@AxiomaticInfinity - When I posted this, I had not yet seen any of the recent Republican "debates". I'm sorry. It's become painfully evident that we have become a culture that glorifies ignorance too much to trust us with advanced toys. In theory, the President needs Congressional approval to go to war ('though I think that's only happened 5 times). Except for one war that needs no approval from anyone. Nuclear. Herman Cain, at any moment, could be 30 minutes from killing a billion humans.
SciFi author, Larry Niven, postulated a branch of the U.N., called A.R.M. - one of whose mandates was suppressing dangerous technology. Increasingly, a single individual has an accelerating amount of power - both to create and heal, and to destroy. As repugnant as the suppression of knowledge may be, that may be a necessary strategy, until we are a little more advanced than the barely-evolved naked apes we currently are.
The law won't restrict anything. It was law that allowed Monsanto to patent life. Profit incentives won't help because the people (corporations) who pressure gov to make laws are the ones who decide and rule out the competition. There's no free market and there's no democracy. Face it. We're (humanity) doomed. the best thing we can do is to free Ted Kaczynski!!
A weird patchwork of sense and jaw-droppingly naive rubbish. Who's gonna get to be in this information-elite?
No drug regulation? So my doctor gets a new set of golf clubs from a drug company for prescribing some "deregulated" (untested) drug: it makes me grow hair on my eyeballs. What's the solution NOW I'M BLIND? Why, sue the drug company, they're insured...oh...with the parent company of my personal-injury insurer, who's refusing to pay out because I can't prove this new drug caused it.
are you suggesting a 1:1 scale response? I'd like to see thousands of Americans in training camps learning how to travel to afghanistan and blow themselves up. THAT would be a proportionate response.
Oh I didn't realize the US was training soldiers to infiltrate and terrorize civilian populations. As long as theres indiscriminate killing by all sectors of the populations on one side the other will be at a huge disadvantage.
The primary act of making war is the killing of civillians. In every documented war with only very few exceptions (WWI, for example) civillian casualties utterly dwarf those suffered by the military. This is true of war in the Classical age as in the Medieval period as it is now. One point of moral high-ground the US has is that since the mid-1970s it tends to inflict most of its civillian casualties by accident. Unfortunately, death does not care where it is intentional or not.
Information is already restricted. Restricting more is going to help? How? He proposes we let select individuals have access to this knowledge. Okay, but look at this practically. What would YOU, as a person, put faith in if you had to choose from the following?
1) ONLY a couple people having the knowledge to create and prevent disease.
2) EVERYONE having the knowledge to create and prevent disease.
I chose number 2. Why? I don't think ppl kill ppl as a pastime, but as a response to threat
@NikoKun I think you missed the point. Knowledge is a very powerful thing when used properly but most people are not educated well enough in a subject area to understand the implications of their work. He doesn't want to limit access to knowledge,he just doesn't want control over technological development to turn into the "wild west" so to speak
I used to water plants in Bill Joy's house in Aspen. He's a really down to earth guy and was never pretensious. I didn't realize he was so rich!! Now that IBM is buying Sun, he's really rich!!
"The Rule of Law" ....eeeek,the enemy hides in plain sight
The Enemy? The rule of Law is what keeps the strongest man from taking what he wants. Which is nice if that happens to be you, but somehow I doubt that. I'll concede that some laws are ridiculous, but if you prefer total anarchy to democracy then I would hope that you never gain any power.
Bill, cheer up! It's so depressing to listen to you drone on like that. Also, you're hanging out with VC's too much ... all that talk of "we", "we're funding", "bringing to market" etc. Thats VC solipsim is not helping your outlook at all.
The reallity that few dare mention is that there are far too many of us. I think that most well informed people are aware of that but few dare speak it. Time to get real people, for the hour is getting late. If we do not drastically reduce our population we will destroy the ecosystem. So one way or another there will be far fewer of us.
instead of giving food aid to developing nations, we could just birth control pills, or "morning after" pills. when they get their birth rates down, or perhaps decrease their populations, we could continue food aid. we could easily control populations without killing them.
You are so right. Overpopulation is the root cause of most of the world's ills. Global warming, hunger, resource depletion, territorial disputes, even mass religious indoctrination would be well mitigated by fewer people.
It has occurred to me that Bill Gates may on balance end up causing more human suffering than any other single individual in History. 1) via the daily misery wrought upon millions of people by the soul crushingly, spirit sappingly aweful software his company have foisted upon the world over the last 20+ years. 2) via spending the vast profits so generated eliminating the few diseases which ever stood a hope of keeping human numbers in check, hence precipitating a global Malthusian catastrophe.
I'm about 7 minutes into his lecture and I... he completely lost me... wtf is he even talking about right now? Wow Bill you really know how to suck an audience in!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The grand irony is that we need a pandemic to wipe out all the morons that don't realise what a genius Bill Joy is and that his proposal for the restriction of dangerous information is the only hope humanity has.
Restriction of information is the only hope humanity has? Unholy fucking of mothers! All that would do is place all the power in those who get to decide who knows what. We're already a nation of ignorant sheep. If you think living as a sheep is preferable to the liberty enshrined in the Constitution, you should move to a place where that's standard procedure. The leaders of Iran or Russia might consider him a genius; I don't. Live free or die.
Knowledge in the wrong hands IS dangerous... as are guns in the wrong hands!
So, while the idea of limiting knowledge is anti-intellectual and anti-democratic, it does make a certain kind of sense. It makes sense to not have knowledge in the hands of dangerous people.
However... it is not practical! _THAT_ is the true argument to make against it... it'll just give you a false sense of security if you _think_ you've limited knowledge.
its called H1N1 and it's unstoppable according to the WHO. How timely. Wonder if the comments offered in February 2006 by Mr. Joy were heeded by those in a position to work on these things. His statements about vaccines and tamiflu, etc. seem to have been well founded. Need some more R&D on multi-vaccines.
That doesn't mean the genetic code sequence to H1N1 should be kept secret.
Despite the "downer" nature of his topic, Bill Joy is right that technology can be misused for evil cheaply
At TED, the audience is asked to not applaud during a talk, as the speakers have only 20 minutes each on average and any time spent applauding is time the speaker cannot speak. I am sure sometimes it is hard for the audience to stop their natural instinct and to start applauding anyway, and then realize that they are doing that which they've been asked not to do, and furtively let it dwindle. Likely that is what happened here.
How can u not regulate drugs? That makes no sense, the market is not gonna produce the most effective drug, rather the drug company with the best commercials, and what about FDA's function to make sure the drugs are OK. And limit access to information? What about educating people? He obviously doesnt know about these technologies. 9/11 was not high-tech, so by limiting info for the peasants (b/c we all know the rich and powerful are gonna have access), this widens the gap b.w have and have-nots
Well said. Also, it's worth noting that this guy is planning on making money out of encouraging and furthering the agenda of the whole "fear" industry. IMO he's nothing less than contemptible.
I disagree. I mean I hate the war on terror, capatilism NWO ect..... But certain issues to do with security have to be dealt with. Pehaps some of the more philosophical ideas from TED should be implimented first.
I don't care if you disagree, if you disagree then you are mistaken and I don't care for mistaken OPINIONS.
You aren't making a clear assessment of the situation because you are probably intoxicated or mindlessly entertaining some set of beliefs which retards your worldview.
But as I stated before, I could care less. I am enlightened so people who have dropped the ball in their own court don't really bug me that much, when they drop the ball in my court then I have a problem.
