32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.
if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?
Better analogy: Suppose you are a surgeon who wants to perform a dangerous operation. You start asking other surgeons to back up your decision, and promise them the most prestigious position in their specialty if they do. Suppose you find a surgeon who accepts the compromised position.
Now suppose he is the chair of the malpractice board. And that HIPPAA has been extended to give unlimited authority to seal records. Suppose you are the HIPPAA compliance officer and can seal all records that might implicate the chair of the malpractice board.
Now, suppose you were the patient in that situation. Would you get the operation?
One more: Suppose it weren't just a doctor we were talking about, but The President of The United States. Would that not be an even more unacceptable situation?
People with extraordinary power or risk -- military officers, detectives, surgeons, ship's captains, pilots, over-the-road truck drivers, structural welders, wildcatters -- have extraordinary obligations to diligence. The greater the power or risk, the greater their obligation, and the smaller the tolerance for error. The punishment for failure is termination from employ. The punishment for negligent failure is stricter than on people not in such positions. The punishment for willful negligence harsher still. And the punishment for premeditated and intentional abrogation of duty is truly severe.
It's about holding our elected officials to a higher standard. Not to sound too jingoistic, but this is America, dammit. We deserve the very best defending the principles of The Constitution. If a person who accepts that mantle fails in their duty, the punishment should befit the extraordinary nature of the position.
There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.
Do you mean another reason, or just that cloistered academics get their feathers ruffled when academia escapes their gated cloister into the hands of the plebian masses?
Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books? Because no.
Not even a very good straw man; neither is an intellectual fountain. Both are mediums. They're radically different mediums serving different purposes. Calling one more important than the other is like calling horses more important than cows. It's barely a rational string of words, much less a meaningful conjecture.
Books are a more structured, slower medium. Much better for long-term storage of processed information. Twitter is faster and less structured, with a lot more noise. Our brains are fast and unstructured, bubbling with constant noise. Twitter is more like our brains than are books. That is what makes it interesting.
Now, take it from there. Think about the implications, toss out some thoughts. It's more interesting than facile aspersions cast at poorly constructed straw men.
First, I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.
Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research. I would like to see more of this sort of behavior. It is primarily those cops who fail to seek truth through research that are problematic. If a good cop finds out he's got the wrong suspect, he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp. Bad cops are still a problem, but research doesn't change that.
Third, as noted by others, Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way all research tools should be; with skepticism, verification, and critical thinking. Cops, particularly detectives, are trained in such thinking. It is how they find bad guys. To the extent that they are not skilled in that art, it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops. Fix city hall or increase compensation, but don't blame Wikipedia.
Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he or she is going to target that info and try to break it. They will present their contrary findings, if any, in court. Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content. Heck, the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections.
But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.
Take that line a step further and you get transhumanism. We are no longer an isolated life form, but are inherently coupled with our tools. Tools that extend our minds around the planet. The Internet.
Books are cool, but they're pretty uni-directional. Wikipedia is cooler, updating our knowledge base in real time. Twitter is even faster; a brain extension so fast and light that it recently fomented revolution.
Yeah, we're past genes. What's more, we're rapidly passing static tools like rocks, newspapers, and books. Our minds are connected to each other in real-time, planet-wide. Our individual minds are gaining connectivity to the hive mind and extending our capabilities, much as our giant neocortex lifted us above the other animals.
Perl is glue. Glue is messy. It's supposed to be messy;
Well said, my friend! I love me some Perl hacks, and often use it to whip up a quick cut at an analysis when we're not sure of the value of the data that will come out. If it looks like the ROI is there to justify it, I build a more robust implementation in a stricter language.
I was going to say just this. 95% sounds good until you start thinking about it - but that means that in every hour of usage, the chair is going to spend three full minutes misbehaving.
OK, sure, but answer this: When you go out for an hour walk, do you ever stumble or overbalance? Sure, the wheelchair isn't perfect -- but neither are we.
Three minutes? I'd guess this thing is about as effective at understanding the brain's motive commands as an average six year old. That's pretty good.
Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that. It's a mixture of the maths, physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing. Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow, not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country. Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced' at commodity rates.
Witty and incisive. Well done. Keep up the good work -- the world needs more folks like you presenting these sorts of points in such a manner.
Does research generate more or less long-run ROI in the corporation than rigor? Is there a place for both approaches? Assuming you have a proficient software engineer of each type, how does the corporation maximize shareholder value with each skill set?
If he had posed those questions, and maybe troubled himself to make a passing attempt at exploring the answer space, this article might be interesting. As it is, it is a mindless hit piece. Corporations need a balance of free-running and rigorous direction. This is particularly true in the high tech sector, which is far from a done deal. This stuff is evolving at lightning pace; exploration has solid value, as does mechanism. Consider what happens when you rigidly apply best practices in our field; you wind up with a system that is heavily coupled to CORBA, RUP, EJB, MDA, SOAP, and a dozen other zombie acronyms.
