First of all, what kind of intelligence do you really want a web site to have? The most 'intelligent' systems that people have tried to sell as internet innovations are push media. Who wants that? Probably no one who values their privacy.
On the other hand, I can think of useful AI tools on the web, namely good search engines. Some of the clever ones try to match ideas rather than just simple text pattern matches. Perhaps you could work with that area, but it's nothing new.
But this still seems really silly. If you can't think of any good new innovative uses of AI to use over the web, then why are you asking us? Why focus on that small area of potential for AI applications for your project? More importantly, what are you going to do with any new ideas that do show up here? Are you going to give credit where it is due, namely to whichever/. reader gives you the thesis idea? And is this really what your profs have in mind when they ask you to come up with a project to prove what YOU can do? Is this going to impress whoever has to judge the value of your project?
1) Trade secret status on their info is now lost, due to the very public release of the info on the 'net. Whether you consider the 'public' status of their own release, or the contract-breaking release of the information by others, either way the information is hardly a secret anymore.
2) Distributing copies of (c) material without the cp-holder's consent is illegal. This gives MS a reason to write to/. and demand the removal of the messages, links, etc.
Put 2 and 2 together... you can get around the copyright problem quite legally in ANY case of information distribution by simply LEARNING from the original work, and rewriting your own work! If someone studies the Kerberos file that is now publically available, and then writes up what they have learned IN THEIR OWN WORDS, MS has no control over that writeup.
So for anyone out there with technical knowledge on the subject, and more time than I have, make such a writeup and post a link to it here. Lets see MS try to put a stop to that!
If you put your name on it though, you'd better make sure that there's no way you can get caught on having 'agreed' to some trade secret contract though. Maybe release it anon just to be safe, or at least have proof that you read the MS document from a publically available source WITHOUT agreeing to a trade secret contract. I know it's been mentioned that there is legal precident that this CAN'T be a trade secret anymore, but better safe than sorry I always say.
Oh, and IANAL, and my apologies if someone's posted this idea already. I don't have time to read everything, but I just had to get this idea out.
To add another perspective, I wouldn't even see a real-world action here at all... these days, money paid is far from a real-world item, even when it's sent in the form of a paper-based packet of information (a cheque). Likewise, Sony's legal notice is barely a real-world action - as far as I know, it isn't even an action against eBay itself. They've simply stated that to trade virtual EQ commodities in the real world is breaking the license agreement, leaving you with no rights to their virtual world.
In this light, this is more like an enforcement to keep the virtual segregated from the real.
Angelina Jolie can rest assured that she will never have to go a year without work again, as she is sure to become part of a lasting franchise. The first Tomb Raider movie will be a huge success, gaining decent reviews for being an entertaining movie with probably a few interesting plot twists. Jolie will be talented enough (in both ways, so to speak) to make the movie work pretty well. Nothing revolutionary, but a pretty good movie and a huge box office seller.
After that, management will decide that there's no sense letting a good name go to waste, and will immediately begin production of Tomb Raider 2. Before TR2 even hits the theatres, previews and hype for TR3 will begin to be released as well. TR2 will be a pretty good movie, but nothing that we haven't already seen.
It won't take long for TR3 to come out, and it will sell pretty well (largely to the pre/early teen male audience which they cornered so well before). No critic in their right mind will give it much thought however, and even the casual fan from the early days will admit that TR3 doesn't bring anything new to the franchise. Rumors will start bouncing around - they're bringing in a new lead actress, they're using a new director, they're going to incorporate that latest new SFX bulletcam tech that the Matrix used.
When it's clear that there will never, ever be any innovation brought into the movie franchise, the execs will finally bow to the public pressure (and growing humiliation) and call TR4 their last. However we all know how corporate execs just can't let go of a chance to produce profit based on mindless nametagging and licensing... expect Tomb Raider : The Video Game to hit store shelves soon after.
Oh wait, I think I got something mixed up here...;)
Looking around the site, I noticed that it had been updated quite a bit in the last few days, after a couple of months of inactivity. Kind of interesting timing for some AC to just 'accidentally' spot the site, don't you think? Hmm, almost as if the website's authors finished up their additions, and then decided to bring some attention their way.
