Agreed. Scale is the issue. For a few emails, it's possible to create a mental map...receipts are in this place, correspondence is in that place. The same way that you know where to find a book in a library because you have a mental map of where things are, and you can drill down (it's in this wing, in this aisle, on this shelf).
For a few thousand, and with new ones coming in every day, it's fruitless to maintain that sort of a mental picture. Better to know exactly what you want than exactly where to find it. People may be more used to searching by location than by assembling just the right mix of keywords and Boolean operators, but beyond a certain size data set the latter becomes necessary.
The issue is much more pronounced when it comes to researching something on the web. I used to wonder why people asked me things that I have to google when they could have done so themselves. Now I get it...successive approximations don't work on the web, and people are afraid to let go of that mental model.
Personally I am sort of going backwards...I originally moved to GMail and stopped deleting email. But for whatever reason now I'd like to pare things down and get back to a place where I can manage things by remembering where they are rather than trusting the great search box in the sky.
In IMAP clients, where you are forced into the folder paradigm, it can be a little weird using GMail. And you end up with lots of extra folders from clients that don't play nice with it, even if you follow Google's instructions on setting up your clients.
Other than that, I prefer GMail's setup because after a certain number of messages, folders become unwieldy. In my mind, tags + search is just a much more modern way to deal with large amounts of information. You worry about defining exactly what you want (scalable), rather than worrying about where to find it (not scalable). The latter system serves us well outside the computer but it can be difficult for people to "unlearn"...
Your response points to the lack of a sense of humor. But I guess it wouldn't be Slashdot if every IT-related article didn't include comments from programmers taking out their frustrations with their own IT guys. Can't we all just get along?
It runs on Mac, so you could pay the Apple tax instead:)
It's not that I don't understand Microsoft's history...I was in fact upset about the Library of Congress site going that route. It's just that I'm sure the address will be on TV and radio, and it's been pointed out that other sites will be carrying it in different formats. Complaining about this is a small bit like the FSF trying to tie up the Apple stores. Just wrong place, wrong time.
I know that talking about perspective is a cop out argument, and I am on a tech site. Still, this seems like something that once put in perspective is not a big deal, and the good outweighs the bad. Sometimes it's better to just get something done than worry about the implementation. I feel that it is open because they've made it available to millions (I'm guessing here unfortunately) of people who have a computer with Windows but not a TV.
And again, Microsoft is by far the minority plugin, with Flash dominating the space. These things aren't black and white. It'd be easy for me to toss everything Microsoft does under a single blanket, but I'm trying to be fair.
I'm sure that they meant open as in open access. Assuming that they meant open software is a bit of a stretch.
Oh! the injustice. Having to load a browser plug-in! You think Adobe would handle a monopoly in any market differently than Microsoft? You must not use their products, then.
If you are from the US and voted for Obama because you thought his platform was somehow anti-Microsoft, then, frankly, you're an idiot. This is it though...*this* is what lifted the veil and caused you to see the world for what it is. Silverlight. When there are lots of other options available, no less (maybe that's what they meant by "most open"?) Your trolling needs work.
They have to play by different rules because their services have become too vital.
Youtube is far from the only game in town. There's vimeo, revver, etc. I'd agree with you if we were talking about public utilities, but you don't need to be defended from a company deciding they won't host your video for free. At worst you can always host it yourself.
Of course, once you do that, you'll be getting those takedown notices at your home address, and you'll have to decide how to deal with them. So once we assign everyone their responsibilities and follow the cause and effect chain, the real problem becomes (AFAICT) that the law is lopsided. Copyright lasts too long and fair use has very little muscle behind it these days.
I feel for the people doing things like movie reviews who've had their accounts deleted or videos removed. But fortunately they have strong evidence of fair use should they host their video somewhere where they have more control. I don't feel for people who make photo slideshows of "Lost" or whatever show they like and put music behind it. That is in fact a copyright violation and in my mind should be treated as such.
What people are really worried about is losing access to YouTube's large user base, which compared to a normal web page is like getting free advertising. If people lose that, then so be it, it's not a right. As long as the terms were made clear when signing up, I don't see the issue. YouTube needs to defend itself from the horde of industry lawyers.
I know that not everyone has one, but my town has more than one mom & pop computer store, and one specifically I can count on to have things like that. It's a hassle for me to go to a larger store for something like that. The fact that I can order things from Newegg and generally have it within two days doesn't help CC either. But I did still like them over BB for whatever reason.
Well, I'll provide some counterpoint here...I read the book and I thought it was a bunch of nonsense.
Talbot takes what I consider to be a mostly legitimate interpretation of QM (Bohm's) and uses it as the basis for "proof" of things like ESP, faith healing, etc.
