary, after all, for getting the patent; a 'description' suffices).
Well...I thought it was long enough as it is, seen it was originally meant for a MEP to read
In fact some complain it's too long as it is (that's why I made a seperate page of the 'concusion' when I send it).
But anyway, regarding the history: I remember reading a research-paper where it was investigated if the 'innovation' was less in countries that had copy-right, compared to those that didn't (around the 19th century, I believe). It turned out that, contrary to popular wisdom, this wasn't the case, though the countries did differ in the *kind* of area's where they were most innovative in. If this holds true, then even the basic premise whether or not patents (as a whole) are useful in promoting innovation could be false, or at least, not nuanced enough. I believe there was another research during the 1980ies in australia, where the conclusion there too was that there were no indications that patents improved innovation (this was not about software-patents, mind you). Now, this kind of research on the patent-system as a whole is rather rare; it's like no researchers even doubt the premise it's good for promoting innovation.
I sense you are making a different variant, by saying that it keeps things non-secret. But honestly, I don't care about WHET kind of research is kept secret or not, as long as society as a whole gets better, and thus, if innovation and progres is, on the long run, augmenting or not, because of the use of a system. There are indications that the patent system as a whole does not acomplish this, but more research should be done (leaving the question: why isn't it done).
It could be, that the beneficial versus the counterproductive (in terms of innovation) aspects of patents depend strongly on the matter it deals with (R.Stallman has made a video-explanation of that), and of course, how long the period of patents lasts, and how extensive the 'publication' is. Regarding the area or matter it deals with, some products, like physical machineries or new medical drugs may indeed be stimulated by the fact they get a protection (though even there, it is the question how long that protection should last; what is the 'optimum' to get incentive for the corps to go for it (R&D), and the benefit to society. It could well be, that 2 years would be enough as an incentive in some earea's, where 20 is overkill and society is worse off. Seen most profit is made in the first two years by many products, one can not shed the feeling the current patent-system is (for most products) not a good deal for society.
Now, again it must be said: not all that much research has been done about this, exept about one specific area, namely software-patents. This is probably due to the fact it is fairly recent (in europe they are still not allowed), and because, well, IT-nerds can make quite a fuss about it.
The fact it got reasonably well researched showed very clearly that, at least for swapts, it *DID NOT* promote innovation and progress in its field, using the current patent-system - on the contrary, there are indications it inhibits it.
That alone is sufficient for me to keep software out of the patent-system. And more-over; I would argue there is a need to research the proclaimed benefits of the patent system as a whole (or at least, in different fields/area's), and if it would be shown that it is not beneficial, or that it would be more so in some fields, if the time-period
Since this is indeed a formal letter, I agree.
Thank you for pointing this out (I'm not native english). If you see other grammar/spelling mistakes, feel free to point them out.
But, ermm..you're really sure, right? I mean, it was not the verb 'answer' on itself that I wanted, rather something like 'to be hold accountable' for what they do. Is there another verb that may convey this better?
For the slashdotters of the 'my attention-span is too short to read it completely'-category; just read the conclusion, then ;-).
Or don't read it at all.
If people want to use parts (or the whole thing verbatim) for their own fight against software patents; feel free to do so; it's under the CC licence.
Though...now maybe sending it to MEPs doesn't work anymore. :-/
So..to who should I send it now; the european court?
Anyway, here you go:
The software patents manifesto
Manifesto on the directive of "computer implemented inventions"
Dear MEP,
As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on "computer implemented inventions", which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).
The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.
This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to which they do not have to answer to). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]
I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs - though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.
The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.
3)It is needed for the harmonisation of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the "we do not change the current practise" or the "it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability" -argument).
I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the FUD currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.
1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following
Now, on the list that supposedly changed the world, there are site that everyone knows, and there are sites that I even never heard of it (and I'm more IT/web minded then most of my friends).
