Give up hope now, save yourself a bunch of turmoil. It won't stop, simply because laws on topics like CP tend to be more powerful than the lawmakers themselves. At this point, I doubt anyone has the political arsenal necessary to "stop this shit."
There could be, in a much more scientific way, as follows: create a wrapper search engine that randomly chooses one of any number of search engines (google, bing, altavista, lycos, and heck, even yahoo) without telling the user what it chose, performs the user query, returns results, and asks the user to rate relevance. The results would be perfectly unbiased; the only drawback is the possibility of a huge lawsuit from all the search engines you'd essentially be ripping off (no ad revenue!).
IANAL, but possibly not. They didn't go out into the general pubic with these, they monitored a group of people who had already implicitly agreed to partially forfeit their expectation of privacy. They knew they were being monitored for cheating, but possibly didn't know exactly how. In the US, if this went to court, it could be a tricky case. BTW, either way they wouldn't need warrants, since they weren't law enforcement (I think).
This approach is doomed, really. Clearly we can come up with other tasks that are difficult for computers and easy for humans, and wait until AI catches up, and move to something else. At some point much sooner than AI fully replicates human intelligence the tasks will be so difficult that in the vast majority of cases it's not just worth it for a human to go through it (e.g. # of cocks inside Jenna in a video , as suggested above). What do we do then? The captcha approach is a temporary solution, and if I had to guess I'd say within 2 decades the "spammer singularity" described above will come.
Another big difference is that people were bringing their families along to the Americas, which, psychologically speaking, means they were bringing a huge part of "home" along with them.
I really can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to make such a trip and *know* that I was never, ever coming back and I would almost certainly never, EVER see any of the people and places I love
I've made a trip like that (except for the people part), when I left my home country for college. I knew that I would likely not be back for at least 20 years (never, with high probability) for various reasons. It was a little weird, but all in all not really painful/distressing. Of course leaving your home country is worlds apart (heh, I love puns...) from leaving your home planet, so who knows.
I think my retinas get a rash every time i see the word 'facebook'... But there's one flaw with this argument -- we haven't observed the Internet long enough to be able to make definite conclusions about how on-line companies evolve. The Internet 10 years ago was a very different place from the Internet today, and I'm not sure the AOL case generalizes to FB (unfortunately).
Well, yes and no. the point is flexibility, really. easily moving from machine to machine, with something akin to version control for all your settings and data, would be pretty nice to have. An analogy -- imagine that your hard drive is remote, but RAM, CPU, everything else is local. Now imagine that the hard drive is smart, partially maintained by someone else (i.e. software updates), and allows multiple configurations of your [machine - the hard drive] to run off it. Maybe what I'm describing already exists, but if it does, I'm not aware of it.
I've often heard the availability/data safety argument against thin clients, but I can't imagine that it'd be that hard to implement proper data and application "caching" on the thin client to ensure a user can work for brief periods of time offline, and sync correctly when connection is reestablished. There's already a lot of theory on similar problems in distributed databases, it seems like it should be possible to transfer some of the knowledge to this new realm...
Quite possibly because they didn't have the capability to do so. Even today, when the technology exists, for most tyrannies the cost/benefit relationship probably doesn't add up, because it is pretty easy to spot dissidents and troublemakers once their ideas start reaching a threateningly large audience. But the line is shifting -- it is becoming more and more affordable to spy on large populations at smaller and smaller granularity (see CCTV's in UK, something that would be impossible/too expensive as little as a decade ago). In Russia, we may very well start seeing things like this crop up pretty soon.
lol well then my humor detector needs to be adjusted..
but if you're reading Sergio Bertolucci as Silvio Berlusconi, you're watching too much Italian TV;)
Heh, well, the guy has kind of monopolized Italy's image worldwide...
Well, the problem is that when it comes to advertising, the regulatory body can't just close its eyes and pretend that it's not their problem if most people interpret a word in a different way than its technical meaning. To protect consumers, they need to recognize the new meaning the word has taken on, and regulate advertising accordingly, instead of digging in their heels in the name of "the truth!"...
Not paining a very good picture of their community there, is he?
Work on your humor detector. Ask Penny for help.
Right back at ya. That was a joke.
Also, did anyone else read his name as "Silvio Berlusconi?" Seems like a misspelled version, or something...
Not if you're Italian or speak Italian. But it's always like that, if you're not familiar with some class of objects, it's difficult to tell apart the sub-classes (as in "for Asians all Europeans look alike" and vice versa).
I happen to speak Italian, and I grew up watching Italian TV. So yeah, take your haughty tone and get off my lawn.
Do me a favor please -- read my last post (GP), then read your reply, and tell me, do you think you answered my question? I'm asking 'cause I honestly don't think you did...
Not paining a very good picture of their community there, is he? Also, did anyone else read his name as "Silvio Berlusconi?" Seems like a misspelled version, or something...
Uh-huh, which we do, when the FCC/other regulatory bodies come around and fix a definition, then force those they have authority over to remain truthful under that definition. That's a given, and that's the way things should work. But this says nothing about how the meaning of a word should be determined at the time when the definition is being fixed. Do you see what I mean by that?
I see your point, but I still don't see what alternative you propose. How do I figure out what the true meaning of a word is, so I can start educating my fellow humans? Who do I ask? 'Cause if I happened to ask those fellow humans that need to be educated, then I couldn't educate them, because I myself would be mis-educated. I'm stuck in a dependency loop. Resolve it for me, please.
Slashdot Mirror
Give up hope now, save yourself a bunch of turmoil. It won't stop, simply because laws on topics like CP tend to be more powerful than the lawmakers themselves. At this point, I doubt anyone has the political arsenal necessary to "stop this shit."
