What I'd like to see is a tool which tracks where I comment without me having to do anything.
So I surf the web and make a random comment on a weblog, and I want to be notified if someone replies to my comment without having to subscribe to the comment feed.
It should happen automatically and the subscripiont should silently be dropped after a while if I didn't go back.
Now I comment here and there (blogs, forums, google groups, etc.) and if I forgot to go back then I don't know if someone made an insightful reply to comment, etc.
So a tool would be nice which would automatically take note where I contribute something and monitor that place for changes. I guess we're not there yet, but I hope it happens soon.
People are very resourceful and they would surely come up with better ways to adapt to the new situation.
I'm sure technological development wouldn't halt. Bright minds would come up with much better solutions for the problem you described if there was a need.
The problem is currently there is no incentive to think in other directions, since we have the current flawed model which serves the interests of big corporations and patent trolls.
This model has to be abolished in order to make way for something better. The big corporations wouldn't let a gradual change to happen, since it's against their interests.
Since the ideas and implemenations will be shared instantly there will be no point in a single company spending so much for development. The costs will be shared between hundreds of companies, each doing a part of the job.
The inventors will be employed by these companies.
It's an entirely different model which is hard to grasp with our current mindset. The above is only a guess. I'm sure people will come up with creative ways to adapt to the new situation.
From what I understand, patents are not supposed to be granted for ideas, or methods, only for implementations.
I think implementations shouldn't be patentable either. Innovation would happen anyway, because companies have to come up with something new in order to be better than the competition. Also, dedicated inventors and scientists would continue to crank out new ideas and inventions, because this is what drives them. It's their life.
So we could abolish the whole system and the costs and litigation associated with it. Technological develoment wouldn't grind to a halt, and it may even be faster without the artificial barriers we set up today. New ideas would spread and get implemented very quickly in several different ways.
The problem is corporations who pull the strings via lobbies would be worse off, so they won't allow this to happen.
"Still plausible as long as the top volume does contain that stuff. "
Yes, very plausible indeed...
Re:Only works if it's default install
on
TrueCrypt 6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"There is no way of knowing if that second hidden volume exists unless you have both passwords."
Plausible deniability is not really working here, since it is one of TrueCrypt's main features, so if one has TC installed then it's pretty obvious he wants to hide something.
If one installs TC by choice then he surely doesn't do it just to have it eat up some unused harddisk space.
Also, maybe the reward system should be a little more tangible, like Wikipedia's? I mean, people get a kick out of seeing something they write benefiting everyone in the world. I personally don't get a kick out of knowing that if someone searches for 'Lola by The Kinks' it now comes up with more accurate results. I question the rewards although, to be fair, I also questioned the rewards of Wikipedia.
Well, maybe the reward could be search results which YOU find relevant.
I think Wikia Search could be even more revolutionary than it is now. How about dumping the idea of a common search result page which is the same for everyone and displaying results which are relevant to the individual user?
Here's how it would work: people can rate the search results and let's assume they do. If they do then the system stores how they voted in the past. When displaying search results the system would check who else voted similarly to me in the past and would calculate the result page using that information giving more weight for the vote of those people who share my tase.
The result of this would be that I would see a result page according to my own taste. I would never see Lindsay Lohan, because I and the people voting similarly to me would vote it down, so this ad-hoc loosely-coupled group helps its members to avoid news about Lindsay Lohan.
Christians would vote down porn, so they would see only Christian-approved stuff. No need for any kind of censorship, because their group takes care of that. On the other hand, porn lovers would vote up juicy sex movies, and vote down religious propaganda, so they also would see only what they want to see.
Spammers would have no chance, because their material would be voted down instanly by me and my peers, so I wouldn't see them, but the spammers themselves would, because they voted it up, but noone else would see it, but them.
The idea of the denominator search results should be forgotten, and we should get individually tailored result pages instead based on our voting history.
Spam won't simply disappear if you let humans edit the results.
In case of Wikia Search a spammer can edit the search results deleting the competition and he will be the frist match for a search for a short period of time until his edits are reversed.