The FDA, believe it or not, (and I know this is hard to believe) has killed more people than it's saved. It's a statistic. Despite good intentions, it unintentially kills more people than it saves. This is government.
No need for regulation - the market does this by itself. Companies are incentivized to produce the most effective drugs because it makes them rich. Regulation slows (10 yrs) life saving drugs from hitting the market. Kills people waiting
@delatroy That's an outright lie. The FDA maybe in shambles right, now. It's certainly not receiving appropriate funding and had been full of vacant suspicions, but given the right resources would allow it to reach an ideal efficiency.
To advocate no regulation is simply insane. Companies will revolutionize the drugs that make the biggest profit and ensures a loyal following. Also, your second claim is untrue as well. Regulations do not slow the development of life-saving drugs.
He doesn't sound like a futurist. He spends a great deal of airtime talking about unpopular and then doesn't address the nature of the unpopularity, but shows his own pet theory is .. he is a populist.
He wants to control information? Wow. I could tell he wasn't all that bright pretty much from the minute he opened his mouth, but that part just blew me away.
How does he propose we go about doing it? Follow in the steps of the communists, and "purge" 99% of our academics?
Even if his idea were morally justifiable (which it isn't) there would be no way to carry it out. Before the advent of the internet it would have just been difficult - today it's literally impossible.
I agree. He should analyze the effects of limiting information and freedom of speech more deeply. I think that would only enhance the danger of those wanting harm others using technology. For one thing, fewer people would be able to think of solutions and ways to forestall nefarious applications. It would also place even more power in the hands of those "in the know" without the possibility of effective oversight.
He just had to say 911 and everyone gave him street cred. lol
He shouldn't be on ted. he's as bright as any republican on a good day!
basically another, OMG I JUST FOUND OUT WHAT NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE!!! RUN!!
If our world leaders were actually concerned with reducing mortality rate or overall health of our nations then our problems would be solved.Instead they want to suck us dry and efficiently squeeze every last drop which causes our suffering.problems deserve solutions not fear and snake oil.
"If our world leaders were actually concerned with reducing mortality rate or overall health of our nations ... blah blah blah"
What the hell do you think we've been doing for the last century or so? Have you actually LOOKED at the mortality statistics over time? Can you name any other time in history when people have lived as long and as well as they do today?
I know it's "cool" to blame the government boogyman for everything these days, but you really need to start thinking for yourself.
I know you're just about on the verge and need a good pat on the back so that you feel smart and effectual.
Yes I am very in touch with the up-to-date information and see the facts as soon as they emerge. Anyone can point at the past and say OMG we are doing better!! but it really doesn't cut it in reality because we still elect idiots in office, we still have people dieing of things we had cures for 200 years ago.
How old are you? Your profile says 23 - is that accurate? I mean, seriously, either you're lying about your age (by a large margin) or you are the personification of everything that is wrong with the American education system ...
I didn't upload that video, In fact I haven't uploaded one video on this account.
You are mistaken on that point just like all others.
I'll remind you because you seem to think you have been combating me, you failed already and I moved on. You are a fly in the afterbirth. Go cry in your little bedroom you spec of a human being.
my domination of you two was worse than that dual KO bar fight.
Wow, I've never encountered anyone who so plainly manifested their obvious insecurities about the size of their penis in a single You Tube comment. lol
You could tell "he wasn't all that bright" Rrrright. Really? Bill Joy founded Sun Microsystems is a multi-guzillionaire and widely considered to be one of the most influential and brilliant minds in his field...and you could tell he wasn't all that bright? Stop embarrassing yourself. & who the f*ck are you? Apart from a complete nobody?
Well, first off, if you had an intelligent point to make you wouldn't be resorting to an argument from authority. Whether the guy is good with computers is irrelevant as far as his views on this subject are concerned. Secondly, "guzillionaire" is not a word. And lastly, please stop spamming. If you have something intelligent to contribute, great, do so. However, if all you're looking to do is toss out dozens of vitriol-filled comments that add nothing to the discussion, take it somewhere else.
Limiting information as Far as Genome sequencing is a very good Idea to an extent, Countries like China N.Korea and Russia will eventually get that science and tech. We need a Better U.N. a More effective U.N. with Balls. If the U.N. Did its Job the U.S. would never have had to Overthrow Saddam, who was seeking Bio WMDs. Bio engineering is not very costly compared to Chem and Nuke. Genetic engineered pathogens make nukes look like child's play.
Many good things and many pretty stupid... But futurists were always wrong - only few science fiction writers were right (S.Lem was a genius for example).
But citing Gore... that tells a lot about the state of his brain...
insanely boring speaker. Should rename the video because its clear he doesn't get excited about anything. Stephen Hawking is a more animated public speaker than this corpse.
I think he should analyze the effects of limiting information and freedom of speech more deeply. I think that would only enhance the danger of those wanting harm others using technology. For one thing, fewer people would be able to think of solutions and ways to forestall nefarious applications. It would also place even more power in the hands of those "in the know" without the possibility of effective oversight.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What we need to do is isolate the very best of humanity and allow the rest of the world kill itself off. Then the planet can repair itself and mankind can go on to reach its potentials,including going to the stars.
My mistake is commenting here, as there is no point. All are welcome to think and believe whatever they like, it is their karma. As for me and mine, that is my only concern.
Right on! Technology has always been a double edged sword.
I believe education is the answer to human violence, and technology can bring education to the world as well as solve the rest of the worlds problems.
Anyone who ever contends that censoring certain information is a noble prospect to prevent the escalation of potential threats is blindsided by the fact that people who disregard them will get the advantage in situations like this and "do/get it anyway", they always find a way regardless and it only increases the value of said information simply making it more pricey but never harder to get. The only people who suffer are the lawful.
It is not a scientific solution, it is a monetary one. If the governments of the world decided to base the value of money on a "cereal index" as well as gold and silver backed currency, we would have greed working towards producing more food. More food less hunger.
If you are a programer then I would suggest you start thinking about new ways to write code for a quantum computer, I am predicting a new y2k type problem where quantum computing would be limited by binary and where compatability issues will arise when quantum code and binary conflicts.
sigh...he is about 3 years behind on his technology. the most advanced transistors are 30nm/32nm not 60, and the theoretical limit is about 12nm (6*12 atoms wide) - 6 nm....
His point that we can and should steer the future to what we want it to be; is the most important thing he said. As for what we steer the future towards the largest factor above all others is that of culture, of conscienceness, & of our collective humanity. No matter what technologies are developed & what challenges we face if we cannot move to a new, better, understanding individually and collectively then we will continue to visit wrongs & ills upon our selves.
wouldn't putting a legal limiter on scientific technologies slow them down massively?
also, the social implication of such informational limits would imply that the government has the right to decide what you can and can't know. It does exist in the world today, to a degree, but It should not be something you aspire to. Such ideals would ultimately lead to abuse of power and an even more suppressed society.
I agree. A controled knoledge is a paths to deep ignorence. I am thinking for example when US actually triend to negociate with Iran not to teach nuclear engeneering in university...("this is not good for you").
And remenber, the Internet came out of ARPANET.
The responsabiity thing is the best way, but doing it only with law is not enough; it's also about a common culture: not to harm others (and the environment)...an evolved level of civilsation.
It's not just any information though. It's potentially dangerous information. You have to look at the situation with a more in-depth view of things.
The Anarchist's Cookbook is a great example, a book filled with all sorts of ways to do potentially dangerous things.
