The only way the Internet can really have an impact on the direction of science is not by making publishing cheaper or by freely distributing papers, but by loosening the controls of the peer review system.
The peer review process as it has operated throughout the last few hundred years is on record as being the biggest stumbling block to scientific advancement. Note how many breakthroughs were vociferously opposed by those scientists with recognition, i.e. those that guided and made it through the peer review process of the Sciences and Natures of their time.
Well, what is the alternative you ask. Anarchy? Race to the LCD? No. Formatting standards, global namespaces, meta-data (including meta-data for reviews and comments on papers), and collaborative filtering working together can act to allow for a decentralized method of filtering and promoting various theories.
If the viewpoints of scientists were made public knowledge through a system of ratings and reviews of papers, it is even feasible that an objective measure of rating accuracy could be assessed over time -- this IS science after all, and theories are eventually proven right or wrong. Then, given tight enough feedback loops, the old guard might not even have to die off before being written off.:0
Is there a word for "posing as a friend to subtly subvert the cause, either by turning neutral people against you or by leading your friends down the wrong path"?
This constant whining about Passport and privacy, although it seems to be this great groundswell of consumer angst against MS, actually plays into MS's hands. How could this possibly be you ask? Let me explain...
If I was anywhere near as wily and cunning as BG, my strategy would be thus: orchestrate and add to the public's fear of the Internet's insecurity by shipping egregiously insecure products, and using my influence over the media (such as one surely has as richest man in the world and on the board of directors of the Washington Post) to propagate and exaggerate tales of evil hackers. Then, once they are properly whipped into a frenzy of paranoia (hey, even the Taliban is reading your files!) turn the agile boat of MS around by sending out a memo to now, "belatedly", make security job one. Mobilize the best minds at MS (and some of the best minds in the world at that) to tackle the security issue head on. Meanwhile, if any other Passport-like federation of servers pops up, use some of these same people to analyze the weaknesses of the competing system and then hire whiz-bang Russian hackers to compromise it, rallying support to Passport while feeding the media's propaganda machine.
Bizarre? Paranoid? I don't think so. Giving up your freedoms for "protection" is one of the oldest rackets there is. And the little Italian corner-store knows perfectly well that the "protectors" and those to be protected from are, if not the same people, getting together on Friday nights to play poker at the local tavern.
What a ubiquitous Passport gives MS is not the rights to violate your privacy. That would be bad business. What it gives MS is the mandate to set the future for the XML schema of the new integrated Internet, and that is power indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way the Internet can really have an impact on the direction of science is not by making publishing cheaper or by freely distributing papers, but by loosening the controls of the peer review system.
:0
The peer review process as it has operated throughout the last few hundred years is on record as being the biggest stumbling block to scientific advancement. Note how many breakthroughs were vociferously opposed by those scientists with recognition, i.e. those that guided and made it through the peer review process of the Sciences and Natures of their time.
Well, what is the alternative you ask. Anarchy? Race to the LCD? No. Formatting standards, global namespaces, meta-data (including meta-data for reviews and comments on papers), and collaborative filtering working together can act to allow for a decentralized method of filtering and promoting various theories.
If the viewpoints of scientists were made public knowledge through a system of ratings and reviews of papers, it is even feasible that an objective measure of rating accuracy could be assessed over time -- this IS science after all, and theories are eventually proven right or wrong. Then, given tight enough feedback loops, the old guard might not even have to die off before being written off.
Just some thoughts...
Is there a word for "posing as a friend to subtly subvert the cause, either by turning neutral people against you or by leading your friends down the wrong path"?
This constant whining about Passport and privacy, although it seems to be this great groundswell of consumer angst against MS, actually plays into MS's hands. How could this possibly be you ask? Let me explain... If I was anywhere near as wily and cunning as BG, my strategy would be thus: orchestrate and add to the public's fear of the Internet's insecurity by shipping egregiously insecure products, and using my influence over the media (such as one surely has as richest man in the world and on the board of directors of the Washington Post) to propagate and exaggerate tales of evil hackers. Then, once they are properly whipped into a frenzy of paranoia (hey, even the Taliban is reading your files!) turn the agile boat of MS around by sending out a memo to now, "belatedly", make security job one. Mobilize the best minds at MS (and some of the best minds in the world at that) to tackle the security issue head on. Meanwhile, if any other Passport-like federation of servers pops up, use some of these same people to analyze the weaknesses of the competing system and then hire whiz-bang Russian hackers to compromise it, rallying support to Passport while feeding the media's propaganda machine. Bizarre? Paranoid? I don't think so. Giving up your freedoms for "protection" is one of the oldest rackets there is. And the little Italian corner-store knows perfectly well that the "protectors" and those to be protected from are, if not the same people, getting together on Friday nights to play poker at the local tavern. What a ubiquitous Passport gives MS is not the rights to violate your privacy. That would be bad business. What it gives MS is the mandate to set the future for the XML schema of the new integrated Internet, and that is power indeed.