As a matter of fact, I find it lamentable that so many programmers are fumbling around trying to solve problems that have already been solved. I once had a book (part of it consisted of microfiche sheets, so that tells you how long it's been) from the ACM containing all the published fundamental algorithms. True, some of them were in assembly, COBOL, FORTRAN, and other languages that aren't popular now, but the theory was that programmers should be working on solving new problems, not reinventing solutions to old problems. Translating an algorithm from a different language is preferable (in productive mesurements) than reinventing it yourself.
Vinge has a point, and although I agree that it makes for a good story (because every story needs a problem), it is not good science: Surely those of us working on automated programming systems and generators will also try to invent a method of description that succinctly defines the outcomes of our program segments, and then we will use some type of genetic algorithm or other method of making the program most efficient within the constraints of the outcomes. In other words, software will be "grown", not coded, but the description of what is desired will include a constraint that makes it efficient. Furthermore, most of the tasks and workflow will be described in a similar language, so if a task has already been described, the method of solving it may have been cataloged and "component-ized" so the archeologists' job will be as simple as following a circuit diagram. However, IMO, that part of the problem will be done by robots...
I think the current code repositories and model repositories are precursors to huge "code warehouses" or "model warehouses". The program designer will define the task, the program generator will decompose the task description semantically and use some type of pattern matching to find a suitable "component" in the repository, generate the program or system according to some type of design or artistic standards, and then grind the system 'til it becomes highly efficient.
I believe we are closing in on a time when program development will be more akin to sculpture than logic.
Keep eating the fish oil. Omega-3 from flaxseed and most other non-fish sources is in the form of contain high amounts of ALA, which eventually translate into Series-2 eicosanoids. These eicosanids lead to more heart disease and health problems. You may as well continue to eat trans-fats if you get your Omega-3 from ALA sources. However, fish oil has a high EPA/DHA content which translates into Series-1 eicosanids, which are what produce the benefits of essential fatty acids.
First of all, the official ws lying: China does censor the Internet and vigorously pursues people who send or receive pornography and politically sensitive material (ask the Falun Gong or Catholic communities).
Then why does the official lie? This is part of the process of achieving your objective by using deception. It is a respected strategy in China, Japan, and Korea. It has its roots in "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, along with other "Bin Fa". A good description of dealing with Asians can be found in, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-ning Chu.
The Clinton Administration brags a lot about the agreements they made with North Korea over nukes: The Koreans were using this strategy to achieve their objectives and had no intention of adhering to the agreements. Christopher Warren was totally "gamed" by China, and all he would have needed to understand what was going on would have been to read Chu's book first. He might not have made so many lousy concessions if he had. Too be fair, though, every Western government has fallen prey to this strategy. The Western weakness is expecting openess and honesty to be valued the same way among Asians. So, trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea will be honored only so long as it is advantageous for the Asians, then they will be discarded as if they never existed. We will lose a lot of trade to China, for instance, and give them terms so good we will be disadvantaged, and then any benefits we expected to receive from expectations of reciprocal concern will never materialize.
Anytime we suggest that China is censoring the Internet you will hear protestations to the contrary. If we confront them with facts, they will tell us we misunderstand the situation, but they will "look into it." They will never look into it. They will simply have diverted our concerns so they can keep playing the same game.
Yup, the article is right on. ABC won't run unless adblocker is off, Fox's episode viewers not only won't run unless adblocker is off, but installs popup ads.
The internet is out of control already. The question of who assigns domain names is not really relevant. The USA will control routing within its sphere of influence, including Space. Time Warner, Sprint, MCI, etc. will still own their infrastructure, and they will lease capacity for a profit, regardless of who claims to be in charge. If there is a demand for a service, it will be provided. The decisions regarding rights, privileges and penalties will be decided on legal structures of International Law, possibly a model akin to Maritime Law. Standards are continually being developed whereby entities communicate with each other. If one part is deficient, another part will grow to meet the demand.
The Internet is an interconnection of networks. New networks will appear to meet new, unforseen needs, and in the face of oppression, they will be more clever than previously conceived. So, the question is whether we allow the US Government to cede rights guaranteed us in our Constitution. Cooperation, yes, but NO to any attempt to deprive us of our freedoms. These are the issues of "control" that need to be better defined.
Most good software engineers and programmers would work for ordinary pay if the environment was OK. The trick to getting GOOD help is to make the place a nice place to work, hire cool people, set clear objectives (with a coherent, do-able plan), and provide all the tools a developer needs, including respect from upper management. The REALLY GOOD people tend to drift into projects where there is a challenge, novelty, high-stakes, enthusiasm and real appreciation.
The last place I worked, I liked the people I worked with so much I practically would have paid them to work there. Unfortunately, management disdained us. We could tell because the pay was substandard, the air-condidtioning sucked, the chairs were old and uncomfortable, and management kept trying to institute new rules to control us rather than empower us. As a result, they lost some really good people who simply went where they felt they were appreciated. (I went back to working for myself.)
Success is doing what you like, being good at it, being rewarded for it, and feeling good about yourself while doing it. Any company that throws obstacles in the way of these conditions for success will have a hard time getting and keeping good people. (A good place to start determining the environment might be reading Tom DeMarco's book, "Peopleware".)
In this day and age, the American programmer is seeing management send ordinary programming jobs overseas, then expecting high quality programmers to work for shit pay in an unrewarding environment. Good programmers will work on boring tasks as long as they know they are appreciated and get rewarded appropriately. If they can't find a job like that, they will find another career.