The problem is not research versus rigor, it is knowing how to apply each to appropriate problems. That is supposed to be a management task, but they don't understand our field and so don't know how to let a good horse run. They also do not know how to distinguish a good horse from a gluepot, so they do not trust either. And so management tends to prefer the rigorous engineer -- not because he generates more ROI, but because they understand him better. I must cut this short as I am starting to spin off topic, but I highly recommend reading Peter Drucker's exploration of the knowledge worker to see where my point was about to wander.
In a rush, haven't read the full post or comments yet, but this is screaming in my head:
Normally the "damages" for unauthorized copying of a MySpace post would be so close to zero, that a moral victory in court is all you could get.
I don't think it's about "damages". Doesn't willful infringement for commercial gain carry extra penalties? Jammie got hit with $80k each for willful infringement not for commercial gain.
First: the fundamental problem: We live in a global economy. This will absolutely increase the cost of domestically produced carbon-intensive goods relative to foreign produced carbon intensive goods from countries that are not affected by the program (unless we implement an import tariff to match the internal effective tax).
That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it is a fact which must be weighed when considering the program.
I still like the idea, though I would want the allotment (see below) to be high enough that it would be more of a gentle nudge than a baseball bat.
That's the problem, and my take, on the general concept. As for this specific embodiment, it is going to be a gigantic corruption engine, passing money from the biggest polluters to the most unscrupulous politicians, regulators, and lobbyists. But it can be solved, if you like the gentle nudge idea (or even if you like the baseball bat idea).
The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is the cap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollution allowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs, but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply.
So, what portion of those initial free credits do I get? Who decides how much each company gets? Is it based on industry? Revenue? Profit? Market cap? Campaign contributions?
My guess is that this is going to be another gigantic paean to incumbents and the big shaft for startups.
Here's my proposal:
Every U.S. voting citizen gets an equal share, to do with as they please, apportioned annually. Corps don't get any -- they have to buy them from citizens. Give yours to your employer, sell it, sit on it, whatever. After all, this is a public good that is up for sale, right? What possible fair system could be established for the government picking which corps to give them to?
To keep the prices reasonable at first, start with massive over-subscription. Allot 1,000,000x what we're producing now. That should solve the problems of the initial market not existing. Then just lower the rate by 10x per year until we get to the desired level. But don't just hand these things out to the biggest incumbents and screw new business.
Note that this approach would achieve exactly the objective:
People who want to "be green" can sit on their credits, and forgo the money.
People who consume less carbon-intensive products would pay less of the "passed on" cost from companies that have to buy lots of credits.
People who are willing to pay for carbon intensive goods can, and the glorious free market hands that money to people who make sacrifices to reduce carbon consumption.
Adjusting the annual allotment naturally adjusts the price.
No single person, whether CEO, laborer, politician, lobbyist, or EPA regulator, gets any disproportionate share of the public good.
Companies that cut carbon emissions can put their products on the market at a lower price.
The solution as proposed only achieves the last piece, and that only in an extraordinarily corruption-sensitive way.
Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.
That's because the man hours put into building free software are still dominated by software engineers.
Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.
Sounds good to me, Bruce. Please do whatever testing you feel is necessary, document your results clearly, and submit them to the appropriate projects. Most open source projects would be very grateful for your efforts.
Note: I'm assuming that you are offering to help, Bruce, not just bitching about the outstanding work that others have freely given. I'm sure you would never look this incomprehensibly valuable gift-horse in the mouth.
I wonder who gets to decide what a "Legitimate Software Application" is?
I was going to post the same thing. Sorry my mod points are on cooldown. Well said.
Corollary questions: Who decides how to distinguish between the data stream of a legitimate app and the data stream of an illegitimate app? What if they use an identical data stream? What level of false positive blocking is OK? False negative passing?
Corporate networks can filter at the protocol and packet level because they are independent networks whose need for security exceeds their need for liberty. Society-level networks require the opposite priority order to maximize societal profit. Tell your politician.
>> to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?
> I wouldn't say that Blackberries "sucked."
Nor would I -- I owned one for a few years. But I wouldn't call them smartphones, either. Smartphone implies "pocket computer." The Blackberries (the models that earned them the name "crackberry") are very nice wireless email devices, poor web browsers, and lousy cell phones. The wireless email device part they really nailed, but they're not smartphones any more than an electric typewriter is a computer.
Amusingly, Blackberry is perhaps the most significant case of American corporatists trying to kill a patent. Damned Canucks were horning in on our fiat monopoly games...
Except for the nasty gay reference (why...?) that was well-written.
Wow - very sorry to put it in a way that could be so easily misunderstood. I am totally in favor of whatever sexual and emotional bonds make a person happy. I meant it in the sense of pleasuring one another to the exclusion of outsiders, not about gender preference. I totally see, though, that my choice of turn of phrase could be easily misinterpreted and so I should avoid it.
