Interestingly, a lot of the reviews I read of the novel Solaris (including the one on Slashdot) go into some depth about the character of Kelvin and his relationship with his wife. I thought this was not at all the central issue in the book; I found it to be much more about the (slightly more abstract) concept of the limit to which an individual can ever relate to another - be it one's wife or a sentient planet. The return of Kelvin's wife seemed to me a way to explicate that all we ever relate to is our own interior representation of the other - it's a peculiar trap of sentience that we can never escape.
Anyway, given that take on the novel, I've been pessimistic about the film ever since I saw the trailers. When you're expecting deep statements about psychology and epistemology, and Voice-Over Man goes on about "blah blah love story blah blah deep in space", disappointment seems inevitable. Perhaps if I adjust my expectations, I'll enjoy it.
Or maybe I should just stay home and watch Tarkovsky's movie.
There are probably numerous ways to refine and reconfigure the basic card-stacking idea, but I think that is is a tremendous vindication of the idea that there is no such thing as too much information, only poorly-organized information.
If it's made configurable enough for serious power users, this looks really smart and intuitive - not unlike how one would organize one's wallet, or Franklin planner, or Magic card deck...
Wow... Not the best piece of journalism ever put out by the NYT. For example, where the hell did this come from?
From the Vietnam and Watergate era until Sept. 11, 2001, legal protection of privacy rights was moving in only one direction, with judges and legislators across the ideological spectrum working hard to create what is in many ways a new legal right.
Apparently the writer did precious little research, or he might have stumbled across the outrageous expansions in Federal wiretapping power granted during the Clinton administration. And maybe the subsequent abuses by police agencies, most notably the LAPD.
On the whole, the whole thing seemed rather lightweight - a summary of other news items, and a vague comparison of commercial-vs.-gov't data gathering pros and cons.
So where is the deeper journalism on these issues, anyway?
...you need a lawyer. And probably not the cheap kind. Asking a bunch of anti-Microsoft zealots and Star Wars fans this kind of question can only lead to heartache.
More seriously, this really is a legal problem. I don't know if you were looking for a technical solution or not (I got the impression you might be), but the short answer is that it doesn't exist - once they have the ability to look at the source, it's a matter of their honesty and your ability to detect and prosecute infractions.
If you must try a technical solution, you could maybe attempt some kind of crypto-escrow: They get the code encrypted, and if they ever want to look, they have to buy the key - or if your company folds, you are contractually bound to give it to them gratis. But you'll probably have trouble getting your client to go for that, as it really doesn't offer them any advantage over you just giving them the source (except perhaps some liability protection).
The only reason AOL bought Time-Warner in the first place was to lock in what they knew to be an insanely inflated stock value - that is to say, they knew their own company had very limited value, so they went out and swallowed another company with greater value, hoping that when the bubble burst, the company that wasn't worthless would keep the natural sinker afloat.
This step is the logical extension of that plan - count on the value in Time-Warner media properties to make AOL valuable as a middleman.
Of course, Time-Warner media properties are only as valuable as the number of people who consume them. This plan will survive for precisely as long as it takes people to figure out that (a) they're paying and AOL toll and (b) they don't actually have to pay it, because Time-Warner doesn't produce anything that can't be had elsewhere without paying a tax to subsidize AOL's misbegotten existence.
Of course, the media-consuming public can be slow on the uptake, so maybe this scheme will work after all.
So now, will Slashdot get sued for running a story on this litigious idiot? Will I be sued now, for calling this litigious idiot a "litigious idiot"? Or for expressing that I have a heart full of hate for dimwits like Novak and I will be encouraging every pet owner I know to boycott his online store and spread the word about his stupid and cruel blackmail game?
I'm close to an HR exec for a medium-sized, high-tech firm who says that hiring managers in that company tend to ignore job candidates who present themselves in favor of ones presented by headhunters - this despite the fact that they have to pay $20000 or more to hire the person presented by the agency.
I don't pretend to understand it, but the phenomenon is real and not limited to software. OTOH, it's not universal, either; the company for which I work now seems excellent about carefully considering the merits of any purchase - be it talent, software, hardware, or what-have-you - and while they don't skimp on valuable tools & talent, they count low price as a good thing.
Otoacoustic emissions have been known about for decades, and used in neonatal testing for some years. Just because Discover gets all gee-whiz in a fluff piece doesn't mean something's a recent discovery.
OK,
- B
Re:How to Google Whack...
on
Google Juice
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Well, that phrase did nothing for me, but the following:
This is cool to hear about, but I can't say it comes as that much of a surprise. Most of the pros I know really love hacking, and most of them have programming- and tinkering-related projects they pursue on their own time. That these people should make up a significant part of the open source community just seems to make sense.
The article was interesting, but thin on details. How fast are these chips? Are they reliable enough to be CPU's? How durable are they - can I put them in clothing?
