This repeat of history made me wonder about the story behind Jack Valenti. According to the MPAA web site, Jack is (or was) actually a truly remarkable man. He was a war hero and had an impressive career before becoming only the third President of the MPAA. Unfortunately that happened back in 1966. This is often the problem with having one person in power for so long.
The MPAA site seems to be as much about him as it is about the industry, with the press release page actually titled "Jack". The funniest thing is from this intro to his bio [my emphasis]:
"In his current role as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America, Valenti has presided over a world wide sea change in the industry. New magical technology, the rise of importance of international markets, the tyranny of piracy have radically changed the landscape of the American film and television industry."
ACC quotes aside, technology does not equal magic. Jack, thanks, I'm sure that at one time you did a real bang up job but please step aside for someone who can understand and appreciate the direction and impact of new technology on our culture, and perhaps someone who's bio starts off with an appreciation of the majesty of the film industry, rather than fear mongering about issues you clearly can't handle.
That is, in Spiderman, the effects were terrible. When he had just discovered his powers, and was running across the rooftops, it looked horrible, cheap, tacky, and worst of all, fake. The web-swinging scenes were spectacular, but they were spectacular in the same way that the intro cinematics to a Final Fantasy game are spectacular. A great achievement of computing, but obviously a computing achievement.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to catch either movie, but the adverts and trailers I've seen for Spider-Man certainly support your analysis. Although I'm not sure I'd agree about it even being a "great achievement of computing" - even the animations for the Spider-Man video game appear to be more impressive and realistic than the movie shots from the more recent slew of ads.
I'm not exactly sure how this can be useful since the "robot" has no arms.
How about R2-D2? Sure, he has little tools for welding and grabbing sausages from Yoda, but he doesn't have any really useful arms. Most of his best roles were acting as a big mobile laptop that could help navigate spaceships and hack into the Death Star. As well as provding some comic relief. I bet he could play MP3's too.
It is highly doubtful that any of the major news sites will get sued for this. This might be a good thing though.
While not actually precedent setting in the usual sense, people who might be charged in the future for DMCA violations could point to this type of story and the related lack of action as part of their defence.
Now I know you can't use "the other guy was speeding and he wasn't pulled over" as an excuse for breaking the law, but in this case you could say that "the other guy was going just as fast as I was, and he wasn't pulled over, and furthermore, think about how silly it would have been if he had been, so clearly I wasn't speeding either." There's probably a good legal way of saying this.
Also, "Your honor, this suit is clearly frivolous, if you decide to hear this case, then they could just as easily sue CNN for posting this story, and Sharpie for making these pens. Clearly this is not want the drafters of this law intended [and/or this would clearly violate other laws/rights]."
IANAL but I think that analogies like felt pens and post-it notes should be used in any future DMCA copy circumvention case even if all it does is plant a bit of doubt in a judge or jury. Preferably a real lawyer could find a way to make a legal point that sticks.
If the major sites for children start going I think all of them will have to go to.kids.us.
You're probably right, but I don't see much incentive for any of the existing brand names to go this route.
The "tld".kids.us will really just be a media network that approves the content on its third level domain users as being friendly to children. I think that the censorship charges are overblown - its just a another targeted content "site" but it happens to be run by the government rather than Yahoo, Geocities, AOL, or OSDN. The only real issue is that this government funded network will be in competition with existing kid friendly sites and networks.
Most parents already trust Disney and Nickelodeon - they could just restrict kids to those sites if they'd like. They don't need a.kids.us to tell them they're safe.
Right now Disney or AOL could easily (maybe they have) come out with a "Disney or AOL network for kids" and advise parents only to let their kids have access to their sites. They would control the content, most of it would probably be theirs, maybe they would even set up a third-body system that approves some offsite content as well. That should be their right in private enterprise - but the government, using public money, may now be in competition with that right.
If I'm Disney, there is really no benefit for me to try to lend my brand to.kids.us. Most of the sites there will be unknowns leveraging the.kids brand to try build there own brand from nothing. Lending my brand for use on the network just gives my competition credibility while doing nothing to help mine. I'm better to compete using an alternative where I control the content, not the government.
How many parents would restrict their kids to.kids.us if big players like Disney and Nickelodeon weren't there? Probably not that many.
Even without them, if aggressively marketed, the kids.us domain could still create a good community of not-for-profit and small innovative sites focusing on kids (of course it will also be full of crappy ones, just like any other similar community). The only question is, should the government be running this community?
If you require them to review comments from thousands of people after an application is published. the time needed for a patent to issue is likely to double. Imagine the inventor waiting 10 years for a patenbt to issue!
Good points, but if administered correctly, shouldn't submissions actually help the examiner? I mean, practically speaking, very few patents will actually be commented on, and when they are it should just point examiners in the direction of some prior art to aid in their searches. The submissions might become part of the file but it would be up to the examiner to use them.
If once in a while a patent does get thousands of submissions, well there's probably good reason for the all the interest and maybe the examiner should spend extra time on this one.