If the search engine has lots of users then even this short period of time can be very profitable and brings in thousands of visitors.
I wonder how they will fight it. Delayed propagation of edits into the search results is no good, because then existing spam can also be removed only with a delay.
I envision search wars where different groups fight bitterly for the control of certain search terms, just like the edit wars in Wikipedia.
" A rapid pace of development is important for the future of humanity, especially as we try to outrace overpopulation and pollution through technology."
I agree and I actually think abolishing patents and copyright will contribute to faster development.
The open sharing and reuse of ideas is much better in this respect than "protecting" them so that others cannot use them.
Okay, you surely know what I really meant: There shouldn't be a law which protects private business interests in order to benefit the corporations more than society itself.
Corporations will continue to support innovation in order to overtake the competition.
They will surely come up with various methods to protect their investments, making it harder to reverse engineer their products.
But it should be their burden, not ours. The law should not give additional supoprt for them, because it wasn't created to protect private interests.
I don't think the price society pays with patents and copyright is worth it.
The collected knowledge of human history is at the disposal of the creator and it should be enough as far as we're concerned. No further support should be given.
"The goal should be to encourage innovation and creativity."
I think it's a misconception innovation should be encouraged.
People are curious, they like to innovate and they will do it even if they are not compensated directly.
A new invention brings fame to its creator and lots of people will do it for the fame only.
I think all kinds of monetary incentives should be abolished, there should be no protection at all.
Companies will continue to innovate, because they need to come up with new products in order to do well in the competition. Those who stagnate will be left behind.
And what if someone copies a new product instantly? The creator will not benefit, but the society as a whole will.
So I think the direct monetary incentive is not necessary, because dedicated inventors will come up with new inventions anyway.
And what if there will be fewer innovations as a result of this? Would it be a big problem? Yes, the pace of technological development would be slower. So what?
They stuffed every familiar element from the series in it trying to recapture the original spirit, but they failed miserably.
It was like some kind of checklist. Zapp Brannigan? Check? Nibbler? Check. etc.
When watching the movie I feelt like it was done by completely different people who got complete access to the materials of the series, but didn't understand what made it work in the first place.
I hope future movies will be much better, otherwise there will be no point in watching them.
Watching the moving characters of Futurama is not the same as watching FUTURAMA which has some secret ingredient seemingly lost during the movie making process.
one thing that make Gears unique is that its _not_ just bound to one browser; its cross browser, so we can rev the web rather than just one browser. Cross-browser? Does it work on Opera? If not why not? Whose fault is it?
I think the rating of links could help prevent spam, because people will rate things *down*.
If I search for something and the link I found is good then I usually don't return to the search results, so people won't rate thing up.
However, if the link is bad then I close it and go back to the search results to look for more hits, and I will rate the previous link down.
So the rating system will probably work only in negative cases, but it could be a great way to fight spam (with a captcha of course, so that it cannot be automated).
I wonder why Google itself doesn't have a report as spam option beside the links in the search results.
I wonder why these mini articles exist at all when there is wikipedia already. For articles (like George Bush) which have a wikipedia page they should link wikipedia directly instead of duplicating the content in a mini article.
Electronic voting would made voter coercion and intimidation much more feasible. Since voters wouldn't vote from an official polling station, they could be forced to vote on a certain issue against their intention.
Same thing with paying for votes. The voter votes "properly" in front of the money man and he gets his money. Lots of poor people who doesn't care would choose this way of making money.
These types of fraud are much harder to implement with polling stations.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd like to see is a tool which tracks where I comment without me having to do anything.
So I surf the web and make a random comment on a weblog, and I want to be notified if someone replies to my comment without having to subscribe to the comment feed.
It should happen automatically and the subscripiont should silently be dropped after a while if I didn't go back.
Now I comment here and there (blogs, forums, google groups, etc.) and if I forgot to go back then I don't know if someone made an insightful reply to comment, etc.
So a tool would be nice which would automatically take note where I contribute something and monitor that place for changes. I guess we're not there yet, but I hope it happens soon.
