that and the Rama story bites. even when compared to another relatively boring Clarkesque story like 2001:A Space Odessey. i think the satelite thing was a fluke. maybe he was chosen to reveal a piece of Roswell technology as his own.
As I understand it, the issue isn't as simple as nature vs. nurture. They're finding (like they find in sooo many other things) that it's not a dipolar situation, but a continuum.
Genetics is just the starting point for an organism... the baseline... the nature part. But before you get to the nurture (psychological issues and rearing... the nurture), you have this incredibly complex process of gene activation and suppression. What activates genes? Protiens. And what are the chances that two identical organisms (even maturing in the same womb) are going to have identical interactions with identical protiens at the molecular level? About as rare as you can imagine.
So the issue is the organisms interaction with the environment. And what is that, nature or nurture? Well, it's neither... and it's both.
I remember reading an article about all this, and Mead even acknoledged that it wasn't his idea. It's just that he's a funder of the Foveon company, and he's using his notoriety to promote this new invention. But it's not his.
Funny how the tech community is just as celebrity focused as everyone else. Or perhaps it's just the tech-unsavvy writers of tech journals.
And Hewlett-Packard Company, once the proud purveyors of the HPWay, are nowhere to be found in the top 100. This is an accurate reflection of the state of affairs, but sad.
Another employee-centric company culture falls prey to the narrow-minded concepts tought in today's business schools.
In my opinion, the targets of reinvestment dollars come and go like fads. It's not so much that it was "in" to be investing in IT, it's just that people feared being at competative disadvantage to their peers. Now since overall investment is waning and everybody knows it, people realize that they can redirect their moneys elsewhere without that same risk.
I read this as saying two things about businesses:
1. Most businesses are happy to stay in the peloton. If they're doing what everyone else is doing, they know that they won't get abnomally punished relative to the rest of the group.
2. There is not enough competition in most goods markets. Their profit margin is too high when it's not to their benefit to innovate but to "keep the train on the tracks".
First, I think that it's misleading to think that people who use something a lot are particularly knowledgable about that thing. Use has more to do with socio-economic realities than it does with knowledge of the underlying technology.
Second, "the market" for almost everything has is optimized for price, and the tech market is no different. It would be nice if there were more companies like Apple that provided more options (ease of usability), but most people buy things based on one thing... financial cost. I'd like to buy a tech product that has perfect documentation and user support and reliability, but I don't represent a significant demand to justify a supply. What's new?
Third, it seems like people don't like JK because he is provocative... in a flamebaiting sort of way. The article could have been presented in a much different light, but he chose to incite the tech community that reads this site. What does that say about the people who judge which articles get posted?
I agree that these definitions may seem arbitrary.
DNS is a complicated example because there are _many_ things going on there. You've got the resolver code on each workstation and it's interaction with a recursive nameserver. You've got a recursive nameserver's interaction with authoritative nameservers. And you've got the interaction between master and slave nameservers (sharing zone data).
Frankly I think that's all a red herring. I would modify my earlier statement of defining P2P as containing both client and server functions in the same binary (and yes, that is an important piece of the puzzle... if you seperate them, that means that you can run them exclusively on different machines) in the following way: that any given data could be both requested and served from the same node. That is to say that that any Gnutella node could source the same file.
This is different from DNS master/slave in that although two nodes could play either role, the specific master/slave role is not arbitrary for a specific zone(data).
I'd define P2P (and I'm sure that someone will point out some authoritative formal definition somewhere) is when the same binary is used to both initiate and accept connections.
FTP isn't P2P because it's got a client (ftp) and a server (ftpd). Same for DNS and telnet. NetMeeting is because it's one binary that plays both roles.
I, however, think that while the paper is interesting (this is the first one of these I've bothered to browse), I am astonished at it's poor grammer. Is English the first language of any of these students?
Well said.
Exactly the point... will our lawmakers make non-digital-rights-enforcing software/hardware illegal to possess? And to sharpen the point: What would this mean for open-source products? Could this be Microsoft's strategy for killing Linux. Regardless of whether the participants who support this website continue to fight the good fight, the effect of such an approach could well decide Linux's fate as a common desktop (if that's at all what we want). Joe and Martha Jones simply won't put themselves at risk by using illegal software... especially with things like Magic Lantern peaking onto their PCs. Stores will stop carrying Linux unless it becomes DRM compliant (through a small license fee to M$). And as we've seen this week, federal law enforcement will track down and shut down websites distributing illegal software.
I don't think it's paranoia at all. We can rant about how the free nature of the Internet will fundamentally change copyright law, and how those that aren't onboard will suffer. But what if it turns out the other way? Which outcome do you think has more recent historical precedence?
