Yep, Sweden does it well. Norway has plans too, but I don't think the politicians really realize what they're talking about, and what it would take to achieve the goals they have set, so I don't think we will see anything implemented for a loooong time.
It's not the first time somebody has claimed that their experiment shows neutrinos to have mass. The last time this happened, there was a big group that claimed that "our experiment shows that neutrinos have mass". The nest article in the paper was written by a single researcher on the same group, and his conclusion was "nah, it doesn't".
It is interesting to see if there is solid statistics behind this, or if it is just about making sure to hype it up to get more funding.
(one shouldn't have to over-hype good research to get good grants, but those who sitting on the money don't care about science).
Indeed, I have also been fighting my share of extreme traditionalism, unwillingness to change, and so on. However, I wouldn't blame it on peer review. There are on the other hand many things that could have been avoided if peer-reviewers had been doing their job.
For example, it's all too common that papers are written as obscurely as possible, because, while you should have a lot of papers for your publication record, you also need to make sure that nobody else gets the idea and carry out the experiments you've planned. So, to make sure nobody "steals" the idea, people write obscure, non-reproducable papers (the other side of the issue is that people don't have the courtesy to stay away from something they know others are working hard on. It all boils down to how grants are granted, how scientists are evaluated). And the papers go through peer-review, because the reviewer knows that higher standards means it'll be harder for himself to use the same tactics the next time he needs it. What they should have done is insist on the study being reproducable, and refuse to publish papers that are deliberately obscure. And something needs to be done about the way scientists are evaluated.
Well, it is certainly a cool experiment, but I can't see what makes this so new. I mean, it's a physics experiment that draws inspiration from astrophysics. That's happened before. No, it isn't a new type of astrophysics in the lab, it's physics, but there is, and has always been strong interaction between astrophysics and physics. So they're doing a new physics experiment, and hope to achieve great densities. That's great.
I want to see micropayments Real Soon Now! I've written my bank to tell them to get working on micropayments Right Now. I would encourage everybody to do the same.
I would certainly pay Salon by micropayments if I had the chance. I think this is very, very important.
I wonder why the Common Markup for micropayment per-fee-links hasn't advanced to Candidate Recommendation...? It has two implementations allready, it should have been a Recommendation by now...
I think we will just have to agree that we disagree. Except that if a thirteen year old becomes pregnant it is the parent who has failed. But in my opinion, it is more likely that the parent has failed to grant privacy when s/he should have. You know, it takes 15 seconds to make a girl pregnant. If you won't leave your daughter alone for 15 seconds, she is quite likely to revolt...
Never abdicate your parental responsibility to software.
I would still insist good filtering software (as opposed to what exists today) has a function to fulfil, namely to tell apart what kids should be allowed to explore on their own and what you should be around to explain a few things.
I think something is forgotten in all this, kids have a right to privacy too. They need to be left alone every now and then to experience things on their own. They can't become a responsible individual unless they are allowed this right, IMHO.
Other than that, I agree with you, but I don't think you can seed your child's mind with competing memes unless you allow them privacy to explore things on their own, once in a while.
If you AREN'T monitoring them your are failing them.
I can't agree. Kids need privacy too, kids are entitled to privacy. They need to be left alone to explore things on their own. It might be risky, but that's a chance one must accept for an individual to grow up. However, it is vitally important that the parents are there for them, and that parents understand when they are needed.
So, putting the computer in the living room is not a solution. At least, not a very good solution.
I think one solution is to teach the kids to behave responsibly. But that's only part of the solution, I do think filters must be a part of this too. But good filters, filters that simply do not exist today. I think TimBL's Semantic Web-dream will go a long way in providing the solution.
Actually, I would really like to see good filters become a reality. I maintain a site on how to use a compass, and I've got a page where I put up mnemonics people send me. One very common goes something like "True Virgins Make Dull Companions At Weddings" (there are many variations). Since I'm aiming this tutorial mainly at kids, I haven't put that one up. For one thing, the sucky filters of today would likely block me, and besides you never know how people could take offence. If I could label it, and trust that filters would handle it properly, I could make a separate page with those, problem solved.