Seriously, I'm sorry - I think anything that can give two people a little happiness is a beautiful thing.
In response, Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk. He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones, he said.
Corporate trusts are not supposed to decide what features go into products. That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists. Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of the silent hand of the market. If you want to share the risk and get some exposure, then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you. It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.
The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts, cartels, or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market. Demonstrably so:
Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?
Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before?
Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product?
Did you notice that prior to the iPhone, America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world? Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly "innovative" little idiocracy.
You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy, incompetent asses. Just like the auto manufacturers, except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you, you fat, lazy fucks, so they haven't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.
I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade, but as it turns out, the free market(*) is a more efficient solution. So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.
Well, that's what the Senators should have said, anyway.
* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me.
IBM has a worldwide portfolio of 40,000 patents. About half are lodged in the USA and the remainder split between Europe and Asia (where, of course, China is increasingly featuring). So far this year, IBM has filed 3,000 patents and is on target, says David, to maintain its record for the past 14 years of consistently filing more patents than anyone else.
So, if the definition of "new era for patent policy" is "more software patents", then yes (though I fail to see how that is "new" except that it is pressing harder on the accelerator down this destructive road). Granted, IBM is opposed to business method patents, but that is no surprise since their ability to innovate in business models is legendarily lackluster.
Nothing to see here. Same old moneyed interests using their monopoly-built position to buy more government access so they can create more monopoly rent opportunities for themselves.
I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported). (If they aren't vocally against it, they they are for it)
How about anything else? Something more public? Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision? They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA; the human faces behind the corporate mask. Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands. Someone please tell me that I'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands can't possibly want actions like this to continue.
I love it!
Frankly, I believe most of these artists are ashamed of what happens in their names. They are artists after all, and probably tend toward the touchy-feely end of the political spectrum.
Why are they not speaking out? Because they cannot bite the hand that feeds. And they have fallen into the mistaken notion that the RIAA is the hand that feeds. By reminding them that we are their customers, their fans, their base, we should be able to jar them out of their complacent acceptance of a broken system which is probably as offensive to them, on some level, as it is to us.
The DPD sufferers at the helms of the labels and RIAA are the ones damaging the music consumer market. It is important for the musicians to realize that this harm is being done. Ultimately, the RIAA and labels are the employees of the artists. Getting the artists to put them in their place, by making it clear that the RIAA and labels are harming the artists' customers, is critical to restoring a productive and healthy copyright system.
The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists. It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.
If that is valid (and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is highly questionable), then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice; the artists on her list:
Guns N Roses ("Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain")
Janet Jackson ("Let's What Awhile")
Goo Goo Dolls ("Iris")
Vanessa Williams ("Save the Best for Last")
Aerosmith ("Cryin")
Gloria Estefan ("Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You")
Green Day ("Basket Case")
Journey ("Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believing")
Destiny Child ("Bills, Bills, Bills")
Sara McLachlan ("Possession"; "Building a Mystery")
Richard Marx ("Now and Forever")
Linkin Park ("One Step Closer")
Sheryl Crow ("Run Baby Run")
Def Leppard ("Pour Some Sugar on Me")
No Doubt ("Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People")
Reba McEntire ("One Honest Heart")
Bryan Adams ("Somebody")
I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums. I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.
The Harvard Business School working paper finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the greater public access conclude that "weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society."
Wait! Don't tell them that yet!
Look at the explosion of user generated content on the Internet. People everywhere are creating their own media and cutting out the traditional copyright CABAL precisely because the traditionalists are broken. As long as the buggy-whip manufacturers continue to believe that their business model is viable, they will not innovate. As long as they don't innovate, the silent hand of the market will continue to move artists out of the CABAL and into the independent new media space. As soon as the CABAL realizes they are failing because they are wrong, they might start trying to do just enough of the right thing to survive while retaining their payola, large venue control, and other forms of market manipulation.
Don't tip them off yet - let them die of chronic denial.:)
The allegory you present is a powerful lens for considering conflict. It relies upon the assignment of values to the variables { wolves, sheepdogs, sheep }.
Consider these settings (there is a reason I used Iran as the example of where to move, it works on multiple levels):
Iran (Khamenei's view): Wolf: Rioters Sheep: Iranian General Public (non-rioters) Sheepdog: Ahmadinejad / Basij / &c
Iran (Mousavi's view): Wolf: Ahmadinejad / Basij / &c Sheep: Iranian General Public (non-rioters) Sheepdog: Rioters
As you can see, while the allegory is a powerful rhetorical tool, it depends heavily on context. Consider the following variable assignments:
Copyright (RIAA view): Wolf: P2P Sheep: Music consumers and artists Sheepdog: RIAA
Copyright (technologist view): Wolf: RIAA Sheep: American Public Sheepdog: NewYorkCountryLawyer / EFF / ACLU
US (Cheney's view): Wolf: Terrorists (foreign and domestic) Sheep: American Public Sheepdog: Cheney / NSA / CIA / &c
US (Constitutional conservative view): Wolf: Those who would weaken the Constitution. Sheep: American Public Sheepdog: Those who defend the Constitution.
