First, although unethical, do you really care anymore? And, c'mon, their bloggers - jeez - whadda expect? If bloggers really cared all that much, they'd just PDF their stuff or use gifs.
That said, by-and-large, folks that care are saavy enough to filter sites that have original and interesting content versus ones that consolidate (or even steal) news or ideas. (And they often choose the latter for convenience and they don't care).
Besides, if I'm reading a blog on one site and they quote another one extensively, I'm far more likely to visit the original site (if it had a reference) than if they only had a snippet. With a snippet, I assume they're just posting to divert traffic to their site.
That said, I think it's part of a larger cultural phenomena of on-demand, immediate news and mass distribution. Content copyrights for trivially duplicated material has increasingly less meaning. I know several teachers who say it's quite obvious and commonplace that students steal significant amounts of content from the web - and, when confronted, they really don't understand the big deal. And it's pervasive across good and bad students and reflects a significant change in the public's attitude towards copyrights on freely available material.
Moving forward, we're likely to see everything published on the web massively copied and instantly disseminated and most folks really won't know or care about the original sources. Ideally, most disseminators (as opposed to publishers) will keep a link to the source, but I wouldn't count on it.
The nanotechnology the article refers to is primary nanoparticles added directly to food and drugs, so it seems reasonable that the FDA might oversee this area. For instance, if they're putting nanoparticles into sunscreen or cosmetics made with Titanium or Zinc, then it seems reasonable that the FDA would make sure those are safe.
By design, nanoparticles are often far more reactive to surface chemistry than the same chemicals in other forms, so I'd want some regulations or at least basic studies. As the field evolves, there's also many very advanced medical applications for nanotechnology (such as tissue repair or targeted tumor attacks) that also should fall under their normal medical regulation and testing requirements.
That said, the FDA certainly doesn't need to regulate IT-oriented applications such as telecommunications, nanobots, quantum computers or fields like metallurgy.
It's like Arsenic. The FDA should regulate it in foods and drugs, but they don't have much to say about the GaAs semiconductor industry.
The problem is more that the cosmetic industry has embraced the nanotechnology buzzword to make their new products seem super-high-tech and this makes the FDA a natural candidate for initial regulations, but they certainly won't be the only agency regulating them!
The equipment that former AT&T technician Ed Klein learned was installed in the NSA "secret room" in AT&T's San Francisco switching office isn't some sinister Big Brother box designed solely to help governments eavesdrop on citizens' internet communications."... - it's a commercial product!
Oh great - I feel so much better about that. I was just worried that the government might have EXCLUSIVE rights to spy on me! But, as long as it's all shared and everyone can do it, then I guess it's ok.
Thanks for the post - I'll sleep so much better now.
Damn - where's the sarcastic emoticon when you need it.
Ok, we're TiVo addicts (through DirecTV) and I'd LOVE to use it more actively.
We (kids + parents) almost NEVER watch live TV anymore and, in fact, usually deliberately wait until the show has started for 15-20 minutes so we can fast-forward through ALL of the commercials. For us, the 30% watching commercials is really a lot closer to 5% (max).
That said, my kids watch music videos and we'd definitely order CDs or have the songs automatically emailed to us if that was an option. That would probably double (or triple) our music purchases.
For things like the FedEx caveman commercial, why not let TiVo email us a link to the video on the FedEx website - that's great for me and great for FedEx - AND I'd probably forward it to me friends. Wow!
I often see commercials that I'd like more info on, but I forget about them 30 seconds later. If that was linked into an email where I could get more info on my own time, then GREAT!! I'd LOVE it. Particularly if it took 2 seconds to request so it didn't interupt my show. (And as long as TiVo managed my email and sent me the links - I wouldn't want to get massive spamming).
That said, users shouldn't worry - TiVo knows it's primary success comes from users who want to skip commercials so I seriously doubt they'll do anything that jepordizes or alienates those users.
Seems pretty obvious this will rapidly devolve into supporting primarily folks with bad credit (or can't get loans from banks) who desparately need money FAST. Well, that and look for major identity theft rings.
