Did the EU build and fund the GSM network? No, they just sold the licenses. The network described here is funded by the govt and contracted via govt procedures. Look for $10,000 ethernet cables attached to the bills for this project.
IRS DMV CIA FBI INS DOE...you will find more corruption, pollution, graft, waste and inefficiency hiding behind govt three letter acronyms than anything in the private sector.
Within the next two years max. That spells trouble for Google and its shareholders, who still place a very high premium on what is quickly becoming a common service. Fortunately for Google insiders, they should be able to cash out long before the regular dopes in investorland figure this out.
Sure, the first iteration will be great. Then the funding will be curtailed to a "maintainence" level, and within a few years it will be vastly inferior to the regular internet, and vastly less reliable. People fund infrastructure when it is new and shiny but when the new construction is done, no one wants to pay for upkeep. The regular internet avoids this dilemma with competition and the profit motive.
Trust me, in a decade, military types will be calling this thing a clunker government project.
Go ahead Uncle Sam, your net will end up being crappier than the privately funded net, and maybe just maybe then you can just spy on your own employees instead of the rest of us. NAH. In any case, this will end up being an inflexible white elephant with the same type of administration you expect from the DMV. After a few years the govt will realize the public internet is actually superior and more redundant and.mil will magically reappear.
Apparently, you're saying the media should only report one side of an argument.
No, I am saying that intelligence should be able to separate the possible and the reasonable. Is it reasonable to assume that all of our pollution is not the cause of global warming? No. Is it theoretically possible? Sure. The Stupid Contrarian cannot distinguish between the two.
With regards to Peterson, is it theoretically possible that a cult killed Laci like we are told? Theoretically possible. Yet is this reasonable? No. The jurors are going to confuse theory and reality.
A classic pattern of the stupid contrarian is that they confuse the theoretically possible with what reasonably can be expected. In the Scott Peterson case we see people seriously considering that a Satanic cult was behind the murders. It is possible isn't it? Sure, its also possible that Martians came down and committed the crime and then high-tailed it back home. It is theoretically possible. Since we cannot say Martians did not do it beyond a shadow of all theoretical possibility, we must acquit. Thus thinks the Stupid Contrarian.
The point of my post is to debunk the notion that there is always subjectivity and that the minority is always right. Some times facts simpy exist. It requires a certain degree of intelligence to accept facts and not attempt to out-think them. The Stupid Contrarian never will get to this point - you can raise the temperature 10 degrees in December and they will still claim no global warming exists. Why? Because secretly they hope someone smarter than them will prove this and they will be able to claim the genius status of being the first to recognize it. Or maybe they are just a**holes who will never give in due to their own politics or perspective.
Global warming, the Scott Peterson trial etc etc...the apparent and inherent need for "balance" has convinced people that there are always two sides to a debate, hence there is no objectivity, only subjectivity.
In reality its the rise of the stupid contrarian, the individual who is unwilling to accept the obvious but instead clings to the often illogical notion that there is always a deeper answer that only they see, which will eventually lead to acceptance of they themselves as visionaries. Blogs in particular have made life very easy for the Stupid Contrarian, as well as popular media like CSI. Scott Peterson in particular will walk free because jurors are convinced now by popular media that not only is there always DNA evidence for a crime, it is now a necessary precondition for guilt...because heck, they always find it in the last five minutes of CSI.
When do you upgrade? If you are poor, hardly ever. If you are rich, whenever you want. In fact for the rich, the hassle of setting up a new piece of equipment is probably a stronger disincentive than the cost.
Statistical text analysis and link analysis are a superior technique because it presumes the author could be BSing. The entire document must contribute to the corresponding query value, not just keyphrases which could or could not be true. This is why Google is a $50 billion company and no RDF firm ever will be.
The AI crowd has moved to statistical text analysis...ie, search engines. The polar opposite of what this crowd (the SGML die-hards) are doing. The SGML die-hards have made a valiant go of it, from the 80s until now...they really thought they had it made with XML until they killed it with standards and committees. Now they hope RDF will validate them, pun intended!
RDF has been collecting mold next to XSL and XML Schema for some time now. Its practically impossible to say anything interesting easily using RDF. Try composing even a moderately interesting RDF document yourself and you will see why no one is using it.
The point of metadata criticisms is that "untrustworthy" would have to be assigned to practically every tag. So, what is the point? In any case its just another opinion. Is dmoz.org trustworthy? Is it if I say so in my n3? Maybe, maybe not.
You have yet to explain how killer robots in space could possibly address the issue of terrorists that the US armed forces can't even seem to locate inside a country they currently occupy with nearly half a million soldiers.
