Slashdot Mirror

I love my Series 60 phones specifically because of the 3rd-party stuff you can install. From an app that shows my friends' birthdays in order of who's next to a C64 emulator, the range of software means that if I suddenly feel like doing something new with my phone, someone's probably already written an app for it. Remember when that morse coder beat the fastest SMS dude? A couple of days later someone had a prototype morse code input program for the Series 60s. Sure, some programs (like the drivers for my bluetooth laser keyboard) are a train wreck and cause system errors, but blocking everyone just cause some people can't code is, for want of a better cliche, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

To produce such a powerful platform, then lock the world's innovators out of it is, frankly, a show-stopper for a lot of people who are actually interested in a phone that does more than just make and take calls.

For me the more interesting question is how much of Apple's success can be ascribed to Jobs' leadership style. Perhaps that should be in quotes because he is rumored to be an asshole to work for. Did his uncompromising behavior and standards create the iPod? Would it have been less of a hit if his vision didn't push it in the right direction? Or did it require a perfectionist?

Clearly he won't settle for less than best in him employees--but viewing from the outside, it's hard to say if that helped or hindered Apple's success.

Things like the GINI coefficient are red herrings. One statistic rarely shows anything, and GINI shows even less. See Russel Roberts post on the top 1% of income at http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/01/the_top _1_is_a_.html to see why. The USA is the fastest growing industrial economy in the world; the CEO's of these companies produce more wealth than many countries. If they are compensated what the market will bear, who am I to complain? Besides, they are only going to invest most of that wealth back into the economy making it easer to get my next new car by funding both the auto manufacturer and the loan company.

It may be that this particular case will not work, but the idea is great. Roll it yourself systems developed, improved, forked and tested online through an open source ideology... great stuff (: One has to admire the potential social consequences of the open source ideas, both in technology, law and governance.

Sadly for some, this also applies to warfare.

He beat Slashdot to this one with The Dilbert Blog

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 07/01/concept_car.html

1. We try to go to their site, looking for "cancel subscriptions". We search "cancel" and they have 2 links in their help page. But when I clicked on it, it shows nothing (both Firefox and IE 7)
2. Then we try their web chat. First when I tell the web chat we are cancelling, they give me ANOTHER link for their support chat. Fine. AND THEN, when we try to use their chat, it's broken. It starts to sound fishy to me up to this point...
3. We then try to call their support line. It takes forever just to go through the phone menus, and then we were put on hold for 20 minutes. Finally, a guy with distinctly Indian accent answered the call. He did not speak English that, I have to guesstimate what he said. I have to basically just keep saying "I just need to cancel my subscription, no thanks." repeatedly to get him stop repeat the scripted answers. Anyway... in the end this support guy said he'd give us a refund, but he'd put us on hold again to talk to the billing department. And finally he claimed the support department will refund us "in a few days". Oh yes, takes less than a day to charge the credit card, but a few days to refund...

What do they export?

Nigger Toes

I'd have to strongly disagree. First of all, in my experience, the intellectual quality of bloggers really puts syndicated columnists to shame. (I'm talking about the upper end of them -- no doubt you can find lots of bad quality.) They can write much more and link to the basis for their claims. If anything is in error, they'll typically have comment and trackback capability so others can instantly expose them. Rarely will columnists deign to defend their assertions. After reading blogs for a few years, I checked back to some of the syndicated columns I had read (this is what I had in mind) and just marveled at how intellectually shallow they were. In contrast, check out this list of some of the blogs I read:

http://econlog.econlib.org/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
http://www.economist.com/debate/freeexchange/
http://www.janegalt.net/
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
http://patrick.net/wp/

Several of those are professors. Now, tell me they're not more refined than the columns you'd read in the paper.

You know what I see it useful in? A camera, so that it could automatically add the location to the EXIF data of each photo taken. I would think Google and Apple would be all over that kind of thing, since it would have really cool possibilities for iPhoto and Google Image Search. Too bad neither of them makes cameras...

