He said that addressing issues such as identity theft, for instance, required "true transparency and no anonymity".
This will come down to a simple equation. Is the cost of developing a system that's foolproof to anonymity greater or less than the cost incurred from identity theft, fraud, etc..
The article alludes to the Earth's magnetic field but doesn't rule out its possible effects. I wonder if a comparison to a map of the Aurora Borealis might provoke further discussion.
You're right, China does have more human resources to tap into. And so far they're doing a poor job of it.
Note the conspicuous lack of innovation from China. What do the vacuum tube, the transistor, and the integrated circuit have in common? They weren't invented in China. What do the Internet, email, and social networking have in common. They were all viewed as dangerous by the Chinese government.
Perhaps the most import thing we learned from Copernicus and Galileo is not that the Earth goes around the Sun but that government censorship can have a chilling effect on science, technology, and innovation.
Perhaps we can all ponder that while we're waiting for the next big thing from China besides paper and gunpowder.
Disclosure is already covered by existing contract law. You can always take the airline to court, if you have a case. Many people don't have a case. They expect the government to make one for them. Why should the airlines be singled out for regulation any more than any other business?
If you want to see what government regulation can do to an industry take a look a telephones in the last century. Phone technology virtually stagnated for 50 years because there was no competition thanks to a whole library full of government regulation.
Why not take the libertarian approach here? Let the government regulate the airlines for important stuff like safety -- not baggage fees. Jeez, go spend my tax dollars on something that matters.
Like it or not corporations have made America into the economic giant it is today. And we all benefit from them. Only a corporation could take a product (like an iPhone for example) and turn it into a billion dollar industry overnight.
I recommend "The Company, A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea" http://www.amazon.com/Company-History-Revolutionary-Library-Chronicles/dp/0679642498 by the editor the The Economist. He makes the point it wasn't England that colonized the world, it was companies, The Dutch East India Company, The Hudson's Bay Company, The Royal African Company, The Virginia Company, etc..
What's more companies today are relatively tame in comparison.
This war could be really hard. But in the end, it's the Chinese people who lose, not Google nor the Chinese "government".
In historical context the Chinese people are currently relative winners.
China has a long history of extremely violent and bloody revolutions. The relative political stability of the past 60 years is pretty much unprecedented. If the past is any indication, the transformation to complete freedom in China is not likely to go as peacefully as it did with the Soviet Union.
Sudden change in China usually results in the deaths of millions. They have little history of peaceful change. The government has an obligation to tread cautiously.
Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program.
And were those other people promised payment based on how many others they signed up? Was the payment structure a hierarchical top down system like a pyramid?
Nah, these laws are a very recent phenomena. I think if you put copyright in the context of entire world history you'll see that great works of art were also produced in times when there was no copyright. A lot of our intellectual property laws, especially those concerning patents, are descended only recently from Elizabethan English law where the monarch granted trading monopolies and guilds were formed to eliminate competition.
You think Homer wouldn't have written The Odyssey if they'd been no copyright? Oh wait......
If it's human nature to produce great works of art (including music) people are gonna do it regardless.
Given that the Internet was designed in large part by DARPA to be cheap and scalable.
And indeed, the Internet is just a bunch of wires and switches. If
every user paid just 1$/month it would pay for the Internet many times over. So where the hell is all the money going?
Given that the Internet was designed in large part by DARPA to be cheap and scalable.
And indeed, the Internet is just a bunch of wires and switches. And given that even if
every user pays just 1$/month, where the hell is all the money going?
I guess we got lucky with the Internet in a way. It was designed and developed in large part, not by private companies, but by scientists and engineers in a peer-reviewed academic environment who were mostly employed by the government. Profit was not their goal.
What Time-Warner is doing probably has less to do with consumption and more to do with figuring out a way to nickel and dime you for every trivial service they can think of. First it'll be quotas, then they'll be a BitTorrent surcharge, then there'll be a 'speed-up' charge for port X. Before you know it your ISP bill will look like your phone bill.
What people are gonna learn real soon is that the Daily Show doesn't need Viacom any more than a musician needs the RIAA.
