While most the discussion has focused on the internet, what BellSouth is doing has greater implications for the future of cable TV. If you noticed, BellSouth is offering 120 channels of digital TV. If they keep building up their infrastructure, they'll have the capabilities to dominate local phone service, internet access, and cable DTV. Given the size of the "Baby" Bells, their is little reason to doubt that they have the resources to win.
Traditional cable companies are eventually going to have to upgrade their infrastructure if they hope to survive. The advent of DTV threatens to choke off cable's available transmission bandwidth. Internet connections constitute a trivial amount of the transmission bandwidth that will be needed in a few years. My guess is that AT&T and the other long-distance carriers are going to provide some of financial backing required to upgrade the local cable network infrastructure.
Ironically, Lucent is providing much of the networking technology that BellSouth is deploying.
On a similar note, I would like to add the following. When I was in High School (many, many moons ago), I used to write relatively more technically oriented papers for some of my classes (English and Social Studies). Now that I think about it, I used to do the same when I was in college (e.g., history classes). This went over like a drunken sailor in a monastery. The teachers (and in many instances, the other students) would essentially say, that is great but is it really that important?
In hindsight, this illustrated to me the vast cultural and intellectual differences between the nerds and the rest of the world. Most ppl do not care about technical issues despite that fact that they are very important when it comes down to the pragmatic issues of implementation. Ignorance of the technical issues allows one to just wave their magic wand to make things better, to make problems disappear. Unfortunately, the problems (as perceive by the masses) will not disappear unless you understand aspects related to implementation.
Hence, to the High School student: Educate the masses! Write your paper! Ignorance is a terrible thing to waste.
I too will be interested in finding how the other students stereotype the internet.
Re:Something's wrong here
on
VA on Upside
·
· Score: 2
Now we are seriously off-topic wrt this thread but I agree with you. Get rid of the 1st post and haxOr crap but do not negatively moderate honest opinions. This can be relatively difficult when it pertains to issues related to MS. However, moderation should be based on content, both positive and negative. What should not happen is censorship by instinctively down-grading opinions that you don't agree with.
Something's wrong here
on
VA on Upside
·
· Score: 2
This is off-topic except that it is related to this entire thread. As I write this, 1/3 of the comments have been down-graded to -1. Okay, some of these deserve it. And I suspect that this one may too fade away into obscurity.
However, Mike Holve's posts concerning the late/absent delivery of equipment that he ordered from VA is not flame-bait. His tone could have been nicer, but he seems to have a legitimate complaint. A company can hire all the great programmers in the world, but if they neglect the customer, they will ultimately lose. This point is important! Fortunately, Chris D. has responded to Holve's in a very nice manner.
I been a reader at/. for a while and I have enjoyed Holve's comments, especially those related to SGI (I use a SGI). He is not one to troll.
A better way to appreciate things is to look back 100 yrs. At the last turn of the century, the physics community was astounded by some amazing new discoveries. What were these mysterious X-rays? And did you read about radioactivity? I wonder if something besides uranium was radioactive? And electrons! If these things had a negative charge, there just has to be something in the atom with a positive charge. Finally, I just know that someday, man will truly fly through the air.
I would like to add a few comments to your fine analysis. While having more technology literate ppl in Congress would be beneficial, what is really required is have more technology literate staffers. These ppl are the ones that do the research and write much of the legislation. Unfortunately, for many issues like the CDA and encryption, the laws are being generated by committees and sub-committees that staffed by ppl who are not technology oriented; e.g, judicial and commerence.
Note that the member of Congress sit on many different committees and sub-committees. They are then allotted (i.e., budgeted) to have x-number of staffers to do the bulk of the committee's work. If the science and technology committees were the one's drafting, let's say, the encryption legislation, I believe that you would see better laws.
Fundamentally, there is a problem attracting intelligent, technology/science oriented ppl to work as congressional staffers. The pay is not that great and the work load is staggering. Furthermore, ppl who are good with technology/science generally frown upon paper pushing work, and paper pushing ppl. We would much rather choose to be doing what we love; hacking, putting stuff together, taking stuff apart, etc...