Okay, I really don't want to sound like flamebait here, so I'll be gentle...:)
I understand that those posting these news stories can't have full background knowledge on every bit of science involved, and that some things will sound good until the message board quickly fills up with what turn out to be really obvious flaws in the 'article'. Even so, shouldn't this have been taken with a grain of salt? An AC submits the story ($10 says it was the authors of the website), it's nothing more than a concept writeup on a user homepage, it has not even a GLIMMER of scientific scrutiny (doesn't come through scientific-news channels, no sign of it being submitted to any journals or universities or the like)... the obvious prejudice of the AOL account isn't even NEEDED here.
Sure, it's possible that someone will come up witha revolutionary scientific breakthrough independantly, and publish it on their web site before the scientific community can applaud it. But what are the odds? If you really want to put up stories like this, go ahead, but don't pretend this is real science. Entertaining sci-fi, sure... but c'mon, light being affected by gravity is knowledge just BARELY above high school physics.
Er, I agree that IT is a very young industry, resulting in a lot of 'cowboy consultants' and the like... BUT there certainly is a standard for who is and who isn't a computer/electrical engineer. It's pretty simple - if you've completed an accredited (sp?) engineering program, registered with the professional engineering association of your country, and gone through the years as an engineer-in-training, then you get the magic stamp of approval and you're a fully qualified professional engineer.
This applies just as easily to the computer world as it does to mechanical or civil engineering. No one in the civil engineering world gets the title of 'engineer' by simply doing a really good job in the workplace for some set number of years! You get accredited training, you register, you work under another engineer for a few years (5 where I live anyway).
I'm not saying that everyone working as a professional in the IT industry should do this! I've already heard of professional IT associations starting up for programmers, and I think it's a great idea. The criteria they set can be whatever they deem sufficient to allow their members to hold professional respect and status. Such an IT professional society will NOT have the right to call their members 'engineers' though, unless they fall under the approval of the already established engineering associations.
Call them 'certified Compaq technicians', or 'certified Compaq solutions providers' (MS's funky moniker), I don't care. But don't throw around the name 'engineer' after someone completes some month-long course on how to sysadmin a bunch of Compaqs or something. It belittles those who have worked hard to get a MUCH more complete grasp of the computing industry, and have thus earned the title 'engineer'.
Nah, I'm not arguing that carbon is more magical than silicon... heck I was just bringing up something I've read to see how people take it. Actually, I had thought of the counterargument as well, that the system would be what is conscious.
If I really felt like arguing what I believe... well, I wouldn't, because it's not so much an arguable position as much as simply saying, "Prove it." I personally doubt that the human existance can be cloned by copying silicon neuron for carbon-based neuron - I like to hold on to the (possibly naive) idea that the human soul is more than just really complex mushy grey stuff.
Now, please don't try to throw a dozen counterarguments in my face for admitting this... I admit that my current position is far less secure when and if an electronic mind is actually created, or a human one is duplicated. That's why I brought up my first points, before the Chinese room point. I'm not unaware of the developments both AI researchers and neurologists have made. I simply think that their work, while fascinating and valuable, will not result in a complete understanding of what makes up the human mind/soul.
If life ends up proving me wrong, then I shall have to rethink my beliefs, of course... I've already been giving thought to how this would affect my spiritual stance. Could God (yes, I'm a somewhat average Christian) intend to ressurrect our neural-net selves to exist after life? If so, would this really change anything? If my thoughts are merely complex but reproducible calculations based on my mind's genetics and external inputs, can I reconcile this with my spirituality?
Be aware though, that those who don't feel secure enough to ask these questions will quite easily write off a computerized 'soul' as nothing more than an elaborate and insulting sham. Who knows, maybe that's what I'll conclude in the end. For now, I'll just enjoy the ride, follow the developments and keep my 'wait-and-see' position.
btw, I will take note of the names you've mentioned, I've got less time to study such things these days but hopefully I'll get around to it before I've been uploaded.;)
This question is really about all such 'certified blahblah engineer' titles given out, including MS. Do they give out these certifications to anyone who passes their tests, regardless of whether or not the person is actually a professional engineer?