So, while your allegory is a strong one, it is a way of looking at a question. It does nothing to address the fundamental questions: What are you trying to protect? What do you hold most dear?
Me? I'm a United States patriot. I believe the Constitution, warts and all, is one of the finest things ever created by man. And the Bill of Rights (which defines those things which the Government has never been granted authority over) is it's most magnificent component.
And, I will be a sheepdog advocating it. And happily face the increased risk of death from terrorism. Because the end of the principles upon which this nation was built would be worse than my death.
Anyways, I am sure the NSA isn't as you describe them. They shouldn't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives. They aren't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me. They are misguided, sure, but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid.
I know I cannot convince the NSA to act American, but I can point out the folly of their action by portraying them as what they are: An organization that believes free citizens, talking privately, are a threat. That is the definition of fear. That I choose to personify them to illustrate the point is, I think, reasonable. But I understand and respect your disagreement -- it may seem that I am attacking the individuals, some of whom probably do not wet their beds when they worry about what I might be thinking.
Oh, and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events.
Do you think I chose Iran as the example accidentally?!? It's a multiple-level thing. Think about it.
Essentially, it's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream, they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream. The only solution is to then step outside of that stream (i.e., out of normal USA society) by moving elsewhere, or getting "off the grid" somehow.
I feel you. [that doesn't sound right without the matching verbal inflection, but I'm keeping it because it is what I mean]
But I'd rather stay here and try to re-ignite patriotism in our hearts and minds than try to create it somewhere else. I'm an ornery prick.:^)
Now the theory for the free market is that if two established players with 50% market share don't want to lower their prices, that a third party will enter the market and since an increase in market share at any profit margin will be an increase in overall revenue. This only works however if the cost of entry is as close to zero as possible, which in the modern era, it almost never is.
The free market is definitely not perfectly efficient in the short run. Through capital investment, however, it seeks efficiency in the long run. I believe that in natural systems, it does so better than other systems yet devised.
The underlying premises, however, must be firmly established. There must be no artificial barriers to entry (such as exclusive contracts). There must be no artificial barriers to perfect information (such as SLAPP suits). These and others are the areas in which the United States often fails to defend the free market from those who would destroy it, while claiming to be its supporters.
In this case, it is laissez-faire corporatists arguing for artificial barriers to entry who are damaging the ability of the free market (in the Adam Smith sense) to do as it is intended. It is those who attempt to frame anti-trust violations as "contract" or "free market", when in fact they are laissez-faire abuses of the free market (in the Adam Smith sense).
It is not the failure of the free market in this case. It is a failure to optimize the free market for the free action of the purse-holder. It is an offense against the free market, not an example of it.
I think it is worth reading again what Adam Smith has to say about exclusive contracts:
"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce [emphasis mine] which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
An exclusive contract is, precisely, a regulation of commerce. This regulation of commerce should, as Adam Smith said, be carefully examined with the most suspicious attention before being adopted. And, I believe, "wireless carriers support the development cost of handsets" is far too thin a rationalization for this offense against the free market and the silent hand of the purchaser.
Slashdot Mirror
32% of scientists identify themselves as Independent, while 55% say they're Democrats and 6% say they're Republicans.
Selecting a party instead of a candidate seems rather unscientific to me. I've probably voted for more Democrats than Republicans in my life, but it seems to me that the scientific approach is to study the evidence and select a candidate based on his record, stated positions, etc.
Frankly, lately, it strikes me that the most scientific approach might be to vote against the incumbent regardless of party. Incumbency seems to strongly correlate with making decisions based on things other than evidence. Incumbents seem inclined -- increasingly over duration of incumbency -- to base their decisions on favors they owe and promises of future favors they can collect rather than on evidence and deep, objective consideration.
if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?
Better analogy: Suppose you are a surgeon who wants to perform a dangerous operation. You start asking other surgeons to back up your decision, and promise them the most prestigious position in their specialty if they do. Suppose you find a surgeon who accepts the compromised position.
Now suppose he is the chair of the malpractice board. And that HIPPAA has been extended to give unlimited authority to seal records. Suppose you are the HIPPAA compliance officer and can seal all records that might implicate the chair of the malpractice board.
Now, suppose you were the patient in that situation. Would you get the operation?
One more: Suppose it weren't just a doctor we were talking about, but The President of The United States. Would that not be an even more unacceptable situation?
