How can we predict the effects of a new technology accurately before it is introduced? By definition, effects follow on after an event. Timewise, this looks like:
Ev(ent) -> Eff(ects).
Sure, interesting thought experiments can give you some answers, but you are really deluding yourself, as all you get is:
Ps(eudo)Ev(ent) -> Ps(eudo)Eff(ects).
I bet the people at sun didn't realise the fact that Java would miserably flop for a bit, and then make a comeback, nor the maker of the transistor the evolution of computers. The effects of embedded computers is not necessarily an einstein coffee maker, but a chip that produces little heat for lots of processing power. There's also the miniturisation of networking components (such as smart mobiles (mobile phones). Chief Prosecutor Advocacy Department
Just think - if they'd open sourced the programming, someone might have noticed that miles/= kilometres, and there wouldn't be a nice new crater on mars. Chief Prosecutor Advocacy Department
Yes, the old over-engineered designs might still be chugging away, but they might also have failed because the backup for the backup for the right thruster burned a fuse, and shorted the whole she-bang out in an unexpected side effect of change 176. Either way, you're going to lose some. It's just on average how much you lose that makes the difference. Chief Prosecutor Advocacy Department
Genetic engineering falls into two areas - Window dressing and Contents. Window dressing is the colour of our eyes - colour doesn't affect how we see things. Contents is the shape and construction of the eye, which does affect how we see things.
Window dressing engineering would actually benefit our race enourmously, both socially and physically. Racism would die out - if you could have black or white skin for 19.95, what is the point of running around with sheets on your heads when the people you're campainging against change colour two times a week. And down under, here in australia, sun cancer country of the world, there would be a lot of people who would welcome becoming darker skinned if it meant a lower chance of dying - this would reduce medical costs enourmously.
Content is basically the way in which the structure of the body, and the materials used to make the body. Genneering a heart to make it more efficient means less chance of heart attack. Making hemaglobin more efficient means that if someone looses alot of blood, they are less likely to die.
Of course, running around and doing exercises helps, but if your dad, your grandfather, all your brothers and all your uncles start dying because they have genetic heart problems, wouldn't you rather that you didn't have to worry about it.
Which leads to the fact that it costs lots of money and you need lots of patents to get into the genetics industry. There's a solution, though - open source it. Force the companies to open up their patents through a large scale public research project. Pay the companies for doing the research so that their results will go out onto the web, so that any problems can be scanned by a hundred thousand interested people. Having a problem fixing the gene for cystic fibrosis? - Put out a press release on Genedot:News for Genetic Engineers, so that a thousand anonymous cowards can have a look to see if they can fix it for you.
When you say something to a friend at home, the words are yours, and yet are deniable if you ever want to recant. When you say something to a crowd of millions in a televised speech or debate, it takes spin doctors to get rid of them.
The trend in society is that your actions and words are monitored and saved in ever increasing precision and in distributed places, yet the public mantra of political correctness, in all it's forms still apply, leading to increasing self censorship (in some places).
Let me give you an example. When australia was formed back in federation in 1901, very little survives. Yet today, every sentence that John Howard (our prime minister) utters on radio, every gesture on television is recorded, analysed, and used by many people for many reasons. In 1901, if John Howard had made a gaffe speaking to assembled multitudes, even if somebody in the audience had taken down his speech *exactly*, nuances, pronounciation and emphasis will change meanings, twist the very way in which the message is recieved. Later, he can say he emphasised *this* part in stead of that part, and said that sentence in irony, not in sarcasm. Today, he doesn't have a bloody chance.
Getting back to relevance, internet society is starting to influence the political correctness that we all engage in. Say something to one friend, and say something entirely different to another, and chances are that you can get away with it. Say it online, and you only get one chance. Tell your friends that in the 1980's you were a diehard communist, you have to hope that the facist party database of members isn't online, cos all it takes is a few clicks for them to find that you were president of the local chapter during that time.
What's happening is that it is getting harder to lie and get away with it - not much, but harder. When talking about friends, it's no problem. When talking about oppointments to mega corporations, a whole new ballgame appears, cos the stakes are higher, and people have more to lose.
I, personally, think that x-no-archive tags should not be valid. If you say something in a public forum, then it is part of public record. No ifs, no buts. You don't want it known publicly that you believe that the moon is in fact a giant piece of cheese? Take it to email, and only to those you consider need to know, and who won't spill the beans.
We all lie, tell stories, get egg on our faces from time to time. We just can't get away with it anymore.
Technology is neutral - it's how it's used that makes the difference. Sure, some people will spend 14 hours surfing the web aimlessly - and others won't. They'll go out and smell the roses, go hiking, stare out into the wild reaches of space every night, watching the thousands of satellites speed by.
Tell me, why, if tv and the web and email are going to overwhelm us, why hasn't it happened? Why do seemingly normal people otherwise ride bicycles to work when cars are so handy, climb mountains when there's nothing else to see except the wild blue yonder? Why have a garden, or pot plants, when they do nothing but create muddy rings on the linoleum?
It's because while there are those that are stuck to their computer screens 31,536,000 seconds a year, there are those that ignore who Sarah Michelle Geller is sleeping with at the moment, those who ignore the fact that Nokia has come out with a mobile phone that you can use underwater and feed your pets at the same time, those who ignore what Bill Clinton is pontificating about at one of his numerous speeches.