It may be more a question of anonymous identities than throw-away ones. The difference in behaviour in a forum where people know who you are, and those where your are essentially represented by an "avatar" is remarkable. I grew up in the Norwegian woods, where IRC became a good tool for socialicing with people from nearby, including the non-geeks. Change channel to a bigger one, with people from far away, and the world ended; the "game" begun.

People just don't loose their core personality like that tho'. The reason you get "throw-away personalities" is simply because so much of the online world essentially feels like a game. Thought we bring elements of ourselves into these games, I've yet to see someone bring elements back out. When you go to work, you're still you. When you go on a date, you are still you. When you go back to your parents, you are still you (if somewhat filtered). Any social network that reaches into our world will force you to be more like yourself online.

The problem however is when there is something weird about you in the first place... Networks may enhance sides of your personality that should probably not be strengthened. It's difficult living out your fantasies about eating people online, and not have that strengthen your desire in real life. If you get into a group with canibals talking allot about this, your mind will assume it more normal.

The latter also holds true for fundamentalism, political dogma and all those other nasty tasty spices that keeps CNN broadcasting.

Lastly, let me reccomend the blog Global Guerrillas: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrill as/ It's got some thought provoking ideas...

*Click*

Which in and of itself says nothing about midwesterners other than that they're better than the coastal types at getting the government to pay up.

In the news today, the FDA is poised to approve food from cloned animals. Apparently eating clones makes some people uncomfortable. Their thinking goes like this:

"I sure enjoy eating Bob the cow, but I wouldn't feel comfortable eating Bob the other cow."

Eating clones got me thinking about the intellectual property of human supermodel DNA. At some point it seems inevitable that billionaires will start cloning supermodels so they can grow their own girlfriends. Someday it will surely be legal in some country.

If you were a supermodel who had snorted away all of your money and you were now too old to model, and some billionaire offered you a hundred million dollars for your DNA, would you sell it? Assume you know in advance that the billionaire is a disgusting pig who will be raising your clone to be a brainwashed sex slave.

Assume also that your clone won't be forced to do anything against her will. She will simply be raised to believe the billionaire is a godlike creature and the rest will happen naturally. No laws will be broken. And she will live like a princess except for the part about being a clone whore to an old, rich fat guy. In other words, the quality of her life will be in the top 10% of the planet if you consider the wretchedness the average human's life around the world.

Would you sell your DNA for $100,000,000?

From the Dilber blog: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 06/12/deja_food.html

Nor do I, but they have it for now. So far, Apple has used their de-facto monopoly to keep our prices down and preserve as much freedom as they can against the wishes of the RIAA. They've also signed thousands of Indie labels to potentially end run the RIAA once and for all. The RIAA knows not to push Apple because Steve Jobs will simply find a different model for music distribution and it won't include them. They'll be very broke, very fast. Of course, that will bring the other Apple Music lawyers around again, but that's another thread.

Nullifying the RIAA won't solve the "stealing music" business so DRM in some shape is going to be with us for a while - at least until the honor system for payments to artists takes hold. That said, I agree that any entity with a strong monopoly for a high demand item is a bad thing (see: RIAA, OPEC etc.).

In this digital age, how does something intangible, like music and movie files, get tagged to the rightful "owner"? If it were up to the RIAA, there would be no physical media to "own" nor any files to freely toss around the Internet. That pretty much limits the options. What about a physical key like a DirecTV style card which fits into your playback items? Fingerprint readers? Retnal scans? Given the options, FairPlay DRM doesn't seem so bad at this point but there has to be a better solution that won't dissolve "fair use" like we're seeing now.

It's actually an Apple policy within the last year to let you do that ONCE:
http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2006/09/a pple_gave_me_b.html
http://thecontent.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/itunes- lets-people-re-download-all-your-music-once/

After that, get a clue and BACK UP!

Ahh... minor detail... yes, they don't want the user to strip the DRM from the music file itself. But there are Open Source DRM projects going on right now. A quick Google search will reveal several such projects.

