Except no one, in this generation at least, is saying anything of the kind. Where as we have Katz and countless other people on slashdot saying that they can, are, or will frequently to varying to degrees. Not everyone on slashdot is either an engineer or a programmer. In fact, I'd wage that the vast majority of frequent readers are between the ages of 16 and 20...those who generally don't have much professional experience.
I think this is just shirking editorial responsibility. Granted, slashdot is unique in that it is an interactive forum, but that is not sufficient reason to drop all editorial control. A few readers may correct it, but many posts with equally high scores frequently purport otherwise. Whom is the naive person to believe? If slashdot says so, it must be true, right?!?! This is not to say that every post must be edited, but those on the primary page should be, as they reasonably appear to fall under the review of the editors. If you're going to exercise no control over it, then atleast make it abundantly clear (to the average reader) and do it evenly (more than to just things that you don't oppose).
that geeks don't think about sex, and hence won't reproduce at sufficient numbers to sustain the geek population?
I say slashdot needs to add porn, to remind geeks that they are, in fact men, encouraging them to do something besides waste their time on slashdot! heh
I've seen more cases of secretaries (and/or those effectively acting in that position) on power trips, than their bosses on powertrips. This is not to say that ALL secretaries are, but yes some definetly are. Have you ever heard the expression: gate keeper? You ever wonder why salesmen, employees, coworkers, and many others feel the need to kiss up to the secretary? Some secretaries can, and do, make or break careers simply because they hold all the keys to accessing the boss.
On another note, speaking for one technologically inept boss, my stepfather, people generally ascribe the wrong motives to people like him. Yes, he has a secretary. On the other hand, he is also extremely busy. When, and if, he learns to use computers effectively he'll still need a secretary. '
He is an intelligent guy; none the less, there is a certain learning curve to learning how to use computers effectively. In other words, he'll need to spend 50 hours (out of the air) to make computers more efficient than having his secretary take dictation. This might not sound like much, but when you're as busy as he is it is a significant effort. You've got to understand that he does not even have the time to devote time to himself (personal life, a.k.a.: fun). Real or imagined, he does not have the time. Though you might make an argument that learning would ultimately pay off, when you're this busy you also lose patience. Little things like windows system crashes simply make it far too aggravating (from his perspective). Add to this, a crash/bug/misunderstanding can take him hours to get around (that he literally can't fit in his schedule), while someone like myself (whom exists at his office, in addition to his secretary) can work around it in a matter of seconds.
In summation, neither lack of intellect nor arrogance would be the proper word to describe my stepfather's situation. There are many like him. Though a rare few in 'power' might adopt a certain anti-intellectual approach to computers (viewing them as for the underlyings), I feel they're still in the minority. To further generalize this intentional ignorance to people such as my step-father is simply a mistake. Overgeneralizations can be dangerous, because it, too, is a form of affected ignorance.
Short and Sweet. I suggest Katz puts his money, or rather lack thereof, where his mouth is. If he believes so firmly in "try before you buy", then he should try forgoing any compensation from slashdot and have slashdot create an online "tip" jar for him. Likewise, he should open up ALL of so-called books and make them available online, and be happy with a mere link to amazon.com or something....
Yes, I know about IRC. (In fact, I'm one of the founders of #mp3 on undernet...even even efnet for a shortwhile) However, the fact is that the average user can't obtain what they want through IRC. For one, even learning IRC has something of a learning curve for Joe Schmoe. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, getting the mp3s you want requires something of a social network (unless you're talking about one of those xdcc/cdcc type deals), which the average user lacks. In other words, there isn't a great deal of diversity of free music on IRC. The only way you get other music is by knowing the right people...
Usenet is not all that different. Plus the campuses can block that quite easily.
Yes, that might be kind of interesting. But don't forget that there are other relatively easy to use methods of attaining mp3s that many people do use. Like simply, using SMB filesharing, or using one of the other zillion alternatives like iMesh.
Ok, I admit it's a little inflamatory. However,...
Nearly two-thirds of the 1,135 college students surveyed say they download music as a way to sample music before buying it.
Nearly two-thirds of those who downloaded music from the Web say that their search ended in a music purchase.
Interestingly, reports American Demographics, the Jupiter Study of Napster users found that 71 percent of those who use the site said they were willing to pay to download an entire album.
Most of these are pretty old (if I recall correctly), but these are all merely claims. Some might be lies. Some might be wishful thinking. Others may simply forget to pay. All certainly value napster and don't want to see if regulated out of existence...so we can assume that they'd want to defend it. Put simply, you can't simply trust this data alone as the last word.
Jupiter Research says it found that 45 per cent of online music fans are more likely to have increased their music purchases than online fans who don't use Napster.
This is the only potentially worthwhile piece of information, but I'd want more information before I really swallow it whole. I question how the data was gatheredm, in what context, and I question what it really means. For instance, if the general trend due to economic up turn is an increased purchasing of music, it would make sense for music fans (which tend to be napster users) to increase their music purchases more than non-napster users--even if their purchases are actually LESS due to the demand that napster sates. Furthermore, this does not address the question of what will happen once (or if) napster and clones become efficient at finding flawless copies of music, or once mp3 players become cheap and improve in quality.
But in a Greenfield Online survey of 5,200 online music shoppers, nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads. This suggests that subscription-based services may be more likely and successful than a per-song fee system.
This potentially revolutionary model for marketing culture is about to be dismantled by the new partnership between Napster and Bertelsmann, which is giving the file-sharing site more than $50 million to develop software that will charge users for music. Bertelsmann says it will keep a part of Napster "free," but watch for yourself to see how quickly it shrinks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this first bit of data, that 70% of shoppers have not, and will not, pay for online music terribly relevant to what Bertelsmann is doing? Katz seems to say that people are only willing to pay for a subscription service, yet any attempt to push for such a thing by the industry is met with extreme hostility.
Anyways, I have my doubts from my own experience with mp3s and with others I know. I've simply seen and known far too many people that have reduced or stopped purchasing CDs entirely due to Napster. Others I know would stop, if they could afford a decent mp3 player, or had a faster connection, or knew how to use these services better, etc.
Whose priorities? The VCs gave money to every assinine idea so they could get rich, not so they could advance society. To the VCs, it is 'clear thinking' to bank on 1 of 10 ventures paying off. Maybe you disagree, and thus the large impasse is created.