People with extraordinary power or risk -- military officers, detectives, surgeons, ship's captains, pilots, over-the-road truck drivers, structural welders, wildcatters -- have extraordinary obligations to diligence. The greater the power or risk, the greater their obligation, and the smaller the tolerance for error. The punishment for failure is termination from employ. The punishment for negligent failure is stricter than on people not in such positions. The punishment for willful negligence harsher still. And the punishment for premeditated and intentional abrogation of duty is truly severe.
It's about holding our elected officials to a higher standard. Not to sound too jingoistic, but this is America, dammit. We deserve the very best defending the principles of The Constitution. If a person who accepts that mantle fails in their duty, the punishment should befit the extraordinary nature of the position.
There's a reason many schools and professors don't allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source in papers.
Do you mean another reason, or just that cloistered academics get their feathers ruffled when academia escapes their gated cloister into the hands of the plebian masses?
Are you saying Twitter is a more important intellectual fountain than books? Because no.
Not even a very good straw man; neither is an intellectual fountain. Both are mediums. They're radically different mediums serving different purposes. Calling one more important than the other is like calling horses more important than cows. It's barely a rational string of words, much less a meaningful conjecture.
Books are a more structured, slower medium. Much better for long-term storage of processed information. Twitter is faster and less structured, with a lot more noise. Our brains are fast and unstructured, bubbling with constant noise. Twitter is more like our brains than are books. That is what makes it interesting.
Now, take it from there. Think about the implications, toss out some thoughts. It's more interesting than facile aspersions cast at poorly constructed straw men.
First, I think it is awesome to have another example of user generated media reaching the big leagues.
Second, I think it is great for cops to seek truth through research. I would like to see more of this sort of behavior. It is primarily those cops who fail to seek truth through research that are problematic. If a good cop finds out he's got the wrong suspect, he will get that person cleared and go after the real perp. Bad cops are still a problem, but research doesn't change that.
Third, as noted by others, Wikipedia is a good research tool when used the way all research tools should be; with skepticism, verification, and critical thinking. Cops, particularly detectives, are trained in such thinking. It is how they find bad guys. To the extent that they are not skilled in that art, it is because of a failure to retain sharp enough cops. Fix city hall or increase compensation, but don't blame Wikipedia.
Finally, and I think most importantly, think about the fact-checking this provides for Wikipedia. If the opposing attorney knows that information is coming from Wikipedia, he or she is going to target that info and try to break it. They will present their contrary findings, if any, in court. Those proceedings will be public and can be used to vet Wikipedia content. Heck, the attorney him or herself might submit the corrections.
But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.
Take that line a step further and you get transhumanism. We are no longer an isolated life form, but are inherently coupled with our tools. Tools that extend our minds around the planet. The Internet.
Books are cool, but they're pretty uni-directional. Wikipedia is cooler, updating our knowledge base in real time. Twitter is even faster; a brain extension so fast and light that it recently fomented revolution.
Yeah, we're past genes. What's more, we're rapidly passing static tools like rocks, newspapers, and books. Our minds are connected to each other in real-time, planet-wide. Our individual minds are gaining connectivity to the hive mind and extending our capabilities, much as our giant neocortex lifted us above the other animals.
See: Transhumanism
Perl is glue. Glue is messy. It's supposed to be messy;
Well said, my friend! I love me some Perl hacks, and often use it to whip up a quick cut at an analysis when we're not sure of the value of the data that will come out. If it looks like the ROI is there to justify it, I build a more robust implementation in a stricter language.
It's a toolbox. More tools is better.
I was going to say just this. 95% sounds good until you start thinking about it - but that means that in every hour of usage, the chair is going to spend three full minutes misbehaving.
OK, sure, but answer this: When you go out for an hour walk, do you ever stumble or overbalance? Sure, the wheelchair isn't perfect -- but neither are we.
Three minutes? I'd guess this thing is about as effective at understanding the brain's motive commands as an average six year old. That's pretty good.
Computer Science gives you a deep understanding not just HOW to use computers but something deeper than that. It's a mixture of the maths, physics and philosophy that underpins the whole concept of computing. Knowing what is possible and how to get there helps create the engineers of tomorrow, not some desk jockeys that solve transient problems and are equally interchangable with counterparts from any country. Most blue chip graduate programmes look for thinkers and creatives - not spare parts for the corporate machine that can be 'sourced' at commodity rates.
Witty and incisive. Well done. Keep up the good work -- the world needs more folks like you presenting these sorts of points in such a manner.
Thanks!
Does research generate more or less long-run ROI in the corporation than rigor? Is there a place for both approaches? Assuming you have a proficient software engineer of each type, how does the corporation maximize shareholder value with each skill set?