I'm not starting a whiney CS-can't-teach-software-engineering complaint, don't get me wrong. I think that particular debate is pretty useless. But actually running around with some piece of paper saying you are an 'engineer' is a different matter. Engineering is a profession which is entrusted with enforcing standards, and with allowing only fully trained and tested individuals to use the title.
I'm not going to try and expound big reasons why the title 'engineer' is sacred or anything... to keep it practical, it's simply ILLEGAL to fraudulantly claim you are an engineer (just as it's illegal to falsely claim you're a doctor, or a police officer). So are these 'system engineer' titles only given to actual professional engineers or just anyone who can pass a quick test? And if so, are they at least getting some shit from professional engineering associations?
The idea of developing conscious, computational AI is an interesting one, but even if such an AI were developed you could NOT avoid the philosophical arguments. The reason is simple : if you don't believe that computational AI can be conscious, then any AI you interact with (Turing test grad or not) can still be written off as simply a very complex simulation. I know, many would say that if the simulation is indistinguishable, then it is equivalent - but not everyone will agree, and there is still philosophical ground enough for disbelief.
For example, an article by John R. Searle (in the text Twenty Questions, compiled by Bowie, Michaels & Solomon - Harcourt Brace) describes how a Turing-passing system can still lack understanding in the way we view it in humans. Quickified version - imagine an anglophone man at a computer terminal, with a giant book telling him exactly what to type in response to messages sent to him in Chinese. This man does not understand what he is doing at all, and yet this hypothetical manual he is following allows him to exactly simulate an intelligent response. If this man passes a Chinese Turing test this way, do we claim that he understands Chinese?? (The essay has many further points than this as well, but this is the central illustration he uses.)
Where this will get REALLY ugly for conscious-AI disbelievers (like myself) is if a human mind is replicated by an electronic duplication of each neuron. It's a lot harder to write off electronic consciousness if the machine you're talking to speaks, worships, and even creates art exactly like a 'lost' loved one or friend. Even at this point though, the philosophical debate can still exist - it simply gets a LOT more complicated emotionally, and would force us to reconsider what we believe artful expression and spirituality to mean.
(read one of many W. Gibson stories which brings this up... best example is the short story with the depths-of-hell's-despair artist whose art is drawn straight from her mind, and whose mind is stored/immortalized into a computer... I'm sure hundreds of you rememeber the title, but it escapes me.)
Disclaimer: all above is IMHO, I've only briefly studied philosophy and I have yet to dive into a good study of current AI (next school year the fun really begins).
Sure, the article points out that CyberPatrol could simply block out all access to the decoding software. This should keep their system just as secure as before, and little Timmy shouldn't be able to get at that porn.
But whoops, it also says that CyberPatrol only has about a 67% success rate at correctly blocking offending sites...
Guess about 1/3 of the little cyberTimmies will be finding their way past CyberPatrol on the first try! DOH!
... enough people actually picked up on it. A realistic take on the web browsing public would guess that very few people taking enough interest to use this. Sure, most/. readers probably would love it, but looking at the info they bring in overall, the signal to noise ratio would still be pretty high overall.
All this would guarantee is that the advertiser's profiles on you would be senseless, and would probably result in you getting your Aunt Susie's mass emails about crocheting and little puppy sweaters. Eeeeww. *grin*
Like I said above (in responses to my own post), WHOOHOO! If no one else whips together the dynamic cookie sidebar, I'll do it (just not very soon, so maybe someone else should.):)
Something I'd LOVE to see in Mozilla (and I'd even consider using IE if they were the first to do this) :
Have a small text sidebar or window that displays changes to cookies AS THEY HAPPEN, and allow us to delete these cookies from this interface. This could be a small, simple text window built in to, say, the button bar. A small floating independant text box would work well too. The key here is, it's small and out of the way so that we can have it on WHILE we browse, and it gives us dynamic information on our cookies which we can intelligently control.
Of course this would NOT be on by default, since the average user would just mess up their web-based email cookies and complain. But give us advanced users something to work with here.
Someone mentioned this in a reply post to something else above already, but since you asked...
WorldForge is an open-source MMORPG project, working on not just a single game but a complete gaming system. Servers, clients (different platforms AND different interfaces), protocols, artwork, world design, the whole nine yards.