Subjecting patents to public scrutiny might also decrease the amount (or at least slow the increase) of frivolous patents and even end up decreasing the overall workload somewhat.
You'd probably require a minor fee per submission and limit the comments to a listing of suggested prior art, and possibly very short and basic rationale regarding obviousness etc. The first measure would stop them from getting too many crank submissions through e-mail, the second measure would limit the ability of big industry to abuse the process with persuasive lobby efforts as well as putting a cap on the amount of work required. At the end of the day, establishing the facts through prior art would still be the deciding factor.
You might also need to add an administrative layer to handle and sort the documentation, but this should be nothing wholly different or unworkable.
I don't see it as being unlike the open source process. Yes you do need to expend effort and resources to manage and administer the input of the volunteer base, but if you do it right it should get you better results with perhaps less direct effort than doing it all yourself.
Here's an excellent review (both critical and favorable at the same time) of Wolfram's book by someone of similar stature and experience - AI pioneer and successful entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil:
Using P2P networks for this kind of caching is something that is long overdue and if these guys can pull it off in a major way then I'm all for it.
I'm just not sure that I buy the description of the "Open Content Network":
"the OCN will allow users to download open source and public domain content from multiple peers and mirrors in parallel."
I presume that it could just as easily be used for copyrighted material and is in no sense different from Napster etc. in its restrictions and potential (read: probable) use.
Sounds a bit like a PR thing: our network is for Open Source material, if people use it for other things - well that's none of our business.
Personally, I agree that they should have the right to focus and brand themselves however they want. I also agree that they shouldn't be held liable for the type of files users actually submit (unless they're either actively screening them or branding themselves as the "Illegal Warez Network" or something). I'm just not sure that this approach will help to limit their liability (although I sure hope it does). Or did I miss something and they are proposing some method of ensuring the content meets some guidelines, thus avoiding any of the Napsteresque controversy?
Either that, or the "researchers" just asked "would you do this if you had the cash?" which is, pretty much, a bull-shit question. Its like saying "would you buy 30 houses, if you had the cash?"
Sounds like this is exactly what happened. Junk polling but probably good enough to land on CNN, and I hope that happens. This may be about as sound as the silly online political opinion polls we see everyday but stories like this might start to really regenerate some grassroots interest in lower cost spaceflight.
The average Joe American might start to buy into these dreams, because he believes that he's got a shot at being rich one day (this is why so many people are in favour of repealing the "death taxes" that only affect about 1% of the population).
I'd personally love to see public (and corporate) interest swing back to funding advances in space exploration and travel. Maybe a little razzle dazzle PR like this will help. It probably can't make things much worse.
A bit of revision going on there; Netscape never gave away Navigator until Microsoft made IE free.
You're right of course, although as a student (back in the day) I guess I never had to pay regardless. Technically I should have said "dropped their prices to beat their competitor", but really I was just trying to introduce my second point that overly aggressive "hypercompetition" can sometimes end up hurting consumer choice in the long run.
Good to see the fact that they are opening up their architecture reported in a mainstream story, but this is really a repeat of an earlier posting that had some really good links to the developer site and some of the hacker sites:
"Microsoft has invested substantial time and resources in providing great interoperability between.Net and older technologies," Allchin said. "Sun's strategy of promoting '100 percent pure' Java applications discourages interoperability."
So, according to Microsoft, it is better to have one company provide (ie control) the degree of interoperability between systems than to have another company promote a single standard for the whole industry to use and share.
I can't imagine that line of thinking going over very well with military officials used to building redundancy into everything.
You might also paraphase the above statements as follows:
"Microsoft has choosen to ignore freely available and already established standards and instead has wasted substantial time and resources needlessly reinventing the wheel by developing our own internal standards (that we won't share and that we admit are not really very good) so that we can control the degree of interoperability between our proprietary new product, and our former (and soon to be former) competitor's technologies"
"Sun's strategy of creating and sharing a standard that encourages 100% interoperability between all systems discourages interoperability (but only in respect to our systems, because ours are made to be incompatible with the accepted standard that everyone else uses)."
Oh boy, can I please buy your systems for my Army?
Microsoft doesn't fight fair, but in this arena they don't have much of an advantage and will not bankrupt Sony.
Agreed. Sony certainly has the money, and even has similar motivation to Microsoft (they're already in the consumer/home electronics game, Microsoft wants to be).
However, Sony could actually be at a disadvantage precisely because Sony "has been an expert manufacturer for years and knows how to control costs, while Microsoft...hasn't ever had variable costs before."
Why is this so? Because these systems represent a bold new venture for MS, while for Sony they are very important, but still part of a broad portfolio of hardware. MS management is probably already sold on the proposition of losing money for an extended period and probably expect to make their money on software and services. Sony execs are used to making good money on hardware and will need special convincing if the Playstation group can't continue to produce expected margins. As an experienced manufacturer their reporting and bonus structure is probably based around these numbers. I'm not familiar with the extent and profile of Sony's convergence strategy, but with MS it seems pretty central and separate from near-term profits.
