When Google came into being in 1997, the web was a fraction of the size it is today, and search engines were still proliferating. Now, Google's massive storage centres subsume the web, and this is part of what gives its search engine its astonishing power.
It would be very difficult for another search engine company to follow suit (start up in a garage with a dozen networked computers) given the current state of the web - even if they did manage to find a better algorithm than the company which makes a habit of simply hiring the best PhDs and graduate students they can get their hands on.
In addition to what everyone else has already said, the only way a YY child could be born is if the mother was somehow carrying a Y chromosome, and while it's possible for a genetically male individual to be female, they're sterile. Ergo, barring deliberate genetic manipulation, it's a non-issue.
In addition, it would not be inventing a third gender, as the X chromosome is the one that does all the work. The X is many, many times more complex than the Y - which is why there are so many sex-linked genetic disorders. If there's a problem with the X chromosome in a female, she has a backup, and such traits are seldom dominant. In a male, he's only got the one, so he suffers from fully expressed haemophilia, or whatever else he might be afflicted with. Two Y chromosomes simply lack the genetic information to promote development - you wouldn't even get a zygote, let alone a viable embryo that might develop. The YY matching would cease to be (most likely) before the first mitosis.
"And don't give me nonsense about how helping people is the best way to live a happy fulfiled(sic) life, you are just prooving(sic) my point, if you are only helping people because it helps you (Read: feels good), then you are doing exactly what I said: living for your own pleasure."
So you shouldn't seek pleasure? Aren't you seeking an Ultimate Reward in exchange for all your work helping the soul-possessed? And if not, you're just doing it out of general altruism? So why can't an atheist engage in general altruism as well? The existence of a soul notwithstanding, if you yourself are a "bunch of meat", then other "bunches of meat" deserve the same respect you state as the sole dominion of the fellow-souled.
If it feels good to make people happy, good! You seem to imply that the only way a good deed can be truly "good" is if you're miserable in doing it. This makes no sense at all. The only reason a person would discomfit themselves for others is if they felt it was the right thing to do... which in turn, would make them feel better about themselves. The only difference between an atheist with that mindset and yourself is that you have a Cosmic Scorekeeper who tells you that, yes, you ARE doing the right thing. Now, keep it up.:P
Bear in mind, I'm not discouraging acts of altruism... I'd just argue that enlightened self-interest or personal pleasure are no less noble a motivator than religion.. possibly more noble, since religion, generally speaking, applies both the carrot AND the stick.
I realize you've been flamed a lot for this post, but you DESERVE it, really. It's a silly implication to make.
Bear in mind, however, that if 17-year-olds could be trusted to do EE work, established employees will view them as a threat to their job security...
Nothing'll please everyone.
No, in fact, you're not totally understanding it right.
(A) - There is no "Net Neutrality Act". It was proposed and struck down in Congress, which is, in fact, the issue. Previously, the FCC enforced net neutrality, but because this has changed, the government has been prodded to step up to the plate.
(B) - (i) The Internet backbone required massive government subsidies to build. It would likely bankrupt Google, M$ AND Yahoo, even if they teamed up, to replace it wholesale. (ii) Individual ISPs matter less, in this case.
(C) - No. You pay more for broadband, as always. However, broadband prices remain competitive, and you won't have "variable service".
(D) - Absolutely true. Without legislation or the FCC regulation, whoever you have to travel through to get to the web can block any sites they want with impunity, save from market forces.
N.B. - in Canada, there is not (yet) any legislation guaranteeing net neutrality. Telus corporation took full advantage of this last year, with the following result:
On July 25, 2005, Canadian Internet Service Provider (ISP) Telus unilaterally
blocked a Web site set up by an employee labor union intended to publicize the union's
views about its contract dispute with Telus. Telus is one of Canada's largest ISPs, with
over one million customers. According to one analysis, Telus's decision to block traffic
to the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the labor union site caused collateral damage to at
least 766 additional, unrelated Web sites. Telus restored access to the IP address hosting
the sites on July 28, 2005. (See Attachment N)
Censorship, then, would be very easy... and the ISPs have already indicated that they want to charge content providers for "using their pipes". This sounds like something you should buy to me.
(For the full article, check out: http://www.freepress.net/docs/20051201-open-intern et-summary_3.pdf.)
It's frightening to think that Tom Lehrer's songs might become current again. (Though "Who's next?" and "We'll All Go Together When We Go" are a lot of fun.)
*laughs* Oh, the irony. Criticizing "intelectuals"[sic] when you can't spell them.
Seriously, though, you're clearly misinterpreting the nature of nuclear deterrent. To once more draw reference to Dr. Strangelove - "The point [of a doomsday weapon] is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?!" Developing nukes in secret is the action of a country that's seeking to open nuclear hostilities. Hell, they could probably surreptitiously PURCHASE nukes for that purpose.
Conversely, indicating the development of a nuclear program is entirely in keeping with the Franck Report, and its engendered outdate US principle of MAD. To quote Terry Pratchett, "A weapon isn't for killing people. A weapon is for having, and letting people see you having it." The US's military is the most overwhelming force on the planet (probably. China's right up there.), so the only effective deterrent a smaller country like Iran can offer is nuclear weapons.
As for "... a Global Islamist Caliphate", you sound dangerously like individuals who talk about the "homosexual agenda", or the "Zionist conspiracy". Dangerously so because those individuals are every bit as terrifying as any radical follower of Islam or rabid Communist ever has been.
I think that you've misinterpreted what everyone is saying, and don't deserve the flame you've already received. What, in fact, people are saying, is that the government should step in WITH legislation that will prevent the decease of net neutrality. It was the fact that the amendment was struck down that has people up in arms.
