No, not exactly. This isn't quite as much a measure of innovation, as it is a measure of revolution. Though the CAT and MRI scans may prove life saving to individuals, on the aggregate the sum of all these recent inventions simply has not had as great on an effect on society as have some earlier innovations. Life expectancies have not, contrary to popular opinion, improved that much in the developed world. Quality of health has not improved that much either.
The question is the net effect and the author answers quite well. It's not disparaging the science of today at all. The article does not say that today's scientists are stupid, lazy, incompetent, underfunded, etc. The article merely puts the benefits of today's science into historical context, and addresses the thousands of internet and technology pundits in one fell swoop.
The media and a great many pundits have been waxing ecstatic about how revolutionary computers and the internet have BEEN (or will be in the very near future). The problem with this kind of talk is that it distorts our thinking and our priorities.
For instance, I never hear the end of the so-called "digital divide." A day never seems to go by when Al Gore, or some other politician, is talking about how we need the internet in every classroom and village (in Africa or what have you). Well as a matter of priorities, basic sustenance, health, and literacy are far more important innovations that have yet to reach these same people. Yet our American domestic policy, insists on spending countless resources today on a "revolution" that is certainly not yet revolutionary. Whether it's going to be revoltionary at all is debatable, but to spend hundreds of millions of dollars networking and providing soon to be obselete computers at great cost is foolish at best.
Similarly, we saw, and still are seeing to some extent, billions of dollars being ponied up for the "internet revolution" though the infamous Dot Coms. Meanwhile other technologies have suffered from lack of funding. For instance, I personally know a few biotech and medical devices companies that had a very difficult time getting capital from venture capitalists and the like, because they were too crazed over Dot Coms. More real dollars have been spent on these Dot Coms than so many other proven revolutions... So yes, not only is this an interesting question, it's a relevant one too. It's a matter of priorities and clear thinking.
Nor does this mean that, since all "basic" needs have been meet, nothing more dramatic can be done. Life expectancy can be increased substantially--medicine is still quite primitive. Issues like traffic jams can theoretically be resolved. AI can be invented (theoretically). Etc. etc. etc. All these things can be HUGE benefits for society that can be _felt_ by the common man--even if he is ignorant as to the reasons. It simply has not happened to as great as an extent in the past 50 years as it was in the 50 years before that.
The fundamental question that should be asked, and the question that the journalist addresses, is the ACTUAL affect these innovations have on real people, not the amount of effort, resources, complexity, intelligence, coolness, etc. in the innovation at hand. Likewise, if some technology is merely an academics vision, but cannot be successfully manufactured at an affordable cost, it simply has no effect on people. It may be revolutionary to scientists at the front, but it is not to the average person. If can really deny that the amount of change from 1900 to 1950 in the average persons life is less than from 1950 to today, then you might say this article is a "crock." You, however, are simply not doing that.
Your entire entire argument consists of the fact that you think today's technology is cooler, more complex, or whatever. You say farm work is more productive today than it was 50 years ago? Certainly. But does this automatically mean it's more important than the lightbulm? Not if you look at it objectively. Look at the harder economic measures of productivity. If you were to look, you would indeed discover that the gains at the first 50 years of the century make the gains of the last 50 look downright childish! Similarly, the average life expectancy has not improved nearly as dramatically in the past 50 years as it did 50 years before that. Put simply, if you are a middle class American, your life is not all that different from your parents or grandparents on the aggregate, insofar as technology goes.
The fact that you and so many other slashdot readers are so myopic as to think that your precious technology is more revolutionary than what your parents or grandparents had is precisely what makes this article so worthwhile. The biggest "crock", in my opinion, is the fact that so many pundits proclaim the internet to be the single most (or one of) revolutionary innovation of the century.
If you want to say that the internet, or whatever technology, is too new to be evaluated and is GOING to have a revolutionary impact, fine, but be clear that it has not happened yet. Furthermore, be aware that you may well be wrong that it will even dramatically change most peoples' lives. History is littered with many incorrect predictions.
One thing which always bugged me is the presumption that anyone who has the outward appearance of geekiness (i.e., anyone that is poorly dressed, or into computer hardware, software, etc) is presumed to be intelligent and/or capable. It's been my experience that this is simply not true. For instance, I (and I'm sure most of you have too) have known lots of "geeks" that are merely "techies"; they may know the latest specs on x86 processors for instance, but they lack a fundamental understanding and a capacity to do much more than drool over them. Similarly, I've known many that lack the motivation to do well in any career. Now this is not to say that I think geeks are dumber, less motivated, or what have you, but rather that they are not too different from the rest of population. What makes "geeks" (necessarily) different is where they are visibally different: in their dress, in their clothes, in their attitude, or what you have.
I might be able to understand this mistake from non-geeks, but why do so many so-called geeks, particularly accomplished geeks, buy into this idea too? I see it from many "geeks" I know and on forums like slashdot. Granted, this doesn't mean that one cannot infer with some certainty other characteristics about a "geek", but it simply goes way too far in my experience.
First, I reject the assertion that costs are even on the aggregate. The fact is that internet sales are growing rapidly. Beyond the obvious implication that local stores are losing sales, this strongly implies that the internet is offering more favorable terms to the consumer. What's more, when I look around I see many instances where local retailers simply don't have a chance to compete. For instance, there are no local stores near me (nor any of the places that i've lived and been) that can compete against the likes of online computer retailers (i.e., Dell).