Check out the website for more info, and drop by the IRC server or get on the mailing lists if your interested.
... since patents only last 20 years. By the time anyone even considers using this technology for practical or commercial purposes, it'll be free tech. One less thing monopolized, whoohoo!
The reason this hasn't been done before is probably because it ISN'T the best price/performance ratio, and still isn't. The x86 architecture is still around for persistant legacy purposes, not because it's efficient.
Microsoft is making a console out of x86 parts solely because that's the market they want to see expand into the console world - because that's the market they have an OS stranglehold on.
Don't kid yourself into thinking this XBox is actually up to the price/performance standards that the PSX2 is going to give you for a console machine.
The article discusses Celera and the HGP sharing information on the maps they've made, so as to build on each other's information and finish their projects earlier.
Now, if Celera gives full disclosure of their databases to the HGP, and the HGP uses that information to refine their own map, and the HGP's map is given out to researchers for FREE, then what does Celera have left to gain financially from their work? This is the real concern - for Celera to profit from this initiative, they by definition HAVE to retain some information from HGP, or else get the HGP to agree to some form of non-disclosure.
This article had nothing to do with genome patents (although if they're out there, they should be a concern of course). It's a scenario where corporate collaboration with a non-profit project could end up forcing the non-profit group to have limits placed on what information they can release, and how fully they can benefit the public.
Simply porting the code for a game like EQ isn't a viable option, because the code for the game is constantly being modified and patched. Unless Verant/989/Sony paid Loki to continually port over such maintenance and gameplay patches, it would be useless.
If the game was designed so that gameplay changes were easily patched through data files common to multiple platforms, then it wouldn't be a problem. But I've seen many an EQ patch that changes the.exe for the game, so I doubt EQ is that easy to work with on multiple clients.
As for open-source projects along these lines, don't forget to follow the link in my sig to WorldForge... it's moving about as fast as any MMORPG takes to be developed, and they're developing far more than a single game. It's actually a full MMORPG development system, including a server/client protocol, various servers and clients, support for many different game worlds (and not just RPGs) and full customization of one's own hosted server, plus a fully developed fantasy roleplaying world to give everyone something to play while the community builds.
WF isn't going to be finished next week... there's always room for one more new developer or artist to help out. (Did I mention that there's actually a large base of artists contributing as well? It's not just someone's comp sci project.) For those who just want to play, it's in the early stages, but I've seen entire fan communities build around games that still had over 6 months before release, and they had far less substance released for them to see. So there's no reason you can't keep an active eye on WF, and you actually get to see what's going on (and put in your 2 bits if you want).
Smaller devices means smaller device resistance, which means less energy dissipated across the device, which means less heat given off. Basically, if you have the same power supplied to the chip, and it has the same surface area as another chip with half as many larger transistors, the heat given off shouldn't be significantly different. I'm about 90% sure of this anyway.:)
Problems with this, and alternative approach ...
on
What Can Be Patented?
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that this offers no protection to those who originally come up with truly new ideas. No company would have any motivation to develop innovative new products, if that product could easily be cloned by a larger, more established company. In essence, you're giving more power to the current mega-corps and monopolizers than they already have. You're weakening the big corp's current ability to step on people, but you're also taking away the protection that smaller innovators have from being stepped on. The tradeoff definitely wouldn't be worth it.
I think the best approach to stopping the truly ridiculous patents is to have a public watchdog on tech patents in process (as mentioned by others), and to fight based on obviousness and prior art.
Another approach would be to question whether economic business practices can be patented, as opposed to product concepts and production practices. Both the one-click and affiliate systems seem to be set much more heavily in terms of business behavior and contracts, rather than technology. It's like a slightly more complex version of patenting the process of accepting money for goods!
While they might be able to control the aging process in implanted cells, they can't stick you with a million needles and have these controls in all your body's cells. They could perhaps slow the aging in tissues which they implant in you, but I doubt they can replace all the tissues in your body, so forget about living 300 years.
As for cancer, this may help in research to stop cancer, but it can't be applied directly. They can't stick these controls into every cancerous cell in a person's body... and if they could, why wouldn't they just remove the cancer instead?