I'd like to remind you that many of the things we take for granted today were considered impossible ideas only a few years ago. As Larry Ellison mentioned in one of his presentations (in 1995) "..in the last 20 years, computing power has increased a million-fold..." Of course, a lot of his predictions were based on the questionable assumption that computing power would continue to increase at the same rate. I think he may have under-estimated it. (At this point, that is probably as likely as over-estimating it.) Still, if he was right, your assumption that it is impossible to achive the goals you mentioned would be wrong.
I used to know Robert Kiyosaki very well. I wouldn't use him as a authoritative source, but I know some of the people he gets some of his ideas from, and they are pretty savvy.
As I understand it, she has great tax advice. She's out of the country right now, but I'll check with her when she gets back since I'm fuzzy on the details. (I think part of the problem was that she's a partner in a small firm, and the partnership pays a good-sized tax bill before she gets her cut, then she pays a good-size bill on top of that. In the USA, profits are passed directly to the partners, and they only get taxed once.)
Incidentally, since she only spends about 3-4 months a year in NL, she has a tax liability in the USA, also. There are adjustments made for taxes paid to NL, but I'm not privy to her financial status so I have no idea what the overall effect is.
Let's make a distinction between training, schooling and education, so we can define training as skill transfer from one entity to another. The answer has been around since the late '50's and it's called "programmed instruction." IBM made good use of programmed instruction during the '60's, as did approximately 20,000 other companies and publishers. Some of the best programmed instruction was produced by Control Data and Texas Instruments. Programmed instruction courses were bulky, and not for the impatient, but the mark of good programmed instruction was 95%+ successful transfer of knowledge or skills to the student using it, and the student usually achieved this in approxiamately 1/6 the time of normal textbook acquisiton.
Why is it so scarce today? Well, the co-inventor of programmed instruction was B. F. Skinner, and it became politically incorrect to acknowledge his ideas of operant conditioning during the '70's. Another problem was that each step (sometimes referred to as a "frame" in PI) had to be tested for successful completion. (One of the presuppositions fo PI is that people learn from success, so frames had to be constructed so that 98% of the time people made the correct response.) This made the actual development slow, and this time was added to the extra time it took to analyze and break down the knowledge into small, discrete portions. Development time could be lengthy compared to just writing a book. So, what was once an effective tool used to teach math, English, Private Pilot licensing, computer programming, Logic, and thousands of other subjects, became watered down until computer-aided instruction was no more than a presentation given on the computer, instead of a method of almost guaranteed achievement.
There were limits to the effectiveness of PI. It was most effective in transmitting skills or concrete knowledge, where the objectives were clear or the knowledge was stable, and less effective for subjects requiring creativity or independent thought. For example, it could teach English grammar very well, did a fair job of teaching letter writing, but would be deficient at teaching the intermediate to advanced levels of story writing. It could teach color theory, but couldn't teach painting very well. My first skills in programming the IBM 1401 (AUTOCODER) were taught through programmed instruction courses. (So were my first FORTRAN, COBOL and BAL courses.) I've seen children taught to type at age 6 using PI on a Texas Instruments system, and I took a number of programs using CDC's Plato system, including a cool chemistry course that included lab simulations.
For theory, I'd recommend the book, "The Analysis of Behavior" by Skinner and Holland, and for practical use I'd suggest the books of Robert Mager including, "Practical Programming" by Mager and Pipe. Much of the theory of programmed instruction was done by Norman Crowder, who used a "branching" program. (In short, if a frame was answered correctly, the student was "branched" to a new subtopic or skill instead of having to work every frame in the program.)
IMO, most of the so-called "training" offered as CBT, CAI and from product vendors isn't worth diddly these days.
That page is full of half-truths and poor statistics.
I don't drink, smoke or use drugs. There are numerous reasons not to indulge, and I found them all when I used over 20 years ago. False anti-drug propaganda is not necessary in the light of the real reasons for not using drugs.
However, the arguments for not using drugs do not support the case for making war on drugs, which is an entirely different issue. IMO, the consequences of our drug war far outweigh the harm caused by what would be legal drug use.
A couple of factoids (not sufficient for decision-making): The UK had almost NO drug-related crime when drugs were available from the National Health Service. Since Thatcher joined Reagan's War on Drugs, the incidence of of violent drug-related crime has shot up astronomically. http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/philosophy/drugwa r.html
I heard a lecture by an economist at Rice University (I forget his name), and he claimed that if we stopped our War on Drugs, the price of a hit of crack would drop to about the price of a couple of aspirin. (His argument was that with costs so small, violence and theft would not be worth the risks.)
Now that I've said that, remember that the original question was,"Where would you go?" Drug availability should not be the deciding factor.
At this time, the USA is still a slightly better place to live than almost anyplace in the World, especially eonomically. It is deteriorating, but it is still better. According to the "Pocket World in Figures" (2003 is my latest), only the citizens of Luxembourg have more purchasing power than the average US citizen. Our purchasing power is higher than Japan, Germany, France, England and Canada. I correspond every day with friends who live in Sweden and Norway. They all love it, but it's only a good place to live; not to make money. Things are scarce, money is scarcer. (They have incomes of approximately $3000/mo USD, and this is GOOD income in Sweden! But it buys a lot less than the USA.) This seems to be true of Denmark, also. A friend of mine (Chinese-American with law offices in Houston, Singapore and Rotterdam) says that taxes in the Netherlands take about 75% her income there, prices are high, and services are slow. A friend of mine in Italy said it took her 6 months to get a dial-up internet connection in Rome two years ago, and it costs 4 times what she'd pay in the States. (She met a lot of nice friends in internet cafes, though.)
Although the Pocket World in Figures somehow calculated that Canada has the highest quality of life (the US second), I have relatives in Regina who had to come to the US for heart surgery because they couldn't get it in Canada; they were too old. Even if you are young enough, it may take 3 months or more to get a bypass or heart transplant.
