You are right. I think he should stop donating. Actually, I've read this story of a child who was about to be given treatment for AIDS but refused it because it was bought with BG's money. He carried on suffering but he was happy, because he was sticking it to the man. ... not.
From TFA: The study, which Durbin called the first on SUVs and child safety, was sponsored by Partners for Child Passenger Safety. So much for objectivity.
Yes, and by that time neural implants and Borg technology will be widely accepted. And Borg tech main facilitating factor for market penetration will be its being bundled with Duke Nukem Forever.
And of course it will be the year Linux is ready for the BrainSktop(tm):)
I disagree with almost everything you said but I won't flame you because you are being polite in your exposition. That said, I think there is a big flaw in your reasoning that I want to comment on.
Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human? [...] Do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? [...] Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance.
I am sorry but there is nothing "besides" or "outside" life/living. You're implying the existance of some sort of sentient being who would suffer under certain conditions and would like a different treatment: but such sentient being, by your very definitions of the circumstances (not being born at all), cannot exist. You're kinda condraticting yourself. So, to answer: *I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here. I wouldn't have any problem being turned into a treatment if I didn't exist yet, because there would be no *I* to speak of.
So unless you give evidence that somewhere some soul is crying, right now, because it doesn't want its body-to-be to be turned into a treatment, I will disagree with your opinions.
Besides, I think your opinions, my opinions, and everybody else's opinions have *no* relevance at all and that every scientist should do whatever he likes to do. Cloning babies and engineering planet-destroying death stars... whatever. Then again, I also think they should not be subsidized at all, no matter what they're resarching. This would make all these discussions quite useless.
TFA is useless, nothing more than gossip, almost worse than blog-level "forecasts". BUT it would be interesting to pretend that Google is really coming out with its own OS in, say, late 2006 (GoOS vs. Vista anyone?). What do you think such system would be like? Architecture? Notable features? I for one think it would probably be free (as in gratis or dirt cheap) and Unix-based; maybe based on Linux or more likely on BSD. But, besides featuring Google logos everywhere and coming bundled with GMail/GoogleTalk accounts and a skinned GoogleFox, what INNOVATIVE features would it bring to the market? Why would a consumer choose it over any other *nix, or over Windows? And will Google finally resurrect BeOS? (OK this one was a joke) Comments, suggestions, enlightened visions are welcome.
Time and time again, we have been shown that trying to deny people access to things they want leads to one thing only: black market, with all the niceties that usually follow it. So why is Negroponte so keen on preventing everybody who's not a starving child from getting the 100$-laptop? Especially since he seems so worried that they might not be in enough demand to grant them the best prices for components etc. I say, why limit distribution and *force* this to be a government-sponsored program?
well, if my code connects to example.com, fixing the resolver will not switch my app to the new system. unless you're thinking of another DNS-like system, only run by an independent org instead of the ICANN. but i think the previous PP was hinting at some deeper restructuring/rebuilding rather than a change in the db of choice.
Already happened: just look at the ORSN, European Open Root Server Network (The Independent DNS Solution with IPv6 support for the European Community) at http://european.ch.orsn.net/.
I don't think we're anywhere close to an alternative to DNS. It is system that works well and it is understood by every app out there. Even if you invented a viable alternative (and I challenge anyone to come up with a good one), there would still be the need to port *all the world* to it. Or at least all of the world that cares to use it.
... that TFA is a bit biased and its tone more than a bit sensationalist, but still the point is valid: the ICANN is behaving like some god-sent authority, without any respect for, uh, the people who actually matter: those who MAKE and USE the internet. Come to think of it, it's a US-sent rather than god-sent authority. And then, you wonder why we don't like its being the absolute ruler of the DNS?
People should just stop trying to use latin plurals. First, they usually get them wrong (virii with two i's etc); second, once a foreign word becomes part of your language, you stop using its native plural, genitive if any, various cases etc. You don't go around saying you see a supernovam or the light of a supernovae, so why do you insist in saying there are two supernova (or novae if you get it wrong)? Either use always the same form of the word, or use English plural formation rules.
