Actually a company with a minimal number of employees, buying what is now cheap office space, and keeping themselves under the radar sounds pretty coherent to me. It's the start-ups that have hundreds of employees with millions of VC and they go blow it on stupid unessentials that you should worry about. Frankly, Dean Kamen couldn't keep his mouth shut. He was constantly bragging about "it". Of course, it all turned out to be a bunch of garbage.
Take a look at Andre Lamothe's books. I know lots of programmers flame his books. However, I think his books are great for hobbiests. I think they're great for kids. I think this kid would love the Xgamestation. From what I have seen, Mr. LaMothe seems to geniunely want to help his readers.
I started to studying programing (C and a little ASM during the summer of my high school graduation) by reading his old Tips and Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus.
Why is Amazon doing this? Do you care if the guy who bought the newest Grisham novel and a set of Ginsu knives likes Dean. How does some no-name politician get on Amazon's site? I'm not so upset about commercialism of it. It's not like Amazon is a lobbiest. I don't see the dishonesty. It's just that I consider myself politically informed, and I've never heard of half of those canidates, and I don't see the any members of the other parties like the Natural Law, Workers, Reform, or Green (which garnered about 5% of the vote last time IIRC).
How is this anymore phony then when a TV news anchor is seen reporting from the depths of some jungle, when in reality it's nothing more than a blue screen? Perhaps I should post an article to Slashdot about the repeated gaffs of journalistic integrity at the "Old Gray Lady". Undoubtedly the best source for such an article would be the NY Times itself, thus not being trustworthy and requiring that dreaded registration.
Oh, and let us not forget the historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Each is accused of lifting the work of others.
On a last note, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Rick Bragg are both Pulitzer Prize winners. So, I'm hardly shocked or worried that some radio morning personality (hardly a true journalist) is being raked over the coals for broadcasting remotely.
I'm a programmer, and I don't mind having to google/read a book/scour the newsgroups to find out how to install XYZ software. However, the average user wants to just point and click. They like having Microsoft/Apple update their software for them. Look how popular Norton is. I just don't see how the open source movement will ever be motivated to work on usability issues related to Linux.
Think about this. How many times have you heard the terms "usability" and "open source" in the same sentence. Now how many times have you heard these same terms without the word "NOT". Have you ever heard of "yet another user interface"? No, instead we have software with names like yacc, Bison, and ANTLR (all of these programs are used in compiler design).
Look, I like Linux too, but as a server. It's just not ready for the desktop.
First, we as scientists and engineers just can't possibly fathom, how subjective interpretation of literature is meaningful. It's the antithesis of causality. Out of sheer necessity, cause and effect is king. Engineering becomes worthless if it doesn't work in reality. It isn't Physics, if it isn't predictable. Reality isn't subjective for us. You don't the general theory of relativity or quantum mechanics? Tough. Move to another universe. What, you don't like mathematics, you're really out of luck, because any universe your brain could possibly fathom, requires all existing mathematics to be correct (maybe that's a bit of a stretch, especially with continuity, but I don't think so).
using a literary version of the same cheap trick that Kurt Gddel used to try to frighten mathematicians back in the thirties.
Actually Godel's work in the 1930's had meaning, because mathematicians where looking for a way to establish an absolute consistency of a formal system. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the work really was brilliant. It's really philosophy quantified in math. I can't imagine in a world where communication (english), not rigor (math) is key that semantics could be so flexible.
However, I do have one rational defense for deconstruction. We know that writers often draw from their own experiences. We also know that each of us tends to be biased when interpreting reality. So perhaps, our subconscious betrays us or little details and omissions can hint to things the author has overlooked. Although, I believe this relates more to psychology than the humanities, this may partly explain the origins of deconstruction.
Incidentally, I do get a kick out of an engineer deconstructing deconstruction. Very Feynmanesque.
EXERCISES:
Construct a deconstruction of all deconstructions including the meta-deconstruction itself. I'll leave it as a trivial exercise for the reader.
First, engineering is an industrial approximation of science. Ohm's Law isn't exact. It fails in the extreme. The engineer doesn't usually need a detailed understanding of quantum mechanics or GTR when working with electrical components. Computer Science IS math. Church's Thesis states this. It's as exact as mathematics itself. That's the difference. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
However, one could make the point that both engineering and CS require extensive project management and time management skills, a healthy dose of vendor documentation, and elaborate design.