I'm a little unclear as to your general direction, however, i'll answer what I can. First, I am not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that we somehow restrain investors, or even VCs. I am merely making an argument and providing them with additional/alternative information; the only way it can impede anyone's initial free will is if they will it. Second, many of these investments were poor ones in many different senses. Many in absolute dollar terms were utter failures (i.e., all but the earliest internet investments--when they were able to get liquidity through IPO...). Others were stupid investments even though they "won", in the same sense that you'd be angry at your broker if he went to the horse track and "won." They took a stupid risk. Third, the money does NOT belong to the VCs or their companies; they are merely agents that are supposed to be investing wisely (not on herd mentality). Fourth, the only reason the "asinine" investments paid off at all for any of these VCs is because many other people were lulled into this "internet revolution" theory. Which brings me back to my point, if people had a bit more of a clue as relatively trivial impact of the internet, the market would not have been there for the VCs to spend foolishly (in many different senses). Fifth, I do believe in the fundamental mechanics of the market. It may not be perfect, but it does generally do a pretty good job of allocating resources. Sometimes, however, the market gets a little crazy. The markets depend on information. To the extent that it recieves and believes garbage, I, and others, will scrutinize it.
I suggest to you that this process of challenging ludicrous claims is far better than the alternatives, such as:
Not challenging any myths--letting everything go.
Forcing the market to act in some way that I, or anyone else, chooses.
Providing capital to "socially minded" causes through some government agency or charity/non-profit. (I've seen how most grant money is spent, and it's downright shamefull). If people want to spend their money that way, I'm not going to stop them...but that doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
You may work as a contracter, but you don't understand the logistics involved in writing a complex contract, let alone a patent. I agree in that laws can be writen more plainly, but you way way way oversimplfy. For example, you said "the only way to make money on a patent it to use them like landmines". While a few may make profits like this, you're ignoring the hundreds of thousands of technological innovations which would have simply never happened without intellectual property. Having seen some of these developments first hand, I can tell you flatly that your statement is simply wrong.
For example, my company is in the process of developing an artificial pancreas (read: not a frivilous device, this is a device that can save and extend the lives of millions of diabetics. A device also which many companies have tried and failed to builld already). It is a multimillion dollar project just for development. Suppose my company finished development tomorrow; it cost 50million dollars. We submit it to the FDA, and begin clinical trials. Our competitors get ahold of it. They realize the genius of our device, it seems so simple. So they copy it, and produce it at a cost of 500 dollars a unit. We on the other hand, have not only 500 dollars a unit, but also the R&D costs on top of it. How do we justify spending 50 million dollars on R&D, when our competitors can force us to compete at cost? Futhermore, how do we justify the risk (high chance of failure) to potential investors (e.g., Venture Capitalists). If 9 in 10 ventures of its kind (from their limited insight atleast) fail, the investors need that one company that suceeds to ATLEAST pay the costs of those 9 other failed companies (plus its own) to break even. That means that we need to enjoy monopoly rents on that product to make it happen. I can tell you from experience that it is simply not going to come to fruition otherwise, a great many diabetics would have their lives cut short as a result. In addition, the protection that patents offer is limited (though still valuable). History has proven that it does not take the competition long to figure out what we did right (without infringing on our patents); two to three years later, they produce competing product, price levels come down....How is this an unnecessary landmine foisted on the back of society to the benefit of only lawyers?
I'll give you that some laws are unnecessary, and others are needlessly complex. However, the view that most every law is unnecessary is only afforded those who live a cloistered existence. It's easy to rant and rave about business, when you don't operate one. I'll be willing to bet that you've never operated a business, or tried to draw up a contract. More than likely, you're still in academia. You've definetly never actually patented anything in your life, let alone developed a viable product off of it....ah what the hell why waste my time on you? I just tire of the sophmoric rants that comprise the bulk of slashdot.
Of course, we shouldn't "sign over the rights" to our life to lawyers. They do, however, fill an essential function in modern society. For example, if you were to be charged with a crime, would you not want the best lawyer available? If you're facing the death penalty for murder, I think you'd be more concerned with your lawyer's abilities than that of your sanitary engineers, or what have you. Likewise, if you run a company, you need to be reasonably confident in your legal counsel's abilities.
The fact of the matter is that it takes all types to make this world go round. In other words, We need garbage men, but we also need lawyers too. It is no wiser to be an (ignorant) layman and snub lawyers, than it is to be affluent and snub garbage men.
This is exactly what I said. When I said decentralized, I was referring to the necessity for freedom from ANY central authority. This is not to say that standards and the like are unimportant, but evolution depends on a certain degree of disparity. In other words, I support both the loner entreprenuer/scientist and the National Science Foundation (et. al) grants. Though, truth be told, I think the entreprenuer/loner contributes far more fundamental advances to science, than any structured bureaucracy (e.g., government, academic, etc.)
I don't know anything about this guy; I don't sympathize with him. However, VCs are not exactly the best thing since sliced bread. They have a very herd like mentality, a strong aversion to risk where they divert from the herd. There is a certain irrational aversion to risk, in that they'd rather take a great risk and fail with company, they take a smaller risk and fail alone.
Today the latest scheme with VCs is the so-called dot com crowd. They've changed the whole investment window timeframe with their huge IPOs. In other words, they VCs expect to get many times their money is two or three short years. This can't and won't hold up. However, the problem with this is that:
a) Most of these internet companies are going to go poof in a year or two. They just don't have the fundamentals.
b) They are diverting money from even higher rewarding investments with much much better fundamentals. It's not just Joe Schmoe's like this who're getting turned down, but people in strong industries [where the industry is atleast a sure thing], strong management, great experience, great technology [strong IP], and great marketing.
I'm not proposing that we create laws to force VCs to change their behavior or anything. But, coming from a family of sucessfull entreprenuers, I can tell you that VCs as a group are not all they are cracked up to be. Not when it comes to risk. Not when it comes to experience. Not even when it comes to even basic common sense.
I'm not saying Mills has been harmed. Far from it. I'm merely said that it would be a mistake if everything first had to pass through the much deified peer review that you speak of. I hear many slashdot juniors clammoring for it, but few truely seem to understand how academia works, let alone industry.
