I don't think he's being overly paranoid here. Although Sandia is certainly not diabolical, anyone who has ever worked for Sandia/Los Alamos/Livermore knows that weapons research is their bread and butter. They may justify nanotech weapons applications by preparing counter-measures for foreseen attacks. They certainly will not ignore the weapons applications of any technology. Just ask Ed Teller, he'll tell you why: "If they do it, we have to do it."
I did what it was about. I made a mistake in using the word upload, but chose that word out of habit. Regardless of whether is only takes two seconds, are you telling me you are going to sit and repeatedly load one CD after another into your drive 100 times? Have fun.
OK, so in the red corner we have science and engineering in which "there's one right answer-- it can be tested for correctness"
Where do you get this "one right answer" stuff for science and enigineering? Like there's only one way to build a bridge. Didn't you realize that in most of your intro courses back in school you were taught completely different things than your advanced classes?
Let's see. The world is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Witches are made of wood. The Ether connects everything. Read the "100 years ago" section of Scientific American if you're looking for right answers.
It is really common for cultures to think they invented everything and no one used to live like they did. Well, that's a flaw. You want to see a wicked example of flaming, see James Joyce's letter to his publishers when he was trying to get Dubliners published. (Sorry no URL for that one.) What you will find is a subtle blend of insult, mockery, and intellectual superiority. Which of course is the substance of the perfect flame.
Flaming isn't unique to the net. Watch British Parliment. It's a real hoot. Of course, flaming gets magnified on the web for three reasons:
1. There is no risk of getting the sh*t kicked out of you.
2. Everyone can see it, and it just stays there taunting you, so you feel the urge to flame back.
3. The remote aspect of the net can make people exasperated. Ever have problems with a remote server which relied on someone else's system? By the time you get in touch with them, you're burning. On the net, you expect things to happen instantly. This breeds impatience.
Have fun uploading 100 CD's. And creating that playlist. I find I won't be into more than 10 CD's at the same time.
I think that the time it takes to configure this stuff takes away from its value. The only way to really take advantage of it would be to buy all your CD's there and thus have them instantly online.
[tongueincheek] I'm excited that technology has gotten to the point where you can listen to music without carrying it around. [/tongueincheek]
Soon, mp3.com will be selling memberships where you can listen to a certain amount of mp3's per time period. And so you don't have to spend the time to make the play list they'll make a randomizing function. After that, they'll give away free memberships that are paid for by advertising. And then... wait, we already have this. It's called radio.
Why make it that hard... just create a username and password and pass it out to all 1000 of your friends. Create seperate channels if you like. You'll never have to buy another CD again.
you've just de-anonymized every club-card purchase you've ever made, and every one you ever make in the future.
Oh deary dear... someone out there knows I wear size nine shoes, eat broccoli, and once bought a Hallmark card that said "Get well soon, or I'll stomp you in da head!"
Mine my data all you want folks. All you're going to end up with is a sh*tload of info worth exactly that, a sh*tload. All these companies are wasting their time with this stuff. They are going to stockpile all this data and then figure out that it's absolutely worthless. Haven't they ever heard of the central limit theorem?
Of course, if you're purchasing patterns are putting up flags in some database in some bureau, you'll want to stick with cash. But you already know that.
If you're that paranoid, consider moving to the third world. They'll need a spy satellite to track you down.
Everybody is saying that this thing is about content. I don't get it. If I want content, I'll watch TV or read a magazine. All these people that think that users are going to be watching TV through the Internet are out of it. People use the Internet for entirely different reasons.
What is it about? For AOL it's about marketing. TW's media are said to reach about a sixth of the planet. Now that sixth will be inundated with AOL ads and find their disks everywhere.
For TW, it's about market cap. All those Brick and Mortars out there are turning green looking at the Net stock craze. Do they want in on it? You bet your asterix. How do they get in? Merge.
1. New AOL users have absolutely no idea what the terms open source, linux, or browser mean.
2. AOL was their first ISP and they have never used anything better. (What isn't better than AOL?)
3. Who hasn't seen a disk giving away free hours on AOL?
4. Using a normal ISP requires a modicum of knowledge - setting up your modem to dial out, knowing how to configure your POP3 and SMTP servers, knowing what a URL is.
5. Seeing AOL in the news might give people the impression that they are a quality ISP.
You see, AOL realized that the real market is new users - people who have bought a computer for the first time and can get as far as their "Start" button. Beyond that new users have trouble. Knowing this, AOL designs for the LCD. And in the states, the LCD is a PFB segment of the population.
Beyond AOL's shortcomings, this merger is the Internet's coming of age. I expect people to start refering to Internet years in terms of 0 TM (the merger) starting now.
Agreed... Netscrape has to figure out some semblance of business plan before they move on. And although Mozilla is a noble idea, it has yet to be anything but a myth.
The war isn't over yet as we still have that 18-25% that insist on using Netscrape. Why do they continue to use it? I wish I knew. But I'll guarantee that their reasons are political.
Refusing to give in to Microsoft is noble. But holding onto and supporting an inferior product is not doing anybody any good. Even AOL, who owns Netscrape, uses IE.
Netscrape should do the right thing and put NN to sleep (like the boy in old yeller). Mozilla should continue, but with the foresight that their browser will be used for niche devices, and design accordingly.
I'd like to see aggregate Web Hosting Services publish their client retention rate - ie. the number of domains currently with them / the number of domains that have ever signed up for their hosting.
