You have historically made a series of predictions (with impressive fidelity) about technological progress in your past writings.
Are there areas where we seem to be missing the mark, where you've maybe been disappointed by unforeseen practical hurdles or just the stubborn rate of progress? In contrast, where do we appear to be ahead of schedule?
Tomorrow, a bunch of people who always parked just fine, passed a driving test and everything, will be in a hurry / angry / distracted / whatever, make a bad call, and scrape the side of a vehicle.
I'd rather everyone just push a button and that never happen.
> Anyone who defines chemical weapons as "WMDs" is doing it wrong. Very wrong.
You mean like the Archbishop who coined the phrase in 1937, in reference to Italian chemical weapon attacks the previous year?
More seriously though, one of the reasons they stay included in contemporary definitions is that chemicals can destroy environments or, in some cases, make large areas considered hazardous for long periods of time. Maybe "weapons of mass rendering unsafe with obnoxious cleanup requirements" would be technically more accurate, but WMD rolls a little faster off the tongue.
Not included in that list and thought up in five minutes:
(Assuming first contact unlikely when only one civilization at our current level of development or earlier is trying, and intergalactic communication is too expensive to bother with at all.)
"We're not one of the cool kids"
1. First contact seems exciting before you do it, but is actually just really boring/dangerous/confusing in hindsight. 2. Our most likely first contact partners are in the more dense area of the galaxy. 3. Their best first contact partners (our rivals) are most likely in that same or an even more dense area of the galaxy. 4. Everyone else in the galaxy meets up with someone else first, and after that loses interest, and doesn't try to contact and and just ignores us.
Alternate, related "Bumpkins last":
1. Galactic civilizations are likely to focus searches for other civilizations towards the galactic center (because that's where the greater densities of stars are, so you get more results per area of sky searched, or due to some yet to be discovered reason causing greater expected payoffs there). 2. Other civilizations are likely to be closer to the center of the galaxy than us (because that's where more stars are). 3. Ergo, other civilization(s) are most likely looking and broadcasting "hello worlds!" messages away from our tiny backwater, towards the galactic (urban?) core. (Or at their plentiful urban core neighbors if they're in the posh neighborhood.)
These are related to some of the ideas on the wiki, but they are still distinct. (See "Matroishka brain" for another "Eh, not worth the effort," explanation.) These two probably aren't very cool or likely, but I would contend that they meet the stated criteria of "not on that list" and "thought up in a few minutes."
I hereby demand my honorary diploma in Fermi bullshitting!
(Seriously though, I agree, some people need to check wikipedia before filling up this thread.)
IGN Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation. Hulu co-owner NewsCorp... WSJ Parent NewsCorp... (Any of nearly 100 papers in Australia) Owner NewsCorp... Dow Jones Parent NewsCorp... Harper Collins Parent NewsCorp... National Rugby League Owner NewsCorp...
I don't want to sound like I'm giving a pass to Fox News. But Fox News isn't bad because of what NewsCorp does, Fox News is bad because their content is shitty. (This subtle distinction allows us to say, for example, that the WSJ, however shitty it is, is LESS shitty than Fox News.)
Also, if you start thinking of NewsCorp as just "that Fox owner," then you're obscuring the terrifying and nigh unfathomable scale of the organization. NewsCorp is like Cthulhu, tentacles in everything, while Fox News is just one homicidal cultist.
If they are getting an extra $6 per month from the 12 M subscribers who do streaming + DVDs, that's $72M.
Losing 1M subscribers (it's from the DVD only and Streaming only categories) is a loss of $8M.
4/5 of the lost customers were from the DVD only side, the more expensive business they are trying to sideline.
I don't want them to go streaming only. Netflix killed the mom and pop video store in my town that carried a giant library of obscure films for 20 years. Netflix streams a tiny percentage of the movies on my 'to see' list.
But I don't think is a good way to persuade them to reverse course.
A number of positions held by Economists are rejected out of hand by most outside the discipline.
Free trade is beneficial on net. Price floors cause shortages (and the minimum wage is a type of price floor). Bangladesh has as much to fear from rising energy prices as from rising sea waters.
Please argue with any of these (intentionally provocative) positions, so as to illustrate my main point: there are plenty of experts you disagree with too.
This case raises two really interesting undecided questions in fair use which I've heard batted around.
1.
Some friends of mine who are media law defense attorneys always insist that Fair Use is not a "defense," because the phrasing surrounding fair use is always "a fair use IS NOT infringement" rather than the typical language of affirmative defenses, which would say, "an infringement is PERMITTED(/not actionable/shall not result in damages) given fair use." This means that it is the plaintiff's obligation to establish the use was not fair as a very element of the underlying claim. In turn, a judge can independently find this element lacking and deny a copyright claim without the defense ever being raised.