Banks are highly regulated for a reason and offer strong protection to folks on both sides of the fence (investors and borrowers). New, completely unregulated financing options are really recipes for disaster and abuse - particularly in this day and age.
And, even though pieces of it will be very legitimate and well-intentioned, a few bad apples will bring down the whole scheme. Stay away (unless you want your kneecaps broken).
The article talks so much about how not supporting multiple devices and such will slash your market share. He's obviously either academic or on one of those lame standards committees. How much business do I really lose because all 20 of the Palm Pilot surfers don't visit my site? It has ZERO impact to my business and I could care less about those users.
And, almost by definition, standards are 1-3 YEARS behind technology so embrace as needed, but don't let them hold you hostage.
Hmmm, open source for a proprietary, niche HW platform. Sounds like they're too cheap to hire their own developers and are using the Open Source buzzward in hopes for some free SW development.
So, there was some debate about whether you can package proprietary drivers with open source. So, can you package open source drivers with proprietary hardware?
Open source generally implies users installing the OS on their own devices. I don't really see this happening on a large scale with Motorola since it'll come pre-bundled. So on has to wonder, what's the point of open sourcing stuff?
Wireless plug-and-play is a great idea and this is a great way to demonstrate the feasibility and test out new ideas. The concept of dynamically building up systems that auto-configure and work together is a very powerful concept.
Cables are a huge pain in the ass in automobiles (or just about anything else that moves). They introduce many points of failure from connector problems to cable wear and tear (particularly in moving environments).
Wireless systems provide far more flexibility to move, redesign, and replace components throughout the life of the vehicle. It may also be able to harden individual components by minimizing external connections, so the end result might actually be a much more stable and robust solution.
So the technology isn't 100% there yet, but, you've got to admit, if they can do it for airplanes and it works, folks will trust wireless alot more for cars and many other apps.
In the many Slashdot discussions on China and the internet, there's always this great debate between folks that see the internet as a philosophical movement to free the world from government oppression versus others who see it as a technology that, as it matures, needs to conform to the laws of the countries it operates in.
I see a very similar divide within open source. The original open source movement started as a free software/anti-software patent movement supported by an alturistic (and idealistic) global community united by their belief that software should be free and shared. As the open source movement has matured (or devolved), the big boys have stepped in (IBM/Oracle/SUN/HP) and taken over much of the 'real' Linux movement (i.e. enterprise-class), open source is MUCH more about enabling these companies to compete against Microsoft.
These vendors could really care less about the ideals of the open source and shared development except to the extent it destroys its competitors. In a recent talk I attended by IBM, they argued that they embraced open source specifically because it gave them a strong competative advantage and crushed the opposition. In effect, IBM develops high-end software, makes tons of money for 3-4 years, then releases it into open source as soon as their profit margins starts to slide because of new competition. Thus, in effect, they undermine the competition by giving away the software.
Also, open source used to be about open SOURCE. Now 99% of the world sees open source as FREE software and really could care less about the SOURCE part. That's certainly the only part 'real' businesses care about.
So, rather than bashing Microsoft for trying to co-exist with open source, keep in mind that the large companies embracing open source are only doing it for business reasons rather than some philosophical alignment with and belief in the goodness of open source. They could care less about all that crap. And their customers could care less for the most part.
Yes, dear friend, let's all hold hands and sing. Wouldn't the world be so much nicer if every smiled and hugged their children? Thank you for the eloquent and insightful post.
It so refreshing to read posts that aren't condescending or self-righteous.
Damn - now what's the right emoticon for sarcasm?;>
Actually, I've found most emails correctly carry the emotion of the sender - particularly if their very mad or frustrated.
The problem is people feel much freer to express extreme anger, curse, and belittle people over email than they ever would in real life.
Look at many of the posts to this website - while some people really are complete assholes, I'd bet a significant fraction of the posts here would NEVER be said in a face-to-face conversation (particularly if someone dares to actually compliment Windows). That's precisely because emails correctly convey emotion that most people won't express in real life.
