I refuted your points, with specific examples using technical language (not 'buzzwords'). I gave the F-22 example. I used systems science and 'management science' terminology.
I offered a simple thesis...your approach is a cost-saving measure but ill-suited to situation like vehicles where human lives are at stake. I said your method sacrificed human lives for 'efficiency'.
That is a falsify-able statement you could have argued against...if you weren't a TROLL
Anyone reading this deep can judge but I deem thee a troll and you have rendered this part of the thread irrelevant.
The problem here isn't lack of prototyping, it appears that they tried to extend the process too far and the management systems weren't weren't set up properly to handle the new process
No, the problem is bureaucracy. Bureaucratic systems inefficient at management, partially due to a misunderstanding of and over-reliance upon digital data.
in other words: BAD MANAGEMENT
You attempted to give examples of "(IIRC) three" unspecified aerospace projects that had been prototyped using all-digital, proving nothing. Assuming your examples are real, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Aerospace prototyping failures that result in commercial product failures are a big fucking deal.
Look, here's what you are missing: When human lives are involved, prototyping things like...um...the F-22 or this 787 with a real-life prototype is *absolutely necessary*
The only way to conclude otherwise is to de-value human life. Do all the actuarial MBA-bullshit spreadsheets you want, you are still doing less work, less science on a complex project purely to save money *at the expense of lives*
Research 'military boondoggles' and you'll see Boeing has experience with this. The F-22 Raptor, be it digital-only prototype or not, is an example of the same **FAILURE OF MANAGEMENT** in all ways.
I'm not just talking 'operational' failure. There is a systemic problem and a systemic inability to do proper error correction...so it's like having clogged pipes that are also rusting.
That's the problem here. A fundamental flaw that with certainty will result in using bad metrics in the lab when deciding the statistical tolerances for the prototyping program....that's just one mistake.
See, the 'grandmother' part isn't the point. Some tech just works. THIS is the problem GP was trying to highlight, which your trollish counterpoint did not address at all:
"go out to the computer store _again_ to buy an external HD, lookup what a "recovery partition" is and what the procedure is to upload that to the external HD [she would call it the little box I guess]. Then find out which are the "chunks of space that is supposed to be a trial of Office" and how to get rid of this nonsens."
It's right after the 'grandma' part in the GP's post...see, that's why M$ products suck, and that when people make some dumb "just uninstall XYZ" as a supposed rebuttal to criticism of M$'s bad design they are really just trolling.
"You may have to be willing to learn new things..."
My contention is that, indeed as you say 'the jobs are out there'...however I contend that the avenues to attaining the skills required are not as open as you indicate.
Yes, theoretically, a random person willing to do the things you list (delve into coding, relocating, entry-level work) could, under laboratory conditions get a job.
I'm talking about people who don't know that avenue exists, which are many. College is still considered the place to go to become a professional, and as I'm sure you'd agree, getting a job in IT/tech is not degree-dependent like other fields such as teaching or nursing.
Colleges need to do a better job of teaching tech/IT skills. It is a long-term project to be sure, but it needs to happen. If you put the money there, the techies with good interpersonal skills will come to Academia.
I have a degree in education from the University of Colorado-Boulder and the overlap between current education theory and 'machine learning' artificial intelligence stuff is very interesting and developing. IMHO it is the perfect time to improve technology education in Academia...major overhaul
Trying to weigh all the parts of the bill, I think I would oppose it.
I think foreign workers in all jobs are good, but increasing the number of visas granted is bad in an economy like ours. We need our jobs to rebuild our individual financial infrastructure. Younger workers need to be able to pay off those credit cards.
Google, Yahoo, IBM, etc *should* be forced to hire more US workers. First it would force companies to start giving people with a criminal record a chance. Felons at age 26 with marketable skills in IT, web design, or coding/software engineering are still Felons...they never make it past HR...
Just look at any thread on/. about getting hired...Human Resources is a difficult barrier even with a spotless record.
