I think it really depends where you look. The issues surrounding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict tend to be massively disputed and have factual problems, but that's a sign of the world. There is no single agreeable truth there, and the two sides are willing to quite literally fight to the death over it.
You've linked to the same blog several times. I think there's a lot of problems in it. There is broad speculation about the motivations of Wikipedia admins, that simply doesn't track with what I've experienced. I'm going to deny Wikipedia's had abuses. That's simply the nature of any social institution that large. I do think that there are generally very few of them. This is based on my own experience, but "how often the system is abused" is very hard to quantify in a contextual way.
And admins aren't the supreme authority. I've been overruled in the past by regular users (particularly in AfDs). I feel that the wrong decision was made. And sometimes you just live with it.
This comment always comes up whenever there's an article about Wikipedia. So, I'd like to ask, how about some details?
I'm an admin on Wikipedia. That probably biases me toward "the establishment". But on the other hand, every day I see a new person coming in, touting their "INFALLIBLE TRUTH THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SUPPRESS!!!!11". Which, of course, magically can't be sourced to anything better than a blog.
So, seriously, I'm calling your bluff. Show me this abuse you're talking about, and you've got a guaranteed (new, probably unbiased) admin taking a look at it.
I guess this balances out the "Don't be Evil" scale a bit in their favor, eh?
To preclude those decrying false philanthropy, yes, of course Google will benefit. There is, however, such a thing as a mutually beneficial agreement. And this really looks very nice from where I'm standing
Um, what? That's ridiculous; nobody (aside from a small technical elite) is going to buy something to do something dramatically different from what it's designed to do. Most people go, in, look at the aisle labeled "camcorders" and pick the one that has the most whiz-bang features for the right price. Savvies will check out net reviews, where they will not find the hackable device under the "camcorder" category.
It's important to step outside the geek mindset when predicting large-scale human trends.
Because spending more doesn't always mean killing more. Most of the money the US spends in R&D is into technologies that risk fewer lives, or are less lethal. Tossing a few guys with AKs into a meat-grinder is cheap. Firebombs that leave cities smoking ruins are cheap. Bulletproof vests are expensive. Smart bombs that only destroy limited targets are expensive.
Seriously though, it's both incredibly funny and somewhat sad that that seems to be the Hubble's greatest legacy. Still, I'll happily drink to continued scientific progress funded by people's desire for cool pictures.
The linked article is pretty light on relevant facts, but this seems to be useful:
more than 350 million visitors intermingle annually
Meaning that one third of the internet-using population [1] travels at least once a year. I don't find that a particularly compelling statistic, when coupled with the sheer amount of time people spend on the internet at home. I'm sure location-aware computing will be convenient, but I really don't think the hype in the article is justified.
I think the author of this piece overestimates how much time people spend touring. Sure, this could be handy in the few situations you're in a new place hunting for something new, but people don't spend a lot of time doing that. On the other hand, looking at the other two revolutions listed by the author, people need to find things on the internet all the time, and socializing is a daily thing. You could build a neat digital location tagging game, à la electronic geocaching, but I doubt it'd be long before it was polluted with idiots and spam. And how long can people play hide-and-seek? Sure, there are certainly niche applications, but I doubt it'll be the Next Big Thing.
If you go digging through my post history, you can probably find out which side I'm on, but in this case I meant across in the same sense as a bridge is built across the water.
...refreshing. Seriously, I've gotten rather sick of the acrimony that seems to be building across the Atlantic. It's nice that people see this as a chance for better technology (at least in some respect) rather than pure nationalistic chest-thumping.
I can't say; I don't know you. Maybe you're honest, maybe you're not. But then, maybe you're not putting yourself in the situation. The idea is pretty far from your mind, it must seem very unreal. The prospect of having all the things you've ever wanted is little more than a fantasy. It might be harder to turn down when all you need to do is sign on the dotted line.
Maybe this says something about me. I aspire to political office; maybe I'm the crooked one. But what I see about our society leads me to the inexplicable conclusion that greed is one of our most important values.