Sadly, when was the last time you heard a nerd/geek say that they wanted to work for Congress?
According to the book "Skunk Works", the mathematics for computing the the radar cross-section was developed by a Soviet. Some engineer at Lockheed found it and realized it's potential. When they initially built a scaled down prototype of the F-117, they had problems measuring the radar cross-section. It turns out the pole that the scaled-down prototype was attached to was returning too big of a signal. The solution was to build a stealth pole! BTW, you're correct about the pilot's head; this was a big problem. It also gives you an idea of how small the plane's radar cross-section really is; if they have to worry about some guy's head...
I recommend that one read "Skunk Works." The author (now deceased) worked there and was the head of the F-117 project. There are great sections in the book describing two other great Skunk Work projects, the U-2 and the SR-71.
I'm not absolutely positive that Awards Committee was responsible for RMS receiving this award (but duh, I hope so). However, it should be pointed out that the chair of the Awards Committee is Simon Phipps. The good Mr Phipps works for, hehehe, IBM. I leave it up you to interpret this.:)
I'm absolutely mystified by Martinez's article. In case you haven't notice, he sometimes posts comments here at/. Even if he is only a casual peruser of this site, he should know that the GUI is not brand new, there is something called KDE, and that bazaars doesn't equate to cathedral building.
I tend to enjoy most of Martinez's articles at abcnews.com. Hell, he even once had a short sidebar that tried to explain the difference between a cracker and a hacker! A recent article also pointed out the flaws in the Mindcraft tests. But this last article, while well-meaning (I think), does have some irritating flaws.
Everytime I try to be a peacemaker I end up getting partially flamed. But here goes. Martinez has in the past (and probably still does) visit this site. I really believe that he means well when it comes to Linux. So while polite, succicint corrections to him are required, don't just flame him.
This is very narrow ruling. Essentially, the majority stated that software is clear text that can be read and understood by others (humans). Furthermore, cryptographers use software as a means of conveying their ideas to one another. Hence, restrictions on encryption software restricts the ability of cryptographers to communicate with each other. Software does not have to be compiled to be useful.
There was a dissention. He stated that software is a tool that a person uses in order to get the computer to eventually do something. There is little distinction between the source code and the compiled object code in turns of functionality.
Note: this ruling may "only" apply to cryptographers since they transmit their idea using code.
From now on, I propose that we all "talk" to each other in source code.
If I write a virus program and post the code on the web, is this the same as shouting fire in a crowded room? Or is this just the language of virus writers?
While there are many heroes in the digital age, there is only one god. His name was Seymour Cray. Starting with Univac, then to CDC, and then to Cray, he was at the leading edge of high speed computing. We're not talking about some teeny little micro-computer. No way dude, Cray designed and built some serious heavy metal. And he was not just some stuffed shirt sitting in a corporate office; Cray was the lead designer (up to the later model Crays).
Seymour Cray is the god of the digital age. (And I just know that someone is gonna mention beowolf):)
Re:Intellectual Property
on
DOJ vs NSI
·
· Score: 2
NSI's position is that owns the database containing the registrants. They further claim that their contract with NSF granted them rights to any IP created by their registration business. Contrary to what some ppl believe, just because the gov paid for something, doesn't mean that they automatically own it. For instance, if the gov contracts out for services to be rendered, it may waive rights to *how* the services are rendered.
As for the phonebook directory analogy, NSI's position is that entries in their "phonebook" are publically available. However, they'll dish it out one entry (WhoIs) at a time. Hence, the central issue is whether others should be granted bulk access to the entries in NSI's database.
Before everybody goes off the deep end, consider this question. When was the last time Thompson did a serious evaluation of Linux? If he last looked at Linux two years ago, would his opinions be different now? My guess is that he would still frown upon variability in the quality of the code, but he might change his views on the reliability issue.
Linux development has been rapid paced. Everytime a new kernel is released, I somehow recall seeing comments about how such and such bug has been fixed, or widget xyz works better. The time frame in which Thompson makes his Linux appraisal is important.
But I don't know the time frame. Can anybody shed some light on this?
That's cute. I bet that site got a lot of hits.:) (no wait, that's a masochist).