A second reason to oppose more H1-B visas is that it would force Americans to go back to college or get marketable skills another way. State university systems are economical and could be adapted to be essentially profit-neutral and give 100% financial aid to all who are accepted.
So yes, Americans do need to get off their asses, get some skillz and get to work...adding more *non-US* workers than we already allow is dumb right now
A certain (IMHO evil) business philosophy will always, with **certainty**, try to take something that people purchase and own indefinitely and make it a 'subscription-based service'...it's 100% predictable and not in any way 'innovative' or 'new'
It's just feature bottlenecking...it's how drug dealers (and drug companies) make their money and it's ruining tech.
If TFA is correct and the theater is in demand in the community and fails anyway, it is **bad business practices** that caused the theater to close...no 'innovation' needed, just a person with the business sense of any stall shopkeeper in an Asian market.
American business has gotten so twisted, many businesspeople and investors really can't conceive of making a profit by any other means than the 'software as service' model. I have seen real, capital building business concepts laughed at in tech settings.
I agree that the tone of the BBC article was a bit flamebait, however you are giving the FBI, etc more benefit of the doubt than is rational...
"Stifling dissent" is accomplished through many means...we only know what was declassified.
The FBI was warning bankers about things they heard Occupy planning, but the FBI didn't say jack shit about the assassination plot to the protesters...that's a big one.
Of course law enforcement should look in on what groups like this do...it's their job. But **what they do with the information** is the crime here. I made a few LE people who attended Occupy meetings that were open to the public...I felt that was fine.
A second point, notice how geographically FBI etc. had vastly different responses. FBI agents in, say Houston, TX are understandably more likely to view 'occupy' as a terrorist org than say, FBI agents in Seattle. America is a big place with regional cultures that vary widely along the political spectrum. It stands to reason that FBI agents who work in the South are more Fascist-minded than those who elect to work in more liberal areas.
From *personal experience* Occupy was peaceful and never physically antagonistic...
See, here's your problem, "Captain"...you're judging a the behavior of a few and applying it to a large group. It's false equivalence...
Sort of like if I were to, say, claim that the US military is a murderous organization based on what I'd "seen and heard" of one soldier going house to house murdering civilians.
Diversify, diversify, diversify, but OP should keep it to the sciences (even *gasp* psychology or communications) or economics.
"Business" and "Management" degrees should be only as a 'minor' or combined with a letters or scientific degree. They are not academic disciplines. They are a construct of the trend in academia to make degrees that are more 'practical'
The only valuable coursework will be the cross disciplinary classes like psychology, accounting, or maths (if biz majors even have math pre-req's anymore).
As for the 'business' and 'marketing' distinctives? Well, they teach you how to 'bullshit'...and I think we'd all agree there are better places to learn how to do that;)
I'd add a 'maybe'...but I am glad someone threw this out there...
OP may not *want* to do things like payroll, break evens, 'business plans,' finding a location to lease, hiring employees, etc...
I'd wager that in fact he does *not*...most people prefer to fill a role in someone else's biz for the sake of consistency. 'Starting your own business' is entrepreneurship...it's a separate skill and activity requiring different abilities and time commitment.
If OP or others *want* that, by all means go for it, but I would not give a blanket recommendation to just 'start your own biz dood' to anyone asking the OP's question.
I don't have a good answer to OP's question, but I was teacher, a research scientist in academia, and now I'm starting my own business.
I like the Physics suggestion, thinking as an employer. He's already got the skills, adding Physics or another parallel discipline will make for a demonstrably better problem solver...and even the dumbest HR bot will respect that reasoning.
lot's of good and bad advice flowing on this thread, but grammarians are universally bad bosses...
being a 'grammar nazi' shows an inability to discern value outside of arbitrary rules
obv. 'attention to detail' is good...but knowing when to apply rules appropriately and when the rules are irrelevant is the skill...memorizing and pedantically enforcing an inconsistent set of rules can be done by any moron
If choosing a language *now* Chinese would be monumentally stupid.