So what. In America, telco acquiesce to give the US government private information. Yahoo! acquiesces to give the US government search information. For court cases, Yahoo!, telcos, etc routinely cooperate with police officials and hand over information directly to the government for prosecution - often without warrants.
Is this really so different, except that China has more stringent (e.g. different) laws and you don't really agree with them? And when you say they are 'acquiescing to their non-binding requests', non-binding in the US means very different things than non-binding in China. In China, it may be non-binding, but it carries a much stronger threat to the business without legal recourse.
And I'm pretty sick of this 'libertarian' culture arguement. Sure, in the beginning, there was anarchy and chaos and the founders rejoiced. But now that the internet is mainstream, it's got to grow up and abide by the laws and regulations of the countries it serves. Many, many groups use it for extended periods of time and could care less about the 'libertarian' bent - they readily accept strong parental or business filtering.
I'd even say the percentage of folks who think the internet should be totally unregulated, unfiltered, and unmonitored is a pretty small and shrinking MINORITY.
Jeez - why do people expect these for-profit companies to be driven by the same idealistic, personal visions they have for the internet?
The internet is a technology - it's goal is not to undermine communism or authoritarian governments or to impose US ideals/values upon other countries. So why are so many people 'shocked' that companies like Yahoo! actually abide by the laws in the countries they do business in?
Look at wikipedia - just how successful do you think they'll be in China now that they're officially blocked??? Exact same thing would happen to Yahoo!
Of course it's not a first amendment right (as if funding anything is ever a 'right'). I think most of the opposition comes because congress is focusing on singling out myspace instead of relevant things. (Well, maybe a few posts have been constitutional, and they are clearly wrong).
But I think it's ridiculous to censor myspace when they don't censor chat or online gaming or anything else like that. (Well, I don't think they should filter those activities either, except inappropriate (adult-oriented) material).
Sure, they have a 'right' to force schools or libraries to filter anything (or even to prohibit internet access) - the debate is whether or not they SHOULD. And I think most of the legislative support for extensive blocking comes from chest-thumping congressmen who want to campaign about saving children without actually doing anything substantial to save them.
Jeez - the furor over MySpace.com is disgusting. It's a GREAT site and both my kids (and me, sometimes) use it all the time - along with instant messaging and online games and many other online things kids are into these days. It's easy to monitor their homepage and linked friends and such and most of the favorite bands have a site. It also gives the kids a place to express themselves.
It's also quite safe if parents take some VERY basic precautions - turn off public viewing of the homepage (so only friends see it) and don't post very personal information (like schools or real names). And, of course, teach your kid not to be a moron.
I'm sick of congress trying to pass legislation to overcome terrible parenting. Parents need to teach their kids better so they won't talk to 30+ year olds or arrange to meet folks they only met online. It's common sense and the parents responsibility.
With VERY basic precautions and common sense, 99.9% of kids are perfectly safe and, when they're not, there are generally alot more serious problems at home than whether or not a kid has a myspace account.
It's just like congress to wait until the whole issue is OBE to actually address it. The Real ID Act of 2005 effectively creates national ID cards that will be far more central to defining your identity than SSNs. And they are to be used for identification purposes.
The congress should focus on passing strong protection for these ID numbers rather than just SSNs.
Besides, while identity theft is a huge problem, business still have a legitimate need to run credit reports and on-the-spot background checks and a SSN makes that possible. Well, they don't really need to, but you don't really need to rent cars or get instant credit either... So all this nonsense talk of fake SSNs isn't really addressing the problem.
Bubbles - it's about VCs, not the entrepreneurs
on
Examining the New Bubble
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In the '90s, venture captialists were handing out money to thousands of middle managers who wrote a 10 page summary of a an idea for a business and the stock market was insanely over-valued because folks figured sound business foundations were totally irrelevant in the internet age.
VCs were burned badly and they examine companies far more closely than before. The money is flowing again, but it's targeted much more towards real innovation and practical business models - not vague ideas and businesses built to flip in 12 months.
