Hmm, so let me get this straight, google just hired another computer scientist who has developed an amazing algorithm to search the web. Thats putting to many eggs in one basket, I think. Lets hope they don't "break."
Yes, because the opportunity cost associated with hiring this guy are so great that Google won't be able to do anything else.
Once children have the laptops, they'll teach themselves, he predicted, making teacher training beside the point. "Teachers teach the kids? Give me a break," he said. "Give any kid an electronic game and the first thing they do is throw away the manual and the second thing they do is use it."
While the focus on Slashdot, understandably, is on the technology and technology sector news -- "fat" or "slim" Linux, mesh networks, pedal vs. crank, the contribution of (or criticism by) Microsoft -- what struck me is that: (a) the underlying educational "theory" is B.S.; and (b) as a result, this is a collosal, albeit well-intentioned, waste of money.
According to the article, the "association hopes to distribute 5 million to 10 million of the systems." At "$100 in 2008 and $50 in 2010," that is $250 million to $1 billion if everything works out as planned.
And what will be accomplished? The kids will "teach themselves?" Because they play games?
How about spending the money on clean water, disease control, actual teachers.
You know what is going to happen? These things are going to be sold by the parents for hard cash, or stolen and sold. Or they are going to fought over. Look for them on E-Bay.
If they really think the kids are going to "teach themselves," they are ignoring what the most important, and far most difficult, part. The $100 or even $50 laptop is easy. Mesh network? No problem. Hand crank, pedal or solar power? You got it.
There will always be times when the internet is unavailable, either through technical problems or the realities of your location. Having another, albeit lesser, option is always nice and these guys are trying to provide that.
Then Mr. Superior Engineer, you buy the stock. Or better yet, invest some start-up money because this is such a briliant business idea.
Which isn't to say that ever more ubiquitous 'Net connections won't pose a challenge to the Webaroo business model.
"Long-term their opportunity may have more to do with [search] performance" than the offline capability itself, Enderle says.
Husick tells me that performance benefit was reinforced for the company by a rousing reception their service received from Japanese mobile operators who he says were salivating over Webaroo as a means to siphon search traffic away from their increasingly crowded wireless broadband networks.
Webaroo will also be touting the potential cost savings and convenience of its service.
"Every hotel I go to wants to charge me $10 to $15 a night for Internet. Every airport wants to charge me another $10 to get connected," Husick says. "If I've got five minutes before I have to board my flight, do I want to spend that five minutes connecting or do I want to spend five minutes getting my search answer?"
I still think this is a business scheme destined to fail. It may be a business plan that is designed to survive only long enough to cash out.
I've got news for Husick. I'm a lawyer who have sets of Statutes, Court Rules and Local Rules behind his desk. I still look them up online to make sure I have the most recent version. I can't afford not to.
Search performance? Rarely, if ever a problem.
Siphon traffic away from "increasingly crowded broadband networks?" They make money from that traffic. They can't, if necessary, charge per data download? Tier the service by download bandwidth? Charge more? Build a better network?
The first cell phone or wireless device that expects me pre-download some portion of the net, that portion being determined by somebody else, is the first one I can cross off my list.
Save $5 or %10 at the airport by not connecting? What if I want to send or receive e-mail? Get the latest news, business or stock information? I'm AT AN AIRPORT, which implies I have some money, and in his context that I'm on business. I'm going to foregoe a net connection for $5 or $10? If my employer is that tight, I'm looking for another job anyway -- one that doesn't use Webaroos' services.
This reminds me of software solutions to cramped hard drive spaces awhile back. On the fly file compression and expansion when data size was outstriping hard drive size for a short period of time. (Remember the file corruption.) Even though there was a market for those products, barely, everyone and his brother knew that market was going to go away Real Soon Now.
Eventually very distant trips like Pluto will be profitable.
Why?
The usual answer (actually, speculation) is that there is some raw material there that we need, and as the cost comes down the trip will be worth it. What? Coal? Oil? Diamonds? Dilithium?
But if the cost has come down to that point, what raw material could we possibly need or want so much to make the trip worth our time, if nothing else?
It seems to be that the best thing NASA could be doing now is trying to raise a generation that has the drive and vision to make private space ventures work.
Very idealistic. However, few organizations have a purpose of putting themselves out of business.