Secondly, your definition of "fair" is not fair at all. I equate "fair" with equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal RESULTS. What you are saying is that the results are equal, because the government is effectively "evening" things out by taxing. That's simply wrong. Businesses should compete based on what THEY can bring to the table, not on what the government decides to dole out to them. If you decide to locate your business in India, then your business model should allow for the shipping costs that you incur. Similarly, if the retail store decides to locate their business on prime real estate in Manhattan, the government should not subsidize them because of their increased overhead. It is not "fair", it is not practical, and it is certainly not economically desirable.
Businesses bring a lot of different things to the table. Some have better service, some have faster delivery, some have higher quality products, some have superior warranties, some have more selection, some have lower prices, some are better situated, etc etc etc. The point is that it is virtually impossible for the government to even decide what is "better". The government should not even enter into this kind of role. This is what capitalism is for. Let it be.
Sure, I have, though for most everything it's exceptionally fast. I believe the strategy is simply to fit in a combination of common words, but a unique query (never used by other users...they seem to cache). To this end, you can type something like: Peter Jane Josh Mike Joseph Jack Dave Ted Frank Fred....only change one or two of the names, it should take 1.3 seconds or so. Gotta run, bye
I'm not referring to PageRank itself, nor any part of it, as an actual algorithm. I compare Google's fundamental design (or value) to a worthwhile patentable algorithm insofar as it is a rather fundamental concept, not something that would be properly protected by a copyright or overly narrow patent. [What's more, even if some insist that the concept itself might not be entirely novel, its execution certainly is.] I suggest that if Google's patenting of PageRank is tenable to individuals on slashdot, then so should be the patenting of algorithms in the broadest and most theoretical sense. Unless, of course, they can give a very specific reason. However, the vast majority of assaults against _any and all_ software patents here would also apply to PageRank.
Without getting too entrenched in the details of this matter, I fully realize there are concerns with the actual application of patents (even here in this specific application). My intention is simply to broaden (or challenge) the thinking of some people here, to let them know that not anything that can be described loosely or (possibly) subject to independent re-invention by other individuals should necessarily be denied IP protection offhand. Most users here can appreciate what Google has done, having suffered inferior search engines before Google's existence. I, also, believe most people here can understand why Google might _need_ to protect this with what appears to be a broad patent (i.e., in laymans terms "using links on the WWW to quantify relevance").
Re:Nevertheless, it's not too different from ...
on
A Pair of Google Bits
·
· Score: 2
Well, I, for one, have heard numerous SPECIFIC people praise google's wonderful technology (and the like) in one hand and bash software patents with the other. What's more, I suggest the majority of posters (especially those with upward moderation) are advocates of doing away with (software) patents entirely whenever the issue is broached. In fact, I'm quite sure this is the position taken by slashdot's "editorial" staff.
So to answer your question, it's a substantially different issue. When a foreigner refers to the US, he refers to the entity as a whole. This entity, however, contains multiple individuals each with seperate opinions. There need not be any contradiction with any individual for conflicting opinions or even seperate voting outcomes. Slashdot is vastly different from the situation you describe. Where the United States is a large country with diverse people, Slashdot is a largely self-selecting group (i.e., geeks) of like minded individuals, all sharing their opinions (to the extent that slashdot is essentially comprised of the sharing of opinions). I can say with confidence what is said. I have heard numerous people on slashdot contradict themselves, how many foreigners can make the same claim in that general criticism of the United States? Not many. Just because I can't be bothered to actually name them doesn't mean i'm being unfair to anyone.
A more relevant question would be: How would a bunch of neo-nazis on a racist message board like it if I challenged their rhetoric with their own positions? Those who are guilty of hypocrisy know who they are.
Because privately held corporations have shareholders too. Being publically held simply means that there are MORE shareholders, generally more dollars invested, and that it meets certain SEC requirements.
This is relevant because management has a responisibility to the investors. The founders (or management) can't simply do whatever pleases them; that is not what it means to be privately held. To be more specific, these shareholders are predominantly venture capitalists and they CAN be awefully demanding (sometimes unethically so...I know from experience). Right or wrong, if the founders push it too far they can get fired.
guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.
Most dotcoms start on the VC they make in the IPO.
VC is typically raised _before_ the IPO. Rarely will VCs invest in publically held companies. It was, however, typical of the so-called DotComs to make an IPO a year or so after the first (or second) round of VC financing and sell at irrationally high prices. In fact, the primary reason the venture capital industry has done well on the aggregate recently is because the market has been willing to float these companies rapidly and at astronomical prices. Now that the market is starting to come back to its senses expect VC to start hurting again and expect them, ironically, to start making sounder investments (but probably mediocre returns).
Well your facts are a bit distorted. Sure if you ROUND the numbers Bush got 48 and Gore 49 percent. However, rounding makes it seem much further apart than it really is. Gore got something like 48.6 and bush got something like 48.3. In other words, the most you could say, based on the facts, is that just.3% (350k) of voters prefer Gore to Bush. To put that in perspective, using your kind of logic, if Buchanan had dropped out his 499k votes would have gone to Bush, and Bush would've won the so-called popular vote. Or in yet a different light, more voters wanted Bush in this election than wanted Clinton in his first election. All that is irrelevant though, we have laws. We're not going to start inventing new ways of massaging the data to get the results we want, it's too dangerous.
As for Nader, he's totally irrelevant. You don't know that Nader voters would have even voted. (I suspect a great many of them wouldn't have). Also, as I have previously indicated, I know at least a couple Nader voters that would otherwise vote Republican. It could also be argued that Nader changed the very dynamics of the election. For instance, Nader might have pushed Gore more towards the extreme ends of the democratic party, causing him to take risks that he would have otherwise never taken. What if, what if, what if. We simply can't know.
