The difference I'm seeing in our viewpoints is that you are thinking of hyperlinks as a reference mode, which works, but isn't literature.
It's a reasonable response to what I said, but thinking more my thoughts diverged away from that reference use to a literary use. An example might be telling "The Song of Ruth" from the king's point of view, with hyperlinks allowing one to change the point of view whenever both Ruth and the king were in the same scene. This becomes reasonable in that "The Song of Ruth" is already well known, so the amount of additional work required would be minimal, and the cognitive load on the reader would also be manageable.
Literature is not inherently one-dimensional. It's just almost always presented that way for many very good reasons. Economy of effort is one of those.
Consider, I believe it was, Rashomon. The same event cycle was repeated as seen though the eyes of several different characters. Quite effective. Definitely literature. Extremely difficult to do.
Whenever several narratives take place in the same "world", and interact, then each thread can be handled separately, yet it still makes sense to link them at the points of interactions. The link would involve seeing a single event through one character, switching over to seeing it through another character, and then continuing with the second character. This will usually be weaker unless the various narrative threads have previously been followed separately. So it would require more investment by the reader as well as by the author. Both of which are reasons why it is rarely done.
The only example of a literary work that I think might be improved by hypertext is the Bible. Possibly there are other works of the same kind. Maybe "Grimms Fairy Tales". Basicly collections of well known stories that already HAVE external links in the outside world. E.g., "Snow White" is linked to "Snow White and Rose Red", etc.
Or possibly some of Zelazny's works could have links to others of his works in the same universe. The links are already present, but they are currently implicit rather than explicit. OTOH, building them in would require holding off selling each work independently until after they were all written. Not feasible.
Possibly they would be a good idea when collections of an author's works all set in the same universe are republished, but putting them in ahead of time is just not reasonable. It's not that it's not narratively appropriate, it's that the whole piece isn't created at the same time.
Revolutions rarely make things better. Often not even for the successful revolutionaries.
Somebody once said "Revolutionaries are dead men on furlogh." They'd better realize this, because even if they win, they're likely to lose. Revolutionaries NEVER live up to their pre-revolution promises. Often they can't. But disappointed people who have seen that revolution is possible, and who already feel their situation is nearly as bad as it can get are hard to control. Being reasonable is not an option. And after a revolution you can be guaranteed that most of the populace will be disappointed. Either they supported the old government, or they were relying on the pre-revolution promises.
This is why we need three things done to make the USA more business friendly:
1) Review EVERY business regulation "on the books" as US Federal law and see if any of them need to be phased out due to the law being obsolete or unneeded.
OK. I'm in favor of every law having an expiration date. If a law isn't worth passing every 20 years, it's not worth having.
2) Drastically overhaul the income tax code to reduce yearly compliance costs and encourage way more savings and capital investment in the USA. I'd recommend going with the no-loophole 17% flat tax that Steve Forbes proposed back in 1996--a tax system if implemented would send the US economy into the stratosphere within 18 months because it would make the USA one of the world's most friendly places to do business from a tax regulation perspective.
OK. I'm in favor of a y = mx + b tax plan myself. But one needs to include b as well a m. I don't know whether 17% is the correct value for m, but b should be, at most, the negative of the official poverty level.
3) Severely reign in Wall Street by tightening liquidity requirements for investments, increasing the minimum margin requirements for futures trading to 20%, re-impose the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, and requiring the President, members of the Cabinet, members of Congress or any judge in the US Appeals Court system or the Supreme Court to put into a "blind and dumb" trust all stock and bond holdings or must sell them off. That way, Washington, DC is far less influenced by self interest of stock and bond holdings.
One thing that's needed is a per transaction tax. Preferably one that decreases more the longer you hold the stock. Something like a tax that is linear between a 100% tax for stocks that are held for less than 1 second to a 0% tax for stocks that are held for longer than 10 years. Most of the rest of these proposals sound reasonable, though I'll admit that on some of them I don't hold a definite opinion. But hyperfast trading needs to be killed, and fast trading needs to be drastically slowed down. (Not that you shouldn't be able to do so if you need to, but a tax penalty seems a reasonable compromise.)
