As for you being on my foes list, if you'll read my profile, you'll see: "If you are in my foe-list it is nothing personal; I do this so that folks who make thoughtless comments are easier to spot (red mark), allowing me to waste less time scanning through crap."
Oh i read it. Ignoring people who point out that you're wrong must make your life a lot easier. As i said, charming conduct
And i most certainly get it. I also get that you're talking out your ass (again which is firmly lodged inside your prejudice). Unfortunately you seem unable to grasp that fact (Area that lies below sea level in a flood prone, hurricane prone area hardly sounds like "an urban redeveloper's dream") . And that is what has me so pissed off.
Again it's not even just that you're wrong on the facts. I'm amazed to see such a bald faced display of discrimination in 2005. Blacks as undesirerables? That because it's illegal to force them out by law, they should be forced out by economics? My, the means may have changed, but it seems the sentiment has not died.::shakes head:: I dearly hope you're not an American. Because if you are, i am ashamed to share citizenship with you.
Btw, if someone suggests a racist idea, agreeing with the assumptions entailed therein makes you a racist too. Even if someone else said it first.
Seriously people! This is flamebait! Clearly so! The reconstruction of New Orleans, whatever form it's going to take, is a lot more fucking complicated than "the blacks have left, we can build a resort town now!" That's why this is flamebait. This chunk of the thread was built on a lack of information, racist and wrongheaded assumptions, and speculation spun from thin air.
Sure you can wonder what's going up in New Orleans, and anyone who watches the freaking news can watch people ask the same questions, but the reason why there aren't answers yet is because nobody freaking knows what they're going to find, let alone what's going to happen in the future. Making up stuff, racially charged stuff no less, is not going to help, and will only serve to make people like me have to bitch-slap people like putko.
Talk about specious and idiotic justifications. First off, everybody from New Orleans is out of town now. If all the houses are condemned, why would people of european descent, or hispanic descent return? Second, if african americans don't have anywhere better to live, what compelling argument can you give that they wouldn't just move right back to New Orleans? Again, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, say Disneyland on the coast goes up, what would stop them from moving into another neighborhood? Race has nothing to do with this, and it's irritating (as well as telling) that you bring it up. You don't know how New Orleans zoned, what the rezoning regulations are, who owns what, what corporations (if any) might even desire moving in, etc, etc, etc. You're just making stuff up. That is, when you're not comparing african americans to criminal elements in New York.
Also, do you always add people who call you out to your foes list? Charming conduct.
New Orleans is the only major city now with a miniscule number of blacks.
Would you like to substantiate this with something other than totally fucking wild speculation, and an inability to do basic arithmetic?
We'll give the DMort teams the benefit of the doubt and say there were actually 40k people killed in New Orleans. We'll further give you the benefit of the doubt and say they're all african americans. When you subtract 40,000 from 1,300,000 what do you get?
Oh that's right, numbers that aren't going to substantially change racial demographics!
You're going to need to extricate your ass from your predjudice before you can get your head free out of it.
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up
Uh, cause they keep succeeding? Where's sega now? Sure you can claim that they've lost their dominant position in the market, but so what? Apple isn't the dominant force in their market and nobody's telling them to grow up.
I've grown more and more fascinated with nintendo with each new system the release. It's clear that they've got a commitment to doing things that are innovative, rather than create programming sweatshops like EA, or other companies who are only interested in cranking out variations on the same engine. Granted, nintendo still does that (i.e. pokemon), but that doesn't overshadow the gems that they produce, and the interesting things that they try. Sometimes they're wrong, but when they get it right, they're definitely right.
BTW, i loved Windwaker, and i'm waiting for the new game with baited breath:)
And a further note, people can express what styles they like or don't like, i just don't think they should compell creators to do what they want, solely cause they like one style over another.
Arguments like this are stupid. Artistic choices (i.e. photo realistic, vs. stylization of varying sorts) should be used to further the story & representation that the artists/creators are trying to get across. They should choose what they want to express, and everyone else should shut the hell up.
You can complain that you like style x over style y, but don't tell people what they should use to tell their stories.
Having attempted something similar, i can tell you that it works poorly.:| Using OSX's hot corners and Desktop Manager (cursor wait on screen edges pulls you to a new desktop space) renders hot corners basically useless, unless you want to really screw with the delay until activation for one or the other. And then i'm the impatient sort, so i've just been making due with Expose since my attempt.
