This could raise a whole lot of awkward questions. Why is eBay's search engine the only one allowed to search their database? Of course, it feels as if the other company is making money off of eBay without asking permission, but...
Well, what is Yahoo and other search engines doing, then? They're providing an access method to different websites. If you want to search a website by going through another search engine, sure, it's a pain, but it's feasible.
I'd hate to see eBay win on this. As far as I'm concerned, the method of accessing a website hierarchy is irrevelant, and you are free to propose any method you wish. eBay is a huge milk cow at the moment, and it sounds as if this is just another example of someone trying to leech off some of their revenues.
However, I have a sinking suspicion that eBay will win its point. It's time Linux takes over the world... We wouldn't have that silliness under Linux. Okay, so if LinBay has an (OS) search engine and someone else picks it up and adapts the code, LinBay wouldn't sue or something as silly; they'd take the new code, and better it and so on.
I know, I'm dragging this whole thing into another "Linux rulz!!!" issue... But I've got to say it: this news piece makes me say this: Open Source is to the Internet what the Middle-Class was to 1950's economy: perhaps the only hope against the self-destruction of capitalism.
Make of that what you will.:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
There is no suggestion in Katz's article about Clotho being tailored to your wishes. He speaks of an AI which will do the filtering for us.
I worry not so much about the users who get Clotho's filtering; they probably couldn't care less about what they don't see. But the rest of the sites will suddenly have to struggle to get on the AI's good list. Clotho suddenly becomes an editor, whatever customisation is done on it.
There's been a lot of talk about the relative merits of unedited (or, as in the case of Slashdot, peer-edited) media and editored media. Television is edited, as someone other than the originator of the material decides what makes the final cut or not. The wonder of the WWW is that suddenly, sites showing dubious taste (think "Mr. T Ate My Balls") show up, and it is peer-reviews and word of mouth that decides if it goes down in the annals of the Internet, or gets forgotten.
We don't need one single entity, AI or human, to do this. Not for the whole of the Internet. I prefer to do my searches on Google or Metacrawler, where what I get is a raw output based on the criteria I impose myself, than, say, Yahoo, where what you get is a filtered output in the first place.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
There is a difference between providing a list of compatible links as dictated by my own wishes, and having a computer program determine for me what I should consider funny or not, useful or not.
The ethical implications go further: how do you determine what is "good" for everyone? You end up in a very grey area, here. If you begin to negatively rate a site because it seems useless/in poor taste, you're alienating the target audience of this site, which may well disagree. You're also cutting off the freedom of expression which is one of the beauties of the WWW, even if it means it produces heaps of trash.
Consider this: what Katz is suggesting is more or less the director of programmation on a television station. He determines what people consider useful or entertaining. How? By checking ratings. So, in the end, quality is not the factor, but popularity, and in the long run, you end up just lowering your standards, because suddenly, you no longer dictate the popularity of shows: you buy what the director of programmation wants you to recognise as popular.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Thing is, you don't want to have heard these adverts precisely because you did hear them and exercised conscious choice that you would rather have not heard them.
So what you do, in the event that we have sensible user-defined filters is, you block further stuff similar to this.
But what if some outside authority, AI or not, decides to censor it before you even have a chance to see it? Saying that it knows what is best for you, and that you don't need to ever see it in your whole life?
I say, hold on. That may be right, but the decision is mine to make, dammit.
As for that Clotho idea playing God: I'm not making it up, Katz said it, to quote:
Clotho would definitely play God (which is okay, since she is one.)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I've patented the use of patents in silly and stupid ways to annoy most Internet users! I tried to get a patent for the uselessness of patents as well, but the Patent Office had that for themselves. Hmph.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Katz, if you somehow managed to put Clotho up, I would be the first to yell against it and denounce it as a stupid censorship of the Internet. Why should an AI (buzzword, btw) censor what I see and not see? Why should an AI (buzzword) play God (buzzword) when I can't?
Simply put, you're saying something nonhuman should control the flow of the WWW to prevent users from being overwhelmed by technology. What you're doing is putting technology in charge of something individuals themselves should take care of. You're suggesting that since we cannot control technology, then the next logical step is for technology to control us.
I say no way. It is not by dumbing down the crowd that we'll find salvation from your so-called cyberclism (buzzword). We'll find it by educating them, and showing them that standing up for their principles, to make choices free of constraints, is the way to overcome the buzz.
