Like so many journalists who are ignorant of the actual process of science, this author cannot understand the difference between using a tool and studying the nature of a thing.
Computer science is the study of computing--the theory and practice that makes the machines work.
Physics (for example) uses computers as a tool to study the laws of the universe.
The former is interested in computers themselves. The latter is interested in computers as a tool to study the primary discipline.
I heard a quote from the President when he vetoed the estate tax to the effect of "It affect less than 1% of all Americans, and we can't afford to cut this tax."
In other words, we don't hit very many people, but when we do, we fucking nail their asses, man!
I really worry about the divisiveness I see at work in the campaign rhetoric. Please tell me, which dollar was it that made me a second-class citizen? Which incremental dollar pushed me over the line into "the upper class"? Which dollar was it that had the "I'm your butt monkey" sign taped to the back?!
Organic semiconductors look like a classic disruptive technology (see "The Innovator's Dilemna".)
They are bigger and slower than Si- or Ge-based semiconductors. Indeed, their most appealing attribute-flexibility-is totally irrelevant to the giants of silicon. At present, organic semiconductors have no market (judging by sales... the potential is huge), but will very likely establish a new market, and flourish within it.
For all the reasons so eloquently explained in "Dilemna", the established semiconductor companies will have difficulty entering such a small, new market. This leaves the field open for new entrants to dominate the market for organic semiconductors. If they can establish a steep improvement trajectory, then they might be able to move upmarket in only a few years.
This should be interesting to watch. The real test of a descriptive model, such as "Dilemna", comes when you use it predictively. Otherwise, you can only explain situations post hoc.
I thought that the work sounded familiar. Stephen Savage, who was quoted in the article, has been seen here before.
I remember being very impressed as I read his paper. His key realization is that not every packet needs to be traced. With a large number of packets, only a tiny fraction need tracing information. Yet, the target of attacks (who is receiving 10^6 packets a day) can build an accurate picture. Brilliant.
This is exactly the type of thing I love to see. This along with the Brookhaven RHIC article in one day makes me very happy.
It takes me back to the earlier days of/., before the days of the Four-Letter Crusades (MPAA, RIAA, DMCA). Back when you could still find articles on science and technology instead of <contempt>legal depositions</contempt>.
(I gotta admit, tho, Valenti's depo was kinda funny, up until I got sick.)
False Dilemna: several instances, including the comparison of "Stallman's world" vs. the O.K. corral.
Slippery Slope: all over the place
Prejudicial Language. (Not, of course, that Meyer is the only practitioner of this one!)
Illicit Minor: Not all free software proponents are RMS or ESR.
Attacking the Person: both ESR and RMS. (An interesting one-two combination here: attack the people, then extrapolate their characteristics to the entire group.)
I could go on, but I'm just too weary.
I don't necessarily disagree with everything Meyer said, but he's just so sloppy...
This article underscores the blatant problem with the "I can do anything to you, if you agreed to it" approach. (Not to mention the corollary "Tough noogie, you agreed" posters here.)
Why would there even be such an expression as "the fine print" if not because this tactic has been used for centuries. Bury the zinger in a pile of mumbo-jumbo, and people won't look hard enough to find it. Make it much easier to go for the goodie than to get a lawyer to read the screen. Then sit back and commit whatever ethical violation you can stomach.
...of ZDNet giggling as they watch ad revenue spike....of Taschek chortling as the talkback articles flood in, proving that somebody actually reads his columns.
I would pay for a service like this if they gave me some things that the CD didn't.
Nobody's asking you to pay. The service is free. They are just trading information on your listening & purchasing habits for a little disk space and a moderate amount of bandwidth.
Considering the disparity between your own bandwidth and that of any major search engine's spider, I think this would be an excellent way to conduct a denial of service attack on yourself.
I cannot help but view this suit as another front in the PR war. The RIAA is waging a campaign to hammer the twin messages "MP3 == piracy" and "RIAA == artists' rights" to the public at large.
Instead of just rallying around Napster, the real response would be to wage a publicity counter-campaign. Denials don't work very often, so trying to inform people that "!(MP3 == piracy)" and "!(RIAA == artists' rights)" is doomed to ineffectivity.
Let's take a page from the manipulators' book. Change the terms of debate. (Let's not talk about smoking pot, let's talk about inhaling.) If you can change the language of debate, you can change opinions. Sad, but true. Why not take advantage of it for a change?
What messages should be be popularizing? I wish I knew. Ideas, anyone?
It's entirely possible that the price-gouging (which I do not dispute) was imposed by a different group within SGI.
Also, bear in mind that McAllister himself said that a culture change was needed. Corporations, like people, can and do change over time. I mean, look at IBM. If you had told me five years ago that Big Blue would be pouring money into Linux and Apache and Java and XML, I would have ask for some of whatever you were smoking. I probably would have said that it was impossible for that bunch of white-shirted-blue-tied-COBOL-writing-batch-jobber s to learn new tricks.