I have friends who live in Japan and teach English (earn about $50,000/yr USD), and one who is a CPA working for an American firm, and they all say that the money goes a lot further in Japan, but most Japanese don't earn proportionally equivalent incomes.
It will change shortly: Those of us who are baby boomers will be retiring shortly. Social Security and Medicare represent about $50 TRILLION dollars of unfunded liabilities. Figure about $250,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in the USA, or about $1,000,000 per household of 4. (These liabilities are reported off-balance-sheet. If the US Government was Enron, Congress would go to jail.) The only way to fund these liabilities will be to raise taxes and create inflation, because it is such a huge amount of the GDP. Since most retirement funds are in the stock market, withdrawals will probably cause the stock market to decline rapidly and deeply. The repercussions will be felt all over the world, and places that might seem a great place to live today will not be so attractive when they can no longer sell their stuff to the USA and the USA is no longer a good place to invest. We
A lot of money has been invested in creating messages to be disseminated across the 'Net. Additional money has bee invested in making these messages attractive, and in enhancing the reputation of the creators and authors. Now some sleazeball desseminates the message at a lower tier, and packs it with adds, thus diminishing the value of the original investment on one hand, and possibly marginally increasing the value on the other. I can see the points on both sides. Unfortunately, once the vehicle has left the showroom it gets scratches.
Hmmm... Suppose Bob takes a great picture of a pretty girl in a bikini and uses it to promote his photography. Suppose a notorious porn site uses only the headshot portion and even provides a link back to Bob's site.
On the other hand, suppose a site that is a directory for photographers uses Bob's picture to provide a link to his photography site.
Somehow I would think it's appropriate for Bob to be able to get the picture removed from the site that makes him look like a pornographer, but that means he also has the right to get it removed from the directory if he wishes.
Bob should have the right to control his picture, but unfortunately, it has left the showroom.
Keep in mind, we have a different situation if one or the other downstream sites has purchased the right to use the picture as they see fit.
Hmmm. If I purchase a print of Bob's picture, do I have the right to cut it up, paint over it and make derivative art? (Maybe, it depends on my written agreement with Bob.) I certainly have the right to take a picture of it and keep it in my insurance records to record my household goods. Do I have a right to make copies and give it to my friends, even if some of them actually go out and buy signed print later on? (That would be enhancing the value, wouldn't it?) If I don't charge for it, it's not a commercial venture, right?
Sorry, folks, but I think the author should retain the rights.
Although LeFou needs a lesson in Rhetoric, you both point out valid issues. As I said in an earlier post, I see this as a personality issue more than a technical issue.
The problem, which I suggested is an inconvenience more than a roadblock, will happen in legacy GPLv2 software that we are already using. As a base for the future, the theory is that people who find GPLv3 deficient will fork off and balkanize good software, while many will stay "mainstream" FSF. This increases the technical difficulties of distributing finished software, particularly if the programming talent is scarce in any particular area. Those developing new products can, and should, move to BSD or Apache licensing if appropriate.
The idea of opening up hardware design to accomodate all the software available is an admirable goal, but people who actually invest in manufacturing and distribution have a legitimate right to protect their investment. They also have a right to protect the artistic or intellectual investment they make on a product. Sony and Lynksys should be glad that the Aibo and router were made more functional by hackers, but aren't there people who want a piece of hardware that prevents the proliferation of spam? I believe these objectives are not mutually exclusive, but RMS stands in the way of merging these objectives harmoniously. In one way, the article got it right: The stream will change its course to flow around an obstacle.
The Forbes article, other journal articles and conversations on/. show that the kernel is not a problem. The rights are still owned by Linus and he may continue to use GPLv2. There are numerous utilities and apps that we've become accustomed to using, and many of the developers have signed over their rights to FSF, allowing FSF to enforce the terms of the agreement. The problem, if it actually develops, will show up in a case where RMS changes all the utilities and apps to GPLv3. This will mean that when the app or utilities need to be improved, the distro architects wil have to start from the version that was in existence under GPLv2. Theoretically, this could cause some branching, a shortage of programming talent and a glitch in the continued usefulness of many of the programs being offered under GPLv2 at this time. (This includes a LOT more software than just what's associated with GNU/Linux.)
Why does this situation exist? Because one person floating around in a fog of ego and illusion, has the power and authority to be a dog in the manger.
I'm not too worried about it. It's inconvenient if it happens, but I've been developing software for over 40 years and if I really need something I can make it or apply other resources to acquire it. It's simply discouraging to watch all this. It would be an avoidable situation if there was an adult in charge to communicate and design a workable solution. IMO this is not a technical problem, but a personality problem.
You might have a point about "groupthink". I see crowd behavior exhibited on both sides of the debate. RMS has his own little band of groupies that are almost fanatical in supporting him, and the other side (the author of the Forbes article is a case in point) using ad hominem arguments to dismiss the debate out-of-hand. Neither camp is rationally discussing the real merits or deficiencies.
The fractionalization is a minor issue. It is an inconvenience at most. Some of the conflict arising from RMS hardheadedness are not his fault; it's a matter of upstream insufficiency in the legal system. On the other hand, lack of communication, lack of negotiation, ignoring input, and lack of clarity indicate to me that RMS is not capable of devising a workable solution. In fact, I'm not sure his "solution" is a fix to a problem that exists anywhere besides his own head.