If he had posed those questions, and maybe troubled himself to make a passing attempt at exploring the answer space, this article might be interesting. As it is, it is a mindless hit piece. Corporations need a balance of free-running and rigorous direction. This is particularly true in the high tech sector, which is far from a done deal. This stuff is evolving at lightning pace; exploration has solid value, as does mechanism. Consider what happens when you rigidly apply best practices in our field; you wind up with a system that is heavily coupled to CORBA, RUP, EJB, MDA, SOAP, and a dozen other zombie acronyms.
The problem is not research versus rigor, it is knowing how to apply each to appropriate problems. That is supposed to be a management task, but they don't understand our field and so don't know how to let a good horse run. They also do not know how to distinguish a good horse from a gluepot, so they do not trust either. And so management tends to prefer the rigorous engineer -- not because he generates more ROI, but because they understand him better. I must cut this short as I am starting to spin off topic, but I highly recommend reading Peter Drucker's exploration of the knowledge worker to see where my point was about to wander.
In a rush, haven't read the full post or comments yet, but this is screaming in my head:
Normally the "damages" for unauthorized copying of a MySpace post would be so close to zero, that a moral victory in court is all you could get.
I don't think it's about "damages". Doesn't willful infringement for commercial gain carry extra penalties? Jammie got hit with $80k each for willful infringement not for commercial gain.
What am I missing?
First: the fundamental problem: We live in a global economy. This will absolutely increase the cost of domestically produced carbon-intensive goods relative to foreign produced carbon intensive goods from countries that are not affected by the program (unless we implement an import tariff to match the internal effective tax).
That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it is a fact which must be weighed when considering the program.
I still like the idea, though I would want the allotment (see below) to be high enough that it would be more of a gentle nudge than a baseball bat.
That's the problem, and my take, on the general concept. As for this specific embodiment, it is going to be a gigantic corruption engine, passing money from the biggest polluters to the most unscrupulous politicians, regulators, and lobbyists. But it can be solved, if you like the gentle nudge idea (or even if you like the baseball bat idea).
The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is the cap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollution allowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs, but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply.
So, what portion of those initial free credits do I get? Who decides how much each company gets? Is it based on industry? Revenue? Profit? Market cap? Campaign contributions?
My guess is that this is going to be another gigantic paean to incumbents and the big shaft for startups.
Here's my proposal:
Every U.S. voting citizen gets an equal share, to do with as they please, apportioned annually. Corps don't get any -- they have to buy them from citizens. Give yours to your employer, sell it, sit on it, whatever. After all, this is a public good that is up for sale, right? What possible fair system could be established for the government picking which corps to give them to?
To keep the prices reasonable at first, start with massive over-subscription. Allot 1,000,000x what we're producing now. That should solve the problems of the initial market not existing. Then just lower the rate by 10x per year until we get to the desired level. But don't just hand these things out to the biggest incumbents and screw new business.
Note that this approach would achieve exactly the objective:
People who want to "be green" can sit on their credits, and forgo the money.
People who consume less carbon-intensive products would pay less of the "passed on" cost from companies that have to buy lots of credits.
People who are willing to pay for carbon intensive goods can, and the glorious free market hands that money to people who make sacrifices to reduce carbon consumption.
Adjusting the annual allotment naturally adjusts the price.
No single person, whether CEO, laborer, politician, lobbyist, or EPA regulator, gets any disproportionate share of the public good.
Companies that cut carbon emissions can put their products on the market at a lower price.
The solution as proposed only achieves the last piece, and that only in an extraordinarily corruption-sensitive way.
Free software is still driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them.
That's because the man hours put into building free software are still dominated by software engineers.
Byfield suggests that the answer could be more user testing.
Sounds good to me, Bruce. Please do whatever testing you feel is necessary, document your results clearly, and submit them to the appropriate projects. Most open source projects would be very grateful for your efforts.
Note: I'm assuming that you are offering to help, Bruce, not just bitching about the outstanding work that others have freely given. I'm sure you would never look this incomprehensibly valuable gift-horse in the mouth.
I wonder who gets to decide what a "Legitimate Software Application" is?
I was going to post the same thing. Sorry my mod points are on cooldown. Well said.
Corollary questions: Who decides how to distinguish between the data stream of a legitimate app and the data stream of an illegitimate app? What if they use an identical data stream? What level of false positive blocking is OK? False negative passing?
Corporate networks can filter at the protocol and packet level because they are independent networks whose need for security exceeds their need for liberty. Society-level networks require the opposite priority order to maximize societal profit. Tell your politician.
>> to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?
> I wouldn't say that Blackberries "sucked."
Nor would I -- I owned one for a few years. But I wouldn't call them smartphones, either. Smartphone implies "pocket computer." The Blackberries (the models that earned them the name "crackberry") are very nice wireless email devices, poor web browsers, and lousy cell phones. The wireless email device part they really nailed, but they're not smartphones any more than an electric typewriter is a computer.
