What about profits from web design? The whole time, web designers toiled over their computers for millions of hours building the crazy ideas for the dot-com boom. My gain from the Internet boom was all positive, despite the fact that most of the "pure-play" clients I had died out. Also, think of all the increased sales in computer and telecom equipment. I don't know the facts, but I think Sun made a pretty penny during that time. Plus I'm sure Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft made lots of profit out of it.
It's the companies who relied soley on the Internet who got fux0red. The Internet is like the highway system. It helps everybody, but not anybody who bases themselves solely on being on the highway.
(Note: I ramble for a while, but only answer the question fully in the last paragraph)
Believe it or not, I've been grinding my brain over this issue many times. For example, let's say you had an ability to put an invisible camera at any arbitrarily chosen point in space and watch what is happening. Not only that, but you could then choose to arbitrarily switch the contents of some space with the contents of another. You could instantly kill murderers and evil-doers world wide.
But then, the question is, who should have control over this technology? Should you be the one to own it. Be the benevolent dictator who believes that you somehow will stick to some absolute pure moral ground that wouldn't corrupt your ways? I'm always tempted to think that way, but them I'm reminded by all these examples, mostly in literature, where some single person with ungodly power becomes corrupted automatically. Is this true?
I mean, you could pull a Superman and have your little ice palace and help the world in secret.
The only other option, then, is to just give it to the public and open up the technology. I think the best options then are only two: horde it completely to yourself or give it up to the world. Even if you horde it and you're being selfish, at least you're not letting it fall into the hands of groups or what not who could do crazy things with it. I think the inventor is one you have the least to worry about. The one with the brains to make the invention and to know exactly what it's about and what it's for, i feel is less likely to mis-use it.
Now, if you want to release something with a 2-3 year time-delay, maybe release only a partial solution to the problem and base it on findings that you expect won't be discovered until 2-3 years from now. For example, a while back, you might have figured that sometime, within the next 10-15 years somebody would have figured out how to determine primality in p-time, and then when they did, your solution would be complete. I'm sure there are other theorems that were discovered today that have likely follow-up theorems that will be discovered in two years.
I hope this is not another "IT" machine. Sheesh. If it is, just release the damn thing.
Get the TypeMatrix keyboard. It was like $100, but I've been using it for a year and it's awesome. Basic features are that it's really slim, and the keys press lightly like a laptop keyboard. Also, it has a hard-wired switch for Dvorak, with both QWERTY and Dvorak letters etched into the keyboard.
Highly recommended for the er33t.
Kurzweil speaks out on Wolfram
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 1
For those who haven't read the book and are wondering whether it's worth the 1,000 page trek, there's a good review by Kurzweil. I went through about 100 pages of the book, waiting for the big, "so what." After reading Kurzweil's review, I think that "so what" will never happen, and he explains why.
The article states using quantum states to determine bits, but what about the simple location of a particle in space. Since movement is continuous and it passes through an infinite set of points, isn't there an infinite set of possibilities for that particle to be placed? If somebody didn't tell me that the world had a discrete matrix of locations, then I'm terribly mistaken.
Re:Ill explain (On Evolution)
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
Going on this, I'm guessing the same effects of natural selection that goes on with species will have a similar effect to natural selection of time spaces. Since natural selection is essentially composed of two things: chaos and a requester. Chaos being the universe of floating matter and anti-matter that has now transmutated into a chaos of people and computers, and the requester being time. Now time asks the question, okay, at any given point in time, what's still here, and whatever has mutated the right way is still there, and will continue to persist. Won't then, there be an evolution of time spaces. The chaos being the plurality of parallel universes and the requester being, well, opening your eyes in one of the spaces. If time travel is indeed a one way trip, won't the time spaces where nobody time travels be more evolutionarily favored because there is a stronger likelihood that the people there will not leave.
For example, consider time space A, and time-space B. In time-space A, by some magical twist everybody was instilled by a commandment from God (and all believed in said God) that said, Thou shalt not time travel. These people will never time travel, never leave, and therefore this time space will continue to be populated by people. In time-space B, on the other hand, no such constraint by the man above is imposed and henceforth, the people may start time travelling. People will have an opportunity to check out, and may do so, meaning that this time-space is in danger of being devoid of humans at some point.
Hmm, that turned out a little fuzzier than I thought. Here's another angle that demonstrates the point that I'm trying to get at is. Consider our own time-space. Those that have developed a propensity to leave via time-travel will more likely do so. Those that do not will most likely stay. Those that stay will continue to reproduce while as those that leave, well, have taken their DNA with them. Eventually, those that have an extremely strong disposition to stay will be the majority, in fact it may develop into becoming a human instinct, and the time-machine would probably end up being destroyed or abolished by that population. So consider, in the abstract sense, time travel to be the equivalent of death in the sense that both satsify one basic feature "the termination of one's existence." Just as we are biologically wired to be adverse to any form of death, isn't it likely that we'll become adverse to time travel.
How can you be a UI expert when you have no system of judging a UI. Any good subjective analysis has have to various gradients of good and bad weights and there must be examples on all ends. You can't call yourself a UI expert just by saying that every UI out there sucks. That's like tryign to become a good movie critic by saying every movie stinks--oh wait, there's a great number of people like that. If you're only justification is that you have to write a book in order to explain UI, then by god, you've definitely missed the User Interface boat as no user would want to interface with something that pointed at pie-in-the-sky nothings.
Ponte tu dinero donde tu boca esta. I'd bet on Steve Jobs with his blockbuster Apple sales than on some supposed pundit who spoke with Steve once.
Just look at the 2002 predictions. None of them are going to happen. I understand that's it hard to use induction to predcit what'll happen in 10 years, but we can be pretty sure what won't happen in 10 months.
