Alas, there's not much help for stupid young people except...
- reading/.
- time and experience
- luck
- a good teacher.
Corporations and/or governments can help with such things (maybe not the luck). But will they?
Re:I largely disagree with what he's saying...
on
Information Poisoning
·
· Score: 1
It's a pleasure to peruse your post, sir!
I can see several problems with Caleb Carr's proposal.
1) His government board is likely to turn into a monstrous tax-sponsored feeding trough for bureaucrats and lawyers.
2) The United States federal government can only directly influence a piece of the World Wide Web. Only organizations with global scope, like the United Nations, or with net-wide influence, like ICANN, would have the reach necessary to enforce the kind of regulation Carr proposes.
3) Regulation of the net does not address the root problem, "that technology is making people dumber". Indeed, instituting a supervisory agency would tend to aggravate the problem by leading people to believe that it is safe to absorb web content uncritically.
A solution demands that our culture should produce a population of discerning citizens capable of good judgement and critical thinking (such as Malor:). This is something that no level of government can guarantee. Rather it is something that we must strive to inculcate in ourselves and in each other.
Several of Mr. Dickinson's comments got stuck in my craw. A few of them are listed below, along with my comments. Dickinson: Absolutely, Mr. O'Reilly. One thing we were lacking was your very cogent voice last year as this legislation was pending on Capitol Hill. We very strongly supported expanding that re-examination, and it only passed in November, and I didn't hear you or Mr. Bezos raise your voices once to try to keep that kind of loophole from being included in the legislation. Software developers are concerned with writing code, not with political wrangling in Washington. Keeping up with developments in their rapidly changing field is a full-time job. I think it's unfortunate if lawmakers should feel the need to be responsive to every group that has enough wealth or influence, or who makes enough noise to capture their attention. The point of law is to create a level playing field. The protection of the law should apply evenly to everyone regardless of wealth, influence, intelligence or political savoir-faire. Instruments of law should be designed to benefit the average citizen. The average citizen is not wealthy, is not well-connected, does not have a lawyer or lobbyist, does not represent a major corporation, and probably doesn't even vote. Dickinson: That's a tricky business because the copyright lasts for a hell of a lot longer than a patent lasts. The copyright will last fifty years past your lifetime, whereas the patent only lasts for twenty years from the date you file your application. The copyright laws just changed, did they not? I've read several complaints about the longevity of copyrights under the revised statutes. One of the great things about the old system of copyrights is that one might reasonably hope to outlive some particular copyright. One point that Mr. Dickinson does not address and that Mr. O'Reilly failed (in this interview) to articulate is that the tenor of patent law is different from that of copyright law. The rights, privileges and penalties are different. I think that is why Mr. O'Reilly (and others) prefer copyright protection for software. Dickinson: Well, that's why you need a good lawyer. I wouldn't suggest that you do surgery on yourself either. You need to consult a lawyer on what is probably one of the most arcane areas of -- It's my opinion that recommending litigiousness or recourse to lawyers is not a laudable pastime for any man, and especially not for a public servant. Rather he should be striving to make the body of law as small and simple as possible and to make its application as rapid, accessible and transparent as possible. Lawyers exist as parasites on the body politic. Elimination of this parasitism would be a fit project for anyone who would serve the public interest. Unfortunately it seems that at many levels our government is now operated by and in the interests of (You guessed it!) lawyers. This is not a healthy situation for our country. And with respect to this kind of opinion, prior art is both rich and ancient. Dickinson: Absolutely, I think that's a great idea. I would encourage you to continue to try to develop any mechanism including the Web sites that would bring additional prior art that's good and valid prior art to the surface, so we can make sure the quality of these patents is as high as we can make them, and I applaud you for doing that. Software and web sites are ephemeral by nature. Subject to constant upgrades and revisions, their life span is fleeting. The digital media wherein they dwell are equally shortlived. It would be surprising to me if the majority of software developers would be able to produce the kind of tangible documentation (in defense of prior art) that Mr. Dickinson seems to expect here.
One sign of creeping corporatism is obvious today (January 1): college football's bowl games. They used to have fine upstanding names that would make any ESPN viewer proud -- Gator Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl. Nowadays we have the Nokia Sugar Bowl, the Micron PC Bowl. It's always the Somebody's Company Bowl.
The other day I watched a basketball game in the National Car Rental Center. I don't wish to piss off the citizens of that area (Alas, my sieve-like brain can no longer recall the name of the city where this arena is located.)... it doesn't matter. The problem is global. What were these people thinking? What happened to their sense of identity and civic pride? I suppose the car rental company's sponsorship saved the taxpayers millions of dollars on the cost of the building. But "National Car Rental Center" is not a name of which I would be proud if this structure were located in my town. It can hardly do much to inspire a sense of community or local spirit. And it sounds more like a car lot than a sports venue.
Increasingly we live in a world of brands, logos, and advertisements -- on teevee, on the web, on signs, walls and t-shirts. Does this bother anyone besides me? Is there anything we can do about it?
Re:It's not NEXT year, but the year AFTER next
on
When Does Y2K Begin?
·
· Score: 1
I turns out that when you (or more likely, your friends and relatives) celebrate your first birthday, you have probably been alive about twenty-one months.
Where's the beef? All the action happens Friday night (more or less). It's not our fault there was no year 0. It was the ancient Romans' with their clunky Roman numerals. If their math had been up to spec we wouldn't be having this problem now. 2001 is going to be a non-event.