Amusingly, Blackberry is perhaps the most significant case of American corporatists trying to kill a patent. Damned Canucks were horning in on our fiat monopoly games...
Except for the nasty gay reference (why...?) that was well-written.
Wow - very sorry to put it in a way that could be so easily misunderstood. I am totally in favor of whatever sexual and emotional bonds make a person happy. I meant it in the sense of pleasuring one another to the exclusion of outsiders, not about gender preference. I totally see, though, that my choice of turn of phrase could be easily misinterpreted and so I should avoid it.
Seriously, I'm sorry - I think anything that can give two people a little happiness is a beautiful thing.
In response, Roth argued that exclusive deals enable innovation because the operator and manufacturer share the risk. He suggested that operators will ask manufacturers for certain features on phones but manufacturers will often only do so if the operator agrees to buy a certain number of phones, he said.
Corporate trusts are not supposed to decide what features go into products. That is one of the reasons that anti-trust regulation exists. Picking features and rewarding risk takers is the exclusive domain of the silent hand of the market. If you want to share the risk and get some exposure, then buy corporate bonds or non-voting shares from the handset manufacturer that pleases you. It is not a cartel or lateral monopoly's prerogative to manipulate decisions about product features.
The reason it is not the prerogative of trusts, cartels, or monopolies is because they are worse at it than the free market. Demonstrably so:
Did you notice, for example, that it took a computer company -- that had never had anything to do with cellular -- entering the market to finally get a smartphone that didn't suck into the US market?
Did you notice that the second acceptable smartphone came from a search engine company that had also never done cellular before?
Did you notice that that second smartphone got relegated to a third tier provider because the big boys were too busy sucking each others dicks to be bothered with an innovative product?
Did you notice that prior to the iPhone, America had just about the crappiest phones in the entire first world? Tiny little Taiwan was about a decade ahead of where we would be today were it not for Apple -- a complete outsider to your supposedly "innovative" little idiocracy.
You guys have been using your cartel to sit on your lazy, incompetent asses. Just like the auto manufacturers, except that Southeast Asian companies have a much harder time getting variances for cell towers than you, you fat, lazy fucks, so they haven't managed to kick your ass all up and down like they did to the auto makers.
I understand that you want to dictate features and restrain trade, but as it turns out, the free market(*) is a more efficient solution. So shove your transparent cartel rationalization up your ass and get out of my face.
Well, that's what the Senators should have said, anyway.
* Not laissez-faire, not anarchy: Adam Smith's free market, including regulation of anti-competitive behavior. Go re-read The Wealth of Nations if you doubt me.
From the linked article:
IBM has a worldwide portfolio of 40,000 patents. About half are lodged in the USA and the remainder split between Europe and Asia (where, of course, China is increasingly featuring). So far this year, IBM has filed 3,000 patents and is on target, says David, to maintain its record for the past 14 years of consistently filing more patents than anyone else.
So, if the definition of "new era for patent policy" is "more software patents", then yes (though I fail to see how that is "new" except that it is pressing harder on the accelerator down this destructive road). Granted, IBM is opposed to business method patents, but that is no surprise since their ability to innovate in business models is legendarily lackluster.
Nothing to see here. Same old moneyed interests using their monopoly-built position to buy more government access so they can create more monopoly rent opportunities for themselves.
I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported). (If they aren't vocally against it, they they are for it)
How about anything else? Something more public? Maybe trying to get a major media outlet to interview these bands about this decision? They are a bunch of cowards hiding behind the RIAA; the human faces behind the corporate mask. Our agressive response to this really should be in raising ire against these bands. Someone please tell me that I'm not hopelessly naive in thinking these bands can't possibly want actions like this to continue.
I love it!
Frankly, I believe most of these artists are ashamed of what happens in their names. They are artists after all, and probably tend toward the touchy-feely end of the political spectrum.
Why are they not speaking out? Because they cannot bite the hand that feeds. And they have fallen into the mistaken notion that the RIAA is the hand that feeds. By reminding them that we are their customers, their fans, their base, we should be able to jar them out of their complacent acceptance of a broken system which is probably as offensive to them, on some level, as it is to us.
The DPD sufferers at the helms of the labels and RIAA are the ones damaging the music consumer market. It is important for the musicians to realize that this harm is being done. Ultimately, the RIAA and labels are the employees of the artists. Getting the artists to put them in their place, by making it clear that the RIAA and labels are harming the artists' customers, is critical to restoring a productive and healthy copyright system.
The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists. It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.
If that is valid (and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is highly questionable), then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice; the artists on her list:
I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums. I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.
The Harvard Business School working paper finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the greater public access conclude that "weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society."
Wait! Don't tell them that yet!
