Posts by Shannon Jacobs

Spam is scam and T-Mobile is a spammer

However, having said that (which explains why I promise I will NEVER be a T-mobile customer), my main comment is that freedom is good, and freedom is about meaningful and unconstrained choice. It should be fundamentally illegal for winners to reduce our choices and for losers to take the easy way out of selling off their customers--especially since the losers' customers had already freely chosen NOT to be customers of the so-called winner.

Here's my suggestion. Any company that is big and successful should be required to reproduce that success, thereby creating MORE choice and MORE freedom for the customers. Instead of an endless search for monopoly profits, the winner, say a company with more than 40% of the market share, would become two smaller companies starting out with 20% each. It is NOT a penalty for success, but recognition that the company has done such a good job we want TWO companies just like it, at least initially.

Of course it will never happen. The biggest companies are owned by the richest and least ethical businessmen, the same ones who bribe the politicians to write laws that require the companies to become more and more evil over time. Most businessmen are NOT that way, but it's actually a tiny minority of the WORST businessmen who decide on the rules of the game in America.

P.S. I will NEVER forgive T-Mobile for the repeated and unsolicted spam. I really HATE spammers.

Can it work for translations?

The side by side view would be really interesting if you could use it while translating. Just thinking...

The icon is NOT for Apple, but for C3PO, the protocol droid that spoke all those languages.

Headline: "Lottery winner says you should play, too!"

I do admire the Woz, but having read his book, I basically have to dismiss him as a lottery winner who is telling other people to play. He wasn't the only guy with the idea of creating a personal computer. Yes, he had some good ideas, but good ideas are a nickel a dozen. He wasn't even the only guy working like crazy to create the products based on those ideas. There are other elements of timing, knowing the right people (mostly Steve Jobs in his case), incompetence and bad decisions by the competition (mostly IBM in those days), and just plain luck (in business but also as in surviving his airplane crash).

I think they should do lottery advertising the same way they do the lottery itself. Instead of seeing the winner of the lottery talking about how happy he is, you should have a lottery on the advertisement. For example, you might have a million chances to see an ad featuring one of the losers and only one chance to see the winner.

Free speech = money and ONLY money

To me, the hilarious part is that the original idea of copyright was to ENCOURAGE creativity, not to maximize profits by nuking any form of derivative idea. I certainly agree that creative artists deserve compensation, but at the same time it is clear that copyright is no longer a plausible mechanism because there is no longer any bottleneck at the point of reproduction.

Perhaps the real problem is that English is hopeless confused about "free". Free speech is confused with free beer, but the most important sense of free is "meaningful and unconstrained choice." If you're paying attention, you may notice the fundamental inconsistency with advertising, where the entire idea is to confuse the meaning and convince the suckers that they can't live without this brand of toothpaste (or politician).

New SL 101 owner here...

Article caught my eye since I'm less than one week into ownership of an SL 101... Another innovative design, but there are too many problems great and small, and I am dangling right now between struggling onward or returning it to the store. My main direct contact with ASUS has been via their website, and the kindest comment I can think of is "I was not impressed."

Linux will succeed! Maybe Microsoft will produce another Vista bomb!

Background: I love freedom and choice and therefore dislike Microsoft. I have used Linux for many years and Ubuntu is what I mostly use these days when I have the freedom to avoid Windows.

Ubuntu peaked several years ago and I can no longer recommend it. Originally a good idea, but I now regard it as a failure. The rich-man's-charity model has led to too many bad decisions. Also, there are FAR too many random changes for the sake of gratifying the programers fantasies. The interface changes have become especially effective in driving new users away.

Most significantly, Microsoft's Vista debacle was a GOLDEN opportunity for Ubuntu to capture a significant part of the market. Splut. Thud. Nothing.

I don't blame Canonical. I certainly don't credit Microsoft for superior bloatware.

It's the economic model, stupid.

Whatever you think about Microsoft, their economic model works. (1) Produce awful software. (2) Shove that software down users' throats (preinstalled in their machines). (3) Profit!

The link is about an alternative economic model. The idea is to add or change features ONLY when LOTS of users are willing to pay (a little bit each) to support the development AND testing. (Closest existing system is the Kickstarter, but the lack of support for project management has proved literally fatal there. Good ideas are plentiful. Money is a little scarce, but available. Good project management is apparently like a precious jewel.)

http://eco-epistemology.blogspot.com/2009/11/economics-of-small-donors-reverse.html

Sometimes the attitude produces stinkbombs

The problem is that real science requires skepticism, and that produces a kind of asymmetric warfare supported by such dunderheads as the author of this exceptionally worth-less-than-I-paid-for-it-which-was-nothing article. The relevant comparison would be between legitimate scientists debating (sometimes heatedly) the validity of the evidence, its significance, and the analysis leading to deciding on its underlying meaning in contrast to a religious argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Who needs to bother with evidence of ANY sort when you have faith?

