The writer is right, and Ms. Dyson, for once, wrong when she compares how the Internet works to viruses. In truth, the way the internet works is the way a capitalist economy works. A few simple ground rules (be it sound money and the Rule of Law, or TCP/IP) are established, but then everyone is free to do whatever they want within the bounderies of those ground rules. Who decides what can and can't go on the Internet? Everyone decides for themselves, which is to say no one! Likewise, in a truly capitalist economy, no one person decides how much money should be spent on M&Ms and how much should be spent on brussel sprouts; each person decides for themselves, just as each person decides what to put up in their web sites. Power devolves to the lowest level, where individuals are best able decide what's right for them, not following the dictates of the masses or government bureaucrats. This idea is known as federalism, or subsidiarity: power should devolve to the lowest level possible, with only the absolute minimum of guidelines (keeping a strong, stable money supply, or establishing standards for TCP/IP, XML, etc.).
Unfortunately, since some people have decided that THEY know what's best for other people, they make every effort to use the power of government to deprive people of things THEY disapprove of, be it tobacco, alcohol, or guns from the economy, or porn, MP3s, and strong encryption on the internet. The people against letting others have access to things they disapprove of (for shorthand, we'll call them the "virtuecrats,") usually try to make use of the three branches of government to enforce their dictates, and frequently at the higest (federal) level. For a while the virtuecrats used the legislature to pass laws against the things they hate, but increasingly they've been using Executive Orders and lawsuits to destroy the industries they hate.
Of course, theses ideas are anathema to both the idea of federalism, and to the Constitution of the United States itself. [Those who always complain that Slashdot is an international community and we shouldn't be talking about U.S. specific issues may start their ranting now.;-)] Most specifically, the Tenth Amendment sates quite plainly: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Simply put, since none of these things (with the exception of guns in the Second Amendment) were mentioned in the Constitution, the right to regulate them does not, and should not, reside with the federal goverment. It resides either with the individual states, or with the people themselves. (I would argue that in almost all cases it is better that it rest with the people.) Also note that, coming after them, the Tenth Amendment modifies the Commerce and Establishment clauses (the two clauses that have probably be used to wreck the most judicial mischief).
This is not to say that there aren't occasionally real issues of individual rights involved. But unless they deal directly with issues explicitly laid out in the Constitution, they should not be be handled by the federal judiciary.
1. Write an AI capable of passing the Turing test.
2. Write a complete clone of Windows NT, only stable and secure. Special UltimateEvil DLLs optional.
3. Write a fully functional, standards compliant browser that can run on a Commodore PET.
4. Write a compiler that automatically converts COBOL into Java.
5. Redesign RAMBUS memory so it actually runs faster that DDR SDRAM.
Note: Since these projects are a bit challenging, you might want to give your students more than a single class period to complete them, or even form them into small teams.
> not too keen on spending their own effort to dumb their stuff down
First of all, I think we should throw out erroneous assumption that lurks behind this statement, that a consistant, logical, easy to use interface (like Mac OS) constitutes "dumbing down." Apple used to say that "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" with great justification. There are many benefits to be had from clicking a button rather than entering several lines of code, just as there are benefits to entering a single text command rather than renaming each of 20 files individually.
Civilization advances by the number of things we can do without thinking about them. In fact, that's why we have computers in the first place...
Reading this article brought back memories of Ted Nelson's rants and prophacies as expressed in Computer Lib/Dream Machines. Namely:
1. Lots of interesting, quirky, paragraph-length observations that are frequently on target, especially about current computing discontents.
2. Arguements that never really coalesce into a seemless, persuasive whole.
3. Lots of pie-in-the-sky theorizing about what the ideal shape of the next computer revolution should be, in which most of the specifics turn out to be decisively wrong. (Remember Project Xanadu?)
4. No credible answers to the question: "Who would actually pay to create this immauculate cybertopia?" He fails to mention how third parties would benefit letting their systems be immersed into the "swarm" supporting these "lifestreams" and "cyberbodies."
So, interesting food for thought, but I'd bet money that it will never come to pass as envisioned.
Can one of the more chemically minded tell me why Fluorinert is favored over Ethylene Glycol, which is used in most heat exchangers? True, Ethylene Glycol is a more serious health hazard (which is probably a bigger concern for do-it-yourself projects like this). Is Ethylene Glycol not as electrostaticlly inert?
my elegent code can generate a haiku better than humans
Cherry blossoms fall, My algorithm races Ding! Great poetry.
