I agree to a point. Code is should be copyrighted, not patented. But I think these riduculous fucking patents should be fought. In fact, if we can bog down the patent office with litigation for these bad patents, maybe they'll hire some reasonable people to examine patent requests, instead of letting these corporate lackeys that buy their way into office hire their stooges to aid their corporate masters.
Google does measure this sort of thing, to the extent they can. I have a friend who runs a lot of Google ads on his site. He said their TOS says if anyone at his IP like clicks on the ads, they don't get paid, and if they click on the ads too often, he gets booted from the program.
of the incompetence in the US patent office. There is nothing patentable about Blackboard. It introduces nothing new to teaching, to learning, or anything. It's a horrible patent, and I hope the court finds the patent invalid. Besides, Mallard was the first online teaching environment, so UIUC should be suing Blackboard.
Yours is idyllic view that seems to have little to do with reality. In truth, if you look at the pricing, there is little or no competition. It's all collusion to get the most out of the consumer.
You are also overlooking that corporations do control the government. Most legislators are bought and paid for by corporate campaign contributions. Look at both individual and soft money contributions.
AT&T is running TV ads saying this would mean competition, and thus lower video costs (cable bill) to the consumer.
That would be true if, say, AT&T were planning on delivering the service to all the areas that cable currently delivers a similar service to. But the truth is that the phone companies have already stated that they would be redlinging giant sections of the country where they deem to the citizens too poor to be worth their effort. So, it wouldn't really reduce costs to anyone, because those of us who do'nt live in the areas that the phone companies were planning on serving would have to subsidize the rich people who would get the price breaks when the cable companies found a way to slash the prices they charge to drive out the phone companies in the first place.
Very few spots? There's massive white space on your broadband map...not to mention the distinct unreliable of most rural broadband providers, and the relatively poor speeds those rural areas still get. And that satellite broadband you were touting defaults to 512Mb/s, which is barely good enough to browse static web pages.
And lets don't forget, the cost associated with even minimally acceptable broadband is still beyond the means of huge segments of the American populace. You don't see a lot of people living below the poverty line laying out $50/mo to get broadband.
You almost had me convinced until you said that competition will give us what we want. We want better service at lower prices. Corporations want more money for less output. Mutally exclusive goals. Not that regulation will fix it; it is an intractible position where all sides are morally bankrupt.
I went to E3 in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The number and daringness of the booth babes in 2006 was way down from 2005. The aggressiveness in 2006 was actually up a little bit, though. And, compared to 2005, the gals in 2006 were down right conservatively dressed, in most cases.
The largest math industry in the US is insurance. He would need to take the actuary test, but if he's going to do graduate work, I doubt the actuary test will offer him much of a challenge.
Anything industry that relies heavily on reductive analysis will have jobs for math people too (polling groups, the census bureau, the intelligence industry).
1) Movie studios (all around the world, not just in Hollywood) are VERY risk averse. They take very few chances anymore.
2) The writer's strike in the mid-70s caused a shift in the way movies are written:
Prior to the writer's strike, writers were brought up in the last remnants of the studio system, basically going through a movie writing apprenticeship. Thus, the writer had time to learn to write a good script. They had mentors helping them, and they didn't start out writing scripts, but rather worked on refining scripts under the watchful eye of the head screenwriter.
Following the writer's strike, the shift was made to a "spec" script market, where writers write what they write and the studios buy from that pool. So, while there is a really tiny writing department in some studios, the vast majority of screenplays are written by people who may not get paid anything. That means that a lot of screen writers aren't getting good feedback and aren't learning what makes a good script. Which means that a lot of the scripts being bought right now are being written by a group of previously successful writers who may or may not be able to do something different: Elliot and Russo, for (a good) example, or M. Night Shaymalan (a poor example). In any event, the studios are going with writers who have had hits in the past, but fewer new writers that have fresh ideas are being produced.