Although this is an exaggeration, would you say it's okay for a website to publicly release information that gives step by step instructions on how to build nuclear weapons? Or how to create various diseases?
If you got rid of the Anarchist's Cookbook, people could still figure out how to make bombs from books on chemistry and electronics that nobody complains about.
Everything worth knowing is, on some level, potentially dangerous.
Good point. However, if you got rid of it, it would make it significantly more inconvenient for one to learn how to do such things, thus, minimizing the risk of the manufacturing of dangerous substances greatly.
But motivated people could just end up being more dangerous because of those restrictions.
If the Columbine shooters had to assemble the information on explosives themselves, they would have either abandoned that part of the plan or taken in enough information to do it right.
It looks like China was listening to Bill's conclusions regarding censorship of information. Whether their efforts to do so will be successful in anything but the very short run, is doubtful. I tend to agree that what is needed is some more evolution of moral (and altruistic or humanitarian) social behavior.
Determining whose information is "potentially dangerous" (to whom else? the status quo?) is where the problem resides.
By saying that restricting knowledge, I think he means that our knowledge and power are far too advanced for our collective morality to handle responsibly.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
My sincere hope (belief?) is that the exponential nature of our technological growth will FORCE us to evolve ethically (or, as I identify it, EMOTIONALLY). We learn most memorably by making mistakes. No lesson as theory is as immediate as experience & conditioned response.
One HOPE-inspiring cultural example is the stark pendulum swing from the (quasi-)election of Bush to the landslide election of Obama.
Unfortunately, things sometimes have to go terribly wrong for people to get what's at stake.
The $10 computer will never come about. Moore's law will let you make denser chips, but chips aren't the main component of a computer system, esp. with microsoft and their software monopoly, to the optical drives, etc... and even if you make a cheap system, there is this thing called profit which keeps the prices high.
As fewer and fewer companies make the raw components, and even fewer assemble them, the prices will stay high and computing will remain out of reach for the masses...
Color me an optimist, I guess, but I think cheap (less than $50) computers will become prevelantly available, if only thru subsidy or charity (whether private or public).
It is the information age, and the right to have access to a personal interface to collective information will soon deservedly emerge as a right of citizenship, and ultimately should be seen as a universal human right.
M$ is already irrelevant because they have totally failed their market for 20 or more years, during which all they really did was steal, destroy small companies and imitate the products and services of better ones.
And of late, they've also made a series of poor imitation decisions. The XBox loses money and the Zune is a polished turd of a product.
But it's Vista - the OS they're euthanising early to introduce 7 that proves they are now totally irrelevant.
The fact that a monopoly supplies low-quality products doesn't make them less of a monopoly; it only proves the lock-in effect of the monopoly is too strong for it to matter.
Vista might suck, but people will still buy either it or XP, and still by MS Office rather than Corel or whatever else... monopoly in full effect, profit haven preserved.
English is my first language. Therefore I have no difficulty understanding it.
The original post refers to: "microsoft and their software monopoly".
My point is that software, as we know it, won't be the main driver in future.
Microsoft's business model relies entirely on imitating smarter companies, but doing so anything up to 5 years later - when the market has already matured or peaked and the incumbent is dominant.
The evidence is they cannot compete as things speed up.
...well, those are valid points if the world is rational, but when you consider experience... the software industry in turkey and china is based on pirated microsoft software... Ubuntu or whatever may be useful for productivity but with the major installed base being windows machines, it is still a platform which will maintain a virtual monopoly.
Microsoft doesn't need to "compete", they just need to maintain their monopoly, using unfair tactics as they can and have before.
No, those are Market Intelligence based points that are valid in the world as it is. I don't know where you learned about business, or how to argue, but you're not making any sense now.
What on earth is a "rational world"? We're talking about MS' ability to survive. What value does MS derive from pirated software? None.
You need to look more deeply into things. No-one wants to develop software for Windows anymore. $100m to re-brand search yet again from live to kuno! It's retarded thinking.
When I talk about "rational world", I'm talking about people making decisions such as "Apple is stable and intuitive", which makes sense from your perspective, but it doesn't always go that way.
The mind-share of a monopoly is more important than the market-share. Apple products may have been better for years, but Microsoft products outsell them, and have become a defacto standard.
That type of momentum is what is keeping MS going, and prospering.
You talk of a rational world and then wait 7 months to give us: "The mind-share of a monopoly"? You do realise that you're not only describing a monopoly [and an unhealthy one] but also a mass addiction?
And the fact that Apple IS more stable and intuitive is not a decision, it's an observation of fact.
But it's your catastrophic lack of any ability to recognise the nature of progress that's so lamentable. How many canal owners in Britain became railway builders and operators?
The point about "super empowered individuals" is well made. However, the plain fact is that there simply is NO defence against such a person. To restrict knowledge (or freedoms) on this premise is, in my opinion, a bad step to take as it would be entirely pointless and ineffective. Policy changes that allow every person on the planet to feel respected, free, valued and dignified would be a much better solution because in general, only dis-affected people commit acts of terrorism.
illogical. Fine job invalidating your own argument though. "in general, only disaffected people commit acts of terrorism". What about those who don't fall neatly into your "in general"? We are talking about global pandemic here, it only takes 1 nutcase. It saddens me that even the smarter commentators on You Tube are so myopically stupid. Humans will either need to become a whole lot smarter or we'll implode under the weight of all the people that think having a 125 IQ makes them smart and wise.
You will deserve a real reply ... just as soon as you evolve a brain capable of socialising with other members of the species without acting like a dick. In the mean time knock yourself out talking to the hand. Oh wait ... even my hand thinks you're an opinionated twat. Sorry looks like you're talking to yourself.
I wasn't interested in your reply you gabbling twit. Why would I want to hear any more from someone so crass and naive as to suggest that "Policy changes that allow every person on the planet to feel respected, free, valued..." are a vaguely realistic proposition or solution to this complex problem. aww look you've compiled all your fave videos ever and have the grand total of 1 subscriber, lol Hopefully that will give you pause to consider how irrelevant your sentiments are to the world.
great video, but i completely disagree with his final conclusion at the very end.
we should not attempt to limit access to scientific knowledge. never. it would stop progress, and it would corrode science from the inside. you cannot do good science if the flow of information is in any way censored or blocked.
This scientist has a critical error in his opening statement. Clean water is not a technological development in the sense of reducing poverty, because poverty is not due to lack of technological ability to have clean water. Lack of clean water in the 18th century and in the 21st century is because the middle aged in leadership positions stop people from getting clean water.
He wants to deny the access to potentially dangerous information.
People who can begin to do something with virus genome from internet are people which can get the information trough other channel.
I can't agree with his premise and mentioning of 9/11 because everything he talks about is a step to police state no matter how much he is for personal liberties.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That just means that you understand very little about the nature of the problem. The size of the threat that humanity faces and the inevitability of an eventual technological cataclysm. This is why Bill speaks at TED and you don't.
The reason that Bill speaks on TED doesn't make him right nor does it invalidate my opinion.
I think I understand the nature of the problem, but I simply would rather risk that 3 guys would use the information to kill hundreds of people then to deny the information to millions.
I also think that when you look deeply enough you will find that most of the things are dangerous and could be used for evil.
Burning 'dangerous' books failed before, why would it work this time?
