I guess we'll just see some "too good to be true"-rants and that's it.
Well, that and the whole patent thing. I'm of the opinion that patents and current IP law are a legacy system and it will eventually be unworkable, but we haven't quite evolved away from it yet.
Maybe when everyone sees the benefits of having the sum of humankind's knowledge and expression available to anybody with cheap hardware; with everyone able to contribute in real-time, without the interference of commercial gatekeepers, we can ditch it. Of course, the trillions of dollars in productivity gained in the past 30-some years of computing and networking hasn't demonstrated the point to the vast majority of people, but it has to get through their thick skulls eventually.
For now, I'll just say I'm picking my battles, and Google has earned my trust.
I'm terrified by what is happening with the current major-telco/ISP system. From what I've seen in the past 20 years, a large enough chunk of humanity has the vulnerable-to-marketing gene that these people may likely get what they want: A second Great Firewall in the United States, just for the billions they want to make in commoditizing entertainment (that's what they mean when they refer to art as "content").
It would be even more likely, if there wasn't a 1.5e11 dollar company in the way, headed by people who understand that being publicly traded doesn't mean you sacrifice ethics for shareholder return. AFAICT, they've stuck by their motto, and they understand how important these issues are for humankind.
Yeah, I know, I've drunk the kool-aid, etc. Save it.
Next step would be firing the so-called "technology experts" in the popular media, who apparently lack the the tech saavy to google for what "open-source" means.
Coverage of the G1 launch was a beautiful example of their ignorance. Many times I heard the fakers pontificate about the "security concerns" in using open-source software, while not even knowing meaning of the term.
The DRM lock-in is insidious: Anyone wishing to create and maintain a "useful" operating system will have to license DRM software from Microsoft; software which is, happily for Microsoft, incompatible with libre software, both in terms of licensing and technology. Keep in mind that Microsoft's DRM scheme goes down to the metal.
In addition, and even more dangerous in my opinion, is the stated goal of increasing the "safety" of the internet by allowing ISPs to filter by application. And by application, they actually mean the whole stack. ISPs will be able to dictate which software you can use in their ToS. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out who will provide the "safe" platform.
And for those who are buying into this ISP competition argument: This lobby and others are taking advantage of public ignorance about the topology of the internet. AT&T is supporting this initiative because they wish to be able to shape traffic on the backbone. Notice the very purposeful use of the term "network operator" instead of "Internet Service Provider".
I'm not saying that an opinion should be solely based on whether or not an industry group employs unethical tactics like astroturfing, and not on the merits of each side's arguments; but if you did, you would side with Google. There are dozens of comments on the Washington Post page that are clearly (to me) part of an "online strategy" by those opposing opening up whitespace.
Have you ever explored the possibility that you're wrong?
I have trouble with your first statement. I don't see actual income redistribution programs, succeeding or failing. And you're using the fact that government borrows against social security surpluses as evidence for your belief that social security was a flawed concept from the beginning, which does not follow.
Social security works far into the future, with only minor adjustments needed. By any measure, this program is one of the most successful ever conceived by the US government. So much so that government can borrow against its surpluses (whether this is a good practice is another debate).
I know you think you're right, but you have little evidence for your arguments except for your gut feelings, which came from popular media.
As an aside, I think that the club currently in power (and I don't mean Republicans in general, although party loyalism makes it appear that way) cynically uses economic fundamentalists in the same manner that they take use religious fundamentalists. Both camps have a lot of magical thinking in common.
On a philosophical note, my utopia and your utopia are unlikely to exist in our lifetimes, but in our opinions we are probably, unconsciously or consciously, working towards them. I happen to think that my Star Trek utopia is a nicer place to live than your libertarian one. But pragmatically, this 28-year experiment in laissez-faire capitalism is over, and the results are in. Time to re-assess your assumptions.
I'm not stupid, and I think you're wrong. The problem was directly caused by lack of regulation and enforcement.
FWIW, you need to do more research. The opinion radio slant you've got there is a particularly ugly one.
Yes, it was "greed" that drove the crooks to dodge, break, and change the law. And it was probably greed that caused Bush and the "Goldman Sachs" crew to give the financial services industry the all-clear; they wouldn't even have to worry about SEC action anymore.