My main belief is that the universe has beauty, and that humans are able to discover and appreciate it. I wouldn't use the word "mystical" but perhaps "beautiful" and I would say that physics encompasses these things because of its subject matter. Like a painting of a beautiful woman:D
I think you see ID as more forgiving than it really is. Many scientists (Ken Miller for example) believe in God, but that alone is not intelligent design.
ID was essentially a find/replace with Creationism in the relevant literature, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that Creation science promoted a particular religion and could not be taught in public schools. Also mentions of a creator were replaced with things like "a blueprint" or "a plan".
The meat of the argument is the same, the idea of irreducible complexity, which Behe formalized in '92 or '93. His main examples, the blood clotting cascade, the eye, and the bacterial flagellum have been sufficiently explained via evolution to the satisfaction of the scientists, the courts, and basically everyone but Behe and the occasional school board.
Another main idea has to do with "gaps" in the fossil record.
To sum up, ID explicitly states that evolution cannot sufficiently explain the diversity and complexity of life that we witness. You seem to be saying that ID instead says that, while evolution is sufficient, God must have "designed" evolution. That sounds more like theistic evolution to me, which is interesting but more of a philosophical standpoint, where ID purports to be rooted in science.
Amen. There is a real danger in overgeneralizing these things.
FWIW I think the allegory of the cave is a better match for hidden variable theories regarding QM.
As others have said, it's primarily a story about how enlightenment can isolate you from others, and why learning is necessary for society. But if you interpret it as [what we see] vs. [what is really there] then you can find plenty of things in physics to fit that bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Mutually assured destruction may work but it's still scary as hell :)
Agreed. Scale is the issue. For a few emails, it's possible to create a mental map...receipts are in this place, correspondence is in that place. The same way that you know where to find a book in a library because you have a mental map of where things are, and you can drill down (it's in this wing, in this aisle, on this shelf).
For a few thousand, and with new ones coming in every day, it's fruitless to maintain that sort of a mental picture. Better to know exactly what you want than exactly where to find it. People may be more used to searching by location than by assembling just the right mix of keywords and Boolean operators, but beyond a certain size data set the latter becomes necessary.
The issue is much more pronounced when it comes to researching something on the web. I used to wonder why people asked me things that I have to google when they could have done so themselves. Now I get it...successive approximations don't work on the web, and people are afraid to let go of that mental model.
Personally I am sort of going backwards...I originally moved to GMail and stopped deleting email. But for whatever reason now I'd like to pare things down and get back to a place where I can manage things by remembering where they are rather than trusting the great search box in the sky.
In IMAP clients, where you are forced into the folder paradigm, it can be a little weird using GMail. And you end up with lots of extra folders from clients that don't play nice with it, even if you follow Google's instructions on setting up your clients.
Other than that, I prefer GMail's setup because after a certain number of messages, folders become unwieldy. In my mind, tags + search is just a much more modern way to deal with large amounts of information. You worry about defining exactly what you want (scalable), rather than worrying about where to find it (not scalable). The latter system serves us well outside the computer but it can be difficult for people to "unlearn"...
Clay Shirky says it well: http://www.cjr.org/overload/interview_with_clay_shirky_par.php?page=all (check out the 8th response on)
Yahoo said they were #1 but I have also seen evidence than Hotmail is. In any case, they're neck and neck.
http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm
Your response points to the lack of a sense of humor. But I guess it wouldn't be Slashdot if every IT-related article didn't include comments from programmers taking out their frustrations with their own IT guys. Can't we all just get along?
Polish and User Experience in my view IS the operating system.
But...you like Windows? :P
That's unfortunate language and it'd be better for everyone if they changed that.
I'm hopeful that they'll see the tech sites complaining about this and post a link to YouTube or another site with a flash stream.
Could be worse, senate.gov uses realplayer :)
It runs on Mac, so you could pay the Apple tax instead :)
It's not that I don't understand Microsoft's history...I was in fact upset about the Library of Congress site going that route. It's just that I'm sure the address will be on TV and radio, and it's been pointed out that other sites will be carrying it in different formats. Complaining about this is a small bit like the FSF trying to tie up the Apple stores. Just wrong place, wrong time.
I know that talking about perspective is a cop out argument, and I am on a tech site. Still, this seems like something that once put in perspective is not a big deal, and the good outweighs the bad. Sometimes it's better to just get something done than worry about the implementation. I feel that it is open because they've made it available to millions (I'm guessing here unfortunately) of people who have a computer with Windows but not a TV.
And again, Microsoft is by far the minority plugin, with Flash dominating the space. These things aren't black and white. It'd be easy for me to toss everything Microsoft does under a single blanket, but I'm trying to be fair.