Ahh now I see where you're going wrong. You're struggling with the basic maths "I simply would rather risk that 3 guys would use the information to kill hundreds of people thEn to deny the information to millions" If you knew anything about emergent genomics or nanotech you would know that the correct equation reads "I simply would rather risk that 10 guys would use the information to kill a billion people than to deny the information to millions". Once again this is why you don't speak at TED.
Once again the fact that I didn't speak at TED doesn't make me wrong.
For killing of a billion people you would need something with high death rate and very long incubation period, people who can do that can misuse the informations for this are also the ones that can get it. You could argue that tuberculosis genome should be forbidden, but if it will be forbidden there are slimmer chances to find a cure.
And by the way your personal attacks in this thread are the reason you don't speak at TED.
You're mind really is an incoherent mess isn't it? "...people who can do that can misuse the informations for this are also the ones that can get it." I don't even know what sentence means. Face it, you know next to nothing about the subject and have single handedly proven my point that even a little knowledge in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing. You're point about my personal attacks is well taken though. I must in all sincerity compliment you on you're restraint and constructiveness.
I'm sorry I've just realised that due to your inability to grasp the realities and complexities of this topic or indeed the prescience of the views expressed by the speaker, I've just lost all interest in debating this issue with you. Please feel free to have the last word, even though I doubt that I will bother reading it. Once again you certainly have shown that you are a far more gentle and respectful person than I am and in that sense I salute.
I'm sorry if it was incoherent, English is not my first language if thats an "single handedly proven point" that I know nothing about it, then so be it.
I was not aware that we were debating anything you just repeatedly stated that I know nothing and that I don't talk at TED.
And I wouldn't consider myself gentle and respectful person (Yes, my sarcasm detector might be broken:)), I was just trying to start a debate, because I'm interested in this topic.
@AxiomaticInfinity - When I posted this, I had not yet seen any of the recent Republican "debates". I'm sorry. It's become painfully evident that we have become a culture that glorifies ignorance too much to trust us with advanced toys. In theory, the President needs Congressional approval to go to war ('though I think that's only happened 5 times). Except for one war that needs no approval from anyone. Nuclear. Herman Cain, at any moment, could be 30 minutes from killing a billion humans.
47f0 2 months ago
SciFi author, Larry Niven, postulated a branch of the U.N., called A.R.M. - one of whose mandates was suppressing dangerous technology. Increasingly, a single individual has an accelerating amount of power - both to create and heal, and to destroy. As repugnant as the suppression of knowledge may be, that may be a necessary strategy, until we are a little more advanced than the barely-evolved naked apes we currently are.
47f0 6 months ago
The law won't restrict anything. It was law that allowed Monsanto to patent life. Profit incentives won't help because the people (corporations) who pressure gov to make laws are the ones who decide and rule out the competition. There's no free market and there's no democracy. Face it. We're (humanity) doomed. the best thing we can do is to free Ted Kaczynski!!
dharmashooter 7 months ago
@jonahansen yahoo! the 2nd amendment clearly pertains to nuclear weapons.
SlugChristie 8 months ago
Bill Joy is very much a role model and inspiration of mine, as a person interested in technology.
MEDIANAVE 9 months ago
so whens this shit come out?
treesfourlife 10 months ago
we need to have places on earth were the internet is banned and where GMO is not allowed in case this stuff fucks us up.
knightschwartz 10 months ago
good man, but stop the "arrrr" please.
bestwrmd 1 year ago
How do you know who are the good guys? Are the good guys those who consume the tax payers' money and lock out the more merited people?
MOBiL4u 1 year ago 2
A weird patchwork of sense and jaw-droppingly naive rubbish. Who's gonna get to be in this information-elite?
No drug regulation? So my doctor gets a new set of golf clubs from a drug company for prescribing some "deregulated" (untested) drug: it makes me grow hair on my eyeballs. What's the solution NOW I'M BLIND? Why, sue the drug company, they're insured...oh...with the parent company of my personal-injury insurer, who's refusing to pay out because I can't prove this new drug caused it.
dunnonuffink 1 year ago 2
are you suggesting a 1:1 scale response? I'd like to see thousands of Americans in training camps learning how to travel to afghanistan and blow themselves up. THAT would be a proportionate response.
bocanutz 2 years ago
@bocanutz
Thousands of Americans ARE in training camps learning how to kill Afghanis and many thousands more have graduated....it's called boot camp.
jjkrause84 1 year ago
@jjkrause84
Oh I didn't realize the US was training soldiers to infiltrate and terrorize civilian populations. As long as theres indiscriminate killing by all sectors of the populations on one side the other will be at a huge disadvantage.
bocanutz 1 year ago
@bocanutz
The primary act of making war is the killing of civillians. In every documented war with only very few exceptions (WWI, for example) civillian casualties utterly dwarf those suffered by the military. This is true of war in the Classical age as in the Medieval period as it is now. One point of moral high-ground the US has is that since the mid-1970s it tends to inflict most of its civillian casualties by accident. Unfortunately, death does not care where it is intentional or not.
jjkrause84 1 year ago 2
Information is already restricted. Restricting more is going to help? How? He proposes we let select individuals have access to this knowledge. Okay, but look at this practically. What would YOU, as a person, put faith in if you had to choose from the following?
1) ONLY a couple people having the knowledge to create and prevent disease.
2) EVERYONE having the knowledge to create and prevent disease.
I chose number 2. Why? I don't think ppl kill ppl as a pastime, but as a response to threat
slaughtz 2 years ago 3
holy fking expressionless face
-hero
fordieform 2 years ago
what was the point ?!
caveboy0000 2 years ago
Interesting speech... But what a foolish conclusion to draw. Limiting access to knowledge doesn't prevent bad things from happening.
NikoKun 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
NotJohnMalkovich 2 years ago
Comment removed
NotJohnMalkovich 2 years ago
@NikoKun I think you missed the point. Knowledge is a very powerful thing when used properly but most people are not educated well enough in a subject area to understand the implications of their work. He doesn't want to limit access to knowledge,he just doesn't want control over technological development to turn into the "wild west" so to speak
bdebeks 1 year ago
How did this MS conversations start?
rachellesi 2 years ago
I used to water plants in Bill Joy's house in Aspen. He's a really down to earth guy and was never pretensious. I didn't realize he was so rich!! Now that IBM is buying Sun, he's really rich!!
lousurfguy111 2 years ago
"The Rule of Law" ....eeeek,the enemy hides in plain sight
AllianceCrusha 2 years ago
"The Rule of Law" ....eeeek,the enemy hides in plain sight
The Enemy? The rule of Law is what keeps the strongest man from taking what he wants. Which is nice if that happens to be you, but somehow I doubt that. I'll concede that some laws are ridiculous, but if you prefer total anarchy to democracy then I would hope that you never gain any power.
thisisaproxy 2 years ago
some good thoughts, especially about guarding against misuse of information. There's a reason why a blue print of the nuke is not on the internet.
cwjacklin 2 years ago
Huh? Even if you could get a blueprint, where you gonna get the plutonium? From that Flux Capacitor you built?