Anyway, I'll be more jazzed about this development when they get closer to production.
Interesting... I don't know if you're watching this thread, but can you tell me what personal experience you have around this? Of course, don't divulge anything sensitive or identifying if you don't want to.
If dot-commers in general are anything like the population of geeks I know, there might be issues with the whole security clearance thing. Whether it be a high school record of messing with the school's computers, or bizarre political opinions posted prominently on the 'Net, or just having had a lot of people see you inhale, I don't think your average libertine, libertarian, privacy-mongering geek is going to be a great fit for a gov't job.
That, of course, is a blanket generalization. I'm sure there are many competent technical types who would do just fine getting a security clearance, and enjoy working for The Man(tm) just fine. But on the whole... I dunno.
Nobody's talking about ownership of office supplies here. Did you not get that?
What is being talked about is whether, when knowledge is generated with public funding, to whom the benefits of that knowledge accrues.
So no, I don't think I have a right to grab pencils and Post-It Notes from the FBI office down the street. I do think that when I pay (directly or through an intermediary) for something to be discovered, and that knowledge goes into private hands to enrich someone else, that I've been stolen from.
No, I have a whole host of other reasons to accuse "Presdient" Bush of corruption without resorting to the media's whipping boy du jour.
Ditto on the answer to political parties. Of course, there are the matters of freedom of speech and association... But that doesn't make the herd mentality less loathsome.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, given that take on the novel, I've been pessimistic about the film ever since I saw the trailers. When you're expecting deep statements about psychology and epistemology, and Voice-Over Man goes on about "blah blah love story blah blah deep in space ", disappointment seems inevitable. Perhaps if I adjust my expectations, I'll enjoy it.
Or maybe I should just stay home and watch Tarkovsky's movie.
OK,
- B
If it's made configurable enough for serious power users, this looks really smart and intuitive - not unlike how one would organize one's wallet, or Franklin planner, or Magic card deck...
Just my $2e-2,
- B
On the whole, the whole thing seemed rather lightweight - a summary of other news items, and a vague comparison of commercial-vs.-gov't data gathering pros and cons.
So where is the deeper journalism on these issues, anyway?
OK,
- B
More seriously, this really is a legal problem. I don't know if you were looking for a technical solution or not (I got the impression you might be), but the short answer is that it doesn't exist - once they have the ability to look at the source, it's a matter of their honesty and your ability to detect and prosecute infractions.
If you must try a technical solution, you could maybe attempt some kind of crypto-escrow: They get the code encrypted, and if they ever want to look, they have to buy the key - or if your company folds, you are contractually bound to give it to them gratis. But you'll probably have trouble getting your client to go for that, as it really doesn't offer them any advantage over you just giving them the source (except perhaps some liability protection).
Good luck,
- B
This step is the logical extension of that plan - count on the value in Time-Warner media properties to make AOL valuable as a middleman.
Of course, Time-Warner media properties are only as valuable as the number of people who consume them. This plan will survive for precisely as long as it takes people to figure out that (a) they're paying and AOL toll and (b) they don't actually have to pay it, because Time-Warner doesn't produce anything that can't be had elsewhere without paying a tax to subsidize AOL's misbegotten existence.
Of course, the media-consuming public can be slow on the uptake, so maybe this scheme will work after all.
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
I don't pretend to understand it, but the phenomenon is real and not limited to software. OTOH, it's not universal, either; the company for which I work now seems excellent about carefully considering the merits of any purchase - be it talent, software, hardware, or what-have-you - and while they don't skimp on valuable tools & talent, they count low price as a good thing.
OK,
- B
OK, there, I've mentioned it.
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
Just my US$2e-02. OK,
- B
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
Anyway, I'll be more jazzed about this development when they get closer to production.
OK,
- B
Anyway, that was my take on it. I don't consider it worth discussion until there's evidence that I can review.
OK,
- B
(Yes, I know zero-point energy is real. No, I don't think this crank from Ireland could even explain the concept.)
OK,
- B
Someday, I'll live in a world where every child grows up with a decent science education and critical thinking is encouraged...
OK,
- B
OK,
- B
That, of course, is a blanket generalization. I'm sure there are many competent technical types who would do just fine getting a security clearance, and enjoy working for The Man(tm) just fine. But on the whole... I dunno.
OK,
- B
I mean, I know that none of us - including our fine moderators - are perfect, but are they at least paying attention?
OK,
- B
What is being talked about is whether, when knowledge is generated with public funding, to whom the benefits of that knowledge accrues.
So no, I don't think I have a right to grab pencils and Post-It Notes from the FBI office down the street. I do think that when I pay (directly or through an intermediary) for something to be discovered, and that knowledge goes into private hands to enrich someone else, that I've been stolen from.
OK,
- B
Ditto on the answer to political parties. Of course, there are the matters of freedom of speech and association... But that doesn't make the herd mentality less loathsome.
OK,
- B