I didn't hear Mills demanding that everyone believe him. Nor would I expect people to. What he did do, if my reading is correct, is let it be known that he is working on some propietary technology, with the intent to draw interest, and consequently investors. He might not have "proof" yet that would stand up in academic circles; he does, however, seem to think he has some insight that he can commercialy exploit. Before he can do this though, he must get some capital so he can develop it. If slashdot ruled the world, this would not happen. In other words, many on slashdot want him to prove he can walk, before he attempt to crawl. In industry, this is called risk and effort; that is what investors and entreprenuers are for.
Let Mills and his institutional investors bear the risk; we needn't believe. When and if he develops whatever it is that he is working on, then you might worry about peer review.
PS: I personally think it is highly likely that Mills is simply mistaken, but i'm not willing to entertain psuedo fascist notions of how capital should be "properly" distributed. Particularly when I, as everyone else on slashdot, have so little information to go on.
Ok. Still, I must ask: Who is to decide what offers a "reasonable expectation of scientific return." Most non-profit organizations already do make such restrictions [though I've seen cases where they do it to absurdity]. These people [Mills and company] are private citizens and companies acting alone; I fail to see how their actions are threatening to "science".
Also, I'd like to make one other point. And that is, that, this danger of restriction runs not just in legal interferce, but also in using academic and funding "forces". This is not to say the National Science Foundation (et. al) should have to fund experiments which are most likely going to fail, but, that, as a society, we must tolerate a certain amount of failure. In other words, we should be tolerant of others that do as they wish, within reason, on their own dollar. Overblowing the absurdity of this guy's claims is a very real danger, in that you can create a certain aversion to risk. Where investors [or backers, or even other academics] will think not just of the calculated risk, but of dangers in associating with someone who is so despised by the scientific establishment. This is not to say that you can't laugh at this guy, but it is something to think about.
We have every right to be skeptical of him. Most of us, I'm sure, are. There is a certain percentage, however, that would love nothing more than to restrict Mills' rights based on some principle (look at the comment parallel to yours). The point I'm trying to drive home is, that, enforced or unenforced, sometimes it is necessary to strike out on your own. That, sticking strictly to peer review, for whatever reason, can hold you, and consequently society, back.
I'm not necessarily asking (in fact, i'm not) people to believe in Mills or even give him the time of day. I do, however, come from a family of engineers/entreprenuers. As such, I can tell you, from experience, that, sometimes the only way to prove that something can be done is to just go out and do it. If my parents had to wait and change consensus in the scientific community, they'd have gotten no where. Now granted, none of their work was nearly as revolutionary and contradictory as Mills' work. Yet, none the less, centralized organizations such as the National Science Foundation, universities, DoD, certain large corporations, and many others never did believe what they DID was possible, let alone practical.
Here, with Mills, we have a somewhat irrational response to anything remotely associated with Cold Fusion. Though it may indeed be impossible, many refuse to even give this man the time of day. It seems clear to me, that, assuming his idea is feasible, the only way he is going to prove himself is to make it happen and seek private investment, worrying about "peer review" later. I can think of no structure, no organization, no set of rules, that can guarantee to rule out the truely impossible and leave those few oddballs (who actually are on to something) unmolested. I remind slashdot that intectual freedom is important, and, that, an instrinsic part of that freedom is the freedom to be wrong.
You said, "Money should be spent where there's a reasonable expectation that it'll do some good." This all sounds fine and good in theory, but how exactly to propose to do this? Would you advocate a central board of "science" that makes all funding allocations? Do you honestly believe this is the best policy? History has shown us time and time again that you simply can't innovate like this. Particularly if it is to be run by bureaucrats and academics (e.g., those who are not "naturally" chosen based on their performance). How many scientists would have never made it if the popular consensus had its way? Or better yet, which revolutionary scientists HAVEN'T been exposed to great opposition.
I believe it was Eistein who said "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Perhaps, i'm taking this out of context; however, look at your history. The most revolutionary ideas tend to be the ones that run most contrary to widely held beliefs from the so-called experts. Not until they proved them wrong, developed a product, shown the many empirical proof, did they believe. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. You can be sure of that. Yet, you would tie our hands, put all our eggs in one basket (That of scientists "reasonable expectations"), in the name of what? Efficiency?
The investors are hardly naive spinsters spending their retirement money. They are institutional investors who are making a calculated risk. This company could go poof tomarrow and none of the investors would be in trouble. Furthermore, you can be sure that their investment portfolio offers a significantly positive expected value. That is to say that if you take the aggregate of all their investments, they're statistically more likely to profit and, most likely, do so better than less risky investments on the whole, than they are to fail.
The capital market is not a zero sum game. These particular investors are pursuing money. Where there is a "reasonable expectation" of profit in other lines of R&D, you can be sure money will be available. In other words, the pool will grow.
Our economy, our very innovation, would be no where if we allowed this sort of conventional thought process to dominate all scientific work. I, for one, am not willing to only allow for only the conventional, as cookoo as it might seem to most of us.
You are free to disagree with this man, call him a fool, bring undeniable proof to the table, speak out against him, or whatever you wish. However, you may absolutely not impinge on his freedom or that of his investors. He is doing you, nor anyone else, any harm. The argument that his failure will discredit "real" research is weak at best. None of these concerns are substancial enough to warrant such instrusions into his life.
The French are snobs. Though, admittedly, Americans are not well enough versed in foreign languages, the French hold themselves in far too high regard in my personal opinion. I recognize that some Americans (and others as well) will butcher French to some degree, but I've also seen the French show little tolerance for others who're clearly sufficiently well educated and perfectly understandable, yet for whatever minor reason they refuse to listen. If a person has made the effort (not just here and now, but taken the time to really learn it) there is no excuse for that kind of behavior. I certainly don't take on airs foreigners attempt to speak English.
I recognize that not all the French are like this, just some of them (e.g., some Parisians). You might be right, in fact, you are. I'm just ranting.....;)
PS: There is actually an argument that the French spoken in Quebec is actually closer to the original language than the French spoken in modern France (the same can be said for many immigrant cultures).
peer review is not always right either. I believe a de-centralized science is the best science, and that this peer review, though it has clear benefits, can also be detrimental. There is a certain herd mentality amongst the so-called scientific community, academics especially. If science is to fundamentally advance, we need people to push the envelop, there is simply no other way. Virtually everyone who has done so has been met with harsh criticism by the entrenched.