3) There are two types of development execs, and neither is exactly known for picking good movies:
The first is the 18-35 year old male - They don't, in general, like much that doesn't have explosions or sex in it, and they aren't really interested in stories. They generally have their positions because their father or uncle or neighbor is a producer with a lot of clout and wants them to have a job. A lot of them aren't even really interested in making movies, they just want to get laid and being a development exec helps with that. They don't pick good movies because:
They think every movie should star either Adam Sandler, Tom Cruise, or Pamela Anderson
Stories get in the way of explosions and sex, so they eliminate them
Acting gets in the way of explosions and sex, so they eliminate it
When they get chewed out for making too crappy comedies or action pictures, they try to make big serious pictures that invariably suck because they've bever suffered a hardship in their life, so they just pick what makes their latest girlfriend cry
It is widely reported that over 50% of this type of exec can't read
The other major type of development exec is the high powered, ultra-sensitive female exec. They don't, in general, like movies with explosions or sex, and want to make lots of touchy feely chick flick films that girls drag their boyfriends to on dates. They have had lots of life experience, but it hasn't helped them pick good movies, it just made them cry a lot in therapy. They want to change Hollywood, leading it to make more female centered films that have sensitive takes on important female life issues and are very serious. They don't pick good movies because:
People only want to see 1 (one) important, depressing, socially meaningful film a year and usually these execs didn't pick that one.
They think every movie should star Kevin Costner, Julia Roberts, or Tom Cruise
They listen to Oprah and respect her ridiculous opinions on what makes a good movie
They love story, but always cut the interesting parts out of any story in search of deeper meaning
They love acting so much that they encourage directors to find actors who overact more than Cordelia Chase in stagecraft class
When they get chewed out for making too many crappy romantic comedies or big budget romantic epics, they pick what ever make their 6-year-old brother laugh for their next project
doomed E3. When more consumers than press people started going to E3, there had to be a decline. All those consumers meant that E3 was more expensive (concessions, security staff, etc had to be increased with relatively little gain on the other end). And then E3 came to rely on the consumer attendees as much as the press attendees. And then they did away with the booth babes, causing consumer attendence to plummet. Thus, good bye E3. In it's present form anyway.
While we might have a glut of pure information, we also have a dearth of interest in the sciences.
Now, when applied research dominates the sciences, the interest of those who might go into the sciences seems to have declined. Perhaps a surge in "big picture" research will stimulate younger people into greater interest in science and thus provide more scientists for both pure and applied research. The US needs to do something to stimulate children's interest in science or we will fall further behind in innovation to SE Asia, Japan, Korea, China and Europe (all parts of the world that have lots of interest in pure research and lots of kids interested in science). Where once the Unites States was a leader in all areas of innovation and scientific research, we are now trailing, relying primarily on foreign nationals to stimulate our science industries, which can only be detrimental to our nation as a whole.
Indeed, the OP for this topic expressses an interest in more pure research endeavors. While he didn't state why, we might surmise that he finds something distasteful or unpleasant about a research environment driven wholly by the Milton Friendman "damn the world, just give me profit" motivations that drive most research in our country today. Especially in an environment when scientists receive little recognition for their work, since it is all claimed wholly by the companies that fund it. There is little place for individual acclaim in an applied research world, and that is something that often drives the superior individual to his career choice, and might be a contributing factor to the declining interest in science in our prestige and power driven society.
Because no private oraganization will. And no private organization has the resources. Besides, is not the purpose of government to benefit the whole of society over the long term? Granted, we have a government that has lost sight of that, but long term pure research provides far greater benefits in the long run than applied research. Applied research is a short term investment.
Private industry does not and will not engage in pure research. It's a Milton Friedman world, and they will only do things that provide immediate, maximized profit. That is not the way to go for the advancement of knowledge.
The government is the only entity that can, as a practical matter, fund pure research. Only governments have sufficient funds to do pure research. And pure research benefits everyone down the line. The space program was, in its inception, pure research. The returns have been tremendous for that investment. In fact, the returns on pure research are often massive, they just take longer to appear. So, I disagree with you. I think the government should be funding pure research. I don't think the government should fund as much applied research as it does. Down that path lies chaos.
A traffic light doesn't give you permission to cross the street; the government(that you studied to get your license) gives you permission to cross the intersection when a light is green, and denies it when red.
No, the government doesn't give you any sort of permissions. It's the guy who doesn't run you down with his 2000# vehicle that gives you permission. The government just tells him to give you permission and pokes him with a sharp stick if they catch him not giving you permission. If he runs you down and doesn't get caught, then all the government can do is condole your family.