The problem is that the line between advanced IT and engineering has grown thinner over the last 10 years. Sure, there's a big difference between writing a device driver and a creating a large scale enterprise application. However, I've seen guys who have done both. I've seen my share of guys with EE degrees working in what I term advanced IT (IT on a large scale with more sophisticated architectures). Of course, now that advanced math (combinatorics, algebra, and logic beyond discrete math) has been removed from most CS programs and CS has been moved to the engineering side of the house, this trend will continue. I understand the professional reasons. I respect them. However, I'd like to point out that Donald Knuth, Marvin Minsky, Dennis Ritchie, Martin Davis all have PhDs in math. I'm sure the list of prominent CS people with math degrees is extensive and on the theoretical side of the house it's all math anyway (once again, church's thesis).
I've always balked at people who say they like programming but can't stand mathematics. It just doesn't make sense. Either you haven't really studied mathematics or Alonzo Church is wrong. CS will always be an open and interdisciplinary field. AI is as much biophysics as it is engineering, and certainly requires an intimate knowledge of foundational mathematics as well. The computer program is mathematics, and fields like bioinfomatics, digital physics, and computational linguistics prove this.
This reminds me of a story. It came from the book "Out of Their Minds". One of the problems that early programmers faced was the fact that you where forced to use fixed-point arithmatic. Of course, when your "hard-coding" programs on the bit level and doing basic arithmatical calculations, this all becomes quite a pain the ass. John Backus approached Von Nuemann about the idea of using floating point arithmatic. This abstraction would have required a lot of programming (and a clever nmenonic, like a language). John Von Nuemann couldn't imagine that any "real" programmer would need this. Fortunately IBM did. The result was FORTRAN.
My point is that the programming art was never about assembly or C. The programming art is mathematics. Abstraction is part of good math or engineering. It's the tautologies and syllogisms that count. So, frankly good coders can code in PHP, VB, C++, or LISP. I'm more worried about our (ABET/IEEE/ECE-EECS sans math) new computer science.
Oh, for what ever it's worth, we all know that Johnny probably wasn't human anyway.
Actually, my biggest gripe with Microsoft is that when one of their OSes approaches stability (after multiple Service Packs) Microsoft decides to introduce an entirely new OS. I also don't like having to re-learn a GUI every 2 years. I don't intend to get an MCSE, and I'm not a sys admin. I just want to run a home network. Frankly, I run a simple LAN with several app servers, database servers, a gateway and a firewall. I've gotten more down time because of power outages and random external freak accidents, then having to tinker with computer problems. Oh, and I use Linux.
I know we tend to use emoticons or even XML tags (okay, only the truly geeky do this) to communicate ideas that would only be communicated via body language or the inflection of a person's voice. However, one has to remember that the letter was the primary means of communication before the telephone. Many of the great thinkers also had large volumes of correspondence. Thomas Jefferson wrote so many letters, he even "invented" a device to create multiple copies (like a very crude multi-tipped pen) of his letters. Historically, has there ever been a convention for conveying body language or meta-information in letters or did these writers learn to work within the limitation of their medium?
The only problem I see with this sudden increase in instant communication is the eventual rise of linguistic entropy. Have you ever read an old collection of letters? I remember being impressed at some of the letters foot soldiers in the Civil War wrote to their families. Even moderately educated people seemed to write very well. I'm sure I sound like an old fogey, and that's okay. I also understand that language is an evolving thing. However, I think we are slowly degrading our language much in the same way instant mass media has eroded our art.
The irony is that a computer will only become cogniscent when it begins to fail like a human. Yet, as a society, we aren't ready for our machines to make mistakes. If I have problems understanding someone who speaks my native tongue with a "heavy" accent, how can a computer be expected to do better? Someday computers may do a better job, but it still won't be perfect. That's the problem with statistics. Any statistically based mathematical model will never provide absolute predictability (take a look at Quantum Mechanics).
Secondly, I don't know if I would call that racism, as much as I would call it misguided isolationism. Is the rest of the world racist for not even allowing foreigners to work on their soil? It's not like I can go to India to get a job.
That's the problem with language. Racism used to be the belief of a superiority of a group of people by color. Now, if you say anything remotely mentioning a person race, it's racism. When we loose our language we descend into barbarism.
I also really can't tell if the parent is even referring to the H1B Visa issue.