Think about it - If they're a good host, their customers should be sticking with them. Of course there would always be cases where domains grew beyond the hosts' bandwidth capabilites or domains that went out of business, but these should come out in the wash.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think he's being overly paranoid here. Although Sandia is certainly not diabolical, anyone who has ever worked for Sandia/Los Alamos/Livermore knows that weapons research is their bread and butter. They may justify nanotech weapons applications by preparing counter-measures for foreseen attacks. They certainly will not ignore the weapons applications of any technology. Just ask Ed Teller, he'll tell you why: "If they do it, we have to do it."
Is this paranoid? No, just the way it works.
I did what it was about. I made a mistake in using the word upload, but chose that word out of habit. Regardless of whether is only takes two seconds, are you telling me you are going to sit and repeatedly load one CD after another into your drive 100 times? Have fun.
OK, so in the red corner we have science and engineering in which "there's one right answer-- it can be tested for correctness"
Where do you get this "one right answer" stuff for science and enigineering? Like there's only one way to build a bridge. Didn't you realize that in most of your intro courses back in school you were taught completely different things than your advanced classes?
Let's see. The world is flat. The earth is the center of the universe. Witches are made of wood. The Ether connects everything. Read the "100 years ago" section of Scientific American if you're looking for right answers.
It is really common for cultures to think they invented everything and no one used to live like they did. Well, that's a flaw. You want to see a wicked example of flaming, see James Joyce's letter to his publishers when he was trying to get Dubliners published. (Sorry no URL for that one.) What you will find is a subtle blend of insult, mockery, and intellectual superiority. Which of course is the substance of the perfect flame.
Flaming isn't unique to the net. Watch British Parliment. It's a real hoot. Of course, flaming gets magnified on the web for three reasons:
1. There is no risk of getting the sh*t kicked out of you.
2. Everyone can see it, and it just stays there taunting you, so you feel the urge to flame back.
3. The remote aspect of the net can make people exasperated. Ever have problems with a remote server which relied on someone else's system? By the time you get in touch with them, you're burning. On the net, you expect things to happen instantly. This breeds impatience.
Have fun uploading 100 CD's. And creating that playlist. I find I won't be into more than 10 CD's at the same time.
... wait, we already have this. It's called radio.
I think that the time it takes to configure this stuff takes away from its value. The only way to really take advantage of it would be to buy all your CD's there and thus have them instantly online.
[tongueincheek] I'm excited that technology has gotten to the point where you can listen to music without carrying it around. [/tongueincheek]
Soon, mp3.com will be selling memberships where you can listen to a certain amount of mp3's per time period. And so you don't have to spend the time to make the play list they'll make a randomizing function. After that, they'll give away free memberships that are paid for by advertising. And then
Why make it that hard ... just create a username and password and pass it out to all 1000 of your friends. Create seperate channels if you like. You'll never have to buy another CD again.
you've just de-anonymized every club-card purchase you've ever made, and every one you ever make in the future.
... someone out there knows I wear size nine shoes, eat broccoli, and once bought a Hallmark card that said "Get well soon, or I'll stomp you in da head!"
Oh deary dear
Mine my data all you want folks. All you're going to end up with is a sh*tload of info worth exactly that, a sh*tload. All these companies are wasting their time with this stuff. They are going to stockpile all this data and then figure out that it's absolutely worthless. Haven't they ever heard of the central limit theorem?
Of course, if you're purchasing patterns are putting up flags in some database in some bureau, you'll want to stick with cash. But you already know that.
If you're that paranoid, consider moving to the third world. They'll need a spy satellite to track you down.
Everybody is saying that this thing is about content. I don't get it. If I want content, I'll watch TV or read a magazine. All these people that think that users are going to be watching TV through the Internet are out of it. People use the Internet for entirely different reasons.
What is it about? For AOL it's about marketing. TW's media are said to reach about a sixth of the planet. Now that sixth will be inundated with AOL ads and find their disks everywhere.
For TW, it's about market cap. All those Brick and Mortars out there are turning green looking at the Net stock craze. Do they want in on it? You bet your asterix. How do they get in? Merge.
See what this monster has become.
1. New AOL users have absolutely no idea what the terms open source, linux, or browser mean.
2. AOL was their first ISP and they have never used anything better. (What isn't better than AOL?)
3. Who hasn't seen a disk giving away free hours on AOL?
4. Using a normal ISP requires a modicum of knowledge - setting up your modem to dial out, knowing how to configure your POP3 and SMTP servers, knowing what a URL is.
5. Seeing AOL in the news might give people the impression that they are a quality ISP.
You see, AOL realized that the real market is new users - people who have bought a computer for the first time and can get as far as their "Start" button. Beyond that new users have trouble. Knowing this, AOL designs for the LCD. And in the states, the LCD is a PFB segment of the population.
Beyond AOL's shortcomings, this merger is the Internet's coming of age. I expect people to start refering to Internet years in terms of 0 TM (the merger) starting now.
Agreed ... Netscrape has to figure out some semblance of business plan before they move on. And although Mozilla is a noble idea, it has yet to be anything but a myth.
The war isn't over yet as we still have that 18-25% that insist on using Netscrape. Why do they continue to use it? I wish I knew. But I'll guarantee that their reasons are political.
Refusing to give in to Microsoft is noble. But holding onto and supporting an inferior product is not doing anybody any good. Even AOL, who owns Netscrape, uses IE.
Netscrape should do the right thing and put NN to sleep (like the boy in old yeller). Mozilla should continue, but with the foresight that their browser will be used for niche devices, and design accordingly.
I'd like to see aggregate Web Hosting Services publish their client retention rate - ie. the number of domains currently with them / the number of domains that have ever signed up for their hosting.
Think about it - If they're a good host, their customers should be sticking with them. Of course there would always be cases where domains grew beyond the hosts' bandwidth capabilites or domains that went out of business, but these should come out in the wash.