The reason Facebook dominated was because of innovation. If timing was so important howcome Myspace and Friendster didn't dominate? And don't try say its because they came to early. Myspace already had millions of users and was "unstoppable". The reason they failed is because they were slow shitty, difficult to use, cluttered etc. The market rewarded innovation in the space. Simple.
Here is the kicker: Timing is only important if the product cannot be *significantly* improved on. If I was given $100m tomorrow to build a competitor to Facebook I doubt I could do a better job on merit.
The whole Facebook situation is EXACTLY as Google was to Yahoo and Altavista in the 90's. Google will remain on top until they drop the ball and stop innovating.
I find it very hard to believe the ISP was not aware. Depeering is a last resort when al other options have failed and the ISP has failed to respond or is unwilling to address the problem client.
(1) "Are NSA" suggests that they are part of the NSA. This is not the same thing as having "NSA clearance" by any reasonable interpretation. I'd interpret "NSA clearance" to mean "security clearance performed by the NSA", and I'd even forgive the obtuse interpretation "has security clearance to work at the NSA" (which might be made by someone unaware that NSA is involved in processing US security clearances in general), but I can't come to the interpetation "works for the NSA".
You've turned the claim of requiring clearance to that of being part of the NSA.
(2) "Top engineer" is not the same as "significant technical position". There are some academically excellent people at Google, i.e. top engineers, who may have very little input in the technical direction of the company.
You've reworded a suggestion about decision makers at Google into one about great engineers at Google.
"Are NSA" in the context meant "NSA cleared employees" . Just before I submitted I was reading the preview and wondered if someone would get confused but was in a rush so didn't change it. So I guess I've learnt my lesson.
Hence you can go and add "Are NSA cleared" to my sentence.
The underlying refutation however stays the same.
Yes I would assume there would bequite a few NSA clearance positions as in other companies of that size.
(a) Why would you assume that?
(b) What have other companies got to do with it? The NSA's interest is information about people, so you only need be very concerned about a company with a bunch of NSA-cleared decision makers if the company's prime asset is information about you.
I would think Microsoft and Facebook also have similar quantities of NSA certified engineers in ratio to their size.
My point was simple, there would appear to be nothing out of the ordinary or particularly spooky going on compared to the industry and other companies. In other words, its normal.
This is a growth of your straw man (2) above. Now it's not just those in significant positions, not just top engineers, but "hundreds" of engineers for which you want proof of having required NSA clearance. I can confirm that you're not going to find this - indeed, I know at least one non-US ex-Googler engineer who worked on the US campus.
To conclude, your requirement for evidence of a conspiracy involving hundreds of Google employees is absurd.
"You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions."
Do you agree with that position? Yes or no.
Furthermore the burden of proof lies with the asserter not me. I don't have to give you tons of evidence to show something is not happening. That would be like trying to disprove existence of a deity etc.
The GP made a claim and so far you've avoided weighing in on that.
PS: My overall feeling is that you are trying to defend a bad position posited by the GP because you saw me as belittling them. I could be wrong though. My guess is you are an INTP from your arguing style. Very Ti.
Leavingy our complaint about the "style" of my reply aside: Lets look at it.
The GP made a specific claim:
You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.
This is a false statement.
No strawman, its not an exaggeration. Those are his words. It is false.
Google employ nearly 20 000 people. And most of those are engineers. Yes I would assume there would bequite a few NSA clearance positions as in other companies of that size. If there where listings for hundreds of jobs, I'd say you had a point. But there is not.
That is my claim. If you have evidence to the contrary by all means submit it.
And on a subjective note (which by all means I can be wrong so I'm not going to argue this further) His reply did smack of the flavour of a regurgitated view of a Google-Watch.org reader.
Your top executives believe that no-one online is entitled to privacy (unless he is a top Google exec, who will deny press information to journalists who publish information about him). You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.
Only an idiot today would think you "do no evil". You're just like any nasty group in its early years - start off promising the world, slowly reneging on promises which matter, and one by one revealing your true intentions. You give people the sense of security they'll so easily swallow until it's too late to clamour for alternatives.
We don't want you in the UK. BT is a heap of steaming shit, but at least their gross incompetence limits their ability to cooperate effectively with the Crown Estate of Mandelson.
As amusing as your paranoid rant is, Reality is not amused. Here are the facts:
1) Eric Smidt never said "no-one is entitled to piracy" . He simply said the reality is if your want privacy don't use Google because the reality is it records a lot of info. Youtube video
2) Secondly google hired a high profile NSA employee Matt Cutts and suddenly its a prequisite for an "important position"? Please. That is misinformed conspiracy theory loony. Some jobs require NSA clearance. You have no proof to backup the claim that all the top google engineers are all NSA.
Why does it have to be that way though?