"If it should turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed for the numerical solution of differential equations coincided with the logics of a machine intended to make bills for a department store, I would regard this as the most amazing coincidence I have ever encountered."
Let us now return to the analogy of the theoretical computing machines... It can be shown that a single special machine of that type can be made to do the work of all. It could in fact be made to work as a model of any other machine. The special machine may be called a universal machine..."
NOTE: In Mr. Aiken's defense, he is probably referring to a differential analyzer (which was an analog computer)
When I was in high school, my (supposedly) CS teacher read an article that stated, "the world would no longer need programmers". She attempted to persuade me from becoming a programmer because in the future no one would need programmers. It would be a dead profession. The year was 1994. Okay, she was half right (there won't be anymore jobs for a while, and they'll all go overseas...), but still.... You can't extrapolate. My teacher never would have imagined (or actually just read the other article) about the internet.
What if AI takes off? I think in the future even the soft sciences will become more computational. Look at fields like bioinfomatics or computational linguistics. There are all kinds of new areas opening up. The problem is that the world doesn't revolve around computers, but all the phenomena of our universe may be one really grand one. Programmers have to learn other skills. I see biologists, actuaries, and engineers (outside of EE/ECE) write code all the time. You need to attach an extra skill to your code.
All this just goes to prove, you shouldn't extrapolate about science or computing, unless your one of these guys:
Of course, I'm extrapolating (and as you can guess, I'm not one of these guys...), so if you're a good philosopher you can safely ignore my post. Nothing to see here.... Carry on.
How much code does it take to mirror a simple site? I think I could copy the site and set up a link in Perl pretty easy. The hardware seems to be the tricky part.
On a related note... How does Slashdot avoid the Slashdot effect?
You can't compare the colonization of England, France, or Spain to the United States. We invaded Japan because we were attacked. I'm not saying all, but a lot of American "colonization" is a result of non-preemptive war. Obviously the present case in Iraq is a notable exception.
Most countries colonize to expand their empire, the Monroe doctrine (since abandoned after WWII), flies in the face of this.
This discussion reminds me about the fall of the Soviet Union. The communist hard-liners attempted to shut down the media. Unfortunately, these men were so out of date; they didn't realize that the media was still able to communicate via fax machine. (This link [cato.org] points to a book review of a popular book on the subject.) That ability allowed reporters to communicate to the outside despite the crackdown of the Soviet government. Those communications ignited the entire country. All the eyes of Russia, and the world, were focused on Moscow. They were specifically focused on Boris Yeltsin. Modern technology enabled this communication. The Iraqis need information about as much as they need water. Imagine if every day of your life, you've learned to live in fear. You've been taught to keep your mouth shut, you're eyes turned away, and you allegiance sworn to a mad dictator. Add to the fact that even if you do heed all these warnings, you may still be randomly charged with treason.
The Iraqis who wish to be free need to organize and communicate. They need to learn about the outside world. Heck, even Saddam was shocked when he saw how openly we as Americans criticize our President. He was under the belief, that our government suppressed dissent (especially unflattering satire) like he did. Frankly, the Internet is probably the best, low-cost method to promote open communication. Take a look at countries like Brazil or India. They're IT is run on Linux (except the most high-end). They still use many low-end PCs. OSS fanaticism aside; I think in this case OSS can be quite useful. Isn't the free flow of information what true hacking is about?
On a slightly (perhaps greatly) off-topic, but related note:
I know we complain about "fascism" in this country. That's a joke. The Iraqis have quite a few problems ahead. They're fighting real fascism. They don't have Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. They don't have a slow progression and long history of open dissent. What they do have is a sudden vacuum of power, arguing radical religious factions, and a severe lack of resources.
Unfortunately, I can't hunt down the specific article I wanted to link to. It discussed the sudden increase of crime [especially prostitution] (see articles above) in Iraq. It also discussed the rise of a radical Islamic movement looking to cleanse Iraqi society. They argue these vices/sins have been "unleashed"/"unchecked" by the Americans. I hate to say it, but this whole war is FAR from over.
I didn't moderate your post, but I think the excessive sarcasm and over generalization of the Slashdot crowd is what did it for you.
Incidentally, have you ever been to an all you can eat restaurant. Look at the clientele? Trust me, these legal battles have been fought before. That's why there's some restaurants have signs on their "buffets".
Although I can understand the complaints of the ISP, I also know this goes both ways. Ever had an ISP (dial up) that won't let you maintain a connection for more than an hour?