I agree that DRM is evil and all and that DRM should not be in the hands of one controlling entity. However, we're actually battling the RIAA and they've got control of the music we want. I'm just thankful it's not the RIAA's brand of DRM. The RIAA is the problem and so are the people who want to steal music. DRM is the key to some level of trust and the source of the uneasy truce between the RIAA and the consumer. Any breach of that "trust" between RIAA and FairPlay will weaken Apple's position next time negotiations come around so it's in Apple's best interest to break jhymn and other DRM crackers. Otherwise, the RIAA will be able to leverage Apple just like it bent Microsoft over. Everyone is theorizing that Microsoft is taking an innovative approach to the RIAA and paying them a royalty for every player sold. Since when does Microsoft pay royalties to anyone? I think the RIAA demanded that as the cost of entry because they dont' trust Microsoft or their technology. The RIAA has been yelling about royalties on players for years. They missed the boat on Apple but they got Microsoft.

No, I don't want a Cell processor, but thanks for asking.

We'll again point to Chris Hecker's take on the cell processor: http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2005/03/ burn_the_house_.html

in short. It sucks for good games. More innovative would have been a console including a multicore/processor machine that had different types of processors for doing different things on. The PS3s processor is handicapped for AI, and since no one wants one, you won't find anyone online to play with it.

Its like putting rubber boots on Asafa Powell. Sure, he's set for rain, but what happens if he has to run a race?

...they get the money from us. See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006/12 /its_just_not_ea.html Bye, Oliver

As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.

It's the domino theory of island obliteration! As environmentalists always warned, once Lohachara falls, that's it for Egypt.

The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.

Got that right, Geoffrey. I can't remember Lohachara ever disappearing previously.

Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.

By quite a margin, as it happens. Lean doesn't say so, but Lohachara apparently vanished two decades ago. So much for Lean's scoop; the event took place back when Lean had hair, and several years before he emerged from a coma. Some locals aren't buying that global warming line, by the way:

Atanu Raha, director of Sundarban Biosphere Reserve, said the islands were getting eroded by oceanic currents, not by rising sea levels.

"Erosion and accretion are natural phenomena. Across the world islands submerge and new ones emerge. This is natural," Raha said.

Not according to Lean, who evidently believes all weather change is due to Meddling Humans. And that's all change, whether towards cold or heat. In 2004, Lean reported that "Britain is likely to be plunged into an ice age within our lifetime by global warming". Two years later, he asked: "So where has all the snow gone?" There's no pleasing Geoffrey.

UPDATE. This nonsense was republished in the NZ Herald.

UPDATE II. Lean has previously been convicted of sins of omission and other crimes against journalism.

UPDATE III. Jackalope Pursuivant: "I've seen worse cases of journalistic malpractice, but not much worse."

Where's the guy who was asking why people hate MS? link. Case in point. Dave Winer post a question on the "personal blog" of MS's Emerging Business Team asking if MS would promise not to sue him if it gets these patents. As you can see here, there's no response. Silence is golden?

Even if we don't have free will, our actions still have causes in the real world; people's actions can still be affected by laws and potential punishment even without free will. Someone who thinks of killing another for the sake of jealousy will still consider the consequences of that act imposed by the state.

Besides prevention of crime, laws are useful to denounce certain activities as not condusive to a stable, productive society. Even without free will, it'd be useful to figure out what things would tend to damage society (along with the things and people in it), make a list of them and their severity and advertise it.

Even without free will, rehabilitation is possible. Some people's destructive behaviors can be fixed enough so that they can be let back into society. Actually, free will could make rehabilitation more difficult because it implies that there is a part of a person's nature that cannot be modified. I'm not suggesting that people be brainwashed (because it's too easy to abuse), but rehabilitation is easier in theory if people's behaviors are more deterministic.

As for retribution, i.e. revenge, how is that helpful? How does it specifically help someone (or society) to accomplish revenge?

In any case, good post.
Scott Adams (writer of Dilbert) has had some interesting posts on (the lack of) free will on his blog.

See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2006/12 /deleterious_sit.html Bye, Oliver

"On the other hand, well . . . who gives a shit?"

Well, for one, the end users do, when they bring in a .dwg file that is not "trusted" into AutoCAD and a dialog pops up with warnings that say the file format is not "trusted, unsafe, etc".

Extending your GM analogy, say you install a non GM part in your GM car and get a blinking light on the dash to the effect of "Car may crash violently or explode through use on non-GM part." What are the results of that? The consumer is scared back into going to GM and GM only to buy the part.

