Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Maybe his romanian origins (Romania under the soviet union influence for a long time) could explain some of this. As for me, the sentence above shows that they guy is more of a dangerous politician than a scientist. End of story.
Modern views on evolution and on genetics tend to admit that DNA is actually a very vague description, where genes code very general characteristics and not the precise details we used to think they did, leaving a large part for randomness and subjectness to interactions with the environment.
What that basically means is that by trying to "fix" DNA, we are actually reducing the overall possibilies: maybe some bad characteristic won't show up, but probably many more other possibilites won't either, the result of which we have absolutely no idea about.
I'm baffled that some current "professor" does seem to think as though we were 50 or 60 years ago. Grow up!
Basically you will pay to give away your privacy and ultimately, your freedom. It's a dictator's wildest dream coming true. Incidentally, a society model where you give up ownership of your data sounds like communism to me. Or maybe even worse than communism. I don't buy the "but people never backup their own data anyway, so the cloud is good for them." point. In fact, I don't want to live in a society where people can't even take care of their own data. Idiocracy?
People, in their Internet-aholism, seem to care less and less about their privacy. Are we regressing on some level?
But what's even more amazing is that this seemingly endless source of revenue makes people think it actually enhances their lives, whereas the added value to their lives is doubtful, at best.
The Economist talks about the new tech bubble: http://www.economist.com/node/18681576, and this time, it seems like it's here to stay. All these new "technologies" look like they have something in common: depriving people of their freedom (the so-called "cloud", social networks, increasingly intrusive search engines...)
Will I eventually be proved wrong? I hope so.
So why does it seem as if everybody wants to make us dependent on a 24/7 connection to the web, and why does it seem everyone wants to turn the browser into the building block upon which everything else depends?
Because it's a potentially endless source of revenue. It's really that simple.
In soviet OS, everything is a persistant object.
Kidding aside, I see several major issues with this concept: the increased risk of losing valuable data, the slowness, the very low interoperability (how do you exchange data with other OS's?), the whole span of programming languages that are not supported (I don't want to be coerced into using Java or C#, what's that about?)
Another issue is that I think the "object oriented" paradigms that are in use today are flawed in some aspects, and instead of basing everything computing-related on that, maybe we need to work on the concepts first.