Save your money for writers who have a clue, please. Just take a look at the comments here - for once the slashtards have it right. And the arguments of his defenders are glaringly weak ad hominems.
On the other hand, your post was an incredibly clever and insightful critique. Presumably it only reads like a lame excuse for yet another tedious Katz-bash to people too unsophisticated to properly appreciate the full, blinding light of your intellect.
Comparing those folks with "kings" is absolutely ridiculous. Especially since when their adventure was done they went back to the Shire as if nothing had happened.
Actually, they went back to the Shire, kicked out the folks who'd taken it over in their absence, and (IIRC) at least some of them did end up in high leadership/advisory roles. (In the Shire, which ain't saying much, but still.)
And Aragorn is presented as a king, one who -- until the rather meaningfully-named "Return of the King" -- is basically shirking his kingly duties.
In short, Brin is stretching. He has an axe to grind and he is trying to get the story to fit his preconceived notions.
Am I correct in guessing that you didn't read the whole essay? I think it was a silly trick, but it is rather interesting in showing how common it is for people to comment on things they don't completely read. Not surprising at all, but still interesting. (I do it too, though I didn't -- quite -- in this case.)
Amazing that this park is run by a private company and not by the city?
See company's can do nice things...
Don't bash all of them
The fact that Bryant Park Restoration Corporation is a specifically not-for-profit company just might be relevant. And quite possibly they're funded do this "nice thing" by local developers, property management companies, and other businesses, who stand to gain quite a bit from having a squeeky clean park. (Note that park rules prohibit panhandling, which the city can't legally do in parks that it controls.)
Sure companies can do nice things... if there's something in it for them. (And quite right, too, but excuse me if I'm not naive enough to start fawning over them for it.)
It's just easier for the "Hate America" crowd to set aside the reality of Iraq and simply take Iraq's word on what they have.
It's even easier for people to set aside the reality of the world, and simply label anyone who disagrees with US administration policy as part of the "Hate America" crowd.
"If we are going to achieve real nanotechnology, we are going to have to learn how to put atoms together one at a time." (Miquel Salmeron)
Uh, yeah, that's what nanotechnology means. Or what it used to mean anyway, before it started getting watered down by lame science fiction and people using it for buzzword effect.
Do we care about this? Can't he just say "occasionally, he has convulsions", rather than ranting on for multiple paragraphs about this mysterious device like its a sci-fi book.
Actually, I think most science fiction -- especially movies, but the written stuff too -- tends to handwave and toss buzzwords around rather than explore this sort of sweaty reality. It's a good way of emphasizing that borg wanna-bees can't just stride in and get their own personal ethernet jacks installed yet.
Nah really, i don't see this happening any time soon. If these "laid off" support crews do anything, they will just learn computers.
Most computer jobs aren't real jobs, either, unless one defines realness by how much salary the employee makes. Most of it is basically just modernizing paper-shuffling. Whoop-de-doo. That's hardly more meaningful than the support staff for movie-making, let alone the artists involved.
I mean, sure, I enjoy working with computers and it pays okay, but I don't kid myself that it has a big positive impact on the world. In ten years no one will care much what I did last week. In a hundred years, "Casablanca" will still be worth watching.
Wow. Your post gave me a flashback to an old New York Times editorial. (See bottom of linked article.)
The difference, in the case of a glider, can come from rising air currents. Hence, using the "mountain wave".
Hmmm, unsocial geeks programming social robots. Now tell me if I am wrong but, dont you think if an unsocial geek and program a social robot, the geek himself has the capabilities of being social himself?
Not without root access.
He is a man who clearly feels strongly enough about software freedom to risk jail time, up to 5 years, which is a hell of a lot more grave than the $500,000 fine mentioned in the article (I wonder why they played that down. That makes his actions even more impressive).
Probably because most folks -- me included -- have no clue about what it's like to serve time. I dunno if it's just people in the US, but there seems to be a big mental black hole about the subject, aside from some fairly common shallow self-righteousness about how "soft" prisoners have it.
(Yeah, most folks don't play with that kind of money either, but extrapolation makes it easier to empathize with.)
Why is it cool to think that the United States Government is out to spy on everyone and in general fuck things up?
[sarcasm]
Yeah! I mean, just because the US govt has a history of spying on people and fucking things up is no reason to get all suspicious.