Give SGI some time to change. They might surprise you yet.
Just take a look at Star Trek, or any other SF series: the computers just work. No ifs, buts or device drivers. They work. That's what most people will want anyways.
Except for the ubiquitous holodeck malfunction, of course...
Or those times the computer took over the ship and zipped off to parts unknown...
Or when it turned homicidal and tried to fry the crew...
"Slashdot" as such doesn't review the books. Slashdot readers do. If you would like to see another author considered here, by all means, submit a review.
I mean, I do like NS, but I've already read these. I'd love to hear about other authors that I might want to read!
While the concept may be similar, the implementation is radically different. With a peer reviewed journal, a very small group of carefully selected reviewers read the paper and make comments. Since the review group is small, the resulting comments can sometimes be influenced by the reviewers personal biases. (Most reviewers are conscientious and try to avoid putting their own biases into their reviews, but some amount is always inevitable.) The author(s) usually do not know who the reviewers are until they get the paper back, and the turnaround time is pretty long.
Constrast this to the larger scale operating here. First of all, the group of direct commenters is much larger. This group provides a set of influences, which you can think of as a function operating on the original statement. The moderation then applies a second function -- operating on the first function. This second-order function is what makes the group consensus process much more powerful than a single level of peer review. It is also what allows the system to scale up to massive levels.
It is true that this system can be abused. Collective biases certainly do appear! Misinformation can be propagated. But, as a whole, this system is more resilient to the effects of single individuals than the formal peer review system.
From the description of their process, the only reason this thing is so big is so that the researchers could find it. Using silicon substrate and a photolithographic technique, they should be able to make conveyors and walkers less than 1 cm on a side.
Of course, then somebody has to come up with a practical application for the really small buggers. Like a 1 cm CCD on its back...
Just when you think a company cannot possibly prove itself to be more out of touch. Their PR firm must be going _ape_. "They said WHAT! Damage control!"
It is doctrine that there is no such thing as absolute security, only "secure enough". "Secure enough" means it costs more to crack the key than you can get back from having the information.
Given the value alluded to in the argument, and the relative cost to break the key, it's pretty clear that 512-bit RSA is nowhere near secure enough! We need much bigger keys, and algorithms that get more bang for the bits. (Like elliptic curve algos.)
While it is true that free software developers are motivated by other concerns that money, money does have certain practical applications.
I may not be motivated by money, but if I can get paid for doing the same thing (and paid very well), and others are being paid for it, shouldn't I make sure that I also get paid? And if I'm not... would I not resent those who do get paid for doing the same thing? Maybe not, I have a measure of respect for the hot coders that can get paid to develop Linux. What about the marketroids and pointy-hairs that get wealthy from selling that which I give away? (i.e., parasitizing my work.) Would I not resent them? Does that not then disincentivize me?
The point is that, as long as nobody was getting rich on free software, everyone had equal motivation and equal opportunity. Once profit intrudes, and people observe a huge disparity between those that contribute and those that only reap the rewards, they will start to question their motives. Not every developer will stop working for free software, but each and every one will run through the value equation--and you cannot deny that the equation has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer science is the study of computing--the theory and practice that makes the machines work.
Physics (for example) uses computers as a tool to study the laws of the universe.
The former is interested in computers themselves. The latter is interested in computers as a tool to study the primary discipline.
In other words, we don't hit very many people, but when we do, we fucking nail their asses, man!
I really worry about the divisiveness I see at work in the campaign rhetoric. Please tell me, which dollar was it that made me a second-class citizen? Which incremental dollar pushed me over the line into "the upper class"? Which dollar was it that had the "I'm your butt monkey" sign taped to the back?!
They are bigger and slower than Si- or Ge-based semiconductors. Indeed, their most appealing attribute-flexibility-is totally irrelevant to the giants of silicon. At present, organic semiconductors have no market (judging by sales... the potential is huge), but will very likely establish a new market, and flourish within it.
For all the reasons so eloquently explained in "Dilemna", the established semiconductor companies will have difficulty entering such a small, new market. This leaves the field open for new entrants to dominate the market for organic semiconductors. If they can establish a steep improvement trajectory, then they might be able to move upmarket in only a few years.
This should be interesting to watch. The real test of a descriptive model, such as "Dilemna", comes when you use it predictively. Otherwise, you can only explain situations post hoc.
I remember being very impressed as I read his paper. His key realization is that not every packet needs to be traced. With a large number of packets, only a tiny fraction need tracing information. Yet, the target of attacks (who is receiving 10^6 packets a day) can build an accurate picture. Brilliant.