If anything, Social Security has been too successful, and you're characterization of it is just plain strange.
Is there anything that will shake your faith? Your libertarian utopia has never existed. All you have is belief.
I think you mean that you've "lurked" around/. instead of "trolled". Trolling is the art of causing blowhards to have aneurysms.
About the Bush people: There's actually just a dozen or so guys with sock-puppets that run through proxies running on their vps's that host their cheesy wordpress sites (you know who you are). There isn't a simple way for slashcode to thwart people with that much free time. (protip: Just about everyone on slashdot knows how to game slashcode; most of us choose not to). That's my hypothesis, anyway.
FWIW, I'm glad she exists. We need more voices that are not afraid of point out that the Friedman meme that laissez-faire capitalism spreads human freedom may not be accurate. It was heresy up until just a few years ago to question that popular opinion. Anything that upsets the true believers is fine with me (btw, I'm not a fan of Klein's).
I would love it if your industry disappeared. Loan sharking (nice job on the wikipedia article, btw... totally non-obvious) used to be illegal. What you do for a living is called racketeering.
Professional Blogging Team
ahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!
Seriously, though, you're parasites who profit from the misfortune of others.
Functor (in CS): A functional object or function symbol.
Generators are being bolted onto Java, as well, IIRC.
Functors and generators in the languages you mention are emulations of native constructs in the languages we are talking about here (the lazy functional languages). The mainstream languages wouldn't have these emulations if the languages we're talking about (and smalltalk, I guess) didn't introduce them.
One strength of mainstream languages is that they are mainstream, I suppose. I see your point about wet-behind-the-ears programmers wading into Haskell. But it doesn't follow that things have to be this way (I wish schools still taught some lisp in intro CS). And it doesn't mean that functional languages aren't very very cool, or that C++ and Python (with today's idioms) will be with us forever.
International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/10/america/lobby.php. Note that several top members of McCain's team were actually real-life lobbyists for Fannie Mae (they've all since found Jesus, of course).
Even after all that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I share some of your opinions, but I arrived at them from a different place. I've never feared greater access, but I have been saddened by our system's failures. I think these failures are more complex than the paradox of Lake Wobegon's test scores, though. Whatever the failures are, and whatever the details of the failures, it seems to me like putting material on the web is an excellent bypass.
I think that the missing great students are still a bigger problem than an abundance of under-equipped students. Coping with some more of the latter is worth it to catch more of the former. In any case, putting this material on the web can feed the lonely minds of those that didn't make it, for reasons other than lack of intelligence.
I totally agree with you about providing more of what you called application-level education; both for the lives of those who just need to learn a trade, and for the institutions who could put more effort into theoretical considerations. But I also get serious warm-and-fuzzies thinking about all humanity being able to access stuff like this someday.
We need to temper our response to these programs [...]
Why?
What a strange response. I've read your comment three times now, and I still don't get it. That is, I don't get it because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt; it seems like you're advocating for long-dead Social Darwinist tripe. But that couldn't possibly be the case, as you are one of those on the "right" side of the curve, right?
You act as if this is your Harrison Bergeron fantasy (in which you are the protagonist, of course). This isn't the government forcing Stanford to admit cretins! It's just a school sharing part of their curricula on the web.
If "you" are a member of "us", count me as a member of "them".
Yay Stanford. Using the web to its potential for making civilization a little better for all of us. What's not to like? And what would we possibly have to gain by preventing people from learning?
CAFE didn't kill stationwagons. And if it was a rational decision on the part of families that needed a carry-all, the minivan would be the more logical choice, in terms of both safety and interior space.
The Detroit manufacturers spent billions on marketing campaigns designed to convince mothers of children that they were murderesses, and fathers that they were neuter, if they didn't buy a 5000 lb vehicle.
And why did they do that? Because SUVs and light trucks were their highest margin product. And they were the highest margin product because they required little design, used off-the-shelf parts from the 1960s, and didn't require reconfiguration of factories.
Full disclosure: I'm an eco-wacko, you insensitive clod. And your defense of the big three is tortured. Why bother? What did they ever do for you besides trash the climate, blacken your lungs, bribe politicians, and lie people into unsafe vehicles?
SUV enthusiasts and apologists: You are a victim of marketing.
