This is an interesting article, but the question I have after reading it is this: why use a metaphor at all?
I remember hearing about a study in one of my political science classes where a number of students were given a problem that involved a country that was a threat to the United States because it had interests in spreading its boarders. There were two sets of students dealing with the same problem. The only difference between the two sets was that one set had a problem that used names that sounded similar to the names of Cities and politicians involved in Cuba in the 1960's and the other related to the Cities and politicians that were related to Nuremburg in the early 1940's. You can probably guess how it turned out but suffice to say, the students saw the connections--whether consciously or not--and settled on a plan of attack that would defend against either the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Nazi regime.
The point I'm trying to make is using metaphors to explain complex situations will always imply facts that are not necessarily true when carried from one situation to the next, and their use is, for the most part, inherently misleading. This situation needs to be looked at as an example of its own, as it surely will be when it is used as a metaphor for the next paradigm shift 40 years from now.
just my two cents' worth...donate the change to your company coffee fund. And feel free to moderate down as flamebait at will...I know I would.
You would? You would moderate this down as flamebait? Then why did you write it?
I know this is off-topic but I'm really getting tired of these little messages to the moderators. Let your statement stand for itself without disclaimers. And please tell me that's not your sig.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I've just seen these messages tagged on to otherwise insightful comments too many times. And since this particular thread--the one where I vent steam about bad posting etiquette--will never be on topic, now is as good of a time as any.
We have an attachment to our kids too. There isn't a whole lot of hauling capacity on those things. What would you do with little ones, strap them to your back?
I'm no fan of the SUV, but devices that can lug people (emphasis on the plural) and stuff, like groceries, luggage, and pets, are indispensible, and the BushPig just isn't going to cut the mustard in that department.
"Bonsaikitten.com is, of course, a joke devised by prankster MIT students -- who else would talk about "rectilinear kittens?" -- to provoke owners of kittens, an adorably fuzzy topic that's usually beyond parody."
Just a though.
Since the posted link doesn't go anywhere...
on
Cheap Linux PDAs
·
· Score: 5
It has always seemed like a logical step to make robots and machines power themselves. Any business that uses machines to harvest power should really figure out a way to make the machines use the same power. Then the cycle is closed and--short of machine repair and other such things--you have a self sustaining factory, power plant, mine, whatever.
The next logical step then, would be to build machines that can repair each other or even better, themselves.
The fact is, that civilization requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture, and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.
-- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Couldn't you sidestep this problem with a solution you hinted at the end of your post? That is, parellel processing? If your statement is actually true, that 1 in every 250 Billion bits will be corrupted, couldn't you just run the same process on two processors at the same time and compare them? If the two results aren't the same, do it over again. But for the 1 in 250 Billion bits to line up with the other 1 in 250 Billion bits would be so astronomically unlikely that you may solve the problem right there. and if not, stick a second redundant processor in, and so on.
I think you see the solution to your own problem, so don't go saying it's impossible.
When we finally do make contact, their scientists, intellectuals, techheads and terminally ill are going to be seriously bummed out when they learn that of all the space aliens, they made contact with us: the race that came up with boy bands, electric nose hair trimmers, and beer dispensing hats.
Do them a favor. Encode a message that says "Sorry, Keep trying. Aim a bit more to the left next time."
"p.s. -- we apologize for any movies broadcast to you in the past, present, or future featuring professional basketball players. Especially Shaq. We are so so sorry about Shaq."
It's the equivalent of a burglar checking your doors and windows looking for one that's not locked.
I disagree. I think this is more like walking into a convenience store and looking around to see if there are any cameras or cops before you decide to take part in a five finger discount or a full scale robbery or just because you're curious. Although the action you intent to take after casing the joint is illegal, looking around isn't what "impair[s] the integrity...of the network." I don't think it should be against the law to look around in that way either. Scanning a network / wandering around looking suspicious may make you look a little suspect, but it doesn't make you a criminal. That requires more direct action on your part.
I've been curious for quite some time what the recording industry actually does for bands. As many posters have noted, the ability to distribute music on the internet is easy. The trick isn't how to distribute it, but how to get people to hear about it, how to get them to like it, and how to get them to listen to it.