But it would be a terrible move from a PR perpective. It would be like admitting they're not able to program a decent browser; they'd look like they're buying the small guy, which many less-than-rational people think is a very bad thing to do; and the user experience would be so much different than what they're used to. Let's not forget Opera has always been years in advance of the competition - heck, they were teh cool way back in version 3.
Meh. Point taken about the bugzapper, but really I think my post was quite objective. I didn't even say whether I support or not the idea I put forward.
These guys are free to sue anybody they want. The posters might need to defend themselves or not. I still don't see how this post is INTERESTING, though.
We are the first ones to complain that "doing something very normal with a computer suddenly makes it something new and innovating" when it comes to patents; yet we're reporting on a libel case because the sentences that are being discussed were posted on a website instead of anywhere else.
The of course one might wonder if this is not a ploy to drive visitors to a website, seeing as the original poster is the owner of the forum where the sentences were posted.
The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free? Bear in mind, this would apply to anyone and everybody - and that includes you and your company when your ex-girlfriend decides you're a prick and takes her revenge on you. Of course it also includes that company that keeps ripping off his customers shipping defective hard drives and whatnot. Any thoughts?*
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
err... I don't know about you, but "groups like Slashdot readers" are in RIAA's mind "prone" to trade copyrighted works on P2P networks, circumvent copy protection mechanisms in violation of the DMCA, use encryption to "hide" their communications, and possess skills which could potentially be used to "hack" into nuclear facilites and the utility infrastructure to cause untold damage to society.
Surely not every reader, and probably not 99%, but I'd like to suggest that maybe their readers' likelihood of participating in illegal ativites would be higher than your average person's? Sure, they might have a point on some of their crusades, but Slashdot readership (cheap joke, but I had to) is sort of considered a joke (at least where I'm from). I'm not saying that it's necesarrily right what the NSA may have (or more like definitely) did, but there is some sort of logic there. Slashdot may be a great organization, but it does attract the sort of radical viewpoints that can lead to that sort of activity.
You are writing the truth so far. The fact that we belong to this group does not make it any holier.
So we definitely need to montior all electronic transmissions by visitors to the slashdot website. After all, the message we don't monitor may be the one that exposes the next DeCSS crack.
I don't wanna be a party killer but what you say is quite likely to happen. Well, maybe the next hack will be made public in some other more serious underground group but your point is still valid.
Honestly, if I were the NSA I'd be monitoring/. and many other more serious groups. What do you expect them to do? You set up a secret police force in order to do *what* exactly? Secret investigations *maybe*? Perhaps you should just choose to get rid of it once and for all! But then, who would protect your intarwebs from teh 3v1l 3ur0p34nz haX0rz who want to hack your ICANN?
Well yeah OK but this is/. and copyright infringement is one of the most talked about topics, people arealmost expected to voice their opinions loudly and with some enthusiasm.
Besides, I don't think you need to be Pol Pot to be evil. An old lady I know was recently run over by a bike (!), fell down and suffered injuries to internal organs and broke her leg, while the biker ran away: I would say that biker is evil. Maybe these dealers here were not so bad but still it's quite disgusting to profit by selling someone else's work without any kind of compensation whatsoever.
What you fail to realize is that they did see through your sarcasm and moderated it as flamebait because that's exactly what is it. A bait for flamewars. Besides, I take it you wouldn't have a problem if the government were enforcing some other-than-christian values, right? Because we all know that the occupation of Iraq is bad bad bad, but that the one of Tibet is good good good. Shooting that scumbag in Genova was bad bad bad but driving tanks over students in Tien An Men square was good good good. Down with them!
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. I think he should stop donating. Actually, I've read this story of a child who was about to be given treatment for AIDS but refused it because it was bought with BG's money. He carried on suffering but he was happy, because he was sticking it to the man.
... not.
Begun, the HDMI massacre has.
As much as I dislike SUVs, I have to agree with your point. Well said.
From TFA: The study, which Durbin called the first on SUVs and child safety, was sponsored by Partners for Child Passenger Safety. So much for objectivity.