Giving away code is as easy as the copy command. Giving away an XBox is not. Even Microsoft with their Billions cannot afford the kind of drain giving away hardware would entail.
Good point. But that's why it's a function of both money *and* motivation. If Sony and Nintendo are just trying to sell a game system that's one thing. If Microsoft is using the XBox as part of a hardware convergence strategy (TV, DVD, Computer, Game System, Home Automation, World Domination, etc.) they might have greater motivation to lose money for an extended period. Of course, having $40 Billion in cash to back this up doesn't hurt...
Re:good episode, bad ending
on
The Truth Revealed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm not sure he really switched - I think that the conspirators wanted Mulder to be killed while trying to escape from jail and not via a military trial, as that would be a much cleaner way to kill him when people go looking for him. ("Oh sure, the trial may have been unfair, but Mulder tried to run and was killed while escaping, so it really doesn't matter - stop looking into it.") After all, "they" knew where Mulder was anyway and it's not so much of a stretch to imagine that he would have been placed to try and get Mulder killed.
At first I thought this too, but I would have thought that Gibson - the boy who can read minds, would have read the Deputy Director's mind we he said "head north etc.". If he was lying or had a bad motivation for his advice, he would have been found out right then (actually I assumed they would'nt take his advice to head to Canada and when they actually turned south I thought for a moment that maybe Gibson had said or signalled something to Mulder - but that wasn't the case).
...to match their competitor they nearly drove Netscape out of business.
Just a thought...
As much as competitive pricing is a good thing, I hope there's some margin left at the end of the day or this market will turn into a winner take all for whoever's got the motivation and money to stick it out.
I think Wolfram means something similar to the idea that E = m * c ^ 2 is one "line of code", yet that has profound implications from everything to the structure of atoms to the eventual fate of the universe. That's what I suspect he means by "code". Not printf("Hello World");
Not really. Wolfram quite explicitly means that the universe can be described in about 4 lines of interative functions or rules, of the kind you'd use in programming or Mathematica - so somewhere between a printf statement and e=mc^2.
From his interviews, his statements about four lines are based on what he thinks (guesses) it might take to describe the universe specifically using Mathematica as the example language. Other languages might need more lines or even less. He admits the actual number of "lines" would really just be a function of the syntax of the chosen language and that Mathematic might not be the right choice. His main point is that the universe can be described very simply using code vs. equations (simple or complex, doesn't matter).
Perhaps this is just a complimentary approach: perhaps a unified theory could be described using a few equations, a few lines of code, or even a few pretty pictures. He seems to think that using code is the better and more accurate method, maybe even the only accurate one, and just maybe because the universe actually works on a similar principle.
None of this is really new or original, and maybe he's a little egotistical and doesn't do the best job of providing credit to others, but he's the one putting it all together and going out on a bit of a limb by defining this approach as a separate and important way of thinking.
Remember Wolfram didn't invent cellular automata, but he made a major contribution to the field by classifying them. Similarly, his "new science" could be seen as a way of classifying and promoting a new schema based on the existing body of work in this area (including his own). This kind of synthesis and presentation is long overdue, so whether or not this is his intention (and I think it is), I certainly hope that it is an outcome of the hype around his book.
There is a chance, however, that this aesthetic has run it's course: that the notion of "science through simplicity (and logical depth!)" may be about to be augmented by a "new kind of science" - one which is much more about checking through those lists of a thousand cases, for example.
Agreed. I have yet to read the book, but my understanding so far about "A New Kind of Science" is that it is less about a particular answer or theory, but more about an approach to solving problems - almost a new kind of scientific method.
I believe that the implications are that more academics should be exposed to computational theory and cellular automata etc. in the same way they are exposed to calculus today. Furthermore, not only should they be exposed to these things because they are useful for developing approximate models and predictive simulations, but they can also be used for actually describing the actual underlying mechanisms in the same way we generally use formulae.
To make this point, Wolfram and (mostly) others will need to develop some good examples and hopefully some experimentally verifiable predictions that demonstrate the validity of using these techniques to explain or model a wide variety of behavior and phenomenon. I hope his book is a good starting point in this regard.
The other issue to overcome will be proving that four lines of "code" (or a check list of cases) can be as elegant and perhaps even a better solution to certain problems as four equations might be to others. Using and thinking about code in this way *is* a different approach than the norm for many (but not all) scientists, professionals, and educators. This is true even if you think that the underlying mathematics represent a bit of a shell game (that is, using code is just a different notation for existing formulae).
An outstanding book that explores and links together many of the themes that seem to be touted by Wolfram is Gary Flake's "The Computational Beauty of Nature". An excellently constructed thesis (IIRC, computation should be considered distinct from math etc.) along with a broad, and sometimes critical, overview of the history, math, and programs behind computational theory, chaos, complexity, cellular automata, and more, including reference to Wolfram's earlier work. IMHO any geek's library is incomplete without this book.
The recording industry as we know it (certainly the distribution side) is probably heading that way too.
We can guess, but no one really knows what the future holds for media production and distribution -- lot's of ideas for business models and cultural shifts - but no one really has a clue what's going to stick.