What would you say the recording company you signed with has done for you in this respect? Do you think people would know who "They Might Be Giants" are if it weren't for your contract? Has the recording company you signed on with done anything to actually influence your sound and image, or has their support been through $$ for recording and promotions (keeping in perspective the image you want to portray)? Is it possible to get onto a mainstream radiostation without a deal with a record company?
My question probably boils down to a question asked by many slashdotters: is it possible to get on the charts without the aid of a major recording contract?
I was looking for the very same BBS doorgames a few weeks ago and found a really good one.
If you're looking for a good BBS you can telnet to that carries LORD, Usurper, and a bunch of other cool doorgames, check out telery.com. It's got all the oldSkool goodies. And you can get an acct. anonymously rather than through the lengthy process of automated callbacks.
Man, these guys should come check out my bathroom. They'd probably have a field day in there. I can't be sure, but I think that creeping puddle of green sludge crawling from under my toilet into my bathtub might be an indigenous remnant of those microbial mats that developed on the surface of clay-rich soil during the rainy season, too.
I'd even let them clean away all of my precious biomass if they wanted to.
I agree with you Mr. the Blade. That's why I think that we should start taxing blank audio cassettes. And minidiscs. And video cassettes. And harddrives. And network cards, and modems. And hubs. And um, radio stations... and uh, libraries. Yeah. because they all make it possible to access and copy stuff that isn't free. And as long as they make that possible, then the parties who make that stuff available are um... responsible?
No.
There are certain people to blame for internet piracy. I am one of them. But swinging your big blade at anyone with any connection to piracy isn't an appropriate solution to the problem. If I'm a pirate, hit me. Don't attack companies that make legitimate products that get misused by bad people. If a product exists for nothing but misuse... or "99.9%" maybe it should be illegal. But this isn't one of those things. Instead, figure out a way to hold the abusers responsible, or figure out another way to get your money back from the people who took it from you.
That's why I'm an advocate of advertizing. I don't like it, but I tolerate it. In doing so, I pay for what I want, albiet in a different way. Bottom line: Intellectual property can be stolen. There's no way of getting around it. Businesses need to find another way to get their money back from the people who are stealing their product. These blunt, unfocused taxes aren't going to do anything but discourage the kind of innovation you are talking about preserving with the same taxes! Who is going to put all that money into R & D for a faster burner? If you believe that money drives innovation, you should see that the plan you advocate is counter-productive. It's a case where economic incentive is getting reduced, not created.
~~~To the Karma Police~~~
Hey, this may be offTopic, but I'd prefer if you didn't mark it as such. Take a look at this thread to see what's going on. It's actually kind of interesting. It seems to be a flamewar between an editor from Slashdot (Michael) and someone in contact with Signal 11. I'm not posting anonymously because I'd like to show "TheReverand" who says--I think--that moderation intimidates readers into posting anonymously, that I don't agree and I don't mind speaking with my actual username because I trust you, the moderator. If this is unclear to you, I'd really appreciate it if you'd just ignore this post. Thanks.
~~~End of Disclaimer~~~
I kind of doubt this is genuine, but for the sake of argument...
TheReverand, I have to point out to you that "[freezing] membership at about 10000 or so" isn't really a very useful way to increase freedom of speech. Maybe for the 10000 people but not for the greater good. As an advocate of freedom of speech, how can you suggest a solution that doesn't allow everyone to have a voice? Why should the first 10000 be the ones who have the voices? That seems sort of arbitrary. Sure, there are more trolls today than in the past, but that happens when there is a larger user base. It doesn't mean that the trolls are actually more disruptive. I also think there are a lot of intelligent people who have come along recently. Isn't that good? Doesn't that benefit The Greater Good? What kind of solution is it of yours that would exclude those intelligent, insightful, interesting and funny posters who make this forum a better place for everyone?
I thought the company's site was this page. Apparently not. I'm kind of glad I ran into it though, in a sick sort of way... but if you don't have java enabled, don't bother.
I think the idea is that the company is going to get paid for the development of the project. The project won't ever get created for the government unless the government pays for the project's completion. So this can still work. The developers get paid while they are working on the software, not after. It will be interesting to see how this affects the business model.