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, I can think of useful AI tools on the web, namely good search engines. Some of the clever ones try to match ideas rather than just simple text pattern matches. Perhaps you could work with that area, but it's nothing new.
But this still seems really silly. If you can't think of any good new innovative uses of AI to use over the web, then why are you asking us? Why focus on that small area of potential for AI applications for your project? More importantly, what are you going to do with any new ideas that do show up here? Are you going to give credit where it is due, namely to whichever /. reader gives you the thesis idea? And is this really what your profs have in mind when they ask you to come up with a project to prove what YOU can do? Is this going to impress whoever has to judge the value of your project?
You know what to do with the HELLO.
Somebody with moderator points, go back there and give this guy some karma! :)
You know what to do with the HELLO.
2) Distributing copies of (c) material without the cp-holder's consent is illegal. This gives MS a reason to write to /. and demand the removal of the messages, links, etc.
Put 2 and 2 together ... you can get around the copyright problem quite legally in ANY case of information distribution by simply LEARNING from the original work, and rewriting your own work! If someone studies the Kerberos file that is now publically available, and then writes up what they have learned IN THEIR OWN WORDS, MS has no control over that writeup.
So for anyone out there with technical knowledge on the subject, and more time than I have, make such a writeup and post a link to it here. Lets see MS try to put a stop to that!
If you put your name on it though, you'd better make sure that there's no way you can get caught on having 'agreed' to some trade secret contract though. Maybe release it anon just to be safe, or at least have proof that you read the MS document from a publically available source WITHOUT agreeing to a trade secret contract. I know it's been mentioned that there is legal precident that this CAN'T be a trade secret anymore, but better safe than sorry I always say.
Oh, and IANAL, and my apologies if someone's posted this idea already. I don't have time to read everything, but I just had to get this idea out.
You know what to do with the HELLO.
Take a look at it here.
You know what to do with the HELLO.
In this light, this is more like an enforcement to keep the virtual segregated from the real.
After that, management will decide that there's no sense letting a good name go to waste, and will immediately begin production of Tomb Raider 2. Before TR2 even hits the theatres, previews and hype for TR3 will begin to be released as well. TR2 will be a pretty good movie, but nothing that we haven't already seen.
It won't take long for TR3 to come out, and it will sell pretty well (largely to the pre/early teen male audience which they cornered so well before). No critic in their right mind will give it much thought however, and even the casual fan from the early days will admit that TR3 doesn't bring anything new to the franchise. Rumors will start bouncing around - they're bringing in a new lead actress, they're using a new director, they're going to incorporate that latest new SFX bulletcam tech that the Matrix used.
When it's clear that there will never, ever be any innovation brought into the movie franchise, the execs will finally bow to the public pressure (and growing humiliation) and call TR4 their last. However we all know how corporate execs just can't let go of a chance to produce profit based on mindless nametagging and licensing ... expect Tomb Raider : The Video Game to hit store shelves soon after.
Oh wait, I think I got something mixed up here ... ;)
I understand that those posting these news stories can't have full background knowledge on every bit of science involved, and that some things will sound good until the message board quickly fills up with what turn out to be really obvious flaws in the 'article'. Even so, shouldn't this have been taken with a grain of salt? An AC submits the story ($10 says it was the authors of the website), it's nothing more than a concept writeup on a user homepage, it has not even a GLIMMER of scientific scrutiny (doesn't come through scientific-news channels, no sign of it being submitted to any journals or universities or the like) ... the obvious prejudice of the AOL account isn't even NEEDED here.
Sure, it's possible that someone will come up witha revolutionary scientific breakthrough independantly, and publish it on their web site before the scientific community can applaud it. But what are the odds? If you really want to put up stories like this, go ahead, but don't pretend this is real science. Entertaining sci-fi, sure ... but c'mon, light being affected by gravity is knowledge just BARELY above high school physics.
This applies just as easily to the computer world as it does to mechanical or civil engineering. No one in the civil engineering world gets the title of 'engineer' by simply doing a really good job in the workplace for some set number of years! You get accredited training, you register, you work under another engineer for a few years (5 where I live anyway).