1. Most Chinese learn English...(at least the one's we'd prob. meet) English is the common language in all international research labs. I've studied with 60+ nationalities as a French telecom research college in Brittany and all the French scientists complained about how the Indians, Chinese, Senegalese, Russian, etc students would speak English and not French
2. It is not fit for technical use. It was developed the same way rednecks make Meth. Slapdash, inconsistent. Sure you *can* write highly technical things in Chinese but usually it's just a reverse romanization of English. Also, one alphabet, two verbalizations??? WTF cantonese/mandarin
3. The whole entire idea floating around that 'China' is the 'next big thing' and that we're going to be 'owned' by China etc etc etc is all ridiculous flamebait for people who don't understand economics. China only booms when America lets it...fact
4. For Asian languages, Korean is the best. It's 100% phonetic and every sound that exists in Mandarin is representable with Korean phonetic letters...Japanese is good to, but more for how it stretches your mind than its coherence and usability
I agree he's hirable...but he demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of learning...
You didn't go to college unless you studied *all* disciplines as a survey and study *most* of *one* subject under the supervision of recognized experts in the subject..
If you didn't do that you didn't get a *college education* you got a *piece of paper*
However, he does demonstrate intelligence and more importantly persistence. He followed through with his stupid plan to the end...that means something.
I wouldn't consider him for a research or analytical thinking position, but he'd make a hell of a manager.
But I agree...it shows a fundamental lack of understanding at what happens at college.
People, unless you came out of your undergrad having studied a bit of every subject and *most* of *one* subject with the guidance of experts...well...you didn't go to college...
You got a piece of paper...which is all this dumbass did with his stunt.
However...it *does* show intelligence and more importantly persistence. He saw the stupid idea through and that's worth something.
I wouldn't consider him for any academic or research-based job at all...but he could be a hell of a manager with some training.
I'd say this is pseudoscience but...I'm trying not to feed my inner troll...
This is definitely shoddy science work. Their definition of 'media' is one of many examples...
I've researched media usage, media usefulness, geospatial correlations, etc. in an academic setting and the definition this study uses for 'media' is...depressingly narrow.
'media' is a book, billboard...anything that has symbols. Usually researchers narrow the language to 'digital media'...but that requires a more refined, less salacious theory...which doesn't get headlines.
Don't even get me started on how research studies like this use the word 'multitasking'
Look, IAAS and this research is garbage...move along...
Labeling what McAfee did as "antivirus pioneer" does a disservice to both terms and makes anyone who reads it stupiderer...
As far as I can tell (I wasn't a crypto-analyst or infosec tech in the 80s) McAfee was good at getting government contracts and paying people to write software for him.
That is **not** pioneering anything...that's **above average** level **business management**....really nothing he did professionally was extraordinary or ideologically noteworthy whatsoever. He was a standard bubble-era businessman.
We do ourselves a serious harm by not making distinctions between who does the work and who manages the company.
You all have it...no dispute...DRM is anchored in the concept of holding a 'copyright' to written music
The concept has been so abused that it gets confusing, and it's definitely about money at the core...money...power...control...whathaveyou...we all know their fsking game now, to me that's the important thing
I was there...and one of the Gnutella network founders from MIT testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (after Lars and Shawn Fanning w/ 'M' hat)...he testified that the **infinitely copyable** nature of digital music files made DRM useless
These Microsoft guys get respect...but they were being **kind**...no damn "darknet" is necessary...trading with friends IS NOT A DARKNET
See, anyone is allowed to compile music on media and give to a friend...that's part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act...and the Federal Government cannot define 'friend' just to control digital music...it is a non-starter
So...the labels/studios had to either 1) adapt business model beyond holding copyright **OR** 2) use DRM
We know the rest...