SgtTravisBickle 2 years ago
Is it me? Or is it him? He is not inspiring at all... He should hire a speaker of maybe his ideas resonate boredom??
jencapri 3 years ago
I like Ray Kurzweil, because he is much more optimistic :)
155qwerty155 3 years ago
actually i like Bill's style, he is sugar-coating the imperfect world, but the speach is still positive enough i find!
hardToSignUpHere 2 years ago
Bill, cheer up! It's so depressing to listen to you drone on like that. Also, you're hanging out with VC's too much ... all that talk of "we", "we're funding", "bringing to market" etc. Thats VC solipsim is not helping your outlook at all.
jmdd93 3 years ago
The reallity that few dare mention is that there are far too many of us. I think that most well informed people are aware of that but few dare speak it. Time to get real people, for the hour is getting late. If we do not drastically reduce our population we will destroy the ecosystem. So one way or another there will be far fewer of us.
ehswan 3 years ago 2
instead of giving food aid to developing nations, we could just birth control pills, or "morning after" pills. when they get their birth rates down, or perhaps decrease their populations, we could continue food aid. we could easily control populations without killing them.
loturos 3 years ago 2
You are so right. Overpopulation is the root cause of most of the world's ills. Global warming, hunger, resource depletion, territorial disputes, even mass religious indoctrination would be well mitigated by fewer people.
jonahansen 3 years ago
scary....
AllianceCrusha 2 years ago
That means you're into eugenics. You're a moron.
SgtTravisBickle 2 years ago
It has occurred to me that Bill Gates may on balance end up causing more human suffering than any other single individual in History. 1) via the daily misery wrought upon millions of people by the soul crushingly, spirit sappingly aweful software his company have foisted upon the world over the last 20+ years. 2) via spending the vast profits so generated eliminating the few diseases which ever stood a hope of keeping human numbers in check, hence precipitating a global Malthusian catastrophe.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
YAY! Idiot. Global warming is a hoax so you can buy carbon credits from Al Gore's company.
SgtTravisBickle 2 years ago 3
sure, it is... you should listen to Jenna Jameson instead - she surely knows more!! :p
hardToSignUpHere 2 years ago
What are you talking about? Is Jenna your God or something? Is this a new cult I haven't heard about?
SgtTravisBickle 2 years ago
who is Jenna? Jenna Jameson?
hardToSignUpHere 2 years ago
Sorry, don't know who that is.
SgtTravisBickle 2 years ago
She's an artistic innovator. Probably a likely candidate for the first female president of the USA.
strono 2 years ago
i can imagine that, state-sponsored breast implants ;)
hardToSignUpHere 2 years ago
WOW! I knew carbon nano tubes had some amazing properties but I didn't know carbon nano tubes had that many properties.
razzla07 3 years ago
I'm about 7 minutes into his lecture and I... he completely lost me... wtf is he even talking about right now? Wow Bill you really know how to suck an audience in!
mikedubya 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The grand irony is that we need a pandemic to wipe out all the morons that don't realise what a genius Bill Joy is and that his proposal for the restriction of dangerous information is the only hope humanity has.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
Restriction of information is the only hope humanity has? Unholy fucking of mothers! All that would do is place all the power in those who get to decide who knows what. We're already a nation of ignorant sheep. If you think living as a sheep is preferable to the liberty enshrined in the Constitution, you should move to a place where that's standard procedure. The leaders of Iran or Russia might consider him a genius; I don't. Live free or die.
jonahansen 3 years ago 5
@jonahansen
It's an interesting contraction, ehh?
Knowledge in the wrong hands IS dangerous... as are guns in the wrong hands!
So, while the idea of limiting knowledge is anti-intellectual and anti-democratic, it does make a certain kind of sense. It makes sense to not have knowledge in the hands of dangerous people.
However... it is not practical! _THAT_ is the true argument to make against it... it'll just give you a false sense of security if you _think_ you've limited knowledge.
its1110am 10 months ago
We need a pandemic!
MommaElin 3 years ago
its called H1N1 and it's unstoppable according to the WHO. How timely. Wonder if the comments offered in February 2006 by Mr. Joy were heeded by those in a position to work on these things. His statements about vaccines and tamiflu, etc. seem to have been well founded. Need some more R&D on multi-vaccines.
That doesn't mean the genetic code sequence to H1N1 should be kept secret.
Despite the "downer" nature of his topic, Bill Joy is right that technology can be misused for evil cheaply
abicyclist 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
EvanChaim 3 years ago
At TED, the audience is asked to not applaud during a talk, as the speakers have only 20 minutes each on average and any time spent applauding is time the speaker cannot speak. I am sure sometimes it is hard for the audience to stop their natural instinct and to start applauding anyway, and then realize that they are doing that which they've been asked not to do, and furtively let it dwindle. Likely that is what happened here.
Panpiper 3 years ago
How can u not regulate drugs? That makes no sense, the market is not gonna produce the most effective drug, rather the drug company with the best commercials, and what about FDA's function to make sure the drugs are OK. And limit access to information? What about educating people? He obviously doesnt know about these technologies. 9/11 was not high-tech, so by limiting info for the peasants (b/c we all know the rich and powerful are gonna have access), this widens the gap b.w have and have-nots
meb025 3 years ago 8
Well said. Also, it's worth noting that this guy is planning on making money out of encouraging and furthering the agenda of the whole "fear" industry. IMO he's nothing less than contemptible.
CaptainFrantic 3 years ago 2
precisely.
at least someone else gets it!
niginit 3 years ago
I disagree. I mean I hate the war on terror, capatilism NWO ect..... But certain issues to do with security have to be dealt with. Pehaps some of the more philosophical ideas from TED should be implimented first.
razzla07 3 years ago
I don't care if you disagree, if you disagree then you are mistaken and I don't care for mistaken OPINIONS.
You aren't making a clear assessment of the situation because you are probably intoxicated or mindlessly entertaining some set of beliefs which retards your worldview.
But as I stated before, I could care less. I am enlightened so people who have dropped the ball in their own court don't really bug me that much, when they drop the ball in my court then I have a problem.
niginit 3 years ago
@meb025 No. That makes complete sense :)
The FDA, believe it or not, (and I know this is hard to believe) has killed more people than it's saved. It's a statistic. Despite good intentions, it unintentially kills more people than it saves. This is government.
No need for regulation - the market does this by itself. Companies are incentivized to produce the most effective drugs because it makes them rich. Regulation slows (10 yrs) life saving drugs from hitting the market. Kills people waiting
delatroy 10 months ago
@delatroy That's an outright lie. The FDA maybe in shambles right, now. It's certainly not receiving appropriate funding and had been full of vacant suspicions, but given the right resources would allow it to reach an ideal efficiency.
To advocate no regulation is simply insane. Companies will revolutionize the drugs that make the biggest profit and ensures a loyal following. Also, your second claim is untrue as well. Regulations do not slow the development of life-saving drugs.
golbysama 7 months ago
I love the shoutout to Wikipedia and google, whoo whoo!
meb025 3 years ago
He doesn't sound like a futurist. He spends a great deal of airtime talking about unpopular and then doesn't address the nature of the unpopularity, but shows his own pet theory is .. he is a populist.
ddball1 3 years ago
He wants to control information? Wow. I could tell he wasn't all that bright pretty much from the minute he opened his mouth, but that part just blew me away.
How does he propose we go about doing it? Follow in the steps of the communists, and "purge" 99% of our academics?
Even if his idea were morally justifiable (which it isn't) there would be no way to carry it out. Before the advent of the internet it would have just been difficult - today it's literally impossible.
c6gunner 3 years ago 4
I agree. He should analyze the effects of limiting information and freedom of speech more deeply. I think that would only enhance the danger of those wanting harm others using technology. For one thing, fewer people would be able to think of solutions and ways to forestall nefarious applications. It would also place even more power in the hands of those "in the know" without the possibility of effective oversight.
jonahansen 3 years ago 4
He just had to say 911 and everyone gave him street cred. lol
He shouldn't be on ted. he's as bright as any republican on a good day!
basically another, OMG I JUST FOUND OUT WHAT NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE!!! RUN!!
