> and give them a few more months and they'll have keyboards too.
Dreamcast already has a keyboard, PS2 will have 2 USB ports.
I've heard that computers haven't penetrated the home market as much in Japan compared to the U.S.. I suspect the home computing capabilities of the PS2 are more intended to be marketed in Japan than here.
> However, the author of the article neglected to mention that the Sega Dreamcast is based on the > Windows CE platform.
Just a quibble, and I'm sure others will point this out. The Dreamcast is not _based_ on Windows CE. The Dreamcast will run a version of Windows CE, but CE is on the _game_CD_, not in the Dreamcast console.
> 1) Safety: astronauts have to go through intensive training on how to handle themselves in > zero-G. The average tourist can't afford to take off enough time from work to learn how to > behave in zero-G.
Astronauts are more like aircraft pilots and flight crews, and of course have to have intensive training. But I don't see that a tourist would need any more training than a tourist flying on a 747. At most, perhaps, would be a medical certificate.
Most of a space hotel would spin and have pseudo-gravity anyway. The non-spinning parts would have to be designed with tourists in mind, but that's just SMOE (small matter of engineering.:-)
> 2) Cost: Only the extremely rich will be able to afford it. And among the ones who can afford > it, only a few will actually go, and even fewer will enjoy it.
Currently true, NASA does seem to have a vested interest in keeping costs high. DC/X, Roton, and other projects are experiments in significantly reducing the cost of access to space.
Perhaps _you_ wouldn't enjoy space travel, but I bet a significant fraction of/. readers would. _There's_ an idea for a/. poll, "How much would you pay for a vacation in space? $100,000? $50,000? $25,000 $10,000? $5,000? $1,000? Not interested."
> 3) References to "romantic possibilities" aside, sex in zero-G would just not be all that > feasible or even desirable -- Newton's three laws of motion come to mind (hint: intertia and > equal and opposite reactions).
I think a flat declaration like that is very premature, humans are _very_ adaptable creatures. I think any conclusions will have to wait pending, ummm, experimental data.
> Now, that's where human genes enter in. Those are primarily of financial interest because of > their pharmeceutical applications. Allowing patents on them allows pharmeceuticals to recoup > their costs in developing treatments based on those genes. And believe me, those costs are in > the high millions if not billions these days for some drugs.
I can see your point, but I don't see that not allowing human gene sequences to be patented would preclude treatments based on those sequences to be patented.
That is, if company 'A' is allowed to patent a particular human gene, only company 'A' could develop (or license to be developed) treatments for genetic diseases involving this gene.
However, if company 'A' is not allowed to patent that particular gene, that does not prevent them (and companies 'B', 'C', and 'D') from developing (and patenting) treatments for genetic diseases involving this gene.
Granted, there is less financial incentive for company 'A' to do genetic research in the first place (although keeping their research as a trade secret does offer them a headstart in developing treatments).
On the bright side, in less than one human generation (about 30 years), the human genome will be mapped, any patents will have expired, and genetic treatments should be commonplace.
Slashdot Mirror
> and give them a few more months and they'll have keyboards too.
Dreamcast already has a keyboard, PS2 will have 2 USB ports.
I've heard that computers haven't penetrated the home market as much in Japan compared to the U.S.. I suspect the home computing capabilities of the PS2 are more intended to be marketed in Japan than here.
> However, the author of the article neglected to mention that the Sega Dreamcast is based on the
> Windows CE platform.
Just a quibble, and I'm sure others will point this out. The Dreamcast is not _based_ on Windows CE. The Dreamcast will run a version of Windows CE, but CE is on the _game_CD_, not in the Dreamcast console.
> 1) Safety: astronauts have to go through intensive training on how to handle themselves in
:-)
/. readers would. _There's_ an idea for a /. poll, "How much would you pay for a vacation in space? $100,000? $50,000? $25,000 $10,000? $5,000? $1,000? Not interested."
> zero-G. The average tourist can't afford to take off enough time from work to learn how to
> behave in zero-G.
Astronauts are more like aircraft pilots and flight crews, and of course have to have intensive training. But I don't see that a tourist would need any more training than a tourist flying on a 747. At most, perhaps, would be a medical certificate.
Most of a space hotel would spin and have pseudo-gravity anyway. The non-spinning parts would have to be designed with tourists in mind, but that's just SMOE (small matter of engineering.
> 2) Cost: Only the extremely rich will be able to afford it. And among the ones who can afford
> it, only a few will actually go, and even fewer will enjoy it.
Currently true, NASA does seem to have a vested interest in keeping costs high. DC/X, Roton, and other projects are experiments in significantly reducing the cost of access to space.
Perhaps _you_ wouldn't enjoy space travel, but I bet a significant fraction of
> 3) References to "romantic possibilities" aside, sex in zero-G would just not be all that
> feasible or even desirable -- Newton's three laws of motion come to mind (hint: intertia and
> equal and opposite reactions).
I think a flat declaration like that is very premature, humans are _very_ adaptable creatures. I think any conclusions will have to wait pending, ummm, experimental data.
> Now, that's where human genes enter in. Those are primarily of financial interest because of
> their pharmeceutical applications. Allowing patents on them allows pharmeceuticals to recoup
> their costs in developing treatments based on those genes. And believe me, those costs are in
> the high millions if not billions these days for some drugs.
I can see your point, but I don't see that not allowing human gene sequences to be patented would preclude treatments based on those sequences to be patented.
That is, if company 'A' is allowed to patent a particular human gene, only company 'A' could develop (or license to be developed) treatments for genetic diseases involving this gene.
However, if company 'A' is not allowed to patent that particular gene, that does not prevent them (and companies 'B', 'C', and 'D') from developing (and patenting) treatments for genetic diseases involving this gene.
Granted, there is less financial incentive for company 'A' to do genetic research in the first place (although keeping their research as a trade secret does offer them a headstart in developing treatments).
On the bright side, in less than one human generation (about 30 years), the human genome will be mapped, any patents will have expired, and genetic treatments should be commonplace.