But everyone and their grandmother knows the name Napster and what it stands for, and there is already a certain amount of nostalgia for the first breakthough P2P music service and probably always will be since they did come first.
BMG is probably just hedging their bets.
Their best move might be to buy the Napster "assets" -- just the name and history really, then just hold on to it for a while so they don't tarnish the "brand".
Maybe P2P, ripping, and burning will just go away with some breakthrough copy protection -- I'm certainly not betting on it and they probably aren't either. Like everybody else in the recording industry, they'll kick and scream and try to hold on to their tenuous historical position while also experimenting with various on-line ventures - most of which will be doomed to mixed results and outright failure.
Once the cards really start to fall (along with many of the established players who won't accept drastically lower margins and/or different revenue sources) and a more stable model is reached, BMG could then rebrand the best product or service they've developed or adopted as the "New Napster(tm)" to help save whatever value their stock might still have.
Branding certainly isn't what is once was, but for an aging multi-billion dollar conglomerate, throwing down a few million is nothing if they can one day claim to be the first player in whatever new industry paradigm emerges and hopefully evoke a little nostagia while they're at it.
This Katz rant relates to one of my biggest personal pet peeves - having to wait for something to turn-off or shut-down.
For instance, I don't mind (within reason) waiting for a computer to boot-up. I don't mind entering my passwords to login. At least you're waiting with purpose, sometimes even with anticipation (video games or DVD's maybe). But it drives me absolutely batty when I have to wait for the computer or other device/program to turn-off, or, even worse, I need to manually perform operations during the shut down procedure. I wish more things could be built like a light switch.
The worst is when you have to turn on you laptop in the airport, then wait for it to shut down - all the while juggling other bags and electronics. I could always just select shut-down and close the case, but being the avid user of a certain finicky OS, the odds are it won't shut down first try and I'll have a dead laptop for the plane.
I feel the same way about cancelling services etc., but technology seems to be the worst offender for the disconnection blues. Anyway, that's my petty little rant -- feel's good to get it off my chest. Of course, as a Computer Engineer I know that I can resort to a technical solution that usually works...I can always just pull the plug/battery...
In my haste, I guess I added some realism with my poor grammar/missing words. Should have read:
"By default, your Hotmail account is apparently now SHARING the following information with third parties:"
Also, if you're telling you're friends (and telling them to tell theirs), point them to the Slashdot posting as well, give Rob & Co. some free viral advertising.
As much as we all hate chain mail, maybe its time to use fire against fire. At one time Hotmail was a great company founded on the concept of viral marketing ("Get your Free..."). Help your friends and help Hotmail to get their head back on straight -- here's some viral FUD, edit and use as you see fit:
Subject: Hotmail Privacy Scare!
Hi, sorry to bug you, but I just found out that Microsoft may have decided, without your consent, to change the default settings in Hotmail to share your personal information with other companies:
It's all here in these articles: www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/htm l/92308 www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/ 92560
By default, your Hotmail account is apparently now the following information with third parties:
E-mail Address Birth Date Country/Region Province Postal Code Gender Accessibility Time Zone Occupation
According to the articles, this has happened to every account, even if you asked them not to when you signed up, and even though their policy states that: ``Hotmail will not share your e-mail address with (Microsoft's) business partners'' and ``none of your personally identifiable information is shared with the third party Web sites.''
To see for yourself and to change your settings before they can sell your e-mail address and personal information, login to your Hotmail account, click on "Options", then "Personal Profile", and un-check the boxes at the bottom of that page.
And please tell everyone you know with a Hotmail account before their inbox fills up with even more spam and unwanted e-mail!
it omits the many successes that came of plodding along after initial disappointments
No it doesn't. Christensen continues to claim that innovation is an inexact science. His "rules" (observations really) merely recommend strategies to mitigate the risk of a project or venture, not to eliminate it entirely or even necessarily substantially.
For instance, toward the beginning of the article he discusses the impact of different types of companies taking on different strategies. If an existing leader innovates to appease their existing customers - they continue to lead 100% of the time. He recommends that new entrants take a disruptive approach to the market, but they are still only successful 33% of the time (vs. 6% when they try the sustaining approach).
He shows how to reduce the risk, but recognizes that even by following his rules, you're looking at relatively high rates of failure - "The observed probabilities of success in innovation are low."
As to the statement about a lack of original ideas - I would also point out that Christensen generally seems to do a pretty good job of backing his claims up statistically (check out his book). It's unlikely that he's just throwing out post-dot-bomb hindsight mixed with unsupported common sense. He's just taking observations from his research to point out the most important criteria for successful innovation, without any claim to originality of the individual suggestions.
Slashdot Mirror
This is actually kinda sad...
This repeat of history made me wonder about the story behind Jack Valenti. According to the MPAA web site, Jack is (or was) actually a truly remarkable man. He was a war hero and had an impressive career before becoming only the third President of the MPAA. Unfortunately that happened back in 1966. This is often the problem with having one person in power for so long.