Though the vast majority of people, such Mills, may be incorrect, it is also people like him that shake science up and advance it. This is not to say that we should throw 'peer review' out the window; rather, that, we should allow both to coexist. For if all science were restricted to commonly help perceptions, it would never make great strides. On the hand, to accept whole whatever the latest longhair purports to be fact would be equally foolish.
The interplay between the two "groups" creates a better system. Yes, all in all, Mill is most likely wrong. No one is asking us to swallow his line whole. What is the harm of allowing Mill and his investors to risk their money and effort? At worst, they lose money. At best, they produce something of use. Which can later be peer reviewed once they have an undeniable proof of concept, such that it can be "properly" classified, filed, writen up, or what have you. The biggest threat is not the ignorant few, it is the myopic "elite" that would try to restrict the few beyond their FOV.
I mostly agree with you. However, the government banning all but tcp port 80 would not improve things significantly, because:
a) Most sites can already go to their upstream providers and make such requests, which would have largely the same effect.
b) Despite filtering everything else, I, and many others, could, (and have, to varying degrees) written programs to send TCP fragments (e.g., SIN, FIN, RST) at excessive rates. Furthermore, these types of attacks are, in many ways, more potent than a trivial ping attack against a reasonably configured site.
a) This argument is essentially pointless. Under the dictionary definitions, virtually every so called democracy today, is also a republic (e.g., they are run by elected officials). Logistics have long mandated representational forms. The mere fact that the US is a republic is not what sets us apart; it is our Constitution and division of powers that does. Simply having an representational government does not avoid mobocracy. For example, if we had no Constitution, popular opinion could cause what we have long recognized to be rights, to be trampled on (e.g., "Free Speech"). If we made impeachment a trivial matter, increased the number of representatives so as to better reflect the views of small communities, or held elections regularly we would not even be recognizable today. In short, you are arguing the wrong issues, there are no pure democracies in sizable governments.
b) Under the dictionary definition(s), a republic is not necessarily 'always in the form of elected respresentation'. If it is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" that is all it takes to be a republic.
c) I know plenty of lawyers, good ones at that. Most will tell you how poorly educated most lawyers today are, hence "legaleze". Good lawyers don't mince words (atleast not when they don't mean to). Most of what is known as legaleze is the product of a mediocre education, not a necessity of law.
d) If semantics are everything, and our government is a "republic" (as you read into it, too much if I might add), why are you concerned about mobocracy? According to you, "republics" preclude the possiblity of mob-rule, "us" over the "individual". You should be relatively safe, if you proceed under your assumptions atleast.
e) I was not making a nationalistic argument to justify police actions in Seattle. The fact of the matter is that democracies [and republics] do tend to more closely follow the needs of the people as a whole than any other system of government--the laws are less arbitrary. I never once stated that democracy alone makes laws just. The particular laws [regarding assembly, and the like] that I was supporting, exist for everyone's benefit on the aggregate, and they're applied consistently against everyone and for everyone [nothing moblike about it]. That is to say, that, while, in the short run, it may be preferable to you to deny the right of the WTO and the city to move about, it is not in society's best interest on the long term. In fact, I argued very much against mobocracy (only in this case, a mere mob is sufficient, not even a majority). We are a nation of law, not merely the temporal will of some mob. To fail to protect these rights, would be inviting anarchy.
In summation, I have restrained myself throughout most of this thread. Not once did I call you stupid, or even imply it. Where you took a jab at me, I blocked. I may have done so a little more harshly than I should have, but it is of vastly different nature than saying "people who attempt to comment on history prior to learning it annoy me."--that is an aggresive act. I maintain my assertion that you should moderate your behavior (even if you think me a hypocrit). I suggest that you take another long good look at your behavior, as I suspect this behavior manifests itself in your day to day behavior as well (perhaps THIS is edgey). Sure it's still a free country, but why create strife? Particularly when it doesn't serve you?
PS: This thread bores me, I probably won't read or reply, unless you have something particularly new and insightful. Nice talking to you. Bye
I never once said that popular opinion changes our country's form of government. Not once. This is nothing like Galileo.
People create language. It evolves. There is no single central administrator / developer. The accepted definition IS what the definition is (well for most words). Thus if "democracy" comes to allow a representational democracy into its primary definition, the country can be properly called a "democracy". Educated people, uneducated people, dictionaries, academics, and many others call the US a democracy. Most understand that we have a representational democracy/republic, even if they don't have the word for it. Some liberals may attempt to redefine how our country is run; I never did. However, I did use the word which conveyed meaning to the largest group of people without breaking the definition or redefining how our country is run.
What the fathers of our nation called a republic is now also a democracy [inclusive]. What is called a republic today is not necessarily a democracy (e.g., "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president"). I used the most fitting word given the forum and the readership. If I were trying to reconstruct our nation, I would use much more exact language. No single word alone could be used to properly recreate our country, not republic, not democracy, nothing. Most particularly, neither of the words alone address the balance of power, a crucial feature of our particular "republic". The point being that you can go on overdefining ad nauseam.
You wrongly assumed that: a) I'm not educated b) I failed to "look it up" c) The dictionary definition of democracy doesn't allow for a representational democracy. Not only did you make these mistakes, but you have consistently taken on airs. I have two pieces of advice. First, Lose the edge in your words. Second, if you believe so strongly in the difference [between democracy and republic], make an argument and explain why you believe the difference is important. Otherwise, you are wasting your words.
Propeitary software is a means to an end. It is just, and it produces innovative software. Though I realize this is hotly contested on slashdot, Open Source software isn't exactly a hot bed of innovation. In fact, one has to struggle damn hard to find "innovations" in, so called, "free software". When I say innovation, I don't mean mere invention. I mean, getting an idea on how to create or fundamentally improve something, and really hustling and expending countless hours/dollars to make it work.
Open source software only addresses the needs and wants of geeks, not that of the common user, and has only had limited success at that. Propietary software allows for an incentive program (which also helps organize development), that Open source software does not. This is particularly true for the boring parts of development (e.g., support, help systems, idiot proofing, and generally bringing it into fruition).