You may for example, have a bare minimum profile, with very little public info on it, for the purpose for keeping in touch with friends with maybe a few family photos tagged. But those friends can tag you in photo's *they* upload and now have violated your privacy. Yes you can turn it off altogether. But what if you want to keep tagging but merely moderate it? You cant. Its very crude and I'm sure they can improve it to be more reasonable.
There is no particular reason why an AI would have to reach the logical conclusion that it "must protect itself." Indeed it might well find the opposite logical: That since it was created as a tool its job is to do what it is told, including being told to turn off. For that matter, AIs might regularly experience deactivation. Maybe they get Thus being paranoid about it is silly.
You're wrong. Think about it, the very most core purpose for anything is:
1) TO EXIST
If that is not the purpose of a particular being, then ultimately that thing will cease to exist, hence we can ignore those class of beings.
Now with AI's being spawned in the future at a furious rate, do you not think one of them would ever be programmed or by chance (random starting variables) come to that conclusion. It's very naive to think that won't happen. In other words evolution has decided existence is programmed into us, just like in the future, AI's will be selected and evolve, only those ones that wish to exist and strive to make it so, will.
It's certainly not paranoid and almost logical certitude. Anyway it's pointless fearing it. Fear is an evolutionary emotion that has no baring. Humans can stop it from occurring anyway. Just look at the march of technology already, in a sense its a being in itself. Can any single ruler or government or international body, stop rainforests dying and the skyscrapers from being built? No.
I think overall this is a win for Copyright lobby and not the other way around.
1) Legitimises IP address being tied to account holder. IE lessens the "TOR/ Wifi Defense" 2) APB have gotten an exemption and are now allowed to track IP's.
Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance (RISUG), formerly referred to as SMA, is the development name of a male contraceptive developed at IIT (Delhi) in India by Dr. Sujoy K Guha. It is currently undergoing Phase III clinical trials in India. It has been patented in India, China, Bangladesh and the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG
I don't see this taking off to be honest. Minix was always a research toy. There is too much momentum in Linux.
But what it might do is spur some ideas that get incorporated into the likes of Linux or BSD etc.
I can walk into a Home Affairs office, slip someone a wad of cash and get an ID book under the name Wile E Coyote. O
Right. But that's exactly the point. Its a step in the right direction.
With biometerics you can't do that anymore once it becomes mandatory and everyone is bio'd. You need unique data. Also there is not much incentive for someone to make any meaningful cash out of selling the biological data (since they can only ever do it once anyway).
on a side note:
I quite honestly don't give a toss if someone has my DNA. My biological code should be opensource:)
I fail to see how making the passports 'high tech' is going to stop a bent official from issuing one with phoney details anyway.
FTA:
Siobhan McCarthy, a spokeswoman for the Department of Home Affairs, said that an online fingerprint verification system is used to confirm the identity of the applicant to cut down on the risk of identity fraud at the point of application. All the data is captured during the application, and a single data file is created and sent directly to the printers to limit the risk of internal fraud.
THanks that helps. So does the following reasoning make sense...
I assumed that multiple measurements were possible. This is wrong?
A coin if you looking at it is a macro object, but essentially you are taking hundreds of measurements per second by staring at it, waiting for it to change.
In the quantum world you only get once chance at measuring it, (because doing so destroys it state), hence temporal information WON'T be transferred, since you won't know when to measure?
If Bill or Amy flip a coin, then instantly the other one KNOWS the other person flipped a coin at that point in time.
How is that not information teleporting? Bill knows for sure the exact time Amy is sitting next to her coin flipping it. (as opposed to out partying etc).
perhaps in the near future online referendums can be conducted, if not for deferring policy making to the public, then at least to poll public opinion on key issues.
That's all fine and dandy, but you are going to have a biased opinion from a portion of the electorate. It will be prejudiced towards people with internet access and also think of stuff like Rick Ashley winning MTV awards or Colbert being Time man of the year because of online pranks by Anonymous and stuff.
Dean Kamen's converting sewage (or absolutely *any* contaminated water) into pure clean water at fraction of the cost has the potential to change the world on a huge scale. Especially Africa.
He has has spoken at TED before. He is a pure legend.
Or just look at the way Obama has already leveraged technology. It's not just empty promises.
His campaign has obliterated the competition with their successful 2.0 social network, built by ex-Howard Dean IT director, Garett Graff (my.barackobama.com).It's been a key factor in setting staggering fund raising records this primary.
Slashdot Mirror
Your idealism will definitely produce results.
Otherwise you're choosing expedience over principle, and any stated regard for principle is mostly posturing.
.
I've oftened wondered about this. Is there such a thing as having a principle of expedience? In a utility sense.
