1. Milgram hands out 160 envelopes and the target receives 24. I guess not everyone is able to reach everyone else.
2. Milgram gives all 160 envelope recipients the target's name and address. So at what point were the 24 envelopes simply mailed. I would have just mailed it directly.
3. I wouldn't expect more than five of my Facebook friends to lend me money or do me any sort of favor. Exchanging Facebook quips is quite free.
Attention triage prevents me from reading more about this.
When I got into trouble with Google while trying to sign up for Google +, I lost all the blog and all the mail. Poof. Just like that. No appeal, no explanation, not even an email to write to for the company to ignore.
I could have gotten the account, and the data, back, but I would have had to acquiesce to Google's notion of privacy as my fee for the service. I didn't.
I didn't care about the mail -- it was most blog mail and some other junk. And I was careful about the blog. I tried to remember to export it every so often, and as it turns out only lost one post that was up less than an hour.
IBM seems to think that if you only had a sufficient number of neuron-like (whatever that may be) connections, a brain (whatever that may be) will automagically appear.
There's no good reason to have blind faith in this notion, and it's not likely to be any more likely than more than 60 years of fabulously wild predictions of what computers will do in the next n years.
But it's not impossible, and three cheers for IBM for throwing wads of cash into the game. It'd be great if other big outfits chased dreams like this.
Whatever it is, it ain't the revolution. I'm not sure that all the people in the U.S. and Europe who dream of revolution really want one or have some clue about their place in the world.
The 99% are not miserable in any sense of the word. Sure unemployment is high, but you don't have huge masses of people starving, homeless and riding the rails. Sure there is inequity in the U.S., but people all over the country keep voting for pawns of the corporate elite.
I think the leadership of OWS would like to build a left Tea Party but they don't have the money and know how. Nor do they have a black president, about the only fact that binds the various fringe groups in the Tea Party together. Libertarians and the Religious right? Gimme a break. See my favorite blog.
Google's huge lead in search -- with a lot of credit to the mass of their servers -- is so big that it by far dwarfs all those other services they sell. No one needs gmail, and many of those other cloud applications are too clunky. But I want Google search. That's my opinion. I kept my Google account on a separate machine from my main machine. I guess if they analyzed their logs sufficiently they could have connected me to my former Google account. I didn't want to be too paranoid. In the end, I tried G+, got closed out of everything because of something stupid. The incident tells me Google isn't so much concerned with quantity as quality. Harder to sell a dossier on a anonymous person or persons who use a particular browser at a particular IP, than to sell a dossier on Bob Smith in Boise, Idaho. (Sorry, Bob, I mean someone else.)
Wikileaks does the same thing that the police and the intelligence agencies do.
They all sit around and wait for someone to wander in and tell them some juicy but dangerous secrets. Whistleblowers, snitches and spies all do the same thing.
They have something they want to say, but they don't want to take the risk in saying it. They can all be plants, hustlers and even double agents.
The means are the same; it's the ends that are different.
I don't think you can even pay full price. If you go to the signup page, it's 99 cents. A few people got it for free for a year (from Lincoln cars? makes no sense). They've sent registered users emails offers longer bargains. There's no telling when they'll stop the heavy promotions.
It seems like they want to get used to people paying something, anything.
Their readership on the web took a hit, but it's hard to figure. There are so many exceptions and exemptions -- and with 20 free articles a month -- the declines they have sound ominous.
More details: http://blog.unbiasedeye.com/2011/04/new-york-timess-99000-question.html
Yes, you're right. I had the judge and the 8-year sentence on the brain.
But it's more absurd to talk of the prosecutors. Do you think Obama calls each of them up? Sends them an email? Writes a little note? There are a lot of prosecutors if you count all the assistant U.S. attys. The head guys' terms overlap presidents. Many are carried over -- i.e. they are basically nonpolitical. For something as big as the banking collapse, do you think you can shut all of them up?
If you know a prosecutor who thinks his dynamite case against a bank executive has been squelched by the White House, have him call me immediately -- collect. I'll buy you dinner.
You and I may think the bankers are really bad guys, but that doesn't mean they violated the law.
After the S&L debacle in the 80s, several of them, big politcal contributors, too, went to jail. Do you think that Bush the elder had higher morals?
Do you really think that Obama sends messages to everyone of the thousands of federal judges -- many of whom were appointed by Bush, and all of whom have lifetime jobs -- about every case that they hear? And how many federal charges were even brought against bankers? Under what law?
Do you really think that bribes are paid out in the open so that they can be put on the web for all the people who don't vote to shake their heads at?
I don't know the programmer's case at all, but the sentence does seem outsized for an intellectual property theft. I do believe that it's astounding that all those Wall Street executives just continue to skim off the money they do. But what's that got to do with contributions?