Also, for more analysis of the case, go here:
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/

Shimon Peres gave a talk at leweb3 in paris the other day and said something like "why waste our intellectual capacity remembering things when we can just google it" - this from a guy who speaks (at least) three languages (answered questions in english and french at that event) and talked for nearly an hour without any notes - at the grand old age of 83! Maybe he used to be a cabbie..

He suggested we should use our minds to be creative rather than remembering things, which is perhaps not such a bad idea.

Seriously, I'd like to see a reboot of Star Trek where they declare in one form or another that there is no longer any such thing as time travel,

Seriously, I'd like to see a reboot of Star Trek where they declare in one form or another that there is no longer any such thing as time travel,

I haven't read the Left Behind books (Mom didn't finish the first one, and she's an avid reader) but I have followed the page-by page reviews over at the Slacktivist blog. Based on the story so far (237 pages worth) they aren't so much preaching hatred as antiintellectualism, shallow social values and discredited theology.

I can't recommend Slacktivist highly enough. He's a true evangelical associated with a seminary and has been writing "Left Behind Fridays" dissecting the first book for over a year. (He also discusses many other things.)

For those who have only seen screeching TV evangelicals, Fred ("Slacktivist") is an old school one. As he has repeatedly said, he reaches out through hospitality. Here, I see you are tired. Let me offer you a chair. Are you hungry, let me check my kitchen. You're free to ask him how he can be so pleasant and helpful and he'll tell you about Christ. You're equally free to enjoy his hospitality and then move on.

It should go without saying that he's appalled by this game.

P.S., I'm now more Buddhist than anything else, but I wouldn't hesitate to go to a weekly sermon by him. I rarely come away from his blog without fresh insights.

I know Holland has a muslim population that is increasingly numerous and belligerent (ask Theo van Gogh), but *kill*?

Kathy Sierra blogged about this a few months ago: Ease-of-use should not mean neuter-the-software, and offered a crucial insight: separate the easy/hard and simple/complex pairs into two axes: difficulty and power. She then goes on to note the trivial case that everyone knows: complex things should ideally be easy, and simple things should not be hard. But what about the other two combinations?

She argues that easy-but-simple (maybe "simplistic" is the mot juste here) is overrated. Limited functionality, even if easy-to-use, doesn't go as far as some would think (indeed, Joel argues this is the "20% strategy" that could be used for bootstrapping, but not in general cases). Kathy also says that complex-but-hard is not as bad as it's made out to be, and indeed can be a good thing. Think of awesomely powerful software, whether it's emacs or Final Cut Pro -- is there a way to make that easier to use, or is the scope of what they do (emacs), or the inherent complexity of the material (FCP) such that the only way to make it easier is to reduce features or functionality (ie, to make NotePad or iMovie instead)? It's important to stop mistaking difficulty for the inherent complexity of some problem domains.

I had assumed that you actually cared about the issue one way or the other. I didn't realize you just had an axe to grind. Carry on.

My favorite was when the MIT Technology Review compared Negroponte (who's received a lot of funding to develop the OLPC and will be selling them in huge batches) to Andrew Carnegie, who used questionable robber-baron business practices to make tons of money, and then funded the building of libraries via grants nationwide, and then set up a maintenance grant provided that the city also contributed funds to the ongoing support of the library.

Anyhow. They're selling machines, at an overall low cost (though there's not much work on the actual implementation part of them yet), without letting people do pilot projects in their own countries before signing on to buy millions of machines through World-Bank debt-financing. Woot.

While I'm on a rant; while I think the OLPC counter-point to Bill's "why can't they just use cell phones?" comment is valid; who want to read a book on a cell phone (Ok, BESIDES me, that's not the point) cell phones are great communication tools, but poor educational tools. Nevertheless, the whole OLPC-will-prevent-genocide is poorly phrased. Citizen journalism will reduce the risk of genocide (I'm not sure I even buy this point, media coverage of Darfur has certainly had mixed, at best, results w/r/t US policy); but OLPC doesn't => citizen journalism any more than cell phone video recording, TelSur style handicams, and so on.