You'll need to cite something besides an opinion column.
If by "reform" you mean "death", then yes, the Bush administration wanted regulation of Fannie and Freddie.
Do you know the origin of the term "subprime"? From where I'm standing, it looks like the administration was complicit in the GSEs corruption; Bush got a new talking point in this "ownership society" tripe with inflated home-ownership figures for the 2004 election. Further, I think this club knew that this was bad policy for Fannie and Freddie, and were (and still are) happy about its injury. Members of the "Goldman Sachs Crew" are on the record as advocating for the outright destruction of Fannie and Freddie.
Fannie and Freddie did a remarkable job until quite recently. The U.S. was the only nation in the world where you could get a 30-year fixed mortgage. The "reform" that Bush apologists are referring to had nothing to do with the causes of their insolvency; namely, a move into b-paper, formerly antithetical to the organizations' purpose. As I said, the Administration was fine with this, and used increased home ownership as a talking point in 2004.
I bow to your clearly superior rhetorical skills. Absolutely brilliant.
Your beliefs are as Utopian as Mao. You just don't see it.
Exploring your opposition is good for you. Try it and you'll see. Actually, just exploring the arguments of the current middle would be good for you. As a bonus, you'll be smarter for it and you'll be able to talk to people like me without using so many exclamation points.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we'll just see some "too good to be true"-rants and that's it.
Well, that and the whole patent thing. I'm of the opinion that patents and current IP law are a legacy system and it will eventually be unworkable, but we haven't quite evolved away from it yet.
Maybe when everyone sees the benefits of having the sum of humankind's knowledge and expression available to anybody with cheap hardware; with everyone able to contribute in real-time, without the interference of commercial gatekeepers, we can ditch it. Of course, the trillions of dollars in productivity gained in the past 30-some years of computing and networking hasn't demonstrated the point to the vast majority of people, but it has to get through their thick skulls eventually.
For now, I'll just say I'm picking my battles, and Google has earned my trust.
Me, too.
I'm terrified by what is happening with the current major-telco/ISP system. From what I've seen in the past 20 years, a large enough chunk of humanity has the vulnerable-to-marketing gene that these people may likely get what they want: A second Great Firewall in the United States, just for the billions they want to make in commoditizing entertainment (that's what they mean when they refer to art as "content").
It would be even more likely, if there wasn't a 1.5e11 dollar company in the way, headed by people who understand that being publicly traded doesn't mean you sacrifice ethics for shareholder return. AFAICT, they've stuck by their motto, and they understand how important these issues are for humankind.
Yeah, I know, I've drunk the kool-aid, etc. Save it.
Yeah. They're doing it wrong.
Next step would be firing the so-called "technology experts" in the popular media, who apparently lack the the tech saavy to google for what "open-source" means.
Coverage of the G1 launch was a beautiful example of their ignorance. Many times I heard the fakers pontificate about the "security concerns" in using open-source software, while not even knowing meaning of the term.
6'5. 2000 Civic. Many thousands of miles.
And anyway, there are tall people in Europe, as well.
That's nothing.
2008 Cadillac Escalade: 14mpg combined
2009 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid: 20mpg combined
25% more efficient!
Incontrovertible evidence that GM holds its U.S. customers in contempt.
Mod parent up
The DRM lock-in is insidious: Anyone wishing to create and maintain a "useful" operating system will have to license DRM software from Microsoft; software which is, happily for Microsoft, incompatible with libre software, both in terms of licensing and technology. Keep in mind that Microsoft's DRM scheme goes down to the metal.
In addition, and even more dangerous in my opinion, is the stated goal of increasing the "safety" of the internet by allowing ISPs to filter by application. And by application, they actually mean the whole stack. ISPs will be able to dictate which software you can use in their ToS. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out who will provide the "safe" platform.
And for those who are buying into this ISP competition argument: This lobby and others are taking advantage of public ignorance about the topology of the internet. AT&T is supporting this initiative because they wish to be able to shape traffic on the backbone. Notice the very purposeful use of the term "network operator" instead of "Internet Service Provider".
I can't believe that the jingoism in the above comments can possibly be representative of slashdot users.
Hopefully more sane people with mod points will come along, and counteract the right-wing team-mods.