I wish his actions didn't lend credence to your paranoia. I'll agree that that is not an unlikely outcome, but I really doubt that that's his intention. I believe his intentions are more short range and less idealistic.
Yes, if you host at a (physical) site that is shared with someone they are interested in.
P.S.: While hosting only original content is a legitimate defense, you can only USE the defense after you've already been taken down. Either you didn't bother to read, or you're a troll. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Actually, if you ignore copyrights, the history is *generally* that the Republicans pass laws that are the enemy of freedom, and the Democrats implement them. You can, of course, find exceptions, but that's how it usually works. You won't find the Democrats acting to repeal the laws that they denounced when the Republican administration passed them, but quite often the passing of a law raises so much anger, that it is left to the next administration to actually start using it.
One mistake you've made is blaming the GOP, when the Democrats have been at least equally culpable. When it comes to offensive copyright laws, the Democrats have been much more culpable. The GOP are more generally in favor of those who are wealthy, the Democrats (currently) have a narrower base of extremely wealthy people that they support. Neither party is interested in the weal of the electorate.
Do you *ever* follow one of those stories? Even one of the high profile ones, where there is live footage of the assault? A policeman shot a guy after he'd forced him to lie down on the floor, the guy died, the policeman got a month off.
I suppose that sometimes there is a policeman who is punished as the law would require of a normal person, but I haven't run across a report of such an instance. The absolure *worst* I've ever heard of happening is that the policeman was fired. A couple of years later. (In that instance he was hired by someone else almost immediately.)
If the value of something depends on government action, or governmental granted monopolies, then don't talk about it being unfair for the government to "steal" it. Unless you enjoy looking like a hypocrit.
The squib said that the new laws were written in consultation with insurance companies, as well as with Google. Be interesting to see what they came up with.
Not really. The starter crank only impacts driving before you get behind the wheel. If you don't have a manual choke, I don't think you can have a manual crank.
OTOH: People who claim that they are just as safe when they divide their attention are telling me that they are never safe.
FWIW: I don't think that humans have any business operating a heavy machine that moves at more that about 25 MPH. After that you outrun your reaction time. (And even 25 MPH is stretching it.) But some people are safer drivers than others...those who are careful to keep a large distance from the car ahead of them. They are also routinely hated by the drivers behind them, even though they are moving at the average traffic speed, because they can *SEE* that there's empty space in front of them.
I am quite convinced that any moderately capable robot would be a safer driver than 90+% of the drivers on the road today. If you say "what would they do about x dangerous situation?" my answer would be "They'll try to avoid it, or slow down." This is made easier because different senses can make things like black ice or puddles of water obvious rather than invisible.
That said, I'm not sure that current robotic drivers are "moderately capable". But the only way to find out is to try.
Holographic memory is capacious enough, but it's SLOW. And nobody's come up with a way to make it cheaply. (Much less to make it Read/Write & cheaply.)
FWIW, it wasn't a study, it was an off the cuff statement by some major wheel at IBM. (I'm not sure it was Watson.) At the time it was a true statement. It didn't stay true.
There *is* actual historical evidence, even though I don't have it. But googling for '"only 6 computers" IBM' yielded among other links: History of Computing timeline | Timetoast timelines www.timetoast.com/timelines/33262 03/01/1939, IBM sponsors an engineer, Howard Aiken, tried to intergrate 73 IBM... Aiken thought that only 6 computers would be needed to satisfy the...
E.g., the hospital I was born in no longer exists. Originally they kept the birth records, but now those have been transferred to the City, or possibly the County. But if I were 50 years older, and the hospital closed at the same number of years after my birth, the records might well have gotten lost.
2014 - 114 = 1900, so the people we're talking about were born in the late 1890's. There have been fires, floods, earthquakes, wars and bankruptcies in the intervening time, all of which can cause records to be lost. And I'm not certain that our records preservation has gotten any better. More centralized, but that just means that one big disaster can cause a greater data loss. With good backups, you need multiple accidents, which decreases the chance of an occurance, but the increasing centralization means that any such event will have a much larger spread of loss of information. And backups are often not well maintained. (What backups to you have from even 20 years ago?)