I strenuously object to the assertion by the liberal media and Gore that these minor facts somehow give Gore a "moral" victory, as if somehow a Bush victory is amoral. We are a nation of law and at the end of the day that is our chief moral not the merely what.1% of the country thinks. I think the greater moral violence is that against law. In addition, if you believe in the "people" and polling/statistics, they show how the people really feel now (~60% favor Bush stance in many different areas, such as legitimacy, who "won" florida, who "deserves" to win, etc, etc)
Margin of error or not you can't dispute the fact more people voted for Gore then Bush nationwide and that more people intended to vote for Gore in Florida.
I see. So you can reason your way around a.3% margin of error in Florida, but Bush can't do the same nationwide? Please. This is fundamentally inconsistent. Are you going to tell me that you know for a fact that mistakes were not made in the rest of the country? I hope not.
The bottom line is that I do deny that Gore "certainly" got more votes in Florida, and to the extent that you can argue that Gore won Florida, I can argue that Bush won the so-called "popular vote". What we can agree on are the facts, that Bush won the official votes in Florida and Gore won more official votes nationwide. It'd be a mistake to abandon law in favor of this highly subjective reasoning of yours. Just who would you appoint to be chief reasoner? How is that protected from fraud, manipulation, and abuse? I'd rather have a concrete vote, no matter which way it turns, than the alternative subjective means.
Then, by that same reasoning, it's also fair to say that more people in Florida want Bush. Also, Bill Clinton should have never been elected, because if you added Ross Perot's votes (far more than Nader et. al) to Bush Sr., Bush would've clinched it.
It's not "definetly" fair to say that "most" people did not want Bush. On the basis of the results alone, it's almost exactly 50/50. If Gore so much as farted, that margin could have gone the other way. On the basis of the intent of the country, you simply can't know that. As I've already mentioned, the electoral college changes the way people vote (and also the way the candidates campaign). For instance, I know many people in California and New York that, believe it or not, voted for Nader (because they believe the environment needs more attention) but who would have otherwise voted for Bush (as strange as that may seem). The point is that you can't presume to know the will of the people until you've actually counted their explicit vote. A vote in the electoral college system simply cannot be summed up and called a popular vote, especially when it's this close. Can you really tell me that people making those kinds of decisions are not more than.3% of the vote? No, I didn't think so.
Speak for yourself. The margin of error is not something that has been drummed into my head by pollsters. I say there is a margin of error because there IS one in every election, despite the assertions of some. The degree may vary. Some may choose to call it by another name, but it exists nonetheless. It does not mean that anyone is being "disenfranchised". You can say it's unacceptable and unfair till you turn blue in the face, but that does not change the fact that it exists.
Are there better alternatives? Sure there are. But don't trivialize the problem and act as if getting rid of any and all error is a small task. There are serious issues at work here. Your solution may sound foolproof to you, but don't be so sure of yourself. So long as we're in the physical realm, we're going to have some error. If the error is sufficiently small so that an inaccurate election result is extremely rare, I'd rather have that than, say, a novel digital election with unknown risks (i.e., the potential for massive and untraceable fraud) but 0 or negligible error....
First, we don't have a "popular vote". The so-called "popular vote" is really just the sum of each state's votes. The campaigning by both candidates, as well as the actual voting by the country, are made with the electoral college in mind. Both the candidates and the voters would have behaved totally differently under true popular vote.
Secondly, the margin for Gore's victory in the so-called popular vote is something like 0.3%, well within of the margin of error. So not only can we say that recounts (like those we've had in florida) could result in shifting of numbers, but we can also reasonably presume that the slightest change in behavior of either of the candidates could have overcome that margin (i.e., under a popular vote).
Thirdly, the electoral college is the law of the land. We simply cannot violate it based on whim.
Fourthly, there are good arguments for and against the electoral college. If you're going to argue against the status quo, you should at least make a strong case for it.
Fifthly, Gore was more than ready to win on an electoral vote (see his tapes on CNN and company) when that was what the media was predicting.
Splitting into subnetworks is not only feasable and desirable, it has already been done in at least one case that I know of (and use).
In your opinion; I have my own. I do not believe this ABMnet of yours is comparable, you yourself have described a number of critically different aspects. Such as the fact that the user commits to it in a way, it's not faceless, etc, etc etc. It's a DEFINED niche product with centralization...GNUtella simply is not.
Hmm. Sounds just like the greater internet as a whole, but evolving at a faster rate.
No, it's not at all like the internet and it's hardly "rapidly" evolving.
So, why exactly is this bad? Are you an old mainframe guy who still hasn't gotten over the idea of individuals having power
Gotta love rhetoric. Free the "people" from the tyranny of the admins! Gimme a break. I'm not nearly that old. What I haven't, and never will get over, are the fundamentals of success. Perhaps YOU are the one that is out of touch with reality? Afterall, empirically speaking, GNUtella hardly works for anyone.
You can propose all these theoretical means by which GNUtella can "fix" itself, but it's simply not reality yet. Furthermore, a great many of these theories at least require a significant change in the code base. So please, watch your tongue.
As for your assertion that this is just for "warez/mp3/porn", well, those three things, specifically porn, drive the vast majority of all network traffic now. What else is there that would encourage such large-scale sharing of files? This is reality. Deal with it.
I never said GNUtella is just for warez/mp3/porn. What I said, if you care to read, is that GNUtella's real value is for IRC-type people (i.e., _groups_ people that know each other online and are somewhat technically competent) for getting warez/mp3/porn.
No where did I imply that this was somehow "evil". Though I do have some reservations about outright piracy, I simply never even hinted at it in this post. You, obviously, know as well as I do, that this is where the bulk of the bandwidth on these so-called p2p services go. It's a relevant fact. Deal with it.