On the contrary, the Turning test is exactly about fooling some people. That's the whole point or more precisly, to come up with an effective imitation of intellegent behaviour such that it is indistinguishable from a human intellegence.
Uh, what? Besides the direct denial of what i said, how is "com[ing] up with an effective imitation of intelligent behaviour such that it is indistinguishable from a human intellegence." Contrary to anything i've said? Isn't that in fact, exactly what i've said?
As to competency, I think the Turing test does not set a standard for who the questioner is or what questions to ask. If an AI program can act intellegently enough to fool any person then it has achieve some level of not only language capability but some level of problem solving capability.
Whatever, i've already explained this. And when you can't win using simple explanations, it's time to resort to cliches:
"You can fool some people all of the time, and you can fool all people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."
This is the point of the turing test. A true intelligence passes the turing test because it's not fooling anyone, it is intelligent. If you're only fooling some of the people all of the time, or all of the people only some of the time, you're not passing the turing test. Now, if you've only got one shot at figuring out whether a system is an intelligence you don't one of the members of some people who can be fooled all of the time. I.e. someone who's competent. And hopefully they'll get enough time with the system being tested to weed out the "all people some of the time" thing.
Quoting you:But there is not one reference to the intelligence, competance, etc of the questioner.
Exactly. There's nothing in the paper to support what you've asserted.
Quoting me: So i would say that turing's goal in proposing the test entails a requirement of competence.
My point was that looking at Turing's goal in proposing the test, and what it requires should indicate that human inquisitors need to be able to identify objects that are intelligent. If they can't, the test can't test for intelligence. It's not just about fooling some people, it's about an intelligence standing up to all reasonable inquiry. If your inquisitor is unable to provide reasonable inquiry, you're not performing a turing test.
Practical example: Alzhimers patients would not be suitable inquisitors. They have to be competent.
yeah... see, i used to hangout in the customization/skinning community, and cause of that you learn to deal w/ a lot of clueless 14 year olds. If you give them a complex enough answer (although i tend to stick with ones that also happen to be what i believe), you quickly weed out the 14 year olds who have brains, and the ones who don't. The ones who've a clue ask follow up questions and respond like they've thought about what you've said, and the ones who don't respond with "LoL" and then change the subject to something inane.
Anyway, long story short. You want someone to stop asking you frivolous questions? Give them answers.
I don't think its a question of giving a good answer, its how one deflects the question to an inadequate answer.
i probably would have said "well that's a complicated question. w/ the music i listen to, i'm all about intricate beat patterns, or interesting melodic lines (or both preferably). If you want an explanation of why humans enjoy music, that's a different issue."
Here's a copy of the paper. Find for me where it states that the person should be of average intelligence (i've looked and can't find any passage regarding average intelligence).
It's a functional test. Intelligent is as intelligent does. If the inquisitor can't identify an intelligence, then the test can't take place. So i would say that turing's goal in proposing the test entails a requirement of competence.
What people should remember is that the turing test requires that the inquistor is competent. If the inquisitor is not (i.e. random AIM idiots), then the test isn't vaild, cause these people can't tell intelligences apart anyway. Also, the inquisitor is supposed to convince themselves via sufficient interaction w/ the system being tested. AIM chats, particularly short one-off dialogues probably aren't a good staging ground for the turing test.
Also, a lot of naive people don't know the capabilities (and limitations) of Artificial Intelligence, so sadly, i'm not surprised at this guy's - or should i say robot's - results.
Grokster was relevent because it was in a case decided by the supreme court, not because it's trendy. Court cases matter cause future law is decided upon them, jackass. Thanks to the decision in the Grokster case (decided on a 5-4 split), software creators are liable for illegal behavior performed with their software, based on what the courts decide their intent was when creating the software.
Snarking on slashdot doesn't make your posts important either, and definitely doesn't prevent you from being an idiot.
Come on now, you've got to work on the delivery, like so:
The key can also be used to transfer things like driving instructions or music to the car's hard drive."
Oh, you mean things like viruses?
I often wonder if people are in such a hurry to submit articles that they don't ever concider such ramifications, or whether they just prefer to leave it open for commenters to pick up on... (or both?)