If our world leaders were actually concerned with reducing mortality rate or overall health of our nations then our problems would be solved.Instead they want to suck us dry and efficiently squeeze every last drop which causes our suffering.problems deserve solutions not fear and snake oil.
niginit 3 years ago 3
"If our world leaders were actually concerned with reducing mortality rate or overall health of our nations ... blah blah blah"
What the hell do you think we've been doing for the last century or so? Have you actually LOOKED at the mortality statistics over time? Can you name any other time in history when people have lived as long and as well as they do today?
I know it's "cool" to blame the government boogyman for everything these days, but you really need to start thinking for yourself.
c6gunner 3 years ago
did you want to start crying now?
I know you're just about on the verge and need a good pat on the back so that you feel smart and effectual.
Yes I am very in touch with the up-to-date information and see the facts as soon as they emerge. Anyone can point at the past and say OMG we are doing better!! but it really doesn't cut it in reality because we still elect idiots in office, we still have people dieing of things we had cures for 200 years ago.
you are an idiot and fail,ur not cool. stfu
niginit 3 years ago
What?
How old are you? Your profile says 23 - is that accurate? I mean, seriously, either you're lying about your age (by a large margin) or you are the personification of everything that is wrong with the American education system ...
c6gunner 3 years ago
lolz @ nignit. So speaks the man who uploads videos with names like "DUAL KO BAR FIGHT" onto the internet. Enough said.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
I didn't upload that video, In fact I haven't uploaded one video on this account.
You are mistaken on that point just like all others.
I'll remind you because you seem to think you have been combating me, you failed already and I moved on. You are a fly in the afterbirth. Go cry in your little bedroom you spec of a human being.
my domination of you two was worse than that dual KO bar fight.
niginit 3 years ago
Wow, I've never encountered anyone who so plainly manifested their obvious insecurities about the size of their penis in a single You Tube comment. lol
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
You could tell "he wasn't all that bright" Rrrright. Really? Bill Joy founded Sun Microsystems is a multi-guzillionaire and widely considered to be one of the most influential and brilliant minds in his field...and you could tell he wasn't all that bright? Stop embarrassing yourself. & who the f*ck are you? Apart from a complete nobody?
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
Well, first off, if you had an intelligent point to make you wouldn't be resorting to an argument from authority. Whether the guy is good with computers is irrelevant as far as his views on this subject are concerned. Secondly, "guzillionaire" is not a word. And lastly, please stop spamming. If you have something intelligent to contribute, great, do so. However, if all you're looking to do is toss out dozens of vitriol-filled comments that add nothing to the discussion, take it somewhere else.
c6gunner 3 years ago 2
The views of anyone so petty that they feel compelled to point out that "guzillionaire" "is not a word" should be ignored as a matter of principal.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
you both should get a room, you seem like you would both be the type that would need a hard ramming up the ass.
"OMG HOW OLD ARE YOU?LIKE, OMG"
"HAHA, YOU UPLOADED A VIDEO,WAIT, NO. I'M RETARDED"
you both fail.
niginit 3 years ago
here's basically what you had to say.
"OMG, WHO ARE YOU? YOU MUST BE A COMPLETE NOBODY, OMG"
good job, you amounted to something! A complete idiot but hey that's something!
niginit 3 years ago
Limiting information as Far as Genome sequencing is a very good Idea to an extent, Countries like China N.Korea and Russia will eventually get that science and tech. We need a Better U.N. a More effective U.N. with Balls. If the U.N. Did its Job the U.S. would never have had to Overthrow Saddam, who was seeking Bio WMDs. Bio engineering is not very costly compared to Chem and Nuke. Genetic engineered pathogens make nukes look like child's play.
Darthwillburr 3 years ago
he saved the 'best' for last.. 18:00
jojo808 3 years ago
limit access to information? who decides what info to limit and to whom?
jojo808 3 years ago 4
Many good things and many pretty stupid... But futurists were always wrong - only few science fiction writers were right (S.Lem was a genius for example).
But citing Gore... that tells a lot about the state of his brain...
grraadd 3 years ago
insanely boring speaker. Should rename the video because its clear he doesn't get excited about anything. Stephen Hawking is a more animated public speaker than this corpse.
mbolton2181 3 years ago 3
I read one of Stephen Hawking's books about Black Holes. It's really cool. I hope he doesn't die from ALS.
HmongYou2Tube 3 years ago
hilar! I was def expecting more, hahah
meb025 3 years ago
ok he is so boring... he just sit there for 20 min. and talk?..
city5joy 3 years ago
I think he should analyze the effects of limiting information and freedom of speech more deeply. I think that would only enhance the danger of those wanting harm others using technology. For one thing, fewer people would be able to think of solutions and ways to forestall nefarious applications. It would also place even more power in the hands of those "in the know" without the possibility of effective oversight.
jonahansen 3 years ago 4
LOL @ 12:04-12:12. I think he may have realised what he was doing. Seems like the camera operators did.
FantasmaBAnco 3 years ago 2
lol.. made my day
anooosy1988 3 years ago 4
You have dirty minds. ;-)
I didn't even notice.
Panpiper 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What we need to do is isolate the very best of humanity and allow the rest of the world kill itself off. Then the planet can repair itself and mankind can go on to reach its potentials,including going to the stars.
LordKarmaUSA 3 years ago
You need to think about what you say.Would you say the best are the west?? how would we cut them off...they wouldnt agree
Bluetitjc 3 years ago
That's a great idea when are you going to kill yourself- I hope you are not one of those uncommitted population reductionist.
billybobhobnob101 3 years ago
The planet is fine, the Eco system is what is at risk.
CharAznable 3 years ago 3
My mistake is commenting here, as there is no point. All are welcome to think and believe whatever they like, it is their karma. As for me and mine, that is my only concern.
LordKarmaUSA 3 years ago
the planet IS an ecosystem, we are part of that ecosystem, we are at risk.
quietrevolutionary 3 years ago
Let's not split hairs.
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 years ago
i love the way he speaks about "change of administation... 16:28
Voiceguitar 3 years ago
I agree with everything except the last statements
ForceUser 3 years ago
Sadly, he speaks out of fear more than inspiration. The attempts to control will manifest the negative outcomes more than prevent them.
bitRAKE 3 years ago 4
Right on! Technology has always been a double edged sword.
I believe education is the answer to human violence, and technology can bring education to the world as well as solve the rest of the worlds problems.
NewDescartes 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we are in our path to extintion.
we were always in that path, now we took a quantum leap.
and there is no solution.
nestorrfortuna 3 years ago
I wish this guy ran for president.
n0fa1th 3 years ago
Minus the anti-freedom of speech stuff (I wrote the comment before he was done talking).
n0fa1th 3 years ago
Anyone who ever contends that censoring certain information is a noble prospect to prevent the escalation of potential threats is blindsided by the fact that people who disregard them will get the advantage in situations like this and "do/get it anyway", they always find a way regardless and it only increases the value of said information simply making it more pricey but never harder to get. The only people who suffer are the lawful.