The media law Plaintiff's attorneys I know all disagree, of course, citing common practice, and the fact no judge would actually do that. Well, here we are. And the underlying theory that "fair use is not a defense", while a bit unorthodox, seems to bear at least basic textual scrutiny. I'm not saying it's decided, but there's a prima facie case to be made. I never thought it would be put to the test, but hopefully we get an appeal on this and a judge up the chain explicitly says, "Yes, judges can do this, because a fair use is never an infringement," or "No, this must be raised as a defense."
2.
Some* have noted that the common law fair use considerations are clearly not meant as an exhaustive list in Folsom v. Marsh. As codified in the statute, it appears like an exhaustive list, but the existence of 17 USC 107 does not preclude the possibility of a common law principle which reaches even farther in categorizing some uses as fair. 17 USC 107 does not explicitly preempt the further development of Folsom v. Marsh. In other words, the judge could find that any use by a non-profit organization is fair, on some completely novel grounds, like non-profits promote the public good so we will give them a pass. (I don't think such a broad ruling is likely, I'm just illustrating how a new type of fair use could be created.)
*Specifically, I'm lifting this from some comments Fred von Lohmann made in Kansas City a few years back. Apologies if I misrepresented his position. Also note that I'm not even sure he's committed to this, he may have just been tossing it out as an interesting idea.
Yeah, that's exactly what Pope JPII wrote in "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996.
The Catholic church has been really sesitive about restricting science ever since the whole Galileo thing, they actually fund some of the best scientists and astronomers in the world.
This Hawking story is really out of character for Pope JPII, sounds pretty apocryphal.
Please add nudity to the following games, so they'll get rerated, and then pulled from shelves after the subsequent controversy:
Curious George Reads, Writes & Spells for Grades 1&2 UNO Puppy Luv Paws and Claws: Pet Vet Wordthello Nancy Drew: Danger by Design Babar - To The Rescue Bob the Builder AMF Xtreme Bowling 2006 Dance Factory and last but not least: Barbie Horse Adventures
I'm a law student at the University of Kansas, where the outbreak hit a few weeks ago.
The outbreak hit despite the school's immunization policy, which has always required proof of two vaccinations against MMR.
It would seem, as a previous commenter suggests, and as some news reports corroborate, that the outbreak is affecting those already vaccinated.
"" Most of the current cases have been among people who were vaccinated. But that doesn't mean the vaccine has become less effective, Seward said. No vaccine is capable of protecting everyone who receives it, she said. Five percent to 10 percent of people vaccinated for the mumps will fail to gain immunity. These are probably the people who are becoming ill. "The mumps vaccine is still protecting huge numbers of people," Seward said. "We would expect thousands of people to get sick if there wasn't good immunity in the community." "" -The Kansas City Star
If you thought Dubya's presidency was fun, just wait for WII!
Actually, when I first read it, I thought the japanese were just trying to dredge up old conflicts between Japan and the US, to remind the nationalists why not to support Microsoft.
Just looking back at the comments in this thread is really sobering.
All the posts that get modded up fiercely defend one side or the other, and accuse the other side of being utter slime.
These extreme positions (mine above included) all get modded up, and they all get modded overrated.
I'm past believing that one half of/. or the other simply doesn't know the facts.
I think the explanation is that we all think of patents as a tool to safeguard innovation, but we all think that system has broken down. This case illustrates that fact in different ways for different people:
either 1) It's a case of a large company vs. a little guy. Large companies in this system churn out spurious patents which clog the USPTO. They constantly cry out for strict protection for intellectual property, claiming innovation dies without such protections. When they get attacked for violating a little guy's patents, they act appalled, and cry bloody murder. This case points to the hypocrisy of megacorps in an era where the little guy who just wants to help the world is squeezed out of innovating, because he can't afford the expensive patent lawyers it takes to just get started. OR 2) It's a case of a slimy law-saavy company who abuses the system, waiting to prey on any successful innovation without actually helping society get better by bringing anything to market. The patent system shouldn't protect people who game the system, waiting to pounce on companies that develop a working product. This case represents how the bogged down patent system represents a minefield where any inventor is always clueless as to whether they've stepped on someone else's toes or not.
I suspect neither account is entirely accurate, but both have some truth.
NTP is no patent troll, the owner seriously tried to fund development of his project, until the megacorps repeatedly left him hanging. His investments in demos and prototypes ended up ruining him.