Look at the explosion of user generated content on the Internet. People everywhere are creating their own media and cutting out the traditional copyright CABAL precisely because the traditionalists are broken. As long as the buggy-whip manufacturers continue to believe that their business model is viable, they will not innovate. As long as they don't innovate, the silent hand of the market will continue to move artists out of the CABAL and into the independent new media space. As soon as the CABAL realizes they are failing because they are wrong, they might start trying to do just enough of the right thing to survive while retaining their payola, large venue control, and other forms of market manipulation.
Don't tip them off yet - let them die of chronic denial. :)
The allegory you present is a powerful lens for considering conflict. It relies upon the assignment of values to the variables { wolves, sheepdogs, sheep }.
Consider these settings (there is a reason I used Iran as the example of where to move, it works on multiple levels):
Iran (Khamenei's view):
Wolf: Rioters
Sheep: Iranian General Public (non-rioters)
Sheepdog: Ahmadinejad / Basij / &c
Iran (Mousavi's view):
Wolf: Ahmadinejad / Basij / &c
Sheep: Iranian General Public (non-rioters)
Sheepdog: Rioters
As you can see, while the allegory is a powerful rhetorical tool, it depends heavily on context. Consider the following variable assignments:
Copyright (RIAA view):
Wolf: P2P
Sheep: Music consumers and artists
Sheepdog: RIAA
Copyright (technologist view):
Wolf: RIAA
Sheep: American Public
Sheepdog: NewYorkCountryLawyer / EFF / ACLU
US (Cheney's view):
Wolf: Terrorists (foreign and domestic)
Sheep: American Public
Sheepdog: Cheney / NSA / CIA / &c
NYC (Bloomberg / Lieberman view):
Wolf: Bronx Bombers
Sheep: New Yorkers
Sheepdog: FBI / NYPD
US (Constitutional conservative view):
Wolf: Those who would weaken the Constitution.
Sheep: American Public
Sheepdog: Those who defend the Constitution.
So, while your allegory is a strong one, it is a way of looking at a question. It does nothing to address the fundamental questions: What are you trying to protect? What do you hold most dear?
Me? I'm a United States patriot. I believe the Constitution, warts and all, is one of the finest things ever created by man. And the Bill of Rights (which defines those things which the Government has never been granted authority over) is it's most magnificent component.
And, I will be a sheepdog advocating it. And happily face the increased risk of death from terrorism. Because the end of the principles upon which this nation was built would be worse than my death.
Anyways, I am sure the NSA isn't as you describe them. They shouldn't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives. They aren't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me. They are misguided, sure, but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid.
I know I cannot convince the NSA to act American, but I can point out the folly of their action by portraying them as what they are: An organization that believes free citizens, talking privately, are a threat. That is the definition of fear. That I choose to personify them to illustrate the point is, I think, reasonable. But I understand and respect your disagreement -- it may seem that I am attacking the individuals, some of whom probably do not wet their beds when they worry about what I might be thinking.
Oh, and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events.
Do you think I chose Iran as the example accidentally?!? It's a multiple-level thing. Think about it.
Essentially, it's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream, they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream. The only solution is to then step outside of that stream (i.e., out of normal USA society) by moving elsewhere, or getting "off the grid" somehow.
I feel you. [that doesn't sound right without the matching verbal inflection, but I'm keeping it because it is what I mean]
But I'd rather stay here and try to re-ignite patriotism in our hearts and minds than try to create it somewhere else. I'm an ornery prick. :^)
Now the theory for the free market is that if two established players with 50% market share don't want to lower their prices, that a third party will enter the market and since an increase in market share at any profit margin will be an increase in overall revenue. This only works however if the cost of entry is as close to zero as possible, which in the modern era, it almost never is.
The free market is definitely not perfectly efficient in the short run. Through capital investment, however, it seeks efficiency in the long run. I believe that in natural systems, it does so better than other systems yet devised.
The underlying premises, however, must be firmly established. There must be no artificial barriers to entry (such as exclusive contracts). There must be no artificial barriers to perfect information (such as SLAPP suits). These and others are the areas in which the United States often fails to defend the free market from those who would destroy it, while claiming to be its supporters.
In this case, it is laissez-faire corporatists arguing for artificial barriers to entry who are damaging the ability of the free market (in the Adam Smith sense) to do as it is intended. It is those who attempt to frame anti-trust violations as "contract" or "free market", when in fact they are laissez-faire abuses of the free market (in the Adam Smith sense).
It is not the failure of the free market in this case. It is a failure to optimize the free market for the free action of the purse-holder. It is an offense against the free market, not an example of it.
I think it is worth reading again what Adam Smith has to say about exclusive contracts:
"To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce [emphasis mine] which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
An exclusive contract is, precisely, a regulation of commerce. This regulation of commerce should, as Adam Smith said, be carefully examined with the most suspicious attention before being adopted. And, I believe, "wireless carriers support the development cost of handsets" is far too thin a rationalization for this offense against the free market and the silent hand of the purchaser.