Holy crap, that's exactly what I'm describing! I guess great minds think alike ;]
Aaah, ok, I get it now. Sorry.
That's a whoosh.
There could be, in a much more scientific way, as follows: create a wrapper search engine that randomly chooses one of any number of search engines (google, bing, altavista, lycos, and heck, even yahoo) without telling the user what it chose, performs the user query, returns results, and asks the user to rate relevance. The results would be perfectly unbiased; the only drawback is the possibility of a huge lawsuit from all the search engines you'd essentially be ripping off (no ad revenue!).
+1 stick up ass, a.k.a. mis-calibrated offensiveness detector
IANAL, but possibly not. They didn't go out into the general pubic with these, they monitored a group of people who had already implicitly agreed to partially forfeit their expectation of privacy. They knew they were being monitored for cheating, but possibly didn't know exactly how. In the US, if this went to court, it could be a tricky case. BTW, either way they wouldn't need warrants, since they weren't law enforcement (I think).
and bad '-'. seriously, law-enforcement?
This approach is doomed, really. Clearly we can come up with other tasks that are difficult for computers and easy for humans, and wait until AI catches up, and move to something else. At some point much sooner than AI fully replicates human intelligence the tasks will be so difficult that in the vast majority of cases it's not just worth it for a human to go through it (e.g. # of cocks inside Jenna in a video , as suggested above). What do we do then? The captcha approach is a temporary solution, and if I had to guess I'd say within 2 decades the "spammer singularity" described above will come.
Another big difference is that people were bringing their families along to the Americas, which, psychologically speaking, means they were bringing a huge part of "home" along with them.
I really can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to make such a trip and *know* that I was never, ever coming back and I would almost certainly never, EVER see any of the people and places I love
I've made a trip like that (except for the people part), when I left my home country for college. I knew that I would likely not be back for at least 20 years (never, with high probability) for various reasons. It was a little weird, but all in all not really painful/distressing. Of course leaving your home country is worlds apart (heh, I love puns...) from leaving your home planet, so who knows.
+1 ruined someone's day with unnecessary insight
I think my retinas get a rash every time i see the word 'facebook'... But there's one flaw with this argument -- we haven't observed the Internet long enough to be able to make definite conclusions about how on-line companies evolve. The Internet 10 years ago was a very different place from the Internet today, and I'm not sure the AOL case generalizes to FB (unfortunately).
Guess who they will side with. Go on, guess! Hint: rhymes with 'duck leedom.'
my sig depressingly relevant, again
Well, yes and no. the point is flexibility, really. easily moving from machine to machine, with something akin to version control for all your settings and data, would be pretty nice to have. An analogy -- imagine that your hard drive is remote, but RAM, CPU, everything else is local. Now imagine that the hard drive is smart, partially maintained by someone else (i.e. software updates), and allows multiple configurations of your [machine - the hard drive] to run off it. Maybe what I'm describing already exists, but if it does, I'm not aware of it.
I've often heard the availability/data safety argument against thin clients, but I can't imagine that it'd be that hard to implement proper data and application "caching" on the thin client to ensure a user can work for brief periods of time offline, and sync correctly when connection is reestablished. There's already a lot of theory on similar problems in distributed databases, it seems like it should be possible to transfer some of the knowledge to this new realm...
There was no wholesale spying on people.
Quite possibly because they didn't have the capability to do so. Even today, when the technology exists, for most tyrannies the cost/benefit relationship probably doesn't add up, because it is pretty easy to spot dissidents and troublemakers once their ideas start reaching a threateningly large audience. But the line is shifting -- it is becoming more and more affordable to spy on large populations at smaller and smaller granularity (see CCTV's in UK, something that would be impossible/too expensive as little as a decade ago). In Russia, we may very well start seeing things like this crop up pretty soon.
lol well then my humor detector needs to be adjusted.. but if you're reading Sergio Bertolucci as Silvio Berlusconi, you're watching too much Italian TV ;)
Heh, well, the guy has kind of monopolized Italy's image worldwide...
Well, the problem is that when it comes to advertising, the regulatory body can't just close its eyes and pretend that it's not their problem if most people interpret a word in a different way than its technical meaning. To protect consumers, they need to recognize the new meaning the word has taken on, and regulate advertising accordingly, instead of digging in their heels in the name of "the truth!"...
Not paining a very good picture of their community there, is he?
Work on your humor detector. Ask Penny for help.
Right back at ya. That was a joke.
Also, did anyone else read his name as "Silvio Berlusconi?" Seems like a misspelled version, or something...
Not if you're Italian or speak Italian. But it's always like that, if you're not familiar with some class of objects, it's difficult to tell apart the sub-classes (as in "for Asians all Europeans look alike" and vice versa).
I happen to speak Italian, and I grew up watching Italian TV. So yeah, take your haughty tone and get off my lawn.
Do me a favor please -- read my last post (GP), then read your reply, and tell me, do you think you answered my question? I'm asking 'cause I honestly don't think you did...
Not paining a very good picture of their community there, is he? Also, did anyone else read his name as "Silvio Berlusconi?" Seems like a misspelled version, or something...
Uh-huh, which we do, when the FCC/other regulatory bodies come around and fix a definition, then force those they have authority over to remain truthful under that definition. That's a given, and that's the way things should work. But this says nothing about how the meaning of a word should be determined at the time when the definition is being fixed. Do you see what I mean by that?
I see your point, but I still don't see what alternative you propose. How do I figure out what the true meaning of a word is, so I can start educating my fellow humans? Who do I ask? 'Cause if I happened to ask those fellow humans that need to be educated, then I couldn't educate them, because I myself would be mis-educated. I'm stuck in a dependency loop. Resolve it for me, please.