Tyranny by computer is tyranny nonetheless. Big Sister indeed.
A solution? The solution is already coming. It is called moderation and the gift culture. Even as companies approach, the word of mouth still manages to carry websites further than any ad banner ever can. Take a look at eBay: you don't have a rep there, you won't sell as much.
As the Internet becomes overwhelming (and I still don't think it is), it will be humans acting out as a community, moderating each other, that will filter the sensory overload and let the cream float to the top. Not some frivolous AI (b... oh alright) attempting to think like a human but yet incapable of doing so.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Wile E. Coyote *is* the Uber-Geek! [OT]
on
Galileo's Daughter
·
· Score: 1
No no.
Wile E. Coyote embodies the spirit of discovery and scientific research. He keeps trying to possess the Holy Grail, despite repeated failures. His goal is always out of sight, but it is the question that drives him.
Also, he has the correct approach to debugging. Instead of staying stuck on a particular programming problem, he tries again and again, from different angles. He constantly reinvents himself to get the code to execute properly.
Furthermore, his inventions are Open Source, because he never hesitates to show everyone the diagrams of his inventions so that everyone can reproduce them and better them.
Finally, Wile E Coyote's methods are flawless; he is only struck with impossible bad luck. How many of us have felt this, at the wee hours of the night, trying to nail down a bug in some complex code, always certain we will nail it this time... But relentlessly faling, again and again? Wile E. Coyote is a model for every geek out there, to persevere whatever the cost, whatever the level of success!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You're right, I don't use a Palm Pilot. It's a very cool toy, but I can't afford it. Still, you have to, I dunno, push a button and launch the proper application. Paper is -there-. Little Post-it notes can be left lying next to the telephone along with a pen.
You try doing that with a Palm Pilot and someone will steal it. And you can't have numerous Palm Pilots around the house. And you don't have to pay a few hundred dollars for paper.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
What, Ask Slashdot has begun taking submissions for rhetorical questions?:)
Seriously, it's a fact of life. Paper will not disappear. Can you hastily scribble something on even a Palm Pilot? Well, you got to boot it up first. Paper doesn't need to go through a boot-up sequence.
Are you afraid paper will crash? It's easier to keep a piece of paper going (say, keep it out of your pocket jeans before doing the laundry:) ) than to make sure your data will not be lost in some freak accident.
Paper has been used for centuries, because it's simple, convenient, cheap and practical. Why would you expect it to disappear?
What paper doesn't do, however, is where electronic media come in: you can't transmit paper over long distances quickly (well, there's Fax, but who uses that old junk when you can just make an attachment?); you can't carry a whole lot of information on paper conveniently; you can't share projects by constantly rewriting paper.
It's easy to go all Star Trek on everyone, and expect that age-old technologies will disappear. These technologies were discovered early on because they're universal, simple and practical. But I bet you that no matter where we get to in a thousand years, a few things will remain basically unchanged: beer, paper, the wheel and goood old fire.
Might as well ask why fire is still used in the age when we have electrical heating...:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Ah well; the fact that they aren't planning it now doesn't mean they won't do it. If anything, I bet the reaction to the rumour was very positive, and a lot of people (myself included) got very excited about the idea that Hilton would build a hotel just like in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
So, I say, let's keep telling them what a great idea that is, and they may just come around and do it. I'd fancy going to the Space Hilton by the time I go to my pension!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Hmm. This is interesting. I've heard this use of the word 'geek' often in older works. I don't think it fits the modern use of the word, however.
'Intellectual bent' has been adjusted to mean more, 'scientific or technical bent', and it is not so much a matter of disapproval, but rather of social ostracism.
So, in the spirit of the above definition, I'd say the modern definition of a geek would be,
A person, often of a scientific or technical bent, who excels in his or her field but often lacks social skills.
Still, I'll keep the Merriam Webster definition in mind. Maybe it will help me make any sense at all of Katz' article.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Well, alright, I cut corners... (Although I think algorithms are invented, not discovered.) I should say, the first caveman who invented a method for producing fire.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
In a sense, the obsessive, rebellious and gadget-minded Galileo (1564-1642) was one of the first Geeks, and in the context in which he lived and worked, one of the bravest.
Sigh. This is starting to sound like something I'd call "Geek Revisionism". Suddenly, everyone in history who made a significant impact was a geek.