Yes, and by that time neural implants and Borg technology will be widely accepted. And Borg tech main facilitating factor for market penetration will be its being bundled with Duke Nukem Forever. :)
And of course it will be the year Linux is ready for the BrainSktop(tm)
I disagree with almost everything you said but I won't flame you because you are being polite in your exposition. That said, I think there is a big flaw in your reasoning that I want to comment on.
Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human? [...] Do you find it would be ethical to turn you into a treatment rather then to returned into non-existance? [...] Your state as a Stem-cell treatment would be nothing more than a few cells in somebodies back. This is a horrible existance.
I am sorry but there is nothing "besides" or "outside" life/living. You're implying the existance of some sort of sentient being who would suffer under certain conditions and would like a different treatment: but such sentient being, by your very definitions of the circumstances (not being born at all), cannot exist. You're kinda condraticting yourself. So, to answer: *I* wouldn't find it funny to be turned into a treatment; but it's the real, living, *I* that speaks here. I wouldn't have any problem being turned into a treatment if I didn't exist yet, because there would be no *I* to speak of.
So unless you give evidence that somewhere some soul is crying, right now, because it doesn't want its body-to-be to be turned into a treatment, I will disagree with your opinions.
Besides, I think your opinions, my opinions, and everybody else's opinions have *no* relevance at all and that every scientist should do whatever he likes to do. Cloning babies and engineering planet-destroying death stars... whatever. Then again, I also think they should not be subsidized at all, no matter what they're resarching. This would make all these discussions quite useless.
Well, a lot of them, if we take a look at how OpenBSD development works.
they need to hang a bunch of the elite.
That would be so mature and responsible. No wonder you're a sample of poor lowlife.
TFA is useless, nothing more than gossip, almost worse than blog-level "forecasts".
BUT it would be interesting to pretend that Google is really coming out with its own OS in, say, late 2006 (GoOS vs. Vista anyone?). What do you think such system would be like? Architecture? Notable features?
I for one think it would probably be free (as in gratis or dirt cheap) and Unix-based; maybe based on Linux or more likely on BSD. But, besides featuring Google logos everywhere and coming bundled with GMail/GoogleTalk accounts and a skinned GoogleFox, what INNOVATIVE features would it bring to the market? Why would a consumer choose it over any other *nix, or over Windows?
And will Google finally resurrect BeOS? (OK this one was a joke)
Comments, suggestions, enlightened visions are welcome.
Time and time again, we have been shown that trying to deny people access to things they want leads to one thing only: black market, with all the niceties that usually follow it.
So why is Negroponte so keen on preventing everybody who's not a starving child from getting the 100$-laptop? Especially since he seems so worried that they might not be in enough demand to grant them the best prices for components etc.
I say, why limit distribution and *force* this to be a government-sponsored program?
Actually, spaghetti were brought back to Italy by explorer Marco Polo after his travels in Katai, later known as China.
well, if my code connects to example.com, fixing the resolver will not switch my app to the new system. unless you're thinking of another DNS-like system, only run by an independent org instead of the ICANN. but i think the previous PP was hinting at some deeper restructuring/rebuilding rather than a change in the db of choice.
Already happened: just look at the ORSN, European Open Root Server Network (The Independent DNS Solution with IPv6 support for the European Community) at http://european.ch.orsn.net/.
I don't think we're anywhere close to an alternative to DNS. It is system that works well and it is understood by every app out there. Even if you invented a viable alternative (and I challenge anyone to come up with a good one), there would still be the need to port *all the world* to it. Or at least all of the world that cares to use it.
... that TFA is a bit biased and its tone more than a bit sensationalist, but still the point is valid: the ICANN is behaving like some god-sent authority, without any respect for, uh, the people who actually matter: those who MAKE and USE the internet. Come to think of it, it's a US-sent rather than god-sent authority. And then, you wonder why we don't like its being the absolute ruler of the DNS?
Self-reply: of course this invalidates the above examples (supernovam, etc.) and just goes to show how messy it becomes unless you set a standard.
I don't agree: supernovum astrum -> supernova astra.
People should just stop trying to use latin plurals. First, they usually get them wrong (virii with two i's etc); second, once a foreign word becomes part of your language, you stop using its native plural, genitive if any, various cases etc.
