The only historical connection is get to Nimrod is biblical: "Nimrod, that mighty hunter". I could look it up, but I don't remember any context. The only current connection I get it to the SF book "The Nimrod Project" in which Nimrod is used because...guess what?...they're building a super-intelligent hunter.

I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".

While Golden Rice is not related to Monsanto, it's my understanding that the right to use it free of patent restrictions is limited, though I don't remember the exact limitations.

N.B.: Open Source doesn't mean free of patent restrictions. It doesn't even mean free of copyright restrictions. It just means that you can read the source code.

They probably will, but only because of the way the granted monopoly control to certain corporation(s). There's nothing wrong with the basic idea of GMO foods. There's a lot wrong with allowing that kind of centralization of power.

That's not going "goody two-shoes", that's preventing the creation of rival centers of power. Possibly not enough of the investors were top party members....or were on the losing end of a power struggle.

That said, there's no reason to believe that the Chinese government doesn't occasionally act to protect their citizens. Sometimes the US government does. (Sorry, that's a bit cynical beyond the evidence.)

O, as long as it's properly licensed I like it fine. I just don't trust it, and don't need to use it. So I don't.

As for the three examples you gave....
that's the first time I've heard of any of them. If I had heard of them I wouldn't have trusted them, though, so it's no loss to me. (Did they license the use to all patents they may have included in that softtware to any derivitive software? The last time I looked at one of their "open source" projects that had unaccountably failed to do that.)

I don't find that annoying, so much as unbelievable. What surprises me is that they can still find anyone to believe them after lying so often.

OTOH, I can hope that it's true, and that they actually HAVE reformed. I'm just going to let the evidence accumulate for awhile before I believe it. Possibly in a decade....

Well, to be honest Gnome3 didn't help things any. Neither did whatever that mishmash that Ubuntu is up to. xfce isn't really slick enough for corporate work. Etc. KDE4 still isn't as good as KDE3 was, but it's definitely mainly usable, and can look as pretty as you desire.

My real guess is that they forgot what a nightmare it was to deal with MSWind, so now the problems with Linux are looming a lot larger in their minds. Please note, however, that this is just a guess.

Linux Desktop developers have pissed me off mightily in the last few years, but not enough that I'd consider going back to MS, or even back to Apple.

There were those who were sure that anyone exposed to Linux would immediately prefer it over MSWind. Most people were a bit more cautious, but figured that the city would prefer to save money and have control over its own destiny. Others have been cynical since before the plan was first announced, on various different grounds. Some people actually think that MSWind is better. Some think that the applications available under MSWind are better. Some just think that the party with more wealth and power will always win.

Anyone who pretends that there was ever unanimity here is wrong. OTOH, I really wonder what is causing the about-face at this point of the game. (Though not enough to do ANY research. Yes, I read the "The users want it" explanation, but that doesn't do much to convince any organization, so there's clearly something else happening. And it could just be one politician with a hair up his ass.)

Gross overstatement isn't the same thing as "talking out of your ass". And I'm not even sure that it was a gross overstatement, though it is clearly not true of *all* financial services companies.

That said, it's also true that there are many "honest police". But somehow the honest police never inform on the dishonest ones. Similarly, the "ethical" financial services companies don't campaign to get the rules changed that enable the unethical ones to prosper to the point where they dominate the industry. I understand that in the case of the police, each individual may have his life depend on support by any other, which may partially mitigate their reluctance. I don't understand, however, what is equivalent in the financial services sector.

My first thought was "Idiot". Then I noticed your sign in, Anonymous Coward, and revised that to troll.

You haven't been keepign track of the advances in robotics. I'll give you OB Gyns, as most women would probably be reluctant to trust a robot. (Note that this isn't capability based, but trust based.)

You ask "Why are the robots making this stuff?" The answer is "To trade with other people who also own robots that make other stuff." Each robot factory will have multiple possible products. This will come at the cost of being less efficient at the manufacture of each one, but it will mean that there's no reason to just crank through as much as you can. It will generally be "bespoke trade", i.e., you get the order before you make the stuff. (Sort of like JIT carried to the next level.)

What skilled jobs do you think will be available, that robots won't be able to do better? In what year? (Part of the problem is that it's a moving target. It can take 10 years to turn a high school graduate into a skilled professional, and at the start of those 10 years, you don't know which jobs will be available at the end. Well, one can generally make a decent mid-course correction for the first 5-6 years, so if your general area of prediction is correct, you can adopt the most promising remaining specialty. But things become a lot less flexible as you get closer to the end of training. And if your career becomes obsolete two years after you finish training, you get to start back several years, if you can get a school to take you, only now you've already got a huge debt...or, at minimum, a huge sunk cost that you need to write off.

