Changing your threshold only helps when you're reading slashdot articles. It doesn't help with, for instance, the email Katz received that said "Please die". The article was not about how to fix Slashdot, it was about online behaviour and taking responsibility for it which covers a lot more ground than one website. Slashdot is just one example.
I see what you're saying, and I don't see any good solutions either. However, it seems plain from the evidence of most other replies to your post that the world isn't quite ready for a non-scarce economy. People just can't get their heads around the concept, let alone argue about it properly.
However, one might consider (and I am loathe to bring this up on Slashdot for fear of unleashing a rash of zealotry) that the Open Source community is an example of a non-scarce economy where (some) needed work gets done and is then freely shared. And some people pay for this work. Unfortunately the number of people able to support themselves fully off of open source work compared to the number of people DOING open source work is very small - but it's a start.
How about applying for a patent for the application of the patenting process to patenting for any particular application, which would protect your algorithm from being patented at all and ensure that it remains freely available to all.:)
Come now, you're all getting out of whack for nothing. Rick Moen's argument is that the little text at the bottom of the report states that Microsoft published the material. That doesn't mean that Microsoft wrote it (or paid for it) - in fact, it specifically says the content is provided by and copyright Gartner Group.
I know we all love big conspiracies by evil companies, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Is it not possible that some (possibly clueless, but let's not get into that) person at Gartner wrote up the thing completely independently, and Microsoft said "hey that's good, we'll publish it in our section of the web site?" Rather than bashing the article based on its delivery, how about CONTENT.
The Linux advocates (for lack of a better name) are quick to scrutinize anything coming out of Redmond in great detail. How come they don't apply the same attention and scrutiny to anything pro-Linux or anit-M$? Everyone knows there's FUD on both sides.
I'm certainly no fan of M$, but there's no need to invent evil deeds for them! They do more than enough factually.
>This is superluminal in a classical physics calculation. It would have to be a real small area the electrons and/or photons are interacting in >since the speed of light is a limiting facter. If this isn't disinf then physics just changed for me.
Physics changed for you a ways back in 1935:P There have been experiments demonstrating "action at a distance" (through entangled subatomic particle) which, theoretically, can transmit information instantaneously (ie faster than the speed of light).
http://www.reed.edu/~rsavage/epr.html for some theoretical starting points.
> Anyone care to chime in with their suggestions as to what SGI needs to do to right the ship?
Hire Steve Jobs? Worked for Apple:P
I don't know a lot about SGI, but from reading the comments here (always an unbiased source of information:) it sounds like they need someone with some vision to put them back on course.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing your threshold only helps when you're reading slashdot articles. It doesn't help with, for instance, the email Katz received that said "Please die". The article was not about how to fix Slashdot, it was about online behaviour and taking responsibility for it which covers a lot more ground than one website. Slashdot is just one example.
Sponge
I see what you're saying, and I don't see any good solutions either. However, it seems plain from the evidence of most other replies to your post that the world isn't quite ready for a non-scarce economy. People just can't get their heads around the concept, let alone argue about it properly.
However, one might consider (and I am loathe to bring this up on Slashdot for fear of unleashing a rash of zealotry) that the Open Source community is an example of a non-scarce economy where (some) needed work gets done and is then freely shared. And some people pay for this work. Unfortunately the number of people able to support themselves fully off of open source work compared to the number of people DOING open source work is very small - but it's a start.
How about applying for a patent for the application of the patenting process to patenting for any particular application, which would protect your algorithm from being patented at all and ensure that it remains freely available to all. :)
(Of course, IANAPL)
Sponge
Come now, you're all getting out of whack for nothing. Rick Moen's argument is that the little text at the bottom of the report states that Microsoft published the material. That doesn't mean that Microsoft wrote it (or paid for it) - in fact, it specifically says the content is provided by and copyright Gartner Group.
I know we all love big conspiracies by evil companies, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Is it not possible that some (possibly clueless, but let's not get into that) person at Gartner wrote up the thing completely independently, and Microsoft said "hey that's good, we'll publish it in our section of the web site?" Rather than bashing the article based on its delivery, how about CONTENT.
The Linux advocates (for lack of a better name) are quick to scrutinize anything coming out of Redmond in great detail. How come they don't apply the same attention and scrutiny to anything pro-Linux or anit-M$? Everyone knows there's FUD on both sides.
I'm certainly no fan of M$, but there's no need to invent evil deeds for them! They do more than enough factually.
Sponge
>This is superluminal in a classical physics calculation. It would have to be a real small area the electrons and/or photons are interacting in
:P
>since the speed of light is a limiting facter. If this isn't disinf then physics just changed for me.
Physics changed for you a ways back in 1935
There have been experiments demonstrating "action at a distance" (through entangled subatomic particle) which, theoretically, can transmit information instantaneously (ie faster than the speed of light).
http://www.reed.edu/~rsavage/epr.html for some theoretical starting points.
> Anyone care to chime in with their suggestions as to what SGI needs to do to right the ship?
:P
:) it sounds like they need someone with some vision to put them back on course.
Hire Steve Jobs? Worked for Apple
I don't know a lot about SGI, but from reading the comments here (always an unbiased source of information
Sponge