- Disposable Paper Cellphone ($10)
- Automatic measurement of body using laser scanning boohths in shops
- Laser body scanning unites in clothes shops
- First all woman space crew
Glad to know that we have a man who has a vengance against Microsoft (Excel) ready for round two.
However, maybe it's not so strategic to have on board somebody whose already lost to M$, but rather somebody who beat them at something and continues to do so, like somebody from Adobe.
Slashdot Mirror
What about profits from web design? The whole time, web designers toiled over their computers for millions of hours building the crazy ideas for the dot-com boom. My gain from the Internet boom was all positive, despite the fact that most of the "pure-play" clients I had died out. Also, think of all the increased sales in computer and telecom equipment. I don't know the facts, but I think Sun made a pretty penny during that time. Plus I'm sure Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft made lots of profit out of it. It's the companies who relied soley on the Internet who got fux0red. The Internet is like the highway system. It helps everybody, but not anybody who bases themselves solely on being on the highway.
(Note: I ramble for a while, but only answer the question fully in the last paragraph) Believe it or not, I've been grinding my brain over this issue many times. For example, let's say you had an ability to put an invisible camera at any arbitrarily chosen point in space and watch what is happening. Not only that, but you could then choose to arbitrarily switch the contents of some space with the contents of another. You could instantly kill murderers and evil-doers world wide. But then, the question is, who should have control over this technology? Should you be the one to own it. Be the benevolent dictator who believes that you somehow will stick to some absolute pure moral ground that wouldn't corrupt your ways? I'm always tempted to think that way, but them I'm reminded by all these examples, mostly in literature, where some single person with ungodly power becomes corrupted automatically. Is this true? I mean, you could pull a Superman and have your little ice palace and help the world in secret. The only other option, then, is to just give it to the public and open up the technology. I think the best options then are only two: horde it completely to yourself or give it up to the world. Even if you horde it and you're being selfish, at least you're not letting it fall into the hands of groups or what not who could do crazy things with it. I think the inventor is one you have the least to worry about. The one with the brains to make the invention and to know exactly what it's about and what it's for, i feel is less likely to mis-use it. Now, if you want to release something with a 2-3 year time-delay, maybe release only a partial solution to the problem and base it on findings that you expect won't be discovered until 2-3 years from now. For example, a while back, you might have figured that sometime, within the next 10-15 years somebody would have figured out how to determine primality in p-time, and then when they did, your solution would be complete. I'm sure there are other theorems that were discovered today that have likely follow-up theorems that will be discovered in two years. I hope this is not another "IT" machine. Sheesh. If it is, just release the damn thing.
Get the TypeMatrix keyboard. It was like $100, but I've been using it for a year and it's awesome. Basic features are that it's really slim, and the keys press lightly like a laptop keyboard. Also, it has a hard-wired switch for Dvorak, with both QWERTY and Dvorak letters etched into the keyboard. Highly recommended for the er33t.
For those who haven't read the book and are wondering whether it's worth the 1,000 page trek, there's a good review by Kurzweil. I went through about 100 pages of the book, waiting for the big, "so what." After reading Kurzweil's review, I think that "so what" will never happen, and he explains why.
The article states using quantum states to determine bits, but what about the simple location of a particle in space. Since movement is continuous and it passes through an infinite set of points, isn't there an infinite set of possibilities for that particle to be placed? If somebody didn't tell me that the world had a discrete matrix of locations, then I'm terribly mistaken.
For example, consider time space A, and time-space B. In time-space A, by some magical twist everybody was instilled by a commandment from God (and all believed in said God) that said, Thou shalt not time travel. These people will never time travel, never leave, and therefore this time space will continue to be populated by people. In time-space B, on the other hand, no such constraint by the man above is imposed and henceforth, the people may start time travelling. People will have an opportunity to check out, and may do so, meaning that this time-space is in danger of being devoid of humans at some point.
Hmm, that turned out a little fuzzier than I thought. Here's another angle that demonstrates the point that I'm trying to get at is. Consider our own time-space. Those that have developed a propensity to leave via time-travel will more likely do so. Those that do not will most likely stay. Those that stay will continue to reproduce while as those that leave, well, have taken their DNA with them. Eventually, those that have an extremely strong disposition to stay will be the majority, in fact it may develop into becoming a human instinct, and the time-machine would probably end up being destroyed or abolished by that population. So consider, in the abstract sense, time travel to be the equivalent of death in the sense that both satsify one basic feature "the termination of one's existence." Just as we are biologically wired to be adverse to any form of death, isn't it likely that we'll become adverse to time travel.
- philipkd
How to invest in the stock market
How can you be a UI expert when you have no system of judging a UI. Any good subjective analysis has have to various gradients of good and bad weights and there must be examples on all ends. You can't call yourself a UI expert just by saying that every UI out there sucks. That's like tryign to become a good movie critic by saying every movie stinks--oh wait, there's a great number of people like that. If you're only justification is that you have to write a book in order to explain UI, then by god, you've definitely missed the User Interface boat as no user would want to interface with something that pointed at pie-in-the-sky nothings. Ponte tu dinero donde tu boca esta. I'd bet on Steve Jobs with his blockbuster Apple sales than on some supposed pundit who spoke with Steve once.
Just look at the 2002 predictions. None of them are going to happen. I understand that's it hard to use induction to predcit what'll happen in 10 years, but we can be pretty sure what won't happen in 10 months. - Disposable Paper Cellphone ($10) - Automatic measurement of body using laser scanning boohths in shops - Laser body scanning unites in clothes shops - First all woman space crew
Glad to know that we have a man who has a vengance against Microsoft (Excel) ready for round two. However, maybe it's not so strategic to have on board somebody whose already lost to M$, but rather somebody who beat them at something and continues to do so, like somebody from Adobe.