I think that for the time being it is the only force for robotic exploration of the universe. Private firms will be profit-driven, which for the time being means transportation from point to point on the globe, mining, and near-space tourism. Only an agency like NASA, not concerned with generating huge amounts of revenue and appeasing shareholders, would currently dare to send a probe to Pluto, for example.
Why only for "the time being?" Won't the reasons you give for NASA doing space exploration (as opposed to tourism, business, "transportation from point to point") always going to remain true? That is, that private firms "will be profit-driven," "concerned with generating huge amounts of revenue and appeasing shareholders?" These things are going to change over time?
There is still room for encouraging children towards NASA's endeavours.
Didn't you just say that NASA should try "to raise a generation that has the drive and vision to make private space ventures work?"
There may be two other factors involved such that the trend to write headlines in this way would remain even if there was no "Google / crawler" bias.
First, I think newspapers on the web have a far broader, and less knoweldgeable (or at least less "locally" knowledgeable) audience than their paper brethren. I know before the web I would read the LA Times (I'm in LA), the NY Times, and *maybe* the Washington Post. Now, I read newspapers from all over the U.S. and the U.S. and the world. In that setting puns, allusions, double entendres, sarcastic remarks, etc. don't work for me. I'm supposed to understand puns in headlines from the Pakistan Times? Sophisticated allusions from the Soweto Daily? I don't think so. Even headlines from Birmingham, Alabama that require I'm knowledgeable about "obvious" local knowledge? No. Just give me a "boring" headline that might catch my interest and that I can understand.
Second, I recently read that English is, or soon will be, the first language in the history of the world where more people speak it as a second language than speak it as their first language. This is expected to have an impact on the evolution of English. I think it will have an effect of "dumbing down" the language on the Net. The New York Times and Chicago Tribune headline writer is now thinking of his audience in Japan, Korea, etc.
FTFA, comparing the lack of prosecutions for perjury in the patent application system to prosecutions in the court system:
Contrast this to how courts treat perjury in non-patent matters: impeachment of a witness for unreliable testimony is often followed by prosecution for perjury and a lengthy jail sentence.
I've been practising law for over twenty years. This is simply wrong. Yes, more frequently than the once in twenty-five years cited in the article for prosecutions for perjury in patent applications, but "often?" No way.
"Often followed... by a lenghty jail sentence?" Where? China?
It is incredibly difficult to prosecute somebody for perjury, and if happens very infrequently. Particularly where, in a proper analogy to the patent application process, the underlying testimony was in a civil matter.
The fact that this is so obviously wrong makes me wonder about the portions of the article I'm not not knowledgeable about.
How about a law to explicitly protect whistleblowers within the government, even in cases of national security. When government officials break the law, people who release this information should be protected and cherished. Corruption and crime are not patriotism.
But you assume that the government is guilty of "corruption and crime," that the government offices have broken the law, and that the leaker is well-motivated. What if the reverse is true? What if the leaker leaks names of undercover CIA operatives, who are subsequently killed? Or more mundane, leaks the existence of an overseas spy network that has to be withdrawn, and as a result the next 911 is not prevented?
I'm not saying it is all one way. I just don't think it is all the other.
Would people object if it was limited to leakers? If it excluded reporters, including blogger?
Yes.
Interesting. So there should be no criminal penalties for leaking any top secret information?
Or are you insisting on some sort of judicially reviewable, and perhaps jury determination, of harm? Perhaps with a mens rea requirment regarding the harm?
"It in no way applies to reporters _ in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."
It looks like the critics may, as a matter of (good) tactics, jumping on the preliminary language of the preliminary draft of poorly drafted bill.
Would people object if it was limited to leakers? If it excluded reporters, including blogger?
The studios stand to save about $1 billion a year in print distribution costs because they will be shipping digital movies via computer hard drives, satellite and broadband cable, versus old celluloid canisters.
But digital deployment is expensive at about $100,000 per screen, and while the studios agreed to foot most of the bill . . ..
The $1 billion a year savings may, in the short run, be the problem. For a one time, albeit large, initial investment the studios will save $1 billion per year. My guess is that they will not want to share those savings with the theater owners. Yes, in a pefect market the savings would result in a drop in "price" to the theater owners and... wait, a drop in the price of movie tickets to the conumer. Who thinks the market will be anything close to perfect? Who predicts that the price of movie tickets will fall?