I'm not saying that everyone working as a professional in the IT industry should do this! I've already heard of professional IT associations starting up for programmers, and I think it's a great idea. The criteria they set can be whatever they deem sufficient to allow their members to hold professional respect and status. Such an IT professional society will NOT have the right to call their members 'engineers' though, unless they fall under the approval of the already established engineering associations.
Call them 'certified Compaq technicians', or 'certified Compaq solutions providers' (MS's funky moniker), I don't care. But don't throw around the name 'engineer' after someone completes some month-long course on how to sysadmin a bunch of Compaqs or something. It belittles those who have worked hard to get a MUCH more complete grasp of the computing industry, and have thus earned the title 'engineer'.
If I really felt like arguing what I believe ... well, I wouldn't, because it's not so much an arguable position as much as simply saying, "Prove it." I personally doubt that the human existance can be cloned by copying silicon neuron for carbon-based neuron - I like to hold on to the (possibly naive) idea that the human soul is more than just really complex mushy grey stuff.
Now, please don't try to throw a dozen counterarguments in my face for admitting this ... I admit that my current position is far less secure when and if an electronic mind is actually created, or a human one is duplicated. That's why I brought up my first points, before the Chinese room point. I'm not unaware of the developments both AI researchers and neurologists have made. I simply think that their work, while fascinating and valuable, will not result in a complete understanding of what makes up the human mind/soul.
If life ends up proving me wrong, then I shall have to rethink my beliefs, of course ... I've already been giving thought to how this would affect my spiritual stance. Could God (yes, I'm a somewhat average Christian) intend to ressurrect our neural-net selves to exist after life? If so, would this really change anything? If my thoughts are merely complex but reproducible calculations based on my mind's genetics and external inputs, can I reconcile this with my spirituality?
Be aware though, that those who don't feel secure enough to ask these questions will quite easily write off a computerized 'soul' as nothing more than an elaborate and insulting sham. Who knows, maybe that's what I'll conclude in the end. For now, I'll just enjoy the ride, follow the developments and keep my 'wait-and-see' position.
btw, I will take note of the names you've mentioned, I've got less time to study such things these days but hopefully I'll get around to it before I've been uploaded. ;)
I'm not starting a whiney CS-can't-teach-software-engineering complaint, don't get me wrong. I think that particular debate is pretty useless. But actually running around with some piece of paper saying you are an 'engineer' is a different matter. Engineering is a profession which is entrusted with enforcing standards, and with allowing only fully trained and tested individuals to use the title.
I'm not going to try and expound big reasons why the title 'engineer' is sacred or anything ... to keep it practical, it's simply ILLEGAL to fraudulantly claim you are an engineer (just as it's illegal to falsely claim you're a doctor, or a police officer). So are these 'system engineer' titles only given to actual professional engineers or just anyone who can pass a quick test? And if so, are they at least getting some shit from professional engineering associations?
For example, an article by John R. Searle (in the text Twenty Questions, compiled by Bowie, Michaels & Solomon - Harcourt Brace) describes how a Turing-passing system can still lack understanding in the way we view it in humans. Quickified version - imagine an anglophone man at a computer terminal, with a giant book telling him exactly what to type in response to messages sent to him in Chinese. This man does not understand what he is doing at all, and yet this hypothetical manual he is following allows him to exactly simulate an intelligent response. If this man passes a Chinese Turing test this way, do we claim that he understands Chinese?? (The essay has many further points than this as well, but this is the central illustration he uses.)
Where this will get REALLY ugly for conscious-AI disbelievers (like myself) is if a human mind is replicated by an electronic duplication of each neuron. It's a lot harder to write off electronic consciousness if the machine you're talking to speaks, worships, and even creates art exactly like a 'lost' loved one or friend. Even at this point though, the philosophical debate can still exist - it simply gets a LOT more complicated emotionally, and would force us to reconsider what we believe artful expression and spirituality to mean.
(read one of many W. Gibson stories which brings this up ... best example is the short story with the depths-of-hell's-despair artist whose art is drawn straight from her mind, and whose mind is stored/immortalized into a computer ... I'm sure hundreds of you rememeber the title, but it escapes me.)
Disclaimer: all above is IMHO, I've only briefly studied philosophy and I have yet to dive into a good study of current AI (next school year the fun really begins).
