1) A great many slashdotters are libertarians, which != lefty. 2) The reason the summary sticks out like a sore thumb is because it is so obvious that it is hiding an essential fact about the article. If someone posted an article stating that the Republican party was trying to create a tax system with 25 brackets, someone here would nail that too.
It's quite possible to have a political slant without distorting the facts.
Devaluing content? I don't think so.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
The key shortcoming of the point of view expressed in the article is this: the writers assume that increasing the availability of so-called "content" reduces its value. Their attitude is solely based on the notion that intellectual products are commodities -- that communication and language are commodities, and that, as with other commodities, limiting access to them increases their value.
I disagree. I believe the value of a book *increases* as more people read it. Imagine if Hamlet was only known to a handful of people in universities or think tanks. Would it be of greater value? Of course not -- part of its currency lies in the fact that *everyone* knows the story. Anyone can quote it. Anyone can make allusions to it. And the fact is, people are still making tons of money off of it, in live performances as well as several major films (at least four in the last ten years).
What Google is doing is exactly what technology has always done -- increase the capacity for human communication.
It's ironic, really, that the authors can make this argument considering that we wouldn't be reading or discussing it were it not available for free online.
I think the poster meant to say that Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt object known to have multiple satellites. At least, that's what I read on Reuters this morning.
Some of my favorite blogs lack comments -- Talking Points Memo, for example. Fact is, if somebody has something to say, he or she will be heard. If not, all the comments in the world won't help.
Picked up? Picked up by whom? The Onion is not syndicated, therefore they can't be held responsible for someone "picking up" their stuff and using it out of context. I can take words out of your post and imply that you are a pervert: "It gets harder..." But that doesn't *make* you a pervert. Context has everything to do with this, and in this context, their use of the seal is completely protected.
If anything all goverments should be barred from having anything to do with internet. Lord know's that one of them will find a way to fuck this up too.
ARPA was a government program. See? Governments aren't all bad.
What exactly is the point of this? Does HBO think that people are going to subscribe to their service if they are unable to get Rome for free over BitTorrent? Will this really result in more dollars for HBO or just fewer viewers?
Ray Kurzweil is famous for taking ridiculously small sets of data and using them to extrapolate glorious futures. I can do that too I dropped a file cabinet on my toe when I was 15. I haven't done that again since. Let's extrapolate:
1985 -- bum toe 2005 -- healthy toe 2025 -- toe with super powers
This paper hopes to discuss both the meaning of the term 'hack' and the underlying arguments for it being defined as an art or a science, blah blah blah...
Maybe instead of trying to nail down the term "hack," you should try defining "art" first. I'll give you a few thousand years, and you may consult any and all aestheticians and philosophers starting with Plato.
The power of buzzwords in people's minds is astonishing. Guess our brain is too dependent on abstraction/handles.
IMO, it wasn't the buzzword that did the trick, it was the fact that a company (Google) started doing really amazing things (Google Maps, Gmail) with it. After all, there have been plenty of buzzwords that have spiraled down the drain over the years. The idea is still the part of the equation with the power.
No, it's not a problem. Is it not a problem due to the diligent complaints of people who wanted to solve "basic issues" before we indulged in such "luxuries" as phone service? I think not.
Well, hell, the *telephone* is a luxury, if you really want to get down to brass tacks. Would you rather we just ditch all this technology stuff and focus on subsistence?
The most recent is the Japanese ban on firearms - which worked quite well until Admiral Perry showed up.
Uh... are you suggesting that some interstellar Admiral Perry might show up?
You know, the U.S. can't afford to prepare for every possibility. At some point you have to look around and see what the real potential threats are. If North Korea decides to start developing space weapons, we'll have plenty of time to derail the effort before it ever gets off the ground -- after all, we've been throwing more resources at it that Korea could ever muster, and in 20+ years we've yet to see any success.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just patently false. 1. Article IV Section II establishes slavery as a legal institution:
Ever heard of the 13th Amendment?
1) A great many slashdotters are libertarians, which != lefty.
2) The reason the summary sticks out like a sore thumb is because it is so obvious that it is hiding an essential fact about the article. If someone posted an article stating that the Republican party was trying to create a tax system with 25 brackets, someone here would nail that too.
It's quite possible to have a political slant without distorting the facts.
The key shortcoming of the point of view expressed in the article is this: the writers assume that increasing the availability of so-called "content" reduces its value. Their attitude is solely based on the notion that intellectual products are commodities -- that communication and language are commodities, and that, as with other commodities, limiting access to them increases their value.