;-) to slashdot; *I* am pretty fond of it and know what it is, but most people will never have heard of it. Or only from hearsay or in the 'visited once or twice' category, like for me with salon.com and easyjet and the like. I mean sure, I've heard of it, maybe even visited it once in my life, but 'changed the earth' - that's hyperbole. And then there are the sites I truelly didn't even hear about, before this: now, I must say - ego or not - that I truelly doubt a site has actually 'changed the world' that I NEVER even heard about. Now, one might claim it's not the importance/popularity that counts, but the 'impact' it has had on the world. To this I say: the greater the impact, the more it should be noticable. The amount of 'new' things, or 'change' it brought, is fully arbitrarily; according to those lines of thought, google should not even be mentionned, because it was nothing more then a searchengine, which existed long before. A new algorithm and less advertisements are hardly groundbreaking 'changes' of the world. Thus, even to the list, it's about the impact according to importance/popularity it has gained. Google, ebay and wikipedia, and probably amazon certainly merrits a place, then, and sites like youtube are rapidly gaining that status.
And then ebay and google get weird places, so I guess the list was not made up according to popularity.
Like, with all due respect (nah, not really
But it's pretty ridiculous to lump together sites like google and ebay (known by most of the entire worldpopulace) with sites hardly anyone knows (on a world-scale, that is). And even google & co can not really claim they changed the world: they changed some aspects of how people do things in the world; but most of these things were not 'new' on itself. (though, granted, they made it much easier to do). If they would say 'they changed the internet', then I would totally agree - but changing the world? Well, maybe in some way, depending on how broad you define that.
In a sense, we ALL change the world every second of our lives. We only don't know how, and it's hardly ever noticed, even by ourselves.
"Well, it's refreshing to have a debate with real arguments, for a change, thanks... Even though I suspect we already agree on quite a few points. :-)"
I think so too.
"I assumed that "the best way" was to make the most of a given budget, to do as much of "the stated goal" as possible."
Yes, I can agree to that...but it still remains a bit of a self-fulfilling definition. Even 'the most of a given budget' doesn't really explain anything more, since 'most' can be interpreted in different ways. For instance, say the stated goal IS human exploration. If one sends a human into space for 20.000.000 euro to do some exploration, is that more or less doing as much of the stated goal then waiting untill technology gets cheap enough to send a human for 1/10 that price? I mean, I understand what you're trying to say, but at the end, that definition is dependend on how you interpret that goal. Sure, when doing research and waiting (or developing) on cheaper technology, one might see that as doing as much for the stated goal as possible...exept during that time, you're not really explorinbg anything. And the reverse is also treu: one might claim sending humans to explore and colonize space now is wasting money, and not making the most out of it...exept one IS exploring. there is no defining moment of 'making the most out of it' in economical terms, since you're always going to make more out of it if you wait longer for the price to come down.
But I already said that, and I think we both agree that 'sustainable' is the keyword here (it's my goal, even if it's not Nasa's, at least). Research to develop (self-)sustainable systems to be used on spaceships (like near-zero-waste systems which recycle as much as possible) and engines/converters that use the materials on moons and planets to support human life, is paramount to any goal of long-term sustainable exploration and colonisation. We both agree, I think, that Nasa should divert a big part of their budget to creating such systems. I also agree we shouldn't rush to Mars WITHOUT such technology, because that would amount to a one-time stunt (like with the moonlanding), and not be a step towards true colonisation.
"That's where you state that "if technology gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for robotic missions too", but it is not necessarily true."
This is about the only thing I really disagree with. I can not see how this would not be true, exept in the very unlikely event that space-travel suddenly became SO much cheaper, that all the added life-support, food and water stock, added room and facilities (and thus weight) would be outweighted by the added value of the better in situ research that people still can do above (current days') robots and probes. I'm not sure if that was your point, however.
I mean, what exactly would be the technology that got cheaper for human missions, that wouldn't make it also cheaper for robots to be send? Launcher technology won't do that; if that gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for both, and it still would be more expensive to send humans to the same destination then if you send a probe. Robot technology would not do that neither, for the obvious reason. what then? Human life-support systems? Well, no doubt they will come down in price too, evntually, but a mission will never become more cheap with life-support then without. I mean, the way I see it, a spaceship is ALREADY a probe, only with the huge added cost of maintaining a life-support system for human life.
The two only logical reasons to send humans anyway is for versatile, specific in situ research, where robots suck at (as yet, that is), and humans are still much better at, and for the reason of colonisation, and the added benefits this brings to the survival of the race (sounds a bit heavy, but at the end, it boils down to that). In neither case, it will be cheaper to send humans, though in the first case, it may be worth more science/buck in some circumstances (though as robotics improve, this will become less and less), and
Forgot to answer your 'antartica' analogy. ;-)
"I'm not sure about that. Is it now cheaper to send a person or a robot to do some work in Antarctica? After all, an autonomous robot has to be very sophisticated; it may well become cheaper to send a man, including his life support equipment, than to build and test a robot on the complexity level e.g. of the current Mars rovers."