Currently I'm really reluctant to advise kids to go to college. If they don't want to badly enough that they would go against my advice, it looks like a bad bet. Being a welder might actually be a much better choice. The training is both shorter and less expensive. People tend to have really silly ideas about what skills a robot will have 10 years from now. They will range from nearly human down to insectile, and be priced inversely. But a huge lot of what we do isn't based on intelligence, it's based on organized memory, and while it might take intelligence to organize the memory, it doesn't take much to use memories that are already organized. And robots can copy memories easily. So you need one really intelligent robot to train to do something, and the contexts in which which action is appropriate. Then you copy it to thousands of robots that are a lot less intelligent, but a lot lighter and cheaper. And that's only 10 years from now. 20 years from now is a whole different ball game. And in between then and now things aren't going to be standing still, even if I can't predict just how they will be changing.

But do note that you're talking about the velocity at which space is expanding. (Yeah, I know you know that, but I still find it confusing.) This doesn't imply anything about how objects located within space can accelerate. And since in order to get that 5x c velocity you need to be an immense number of light-years away, even contemplating talking about their relative velocities gives me a headache. I mean, if it currently looks to us as if they are moving apart at 5x c, how fast would they be moving apart in a simultaneous framework? We're only talking about three objects, so it should be possible to calculate such a framework, if we presume that no gross disaster has happened while we couldn't observe them because of time lag. IIUC that 5x c relative velocity was calculated based on current observations, but since they are so far away, and space has continued expanding during the time that light was on it's way here, they're probably moving apart much faster than that in "current" time (which, admittely, cannot be observed).

There is also the assumption that the chip structure is 2-D. This is already not totally true, though there are tremendous heat problems as you start stacking layers. This is one of the attractions of "spintronics"...state can be switched with less heat.

That's quite an "egocentric" viewpoint you have. The universe doesn't need people, it allows them to exist. If they choose to. Or the species can comit suicide. The universe won't care. It may even hit the planet with a "large enough" asteroid. But it won't be malice, it will be, perhaps, indifference. Except that "the universe" isn't sentient enough to even be indifferent.

OTOH, that's just what the evidence I've seen says to me. I'd be quite open to any actual evidence that I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that an assertion doesn't count.

P.S.: There may well be some non-evidential thing that does care. As specified that is neither evidence for nor against it.

P.P.S.: Here's my take on "what the universe is" if you want to go with a non-consensusal definition: The very concept of the universe was defined in terms of what is plausible given available evidence. This is why what it means changes when the evidence changes. Once upon a time it didn't include "dark matter" or "dark energy" (whatever they are). Then evidence for their existence was detected, and then the universe included them. Before the evidence appeared, nobody had even THOUGHT of them. They are still both big question marks, basically just markers saying "Here there be dragons", but not specifying much about the nature of those dragons.

P.S.: There ARE giant sea monsters. The ones large enough to worry about in a modern ship, however, aren't animals. They're things called "rogue waves", and we're just starting to understand them. Perhaps there are still others we haven't identified yet. If so they'll be quite surprising, and very rare.

OK, let me put it this way. 200 years ago someone said "The Freedom of the Press belongs to the man who owns one." Can you generalize from that? Perhaps in 200 years everyone will be able to afford their own factory, but I expect some really rough patches before then. Low end "3D printers" can only really turn out toys and junk. It takes the ones that can print in multiple metals to create something worthwhile. And even they aren't that good yet. The most practical home robot so far is the Roomba. But we've got apprentice robots working for the military. They aren't really good yet, but they're improving rapidly. But they aren't cheap. You don't buy a "Big Dog" to carry your shopping home for you. Not even if you're confined to a wheelchair.

Robot make stuff that basically for free to the person who owns the robit. (Well, plus cost of materials, shipping, handling, accounting, etc. Which are also robotized, but which still cost.) So the production cost has decreased substantially. But who is earning the money to buy that stuff? Only the guy that owns the robots or delivers the merchandise...but robot truck drivers are on the horizon, and robot warehouses are already here.

If prices drop by 50% and the mean wage stays the same, but the median drops by 60%, what does that mean for the average person being able to buy what they need? (Hint: The minimum wage possible is zero, but there is no upper limit.)

Now IF the government actually intended to promote the general welfare, then I would be happy and confident. This would look like the opening of a golden age. But I have seen VERY few signs that the government even considers the general welfare. So I don't feel happy about it at all.