Gotta love statements like "If growth rates hold up this is likely to hit three terabits per second by 2008" In an article called "Maturing Net Grows More Slowly" about the falling rate of internet growth. I know we've got short attention spans, but how about some internal consistency?::shrugs:: that or maybe they like meaningless projections.
Depends what you mean by Creationists. Literal biblical creationists should be ridiculed. There is something wrong with you if you believe something that is directly contradicted by incontrovertable physical evidence. I don't ridicule religious beliefs, i ridicule willful deviations from common sense.
If you're avoiding services because they don't have a grammar checker, you're going to be waiting a really long time. Nobody has an adequate grammar checker, and nobody is going to have one for the forseeable future. Linguistics just isn't prepared to produce one yet.
A lot of bits have been pushed around the blogosphere on the topic of Ajax over the last few months. This includes my own post back in March, which gave a general overview of what Ajax was and what it does. A lot of exciting stuff has happened since then, and Ajax has rapidy matured into a development of major significance. Coverage has been all over the map and runs the gamut from Rasmus' been-there-done-that 30 second Ajax tutorial to Alex Bosworth's list of Ajax Mistakes to the uber-repository of Ajax knowedge, Ajax Matters.
Many of you already know that Ajax is a web client programming style which eschews traditional HTML web pages, which are only sprinkled lightly with JavaScript and reload pretty much every time they are updated or clicked on. Instead, an Ajax web client receives an Ajax JavaScript library into a hidden frame which provides run-time visuals on the main browser window that look and feel very much like a native application. Ajax web clients, once loaded, communicate with XML services on the back end (via a browser's built-in powerful XMLHttpRequest API), and then use JavaScript to manipulate what the users sees programmatically via DHTML.
All of this allows Ajax to provide a compelling user experience because 1) it doesn't reload the web page, and 2) it runs asynchronously allowing background server-side requests for information to be issued, all while the users clicks, types, and otherwise interacts with the application in the foreground. Google Maps is the pre-eminent example of a modern Ajax application: rich, interactive, easy-to-use, and predictive in that it loads the map tiles that are just offscreen in case you need them. This is all very good for web client client development, but why all the attention across the board?
Figure 1: Ajax: The first compelling new client application model since the modern web browser
Because Ajax is a sincerely compelling synthesis of the ubiquitous features found in the most popular Internet browsers is why. Practitioners of Ajax get high-intensity user interaction (end-user productivity), asynchronicity (efficient backround processing), web browser access to web services (web service access, reuse, and interoperability, as well as SOA integration), platform neutrality (browser and operating system agnosticity), and the Ajax feature set can be delivered as a framework you don't have to create yourself (developer productivity).
Individually, these items are very nice, but taken as a whole, working solution and you have something extremely special. While many folks thought the web browser story had stopped around the year 2000, Ajax takes us to a whole new place. Slashdot recently highlighted a notable new article in Wired that claims that the industry, mostly on the basis of Ajax, "has affirmed the viability of the web as a standalone software development platform."
This is no small thing, and has the potential to repave the modern application development landscape. Why? Because Ajax creates a rich and fertile new space for developing software solutions that can reach almost anyone, anywhere whatev
Precisely. I hope they have enough forethought to do laser pulses with preset durations rather than something crazy like having to wait for a kill signal. That would, presumably, be bad time to have a connection lag or drop.
It was a database of terrorist organizations, maintained by Bin Laden.
talk about folk etomology. Do you have any actual source to indicate this is the case? Or are you just repeating the speculation of others?
Surprise! oh, no wait...
on
When Pigs Wifi
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'd have to say that the comment that NYC should be ashamed that it hasn't beaten Morrow and Umatilla counties in oregon to the WiFi punch is ridiculous. NYC has a much higher population density and thus more users and problems like inconvenient buildings. As a result a wifi deployment would presumably be more expensive and more inconvenient.
Besides this sort of dichotomy has shown up all over the world. Areas that have just recently opened up to modern technology, Afghanistan, rural China, have totally skipped the wired world, because of the sorts of infrastructure you have to have in place in order to make them work. Going wireless makes sense for rural areas, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they are different from the old players in technological infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
As for you being on my foes list, if you'll read my profile, you'll see: "If you are in my foe-list it is nothing personal; I do this so that folks who make thoughtless comments are easier to spot (red mark), allowing me to waste less time scanning through crap."