I don't doubt there are technical issues. But even when those are resolved, there may be a long delay while the various actors decide how to split the savings. My guess is that the Consumers Union will not be invited to the negotiating table.
A single programmer who wants a copy of the POSIX specification would have to pay US$974 for it. That gets a one-year subscription; you are not licensed to continue referring to the standard thereafter.
What about the first sale doctrine? Do they really contend that you cannot "refer" to the standard after one year? Do they do a mind wipe? Or is just that your subscription for updates lapses after one year?
It was not only a mistake from the viewpoint of PR. Bellsouth's withdrawal of its donation may not be legally ineffective. It may still be on the hook to donate the building if the City of New Orleans reasonably and detrimentally relied on Bellsouth's promise. The key concept is promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel can be used to enforce a charitable gift when the charity (or in this case, the city) relied upon it. One classic example is:
An example of promissory estoppel is where a foreign student declares that she is unable to return to college because she is unable to raise enough money to cover all the costs especially with textbooks costing so much and I agree to provide her with the necessary textbooks if she returns. When she returns, I cannot back off on my gift since she has relied upon it to return. In this case promissory estoppel substitutes for consideration and we have a binding contract.
It would be interesting if BellSouth reaped all of the bad publicity caused by withdrawing its offer, only to have to donate the building anyway.
Is it just me, or is anyone else weirded out by the notion of carrying around a tin full of methanol to power up your gadgets?
The year is 1908. One man on horseback is talking to another men on horseback as they see their first Model T Ford.
Sam says, "Is it just me, or is anyone else weirded out about driving around while sitting on top of a tank of gasoline?"
"No, partner, it ain't just you. Flicker may gave me trouble at times, but at least I know he's not going to explode," replies Dusty.
Sam, thinks and says, "It's not like I'm I'm afraid or nothing, but it looks like those things can go pretty damn fast, and there are more and more of them every day. Can you imagine the things running into each other, each loaded with gasoline? Can you imagine the fires and such?"
What, are you saying that the construction of the Taipei 101 and an increase in earthquake activity are both caused by a third, unknown factor?
No, no. He's saying that the increase in earthquake activity is causing the construction of the Taipei 101.
Not quite. He is saying that earthquakes in the present caused the contruction of Taipei 101 in the past.
Obviously, even if we had the ability, we shouldn't do anything to stop the earthquakes. If we stopped the earthquakes, Taipei 101 would vanish, or more likely deconstruct piece by piece.
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconios isistic (adjective) : Showing characteristics of pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.
The man became pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosisistic after he was exposed to volcanic dust.
Submitted by: Anonymous on Dec. 02, 2005 14:21
Advocates of pay-per-call, including some merchants who have tried it, say customers who call are ready to buy and aren't just browsing the Internet; thus, search engines can charge more -- $2 to $10 or even more per call, compared with less than $1 per click.
By this logic, have them click on a link to print a coupon and then drive to the store to purchase the product, and they will really be valuable.
Better yet, by clicking the link the customer receives only driving directions to the store... in Peru. Talk about devotion.
This is a complex technical issue. I can easily imagine that users of the Google software will say to themselves:
Google Toolbar allows badguy to get data -> Google software bad
But on the other hand, perhaps the users will say to themselves:
Oh -- MicroSoft made yet another security mistake. Rats!
But normally I've seen people blame the additional software -- but as software folks, we know that if you have to add a feature (in this case, the IE plugin) on a crappy foundation, normally you see the faults in the addition, and not necessarily in the main software.
It will be neat to see how this plays out.
However, MS and Google may apportion liability and responsibility between themselves, as to innocent third party consumers I would like to see the doctrine of joint and several liabililty applied. Under that doctrine, regardless of how MS and Google may bitch and argue about proportional liability and responsibility between themselves, each of them would be responsible for all of the damages suffered by an innocent software consumer. If MS or Google paid more than its fair share, it could seek to obtain the excess payment from the other.