But whoops, it also says that CyberPatrol only has about a 67% success rate at correctly blocking offending sites ...
Guess about 1/3 of the little cyberTimmies will be finding their way past CyberPatrol on the first try! DOH!
All this would guarantee is that the advertiser's profiles on you would be senseless, and would probably result in you getting your Aunt Susie's mass emails about crocheting and little puppy sweaters. Eeeeww. *grin*
I promise you this - if no one else codes this by the time Mozilla is beyond beta, I WILL get this done.
Have a small text sidebar or window that displays changes to cookies AS THEY HAPPEN, and allow us to delete these cookies from this interface. This could be a small, simple text window built in to, say, the button bar. A small floating independant text box would work well too. The key here is, it's small and out of the way so that we can have it on WHILE we browse, and it gives us dynamic information on our cookies which we can intelligently control.
Of course this would NOT be on by default, since the average user would just mess up their web-based email cookies and complain. But give us advanced users something to work with here.
WorldForge is an open-source MMORPG project, working on not just a single game but a complete gaming system. Servers, clients (different platforms AND different interfaces), protocols, artwork, world design, the whole nine yards.
Check out the website for more info, and drop by the IRC server or get on the mailing lists if your interested.
Hey, lookit that, the link is in my sig too ... :)
... since patents only last 20 years. By the time anyone even considers using this technology for practical or commercial purposes, it'll be free tech. One less thing monopolized, whoohoo!
Microsoft is making a console out of x86 parts solely because that's the market they want to see expand into the console world - because that's the market they have an OS stranglehold on.
Don't kid yourself into thinking this XBox is actually up to the price/performance standards that the PSX2 is going to give you for a console machine.
Now, if Celera gives full disclosure of their databases to the HGP, and the HGP uses that information to refine their own map, and the HGP's map is given out to researchers for FREE, then what does Celera have left to gain financially from their work? This is the real concern - for Celera to profit from this initiative, they by definition HAVE to retain some information from HGP, or else get the HGP to agree to some form of non-disclosure.
This article had nothing to do with genome patents (although if they're out there, they should be a concern of course). It's a scenario where corporate collaboration with a non-profit project could end up forcing the non-profit group to have limits placed on what information they can release, and how fully they can benefit the public.
If the game was designed so that gameplay changes were easily patched through data files common to multiple platforms, then it wouldn't be a problem. But I've seen many an EQ patch that changes the .exe for the game, so I doubt EQ is that easy to work with on multiple clients.
As for open-source projects along these lines, don't forget to follow the link in my sig to WorldForge ... it's moving about as fast as any MMORPG takes to be developed, and they're developing far more than a single game. It's actually a full MMORPG development system, including a server/client protocol, various servers and clients, support for many different game worlds (and not just RPGs) and full customization of one's own hosted server, plus a fully developed fantasy roleplaying world to give everyone something to play while the community builds.
WF isn't going to be finished next week ... there's always room for one more new developer or artist to help out. (Did I mention that there's actually a large base of artists contributing as well? It's not just someone's comp sci project.) For those who just want to play, it's in the early stages, but I've seen entire fan communities build around games that still had over 6 months before release, and they had far less substance released for them to see. So there's no reason you can't keep an active eye on WF, and you actually get to see what's going on (and put in your 2 bits if you want).
Smaller devices means smaller device resistance, which means less energy dissipated across the device, which means less heat given off. Basically, if you have the same power supplied to the chip, and it has the same surface area as another chip with half as many larger transistors, the heat given off shouldn't be significantly different. I'm about 90% sure of this anyway. :)
I think the best approach to stopping the truly ridiculous patents is to have a public watchdog on tech patents in process (as mentioned by others), and to fight based on obviousness and prior art.
Another approach would be to question whether economic business practices can be patented, as opposed to product concepts and production practices. Both the one-click and affiliate systems seem to be set much more heavily in terms of business behavior and contracts, rather than technology. It's like a slightly more complex version of patenting the process of accepting money for goods!
As for cancer, this may help in research to stop cancer, but it can't be applied directly. They can't stick these controls into every cancerous cell in a person's body ... and if they could, why wouldn't they just remove the cancer instead?