Slashdot Mirror
When More Information Isn't a Good Thing
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "'Most of the time, speedier, cheaper information allows the economy to produce more from less, often by eliminating mistakes, cutting wasted effort and shrinking doubt,' David Wessel writes in the Wall Street Journal. But better information through technology has a downside; sometimes, efficiency benefits certain players to the detriment of society. One example Wessel cites: software that tells patent litigants which courts have the most favorable historical record for their side. 'It doesn't help the economy produce more goods or services. It creates nothing of beauty or pleasure,' he writes. 'It simply helps someone get a bigger slice of the pie.'"
'It doesn't help the economy produce more goods or services. It creates nothing of beauty or pleasure,' he writes. 'It simply helps someone get a bigger slice of the pie.'
Welcome to planet Earth.
Who ordered that?
'Knowledge is Power' vs 'Ignorance is Bliss'
It helps us identify courts with bias, and hopefully correct that.
Lies about crimes
When your parents are discussing their sexual preferences.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The problem lies with the court system and the patent office.
This issue isn't unique to information. Kitchen knives make nice tools for cutting up dinner...or the neighbor's cat. The entire concept of "significant non-infringing uses" is the foundation for the legality of such devices as ubiquitous as the VCR, CD/DVD recorder, TiVO and photo copy machine.
"The sword cuts both ways" is a phrase that was invented long before the information age.
Easy access to large amounts of information has benefits to society that vastly outweigh the detriments.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I'm sure someone applied the same argument to guns when they were first invented (well actually, people STILL do).
Its a tool and it can be used for good or bad purposes. The good almost always outweighs the bad.
One example Wessel cites: software that tells patent litigants which courts have the most favorable historical record for their side.
That seems like an issue with the ability of litigants to go forum shopping in the first place (a problem with the judicial system), rather than the fault of information and processing tools.
I'm sure someone applied the same argument to guns when they were first invented (well actually, people STILL do). Its a tool and it can be used for good or bad purposes. The good almost always outweighs the bad.
go ahead. mod me troll or flamebait... i'm still not convinced there's a "good purpose" for guns, and i have no idea how they are a "tool" that can be used for good
in the case of shooting the guy who's trying to break into my house, i'll give you a bit, but i'd rather call that "necessary, but still bad" rather than "good"
Moderation: overrated! Your analogies are poor.
Choosing which hospital has the best success rate for my operation is in the same ball court.
No, it is not. If you choose the hospital with the best success rate then you increase the liklihood of your survival: this is a social good. In the patent case cited, the goal is to determine the social good. That's the court's job. Gaming the system degrades its efficiency.
How about choosing which school has the best results for certain subjects.
Also not analogous.
If the number of applicants is the same for these examples then society doesn't benefit whichever I choose [discounting the relative merits of my self / children to society], so by his argument I shouldn't need that information.
That doesn't make sense. If the information helps a person needing a heart transplant to find the hospital that does heart transplants best and a person needing brain surgery to find the hospital that does brain surgery best then overall society benefits by allocating the right patients to the right hospitals. Ditto for schools.
Finding the lowest price for a product could be considered detrimental to society [less sales tax / corporaqtion tax paid or some such].
Now you're totally out to lunch. The capitalist system is based upon the competition that ensues when consumers select products based on price and perceived value. If society produces products more cheaply then people buy more products. They don't just stuff their money in their mattress after they've bought the basics as cheaply as possible.
Choosing to buy one's fuel based on price is bad for the exchequer too, it is the highest taxed item in my country.
The exchequer primarily benefits from the overall health of the economy. High energy prices reduce economic performance by making it expensive to manufacture and transport goods. If the government wants more money from gas prices it is much more logical for them to raise the gas tax 1% and increase their SHARE rather than encouraging citizens to buy more expensive gas thereby enriching the gas companies much more than themselves.
So, I'm sorry: your analogies are not analogous.