Of course, you lose perspective on what pure research is when you do that. People who do basic research with a future application in mind tend to skew the basic research and thus end up missing other potentials that might have come from that basic research. Pure research should have little to do with real world applications, imo. It's supposed to be about why or how something functions at it most basic level. Applied research takes that and says how can we use this to do something useful?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree to a point. Code is should be copyrighted, not patented. But I think these riduculous fucking patents should be fought. In fact, if we can bog down the patent office with litigation for these bad patents, maybe they'll hire some reasonable people to examine patent requests, instead of letting these corporate lackeys that buy their way into office hire their stooges to aid their corporate masters.
You've never worked with Sophos Puremessage.
Content Misplacement System?
Sorry, I'll switch to SuSe with Wine and OpenGL first. No crapple for me.
Google does measure this sort of thing, to the extent they can. I have a friend who runs a lot of Google ads on his site. He said their TOS says if anyone at his IP like clicks on the ads, they don't get paid, and if they click on the ads too often, he gets booted from the program.
of the incompetence in the US patent office. There is nothing patentable about Blackboard. It introduces nothing new to teaching, to learning, or anything. It's a horrible patent, and I hope the court finds the patent invalid. Besides, Mallard was the first online teaching environment, so UIUC should be suing Blackboard.
Yours is idyllic view that seems to have little to do with reality. In truth, if you look at the pricing, there is little or no competition. It's all collusion to get the most out of the consumer. You are also overlooking that corporations do control the government. Most legislators are bought and paid for by corporate campaign contributions. Look at both individual and soft money contributions.
voter id cards
Where are your papers? These papers are incorrect! Bang, you're dead.
AT&T is running TV ads saying this would mean competition, and thus lower video costs (cable bill) to the consumer.
That would be true if, say, AT&T were planning on delivering the service to all the areas that cable currently delivers a similar service to. But the truth is that the phone companies have already stated that they would be redlinging giant sections of the country where they deem to the citizens too poor to be worth their effort. So, it wouldn't really reduce costs to anyone, because those of us who do'nt live in the areas that the phone companies were planning on serving would have to subsidize the rich people who would get the price breaks when the cable companies found a way to slash the prices they charge to drive out the phone companies in the first place.
Very few spots? There's massive white space on your broadband map...not to mention the distinct unreliable of most rural broadband providers, and the relatively poor speeds those rural areas still get. And that satellite broadband you were touting defaults to 512Mb/s, which is barely good enough to browse static web pages. And lets don't forget, the cost associated with even minimally acceptable broadband is still beyond the means of huge segments of the American populace. You don't see a lot of people living below the poverty line laying out $50/mo to get broadband.
You almost had me convinced until you said that competition will give us what we want. We want better service at lower prices. Corporations want more money for less output. Mutally exclusive goals. Not that regulation will fix it; it is an intractible position where all sides are morally bankrupt.
I went to E3 in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The number and daringness of the booth babes in 2006 was way down from 2005. The aggressiveness in 2006 was actually up a little bit, though. And, compared to 2005, the gals in 2006 were down right conservatively dressed, in most cases.
The largest math industry in the US is insurance. He would need to take the actuary test, but if he's going to do graduate work, I doubt the actuary test will offer him much of a challenge. Anything industry that relies heavily on reductive analysis will have jobs for math people too (polling groups, the census bureau, the intelligence industry).
I'm not upgrading to Vista until World of Warcraft REQUIRES it.
Tried to take a picture of the President lately? Hell, tried to go to a Bush even lately? Did you sign you loyalty oath? No? THen you didn't get in.
2) The writer's strike in the mid-70s caused a shift in the way movies are written:
Prior to the writer's strike, writers were brought up in the last remnants of the studio system, basically going through a movie writing apprenticeship. Thus, the writer had time to learn to write a good script. They had mentors helping them, and they didn't start out writing scripts, but rather worked on refining scripts under the watchful eye of the head screenwriter.
Following the writer's strike, the shift was made to a "spec" script market, where writers write what they write and the studios buy from that pool. So, while there is a really tiny writing department in some studios, the vast majority of screenplays are written by people who may not get paid anything. That means that a lot of screen writers aren't getting good feedback and aren't learning what makes a good script. Which means that a lot of the scripts being bought right now are being written by a group of previously successful writers who may or may not be able to do something different: Elliot and Russo, for (a good) example, or M. Night Shaymalan (a poor example). In any event, the studios are going with writers who have had hits in the past, but fewer new writers that have fresh ideas are being produced.