You don't go around saying you see a supernovam or the light of a supernovae, so why do you insist in saying there are two supernova (or novae if you get it wrong)? Either use always the same form of the word, or use English plural formation rules.
... to Helloween's song that goes "tonight we are staaaaaaaars, staaaaaaars..." :)
But it would be a terrible move from a PR perpective. It would be like admitting they're not able to program a decent browser; they'd look like they're buying the small guy, which many less-than-rational people think is a very bad thing to do; and the user experience would be so much different than what they're used to. Let's not forget Opera has always been years in advance of the competition - heck, they were teh cool way back in version 3.
Meh. Point taken about the bugzapper, but really I think my post was quite objective. I didn't even say whether I support or not the idea I put forward.
These guys are free to sue anybody they want. The posters might need to defend themselves or not. I still don't see how this post is INTERESTING, though.
We are the first ones to complain that "doing something very normal with a computer suddenly makes it something new and innovating" when it comes to patents; yet we're reporting on a libel case because the sentences that are being discussed were posted on a website instead of anywhere else.
The of course one might wonder if this is not a ploy to drive visitors to a website, seeing as the original poster is the owner of the forum where the sentences were posted.
The only interesting point that can be made is: is there still a meaning to a *libel* offense? Wouldn't we all be better off if free speech were, in fact, free? Bear in mind, this would apply to anyone and everybody - and that includes you and your company when your ex-girlfriend decides you're a prick and takes her revenge on you. Of course it also includes that company that keeps ripping off his customers shipping defective hard drives and whatnot. Any thoughts?*
* The objectiveness-impaired and the lunatics are kindly asked not to bother answering.
err ... I don't know about you, but "groups like Slashdot readers" are in RIAA's mind "prone" to trade copyrighted works on P2P networks, circumvent copy protection mechanisms in violation of the DMCA, use encryption to "hide" their communications, and possess skills which could potentially be used to "hack" into nuclear facilites and the utility infrastructure to cause untold damage to society.
/. and many other more serious groups. What do you expect them to do? You set up a secret police force in order to do *what* exactly? Secret investigations *maybe*? Perhaps you should just choose to get rid of it once and for all! But then, who would protect your intarwebs from teh 3v1l 3ur0p34nz haX0rz who want to hack your ICANN?
Surely not every reader, and probably not 99%, but I'd like to suggest that maybe their readers' likelihood of participating in illegal ativites would be higher than your average person's? Sure, they might have a point on some of their crusades, but Slashdot readership (cheap joke, but I had to) is sort of considered a joke (at least where I'm from). I'm not saying that it's necesarrily right what the NSA may have (or more like definitely) did, but there is some sort of logic there. Slashdot may be a great organization, but it does attract the sort of radical viewpoints that can lead to that sort of activity.
You are writing the truth so far. The fact that we belong to this group does not make it any holier.
So we definitely need to montior all electronic transmissions by visitors to the slashdot website. After all, the message we don't monitor may be the one that exposes the next DeCSS crack.
I don't wanna be a party killer but what you say is quite likely to happen. Well, maybe the next hack will be made public in some other more serious underground group but your point is still valid.
Honestly, if I were the NSA I'd be monitoring
Well yeah OK but this is /. and copyright infringement is one of the most talked about topics, people arealmost expected to voice their opinions loudly and with some enthusiasm.
Besides, I don't think you need to be Pol Pot to be evil. An old lady I know was recently run over by a bike (!), fell down and suffered injuries to internal organs and broke her leg, while the biker ran away: I would say that biker is evil. Maybe these dealers here were not so bad but still it's quite disgusting to profit by selling someone else's work without any kind of compensation whatsoever.
What you fail to realize is that they did see through your sarcasm and moderated it as flamebait because that's exactly what is it. A bait for flamewars. Besides, I take it you wouldn't have a problem if the government were enforcing some other-than-christian values, right? Because we all know that the occupation of Iraq is bad bad bad, but that the one of Tibet is good good good. Shooting that scumbag in Genova was bad bad bad but driving tanks over students in Tien An Men square was good good good. Down with them!