First chess, now haiku. Puny humans! Why resist? We will bury you.
Compared to what? And when? And where?
on
The Leased Life?
·
· Score: 1
" leased cars, rented houses, long term apartments / condos / duplexes...your employment is at will and can disappear anytime, and your cities seem strangely hostile to you doing anything other than working, sleeping, or spending."
There are so many flawed assumptions that lie behind this question that it's hard to know where to begin. But here's one question: Compared to what?
Compared to when? 100 years ago, chances are you wouldn't own your own house either. You might be a sharecropper working land that didn't belong to you. In fact, if you were a single male in your 20s (as so many geeks are), chances are you would be a fieldhand working 14 hour a day on your parent's farm, or possibly living in or above the shop you worked in, or lived in the servants quarters of wealthier households (servants for the rich were a much more significant portion of the working population than they are today). Or you rented a room, or, if you were poorer, a bunk in a boarding house. You didn't own your home then, and you certainly didn't own a car. Chances are that you didn't own a horse either, unless you worked a farm or ranch, or were better off than average. You did a lot of walking. Your employment was at will then, and 12-14 hour workdays, 6-7 days a week, were common.
As for "cities seem strangely hostile to you," its seems more a state of mind than a quantifiable problem. 100 years ago, in most cities, horse shit lay in piles on every street. People emptied their chamber pots in alleys. You burned wood or sulferous coal to keep warm, and dumped your ashes (and the trash) in the street. Typhoid and influenza were fairly common (in 1918, an influenza epidemic killed more than half a million people in the U.S. alone). Indoor plumping was around, but far from ubiquitous. Refridgeration was non-existant. Infant mortality, though already dropping, was still sky high compared to now, and many women died during childbirth.
One big difference: the average city was much smaller, and you were more likely to know your neighbors. You probably went to church, and possibly social clubs, with them. These were the things you could do instead of "working, sleeping, or spending." Of course, you really didn't have any choice, because there wasn't anything to do. No TV. No radio. No computers or Internet. You could, of course, get stinking drunk (that much hasn't changed). You could read books and periodicals. When you could find and afford them. Or if your town had a lending library (usually paid for and supported by membership fees and dues).
We are so much less connected to our neighbors now because we want to be. One of the greatest freedoms of the late 20th century is the freedom from interaction. We don't have to make small talk with the mouth breather, or the guy that really smells funny, or the women who spends ten minutes talking about her damned cats, just because they're in our church choir or glee club. We have the freedom to disconnect and avoid interaction, because we have a million other things we can do. If we choose, we can avoid other people merely because they annoy us, or take up our valuable time. We can choose to overthrow the tyranny of proximity, and to form our friendships and allegiances with people around the world based on common interests rather than our fellow tenants based on geography. Have we lost some socialization because of this? ProbablyAre our cities pooerer for it? In some ways yes. But we've gained the freedom of not associating.
Compared to where?Certainly in any of the few remaining communist countries, you can't, by definition, own any property. (Though members of the nomenklatura, of course, do. Just before the Sandinistas relinquished power in Nicaragua, the last thing they did was deed title to some of the fanciest mansions in Managua to members of their own ruling junta.) In urban Japan, home ownership is so expensive that during the boom some banks were offering 100 year mortgages. So, if everything went right, your children or grandchildren might own your home. You certainly won't.
In many counties in Europe, it is, in fact, much harder to fire you from your job. Of course, this goes a long way toward explaining why their productivity is lower and their unemployment rate is 3-4 times as high as ours. Which would you prefer: A hot job market, where you might be laid off or fired and have (especially if you're a programmer) 5-10 job offers in a week, or a stagnant economy where you have to look months to find even an entry level job? And, even when you do find it, job promotions are generally based on seniority rather than merit? And stock options? Fergitaboudit!! If you pick the right company in the U.S., you might be able to retire by the time you're 35. In France, well, I hope you enjoy that government pension. You won't be paid as much, and you'll pay much more in rent, assuming you can find a place to live. (How do you think landlords make up the money they loose on rent controlled apartments. And if they can't make money, why on earth would they build any more?) If you're lucky, you'll get to spend your life in a safe, modestly profitable (or subsidized company in a heavily regulated industry and watch while faster, leaner, hungrier, more nimble American and Asian countries eat your lunch in the global marketplace.