I doubt this is true, and your analogy seems a bit far fetched. The extra costs of getting (and maintaining) a human in space is largely lacking on a base of Antartica. You have an breathable atmosphere, you have necessary resources (like water) in aboundance, you have normal gravity, you have the atmospheric shielding of our atmosphere, you don't have a need for a closed ecological system, food and supplies can be furnished regulary and relatively easily, etc. In short, all the things that make human space colonisation so expensive are not present on Antarica.
And, as I said, a human is more versatile and useful for non-routine exploration then any robot these days, so, seen the lack of cost-adding for a base on Antartica (at least, compared to a space explortion), of course it's more attractive to have humans on Antartica then robots.
But even THAT depend on the costs, really. For routine research, even now people are using robots (and not only on Antartica). That's simply because robots are cheaper and more efficient in routine-tasks. But, lets say, in 500 years they develop an android capable of doing virtually all things a human could do, and pretty much as good as a human. Will it be more affordable to send the android, even to Antarica?
For the first ones; hell no. Price reduction is only for a small part dependend on getting/using cheaper materials, after all; it's foremost a matter of production costs. If those androids are massed produced, then costs will go down, and eventually it becomes more economical interesting to send those androids, even to antartica, then humans.
When that time comes, there is no way that humans can compete in this particular area. The only reason left will be the pure colonisation aspect and the reasons for it that I mentionned in my first post.
Thus, the reason why it's more economical to send humans to Antartica then robots, is because there, the most science per buck comes from humans (as yet). But as you said yourself, the most science per buck in space comes from robots. Only in non-routine research does a human do a far better job, but that particular research becomes more and more a niche the better robots get. (Humans being so versatile, we're still a long way untill there is no scientific advantage left, however).
Now, as said earlier, the relative level of science/buck does not change: if technology gets cheaper, it gets cheaper for robotic missions too. That's why in space exploration, where the science/buck advantage is for robotic missions it will always be more expensive to send a human then to send a robot or probe (unless, as said earlier, for specific research only a human can do; but note that robots and probes not only get cheaper, they get better too).
And that's why humans are in Antartica, because there the science/buck lies with the humans (untill the time robots get so cheap/good their science/buck gets to be better then humans, in which case you will see far more robots on antartica, no doubt).
You make some very good points. I'll try to respond in kind.
;-). More realistically, you DO have people who feel any money given to space-exploration is squandering money that could be used more useful (you even have some that think everything the governement does is throwing money away, and want to abolish taxes). Then, you have people who are not against it per sé, but have reservations about how it's used, because they think it isn't used in an economical (or most science/per buck) enough way (like you). And you also have people who just think the main goal should be space-exploration, and especially human space-exploration (and eventual colonisation), and think that is worth the money.
;-) survive and thrive in space and on planets. And I agree space-probes certainly have their uses (scientifically and otherwise) and shouldn't be completely abolished for human space-exploration; rather I see the one complementing the other, and thus money should be spend on both human and robotic missions. But it still is a matter of degree (and of your stated goal). I mean, let's face it, people that think it's worth the extra price to send humans in space this century (or during their lifetime), will not be swayed by the argument that if they wait longer, or you plan for something 3 centuries away, it will be much cheaper (few taxpayers will have that long-term views where they wish to spend money on). Once again, it's a matter of degree. I mean, most people would want to wait a year, if costs would come down with 50% because of the research done during that year, obviously. Or if it yielded a 50% more scientific output, or it meant humans would colonise space in a far more permanent or faster way. But the same people might not agree if
"What I should have said is this. First, if the taxpayers are prepared to set aside a fixed amount of money for spaceflight, then you have to take the economic point of view in order to make the most of what you have; the "we should do it anyway" attitude comes down to convincing the government to increase the budget, which is separate from the best way of using it."