Viacom, like the RIAA, is only powerful because it controls a distribution system. But as far as delivery goes it makes about as much sense to deliver content via a one-way pipe to a dumb terminal (which is what television basically is) than it does to deliver music on plastic disks via the Interstate.
Right now many cable companies are also ISPs so increasing Internet bandwidth is likely viewed by them as a conflict of interest because greater bandwidth is likely to draw viewers away from television to a more competitive Internet. But as time goes on consumers are gonna view more and more content on the net.
Looks like Viacom vs. YouTube are the first shots in the revolution of old tech vs new.
Would I go over to Comedy Centrals website? SpikeTV? MTV? No, because these sites are cluttered with garbage and intrusive AD supported video players. I usually get lost at these sites anyway.
Mod parent up. After years of failing to get-on-board when it comes to the Internet, these big media companies now throw up crappy sites and expect to draw users away from YouTube. YouTube works because you're only ever a couple of clicks away from watching a video. Yet it took years for a lot of TV channels to figure out it was a good idea to put video links on the front page because it would increase site traffic.
There's old technology old revenue streams (Viacom) and new technology new money (YouTube) and there's probably little doubt which one is gonna win.
Efficient systems tend to dominate in the long run and television is basically a one-way pipe to a dumb terminal.
Slashdot Mirror
He said that addressing issues such as identity theft, for instance, required "true transparency and no anonymity".
This will come down to a simple equation. Is the cost of developing a system that's foolproof to anonymity greater or less than the cost incurred from identity theft, fraud, etc..
The Earth's magnetic field has negligible effect on cosmic rays: they are far to energetic for it to influence them significantly.
I wonder why the researcher on the project doesn't rule out the magnetic field.
FTA: whether it's due to the magnetic field surrounding us or to the effect of a nearby supernova remnant, we don't know.
The article alludes to the Earth's magnetic field but doesn't rule out its possible effects. I wonder if a comparison to a map of the Aurora Borealis might provoke further discussion.
You're right, China does have more human resources to tap into. And so far they're doing a poor job of it.
Note the conspicuous lack of innovation from China. What do the vacuum tube, the transistor, and the integrated circuit have in common? They weren't invented in China. What do the Internet, email, and social networking have in common. They were all viewed as dangerous by the Chinese government.
Perhaps the most import thing we learned from Copernicus and Galileo is not that the Earth goes around the Sun but that government censorship can have a chilling effect on science, technology, and innovation.
Perhaps we can all ponder that while we're waiting for the next big thing from China besides paper and gunpowder.
Because I don't want the government in my browser.
Disclosure is already covered by existing contract law. You can always take the airline to court, if you have a case. Many people don't have a case. They expect the government to make one for them. Why should the airlines be singled out for regulation any more than any other business?
If you want to see what government regulation can do to an industry take a look a telephones in the last century. Phone technology virtually stagnated for 50 years because there was no competition thanks to a whole library full of government regulation.
Why not take the libertarian approach here? Let the government regulate the airlines for important stuff like safety -- not baggage fees. Jeez, go spend my tax dollars on something that matters.
Like it or not corporations have made America into the economic giant it is today. And we all benefit from them. Only a corporation could take a product (like an iPhone for example) and turn it into a billion dollar industry overnight. I recommend "The Company, A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea" http://www.amazon.com/Company-History-Revolutionary-Library-Chronicles/dp/0679642498 by the editor the The Economist. He makes the point it wasn't England that colonized the world, it was companies, The Dutch East India Company, The Hudson's Bay Company, The Royal African Company, The Virginia Company, etc.. What's more companies today are relatively tame in comparison.
Media corporations out to get ya, huh?
one site down, 99,999 to go.
This war could be really hard. But in the end, it's the Chinese people who lose, not Google nor the Chinese "government".
In historical context the Chinese people are currently relative winners.
China has a long history of extremely violent and bloody revolutions. The relative political stability of the past 60 years is pretty much unprecedented. If the past is any indication, the transformation to complete freedom in China is not likely to go as peacefully as it did with the Soviet Union.
Sudden change in China usually results in the deaths of millions. They have little history of peaceful change. The government has an obligation to tread cautiously.