It takes me back to the earlier days of /., before the days of the Four-Letter Crusades (MPAA, RIAA, DMCA). Back when you could still find articles on science and technology instead of <contempt>legal depositions</contempt>.
(I gotta admit, tho, Valenti's depo was kinda funny, up until I got sick.)
At least, I really really hope he was being sarcastic...
Occam's razor would lead one to believe that this is a case of good legislative intentions that are unfettered by information.
- False Dilemna: several instances, including the comparison of "Stallman's world" vs. the O.K. corral.
- Slippery Slope: all over the place
- Prejudicial Language. (Not, of course, that Meyer is the only practitioner of this one!)
- Illicit Minor: Not all free software proponents are RMS or ESR.
- Attacking the Person: both ESR and RMS. (An interesting one-two combination here: attack the people, then extrapolate their characteristics to the entire group.)
I could go on, but I'm just too weary.I don't necessarily disagree with everything Meyer said, but he's just so sloppy...
Why would there even be such an expression as "the fine print" if not because this tactic has been used for centuries. Bury the zinger in a pile of mumbo-jumbo, and people won't look hard enough to find it. Make it much easier to go for the goodie than to get a lawyer to read the screen. Then sit back and commit whatever ethical violation you can stomach.
...of ZDNet giggling as they watch ad revenue spike. ...of Taschek chortling as the talkback articles flood in, proving that somebody actually reads his columns.
Nobody's asking you to pay. The service is free. They are just trading information on your listening & purchasing habits for a little disk space and a moderate amount of bandwidth.
You forgot the 80186, a microcontroller version of the 8086.
Considering the disparity between your own bandwidth and that of any major search engine's spider, I think this would be an excellent way to conduct a denial of service attack on yourself.
Instead of just rallying around Napster, the real response would be to wage a publicity counter-campaign. Denials don't work very often, so trying to inform people that "!(MP3 == piracy)" and "!(RIAA == artists' rights)" is doomed to ineffectivity.
Let's take a page from the manipulators' book. Change the terms of debate. (Let's not talk about smoking pot, let's talk about inhaling.) If you can change the language of debate, you can change opinions. Sad, but true. Why not take advantage of it for a change?
What messages should be be popularizing? I wish I knew. Ideas, anyone?
Also, bear in mind that McAllister himself said that a culture change was needed. Corporations, like people, can and do change over time. I mean, look at IBM. If you had told me five years ago that Big Blue would be pouring money into Linux and Apache and Java and XML, I would have ask for some of whatever you were smoking. I probably would have said that it was impossible for that bunch of white-shirted-blue-tied-COBOL-writing-batch-jobber s to learn new tricks.
Give SGI some time to change. They might surprise you yet.
Hopelessly muddle. Push-button response to illogical fear-mongering. Bleh.
Except for the ubiquitous holodeck malfunction, of course...
Or those times the computer took over the ship and zipped off to parts unknown...
Or when it turned homicidal and tried to fry the crew...
I mean, I do like NS, but I've already read these. I'd love to hear about other authors that I might want to read!
Constrast this to the larger scale operating here. First of all, the group of direct commenters is much larger. This group provides a set of influences, which you can think of as a function operating on the original statement. The moderation then applies a second function -- operating on the first function. This second-order function is what makes the group consensus process much more powerful than a single level of peer review. It is also what allows the system to scale up to massive levels.
It is true that this system can be abused. Collective biases certainly do appear! Misinformation can be propagated. But, as a whole, this system is more resilient to the effects of single individuals than the formal peer review system.
Of course, then somebody has to come up with a practical application for the really small buggers. Like a 1 cm CCD on its back...
Just when you think a company cannot possibly prove itself to be more out of touch. Their PR firm must be going _ape_. "They said WHAT! Damage control!"
Given the value alluded to in the argument, and the relative cost to break the key, it's pretty clear that 512-bit RSA is nowhere near secure enough! We need much bigger keys, and algorithms that get more bang for the bits. (Like elliptic curve algos.)
This one is for real, gang.
--
I may not be motivated by money, but if I can get paid for doing the same thing (and paid very well), and others are being paid for it, shouldn't I make sure that I also get paid? And if I'm not... would I not resent those who do get paid for doing the same thing? Maybe not, I have a measure of respect for the hot coders that can get paid to develop Linux. What about the marketroids and pointy-hairs that get wealthy from selling that which I give away? (i.e., parasitizing my work.) Would I not resent them? Does that not then disincentivize me?
The point is that, as long as nobody was getting rich on free software, everyone had equal motivation and equal opportunity. Once profit intrudes, and people observe a huge disparity between those that contribute and those that only reap the rewards, they will start to question their motives. Not every developer will stop working for free software, but each and every one will run through the value equation--and you cannot deny that the equation has changed.
--