Microsoft — King of the Animal Kingdom

ZDNet’s coverage of a Gateway executives testimony about Microsoft’s post-settlement business practices is awe inspiring. It is simply amazing how cutthroat one company can be while still trying to fit its practices within the letter, though definitely not the spirit, of the law (Microsoft might just hold the record for having the most egocetric executives award).

What I would love to see is a documentary about the anti-trust lawsuit filmed like one of those nature documentaries. See how Microsoft lays still, luring its OEM prey closer and closer until it suddenly lashes out and swallows it whole.

Some Names Have Been Changed to Protect the Idiots

Several years ago I read an article on a web site that I agreed with and placed a link to it on one of my web sites. The other day the author of that article asked me to please remove the link, thank you very much, he did not want his article mentioned on my site.

Why? Because of the dirty but not-so-secret reality of free market politics — there is no political movement outside of the various Marxist movements that is more obsessed with factionalism and divisive philosophies than what might be broadly considered the libertarian movement.

In this case, the problem was that I am a libertarian and the author of the article turned out to be an Objectivist (the philosophy espoused by Ayn Rand). Which means very little to me, but seems to matter a lot of the Objectivists.

Take an issue like gun control, which the article was about. I happen to be to the right of the NRA on the right to keep and bear arms. So was the article I linked to. But libertarians arrive at that position through a slightly different philosophical route than do Objectivists. Not only do many Objectivists seem to think that there is one and only one possible rational philosophy — anyone who fails to accept some part of that being, by definition, irrational — but they have a habit of arguing that people who otherwise agree with them, like libertarians, are just as wrong as, and in some cases even worse, than their opponents.

This sort of approach led Objectivism to descend into cult-like behavior as Michael Shermer nicely summarized in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. As Shermer puts it,

The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.

Unfortunately, many of Rand’s successors have chosen to follow this same path.

Anyone for Pufferfish Rights?

One of the commonly heard refrains about non-human primates is that since they are close to humans genetically, they should be granted rights. If that’s the case, then what about the poor pufferfish?

The pufferfish is largely known for its potential to kill those who eat it. The pufferfish contains a neurotoxin and, if not prepared properly, can quickly kill a human being who eats it (which, of course, makes it all that much more interesting for thrill seekers).

The pufferfish is also of great interest to medical researchers, however, who are busy trying to sequence its genome. What might surprise a lot of people is that the odd-looking pufferfish is genetically very similar to human beings, which is what makes it of such potential use in research.

“In terms of gene complement, we are least 90% similar — probably higher,” said Greg Elgar, who heads up the effort to sequence the pufferfish genome. “There are big differences in gene expression levels and alternate transcripts, but if you’re talking about diversity, number and types of proteins, then it’s pretty difficult to tell us apart.”

Last October, Elgar announced that one species of pufferfish, Fugu rubripes had been sequenced, and sequencing of another species, Tetraodon nigroviridis, is under way.

Aside from the similarity with the human genome, the other advantage of sequencing the pufferfish genome is that it is relatively small — only about one-tenth the size of the human genome. This is because it lacks the so-called “junk DNA” present in many species, including human beings. This makes it easier for researchers to determine the function of the DNA. According to Elgar,

We’re pretty good at spotting coding sequences, mostly through cDNAs and EST [expressed sequence tags] work, but we’re very poor at finding regulatory sequences, basically because no one knows what we’re looking for. These control sequences are often shared between Fugu and mammals, and because the rest of the ‘junk’ is not well conserved, as it often is when you compare mouse and man, they stand out and slap you if you know how to look.

Already, the pufferfish effort has led to important findings about the human genome. For example, one of the things of interest to researchers are evolutionarily conserved regions (ecores) — these are parts of the genetic makeup of animals that exist across species and are the result of a shared evolutionary past.

Because the pufferfish genome lacks much of the junk DNA that makes it difficult to spot ecores, researchers were able to use the pufferfish to identify 207 new ecores between humans and other species.

Source:

Pufferfish genomes probe human genes. Ricki Lewis, The Scientist, 16[6]:22, March 18, 2002.