::shakes head:: I dearly hope you're not an American. Because if you are, i am ashamed to share citizenship with you.
Oh i read it. Ignoring people who point out that you're wrong must make your life a lot easier. As i said, charming conduct
And i most certainly get it. I also get that you're talking out your ass (again which is firmly lodged inside your prejudice). Unfortunately you seem unable to grasp that fact (Area that lies below sea level in a flood prone, hurricane prone area hardly sounds like "an urban redeveloper's dream") . And that is what has me so pissed off.
Again it's not even just that you're wrong on the facts. I'm amazed to see such a bald faced display of discrimination in 2005. Blacks as undesirerables? That because it's illegal to force them out by law, they should be forced out by economics? My, the means may have changed, but it seems the sentiment has not died.
Btw, if someone suggests a racist idea, agreeing with the assumptions entailed therein makes you a racist too. Even if someone else said it first.
Get out of town!
Seriously people! This is flamebait! Clearly so! The reconstruction of New Orleans, whatever form it's going to take, is a lot more fucking complicated than "the blacks have left, we can build a resort town now!" That's why this is flamebait. This chunk of the thread was built on a lack of information, racist and wrongheaded assumptions, and speculation spun from thin air.
Sure you can wonder what's going up in New Orleans, and anyone who watches the freaking news can watch people ask the same questions, but the reason why there aren't answers yet is because nobody freaking knows what they're going to find, let alone what's going to happen in the future. Making up stuff, racially charged stuff no less, is not going to help, and will only serve to make people like me have to bitch-slap people like putko.
Talk about specious and idiotic justifications. First off, everybody from New Orleans is out of town now. If all the houses are condemned, why would people of european descent, or hispanic descent return? Second, if african americans don't have anywhere better to live, what compelling argument can you give that they wouldn't just move right back to New Orleans? Again, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, say Disneyland on the coast goes up, what would stop them from moving into another neighborhood? Race has nothing to do with this, and it's irritating (as well as telling) that you bring it up. You don't know how New Orleans zoned, what the rezoning regulations are, who owns what, what corporations (if any) might even desire moving in, etc, etc, etc. You're just making stuff up. That is, when you're not comparing african americans to criminal elements in New York.
Also, do you always add people who call you out to your foes list? Charming conduct.
New Orleans is the only major city now with a miniscule number of blacks.
Would you like to substantiate this with something other than totally fucking wild speculation, and an inability to do basic arithmetic?
We'll give the DMort teams the benefit of the doubt and say there were actually 40k people killed in New Orleans. We'll further give you the benefit of the doubt and say they're all african americans. When you subtract 40,000 from 1,300,000 what do you get?
Oh that's right, numbers that aren't going to substantially change racial demographics!
You're going to need to extricate your ass from your predjudice before you can get your head free out of it.
It still puzzles me why Nintendo refuses to grow up
Uh, cause they keep succeeding? Where's sega now? Sure you can claim that they've lost their dominant position in the market, but so what? Apple isn't the dominant force in their market and nobody's telling them to grow up.
I've grown more and more fascinated with nintendo with each new system the release. It's clear that they've got a commitment to doing things that are innovative, rather than create programming sweatshops like EA, or other companies who are only interested in cranking out variations on the same engine. Granted, nintendo still does that (i.e. pokemon), but that doesn't overshadow the gems that they produce, and the interesting things that they try. Sometimes they're wrong, but when they get it right, they're definitely right.
BTW, i loved Windwaker, and i'm waiting for the new game with baited breath :)
And a further note, people can express what styles they like or don't like, i just don't think they should compell creators to do what they want, solely cause they like one style over another.
Arguments like this are stupid. Artistic choices (i.e. photo realistic, vs. stylization of varying sorts) should be used to further the story & representation that the artists/creators are trying to get across. They should choose what they want to express, and everyone else should shut the hell up.
You can complain that you like style x over style y, but don't tell people what they should use to tell their stories.
Having attempted something similar, i can tell you that it works poorly. :| Using OSX's hot corners and Desktop Manager (cursor wait on screen edges pulls you to a new desktop space) renders hot corners basically useless, unless you want to really screw with the delay until activation for one or the other. And then i'm the impatient sort, so i've just been making due with Expose since my attempt.