Well, yes, but note that you already use a premise about what 'the best way of using it' is. I agree it's the duty of the government not to squander taxmoney away, and I agree they often do that. But, it really all depends on what the goal is you think NASA & co should do. I mean, for the weirdo that thinks government should squander away money, then they are doing a fine job
Now, in all of these cases, 'the best way to use' the money will inevitably lead to other kinds of actions and decisions. For instance, if you want human space colonisation to happen in your lifetime, then you are less inclined to view money spend on human-based space-efforts as wasted, even if it results in lesser scientific yields then if the same money had been spend on robotic scientific missions.
Only to show that your premise of how money is best spend, really can not be answered without taking in acount the goal you want to achieve. Note, for instance, that the argument of waiting longer so things become more affordable, could also be used by people who think money on space is wasted anyway; so why not wait until it becomes more cheap before sending anything in space? To some degree, it seems you also agree to the importance of underlying goals.
"If the stated goal is to do science, and robots give you more science on a given budget than people, then you should send robots--possibly many robots. However, if you believe that someday it will be cheaper to send people (more on that below), you may invest some of the money on manned spaceflight--but not to have people do the same kind of science as the robots could do! Fly them to find a way to bring down manned spaceflight costs."
Agreed to some degree. There is some logic in spending money on research in how people can best (and , yes, even more cheaply - even if only because that means it will be sooner within the budget
"Atheists & Agnostic -a small percentage of the tribal human species."
;-)
You've clearly not been to Europe the last 50 years
(Well, ok, not counting the new EU members)
"Only the strong survive."
Actually, it's the ones that adapt best to their environement. But I mostly agree with the general tenure of your posts.
hehe, nope. :-)
;-)
I probably was here before you, even though I lost my first login/pasword under 'newsbyte'.
I know it's often done around here, that's why I don't get upset anymore, only mildly annoyed. The fact that it often happens doesn't it make it less lame, however.
One consolation I have, is that often the more thoughtful posters DO focus on the content rather than the form, so I'm usually not missing much when I ignore an arrogant 'spelling nazi'.
Indeed.
;-)
I noticed this too, and it's (mis)used rather frequently on forums. I never feel inclined to do the same, however, but that's just me (or, as I said, maybe a cultural difference): if you can't debate something with arguments, then one better leave it as it is. Let alone focussing on spelling-mistakes. That is so...lame.
Another poster argumented it should be seen as a helpful hand, an oportunity to improve, etc.... but heck, that's rather naive: I can't remember one case where I've seen a person meing corrected because out of genuine interest of the other person to improve the first ones' language.
I had once that experience with somebody that came over from the UK; he DID make an actual correction, and it was for improving my language, but also, and most importantly: he asked if I wanted to be corrected or not, or if it bothered me. even then I said it depended on the context; after all, I wanted to be correctd if I really used the wrong words or if it came to a point that it made it difficult to follow what I meant (my english is usually too good for that anymore, though), but I didn't want to be constantly interupted when I was trying to tell something neither.
I didn't mind it on itself though, since that person did ask in front, and did it out of good intentions. If he were the parent arrogant slashdot-poster however, no doubt he would have demanded perfect english, even if *he* came to *my* country.
"Keep your religion (humans seem to need it)"
;-)
:-)
That's the only part I don't agree with in your post.
Atheists and agnostici don't seem to need it, and they are humans too!
"You make some good points, but think of the grammar corrections as a further opportunity to improve your mastery of a foreign language. Too many people on /. get very defensive and start ranting about "grammar nazis" when someone corrects their mistakes. I don't get upset when someone corrects my Spanish or Italian (or my English either)."
,I'm getting mildly annoyed. ;-)
I'm not getting upset,
My title 'grammar nazism' was meant to be ironic, since, indeed, this is often used to describe it and the poster himself refered to himself as 'grammar ninja'. As said, normally I don't even react to/about spelling and grammar mistakes myself, as long as I understand what is meant.
About the 'think of it as'-remark, I would like to make two points:
1)First of all, it is the question whether in a given context, it is the right place for such 'lessons' of grammar and spelling, and if the person in question actually wants to be spelling&grammar corrected in that particular context (for instance, a post that wants to argumenta certain philosophy or viewpoint) - or does he wants to have a debate about the content instead?