Slap some reality into your face for me please.
swyft187 3 years ago 4
It is not a scientific solution, it is a monetary one. If the governments of the world decided to base the value of money on a "cereal index" as well as gold and silver backed currency, we would have greed working towards producing more food. More food less hunger.
truefictions 3 years ago
won't you still have the problem of distribution?
lockheed123 3 years ago
-truefictions
lockheed123 3 years ago
If you are a programer then I would suggest you start thinking about new ways to write code for a quantum computer, I am predicting a new y2k type problem where quantum computing would be limited by binary and where compatability issues will arise when quantum code and binary conflicts.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
very monotone.
feerof 3 years ago 2
sigh...he is about 3 years behind on his technology. the most advanced transistors are 30nm/32nm not 60, and the theoretical limit is about 12nm (6*12 atoms wide) - 6 nm....
spikebtvs 3 years ago
Maybe because the talk was given in Feb 2006? ;)
Promatheos 3 years ago 4
His point that we can and should steer the future to what we want it to be; is the most important thing he said. As for what we steer the future towards the largest factor above all others is that of culture, of conscienceness, & of our collective humanity. No matter what technologies are developed & what challenges we face if we cannot move to a new, better, understanding individually and collectively then we will continue to visit wrongs & ills upon our selves.
C13XIII 3 years ago 4
really enjoyed his points about new materials. the carbon nano-tubes sound crazy
RPGabe 3 years ago 2
This technology has been applied to bend electromagnetic radation, making matters that are virtually invisible in electromagnetic signatures.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
meh
rudy4histo 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WOW! I zoned out after the first minute. What is with all these lames videos on Tedtalks Usually their pretty interesting.
stlyes 3 years ago
wouldn't putting a legal limiter on scientific technologies slow them down massively?
also, the social implication of such informational limits would imply that the government has the right to decide what you can and can't know. It does exist in the world today, to a degree, but It should not be something you aspire to. Such ideals would ultimately lead to abuse of power and an even more suppressed society.
Zetimenvec 3 years ago 7
I agree. A controled knoledge is a paths to deep ignorence. I am thinking for example when US actually triend to negociate with Iran not to teach nuclear engeneering in university...("this is not good for you").
And remenber, the Internet came out of ARPANET.
The responsabiity thing is the best way, but doing it only with law is not enough; it's also about a common culture: not to harm others (and the environment)...an evolved level of civilsation.
SUPERSCIENCE01 3 years ago
Bueller Bueller Bueller
recognizetrill 3 years ago
Wow @ carbon nanotubes.
faxanidu 3 years ago
Limit access to information? I consider that a step in the wrong direction.
CanadianNinjaMonkey 3 years ago 5
It's not just any information though. It's potentially dangerous information. You have to look at the situation with a more in-depth view of things.
The Anarchist's Cookbook is a great example, a book filled with all sorts of ways to do potentially dangerous things.
Although this is an exaggeration, would you say it's okay for a website to publicly release information that gives step by step instructions on how to build nuclear weapons? Or how to create various diseases?
SJRNWT 3 years ago
If you got rid of the Anarchist's Cookbook, people could still figure out how to make bombs from books on chemistry and electronics that nobody complains about.
Everything worth knowing is, on some level, potentially dangerous.
misjudgeme 3 years ago 4
A better way to put it is: All knowledge can be used dangerously.
But, I would argue that more knowledge leads to less dangerous thinking.
GaddingImp 3 years ago 3
Good point. However, if you got rid of it, it would make it significantly more inconvenient for one to learn how to do such things, thus, minimizing the risk of the manufacturing of dangerous substances greatly.
SJRNWT 3 years ago
But motivated people could just end up being more dangerous because of those restrictions.
If the Columbine shooters had to assemble the information on explosives themselves, they would have either abandoned that part of the plan or taken in enough information to do it right.
misjudgeme 3 years ago
True, but (no offense, really), what is the better solution?
Make it easier for people to construct these weapons, therefore making the number of potential threats higher?
The point is, there is logic in censoring certain information, even though it's not a surefire way of being safe.
SJRNWT 3 years ago
It looks like China was listening to Bill's conclusions regarding censorship of information. Whether their efforts to do so will be successful in anything but the very short run, is doubtful. I tend to agree that what is needed is some more evolution of moral (and altruistic or humanitarian) social behavior.
Determining whose information is "potentially dangerous" (to whom else? the status quo?) is where the problem resides.
abicyclist 2 years ago
Yea, was just weird.
snrugh 3 years ago
Key Word: Rapid Diagnostics. That's what we need.
yadeyrinii 3 years ago 2
By saying that restricting knowledge, I think he means that our knowledge and power are far too advanced for our collective morality to handle responsibly.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
-MLK Jr.
NastyDHL 3 years ago
My sincere hope (belief?) is that the exponential nature of our technological growth will FORCE us to evolve ethically (or, as I identify it, EMOTIONALLY). We learn most memorably by making mistakes. No lesson as theory is as immediate as experience & conditioned response.
One HOPE-inspiring cultural example is the stark pendulum swing from the (quasi-)election of Bush to the landslide election of Obama.
Unfortunately, things sometimes have to go terribly wrong for people to get what's at stake.
baronmorris 3 years ago
Yeah but don't mix spirituality with moral values, it's not quite the same.
stevenaudet 3 years ago
True, but I think he meant spiritual power as in compassion, and compassion evolves your moral values.
NastyDHL 3 years ago
Amen ! You have hit the proverbial nail on the head :-)
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
The $10 computer will never come about. Moore's law will let you make denser chips, but chips aren't the main component of a computer system, esp. with microsoft and their software monopoly, to the optical drives, etc... and even if you make a cheap system, there is this thing called profit which keeps the prices high.
As fewer and fewer companies make the raw components, and even fewer assemble them, the prices will stay high and computing will remain out of reach for the masses...
bajan13k 3 years ago
Color me an optimist, I guess, but I think cheap (less than $50) computers will become prevelantly available, if only thru subsidy or charity (whether private or public).
It is the information age, and the right to have access to a personal interface to collective information will soon deservedly emerge as a right of citizenship, and ultimately should be seen as a universal human right.
PEACE.
baronmorris 3 years ago
Sub-$50 is possible but time will tell....
bajan13k 3 years ago
Forget M$'s monopoly on the OS.
M$ is already irrelevant because they have totally failed their market for 20 or more years, during which all they really did was steal, destroy small companies and imitate the products and services of better ones.
And of late, they've also made a series of poor imitation decisions. The XBox loses money and the Zune is a polished turd of a product.
But it's Vista - the OS they're euthanising early to introduce 7 that proves they are now totally irrelevant.
G58 2 years ago
You can't forget a monopoly.
The fact that a monopoly supplies low-quality products doesn't make them less of a monopoly; it only proves the lock-in effect of the monopoly is too strong for it to matter.
Vista might suck, but people will still buy either it or XP, and still by MS Office rather than Corel or whatever else... monopoly in full effect, profit haven preserved.
bajan13k 2 years ago
You're completely missing my point.
There are better, more accessible alternatives available from companies that understand the user and the user's needs.
It's the developing world that will choose Ubuntu and the commercial sector of the developed world that will choose Google's cloud solutions.
And then the smarter commercial sector of the developed world will choose Apple for its combination of stable, intuitive reliability.
G58 2 years ago
I don't think you know what monopoly means
EXetoC 2 years ago
English is my first language. Therefore I have no difficulty understanding it.
The original post refers to: "microsoft and their software monopoly".
My point is that software, as we know it, won't be the main driver in future.