FYI it was the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to propose adaptations to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in July (?) of 2000...Senators Leahy and Hatch presided...I used my 'intern' badge to sneak into the press box:P
Because previous approaches were limited to about (not exactly) two layers it makes the definition of the label a little fuzzy, but the partition into shallow / deep approaches is crisp.
I'm glad you mentioned 'fuzzy'...encountering that word partially formed my strong opinions about non-technical language...
See, I started out loving physics, especially astrophysics. An 8 year old in the library science section with a pile of books trying to figure out the sky and learning about the lives of other scientists.
If you look at the history of physics, the idea of rigor is obviously very important. When I encountered things like *Heisenberg Uncertainty* and the consequences of Einstien's theories on time and gravity...then Black holes....the Fournier Transform...etc etc
Well, it pissed me off! How dare science be uncertain!!!!
I was **so mad** that the Bohr Model wasn't the definitive model...I **hated** that science...SCIENCE...had to resort to stupid uncertain, unreliable concepts like *fuzzy math*
When I understood that science is a dance with uncertainty, and that no ammount of experimental rigor can create 100% truth...
Well, I got fuzzy...
But I still resist getting 'fuzzy' as the easy way out for a lazy researcher...and that's why I think Computing still has so many hitches...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm calling troll....
I refuted your points, with specific examples using technical language (not 'buzzwords'). I gave the F-22 example. I used systems science and 'management science' terminology.
I offered a simple thesis...your approach is a cost-saving measure but ill-suited to situation like vehicles where human lives are at stake. I said your method sacrificed human lives for 'efficiency'.
That is a falsify-able statement you could have argued against...if you weren't a TROLL
Anyone reading this deep can judge but I deem thee a troll and you have rendered this part of the thread irrelevant.
No, the problem is bureaucracy. Bureaucratic systems inefficient at management, partially due to a misunderstanding of and over-reliance upon digital data.
in other words: BAD MANAGEMENT
You attempted to give examples of "(IIRC) three" unspecified aerospace projects that had been prototyped using all-digital, proving nothing. Assuming your examples are real, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Aerospace prototyping failures that result in commercial product failures are a big fucking deal.
Look, here's what you are missing: When human lives are involved, prototyping things like...um...the F-22 or this 787 with a real-life prototype is *absolutely necessary*
The only way to conclude otherwise is to de-value human life. Do all the actuarial MBA-bullshit spreadsheets you want, you are still doing less work, less science on a complex project purely to save money *at the expense of lives*
Research 'military boondoggles' and you'll see Boeing has experience with this. The F-22 Raptor, be it digital-only prototype or not, is an example of the same **FAILURE OF MANAGEMENT** in all ways.
I'm not just talking 'operational' failure. There is a systemic problem and a systemic inability to do proper error correction...so it's like having clogged pipes that are also rusting.
That's the problem here. A fundamental flaw that with certainty will result in using bad metrics in the lab when deciding the statistical tolerances for the prototyping program....that's just one mistake.
...in the GP's example...
See, the 'grandmother' part isn't the point. Some tech just works. THIS is the problem GP was trying to highlight, which your trollish counterpoint did not address at all:
"go out to the computer store _again_ to buy an external HD, lookup what a "recovery partition" is and what the procedure is to upload that to the external HD [she would call it the little box I guess]. Then find out which are the "chunks of space that is supposed to be a trial of Office" and how to get rid of this nonsens."
It's right after the 'grandma' part in the GP's post...see, that's why M$ products suck, and that when people make some dumb "just uninstall XYZ" as a supposed rebuttal to criticism of M$'s bad design they are really just trolling.
"You may have to be willing to learn new things..."
My contention is that, indeed as you say 'the jobs are out there'...however I contend that the avenues to attaining the skills required are not as open as you indicate.
Yes, theoretically, a random person willing to do the things you list (delve into coding, relocating, entry-level work) could, under laboratory conditions get a job.
