And boy, does it take off. Predictably, Friedman spends the rest of his huge book piling one insane image on top of the other, so that by the end--and I'm not joking here--we are meant to understand that the flat world is a giant ice-cream sundae...
YES! the ice cream sundae! I'm pretty sure
he got that metaphor
from 'Be Here Now' by Ram Dass.
The Dormouse had closed its eyes by this time, and was going off into
a doze; but, on being pinched by the Hatter, it woke up again with a
little shriek, and went on: `--that begins with an M, such as
mouse-traps, and the moon, and memory, and muchness-- you know you say
things are "much of a muchness"--did you ever see such a thing as a
drawing of a muchness?'
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Declaration of Independence,
Jefferson et. al.
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The vast majority of academic users would be content with a 'working paper' level editing/formatting (i.e. by the authors, spelling and grammar warts and all) as long as the work is peer-reviewed.
You're crazy. This is the basis of the entire scientific enterprise. OF COURSE scientists want carefully copy-edited work. You don't want to be reading a paper and wondering "hmmm, I wonder if they really meant delta-X? I think delta-Y makes more sense, but...."
In fact, spending on basic research is dropping at an alarming rate through all the national laboratories.>
tsotha (720379) replies:
Do you have any real numbers to attach to this, or are you using the phrase "dropping at an alarming rate" to try to cover your lack of solid information? And don't tell me to use Google - you made the assertion; do your own research.
In other words, you're lazy and ignorant!
"R&D Funding Slows For 2006
President's budget proposes cuts in R&D spending at most agencies"
[Chemical and engineering News, February 14, 2005]
from the article: "research programs at the Department of Energy, except defense development projects, would be cut by $278 million, or 5%"
(whether you find that alarming is admittedly subjective)
A researcher pointed out to me that my local universities had almost two full bookcases dedicated to studies of Marx, and not a full shelve concerned with Benjamin Franklin. The researcher thought this odd for a library in the United States
Its not odd at. A library has a policy, and they focus on what they want. So you've got the good Marx stuff? great! somewhere else is a library with all the good Franklin stuff. And maybe a different library has all the sweet Tom Paine writings. It doesn't make sense for one library to promise to cover everything.
I think this is might be an attempt to re-integrate "global warming" into the world conciousness.
Really? You don't think its just scientists trying to understand the history of the earth?
Where did you get this great insight, and what evidence do you have to support?
2. If you happen to notice the economic motivations of the theory generation and support mechanisms you are "Flame Bait" No matter how obvious they are!
No, if impugn the work of scientists simply because it would fit your political agenda, and give no counter evidence to support your conspiracy theories, then yes, it is flame bait.
There are some new modern-day sort
of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and
moviemakers and software makers under various guises.
Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry?
Try comparing DNA from humans and apes: >99% identical. Try comparing DNA from humans and bacteria for that matter.
To me, it simply seems to impossible to think that the universe and all that's in it, including us, is the result of some random roll of the cosmic dice.
Well, thats the way it seems to you. Not all of us are blinded by mysticism.
I don't know if Yahoo lets users create categories, but even if they do, I'm sure they have to be 'approved' by a central authority. Thats very different from being a flat list created by the audience.
Meta tags, in the web pages, are created by the authors, not the readers; so thats different too.
-b
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that its different from the Yahoo! categories because its user-created, not by a central authority. Its a different thing, so it has different name. How har d is that to understand?
Arguing about the name of the thing, 'Tags', 'Folksonomies', etc. is all a load of BS as far as I am concerned. The real issue is that we have a means of attaching meta data to other datum in a way that is easy to use and easy for computer systems to digest and parse.
Its not BS. These different terms are different kinds of metadata. Different metadata types require different kinds of implementation, handling, organization, and use.
The flat user-created metadata of Delicious is very different than the professionally generated system that your local public library uses.
So no, they are not all the same. The article is interesting because its points out the strenghts and limitations of different types of metadata, which would be clear if you had RTFA.
Its a special subset of the 'vocabulary' known as the English language. Its special because its a limited subset.
In this sense, 'folksonomy' is similar to 'taxonomy'. However, in the case of the former term, the vocabulary is not selected by a central authority, its selected by the end users.
Well back in my day, we solved problems with bricks the old fashioned way, and we didn't need no stinking 'logic'. We used them to beat up people who disagreed with us.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion!
Shhh! Don't tell Pakistan!
[aol]me too![/aol]
Jefferson et. al.
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experie
You're crazy. This is the basis of the entire scientific enterprise. OF COURSE scientists want carefully copy-edited work. You don't want to be reading a paper and wondering "hmmm, I wonder if they really meant delta-X? I think delta-Y makes more sense, but...."
And that costs money.
You misspelled Perl.
"R&D Funding Slows For 2006
President's budget proposes cuts in R&D spending at most agencies"
[Chemical and engineering News, February 14, 2005]
from the article: "research programs at the Department of Energy, except defense development projects, would be cut by $278 million, or 5%"
(whether you find that alarming is admittedly subjective)
madcity rocks the house again.
What will be Powell's new position at Clear Channel?
Really? You don't think its just scientists trying to understand the history of the earth? Where did you get this great insight, and what evidence do you have to support?
Didn't think so.
No, if impugn the work of scientists simply because it would fit your political agenda, and give no counter evidence to support your conspiracy theories, then yes, it is flame bait.
The communism quote was from a CNet article . Not this article. It was previously discussed on Slashdot. There was also a discussion on boing-boing
In other words, yes, he is calling some people communist.
Meta tags, in the web pages, are created by the authors, not the readers; so thats different too. -b
If you'd RTFA, you'd know that its different from the Yahoo! categories because its user-created, not by a central authority. Its a different thing, so it has different name. How har d is that to understand?
Its not BS. These different terms are different kinds of metadata. Different metadata types require different kinds of implementation, handling, organization, and use.
The flat user-created metadata of Delicious is very different than the professionally generated system that your local public library uses.
So no, they are not all the same. The article is interesting because its points out the strenghts and limitations of different types of metadata, which would be clear if you had RTFA.
In this sense, 'folksonomy' is similar to 'taxonomy'. However, in the case of the former term, the vocabulary is not selected by a central authority, its selected by the end users.
Its not language, its metadata.
In fact, my friends and I used the exact phrase "It doesn't suck" in 1984.
Chnapko, where are you?Well back in my day, we solved problems with bricks the old fashioned way, and we didn't need no stinking 'logic'. We used them to beat up people who disagreed with us.
SCO.Com versus Linux.org and SlashDot.org over the phoenetic "dot" vs. Sun: "WE'RE the DOT in DOT.COM!"