I'm not saying that an opinion should be solely based on whether or not an industry group employs unethical tactics like astroturfing, and not on the merits of each side's arguments; but if you did, you would side with Google. There are dozens of comments on the Washington Post page that are clearly (to me) part of an "online strategy" by those opposing opening up whitespace.
Have you ever explored the possibility that you're wrong?
I have trouble with your first statement. I don't see actual income redistribution programs, succeeding or failing. And you're using the fact that government borrows against social security surpluses as evidence for your belief that social security was a flawed concept from the beginning, which does not follow.
Social security works far into the future, with only minor adjustments needed. By any measure, this program is one of the most successful ever conceived by the US government. So much so that government can borrow against its surpluses (whether this is a good practice is another debate).
I know you think you're right, but you have little evidence for your arguments except for your gut feelings, which came from popular media.
As an aside, I think that the club currently in power (and I don't mean Republicans in general, although party loyalism makes it appear that way) cynically uses economic fundamentalists in the same manner that they take use religious fundamentalists. Both camps have a lot of magical thinking in common.
On a philosophical note, my utopia and your utopia are unlikely to exist in our lifetimes, but in our opinions we are probably, unconsciously or consciously, working towards them. I happen to think that my Star Trek utopia is a nicer place to live than your libertarian one. But pragmatically, this 28-year experiment in laissez-faire capitalism is over, and the results are in. Time to re-assess your assumptions.
I'm not stupid, and I think you're wrong. The problem was directly caused by lack of regulation and enforcement.
FWIW, you need to do more research. The opinion radio slant you've got there is a particularly ugly one.
Yes, it was "greed" that drove the crooks to dodge, break, and change the law. And it was probably greed that caused Bush and the "Goldman Sachs" crew to give the financial services industry the all-clear; they wouldn't even have to worry about SEC action anymore.
If anything, Social Security has been too successful, and you're characterization of it is just plain strange.
Is there anything that will shake your faith? Your libertarian utopia has never existed. All you have is belief.
I think you mean that you've "lurked" around /. instead of "trolled". Trolling is the art of causing blowhards to have aneurysms.
About the Bush people: There's actually just a dozen or so guys with sock-puppets that run through proxies running on their vps's that host their cheesy wordpress sites (you know who you are). There isn't a simple way for slashcode to thwart people with that much free time. (protip: Just about everyone on slashdot knows how to game slashcode; most of us choose not to). That's my hypothesis, anyway.
Isn't that a bit circular?
FWIW, I'm glad she exists. We need more voices that are not afraid of point out that the Friedman meme that laissez-faire capitalism spreads human freedom may not be accurate. It was heresy up until just a few years ago to question that popular opinion. Anything that upsets the true believers is fine with me (btw, I'm not a fan of Klein's).
WTF????
I would love it if your industry disappeared. Loan sharking (nice job on the wikipedia article, btw... totally non-obvious) used to be illegal. What you do for a living is called racketeering.
ahahahahahaahah!!!!!!!
Seriously, though, you're parasites who profit from the misfortune of others.
Take your online strategy and shove it.
Functor (in CS): A functional object or function symbol.
Generators are being bolted onto Java, as well, IIRC.
Functors and generators in the languages you mention are emulations of native constructs in the languages we are talking about here (the lazy functional languages). The mainstream languages wouldn't have these emulations if the languages we're talking about (and smalltalk, I guess) didn't introduce them.
One strength of mainstream languages is that they are mainstream, I suppose. I see your point about wet-behind-the-ears programmers wading into Haskell. But it doesn't follow that things have to be this way (I wish schools still taught some lisp in intro CS). And it doesn't mean that functional languages aren't very very cool, or that C++ and Python (with today's idioms) will be with us forever.
Very well said.
Citation please.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/10/us/politics/10fannie.graphic.jpg . That's a graphic showing contributions from the officers of Fannie and Freddie.
And then look at this: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html. Read the comments at the bottom. Several people come up with seemingly plausible and vastly conflicting numbers, using cherry-picked data from the source: http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml.
This from politico is ubiquitous: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html. From July.
International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/10/america/lobby.php. Note that several top members of McCain's team were actually real-life lobbyists for Fannie Mae (they've all since found Jesus, of course).