Is there an OSS search engine/WWW snapshot
on
Spidering Hacks
·
· Score: 1
I really think we need an open source search engine/repository. I've always wanted to do this. It would be great to engineer an open-architecture search engine. Something designed with parsers and bulk downloads in mind. The biggest reason is to for use in AI type applications. I also think some healthy competition for google would be nice. As crazy as this sounds, maybe a P2P type of solution might aleviate some of the bandwidth and processing issues. It would be like SETI.
The biggest problem is that I (we) would have to find a way to keep the data from being tainted. Obviously, some spammerific moron would try to taint the data to rate XXXmysite at the top of every search. Is there such a project in progress?
Incidently, I use the wayback machine as well.
Re:cousin of spam?
on
Spidering Hacks
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, if you space the time between HTTP requests, it wouldn't be spam.
This might be obvious or just a non-issue, but ignoring IMG tags in your bots (saves on bandwidth costs). You're probably not effecting their bandwidth by downloading text.
Incidently, most spammers are glorified script kiddies, not data miners or AI people. The kind of "hard-earned" money in data mining isn't the kind of money spammers are looking for.
The real problem with data mining is increased server load. Perhaps running your scripts late at night would help.
Of course, if server load was spam, then Slashdot would have a lot of explaining to do.:)
You know, I was helping a friend's younger brother with a math problem. Of course, this always leads to the obligatory "what is math" discussion. I always (perhaps, much to people's dismay) try to emphasize the use of the fundamental laws (communitivity, associativity, etc) when solving problems. I looked to the front of the algebra book to find the obligatory list of the fundamental laws of algebra (or the Fundamental Law of Algebra). They weren't there. I understand there's a backlash against the new math, but what's the deal. How do people learn the art of writing a proof?
My vote is for quantum teleportation http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum info/teleportat ion/
Although the edges of technology usually aren't. Man sought flight for centuries. It was like alchemy. So, perhaps real AI and genomics are the true edge.
(Why wish bad things happen to her granddaughters? Well, they obviously carry her defective genetics. But, more importantly, it's one of the few things you can write which will probably upset her very badly.)
You know I hope you're being sarcastic. But if you're not, I hope you are dumb enough to place a return address on the evelope so the police know how to catch you.
What if you've got the wrong address? I mean I hate to dash the idea of Slashdotters being infaliable. Gee, try explaining to the cops how you accidently sent a 80 year old grandmother a nasty threatening letter. Oh, and be sure to tell them of your hatred of all religions.
Secondly, I think you'd fit right into extremist religon. You're "anti-religion" seems a lot like the fundamentialists you hate.
Oh, and how was the parent even a remotely insightful post?
Art evolves. You can't make money on evolutionary processes. Broadband is making the PC more viable. Game consoles look more like PCs and PCs look more like game consoles. People play DVDs on game consoles, stand alone DVD players, or their PC.
It's the open architecture that wins out. Why? Because the best content isn't manufactured. It's designed by people who love to create. The best games are designed by the creative storytellers. The best modern day content has mostly been created by geeks who where obssessed about film, books, or traditional games. Of course, that's calling people like Lucas and Speilberg geeks. Less is more. The true creative geniuses usually get their reward. They may not "maximize" their profit, but they usually do well. Heck, the inventor of VisiCalc (the first spreadsheet application) felt guilty he made so much money on it. People flock to content, because it is a true commidity.
Take a look at LOTR. I'm not a LOTR fan and I fell asleep mid way through the picture (3 hours is too much for me). My friends loved it. I recognize why people like it. It's a well crafted world brought to life in a way only a geek could do. That's what sells.
Nobody wants to sell content at a reasonable price. Most MBAs don't know how to handle it. Of course some people argue that the entire concept about the modern day MBA is devoid of content. That's the problem.
Have you ever played those retropacks of old video games. Yeah, $50 bucks buys you 10 really old (classic) games ported to run on a uberfast processor (console). What the heck? It can't possibly cost that much to port an old game. Heck, write an emulator for it.
Content is the true killer app. That's why MBAs are so scared to sell it cheap. They understand that they can't manufacture it. It just has to happen. There's no profit in evolution.