The article also said that it worked extremely rapidly. In this case I'd play safe and use half the recommended dosage for cancer. This would probably act more slowly, but it would minimize the side effects, and it's not like beta-amyloid plaques are going to evolve resistance.
Since the plaques build up very slowly, clearing them away slowly is probably safer than trying to remove them all quickly.
This drug is currently used as a cancer treatment. So I don't think you need to worry about "brain hemmoraging", etc. But mice do have a slightly different hormonal system, so it's not guaranteed that something that works in mice will work in people. (E.g., it might be degraded too soon to do the job. Or maybe it can't get throught the blood/brain barrier.) But there's a reasonable chance.
Generally the easiest way to control those side effects if by decreasing the doseage. I see no reason to believe that the optimal dose for Alzheimers would be the same as for cancer. I'd give reasonable odds that the dosage would be substantially lower. And from the report on the mice it might not be a medicine that's continually needed. If it clears away the plaques, then you might not need to continue to take it. Or might be able to get by with a SUBSTANTAILLY reduced dosage.
The nice thing is that it's a drug that's already approved for use in humans. So the testing required to get it approved for the new use would be quite a bit less. And doctors are already allowed to prescribe for "off label usage" (but the insurance company might not pay).
IIRC, you need to speak Norwegian to be considered for immigration. Not the most unreasonable of requirements, but too high a bar for some. You may also need to be under 30 or 35, so don't delay too long. (OTOH, it's been a long time since I last checked, so my memories may be faulty, or things may have changed. Check it out yourself if you're serious.)
If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine.
The first sentence I agree. To the second: "Thou shalt not murder." is religious doctrine too, should schools which teach tolerance be held to the same scrutiny (after all the religion(s) which teach this and instilled this message in present society were around much longer than the "non-religious" organizations who make use of these morals)?
Just matching a religious doctrine doesn't mean that something is being taught as a religious doctrine. Not murdering people is generally accepted as a good rule of civil behavior no matter what the relition. And in most places it's "the law of the land". You don't need to teach it as a religious doctrine to teach it. Teaching something or refusing to teach something or performing some act or refusing to perform some act because of religious doctrine should disqualify one from accepting taxation benefits or governmental grants. (Note that this isn't the same as forbidding that it be taught. Just "You don't get any special priviledges for practicing your religion.".)
That's a valid point, but it is, as you say, a different one. That doesn't constitute censorship in a normal meaning of the word. Abusive monopoly, perhaps.
If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine. Therefore a school that does that should be taxed at the same rate as, say, a movie theater or delicatessen. (Granted those are probably different tax rates...taxes are complex and vary wildly by locality. Schools, however, are generally granted a specially favorable tax rate.)
P.S.: I didn't mean to single out Catholic organizations more than other religious organizations, but the article was about a Catholic organization. I would have the same opinion of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Hindu, Moslem, or Pagan organizations. But it is true that the major religions, especially including Catholics, have taken much more advantage of taxation relief than more minor religions typically have.
That's not the problem. If they were censoring based on usage, or even arbitrarily, there wouldn't be an issue.
The issue is that they appear to be censoring based on political considerations (i.e., somebody was criticizing the university over the decision to raise tuition). This makes it appear, to me, to be illegal censorship. Not that I think anyone will prosecute them for it, but someone SHOULD. I'm not sure who would have standing, but whether it's a student (or their parents, i.e. funding source) or the DA I think it quite unlikely that the prosecution will happen. In the first case it's too expensive in both money and time, and in the second place, he's not interested in getting the state political structure angry with him.
N.B.: Many people say "What about spam filters?". My position is that they should be optional. I, personally, wouldn't trust an organization that had as much control over me as universities have over their students to decide what was and what was not spam.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference I'm seeing in our viewpoints is that you are thinking of hyperlinks as a reference mode, which works, but isn't literature.