Also, this is not freedom nor a freedom issue. It is a pseudo-anarchism approach that inhibits progress, which I see as the process of achieving more funtionality among more users in the community. (In other posts I've quoted Kevin Kelly's "Law of Abundance", which Kelly claims is the value of a networked product increasing as the number of users increases. See Kelly, "New Rules for the New Economy"). The fact that RMS can pre-empt the word "freedom" and re-define it to his own delusion does not make it "freedom". He's actually spoiling a good thing.
Stallman has passed his expiration date. He's an embarrasment to the Open Source community, and I wouldn't be seen in public with the clown. It's all act and no substance. I will hold this opinion until he actually produces something useful, learns a little diplomacy, learns a little manners, and learns to communicate with the world outside his own head. He will have to quit resting on his laurels and grow up.
Uhmm, as I understand it, numerous developers signed over the rights to the FSF, and that was also mentioned in the article. If the developers no longer have the right to administer the copyright copyright on their own creations, shame on them! If I'm wrong, shame on me.
The article, while biased, does get something right: Stallman IS a loose cannon, more interested in fanaticism and self-agrandizement than progress. A pox on all the developers who signed over their rights to this clown. A despot touting populism is still a despot.
If Stallman wsn't such an intellectual lightweight, he could resolve the conflicts between concerned entities.
During the early '90's, when OS 7 and OS 8 were crashing every 15 minutes, I had a couple of customers with 500+ Mac II's and III's that almost never crashed; they were running AUX. AUX was UNIX, and it still ran the Mac OS on top. At that time, a Mac III with a Radius monitor was the fastest AutoCAD system around.
IMO, the article (incomplete as it is) is right on about the weaknesses in Apple's strategy to gain market share. IMO, if they had contiued to expand in the UNIX area and done a better job of marketing AUX, they wouldn't have had to re-develop the idea for OSX. The Microsoft platform, with it's huge base of applications, is a great example of Kevin Kelly's proposition that "Value flows from Abundance" (Kevin Kelly, "New Rules for the New Economy", 1998). In short, Kelly claims that in the networked world, the more people you have using your product, the more valuable it becomes. His first examples are the telephone and fax machine: Both devices were in short demand until enough people had them so that owning one was a convenience rather than a curiosity. IMO, if Apple had done with AUX what they've done with OSX, the sheer utility of owning an Apple computer would have been enough to avoid some of the problms they had in the '90's.
You are so right: I agree that the UI needs to enhance the functional use of the computer, and nobody's practical imagination has caught up with the imaginative possibilities yet. "Working" in 3D is so far too separate from "living" in 3D, and it seems to me that as long as we are stuck with staring at a lighted rectangle in front of our faces, we will not be able to practically exploit the posibilities. (I had great hopes for VR.) However, "semantic webs" and real-time or animated "system models" might better be observed, understood and enhanced in a 3D environment. "Point of view" models and experiences across the net might also be better done in 3D. (This is why I was attracted to Croquet.)
Project Looking Glass was 'way ahead of the Vista 3D presentation, and still offers some cool effects that aren't available on Vista yet. I predict that soon after Vista comes out the OS community revives Looking Glass, couples it with Croquet and humiliates Micrososft by doing it on half the power at a fraction of the development cost.
Yeah, the article is a little sparse on details. What kind of power does it take? Is the software for sale? What are the costs associated with production? The article did allude to a time savings. This seems to be a clone of stuff they've been doing in Japan for a few years.
IMO, the games-oriented CEO's were close to their customers' needs, while others, Michael Dell particularly, were almost clueless. Michael Dell sounded like a politician in a close race who is afraid to say anything substantial or controversial.
Why don't I recommend Dell computers anymore? Because tech support sucks. I'd like to give Dell a clue: Your systems don't work flawlessly every time and you need to have better tech support. And when I get to the third-level support tech who is supposed to know something, I want solutions, not someone saying, "This is unusual." It usually isn't unusual. I can google for the problem and find dozens of complaints over the same issue.
Michael Dell has become the Max Headroom of the computer industry.
Yes, so far it is much more efficient to to burn dense energy fuels like oil (diesel for instance), but look at the way our technical innovations are moving: The efficiencies keep improving. There was an article on/. not too long ago about a quadruple increase in the efficiency of solar panels, and it only requires demand to make them cost effective. I think the time frame was predicted to be about 7 years, but I can't remember.
If a person wants to build their own, it is much cheaper in terms of dollars. Not everyone has a Popular Mechanics or Mother Earth News mentality or skill, so cost benefits are derived from current manufacturing and marketing models. Today's costs are not relevant to future goals, because the goal includes sufficient power, practical operating costs, and practical purchase price point. There are about 24 known factors affecting these goals, and each one has to be addressed. These technologies are already practical in parts of Australia, for instance, but not for Houston or Chicago.
Not immediately, anyhow. Here in Houston people can barely drive in 2 dimensions, much less 3.
However, take a look at the the old AI program, "Boids." Thre are already plans on the board to use a similar "flocking" algorithm to manage congestion and landing at major airports. When people's vehicles can "flock" in three dimensions (and not depend so much on the skill of the alleged driver), it may change the shape of transportation. Look at Japan's bullet trains: they are already being switched and directed robotically.
The power of networks was very well described in Kevin Kelly's book, "New Rules for the New Economy."
My guess, is that the article doesn't get specific enough about what datacenters will be like in the future. As long as it is incredibally expensive to attach multi-sourced, very high bandwidth connections, datacenters will have a place as server farms. (The attacks on net neutrality will prolong this.) As long as it's economically preferable to have people servicing multiple servers, there will be a necessity for clustering those servers together. Until we can economically dynamically allocate physical and human resources, static allocation will still prevail. This leads me to suspect that both types of alolocation will co-exist for quite a while.
