Help me understand this... A mugger is pointing a gun at you, and you show them that you have a gun in your trousers, in the knowledge that they can pull the trigger much faster than you can get the gun and pull the trigger, and that makes you safer? How does that work? And you expect the guy to run away knowing you could shoot him at any moment?
I'm glad I don't live in the USA. You guys are nuts.
It is very interesting reading the responses to my post. I live in the center of a big European city, and people getting violently assaulted or killed in their own homes is practically unheard of here, it is certainly not something that people are generally afraid of.
It seems that living in a city in the USA is a bit like living in Bogota* or some other lawless hell-hole, which is sad. I guess if I did live in such a place I might keep a gun at home, but I prefer not to live in such places.
*footnote - I just looked up Bogata on Wikipedia and found this:...the city today has a lower murder rate than Washington, D.C., Caracas, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Panama City, Detroit, Chicago and Rio de Janeiro. The situation in Bogota seems to be "greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed", said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy.
I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?
And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?
I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.
He said - give them your wallet.
Guy - And if I had a gun?
Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.
I don't know what it's like in the USA, but in Europe many shops have a small hand-held devices that connect to banks via phone to do card transactions. They are both very secure and relatively cheap. The excuse that a properly secure device would be too expensive is just rubbish.
I don't think it is at all like EC2. This looks like it is going to be a complete application development environment for web apps. EC2 is just a way to deploy servers online for whatever you want.
I think this move is being mis-characterized by a lot of people. I actually think this is a very clever move by Google, and a taste of the future.
One of the key ways Microsoft won the desktop OS wars was basically making it easy for developers to create applications for it. Google has realised that the focus for application development is moving from the desktop to the web. If they can create a system that makes it easy for developers to create web based applications, then developers are going to integrate what they develop with Google services, effectively giving Google the kind of lock-in that Microsoft had with the web.
I don't know why people keep comparing this to Amazon's EC2. This I think is very different, both technically and strategically, and it is all about providing online developers with a rich way to incorporate Google services into their applications.
Absolutely. To me in our world of practically infinite digital storage, it just seems backwards to go deleting stuff. What is needed is a good way to organise the material - not to reduce the quantity of material by deleting stuff.
well, if you wanted to put a tap on a communication line I should think an outage would be very useful for you - it would give you time to install the tap with no one noticing. Otherwise installing a tap would be an extremely slow process, and one which potentially could be detected.
I think it is time to stop comparisons like "the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies", because they give a distorted view of reality. The main reason the USA comes out on top so often with this kind of statistic is simply because it is sound a large populous county.
For example, the USA wins the most gold medals at the Olympics. But does that mean the USA is the best at sports? No. If we look at gold medals per capita, then Australia easily beats the USA. If we add countries together so we have equivalent populations, then we get another picture - Europe would often beat the USA if it entered as a single country, for instance.
If you looked at R&D per capita, or R&D as a % of GDP, or any other more reasonable metric that just comparing countries of different sizes, I expect you would get a very different picture than the summary suggests.
If you believe something you haven't proven yourself, you are exercising faith.
I have studied evolution at university level. I have written computer programs modelling evolutionary processes. I have observed the natural world. But I guess above all, I have gone fossil collecting, and touched the evidence as solid rock in my hands.
When did you last see your God? Oh yes, he's invisible and so you need faith that he exists.
Additionally, they've discarded evidence that doesn't fit their model. It is rare, but it exists.
Sorry, but that is just rubbish. Scientist that work on evolution are not religious fanatics, they find stuff that is contrary to their expectations fascinating. Speaking as someone who is very interested in evolution myself, I would love for you to give me some evidence that goes contrary to the evolutionary model. What is it?
Creationism and evolution are both articles of faith
You start off sounding like a very reasonable person, and then end with that.
You have faith in something you cannot prove. Like the existence of a god.
There is tons of evidence for evolution and none against it so no "faith" is required. Or is gravity an article of faith too, because you never know, one day something might fall upwards?!
You've hit the nail on the head. But this problem is potentially much worse in many European countries. Why? Because they are considerably smaller markets than the USA. For instance, if you are a publisher of obscure books in the USA, you have a huge market - enough to support your company producing obscure books. But in much smaller countries, it is much harder, so these type of law are essentially there so the smaller publishers and booksellers don't get wiped out.
What works well in the USA won't necessarily work well in other countries where the business environment is very different, and as you point out, sometimes their are bigger issues than saving the customer a dollar (or euro).
You have to make sure that you don't just find some information about the topic you are interested in, but you find all of the available information
Are you serious? That's pretty much impossible these days.
I think one major difference between today and pre-web is that previously, it was easy to believe that you had found "all of the available information", even if in reality you hadn't. These days, we are much more aware of how much information is out there, and how rapidly it is growning. This will become even more apparent when automatic translation finally works properly, and all legacy information is digitised.