That's how it works all of the time in the real, physical world. Automobile Manufacturer negligently builds a car. Driver "A" negligently drives said car into innocent Driver "B". At common law, Driver "B" sues both Automobile Manfactuer and Driver "A" and can collect all of his damages from either (e.g., in case driver "A" is bankrupt). The innocent party is made whole, and his claim isn't delayed or thwarted because because Manufacturer and Driver "A" want to point fingers at each other to the end of time. There are statutory limitations, but the general idea is that the innocent should be compensated even at the risk of the negligent (or even more guilty) bearing some risk of paying more than their fair share.
Of course that is what occurs in the physical, real world.
[ Not, for course, that software vendors are financially responsible for any of the financial harm of damages they cause. -- ed.]
I don't want to be subject to an "automatic immunity" system because I don't want to lose control of my computer, internet connectivity and communication. I can imagine a "sentinel program" being told to exclude or dump, without warning, my choice or even my knowledge, dangerous packets containing strings like "ACLU," "EFF," "Vote for [fill in]," "PGP," ".torrent," "[name of allegedly copyrighted file]," etc.
Uhhh, they figured out this concept a long time ago. Try rebooting Windows with applications open that have unsaved documents. It won't reboot until you handle the dialogs popping up from the apps asking whether to save or not.
Why on Earth do you think they wouldn't do something similar with Restart Manager? That is, most likely, why they need the "manager" part of this thing to begin with.
I think they might not do something similar because they won't see the need to do it, and they want to make the user experience as frindly and seemless as possible.
When one had to reboot, they had to ask whether you wanted to save before allowing the reboot to proceed. Only an idiot would design the "reboot to update" system otherwise. They may include the same safeguard if they believe their "update without reboot" system is flawless.
After all, what is the great advantage of avoiding a reboot if your even going to suggest to the user that he should close all of his applications anyway, just in case? This is particularly true given the fact that these partial updates will not be at the user's request, but instead when the programs decides it is "safe" to do so.
I suspect the purpose of this system is to make the "update without reboot" invisible, with the result that the user will not be given a choice. Hope it works.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think that Gates would say anything publicly before buying all the rights if the algorithm were any good, do you?
According to the article, the "association hopes to distribute 5 million to 10 million of the systems." At "$100 in 2008 and $50 in 2010," that is $250 million to $1 billion if everything works out as planned.
And what will be accomplished? The kids will "teach themselves?" Because they play games?
How about spending the money on clean water, disease control, actual teachers.
You know what is going to happen? These things are going to be sold by the parents for hard cash, or stolen and sold. Or they are going to fought over. Look for them on E-Bay.
If they really think the kids are going to "teach themselves," they are ignoring what the most important, and far most difficult, part. The $100 or even $50 laptop is easy. Mesh network? No problem. Hand crank, pedal or solar power? You got it.
It is the software, stupid.
Or better yet, please take a job there.
I've got news for Husick. I'm a lawyer who have sets of Statutes, Court Rules and Local Rules behind his desk. I still look them up online to make sure I have the most recent version. I can't afford not to.
Search performance? Rarely, if ever a problem.
Siphon traffic away from "increasingly crowded broadband networks?" They make money from that traffic. They can't, if necessary, charge per data download? Tier the service by download bandwidth? Charge more? Build a better network?
The first cell phone or wireless device that expects me pre-download some portion of the net, that portion being determined by somebody else, is the first one I can cross off my list.
Save $5 or %10 at the airport by not connecting? What if I want to send or receive e-mail? Get the latest news, business or stock information? I'm AT AN AIRPORT, which implies I have some money, and in his context that I'm on business. I'm going to foregoe a net connection for $5 or $10? If my employer is that tight, I'm looking for another job anyway -- one that doesn't use Webaroos' services.
This reminds me of software solutions to cramped hard drive spaces awhile back. On the fly file compression and expansion when data size was outstriping hard drive size for a short period of time. (Remember the file corruption.) Even though there was a market for those products, barely, everyone and his brother knew that market was going to go away Real Soon Now.
The usual answer (actually, speculation) is that there is some raw material there that we need, and as the cost comes down the trip will be worth it. What? Coal? Oil? Diamonds? Dilithium?
But if the cost has come down to that point, what raw material could we possibly need or want so much to make the trip worth our time, if nothing else?
Tourism? On Pluto?
There may be two other factors involved such that the trend to write headlines in this way would remain even if there was no "Google / crawler" bias.