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/10/weighing_ the_we.html

Argh - the link got mangled: Why Apple doesn't have a blogging policy (it ain't what you think....)

If you have little or no manufacturing, you won't need much engineering to support the manufacturing. The less engineering we have, the less need for science to drive that engineering.

First of all, US manufacturing output has been increasing up until 1999, and has only stagnated since then. It doesn't appear to be decreasing. However US total goods output is at an all-time high:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2 006/03/the_relationshi_1.html

US manufacturing jobs have been between about 15 and 20 million since the 1950s:

http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublicat ions/1102_UsMfg0104.pdf

US manufacturing has been increasing its productivity per worker through the use of capital (both technological and human skills). The technological capital came from science & engineering, the skills have come from education. We've seen the same thing happen with farming, the US now produces far more food with just a few percent of the population, compared to 1900 when half the population farmed and we produced less food.

Imagine if we develop robots that can do everything a person can in manufacturing today. Manufacturing employment would drop to zero, but total manufacturing output would go, meanwhile lots of science and technology would still be needed to develop the products being made.

Replace robots with Chinese workers, and the results are the same.

The US is moving into an intellectual property oriented economy. We think up things, and get people in other countries (or robots) to build them.

Will the history interested in what someone writes on Wikipedia? See my cartoon. Bye, Oliver

See my small cartoon. Bye, Oliver

Most network admins don't think of the possibility of bootable USB volumes and thus don't disable it in BIOS. On top of that, most BIOS manufacturers don't think people need an option for disabling booting from a USB disk and don't provide it.

I think it's a good idea to carry around a small bootable OS, but I'm not sure it's going to be as useful as you suggest. In fact, my personal experiences directly contradict what you're saying.

ANY sysadmin, even a crappy one, will have thought of this. Every motherboard BIOS I've ever seen in the last few years (which is quite a few) has the option to disable this, or at least change the boot order thus effectively disabling the feature.

Granted, there are likely going to be exceptions, which is why I would say, it can't hurt. Never know when you'll need a small bootable linux thumbdrive.

If it were me I'd probably just load the drive up with a bunch of apps designed to run from a thumb drive like portable firefox and thunderbird.

Link to interview.

Note to moderators: I meant to include this link in the parent post, so please don't moderate it up, unless it falls to 0.

Variety is the spice of life. Or there's always cyber: http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2006/01/ world_of_warcra.html

Uh no.. Will Slashdot lose its patent on dupes?

It's not really a dupe. You see, last time the "news" was that news.com was running a story about the case. This time, the "news" is that embedded.com is running a story about the case. The case itself is hardly news -- it's been around since April of 2005. Well, the real case is still older, but that's when they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Next week, it'll be news again -- and with a lot of luck they might find a link that's actually informative. Then again, that page has been around since June, so it's hardly news. Maybe coverage of the recent arguments would really be better. Oh wait...that's only a blog entry, undoubtedly written by some left wing nutcase. Maybe by next week, we can get a highly informed piece from a legitimate news service instead.



What, me sarcastic? Nevvvvverrrrrr!

At least the debates would be entertaining. ::Ducks::

http://www.billgatesforpresident.net/

Of course, Scott Adams seems to be taking the idea more seriously in his most recent posting (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/). But being a moron is one thing. Emulating one is quite another.

OK, there's three degrees of separation. You want to do the math and figure out what percentage of the American populace that includes? You still OK with this?

Well, lets take a look at this, shall we?

Al Qaeda:
Members - Actual members of Al Qaeda
Associates - Not Al Qaeda members, but are in direct contact to provide funding, equipment, reconnaissance, or other aid.
Affiliates - Members of affiliated terrorist organizations, like The Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat

Communications among this group for the purposes of conducting terrorism is one degree separation from a terrorist, which is the relevant metric here. The population in the US that this accounts for? I estimate 2-4,000, maybe as much as 10,000. Am I OK with the government monitoring their communications? You bet.

If you want to add in volunteers, people in the US who are not members, associates, or affiliates of Al Qaeda, but who support their goals and are presently willing to engage in armed combat or provide material support to them (like these recently arrested volunteers), then the number is going to jump up quite a bit. I would think it is at least 10-20,000. Should they be watched? You bet.