Some will say that RedHat is proof of Open Source viability in the commercial world, that "support" dollars are sufficient. This has not been proven, and is, in fact, very questionable. RedHat is not yet profitable. They haven't exactly developed a great deal of software (with the exception of, perhaps, gnome and rpm. Nothing on scale with what Sun, Apple, Microsoft, expend on it). Most all of their revenues come from SELLING the CD. If, and when, Redhat does climb to popularity, companies will begin selling byte for byte copies for half the cost, with equal convience. The only reason to buy their CD is for packaged support. This too is questionable. As another company could dedicate themselves to soley supporting RedHat (being open source this is very easy), with a higher percentage of their revenues going back into support operations (e.g., no R&D like RedHat must). I really would like to see RedHat succeed, and I'm not saying they absolutely can't (they'll atleast grow in popularity amongst geeks), but it should not be used as "proof". Nor do I see any other companies which do [expend big bucks on open source development, and make big returns].
Slashdot Mirror
Except no one, in this generation at least, is saying anything of the kind. Where as we have Katz and countless other people on slashdot saying that they can, are, or will frequently to varying to degrees. Not everyone on slashdot is either an engineer or a programmer. In fact, I'd wage that the vast majority of frequent readers are between the ages of 16 and 20...those who generally don't have much professional experience.
I think this is just shirking editorial responsibility. Granted, slashdot is unique in that it is an interactive forum, but that is not sufficient reason to drop all editorial control. A few readers may correct it, but many posts with equally high scores frequently purport otherwise. Whom is the naive person to believe? If slashdot says so, it must be true, right?!?! This is not to say that every post must be edited, but those on the primary page should be, as they reasonably appear to fall under the review of the editors. If you're going to exercise no control over it, then atleast make it abundantly clear (to the average reader) and do it evenly (more than to just things that you don't oppose).
that geeks don't think about sex, and hence won't reproduce at sufficient numbers to sustain the geek population?
I say slashdot needs to add porn, to remind geeks that they are, in fact men, encouraging them to do something besides waste their time on slashdot! heh
I'm only kidding...sorta. =)
I've seen more cases of secretaries (and/or those effectively acting in that position) on power trips, than their bosses on powertrips. This is not to say that ALL secretaries are, but yes some definetly are. Have you ever heard the expression: gate keeper? You ever wonder why salesmen, employees, coworkers, and many others feel the need to kiss up to the secretary? Some secretaries can, and do, make or break careers simply because they hold all the keys to accessing the boss.
On another note, speaking for one technologically inept boss, my stepfather, people generally ascribe the wrong motives to people like him. Yes, he has a secretary. On the other hand, he is also extremely busy. When, and if, he learns to use computers effectively he'll still need a secretary. '
He is an intelligent guy; none the less, there is a certain learning curve to learning how to use computers effectively. In other words, he'll need to spend 50 hours (out of the air) to make computers more efficient than having his secretary take dictation. This might not sound like much, but when you're as busy as he is it is a significant effort. You've got to understand that he does not even have the time to devote time to himself (personal life, a.k.a.: fun). Real or imagined, he does not have the time. Though you might make an argument that learning would ultimately pay off, when you're this busy you also lose patience. Little things like windows system crashes simply make it far too aggravating (from his perspective). Add to this, a crash/bug/misunderstanding can take him hours to get around (that he literally can't fit in his schedule), while someone like myself (whom exists at his office, in addition to his secretary) can work around it in a matter of seconds.
In summation, neither lack of intellect nor arrogance would be the proper word to describe my stepfather's situation. There are many like him. Though a rare few in 'power' might adopt a certain anti-intellectual approach to computers (viewing them as for the underlyings), I feel they're still in the minority. To further generalize this intentional ignorance to people such as my step-father is simply a mistake. Overgeneralizations can be dangerous, because it, too, is a form of affected ignorance.
Short and Sweet. I suggest Katz puts his money, or rather lack thereof, where his mouth is. If he believes so firmly in "try before you buy", then he should try forgoing any compensation from slashdot and have slashdot create an online "tip" jar for him. Likewise, he should open up ALL of so-called books and make them available online, and be happy with a mere link to amazon.com or something....
Yes, I know about IRC. (In fact, I'm one of the founders of #mp3 on undernet...even even efnet for a shortwhile) However, the fact is that the average user can't obtain what they want through IRC. For one, even learning IRC has something of a learning curve for Joe Schmoe. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, getting the mp3s you want requires something of a social network (unless you're talking about one of those xdcc/cdcc type deals), which the average user lacks. In other words, there isn't a great deal of diversity of free music on IRC. The only way you get other music is by knowing the right people...
Usenet is not all that different. Plus the campuses can block that quite easily.
Yes, that might be kind of interesting. But don't forget that there are other relatively easy to use methods of attaining mp3s that many people do use. Like simply, using SMB filesharing, or using one of the other zillion alternatives like iMesh.
Most of these are pretty old (if I recall correctly), but these are all merely claims. Some might be lies. Some might be wishful thinking. Others may simply forget to pay. All certainly value napster and don't want to see if regulated out of existence...so we can assume that they'd want to defend it. Put simply, you can't simply trust this data alone as the last word.
This is the only potentially worthwhile piece of information, but I'd want more information before I really swallow it whole. I question how the data was gatheredm, in what context, and I question what it really means. For instance, if the general trend due to economic up turn is an increased purchasing of music, it would make sense for music fans (which tend to be napster users) to increase their music purchases more than non-napster users--even if their purchases are actually LESS due to the demand that napster sates. Furthermore, this does not address the question of what will happen once (or if) napster and clones become efficient at finding flawless copies of music, or once mp3 players become cheap and improve in quality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this first bit of data, that 70% of shoppers have not, and will not, pay for online music terribly relevant to what Bertelsmann is doing? Katz seems to say that people are only willing to pay for a subscription service, yet any attempt to push for such a thing by the industry is met with extreme hostility.
Anyways, I have my doubts from my own experience with mp3s and with others I know. I've simply seen and known far too many people that have reduced or stopped purchasing CDs entirely due to Napster. Others I know would stop, if they could afford a decent mp3 player, or had a faster connection, or knew how to use these services better, etc.