Well, I don't have a solution to the poster's problem. I don't think there exists a solution right now. Perhaps putting it in the living room is an acceptable temporary solution, and then showing her the a bunch sites that you find acceptable for her to explore in privacy while you're at work or something.
Lessig's main point was that coders should engage themselves in political discussions.
Well, there was this law coming up in Norway, where they would tax empty CDs. I read the proposed law, and while there could be come positive things from this stuff (for one thing, the law also made a strong case against content protection), it was for the most part extremely bad.
For one thing, it said pretty clear that it was based on technology as it was in 1983. It said that the impact of technology was no different from what it was in 1983.
Well, I wrote nine pages and sent it by e-mail and s-mail. It was ignored, so I asked the beaurocrats why it was ignored. They told me, in pretty clear terms, that they didn't appreciate responses from individual persons. And they told me to fuck off.
Well, I'm not going to try again, the same way. They really don't want to listen to individuals, they only listen to those they want to listen to.
However, we do fortunately have a law that says they have to respond to such things I sent them. So, when I get more time, I'll use this law as a LART....:-)
Huh, I would agree with your point, it needs to be integrated in the clients people use. And I really don't know about this, but I did a search, and it says here that pgp freeware exists as plugins for a few of those....?
Damn, I couldn't get the analysis of variance past the lameness filter. Anyway, it's a really good fit, at a p-value of 0.0005114 it means, pretty much, you wouldn't go looking for anything else than a simple linear growth.
I plotted the number of CDs shipped along with a linear fit (using R) and put it in a postscript file (I'm not going to have it there forever).
It is quite clear, it is a linear trend, with quite a lot of variation. I'll do a brief Analysis of Variance on the linear fit in a seperate reply (damn, why can't I have the PRE-element?).
It doesn't strike me as unusually fascist, but (un)usually stupid, since they say that the stuff in there may be confidential... If somebody transmits stuff by e-mail that are confidential, then they'd better make sure it's encrypted!:-) If they don't, you should be held legally responsible if the stuff ends up in the wrong hands, IMHO.
I'm drifting off topic here, but I've got the feeling that many slashdotters say libertarianism when they really mean anarchism. The idea about anarchism is that you do have a regulated society, but you don't have people with formal power. In libertarianism, you don't have regulation, but people can be bought and you bet there will be a lot of people with formal power.... Now, which one is most likely to succeed in the Real World [tm] is an open question, but my bet is on anarchism.
I'm in Norway. Technology gets accepted rather fast, mobile communication is really hot.
It is my impression too: People are unwilling to lift a finger to understand the devices they are using, in fact it is customary to bragg about technical incompetence...
It's really scary, people will become so alienated eventually, I fear only technologists and natural scientists with a deep understanding of technology will be able to relate to other humans through gadgets. To everyone else, the human in the other end is also just a gadget. It gets scary when pushing the button to kill thousands is not a different action from pushing the button on the coffee machine.
This is also reflected in the mainstream media, the understanding of technology and science is terrible.
I mean, you can't expect to get into a car and expect to drive it safely without training. Why should it be different with computers? Every ought to be so simple, I don't think it should, I think people should try to understand a few basics.
In your open letter to Jakob Nielsen you say that evolution must decide what's good design. I agree that you can't force people into good design, but is the evolution doing us any good so far?
For example, I can read web pages on a normal mobile phone. I like that, it's my own little hack, it's far from good, but it can do the job. Now, if usable web sites had been designed, we would all be able to read web on our mobile phones. Another example: Speech browsers. I'd like a box to plug into my hifi, and I want to relax in my best chair talking to my browser, having it read pages for me, playing music, etc. Both these things have been possible for years, but they require good, usable pages.
It seems to me that the evolution isn't the fastest method of getting good design, mainly because people don't know what they never see, people like to have web on their phones, but they don't know that all that is needed is for web designers to do their job properly, and so there is no evolutionary pressure for designers to do their job properly.
