Penenberg discusses some very interesting ideas about opening up the Times digital archive and the impact this would have on its cyber presence
"cyber presence" != being a competent newpaper. This is exactly the kind of attitude that led to the dot-com fiasco. So many crap sites have a huge "cyber presence". SO WHAT? NYT is really good at doing what they do, and they know that enough people will be willing to pay to get what they offer. It's surprising to see this kind of marketing bull-speak come from a university professor.
Being the technology organization that ACM is, I expected it to offer a in-depth technical insight as to why exactly the current technologies were insufficient, theoretically what kind of technology was required end-to-end to make electronic voting trustable, etc.
Instead all they say is "current technology suck so we need a paper trail". Not very scientific, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
And take the encyclopedia back? Like I said, he could make an ass of himself.
He just "marketed" his theory before validating it. What happens when his paper comes out and people find a flaw in the calculations?
Penenberg discusses some very interesting ideas about opening up the Times digital archive and the impact this would have on its cyber presence
"cyber presence" != being a competent newpaper.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that led to the dot-com fiasco.
So many crap sites have a huge "cyber presence". SO WHAT? NYT is really good at doing what they do, and they know that enough people will be willing to pay to get what they offer.
It's surprising to see this kind of marketing bull-speak come from a university professor.
Being the technology organization that ACM is, I expected it to offer a in-depth technical insight as to why exactly the current technologies were insufficient, theoretically what kind of technology was required end-to-end to make electronic voting trustable, etc. Instead all they say is "current technology suck so we need a paper trail". Not very scientific, eh?