As to the percentages, I'll let you work that out, but I'll give you a hint. The fraction is on the order of 1/12,000. Staggering, eh?

Oh, never mind. You probably think that you have nothing to hide, therefore you have nothing to fear.

No, what I actually think is that power of the government to conduct surveillance on members of Al Qaeda or people in direct contact with them for the purposes of conducting terrorism has little or no connection with the privacy rights of practically any Americans. Personally, I enjoy my privacy at least as much as the average person. Government surveillance of Al Qaeda members isn't going to change that.

What a nice little illusion that must be.

The word you are looking for is "clue", C L U E. This isn't rocket science, but you still need a clue.

WOW! Just recently I was talking with someone about how the US is so advance in so many ways yet the BLIND have no easy way to manage paper money. I even asserted that the Blind should have an organization to outright SUE the US government into action. IIRC, the person I spoke with is of Asian heritage, and I was told that in Japan (or maybe it was Korea) the paper currency has a texture or risen symbols to assist the blind know what they are handing to clerks or to others. Now, weeks later, this particular article is on Slash. So much for advancement in the US. Paper money IS costly to make, and the number of blind is vastly small, but that is no excuse to leave them at the mercy of any mischievous or mean clerks.

A quick search of some possibly interesting URLs:

How Does a Blind Person... ?
http://www.blind.state.ia.us/curious/howdoes.htm

"How does a blind person identify money?
Coins can be distinguished by their size and the texture of their edges. Paper money is identified by folding the denominations differently."

---------

Human Resources Code, State of Texas:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HR/conte nt/htm/hr.005.00.000094.00.htm

---------

Does the US suck at design?
The Difference Between the US and Switzerland
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_us ers/2006/07/does_the_us_suc.html

---------

Blind Citizens News, January 1998
http://www.bca.org.au/news9801.htm

"There are so many wonderful things happening in Australia which NFBCA is taking the lead in promoting. We do not have a simple means of identifying paper money here."
That was 1998; I don't know about now...
-----------

Bon...

...sooner or later, a Googlebot is going to read this thread. And if Eric Schmidt gets his way, sooner or later Google is going to develop artificial intelligence.

Just imagine the possibilities.

In one scenerio, the Google-Skynet sends robots back in time to assasinate the mothers of smart-ass /.'ers who dared to mock the glory of Google.

In another scenerio, a primitive AI script somewhere in the vaults of the Googleplex is reviewing your suggestions...thin clients...BSD...and thinking....

A comment to the post and Scott's reply to it

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 06/11/atheists_the_ne.html#comment-25533598

Casual Googling suggests that Gates is agnostic, not atheist. God might not care about the difference, but the voters would.

[Agnosticism is the closet of which I wrote. -- Scott]

I certainly don't agree with his presidential nominee, but I find his opinion on the best and worst jobs to be hilarious!

Here ya go the REAL Web 3.0

http://enterpriseresilienceblog.typepad.com/enterp rise_resilience_man/2006/11/web_30.html

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Isn't computer science supposed to teach us to distill our thinking down to clear, unambiguous statements that can be executed by profoundly dumb computers?

anything dot-oh does not compute

take some technology that most people barely understand in the first place, and condense it down to Something x.0? Plus which, there isn't even consensus on what Something x.0 is.

Web 3.0 is maybe the semantic web. No, it's artificial intelligence. No, it's a web of human intelligence, performing mechanical turk tasks. No, it's (insert definition of choice here).

Language should make things CLEARER, not obscure things even more.

All of this point-oh stuff is Bullsh-t 1.0

I blogged about the New York Times' unfortunate contribution to this confusion: just say no to Web 3.0

In this talk, he outlines some of the challenges of getting the laptop produced, and explains why he stepped down as Media Lab director to focus on the initiative full-time, "for the rest of my life." (Recorded February 2006 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 18:21)

Why do people like the cell processor? Its only here to make games shiny, but crappy:
http://crystaltips.typepad.com/wonderland/2005/03/ burn_the_house_.html