I second this. Python is a very accessible language. I wouldn't confront newbies with C right at the beginning.
Python is easy to learn and it's very powerful at the same time, so he can go a long way using only this language.
If he catches the programming bug then he can move on to any of the closer-to-the-metal languages later if necessary.
The important thing is do not alienate him by forcng him to deal with C strings and stuff right at the start.
As I said it was only a guess.
People are very resourceful and they would surely come up with better ways to adapt to the new situation.
I'm sure technological development wouldn't halt. Bright minds would come up with much better solutions for the problem you described if there was a need.
The problem is currently there is no incentive to think in other directions, since we have the current flawed model which serves the interests of big corporations and patent trolls.
This model has to be abolished in order to make way for something better. The big corporations wouldn't let a gradual change to happen, since it's against their interests.
Since the ideas and implemenations will be shared instantly there will be no point in a single company spending so much for development. The costs will be shared between hundreds of companies, each doing a part of the job.
The inventors will be employed by these companies.
It's an entirely different model which is hard to grasp with our current mindset. The above is only a guess. I'm sure people will come up with creative ways to adapt to the new situation.
From what I understand, patents are not supposed to be granted for ideas, or methods, only for implementations.
I think implementations shouldn't be patentable either. Innovation would happen anyway, because companies have to come up with something new in order to be better than the competition. Also, dedicated inventors and scientists would continue to crank out new ideas and inventions, because this is what drives them. It's their life.
So we could abolish the whole system and the costs and litigation associated with it. Technological develoment wouldn't grind to a halt, and it may even be faster without the artificial barriers we set up today. New ideas would spread and get implemented very quickly in several different ways.
The problem is corporations who pull the strings via lobbies would be worse off, so they won't allow this to happen.
"Still plausible as long as the top volume does contain that stuff. "
Yes, very plausible indeed...
"There is no way of knowing if that second hidden volume exists unless you have both passwords."
Plausible deniability is not really working here, since it is one of TrueCrypt's main features, so if one has TC installed then it's pretty obvious he wants to hide something.
If one installs TC by choice then he surely doesn't do it just to have it eat up some unused harddisk space.
"Flash for textual content is HORRIBLE. Totally ruins the consistent experience I want with my web browser."
Very true. Which brings the question: anyone knows a tool which extracts text from flash pages?
Here's the link to this feature: http://link.opera.com/
Why not https?
Also, maybe the reward system should be a little more tangible, like Wikipedia's? I mean, people get a kick out of seeing something they write benefiting everyone in the world. I personally don't get a kick out of knowing that if someone searches for 'Lola by The Kinks' it now comes up with more accurate results. I question the rewards although, to be fair, I also questioned the rewards of Wikipedia.
Well, maybe the reward could be search results which YOU find relevant.
I think Wikia Search could be even more revolutionary than it is now. How about dumping the idea of a common search result page which is the same for everyone and displaying results which are relevant to the individual user?
Here's how it would work: people can rate the search results and let's assume they do. If they do then the system stores how they voted in the past. When displaying search results the system would check who else voted similarly to me in the past and would calculate the result page using that information giving more weight for the vote of those people who share my tase.
The result of this would be that I would see a result page according to my own taste. I would never see Lindsay Lohan, because I and the people voting similarly to me would vote it down, so this ad-hoc loosely-coupled group helps its members to avoid news about Lindsay Lohan.
Christians would vote down porn, so they would see only Christian-approved stuff. No need for any kind of censorship, because their group takes care of that. On the other hand, porn lovers would vote up juicy sex movies, and vote down religious propaganda, so they also would see only what they want to see.
Spammers would have no chance, because their material would be voted down instanly by me and my peers, so I wouldn't see them, but the spammers themselves would, because they voted it up, but noone else would see it, but them.
The idea of the denominator search results should be forgotten, and we should get individually tailored result pages instead based on our voting history.
"Good. Have fun searching spam."
Spam won't simply disappear if you let humans edit the results.
In case of Wikia Search a spammer can edit the search results deleting the competition and he will be the frist match for a search for a short period of time until his edits are reversed.