On the contrary, the Turning test is exactly about fooling some people. That's the whole point or more precisly, to come up with an effective imitation of intellegent behaviour such that it is indistinguishable from a human intellegence.
Uh, what? Besides the direct denial of what i said, how is "com[ing] up with an effective imitation of intelligent behaviour such that it is indistinguishable from a human intellegence." Contrary to anything i've said? Isn't that in fact, exactly what i've said?
As to competency, I think the Turing test does not set a standard for who the questioner is or what questions to ask. If an AI program can act intellegently enough to fool any person then it has achieve some level of not only language capability but some level of problem solving capability.
Whatever, i've already explained this. And when you can't win using simple explanations, it's time to resort to cliches:
"You can fool some people all of the time, and you can fool all people some of the time, but you can't fool all people all of the time."
This is the point of the turing test. A true intelligence passes the turing test because it's not fooling anyone, it is intelligent. If you're only fooling some of the people all of the time, or all of the people only some of the time, you're not passing the turing test. Now, if you've only got one shot at figuring out whether a system is an intelligence you don't one of the members of some people who can be fooled all of the time. I.e. someone who's competent. And hopefully they'll get enough time with the system being tested to weed out the "all people some of the time" thing.
Quoting you:But there is not one reference to the intelligence, competance, etc of the questioner.
Exactly. There's nothing in the paper to support what you've asserted. Quoting me: So i would say that turing's goal in proposing the test entails a requirement of competence.
My point was that looking at Turing's goal in proposing the test, and what it requires should indicate that human inquisitors need to be able to identify objects that are intelligent. If they can't, the test can't test for intelligence. It's not just about fooling some people, it's about an intelligence standing up to all reasonable inquiry. If your inquisitor is unable to provide reasonable inquiry, you're not performing a turing test.
Practical example: Alzhimers patients would not be suitable inquisitors. They have to be competent.
yeah... see, i used to hangout in the customization/skinning community, and cause of that you learn to deal w/ a lot of clueless 14 year olds. If you give them a complex enough answer (although i tend to stick with ones that also happen to be what i believe), you quickly weed out the 14 year olds who have brains, and the ones who don't. The ones who've a clue ask follow up questions and respond like they've thought about what you've said, and the ones who don't respond with "LoL" and then change the subject to something inane.
Anyway, long story short. You want someone to stop asking you frivolous questions? Give them answers.
I don't think its a question of giving a good answer, its how one deflects the question to an inadequate answer.
i probably would have said "well that's a complicated question. w/ the music i listen to, i'm all about intricate beat patterns, or interesting melodic lines (or both preferably). If you want an explanation of why humans enjoy music, that's a different issue."
Here's a copy of the paper. Find for me where it states that the person should be of average intelligence (i've looked and can't find any passage regarding average intelligence).
It's a functional test. Intelligent is as intelligent does. If the inquisitor can't identify an intelligence, then the test can't take place. So i would say that turing's goal in proposing the test entails a requirement of competence.
that really is a clever passage.
What people should remember is that the turing test requires that the inquistor is competent. If the inquisitor is not (i.e. random AIM idiots), then the test isn't vaild, cause these people can't tell intelligences apart anyway. Also, the inquisitor is supposed to convince themselves via sufficient interaction w/ the system being tested. AIM chats, particularly short one-off dialogues probably aren't a good staging ground for the turing test.
Also, a lot of naive people don't know the capabilities (and limitations) of Artificial Intelligence, so sadly, i'm not surprised at this guy's - or should i say robot's - results.
Yikes was i wrong. I misremembered the numbers on how grokster was decided. The decision was unanimous.
see? Snark != correct
Mod parent down!
Grokster was relevent because it was in a case decided by the supreme court, not because it's trendy. Court cases matter cause future law is decided upon them, jackass. Thanks to the decision in the Grokster case (decided on a 5-4 split), software creators are liable for illegal behavior performed with their software, based on what the courts decide their intent was when creating the software.
Snarking on slashdot doesn't make your posts important either, and definitely doesn't prevent you from being an idiot.
Come on now, you've got to work on the delivery, like so:
The key can also be used to transfer things like driving instructions or music to the car's hard drive."
Oh, you mean things like viruses?
I often wonder if people are in such a hurry to submit articles that they don't ever concider such ramifications, or whether they just prefer to leave it open for commenters to pick up on... (or both?)