This is not a domain name, but at the start of WWII, the US Navy have some problems with one of their acronyms. It is common to shorten Commander in Chief to CINC. Hence the CinC of the Pacific Fleet is CINCPAC; the Atlantic Fleet (Lant) becomes CINCLANT. But what about the Big Kahuna, the CinC of all the Navy.
When MS talks about not wanting to spread FUD, they devilishly twist the meaning around in circles. What causes fear? Having Y2K failures. What causes Uncertainty and Doubt? Not knowing what the vendor is going to do to fix known problems. I know this from experience. I had to certify (or surplus) over 50 computer equipment for Y2K compliance.
Thanks MS. You are still the master of deception and PR. BTW, Muth did get to this employee and obviously trained him well (there is always two, a master and an apprentice).
Re:What about LinuxPPC - any deals anywhere?
on
Free Red Hat 6.0 CDs
·
· Score: 1
That's right, "when it comes out." Some of us have been waiting for a while for this to happen. To Jason Haas (LinuxPPC) if you reading this, I don't mind waiting! Just don't ship out a crappy R5 distro.:)
BTW, Prime Time Freeware did a similar thing with MkLinux if you bought the MkLinux2.0(?) distro with the book. It came with a free upgrade card that eventually could be used to upgrade to the Dev3 release.
You are correct that the AES is a symmetric algorithm that will hopefully replace the ancient DES (which must be around 20 yrs old by now). I should have been more explicit. I simply put up my original post because I thought that ppl might be interested in this project; that's why I start off with FWIW.
FWIW, the (NIST) is currently evaluating several candidates for the new Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). This standard will presumably become the officially approved US Gov encryption methodology. One nice thing about this project is that most of the candidates have made their algorithms available for public scrutiny. Furthermore, it appears that there is concern about IP issues (e.g., patents).
This was taken from the AES site:
A process to develop a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) specifying an Advanced Encryption Algorithm (AEA) has been initiated by NIST. NIST is currently soliciting candidate algorithms for inclusion in the AES. It is intended that the AES will specify an unclassified, publicly-disclosed encryption algorithm available royalty-free worldwide, that is capable of protecting sensitive government information well into the next century. It is also hoped that this standard will be as widely accepted as the Data Encryption Standard (DES) in the private and public sectors.
I looked at one of the algorithms, but it just made my head hurt.:)
You make a good point about the Cato Institute being a libertatian group. I believe that my extreme displeasure with their various "scientific" analyses has blinded me to their true roots. After reading your post, I did what I call the P.J. O'Rouke test; Is O'Rouke more of a libertarian or a right-wing extremist? I must therefore stand corrected.
I guess this labels me as a liberal; i.e., anybody else is a right-wing nut.:)
Nonetheless, I still have a difficult time believing anything that comes out of the Cato Institute. Their various opinions on global warming, ozone depletion, environmental damage, health risk of smoking, etc... has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Nice quote. I wonder if they still "force" kids to read Walden. I would also guess that more ppl know the source of your sig.:)
Here's another quote.
"Now that practical skills have developed enough to provide adequately for material needs, one of those sciences which are not devoted to utilitarian ends [mathematics] has been able to arise in Egypt, the priestly caste there having the leisure necessary for disinterested research." --Aristotle
The Cato Institute makes Ronald Reagan look like a card carrying member of the ACLU. They actually critized Ronnie when he was President, because he did not strongly push the far right wing economic agenda that they supported. FYI, the other organization to be wary of is the Heritage Foundation.
The Cato Institute (CI) has been a bane for hard-working honest scientists in this country. Their modus operandi (operating procedure) is to enlist the aid of a handful of scientists/mercenaries who get paid to support the views of the CI. They are fully aware that the standard scientific method is one that is generally cautious. Scientific discourse is one of give and take accentuated by meaningful debate. The CI then uses this caution and debate as a sign of waffling and indecision. If 95 out of 100 scientists agree on a particular conclusion, the CI will merely point to the 5 dissenters as proof that there is not overall agreement. Unfortunately, many politicans who are trained as lawyers not scientists, would then agree that there is still doubt. After all, to be found guilty in a trial, *all* the jurors must agree.