N.b. I'd like to think I wouldn't take the money either. But when the yacht filled with plasma TVs and models pulls up to the dock... I'd certainly be tested.
It turns out that the proton exchange membranes used for the Hydrogen/Oxygen/Water fuel cells get mucked up pretty easily long-term. Other technologies haven't matured yet.
It's not politicians, it's people. How many people you know would spend $350 million of someone else's money to get 10% of it themselves? Assuming it was very unlikely they'd be caught (and even if they were, the consequences would be minimal)?
The problem is that our society really takes net worth as the measure of a man. It's not just a conscious thing, it's buried deep inside our minds. "Oh, he's doing pretty well, plenty of money." And, of course, we can't help but be attracted to the rewards that money brings. Everyone wants more money. More.
Politicians aren't particularly worse than anyone else. They are the predictable fruit of a society that has greed as its beating heart.
Who ever said this was a mathematical paper? It's about using math to determine social policy, rather than lobbying. It would never be submitted to a mathematical journal; it's clearly a political science work. Is this some sort of bizarre mathematical pretension, that nobody is allowed to claim they use math unless everything they do is done in a strict way?
In short, you're vitriol about being rejected by a mathematical journal is uncalled for, and you're a jerk for being so pretentious.
Uh, except that the music was already paid for and written for the movie, and the only costs associated solely with the CD are the cover art and publishing (which, today, should not amount to all that much). The movie itself does about all the promoting you need.
If what you want is a reduction in latency, how about just making that one more thing that you purchase when you're buying a connection? If I want my doctors to transmit videos, well then I'll buy the 10 mbit/100msec package. If I'm just messing around with email, then I'll buy a consumer package. By simply making latency another part of the purchasing decision, the market will (in this case) work. Why bother with nasty things like tiers and payola?
Yes, I realize that a single ISP doesn't control all the wires my packets run over, but they can make the appropriate purchases. Why should we treat latency as any different from bandwidth? Both are determined by all the intervening lines. We just need to sell on both.
You're thinking about this the wrong way. Machine solutions tend to look very different from natural ones. We don't fly around in ornithopters for a reason. I'm not saying this'll be easy, but you shouldn't think about the oncoming picker machines as vast, octopus-like contraptions with flailing limbs. They'll probably look just like any other piece of farm equipment.
Bah. I never linked Neverwhere. It just felt like some lameass goth (to distinguish from cool goth, which does exist) masturbation fantasy, where the protagonist is whisked away to a world of magic and wonder, while the rest of the normals drudge away at irrelevance, and all because he's just "oh-so-special". It certainly had some good moments, but the overarching themes just left a bad taste in my mouth.
Yes, but sometimes free software makes people free. GPL developers would seem to have the perspective that the people freed by free software are better friends than those that wouldn't share.
Sorry, but this has always bothered me about British TV; they have way fewer episodes per year. Like, half as many as a typical US Show. Blackadder had fewer (regular) episodes over its entire run than there are in a single year of DS9. Doctor Who does 13 episodes per series, which is the most I've seen in British TV.
Cue the "But U.S. TV sucks..." people. And yes, some of them do suck (just like some British shows, *cough*Torchwood*cough*), but there are and have been a number of quality programs that produce about twice as many episodes per year. So why do these people burn out so quickly?
Yes these issues are all related, but individual opinions may not line up with the traditional slates when grouping these issues together.
I think this is a much larger problem than you're giving it credit for.
Firstly, having coherent policy is absolutely essential. Environmental policy draws on industry, with is more blurred with social policy than one might think, and so forth. To make it all worse, the groups involved are likely to be divided, sometimes quite bitterly. To take an example familiar to slashdotters, imagine coding a project where each module was written by a different person, each as embattled with all the others as Democrats and Republicans are today.
Secondly, there must always be some body in charge. To deal with the budget, for instance. I'm not sure I can think of a single system that really gives all people a say without depending on log-rolling coalitions, which basically reduces to the system we have now.