I'm not sure this matters. My personal crystal ball shows the following future: Microsoft will continue to be the choice for large enterprise desktops for at least the next decade. The home user and smaller business market will however become increasingly diverse, with Apple and Linux gaining share and Linux becoming more and more popular in gadgets and devices. Eventually Microsoft's hold will crumble, but not until there is such a gap in innovation between the enterprise market and the home/small business market that it is inevitable.
Even if it is impossible to create a unit that works over time, it should be possible to have one that works for a given moment. The basket of currencies approach seems good, if the basket is large enough. In fact these of course exist already, for instance I understand airlines use a standard currency unit for certain things. It's just that we need a universal unit that everyone knows so it can be quoted in articles like this.
Reading this has given me a thought - we need a standard unit for measuring the cost of something. Take this, for instance - "creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000" - with the dollar losing value every day, what does that mean in reality? Will it mean the same thing in a months time? Not really.
There's a ball of atoms in a vault somewhere that weighs exactly one kilogram, and should weigh pretty much exactly the same in 10,000 years time. Why don't we have a universal measure of value like that? Any thoughts how we could create a fixed unit of value that would be as valid today as it will be in 10,000 years?
This list looks 18 years into the future, if we look back 18 years, it takes us to 1989. In 1989 practically nobody had predicted the web or its implications. A single development, and yet the implications of it are profound and are still in progress.
The thing about technology is that it develops at a different rate to the social changes it causes. For instance, the social impact of the web is still happening and is likely to continue for a couple of decades, even if web technology doesn't change much. Why? Because people that grow up with a technology behave differently that those that didn't, so the profound social changes sometimes only happen when children grow up and enter active society.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that your premise is that if you "just cooperate" or if the intruder feels you are not a threat, then you won't get killed.
Yep. That's the way it works here in Europe, but I guess where you live it may be different.
Help me understand this... A mugger is pointing a gun at you, and you show them that you have a gun in your trousers, in the knowledge that they can pull the trigger much faster than you can get the gun and pull the trigger, and that makes you safer? How does that work? And you expect the guy to run away knowing you could shoot him at any moment?
I'm glad I don't live in the USA. You guys are nuts.
It is very interesting reading the responses to my post. I live in the center of a big European city, and people getting violently assaulted or killed in their own homes is practically unheard of here, it is certainly not something that people are generally afraid of.
...the city today has a lower murder rate than Washington, D.C., Caracas, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Panama City, Detroit, Chicago and Rio de Janeiro. The situation in Bogota seems to be "greatly improved in terms of security and public safety from five years ago, and the atmosphere is much more relaxed", said Marshall Louis, a spokesman for the United States Embassy.
It seems that living in a city in the USA is a bit like living in Bogota* or some other lawless hell-hole, which is sad. I guess if I did live in such a place I might keep a gun at home, but I prefer not to live in such places.
*footnote - I just looked up Bogata on Wikipedia and found this:
I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill someone to keep your $1000 TV?
And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances of getting killed if I have a gun myself?
I once did a self-defence course with a martial arts expert, one guy asked him what to do if a mugger pulled a gun on him.
He said - give them your wallet.
Guy - And if I had a gun?
Martial arts expert - Don't carry a gun. Just give them your wallet.
Real life isn't like the movies.
I don't know what it's like in the USA, but in Europe many shops have a small hand-held devices that connect to banks via phone to do card transactions. They are both very secure and relatively cheap. The excuse that a properly secure device would be too expensive is just rubbish.
I don't think it is at all like EC2. This looks like it is going to be a complete application development environment for web apps. EC2 is just a way to deploy servers online for whatever you want.
I think this move is being mis-characterized by a lot of people. I actually think this is a very clever move by Google, and a taste of the future.
One of the key ways Microsoft won the desktop OS wars was basically making it easy for developers to create applications for it. Google has realised that the focus for application development is moving from the desktop to the web. If they can create a system that makes it easy for developers to create web based applications, then developers are going to integrate what they develop with Google services, effectively giving Google the kind of lock-in that Microsoft had with the web.
I don't know why people keep comparing this to Amazon's EC2. This I think is very different, both technically and strategically, and it is all about providing online developers with a rich way to incorporate Google services into their applications.
You mean, they put out a new version of their main product, it was widely ridiculed, and their brand suffered as a result? Who would have guessed!?
Absolutely. To me in our world of practically infinite digital storage, it just seems backwards to go deleting stuff. What is needed is a good way to organise the material - not to reduce the quantity of material by deleting stuff.
well, if you wanted to put a tap on a communication line I should think an outage would be very useful for you - it would give you time to install the tap with no one noticing. Otherwise installing a tap would be an extremely slow process, and one which potentially could be detected.
I don't seem to be seeing much success in explaining to my co-workers what the problem is here.
Perhaps there is no problem... Or maybe you are the problem...