I suggest to you that this process of challenging ludicrous claims is far better than the alternatives, such as:
Not challenging any myths--letting everything go.
Forcing the market to act in some way that I, or anyone else, chooses.
Providing capital to "socially minded" causes through some government agency or charity/non-profit. (I've seen how most grant money is spent, and it's downright shamefull). If people want to spend their money that way, I'm not going to stop them...but that doesn't mean it's not a mistake.
Central planning of most any sort.
Excessive restrictions...
You may work as a contracter, but you don't understand the logistics involved in writing a complex contract, let alone a patent. I agree in that laws can be writen more plainly, but you way way way oversimplfy. For example, you said "the only way to make money on a patent it to use them like landmines". While a few may make profits like this, you're ignoring the hundreds of thousands of technological innovations which would have simply never happened without intellectual property. Having seen some of these developments first hand, I can tell you flatly that your statement is simply wrong.
For example, my company is in the process of developing an artificial pancreas (read: not a frivilous device, this is a device that can save and extend the lives of millions of diabetics. A device also which many companies have tried and failed to builld already). It is a multimillion dollar project just for development. Suppose my company finished development tomorrow; it cost 50million dollars. We submit it to the FDA, and begin clinical trials. Our competitors get ahold of it. They realize the genius of our device, it seems so simple. So they copy it, and produce it at a cost of 500 dollars a unit. We on the other hand, have not only 500 dollars a unit, but also the R&D costs on top of it. How do we justify spending 50 million dollars on R&D, when our competitors can force us to compete at cost? Futhermore, how do we justify the risk (high chance of failure) to potential investors (e.g., Venture Capitalists). If 9 in 10 ventures of its kind (from their limited insight atleast) fail, the investors need that one company that suceeds to ATLEAST pay the costs of those 9 other failed companies (plus its own) to break even. That means that we need to enjoy monopoly rents on that product to make it happen. I can tell you from experience that it is simply not going to come to fruition otherwise, a great many diabetics would have their lives cut short as a result. In addition, the protection that patents offer is limited (though still valuable). History has proven that it does not take the competition long to figure out what we did right (without infringing on our patents); two to three years later, they produce competing product, price levels come down....How is this an unnecessary landmine foisted on the back of society to the benefit of only lawyers?
Anyhow, i'm going on vacation now, no reply. Bye
I'll give you that some laws are unnecessary, and others are needlessly complex. However, the view that most every law is unnecessary is only afforded those who live a cloistered existence. It's easy to rant and rave about business, when you don't operate one. I'll be willing to bet that you've never operated a business, or tried to draw up a contract. More than likely, you're still in academia. You've definetly never actually patented anything in your life, let alone developed a viable product off of it....ah what the hell why waste my time on you? I just tire of the sophmoric rants that comprise the bulk of slashdot.
/* aspestos suit: On */
Of course, we shouldn't "sign over the rights" to our life to lawyers. They do, however, fill an essential function in modern society. For example, if you were to be charged with a crime, would you not want the best lawyer available? If you're facing the death penalty for murder, I think you'd be more concerned with your lawyer's abilities than that of your sanitary engineers, or what have you. Likewise, if you run a company, you need to be reasonably confident in your legal counsel's abilities.
The fact of the matter is that it takes all types to make this world go round. In other words, We need garbage men, but we also need lawyers too. It is no wiser to be an (ignorant) layman and snub lawyers, than it is to be affluent and snub garbage men.
Merry Xmass.
This is exactly what I said. When I said decentralized, I was referring to the necessity for freedom from ANY central authority. This is not to say that standards and the like are unimportant, but evolution depends on a certain degree of disparity. In other words, I support both the loner entreprenuer/scientist and the National Science Foundation (et. al) grants. Though, truth be told, I think the entreprenuer/loner contributes far more fundamental advances to science, than any structured bureaucracy (e.g., government, academic, etc.)
I don't know anything about this guy; I don't sympathize with him. However, VCs are not exactly the best thing since sliced bread. They have a very herd like mentality, a strong aversion to risk where they divert from the herd. There is a certain irrational aversion to risk, in that they'd rather take a great risk and fail with company, they take a smaller risk and fail alone.
Today the latest scheme with VCs is the so-called dot com crowd. They've changed the whole investment window timeframe with their huge IPOs. In other words, they VCs expect to get many times their money is two or three short years. This can't and won't hold up. However, the problem with this is that:
a) Most of these internet companies are going to go poof in a year or two. They just don't have the fundamentals.
b) They are diverting money from even higher rewarding investments with much much better fundamentals. It's not just Joe Schmoe's like this who're getting turned down, but people in strong industries [where the industry is atleast a sure thing], strong management, great experience, great technology [strong IP], and great marketing.
I'm not proposing that we create laws to force VCs to change their behavior or anything. But, coming from a family of sucessfull entreprenuers, I can tell you that VCs as a group are not all they are cracked up to be. Not when it comes to risk. Not when it comes to experience. Not even when it comes to even basic common sense.
I'm not saying Mills has been harmed. Far from it. I'm merely said that it would be a mistake if everything first had to pass through the much deified peer review that you speak of. I hear many slashdot juniors clammoring for it, but few truely seem to understand how academia works, let alone industry.
I didn't hear Mills demanding that everyone believe him. Nor would I expect people to. What he did do, if my reading is correct, is let it be known that he is working on some propietary technology, with the intent to draw interest, and consequently investors. He might not have "proof" yet that would stand up in academic circles; he does, however, seem to think he has some insight that he can commercialy exploit. Before he can do this though, he must get some capital so he can develop it. If slashdot ruled the world, this would not happen. In other words, many on slashdot want him to prove he can walk, before he attempt to crawl. In industry, this is called risk and effort; that is what investors and entreprenuers are for.
Let Mills and his institutional investors bear the risk; we needn't believe. When and if he develops whatever it is that he is working on, then you might worry about peer review.
PS: I personally think it is highly likely that Mills is simply mistaken, but i'm not willing to entertain psuedo fascist notions of how capital should be "properly" distributed. Particularly when I, as everyone else on slashdot, have so little information to go on.
