The Mammoth Cometh | Hacker News Reader

The Mammoth Cometh

nytimes.com

80 pointskanamekun31 comments

The quote at the end of the article really struck me:

"We are as gods, and might as well get good at it."

I think that this is something that everyone involved with technology and science should think about. The fear of what we can create should never stop us from creating, but should instead serve as an impetus for more enlightened uses. I think that, as we have the ability to create biological diversity, we should do so (albeit in a responsible way). The same goes for every other technology that is being developed.

The quote is taken form the Whole Earth Catalog [1]. Jobs referenced it a lot the quote you are using is its first line. Its last line which is often attributed to Jobs is in fact the, "Stay hungry. Stay foolish."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Catalog

The reference -- and the concern about tinkering with the tree of life -- goes a bit further back:

"And YHVH said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now -- lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever -- let us send him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." -- Genesis 3:22-3:24

(Nb.: Citation of religious text does not imply endorsement thereof.)

Funny that you should mention the Whole Earth Catalog, as Stewart Brand has been heavily involved in this venture.

TED Radio Hour did a piece on this in a recent show. It's worth a listen:

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/209178988/the-hackers?showDate...

The counterargument to fears about disease is ridiculous:

> But nature is totally random.

Does David Haussler really believe that? That whatever species exist in an ecosystem today is just some random set? That evolution is noise in the background? How would he characterize natural selection? Would he say we shouldn't care about invasive species at all, since what we humans introduce can't be any worse than "totally random"?

It's a bad argument, and the NYT should not have let him get away with it. They even go so far as to use part of it in a pull quote!

Paywall is stopping me - any way to see this once I have reached my 10 articles per month limit?

Usually either incognito mode or searching the article title and following the google link work

Delete the NYT cookies.

I use the Disconnect extension and no paywall. This is a long article btw.

> any way to see this once I have reached my 10 articles per month limit?

Yes, by purchasing a subscription or waiting until next month.

Sidenote: Does asking for instructions to bypass DRM (however weak) on copyrighted material put anyone that responds in the position of committing contributory copyright infringement? Secondary liability is a real thing in the US at least.

Perhaps HN should block links to articles behind paywalls?

Why? The NYT, for instances, gives you 10 free articles a month. Not everything in the world can be free. People need to earn a living.

This is the first time ever I have reached the limit of NYtimes open access so not quite sure why a simple request to look at an article that may or may not be interesting is bringing out all the amateur lawyers and defenders of DRM.

Obviously I would buy a subscription if I thought it worth the money. I have spend 1000's of dollars on books, magazine and newspaper subscriptions and will continue to do so in the future. I don't see that value in the NYTimes but do like to read the occasional article.

As a matter of principle I never subscribe or buy anything that uses DRM. Paywalls are a grey area (for me) but probably OK for something like a newspaper.

So you've read ten articles this month from a publication which you don't think is worth paying for? Does that not seem even the slightest bit hypocritical to you?

So you've read ten articles this month from a publication which you don't think is worth paying for?

Actually it just means that he clicked on 10 links that sounded interesting. He may not have actually read them.

> So you've read ten articles this month from a publication which you don't think is worth paying for?

Yes, many times over. e.g. Hackernews, reddit, facebook, etc....

If they accepted crypto currency they could just charge per story at .01 or whatever.

Anything with a paywall IMO is hostile to being shared, thus posting it to HN at all is a bit of a dick move, for all parties involved.

I'd downvote if I could.

No need to be a dick about it.

They made the paywall easy to bypass intentionally.

Yes, because they expect people to follow an honor system. If you find that much value where you find yourself reading more than the limit, they want you to pay. Does that not seem fair?

If they wanted to use an honor system, they wouldn't have a paywall at all. The two are mutually exclusive.

They want to encourage people to pay without forcing them, because the latter would result in a significant decrease in their readership. They still want non-paying readers to help spread their articles, and they still get ad revenue from them.

I think the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are not technically copyright infringement, but sui generis prohibitions on breaking digital locks. That said, contributory copyright liability is a judge made doctrine, so it's possible one could analogize and attempt the same thing with the DMCA, but I'm not sure if anyone has done it, or if a judge would ever accept it. It would probably depend on the facts of the case at hand.

(Disclaimer: I could be wrong about all of the above.)

Turn off JavaScript for that site.

I use this plugin for Chrome. Once you turn off JS for a site, it stays turned off for future visits.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/geddoclleiomckbhad...

Open up the link in a new incognito window. That's all. It works every time. Don't clear cookies, or disable javascript, or any of that other stuff.

"We spared no expense."

I'm fine with them bringing back the Mammoth since it at least was recent, but I do have some concerns about other animals. We probably should not bring back any apex predators for a while (T Rex or for the love of all that's holy a Meglaodon).

I am a bit concerned that it will not survive with the evolution of other things (e.g. disease).

Might be some money in a Wooly Mammoth wool clothing line.

Am I the only one who wants them to be brought back so I can have a Wooly Mammoth steak?

mmmm....Mammoth Steak

the people who tried elephant steak did'nt go so far with their recommendation;

the other application of all these new forms of life will be their eventual use in making other planets, namely Mars habitable or less inhospitable. Granted that view is based on my reading Red Mars currently

That is way too long for web,let alone mobile, consumption. What's the TL;DR version?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com