You can't "sell the blades but give away the razors for free" in this case. That is, you don't have any incentive, as I see it, to turn to scrimp on a project to turn it out and start selling lots of copies of it in this system. On the other hand, you don't really have any incentive to turn anything out quickly at all, Except for the sake of your credibility as a business to get hired. Then again, if you're bidding for government contracts, is the scheme for "hiring" really the same? Do government contracts have strict deadlines? I would hope so but I really don't know.
Watch your step with Shakespeare. Shakespeare didn't just write plays for the fun of it. Shakespeare was getting paid. And although there wasn't copyright as we see it today, there was a more rudimentary version: secrecy. Shakespeare never gave out a full version of the play to any of the actors. Each only received his own part and the necessary lines before his so he knew when to talk. Shakespeare wasn't just writing plays for fun. He was making a living off of it. And considering how he guarded them, I would presume that Shakespeare would have very much appreciated intellectual property laws.
>>Easy, bombard people with information about tip sites until they feel socially obligated to do so.
The problem I see with this approach, that is, where it strays from your waiter/waitress model is that no one is standing over you in front of your friends and coworkers when you are donating, or NOT DONATING money. People tip for so many reasons: we tip to be courteous, we tip to be bigshots, we tip to be rich... we tip to impress. We also tip to avoid embarressment. Except for the first, none of these incentives will be factors with the internet tip jar.
Another reason you tip is because the opportunity presents itself every time you go out to a decent restaurant. You never have to go out of your way to find a waiter or waitress.
Bottom line? Tipping (in restaurants) presents itself, tipping is easy, not tipping is hard. None of these things are true on the internet to the same extent that they are true on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting article, but the question I have after reading it is this: why use a metaphor at all?
I remember hearing about a study in one of my political science classes where a number of students were given a problem that involved a country that was a threat to the United States because it had interests in spreading its boarders. There were two sets of students dealing with the same problem. The only difference between the two sets was that one set had a problem that used names that sounded similar to the names of Cities and politicians involved in Cuba in the 1960's and the other related to the Cities and politicians that were related to Nuremburg in the early 1940's. You can probably guess how it turned out but suffice to say, the students saw the connections--whether consciously or not--and settled on a plan of attack that would defend against either the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Nazi regime.
The point I'm trying to make is using metaphors to explain complex situations will always imply facts that are not necessarily true when carried from one situation to the next, and their use is, for the most part, inherently misleading. This situation needs to be looked at as an example of its own, as it surely will be when it is used as a metaphor for the next paradigm shift 40 years from now.
-- PhatKat
just my two cents' worth...donate the change to your company coffee fund. And feel free to moderate down as flamebait at will...I know I would.
You would? You would moderate this down as flamebait? Then why did you write it?
I know this is off-topic but I'm really getting tired of these little messages to the moderators. Let your statement stand for itself without disclaimers. And please tell me that's not your sig.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but I've just seen these messages tagged on to otherwise insightful comments too many times. And since this particular thread--the one where I vent steam about bad posting etiquette--will never be on topic, now is as good of a time as any.
We have an attachment to our kids too. There isn't a whole lot of hauling capacity on those things. What would you do with little ones, strap them to your back?
I'm no fan of the SUV, but devices that can lug people (emphasis on the plural) and stuff, like groceries, luggage, and pets, are indispensible, and the BushPig just isn't going to cut the mustard in that department.
Oh, that's fine. I've got plenty of good clean blood to spare.
By the way, what do kidneys do again?
because I am going to give blood until I can buy one of these.
/.? Highest bidder gets my least favorite kidney. Bidding starts at $1,495.
Ok, so we've seen you can't put organs up for sale on e-Bay. Why not
Oh, and another $179 for the stainless steel.
And I suggest you read the article:
"Bonsaikitten.com is, of course, a joke devised by prankster MIT students -- who else would talk about "rectilinear kittens?" -- to provoke owners of kittens, an adorably fuzzy topic that's usually beyond parody."
Just a though.
Here's the site:
Agenda VR3.
It has always seemed like a logical step to make robots and machines power themselves. Any business that uses machines to harvest power should really figure out a way to make the machines use the same power. Then the cycle is closed and--short of machine repair and other such things--you have a self sustaining factory, power plant, mine, whatever.
The next logical step then, would be to build machines that can repair each other or even better, themselves.
The fact is, that civilization requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture, and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.
-- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Couldn't you sidestep this problem with a solution you hinted at the end of your post? That is, parellel processing? If your statement is actually true, that 1 in every 250 Billion bits will be corrupted, couldn't you just run the same process on two processors at the same time and compare them? If the two results aren't the same, do it over again. But for the 1 in 250 Billion bits to line up with the other 1 in 250 Billion bits would be so astronomically unlikely that you may solve the problem right there. and if not, stick a second redundant processor in, and so on.
I think you see the solution to your own problem, so don't go saying it's impossible.
When we finally do make contact, their scientists, intellectuals, techheads and terminally ill are going to be seriously bummed out when they learn that of all the space aliens, they made contact with us: the race that came up with boy bands, electric nose hair trimmers, and beer dispensing hats.
Do them a favor. Encode a message that says "Sorry, Keep trying. Aim a bit more to the left next time."
"p.s. -- we apologize for any movies broadcast to you in the past, present, or future featuring professional basketball players. Especially Shaq. We are so so sorry about Shaq."
It's the equivalent of a burglar checking your doors and windows looking for one that's not locked.
...of the network." I don't think it should be against the law to look around in that way either. Scanning a network / wandering around looking suspicious may make you look a little suspect, but it doesn't make you a criminal. That requires more direct action on your part.
I disagree. I think this is more like walking into a convenience store and looking around to see if there are any cameras or cops before you decide to take part in a five finger discount or a full scale robbery or just because you're curious. Although the action you intent to take after casing the joint is illegal, looking around isn't what "impair[s] the integrity
I've been curious for quite some time what the recording industry actually does for bands. As many posters have noted, the ability to distribute music on the internet is easy. The trick isn't how to distribute it, but how to get people to hear about it, how to get them to like it, and how to get them to listen to it.
What would you say the recording company you signed with has done for you in this respect? Do you think people would know who "They Might Be Giants" are if it weren't for your contract? Has the recording company you signed on with done anything to actually influence your sound and image, or has their support been through $$ for recording and promotions (keeping in perspective the image you want to portray)? Is it possible to get onto a mainstream radiostation without a deal with a record company?
My question probably boils down to a question asked by many slashdotters: is it possible to get on the charts without the aid of a major recording contract?
I was looking for the very same BBS doorgames a few weeks ago and found a really good one.
If you're looking for a good BBS you can telnet to that carries LORD, Usurper, and a bunch of other cool doorgames, check out telery.com. It's got all the oldSkool goodies. And you can get an acct. anonymously rather than through the lengthy process of automated callbacks.
Check it out, but don't take my node.
Man, these guys should come check out my bathroom. They'd probably have a field day in there. I can't be sure, but I think that creeping puddle of green sludge crawling from under my toilet into my bathtub might be an indigenous remnant of those microbial mats that developed on the surface of clay-rich soil during the rainy season, too.
I'd even let them clean away all of my precious biomass if they wanted to.
For a price.
I agree with you Mr. the Blade. That's why I think that we should start taxing blank audio cassettes. And minidiscs. And video cassettes. And harddrives. And network cards, and modems. And hubs. And um, radio stations... and uh, libraries. Yeah. because they all make it possible to access and copy stuff that isn't free. And as long as they make that possible, then the parties who make that stuff available are um... responsible?
No.
There are certain people to blame for internet piracy. I am one of them. But swinging your big blade at anyone with any connection to piracy isn't an appropriate solution to the problem. If I'm a pirate, hit me. Don't attack companies that make legitimate products that get misused by bad people. If a product exists for nothing but misuse... or "99.9%" maybe it should be illegal. But this isn't one of those things. Instead, figure out a way to hold the abusers responsible, or figure out another way to get your money back from the people who took it from you.
That's why I'm an advocate of advertizing. I don't like it, but I tolerate it. In doing so, I pay for what I want, albiet in a different way. Bottom line: Intellectual property can be stolen. There's no way of getting around it. Businesses need to find another way to get their money back from the people who are stealing their product. These blunt, unfocused taxes aren't going to do anything but discourage the kind of innovation you are talking about preserving with the same taxes! Who is going to put all that money into R & D for a faster burner? If you believe that money drives innovation, you should see that the plan you advocate is counter-productive. It's a case where economic incentive is getting reduced, not created.