Thanks a lot for this info! I was totally perplexed when I read the zd article and could not figure out how the OS market would be balkanized. As many ppl have recommended, the nature breakup of MS would be along the lines of the OS (e.g., Windows/NT), applications (e.g., Office), and services (e.g., MSN). If this occured, there would not be a balkanization of the OS as it would reside in only one group.
A more likely scenario would open marketplace with stronger competition in all aspects of software development. Consumers would then eventually benefit from a decrease in costs driven down by real competition.
Finally, MS currently makes a yearly profit of around $6(?) billion on sales of about $16(?) billion. (Note: Last quarter MS earnings were $1.9B on revenue of $4.3B). This is an obscenely high profit margin that is ultimately paid for by the consumer. I bet the good professor did not factor in a reduction in the profit margin to a level commensurate with the rest of the software industry.
Do you remember the past debates in Physics Today and other scientific magazines? On one side were the Profs (and one notable Nobel Prize winner) who kept saying that there were jobs and that the field was okay. On the other side were the grad students and post-docs who kept saying no they weren't.
Finally, the old farts started to realize that, woops, sorry we were wrong. Then the discussion turned to academic birth control to reduce the number of PhD's. Birth control, my ass, you still gonna get f*cked.
As for your comment about being a cheap labor force: let's just say that when I was in grad school, our favorite song was Tom Petty's "Refugee."
Fortunately, I finished just before the big crunch. And I got lucky as I "only" had to serve in two post-doc positions before finding a real job. But of a lot of my friends aren't doing so good right now. I'm sorry for the tone of this posting, but this issue really ticks me off.
BTW, I thought it was a NAS report not NSF (but really who cares). The project shortage was based on population estimates (supply) and not on jobs (demand). What we are seeing in the AES study is the decline in the number of college age ppl. The next increase will occur when the kids of the kids of the baby boom generation enter college.
Slashdot Mirror
While most the discussion has focused on the internet, what BellSouth is doing has greater implications for the future of cable TV. If you noticed, BellSouth is offering 120 channels of digital TV. If they keep building up their infrastructure, they'll have the capabilities to dominate local phone service, internet access, and cable DTV. Given the size of the "Baby" Bells, their is little reason to doubt that they have the resources to win.
Traditional cable companies are eventually going to have to upgrade their infrastructure if they hope to survive. The advent of DTV threatens to choke off cable's available transmission bandwidth. Internet connections constitute a trivial amount of the transmission bandwidth that will be needed in a few years. My guess is that AT&T and the other long-distance carriers are going to provide some of financial backing required to upgrade the local cable network infrastructure.
Ironically, Lucent is providing much of the networking technology that BellSouth is deploying.
Take a peek at what kind of DTV service is available in some parts of Atlanta.
On a similar note, I would like to add the following. When I was in High School (many, many moons ago), I used to write relatively more technically oriented papers for some of my classes (English and Social Studies). Now that I think about it, I used to do the same when I was in college (e.g., history classes). This went over like a drunken sailor in a monastery. The teachers (and in many instances, the other students) would essentially say, that is great but is it really that important?
In hindsight, this illustrated to me the vast cultural and intellectual differences between the nerds and the rest of the world. Most ppl do not care about technical issues despite that fact that they are very important when it comes down to the pragmatic issues of implementation. Ignorance of the technical issues allows one to just wave their magic wand to make things better, to make problems disappear. Unfortunately, the problems (as perceive by the masses) will not disappear unless you understand aspects related to implementation.
Hence, to the High School student: Educate the masses! Write your paper! Ignorance is a terrible thing to waste.
I too will be interested in finding how the other students stereotype the internet.
Now we are seriously off-topic wrt this thread but I agree with you. Get rid of the 1st post and haxOr crap but do not negatively moderate honest opinions. This can be relatively difficult when it pertains to issues related to MS. However, moderation should be based on content, both positive and negative. What should not happen is censorship by instinctively down-grading opinions that you don't agree with.