I can see that the connections and business associations between Wall Street firms and government agencies is a lot stronger than those between the Brotherhood of Slashdot Readers and those agencies..
So it works like this: If you want to go back to your nice job at the bank after President X serves his four or eight years, you better make sure X doesn't rock the boat.
The price is too high. There won't be a rush of subscribers
The number of freebies -- with tweets and fb and limited searching -- will satisfy most, but clicks out of idle curiosity will disappear. And if the clicks disappear, so do the advertisers.
Just how many avid readers do they have? How does this remedy the Times Select move?
I understand that a small but growing number of people are heading toward the hills in Montana and Idaho to prepare for the human revolution against the machines.
The Times did a good job on this, but there are some questions.
They did mention that Penney is (or was) a big Google advertiser, but you've got to wonder who else has succeeded in doing this.
I read a blogger Whither the NY Times who's doing a pretty funny review of the Times day by day, with the looming paywall in the background.
He asks who else, and wonders how did the Times scope this out?
Businesses seem to rise and fall in their Google rankings in weird ways. Maybe the search engine optimizers have figured something out. Or maybe Google just looks the other way once in awhile
The whining science teachers are implying that they used to do it better.
Unless I'm so old that my memory is failing, my high school science courses sucked. I learned more from those glossy Time-Life (if that was the name then) books than I ever did in class. I generally read the book they gave us during the first few classes and then stared out the window for the rest of the year. I can still hear my biology teacher reciting his outline of the species in a particularly dull monotone.
It's no wonder that idiot politicians get away with saying the things they do. In a scientifically literate society, any politician who mutters that evolution is just a theory would be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
As if Google doesn't watch its competition and try to see if they can improve their results.
In a corporate, capitalist environment looking over the other guy's stuff is not covered by "Do no evil." I'm surprised Google is whining about this. They're still way better than Bing.
It's always convenient to start the story at a particular point in history. You choose the early 50s. Others might choose a point a couple thousand years ago when the Persians invaded Greece. Therefore, Greeks need atomic weapons? You might try any point in time. In any case, Persia's never been the same since Alexander, who was followed by the Arabs, and then the Turks, and finally the Brits.
Another problem is the "what ifs" in history. You can assume that any moment of hope would have blossomed into a perfect world, but it almost never works like that. For instance, since the Shah was overthrown, does anyone in Iran talk about Mosaddegh -- or is it against the law since he was a godless socialist?
If reposting a news story with attribution in a couple obscure blogs can seriously damage that paper, if the Review Journal can so easily be diminished, it's a pathetic operation that ought to be put out of its misery immediately.
I bet they even have pretentions of claiming some special First Amendment rights, but they don't deserve them.
I'd say when they hired a roomful of sleazy lawyers, they were admitting their complete defeat as a newspaper, as a journalistic enterprise.
Somebody's going to do much better searches than Google, which is after all, a word-based search ranked by a linking scheme.
But it's going to be hard to tell the world about it when it happens because of the enormous advantage Google has in indexing. It's so fast, it's almost an eye on the web, and that will take more hardware than will fit in anyone's garage. No one's going to finance the billions needed on the basis of a limited, meagre sample (like this very informal study).
Then there's the name recognition and holier-than-thou reputation -- tarnished by privacy issue but few people seem to care about that.
You don't really believe Microsoft's going to do it. It's got the money, but it's a big corporate bureaucracy that won't overcome the herd mentality either in business matters or in science and engineering, and therefore in R&D.
I joined Facebook and looked up the girl I had the hots for in high school. I found out that she's a health food shaman who gives people enemas for a living. Do I care what movies she watches or what brand of sneakers she wears?
I'm over Facebook, like people who are over AOL, MySpace and all sorts of other so-called tech businesses that have come and gone. But who cares about my personal anecdote when you can clutch a briefcase of unaudited financial results?
And somewhere in the folds of my brain, I remember that Wall Street makes money from commissions, fees and expenses, and not from careful analyses of the fundamentals. And wasn't Goldman Sachs sued by the SEC a few months ago for fraud over mortgage-backed securities.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Milgram hands out 160 envelopes and the target receives 24. I guess not everyone is able to reach everyone else.
2. Milgram gives all 160 envelope recipients the target's name and address. So at what point were the 24 envelopes simply mailed. I would have just mailed it directly.
3. I wouldn't expect more than five of my Facebook friends to lend me money or do me any sort of favor. Exchanging Facebook quips is quite free.
Attention triage prevents me from reading more about this.
When I got into trouble with Google while trying to sign up for Google +, I lost all the blog and all the mail. Poof. Just like that. No appeal, no explanation, not even an email to write to for the company to ignore.