Even after all that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Indeed. You should read about them. It sounds like you aren't even sure about what they are.
You probably need to know this, too:
Your credulity is being cynically taken advantage of. Either that, or you're racking up your McCain points.
I bet you say that to all the nerds... ;)
I share some of your opinions, but I arrived at them from a different place. I've never feared greater access, but I have been saddened by our system's failures. I think these failures are more complex than the paradox of Lake Wobegon's test scores, though. Whatever the failures are, and whatever the details of the failures, it seems to me like putting material on the web is an excellent bypass.
I think that the missing great students are still a bigger problem than an abundance of under-equipped students. Coping with some more of the latter is worth it to catch more of the former. In any case, putting this material on the web can feed the lonely minds of those that didn't make it, for reasons other than lack of intelligence.
I totally agree with you about providing more of what you called application-level education; both for the lives of those who just need to learn a trade, and for the institutions who could put more effort into theoretical considerations. But I also get serious warm-and-fuzzies thinking about all humanity being able to access stuff like this someday.
Why?
What a strange response. I've read your comment three times now, and I still don't get it. That is, I don't get it because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt; it seems like you're advocating for long-dead Social Darwinist tripe. But that couldn't possibly be the case, as you are one of those on the "right" side of the curve, right?
You act as if this is your Harrison Bergeron fantasy (in which you are the protagonist, of course). This isn't the government forcing Stanford to admit cretins! It's just a school sharing part of their curricula on the web.
If "you" are a member of "us", count me as a member of "them".
Yay Stanford. Using the web to its potential for making civilization a little better for all of us. What's not to like? And what would we possibly have to gain by preventing people from learning?
Sorry about the redundancy. Shoulda clicked "More"...
Last two paragraphs or so. Yes, I think that.
That's completely inaccurate.
CAFE didn't kill stationwagons. And if it was a rational decision on the part of families that needed a carry-all, the minivan would be the more logical choice, in terms of both safety and interior space.
The Detroit manufacturers spent billions on marketing campaigns designed to convince mothers of children that they were murderesses, and fathers that they were neuter, if they didn't buy a 5000 lb vehicle.
And why did they do that? Because SUVs and light trucks were their highest margin product. And they were the highest margin product because they required little design, used off-the-shelf parts from the 1960s, and didn't require reconfiguration of factories.
Full disclosure: I'm an eco-wacko, you insensitive clod. And your defense of the big three is tortured. Why bother? What did they ever do for you besides trash the climate, blacken your lungs, bribe politicians, and lie people into unsafe vehicles?
SUV enthusiasts and apologists: You are a victim of marketing.
An amusing footnote to illustrate how powerful the proto-financial-services people were in U.S. politics:
Citigroup nee Citibank merged with Travelers a year before GLBA using a temporary exemption from Glass-Steagall.
Smith-Barney, Travelers, Shearson and Primerica merged in 1994, five years before GLBA, using a similar waiver from Glass-Steagall compliance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
You'll need to cite something besides an opinion column.
If by "reform" you mean "death", then yes, the Bush administration wanted regulation of Fannie and Freddie.
Do you know the origin of the term "subprime"? From where I'm standing, it looks like the administration was complicit in the GSEs corruption; Bush got a new talking point in this "ownership society" tripe with inflated home-ownership figures for the 2004 election. Further, I think this club knew that this was bad policy for Fannie and Freddie, and were (and still are) happy about its injury. Members of the "Goldman Sachs Crew" are on the record as advocating for the outright destruction of Fannie and Freddie.
Fannie and Freddie did a remarkable job until quite recently. The U.S. was the only nation in the world where you could get a 30-year fixed mortgage. The "reform" that Bush apologists are referring to had nothing to do with the causes of their insolvency; namely, a move into b-paper, formerly antithetical to the organizations' purpose. As I said, the Administration was fine with this, and used increased home ownership as a talking point in 2004.
I bow to your clearly superior rhetorical skills. Absolutely brilliant.
Your beliefs are as Utopian as Mao. You just don't see it.
Exploring your opposition is good for you. Try it and you'll see. Actually, just exploring the arguments of the current middle would be good for you. As a bonus, you'll be smarter for it and you'll be able to talk to people like me without using so many exclamation points.