Note that I agree with you in principle; voting for a single platform is troublesome. But I haven't heard of a good way to ensure that the policies are integrated.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it really depends where you look. The issues surrounding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict tend to be massively disputed and have factual problems, but that's a sign of the world. There is no single agreeable truth there, and the two sides are willing to quite literally fight to the death over it.
You've linked to the same blog several times. I think there's a lot of problems in it. There is broad speculation about the motivations of Wikipedia admins, that simply doesn't track with what I've experienced. I'm going to deny Wikipedia's had abuses. That's simply the nature of any social institution that large. I do think that there are generally very few of them. This is based on my own experience, but "how often the system is abused" is very hard to quantify in a contextual way.
And admins aren't the supreme authority. I've been overruled in the past by regular users (particularly in AfDs). I feel that the wrong decision was made. And sometimes you just live with it.
This comment always comes up whenever there's an article about Wikipedia. So, I'd like to ask, how about some details?
I'm an admin on Wikipedia. That probably biases me toward "the establishment". But on the other hand, every day I see a new person coming in, touting their "INFALLIBLE TRUTH THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SUPPRESS!!!!11". Which, of course, magically can't be sourced to anything better than a blog.
So, seriously, I'm calling your bluff. Show me this abuse you're talking about, and you've got a guaranteed (new, probably unbiased) admin taking a look at it.
To preclude those decrying false philanthropy, yes, of course Google will benefit. There is, however, such a thing as a mutually beneficial agreement. And this really looks very nice from where I'm standing
Um, what? That's ridiculous; nobody (aside from a small technical elite) is going to buy something to do something dramatically different from what it's designed to do. Most people go, in, look at the aisle labeled "camcorders" and pick the one that has the most whiz-bang features for the right price. Savvies will check out net reviews, where they will not find the hackable device under the "camcorder" category.
It's important to step outside the geek mindset when predicting large-scale human trends.
+4, funny? Ouch. I guess we are a cynical bunch. Next up: The "-1, Pointless idealism" mod?
continual birth leads to continual death you have to have sex so you can make more.
Because spending more doesn't always mean killing more. Most of the money the US spends in R&D is into technologies that risk fewer lives, or are less lethal. Tossing a few guys with AKs into a meat-grinder is cheap. Firebombs that leave cities smoking ruins are cheap. Bulletproof vests are expensive. Smart bombs that only destroy limited targets are expensive.
Fresh wallpapers for our desktops!
Seriously though, it's both incredibly funny and somewhat sad that that seems to be the Hubble's greatest legacy. Still, I'll happily drink to continued scientific progress funded by people's desire for cool pictures.
I think the author of this piece overestimates how much time people spend touring. Sure, this could be handy in the few situations you're in a new place hunting for something new, but people don't spend a lot of time doing that. On the other hand, looking at the other two revolutions listed by the author, people need to find things on the internet all the time, and socializing is a daily thing. You could build a neat digital location tagging game, à la electronic geocaching, but I doubt it'd be long before it was polluted with idiots and spam. And how long can people play hide-and-seek? Sure, there are certainly niche applications, but I doubt it'll be the Next Big Thing.
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about, thank you.
If you go digging through my post history, you can probably find out which side I'm on, but in this case I meant across in the same sense as a bridge is built across the water.
...refreshing. Seriously, I've gotten rather sick of the acrimony that seems to be building across the Atlantic. It's nice that people see this as a chance for better technology (at least in some respect) rather than pure nationalistic chest-thumping.
I can't say; I don't know you. Maybe you're honest, maybe you're not. But then, maybe you're not putting yourself in the situation. The idea is pretty far from your mind, it must seem very unreal. The prospect of having all the things you've ever wanted is little more than a fantasy. It might be harder to turn down when all you need to do is sign on the dotted line.
Maybe this says something about me. I aspire to political office; maybe I'm the crooked one. But what I see about our society leads me to the inexplicable conclusion that greed is one of our most important values.