OK, so to the question, how do you want to create this pressure?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like we're saved by rule #3: Spammers are stupid. Fortunately.
Yep, Sweden does it well. Norway has plans too, but I don't think the politicians really realize what they're talking about, and what it would take to achieve the goals they have set, so I don't think we will see anything implemented for a loooong time.
It is interesting to see if there is solid statistics behind this, or if it is just about making sure to hype it up to get more funding. (one shouldn't have to over-hype good research to get good grants, but those who sitting on the money don't care about science).
For example, it's all too common that papers are written as obscurely as possible, because, while you should have a lot of papers for your publication record, you also need to make sure that nobody else gets the idea and carry out the experiments you've planned. So, to make sure nobody "steals" the idea, people write obscure, non-reproducable papers (the other side of the issue is that people don't have the courtesy to stay away from something they know others are working hard on. It all boils down to how grants are granted, how scientists are evaluated). And the papers go through peer-review, because the reviewer knows that higher standards means it'll be harder for himself to use the same tactics the next time he needs it. What they should have done is insist on the study being reproducable, and refuse to publish papers that are deliberately obscure. And something needs to be done about the way scientists are evaluated.
Well, you can certainly define it as astrophysics, but I wouldn't. I would say it's physics.
Well, it is certainly a cool experiment, but I can't see what makes this so new. I mean, it's a physics experiment that draws inspiration from astrophysics. That's happened before. No, it isn't a new type of astrophysics in the lab, it's physics, but there is, and has always been strong interaction between astrophysics and physics. So they're doing a new physics experiment, and hope to achieve great densities. That's great.
I would certainly pay Salon by micropayments if I had the chance. I think this is very, very important.
I wonder why the Common Markup for micropayment per-fee-links hasn't advanced to Candidate Recommendation...? It has two implementations allready, it should have been a Recommendation by now...
I think we will just have to agree that we disagree. Except that if a thirteen year old becomes pregnant it is the parent who has failed. But in my opinion, it is more likely that the parent has failed to grant privacy when s/he should have. You know, it takes 15 seconds to make a girl pregnant. If you won't leave your daughter alone for 15 seconds, she is quite likely to revolt...
I would still insist good filtering software (as opposed to what exists today) has a function to fulfil, namely to tell apart what kids should be allowed to explore on their own and what you should be around to explain a few things.
I think something is forgotten in all this, kids have a right to privacy too. They need to be left alone every now and then to experience things on their own. They can't become a responsible individual unless they are allowed this right, IMHO.
Other than that, I agree with you, but I don't think you can seed your child's mind with competing memes unless you allow them privacy to explore things on their own, once in a while.
I can't agree. Kids need privacy too, kids are entitled to privacy. They need to be left alone to explore things on their own. It might be risky, but that's a chance one must accept for an individual to grow up. However, it is vitally important that the parents are there for them, and that parents understand when they are needed.
So, putting the computer in the living room is not a solution. At least, not a very good solution.
I think one solution is to teach the kids to behave responsibly. But that's only part of the solution, I do think filters must be a part of this too. But good filters, filters that simply do not exist today. I think TimBL's Semantic Web-dream will go a long way in providing the solution.
Actually, I would really like to see good filters become a reality. I maintain a site on how to use a compass, and I've got a page where I put up mnemonics people send me. One very common goes something like "True Virgins Make Dull Companions At Weddings" (there are many variations). Since I'm aiming this tutorial mainly at kids, I haven't put that one up. For one thing, the sucky filters of today would likely block me, and besides you never know how people could take offence. If I could label it, and trust that filters would handle it properly, I could make a separate page with those, problem solved.
Well, I don't have a solution to the poster's problem. I don't think there exists a solution right now. Perhaps putting it in the living room is an acceptable temporary solution, and then showing her the a bunch sites that you find acceptable for her to explore in privacy while you're at work or something.
Besides isn't it just using a few concepts from Xanadu?