So? It would be made up of the best athletes in the whole of Europe, so the winners should still be the same.
I think it is time to stop comparisons like "the US is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world pumping some $340 billion into future-related technologies", because they give a distorted view of reality. The main reason the USA comes out on top so often with this kind of statistic is simply because it is sound a large populous county.
For example, the USA wins the most gold medals at the Olympics. But does that mean the USA is the best at sports? No. If we look at gold medals per capita, then Australia easily beats the USA. If we add countries together so we have equivalent populations, then we get another picture - Europe would often beat the USA if it entered as a single country, for instance.
If you looked at R&D per capita, or R&D as a % of GDP, or any other more reasonable metric that just comparing countries of different sizes, I expect you would get a very different picture than the summary suggests.
Don't kid yourself.
I think it is you kidding yourself.
I could go through your points and attempt to discuss them with you in a rational manner, but I have a feeling it would be a waste of time.
Thank you for proving mine! I win!
If you believe something you haven't proven yourself, you are exercising faith.
I have studied evolution at university level. I have written computer programs modelling evolutionary processes. I have observed the natural world. But I guess above all, I have gone fossil collecting, and touched the evidence as solid rock in my hands.
When did you last see your God? Oh yes, he's invisible and so you need faith that he exists.
Additionally, they've discarded evidence that doesn't fit their model. It is rare, but it exists.
Sorry, but that is just rubbish. Scientist that work on evolution are not religious fanatics, they find stuff that is contrary to their expectations fascinating. Speaking as someone who is very interested in evolution myself, I would love for you to give me some evidence that goes contrary to the evolutionary model. What is it?
Creationism and evolution are both articles of faith
You start off sounding like a very reasonable person, and then end with that.
You have faith in something you cannot prove. Like the existence of a god.
There is tons of evidence for evolution and none against it so no "faith" is required. Or is gravity an article of faith too, because you never know, one day something might fall upwards?!
But then I remember Wal-Mart
You've hit the nail on the head. But this problem is potentially much worse in many European countries. Why? Because they are considerably smaller markets than the USA. For instance, if you are a publisher of obscure books in the USA, you have a huge market - enough to support your company producing obscure books. But in much smaller countries, it is much harder, so these type of law are essentially there so the smaller publishers and booksellers don't get wiped out.
What works well in the USA won't necessarily work well in other countries where the business environment is very different, and as you point out, sometimes their are bigger issues than saving the customer a dollar (or euro).
You have to make sure that you don't just find some information about the topic you are interested in, but you find all of the available information
Are you serious? That's pretty much impossible these days.
I think one major difference between today and pre-web is that previously, it was easy to believe that you had found "all of the available information", even if in reality you hadn't. These days, we are much more aware of how much information is out there, and how rapidly it is growning. This will become even more apparent when automatic translation finally works properly, and all legacy information is digitised.
I'm not sure this matters. My personal crystal ball shows the following future: Microsoft will continue to be the choice for large enterprise desktops for at least the next decade. The home user and smaller business market will however become increasingly diverse, with Apple and Linux gaining share and Linux becoming more and more popular in gadgets and devices. Eventually Microsoft's hold will crumble, but not until there is such a gap in innovation between the enterprise market and the home/small business market that it is inevitable.
Short answer. You can't.
Or we haven't worked out how to do it yet...
Even if it is impossible to create a unit that works over time, it should be possible to have one that works for a given moment. The basket of currencies approach seems good, if the basket is large enough. In fact these of course exist already, for instance I understand airlines use a standard currency unit for certain things. It's just that we need a universal unit that everyone knows so it can be quoted in articles like this.
Reading this has given me a thought - we need a standard unit for measuring the cost of something. Take this, for instance - "creation of an individual's genome map for a retail price of less than $1,000" - with the dollar losing value every day, what does that mean in reality? Will it mean the same thing in a months time? Not really.
There's a ball of atoms in a vault somewhere that weighs exactly one kilogram, and should weigh pretty much exactly the same in 10,000 years time. Why don't we have a universal measure of value like that? Any thoughts how we could create a fixed unit of value that would be as valid today as it will be in 10,000 years?
Back to work...
This list looks 18 years into the future, if we look back 18 years, it takes us to 1989. In 1989 practically nobody had predicted the web or its implications. A single development, and yet the implications of it are profound and are still in progress.
The thing about technology is that it develops at a different rate to the social changes it causes. For instance, the social impact of the web is still happening and is likely to continue for a couple of decades, even if web technology doesn't change much. Why? Because people that grow up with a technology behave differently that those that didn't, so the profound social changes sometimes only happen when children grow up and enter active society.
Ballmer's plan to acquire 100 startups in 5 years is still sketchy
What kind of a plan is that? No wonder Microsoft is losing its way.
Compare and contrast with the business plan of Steve Jobs, which I think can be summed up as "make great products"...