This is off-topic except that it is related to this entire thread. As I write this, 1/3 of the comments have been down-graded to -1. Okay, some of these deserve it. And I suspect that this one may too fade away into obscurity.
/. for a while and I have enjoyed Holve's comments, especially those related to SGI (I use a SGI). He is not one to troll.
However, Mike Holve's posts concerning the late/absent delivery of equipment that he ordered from VA is not flame-bait. His tone could have been nicer, but he seems to have a legitimate complaint. A company can hire all the great programmers in the world, but if they neglect the customer, they will ultimately lose. This point is important! Fortunately, Chris D. has responded to Holve's in a very nice manner.
I been a reader at
A better way to appreciate things is to look back 100 yrs. At the last turn of the century, the physics community was astounded by some amazing new discoveries. What were these mysterious X-rays? And did you read about radioactivity? I wonder if something besides uranium was radioactive? And electrons! If these things had a negative charge, there just has to be something in the atom with a positive charge. Finally, I just know that someday, man will truly fly through the air.
Moral: Who knows what the future may bring.
I would like to add a few comments to your fine analysis. While having more technology literate ppl in Congress would be beneficial, what is really required is have more technology literate staffers. These ppl are the ones that do the research and write much of the legislation. Unfortunately, for many issues like the CDA and encryption, the laws are being generated by committees and sub-committees that staffed by ppl who are not technology oriented; e.g, judicial and commerence.
Note that the member of Congress sit on many different committees and sub-committees. They are then allotted (i.e., budgeted) to have x-number of staffers to do the bulk of the committee's work. If the science and technology committees were the one's drafting, let's say, the encryption legislation, I believe that you would see better laws.
Fundamentally, there is a problem attracting intelligent, technology/science oriented ppl to work as congressional staffers. The pay is not that great and the work load is staggering. Furthermore, ppl who are good with technology/science generally frown upon paper pushing work, and paper pushing ppl. We would much rather choose to be doing what we love; hacking, putting stuff together, taking stuff apart, etc...
Sadly, when was the last time you heard a nerd/geek say that they wanted to work for Congress?
According to the book "Skunk Works", the mathematics for computing the the radar cross-section was developed by a Soviet. Some engineer at Lockheed found it and realized it's potential. When they initially built a scaled down prototype of the F-117, they had problems measuring the radar cross-section. It turns out the pole that the scaled-down prototype was attached to was returning too big of a signal. The solution was to build a stealth pole! BTW, you're correct about the pilot's head; this was a big problem. It also gives you an idea of how small the plane's radar cross-section really is; if they have to worry about some guy's head...
I recommend that one read "Skunk Works." The author (now deceased) worked there and was the head of the F-117 project. There are great sections in the book describing two other great Skunk Work projects, the U-2 and the SR-71.
I'm not absolutely positive that Awards Committee was responsible for RMS receiving this award (but duh, I hope so). However, it should be pointed out that the chair of the Awards Committee is Simon Phipps. The good Mr Phipps works for, hehehe, IBM. I leave it up you to interpret this.:)
Nonetheless, congrats to RMS!
1 Gigabit/s, bah humbug! What I want is 10 Gigabit/s like the folks at Lucent/Bell Labs are playing around with. No sh*t folks, 10!
They'll be showing this off this week. You can get the info about a LAN and a multiplexer.
This sort of makes our workplace upgrade to a 100Base-T switch look sort of feeble.:)
I'm absolutely mystified by Martinez's article. In case you haven't notice, he sometimes posts comments here at /. Even if he is only a casual peruser of this site, he should know that the GUI is not brand new, there is something called KDE, and that bazaars doesn't equate to cathedral building.
I tend to enjoy most of Martinez's articles at abcnews.com. Hell, he even once had a short sidebar that tried to explain the difference between a cracker and a hacker! A recent article also pointed out the flaws in the Mindcraft tests. But this last article, while well-meaning (I think), does have some irritating flaws.
Everytime I try to be a peacemaker I end up getting partially flamed. But here goes. Martinez has in the past (and probably still does) visit this site. I really believe that he means well when it comes to Linux. So while polite, succicint corrections to him are required, don't just flame him.