Ok. Still, I must ask: Who is to decide what offers a "reasonable expectation of scientific return." Most non-profit organizations already do make such restrictions [though I've seen cases where they do it to absurdity]. These people [Mills and company] are private citizens and companies acting alone; I fail to see how their actions are threatening to "science".
Also, I'd like to make one other point. And that is, that, this danger of restriction runs not just in legal interferce, but also in using academic and funding "forces". This is not to say the National Science Foundation (et. al) should have to fund experiments which are most likely going to fail, but, that, as a society, we must tolerate a certain amount of failure. In other words, we should be tolerant of others that do as they wish, within reason, on their own dollar. Overblowing the absurdity of this guy's claims is a very real danger, in that you can create a certain aversion to risk. Where investors [or backers, or even other academics] will think not just of the calculated risk, but of dangers in associating with someone who is so despised by the scientific establishment. This is not to say that you can't laugh at this guy, but it is something to think about.
We have every right to be skeptical of him. Most of us, I'm sure, are. There is a certain percentage, however, that would love nothing more than to restrict Mills' rights based on some principle (look at the comment parallel to yours). The point I'm trying to drive home is, that, enforced or unenforced, sometimes it is necessary to strike out on your own. That, sticking strictly to peer review, for whatever reason, can hold you, and consequently society, back.
I'm not necessarily asking (in fact, i'm not) people to believe in Mills or even give him the time of day. I do, however, come from a family of engineers/entreprenuers. As such, I can tell you, from experience, that, sometimes the only way to prove that something can be done is to just go out and do it. If my parents had to wait and change consensus in the scientific community, they'd have gotten no where. Now granted, none of their work was nearly as revolutionary and contradictory as Mills' work. Yet, none the less, centralized organizations such as the National Science Foundation, universities, DoD, certain large corporations, and many others never did believe what they DID was possible, let alone practical.
Here, with Mills, we have a somewhat irrational response to anything remotely associated with Cold Fusion. Though it may indeed be impossible, many refuse to even give this man the time of day. It seems clear to me, that, assuming his idea is feasible, the only way he is going to prove himself is to make it happen and seek private investment, worrying about "peer review" later. I can think of no structure, no organization, no set of rules, that can guarantee to rule out the truely impossible and leave those few oddballs (who actually are on to something) unmolested. I remind slashdot that intectual freedom is important, and, that, an instrinsic part of that freedom is the freedom to be wrong.
You said, "Money should be spent where there's a reasonable expectation that it'll do some good." This all sounds fine and good in theory, but how exactly to propose to do this? Would you advocate a central board of "science" that makes all funding allocations? Do you honestly believe this is the best policy? History has shown us time and time again that you simply can't innovate like this. Particularly if it is to be run by bureaucrats and academics (e.g., those who are not "naturally" chosen based on their performance). How many scientists would have never made it if the popular consensus had its way? Or better yet, which revolutionary scientists HAVEN'T been exposed to great opposition.
I believe it was Eistein who said "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Perhaps, i'm taking this out of context; however, look at your history. The most revolutionary ideas tend to be the ones that run most contrary to widely held beliefs from the so-called experts. Not until they proved them wrong, developed a product, shown the many empirical proof, did they believe. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. You can be sure of that. Yet, you would tie our hands, put all our eggs in one basket (That of scientists "reasonable expectations"), in the name of what? Efficiency?
The investors are hardly naive spinsters spending their retirement money. They are institutional investors who are making a calculated risk. This company could go poof tomarrow and none of the investors would be in trouble. Furthermore, you can be sure that their investment portfolio offers a significantly positive expected value. That is to say that if you take the aggregate of all their investments, they're statistically more likely to profit and, most likely, do so better than less risky investments on the whole, than they are to fail.
The capital market is not a zero sum game. These particular investors are pursuing money. Where there is a "reasonable expectation" of profit in other lines of R&D, you can be sure money will be available. In other words, the pool will grow.
Our economy, our very innovation, would be no where if we allowed this sort of conventional thought process to dominate all scientific work. I, for one, am not willing to only allow for only the conventional, as cookoo as it might seem to most of us.
You are free to disagree with this man, call him a fool, bring undeniable proof to the table, speak out against him, or whatever you wish. However, you may absolutely not impinge on his freedom or that of his investors. He is doing you, nor anyone else, any harm. The argument that his failure will discredit "real" research is weak at best. None of these concerns are substancial enough to warrant such instrusions into his life.
The French are snobs. Though, admittedly, Americans are not well enough versed in foreign languages, the French hold themselves in far too high regard in my personal opinion. I recognize that some Americans (and others as well) will butcher French to some degree, but I've also seen the French show little tolerance for others who're clearly sufficiently well educated and perfectly understandable, yet for whatever minor reason they refuse to listen. If a person has made the effort (not just here and now, but taken the time to really learn it) there is no excuse for that kind of behavior. I certainly don't take on airs foreigners attempt to speak English.
;)
I recognize that not all the French are like this, just some of them (e.g., some Parisians). You might be right, in fact, you are. I'm just ranting.....
PS: There is actually an argument that the French spoken in Quebec is actually closer to the original language than the French spoken in modern France (the same can be said for many immigrant cultures).
peer review is not always right either. I believe a de-centralized science is the best science, and that this peer review, though it has clear benefits, can also be detrimental. There is a certain herd mentality amongst the so-called scientific community, academics especially. If science is to fundamentally advance, we need people to push the envelop, there is simply no other way. Virtually everyone who has done so has been met with harsh criticism by the entrenched.
Though the vast majority of people, such Mills, may be incorrect, it is also people like him that shake science up and advance it. This is not to say that we should throw 'peer review' out the window; rather, that, we should allow both to coexist. For if all science were restricted to commonly help perceptions, it would never make great strides. On the hand, to accept whole whatever the latest longhair purports to be fact would be equally foolish.
The interplay between the two "groups" creates a better system. Yes, all in all, Mill is most likely wrong. No one is asking us to swallow his line whole. What is the harm of allowing Mill and his investors to risk their money and effort? At worst, they lose money. At best, they produce something of use. Which can later be peer reviewed once they have an undeniable proof of concept, such that it can be "properly" classified, filed, writen up, or what have you. The biggest threat is not the ignorant few, it is the myopic "elite" that would try to restrict the few beyond their FOV.
doh.