I disagree. I believe the value of a book *increases* as more people read it. Imagine if Hamlet was only known to a handful of people in universities or think tanks. Would it be of greater value? Of course not -- part of its currency lies in the fact that *everyone* knows the story. Anyone can quote it. Anyone can make allusions to it. And the fact is, people are still making tons of money off of it, in live performances as well as several major films (at least four in the last ten years).
What Google is doing is exactly what technology has always done -- increase the capacity for human communication.
It's ironic, really, that the authors can make this argument considering that we wouldn't be reading or discussing it were it not available for free online.
I think the poster meant to say that Pluto is the only Kuiper Belt object known to have multiple satellites. At least, that's what I read on Reuters this morning.
Some of my favorite blogs lack comments -- Talking Points Memo, for example. Fact is, if somebody has something to say, he or she will be heard. If not, all the comments in the world won't help.
Designing graphical aspects (forms, window layouts, etc.)
Huh? Visual Studio lets you drag a bunch of widgets around. It doesn't teach you anything about good design.
Picked up? Picked up by whom? The Onion is not syndicated, therefore they can't be held responsible for someone "picking up" their stuff and using it out of context. I can take words out of your post and imply that you are a pervert: "It gets harder..." But that doesn't *make* you a pervert. Context has everything to do with this, and in this context, their use of the seal is completely protected.
Do I really need to spell it out? You said:
If anything all goverments should be barred from having anything to do with internet. Lord know's that one of them will find a way to fuck this up too.
ARPA was a government program. See? Governments aren't all bad.
Point of order, your honor... Does ARPANET mean anything to you?
On the other hand, they also gave us the word "dude."
What exactly is the point of this? Does HBO think that people are going to subscribe to their service if they are unable to get Rome for free over BitTorrent? Will this really result in more dollars for HBO or just fewer viewers?
Since when are morality and law the same thing?
Ray Kurzweil is famous for taking ridiculously small sets of data and using them to extrapolate glorious futures. I can do that too I dropped a file cabinet on my toe when I was 15. I haven't done that again since. Let's extrapolate:
1985 -- bum toe
2005 -- healthy toe
2025 -- toe with super powers
This paper hopes to discuss both the meaning of the term 'hack' and the underlying arguments for it being defined as an art or a science, blah blah blah...
Maybe instead of trying to nail down the term "hack," you should try defining "art" first. I'll give you a few thousand years, and you may consult any and all aestheticians and philosophers starting with Plato.
A web browser is supposed to view html files.
A computer is supposed to be run from a CLI. My how things change.
You do know that things change... right?
Just to pick a small bone with you: major applications routinely break when new system versions and patches are released. What's the difference?
The power of buzzwords in people's minds is astonishing. Guess our brain is too dependent on abstraction/handles.
IMO, it wasn't the buzzword that did the trick, it was the fact that a company (Google) started doing really amazing things (Google Maps, Gmail) with it. After all, there have been plenty of buzzwords that have spiraled down the drain over the years. The idea is still the part of the equation with the power.
Oh, I'm not saying it isn't impressive -- just that it's really too bad that it isn't being done in the major population centers.
No, it's not a problem. Is it not a problem due to the diligent complaints of people who wanted to solve "basic issues" before we indulged in such "luxuries" as phone service? I think not.
Well, hell, the *telephone* is a luxury, if you really want to get down to brass tacks. Would you rather we just ditch all this technology stuff and focus on subsistence?
Here in South Dakota...
Unfortunately, the population of South Dakota is smaller than the population of Nashville, Tennessee.
All we need is for the oil market to keep tightening for the U.S. and China to start getting quite.... snippy... with each other.
Except by then we'll both be spending all our money on... oil.
The most recent is the Japanese ban on firearms - which worked quite well until Admiral Perry showed up.
Uh... are you suggesting that some interstellar Admiral Perry might show up?
You know, the U.S. can't afford to prepare for every possibility. At some point you have to look around and see what the real potential threats are. If North Korea decides to start developing space weapons, we'll have plenty of time to derail the effort before it ever gets off the ground -- after all, we've been throwing more resources at it that Korea could ever muster, and in 20+ years we've yet to see any success.
as opposed to another one where Michael Moore makes fun of people he disagrees with.
Kinda like the way you just made fun of Michael Moore? Only funnier...