The new problem is the politicization of science that interferes with the ability to pursue actual scientific work, and this author (whatever his name was) is a symptom of the problem, NOT any part of a solution. Where's that icon for the Register rising to new depths of stupidity? Was this author conceivably paid for this 'contribution'?

Wandered into his office once...

I once wandered into his office... VERY friendly guy when some stranger wanders into his open door. He was talking with someone and I quickly apologized and backed out. I did participate in one Lisp project after that... Anyone else remember the TI Explorer?

Accidental? Riiiiiiight!

Accidental disclosure? I don't think it was an accident, and I think the most likely outcome will be the rolling of his head, though not right away. It is possible the Google will decide to fight the growing EVIL within and make some constructive changes, but I think not, for two reasons:

(1) My own experience with the Google says that the Google is increasingly EVIL and the Googlers don't care.

(2) He is inside, has a much better view, and apparently decided this was his best tactic, which is evidence that any normal internal corrective mechanisms have already been destroyed.

Disclaimers: (1) I used to trust and even like the Google, so now I have the enthusiasm of a convert to the opposite viewpoint. (2) I can be regarded as working for one of the Google's competitors, though these days that simply means I use computers at work and I don't actually work for the Google.

Patent law reconsidered

Yet another example of the new purposes of patents:

(1) Monopoly patents

(2) Blackmail

Encourage innovation? What are you smoking?

More evidence American law is biased to EVIL

Do we need any more evidence of how American law works? Does anyone remember that the ORIGINAL basis of copyrights and patents was to encourage creativity. Check the Constitution, if you're muzzy on the deal.

In general, American laws are written by corrupt professional politicians catering to the most corrupt businessmen, precisely because the rest of the GOOD businessmen are not trying to game the system by changing the rules. Copyright is just one of the worst examples.

I say "DEATH to Mickey Mouse!"

Patent law reconsidered

Can anyone remember when patents actually encouraged innovation? The primary motives for seeking patents these days are (1) massive monopoly profits and (2) counter-threats against patent-based blackmail. Innovation? Bah, humbug.

Actually, the basic idea of a limited time monopoly is ridiculous now. For almost everything that is patented these days, 23 years is insanely long. Almost every new technology will be obsolete and superseded long before that.

My suggestion: You have to release it to the public and anyone who uses it has to acknowledge that use. Later on, and ONLY if there is a profit there, then the source of the profits will be analyzed thought an audit, the contributing factors will be identified, and some fraction of the profits will be transferred to each of the sources of the innovations in proportion to their contribution.

Not sure what the proper splits might be. Perhaps that needs to be determined at the time of the audits? Speaking as a technogeek, it just seems to me that if you make a very straightforward application of someone's innovation and make a lot of money, then you ought to retain a smaller share of that profit than if you combine a number of interesting innovations and do a lot of extra work to make the same amount of profit...

Microsoft wearing a white hat?

I still don't trust them, but you have to acknowledge that Microsoft appears to be the only big player that has really been serious about fighting the spammers. Tired evil company decides to shut down the semi-pro amateur evil spammers?

I'm not sure of the storyline here, but I think it's time to reconsider which email system I want to use... Several years ago, I quit using Hotmail even in a secondary throwaway capacity. My concern was mostly intrusive privacy things, but Google has become a whole lot more intrusive since then...

Also, the Google has stopped listening to peasants. Maybe the Microsoft is listening?

Operative definitions of good and evil?

If we consider good in terms of what the company is doing, it actually bothers me that Microsoft has become the consistent leader in doing the good thing as regards the spammers. I still feel like Microsoft is a fundamentally criminal enterprise, and if they were held fully accountable for all of the harm that has been caused by the flaws in their software, even just limiting it to design flaws, they would be bankrupt in a NY minute. Yet here they are again doing the right thing.

Meanwhile, Google claims to want to avoid being evil, and they are consistently the spammers' best friend. Have you ever seen such a lame spam-reporting system as Gmail uses? Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit for emphasis. The webform part is pitiful, but the email side actually has at least two good wrinkles in it. I'm mostly disappointed that Google could do much better instead of letting Microsoft carry the battle to the spammers.

Which country do you want to live in? Wikipedialand?

Starting with the old joke:

In the USA, everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted.

In Germany, everything that is not permitted by law is prohibited.

In Russia, everything is prohibited, even if permitted by law.

In France, everything is permitted, even if prohibited by law.

In Switzerland, everything that is not prohibited by law is obligatory.

I think Facebook and LinkedIn started out like France and has moved to limbo. From looking over Google+, I think they started with a German model, which is actually much closer to how I want my personal information to be handled, so long as I make MY laws. The problem with Google+ is the appropriate ontology for my friends.