Of course, most brilliant men were social outcasts. So that makes them geeks, of course. The definition of geek that Katz employs is so vague... I can easily say the following people were also geeks:
Adolf Hitler: he was a recluse and a misunderstood man with a vision!
Albert Einstein: he was a scientific-minded man who worked in the patent office and thus really loved gadgets!
Aristotle: a true geek, Aristotle went forth experimenting and exploring the world with a scientific mind.
Winston Churchill: An antisocial man who was alcoholic and manic-depressive, his analytical mind carried him through WW2.
Daffy Duck: Socially awkward, feverishly inventive, excitable and driven. Uber-Geek.
Wile E. Coyote: Isn't that one blatantly obvious?
Marvin the Martian: Exemplifies the social outcast in all of us true Geeks...
That first caveman who invented fire: Oh, man, Geekissimo!
I could go on. That's what you end up with when you broaden a definition that much; everyone ends up with aspects of the definition. Shesh, Geekdom is more than fun with gadgets. You're reading it like it's some sort of astrological sign.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
In our time, Galileo would probably have ended up a zillionnaire, profiled on "Dateline" and shifting his stock-option wealth from one fund to another.
Do you really believe that, Katz? Do you think that genius and vision are automatically encouraged in our day and age? That's very naive. If Galileo were born today, and said that, say, the Sun travels around the Earth, do you think he'd end up with stock options?
No. He'd make a crappy website, spewing his ideas to anyone wants to hear him, and die in isolation and poverty, overlooked by everyone.
They used to antagonise the revolutionary thinkers in the old days; now said thinkers are just buried so deep in the crap no one hears them.
Of course, Galileo was arrested not because of his ideas, which weren't entirely new, but because of the way he presented them: he was inflamatory and insulting to the Church, as a way to shake up the foundations of contemporary thoughts and force people to react and acknowledge them.
So; instead of declaring he's heretic, Galileo would get a big, juicy lawsuit on his head. Don't go thinking we live in an age when genius is recognised. True revolutionary thinking always takes a few decades to cement, and a lot of these ideas die in the crap.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
The badges are worn on a lanyard with the Pepsi logo on it. The badge has a photo of the student, the school name, the student's name, and a barcode which represents the Social Security number.
Big Brother is here. And he drinks Pepsi.
Pepsi. The choice of a brainwashed generation.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Just the fact they call it a capit@l proves they're not. @nyone using th@t @nnoying ch@r@cter @ny pl@ce @t @ll except for em@il @ddresses @nd @s @ shortcut to '@t' is just riding the hype. @m I the only one getting tired of it? Wh47 n3x7??? M4rk3t3rz w3311 b sp34k33n 13yk 7h3 31337???? Disclaimer: yes, I know no 31337 uses the word '31337'. I'm not 31337. Tank G0d, 3y3 can speel.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I dunno. This sounds like a very good idea, but I don't understand what practical purpose it has to do this from a politician's point of view.
Surely they understand that the Internet is still a growing entity, and that there may exist, at some point, a service which will become an interesting source of revenue.
So what purpose has a bill that says they'll "never" collect taxes from the Internet? Surely they'll just ratify the law when they see something worthwhile. Permanency in any political system, and moreso in democracy, is rarely an affair that lasts more than a few mandates.
So; sorry. I'm not opening up the Champagne. It's definitely not a bad news; but it's not good news to me, merely some form of political move to, I dunno, catter to Internet business and users.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I wish crackers had been a bit more brilliant in realising this was obviously a rigged contest. They should have left the Linux box alone and concentrate on NT. I'm surprised it wasn't done, given that, if I had the choice between cracking Linux or NT, I'd go for NT; it's much more easier.
But no... I get $1000 is enough to step on your integrity. And so, just watch Microsoft use that as FUD.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Well, I've seen beer used a lot as an analogy for software, so let's consider this new orientation using that analogy:
Beer as a product: you get what you buy: a beer. If it's not fresh, you can return it. You can't return a beer based on its quality, but you can demand to get what you expected.
Beer as a service: you don't buy the beer, you buy a 'alcoholic beverage drinking experience'. Notice the subjectivity of that. So what if you don't get a buzz? Maybe it's your metabolism, man. What if it ain't what you asked for? Tough luck: they provide a beer drinking experience, and even if what you got isn't what you asked for, it's still what they sell.