I could have gotten the account, and the data, back, but I would have had to acquiesce to Google's notion of privacy as my fee for the service. I didn't.
I didn't care about the mail -- it was most blog mail and some other junk. And I was careful about the blog. I tried to remember to export it every so often, and as it turns out only lost one post that was up less than an hour.
---------------
Unbiased Eye
IBM seems to think that if you only had a sufficient number of neuron-like (whatever that may be) connections, a brain (whatever that may be) will automagically appear.
There's no good reason to have blind faith in this notion, and it's not likely to be any more likely than more than 60 years of fabulously wild predictions of what computers will do in the next n years.
But it's not impossible, and three cheers for IBM for throwing wads of cash into the game. It'd be great if other big outfits chased dreams like this.
----------------
Unbiased Eye
Whatever it is, it ain't the revolution. I'm not sure that all the people in the U.S. and Europe who dream of revolution really want one or have some clue about their place in the world.
The 99% are not miserable in any sense of the word. Sure unemployment is high, but you don't have huge masses of people starving, homeless and riding the rails. Sure there is inequity in the U.S., but people all over the country keep voting for pawns of the corporate elite.
I think the leadership of OWS would like to build a left Tea Party but they don't have the money and know how. Nor do they have a black president, about the only fact that binds the various fringe groups in the Tea Party together. Libertarians and the Religious right? Gimme a break. See my favorite blog .
Google's huge lead in search -- with a lot of credit to the mass of their servers -- is so big that it by far dwarfs all those other services they sell. No one needs gmail, and many of those other cloud applications are too clunky. But I want Google search. That's my opinion. I kept my Google account on a separate machine from my main machine. I guess if they analyzed their logs sufficiently they could have connected me to my former Google account. I didn't want to be too paranoid. In the end, I tried G+, got closed out of everything because of something stupid. The incident tells me Google isn't so much concerned with quantity as quality. Harder to sell a dossier on a anonymous person or persons who use a particular browser at a particular IP, than to sell a dossier on Bob Smith in Boise, Idaho. (Sorry, Bob, I mean someone else.)
Don't forget the junk phone calls. They're the worst. Don't call lists are minimally effective.
Wikileaks does the same thing that the police and the intelligence agencies do.
They all sit around and wait for someone to wander in and tell them some juicy but dangerous secrets. Whistleblowers, snitches and spies all do the same thing.
They have something they want to say, but they don't want to take the risk in saying it. They can all be plants, hustlers and even double agents.
The means are the same; it's the ends that are different.
Why don't the authors of this research scrape all the comments here and see if it recognizes any of the heavy breathing wordplay?
I don't think you can even pay full price. If you go to the signup page, it's 99 cents. A few people got it for free for a year (from Lincoln cars? makes no sense). They've sent registered users emails offers longer bargains. There's no telling when they'll stop the heavy promotions. It seems like they want to get used to people paying something, anything. Their readership on the web took a hit, but it's hard to figure. There are so many exceptions and exemptions -- and with 20 free articles a month -- the declines they have sound ominous. More details: http://blog.unbiasedeye.com/2011/04/new-york-timess-99000-question.html
I don't think the paywall is a smart idea for the Times. It jeopardizes the business and if that fails, we all lose.
But is this $40 million figure true?
It's not impossible, but just because Bloomberg said it and a bunch of people repeated it, it ain't necessarily so.
Yes, you're right. I had the judge and the 8-year sentence on the brain.
But it's more absurd to talk of the prosecutors. Do you think Obama calls each of them up? Sends them an email? Writes a little note? There are a lot of prosecutors if you count all the assistant U.S. attys. The head guys' terms overlap presidents. Many are carried over -- i.e. they are basically nonpolitical. For something as big as the banking collapse, do you think you can shut all of them up?
If you know a prosecutor who thinks his dynamite case against a bank executive has been squelched by the White House, have him call me immediately -- collect. I'll buy you dinner.
You and I may think the bankers are really bad guys, but that doesn't mean they violated the law.
After the S&L debacle in the 80s, several of them, big politcal contributors, too, went to jail. Do you think that Bush the elder had higher morals?
Nonsense!
Do you really think that Obama sends messages to everyone of the thousands of federal judges -- many of whom were appointed by Bush, and all of whom have lifetime jobs -- about every case that they hear? And how many federal charges were even brought against bankers? Under what law?
Do you really think that bribes are paid out in the open so that they can be put on the web for all the people who don't vote to shake their heads at?
I don't know the programmer's case at all, but the sentence does seem outsized for an intellectual property theft. I do believe that it's astounding that all those Wall Street executives just continue to skim off the money they do. But what's that got to do with contributions?
I can see that the connections and business associations between Wall Street firms and government agencies is a lot stronger than those between the Brotherhood of Slashdot Readers and those agencies..