The MPAA site seems to be as much about him as it is about the industry, with the press release page actually titled "Jack". The funniest thing is from this intro to his bio [my emphasis]:
"In his current role as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America, Valenti has presided over a world wide sea change in the industry. New magical technology, the rise of importance of international markets, the tyranny of piracy have radically changed the landscape of the American film and television industry."
ACC quotes aside, technology does not equal magic. Jack, thanks, I'm sure that at one time you did a real bang up job but please step aside for someone who can understand and appreciate the direction and impact of new technology on our culture, and perhaps someone who's bio starts off with an appreciation of the majesty of the film industry, rather than fear mongering about issues you clearly can't handle.
That is, in Spiderman, the effects were terrible. When he had just discovered his powers, and was running across the rooftops, it looked horrible, cheap, tacky, and worst of all, fake. The web-swinging scenes were spectacular, but they were spectacular in the same way that the intro cinematics to a Final Fantasy game are spectacular. A great achievement of computing, but obviously a computing achievement.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to catch either movie, but the adverts and trailers I've seen for Spider-Man certainly support your analysis. Although I'm not sure I'd agree about it even being a "great achievement of computing" - even the animations for the Spider-Man video game appear to be more impressive and realistic than the movie shots from the more recent slew of ads.
...we can now add "Search Engine" to the list of sites we've killed...
Actually we've now officially killed Search Engines (plural) if you count beta sites...which this one pretty much seems to be.
Thanks for the mirror.
I'm not exactly sure how this can be useful since the "robot" has no arms.
How about R2-D2? Sure, he has little tools for welding and grabbing sausages from Yoda, but he doesn't have any really useful arms. Most of his best roles were acting as a big mobile laptop that could help navigate spaceships and hack into the Death Star. As well as provding some comic relief. I bet he could play MP3's too.
It is highly doubtful that any of the major news sites will get sued for this. This might be a good thing though.
While not actually precedent setting in the usual sense, people who might be charged in the future for DMCA violations could point to this type of story and the related lack of action as part of their defence.
Now I know you can't use "the other guy was speeding and he wasn't pulled over" as an excuse for breaking the law, but in this case you could say that "the other guy was going just as fast as I was, and he wasn't pulled over, and furthermore, think about how silly it would have been if he had been, so clearly I wasn't speeding either." There's probably a good legal way of saying this.
Also, "Your honor, this suit is clearly frivolous, if you decide to hear this case, then they could just as easily sue CNN for posting this story, and Sharpie for making these pens. Clearly this is not want the drafters of this law intended [and/or this would clearly violate other laws/rights]."
IANAL but I think that analogies like felt pens and post-it notes should be used in any future DMCA copy circumvention case even if all it does is plant a bit of doubt in a judge or jury. Preferably a real lawyer could find a way to make a legal point that sticks.
If the major sites for children start going I think all of them will have to go to .kids.us.
.kids.us will really just be a media network that approves the content on its third level domain users as being friendly to children. I think that the censorship charges are overblown - its just a another targeted content "site" but it happens to be run by the government rather than Yahoo, Geocities, AOL, or OSDN. The only real issue is that this government funded network will be in competition with existing kid friendly sites and networks.
.kids.us to tell them they're safe.
.kids.us. Most of the sites there will be unknowns leveraging the .kids brand to try build there own brand from nothing. Lending my brand for use on the network just gives my competition credibility while doing nothing to help mine. I'm better to compete using an alternative where I control the content, not the government.
.kids.us if big players like Disney and Nickelodeon weren't there? Probably not that many.
You're probably right, but I don't see much incentive for any of the existing brand names to go this route.
The "tld"
Most parents already trust Disney and Nickelodeon - they could just restrict kids to those sites if they'd like. They don't need a
Right now Disney or AOL could easily (maybe they have) come out with a "Disney or AOL network for kids" and advise parents only to let their kids have access to their sites. They would control the content, most of it would probably be theirs, maybe they would even set up a third-body system that approves some offsite content as well. That should be their right in private enterprise - but the government, using public money, may now be in competition with that right.
If I'm Disney, there is really no benefit for me to try to lend my brand to
How many parents would restrict their kids to
Even without them, if aggressively marketed, the kids.us domain could still create a good community of not-for-profit and small innovative sites focusing on kids (of course it will also be full of crappy ones, just like any other similar community). The only question is, should the government be running this community?
If you require them to review comments from thousands of people after an application is published. the time needed for a patent to issue is likely to double. Imagine the inventor waiting 10 years for a patenbt to issue!
Good points, but if administered correctly, shouldn't submissions actually help the examiner? I mean, practically speaking, very few patents will actually be commented on, and when they are it should just point examiners in the direction of some prior art to aid in their searches. The submissions might become part of the file but it would be up to the examiner to use them.
If once in a while a patent does get thousands of submissions, well there's probably good reason for the all the interest and maybe the examiner should spend extra time on this one.
Subjecting patents to public scrutiny might also decrease the amount (or at least slow the increase) of frivolous patents and even end up decreasing the overall workload somewhat.