Military contractors are having a field day selling all manner of ridiculous, untested, worthless junk to the government at insane prices and none of this is an accident or oversight.
I know that sounds like an odd way to put it, but the top-down academic methods like specification and modelling seem to make so many assumptions about human insight at the design stage...assumptions proven wrong time and again...its amazing people still cling to the dead idea.
How many times have I logged in to/. to find someone from a.edu account tell me my software would be better if I wasn't such an idiot and used to modelling technique developed by their research group, composed of individuals who have never written code outside of a class assignment. Gee, don't you think that if UML made the world's problems go away we'd all be using it?
Sure design and specification is useful, no one is saying you should just start hacking out a major product, but come on, bugs are going to happen and they are going to be things you didn't think of when you are toying around with your specification tool.
Do people really believe you can design away bugs? I mean, this seemed to be popular in academic circles in the 80s and 90s but I don't think anyone really believes that UML, Z, etc or any other "big design methodology" will eliminate bugs. Hence the rise of extremely iterative models in their place.
Its interesting to see that people still cling to the dead idea that you can design perfection up front if you spend enough time doing it, even though there is very little evidence to support this and mountains of evidence against it.
I'm saying that a complete search and an useful search are contradictory design goals.
And you are wrong. A complete data set is a necessary precondition for a viable result. You are continuing to confuse algorithmic sophistication with your desire to impose your limited worldview on others.
This is a meaningless term that has been repeated so many times that people are beginning to believe it means something. It was first offered as a slander on striking American union workers. Their employer hired a Madison Ave ad man to come up with ways to discredit them, and "anti-American" was the catchphrase he offered them.
Lets get this straight - the term has no meaning, it is a logic vaccum, it is what the mentally handicapped trot out as an retort when they are backed into a corner.
With the amount of massive foreign debt we are currently holding, coupled with the public's unwillingness to deal with this issue at all in any capacity, means massive fiscal crises are almost certain. The fact that economists cannot even determine if it will be inflationary or deflationary shows you how random this scenario is. We're in uncharted fiscal waters kids...the US is the center of the world economy and also the world's largest debtor.
Would Kerry have pulled out of Iraq quickly? NOPE.
Would Kerry have either raised taxes or slashed services as we have been repeatedly warned we need to do to IMMEDIATELY to curb the fiscal crisis? NOPE.
Would Kerry have rolled back corporate rule in this country? NOPE.
Kerry's presidency would have been a sham attempt to reinvent the Clinton era.
Both parties to quote Gore Vidal have simply become two branches of the Property Party. Both parties are primarily interested in feeding the special interest groups that they rely on for funding (yes, this goes for Democrats too).
The situation for Americans wanting a real choice is becoming more bleak with each election. We need new parties.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the EU build and fund the GSM network? No, they just sold the licenses. The network described here is funded by the govt and contracted via govt procedures. Look for $10,000 ethernet cables attached to the bills for this project.
IRS DMV CIA FBI INS DOE...you will find more corruption, pollution, graft, waste and inefficiency hiding behind govt three letter acronyms than anything in the private sector.
Within the next two years max. That spells trouble for Google and its shareholders, who still place a very high premium on what is quickly becoming a common service. Fortunately for Google insiders, they should be able to cash out long before the regular dopes in investorland figure this out.
Trust me, in a decade, military types will be calling this thing a clunker government project.
Go ahead Uncle Sam, your net will end up being crappier than the privately funded net, and maybe just maybe then you can just spy on your own employees instead of the rest of us. NAH. In any case, this will end up being an inflexible white elephant with the same type of administration you expect from the DMV. After a few years the govt will realize the public internet is actually superior and more redundant and .mil will magically reappear.
No, I am saying that intelligence should be able to separate the possible and the reasonable. Is it reasonable to assume that all of our pollution is not the cause of global warming? No. Is it theoretically possible? Sure. The Stupid Contrarian cannot distinguish between the two.
With regards to Peterson, is it theoretically possible that a cult killed Laci like we are told? Theoretically possible. Yet is this reasonable? No. The jurors are going to confuse theory and reality.
A classic pattern of the stupid contrarian is that they confuse the theoretically possible with what reasonably can be expected. In the Scott Peterson case we see people seriously considering that a Satanic cult was behind the murders. It is possible isn't it? Sure, its also possible that Martians came down and committed the crime and then high-tailed it back home. It is theoretically possible. Since we cannot say Martians did not do it beyond a shadow of all theoretical possibility, we must acquit. Thus thinks the Stupid Contrarian.