~~~To the Karma Police~~~
Hey, this may be offTopic, but I'd prefer if you didn't mark it as such. Take a look at this thread to see what's going on. It's actually kind of interesting. It seems to be a flamewar between an editor from Slashdot (Michael) and someone in contact with Signal 11. I'm not posting anonymously because I'd like to show "TheReverand" who says--I think--that moderation intimidates readers into posting anonymously, that I don't agree and I don't mind speaking with my actual username because I trust you, the moderator. If this is unclear to you, I'd really appreciate it if you'd just ignore this post. Thanks.
~~~End of Disclaimer~~~
I kind of doubt this is genuine, but for the sake of argument...
TheReverand, I have to point out to you that "[freezing] membership at about 10000 or so" isn't really a very useful way to increase freedom of speech. Maybe for the 10000 people but not for the greater good. As an advocate of freedom of speech, how can you suggest a solution that doesn't allow everyone to have a voice? Why should the first 10000 be the ones who have the voices? That seems sort of arbitrary. Sure, there are more trolls today than in the past, but that happens when there is a larger user base. It doesn't mean that the trolls are actually more disruptive. I also think there are a lot of intelligent people who have come along recently. Isn't that good? Doesn't that benefit The Greater Good? What kind of solution is it of yours that would exclude those intelligent, insightful, interesting and funny posters who make this forum a better place for everyone?
Just my 2 cents,
PhatKat.
I thought the company's site was this page. Apparently not. I'm kind of glad I ran into it though, in a sick sort of way... but if you don't have java enabled, don't bother.
I think the idea is that the company is going to get paid for the development of the project. The project won't ever get created for the government unless the government pays for the project's completion. So this can still work. The developers get paid while they are working on the software, not after. It will be interesting to see how this affects the business model.
You can't "sell the blades but give away the razors for free" in this case. That is, you don't have any incentive, as I see it, to turn to scrimp on a project to turn it out and start selling lots of copies of it in this system. On the other hand, you don't really have any incentive to turn anything out quickly at all, Except for the sake of your credibility as a business to get hired. Then again, if you're bidding for government contracts, is the scheme for "hiring" really the same? Do government contracts have strict deadlines? I would hope so but I really don't know.
can they phase the robotic arms completely out of the picture and connect the monkeys right up to the typewriters?
Image a beowolf cluster of those things. America's next Best seller, here I come!
Watch your step with Shakespeare. Shakespeare didn't just write plays for the fun of it. Shakespeare was getting paid. And although there wasn't copyright as we see it today, there was a more rudimentary version: secrecy. Shakespeare never gave out a full version of the play to any of the actors. Each only received his own part and the necessary lines before his so he knew when to talk. Shakespeare wasn't just writing plays for fun. He was making a living off of it. And considering how he guarded them, I would presume that Shakespeare would have very much appreciated intellectual property laws.
Pressurized suit: $20,000
Extremely high altitude flight: $15,000
Used parachute: $40
Patches for parachute: $5.37
Becoming the biggest Jackson Pollack painting ever: priceless.
but what I want to know is, can it parellel park?
Ciao.
PhatKat
>>Easy, bombard people with information about tip sites until they feel socially obligated to do so.
The problem I see with this approach, that is, where it strays from your waiter/waitress model is that no one is standing over you in front of your friends and coworkers when you are donating, or NOT DONATING money. People tip for so many reasons: we tip to be courteous, we tip to be bigshots, we tip to be rich... we tip to impress. We also tip to avoid embarressment. Except for the first, none of these incentives will be factors with the internet tip jar.
Another reason you tip is because the opportunity presents itself every time you go out to a decent restaurant. You never have to go out of your way to find a waiter or waitress.
Bottom line? Tipping (in restaurants) presents itself, tipping is easy, not tipping is hard. None of these things are true on the internet to the same extent that they are true on the internet.
Prehensile dreadlocks
Retractible claws / fangs(?)
Phosphorescent teeth
Opposable toes
Camo Skin
Nocturnal Vision
Hollow Bones
Wingflaps (like flying squirrels)
Adrenaline control
Dislocating Jaw
Gills
Photographic Memory
Yoga Fire
here's that lock picking guide you were talking about.
"Brute force is the last resort of the incompetent." (Ted the Tool, Guide to Lock Picking)