[/sarcasm]
It's not "cool" to be suspicious of one's government. It's every citizen's responsibility to question the govt's motives and actions. Trusting the US government is the most unAmerican thing a US citizen can do. The system was intentionally not set up to work on trust.
Why is it kernel-hackers can be so entertaining and the Rocketman and Bruce Campbell come off as such duds?:-)
There are a lot more kernel-hackers to choose from, so attention tends to focus on the entertaining ones. If you picked two or three at random, I bet they'd bore most people to tears... and not just for the length of a quickie text-based interview for some geeky website, either.
Besides, geez, look at the questions he was asked. Not exactly great material to work with. I've seen more inspired questions on Entertainment Tonight.
I think they were already on the list. Not sure why Apple would bother, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after rumor sites that leaked real secrets? (Maybe I just haven't read ThinkSecret enough for a good data sample, but few of the rumors I've read there have proven out.)
The whole point of using silicon is it's semiconducting capabilities. You just don't get that from 'chicken feathers'.
The whole point of research is to not assume that one already knows everything. (Though I do know silicon isn't the only material with semiconducting properties.)
Although the first movie was enjoyable, why do they always make movies based on books we've all already read?
Simple. Because enough people are willing to pay enough money to see such movies.
The more interesting question is why so many people are willing to pay money to see such movies.
For me, for this particular example, I was willing to pay money because it looked like this particular translation of a story from one artisitic format to another was worthing paying to see. Happily, it turned out that I was correct. (So far, anyway. I hope the next two movies are as enjoyable.)
If a business or individual gives money to NPR that they otherwise would have had taxed away, it's taxpayer funding. Cut and dry.
I'll concede that point, especially as I'm the only person I know who does not declare charitable gifts on my taxes, for precisely that reason.
This begs the question, though, of whether that indirect funding necessarily entitles any taxpayer unlimited access to any information held by any organization that gets a tax break.
If so, wouldn't that reasoning also apply to any corporations or other businesses that get any tax breaks?
I'm not sure which is worse, a goofy policy like that, or that 'I' pay for NPR as a Tax-Paying citizen of the U, S, of A and am not free to utilize the information that 'I' paid for in way 'I' want to.
Well, for one thing, they're not taxpayer-funded, aside from a couple of percent from competitive grants. For another thing, even if they were taxpayer-funded, this would hardly a unique example of access limitations to taxpayer-funded information.
(I also think it's a really dumb thing for them to do, but your objection is a bit simplistic.)
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, your post was an incredibly clever and insightful critique. Presumably it only reads like a lame excuse for yet another tedious Katz-bash to people too unsophisticated to properly appreciate the full, blinding light of your intellect.
Actually, they went back to the Shire, kicked out the folks who'd taken it over in their absence, and (IIRC) at least some of them did end up in high leadership/advisory roles. (In the Shire, which ain't saying much, but still.)
And Aragorn is presented as a king, one who -- until the rather meaningfully-named "Return of the King" -- is basically shirking his kingly duties.
In short, Brin is stretching. He has an axe to grind and he is trying to get the story to fit his preconceived notions.
Am I correct in guessing that you didn't read the whole essay? I think it was a silly trick, but it is rather interesting in showing how common it is for people to comment on things they don't completely read. Not surprising at all, but still interesting. (I do it too, though I didn't -- quite -- in this case.)
See company's can do nice things... Don't bash all of them
The fact that Bryant Park Restoration Corporation is a specifically not-for-profit company just might be relevant. And quite possibly they're funded do this "nice thing" by local developers, property management companies, and other businesses, who stand to gain quite a bit from having a squeeky clean park. (Note that park rules prohibit panhandling, which the city can't legally do in parks that it controls.)
Sure companies can do nice things ... if there's something in it for them. (And quite right, too, but excuse me if I'm not naive enough to start fawning over them for it.)
[cough] Oh yeah, there's an unimpeachable source of info. [cough]
Ayways, data mining isn't cheap, does Radio Shack have the time, resources, agenda, motives, and money to invest in an ellaborate conspiracy?
"Ellaborate conspiracy"? I haven't seen anyone mention an elaborate conspiracy. Seems like mostly people just found it annoying.
It's even easier for people to set aside the reality of the world, and simply label anyone who disagrees with US administration policy as part of the "Hate America" crowd.
Well, dahling, if you put on a little lipstick, they'll probably let you live.
Um. Or did you mean rogue tribe?