So, are we in a bubble? No way - we're still at the start of the age of information that will totally transform our society. Plenty of money to be made and huge innovation potential.
With VCs focusing much more on business fundamentals, the net effect will be to weed out all those loser middle-manager entrepreneurs and their get-rich-and-get-out quick schemes! So the money will still flow, but it will go to people with much strong and original ideas and more solid business models.
My point was that these are definitions with added correct political spin that would pass the chinese censors - NOT that they were real definitions for the words.
The "Freedom" definition isn't really freedom when you can't question the state. The "Democracy" definition has a distinct anti-democracy bias. The "Communism" definition is really a joke and clearly propoganda. The "Capitalism" definition is only capitalism as long as the state oversees it.
I sure doesn't pay to be subtle with this crowd - jeez. I tried to add a few "Funny" points to my score, but that didn't work so well.
I was hoping others would chime in with other 'communist approved' definitions.
Freedom: A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference as long as these actions do not undermine the authority of the state.
Democracy: Government of the people by wealthy people.
Communism: Government of the people by the people where the people collectively own all property and the state takes care of you so everyone is happy.
Capitalism: An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production as supervised and governed by the state
VAR used to mean you repackaged software and hardware and sold a more complete solution. These days, HW is often bid as a commodity line item so HW VARS often simply provide the HW as a convenience to their clients. Clients know Dell's prices and that's what they expect to pay so Dell's just using this channel as an extended sales force into clients that would've bought direct anyway - who cares?
In fact, they're successful with this model precisely because they're direct channel models is so successful. With our customers, they often specifically request Dell computers and they generally know exactly how much they cost.
Forget CEV - just go back to BDRs (Big Dumb Rockets) and screw all this people in space crap. Look at the great stuff from Hubble and Mars that's far cheaper than any shuttle or space station missions. (Yeah, yeah, hubble was launched by the shuttle...).
The space station and shuttle have paralyzed NASA for decades and have set back space exploration and space science by at least 10-15 years.
While a noble concept, the space station has devolved to symbolize the politicization and popularization of science.
Jeez - what's the big deal or surprise? Welcome to the real world.
Yes, China is evil. Yes, they hate democracy, freedom, individual rights, and free speech. And they do many, many things far worse than mere internet censorship. If we hate that so much, let's stop doing business with them.
To the US and much of Europe, the internet is about breaking down international barriers and creating a borderless world. To China, it's about economics and creating a competative advantage.
Some users/developers see the internet as a philosophical tool to cut across political boundaries, promote individual freedom/rights, and end all government censorship. To others, it's just a technology without all this artificial political baggage.
In this respect, it's a bit like the open source movement with the initial development philosophy pitted against the big company mentality that's started to overtake the movement. For the internet, national laws and boundaries will define how the internet is used moving forward, not some abstract philosophy and wishful thinking.
While the story is cute (and appropriate), I'd definitely take issue with "these same Chineese nationals adjust to the freedom in neighboring HK in a matter of days."
HK is NOT free. As with much of China, while HK people are free to make money, they certainly can't stand up to the government or question anything the party does. It's absurd and insulting to imply otherwise.
That said, I definitely agree it's the chinese government that has the problem and they have been remarkable successful in allowing economic freedom and greatly restricting personal or political freedom.
Sure, pure 3D is pretty useless for browsing the web today, but it's one component of an evolving and emerging technology that blends the real world and virtual world.
One could readily imagine many uses for immersive 3D environments from remote medical procedures to collaborative architecture to interior design to automobile sales to video games to many other things.
3D digital cameras and such aren't that far away and would be way cool. I'd certainly like to enter a map address into google and get a virtual picture of where I'm going. At least 3D enhanced would be great for many things.
Noone needs 3D email, but it clearly has its place in the broader UI technology space. 10-15 years sounds like a reasonable target.