I'm talking about people who don't know that avenue exists, which are many. College is still considered the place to go to become a professional, and as I'm sure you'd agree, getting a job in IT/tech is not degree-dependent like other fields such as teaching or nursing.
Colleges need to do a better job of teaching tech/IT skills. It is a long-term project to be sure, but it needs to happen. If you put the money there, the techies with good interpersonal skills will come to Academia.
I have a degree in education from the University of Colorado-Boulder and the overlap between current education theory and 'machine learning' artificial intelligence stuff is very interesting and developing. IMHO it is the perfect time to improve technology education in Academia...major overhaul
"So yes, Americans do need to get off their asses, get some skillz and get to work..."
>"Ah yes, the old unemployed are lazy and unskilled lie."
I didn't mean to go there. I *don't* think that, but I know that there are Republicans and closeted GOP'ers ('libertarians') who I respect on /.
I was trying to weigh the bill all the way around, from all perspectives.
Trying to weigh all the parts of the bill, I think I would oppose it.
I think foreign workers in all jobs are good, but increasing the number of visas granted is bad in an economy like ours. We need our jobs to rebuild our individual financial infrastructure. Younger workers need to be able to pay off those credit cards.
Google, Yahoo, IBM, etc *should* be forced to hire more US workers. First it would force companies to start giving people with a criminal record a chance. Felons at age 26 with marketable skills in IT, web design, or coding/software engineering are still Felons...they never make it past HR...
Just look at any thread on /. about getting hired...Human Resources is a difficult barrier even with a spotless record.
A second reason to oppose more H1-B visas is that it would force Americans to go back to college or get marketable skills another way. State university systems are economical and could be adapted to be essentially profit-neutral and give 100% financial aid to all who are accepted.
So yes, Americans do need to get off their asses, get some skillz and get to work...adding more *non-US* workers than we already allow is dumb right now
"the original trilogy was essentially a reboot of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai"
I always thought Dune was the main 'inspiration' for Lucas...IIRC there is evidence such as early NH drafts having the same name as Dune characters?
Sorry I don't have the links...I do know that I probably originally saw the links here on slashdot.
I came along just a bit later, but this part especially is true:
"users could buy complete service manuals for their computers (and have a good chance of fixing them!), there was a ton of info about the OS's"
The virtual complete absence of true user manuals to this day baffles/angers me.
When I took 'computer class' in the mid-90s we still learned mostly in versions of DOS and we used 5 1/4 and 3 1/2 floppys (mostly the latter).
We could afford 2 computers that could run the current version of Windows.
He probably has been in trouble for a long time...or at least running with a bad crowd.
It will catch up to him, but I don't know if there is any reason to deport him.
As far as his blog ("TFA") goes, it could be anything. Maybe he thinks he's been working for a gov't...maybe he thinks he's above international law...
A certain (IMHO evil) business philosophy will always, with **certainty**, try to take something that people purchase and own indefinitely and make it a 'subscription-based service'...it's 100% predictable and not in any way 'innovative' or 'new'
It's just feature bottlenecking...it's how drug dealers (and drug companies) make their money and it's ruining tech.
If TFA is correct and the theater is in demand in the community and fails anyway, it is **bad business practices** that caused the theater to close...no 'innovation' needed, just a person with the business sense of any stall shopkeeper in an Asian market.
American business has gotten so twisted, many businesspeople and investors really can't conceive of making a profit by any other means than the 'software as service' model. I have seen real, capital building business concepts laughed at in tech settings.
I agree that the tone of the BBC article was a bit flamebait, however you are giving the FBI, etc more benefit of the doubt than is rational...
"Stifling dissent" is accomplished through many means...we only know what was declassified.
The FBI was warning bankers about things they heard Occupy planning, but the FBI didn't say jack shit about the assassination plot to the protesters...that's a big one.