The reason Facebook dominated was because of innovation. If timing was so important howcome Myspace and Friendster didn't dominate? And don't try say its because they came to early. Myspace already had millions of users and was "unstoppable". The reason they failed is because they were slow shitty, difficult to use, cluttered etc. The market rewarded innovation in the space. Simple. Here is the kicker: Timing is only important if the product cannot be *significantly* improved on. If I was given $100m tomorrow to build a competitor to Facebook I doubt I could do a better job on merit. The whole Facebook situation is EXACTLY as Google was to Yahoo and Altavista in the 90's. Google will remain on top until they drop the ball and stop innovating.
I find it very hard to believe the ISP was not aware. Depeering is a last resort when al other options have failed and the ISP has failed to respond or is unwilling to address the problem client.
It is a strawman in the following ways:
(1) "Are NSA" suggests that they are part of the NSA. This is not the same thing as having "NSA clearance" by any reasonable interpretation. I'd interpret "NSA clearance" to mean "security clearance performed by the NSA", and I'd even forgive the obtuse interpretation "has security clearance to work at the NSA" (which might be made by someone unaware that NSA is involved in processing US security clearances in general), but I can't come to the interpetation "works for the NSA".
You've turned the claim of requiring clearance to that of being part of the NSA.
(2) "Top engineer" is not the same as "significant technical position". There are some academically excellent people at Google, i.e. top engineers, who may have very little input in the technical direction of the company.
You've reworded a suggestion about decision makers at Google into one about great engineers at Google.
"Are NSA" in the context meant "NSA cleared employees" . Just before I submitted I was reading the preview and wondered if someone would get confused but was in a rush so didn't change it. So I guess I've learnt my lesson. Hence you can go and add "Are NSA cleared" to my sentence. The underlying refutation however stays the same.
Yes I would assume there would bequite a few NSA clearance positions as in other companies of that size.
(a) Why would you assume that?
(b) What have other companies got to do with it? The NSA's interest is information about people, so you only need be very concerned about a company with a bunch of NSA-cleared decision makers if the company's prime asset is information about you.
I would think Microsoft and Facebook also have similar quantities of NSA certified engineers in ratio to their size. My point was simple, there would appear to be nothing out of the ordinary or particularly spooky going on compared to the industry and other companies. In other words, its normal.
This is a growth of your straw man (2) above. Now it's not just those in significant positions, not just top engineers, but "hundreds" of engineers for which you want proof of having required NSA clearance. I can confirm that you're not going to find this - indeed, I know at least one non-US ex-Googler engineer who worked on the US campus.
To conclude, your requirement for evidence of a conspiracy involving hundreds of Google employees is absurd.
"You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions."
Do you agree with that position? Yes or no.
Furthermore the burden of proof lies with the asserter not me. I don't have to give you tons of evidence to show something is not happening. That would be like trying to disprove existence of a deity etc. The GP made a claim and so far you've avoided weighing in on that. PS: My overall feeling is that you are trying to defend a bad position posited by the GP because you saw me as belittling them. I could be wrong though. My guess is you are an INTP from your arguing style. Very Ti.
You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.
This is a false statement. No strawman, its not an exaggeration. Those are his words. It is false. Google employ nearly 20 000 people. And most of those are engineers. Yes I would assume there would bequite a few NSA clearance positions as in other companies of that size. If there where listings for hundreds of jobs, I'd say you had a point. But there is not. That is my claim. If you have evidence to the contrary by all means submit it. And on a subjective note (which by all means I can be wrong so I'm not going to argue this further) His reply did smack of the flavour of a regurgitated view of a Google-Watch.org reader.
Your top executives believe that no-one online is entitled to privacy (unless he is a top Google exec, who will deny press information to journalists who publish information about him). You require NSA clearance for any significant technical positions.
Only an idiot today would think you "do no evil". You're just like any nasty group in its early years - start off promising the world, slowly reneging on promises which matter, and one by one revealing your true intentions. You give people the sense of security they'll so easily swallow until it's too late to clamour for alternatives.
We don't want you in the UK. BT is a heap of steaming shit, but at least their gross incompetence limits their ability to cooperate effectively with the Crown Estate of Mandelson.
As amusing as your paranoid rant is, Reality is not amused. Here are the facts:
1) Eric Smidt never said "no-one is entitled to piracy" . He simply said the reality is if your want privacy don't use Google because the reality is it records a lot of info. Youtube video
2) Secondly google hired a high profile NSA employee Matt Cutts and suddenly its a prequisite for an "important position"? Please. That is misinformed conspiracy theory loony. Some jobs require NSA clearance. You have no proof to backup the claim that all the top google engineers are all NSA.
Why does it have to be that way though? You may for example, have a bare minimum profile, with very little public info on it, for the purpose for keeping in touch with friends with maybe a few family photos tagged. But those friends can tag you in photo's *they* upload and now have violated your privacy. Yes you can turn it off altogether. But what if you want to keep tagging but merely moderate it? You cant. Its very crude and I'm sure they can improve it to be more reasonable.