3) There are two types of development execs, and neither is exactly known for picking good movies:
The first is the 18-35 year old male - They don't, in general, like much that doesn't have explosions or sex in it, and they aren't really interested in stories. They generally have their positions because their father or uncle or neighbor is a producer with a lot of clout and wants them to have a job. A lot of them aren't even really interested in making movies, they just want to get laid and being a development exec helps with that. They don't pick good movies because:
The other major type of development exec is the high powered, ultra-sensitive female exec. They don't, in general, like movies with explosions or sex, and want to make lots of touchy feely chick flick films that girls drag their boyfriends to on dates. They have had lots of life experience, but it hasn't helped them pick good movies, it just made them cry a lot in therapy. They want to change Hollywood, leading it to make more female centered films that have sensitive takes on important female life issues and are very serious. They don't pick good movies because:
Thanks for the dialogue - I admit to giving your position more thought. Me too. Thanks.
doomed E3. When more consumers than press people started going to E3, there had to be a decline. All those consumers meant that E3 was more expensive (concessions, security staff, etc had to be increased with relatively little gain on the other end). And then E3 came to rely on the consumer attendees as much as the press attendees. And then they did away with the booth babes, causing consumer attendence to plummet. Thus, good bye E3. In it's present form anyway.
While we might have a glut of pure information, we also have a dearth of interest in the sciences.
Now, when applied research dominates the sciences, the interest of those who might go into the sciences seems to have declined. Perhaps a surge in "big picture" research will stimulate younger people into greater interest in science and thus provide more scientists for both pure and applied research. The US needs to do something to stimulate children's interest in science or we will fall further behind in innovation to SE Asia, Japan, Korea, China and Europe (all parts of the world that have lots of interest in pure research and lots of kids interested in science). Where once the Unites States was a leader in all areas of innovation and scientific research, we are now trailing, relying primarily on foreign nationals to stimulate our science industries, which can only be detrimental to our nation as a whole.
Indeed, the OP for this topic expressses an interest in more pure research endeavors. While he didn't state why, we might surmise that he finds something distasteful or unpleasant about a research environment driven wholly by the Milton Friendman "damn the world, just give me profit" motivations that drive most research in our country today. Especially in an environment when scientists receive little recognition for their work, since it is all claimed wholly by the companies that fund it. There is little place for individual acclaim in an applied research world, and that is something that often drives the superior individual to his career choice, and might be a contributing factor to the declining interest in science in our prestige and power driven society.
Because no private oraganization will. And no private organization has the resources. Besides, is not the purpose of government to benefit the whole of society over the long term? Granted, we have a government that has lost sight of that, but long term pure research provides far greater benefits in the long run than applied research. Applied research is a short term investment.
Private industry does not and will not engage in pure research. It's a Milton Friedman world, and they will only do things that provide immediate, maximized profit. That is not the way to go for the advancement of knowledge.
The government is the only entity that can, as a practical matter, fund pure research. Only governments have sufficient funds to do pure research. And pure research benefits everyone down the line. The space program was, in its inception, pure research. The returns have been tremendous for that investment. In fact, the returns on pure research are often massive, they just take longer to appear. So, I disagree with you. I think the government should be funding pure research. I don't think the government should fund as much applied research as it does. Down that path lies chaos.
A traffic light doesn't give you permission to cross the street; the government(that you studied to get your license) gives you permission to cross the intersection when a light is green, and denies it when red. No, the government doesn't give you any sort of permissions. It's the guy who doesn't run you down with his 2000# vehicle that gives you permission. The government just tells him to give you permission and pokes him with a sharp stick if they catch him not giving you permission. If he runs you down and doesn't get caught, then all the government can do is condole your family.
You know, if there's no pure research done, there's nothing to research applications for.
Of course, you lose perspective on what pure research is when you do that. People who do basic research with a future application in mind tend to skew the basic research and thus end up missing other potentials that might have come from that basic research. Pure research should have little to do with real world applications, imo. It's supposed to be about why or how something functions at it most basic level. Applied research takes that and says how can we use this to do something useful?