Of course law enforcement should look in on what groups like this do...it's their job. But **what they do with the information** is the crime here. I made a few LE people who attended Occupy meetings that were open to the public...I felt that was fine.
A second point, notice how geographically FBI etc. had vastly different responses. FBI agents in, say Houston, TX are understandably more likely to view 'occupy' as a terrorist org than say, FBI agents in Seattle. America is a big place with regional cultures that vary widely along the political spectrum. It stands to reason that FBI agents who work in the South are more Fascist-minded than those who elect to work in more liberal areas.
From *personal experience* Occupy was peaceful and never physically antagonistic...
See, here's your problem, "Captain"...you're judging a the behavior of a few and applying it to a large group. It's false equivalence...
Sort of like if I were to, say, claim that the US military is a murderous organization based on what I'd "seen and heard" of one soldier going house to house murdering civilians.
ugh...
Diversify, diversify, diversify, but OP should keep it to the sciences (even *gasp* psychology or communications) or economics.
"Business" and "Management" degrees should be only as a 'minor' or combined with a letters or scientific degree. They are not academic disciplines. They are a construct of the trend in academia to make degrees that are more 'practical'
The only valuable coursework will be the cross disciplinary classes like psychology, accounting, or maths (if biz majors even have math pre-req's anymore).
As for the 'business' and 'marketing' distinctives? Well, they teach you how to 'bullshit'...and I think we'd all agree there are better places to learn how to do that ;)
I'd add a 'maybe'...but I am glad someone threw this out there...
OP may not *want* to do things like payroll, break evens, 'business plans,' finding a location to lease, hiring employees, etc...
I'd wager that in fact he does *not*...most people prefer to fill a role in someone else's biz for the sake of consistency. 'Starting your own business' is entrepreneurship...it's a separate skill and activity requiring different abilities and time commitment.
If OP or others *want* that, by all means go for it, but I would not give a blanket recommendation to just 'start your own biz dood' to anyone asking the OP's question.
I don't have a good answer to OP's question, but I was teacher, a research scientist in academia, and now I'm starting my own business.
I like the Physics suggestion, thinking as an employer. He's already got the skills, adding Physics or another parallel discipline will make for a demonstrably better problem solver...and even the dumbest HR bot will respect that reasoning.
lot's of good and bad advice flowing on this thread, but grammarians are universally bad bosses...
being a 'grammar nazi' shows an inability to discern value outside of arbitrary rules
obv. 'attention to detail' is good...but knowing when to apply rules appropriately and when the rules are irrelevant is the skill...memorizing and pedantically enforcing an inconsistent set of rules can be done by any moron
If choosing a language *now* Chinese would be monumentally stupid.
1. Most Chinese learn English...(at least the one's we'd prob. meet) English is the common language in all international research labs. I've studied with 60+ nationalities as a French telecom research college in Brittany and all the French scientists complained about how the Indians, Chinese, Senegalese, Russian, etc students would speak English and not French
2. It is not fit for technical use. It was developed the same way rednecks make Meth. Slapdash, inconsistent. Sure you *can* write highly technical things in Chinese but usually it's just a reverse romanization of English. Also, one alphabet, two verbalizations??? WTF cantonese/mandarin
3. The whole entire idea floating around that 'China' is the 'next big thing' and that we're going to be 'owned' by China etc etc etc is all ridiculous flamebait for people who don't understand economics. China only booms when America lets it...fact
4. For Asian languages, Korean is the best. It's 100% phonetic and every sound that exists in Mandarin is representable with Korean phonetic letters...Japanese is good to, but more for how it stretches your mind than its coherence and usability
I agree he's hirable...but he demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of learning...
You didn't go to college unless you studied *all* disciplines as a survey and study *most* of *one* subject under the supervision of recognized experts in the subject..
If you didn't do that you didn't get a *college education* you got a *piece of paper*
However, he does demonstrate intelligence and more importantly persistence. He followed through with his stupid plan to the end...that means something.
