Maybe they would accept it, if it were forced on them, but otherwise there are alot of interests pushing for continuing the free ride.
Including consumers. There really isn't any need to force companies to pay money for private information, as people are quite willing to give it up for less tangible benefits. The article doesn't appear to be arguing for a better system (though that may be its intention), it merely explains the success of the system we live with today. We have already placed a value on our personal details when we trade them in exchange for the priveledges and conviniences offered by the internet.
And why should companies be expected to value this information more than consumers do? A large amount of the data collected is surely false, as there are no guarantees that the details provided by their owners are true. I have falsified my personal information on more than a few online forms. As for the data collected by tracking prurchases or link clicks, it is constantly changing. Just because you wanted pancakes for breakfast yesterday doesn't mean you'll want the same today. This data has a short shelf-life, which is reflected in the price companies are willing to pay for it: not much.
They're apparently only negotiating to bring him on as a consultant on the creative aspects, according to the article. Given Stephenson's love of descriptive narrative and detail, this should be an ideal use of his talents.
It's a long shot, but this device proves helpful, they might make a special exception for it.
Good point. Since the system will be ground-based, though, I would expect it to have to be located on somewhat neutral territory (wherever that is) in order to be exempt from the treaty.
I fail to understand how this system will get past the international weapons treaty mentioned in the article. It states that it "is a ground-based system that can locate and destroy or divert these fragments." However, the system trials planned for 2003 "will not involve lasers with sufficient power to affect the debris, as there are concerns that such high power devices might contravene the international weapons treaty banning laser weapons in space."
Do they expect the treaty to be altered in time for the system's official launch? Is NASA expecting that the space station will acquire significant puplic importance, sufficient to overcome the general fear of 'space lasers' that initially birthed the treaty?
While hardcoded behaviour accounts for a significant amount of the gender differences seen in humans today, I do not believe it can take credit for the huge imbalance of the sexes in the tech workforce. It's true that from an early age girls gravitate toward dolls. This makes a certain amount of sense, as they will one day be mothers, and they need all the training they can get. (Caring for a baby is scary!) Similarly, girls cultivate an empathic response to others' difficulties, perhaps because logic is most often useless when dealing with babies and children. This does not prevent women from exercising their analytical skills. North American culture, however, does. Girls remain strong throughout elementary school in all areas of academics, including math and science. Come adolescence, however, there is overwhelming cultural pressure on girls to conform to a feminine stereotype. Perpetuated through the media and funded by commercial industry, this stereotype dictates not only the teenage girl's ideal body type and weight, but also her ideal societal role. Unsurprisingly, it is submissive, dependent, insecure, and materialy impulsive. Girls' math scores take a huge dive in junior high. Ask a 14 year old girl what she thinks of math, and she will *proudly* declare that she sucks at it. I remember hiding from my peers my own traitorous report card that displayed an 'A' in Math. For many girls, high achievement in an area viewed as unfeminine often results in their being ostracized. At 14, what would most girls rather be, popular or smart? If you think that one does not prevent the other, you have obviously not been a girl growing up in the past 20 years. For those would like a more informed read on how adolescent girls are abused by our culture, I suggest "Reviving Ophelia". Girls today are trained to reject careers focusing on science and math. It has very little to do with the large number of geek guys in the field, or with a feminine reluctance to use logic. (ASIDE: Though I would love to dismiss the latter explanation out of hand, I have only myself and my other geek friends to use as an example. I figure this sample does not quite satisfy the diversity required for a well supported argument.) It has to do with social conditioning. Given an environment encouraging of female development in *all* areas, I think it likely that significantly more women would choose tech jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they would accept it, if it were forced on them, but otherwise there are alot of interests pushing for continuing the free ride.
Including consumers. There really isn't any need to force companies to pay money for private information, as people are quite willing to give it up for less tangible benefits. The article doesn't appear to be arguing for a better system (though that may be its intention), it merely explains the success of the system we live with today. We have already placed a value on our personal details when we trade them in exchange for the priveledges and conviniences offered by the internet.
And why should companies be expected to value this information more than consumers do? A large amount of the data collected is surely false, as there are no guarantees that the details provided by their owners are true. I have falsified my personal information on more than a few online forms. As for the data collected by tracking prurchases or link clicks, it is constantly changing. Just because you wanted pancakes for breakfast yesterday doesn't mean you'll want the same today. This data has a short shelf-life, which is reflected in the price companies are willing to pay for it: not much.
They're apparently only negotiating to bring him on as a consultant on the creative aspects, according to the article. Given Stephenson's love of descriptive narrative and detail, this should be an ideal use of his talents.
Good point. Since the system will be ground-based, though, I would expect it to have to be located on somewhat neutral territory (wherever that is) in order to be exempt from the treaty.
Do they expect the treaty to be altered in time for the system's official launch? Is NASA expecting that the space station will acquire significant puplic importance, sufficient to overcome the general fear of 'space lasers' that initially birthed the treaty?
While hardcoded behaviour accounts for a significant amount of the gender differences seen in humans today, I do not believe it can take credit for the huge imbalance of the sexes in the tech workforce. It's true that from an early age girls gravitate toward dolls. This makes a certain amount of sense, as they will one day be mothers, and they need all the training they can get. (Caring for a baby is scary!) Similarly, girls cultivate an empathic response to others' difficulties, perhaps because logic is most often useless when dealing with babies and children. This does not prevent women from exercising their analytical skills. North American culture, however, does. Girls remain strong throughout elementary school in all areas of academics, including math and science. Come adolescence, however, there is overwhelming cultural pressure on girls to conform to a feminine stereotype. Perpetuated through the media and funded by commercial industry, this stereotype dictates not only the teenage girl's ideal body type and weight, but also her ideal societal role. Unsurprisingly, it is submissive, dependent, insecure, and materialy impulsive. Girls' math scores take a huge dive in junior high. Ask a 14 year old girl what she thinks of math, and she will *proudly* declare that she sucks at it. I remember hiding from my peers my own traitorous report card that displayed an 'A' in Math. For many girls, high achievement in an area viewed as unfeminine often results in their being ostracized. At 14, what would most girls rather be, popular or smart? If you think that one does not prevent the other, you have obviously not been a girl growing up in the past 20 years. For those would like a more informed read on how adolescent girls are abused by our culture, I suggest "Reviving Ophelia". Girls today are trained to reject careers focusing on science and math. It has very little to do with the large number of geek guys in the field, or with a feminine reluctance to use logic. (ASIDE: Though I would love to dismiss the latter explanation out of hand, I have only myself and my other geek friends to use as an example. I figure this sample does not quite satisfy the diversity required for a well supported argument.) It has to do with social conditioning. Given an environment encouraging of female development in *all* areas, I think it likely that significantly more women would choose tech jobs.