1) FTA: "[t]he Quake-Catcher software program ...... runs in the background on the laptop and becomes active when the user is idle."
2) The data is supplemental and used only for additional info gathered at the time of an earthquake.
I wish they'd take Viacom with them.
Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program.
And were those other people promised payment based on how many others they signed up? Was the payment structure a hierarchical top down system like a pyramid?
everybody seems to forget that Apple is doing exactly what the slashdot community rallied against Microsoft for doing
Microsoft was sued by 20 State Attorneys General for violating antitrust laws. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-238758.html
I don't think there's much of a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
I'd rather have health care than a trip to the moon for 4 people.
Ya, and if Columbus hadn't sailed to the New World he could have given the money to the poor.
I believe the FCC allows 802.x devices 1mW/channel over ~15 channels. That's what all wireless cards are set to.
Sounds like another case of politicians regulating something they don't understand. Define botnet.
Nah, these laws are a very recent phenomena. I think if you put copyright in the context of entire world history you'll see that great works of art were also produced in times when there was no copyright. A lot of our intellectual property laws, especially those concerning patents, are descended only recently from Elizabethan English law where the monarch granted trading monopolies and guilds were formed to eliminate competition.
......
You think Homer wouldn't have written The Odyssey if they'd been no copyright? Oh wait
If it's human nature to produce great works of art (including music) people are gonna do it regardless.
touch = pictograph system of Mesopotamia
keyboard = Phoenician alphabet
Pictograph systems were superseded by alphabets for the same reason keyboards are more efficient that touch screens.
According to the CIA World Factbook there were 200+ million Internet users in the US in 2007.
Given that the Internet was designed in large part by DARPA to be cheap and scalable. And indeed, the Internet is just a bunch of wires and switches. If every user paid just 1$/month it would pay for the Internet many times over. So where the hell is all the money going?
According to the CIA World Factbook there were 200+ million Internet users in the US in 2007.
Given that the Internet was designed in large part by DARPA to be cheap and scalable. And indeed, the Internet is just a bunch of wires and switches. And given that even if every user pays just 1$/month, where the hell is all the money going?
Wikia Search also includes buttons allowing users to try their search on the other major search engines with a single click ...
You can do site specific searches right from google by using the 'site' option. So to search wiki for 'lenin' you would enter the following on google:
lenin site:wikipedia.org
I guess we got lucky with the Internet in a way. It was designed and developed in large part, not by private companies, but by scientists and engineers in a peer-reviewed academic environment who were mostly employed by the government. Profit was not their goal.
What Time-Warner is doing probably has less to do with consumption and more to do with figuring out a way to nickel and dime you for every trivial service they can think of. First it'll be quotas, then they'll be a BitTorrent surcharge, then there'll be a 'speed-up' charge for port X. Before you know it your ISP bill will look like your phone bill.
What people are gonna learn real soon is that the Daily Show doesn't need Viacom any more than a musician needs the RIAA.
Viacom, like the RIAA, is only powerful because it controls a distribution system. But as far as delivery goes it makes about as much sense to deliver content via a one-way pipe to a dumb terminal (which is what television basically is) than it does to deliver music on plastic disks via the Interstate.
Right now many cable companies are also ISPs so increasing Internet bandwidth is likely viewed by them as a conflict of interest because greater bandwidth is likely to draw viewers away from television to a more competitive Internet. But as time goes on consumers are gonna view more and more content on the net.
Looks like Viacom vs. YouTube are the first shots in the revolution of old tech vs new.
Would I go over to Comedy Centrals website? SpikeTV? MTV? No, because these sites are cluttered with garbage and intrusive AD supported video players. I usually get lost at these sites anyway.
Mod parent up. After years of failing to get-on-board when it comes to the Internet, these big media companies now throw up crappy sites and expect to draw users away from YouTube. YouTube works because you're only ever a couple of clicks away from watching a video. Yet it took years for a lot of TV channels to figure out it was a good idea to put video links on the front page because it would increase site traffic.
There's old technology old revenue streams (Viacom) and new technology new money (YouTube) and there's probably little doubt which one is gonna win.
Efficient systems tend to dominate in the long run and television is basically a one-way pipe to a dumb terminal.