There, I fixed the Subject for you (was "wisdom of crowds"). I don't think there are too many crowds in other countries that think Saddam was connected to 9/11.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean America isn't an example of a crowd.
Hold the phone, there. Did the "wisdom of the crowds" put GWB in power, or did Gore win "the popular vote" in one of those? You (the general you, not specifically the parent) can't argue it both ways. There's a difference between wisdome of the crowd/mob rule and the crowd choosing representatives (electoral college) to make the official vote. The founding fathers designed the process that way on purpose because they saw the inherent ignorance of "the crowd"
Yes Gore won the majority in the first one, barely. I am more concerned with the "wisdom of the crowd" who voted for him the second time, after it had become apparent what a misguided train wreck his administration was.
I don't think the argument was EVER that Saddam CAUSED 9/11, although there has been argument and (some claim evidence) that he was a contributing factor. Argument that he was a threat - well, based on information given at the time there was reason to be suspicious and the whole nation was still in knee-jerk mode. (I can be SINCERE and CONVINCED and still be WRONG.) The UN, not the people of one particular country, agreed he was enough of a threat to levy a series of sanctions. CONGRESS, not the people, authorized use of force in Iraq.
I respect the libertarian way of thinking, but please save the empty rhetoric for the usual two parties.
I'm not try to use empty rhetoric, but point out how it was and is used to easily manipulate the so called "wisdom of crowds".
The only reason congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, and we eventually invaded Iraq, was because the American people were in support of it. They were in support of it because of the focused grouped nonsense coming from the administration and repeated in the media like it was an echo chamber. Sure you can be in knee-jerk mode, sincere, convinced, and wrong. It doesn't end this nightmare or bring back the dead that the American peoples collective lack of critical thinking, reasoning, and knowledge caused.
The point I was trying to make is that large groups are easily manipulated when they all get their information from limited sources. Combine that with fear and you can get large numbers of people to do just about anything. Just a few years ago people were covering their doors, windows, and in some cases, whole houses in plastic and duct tape. Thats how its been for a long time, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. Maybe, if there was no mass media, if it was more granulated, things would be different.
I've always thought, looking back at history, it seemed society has continually become more wise. From Monarchy to Democracy, slavery to civil rights, society has (with the occasional bump) seemed to continually improve, albeit slowly. Perhaps that, in a way, is the "wisdom of crowds".
proves that people are stupid. Stupid people follow the crowd. You can lead stupid crowds with a a big enough campaign fund; you don't even need a manifesto. All you need do is make the other guy look bad.
All it takes these days is focus groups. Now instead of using polls to find out what people think, they use them to change what people think (or tell people what they think).
The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice. Had Americans believing Saddam caused 9/11 and was a threat. Then of course there is religion..
Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony-BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company "had not stopped to calculate."
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers, it just might be more than she has to pay.
But it also outright prohibited much data being stored at all after a purchase is authorized by banning a retailer from storing "sensitive authentication data subsequent to authorization, even if that data is encrypted."
What about automatically recurring bills, like web hosting.
Yep sounds like this White House. Corporations 1 Billion, Consumers/Citizens Who?
Since when do they comment on this stuff? I'm surprised they didn't comment on the Vonage loss against that bullshit patent. Or everytime a bullshit patent is enforced.
On second thought maybe they try to stay neutral in Corporation vs Corporation matters.
F-177 $122 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F117
B-2 $727 million to $2.2 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
I wouldn't call that a few million.
Anything made layer by layer in a clean room is very expensive, like: computer processors, LCDs, plasma screens. Of course if its better than current materials its going to see use, but it may only see use from those who can afford it like the government.
Sounds expensive, very expensive. I mean its not useful unless its somewhat affordable right?
Those stealth aircraft cost billions, and thats only carbon fiber.
Most of the people who I know who use myspace, youtube, google, and video game consoles don't know what a.zip file is, a server, or the difference between "sponsored links" and search engine results.
Sure, but does he have any suggestions on how to integrate those things into the curriculum in a manner that might improve the learning process....somehow?
Treating ballot observing like jury duty is one of the best ideas I've heard. However, if you are paranoid, you might wonder if ballot observers were still somehow planted. Has there yet been any system devised that cannot be circumvented, even if the effort required to circumvent that system is exceptionally high.
With a paper system, you're reduced to rigging the results one vote at a time. With electronic voting, you could change thousands of votes at once.
With paper voting you are reduced to rigging the results one box at a time. Say the ballots from an area that votes predominately democrat were to disappear. Say you use a ridiculous name matching program to weed out "convicted felons". Just the types of shenanigans that were alleged to have happened in the past two US presidential elections.
The point is no matter what kind of system there is you have to trust the people running it.
Slashdot Mirror
There, I fixed the Subject for you (was "wisdom of crowds"). I don't think there are too many crowds in other countries that think Saddam was connected to 9/11.
Maybe not, but that doesn't mean America isn't an example of a crowd.
Hold the phone, there. Did the "wisdom of the crowds" put GWB in power, or did Gore win "the popular vote" in one of those? You (the general you, not specifically the parent) can't argue it both ways. There's a difference between wisdome of the crowd/mob rule and the crowd choosing representatives (electoral college) to make the official vote. The founding fathers designed the process that way on purpose because they saw the inherent ignorance of "the crowd"
Yes Gore won the majority in the first one, barely. I am more concerned with the "wisdom of the crowd" who voted for him the second time, after it had become apparent what a misguided train wreck his administration was.
