There is a project to try and find a vaccine for AIDS (http://www.fightaidsathome.org) that works by running a specialized version of Autodock on your computer to simulate various molecules interacting with other molecules or what have you (I'm not a genetic engineer, the page is helpful).
I go for this one because it seems the most useful and important one out there. At the moment, it's Windows-only, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a Windows computer somewhere that the app can reside on.:)
Besides the usual tiresome debates on the legalities of fan fiction, ie, does the author truly own the characters and all the rights to use them primarily, there are some moral issues you would want to take into account here.
Anne Rice, for example. I find her works to be incredibly moving, the characters wonderfully broad, and so on. She recently posted a comment about fan fiction to her site (www.annerice.com):
"I do not allow fan fiction.
The characters are copyrighted. It upsets me terribly to even think about fan fiction with my characters. I advise my readers to write your own original stories with your own characters.
It is absolutely essential that you respect my wishes."
To Anne, her characters are a part of herself. For someone that's not her to write situations and events involving those characters that for all we know may completely destroy the chracterization set up for them is almost like abuse.
Are they going to come after you with a team of lawyers if you write something using the characters? Maybe, maybe not. I'd hope so.
Would you disappoint, dismay, and disturb the author you're supposedly paying homage to with your ripoff? Almost certainly.
It's really not that difficult to make up your own characters within the genre, if you really want to write fan fiction. It allows for far more breadth and development...you can choose where the path leads, not someone else.
Sometimes the debate is more than just laws. Sometimes you have to consider the people who poured their souls into their characters...and how the person might be affected.
Isn't this just a little bit childish? You're basically saying that because they don't conform to how you view the software world should be, and they want to secure their intellectual rights, the technology isn't worth using? "They won't play my way, so I won't play with them at all"? Surely you can come up with a more productive method of protest than sulking, as that's all this would be, sulking.
And...I really hate to say it, but I doubt the DVD consortium would care about the buying habits of a reasonably small segment of the DVD-buying population. I mean, there's a lot more people out there than just the collection of open-source advocates who don't have home-theater systems. They're not going to care if you stop buying. I doubt they'd notice. All it would accomplish would be to keep your segment of "protestors" out of the next wave of technology, something that I'm reasonably sure you don't care to be identified with.
If you want to take action, fine. Protest, do whatever it is that you need to do. But a boycott of DVD technology is idiocy and counter-productive, I'm sorry.
(And to the moderators: I'm not trying to gather flames, nor am I looking for a load of responses. These are my opinions, and although completely negative, do not necessarily merit downward moderation just for my ideas.)
Sorry to say it, but this is going to be one of the main reasons that open source is most probably never going to take off as a major commercial model.
Simply put. If I dedicate my time, my effort, my life to making anything, a game, a SETI@home client, a utility, I'm not going to want people to pervert my hard work. That's what it comes down to, really. Why should I, as a potential product designer, want to release my code if the potential exists for misuse? Suppose that they opened up the source to SETI@home. Then you'd most probably be able to figure out the protocol, and how it sends 'alert' messages. And I guarantee you, someone will start sending fake data to SETI, and it'll totally defeat the purpose of the collaboration.
Now. If your argument is that in all of the community, there will be no bad apples who will misuse the source, that's naive, I'm sorry. No group can be completely without its bad element, and I would wager that most developers don't want to open themselves up to that element, however small. There's security in a closed-source model, and companies want security. I know I wouldn't want to risk my userbase, my name, and my job security for something like this, and I would imagine that most people who do this for a living would tend to agree.
Do I think that an open-source model is necessarily always bad? No. It has its place. Is that place in the world of commercial business? I don't believe so, no. Companies make products for money. Cheaters, exploiters, and all of that will always be there, and will always be a danger to any company. By keeping their source private, the chance of this element exploiting their work falls dramatically. It's just a fact of economics.
Well-written, thoughtful replies are, as always, welcomed. Flames are not.
I've been thinking of having LASIK surgery on my (pitifully myopic monitor-induced) eyes, and as such, have done a good bit of research.
The basic upshot is that there's about a 75-85 percent chance that your vision will improve to 20/40. Past that, the odds decrease, but are at about 40-60 percent for 20/20 vision. For a list of statistics, go here.
Side effects can include halos around bright lights, starburst effects, and other interesting visual abnormalities. They tend to go away in a few weeks to a few months.
The procedure itself is very quick, and takes about 15 min per eye. For a pretty good description of the procedure, check out this page, about halfway down.
If you do read one page on the subject, let it be this one. This page presents a negative viewpoint on LASIK surgery, with some statistics, problems, etc. I intend to have this done, but I'd still read this to make very sure that you comprehend the risks.