HUMAN document, not god's

This should help prove the Bible is NOT any sort of divine word of any sort of god, but just the mumblings of a bunch of self-justifying priests trying to convince some fools that they owe the priests a good living. However, I'd bet that no religious nuts take it that way.

One of the best books I've read on the theme was called "The Book of J". I rather doubt it is widely available in America, but I still recommend it if you can find it. Central theme is that most of the Old Testament was probably compiled by a single author before the more famous redactor. He provides some evidence that it might have been a woman in King Solomon's court, mostly drawing on Babylonian and other earlier non-Semitic sources.

The icon for the close examination of the high-rez scans...

How many hardware companies has Microsoft killed off?

My feeling is that Nokia has gone from sick to dying, though I'm not sure how much of the blame belongs to Microsoft. Nokia did a lot of their own damage. Perhaps they were pushed, but it isn't as obvious as when Microsoft encouraged Palm to jump off the cliff.

Anyway, if there's any justice in the world, Microsoft will NEVER make a nickel on WIndows CE under any label. That sill won't keep them from leaving a trail of dead companies behind them, but at least they shouldn't make any money out of the wreckage.

I think the icon I really want for this post would be a dollar sign written in blood... Tough graphic to design in small size, however.

Data point on the new energy-consuming services

Android smartphones. 'Nuff said? Or do you want the facts and figures on energy losses in charging and discharging batteries?

Having said that, I think that Google is sincere in trying to reduce their own energy consumption and costs. That just makes good business sense.

Unfortunately, the American laws are written by corrupt politicians owned by a tiny minority of the least ethical businessmen. Google is not allowed to consider the big picture. If Google can think of any way to reduce their own energy consumption and costs while making everyone else use more energy, well, that's exactly what they are legally obliged to do. Any big-picture thinking that reduced Google's profits in any way is basically asking for a lawsuit from the 'pitiful' shareholders.

In conclusion, Google didn't want to become evil--but that doesn't change the reality.

Constructive suggestion: A little change to the tax code. Donations to purchase politicians or political influence should raise your tax rate. We could beef up the IRS, but why not let the 'political influence audit' be done by regular accountants? Auditors selected by your competitors.

Resolution of the Fermi Paradox?

I used to be near the top of SETI@home contributors, but dropped out, partly because of my very early advocacy of the BOINC approach, but also because I concluded the Fermi Paradox has a bad resolution. The key question is the transition from naturally evolved Turing machines to artificially designed Turing machines. I've concluded we humans don't have much of a future, Iain M Banks not withstanding, and the best possible scenario is a Gamesters of Triskelion thing, where radio silence is enforced as part of the game. [Much] More at:

http://eco-epistemology.blogspot.com/2007/08/resolution-of-fermi-paradox.html

Usenet is dead

Actually, I think Google killed the newsgroups quite a while ago. The basic premise of the newsgroups was free and open discussion, not that ANY one organization would be able to effectively strangle discussions by kicking out people who dare to criticize that organization. Yeah, that's MY interpretation, but I don't feel lonely. Amusingly enough, the criticisms were intended to be constructive--but the main result was to convince me that Google has gone EVIL. (Then again, I still don't blame Google. It's the American laws that basically require any large company to become more and more evil to survive in competition with the other large companies that are willing to push harder. The vicious part of the circle is that the laws are increasingly written by professional politicians who are owned by the worst actors, while the large majority of good actors are foolishly content to simply play by the rules, even if they play hard.)

Anyway, moving on from usenet, I think we are more plagued by other forms of information dysfunction. For example, there is super-ignorance empowered by the search engines that allow the most ignorant person to completely saturate his input channels with so-called evidence ("I read it on the Internet so it must be true.") supporting whatever crazy thing he wants to believe. Can any democratic or republican government survive as a house divided? Not merely divided, but some parts of the house are in different universes that would confuse Alice to death.

Another example is super-envy, where poor people learn about the American lifestyle via the Internet and conclude that America is living high on the hog by grinding their faces into the mud. Guess what motivates some terrorists?

In conclusion, I still think the tools are morally neutral and that information is good. However the tools can be used for bad purposes and not all information is of equal value. " I think we done got ourselves into a big heap of trouble...

More evidence of too much ignorance?

Interesting piece, but I think the primary problem is the breakdown of the political system due to an information dysfunction. You can't have rational democratic or republican debate when you can't even agree on the most basic facts. It has always been true that people tend to believe what they want to believe, but the Internet now makes it possible for you (or anyone including the most extreme crazy person) to find an infinite amount of 'evidence' in favor of whatever you want to believe. Okay, so it isn't really infinite--but your time is finite and you can certainly find more 'nice' evidence than you have time for.