Slashdot Mirror
First, although unethical, do you really care anymore? And, c'mon, their bloggers - jeez - whadda expect? If bloggers really cared all that much, they'd just PDF their stuff or use gifs.
That said, by-and-large, folks that care are saavy enough to filter sites that have original and interesting content versus ones that consolidate (or even steal) news or ideas. (And they often choose the latter for convenience and they don't care).
Besides, if I'm reading a blog on one site and they quote another one extensively, I'm far more likely to visit the original site (if it had a reference) than if they only had a snippet. With a snippet, I assume they're just posting to divert traffic to their site.
That said, I think it's part of a larger cultural phenomena of on-demand, immediate news and mass distribution. Content copyrights for trivially duplicated material has increasingly less meaning. I know several teachers who say it's quite obvious and commonplace that students steal significant amounts of content from the web - and, when confronted, they really don't understand the big deal. And it's pervasive across good and bad students and reflects a significant change in the public's attitude towards copyrights on freely available material.
Moving forward, we're likely to see everything published on the web massively copied and instantly disseminated and most folks really won't know or care about the original sources. Ideally, most disseminators (as opposed to publishers) will keep a link to the source, but I wouldn't count on it.
Welcome to the information age.
Well, nanotechnology is a pretty broad field.
The nanotechnology the article refers to is primary nanoparticles added directly to food and drugs, so it seems reasonable that the FDA might oversee this area. For instance, if they're putting nanoparticles into sunscreen or cosmetics made with Titanium or Zinc, then it seems reasonable that the FDA would make sure those are safe.
By design, nanoparticles are often far more reactive to surface chemistry than the same chemicals in other forms, so I'd want some regulations or at least basic studies. As the field evolves, there's also many very advanced medical applications for nanotechnology (such as tissue repair or targeted tumor attacks) that also should fall under their normal medical regulation and testing requirements.
That said, the FDA certainly doesn't need to regulate IT-oriented applications such as telecommunications, nanobots, quantum computers or fields like metallurgy.
It's like Arsenic. The FDA should regulate it in foods and drugs, but they don't have much to say about the GaAs semiconductor industry.
The problem is more that the cosmetic industry has embraced the nanotechnology buzzword to make their new products seem super-high-tech and this makes the FDA a natural candidate for initial regulations, but they certainly won't be the only agency regulating them!
So, article starts with:
... - it's a commercial product!
The equipment that former AT&T technician Ed Klein learned was installed in the NSA "secret room" in AT&T's San Francisco switching office isn't some sinister Big Brother box designed solely to help governments eavesdrop on citizens' internet communications."
Oh great - I feel so much better about that. I was just worried that the government might have EXCLUSIVE rights to spy on me! But, as long as it's all shared and everyone can do it, then I guess it's ok.
Thanks for the post - I'll sleep so much better now.
Damn - where's the sarcastic emoticon when you need it.
Ok, we're TiVo addicts (through DirecTV) and I'd LOVE to use it more actively.
We (kids + parents) almost NEVER watch live TV anymore and, in fact, usually deliberately wait until the show has started for 15-20 minutes so we can fast-forward through ALL of the commercials. For us, the 30% watching commercials is really a lot closer to 5% (max).
That said, my kids watch music videos and we'd definitely order CDs or have the songs automatically emailed to us if that was an option. That would probably double (or triple) our music purchases.
For things like the FedEx caveman commercial, why not let TiVo email us a link to the video on the FedEx website - that's great for me and great for FedEx - AND I'd probably forward it to me friends. Wow!
I often see commercials that I'd like more info on, but I forget about them 30 seconds later. If that was linked into an email where I could get more info on my own time, then GREAT!! I'd LOVE it. Particularly if it took 2 seconds to request so it didn't interupt my show. (And as long as TiVo managed my email and sent me the links - I wouldn't want to get massive spamming).
That said, users shouldn't worry - TiVo knows it's primary success comes from users who want to skip commercials so I seriously doubt they'll do anything that jepordizes or alienates those users.
Seems pretty obvious this will rapidly devolve into supporting primarily folks with bad credit (or can't get loans from banks) who desparately need money FAST. Well, that and look for major identity theft rings.
