Wednesday, January 07, 2004

Macrovision sues DVD-copying firm. The copy-protection company is joining the movie industry in a legal fight against small software maker 321 Studios. [CNET News.com - Front Door] 10:08:14 PM    comment []

Feds thwart extortion plot against Best Buy, by David Phelps, Star Tribune, and Richard Smith asks Is the FBI using email Web bugs? If not, what's an "Internet Protocol Address Verifier," anyone know? 12:24:08 PM    comment []

Microsoft publishes program to blast MSBlast. The software giant releases a worm-removal tool after Internet service providers complained that home users' PCs infected with the malicious program are still causing network congestion. [CNET News.com - Front Door] 7:10:23 AM    comment []

MacCentral: EyeTV 200, EyeHome turn Mac into media center. [Hack the Planet] 7:05:25 AM    comment []

Alright. On Pete Rose. Great player, yeah, no doubt. I don't suppose I'd want to hang out with him, but there you are. But let me get this straight: He was ineligible to be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame because the Commisioner's Office believed that he had bet on baseball games and he had lied about it. Now he admits that he bet on baseball games -- including betting on his own team (though never against it, as though that were absolution) -- and he's supposed to be reinstated and elected?! That would suggest that it was just the lying that was keeping him out all along, rather than the whole gambling, betting on your own sport, wagering on the outcome of games over which you have some influence, and all. Was it just the lying? Because the betting business is still there -- only now there should be no shadow of doubt about it, even. Finally, even if, bizarrely, one were to hold that it was just the lying making Rose ineligible, that factor isn't gone with this admission. Why? Because now he admits he was lying all along. What Rose has done is to confirm the truth of the two factors apparently keeping him out of baseball, hence ineligible to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Now that it's clearly true he did the things that made him ineligible he should be elected? That, as we used to say before we rapped our fingers on computer keyboards all the livelong day, does not compute. 7:02:06 AM    comment []

No Word Yet From Yale? Web Site May Know Why. At the Web site www.ThickEnvelope.com, anxious students and parents can gauge their likelihood of getting admission into 80 of the nation's most competitive universities. By Kimetris N. Baltrip. [New York Times: Education] Great domain name! 6:53:53 AM    comment []

Just Fax Us the $5.4 Million. The FCC puts the wood to Fax.com, hitting the company with the stiffest fine ever imposed for sending unsolicited faxes that violate federal do-not-fax rules. [Wired News] 6:50:51 AM    comment []

Spaghetti-Os Discontinued As Franco-American Relations Break Down. The Onion, via NewsIsFree: Popular Items. 6:45:37 AM    comment []

Steve Talbott: Such a Worm as I ---------------- The two nematodes, Caenorhabditis elegans and C. briggsae, are so alike that only experts can distinguish them. Microscopic in size and transparent to light, the simple worms have near-identical biology, even down to the minutiae of developmental processes, according to a recent report in Science (Nov. 27). And yet, the report goes on to say, the genomes of the two worms turn out to differ from each other on a scale that dwarfs the differences between the human and mouse genomes. That is, genomically speaking, a human being and a mouse are much more alike than C. elegans and C. briggsae. For example, the worms show about fifty differences in gene organization for every one difference between human and mouse. The same ratio holds for changes in the structure of individual genes. Another surprise is that the primitive and tiny C. elegans has at least 24,000, and possibly more than 25,000, genes. With some recent estimates for the human gene count hovering around 25 - 26,000, the lowly worm is wonderfully close to outstripping us in genomic grandeur. If, following the conventional wisdom, you take the genome as the "blueprint" specifying the organism's construction, and if you reckon with the extreme difference in scale and complexity between C. elegans and a human being, then finding 24,000 genes in C. elegans is rather like finding architectural drawings worthy of the Empire State Building -- but intended for a one-room hut. And further (with C.briggsae in mind), it is as if you found a second but substantially altered set of intricate drawings for the nearly identical hut next door. Of course, if you were a sensible person, you would realize that these genomes couldn't be blueprints at all, in any normal meaning of the term. The real blueprint at work here is the far too rigid, mental one guiding genomic researchers toward radically simplified metaphors -- "blueprint", "code", "master program" -- that make the organism a product controlled by its genes. Related articles: ----------------- "Adrift in the Genome Without Instructions" in NF #150: http://www.netfuture.org/2003/Oct0703_150.html "Missing Weapons" and "Notes on Genetic Engineering" in NF #147: http://www.netfuture.org/2003/Jul1503_147.html "The Tyranny of the Gene" by Craig Holdrege in NF #80: http://www.netfuture.org/1998/Nov2498_80.html#3 6:22:12 AM    comment []

The fifteen finalists among the Bush In 30 Seconds ads submitted to MoveOn.org are available online now. 2:21:04 AM    comment []