So it works like this: If you want to go back to your nice job at the bank after President X serves his four or eight years, you better make sure X doesn't rock the boat.
The payoff is good will.
The price is too high. There won't be a rush of subscribers
The number of freebies -- with tweets and fb and limited searching -- will satisfy most, but clicks out of idle curiosity will disappear. And if the clicks disappear, so do the advertisers.
Just how many avid readers do they have? How does this remedy the Times Select move?
Here's why the news business is out of touch with competition on the Internet:
I take it back. Working now. Sorry.
I didn't know about the move to https, but I just went to Twit with Firefox on linux; then tried Safari on a Jobs machine.
The error page tells me politely, "Something is technically wrong. Thanks for noticing ..."
Anybody else getting this?
I understand that a small but growing number of people are heading toward the hills in Montana and Idaho to prepare for the human revolution against the machines.
Slashdot wrote about this last year, after Playboy wrote about it. Playboy's story was pretty good.
The moral of the story is anyone who gives good Powerpoint is destined to grow rich
---
http://whitherthenytimes.blogspot.com/
The Times did a good job on this, but there are some questions.
They did mention that Penney is (or was) a big Google advertiser, but you've got to wonder who else has succeeded in doing this.
I read a blogger Whither the NY Times who's doing a pretty funny review of the Times day by day, with the looming paywall in the background.
He asks who else, and wonders how did the Times scope this out?
Businesses seem to rise and fall in their Google rankings in weird ways. Maybe the search engine optimizers have figured something out. Or maybe Google just looks the other way once in awhile
The whining science teachers are implying that they used to do it better.
Unless I'm so old that my memory is failing, my high school science courses sucked. I learned more from those glossy Time-Life (if that was the name then) books than I ever did in class. I generally read the book they gave us during the first few classes and then stared out the window for the rest of the year. I can still hear my biology teacher reciting his outline of the species in a particularly dull monotone.
It's no wonder that idiot politicians get away with saying the things they do. In a scientifically literate society, any politician who mutters that evolution is just a theory would be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Who's that other guy in a cape and tights?
As if Google doesn't watch its competition and try to see if they can improve their results.
In a corporate, capitalist environment looking over the other guy's stuff is not covered by "Do no evil." I'm surprised Google is whining about this. They're still way better than Bing.
If his doctor takes Medicare, he'll use it. So will Gates, Ellison and anyone else.
Who said that thing: The rich are different from you and me. They have more money.
Now there's a blast from the past.
It's always convenient to start the story at a particular point in history. You choose the early 50s. Others might choose a point a couple thousand years ago when the Persians invaded Greece. Therefore, Greeks need atomic weapons? You might try any point in time. In any case, Persia's never been the same since Alexander, who was followed by the Arabs, and then the Turks, and finally the Brits.
Another problem is the "what ifs" in history. You can assume that any moment of hope would have blossomed into a perfect world, but it almost never works like that. For instance, since the Shah was overthrown, does anyone in Iran talk about Mosaddegh -- or is it against the law since he was a godless socialist?
If reposting a news story with attribution in a couple obscure blogs can seriously damage that paper, if the Review Journal can so easily be diminished, it's a pathetic operation that ought to be put out of its misery immediately.
I bet they even have pretentions of claiming some special First Amendment rights, but they don't deserve them.
I'd say when they hired a roomful of sleazy lawyers, they were admitting their complete defeat as a newspaper, as a journalistic enterprise.
Somebody's going to do much better searches than Google, which is after all, a word-based search ranked by a linking scheme.
But it's going to be hard to tell the world about it when it happens because of the enormous advantage Google has in indexing. It's so fast, it's almost an eye on the web, and that will take more hardware than will fit in anyone's garage. No one's going to finance the billions needed on the basis of a limited, meagre sample (like this very informal study).
Then there's the name recognition and holier-than-thou reputation -- tarnished by privacy issue but few people seem to care about that.
You don't really believe Microsoft's going to do it. It's got the money, but it's a big corporate bureaucracy that won't overcome the herd mentality either in business matters or in science and engineering, and therefore in R&D.
I joined Facebook and looked up the girl I had the hots for in high school. I found out that she's a health food shaman who gives people enemas for a living. Do I care what movies she watches or what brand of sneakers she wears?
I'm over Facebook, like people who are over AOL, MySpace and all sorts of other so-called tech businesses that have come and gone. But who cares about my personal anecdote when you can clutch a briefcase of unaudited financial results?
And somewhere in the folds of my brain, I remember that Wall Street makes money from commissions, fees and expenses, and not from careful analyses of the fundamentals. And wasn't Goldman Sachs sued by the SEC a few months ago for fraud over mortgage-backed securities.