The point of my post is to debunk the notion that there is always subjectivity and that the minority is always right. Some times facts simpy exist. It requires a certain degree of intelligence to accept facts and not attempt to out-think them. The Stupid Contrarian never will get to this point - you can raise the temperature 10 degrees in December and they will still claim no global warming exists. Why? Because secretly they hope someone smarter than them will prove this and they will be able to claim the genius status of being the first to recognize it. Or maybe they are just a**holes who will never give in due to their own politics or perspective.
In reality its the rise of the stupid contrarian, the individual who is unwilling to accept the obvious but instead clings to the often illogical notion that there is always a deeper answer that only they see, which will eventually lead to acceptance of they themselves as visionaries. Blogs in particular have made life very easy for the Stupid Contrarian, as well as popular media like CSI. Scott Peterson in particular will walk free because jurors are convinced now by popular media that not only is there always DNA evidence for a crime, it is now a necessary precondition for guilt...because heck, they always find it in the last five minutes of CSI.
When do you upgrade? If you are poor, hardly ever. If you are rich, whenever you want. In fact for the rich, the hassle of setting up a new piece of equipment is probably a stronger disincentive than the cost.
Statistical text analysis and link analysis are a superior technique because it presumes the author could be BSing. The entire document must contribute to the corresponding query value, not just keyphrases which could or could not be true. This is why Google is a $50 billion company and no RDF firm ever will be.
The AI crowd has moved to statistical text analysis...ie, search engines. The polar opposite of what this crowd (the SGML die-hards) are doing. The SGML die-hards have made a valiant go of it, from the 80s until now...they really thought they had it made with XML until they killed it with standards and committees. Now they hope RDF will validate them, pun intended!
DJIA/NASDAQ traded firms specializing at least partly in statistical recognition of text as a business model:
GOOG,YHOO,MSFT etc etc
DJIA/NASDAQ firms using metadata as a business model:
When is the future supposed to arrive again?
RDF has been collecting mold next to XSL and XML Schema for some time now. Its practically impossible to say anything interesting easily using RDF. Try composing even a moderately interesting RDF document yourself and you will see why no one is using it.
The point of metadata criticisms is that "untrustworthy" would have to be assigned to practically every tag. So, what is the point? In any case its just another opinion. Is dmoz.org trustworthy? Is it if I say so in my n3? Maybe, maybe not.
You have yet to explain how killer robots in space could possibly address the issue of terrorists that the US armed forces can't even seem to locate inside a country they currently occupy with nearly half a million soldiers.
Military contractors are having a field day selling all manner of ridiculous, untested, worthless junk to the government at insane prices and none of this is an accident or oversight.
How many times have I logged in to /. to find someone from a .edu account tell me my software would be better if I wasn't such an idiot and used to modelling technique developed by their research group, composed of individuals who have never written code outside of a class assignment. Gee, don't you think that if UML made the world's problems go away we'd all be using it?
Sure design and specification is useful, no one is saying you should just start hacking out a major product, but come on, bugs are going to happen and they are going to be things you didn't think of when you are toying around with your specification tool.
Its interesting to see that people still cling to the dead idea that you can design perfection up front if you spend enough time doing it, even though there is very little evidence to support this and mountains of evidence against it.
And you are wrong. A complete data set is a necessary precondition for a viable result. You are continuing to confuse algorithmic sophistication with your desire to impose your limited worldview on others.
Every search engine has a name.
that makes intelligent decisions for me
Your self-censorship isn't intelligent. Also, you are advocating this for all users of the engine.
ince I have no desire to see these images, I'm perfectly happy to have them filtered
How did you know you did not want to see them without ever yviewing them? You must have already looked at them at least once.
Geesh! I want some neural net fuzzy logic processing going on. Some brains in the picture.
You continue to confuse brains with someone confirming to your limited worldview.
Lets get this straight - the term has no meaning, it is a logic vaccum, it is what the mentally handicapped trot out as an retort when they are backed into a corner.
With the amount of massive foreign debt we are currently holding, coupled with the public's unwillingness to deal with this issue at all in any capacity, means massive fiscal crises are almost certain. The fact that economists cannot even determine if it will be inflationary or deflationary shows you how random this scenario is. We're in uncharted fiscal waters kids...the US is the center of the world economy and also the world's largest debtor.
Would Kerry have either raised taxes or slashed services as we have been repeatedly warned we need to do to IMMEDIATELY to curb the fiscal crisis? NOPE.
Would Kerry have rolled back corporate rule in this country? NOPE.
Kerry's presidency would have been a sham attempt to reinvent the Clinton era.
The situation for Americans wanting a real choice is becoming more bleak with each election. We need new parties.