Gotta love statements like "If growth rates hold up this is likely to hit three terabits per second by 2008" In an article called "Maturing Net Grows More Slowly" about the falling rate of internet growth. I know we've got short attention spans, but how about some internal consistency? ::shrugs:: that or maybe they like meaningless projections.
Depends what you mean by Creationists. Literal biblical creationists should be ridiculed. There is something wrong with you if you believe something that is directly contradicted by incontrovertable physical evidence. I don't ridicule religious beliefs, i ridicule willful deviations from common sense.
If you're avoiding services because they don't have a grammar checker, you're going to be waiting a really long time. Nobody has an adequate grammar checker, and nobody is going to have one for the forseeable future. Linguistics just isn't prepared to produce one yet.
Agility, Service-Orientation, Enterprise Architecture, and Software Development
State of Ajax: Progress, Challenges, and Implications for SOAs
A lot of bits have been pushed around the blogosphere on the topic of Ajax over the last few months. This includes my own post back in March, which gave a general overview of what Ajax was and what it does. A lot of exciting stuff has happened since then, and Ajax has rapidy matured into a development of major significance. Coverage has been all over the map and runs the gamut from Rasmus' been-there-done-that 30 second Ajax tutorial to Alex Bosworth's list of Ajax Mistakes to the uber-repository of Ajax knowedge, Ajax Matters.
Many of you already know that Ajax is a web client programming style which eschews traditional HTML web pages, which are only sprinkled lightly with JavaScript and reload pretty much every time they are updated or clicked on. Instead, an Ajax web client receives an Ajax JavaScript library into a hidden frame which provides run-time visuals on the main browser window that look and feel very much like a native application. Ajax web clients, once loaded, communicate with XML services on the back end (via a browser's built-in powerful XMLHttpRequest API), and then use JavaScript to manipulate what the users sees programmatically via DHTML.
All of this allows Ajax to provide a compelling user experience because 1) it doesn't reload the web page, and 2) it runs asynchronously allowing background server-side requests for information to be issued, all while the users clicks, types, and otherwise interacts with the application in the foreground. Google Maps is the pre-eminent example of a modern Ajax application: rich, interactive, easy-to-use, and predictive in that it loads the map tiles that are just offscreen in case you need them. This is all very good for web client client development, but why all the attention across the board?
Figure 1: Ajax: The first compelling new client application model since the modern web browser
Because Ajax is a sincerely compelling synthesis of the ubiquitous features found in the most popular Internet browsers is why. Practitioners of Ajax get high-intensity user interaction (end-user productivity), asynchronicity (efficient backround processing), web browser access to web services (web service access, reuse, and interoperability, as well as SOA integration), platform neutrality (browser and operating system agnosticity), and the Ajax feature set can be delivered as a framework you don't have to create yourself (developer productivity).
Individually, these items are very nice, but taken as a whole, working solution and you have something extremely special. While many folks thought the web browser story had stopped around the year 2000, Ajax takes us to a whole new place. Slashdot recently highlighted a notable new article in Wired that claims that the industry, mostly on the basis of Ajax, "has affirmed the viability of the web as a standalone software development platform."
This is no small thing, and has the potential to repave the modern application development landscape. Why? Because Ajax creates a rich and fertile new space for developing software solutions that can reach almost anyone, anywhere whatev
Of course, wine makers support linux! Oh wait. wrong wine.
Precisely. I hope they have enough forethought to do laser pulses with preset durations rather than something crazy like having to wait for a kill signal. That would, presumably, be bad time to have a connection lag or drop.
It was a database of terrorist organizations, maintained by Bin Laden.
talk about folk etomology. Do you have any actual source to indicate this is the case? Or are you just repeating the speculation of others?
I'd have to say that the comment that NYC should be ashamed that it hasn't beaten Morrow and Umatilla counties in oregon to the WiFi punch is ridiculous. NYC has a much higher population density and thus more users and problems like inconvenient buildings. As a result a wifi deployment would presumably be more expensive and more inconvenient.
Besides this sort of dichotomy has shown up all over the world. Areas that have just recently opened up to modern technology, Afghanistan, rural China, have totally skipped the wired world, because of the sorts of infrastructure you have to have in place in order to make them work. Going wireless makes sense for rural areas, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they are different from the old players in technological infrastructure.