2)Even if the first point would not hold any value, then still the matter about thinking of it as something that is meant to help a person is completely depended on the manner in which it is brought. If it is brought with respect for the person who is trying to speak/write a foreign language, and the other person corrects the mistakes because he wants to improve the language of the first, then it *might* be the case as you argument (still keeping point 1 in mind, though).
If it is, as with the parent poster did with me, being arrogant and ridiculing the efforts of that person (as with the "Wea kan aford it, sinse we didn't waste mony on colege." - remark), then one should *not* think of it as being meant as a helpful oportunity and correction of my mistakes. That would be naive and untrue. I rather take it as it is meant: an arrogant bastard making ridicule and trying to denigrade somebody that speaks english better then he probably can speak or write any other foreign language himself.
Focussing on spelling and grammar, while obviously the person in question wants to debate the content of what he said, is pretty weak. If it's done in a manner which isn't anything but denigrading, it's even far worse.
"Some opponents of human space exploration set science as the major interest, and go on to say that much more science can be done by robots, *costs being equal*."
;-)
;-)"
;-) But, at the end, I think it's necessary to go ahead with human exploration, and that is so expensive that, aside from space-tourism, the real 'exploration' can only be done by space-agencies. I mean, no company is ever going to waste money for mere exploration; they only will do anything, if they can see a profit (which is what companies do). Thus, *they* only see the economic incentive; something we both seem to agree should not be the case. It's not logical to leave everything up to them, then.
And thus, it IS a matter of economics, because no one is seriously going to claim humans are less versatile and able to do in situ research then whatever robot we can create these days, if costs do not matter. Robots do not do a better job then humans; they only do a better job per buck that is being put in (exept for human-biological spaceresearch, of course). With this I agree, as I said.
The argument about 'let's do it when it becomes affordable' is, indeed, also very much heard, but I think this is a bit of false argument. I mean by that, that it can be used all of the time, for everything. For instance, let's imagine in a hundred years technology has become so cheap one can send humans to Mars for a tenth of the price of today. Well, then, if technology has become so cheap, it has become equally cheap for robotic missions, so it STILL will be 1000 times cheaper to send probes and robots then humans. and this will *always* be true: it will always be far more expensive to send humans then robots, nomatter how cheap things get. So, one no distinction for a treshold with this argument since the relative price-difference will always exist, and thus, it becomes rather arbitrary to decide what costs are worth it. I think it's worth the costs now, you may think it's not, but purely base on this 'argument' one can never reach a logical consensus, since the argument merely boils down to an opinion.
Thus, I leave that economic argument for what it is, and, as said earlier, I argue from other reasons beside the purely economical.
"After all, Columbus would not have been granted all the funding necessary for a huge research effort into creating shipbuilding technology; he was given a couple of standard-technology ships. "
Yes, but if they had made that huge research effort&funding, instead of 'waiting' for standard, more affordable ships (in analogy with what you claim), they could have discovered America 100 years sooner!
"Now, add to the mix that the massive investment of NASA credits into making expensive launchers is an economic deterrent for the development of cheaper launchers, and you can well conclude that supporting space exploration implies opposing existing space agencies...
Well, let's be honest; if it had been up to NASA, the spaceshuttle would never have been made in the first place. That expensive piece of 'launchvehicle' was the result of political compromise. And I'm not counter-arguing that politicians often squander huge amounts of money.
And, as said, if you argument that not only companies (or the economic viewpoint) should matter, then we're back at the starting point: it will always be cheaper to send probes than to send humans, and thus, always that much more science can be done by robots, costs being equal.
LOL
;-)
That, or I'm not native english, and the spellcheckers I have are in my own language.
It's sometimes funny how people automatically assume everyone should speak/write perfect english, while they would fare far worse, if the international language was something else then their native tongue. And sometimes, it is annoying for non-english speaking people on Slashdot (and anywhere else) to always get those remarks, especially knowing full well *they* often can speak/write hardly any other language at all. That mentality is rather difficult to understand too; I am always thrilled if a foreigner does the trouble of speaking/writing my language; I never chastised one for doing that effort, even when he makes mistakes, since that would rather be presumptious and arrogant of me.
Well, guess it's a 'cultural difference'-thing. I never bothered making a fuss about the spelling or grammatical errors of somebody who didn't speak my language; as long as I understand what he means, I'd rather have a discussion about the content, not the form.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary 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.
;-)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, 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 recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise 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 colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit 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 luxery, etc.