You'd probably require a minor fee per submission and limit the comments to a listing of suggested prior art, and possibly very short and basic rationale regarding obviousness etc. The first measure would stop them from getting too many crank submissions through e-mail, the second measure would limit the ability of big industry to abuse the process with persuasive lobby efforts as well as putting a cap on the amount of work required. At the end of the day, establishing the facts through prior art would still be the deciding factor.
You might also need to add an administrative layer to handle and sort the documentation, but this should be nothing wholly different or unworkable.
I don't see it as being unlike the open source process. Yes you do need to expend effort and resources to manage and administer the input of the volunteer base, but if you do it right it should get you better results with perhaps less direct effort than doing it all yourself.
Here's an excellent review (both critical and favorable at the same time) of Wolfram's book by someone of similar stature and experience - AI pioneer and successful entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil:
Reflections on Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"
Using P2P networks for this kind of caching is something that is long overdue and if these guys can pull it off in a major way then I'm all for it.
I'm just not sure that I buy the description of the "Open Content Network":
"the OCN will allow users to download open source and public domain content from multiple peers and mirrors in parallel."
I presume that it could just as easily be used for copyrighted material and is in no sense different from Napster etc. in its restrictions and potential (read: probable) use.
Sounds a bit like a PR thing: our network is for Open Source material, if people use it for other things - well that's none of our business.
Personally, I agree that they should have the right to focus and brand themselves however they want. I also agree that they shouldn't be held liable for the type of files users actually submit (unless they're either actively screening them or branding themselves as the "Illegal Warez Network" or something). I'm just not sure that this approach will help to limit their liability (although I sure hope it does). Or did I miss something and they are proposing some method of ensuring the content meets some guidelines, thus avoiding any of the Napsteresque controversy?
Either that, or the "researchers" just asked "would you do this if you had the cash?" which is, pretty much, a bull-shit question. Its like saying "would you buy 30 houses, if you had the cash?"
Sounds like this is exactly what happened. Junk polling but probably good enough to land on CNN, and I hope that happens. This may be about as sound as the silly online political opinion polls we see everyday but stories like this might start to really regenerate some grassroots interest in lower cost spaceflight.
The average Joe American might start to buy into these dreams, because he believes that he's got a shot at being rich one day (this is why so many people are in favour of repealing the "death taxes" that only affect about 1% of the population).
I'd personally love to see public (and corporate) interest swing back to funding advances in space exploration and travel. Maybe a little razzle dazzle PR like this will help. It probably can't make things much worse.
A bit of revision going on there; Netscape never gave away Navigator until Microsoft made IE free.
You're right of course, although as a student (back in the day) I guess I never had to pay regardless. Technically I should have said "dropped their prices to beat their competitor", but really I was just trying to introduce my second point that overly aggressive "hypercompetition" can sometimes end up hurting consumer choice in the long run.
Good to see the fact that they are opening up their architecture reported in a mainstream story, but this is really a repeat of an earlier posting that had some really good links to the developer site and some of the hacker sites:
Teach An Old Aibo New Tricks
"Microsoft has invested substantial time and resources in providing great interoperability between .Net and older technologies," Allchin said. "Sun's strategy of promoting '100 percent pure' Java applications discourages interoperability."
So, according to Microsoft, it is better to have one company provide (ie control) the degree of interoperability between systems than to have another company promote a single standard for the whole industry to use and share.
I can't imagine that line of thinking going over very well with military officials used to building redundancy into everything.
You might also paraphase the above statements as follows:
"Microsoft has choosen to ignore freely available and already established standards and instead has wasted substantial time and resources needlessly reinventing the wheel by developing our own internal standards (that we won't share and that we admit are not really very good) so that we can control the degree of interoperability between our proprietary new product, and our former (and soon to be former) competitor's technologies"
"Sun's strategy of creating and sharing a standard that encourages 100% interoperability between all systems discourages interoperability (but only in respect to our systems, because ours are made to be incompatible with the accepted standard that everyone else uses)."
Oh boy, can I please buy your systems for my Army?
Microsoft doesn't fight fair, but in this arena they don't have much of an advantage and will not bankrupt Sony.
Agreed. Sony certainly has the money, and even has similar motivation to Microsoft (they're already in the consumer/home electronics game, Microsoft wants to be).
However, Sony could actually be at a disadvantage precisely because Sony "has been an expert manufacturer for years and knows how to control costs, while Microsoft...hasn't ever had variable costs before."
Why is this so? Because these systems represent a bold new venture for MS, while for Sony they are very important, but still part of a broad portfolio of hardware. MS management is probably already sold on the proposition of losing money for an extended period and probably expect to make their money on software and services. Sony execs are used to making good money on hardware and will need special convincing if the Playstation group can't continue to produce expected margins. As an experienced manufacturer their reporting and bonus structure is probably based around these numbers. I'm not familiar with the extent and profile of Sony's convergence strategy, but with MS it seems pretty central and separate from near-term profits.
Giving away code is as easy as the copy command. Giving away an XBox is not. Even Microsoft with their Billions cannot afford the kind of drain giving away hardware would entail.