I mostly agree with you. However, the government banning all but tcp port 80 would not improve things significantly, because:
a) Most sites can already go to their upstream providers and make such requests, which would have largely the same effect.
b) Despite filtering everything else, I, and many others, could, (and have, to varying degrees) written programs to send TCP fragments (e.g., SIN, FIN, RST) at excessive rates. Furthermore, these types of attacks are, in many ways, more potent than a trivial ping attack against a reasonably configured site.
Ok, this thread is getting tiresome, but....
a) This argument is essentially pointless. Under the dictionary definitions, virtually every so called democracy today, is also a republic (e.g., they are run by elected officials). Logistics have long mandated representational forms. The mere fact that the US is a republic is not what sets us apart; it is our Constitution and division of powers that does. Simply having an representational government does not avoid mobocracy. For example, if we had no Constitution, popular opinion could cause what we have long recognized to be rights, to be trampled on (e.g., "Free Speech"). If we made impeachment a trivial matter, increased the number of representatives so as to better reflect the views of small communities, or held elections regularly we would not even be recognizable today. In short, you are arguing the wrong issues, there are no pure democracies in sizable governments.
b) Under the dictionary definition(s), a republic is not necessarily 'always in the form of elected respresentation'. If it is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" that is all it takes to be a republic.
c) I know plenty of lawyers, good ones at that. Most will tell you how poorly educated most lawyers today are, hence "legaleze". Good lawyers don't mince words (atleast not when they don't mean to). Most of what is known as legaleze is the product of a mediocre education, not a necessity of law.
d) If semantics are everything, and our government is a "republic" (as you read into it, too much if I might add), why are you concerned about mobocracy? According to you, "republics" preclude the possiblity of mob-rule, "us" over the "individual". You should be relatively safe, if you proceed under your assumptions atleast.
e) I was not making a nationalistic argument to justify police actions in Seattle. The fact of the matter is that democracies [and republics] do tend to more closely follow the needs of the people as a whole than any other system of government--the laws are less arbitrary. I never once stated that democracy alone makes laws just. The particular laws [regarding assembly, and the like] that I was supporting, exist for everyone's benefit on the aggregate, and they're applied consistently against everyone and for everyone [nothing moblike about it]. That is to say, that, while, in the short run, it may be preferable to you to deny the right of the WTO and the city to move about, it is not in society's best interest on the long term. In fact, I argued very much against mobocracy (only in this case, a mere mob is sufficient, not even a majority). We are a nation of law, not merely the temporal will of some mob. To fail to protect these rights, would be inviting anarchy.
In summation, I have restrained myself throughout most of this thread. Not once did I call you stupid, or even imply it. Where you took a jab at me, I blocked. I may have done so a little more harshly than I should have, but it is of vastly different nature than saying "people who attempt to comment on history prior to learning it annoy me."--that is an aggresive act. I maintain my assertion that you should moderate your behavior (even if you think me a hypocrit). I suggest that you take another long good look at your behavior, as I suspect this behavior manifests itself in your day to day behavior as well (perhaps THIS is edgey). Sure it's still a free country, but why create strife? Particularly when it doesn't serve you?
PS: This thread bores me, I probably won't read or reply, unless you have something particularly new and insightful. Nice talking to you. Bye
I never once said that popular opinion changes our country's form of government. Not once. This is nothing like Galileo.
People create language. It evolves. There is no single central administrator / developer. The accepted definition IS what the definition is (well for most words). Thus if "democracy" comes to allow a representational democracy into its primary definition, the country can be properly called a "democracy". Educated people, uneducated people, dictionaries, academics, and many others call the US a democracy. Most understand that we have a representational democracy/republic, even if they don't have the word for it. Some liberals may attempt to redefine how our country is run; I never did. However, I did use the word which conveyed meaning to the largest group of people without breaking the definition or redefining how our country is run.
What the fathers of our nation called a republic is now also a democracy [inclusive]. What is called a republic today is not necessarily a democracy (e.g., "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president"). I used the most fitting word given the forum and the readership. If I were trying to reconstruct our nation, I would use much more exact language. No single word alone could be used to properly recreate our country, not republic, not democracy, nothing. Most particularly, neither of the words alone address the balance of power, a crucial feature of our particular "republic". The point being that you can go on overdefining ad nauseam.
You wrongly assumed that: a) I'm not educated b) I failed to "look it up" c) The dictionary definition of democracy doesn't allow for a representational democracy. Not only did you make these mistakes, but you have consistently taken on airs. I have two pieces of advice. First, Lose the edge in your words. Second, if you believe so strongly in the difference [between democracy and republic], make an argument and explain why you believe the difference is important. Otherwise, you are wasting your words.
Propeitary software is a means to an end. It is just, and it produces innovative software. Though I realize this is hotly contested on slashdot, Open Source software isn't exactly a hot bed of innovation. In fact, one has to struggle damn hard to find "innovations" in, so called, "free software". When I say innovation, I don't mean mere invention. I mean, getting an idea on how to create or fundamentally improve something, and really hustling and expending countless hours/dollars to make it work.
Open source software only addresses the needs and wants of geeks, not that of the common user, and has only had limited success at that. Propietary software allows for an incentive program (which also helps organize development), that Open source software does not. This is particularly true for the boring parts of development (e.g., support, help systems, idiot proofing, and generally bringing it into fruition).
Some will say that RedHat is proof of Open Source viability in the commercial world, that "support" dollars are sufficient. This has not been proven, and is, in fact, very questionable. RedHat is not yet profitable. They haven't exactly developed a great deal of software (with the exception of, perhaps, gnome and rpm. Nothing on scale with what Sun, Apple, Microsoft, expend on it). Most all of their revenues come from SELLING the CD. If, and when, Redhat does climb to popularity, companies will begin selling byte for byte copies for half the cost, with equal convience. The only reason to buy their CD is for packaged support. This too is questionable. As another company could dedicate themselves to soley supporting RedHat (being open source this is very easy), with a higher percentage of their revenues going back into support operations (e.g., no R&D like RedHat must). I really would like to see RedHat succeed, and I'm not saying they absolutely can't (they'll atleast grow in popularity amongst geeks), but it should not be used as "proof". Nor do I see any other companies which do [expend big bucks on open source development, and make big returns].