Slashdot Mirror
Alas, there's not much help for stupid young people except...
/.
- reading
- time and experience
- luck
- a good teacher.
Corporations and/or governments can help with such things (maybe not the luck). But will they?
It's a pleasure to peruse your post, sir!
:). This is something that no level of government can guarantee. Rather it is something that we must strive to inculcate in ourselves and in each other.
I can see several problems with Caleb Carr's proposal.
1) His government board is likely to turn into a monstrous tax-sponsored feeding trough for bureaucrats and lawyers.
2) The United States federal government can only directly influence a piece of the World Wide Web. Only organizations with global scope, like the United Nations, or with net-wide influence, like ICANN, would have the reach necessary to enforce the kind of regulation Carr proposes.
3) Regulation of the net does not address the root problem, "that technology is making people dumber". Indeed, instituting a supervisory agency would tend to aggravate the problem by leading people to believe that it is safe to absorb web content uncritically.
A solution demands that our culture should produce a population of discerning citizens capable of good judgement and critical thinking (such as Malor
Yeah, what about body painting or colored lights? What about black and white photos?
Several of Mr. Dickinson's comments got stuck in my craw. A few of them are listed below, along with my comments. Dickinson: Absolutely, Mr. O'Reilly. One thing we were lacking was your very cogent voice last year as this legislation was pending on Capitol Hill. We very strongly supported expanding that re-examination, and it only passed in November, and I didn't hear you or Mr. Bezos raise your voices once to try to keep that kind of loophole from being included in the legislation. Software developers are concerned with writing code, not with political wrangling in Washington. Keeping up with developments in their rapidly changing field is a full-time job. I think it's unfortunate if lawmakers should feel the need to be responsive to every group that has enough wealth or influence, or who makes enough noise to capture their attention. The point of law is to create a level playing field. The protection of the law should apply evenly to everyone regardless of wealth, influence, intelligence or political savoir-faire. Instruments of law should be designed to benefit the average citizen. The average citizen is not wealthy, is not well-connected, does not have a lawyer or lobbyist, does not represent a major corporation, and probably doesn't even vote. Dickinson: That's a tricky business because the copyright lasts for a hell of a lot longer than a patent lasts. The copyright will last fifty years past your lifetime, whereas the patent only lasts for twenty years from the date you file your application. The copyright laws just changed, did they not? I've read several complaints about the longevity of copyrights under the revised statutes. One of the great things about the old system of copyrights is that one might reasonably hope to outlive some particular copyright. One point that Mr. Dickinson does not address and that Mr. O'Reilly failed (in this interview) to articulate is that the tenor of patent law is different from that of copyright law. The rights, privileges and penalties are different. I think that is why Mr. O'Reilly (and others) prefer copyright protection for software. Dickinson: Well, that's why you need a good lawyer. I wouldn't suggest that you do surgery on yourself either. You need to consult a lawyer on what is probably one of the most arcane areas of -- It's my opinion that recommending litigiousness or recourse to lawyers is not a laudable pastime for any man, and especially not for a public servant. Rather he should be striving to make the body of law as small and simple as possible and to make its application as rapid, accessible and transparent as possible. Lawyers exist as parasites on the body politic. Elimination of this parasitism would be a fit project for anyone who would serve the public interest. Unfortunately it seems that at many levels our government is now operated by and in the interests of (You guessed it!) lawyers. This is not a healthy situation for our country. And with respect to this kind of opinion, prior art is both rich and ancient. Dickinson: Absolutely, I think that's a great idea. I would encourage you to continue to try to develop any mechanism including the Web sites that would bring additional prior art that's good and valid prior art to the surface, so we can make sure the quality of these patents is as high as we can make them, and I applaud you for doing that. Software and web sites are ephemeral by nature. Subject to constant upgrades and revisions, their life span is fleeting. The digital media wherein they dwell are equally shortlived. It would be surprising to me if the majority of software developers would be able to produce the kind of tangible documentation (in defense of prior art) that Mr. Dickinson seems to expect here.
Our freedom is going down the tubes because the RIAA can afford better lawyers.
One sign of creeping corporatism is obvious today (January 1): college football's bowl games. They used to have fine upstanding names that would make any ESPN viewer proud -- Gator Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl. Nowadays we have the Nokia Sugar Bowl, the Micron PC Bowl. It's always the Somebody's Company Bowl.
... it doesn't matter. The problem is global. What were these people thinking? What happened to their sense of identity and civic pride? I suppose the car rental company's sponsorship saved the taxpayers millions of dollars on the cost of the building. But "National Car Rental Center" is not a name of which I would be proud if this structure were located in my town. It can hardly do much to inspire a sense of community or local spirit. And it sounds more like a car lot than a sports venue.
The other day I watched a basketball game in the National Car Rental Center. I don't wish to piss off the citizens of that area (Alas, my sieve-like brain can no longer recall the name of the city where this arena is located.)
Increasingly we live in a world of brands, logos, and advertisements -- on teevee, on the web, on signs, walls and t-shirts. Does this bother anyone besides me? Is there anything we can do about it?
Oops, I think I missed it!:(
Huzzah!
I turns out that when you (or more likely, your friends and relatives) celebrate your first birthday, you have probably been alive about twenty-one months.
Where's the beef?
All the action happens Friday night (more or less). It's not our fault there was no year 0. It was the ancient Romans' with their clunky Roman numerals. If their math had been up to spec we wouldn't be having this problem now.
2001 is going to be a non-event.