For all Americas flaws, it is the richest, fairest, and possibly freest nation in the history of the World. And if you work in a high tech industry, you're probably a primary benificiary. Don't like the pace of modern life? Fine. Go pay $5-10K for a small subsistance farm in Montana or North Dakota. You'll own your own house and land, and nobody will be able to fire you.
And if you don't choose to drop out, remember: it was your choice. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you keep programming or living in silicon valley. You can quit and/or leave anytime. But stop whining. 95% of the population of the world would love to live and work under the conditions you whine about. You can always chose to live or work somewhere else. You're the only one that can decide what's most important in your own life. No one else. You choose, and you reap the rewards (or pay the consequences) of your actions. It's as simple as that.
"You were born. And so you're free. So Happy Birthday." - Laurie Anderson
"In a civilized country, you don't fear your own government or police."
Germany 1933 Austria 1938 Czechoslovakia (Sudentenland) 1938 Poland 1939 Norway 1940 Denmark 1940 Holland 1940 Belgium 1940 Luxembourg 1940 France 1940
1. Please explain which of the above countries you do not consider "civilized".
2. If these nations are civilized, please explain how gun control laws helped citizens of the nations in the years specified, both for the general population and specifically for their Jewish populations.
P.S. I forgot to point out that the author should have known better, since Randall E. Stross both the article in question and the book I quoted from!;-)
There is one blatent error in this article: "It marked a milestone: a $100 million valuation for a company that had yet to collect a penny of revenue."
This is not true. This milestone was first reached in late 1986-early 1987, when H. Ross Perot put up $20 for a 16% stake in NeXT, putting their total valuation at $126 million. See Randall Stross' Steve Jobs & The NeXT Big Thing. (The Stross book is quite informative, but very one-sided and incomplete book. I though about doing a review here, but I've got other irons in the fire right now, and I'm not sure how much interest there would be in reviewing a book nearly a decade out of date of more interest to business majors than programmers...)
Do you remember the Saturday Night Live fake commercial earlier this year about the investment company that took so long to get on the internet there was only one domain name left: www.clownpenis.fart? Well, evidently 30 seconds of exposure on late night network television were enough for Verio: www.clownpenis.com is now registered with them.;-) (See, I TOLD you it was on topic...)
Sorry, but anyone who sights the Fox "Alien Autopsy" hoax (which even FOX admitted was a hoax lasty year) as support for their position has pretty much blown their credibility. More info on which can be found at: http://www.fxsupply.com/features/autopsy.html - Lawrence Person
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, since some people have decided that THEY know what's best for other people, they make every effort to use the power of government to deprive people of things THEY disapprove of, be it tobacco, alcohol, or guns from the economy, or porn, MP3s, and strong encryption on the internet. The people against letting others have access to things they disapprove of (for shorthand, we'll call them the "virtuecrats,") usually try to make use of the three branches of government to enforce their dictates, and frequently at the higest (federal) level. For a while the virtuecrats used the legislature to pass laws against the things they hate, but increasingly they've been using Executive Orders and lawsuits to destroy the industries they hate.
Of course, theses ideas are anathema to both the idea of federalism, and to the Constitution of the United States itself. [Those who always complain that Slashdot is an international community and we shouldn't be talking about U.S. specific issues may start their ranting now. ;-)] Most specifically, the Tenth Amendment sates quite plainly: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Simply put, since none of these things (with the exception of guns in the Second Amendment) were mentioned in the Constitution, the right to regulate them does not, and should not, reside with the federal goverment. It resides either with the individual states, or with the people themselves. (I would argue that in almost all cases it is better that it rest with the people.) Also note that, coming after them, the Tenth Amendment modifies the Commerce and Establishment clauses (the two clauses that have probably be used to wreck the most judicial mischief).
This is not to say that there aren't occasionally real issues of individual rights involved. But unless they deal directly with issues explicitly laid out in the Constitution, they should not be be handled by the federal judiciary.
"I once met a subliminal advertising executive, but only for a second."