Just a random thought, do you think that writing can actually be improved by regex? My english teacher didn't think so. Prehaps I should try and patent the non-deterministic essay while I still have a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a company with a minimal number of employees, buying what is now cheap office space, and keeping themselves under the radar sounds pretty coherent to me. It's the start-ups that have hundreds of employees with millions of VC and they go blow it on stupid unessentials that you should worry about. Frankly, Dean Kamen couldn't keep his mouth shut. He was constantly bragging about "it". Of course, it all turned out to be a bunch of garbage.
Take a look at Andre Lamothe's books. I know lots of programmers flame his books. However, I think his books are great for hobbiests. I think they're great for kids. I think this kid would love the Xgamestation. From what I have seen, Mr. LaMothe seems to geniunely want to help his readers.
I started to studying programing (C and a little ASM during the summer of my high school graduation) by reading his old Tips and Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus.
You might want to take a look at the Bebop to the Boolean Boogie as well.
Why is Amazon doing this? Do you care if the guy who bought the newest Grisham novel and a set of Ginsu knives likes Dean. How does some no-name politician get on Amazon's site? I'm not so upset about commercialism of it. It's not like Amazon is a lobbiest. I don't see the dishonesty. It's just that I consider myself politically informed, and I've never heard of half of those canidates, and I don't see the any members of the other parties like the Natural Law, Workers, Reform, or Green (which garnered about 5% of the vote last time IIRC).
How is this anymore phony then when a TV news anchor is seen reporting from the depths of some jungle, when in reality it's nothing more than a blue screen? Perhaps I should post an article to Slashdot about the repeated gaffs of journalistic integrity at the "Old Gray Lady". Undoubtedly the best source for such an article would be the NY Times itself, thus not being trustworthy and requiring that dreaded registration.
Fox columnist exposes shoddy sourcing behind paper's story network paid singer
The suspended New York Times reporter insists--wrongly--that everybody does it
A story about Jayson Blair
Oh, and let us not forget the historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Each is accused of lifting the work of others.
On a last note, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Rick Bragg are both Pulitzer Prize winners. So, I'm hardly shocked or worried that some radio morning personality (hardly a true journalist) is being raked over the coals for broadcasting remotely.
I'm a programmer, and I don't mind having to google/read a book/scour the newsgroups to find out how to install XYZ software. However, the average user wants to just point and click. They like having Microsoft/Apple update their software for them. Look how popular Norton is. I just don't see how the open source movement will ever be motivated to work on usability issues related to Linux.
Think about this. How many times have you heard the terms "usability" and "open source" in the same sentence. Now how many times have you heard these same terms without the word "NOT". Have you ever heard of "yet another user interface"? No, instead we have software with names like yacc, Bison, and ANTLR (all of these programs are used in compiler design).
Look, I like Linux too, but as a server. It's just not ready for the desktop.
using a literary version of the same cheap trick that Kurt Gddel used to try to frighten mathematicians back in the thirties.
Actually Godel's work in the 1930's had meaning, because mathematicians where looking for a way to establish an absolute consistency of a formal system. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the work really was brilliant. It's really philosophy quantified in math. I can't imagine in a world where communication (english), not rigor (math) is key that semantics could be so flexible.
However, I do have one rational defense for deconstruction. We know that writers often draw from their own experiences. We also know that each of us tends to be biased when interpreting reality. So perhaps, our subconscious betrays us or little details and omissions can hint to things the author has overlooked. Although, I believe this relates more to psychology than the humanities, this may partly explain the origins of deconstruction.
Incidentally, I do get a kick out of an engineer deconstructing deconstruction. Very Feynmanesque.
EXERCISES:
Construct a deconstruction of all deconstructions including the meta-deconstruction itself. I'll leave it as a trivial exercise for the reader.
First, engineering is an industrial approximation of science. Ohm's Law isn't exact. It fails in the extreme. The engineer doesn't usually need a detailed understanding of quantum mechanics or GTR when working with electrical components. Computer Science IS math. Church's Thesis states this. It's as exact as mathematics itself. That's the difference. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
However, one could make the point that both engineering and CS require extensive project management and time management skills, a healthy dose of vendor documentation, and elaborate design.
The problem is that the line between advanced IT and engineering has grown thinner over the last 10 years. Sure, there's a big difference between writing a device driver and a creating a large scale enterprise application. However, I've seen guys who have done both. I've seen my share of guys with EE degrees working in what I term advanced IT (IT on a large scale with more sophisticated architectures). Of course, now that advanced math (combinatorics, algebra, and logic beyond discrete math) has been removed from most CS programs and CS has been moved to the engineering side of the house, this trend will continue. I understand the professional reasons. I respect them. However, I'd like to point out that Donald Knuth, Marvin Minsky, Dennis Ritchie, Martin Davis all have PhDs in math. I'm sure the list of prominent CS people with math degrees is extensive and on the theoretical side of the house it's all math anyway (once again, church's thesis).