The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter.
Based on what we truelly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen.
But ofcourse, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.
What you say is what I already indicated: economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is less good with human spacetravel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that.
But, as I have said, 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 colonise planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.
"You fell right into that trap."
?
A trap? I thought we were discussing the pro and cons? I argued that individual countries are viewed as voting entities, just as individual citizens are within a country.
I also said argumenting that it should be according to the population of a country has its logical merrits, but that that was a whole other discussion.
"If the Internet is controlled by population China will control the Internet. That's exaclty what we want (sarcasm)!"
Actually, seen the fact there are 7 billion people on earth, they would have 1/7 of the total voting power. It wouldn't be exactly total control, but as I already said: "China would still remain a problem then, however". That's why I found it a bit less logical if one is arguing "All people are entitled to a vote" and that China should be left out because it is undemocratic; voting by population-weight wouldn't solve that.
"The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or *****Slashdot***** from terminals in libraries and schools.
+
"'Social networking sites, [...]'have become *****a haven for online sexual predators***** who have made these corners of the Web their own *****virtual hunting ground******.'""
Now you hear it from someone else (and another example of USA politically finest too!) what this place is all about!
I always felt preyed upon by the preda..I mean, moderators, like they are called around here! And while it's difficult to say for sure, at least many slashdotters *act* as if they are little children having a tantrum!
Now the truth is revealed, just as the WMD were in Iraq! This 'slashdot'-place is the vile pit and hunting ground for sexual predators!
The many references to goatse only confirms it!
"Our universe is stranger than we can possibly imagine."
;-)
oh, I dunno about that...
I can conjure up some real weird stuff, especially if I'm using [CENSORED].
I mean, if I imagine the universe is full of pink elephants with blue spots, drowning in a see of talking mushrooms, is the real universe really stranger than that?
Ok, when we have, like, numerous observations of black holes (which, granted, have only been 'seen' indirectly, but which follow the predictions quite good and at least in one instance, have observed it directly enough to rule out anything else then a black hole) and just one observation of a MECO - especially when scientist themselves say it's not totally convincing - then logic dictates that it's more likely the black-hole theory is correct.
;-).
Until further obervations is being done and it is being confirmed it's truelly a MECO (or other MECOs are observed), then we really can't get say anything beyond wild speculation (which is what slashdot is very good at
Most probably, it will turn out to be not a true MECO, but rather an odd variant of a black hole.
If it DOES turn out to be a MECO, then, as theory predicts, there can't be any black holes - so then all our past obsrvations must have been wrong or misinterpreted. And if it turns out we have MECO's AND blak holes...well, then something very, very, very wrong must be going on with our current understanding of the universe and all the theories thusfar.
Which, actually, would be a fantastic thing to science, contrary to what some might believe.
Ironic as it may be, it further supports his claim, especially if he himself is an 'average american'. ;-)
Let's just agree to disagree, because I have the feeling your rationale and reasonings are increasingly being supported with factual inaccuracies, or at least warped and very one-sided viewpoints. When using crap as supportive argumentation to reach a conclusion/reasoning, then that conclusion more often then not will be crap too. Some are even nonsensical and totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, like: "And Russia vetos Iran resolutions, and China vetos North Korea resolutions, and the dictators won't interfere in Rwanda and nothing gets done."
So? That simply demonstrates what I have been saying; it's the veto rights that are one of the biggest obstacles to actually get something agreed upon and done. The USA and european countries (the so called 'democratic ones' you argue) use their veto to block eachother or others, and - indeed -, as you say, does Russia and China. I fail to see any argument here supporting your viewpoint; if everybody uses their veto-right to block something they don't like, then clearly that's the problem.
"The UN supported the creation of Israel, demanded Lebanon takeover it's own security, and did nothing to make it happen."
And 'democratic' countries (especially those with veto-powers) were quibling about what *exactly* needed to be done and how and when as any other country. Once again, this does not support your claim that things would have gone smoother if one leaves china and other 'unsuitable' countries out.
"Again, the UN supported the terms of the Iraq cease fire, threatend force if Iraq didn't comply, then did nothing to make it happen."