Banks are highly regulated for a reason and offer strong protection to folks on both sides of the fence (investors and borrowers). New, completely unregulated financing options are really recipes for disaster and abuse - particularly in this day and age.
And, even though pieces of it will be very legitimate and well-intentioned, a few bad apples will bring down the whole scheme. Stay away (unless you want your kneecaps broken).
Who really cares about the W3C anymore?
The article talks so much about how not supporting multiple devices and such will slash your market share. He's obviously either academic or on one of those lame standards committees. How much business do I really lose because all 20 of the Palm Pilot surfers don't visit my site? It has ZERO impact to my business and I could care less about those users.
And, almost by definition, standards are 1-3 YEARS behind technology so embrace as needed, but don't let them hold you hostage.
Hmmm, open source for a proprietary, niche HW platform. Sounds like they're too cheap to hire their own developers and are using the Open Source buzzward in hopes for some free SW development.
So, there was some debate about whether you can package proprietary drivers with open source. So, can you package open source drivers with proprietary hardware?
Open source generally implies users installing the OS on their own devices. I don't really see this happening on a large scale with Motorola since it'll come pre-bundled. So on has to wonder, what's the point of open sourcing stuff?
Wireless plug-and-play is a great idea and this is a great way to demonstrate the feasibility and test out new ideas. The concept of dynamically building up systems that auto-configure and work together is a very powerful concept.
Cables are a huge pain in the ass in automobiles (or just about anything else that moves). They introduce many points of failure from connector problems to cable wear and tear (particularly in moving environments).
Wireless systems provide far more flexibility to move, redesign, and replace components throughout the life of the vehicle. It may also be able to harden individual components by minimizing external connections, so the end result might actually be a much more stable and robust solution.
So the technology isn't 100% there yet, but, you've got to admit, if they can do it for airplanes and it works, folks will trust wireless alot more for cars and many other apps.
In the many Slashdot discussions on China and the internet, there's always this great debate between folks that see the internet as a philosophical movement to free the world from government oppression versus others who see it as a technology that, as it matures, needs to conform to the laws of the countries it operates in.
I see a very similar divide within open source. The original open source movement started as a free software/anti-software patent movement supported by an alturistic (and idealistic) global community united by their belief that software should be free and shared. As the open source movement has matured (or devolved), the big boys have stepped in (IBM/Oracle/SUN/HP) and taken over much of the 'real' Linux movement (i.e. enterprise-class), open source is MUCH more about enabling these companies to compete against Microsoft.
These vendors could really care less about the ideals of the open source and shared development except to the extent it destroys its competitors. In a recent talk I attended by IBM, they argued that they embraced open source specifically because it gave them a strong competative advantage and crushed the opposition. In effect, IBM develops high-end software, makes tons of money for 3-4 years, then releases it into open source as soon as their profit margins starts to slide because of new competition. Thus, in effect, they undermine the competition by giving away the software.
Also, open source used to be about open SOURCE. Now 99% of the world sees open source as FREE software and really could care less about the SOURCE part. That's certainly the only part 'real' businesses care about.
So, rather than bashing Microsoft for trying to co-exist with open source, keep in mind that the large companies embracing open source are only doing it for business reasons rather than some philosophical alignment with and belief in the goodness of open source. They could care less about all that crap. And their customers could care less for the most part.
But maybe your uncle is a vet...
Yes, dear friend, let's all hold hands and sing. Wouldn't the world be so much nicer if every smiled and hugged their children? Thank you for the eloquent and insightful post.
;>
It so refreshing to read posts that aren't condescending or self-righteous.
Damn - now what's the right emoticon for sarcasm?
Actually, I've found most emails correctly carry the emotion of the sender - particularly if their very mad or frustrated.
The problem is people feel much freer to express extreme anger, curse, and belittle people over email than they ever would in real life.