I don't think the argument was EVER that Saddam CAUSED 9/11, although there has been argument and (some claim evidence) that he was a contributing factor. Argument that he was a threat - well, based on information given at the time there was reason to be suspicious and the whole nation was still in knee-jerk mode. (I can be SINCERE and CONVINCED and still be WRONG.) The UN, not the people of one particular country, agreed he was enough of a threat to levy a series of sanctions. CONGRESS, not the people, authorized use of force in Iraq.
I respect the libertarian way of thinking, but please save the empty rhetoric for the usual two parties.
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
I'm not try to use empty rhetoric, but point out how it was and is used to easily manipulate the so called "wisdom of crowds".
The only reason congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, and we eventually invaded Iraq, was because the American people were in support of it. They were in support of it because of the focused grouped nonsense coming from the administration and repeated in the media like it was an echo chamber. Sure you can be in knee-jerk mode, sincere, convinced, and wrong. It doesn't end this nightmare or bring back the dead that the American peoples collective lack of critical thinking, reasoning, and knowledge caused.
The point I was trying to make is that large groups are easily manipulated when they all get their information from limited sources. Combine that with fear and you can get large numbers of people to do just about anything. Just a few years ago people were covering their doors, windows, and in some cases, whole houses in plastic and duct tape. Thats how its been for a long time, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. Maybe, if there was no mass media, if it was more granulated, things would be different.
I've always thought, looking back at history, it seemed society has continually become more wise. From Monarchy to Democracy, slavery to civil rights, society has (with the occasional bump) seemed to continually improve, albeit slowly. Perhaps that, in a way, is the "wisdom of crowds".
proves that people are stupid. Stupid people follow the crowd. You can lead stupid crowds with a a big enough campaign fund; you don't even need a manifesto. All you need do is make the other guy look bad.
All it takes these days is focus groups. Now instead of using polls to find out what people think, they use them to change what people think (or tell people what they think).
The "Wisdom Of Crowds" put George W Bush in power, twice. Had Americans believing Saddam caused 9/11 and was a threat. Then of course there is religion..
Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony-BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company "had not stopped to calculate."
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers, it just might be more than she has to pay.
The bill was directed to retailers. Is your ISP a retailer?
Well that depends on how the bill defines "retailer".
But it also outright prohibited much data being stored at all after a purchase is authorized by banning a retailer from storing "sensitive authentication data subsequent to authorization, even if that data is encrypted."
What about automatically recurring bills, like web hosting.
Why don't they just tape PC speakers and microphones to phones. I bet know one patented that yet.
Maybe your phone, but a normal laptop would take a hell of a lot of cranking.
Ok, maybe a bicycle then.
$4.2 X 50,000 = $210,000. Is that even enough to make this system worth the trouble for the networks?
Yep sounds like this White House. Corporations 1 Billion, Consumers/Citizens Who?
Since when do they comment on this stuff? I'm surprised they didn't comment on the Vonage loss against that bullshit patent. Or everytime a bullshit patent is enforced. On second thought maybe they try to stay neutral in Corporation vs Corporation matters.
mirror, full article + pics: http://freedomsforums.com/viewtopic,p,1385.html
F-177 $122 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F117 B-2 $727 million to $2.2 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit I wouldn't call that a few million. Anything made layer by layer in a clean room is very expensive, like: computer processors, LCDs, plasma screens. Of course if its better than current materials its going to see use, but it may only see use from those who can afford it like the government.
Yet another mirror, full article + pics: http://freedomsforums.com/viewtopic,p,1385.html
...slashdotted
See it here: http://freedomsforums.com/viewtopic,p,1385.html
wtf is an olpc?
Well if you don't want to RTFA, or search google, or wikipedia: Its One Laptop Per Child http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olpc
I like the crank. If only I could power my laptop, cell phone, etc that way.
Sounds expensive, very expensive. I mean its not useful unless its somewhat affordable right? Those stealth aircraft cost billions, and thats only carbon fiber.
Now If Rare and FASA would leave Microsoft I'd be happy.
Now Britain is going to have to rebuild their DNA database.
Most of the people who I know who use myspace, youtube, google, and video game consoles don't know what a .zip file is, a server, or the difference between "sponsored links" and search engine results.
Sure, but does he have any suggestions on how to integrate those things into the curriculum in a manner that might improve the learning process....somehow?
Treating ballot observing like jury duty is one of the best ideas I've heard. However, if you are paranoid, you might wonder if ballot observers were still somehow planted. Has there yet been any system devised that cannot be circumvented, even if the effort required to circumvent that system is exceptionally high.
With a paper system, you're reduced to rigging the results one vote at a time. With electronic voting, you could change thousands of votes at once.
With paper voting you are reduced to rigging the results one box at a time. Say the ballots from an area that votes predominately democrat were to disappear. Say you use a ridiculous name matching program to weed out "convicted felons". Just the types of shenanigans that were alleged to have happened in the past two US presidential elections.
The point is no matter what kind of system there is you have to trust the people running it.
The problem is any system can conceivably be rigged, paper or electronic.