This is very narrow ruling. Essentially, the majority stated that software is clear text that can be read and understood by others (humans). Furthermore, cryptographers use software as a means of conveying their ideas to one another. Hence, restrictions on encryption software restricts the ability of cryptographers to communicate with each other. Software does not have to be compiled to be useful.
There was a dissention. He stated that software is a tool that a person uses in order to get the computer to eventually do something. There is little distinction between the source code and the compiled object code in turns of functionality.
Note: this ruling may "only" apply to cryptographers since they transmit their idea using code.
From now on, I propose that we all "talk" to each other in source code.
If I write a virus program and post the code on the web, is this the same as shouting fire in a crowded room? Or is this just the language of virus writers?
While there are many heroes in the digital age, there is only one god. His name was Seymour Cray. Starting with Univac, then to CDC, and then to Cray, he was at the leading edge of high speed computing. We're not talking about some teeny little micro-computer. No way dude, Cray designed and built some serious heavy metal. And he was not just some stuffed shirt sitting in a corporate office; Cray was the lead designer (up to the later model Crays).
Seymour Cray is the god of the digital age.
(And I just know that someone is gonna mention beowolf):)
NSI's position is that owns the database containing the registrants. They further claim that their contract with NSF granted them rights to any IP created by their registration business. Contrary to what some ppl believe, just because the gov paid for something, doesn't mean that they automatically own it. For instance, if the gov contracts out for services to be rendered, it may waive rights to *how* the services are rendered.
As for the phonebook directory analogy, NSI's position is that entries in their "phonebook" are publically available. However, they'll dish it out one entry (WhoIs) at a time. Hence, the central issue is whether others should be granted bulk access to the entries in NSI's database.
Before everybody goes off the deep end, consider this question. When was the last time Thompson did a serious evaluation of Linux? If he last looked at Linux two years ago, would his opinions be different now? My guess is that he would still frown upon variability in the quality of the code, but he might change his views on the reliability issue.
Linux development has been rapid paced. Everytime a new kernel is released, I somehow recall seeing comments about how such and such bug has been fixed, or widget xyz works better. The time frame in which Thompson makes his Linux appraisal is important.
But I don't know the time frame. Can anybody shed some light on this?
That's cute. I bet that site got a lot of hits.:)
(no wait, that's a masochist).
This is not a domain name, but at the start of WWII, the US Navy have some problems with one of their acronyms. It is common to shorten Commander in Chief to CINC. Hence the CinC of the Pacific Fleet is CINCPAC; the Atlantic Fleet (Lant) becomes CINCLANT. But what about the Big Kahuna, the CinC of all the Navy.
CINCUS
They didn't think that this sounded so good.
that Secure Shell is not located in Italy.
When MS talks about not wanting to spread FUD, they devilishly twist the meaning around in circles. What causes fear? Having Y2K failures. What causes Uncertainty and Doubt? Not knowing what the vendor is going to do to fix known problems. I know this from experience. I had to certify (or surplus) over 50 computer equipment for Y2K compliance.
Thanks MS. You are still the master of deception and PR. BTW, Muth did get to this employee and obviously trained him well (there is always two, a master and an apprentice).
That's right, "when it comes out." Some of us have been waiting for a while for this to happen. To Jason Haas (LinuxPPC) if you reading this, I don't mind waiting! Just don't ship out a crappy R5 distro.:)
BTW, Prime Time Freeware did a similar thing with MkLinux if you bought the MkLinux2.0(?) distro with the book. It came with a free upgrade card that eventually could be used to upgrade to the Dev3 release.
You are correct that the AES is a symmetric algorithm that will hopefully replace the ancient DES (which must be around 20 yrs old by now). I should have been more explicit. I simply put up my original post because I thought that ppl might be interested in this project; that's why I start off with FWIW.
FWIW, the (NIST) is currently evaluating several candidates for the new Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). This standard will presumably become the officially approved US Gov encryption methodology. One nice thing about this project is that most of the candidates have made their algorithms available for public scrutiny. Furthermore, it appears that there is concern about IP issues (e.g., patents).