NTP repeatedly sought good faith settlements from RIM, who knew he had tried to develop this design in the past.
Then RIM tried to prove its case by lying in court directly to the jury and judge.
But it's okay, it's hard to find this angle buried in the story.
It's pretty evident from the study of climatology that climate change doesn't need our help to happen very rapidly.
In addition, it's pretty clear we've pumped so many CFCs into the atmosphere at this point, if human climate change can happen, it's unavoidable.
If this is the case, we need tech and industry to insulate us from the dangers of global warming, whether it's building higher flood walls, or making healthier crops. We can spend our resources in industry on a) more expensive fuel that won't stop the inevitable, or b) innovations to help us address our needs on the fly.
Industry usually opts for the latter.
So I guess I'm saying, it's not necessarily a lack of care, or lack of appreciation of the risks here; maybe it's just a different cost benefit analysis. And while I sympathesize with your approach, it's not completely implausible that industry is opting for the better path here.
My favorite punk band just told everyone to respect hip hop.
We just got this album at KJHK this week. Incredible stuff. I've got all new respect for Cee-Lo, he's amazingly talented, and his vocals really pull all this together, really complementing DJ Danger Mouse's production.
& Propagandhi: if you haven't, check out Dead Prez and Immortal Technique, and Mac Lethal's "Pass the Ammo."
I love it when governments get ideas from my favorite Sci Fi! But I think a lot of other people on slashdot really like that book, so I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't wait for this to become a reality!
Just because you found some website that says they're legal and pay artists royalties does not make it true. Bet you there are more web sites saying they're illegal than that say they're legal.
Right, one website doesn't make it true. But I've actually seen the websites that say it's legal and that they pay royalties... it's hard to compare *real* evidence with the evidence you just sort of imagined.
Slashdot Mirror
Ray,
You have historically made a series of predictions (with impressive fidelity) about technological progress in your past writings.
Are there areas where we seem to be missing the mark, where you've maybe been disappointed by unforeseen practical hurdles or just the stubborn rate of progress? In contrast, where do we appear to be ahead of schedule?
Thanks for what you do.
I've always parked just fine, just like you.
Tomorrow, a bunch of people who always parked just fine, passed a driving test and everything, will be in a hurry / angry / distracted / whatever, make a bad call, and scrape the side of a vehicle.
I'd rather everyone just push a button and that never happen.
> Anyone who defines chemical weapons as "WMDs" is doing it wrong. Very wrong.
You mean like the Archbishop who coined the phrase in 1937, in reference to Italian chemical weapon attacks the previous year?
More seriously though, one of the reasons they stay included in contemporary definitions is that chemicals can destroy environments or, in some cases, make large areas considered hazardous for long periods of time. Maybe "weapons of mass rendering unsafe with obnoxious cleanup requirements" would be technically more accurate, but WMD rolls a little faster off the tongue.
> I present the full list of possible answers
Not included in that list and thought up in five minutes:
(Assuming first contact unlikely when only one civilization at our current level of development or earlier is trying, and intergalactic communication is too expensive to bother with at all.)
"We're not one of the cool kids"
1. First contact seems exciting before you do it, but is actually just really boring/dangerous/confusing in hindsight.
2. Our most likely first contact partners are in the more dense area of the galaxy.
3. Their best first contact partners (our rivals) are most likely in that same or an even more dense area of the galaxy.
4. Everyone else in the galaxy meets up with someone else first, and after that loses interest, and doesn't try to contact and and just ignores us.
Alternate, related "Bumpkins last":
1. Galactic civilizations are likely to focus searches for other civilizations towards the galactic center (because that's where the greater densities of stars are, so you get more results per area of sky searched, or due to some yet to be discovered reason causing greater expected payoffs there).
2. Other civilizations are likely to be closer to the center of the galaxy than us (because that's where more stars are).
3. Ergo, other civilization(s) are most likely looking and broadcasting "hello worlds!" messages away from our tiny backwater, towards the galactic (urban?) core. (Or at their plentiful urban core neighbors if they're in the posh neighborhood.)
These are related to some of the ideas on the wiki, but they are still distinct. (See "Matroishka brain" for another "Eh, not worth the effort," explanation.) These two probably aren't very cool or likely, but I would contend that they meet the stated criteria of "not on that list" and "thought up in a few minutes."
I hereby demand my honorary diploma in Fermi bullshitting!
(Seriously though, I agree, some people need to check wikipedia before filling up this thread.)
Does the installer automatically remove version 3 for you?
Also, why doesn't all software have an "update" button in the help menu?
IGN Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation.
Hulu co-owner NewsCorp...