If the search engine has lots of users then even this short period of time can be very profitable and brings in thousands of visitors.
I wonder how they will fight it. Delayed propagation of edits into the search results is no good, because then existing spam can also be removed only with a delay.
I envision search wars where different groups fight bitterly for the control of certain search terms, just like the edit wars in Wikipedia.
" A rapid pace of development is important for the future of humanity, especially as we try to outrace overpopulation and pollution through technology."
I agree and I actually think abolishing patents and copyright will contribute to faster development.
The open sharing and reuse of ideas is much better in this respect than "protecting" them so that others cannot use them.
Okay, you surely know what I really meant: There shouldn't be a law which protects private business interests in order to benefit the corporations more than society itself.
Corporations will continue to support innovation in order to overtake the competition.
They will surely come up with various methods to protect their investments, making it harder to reverse engineer their products.
But it should be their burden, not ours. The law should not give additional supoprt for them, because it wasn't created to protect private interests.
I don't think the price society pays with patents and copyright is worth it.
The collected knowledge of human history is at the disposal of the creator and it should be enough as far as we're concerned. No further support should be given.
"The goal should be to encourage innovation and creativity."
I think it's a misconception innovation should be encouraged.
People are curious, they like to innovate and they will do it even if they are not compensated directly.
A new invention brings fame to its creator and lots of people will do it for the fame only.
I think all kinds of monetary incentives should be abolished, there should be no protection at all.
Companies will continue to innovate, because they need to come up with new products in order to do well in the competition. Those who stagnate will be left behind.
And what if someone copies a new product instantly? The creator will not benefit, but the society as a whole will.
So I think the direct monetary incentive is not necessary, because dedicated inventors will come up with new inventions anyway.
And what if there will be fewer innovations as a result of this? Would it be a big problem? Yes, the pace of technological development would be slower. So what?
BBS was pretty pathetic.
They stuffed every familiar element from the series in it trying to recapture the original spirit, but they failed miserably.
It was like some kind of checklist. Zapp Brannigan? Check? Nibbler? Check. etc.
When watching the movie I feelt like it was done by completely different people who got complete access to the materials of the series, but didn't understand what made it work in the first place.
I hope future movies will be much better, otherwise there will be no point in watching them.
Watching the moving characters of Futurama is not the same as watching FUTURAMA which has some secret ingredient seemingly lost during the movie making process.
I don't think Metallica will be much help in this. The release for free and people will pay for it model is a fad, I think.
People pay becase NIN and Radiohead were the pioneers of this.
If everyone goes this way then people will take it for granted and they won't pay for it.
Some of them will, of course, but much fewer people than in the introductory phase of this business model.
Pepople pay now, because it makes them look cool, but will they do it in the long run?
I think the rating of links could help prevent spam, because people will rate things *down*.
If I search for something and the link I found is good then I usually don't return to the search results, so people won't rate thing up.
However, if the link is bad then I close it and go back to the search results to look for more hits, and I will rate the previous link down.
So the rating system will probably work only in negative cases, but it could be a great way to fight spam (with a captcha of course, so that it cannot be automated).
I wonder why Google itself doesn't have a report as spam option beside the links in the search results.
Mini articles are cool
I wonder why these mini articles exist at all when there is wikipedia already. For articles (like George Bush) which have a wikipedia page they should link wikipedia directly instead of duplicating the content in a mini article.
By electronic voting I mean voting remotely via the internet or something. Just to make it clear.
Electronic voting would made voter coercion and intimidation much more feasible. Since voters wouldn't vote from an official polling station, they could be forced to vote on a certain issue against their intention.
Same thing with paying for votes. The voter votes "properly" in front of the money man and he gets his money. Lots of poor people who doesn't care would choose this way of making money.
These types of fraud are much harder to implement with polling stations.
http://www.autohotkey.com/
I'd be satisfied with partial (prefix) search for a start. Searching for "eco*" should return economy, economies, economist, etc.
This alone would help a lot.
Alternatively you can use AutoHotkey and rebind it to anything you want.