GNUtella may be an interesting idea, but it's nothing more than a hack. Splitting into subnetworks is both infeasible and undesirable. First, you really can't compare it to IRC. IRC is highly centralized, whereas everything about GNUtella is distributed. IRC can, and does, scale for many thousands of users effectively; GNUtella does not (it responds like crap with any significant number of users) Secondly, you're thinking of the term "network" too rigidly. There is no network admin, no physical location, no centralization. In short, it's a ragtag and volatile collection of different IP addresses. There isn't a way to rigidly enforce the number of users in GNUtella, so how does one keep the networks divided into neat little units. This also means that it's hard to return to a specific network amongst a number of others. Where might your hotlist users be? Where do you find those with like interests when everything is constantly tossing and turning? Finally, and most importantly, you underestimate the importance of size. When the network can only effectively scale to ~5k users (probably a stretch), and when only one in 10 of those users has broadband that can support a decent number of speedy transfers (especially important when users tend to sign off and on while you're downloading), and when only one in 10 of those users has a sizable collection being shared (seems like most users have the same top pop garbage that everyone else has), you're ultimately reduced to, say, 50 users that you'd actually want to search from. I don't know about you, but 50 users isn't nearly enough. Now you might argue that i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass (and you'd be mostly right), but if you look at the empirical results, it's not far off the mark.
In my opinion, the only thing that something as trivial as GNUtella is good for, ironically, is the IRC types. Who could form psuedo-private loose knit "networks" from which they can share warez/mp3/porn with their "friends" without the need for a dependable server (i.e., just join the channel find an IP and connect to it)
Well maybe not most, but you can't say no one. If there is money to be made, you can be certain people will find a way around it. Certainly porn masters aren't above this. You need look no further than a couple years back, when it was very difficult to search for anything with a search engine without getting porn hits (due to stuffing of words). This situation is even more lucrative. Imagine all the companies, universities, high schools, etc that would want to filter porn.... Now you might be right that elementary school kids and the like wouldn't want to and be able to pay for porn. On the other hand, there are many other institutions (as I've mentioned) where the institution's will is at odds with the user's age, will, and wallets.
That being said, i'm certain there are plenty of legimate porn sites that would not want to try to circumvent legitimate measures. But would their disappearance from filters be enough to make a difference? I'm not sure.
I was obviously referring to population, jack ass. The intent was obvious from my usage. The word, "biggest", is by no means limited to geographical size. Look it up in the dictionary if you're that much of a wank.
It's not that difficult. Most the press are card carrying democrats. The very notion of a Republican makes their hackles rise. Now add to the mix wealth, affluence, ease, being Texan, appearing to be the eternal frat-boy, non-academic outlook, etc. These are all factors that Bush can't do much about. Despite that Bush has managed to do fairly well against a somewhat hostile press, thanks largely to his people skills and powers of persuasion. Gore, on the other hand, has dropped the ball many times. We know he's stiff.
Ask yourself, what will happen when the election is over? The press will no longer feel the need to promote the Dem. candidate, especially if he's unpopular with the people. On the flip side of the coin, the press will likely lose much of their negative/alarmist _bias_ against Bush. Bush has a real chance to deal with them and Congress, no matter how it shapes up. If you don't believe those adversities can be over come, if you don't believe it can be done, look no further than Reagan (whatever your opinion on his policies is). Reagan managed to push a great deal of significant bills through a less than perfect Congress (not too much unlike Bush's record in Texas).
I really do believe that if, god forbid, Gore gets elected, he'll be utterly paralyzed by Congress and the press. Nothing would get done on his end. He'd probably go down as one of our worst Presidents in history....
Intellect: Ok, I admit. Bush is no great intellectual. However, there really is no reason to believe that Gore is any more qualified or intelligent than Bush. For what it's worth, Bush scored higher on his SATs. Likewise, Bush had a higher GPA at College (with the exception for Gore's senior year thesis). What's more, though it's not something to brag about, we can be quite sure that Gore was trying quite a lot harder...for fewer results. Other people assert that Bush got Cs in school. Well I've got news for you, Cs was very much the average back in that day (unlike today). If you're going to try to assert that academics are tremendously important, acknowledge the fact that Bush was about average at one of the highest ranked schools in the country. Bush also graduated from Yale and got his Masters at Harvard; Gore, on the other hand, dropped out of both divinity school and law school.
Experience: Though often quoted, Bush is the twice elected governor of the second biggest state in the country. That is an executive position and far more analogus to the responsibilities of the President than any of Gore's offices. Furthermore, if you hold that being governor of Texas is not qualification for the presidency than nor was Clinton and his governorship of Arkansas.
It is apparent to me that the only reason Gore is promoted as having any more stature than Bush is because: a) The press, being mostly liberal, is inclined to bash him as much as possible b) Gore has wankish mastery for quoting stats (this impresses many people, though god knows why) while Bush does not c) Bush has made a few _verbal_ slipups (but so did his father) that has made him look like he doesn't understand. d) Bush came from a wealthy background (though Gore wasn't much worse off) and he didn't achieve enough with his advantages for some people's mind (God forbid anyone not know what they want to do with themselves at the age of 10 on) e) Bush's Texan tendencies to avoid big words and the air of intellectuality
In other words, I think Bush is actually smarter than Gore. I find it really hard to believe that anyone that watched the debates was impressed by Gore's performance _any_ measure. Gore's use of long sentences and "big" words is not a demonstration of intelligence; if anything, it's a demonstration of poor communication skills. Bush may have lacked style and a certain polish in his speech, but he communicated his (somewhat hard to stomach) ideas across relatively well. [Part of Bush's problem is that much of the reasoning behind his policy doesn't take well to soundbites.] Most importantly, I think Bush has a pretty decent grasp on the issues and the ability to persuade people. People made similar accusations of Reagan, yet he had an undeniable ability to persuade Congress and the Press. I think Bush is quite similar to Reagan in that regard. Gore, on the other hand, would get eaten alive by both Congress and the Press if he were to be elected. Then, of course, there are the issues....