Look at many of the posts to this website - while some people really are complete assholes, I'd bet a significant fraction of the posts here would NEVER be said in a face-to-face conversation (particularly if someone dares to actually compliment Windows). That's precisely because emails correctly convey emotion that most people won't express in real life.
So what. In America, telco acquiesce to give the US government private information. Yahoo! acquiesces to give the US government search information. For court cases, Yahoo!, telcos, etc routinely cooperate with police officials and hand over information directly to the government for prosecution - often without warrants.
Is this really so different, except that China has more stringent (e.g. different) laws and you don't really agree with them? And when you say they are 'acquiescing to their non-binding requests', non-binding in the US means very different things than non-binding in China. In China, it may be non-binding, but it carries a much stronger threat to the business without legal recourse.
And I'm pretty sick of this 'libertarian' culture arguement. Sure, in the beginning, there was anarchy and chaos and the founders rejoiced. But now that the internet is mainstream, it's got to grow up and abide by the laws and regulations of the countries it serves. Many, many groups use it for extended periods of time and could care less about the 'libertarian' bent - they readily accept strong parental or business filtering.
I'd even say the percentage of folks who think the internet should be totally unregulated, unfiltered, and unmonitored is a pretty small and shrinking MINORITY.
Jeez - why do people expect these for-profit companies to be driven by the same idealistic, personal visions they have for the internet?
The internet is a technology - it's goal is not to undermine communism or authoritarian governments or to impose US ideals/values upon other countries. So why are so many people 'shocked' that companies like Yahoo! actually abide by the laws in the countries they do business in?
Look at wikipedia - just how successful do you think they'll be in China now that they're officially blocked??? Exact same thing would happen to Yahoo!
No, I think YOU missed the point here.
Of course it's not a first amendment right (as if funding anything is ever a 'right'). I think most of the opposition comes because congress is focusing on singling out myspace instead of relevant things. (Well, maybe a few posts have been constitutional, and they are clearly wrong).
But I think it's ridiculous to censor myspace when they don't censor chat or online gaming or anything else like that. (Well, I don't think they should filter those activities either, except inappropriate (adult-oriented) material).
Sure, they have a 'right' to force schools or libraries to filter anything (or even to prohibit internet access) - the debate is whether or not they SHOULD. And I think most of the legislative support for extensive blocking comes from chest-thumping congressmen who want to campaign about saving children without actually doing anything substantial to save them.
Jeez - the furor over MySpace.com is disgusting. It's a GREAT site and both my kids (and me, sometimes) use it all the time - along with instant messaging and online games and many other online things kids are into these days. It's easy to monitor their homepage and linked friends and such and most of the favorite bands have a site. It also gives the kids a place to express themselves.
It's also quite safe if parents take some VERY basic precautions - turn off public viewing of the homepage (so only friends see it) and don't post very personal information (like schools or real names). And, of course, teach your kid not to be a moron.
I'm sick of congress trying to pass legislation to overcome terrible parenting. Parents need to teach their kids better so they won't talk to 30+ year olds or arrange to meet folks they only met online. It's common sense and the parents responsibility.
With VERY basic precautions and common sense, 99.9% of kids are perfectly safe and, when they're not, there are generally alot more serious problems at home than whether or not a kid has a myspace account.
It's just like congress to wait until the whole issue is OBE to actually address it. The Real ID Act of 2005 effectively creates national ID cards that will be far more central to defining your identity than SSNs. And they are to be used for identification purposes.
The congress should focus on passing strong protection for these ID numbers rather than just SSNs.
Besides, while identity theft is a huge problem, business still have a legitimate need to run credit reports and on-the-spot background checks and a SSN makes that possible. Well, they don't really need to, but you don't really need to rent cars or get instant credit either... So all this nonsense talk of fake SSNs isn't really addressing the problem.
In the '90s, venture captialists were handing out money to thousands of middle managers who wrote a 10 page summary of a an idea for a business and the stock market was insanely over-valued because folks figured sound business foundations were totally irrelevant in the internet age.