I've always balked at people who say they like programming but can't stand mathematics. It just doesn't make sense. Either you haven't really studied mathematics or Alonzo Church is wrong. CS will always be an open and interdisciplinary field. AI is as much biophysics as it is engineering, and certainly requires an intimate knowledge of foundational mathematics as well. The computer program is mathematics, and fields like bioinfomatics, digital physics, and computational linguistics prove this.
This reminds me of a story. It came from the book "Out of Their Minds". One of the problems that early programmers faced was the fact that you where forced to use fixed-point arithmatic. Of course, when your "hard-coding" programs on the bit level and doing basic arithmatical calculations, this all becomes quite a pain the ass. John Backus approached Von Nuemann about the idea of using floating point arithmatic. This abstraction would have required a lot of programming (and a clever nmenonic, like a language). John Von Nuemann couldn't imagine that any "real" programmer would need this. Fortunately IBM did. The result was FORTRAN.
My point is that the programming art was never about assembly or C. The programming art is mathematics. Abstraction is part of good math or engineering. It's the tautologies and syllogisms that count. So, frankly good coders can code in PHP, VB, C++, or LISP. I'm more worried about our (ABET/IEEE/ECE-EECS sans math) new computer science.
Oh, for what ever it's worth, we all know that Johnny probably wasn't human anyway.
Actually, my biggest gripe with Microsoft is that when one of their OSes approaches stability (after multiple Service Packs) Microsoft decides to introduce an entirely new OS. I also don't like having to re-learn a GUI every 2 years. I don't intend to get an MCSE, and I'm not a sys admin. I just want to run a home network. Frankly, I run a simple LAN with several app servers, database servers, a gateway and a firewall. I've gotten more down time because of power outages and random external freak accidents, then having to tinker with computer problems. Oh, and I use Linux.
I know we tend to use emoticons or even XML tags (okay, only the truly geeky do this) to communicate ideas that would only be communicated via body language or the inflection of a person's voice. However, one has to remember that the letter was the primary means of communication before the telephone. Many of the great thinkers also had large volumes of correspondence. Thomas Jefferson wrote so many letters, he even "invented" a device to create multiple copies (like a very crude multi-tipped pen) of his letters. Historically, has there ever been a convention for conveying body language or meta-information in letters or did these writers learn to work within the limitation of their medium?
The only problem I see with this sudden increase in instant communication is the eventual rise of linguistic entropy. Have you ever read an old collection of letters? I remember being impressed at some of the letters foot soldiers in the Civil War wrote to their families. Even moderately educated people seemed to write very well. I'm sure I sound like an old fogey, and that's okay. I also understand that language is an evolving thing. However, I think we are slowly degrading our language much in the same way instant mass media has eroded our art.
The irony is that a computer will only become cogniscent when it begins to fail like a human. Yet, as a society, we aren't ready for our machines to make mistakes. If I have problems understanding someone who speaks my native tongue with a "heavy" accent, how can a computer be expected to do better? Someday computers may do a better job, but it still won't be perfect. That's the problem with statistics. Any statistically based mathematical model will never provide absolute predictability (take a look at Quantum Mechanics).
Racism is hardly that subtle.
Secondly, I don't know if I would call that racism, as much as I would call it misguided isolationism. Is the rest of the world racist for not even allowing foreigners to work on their soil? It's not like I can go to India to get a job.
That's the problem with language. Racism used to be the belief of a superiority of a group of people by color. Now, if you say anything remotely mentioning a person race, it's racism. When we loose our language we descend into barbarism.
I also really can't tell if the parent is even referring to the H1B Visa issue.
In the forward for "The Universal Computer" (by Martin Davis) there are a couple of quotes:
"If it should turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed for the numerical solution of differential equations coincided with the logics of a machine intended to make bills for a department store, I would regard this as the most amazing coincidence I have ever encountered."
Howard Aiken in 1956
Let us now return to the analogy of the theoretical computing machines... It can be shown that a single special machine of that type can be made to do the work of all. It could in fact be made to work as a model of any other machine. The special machine may be called a universal machine..."