N.b. I'd like to think I wouldn't take the money either. But when the yacht filled with plasma TVs and models pulls up to the dock... I'd certainly be tested.
It turns out that the proton exchange membranes used for the Hydrogen/Oxygen/Water fuel cells get mucked up pretty easily long-term. Other technologies haven't matured yet.
It's not politicians, it's people. How many people you know would spend $350 million of someone else's money to get 10% of it themselves? Assuming it was very unlikely they'd be caught (and even if they were, the consequences would be minimal)?
The problem is that our society really takes net worth as the measure of a man. It's not just a conscious thing, it's buried deep inside our minds. "Oh, he's doing pretty well, plenty of money." And, of course, we can't help but be attracted to the rewards that money brings. Everyone wants more money. More.
Politicians aren't particularly worse than anyone else. They are the predictable fruit of a society that has greed as its beating heart.
Wow, when did calculus stop being math?
Who ever said this was a mathematical paper? It's about using math to determine social policy, rather than lobbying. It would never be submitted to a mathematical journal; it's clearly a political science work. Is this some sort of bizarre mathematical pretension, that nobody is allowed to claim they use math unless everything they do is done in a strict way?
In short, you're vitriol about being rejected by a mathematical journal is uncalled for, and you're a jerk for being so pretentious.
Uh, except that the music was already paid for and written for the movie, and the only costs associated solely with the CD are the cover art and publishing (which, today, should not amount to all that much). The movie itself does about all the promoting you need.
If what you want is a reduction in latency, how about just making that one more thing that you purchase when you're buying a connection? If I want my doctors to transmit videos, well then I'll buy the 10 mbit/100msec package. If I'm just messing around with email, then I'll buy a consumer package. By simply making latency another part of the purchasing decision, the market will (in this case) work. Why bother with nasty things like tiers and payola?
Yes, I realize that a single ISP doesn't control all the wires my packets run over, but they can make the appropriate purchases. Why should we treat latency as any different from bandwidth? Both are determined by all the intervening lines. We just need to sell on both.
You're thinking about this the wrong way. Machine solutions tend to look very different from natural ones. We don't fly around in ornithopters for a reason. I'm not saying this'll be easy, but you shouldn't think about the oncoming picker machines as vast, octopus-like contraptions with flailing limbs. They'll probably look just like any other piece of farm equipment.
Bah. I never linked Neverwhere. It just felt like some lameass goth (to distinguish from cool goth, which does exist) masturbation fantasy, where the protagonist is whisked away to a world of magic and wonder, while the rest of the normals drudge away at irrelevance, and all because he's just "oh-so-special". It certainly had some good moments, but the overarching themes just left a bad taste in my mouth.
Sorry, but this has always bothered me about British TV; they have way fewer episodes per year. Like, half as many as a typical US Show. Blackadder had fewer (regular) episodes over its entire run than there are in a single year of DS9. Doctor Who does 13 episodes per series, which is the most I've seen in British TV.
Cue the "But U.S. TV sucks..." people. And yes, some of them do suck (just like some British shows, *cough*Torchwood*cough*), but there are and have been a number of quality programs that produce about twice as many episodes per year. So why do these people burn out so quickly?
I think this is a much larger problem than you're giving it credit for.
Firstly, having coherent policy is absolutely essential. Environmental policy draws on industry, with is more blurred with social policy than one might think, and so forth. To make it all worse, the groups involved are likely to be divided, sometimes quite bitterly. To take an example familiar to slashdotters, imagine coding a project where each module was written by a different person, each as embattled with all the others as Democrats and Republicans are today.
Secondly, there must always be some body in charge. To deal with the budget, for instance. I'm not sure I can think of a single system that really gives all people a say without depending on log-rolling coalitions, which basically reduces to the system we have now.
Note that I agree with you in principle; voting for a single platform is troublesome. But I haven't heard of a good way to ensure that the policies are integrated.