It's a reasonable response to what I said, but thinking more my thoughts diverged away from that reference use to a literary use. An example might be telling "The Song of Ruth" from the king's point of view, with hyperlinks allowing one to change the point of view whenever both Ruth and the king were in the same scene. This becomes reasonable in that "The Song of Ruth" is already well known, so the amount of additional work required would be minimal, and the cognitive load on the reader would also be manageable.
Literature is not inherently one-dimensional. It's just almost always presented that way for many very good reasons. Economy of effort is one of those.
Consider, I believe it was, Rashomon. The same event cycle was repeated as seen though the eyes of several different characters. Quite effective. Definitely literature. Extremely difficult to do.
Whenever several narratives take place in the same "world", and interact, then each thread can be handled separately, yet it still makes sense to link them at the points of interactions. The link would involve seeing a single event through one character, switching over to seeing it through another character, and then continuing with the second character. This will usually be weaker unless the various narrative threads have previously been followed separately. So it would require more investment by the reader as well as by the author. Both of which are reasons why it is rarely done.
The only example of a literary work that I think might be improved by hypertext is the Bible. Possibly there are other works of the same kind. Maybe "Grimms Fairy Tales". Basicly collections of well known stories that already HAVE external links in the outside world. E.g., "Snow White" is linked to "Snow White and Rose Red", etc.
Or possibly some of Zelazny's works could have links to others of his works in the same universe. The links are already present, but they are currently implicit rather than explicit. OTOH, building them in would require holding off selling each work independently until after they were all written. Not feasible.
Possibly they would be a good idea when collections of an author's works all set in the same universe are republished, but putting them in ahead of time is just not reasonable. It's not that it's not narratively appropriate, it's that the whole piece isn't created at the same time.
Revolutions rarely make things better. Often not even for the successful revolutionaries.
Somebody once said "Revolutionaries are dead men on furlogh." They'd better realize this, because even if they win, they're likely to lose. Revolutionaries NEVER live up to their pre-revolution promises. Often they can't. But disappointed people who have seen that revolution is possible, and who already feel their situation is nearly as bad as it can get are hard to control. Being reasonable is not an option. And after a revolution you can be guaranteed that most of the populace will be disappointed. Either they supported the old government, or they were relying on the pre-revolution promises.
This is why we need three things done to make the USA more business friendly:
1) Review EVERY business regulation "on the books" as US Federal law and see if any of them need to be phased out due to the law being obsolete or unneeded.
OK. I'm in favor of every law having an expiration date. If a law isn't worth passing every 20 years, it's not worth having.
2) Drastically overhaul the income tax code to reduce yearly compliance costs and encourage way more savings and capital investment in the USA. I'd recommend going with the no-loophole 17% flat tax that Steve Forbes proposed back in 1996--a tax system if implemented would send the US economy into the stratosphere within 18 months because it would make the USA one of the world's most friendly places to do business from a tax regulation perspective.
OK. I'm in favor of a y = mx + b tax plan myself. But one needs to include b as well a m. I don't know whether 17% is the correct value for m, but b should be, at most, the negative of the official poverty level.
3) Severely reign in Wall Street by tightening liquidity requirements for investments, increasing the minimum margin requirements for futures trading to 20%, re-impose the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, and requiring the President, members of the Cabinet, members of Congress or any judge in the US Appeals Court system or the Supreme Court to put into a "blind and dumb" trust all stock and bond holdings or must sell them off. That way, Washington, DC is far less influenced by self interest of stock and bond holdings.
One thing that's needed is a per transaction tax. Preferably one that decreases more the longer you hold the stock. Something like a tax that is linear between a 100% tax for stocks that are held for less than 1 second to a 0% tax for stocks that are held for longer than 10 years. Most of the rest of these proposals sound reasonable, though I'll admit that on some of them I don't hold a definite opinion. But hyperfast trading needs to be killed, and fast trading needs to be drastically slowed down. (Not that you shouldn't be able to do so if you need to, but a tax penalty seems a reasonable compromise.)