And once again the reason that 'nothing was done' is because (also) *democratic* countries didn't agree whether or not the terms were broken (nobody found WMD after all, did they?), and if so, what kind of reaction should be taken (only one or two countries was for an invasion, the rest - including the democratic countries you speak of - were against it, and would have used their veto (France, notably), as the USA was well aware of, etc.
So, yet again, there is no substantiation for your claim things would have gone more smoothly with a UN of only democratic countries. All the above examples do, however, hint at the fact it's often a problem because of the use of the veto-power some countries have.
I rest my case.
"People are entitled to a vote. That's my point. All people are entitled to a vote."
;-)
Hey, if you want to propose a change in voting weight by the population-count of a country, then that's a whoile other ballgame, and I could see some logic in it. But that wasn't your claim in the beginning, as far as I understood it.
The current reasoning is this: in a country, the entities that have to vote are individuals, because it's those individuals that constitute the 'members' of that country. In a world-organisation like the UN, the entities that have a vote are the countries, because it's those countries that constitute the 'members' of that organisation. The 'superior morality' of individuals do not matter when they vote, and thus, following the analogy, it shouldn't matter for countries when they vote.
You may agree or disagree with this stance, but it *does* have a certain logic.
But, as said, giving countries a vote-weight according to their populace may be a worthwile thing to ponder about as well. (China would still remain a problem then, however
"There is no standard to join the UN, that's the problem. That's why it's ineffective."
;-)
Being a sovereign country is the only standard (exept for some minor bureacratic things that need to be done also). It's ineffectiveness is due to the fact that many abuse their power, and undermine consensus, and it is NOT only the undemocratic ones that are doing this, as the repeated arbitrarily used veto-right by a certain country demonstrates when it comes to condemning Israel. So, we disagree about the major reason of it's ineffectiveness. But I think I and one of the above posters are right, when saying things like the veto-right are more important things obstructing a more effective UN.
If you were right, then, according to your theory, the matter of Isreal and Libanon would long since been dealt with, if the UN only would consist of 'democratic' or 'free' countries. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, since it is exactly those democratic countries that have oposite viewpoints and use their veto-right (at least one did) every time the vast majority of the rest of the democratic countries wants to condemn Israel or take action against it.
So, one could clearly see that it would yield no different result, even according to your own theory. The same goes for when the USA attacked Irak: if they had pushed it through the UN, it was at least France who would put his veto against an invasion. And if other democratic countries would have asked for an action against the USA for it's illegal war, then the USA would have vetoed that. Once again, there is nowhere a more 'competent' UN decision to be seen.
You're dreaming if you think that only choosing a part of the world would make things more smoothly: the last great rows and disagreements (and subsequent veto's) were exactly between democratic countries.
"The majority is ruled by non-democratic countries that will not support any sort of progress that threatens them."
That would involve a subjective measurement of 'progress'. The USA, democratic as it might be (the level of which I will not discuss) often doesn't support 'progress' that may threaten them neither, albeit they might not agree with the definition of progress. Mainly, the USA (but not solely, mind you), has the tendency to see progress for America as progress for the world...alas, the rest of the world doesn't always agree.
Even 'progress' on the level of freedom and democratic values have been actively undermined *by* the USA in other countries, if it was deemed dictators would be more to the benefit of the USA then democratically elected (usually socialist) foreign leaders.
"The UN right now encompases China and it can't come to consensus or agreement."
What I said above: the last years it has been impossible to come to a consensus between democratic countries neither. China is not the real problem; the real problem is the right to veto, and the willingness of countries to screw anything exept their own self-interest. If France and Russia had a little bit more interest in Iran, for instance, it would have vetoed it too (as it has done for a long time, btw). The USA would do the same, if its personal interest are high enough (as is the case with Isreal), *regardless* of the obvious infractions.
"I'm not interested in an organization that represents the world."
Well, there you go; you should have said that from the start. If you don't want an organisation that represents the world, you shouldn't be surprised if that makes peacefull consensus about world-affairs more difficult. (But then again, maybe you're not interested in worldpeace neither, so the point may be mute).
"Your arbitrary 3/4 majority will mean absolutly nothing will ever get done, good or bad."
If you start with good 'constitutional' internetrules in the first place (and the USA could demand that, before giving it to the UN), then that would be rather an advantage. It would mean those good rules wouldn't get changed, and that additional good rules would have to have a broad consensus, and thus be universally seen as good.