Good point. But that's why it's a function of both money *and* motivation. If Sony and Nintendo are just trying to sell a game system that's one thing. If Microsoft is using the XBox as part of a hardware convergence strategy (TV, DVD, Computer, Game System, Home Automation, World Domination, etc.) they might have greater motivation to lose money for an extended period. Of course, having $40 Billion in cash to back this up doesn't hurt...
I'm not sure he really switched - I think that the conspirators wanted Mulder to be killed while trying to escape from jail and not via a military trial, as that would be a much cleaner way to kill him when people go looking for him. ("Oh sure, the trial may have been unfair, but Mulder tried to run and was killed while escaping, so it really doesn't matter - stop looking into it.") After all, "they" knew where Mulder was anyway and it's not so much of a stretch to imagine that he would have been placed to try and get Mulder killed.
At first I thought this too, but I would have thought that Gibson - the boy who can read minds, would have read the Deputy Director's mind we he said "head north etc.". If he was lying or had a bad motivation for his advice, he would have been found out right then (actually I assumed they would'nt take his advice to head to Canada and when they actually turned south I thought for a moment that maybe Gibson had said or signalled something to Mulder - but that wasn't the case).
...to match their competitor they nearly drove Netscape out of business.
Just a thought...
As much as competitive pricing is a good thing, I hope there's some margin left at the end of the day or this market will turn into a winner take all for whoever's got the motivation and money to stick it out.
I think Wolfram means something similar to the idea that E = m * c ^ 2 is one "line of code", yet that has profound implications from everything to the structure of atoms to the eventual fate of the universe. That's what I suspect he means by "code". Not printf("Hello World");
Not really. Wolfram quite explicitly means that the universe can be described in about 4 lines of interative functions or rules, of the kind you'd use in programming or Mathematica - so somewhere between a printf statement and e=mc^2.
From his interviews, his statements about four lines are based on what he thinks (guesses) it might take to describe the universe specifically using Mathematica as the example language. Other languages might need more lines or even less. He admits the actual number of "lines" would really just be a function of the syntax of the chosen language and that Mathematic might not be the right choice. His main point is that the universe can be described very simply using code vs. equations (simple or complex, doesn't matter).
Perhaps this is just a complimentary approach: perhaps a unified theory could be described using a few equations, a few lines of code, or even a few pretty pictures. He seems to think that using code is the better and more accurate method, maybe even the only accurate one, and just maybe because the universe actually works on a similar principle.
None of this is really new or original, and maybe he's a little egotistical and doesn't do the best job of providing credit to others, but he's the one putting it all together and going out on a bit of a limb by defining this approach as a separate and important way of thinking.
Remember Wolfram didn't invent cellular automata, but he made a major contribution to the field by classifying them. Similarly, his "new science" could be seen as a way of classifying and promoting a new schema based on the existing body of work in this area (including his own). This kind of synthesis and presentation is long overdue, so whether or not this is his intention (and I think it is), I certainly hope that it is an outcome of the hype around his book.
There is a chance, however, that this aesthetic has run it's course: that the notion of "science through simplicity (and logical depth!)" may be about to be augmented by a "new kind of science" - one which is much more about checking through those lists of a thousand cases, for example.
Agreed. I have yet to read the book, but my understanding so far about "A New Kind of Science" is that it is less about a particular answer or theory, but more about an approach to solving problems - almost a new kind of scientific method.
I believe that the implications are that more academics should be exposed to computational theory and cellular automata etc. in the same way they are exposed to calculus today. Furthermore, not only should they be exposed to these things because they are useful for developing approximate models and predictive simulations, but they can also be used for actually describing the actual underlying mechanisms in the same way we generally use formulae.
To make this point, Wolfram and (mostly) others will need to develop some good examples and hopefully some experimentally verifiable predictions that demonstrate the validity of using these techniques to explain or model a wide variety of behavior and phenomenon. I hope his book is a good starting point in this regard.
The other issue to overcome will be proving that four lines of "code" (or a check list of cases) can be as elegant and perhaps even a better solution to certain problems as four equations might be to others. Using and thinking about code in this way *is* a different approach than the norm for many (but not all) scientists, professionals, and educators. This is true even if you think that the underlying mathematics represent a bit of a shell game (that is, using code is just a different notation for existing formulae).
An outstanding book that explores and links together many of the themes that seem to be touted by Wolfram is Gary Flake's "The Computational Beauty of Nature". An excellently constructed thesis (IIRC, computation should be considered distinct from math etc.) along with a broad, and sometimes critical, overview of the history, math, and programs behind computational theory, chaos, complexity, cellular automata, and more, including reference to Wolfram's earlier work. IMHO any geek's library is incomplete without this book.
Is it:
(Lone Gunmen Are Dead) + (Lone Gunmen Aren't Dead)
Which nets out to be zero.
Or should it be:
(Lone Gunmen Are Dead) + ABS(Lone Gunmen Aren't Dead)
Which equals 2*(Lone Gunmen are Dead) = twice spoiled.