Those who ignore the information, who control it, will come to have power over those that don't. Think of it as evolution in action.:-) Chief Prosecutor Advocacy Department
Slashdot Mirror
How can we predict the effects of a new technology accurately before it is introduced? By definition, effects follow on after an event. Timewise, this looks like:
Ev(ent) -> Eff(ects).
Sure, interesting thought experiments can give you some answers, but you are really deluding yourself, as all you get is:
Ps(eudo)Ev(ent) -> Ps(eudo)Eff(ects).
I bet the people at sun didn't realise the fact that Java would miserably flop for a bit, and then make a comeback, nor the maker of the transistor the evolution of computers. The effects of embedded computers is not necessarily an einstein coffee maker, but a chip that produces little heat for lots of processing power. There's also the miniturisation of networking components (such as smart mobiles (mobile phones).
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
Just think - if they'd open sourced the programming, someone might have noticed that miles /= kilometres, and there wouldn't be a nice new crater on mars.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
Yes, the old over-engineered designs might still be chugging away, but they might also have failed because the backup for the backup for the right thruster burned a fuse, and shorted the whole she-bang out in an unexpected side effect of change 176. Either way, you're going to lose some. It's just on average how much you lose that makes the difference.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
Genetic engineering falls into two areas - Window dressing and Contents. Window dressing is the colour of our eyes - colour doesn't affect how we see things. Contents is the shape and construction of the eye, which does affect how we see things.
Window dressing engineering would actually benefit our race enourmously, both socially and physically. Racism would die out - if you could have black or white skin for 19.95, what is the point of running around with sheets on your heads when the people you're campainging against change colour two times a week. And down under, here in australia, sun cancer country of the world, there would be a lot of people who would welcome becoming darker skinned if it meant a lower chance of dying - this would reduce medical costs enourmously.
Content is basically the way in which the structure of the body, and the materials used to make the body. Genneering a heart to make it more efficient means less chance of heart attack. Making hemaglobin more efficient means that if someone looses alot of blood, they are less likely to die.
Of course, running around and doing exercises helps, but if your dad, your grandfather, all your brothers and all your uncles start dying because they have genetic heart problems, wouldn't you rather that you didn't have to worry about it.
Which leads to the fact that it costs lots of money and you need lots of patents to get into the genetics industry. There's a solution, though - open source it. Force the companies to open up their patents through a large scale public research project. Pay the companies for doing the research so that their results will go out onto the web, so that any problems can be scanned by a hundred thousand interested people. Having a problem fixing the gene for cystic fibrosis? - Put out a press release on Genedot:News for Genetic Engineers, so that a thousand anonymous cowards can have a look to see if they can fix it for you.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
www.rancidmeat.com is already taken.
:-)
www.rancidmeat.org isn't. Any takers?
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
When you say something to a friend at home, the words are yours, and yet are deniable if you ever want to recant. When you say something to a crowd of millions in a televised speech or debate, it takes spin doctors to get rid of them.
The trend in society is that your actions and words are monitored and saved in ever increasing precision and in distributed places, yet the public mantra of political correctness, in all it's forms still apply, leading to increasing self censorship (in some places).
Let me give you an example. When australia was formed back in federation in 1901, very little survives. Yet today, every sentence that John Howard (our prime minister) utters on radio, every gesture on television is recorded, analysed, and used by many people for many reasons. In 1901, if John Howard had made a gaffe speaking to assembled multitudes, even if somebody in the audience had taken down his speech *exactly*, nuances, pronounciation and emphasis will change meanings, twist the very way in which the message is recieved. Later, he can say he emphasised *this* part in stead of that part, and said that sentence in irony, not in sarcasm. Today, he doesn't have a bloody chance.
Getting back to relevance, internet society is starting to influence the political correctness that we all engage in. Say something to one friend, and say something entirely different to another, and chances are that you can get away with it. Say it online, and you only get one chance. Tell your friends that in the 1980's you were a diehard communist, you have to hope that the facist party database of members isn't online, cos all it takes is a few clicks for them to find that you were president of the local chapter during that time.
What's happening is that it is getting harder to lie and get away with it - not much, but harder. When talking about friends, it's no problem. When talking about oppointments to mega corporations, a whole new ballgame appears, cos the stakes are higher, and people have more to lose.
I, personally, think that x-no-archive tags should not be valid. If you say something in a public forum, then it is part of public record. No ifs, no buts. You don't want it known publicly that you believe that the moon is in fact a giant piece of cheese? Take it to email, and only to those you consider need to know, and who won't spill the beans.
We all lie, tell stories, get egg on our faces from time to time. We just can't get away with it anymore.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department
Technology is neutral - it's how it's used that makes the difference. Sure, some people will spend 14 hours surfing the web aimlessly - and others won't. They'll go out and smell the roses, go hiking, stare out into the wild reaches of space every night, watching the thousands of satellites speed by.
:-)
Tell me, why, if tv and the web and email are going to overwhelm us, why hasn't it happened? Why do seemingly normal people otherwise ride bicycles to work when cars are so handy, climb mountains when there's nothing else to see except the wild blue yonder? Why have a garden, or pot plants, when they do nothing but create muddy rings on the linoleum?
It's because while there are those that are stuck to their computer screens 31,536,000 seconds a year, there are those that ignore who Sarah Michelle Geller is sleeping with at the moment, those who ignore the fact that Nokia has come out with a mobile phone that you can use underwater and feed your pets at the same time, those who ignore what Bill Clinton is pontificating about at one of his numerous speeches.
Those who ignore the information, who control it, will come to have power over those that don't. Think of it as evolution in action.
Chief Prosecutor
Advocacy Department