Microsoft's business model relies entirely on imitating smarter companies, but doing so anything up to 5 years later - when the market has already matured or peaked and the incumbent is dominant.
The evidence is they cannot compete as things speed up.
G58 2 years ago
...well, those are valid points if the world is rational, but when you consider experience... the software industry in turkey and china is based on pirated microsoft software... Ubuntu or whatever may be useful for productivity but with the major installed base being windows machines, it is still a platform which will maintain a virtual monopoly.
Microsoft doesn't need to "compete", they just need to maintain their monopoly, using unfair tactics as they can and have before.
bajan13k 2 years ago
No, those are Market Intelligence based points that are valid in the world as it is. I don't know where you learned about business, or how to argue, but you're not making any sense now.
What on earth is a "rational world"? We're talking about MS' ability to survive. What value does MS derive from pirated software? None.
You need to look more deeply into things. No-one wants to develop software for Windows anymore. $100m to re-brand search yet again from live to kuno! It's retarded thinking.
G58 2 years ago
When I talk about "rational world", I'm talking about people making decisions such as "Apple is stable and intuitive", which makes sense from your perspective, but it doesn't always go that way.
The mind-share of a monopoly is more important than the market-share. Apple products may have been better for years, but Microsoft products outsell them, and have become a defacto standard.
That type of momentum is what is keeping MS going, and prospering.
It is not about the best. It is a monopoly.
bajan13k 2 years ago
You talk of a rational world and then wait 7 months to give us: "The mind-share of a monopoly"? You do realise that you're not only describing a monopoly [and an unhealthy one] but also a mass addiction?
And the fact that Apple IS more stable and intuitive is not a decision, it's an observation of fact.
But it's your catastrophic lack of any ability to recognise the nature of progress that's so lamentable. How many canal owners in Britain became railway builders and operators?
G58 2 years ago
The point about "super empowered individuals" is well made. However, the plain fact is that there simply is NO defence against such a person. To restrict knowledge (or freedoms) on this premise is, in my opinion, a bad step to take as it would be entirely pointless and ineffective. Policy changes that allow every person on the planet to feel respected, free, valued and dignified would be a much better solution because in general, only dis-affected people commit acts of terrorism.
CaptainFrantic 3 years ago 3
illogical. Fine job invalidating your own argument though. "in general, only disaffected people commit acts of terrorism". What about those who don't fall neatly into your "in general"? We are talking about global pandemic here, it only takes 1 nutcase. It saddens me that even the smarter commentators on You Tube are so myopically stupid. Humans will either need to become a whole lot smarter or we'll implode under the weight of all the people that think having a 125 IQ makes them smart and wise.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
You will deserve a real reply ... just as soon as you evolve a brain capable of socialising with other members of the species without acting like a dick. In the mean time knock yourself out talking to the hand. Oh wait ... even my hand thinks you're an opinionated twat. Sorry looks like you're talking to yourself.
CaptainFrantic 3 years ago
lol
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
I wasn't interested in your reply you gabbling twit. Why would I want to hear any more from someone so crass and naive as to suggest that "Policy changes that allow every person on the planet to feel respected, free, valued..." are a vaguely realistic proposition or solution to this complex problem. aww look you've compiled all your fave videos ever and have the grand total of 1 subscriber, lol Hopefully that will give you pause to consider how irrelevant your sentiments are to the world.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
great video, but i completely disagree with his final conclusion at the very end.
we should not attempt to limit access to scientific knowledge. never. it would stop progress, and it would corrode science from the inside. you cannot do good science if the flow of information is in any way censored or blocked.
kurtilein3 3 years ago 6
Well it's a good thing then that elected officials instantly become moral individuals.
What a joke.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
This scientist has a critical error in his opening statement. Clean water is not a technological development in the sense of reducing poverty, because poverty is not due to lack of technological ability to have clean water. Lack of clean water in the 18th century and in the 21st century is because the middle aged in leadership positions stop people from getting clean water.
teemuruskeepaa 3 years ago
He walks a very thin line.
He wants to deny the access to potentially dangerous information.
People who can begin to do something with virus genome from internet are people which can get the information trough other channel.
I can't agree with his premise and mentioning of 9/11 because everything he talks about is a step to police state no matter how much he is for personal liberties.
jOin3r 3 years ago 5
"You are free... to do what we tell you," eh?
bajan13k 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That just means that you understand very little about the nature of the problem. The size of the threat that humanity faces and the inevitability of an eventual technological cataclysm. This is why Bill speaks at TED and you don't.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
The reason that Bill speaks on TED doesn't make him right nor does it invalidate my opinion.
I think I understand the nature of the problem, but I simply would rather risk that 3 guys would use the information to kill hundreds of people then to deny the information to millions.
I also think that when you look deeply enough you will find that most of the things are dangerous and could be used for evil.
Burning 'dangerous' books failed before, why would it work this time?
jOin3r 3 years ago 3
Ahh now I see where you're going wrong. You're struggling with the basic maths "I simply would rather risk that 3 guys would use the information to kill hundreds of people thEn to deny the information to millions" If you knew anything about emergent genomics or nanotech you would know that the correct equation reads "I simply would rather risk that 10 guys would use the information to kill a billion people than to deny the information to millions". Once again this is why you don't speak at TED.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
Once again the fact that I didn't speak at TED doesn't make me wrong.
For killing of a billion people you would need something with high death rate and very long incubation period, people who can do that can misuse the informations for this are also the ones that can get it. You could argue that tuberculosis genome should be forbidden, but if it will be forbidden there are slimmer chances to find a cure.
And by the way your personal attacks in this thread are the reason you don't speak at TED.
jOin3r 3 years ago 2
You're mind really is an incoherent mess isn't it? "...people who can do that can misuse the informations for this are also the ones that can get it." I don't even know what sentence means. Face it, you know next to nothing about the subject and have single handedly proven my point that even a little knowledge in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing. You're point about my personal attacks is well taken though. I must in all sincerity compliment you on you're restraint and constructiveness.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
I'm sorry I've just realised that due to your inability to grasp the realities and complexities of this topic or indeed the prescience of the views expressed by the speaker, I've just lost all interest in debating this issue with you. Please feel free to have the last word, even though I doubt that I will bother reading it. Once again you certainly have shown that you are a far more gentle and respectful person than I am and in that sense I salute.
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
I'm sorry if it was incoherent, English is not my first language if thats an "single handedly proven point" that I know nothing about it, then so be it.
I was not aware that we were debating anything you just repeatedly stated that I know nothing and that I don't talk at TED.
And I wouldn't consider myself gentle and respectful person (Yes, my sarcasm detector might be broken:)), I was just trying to start a debate, because I'm interested in this topic.
Good bye and thanks for the last word.
jOin3r 3 years ago
we constantly have to agree to first do no harm. Constant, consistant agreement.
wolffenhaus 3 years ago 4
CHECK OUT THIS PHAT YOUTUBE. AWESOME
prelan 3 years ago
I have no idea wtf hes talking about...
Gintaras 3 years ago 3
lame. usually ted vids are usualy pretty good
HellBeast66 3 years ago
you just dissed what may have been the most relevant ever TED talk to the future of humanity. idiot. I feel so sorry for people with low IQ's :-(
REALITY2point0 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FIRST to rate it 1 star
semiliteratedgod 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow congrats
Luke123098 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
brutal accomplishment, you truly are a semiliterate god
NastyDHL 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
truly? Probably I forgot more than you'll ever know, dumb shit
semiliteratedgod 3 years ago