Could anyone inform the other readers (and myself) about perhaps what kinds of things it would take to start up new ISPs? I mean, if we hate AT&T and Verizon so much and it only seems that Google is here pushing the Internet envelop, why aren't more entrepreneurs starting ISPs (other than it is probably expensive, just like any other business startup)?

When have users ever cares or understood what they are doing? This is the entire premise of the Apple machine. They assume you don't; look how popular that has become.

What does this mean? Genuinely curious.

For why we need larger quantities and higher quality carriers and ISPs. It's not like this is the first time hardware advances have put pressure on specific sectors to improve their services. Most providers are already giving the US some of the worst bandwidth you can get in the modern world. And now non-tech users (read: smartphone and tablet users) are becoming complacent with data plans and shabby speeds that it's becoming this pathetic norm. The one recent ray of hope is Google's Kansas City project where they're getting some of the best stuff in the country while someone in LA is sitting there twittling their thumbs with 3mpbs Internet speed. Oh boy...

I don't think they will have the same problem because they will have the freedom to experiment with their own products. For example, we've seen a shift toward 99 cent books and apps, away from the traditional models of valuing products by X (e.g. author, topic, length, etc). With more variation the best models will prevail, and by best I mean most successful and profitable. Clearly the models employed now are not working because people are turning to piracy.

Indeed, big media has gotten new media wrong for decades, if not centuries. However, for the first time in history we have the technology to support new media WITHOUT big media. It doesn't take a giant publisher to create a best selling book anymore and put it on e-readers, apps, itunes, or other distribution systems. Nor does it take big developers to distribute boxes of games or other products.

What we will eventually see is the decline (but not abolishment) of big media in favor of independent distributors. The point is that they can do anything they want for copyright laws but the internet and its users are much too savvy and agile . They can't stop the momentum and they'll keep throwing money at the problem thinking it will stop the hemorrhagic. How often do we see on /. articles about how piracy is the result of poor products not poor regulations. Ah who cares...

Data is not selectively chosen, solutions are based on empirical evidence among many other factors. George Box, one of the great statisticians of modern science explained, "all models are wrong, some models are useful". However, if you have no idea about statistics or inferential theories that underly modern science you can continue spouting nonsense. Let the adults finish this conversation.

Not necessarily. Functional ascetics are critical when it comes to organizational behaviors. For example, if you work in a startup company that requires quick decision-making and on the fly meetings and discussions to bounce ideas around, if your organization is build hierarchically with lots of cubicles, no open spaces, isolated rooms or floors that limit access to people or resources... it makes the job of every single worker much more difficult across many tasks.

Ultimately, work environments should be congruent with their objectives. If you work in a more slow-paced environment (e.g. utilities, banks) then one type of environment might benefit the workers. On the other hand, if you work in a very face-paced environment you should build an organization that supports the types of needs that workers will have (e.g. room to work collaboratively, easy access to superiors, resources, etc).

Apparently you have never worked with data. It's an incredibly creative process, especially when all answers are technically correct but only certain ones are more helpful, useful, or easily interpretable.

It don't think it it ego as much as it is professors prioritizing what they need to do. At a minimum, their job requires that they (1) publish, (2) teach, (3) win grants to bring in money for the school. Even for professors who are tenured, they still need to fulfill these requirements. This doesn't even include meeting with students, advising doctoral candidates, reviewing for journals they are published in (i.e. once you pub in a journal you become a reviewer for them), writing personal books on topics, or organizing school/student events.

Professors, in their defense, have a hell of a lot going on. Ego may be the reason why some of them don't contribute, but I think a lot of it has to do with simply being busy. Being a professors (especially a tenure-track professor) is a full time, 7 day a week job.

Describing clay pottery and shells as garbage is incredibly misleading. For an article that claims to be from a scientific website, this is a shame. This article is the reason no-brainer issues become politicized. Some poor consumer of the internet will go and tell policy-maker Mr. XYZ that garbage helps the environment. Enter stage left BP, Exxon. Mr. Policy-Maker says that pollution isn't a big deal -> Who cares about pollution, oil, etc. And the sustainable energy movement takes yet another step back all because of some pop-science article claiming garbage helps the environment. Are you kidding me...

It permits everything but foreign occupation. Pretty sure we are a go on any invasion. I could be wrong though.

Don Campbell kind of created a similar vision, he called it the experimenting society. Check it out.

...and I don't agree with the stance my government is taking. Just in case all the non-US slashdotters go on about how X, Y, and Z America is. It's not all of us, scouts honor =)