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact, I find it lamentable that so many programmers are fumbling around trying to solve problems that have already been solved. I once had a book (part of it consisted of microfiche sheets, so that tells you how long it's been) from the ACM containing all the published fundamental algorithms. True, some of them were in assembly, COBOL, FORTRAN, and other languages that aren't popular now, but the theory was that programmers should be working on solving new problems, not reinventing solutions to old problems. Translating an algorithm from a different language is preferable (in productive mesurements) than reinventing it yourself.
Vinge has a point, and although I agree that it makes for a good story (because every story needs a problem), it is not good science: Surely those of us working on automated programming systems and generators will also try to invent a method of description that succinctly defines the outcomes of our program segments, and then we will use some type of genetic algorithm or other method of making the program most efficient within the constraints of the outcomes. In other words, software will be "grown", not coded, but the description of what is desired will include a constraint that makes it efficient. Furthermore, most of the tasks and workflow will be described in a similar language, so if a task has already been described, the method of solving it may have been cataloged and "component-ized" so the archeologists' job will be as simple as following a circuit diagram. However, IMO, that part of the problem will be done by robots...
I think the current code repositories and model repositories are precursors to huge "code warehouses" or "model warehouses". The program designer will define the task, the program generator will decompose the task description semantically and use some type of pattern matching to find a suitable "component" in the repository, generate the program or system according to some type of design or artistic standards, and then grind the system 'til it becomes highly efficient.
I believe we are closing in on a time when program development will be more akin to sculpture than logic.
Keep eating the fish oil. Omega-3 from flaxseed and most other non-fish sources is in the form of contain high amounts of ALA, which eventually translate into Series-2 eicosanoids. These eicosanids lead to more heart disease and health problems. You may as well continue to eat trans-fats if you get your Omega-3 from ALA sources. However, fish oil has a high EPA/DHA content which translates into Series-1 eicosanids, which are what produce the benefits of essential fatty acids.
First of all, the official ws lying: China does censor the Internet and vigorously pursues people who send or receive pornography and politically sensitive material (ask the Falun Gong or Catholic communities).
Then why does the official lie? This is part of the process of achieving your objective by using deception. It is a respected strategy in China, Japan, and Korea. It has its roots in "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, along with other "Bin Fa". A good description of dealing with Asians can be found in, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-ning Chu.
The Clinton Administration brags a lot about the agreements they made with North Korea over nukes: The Koreans were using this strategy to achieve their objectives and had no intention of adhering to the agreements. Christopher Warren was totally "gamed" by China, and all he would have needed to understand what was going on would have been to read Chu's book first. He might not have made so many lousy concessions if he had. Too be fair, though, every Western government has fallen prey to this strategy. The Western weakness is expecting openess and honesty to be valued the same way among Asians. So, trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea will be honored only so long as it is advantageous for the Asians, then they will be discarded as if they never existed. We will lose a lot of trade to China, for instance, and give them terms so good we will be disadvantaged, and then any benefits we expected to receive from expectations of reciprocal concern will never materialize.
Anytime we suggest that China is censoring the Internet you will hear protestations to the contrary. If we confront them with facts, they will tell us we misunderstand the situation, but they will "look into it." They will never look into it. They will simply have diverted our concerns so they can keep playing the same game.
Yup, the article is right on. ABC won't run unless adblocker is off, Fox's episode viewers not only won't run unless adblocker is off, but installs popup ads.
The internet is out of control already. The question of who assigns domain names is not really relevant. The USA will control routing within its sphere of influence, including Space. Time Warner, Sprint, MCI, etc. will still own their infrastructure, and they will lease capacity for a profit, regardless of who claims to be in charge. If there is a demand for a service, it will be provided. The decisions regarding rights, privileges and penalties will be decided on legal structures of International Law, possibly a model akin to Maritime Law. Standards are continually being developed whereby entities communicate with each other. If one part is deficient, another part will grow to meet the demand.
The Internet is an interconnection of networks. New networks will appear to meet new, unforseen needs, and in the face of oppression, they will be more clever than previously conceived. So, the question is whether we allow the US Government to cede rights guaranteed us in our Constitution. Cooperation, yes, but NO to any attempt to deprive us of our freedoms. These are the issues of "control" that need to be better defined.
Most good software engineers and programmers would work for ordinary pay if the environment was OK. The trick to getting GOOD help is to make the place a nice place to work, hire cool people, set clear objectives (with a coherent, do-able plan), and provide all the tools a developer needs, including respect from upper management. The REALLY GOOD people tend to drift into projects where there is a challenge, novelty, high-stakes, enthusiasm and real appreciation.
The last place I worked, I liked the people I worked with so much I practically would have paid them to work there. Unfortunately, management disdained us. We could tell because the pay was substandard, the air-condidtioning sucked, the chairs were old and uncomfortable, and management kept trying to institute new rules to control us rather than empower us. As a result, they lost some really good people who simply went where they felt they were appreciated. (I went back to working for myself.)
Success is doing what you like, being good at it, being rewarded for it, and feeling good about yourself while doing it. Any company that throws obstacles in the way of these conditions for success will have a hard time getting and keeping good people. (A good place to start determining the environment might be reading Tom DeMarco's book, "Peopleware".)
In this day and age, the American programmer is seeing management send ordinary programming jobs overseas, then expecting high quality programmers to work for shit pay in an unrewarding environment. Good programmers will work on boring tasks as long as they know they are appreciated and get rewarded appropriately. If they can't find a job like that, they will find another career.
I'd like to remind you that many of the things we take for granted today were considered impossible ideas only a few years ago. As Larry Ellison mentioned in one of his presentations (in 1995) "..in the last 20 years, computing power has increased a million-fold..." Of course, a lot of his predictions were based on the questionable assumption that computing power would continue to increase at the same rate. I think he may have under-estimated it. (At this point, that is probably as likely as over-estimating it.) Still, if he was right, your assumption that it is impossible to achive the goals you mentioned would be wrong.