To make a long story short, a significant number of intelligent, educated, and politically knowledgable people are voting for Bush. I count myself amongst those numbers, thank you. Good bye
No, actually, that's just about right. Read Nader's and the Green party's platform! "Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Now do the math. It may not be exact, but it's close enough.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not exactly. This isn't quite as much a measure of innovation, as it is a measure of revolution. Though the CAT and MRI scans may prove life saving to individuals, on the aggregate the sum of all these recent inventions simply has not had as great on an effect on society as have some earlier innovations. Life expectancies have not, contrary to popular opinion, improved that much in the developed world. Quality of health has not improved that much either.
The question is the net effect and the author answers quite well. It's not disparaging the science of today at all. The article does not say that today's scientists are stupid, lazy, incompetent, underfunded, etc. The article merely puts the benefits of today's science into historical context, and addresses the thousands of internet and technology pundits in one fell swoop.
The media and a great many pundits have been waxing ecstatic about how revolutionary computers and the internet have BEEN (or will be in the very near future). The problem with this kind of talk is that it distorts our thinking and our priorities.
For instance, I never hear the end of the so-called "digital divide." A day never seems to go by when Al Gore, or some other politician, is talking about how we need the internet in every classroom and village (in Africa or what have you). Well as a matter of priorities, basic sustenance, health, and literacy are far more important innovations that have yet to reach these same people. Yet our American domestic policy, insists on spending countless resources today on a "revolution" that is certainly not yet revolutionary. Whether it's going to be revoltionary at all is debatable, but to spend hundreds of millions of dollars networking and providing soon to be obselete computers at great cost is foolish at best.
Similarly, we saw, and still are seeing to some extent, billions of dollars being ponied up for the "internet revolution" though the infamous Dot Coms. Meanwhile other technologies have suffered from lack of funding. For instance, I personally know a few biotech and medical devices companies that had a very difficult time getting capital from venture capitalists and the like, because they were too crazed over Dot Coms. More real dollars have been spent on these Dot Coms than so many other proven revolutions... So yes, not only is this an interesting question, it's a relevant one too. It's a matter of priorities and clear thinking.
Nor does this mean that, since all "basic" needs have been meet, nothing more dramatic can be done. Life expectancy can be increased substantially--medicine is still quite primitive. Issues like traffic jams can theoretically be resolved. AI can be invented (theoretically). Etc. etc. etc. All these things can be HUGE benefits for society that can be _felt_ by the common man--even if he is ignorant as to the reasons. It simply has not happened to as great as an extent in the past 50 years as it was in the 50 years before that.
The fundamental question that should be asked, and the question that the journalist addresses, is the ACTUAL affect these innovations have on real people, not the amount of effort, resources, complexity, intelligence, coolness, etc. in the innovation at hand. Likewise, if some technology is merely an academics vision, but cannot be successfully manufactured at an affordable cost, it simply has no effect on people. It may be revolutionary to scientists at the front, but it is not to the average person. If can really deny that the amount of change from 1900 to 1950 in the average persons life is less than from 1950 to today, then you might say this article is a "crock." You, however, are simply not doing that.
Your entire entire argument consists of the fact that you think today's technology is cooler, more complex, or whatever. You say farm work is more productive today than it was 50 years ago? Certainly. But does this automatically mean it's more important than the lightbulm? Not if you look at it objectively. Look at the harder economic measures of productivity. If you were to look, you would indeed discover that the gains at the first 50 years of the century make the gains of the last 50 look downright childish! Similarly, the average life expectancy has not improved nearly as dramatically in the past 50 years as it did 50 years before that. Put simply, if you are a middle class American, your life is not all that different from your parents or grandparents on the aggregate, insofar as technology goes.
The fact that you and so many other slashdot readers are so myopic as to think that your precious technology is more revolutionary than what your parents or grandparents had is precisely what makes this article so worthwhile. The biggest "crock", in my opinion, is the fact that so many pundits proclaim the internet to be the single most (or one of) revolutionary innovation of the century.
If you want to say that the internet, or whatever technology, is too new to be evaluated and is GOING to have a revolutionary impact, fine, but be clear that it has not happened yet. Furthermore, be aware that you may well be wrong that it will even dramatically change most peoples' lives. History is littered with many incorrect predictions.
One thing which always bugged me is the presumption that anyone who has the outward appearance of geekiness (i.e., anyone that is poorly dressed, or into computer hardware, software, etc) is presumed to be intelligent and/or capable. It's been my experience that this is simply not true. For instance, I (and I'm sure most of you have too) have known lots of "geeks" that are merely "techies"; they may know the latest specs on x86 processors for instance, but they lack a fundamental understanding and a capacity to do much more than drool over them. Similarly, I've known many that lack the motivation to do well in any career. Now this is not to say that I think geeks are dumber, less motivated, or what have you, but rather that they are not too different from the rest of population. What makes "geeks" (necessarily) different is where they are visibally different: in their dress, in their clothes, in their attitude, or what you have.
I might be able to understand this mistake from non-geeks, but why do so many so-called geeks, particularly accomplished geeks, buy into this idea too? I see it from many "geeks" I know and on forums like slashdot. Granted, this doesn't mean that one cannot infer with some certainty other characteristics about a "geek", but it simply goes way too far in my experience.