I think Microsoft Beer 1999 is probably difficult to sell as a product. Sometimes it comes without alcohol. Sometimes it spills itself right out of the glass. No wonder they're making it a service instead. Commiting to a service means they put people at your disposition to yell at, with or without solving anything.
Erm. I think I'm reading too much into this. Hmm, beer...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
NASA's decade-long program to explore Mars likely suffered a major setback today with the loss of the Climate Orbiter spacecraft dispatched to understand the Red Planet's weather. Space agency officials just announced at a news conference that the satellite may have plunged into the Martian atmosphere due to a catastrophic navigation error. Ground controllers had expected the craft to pass 140 or 150 km above the planet's surface during the closest approach as MCO entered orbit around Mars this morning. However, for some reason not yet known, MCO appears to have made the closest approach at 60 km. NASA says it suspects 85 km to be the minimum altitude that the satellite could have survived. Given that fact, optimism that MCO is still alive and orbiting about Mars is now rather low. But further attempts will be made to contact the satellite until it becomes completely clear MCO did indeed crash.
A "Tiger Team" has been formed to determine how the navigation error occurred, whether it was spacecraft, software, human error or some other factor that caused the mishap.
Ah, shit.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
This is exactly why Deep Space 1 was created: it sounds to me as if the reason Climate Orbiter is lost is a very small error. With an AI in that satellite, the correction would have been trivial.
Pleasepleaseplease don't make this push back the space program a few years! Failure is part of the space program, but the stupid Senators think they're wasting US money when a probe is lost; it's not wasted money, it's an investment for the successes that come from learning from those errors.
Well; there's still hope. Let us pray the patron saint of Space Flight.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what is Yahoo and other search engines doing, then? They're providing an access method to different websites. If you want to search a website by going through another search engine, sure, it's a pain, but it's feasible.
I'd hate to see eBay win on this. As far as I'm concerned, the method of accessing a website hierarchy is irrevelant, and you are free to propose any method you wish. eBay is a huge milk cow at the moment, and it sounds as if this is just another example of someone trying to leech off some of their revenues.
However, I have a sinking suspicion that eBay will win its point. It's time Linux takes over the world... We wouldn't have that silliness under Linux. Okay, so if LinBay has an (OS) search engine and someone else picks it up and adapts the code, LinBay wouldn't sue or something as silly; they'd take the new code, and better it and so on.
I know, I'm dragging this whole thing into another "Linux rulz!!!" issue... But I've got to say it: this news piece makes me say this: Open Source is to the Internet what the Middle-Class was to 1950's economy: perhaps the only hope against the self-destruction of capitalism.
Make of that what you will. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I worry not so much about the users who get Clotho's filtering; they probably couldn't care less about what they don't see. But the rest of the sites will suddenly have to struggle to get on the AI's good list. Clotho suddenly becomes an editor, whatever customisation is done on it.
There's been a lot of talk about the relative merits of unedited (or, as in the case of Slashdot, peer-edited) media and editored media. Television is edited, as someone other than the originator of the material decides what makes the final cut or not. The wonder of the WWW is that suddenly, sites showing dubious taste (think "Mr. T Ate My Balls") show up, and it is peer-reviews and word of mouth that decides if it goes down in the annals of the Internet, or gets forgotten.
We don't need one single entity, AI or human, to do this. Not for the whole of the Internet. I prefer to do my searches on Google or Metacrawler, where what I get is a raw output based on the criteria I impose myself, than, say, Yahoo, where what you get is a filtered output in the first place.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
The ethical implications go further: how do you determine what is "good" for everyone? You end up in a very grey area, here. If you begin to negatively rate a site because it seems useless/in poor taste, you're alienating the target audience of this site, which may well disagree. You're also cutting off the freedom of expression which is one of the beauties of the WWW, even if it means it produces heaps of trash.
Consider this: what Katz is suggesting is more or less the director of programmation on a television station. He determines what people consider useful or entertaining. How? By checking ratings. So, in the end, quality is not the factor, but popularity, and in the long run, you end up just lowering your standards, because suddenly, you no longer dictate the popularity of shows: you buy what the director of programmation wants you to recognise as popular.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
So what you do, in the event that we have sensible user-defined filters is, you block further stuff similar to this.
But what if some outside authority, AI or not, decides to censor it before you even have a chance to see it? Saying that it knows what is best for you, and that you don't need to ever see it in your whole life?