Yes, of course it is possible to use the Internet to gather every kind of information. You can read broadly and get outside of your comfort zone. It's even possible to learn things that will change your opinion--but you can just as well spend all of your time reading about a lunatic conspiracy theory with time machines.

Yahoo loves spam and deserves to go bankrupt

Yahoo was probably overloaded by the new tide of spam. Improving the friendliness of Yahoo for spammers and making it harder to fight Yahoo-based spammers are the largest changes in their recent round of random changes.

Hey, I know Yahoo isn't listening to anyone, but how about if you Yahoo fools STOP helping spammers? If you can't deal with them, at least you could try to give us better spam-fighting tools than your current crock.

Icon is to indicate I regard Yahoo as spawn of Satan, though it's actually just par for American companies. The American laws have been completely rewritten by the most immoral businessmen so that they basically require every American company to become evil just to survive. If you want to succeed in America, your company has to become much more evil than that. Ask Google, eh?

Ignorance is the new black? How ignorant do you want to be?

Suggested mottoes for our time. Do you prefer (1) or (2)?

(1) Ignorance is the new black!

(2) How ignorant do you want to be?

Underlying premise is that the Internet now makes it possible to completely saturate your input channel with as much bad evidence as you like. With only a slight effort you can collect any amount of evidence for whatever you want to believe.

Trying to end on a constructive note, so I offer this suggestion (which I hope is descriptive of my own reading strategies): Try to read broadly, including some stuff that is outside of your comfort zone. You should try to treat the authors fairly, and accept their mental models as intended. Afterwards you can consider whether or not they were crazy--but you should be able to articulate substantive reasons, not just "I don't want to believe that."

Can't resist the obvious comment

Only natural, since Gingrich himself is 99.44% fake.

Really new economic models?

Time for something completely different? Here's a completely different way to pay for software development:

http://eco-epistemology.blogspot.com/2009/11/economics-of-small-donors-reverse.html

In contrast to Kickstarter (and even though this idea was devised before I ever heard of it), I believe their needs to be significant emphasis on project planning and MUCH more emphasis on adequate testing. There are way too many graveyards of good ideas, though SourceForge is probably the biggest.

Different funding approaches?

The idea in this URL could be adapted to this application. Instead of charity shares, you allocate budget to the various departmental users, and they would collectively buy shares in the projects that reflected their real needs. The IT staff would have clear guidance on their priorities, even though it would really be another game of corporate bean counting.

http://eco-epistemology.blogspot.com/2009/11/economics-of-small-donors-reverse.html

Why did Google become EVIL?

My theory is it isn't really Google's fault. The American legal system basically requires large public corporations to become evil. It's not that all businessmen are evil. I still believe that most businessmen are fine, upstanding people--but "most businessmen" are NOT the businessmen who are buying politicians to rewrite the legal rules of the game in their favor. The evolution has been slow but steady, and it now seems to take less than a decade for a good company to go bad--by succeeding under those laws..

Moderately good first step, but only the symptom

The breeding of ultra-cheap domains is actually a slightly different form of the divide-by-zero mentality that underlies the spammers' economic models. As it applies to email, if the marginal cost of another million spams is taken to be zero but it finds one more sucker to send $39 for herbal viagra, then the RoI looks infinite--to the spammer, and to hell with everyone else. Almost the same for domains in terms of creating channels for the money.

Unfortunately, as is the standard half-arsed style of Google these years, it's only a minor treatment of the symptom. In general, the issuing of new domains needs to be made much more expensive, and that would require a broad approach (though of course Google would need to be included). However, Google could do quite a bit more on its own.

However, I continue to believe that a stronger treatment would be focused on crowd-based tools to disrupt the spammers' business models, and especially to get between the spammers and their extremely limited supply of suckers. Cut off the money and the spammers will find other less-visible rocks to crawl under.

If something seems too hard, then you might be doing it wrong.

If something seems too hard, then you might be doing it wrong.

Why is Microsoft's software so bad while the company is so profitable? OSS is about the sharing of knowledge, but Apple thrives in secrecy. Why? Same answer in both cases: Effective economic models.

Producing software is not hard. Producing good software is difficult. Managing complicated software projects is almost impossible. Windows 7 and the iOS prove that it is possible, even profitable, but OSS is NOT succeeding. Actually, Ubuntu has become one of the best examples of the failure of OSS financial models--but I'm ready to wager that Firefox is about to follow suit down the tubes. Diaspora probably deserves a special prize, too. The most obvious contest for OSS would be highest dreams leading to greatest failures.

Here's a constructive suggestion: Better economic models. Here's a concrete idea:

http://eco-epistemology.blogspot.com/2009/11/economics-of-small-donors-reverse.html

Short summary of this proposal: Small donors vote with their money for MANAGED projects, with budgets that include ADEQUATE testing provisions. Latest wrinkle is a suggestion for contingency funding that can carry forward when the management is good.