Price can range anywhere from $1200-$2500, depending on the place. The one I'm looking at is about $1650/eye. Most places include "touch-up" procedures (ie, the eye reshaped itself and needs re-lasering) for free in a 1-2 year period. Make sure you check about this.
Most places will allow you to watch a procedure, if you're curious. Might be a smart thing to do.
Another good place for information is the Yahoo! category dealing with the subject. Lots of good links here.
Slashdot Mirror
The Monolith apparently doesn't conform to safety codes or something (it wasn't mounted right) and they'll be taking it down.
Meanies.
I go for this one because it seems the most useful and important one out there. At the moment, it's Windows-only, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a Windows computer somewhere that the app can reside on. :)
Anne Rice, for example. I find her works to be incredibly moving, the characters wonderfully broad, and so on. She recently posted a comment about fan fiction to her site (www.annerice.com):
To Anne, her characters are a part of herself. For someone that's not her to write situations and events involving those characters that for all we know may completely destroy the chracterization set up for them is almost like abuse.Are they going to come after you with a team of lawyers if you write something using the characters? Maybe, maybe not. I'd hope so.
Would you disappoint, dismay, and disturb the author you're supposedly paying homage to with your ripoff? Almost certainly.
It's really not that difficult to make up your own characters within the genre, if you really want to write fan fiction. It allows for far more breadth and development...you can choose where the path leads, not someone else.
Sometimes the debate is more than just laws. Sometimes you have to consider the people who poured their souls into their characters...and how the person might be affected.
--Tsu
Isn't this just a little bit childish? You're basically saying that because they don't conform to how you view the software world should be, and they want to secure their intellectual rights, the technology isn't worth using? "They won't play my way, so I won't play with them at all"? Surely you can come up with a more productive method of protest than sulking, as that's all this would be, sulking.
And...I really hate to say it, but I doubt the DVD consortium would care about the buying habits of a reasonably small segment of the DVD-buying population. I mean, there's a lot more people out there than just the collection of open-source advocates who don't have home-theater systems. They're not going to care if you stop buying. I doubt they'd notice. All it would accomplish would be to keep your segment of "protestors" out of the next wave of technology, something that I'm reasonably sure you don't care to be identified with.
If you want to take action, fine. Protest, do whatever it is that you need to do. But a boycott of DVD technology is idiocy and counter-productive, I'm sorry.
(And to the moderators: I'm not trying to gather flames, nor am I looking for a load of responses. These are my opinions, and although completely negative, do not necessarily merit downward moderation just for my ideas.)
-Tsu
Simply put. If I dedicate my time, my effort, my life to making anything, a game, a SETI@home client, a utility, I'm not going to want people to pervert my hard work. That's what it comes down to, really. Why should I, as a potential product designer, want to release my code if the potential exists for misuse? Suppose that they opened up the source to SETI@home. Then you'd most probably be able to figure out the protocol, and how it sends 'alert' messages. And I guarantee you, someone will start sending fake data to SETI, and it'll totally defeat the purpose of the collaboration.
Now. If your argument is that in all of the community, there will be no bad apples who will misuse the source, that's naive, I'm sorry. No group can be completely without its bad element, and I would wager that most developers don't want to open themselves up to that element, however small. There's security in a closed-source model, and companies want security. I know I wouldn't want to risk my userbase, my name, and my job security for something like this, and I would imagine that most people who do this for a living would tend to agree.
Do I think that an open-source model is necessarily always bad? No. It has its place. Is that place in the world of commercial business? I don't believe so, no. Companies make products for money. Cheaters, exploiters, and all of that will always be there, and will always be a danger to any company. By keeping their source private, the chance of this element exploiting their work falls dramatically. It's just a fact of economics.
Well-written, thoughtful replies are, as always, welcomed. Flames are not.
--Tsu
Tsu
The basic upshot is that there's about a 75-85 percent chance that your vision will improve to 20/40. Past that, the odds decrease, but are at about 40-60 percent for 20/20 vision. For a list of statistics, go here.
Side effects can include halos around bright lights, starburst effects, and other interesting visual abnormalities. They tend to go away in a few weeks to a few months.
The procedure itself is very quick, and takes about 15 min per eye. For a pretty good description of the procedure, check out this page, about halfway down.
If you do read one page on the subject, let it be this one. This page presents a negative viewpoint on LASIK surgery, with some statistics, problems, etc. I intend to have this done, but I'd still read this to make very sure that you comprehend the risks.
Price can range anywhere from $1200-$2500, depending on the place. The one I'm looking at is about $1650/eye. Most places include "touch-up" procedures (ie, the eye reshaped itself and needs re-lasering) for free in a 1-2 year period. Make sure you check about this.
Most places will allow you to watch a procedure, if you're curious. Might be a smart thing to do.
Another good place for information is the Yahoo! category dealing with the subject. Lots of good links here.
Tsu