First, I reject the assertion that costs are even on the aggregate. The fact is that internet sales are growing rapidly. Beyond the obvious implication that local stores are losing sales, this strongly implies that the internet is offering more favorable terms to the consumer. What's more, when I look around I see many instances where local retailers simply don't have a chance to compete. For instance, there are no local stores near me (nor any of the places that i've lived and been) that can compete against the likes of online computer retailers (i.e., Dell).
Secondly, your definition of "fair" is not fair at all. I equate "fair" with equal OPPORTUNITY, not equal RESULTS. What you are saying is that the results are equal, because the government is effectively "evening" things out by taxing. That's simply wrong. Businesses should compete based on what THEY can bring to the table, not on what the government decides to dole out to them. If you decide to locate your business in India, then your business model should allow for the shipping costs that you incur. Similarly, if the retail store decides to locate their business on prime real estate in Manhattan, the government should not subsidize them because of their increased overhead. It is not "fair", it is not practical, and it is certainly not economically desirable.
Businesses bring a lot of different things to the table. Some have better service, some have faster delivery, some have higher quality products, some have superior warranties, some have more selection, some have lower prices, some are better situated, etc etc etc. The point is that it is virtually impossible for the government to even decide what is "better". The government should not even enter into this kind of role. This is what capitalism is for. Let it be.
on the page: http://www.eazel.com/screenshots/dec-07-2000
Just curious, I happen to live in that general area now... I guess one of the developers is from here or something?
Sure, I have, though for most everything it's exceptionally fast. I believe the strategy is simply to fit in a combination of common words, but a unique query (never used by other users...they seem to cache). To this end, you can type something like: Peter Jane Josh Mike Joseph Jack Dave Ted Frank Fred....only change one or two of the names, it should take 1.3 seconds or so. Gotta run, bye
I'm not referring to PageRank itself, nor any part of it, as an actual algorithm. I compare Google's fundamental design (or value) to a worthwhile patentable algorithm insofar as it is a rather fundamental concept, not something that would be properly protected by a copyright or overly narrow patent. [What's more, even if some insist that the concept itself might not be entirely novel, its execution certainly is.] I suggest that if Google's patenting of PageRank is tenable to individuals on slashdot, then so should be the patenting of algorithms in the broadest and most theoretical sense. Unless, of course, they can give a very specific reason. However, the vast majority of assaults against _any and all_ software patents here would also apply to PageRank.
Without getting too entrenched in the details of this matter, I fully realize there are concerns with the actual application of patents (even here in this specific application). My intention is simply to broaden (or challenge) the thinking of some people here, to let them know that not anything that can be described loosely or (possibly) subject to independent re-invention by other individuals should necessarily be denied IP protection offhand. Most users here can appreciate what Google has done, having suffered inferior search engines before Google's existence. I, also, believe most people here can understand why Google might _need_ to protect this with what appears to be a broad patent (i.e., in laymans terms "using links on the WWW to quantify relevance").
Well, I, for one, have heard numerous SPECIFIC people praise google's wonderful technology (and the like) in one hand and bash software patents with the other. What's more, I suggest the majority of posters (especially those with upward moderation) are advocates of doing away with (software) patents entirely whenever the issue is broached. In fact, I'm quite sure this is the position taken by slashdot's "editorial" staff.
So to answer your question, it's a substantially different issue. When a foreigner refers to the US, he refers to the entity as a whole. This entity, however, contains multiple individuals each with seperate opinions. There need not be any contradiction with any individual for conflicting opinions or even seperate voting outcomes. Slashdot is vastly different from the situation you describe. Where the United States is a large country with diverse people, Slashdot is a largely self-selecting group (i.e., geeks) of like minded individuals, all sharing their opinions (to the extent that slashdot is essentially comprised of the sharing of opinions). I can say with confidence what is said. I have heard numerous people on slashdot contradict themselves, how many foreigners can make the same claim in that general criticism of the United States? Not many. Just because I can't be bothered to actually name them doesn't mean i'm being unfair to anyone.
A more relevant question would be: How would a bunch of neo-nazis on a racist message board like it if I challenged their rhetoric with their own positions? Those who are guilty of hypocrisy know who they are.
Because privately held corporations have shareholders too. Being publically held simply means that there are MORE shareholders, generally more dollars invested, and that it meets certain SEC requirements.
This is relevant because management has a responisibility to the investors. The founders (or management) can't simply do whatever pleases them; that is not what it means to be privately held. To be more specific, these shareholders are predominantly venture capitalists and they CAN be awefully demanding (sometimes unethically so...I know from experience). Right or wrong, if the founders push it too far they can get fired.
guess what, an algorithm. Attacking patented algorithms is one of the favorite past times of slashdot and company. While I realize some readers only specifically object to actual abuses, a great many go beyond that by attacking whole classes of patents and people. I simply use this opportunity to illuminate some of the ignorance and fundamental inconsistency of those people. Thats all.
It's ZipperGate, get it right. ;P
Well your facts are a bit distorted. Sure if you ROUND the numbers Bush got 48 and Gore 49 percent. However, rounding makes it seem much further apart than it really is. Gore got something like 48.6 and bush got something like 48.3. In other words, the most you could say, based on the facts, is that just .3% (350k) of voters prefer Gore to Bush. To put that in perspective, using your kind of logic, if Buchanan had dropped out his 499k votes would have gone to Bush, and Bush would've won the so-called popular vote. Or in yet a different light, more voters wanted Bush in this election than wanted Clinton in his first election. All that is irrelevant though, we have laws. We're not going to start inventing new ways of massaging the data to get the results we want, it's too dangerous.