A funny thing happened on the way to finding a resource for your question: http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/richric her/2844
4 -fiscal-hurricane-cover_x.htm
I used to know Robert Kiyosaki very well. I wouldn't use him as a authoritative source, but I know some of the people he gets some of his ideas from, and they are pretty savvy.
Although you can google for yourself, here's a starting point: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-1
As I understand it, she has great tax advice. She's out of the country right now, but I'll check with her when she gets back since I'm fuzzy on the details. (I think part of the problem was that she's a partner in a small firm, and the partnership pays a good-sized tax bill before she gets her cut, then she pays a good-size bill on top of that. In the USA, profits are passed directly to the partners, and they only get taxed once.)
Incidentally, since she only spends about 3-4 months a year in NL, she has a tax liability in the USA, also. There are adjustments made for taxes paid to NL, but I'm not privy to her financial status so I have no idea what the overall effect is.
Let's make a distinction between training, schooling and education, so we can define training as skill transfer from one entity to another. The answer has been around since the late '50's and it's called "programmed instruction." IBM made good use of programmed instruction during the '60's, as did approximately 20,000 other companies and publishers. Some of the best programmed instruction was produced by Control Data and Texas Instruments. Programmed instruction courses were bulky, and not for the impatient, but the mark of good programmed instruction was 95%+ successful transfer of knowledge or skills to the student using it, and the student usually achieved this in approxiamately 1/6 the time of normal textbook acquisiton.
Why is it so scarce today? Well, the co-inventor of programmed instruction was B. F. Skinner, and it became politically incorrect to acknowledge his ideas of operant conditioning during the '70's. Another problem was that each step (sometimes referred to as a "frame" in PI) had to be tested for successful completion. (One of the presuppositions fo PI is that people learn from success, so frames had to be constructed so that 98% of the time people made the correct response.) This made the actual development slow, and this time was added to the extra time it took to analyze and break down the knowledge into small, discrete portions. Development time could be lengthy compared to just writing a book. So, what was once an effective tool used to teach math, English, Private Pilot licensing, computer programming, Logic, and thousands of other subjects, became watered down until computer-aided instruction was no more than a presentation given on the computer, instead of a method of almost guaranteed achievement.
There were limits to the effectiveness of PI. It was most effective in transmitting skills or concrete knowledge, where the objectives were clear or the knowledge was stable, and less effective for subjects requiring creativity or independent thought. For example, it could teach English grammar very well, did a fair job of teaching letter writing, but would be deficient at teaching the intermediate to advanced levels of story writing. It could teach color theory, but couldn't teach painting very well. My first skills in programming the IBM 1401 (AUTOCODER) were taught through programmed instruction courses. (So were my first FORTRAN, COBOL and BAL courses.) I've seen children taught to type at age 6 using PI on a Texas Instruments system, and I took a number of programs using CDC's Plato system, including a cool chemistry course that included lab simulations.
For theory, I'd recommend the book, "The Analysis of Behavior" by Skinner and Holland, and for practical use I'd suggest the books of Robert Mager including, "Practical Programming" by Mager and Pipe. Much of the theory of programmed instruction was done by Norman Crowder, who used a "branching" program. (In short, if a frame was answered correctly, the student was "branched" to a new subtopic or skill instead of having to work every frame in the program.)
IMO, most of the so-called "training" offered as CBT, CAI and from product vendors isn't worth diddly these days.
That page is full of half-truths and poor statistics.
I don't drink, smoke or use drugs. There are numerous reasons not to indulge, and I found them all when I used over 20 years ago. False anti-drug propaganda is not necessary in the light of the real reasons for not using drugs.
However, the arguments for not using drugs do not support the case for making war on drugs, which is an entirely different issue. IMO, the consequences of our drug war far outweigh the harm caused by what would be legal drug use.
A couple of factoids (not sufficient for decision-making): The UK had almost NO drug-related crime when drugs were available from the National Health Service. Since Thatcher joined Reagan's War on Drugs, the incidence of of violent drug-related crime has shot up astronomically. http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/philosophy/drugwa r.html
I heard a lecture by an economist at Rice University (I forget his name), and he claimed that if we stopped our War on Drugs, the price of a hit of crack would drop to about the price of a couple of aspirin. (His argument was that with costs so small, violence and theft would not be worth the risks.)
Now that I've said that, remember that the original question was,"Where would you go?" Drug availability should not be the deciding factor.
At this time, the USA is still a slightly better place to live than almost anyplace in the World, especially eonomically. It is deteriorating, but it is still better. According to the "Pocket World in Figures" (2003 is my latest), only the citizens of Luxembourg have more purchasing power than the average US citizen. Our purchasing power is higher than Japan, Germany, France, England and Canada. I correspond every day with friends who live in Sweden and Norway. They all love it, but it's only a good place to live; not to make money. Things are scarce, money is scarcer. (They have incomes of approximately $3000/mo USD, and this is GOOD income in Sweden! But it buys a lot less than the USA.) This seems to be true of Denmark, also. A friend of mine (Chinese-American with law offices in Houston, Singapore and Rotterdam) says that taxes in the Netherlands take about 75% her income there, prices are high, and services are slow. A friend of mine in Italy said it took her 6 months to get a dial-up internet connection in Rome two years ago, and it costs 4 times what she'd pay in the States. (She met a lot of nice friends in internet cafes, though.)