Slashdot Mirror
What is going to happen to my x-10 investment when this happens? It's possible that they wouldn't interfere with each other, but I wouldn't bet on it.
the relevant name there is Kubrik, not Clarke.
that and the Rama story bites. even when compared to another relatively boring Clarkesque story like 2001:A Space Odessey. i think the satelite thing was a fluke. maybe he was chosen to reveal a piece of Roswell technology as his own.
no, Kubrik was the real creator. RIP.
As I understand it, the issue isn't as simple as nature vs. nurture. They're finding (like they find in sooo many other things) that it's not a dipolar situation, but a continuum.
Genetics is just the starting point for an organism... the baseline... the nature part. But before you get to the nurture (psychological issues and rearing... the nurture), you have this incredibly complex process of gene activation and suppression. What activates genes? Protiens. And what are the chances that two identical organisms (even maturing in the same womb) are going to have identical interactions with identical protiens at the molecular level? About as rare as you can imagine.
So the issue is the organisms interaction with the environment. And what is that, nature or nurture? Well, it's neither... and it's both.
I remember reading an article about all this, and Mead even acknoledged that it wasn't his idea. It's just that he's a funder of the Foveon company, and he's using his notoriety to promote this new invention. But it's not his.
Funny how the tech community is just as celebrity focused as everyone else. Or perhaps it's just the tech-unsavvy writers of tech journals.
And Hewlett-Packard Company, once the proud purveyors of the HPWay, are nowhere to be found in the top 100. This is an accurate reflection of the state of affairs, but sad.
Another employee-centric company culture falls prey to the narrow-minded concepts tought in today's business schools.
In my opinion, the targets of reinvestment dollars come and go like fads. It's not so much that it was "in" to be investing in IT, it's just that people feared being at competative disadvantage to their peers. Now since overall investment is waning and everybody knows it, people realize that they can redirect their moneys elsewhere without that same risk.
I read this as saying two things about businesses:
1. Most businesses are happy to stay in the peloton. If they're doing what everyone else is doing, they know that they won't get abnomally punished relative to the rest of the group.
2. There is not enough competition in most goods markets. Their profit margin is too high when it's not to their benefit to innovate but to "keep the train on the tracks".
First, I think that it's misleading to think that people who use something a lot are particularly knowledgable about that thing. Use has more to do with socio-economic realities than it does with knowledge of the underlying technology.
Second, "the market" for almost everything has is optimized for price, and the tech market is no different. It would be nice if there were more companies like Apple that provided more options (ease of usability), but most people buy things based on one thing... financial cost. I'd like to buy a tech product that has perfect documentation and user support and reliability, but I don't represent a significant demand to justify a supply. What's new?
Third, it seems like people don't like JK because he is provocative... in a flamebaiting sort of way. The article could have been presented in a much different light, but he chose to incite the tech community that reads this site. What does that say about the people who judge which articles get posted?
I agree that these definitions may seem arbitrary.
DNS is a complicated example because there are _many_ things going on there. You've got the resolver code on each workstation and it's interaction with a recursive nameserver. You've got a recursive nameserver's interaction with authoritative nameservers. And you've got the interaction between master and slave nameservers (sharing zone data).
Frankly I think that's all a red herring. I would modify my earlier statement of defining P2P as containing both client and server functions in the same binary (and yes, that is an important piece of the puzzle... if you seperate them, that means that you can run them exclusively on different machines) in the following way: that any given data could be both requested and served from the same node. That is to say that that any Gnutella node could source the same file.
This is different from DNS master/slave in that although two nodes could play either role, the specific master/slave role is not arbitrary for a specific zone(data).
I'd define P2P (and I'm sure that someone will point out some authoritative formal definition somewhere) is when the same binary is used to both initiate and accept connections. FTP isn't P2P because it's got a client (ftp) and a server (ftpd). Same for DNS and telnet. NetMeeting is because it's one binary that plays both roles. I, however, think that while the paper is interesting (this is the first one of these I've bothered to browse), I am astonished at it's poor grammer. Is English the first language of any of these students?
Well said. Exactly the point... will our lawmakers make non-digital-rights-enforcing software/hardware illegal to possess? And to sharpen the point: What would this mean for open-source products? Could this be Microsoft's strategy for killing Linux. Regardless of whether the participants who support this website continue to fight the good fight, the effect of such an approach could well decide Linux's fate as a common desktop (if that's at all what we want). Joe and Martha Jones simply won't put themselves at risk by using illegal software... especially with things like Magic Lantern peaking onto their PCs. Stores will stop carrying Linux unless it becomes DRM compliant (through a small license fee to M$). And as we've seen this week, federal law enforcement will track down and shut down websites distributing illegal software. I don't think it's paranoia at all. We can rant about how the free nature of the Internet will fundamentally change copyright law, and how those that aren't onboard will suffer. But what if it turns out the other way? Which outcome do you think has more recent historical precedence?