Alan Turing in 1947
NOTE: In Mr. Aiken's defense, he is probably referring to a differential analyzer (which was an analog computer)
When I was in high school, my (supposedly) CS teacher read an article that stated, "the world would no longer need programmers". She attempted to persuade me from becoming a programmer because in the future no one would need programmers. It would be a dead profession. The year was 1994. Okay, she was half right (there won't be anymore jobs for a while, and they'll all go overseas...), but still.... You can't extrapolate. My teacher never would have imagined (or actually just read the other article) about the internet.
What if AI takes off? I think in the future even the soft sciences will become more computational. Look at fields like bioinfomatics or computational linguistics. There are all kinds of new areas opening up. The problem is that the world doesn't revolve around computers, but all the phenomena of our universe may be one really grand one. Programmers have to learn other skills. I see biologists, actuaries, and engineers (outside of EE/ECE) write code all the time. You need to attach an extra skill to your code.
All this just goes to prove, you shouldn't extrapolate about science or computing, unless your one of these guys:
Alan Turing
Albert Einstein
Kurt Godel
Nikola Tesla
Gordon Moore
Jules Verne
Of course, I'm extrapolating (and as you can guess, I'm not one of these guys...), so if you're a good philosopher you can safely ignore my post. Nothing to see here.... Carry on.
How much code does it take to mirror a simple site? I think I could copy the site and set up a link in Perl pretty easy. The hardware seems to be the tricky part.
On a related note... How does Slashdot avoid the Slashdot effect?
You can't compare the colonization of England, France, or Spain to the United States. We invaded Japan because we were attacked. I'm not saying all, but a lot of American "colonization" is a result of non-preemptive war. Obviously the present case in Iraq is a notable exception.
Most countries colonize to expand their empire, the Monroe doctrine (since abandoned after WWII), flies in the face of this.
Although, the laws (I mean secrets) would be so complicated you'd have to be lawyer (I mean computer scientist) to understand it.
There would also exist extremist factions that would take the right to fork too far, but they would be mostly composed of spammers and script-kiddies.
This discussion reminds me about the fall of the Soviet Union. The communist hard-liners attempted to shut down the media. Unfortunately, these men were so out of date; they didn't realize that the media was still able to communicate via fax machine. (This link [cato.org] points to a book review of a popular book on the subject.) That ability allowed reporters to communicate to the outside despite the crackdown of the Soviet government. Those communications ignited the entire country. All the eyes of Russia, and the world, were focused on Moscow. They were specifically focused on Boris Yeltsin. Modern technology enabled this communication. The Iraqis need information about as much as they need water. Imagine if every day of your life, you've learned to live in fear. You've been taught to keep your mouth shut, you're eyes turned away, and you allegiance sworn to a mad dictator. Add to the fact that even if you do heed all these warnings, you may still be randomly charged with treason.
The Iraqis who wish to be free need to organize and communicate. They need to learn about the outside world. Heck, even Saddam was shocked when he saw how openly we as Americans criticize our President. He was under the belief, that our government suppressed dissent (especially unflattering satire) like he did. Frankly, the Internet is probably the best, low-cost method to promote open communication. Take a look at countries like Brazil or India. They're IT is run on Linux (except the most high-end). They still use many low-end PCs. OSS fanaticism aside; I think in this case OSS can be quite useful. Isn't the free flow of information what true hacking is about?
On a slightly (perhaps greatly) off-topic, but related note:
I know we complain about "fascism" in this country. That's a joke. The Iraqis have quite a few problems ahead. They're fighting real fascism. They don't have Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. They don't have a slow progression and long history of open dissent. What they do have is a sudden vacuum of power, arguing radical religious factions, and a severe lack of resources.
Drugs, sex, and Iraq
Why Iraq's neighbors want to see democracy fail
The rise of crime and vigilates
Unfortunately, I can't hunt down the specific article I wanted to link to. It discussed the sudden increase of crime [especially prostitution] (see articles above) in Iraq. It also discussed the rise of a radical Islamic movement looking to cleanse Iraqi society. They argue these vices/sins have been "unleashed"/"unchecked" by the Americans. I hate to say it, but this whole war is FAR from over.
I didn't moderate your post, but I think the excessive sarcasm and over generalization of the Slashdot crowd is what did it for you.
Incidentally, have you ever been to an all you can eat restaurant. Look at the clientele? Trust me, these legal battles have been fought before. That's why there's some restaurants have signs on their "buffets".
