Just started reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond yesterday. An interesting book which promises to trace and explain the evolution of human societies.
The book starts out by mentioning how large mammals went extinct in America and Australia when humans reached there. The reason was because these animals evolved without co-existing with man(hunter) and hence did not develop a natural fear of man. As a result when man came upon them, he literally clubbed them to extinction.
I guess the new mammals(tree kangaroos, spiny anteaters...) that are being found in New Guinea may be slightly better off than their ancestors because of the better understanding of conservation/environmental awareness our present world has.
Still I wonder how many of these new species will still be around(in the wild) in about 30-40 years?
Let me get this straight - Google, Ebay/Skype, Sequoia and Index are investing $22 million in a startup that
- aims to do something obvious("FON's idea is not entirely novel - in fact, several companies and associations have tried to tie together free Wi-Fi hotspots into networks, but no one has succeeded on a large scale.")
- doesn't yet have a plan on how to prevent the notoriously insular/suspicious ISP's from blocking this service("FON faces a hurdle in that most ISPs prohibit subscribers from sharing internet access with people outside their household")
- doesn't have the software for the "Bill"(read: paying) part of the idea for the next 4 months
- is going against the grain when it comes to wi-fi trends(wasn't Google itself planning to offer free wi-fi in SF?)
- is treading slippery legal ground here(consumers reselling their Internet connections to others)
But wait, Google is investing in it so I guess this really must be a great idea right?
As other commenters have already pointed out, the confusion over its open-source nature(is it or is it not?) is critical. Without the source code/algorithm being open-source and freely accessible to the public how can one trust its "judgement"? In a legal situation, an accused will always question the accuracy of the algorithm and the software.
On a different angle, I wonder how soon before such detection capabilities will be available to consumers either as an installable plugin or web-based feature. Imagine being able to verify the authenticity of any picture on the web, ranging from that nude shot of your ex- to that impossibly perfect low-light picture taken by your photography class buddy;-)
Performance apart, it seems that good ol' Apple is charging $1300 for a machine that costs around $900(according to market research firm iSuppli) to them. A markup of around 45% in a ultra-competitive market like PC hardware!
Build cheap, claim big, advertise huge...no wonder the stock market can't get enough of Steve Jobs. I'd envy a man who has the ability to charge above market prices for a near commodity product(a PC) and in the process command a cultish following among the buyers.
What really irks me is the fact that the dupe refers to an article that is almost pointless in that it merely attaches a "scientific number" to a process most of us already know/follow - quick judgement. So what?
Will we have articles saying how motorists can spot an accident within 75 milliseconds? Or that long-time hunters can spot an alarmed bird a full 60 milliseconds before the rest of us? Or that being scalded by hot coffee takes 25 milliseconds to register in the brain?
The original post was based on a lame article. This one is a dupe of a post that was based on a lame article which appeared 3 full days ago across almost all Internet sites and publications. Thats what makes this so damn irritating!
The implications for "privately owned public statistics" in the stock/forex market would really be interesting.
Imagine, you wanted to purchase Google stock but before doing so wanted to analyze the last 8 quarters of earnings declarations as well as their stock prices. But alas, you need to buy the statistics before you decide whether to buy the stock or not.
A forex merchant could charge you a fee for their dollar-euro conversion rate, before actually changing your money.
Since such a model monetizes trivial information, guess who'd be interested in dreaming up possibilities? Goo....
...and then we got off the spacecraft, jumped around the moon, planted a flag...blah blah blah. Sd./ Edwin Aldrin.
Don't tell me you were expecting this;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Just started reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond yesterday. An interesting book which promises to trace and explain the evolution of human societies.
The book starts out by mentioning how large mammals went extinct in America and Australia when humans reached there. The reason was because these animals evolved without co-existing with man(hunter) and hence did not develop a natural fear of man. As a result when man came upon them, he literally clubbed them to extinction.
I guess the new mammals(tree kangaroos, spiny anteaters...) that are being found in New Guinea may be slightly better off than their ancestors because of the better understanding of conservation/environmental awareness our present world has.
Still I wonder how many of these new species will still be around(in the wild) in about 30-40 years?
Let me get this straight - Google, Ebay/Skype, Sequoia and Index are investing $22 million in a startup that
- aims to do something obvious("FON's idea is not entirely novel - in fact, several companies and associations have tried to tie together free Wi-Fi hotspots into networks, but no one has succeeded on a large scale.")
- doesn't yet have a plan on how to prevent the notoriously insular/suspicious ISP's from blocking this service("FON faces a hurdle in that most ISPs prohibit subscribers from sharing internet access with people outside their household")
- doesn't have the software for the "Bill"(read: paying) part of the idea for the next 4 months
- is going against the grain when it comes to wi-fi trends(wasn't Google itself planning to offer free wi-fi in SF?)
- is treading slippery legal ground here(consumers reselling their Internet connections to others)
But wait, Google is investing in it so I guess this really must be a great idea right?
As other commenters have already pointed out, the confusion over its open-source nature(is it or is it not?) is critical. Without the source code/algorithm being open-source and freely accessible to the public how can one trust its "judgement"? In a legal situation, an accused will always question the accuracy of the algorithm and the software.
;-)
On a different angle, I wonder how soon before such detection capabilities will be available to consumers either as an installable plugin or web-based feature. Imagine being able to verify the authenticity of any picture on the web, ranging from that nude shot of your ex- to that impossibly perfect low-light picture taken by your photography class buddy
Performance apart, it seems that good ol' Apple is charging $1300 for a machine that costs around $900(according to market research firm iSuppli) to them. A markup of around 45% in a ultra-competitive market like PC hardware!
Build cheap, claim big, advertise huge...no wonder the stock market can't get enough of Steve Jobs. I'd envy a man who has the ability to charge above market prices for a near commodity product(a PC) and in the process command a cultish following among the buyers.
What really irks me is the fact that the dupe refers to an article that is almost pointless in that it merely attaches a "scientific number" to a process most of us already know/follow - quick judgement. So what?
Will we have articles saying how motorists can spot an accident within 75 milliseconds? Or that long-time hunters can spot an alarmed bird a full 60 milliseconds before the rest of us? Or that being scalded by hot coffee takes 25 milliseconds to register in the brain?
The original post was based on a lame article. This one is a dupe of a post that was based on a lame article which appeared 3 full days ago across almost all Internet sites and publications. Thats what makes this so damn irritating!
The implications for "privately owned public statistics" in the stock/forex market would really be interesting.
Imagine, you wanted to purchase Google stock but before doing so wanted to analyze the last 8 quarters of earnings declarations as well as their stock prices. But alas, you need to buy the statistics before you decide whether to buy the stock or not.
A forex merchant could charge you a fee for their dollar-euro conversion rate, before actually changing your money.
Since such a model monetizes trivial information, guess who'd be interested in dreaming up possibilities? Goo....
...and then we got off the spacecraft, jumped around the moon, planted a flag...blah blah blah. ;-)
Sd./ Edwin Aldrin.
Don't tell me you were expecting this