I say, hold on. That may be right, but the decision is mine to make, dammit.
As for that Clotho idea playing God: I'm not making it up, Katz said it, to quote:
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Simply put, you're saying something nonhuman should control the flow of the WWW to prevent users from being overwhelmed by technology. What you're doing is putting technology in charge of something individuals themselves should take care of. You're suggesting that since we cannot control technology, then the next logical step is for technology to control us.
I say no way. It is not by dumbing down the crowd that we'll find salvation from your so-called cyberclism (buzzword). We'll find it by educating them, and showing them that standing up for their principles, to make choices free of constraints, is the way to overcome the buzz.
Tyranny by computer is tyranny nonetheless. Big Sister indeed.
A solution? The solution is already coming. It is called moderation and the gift culture. Even as companies approach, the word of mouth still manages to carry websites further than any ad banner ever can. Take a look at eBay: you don't have a rep there, you won't sell as much.
As the Internet becomes overwhelming (and I still don't think it is), it will be humans acting out as a community, moderating each other, that will filter the sensory overload and let the cream float to the top. Not some frivolous AI (b... oh alright) attempting to think like a human but yet incapable of doing so.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Wile E. Coyote embodies the spirit of discovery and scientific research. He keeps trying to possess the Holy Grail, despite repeated failures. His goal is always out of sight, but it is the question that drives him.
Also, he has the correct approach to debugging. Instead of staying stuck on a particular programming problem, he tries again and again, from different angles. He constantly reinvents himself to get the code to execute properly.
Furthermore, his inventions are Open Source, because he never hesitates to show everyone the diagrams of his inventions so that everyone can reproduce them and better them.
Finally, Wile E Coyote's methods are flawless; he is only struck with impossible bad luck. How many of us have felt this, at the wee hours of the night, trying to nail down a bug in some complex code, always certain we will nail it this time... But relentlessly faling, again and again? Wile E. Coyote is a model for every geek out there, to persevere whatever the cost, whatever the level of success!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
You're right, I don't use a Palm Pilot. It's a very cool toy, but I can't afford it. Still, you have to, I dunno, push a button and launch the proper application. Paper is -there-. Little Post-it notes can be left lying next to the telephone along with a pen.
You try doing that with a Palm Pilot and someone will steal it. And you can't have numerous Palm Pilots around the house. And you don't have to pay a few hundred dollars for paper.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Seriously, it's a fact of life. Paper will not disappear. Can you hastily scribble something on even a Palm Pilot? Well, you got to boot it up first. Paper doesn't need to go through a boot-up sequence.
Are you afraid paper will crash? It's easier to keep a piece of paper going (say, keep it out of your pocket jeans before doing the laundry :) ) than to make sure your data will not be lost in some freak accident.
Paper has been used for centuries, because it's simple, convenient, cheap and practical. Why would you expect it to disappear?
What paper doesn't do, however, is where electronic media come in: you can't transmit paper over long distances quickly (well, there's Fax, but who uses that old junk when you can just make an attachment?); you can't carry a whole lot of information on paper conveniently; you can't share projects by constantly rewriting paper.
It's easy to go all Star Trek on everyone, and expect that age-old technologies will disappear. These technologies were discovered early on because they're universal, simple and practical. But I bet you that no matter where we get to in a thousand years, a few things will remain basically unchanged: beer, paper, the wheel and goood old fire.
Might as well ask why fire is still used in the age when we have electrical heating... :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
So, I say, let's keep telling them what a great idea that is, and they may just come around and do it. I'd fancy going to the Space Hilton by the time I go to my pension!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
'Intellectual bent' has been adjusted to mean more, 'scientific or technical bent', and it is not so much a matter of disapproval, but rather of social ostracism.
So, in the spirit of the above definition, I'd say the modern definition of a geek would be,
Still, I'll keep the Merriam Webster definition in mind. Maybe it will help me make any sense at all of Katz' article.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Sigh. This is starting to sound like something I'd call "Geek Revisionism". Suddenly, everyone in history who made a significant impact was a geek.
Of course, most brilliant men were social outcasts. So that makes them geeks, of course. The definition of geek that Katz employs is so vague... I can easily say the following people were also geeks:
Adolf Hitler: he was a recluse and a misunderstood man with a vision!
Albert Einstein: he was a scientific-minded man who worked in the patent office and thus really loved gadgets!