Well, there was this law coming up in Norway, where they would tax empty CDs. I read the proposed law, and while there could be come positive things from this stuff (for one thing, the law also made a strong case against content protection), it was for the most part extremely bad.
For one thing, it said pretty clear that it was based on technology as it was in 1983. It said that the impact of technology was no different from what it was in 1983.
Well, I wrote nine pages and sent it by e-mail and s-mail. It was ignored, so I asked the beaurocrats why it was ignored. They told me, in pretty clear terms, that they didn't appreciate responses from individual persons. And they told me to fuck off.
Well, I'm not going to try again, the same way. They really don't want to listen to individuals, they only listen to those they want to listen to.
However, we do fortunately have a law that says they have to respond to such things I sent them. So, when I get more time, I'll use this law as a LART.... :-)
Perhaps, they will get a clue, for the future.
Huh, I would agree with your point, it needs to be integrated in the clients people use. And I really don't know about this, but I did a search, and it says here that pgp freeware exists as plugins for a few of those....?
But, yeah, if you can convince Joe Average to go mutt, it would solve a lot of problems.... :-)
And, I wouldn't underestimate the power of laws, and the power of mainstream media demonizing large parts of the population (resulting in witchhunts).
Therefore, techonlogies that are designed to undermine free expression must be fought before they go mainstream.
Damn, I couldn't get the analysis of variance past the lameness filter. Anyway, it's a really good fit, at a p-value of 0.0005114 it means, pretty much, you wouldn't go looking for anything else than a simple linear growth.
I plotted the number of CDs shipped along with a linear fit (using R) and put it in a postscript file (I'm not going to have it there forever).
It is quite clear, it is a linear trend, with quite a lot of variation. I'll do a brief Analysis of Variance on the linear fit in a seperate reply (damn, why can't I have the PRE-element?).
And for one thing, tourists are certainly not those you would spend a lot of resources launching.
So, while Tito is probably correct, he shouldn't have been there.
It doesn't strike me as unusually fascist, but (un)usually stupid, since they say that the stuff in there may be confidential... If somebody transmits stuff by e-mail that are confidential, then they'd better make sure it's encrypted! :-) If they don't, you should be held legally responsible if the stuff ends up in the wrong hands, IMHO.
I'm drifting off topic here, but I've got the feeling that many slashdotters say libertarianism when they really mean anarchism. The idea about anarchism is that you do have a regulated society, but you don't have people with formal power. In libertarianism, you don't have regulation, but people can be bought and you bet there will be a lot of people with formal power.... Now, which one is most likely to succeed in the Real World [tm] is an open question, but my bet is on anarchism.
It is my impression too: People are unwilling to lift a finger to understand the devices they are using, in fact it is customary to bragg about technical incompetence...
It's really scary, people will become so alienated eventually, I fear only technologists and natural scientists with a deep understanding of technology will be able to relate to other humans through gadgets. To everyone else, the human in the other end is also just a gadget. It gets scary when pushing the button to kill thousands is not a different action from pushing the button on the coffee machine.
This is also reflected in the mainstream media, the understanding of technology and science is terrible.
I mean, you can't expect to get into a car and expect to drive it safely without training. Why should it be different with computers? Every ought to be so simple, I don't think it should, I think people should try to understand a few basics.
Right. That's the whole point of the web.
For example, I can read web pages on a normal mobile phone. I like that, it's my own little hack, it's far from good, but it can do the job. Now, if usable web sites had been designed, we would all be able to read web on our mobile phones. Another example: Speech browsers. I'd like a box to plug into my hifi, and I want to relax in my best chair talking to my browser, having it read pages for me, playing music, etc. Both these things have been possible for years, but they require good, usable pages.
It seems to me that the evolution isn't the fastest method of getting good design, mainly because people don't know what they never see, people like to have web on their phones, but they don't know that all that is needed is for web designers to do their job properly, and so there is no evolutionary pressure for designers to do their job properly.
OK, so to the question, how do you want to create this pressure?
Besides, his greatest author, Carl Barks, wasn't even allowed to write his name on the stories he wrote...