Although the Pocket World in Figures somehow calculated that Canada has the highest quality of life (the US second), I have relatives in Regina who had to come to the US for heart surgery because they couldn't get it in Canada; they were too old. Even if you are young enough, it may take 3 months or more to get a bypass or heart transplant.
I have friends who live in Japan and teach English (earn about $50,000/yr USD), and one who is a CPA working for an American firm, and they all say that the money goes a lot further in Japan, but most Japanese don't earn proportionally equivalent incomes.
It will change shortly: Those of us who are baby boomers will be retiring shortly. Social Security and Medicare represent about $50 TRILLION dollars of unfunded liabilities. Figure about $250,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in the USA, or about $1,000,000 per household of 4. (These liabilities are reported off-balance-sheet. If the US Government was Enron, Congress would go to jail.) The only way to fund these liabilities will be to raise taxes and create inflation, because it is such a huge amount of the GDP. Since most retirement funds are in the stock market, withdrawals will probably cause the stock market to decline rapidly and deeply. The repercussions will be felt all over the world, and places that might seem a great place to live today will not be so attractive when they can no longer sell their stuff to the USA and the USA is no longer a good place to invest. We
A lot of money has been invested in creating messages to be disseminated across the 'Net. Additional money has bee invested in making these messages attractive, and in enhancing the reputation of the creators and authors. Now some sleazeball desseminates the message at a lower tier, and packs it with adds, thus diminishing the value of the original investment on one hand, and possibly marginally increasing the value on the other. I can see the points on both sides. Unfortunately, once the vehicle has left the showroom it gets scratches.
Hmmm... Suppose Bob takes a great picture of a pretty girl in a bikini and uses it to promote his photography. Suppose a notorious porn site uses only the headshot portion and even provides a link back to Bob's site.
On the other hand, suppose a site that is a directory for photographers uses Bob's picture to provide a link to his photography site.
Somehow I would think it's appropriate for Bob to be able to get the picture removed from the site that makes him look like a pornographer, but that means he also has the right to get it removed from the directory if he wishes.
Bob should have the right to control his picture, but unfortunately, it has left the showroom.
Keep in mind, we have a different situation if one or the other downstream sites has purchased the right to use the picture as they see fit.
Hmmm. If I purchase a print of Bob's picture, do I have the right to cut it up, paint over it and make derivative art? (Maybe, it depends on my written agreement with Bob.) I certainly have the right to take a picture of it and keep it in my insurance records to record my household goods. Do I have a right to make copies and give it to my friends, even if some of them actually go out and buy signed print later on? (That would be enhancing the value, wouldn't it?) If I don't charge for it, it's not a commercial venture, right?
Sorry, folks, but I think the author should retain the rights.
Although LeFou needs a lesson in Rhetoric, you both point out valid issues. As I said in an earlier post, I see this as a personality issue more than a technical issue.
The problem, which I suggested is an inconvenience more than a roadblock, will happen in legacy GPLv2 software that we are already using. As a base for the future, the theory is that people who find GPLv3 deficient will fork off and balkanize good software, while many will stay "mainstream" FSF. This increases the technical difficulties of distributing finished software, particularly if the programming talent is scarce in any particular area. Those developing new products can, and should, move to BSD or Apache licensing if appropriate.
The idea of opening up hardware design to accomodate all the software available is an admirable goal, but people who actually invest in manufacturing and distribution have a legitimate right to protect their investment. They also have a right to protect the artistic or intellectual investment they make on a product. Sony and Lynksys should be glad that the Aibo and router were made more functional by hackers, but aren't there people who want a piece of hardware that prevents the proliferation of spam? I believe these objectives are not mutually exclusive, but RMS stands in the way of merging these objectives harmoniously. In one way, the article got it right: The stream will change its course to flow around an obstacle.
The Forbes article, other journal articles and conversations on /. show that the kernel is not a problem. The rights are still owned by Linus and he may continue to use GPLv2. There are numerous utilities and apps that we've become accustomed to using, and many of the developers have signed over their rights to FSF, allowing FSF to enforce the terms of the agreement. The problem, if it actually develops, will show up in a case where RMS changes all the utilities and apps to GPLv3. This will mean that when the app or utilities need to be improved, the distro architects wil have to start from the version that was in existence under GPLv2. Theoretically, this could cause some branching, a shortage of programming talent and a glitch in the continued usefulness of many of the programs being offered under GPLv2 at this time. (This includes a LOT more software than just what's associated with GNU/Linux.)
Why does this situation exist? Because one person floating around in a fog of ego and illusion, has the power and authority to be a dog in the manger.
I'm not too worried about it. It's inconvenient if it happens, but I've been developing software for over 40 years and if I really need something I can make it or apply other resources to acquire it. It's simply discouraging to watch all this. It would be an avoidable situation if there was an adult in charge to communicate and design a workable solution. IMO this is not a technical problem, but a personality problem.
You might have a point about "groupthink". I see crowd behavior exhibited on both sides of the debate. RMS has his own little band of groupies that are almost fanatical in supporting him, and the other side (the author of the Forbes article is a case in point) using ad hominem arguments to dismiss the debate out-of-hand. Neither camp is rationally discussing the real merits or deficiencies.
The fractionalization is a minor issue. It is an inconvenience at most. Some of the conflict arising from RMS hardheadedness are not his fault; it's a matter of upstream insufficiency in the legal system. On the other hand, lack of communication, lack of negotiation, ignoring input, and lack of clarity indicate to me that RMS is not capable of devising a workable solution. In fact, I'm not sure his "solution" is a fix to a problem that exists anywhere besides his own head.