Ah, but here you're running a dangerous line as well. What about VOIP packets? It's certainly not in the telcos' best interests to let those go through unimpeded. If packet throttling is permitted, you can bet that anything that might cut into their profits (voice and video, mainly) will suffer.
Slashdot Mirror
When Google came into being in 1997, the web was a fraction of the size it is today, and search engines were still proliferating. Now, Google's massive storage centres subsume the web, and this is part of what gives its search engine its astonishing power.
It would be very difficult for another search engine company to follow suit (start up in a garage with a dozen networked computers) given the current state of the web - even if they did manage to find a better algorithm than the company which makes a habit of simply hiring the best PhDs and graduate students they can get their hands on.
In addition to what everyone else has already said, the only way a YY child could be born is if the mother was somehow carrying a Y chromosome, and while it's possible for a genetically male individual to be female, they're sterile. Ergo, barring deliberate genetic manipulation, it's a non-issue.
In addition, it would not be inventing a third gender, as the X chromosome is the one that does all the work. The X is many, many times more complex than the Y - which is why there are so many sex-linked genetic disorders. If there's a problem with the X chromosome in a female, she has a backup, and such traits are seldom dominant. In a male, he's only got the one, so he suffers from fully expressed haemophilia, or whatever else he might be afflicted with. Two Y chromosomes simply lack the genetic information to promote development - you wouldn't even get a zygote, let alone a viable embryo that might develop. The YY matching would cease to be (most likely) before the first mitosis.
He's referring to the Monty Python Song. Relax. (If you haven't heard the song... why not?
"And don't give me nonsense about how helping people is the best way to live a happy fulfiled(sic) life, you are just prooving(sic) my point, if you are only helping people because it helps you (Read: feels good), then you are doing exactly what I said: living for your own pleasure."
:P
So you shouldn't seek pleasure? Aren't you seeking an Ultimate Reward in exchange for all your work helping the soul-possessed? And if not, you're just doing it out of general altruism? So why can't an atheist engage in general altruism as well? The existence of a soul notwithstanding, if you yourself are a "bunch of meat", then other "bunches of meat" deserve the same respect you state as the sole dominion of the fellow-souled.
If it feels good to make people happy, good! You seem to imply that the only way a good deed can be truly "good" is if you're miserable in doing it. This makes no sense at all. The only reason a person would discomfit themselves for others is if they felt it was the right thing to do... which in turn, would make them feel better about themselves. The only difference between an atheist with that mindset and yourself is that you have a Cosmic Scorekeeper who tells you that, yes, you ARE doing the right thing. Now, keep it up.
Bear in mind, I'm not discouraging acts of altruism... I'd just argue that enlightened self-interest or personal pleasure are no less noble a motivator than religion.. possibly more noble, since religion, generally speaking, applies both the carrot AND the stick.
I realize you've been flamed a lot for this post, but you DESERVE it, really. It's a silly implication to make.
Bear in mind, however, that if 17-year-olds could be trusted to do EE work, established employees will view them as a threat to their job security... Nothing'll please everyone.
No, in fact, you're not totally understanding it right. (A) - There is no "Net Neutrality Act". It was proposed and struck down in Congress, which is, in fact, the issue. Previously, the FCC enforced net neutrality, but because this has changed, the government has been prodded to step up to the plate. (B) - (i) The Internet backbone required massive government subsidies to build. It would likely bankrupt Google, M$ AND Yahoo, even if they teamed up, to replace it wholesale. (ii) Individual ISPs matter less, in this case. (C) - No. You pay more for broadband, as always. However, broadband prices remain competitive, and you won't have "variable service". (D) - Absolutely true. Without legislation or the FCC regulation, whoever you have to travel through to get to the web can block any sites they want with impunity, save from market forces.
It's frightening to think that Tom Lehrer's songs might become current again. (Though "Who's next?" and "We'll All Go Together When We Go" are a lot of fun.)
The censure of the rest of the world would prevent this - Canada's so friendly and cute, the US would seem like a monster if they hurt us.
:)
I call it the "baby seal" effect.
*laughs* Oh, the irony. Criticizing "intelectuals"[sic] when you can't spell them. Seriously, though, you're clearly misinterpreting the nature of nuclear deterrent. To once more draw reference to Dr. Strangelove - "The point [of a doomsday weapon] is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?!" Developing nukes in secret is the action of a country that's seeking to open nuclear hostilities. Hell, they could probably surreptitiously PURCHASE nukes for that purpose. Conversely, indicating the development of a nuclear program is entirely in keeping with the Franck Report, and its engendered outdate US principle of MAD. To quote Terry Pratchett, "A weapon isn't for killing people. A weapon is for having, and letting people see you having it." The US's military is the most overwhelming force on the planet (probably. China's right up there.), so the only effective deterrent a smaller country like Iran can offer is nuclear weapons. As for "... a Global Islamist Caliphate", you sound dangerously like individuals who talk about the "homosexual agenda", or the "Zionist conspiracy". Dangerously so because those individuals are every bit as terrifying as any radical follower of Islam or rabid Communist ever has been.
I think that you've misinterpreted what everyone is saying, and don't deserve the flame you've already received. What, in fact, people are saying, is that the government should step in WITH legislation that will prevent the decease of net neutrality. It was the fact that the amendment was struck down that has people up in arms.
Ah, but here you're running a dangerous line as well. What about VOIP packets? It's certainly not in the telcos' best interests to let those go through unimpeded. If packet throttling is permitted, you can bet that anything that might cut into their profits (voice and video, mainly) will suffer.