.1% of the country thinks. I think the greater moral violence is that against law. In addition, if you believe in the "people" and polling/statistics, they show how the people really feel now (~60% favor Bush stance in many different areas, such as legitimacy, who "won" florida, who "deserves" to win, etc, etc)
As for Nader, he's totally irrelevant. You don't know that Nader voters would have even voted. (I suspect a great many of them wouldn't have). Also, as I have previously indicated, I know at least a couple Nader voters that would otherwise vote Republican. It could also be argued that Nader changed the very dynamics of the election. For instance, Nader might have pushed Gore more towards the extreme ends of the democratic party, causing him to take risks that he would have otherwise never taken. What if, what if, what if. We simply can't know.
I strenuously object to the assertion by the liberal media and Gore that these minor facts somehow give Gore a "moral" victory, as if somehow a Bush victory is amoral. We are a nation of law and at the end of the day that is our chief moral not the merely what
The bottom line is that I do deny that Gore "certainly" got more votes in Florida, and to the extent that you can argue that Gore won Florida, I can argue that Bush won the so-called "popular vote". What we can agree on are the facts, that Bush won the official votes in Florida and Gore won more official votes nationwide. It'd be a mistake to abandon law in favor of this highly subjective reasoning of yours. Just who would you appoint to be chief reasoner? How is that protected from fraud, manipulation, and abuse? I'd rather have a concrete vote, no matter which way it turns, than the alternative subjective means.
I'm not your typical slashdotter. Unlike the rest of slashdot, I generally consistently support IP.
Then, by that same reasoning, it's also fair to say that more people in Florida want Bush. Also, Bill Clinton should have never been elected, because if you added Ross Perot's votes (far more than Nader et. al) to Bush Sr., Bush would've clinched it.
.3% of the vote? No, I didn't think so.
It's not "definetly" fair to say that "most" people did not want Bush. On the basis of the results alone, it's almost exactly 50/50. If Gore so much as farted, that margin could have gone the other way. On the basis of the intent of the country, you simply can't know that. As I've already mentioned, the electoral college changes the way people vote (and also the way the candidates campaign). For instance, I know many people in California and New York that, believe it or not, voted for Nader (because they believe the environment needs more attention) but who would have otherwise voted for Bush (as strange as that may seem). The point is that you can't presume to know the will of the people until you've actually counted their explicit vote. A vote in the electoral college system simply cannot be summed up and called a popular vote, especially when it's this close. Can you really tell me that people making those kinds of decisions are not more than
Speak for yourself. The margin of error is not something that has been drummed into my head by pollsters. I say there is a margin of error because there IS one in every election, despite the assertions of some. The degree may vary. Some may choose to call it by another name, but it exists nonetheless. It does not mean that anyone is being "disenfranchised". You can say it's unacceptable and unfair till you turn blue in the face, but that does not change the fact that it exists.
Are there better alternatives? Sure there are. But don't trivialize the problem and act as if getting rid of any and all error is a small task. There are serious issues at work here. Your solution may sound foolproof to you, but don't be so sure of yourself. So long as we're in the physical realm, we're going to have some error. If the error is sufficiently small so that an inaccurate election result is extremely rare, I'd rather have that than, say, a novel digital election with unknown risks (i.e., the potential for massive and untraceable fraud) but 0 or negligible error....
First, we don't have a "popular vote". The so-called "popular vote" is really just the sum of each state's votes. The campaigning by both candidates, as well as the actual voting by the country, are made with the electoral college in mind. Both the candidates and the voters would have behaved totally differently under true popular vote.
Secondly, the margin for Gore's victory in the so-called popular vote is something like 0.3%, well within of the margin of error. So not only can we say that recounts (like those we've had in florida) could result in shifting of numbers, but we can also reasonably presume that the slightest change in behavior of either of the candidates could have overcome that margin (i.e., under a popular vote).
Thirdly, the electoral college is the law of the land. We simply cannot violate it based on whim.
Fourthly, there are good arguments for and against the electoral college. If you're going to argue against the status quo, you should at least make a strong case for it.
Fifthly, Gore was more than ready to win on an electoral vote (see his tapes on CNN and company) when that was what the media was predicting.
No, it's not at all like the internet and it's hardly "rapidly" evolving.
Gotta love rhetoric. Free the "people" from the tyranny of the admins! Gimme a break. I'm not nearly that old. What I haven't, and never will get over, are the fundamentals of success. Perhaps YOU are the one that is out of touch with reality? Afterall, empirically speaking, GNUtella hardly works for anyone.
You can propose all these theoretical means by which GNUtella can "fix" itself, but it's simply not reality yet. Furthermore, a great many of these theories at least require a significant change in the code base. So please, watch your tongue.
I never said GNUtella is just for warez/mp3/porn. What I said, if you care to read, is that GNUtella's real value is for IRC-type people (i.e., _groups_ people that know each other online and are somewhat technically competent) for getting warez/mp3/porn.
No where did I imply that this was somehow "evil". Though I do have some reservations about outright piracy, I simply never even hinted at it in this post. You, obviously, know as well as I do, that this is where the bulk of the bandwidth on these so-called p2p services go. It's a relevant fact. Deal with it.