WSJ Parent NewsCorp...
(Any of nearly 100 papers in Australia) Owner NewsCorp...
Dow Jones Parent NewsCorp...
Harper Collins Parent NewsCorp...
National Rugby League Owner NewsCorp...
I don't want to sound like I'm giving a pass to Fox News. But Fox News isn't bad because of what NewsCorp does, Fox News is bad because their content is shitty.
(This subtle distinction allows us to say, for example, that the WSJ, however shitty it is, is LESS shitty than Fox News.)
Also, if you start thinking of NewsCorp as just "that Fox owner," then you're obscuring the terrifying and nigh unfathomable scale of the organization. NewsCorp is like Cthulhu, tentacles in everything, while Fox News is just one homicidal cultist.
Pfft, I heard about this first on Cougar Town.
If they are getting an extra $6 per month from the 12 M subscribers who do streaming + DVDs, that's $72M.
Losing 1M subscribers (it's from the DVD only and Streaming only categories) is a loss of $8M.
4/5 of the lost customers were from the DVD only side, the more expensive business they are trying to sideline.
I don't want them to go streaming only. Netflix killed the mom and pop video store in my town that carried a giant library of obscure films for 20 years. Netflix streams a tiny percentage of the movies on my 'to see' list.
But I don't think is a good way to persuade them to reverse course.
A number of positions held by Economists are rejected out of hand by most outside the discipline.
Free trade is beneficial on net. Price floors cause shortages (and the minimum wage is a type of price floor). Bangladesh has as much to fear from rising energy prices as from rising sea waters.
Please argue with any of these (intentionally provocative) positions, so as to illustrate my main point: there are plenty of experts you disagree with too.
(Yeah, but those experts are WRONG!)
Says you. We all pick and choose.
This case raises two really interesting undecided questions in fair use which I've heard batted around.
1.
Some friends of mine who are media law defense attorneys always insist that Fair Use is not a "defense," because the phrasing surrounding fair use is always "a fair use IS NOT infringement" rather than the typical language of affirmative defenses, which would say, "an infringement is PERMITTED(/not actionable/shall not result in damages) given fair use." This means that it is the plaintiff's obligation to establish the use was not fair as a very element of the underlying claim. In turn, a judge can independently find this element lacking and deny a copyright claim without the defense ever being raised.
The media law Plaintiff's attorneys I know all disagree, of course, citing common practice, and the fact no judge would actually do that. Well, here we are. And the underlying theory that "fair use is not a defense", while a bit unorthodox, seems to bear at least basic textual scrutiny. I'm not saying it's decided, but there's a prima facie case to be made. I never thought it would be put to the test, but hopefully we get an appeal on this and a judge up the chain explicitly says, "Yes, judges can do this, because a fair use is never an infringement," or "No, this must be raised as a defense."
2.
Some* have noted that the common law fair use considerations are clearly not meant as an exhaustive list in Folsom v. Marsh. As codified in the statute, it appears like an exhaustive list, but the existence of 17 USC 107 does not preclude the possibility of a common law principle which reaches even farther in categorizing some uses as fair. 17 USC 107 does not explicitly preempt the further development of Folsom v. Marsh. In other words, the judge could find that any use by a non-profit organization is fair, on some completely novel grounds, like non-profits promote the public good so we will give them a pass. (I don't think such a broad ruling is likely, I'm just illustrating how a new type of fair use could be created.)
*Specifically, I'm lifting this from some comments Fred von Lohmann made in Kansas City a few years back. Apologies if I misrepresented his position. Also note that I'm not even sure he's committed to this, he may have just been tossing it out as an interesting idea.
To be fair, "reasonable expectation of profit" also gave us Bangkok Dangerous and Disaster Movie.
Yeah, that's exactly what Pope JPII wrote in "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996.
The Catholic church has been really sesitive about restricting science ever since the whole Galileo thing, they actually fund some of the best scientists and astronomers in the world.
This Hawking story is really out of character for Pope JPII, sounds pretty apocryphal.
Please add nudity to the following games, so they'll get rerated, and then pulled from shelves after the subsequent controversy:
Curious George Reads, Writes & Spells for Grades 1&2
UNO
Puppy Luv
Paws and Claws: Pet Vet
Wordthello
Nancy Drew: Danger by Design
Babar - To The Rescue
Bob the Builder
AMF Xtreme Bowling 2006
Dance Factory
and last but not least:
Barbie Horse Adventures
I'm a law student at the University of Kansas, where the outbreak hit a few weeks ago.
The outbreak hit despite the school's immunization policy, which has always required proof of two vaccinations against MMR.