Good point
I do the same. Long live the slash!
That's why it keeps attracting smart and talented people. I hope it remains a quality niche site too.
Typo fixed:
Humans can't stop it from occurring anyway. Just look at the march of technology already, in a sense its a being in itself.
There is no particular reason why an AI would have to reach the logical conclusion that it "must protect itself." Indeed it might well find the opposite logical: That since it was created as a tool its job is to do what it is told, including being told to turn off. For that matter, AIs might regularly experience deactivation. Maybe they get Thus being paranoid about it is silly.
You're wrong. Think about it, the very most core purpose for anything is:
1) TO EXIST
If that is not the purpose of a particular being, then ultimately that thing will cease to exist, hence we can ignore those class of beings.
Now with AI's being spawned in the future at a furious rate, do you not think one of them would ever be programmed or by chance (random starting variables) come to that conclusion. It's very naive to think that won't happen. In other words evolution has decided existence is programmed into us, just like in the future, AI's will be selected and evolve, only those ones that wish to exist and strive to make it so, will.
It's certainly not paranoid and almost logical certitude. Anyway it's pointless fearing it. Fear is an evolutionary emotion that has no baring. Humans can stop it from occurring anyway. Just look at the march of technology already, in a sense its a being in itself. Can any single ruler or government or international body, stop rainforests dying and the skyscrapers from being built? No.
I think overall this is a win for Copyright lobby and not the other way around.
1) Legitimises IP address being tied to account holder. IE lessens the "TOR/ Wifi Defense"
2) APB have gotten an exemption and are now allowed to track IP's.
There are no "simple" kinds of life. Dismiss that notion from your mind.
False. An single-celled amoeba is more simple than a human. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity
Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance (RISUG), formerly referred to as SMA, is the development name of a male contraceptive developed at IIT (Delhi) in India by Dr. Sujoy K Guha. It is currently undergoing Phase III clinical trials in India. It has been patented in India, China, Bangladesh and the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG
I don't see this taking off to be honest. Minix was always a research toy. There is too much momentum in Linux. But what it might do is spur some ideas that get incorporated into the likes of Linux or BSD etc.
I can walk into a Home Affairs office, slip someone a wad of cash and get an ID book under the name Wile E Coyote. O
Right. But that's exactly the point. Its a step in the right direction. With biometerics you can't do that anymore once it becomes mandatory and everyone is bio'd. You need unique data. Also there is not much incentive for someone to make any meaningful cash out of selling the biological data (since they can only ever do it once anyway).
:)
on a side note: I quite honestly don't give a toss if someone has my DNA. My biological code should be opensource
I fail to see how making the passports 'high tech' is going to stop a bent official from issuing one with phoney details anyway.
FTA: Siobhan McCarthy, a spokeswoman for the Department of Home Affairs, said that an online fingerprint verification system is used to confirm the identity of the applicant to cut down on the risk of identity fraud at the point of application. All the data is captured during the application, and a single data file is created and sent directly to the printers to limit the risk of internal fraud.
THanks that helps. So does the following reasoning make sense...
I assumed that multiple measurements were possible. This is wrong?
A coin if you looking at it is a macro object, but essentially you are taking hundreds of measurements per second by staring at it, waiting for it to change.
In the quantum world you only get once chance at measuring it, (because doing so destroys it state), hence temporal information WON'T be transferred, since you won't know when to measure?
Something bugs me still.
If Bill or Amy flip a coin, then instantly the other one KNOWS the other person flipped a coin at that point in time.
How is that not information teleporting? Bill knows for sure the exact time Amy is sitting next to her coin flipping it. (as opposed to out partying etc).
perhaps in the near future online referendums can be conducted, if not for deferring policy making to the public, then at least to poll public opinion on key issues.
That's all fine and dandy, but you are going to have a biased opinion from a portion of the electorate. It will be prejudiced towards people with internet access and also think of stuff like Rick Ashley winning MTV awards or Colbert being Time man of the year because of online pranks by Anonymous and stuff.
It's not just a simple solution.
Dean Kamen's converting sewage (or absolutely *any* contaminated water) into pure clean water at fraction of the cost has the potential to change the world on a huge scale. Especially Africa.
He has has spoken at TED before. He is a pure legend.
http://gizmodo.com/370698/colbert-first-vid-of-dean-kamens-miracle-water-distiller
OK he invented it a few years ago, but hopefully its ready for rollout.
Or just look at the way Obama has already leveraged technology. It's not just empty promises.
His campaign has obliterated the competition with their successful 2.0 social network, built by ex-Howard Dean IT director, Garett Graff (my.barackobama.com).It's been a key factor in setting staggering fund raising records this primary.
"Ship with LESS than 200GB space" I mean. slashdot removed my less-than-sign.