First, I think newspapers on the web have a far broader, and less knoweldgeable (or at least less "locally" knowledgeable) audience than their paper brethren. I know before the web I would read the LA Times (I'm in LA), the NY Times, and *maybe* the Washington Post. Now, I read newspapers from all over the U.S. and the U.S. and the world. In that setting puns, allusions, double entendres, sarcastic remarks, etc. don't work for me. I'm supposed to understand puns in headlines from the Pakistan Times? Sophisticated allusions from the Soweto Daily? I don't think so. Even headlines from Birmingham, Alabama that require I'm knowledgeable about "obvious" local knowledge? No. Just give me a "boring" headline that might catch my interest and that I can understand.
Second, I recently read that English is, or soon will be, the first language in the history of the world where more people speak it as a second language than speak it as their first language. This is expected to have an impact on the evolution of English. I think it will have an effect of "dumbing down" the language on the Net. The New York Times and Chicago Tribune headline writer is now thinking of his audience in Japan, Korea, etc.
"Often followed... by a lenghty jail sentence?" Where? China?
It is incredibly difficult to prosecute somebody for perjury, and if happens very infrequently. Particularly where, in a proper analogy to the patent application process, the underlying testimony was in a civil matter.
The fact that this is so obviously wrong makes me wonder about the portions of the article I'm not not knowledgeable about.
I'm not saying it is all one way. I just don't think it is all the other.
Or are you insisting on some sort of judicially reviewable, and perhaps jury determination, of harm? Perhaps with a mens rea requirment regarding the harm?
Would people object if it was limited to leakers? If it excluded reporters, including blogger?
I don't doubt there are technical issues. But even when those are resolved, there may be a long delay while the various actors decide how to split the savings. My guess is that the Consumers Union will not be invited to the negotiating table.
Sam says, "Is it just me, or is anyone else weirded out about driving around while sitting on top of a tank of gasoline?"
"No, partner, it ain't just you. Flicker may gave me trouble at times, but at least I know he's not going to explode," replies Dusty.
Sam, thinks and says, "It's not like I'm I'm afraid or nothing, but it looks like those things can go pretty damn fast, and there are more and more of them every day. Can you imagine the things running into each other, each loaded with gasoline? Can you imagine the fires and such?"
Obviously, even if we had the ability, we shouldn't do anything to stop the earthquakes. If we stopped the earthquakes, Taipei 101 would vanish, or more likely deconstruct piece by piece.
Better yet, by clicking the link the customer receives only driving directions to the store... in Peru. Talk about devotion.
[You insenstive clod! I live in Peru! -- ed.]
That's how it works all of the time in the real, physical world. Automobile Manufacturer negligently builds a car. Driver "A" negligently drives said car into innocent Driver "B". At common law, Driver "B" sues both Automobile Manfactuer and Driver "A" and can collect all of his damages from either (e.g., in case driver "A" is bankrupt). The innocent party is made whole, and his claim isn't delayed or thwarted because because Manufacturer and Driver "A" want to point fingers at each other to the end of time. There are statutory limitations, but the general idea is that the innocent should be compensated even at the risk of the negligent (or even more guilty) bearing some risk of paying more than their fair share.
Of course that is what occurs in the physical, real world.
[ Not, for course, that software vendors are financially responsible for any of the financial harm of damages they cause. -- ed.]
I don't want to be subject to an "automatic immunity" system because I don't want to lose control of my computer, internet connectivity and communication. I can imagine a "sentinel program" being told to exclude or dump, without warning, my choice or even my knowledge, dangerous packets containing strings like "ACLU," "EFF," "Vote for [fill in]," "PGP," ".torrent," "[name of allegedly copyrighted file]," etc.
When one had to reboot, they had to ask whether you wanted to save before allowing the reboot to proceed. Only an idiot would design the "reboot to update" system otherwise. They may include the same safeguard if they believe their "update without reboot" system is flawless.
After all, what is the great advantage of avoiding a reboot if your even going to suggest to the user that he should close all of his applications anyway, just in case? This is particularly true given the fact that these partial updates will not be at the user's request, but instead when the programs decides it is "safe" to do so.
I suspect the purpose of this system is to make the "update without reboot" invisible, with the result that the user will not be given a choice. Hope it works.