VCs were burned badly and they examine companies far more closely than before. The money is flowing again, but it's targeted much more towards real innovation and practical business models - not vague ideas and businesses built to flip in 12 months.
So, are we in a bubble? No way - we're still at the start of the age of information that will totally transform our society. Plenty of money to be made and huge innovation potential.
With VCs focusing much more on business fundamentals, the net effect will be to weed out all those loser middle-manager entrepreneurs and their get-rich-and-get-out quick schemes! So the money will still flow, but it will go to people with much strong and original ideas and more solid business models.
My point was that these are definitions with added correct political spin that would pass the chinese censors - NOT that they were real definitions for the words.
The "Freedom" definition isn't really freedom when you can't question the state.
The "Democracy" definition has a distinct anti-democracy bias.
The "Communism" definition is really a joke and clearly propoganda.
The "Capitalism" definition is only capitalism as long as the state oversees it.
I sure doesn't pay to be subtle with this crowd - jeez. I tried to add a few "Funny" points to my score, but that didn't work so well.
I was hoping others would chime in with other 'communist approved' definitions.
Sample Baidupedia Entries:
Freedom: A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference as long as these actions do not undermine the authority of the state.
Democracy: Government of the people by wealthy people.
Communism: Government of the people by the people where the people collectively own all property and the state takes care of you so everyone is happy.
Capitalism: An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production as supervised and governed by the state
VAR used to mean you repackaged software and hardware and sold a more complete solution. These days, HW is often bid as a commodity line item so HW VARS often simply provide the HW as a convenience to their clients. Clients know Dell's prices and that's what they expect to pay so Dell's just using this channel as an extended sales force into clients that would've bought direct anyway - who cares?
In fact, they're successful with this model precisely because they're direct channel models is so successful. With our customers, they often specifically request Dell computers and they generally know exactly how much they cost.
Forget CEV - just go back to BDRs (Big Dumb Rockets) and screw all this people in space crap. Look at the great stuff from Hubble and Mars that's far cheaper than any shuttle or space station missions. (Yeah, yeah, hubble was launched by the shuttle...).
The space station and shuttle have paralyzed NASA for decades and have set back space exploration and space science by at least 10-15 years.
While a noble concept, the space station has devolved to symbolize the politicization and popularization of science.
And, for what??? Not much.
Jeez - what's the big deal or surprise? Welcome to the real world. Yes, China is evil. Yes, they hate democracy, freedom, individual rights, and free speech. And they do many, many things far worse than mere internet censorship. If we hate that so much, let's stop doing business with them. To the US and much of Europe, the internet is about breaking down international barriers and creating a borderless world. To China, it's about economics and creating a competative advantage. Some users/developers see the internet as a philosophical tool to cut across political boundaries, promote individual freedom/rights, and end all government censorship. To others, it's just a technology without all this artificial political baggage. In this respect, it's a bit like the open source movement with the initial development philosophy pitted against the big company mentality that's started to overtake the movement. For the internet, national laws and boundaries will define how the internet is used moving forward, not some abstract philosophy and wishful thinking.
While the story is cute (and appropriate), I'd definitely take issue with "these same Chineese nationals adjust to the freedom in neighboring HK in a matter of days." HK is NOT free. As with much of China, while HK people are free to make money, they certainly can't stand up to the government or question anything the party does. It's absurd and insulting to imply otherwise. That said, I definitely agree it's the chinese government that has the problem and they have been remarkable successful in allowing economic freedom and greatly restricting personal or political freedom.
Sure, pure 3D is pretty useless for browsing the web today, but it's one component of an evolving and emerging technology that blends the real world and virtual world.
One could readily imagine many uses for immersive 3D environments from remote medical procedures to collaborative architecture to interior design to automobile sales to video games to many other things.
3D digital cameras and such aren't that far away and would be way cool. I'd certainly like to enter a map address into google and get a virtual picture of where I'm going. At least 3D enhanced would be great for many things.
Noone needs 3D email, but it clearly has its place in the broader UI technology space. 10-15 years sounds like a reasonable target.