Aristotle: a true geek, Aristotle went forth experimenting and exploring the world with a scientific mind.
Winston Churchill: An antisocial man who was alcoholic and manic-depressive, his analytical mind carried him through WW2.
Daffy Duck: Socially awkward, feverishly inventive, excitable and driven. Uber-Geek.
Wile E. Coyote: Isn't that one blatantly obvious?
Marvin the Martian: Exemplifies the social outcast in all of us true Geeks...
That first caveman who invented fire: Oh, man, Geekissimo!
I could go on. That's what you end up with when you broaden a definition that much; everyone ends up with aspects of the definition. Shesh, Geekdom is more than fun with gadgets. You're reading it like it's some sort of astrological sign.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Do you really believe that, Katz? Do you think that genius and vision are automatically encouraged in our day and age? That's very naive. If Galileo were born today, and said that, say, the Sun travels around the Earth, do you think he'd end up with stock options?
No. He'd make a crappy website, spewing his ideas to anyone wants to hear him, and die in isolation and poverty, overlooked by everyone.
They used to antagonise the revolutionary thinkers in the old days; now said thinkers are just buried so deep in the crap no one hears them.
Of course, Galileo was arrested not because of his ideas, which weren't entirely new, but because of the way he presented them: he was inflamatory and insulting to the Church, as a way to shake up the foundations of contemporary thoughts and force people to react and acknowledge them.
So; instead of declaring he's heretic, Galileo would get a big, juicy lawsuit on his head. Don't go thinking we live in an age when genius is recognised. True revolutionary thinking always takes a few decades to cement, and a lot of these ideas die in the crap.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Banks running NT crash: 10:1
Microsoft blames the crash on time's "exceptional and in-depth knowledge of date manipulation on NT workstations": 5:1
Odds of Armageddon on Jan. 1st: 1,000,000:1
Odds of finding one sober person when the Armageddon comes: 1,000,000,000:1
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
9. "I'm 128-bit encrypted. It's safe to give me your money."
8. "Fast? My nickname at the cab company is T3!"
7. (Running Microsoft) "Where do you want to go today?"
6. (Running Linux) "Watch me ride at the speed of a charging penguin!"
5. ("In" driver) "W3r r u h3adin???? # pr0b13m0!!!!!!"
4. "What address? Sorry, lady, that's a 404!"
3. "I'm gonna try to get to the superhighway."
2. (Overdoing it) "www.thankyouverymuch.com!"
And the top reason Internet-savvy cab drivers say...
1. "Ever heard of the Blue Windshield of Death?"
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Big Brother is here. And he drinks Pepsi.
Pepsi. The choice of a brainwashed generation.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Surely they understand that the Internet is still a growing entity, and that there may exist, at some point, a service which will become an interesting source of revenue.
So what purpose has a bill that says they'll "never" collect taxes from the Internet? Surely they'll just ratify the law when they see something worthwhile. Permanency in any political system, and moreso in democracy, is rarely an affair that lasts more than a few mandates.
So; sorry. I'm not opening up the Champagne. It's definitely not a bad news; but it's not good news to me, merely some form of political move to, I dunno, catter to Internet business and users.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
But no... I get $1000 is enough to step on your integrity. And so, just watch Microsoft use that as FUD.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Beer as a product: you get what you buy: a beer. If it's not fresh, you can return it. You can't return a beer based on its quality, but you can demand to get what you expected.
Beer as a service: you don't buy the beer, you buy a 'alcoholic beverage drinking experience'. Notice the subjectivity of that. So what if you don't get a buzz? Maybe it's your metabolism, man. What if it ain't what you asked for? Tough luck: they provide a beer drinking experience, and even if what you got isn't what you asked for, it's still what they sell.
I think Microsoft Beer 1999 is probably difficult to sell as a product. Sometimes it comes without alcohol. Sometimes it spills itself right out of the glass. No wonder they're making it a service instead. Commiting to a service means they put people at your disposition to yell at, with or without solving anything.
Erm. I think I'm reading too much into this. Hmm, beer...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Pleasepleaseplease don't make this push back the space program a few years! Failure is part of the space program, but the stupid Senators think they're wasting US money when a probe is lost; it's not wasted money, it's an investment for the successes that come from learning from those errors.
Well; there's still hope. Let us pray the patron saint of Space Flight.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."