Although I can understand the complaints of the ISP, I also know this goes both ways. Ever had an ISP (dial up) that won't let you maintain a connection for more than an hour?
I really think we need an open source search engine/repository. I've always wanted to do this. It would be great to engineer an open-architecture search engine. Something designed with parsers and bulk downloads in mind. The biggest reason is to for use in AI type applications. I also think some healthy competition for google would be nice. As crazy as this sounds, maybe a P2P type of solution might aleviate some of the bandwidth and processing issues. It would be like SETI.
The biggest problem is that I (we) would have to find a way to keep the data from being tainted. Obviously, some spammerific moron would try to taint the data to rate XXXmysite at the top of every search. Is there such a project in progress?
Incidently, I use the wayback machine as well.
Well, if you space the time between HTTP requests, it wouldn't be spam.
:)
This might be obvious or just a non-issue, but ignoring IMG tags in your bots (saves on bandwidth costs). You're probably not effecting their bandwidth by downloading text.
Incidently, most spammers are glorified script kiddies, not data miners or AI people. The kind of "hard-earned" money in data mining isn't the kind of money spammers are looking for.
The real problem with data mining is increased server load. Perhaps running your scripts late at night would help.
Of course, if server load was spam, then Slashdot would have a lot of explaining to do.
You know, I was helping a friend's younger brother with a math problem. Of course, this always leads to the obligatory "what is math" discussion. I always (perhaps, much to people's dismay) try to emphasize the use of the fundamental laws (communitivity, associativity, etc) when solving problems. I looked to the front of the algebra book to find the obligatory list of the fundamental laws of algebra (or the Fundamental Law of Algebra). They weren't there. I understand there's a backlash against the new math, but what's the deal. How do people learn the art of writing a proof?
My vote is for quantum teleportationm info/teleportat ion/
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantu
Although the edges of technology usually aren't. Man sought flight for centuries. It was like alchemy. So, perhaps real AI and genomics are the true edge.
(Why wish bad things happen to her granddaughters? Well, they obviously carry her defective genetics. But, more importantly, it's one of the few things you can write which will probably upset her very badly.)
You know I hope you're being sarcastic. But if you're not, I hope you are dumb enough to place a return address on the evelope so the police know how to catch you.
What if you've got the wrong address? I mean I hate to dash the idea of Slashdotters being infaliable. Gee, try explaining to the cops how you accidently sent a 80 year old grandmother a nasty threatening letter. Oh, and be sure to tell them of your hatred of all religions.
Secondly, I think you'd fit right into extremist religon. You're "anti-religion" seems a lot like the fundamentialists you hate.
Oh, and how was the parent even a remotely insightful post?
Content is king.
Art evolves. You can't make money on evolutionary processes. Broadband is making the PC more viable. Game consoles look more like PCs and PCs look more like game consoles. People play DVDs on game consoles, stand alone DVD players, or their PC.
It's the open architecture that wins out. Why? Because the best content isn't manufactured. It's designed by people who love to create. The best games are designed by the creative storytellers. The best modern day content has mostly been created by geeks who where obssessed about film, books, or traditional games. Of course, that's calling people like Lucas and Speilberg geeks. Less is more. The true creative geniuses usually get their reward. They may not "maximize" their profit, but they usually do well. Heck, the inventor of VisiCalc (the first spreadsheet application) felt guilty he made so much money on it. People flock to content, because it is a true commidity.
Take a look at LOTR. I'm not a LOTR fan and I fell asleep mid way through the picture (3 hours is too much for me). My friends loved it. I recognize why people like it. It's a well crafted world brought to life in a way only a geek could do. That's what sells.
Nobody wants to sell content at a reasonable price. Most MBAs don't know how to handle it. Of course some people argue that the entire concept about the modern day MBA is devoid of content. That's the problem.
Have you ever played those retropacks of old video games. Yeah, $50 bucks buys you 10 really old (classic) games ported to run on a uberfast processor (console). What the heck? It can't possibly cost that much to port an old game. Heck, write an emulator for it.
Content is the true killer app. That's why MBAs are so scared to sell it cheap. They understand that they can't manufacture it. It just has to happen. There's no profit in evolution.
Just a random thought, do you think that writing can actually be improved by regex? My english teacher didn't think so. Prehaps I should try and patent the non-deterministic essay while I still have a chance.