I wish his actions didn't lend credence to your paranoia. I'll agree that that is not an unlikely outcome, but I really doubt that that's his intention. I believe his intentions are more short range and less idealistic.
Yes, if you host at a (physical) site that is shared with someone they are interested in.
P.S.: While hosting only original content is a legitimate defense, you can only USE the defense after you've already been taken down. Either you didn't bother to read, or you're a troll. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Actually, if you ignore copyrights, the history is *generally* that the Republicans pass laws that are the enemy of freedom, and the Democrats implement them. You can, of course, find exceptions, but that's how it usually works. You won't find the Democrats acting to repeal the laws that they denounced when the Republican administration passed them, but quite often the passing of a law raises so much anger, that it is left to the next administration to actually start using it.
One mistake you've made is blaming the GOP, when the Democrats have been at least equally culpable. When it comes to offensive copyright laws, the Democrats have been much more culpable. The GOP are more generally in favor of those who are wealthy, the Democrats (currently) have a narrower base of extremely wealthy people that they support. Neither party is interested in the weal of the electorate.
Do you *ever* follow one of those stories? Even one of the high profile ones, where there is live footage of the assault? A policeman shot a guy after he'd forced him to lie down on the floor, the guy died, the policeman got a month off.
I suppose that sometimes there is a policeman who is punished as the law would require of a normal person, but I haven't run across a report of such an instance. The absolure *worst* I've ever heard of happening is that the policeman was fired. A couple of years later. (In that instance he was hired by someone else almost immediately.)
If the value of something depends on government action, or governmental granted monopolies, then don't talk about it being unfair for the government to "steal" it. Unless you enjoy looking like a hypocrit.
The squib said that the new laws were written in consultation with insurance companies, as well as with Google. Be interesting to see what they came up with.
Not really. The starter crank only impacts driving before you get behind the wheel. If you don't have a manual choke, I don't think you can have a manual crank.
OTOH:
People who claim that they are just as safe when they divide their attention are telling me that they are never safe.
FWIW:
I don't think that humans have any business operating a heavy machine that moves at more that about 25 MPH. After that you outrun your reaction time. (And even 25 MPH is stretching it.) But some people are safer drivers than others...those who are careful to keep a large distance from the car ahead of them. They are also routinely hated by the drivers behind them, even though they are moving at the average traffic speed, because they can *SEE* that there's empty space in front of them.
I am quite convinced that any moderately capable robot would be a safer driver than 90+% of the drivers on the road today. If you say "what would they do about x dangerous situation?" my answer would be "They'll try to avoid it, or slow down." This is made easier because different senses can make things like black ice or puddles of water obvious rather than invisible.
That said, I'm not sure that current robotic drivers are "moderately capable". But the only way to find out is to try.
Holographic memory is capacious enough, but it's SLOW. And nobody's come up with a way to make it cheaply. (Much less to make it Read/Write & cheaply.)
FWIW, it wasn't a study, it was an off the cuff statement by some major wheel at IBM. (I'm not sure it was Watson.) At the time it was a true statement. It didn't stay true.
There *is* actual historical evidence, even though I don't have it. But googling for '"only 6 computers" IBM' yielded among other links: ... Aiken thought that only 6 computers would be needed to satisfy the ...
History of Computing timeline | Timetoast timelines
www.timetoast.com/timelines/33262
03/01/1939, IBM sponsors an engineer, Howard Aiken, tried to intergrate 73 IBM
However, that is also an expectable occurance.
E.g., the hospital I was born in no longer exists. Originally they kept the birth records, but now those have been transferred to the City, or possibly the County. But if I were 50 years older, and the hospital closed at the same number of years after my birth, the records might well have gotten lost.
2014 - 114 = 1900, so the people we're talking about were born in the late 1890's. There have been fires, floods, earthquakes, wars and bankruptcies in the intervening time, all of which can cause records to be lost. And I'm not certain that our records preservation has gotten any better. More centralized, but that just means that one big disaster can cause a greater data loss. With good backups, you need multiple accidents, which decreases the chance of an occurance, but the increasing centralization means that any such event will have a much larger spread of loss of information. And backups are often not well maintained. (What backups to you have from even 20 years ago?)