I'm sure that they meant open as in open access. Assuming that they meant open software is a bit of a stretch.
Oh! the injustice. Having to load a browser plug-in! You think Adobe would handle a monopoly in any market differently than Microsoft? You must not use their products, then.
If you are from the US and voted for Obama because you thought his platform was somehow anti-Microsoft, then, frankly, you're an idiot. This is it though...*this* is what lifted the veil and caused you to see the world for what it is. Silverlight. When there are lots of other options available, no less (maybe that's what they meant by "most open"?) Your trolling needs work.
I'm sure that page exists more for shareholders than the public at large. Not that I don't get what you're saying.
They have to play by different rules because their services have become too vital.
Youtube is far from the only game in town. There's vimeo, revver, etc. I'd agree with you if we were talking about public utilities, but you don't need to be defended from a company deciding they won't host your video for free. At worst you can always host it yourself.
Of course, once you do that, you'll be getting those takedown notices at your home address, and you'll have to decide how to deal with them. So once we assign everyone their responsibilities and follow the cause and effect chain, the real problem becomes (AFAICT) that the law is lopsided. Copyright lasts too long and fair use has very little muscle behind it these days.
I feel for the people doing things like movie reviews who've had their accounts deleted or videos removed. But fortunately they have strong evidence of fair use should they host their video somewhere where they have more control. I don't feel for people who make photo slideshows of "Lost" or whatever show they like and put music behind it. That is in fact a copyright violation and in my mind should be treated as such.
What people are really worried about is losing access to YouTube's large user base, which compared to a normal web page is like getting free advertising. If people lose that, then so be it, it's not a right. As long as the terms were made clear when signing up, I don't see the issue. YouTube needs to defend itself from the horde of industry lawyers.
We had Caldor and Bradlee's up here. I'm not that sad that they're gone.
His post mentioning Service Merchandise made me go "oh crap, yeah!" and reminisce about Silent Sam. I was pretty young the last time I was there.
Who said they were common carriers?
Change the first part to "give us something you value" and you have 99% of the world's record labels' standard operating procedure.
This is the only thing they know how to do.
I'd say it's partly because people don't order their Big Macs from the 'net.
Don't forget Caldor!
I know that not everyone has one, but my town has more than one mom & pop computer store, and one specifically I can count on to have things like that. It's a hassle for me to go to a larger store for something like that. The fact that I can order things from Newegg and generally have it within two days doesn't help CC either. But I did still like them over BB for whatever reason.
Well, I'll provide some counterpoint here...I read the book and I thought it was a bunch of nonsense.
Talbot takes what I consider to be a mostly legitimate interpretation of QM (Bohm's) and uses it as the basis for "proof" of things like ESP, faith healing, etc.
My main belief is that the universe has beauty, and that humans are able to discover and appreciate it. I wouldn't use the word "mystical" but perhaps "beautiful" and I would say that physics encompasses these things because of its subject matter. Like a painting of a beautiful woman :D
I think you see ID as more forgiving than it really is. Many scientists (Ken Miller for example) believe in God, but that alone is not intelligent design.
ID was essentially a find/replace with Creationism in the relevant literature, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that Creation science promoted a particular religion and could not be taught in public schools. Also mentions of a creator were replaced with things like "a blueprint" or "a plan".
The meat of the argument is the same, the idea of irreducible complexity, which Behe formalized in '92 or '93. His main examples, the blood clotting cascade, the eye, and the bacterial flagellum have been sufficiently explained via evolution to the satisfaction of the scientists, the courts, and basically everyone but Behe and the occasional school board.
Another main idea has to do with "gaps" in the fossil record.
To sum up, ID explicitly states that evolution cannot sufficiently explain the diversity and complexity of life that we witness. You seem to be saying that ID instead says that, while evolution is sufficient, God must have "designed" evolution. That sounds more like theistic evolution to me, which is interesting but more of a philosophical standpoint, where ID purports to be rooted in science.
Asimov thought so too :D
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Amen. There is a real danger in overgeneralizing these things.
FWIW I think the allegory of the cave is a better match for hidden variable theories regarding QM.
As others have said, it's primarily a story about how enlightenment can isolate you from others, and why learning is necessary for society. But if you interpret it as [what we see] vs. [what is really there] then you can find plenty of things in physics to fit that bill.
Philosophers use the scientific method to determine the axioms which underlie their systems.
I would argue that the tools of philosophers are much more general, following logical rules and things like induction and deduction.
Funny that you mention worldviews, the title of the book we used for my philosophy of science course was in fact Worldviews.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cI1PyYvVofAC
Mods should note that, like Idiocracy, this post is more insightful than funny.