I wouldn't consider him for a research or analytical thinking position, but he'd make a hell of a manager.
But I agree...it shows a fundamental lack of understanding at what happens at college.
People, unless you came out of your undergrad having studied a bit of every subject and *most* of *one* subject with the guidance of experts...well...you didn't go to college...
You got a piece of paper...which is all this dumbass did with his stunt.
However...it *does* show intelligence and more importantly persistence. He saw the stupid idea through and that's worth something.
I wouldn't consider him for any academic or research-based job at all...but he could be a hell of a manager with some training.
I'd say this is pseudoscience but...I'm trying not to feed my inner troll...
This is definitely shoddy science work. Their definition of 'media' is one of many examples...
I've researched media usage, media usefulness, geospatial correlations, etc. in an academic setting and the definition this study uses for 'media' is...depressingly narrow.
'media' is a book, billboard...anything that has symbols. Usually researchers narrow the language to 'digital media'...but that requires a more refined, less salacious theory...which doesn't get headlines.
Don't even get me started on how research studies like this use the word 'multitasking'
Look, IAAS and this research is garbage...move along...
Labeling what McAfee did as "antivirus pioneer" does a disservice to both terms and makes anyone who reads it stupiderer...
As far as I can tell (I wasn't a crypto-analyst or infosec tech in the 80s) McAfee was good at getting government contracts and paying people to write software for him.
That is **not** pioneering anything...that's **above average** level **business management**....really nothing he did professionally was extraordinary or ideologically noteworthy whatsoever. He was a standard bubble-era businessman.
We do ourselves a serious harm by not making distinctions between who does the work and who manages the company.
Just because companies still try to use DRM doesn't make it useful...
It is currently in use in various forms, and as GP said...it's fsking good at one thing: PISSING OFF THE USER
It's about the 'rights' as they say down in LA
You all have it...no dispute...DRM is anchored in the concept of holding a 'copyright' to written music
The concept has been so abused that it gets confusing, and it's definitely about money at the core...money...power...control...whathaveyou...we all know their fsking game now, to me that's the important thing
I was there...and one of the Gnutella network founders from MIT testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (after Lars and Shawn Fanning w/ 'M' hat)...he testified that the **infinitely copyable** nature of digital music files made DRM useless
These Microsoft guys get respect...but they were being **kind**...no damn "darknet" is necessary...trading with friends IS NOT A DARKNET
See, anyone is allowed to compile music on media and give to a friend...that's part of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act...and the Federal Government cannot define 'friend' just to control digital music...it is a non-starter
So...the labels/studios had to either 1) adapt business model beyond holding copyright **OR** 2) use DRM
We know the rest...
FYI it was the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to propose adaptations to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in July (?) of 2000...Senators Leahy and Hatch presided...I used my 'intern' badge to sneak into the press box :P
Because previous approaches were limited to about (not exactly) two layers it makes the definition of the label a little fuzzy, but the partition into shallow / deep approaches is crisp.
I'm glad you mentioned 'fuzzy'...encountering that word partially formed my strong opinions about non-technical language...
See, I started out loving physics, especially astrophysics. An 8 year old in the library science section with a pile of books trying to figure out the sky and learning about the lives of other scientists.
If you look at the history of physics, the idea of rigor is obviously very important. When I encountered things like *Heisenberg Uncertainty* and the consequences of Einstien's theories on time and gravity...then Black holes....the Fournier Transform...etc etc
Well, it pissed me off! How dare science be uncertain!!!!
I was **so mad** that the Bohr Model wasn't the definitive model...I **hated** that science...SCIENCE...had to resort to stupid uncertain, unreliable concepts like *fuzzy math*
When I understood that science is a dance with uncertainty, and that no ammount of experimental rigor can create 100% truth...
Well, I got fuzzy...
But I still resist getting 'fuzzy' as the easy way out for a lazy researcher...and that's why I think Computing still has so many hitches...