The article also said that it worked extremely rapidly. In this case I'd play safe and use half the recommended dosage for cancer. This would probably act more slowly, but it would minimize the side effects, and it's not like beta-amyloid plaques are going to evolve resistance.
Since the plaques build up very slowly, clearing them away slowly is probably safer than trying to remove them all quickly.
This drug is currently used as a cancer treatment. So I don't think you need to worry about "brain hemmoraging", etc. But mice do have a slightly different hormonal system, so it's not guaranteed that something that works in mice will work in people. (E.g., it might be degraded too soon to do the job. Or maybe it can't get throught the blood/brain barrier.) But there's a reasonable chance.
Generally the easiest way to control those side effects if by decreasing the doseage. I see no reason to believe that the optimal dose for Alzheimers would be the same as for cancer. I'd give reasonable odds that the dosage would be substantially lower. And from the report on the mice it might not be a medicine that's continually needed. If it clears away the plaques, then you might not need to continue to take it. Or might be able to get by with a SUBSTANTAILLY reduced dosage.
The nice thing is that it's a drug that's already approved for use in humans. So the testing required to get it approved for the new use would be quite a bit less. And doctors are already allowed to prescribe for "off label usage" (but the insurance company might not pay).
IIRC, you need to speak Norwegian to be considered for immigration. Not the most unreasonable of requirements, but too high a bar for some. You may also need to be under 30 or 35, so don't delay too long. (OTOH, it's been a long time since I last checked, so my memories may be faulty, or things may have changed. Check it out yourself if you're serious.)
If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine.
The first sentence I agree. To the second: "Thou shalt not murder." is religious doctrine too, should schools which teach tolerance be held to the same scrutiny (after all the religion(s) which teach this and instilled this message in present society were around much longer than the "non-religious" organizations who make use of these morals)?
Just matching a religious doctrine doesn't mean that something is being taught as a religious doctrine. Not murdering people is generally accepted as a good rule of civil behavior no matter what the relition. And in most places it's "the law of the land". You don't need to teach it as a religious doctrine to teach it. Teaching something or refusing to teach something or performing some act or refusing to perform some act because of religious doctrine should disqualify one from accepting taxation benefits or governmental grants. (Note that this isn't the same as forbidding that it be taught. Just "You don't get any special priviledges for practicing your religion.".)
That's a valid point, but it is, as you say, a different one. That doesn't constitute censorship in a normal meaning of the word. Abusive monopoly, perhaps.
If it's a school that teaches or promulgates religious doctrines, then it should not qualify for the same benefits as a school that doesn't. The refusal to teach or support birth control is in support of a religious doctrine. Therefore a school that does that should be taxed at the same rate as, say, a movie theater or delicatessen. (Granted those are probably different tax rates...taxes are complex and vary wildly by locality. Schools, however, are generally granted a specially favorable tax rate.)
P.S.: I didn't mean to single out Catholic organizations more than other religious organizations, but the article was about a Catholic organization. I would have the same opinion of Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon or Hindu, Moslem, or Pagan organizations. But it is true that the major religions, especially including Catholics, have taken much more advantage of taxation relief than more minor religions typically have.
That's not the problem. If they were censoring based on usage, or even arbitrarily, there wouldn't be an issue.
The issue is that they appear to be censoring based on political considerations (i.e., somebody was criticizing the university over the decision to raise tuition). This makes it appear, to me, to be illegal censorship. Not that I think anyone will prosecute them for it, but someone SHOULD. I'm not sure who would have standing, but whether it's a student (or their parents, i.e. funding source) or the DA I think it quite unlikely that the prosecution will happen. In the first case it's too expensive in both money and time, and in the second place, he's not interested in getting the state political structure angry with him.
N.B.: Many people say "What about spam filters?". My position is that they should be optional. I, personally, wouldn't trust an organization that had as much control over me as universities have over their students to decide what was and what was not spam.