It would seem, as a previous commenter suggests, and as some news reports corroborate, that the outbreak is affecting those already vaccinated.
""
Most of the current cases have been among people who were vaccinated. But that doesn't mean the vaccine has become less effective, Seward said.
No vaccine is capable of protecting everyone who receives it, she said. Five percent to 10 percent of people vaccinated for the mumps will fail to gain immunity.
These are probably the people who are becoming ill.
"The mumps vaccine is still protecting huge numbers of people," Seward said. "We would expect thousands of people to get sick if there wasn't good immunity in the community."
""
-The Kansas City Star
If you thought Dubya's presidency was fun, just wait for WII!
Actually, when I first read it, I thought the japanese were just trying to dredge up old conflicts between Japan and the US, to remind the nationalists why not to support Microsoft.
Xgl/Compiz is still free, which from all appearances, seems better than Aero, if you're into that sort of thing.
Just looking back at the comments in this thread is really sobering.
/. or the other simply doesn't know the facts.
All the posts that get modded up fiercely defend one side or the other, and accuse the other side of being utter slime.
These extreme positions (mine above included) all get modded up, and they all get modded overrated.
I'm past believing that one half of
I think the explanation is that we all think of patents as a tool to safeguard innovation, but we all think that system has broken down. This case illustrates that fact in different ways for different people:
either
1) It's a case of a large company vs. a little guy. Large companies in this system churn out spurious patents which clog the USPTO. They constantly cry out for strict protection for intellectual property, claiming innovation dies without such protections. When they get attacked for violating a little guy's patents, they act appalled, and cry bloody murder. This case points to the hypocrisy of megacorps in an era where the little guy who just wants to help the world is squeezed out of innovating, because he can't afford the expensive patent lawyers it takes to just get started.
OR
2) It's a case of a slimy law-saavy company who abuses the system, waiting to prey on any successful innovation without actually helping society get better by bringing anything to market. The patent system shouldn't protect people who game the system, waiting to pounce on companies that develop a working product. This case represents how the bogged down patent system represents a minefield where any inventor is always clueless as to whether they've stepped on someone else's toes or not.
I suspect neither account is entirely accurate, but both have some truth.
NTP is no patent troll, the owner seriously tried to fund development of his project, until the megacorps repeatedly left him hanging. His investments in demos and prototypes ended up ruining him.
NTP repeatedly sought good faith settlements from RIM, who knew he had tried to develop this design in the past.
Then RIM tried to prove its case by lying in court directly to the jury and judge.
But it's okay, it's hard to find this angle buried in the story.
Unless you read slashdot.
It's pretty evident from the study of climatology that climate change doesn't need our help to happen very rapidly.
In addition, it's pretty clear we've pumped so many CFCs into the atmosphere at this point, if human climate change can happen, it's unavoidable.
If this is the case, we need tech and industry to insulate us from the dangers of global warming, whether it's building higher flood walls, or making healthier crops. We can spend our resources in industry on a) more expensive fuel that won't stop the inevitable, or b) innovations to help us address our needs on the fly.
Industry usually opts for the latter.
So I guess I'm saying, it's not necessarily a lack of care, or lack of appreciation of the risks here; maybe it's just a different cost benefit analysis. And while I sympathesize with your approach, it's not completely implausible that industry is opting for the better path here.
If the government's not allowing scientists to talk to the public, it's doing a pretty inept job.
My favorite punk band just told everyone to respect hip hop.
We just got this album at KJHK this week. Incredible stuff. I've got all new respect for Cee-Lo, he's amazingly talented, and his vocals really pull all this together, really complementing DJ Danger Mouse's production.
& Propagandhi: if you haven't, check out Dead Prez and Immortal Technique, and Mac Lethal's "Pass the Ammo."
This is just like that famous book, Fahrenheit 1987 by Joel Chandler Harris.
/.
I love it when governments get ideas from my favorite Sci Fi! But I think a lot of other people on slashdot really like that book, so I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't wait for this to become a reality!
Ok, gotta run, my gf is calling me back to bed...
--
Happy AF
Just because you found some website that says they're legal and pay artists royalties does not make it true. Bet you there are more web sites saying they're illegal than that say they're legal.
Right, one website doesn't make it true. But I've actually seen the websites that say it's legal and that they pay royalties... it's hard to compare *real* evidence with the evidence you just sort of imagined.
ROMS is a clearinghouse which forwards the royalties on to artists, like ASCAP or the IFPI.
Here's a more comprehensive breakdown.
But the first one is a cooler visual, and I'm pretty convinced, at this stage in my life, that aesthetics are far more important than politics.