And then, what happens if this spoiler is wrong?
Napster as we know it is dead.
The recording industry as we know it (certainly the distribution side) is probably heading that way too.
We can guess, but no one really knows what the future holds for media production and distribution -- lot's of ideas for business models and cultural shifts - but no one really has a clue what's going to stick.
But everyone and their grandmother knows the name Napster and what it stands for, and there is already a certain amount of nostalgia for the first breakthough P2P music service and probably always will be since they did come first.
BMG is probably just hedging their bets.
Their best move might be to buy the Napster "assets" -- just the name and history really, then just hold on to it for a while so they don't tarnish the "brand".
Maybe P2P, ripping, and burning will just go away with some breakthrough copy protection -- I'm certainly not betting on it and they probably aren't either. Like everybody else in the recording industry, they'll kick and scream and try to hold on to their tenuous historical position while also experimenting with various on-line ventures - most of which will be doomed to mixed results and outright failure.
Once the cards really start to fall (along with many of the established players who won't accept drastically lower margins and/or different revenue sources) and a more stable model is reached, BMG could then rebrand the best product or service they've developed or adopted as the "New Napster(tm)" to help save whatever value their stock might still have.
Branding certainly isn't what is once was, but for an aging multi-billion dollar conglomerate, throwing down a few million is nothing if they can one day claim to be the first player in whatever new industry paradigm emerges and hopefully evoke a little nostagia while they're at it.
"Remember the first time you used Napster...?"
This Katz rant relates to one of my biggest personal pet peeves - having to wait for something to turn-off or shut-down.
For instance, I don't mind (within reason) waiting for a computer to boot-up. I don't mind entering my passwords to login. At least you're waiting with purpose, sometimes even with anticipation (video games or DVD's maybe). But it drives me absolutely batty when I have to wait for the computer or other device/program to turn-off, or, even worse, I need to manually perform operations during the shut down procedure. I wish more things could be built like a light switch.
The worst is when you have to turn on you laptop in the airport, then wait for it to shut down - all the while juggling other bags and electronics. I could always just select shut-down and close the case, but being the avid user of a certain finicky OS, the odds are it won't shut down first try and I'll have a dead laptop for the plane.
I feel the same way about cancelling services etc., but technology seems to be the worst offender for the disconnection blues. Anyway, that's my petty little rant -- feel's good to get it off my chest. Of course, as a Computer Engineer I know that I can resort to a technical solution that usually works...I can always just pull the plug/battery...
In my haste, I guess I added some realism with my poor grammar/missing words. Should have read:
"By default, your Hotmail account is apparently now SHARING the following information with third parties:"
Also, if you're telling you're friends (and telling them to tell theirs), point them to the Slashdot posting as well, give Rob & Co. some free viral advertising.
As much as we all hate chain mail, maybe its time to use fire against fire. At one time Hotmail was a great company founded on the concept of viral marketing ("Get your Free..."). Help your friends and help Hotmail to get their head back on straight -- here's some viral FUD, edit and use as you see fit:
m l/92308/ 92560
Subject: Hotmail Privacy Scare!
Hi, sorry to bug you, but I just found out that Microsoft may have decided, without your consent, to change the default settings in Hotmail to share your personal information with other companies:
It's all here in these articles:
www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/ht
www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html
By default, your Hotmail account is apparently now the following information with third parties:
E-mail Address
Birth Date
Country/Region
Province
Postal Code
Gender
Accessibility
Time Zone
Occupation
According to the articles, this has happened to every account, even if you asked them not to when you signed up, and even though their policy states that: ``Hotmail will not share your e-mail address with (Microsoft's) business partners'' and ``none of your personally identifiable information is shared with the third party Web sites.''
To see for yourself and to change your settings before they can sell your e-mail address and personal information, login to your Hotmail account, click on "Options", then "Personal Profile", and un-check the boxes at the bottom of that page.
And please tell everyone you know with a Hotmail account before their inbox fills up with even more spam and unwanted e-mail!
it omits the many successes that came of plodding along after initial disappointments
No it doesn't. Christensen continues to claim that innovation is an inexact science. His "rules" (observations really) merely recommend strategies to mitigate the risk of a project or venture, not to eliminate it entirely or even necessarily substantially.
For instance, toward the beginning of the article he discusses the impact of different types of companies taking on different strategies. If an existing leader innovates to appease their existing customers - they continue to lead 100% of the time. He recommends that new entrants take a disruptive approach to the market, but they are still only successful 33% of the time (vs. 6% when they try the sustaining approach).
He shows how to reduce the risk, but recognizes that even by following his rules, you're looking at relatively high rates of failure - "The observed probabilities of success in innovation are low."
As to the statement about a lack of original ideas - I would also point out that Christensen generally seems to do a pretty good job of backing his claims up statistically (check out his book). It's unlikely that he's just throwing out post-dot-bomb hindsight mixed with unsupported common sense. He's just taking observations from his research to point out the most important criteria for successful innovation, without any claim to originality of the individual suggestions.