Never mind.
Uh, yeah, that's what nanotechnology means. Or what it used to mean anyway, before it started getting watered down by lame science fiction and people using it for buzzword effect.
Actually, I think most science fiction -- especially movies, but the written stuff too -- tends to handwave and toss buzzwords around rather than explore this sort of sweaty reality. It's a good way of emphasizing that borg wanna-bees can't just stride in and get their own personal ethernet jacks installed yet.
Most computer jobs aren't real jobs, either, unless one defines realness by how much salary the employee makes. Most of it is basically just modernizing paper-shuffling. Whoop-de-doo. That's hardly more meaningful than the support staff for movie-making, let alone the artists involved.
I mean, sure, I enjoy working with computers and it pays okay, but I don't kid myself that it has a big positive impact on the world. In ten years no one will care much what I did last week. In a hundred years, "Casablanca" will still be worth watching.
"Elecrokinetic propulsion means that no propellers or jets are used."
Someone want to explain that one?
It's a form of buzzword propulsion.
If we can send one rich nutcase into the stratosphere, why can't we send them all there?
Wow. Your post gave me a flashback to an old New York Times editorial. (See bottom of linked article.) The difference, in the case of a glider, can come from rising air currents. Hence, using the "mountain wave".
Hmmm, unsocial geeks programming social robots. Now tell me if I am wrong but, dont you think if an unsocial geek and program a social robot, the geek himself has the capabilities of being social himself? Not without root access.
Arguably, an individual has a duty to disobey a bad law.
Unless I've missed it, nobody's meantioned Henry David Thoreau's classic essay, "Civil Disobedience" (originally "Resistance to Civil Government"). Worth reading.
Probably because most folks -- me included -- have no clue about what it's like to serve time. I dunno if it's just people in the US, but there seems to be a big mental black hole about the subject, aside from some fairly common shallow self-righteousness about how "soft" prisoners have it.
(Yeah, most folks don't play with that kind of money either, but extrapolation makes it easier to empathize with.)
[sarcasm] Yeah! I mean, just because the US govt has a history of spying on people and fucking things up is no reason to get all suspicious. [/sarcasm]
It's not "cool" to be suspicious of one's government. It's every citizen's responsibility to question the govt's motives and actions. Trusting the US government is the most unAmerican thing a US citizen can do. The system was intentionally not set up to work on trust.
There are a lot more kernel-hackers to choose from, so attention tends to focus on the entertaining ones. If you picked two or three at random, I bet they'd bore most people to tears ... and not just for the length of a quickie text-based interview for some geeky website, either.
Besides, geez, look at the questions he was asked. Not exactly great material to work with. I've seen more inspired questions on Entertainment Tonight.
That's what they're fighting about.
"Hey, Fatman, I should get top billing."
"No way, Stuperman, I should."
"Nuh-uh!"
"Uh-huh!"
I think they were already on the list. Not sure why Apple would bother, though. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after rumor sites that leaked real secrets? (Maybe I just haven't read ThinkSecret enough for a good data sample, but few of the rumors I've read there have proven out.)
The whole point of research is to not assume that one already knows everything. (Though I do know silicon isn't the only material with semiconducting properties.)
I bet we'll get consumer projection holography within a decade. (I'm not sure if we'll ever get news channels again, though.)
Simple. Because enough people are willing to pay enough money to see such movies.
The more interesting question is why so many people are willing to pay money to see such movies.
For me, for this particular example, I was willing to pay money because it looked like this particular translation of a story from one artisitic format to another was worthing paying to see. Happily, it turned out that I was correct. (So far, anyway. I hope the next two movies are as enjoyable.)
I'll concede that point, especially as I'm the only person I know who does not declare charitable gifts on my taxes, for precisely that reason.
This begs the question, though, of whether that indirect funding necessarily entitles any taxpayer unlimited access to any information held by any organization that gets a tax break.
If so, wouldn't that reasoning also apply to any corporations or other businesses that get any tax breaks?
Well, for one thing, they're not taxpayer-funded, aside from a couple of percent from competitive grants. For another thing, even if they were taxpayer-funded, this would hardly a unique example of access limitations to taxpayer-funded information.
(I also think it's a really dumb thing for them to do, but your objection is a bit simplistic.)
No worries, a telepathic network approach would never get very far. The infrastructure in most neighborhoods wouldn't support it. ;->