This was taken from the AES site:
A process to develop a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) specifying an Advanced Encryption Algorithm (AEA) has been initiated by NIST. NIST is currently soliciting candidate algorithms for inclusion in the AES. It is intended that the AES will specify an unclassified, publicly-disclosed encryption algorithm available royalty-free worldwide, that is capable of protecting sensitive government information well into the next century. It is also hoped that this standard will be as widely accepted as the Data Encryption Standard (DES) in the private and public sectors.
I looked at one of the algorithms, but it just made my head hurt.:)
You make a good point about the Cato Institute being a libertatian group. I believe that my extreme displeasure with their various "scientific" analyses has blinded me to their true roots. After reading your post, I did what I call the P.J. O'Rouke test; Is O'Rouke more of a libertarian or a right-wing extremist? I must therefore stand corrected.
I guess this labels me as a liberal; i.e., anybody else is a right-wing nut.:)
Nonetheless, I still have a difficult time believing anything that comes out of the Cato Institute. Their various opinions on global warming, ozone depletion, environmental damage, health risk of smoking, etc... has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Nice quote. I wonder if they still "force" kids to read Walden. I would also guess that more ppl know the source of your sig.:)
Here's another quote.
"Now that practical skills have developed enough to provide adequately for material needs, one of those sciences which are not devoted to utilitarian ends [mathematics] has been able to arise in Egypt, the priestly caste there having the leisure necessary for disinterested research."
--Aristotle
The Cato Institute makes Ronald Reagan look like a card carrying member of the ACLU. They actually critized Ronnie when he was President, because he did not strongly push the far right wing economic agenda that they supported. FYI, the other organization to be wary of is the Heritage Foundation.
The Cato Institute (CI) has been a bane for hard-working honest scientists in this country. Their modus operandi (operating procedure) is to enlist the aid of a handful of scientists/mercenaries who get paid to support the views of the CI. They are fully aware that the standard scientific method is one that is generally cautious. Scientific discourse is one of give and take accentuated by meaningful debate. The CI then uses this caution and debate as a sign of waffling and indecision. If 95 out of 100 scientists agree on a particular conclusion, the CI will merely point to the 5 dissenters as proof that there is not overall agreement. Unfortunately, many politicans who are trained as lawyers not scientists, would then agree that there is still doubt. After all, to be found guilty in a trial, *all* the jurors must agree.
Thanks a lot for this info! I was totally perplexed when I read the zd article and could not figure out how the OS market would be balkanized. As many ppl have recommended, the nature breakup of MS would be along the lines of the OS (e.g., Windows/NT), applications (e.g., Office), and services (e.g., MSN). If this occured, there would not be a balkanization of the OS as it would reside in only one group.
A more likely scenario would open marketplace with stronger competition in all aspects of software development. Consumers would then eventually benefit from a decrease in costs driven down by real competition.
Finally, MS currently makes a yearly profit of around $6(?) billion on sales of about $16(?) billion. (Note: Last quarter MS earnings were $1.9B on revenue of $4.3B). This is an obscenely high profit margin that is ultimately paid for by the consumer. I bet the good professor did not factor in a reduction in the profit margin to a level commensurate with the rest of the software industry.
Do you remember the past debates in Physics Today and other scientific magazines? On one side were the Profs (and one notable Nobel Prize winner) who kept saying that there were jobs and that the field was okay. On the other side were the grad students and post-docs who kept saying no they weren't.
Finally, the old farts started to realize that, woops, sorry we were wrong. Then the discussion turned to academic birth control to reduce the number of PhD's. Birth control, my ass, you still gonna get f*cked.
As for your comment about being a cheap labor force: let's just say that when I was in grad school, our favorite song was Tom Petty's "Refugee."
Fortunately, I finished just before the big crunch. And I got lucky as I "only" had to serve in two post-doc positions before finding a real job. But of a lot of my friends aren't doing so good right now. I'm sorry for the tone of this posting, but this issue really ticks me off.
BTW, I thought it was a NAS report not NSF (but really who cares). The project shortage was based on population estimates (supply) and not on jobs (demand). What we are seeing in the AES study is the decline in the number of college age ppl. The next increase will occur when the kids of the kids of the baby boom generation enter college.