GNUtella may be an interesting idea, but it's nothing more than a hack. Splitting into subnetworks is both infeasible and undesirable. First, you really can't compare it to IRC. IRC is highly centralized, whereas everything about GNUtella is distributed. IRC can, and does, scale for many thousands of users effectively; GNUtella does not (it responds like crap with any significant number of users) Secondly, you're thinking of the term "network" too rigidly. There is no network admin, no physical location, no centralization. In short, it's a ragtag and volatile collection of different IP addresses. There isn't a way to rigidly enforce the number of users in GNUtella, so how does one keep the networks divided into neat little units. This also means that it's hard to return to a specific network amongst a number of others. Where might your hotlist users be? Where do you find those with like interests when everything is constantly tossing and turning? Finally, and most importantly, you underestimate the importance of size. When the network can only effectively scale to ~5k users (probably a stretch), and when only one in 10 of those users has broadband that can support a decent number of speedy transfers (especially important when users tend to sign off and on while you're downloading), and when only one in 10 of those users has a sizable collection being shared (seems like most users have the same top pop garbage that everyone else has), you're ultimately reduced to, say, 50 users that you'd actually want to search from. I don't know about you, but 50 users isn't nearly enough. Now you might argue that i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass (and you'd be mostly right), but if you look at the empirical results, it's not far off the mark.
In my opinion, the only thing that something as trivial as GNUtella is good for, ironically, is the IRC types. Who could form psuedo-private loose knit "networks" from which they can share warez/mp3/porn with their "friends" without the need for a dependable server (i.e., just join the channel find an IP and connect to it)
Well maybe not most, but you can't say no one. If there is money to be made, you can be certain people will find a way around it. Certainly porn masters aren't above this. You need look no further than a couple years back, when it was very difficult to search for anything with a search engine without getting porn hits (due to stuffing of words). This situation is even more lucrative. Imagine all the companies, universities, high schools, etc that would want to filter porn.... Now you might be right that elementary school kids and the like wouldn't want to and be able to pay for porn. On the other hand, there are many other institutions (as I've mentioned) where the institution's will is at odds with the user's age, will, and wallets.
That being said, i'm certain there are plenty of legimate porn sites that would not want to try to circumvent legitimate measures. But would their disappearance from filters be enough to make a difference? I'm not sure.
I was obviously referring to population, jack ass. The intent was obvious from my usage. The word, "biggest", is by no means limited to geographical size. Look it up in the dictionary if you're that much of a wank.
It's not that difficult. Most the press are card carrying democrats. The very notion of a Republican makes their hackles rise. Now add to the mix wealth, affluence, ease, being Texan, appearing to be the eternal frat-boy, non-academic outlook, etc. These are all factors that Bush can't do much about. Despite that Bush has managed to do fairly well against a somewhat hostile press, thanks largely to his people skills and powers of persuasion. Gore, on the other hand, has dropped the ball many times. We know he's stiff.
Ask yourself, what will happen when the election is over? The press will no longer feel the need to promote the Dem. candidate, especially if he's unpopular with the people. On the flip side of the coin, the press will likely lose much of their negative/alarmist _bias_ against Bush. Bush has a real chance to deal with them and Congress, no matter how it shapes up. If you don't believe those adversities can be over come, if you don't believe it can be done, look no further than Reagan (whatever your opinion on his policies is). Reagan managed to push a great deal of significant bills through a less than perfect Congress (not too much unlike Bush's record in Texas).
I really do believe that if, god forbid, Gore gets elected, he'll be utterly paralyzed by Congress and the press. Nothing would get done on his end. He'd probably go down as one of our worst Presidents in history....
Intellect: Ok, I admit. Bush is no great intellectual. However, there really is no reason to believe that Gore is any more qualified or intelligent than Bush. For what it's worth, Bush scored higher on his SATs. Likewise, Bush had a higher GPA at College (with the exception for Gore's senior year thesis). What's more, though it's not something to brag about, we can be quite sure that Gore was trying quite a lot harder...for fewer results. Other people assert that Bush got Cs in school. Well I've got news for you, Cs was very much the average back in that day (unlike today). If you're going to try to assert that academics are tremendously important, acknowledge the fact that Bush was about average at one of the highest ranked schools in the country. Bush also graduated from Yale and got his Masters at Harvard; Gore, on the other hand, dropped out of both divinity school and law school.
Experience: Though often quoted, Bush is the twice elected governor of the second biggest state in the country. That is an executive position and far more analogus to the responsibilities of the President than any of Gore's offices. Furthermore, if you hold that being governor of Texas is not qualification for the presidency than nor was Clinton and his governorship of Arkansas.
It is apparent to me that the only reason Gore is promoted as having any more stature than Bush is because: a) The press, being mostly liberal, is inclined to bash him as much as possible b) Gore has wankish mastery for quoting stats (this impresses many people, though god knows why) while Bush does not c) Bush has made a few _verbal_ slipups (but so did his father) that has made him look like he doesn't understand. d) Bush came from a wealthy background (though Gore wasn't much worse off) and he didn't achieve enough with his advantages for some people's mind (God forbid anyone not know what they want to do with themselves at the age of 10 on) e) Bush's Texan tendencies to avoid big words and the air of intellectuality
In other words, I think Bush is actually smarter than Gore. I find it really hard to believe that anyone that watched the debates was impressed by Gore's performance _any_ measure. Gore's use of long sentences and "big" words is not a demonstration of intelligence; if anything, it's a demonstration of poor communication skills. Bush may have lacked style and a certain polish in his speech, but he communicated his (somewhat hard to stomach) ideas across relatively well. [Part of Bush's problem is that much of the reasoning behind his policy doesn't take well to soundbites.] Most importantly, I think Bush has a pretty decent grasp on the issues and the ability to persuade people. People made similar accusations of Reagan, yet he had an undeniable ability to persuade Congress and the Press. I think Bush is quite similar to Reagan in that regard. Gore, on the other hand, would get eaten alive by both Congress and the Press if he were to be elected. Then, of course, there are the issues....
To make a long story short, a significant number of intelligent, educated, and politically knowledgable people are voting for Bush. I count myself amongst those numbers, thank you. Good bye
No, actually, that's just about right. Read Nader's and the Green party's platform! "Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Now do the math. It may not be exact, but it's close enough.