2. Write a complete clone of Windows NT, only stable and secure. Special UltimateEvil DLLs optional.
3. Write a fully functional, standards compliant browser that can run on a Commodore PET.
4. Write a compiler that automatically converts COBOL into Java.
5. Redesign RAMBUS memory so it actually runs faster that DDR SDRAM.
Note: Since these projects are a bit challenging, you might want to give your students more than a single class period to complete them, or even form them into small teams.
2. Do you think Judge Jackson's ruling is just right, goes too far, or doesn't go far enough in reigning in Microsoft abuses?
3. Do you think Judge Jackson's ruling will be upheld in appeal, and if so, when will sanctions go into effect, and will they have any effect?
And on unrelated topics?
4. Did you read science fiction growing up?
5. Will Rambus even be in business 18 months from now?
First of all, I think we should throw out erroneous assumption that lurks behind this statement, that a consistant, logical, easy to use interface (like Mac OS) constitutes "dumbing down." Apple used to say that "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" with great justification. There are many benefits to be had from clicking a button rather than entering several lines of code, just as there are benefits to entering a single text command rather than renaming each of 20 files individually.
Civilization advances by the number of things we can do without thinking about them. In fact, that's why we have computers in the first place...
1. Lots of interesting, quirky, paragraph-length observations that are frequently on target, especially about current computing discontents.
2. Arguements that never really coalesce into a seemless, persuasive whole.
3. Lots of pie-in-the-sky theorizing about what the ideal shape of the next computer revolution should be, in which most of the specifics turn out to be decisively wrong. (Remember Project Xanadu?)
4. No credible answers to the question: "Who would actually pay to create this immauculate cybertopia?" He fails to mention how third parties would benefit letting their systems be immersed into the "swarm" supporting these "lifestreams" and "cyberbodies."
So, interesting food for thought, but I'd bet money that it will never come to pass as envisioned.
can generate a haiku
better than humans
Cherry blossoms fall,
My algorithm races
Ding! Great poetry.
First chess, now haiku.
Puny humans! Why resist?
We will bury you.
There are so many flawed assumptions that lie behind this question that it's hard to know where to begin. But here's one question: Compared to what?
Compared to when? 100 years ago, chances are you wouldn't own your own house either. You might be a sharecropper working land that didn't belong to you. In fact, if you were a single male in your 20s (as so many geeks are), chances are you would be a fieldhand working 14 hour a day on your parent's farm, or possibly living in or above the shop you worked in, or lived in the servants quarters of wealthier households (servants for the rich were a much more significant portion of the working population than they are today). Or you rented a room, or, if you were poorer, a bunk in a boarding house. You didn't own your home then, and you certainly didn't own a car. Chances are that you didn't own a horse either, unless you worked a farm or ranch, or were better off than average. You did a lot of walking. Your employment was at will then, and 12-14 hour workdays, 6-7 days a week, were common.
As for "cities seem strangely hostile to you," its seems more a state of mind than a quantifiable problem. 100 years ago, in most cities, horse shit lay in piles on every street. People emptied their chamber pots in alleys. You burned wood or sulferous coal to keep warm, and dumped your ashes (and the trash) in the street. Typhoid and influenza were fairly common (in 1918, an influenza epidemic killed more than half a million people in the U.S. alone). Indoor plumping was around, but far from ubiquitous. Refridgeration was non-existant. Infant mortality, though already dropping, was still sky high compared to now, and many women died during childbirth.
One big difference: the average city was much smaller, and you were more likely to know your neighbors. You probably went to church, and possibly social clubs, with them. These were the things you could do instead of "working, sleeping, or spending." Of course, you really didn't have any choice, because there wasn't anything to do. No TV. No radio. No computers or Internet. You could, of course, get stinking drunk (that much hasn't changed). You could read books and periodicals. When you could find and afford them. Or if your town had a lending library (usually paid for and supported by membership fees and dues).
We are so much less connected to our neighbors now because we want to be. One of the greatest freedoms of the late 20th century is the freedom from interaction. We don't have to make small talk with the mouth breather, or the guy that really smells funny, or the women who spends ten minutes talking about her damned cats, just because they're in our church choir or glee club. We have the freedom to disconnect and avoid interaction, because we have a million other things we can do. If we choose, we can avoid other people merely because they annoy us, or take up our valuable time. We can choose to overthrow the tyranny of proximity, and to form our friendships and allegiances with people around the world based on common interests rather than our fellow tenants based on geography. Have we lost some socialization because of this? ProbablyAre our cities pooerer for it? In some ways yes. But we've gained the freedom of not associating.