Also, this is not freedom nor a freedom issue. It is a pseudo-anarchism approach that inhibits progress, which I see as the process of achieving more funtionality among more users in the community. (In other posts I've quoted Kevin Kelly's "Law of Abundance", which Kelly claims is the value of a networked product increasing as the number of users increases. See Kelly, "New Rules for the New Economy"). The fact that RMS can pre-empt the word "freedom" and re-define it to his own delusion does not make it "freedom". He's actually spoiling a good thing.
Stallman has passed his expiration date. He's an embarrasment to the Open Source community, and I wouldn't be seen in public with the clown. It's all act and no substance. I will hold this opinion until he actually produces something useful, learns a little diplomacy, learns a little manners, and learns to communicate with the world outside his own head. He will have to quit resting on his laurels and grow up.
Uhmm, as I understand it, numerous developers signed over the rights to the FSF, and that was also mentioned in the article. If the developers no longer have the right to administer the copyright copyright on their own creations, shame on them! If I'm wrong, shame on me.
The article, while biased, does get something right: Stallman IS a loose cannon, more interested in fanaticism and self-agrandizement than progress. A pox on all the developers who signed over their rights to this clown. A despot touting populism is still a despot.
If Stallman wsn't such an intellectual lightweight, he could resolve the conflicts between concerned entities.
During the early '90's, when OS 7 and OS 8 were crashing every 15 minutes, I had a couple of customers with 500+ Mac II's and III's that almost never crashed; they were running AUX. AUX was UNIX, and it still ran the Mac OS on top. At that time, a Mac III with a Radius monitor was the fastest AutoCAD system around.
IMO, the article (incomplete as it is) is right on about the weaknesses in Apple's strategy to gain market share. IMO, if they had contiued to expand in the UNIX area and done a better job of marketing AUX, they wouldn't have had to re-develop the idea for OSX. The Microsoft platform, with it's huge base of applications, is a great example of Kevin Kelly's proposition that "Value flows from Abundance" (Kevin Kelly, "New Rules for the New Economy", 1998). In short, Kelly claims that in the networked world, the more people you have using your product, the more valuable it becomes. His first examples are the telephone and fax machine: Both devices were in short demand until enough people had them so that owning one was a convenience rather than a curiosity. IMO, if Apple had done with AUX what they've done with OSX, the sheer utility of owning an Apple computer would have been enough to avoid some of the problms they had in the '90's.
You are so right: I agree that the UI needs to enhance the functional use of the computer, and nobody's practical imagination has caught up with the imaginative possibilities yet. "Working" in 3D is so far too separate from "living" in 3D, and it seems to me that as long as we are stuck with staring at a lighted rectangle in front of our faces, we will not be able to practically exploit the posibilities. (I had great hopes for VR.) However, "semantic webs" and real-time or animated "system models" might better be observed, understood and enhanced in a 3D environment. "Point of view" models and experiences across the net might also be better done in 3D. (This is why I was attracted to Croquet.)
Project Looking Glass was 'way ahead of the Vista 3D presentation, and still offers some cool effects that aren't available on Vista yet. I predict that soon after Vista comes out the OS community revives Looking Glass, couples it with Croquet and humiliates Micrososft by doing it on half the power at a fraction of the development cost.
http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/
http://www.opencroquet.org/
Yeah, the article is a little sparse on details. What kind of power does it take? Is the software for sale? What are the costs associated with production? The article did allude to a time savings. This seems to be a clone of stuff they've been doing in Japan for a few years.
IMO, the games-oriented CEO's were close to their customers' needs, while others, Michael Dell particularly, were almost clueless. Michael Dell sounded like a politician in a close race who is afraid to say anything substantial or controversial.
Why don't I recommend Dell computers anymore? Because tech support sucks. I'd like to give Dell a clue: Your systems don't work flawlessly every time and you need to have better tech support. And when I get to the third-level support tech who is supposed to know something, I want solutions, not someone saying, "This is unusual." It usually isn't unusual. I can google for the problem and find dozens of complaints over the same issue.
Michael Dell has become the Max Headroom of the computer industry.
Yes, so far it is much more efficient to to burn dense energy fuels like oil (diesel for instance), but look at the way our technical innovations are moving: The efficiencies keep improving. There was an article on /. not too long ago about a quadruple increase in the efficiency of solar panels, and it only requires demand to make them cost effective. I think the time frame was predicted to be about 7 years, but I can't remember.
If a person wants to build their own, it is much cheaper in terms of dollars. Not everyone has a Popular Mechanics or Mother Earth News mentality or skill, so cost benefits are derived from current manufacturing and marketing models. Today's costs are not relevant to future goals, because the goal includes sufficient power, practical operating costs, and practical purchase price point. There are about 24 known factors affecting these goals, and each one has to be addressed. These technologies are already practical in parts of Australia, for instance, but not for Houston or Chicago.
Not immediately, anyhow. Here in Houston people can barely drive in 2 dimensions, much less 3.
However, take a look at the the old AI program, "Boids." Thre are already plans on the board to use a similar "flocking" algorithm to manage congestion and landing at major airports. When people's vehicles can "flock" in three dimensions (and not depend so much on the skill of the alleged driver), it may change the shape of transportation. Look at Japan's bullet trains: they are already being switched and directed robotically.
The power of networks was very well described in Kevin Kelly's book, "New Rules for the New Economy."
My guess, is that the article doesn't get specific enough about what datacenters will be like in the future. As long as it is incredibally expensive to attach multi-sourced, very high bandwidth connections, datacenters will have a place as server farms. (The attacks on net neutrality will prolong this.) As long as it's economically preferable to have people servicing multiple servers, there will be a necessity for clustering those servers together. Until we can economically dynamically allocate physical and human resources, static allocation will still prevail. This leads me to suspect that both types of alolocation will co-exist for quite a while.