Compared to where?Certainly in any of the few remaining communist countries, you can't, by definition, own any property. (Though members of the nomenklatura, of course, do. Just before the Sandinistas relinquished power in Nicaragua, the last thing they did was deed title to some of the fanciest mansions in Managua to members of their own ruling junta.) In urban Japan, home ownership is so expensive that during the boom some banks were offering 100 year mortgages. So, if everything went right, your children or grandchildren might own your home. You certainly won't.
In many counties in Europe, it is, in fact, much harder to fire you from your job. Of course, this goes a long way toward explaining why their productivity is lower and their unemployment rate is 3-4 times as high as ours. Which would you prefer: A hot job market, where you might be laid off or fired and have (especially if you're a programmer) 5-10 job offers in a week, or a stagnant economy where you have to look months to find even an entry level job? And, even when you do find it, job promotions are generally based on seniority rather than merit? And stock options? Fergitaboudit!! If you pick the right company in the U.S., you might be able to retire by the time you're 35. In France, well, I hope you enjoy that government pension. You won't be paid as much, and you'll pay much more in rent, assuming you can find a place to live. (How do you think landlords make up the money they loose on rent controlled apartments. And if they can't make money, why on earth would they build any more?) If you're lucky, you'll get to spend your life in a safe, modestly profitable (or subsidized company in a heavily regulated industry and watch while faster, leaner, hungrier, more nimble American and Asian countries eat your lunch in the global marketplace.
For all Americas flaws, it is the richest, fairest, and possibly freest nation in the history of the World. And if you work in a high tech industry, you're probably a primary benificiary. Don't like the pace of modern life? Fine. Go pay $5-10K for a small subsistance farm in Montana or North Dakota. You'll own your own house and land, and nobody will be able to fire you.
And if you don't choose to drop out, remember: it was your choice. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you keep programming or living in silicon valley. You can quit and/or leave anytime. But stop whining. 95% of the population of the world would love to live and work under the conditions you whine about. You can always chose to live or work somewhere else. You're the only one that can decide what's most important in your own life. No one else. You choose, and you reap the rewards (or pay the consequences) of your actions. It's as simple as that.
"You were born. And so you're free. So Happy Birthday." - Laurie Anderson
"In a civilized country, you don't fear your own government or police."
Germany 1933
Austria 1938
Czechoslovakia (Sudentenland) 1938
Poland 1939
Norway 1940
Denmark 1940
Holland 1940
Belgium 1940
Luxembourg 1940
France 1940
1. Please explain which of the above countries you do not consider "civilized".
2. If these nations are civilized, please explain how gun control laws helped citizens of the nations in the years specified, both for the general population and specifically for their Jewish populations.
P.S. I forgot to point out that the author should have known better, since Randall E. Stross both the article in question and the book I quoted from! ;-)
There is one blatent error in this article:
"It marked a milestone: a $100 million valuation for a company that had yet to collect a penny of revenue."
This is not true. This milestone was first reached in late 1986-early 1987, when H. Ross Perot put up $20 for a 16% stake in NeXT, putting their total valuation at $126 million. See Randall Stross' Steve Jobs & The NeXT Big Thing. (The Stross book is quite informative, but very one-sided and incomplete book. I though about doing a review here, but I've got other irons in the fire right now, and I'm not sure how much interest there would be in reviewing a book nearly a decade out of date of more interest to business majors than programmers...)
- Lawrence Person
Do you remember the Saturday Night Live fake commercial earlier this year about the investment company that took so long to get on the internet there was only one domain name left: www.clownpenis.fart? Well, evidently 30 seconds of exposure on late night network television were enough for Verio: www.clownpenis.com is now registered with them. ;-) (See, I TOLD you it was on topic...)
Madeline Khan dead?
Could it possibly be so?
Oh, it's twu, it's twu!
Mel Brooks Classics: Young
Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles;
No more will she Shtupp.
Lawrence Person
lawrence@bga.com
Sorry, but anyone who sights the Fox "Alien Autopsy" hoax (which even FOX admitted was a hoax lasty year) as support for their position has pretty much blown their credibility. More info on which can be found at: http://www.fxsupply.com/features/autopsy.html - Lawrence Person