This may be a bit off-topic,but I think a broader point can actually be extrapolated from this.
It is always more important to look at the ideas of someone for their own value rather than because of who said them. Although Goddard may have been a racist, the ideas he influenced are pivotal because of their own power, not because of anything he believed in.
It's a big thing these days to believe in someone because of the ideas they espouse, rather than examining the idea on its own merits.
The danger in this works the other way, when you despise someone for who they are rather than their ideas. For instance, many people villify Nazi Germany without fully understanding the ideas that shaped what happened. And in demonising the individuals involved, they lose the chance to learn from it.
Many studies have shown (the Electric Shock experiment etc etc) that any and all of the acts committed during the holocaust would be performed by 90% of the population in any "civilised" country. The assumption that such things happened in Nazi Germany because the people were "Nazi's" is dangerously erroneous. They happened because people like to conform when someone in authority tells them it's ok. And this assumption is mirrored in minimising any valuable or useful ideas introduced by someone whose values are twisted.
A good idea is a good idea regardless of who thinks of it, and the same with bad ideas.
We were actually given this problem in school when I was about 8. I had a maths teacher who liked to try and make us break a few limits. Needless to say, none of us figured it out, but it reassures me to know that there are at least some teachers who don't just force kids to rote learn.
Now, if only the rest of my teachers had managed to keep that kind of attitude.
In the global arms trade, there are various classifications made according to whether a certain piece of weaponry is "dual-use" i.e. whether it can be used for something other than killing. It in no way requires that the said piece of weaponry ever __is__ used for another purpose.
My point was in reply to someone asserting that stupid lawsuits are the fault of the plaintiff, not the lawyer themselves.
And of course they want their services used, but my main focus was the fact that they are also defining the way they are used. Lawyers could still make a living very easily without preforming such silly actions, and by taking other cases. Indeed, if they did not take such cases, no one would ask.
And I was wondering for at least 30 seconds why you had a sentence saying simply "The Motion Picture Ass.":) THat'll teach me to skim read.
mick
A tool is not void of responsibility for its use
on
Suing Over... Fans?
·
· Score: 1
Obviously, the law suits would not exist without the business CEO's deciding to start one. However, the methodologies, culture, and tradition of business within the legal profession only encourages such actions to be taken.
If lawyers didn't accept such silly cases, then the CEO's wouldn't think it was possible to try them.
Well, at least it would put an end to the court of Appeal.
Personally, I think clubs aren't quite the way to go. The arguments would just be heavy and blunt. Now with swords, you have the cut and thrust of debate, the deadly riposte, the parry, the defensive stance etc.
I agree with your point that Lessig is merely pessimistic rather than anti-freedom.
However, I do disagree with your (implied) agreement with his belief in the lesser evil of government regulation over corporatisation.
While the Internet does not (AFAIK:)) have any mystical powers to protect online rights, the collective behaviour of the online community can act on its behalf against the DoubleClicks of the world.
I find it hardly credible that the net as a medium with amazing fluidity and adaptability will be easily controllable by the corporate giants of this world.
mick
As someone who does a bit of Natural Language processing, you would not need to tune it to your particular voice, and I suspect the game makers haven't. It would presumably work on particular commands and a limited speech interpreter, as the problem of getting something to actually understand english is far beyond the scope of a game. Even Star Trek. However, a list of up to 50 or 60 commands done on keywords would be relatively simple to implement with current methods, and (I would say) pretty useful
I've actually worked in telemarketing The only way you ever take someone's name off (for any type of financial telemarketing) is if they are a pensioner i.e. we couldn't sell them anything. In addition, if we determined from a few houses that this was a low income area we would write that down. So if you don't want to be rung, tell them you're 80 with no money. However, since the CD's with everyones phone numbers on them are sold from company to company, only one company will ever cross you off their list.
The essential thing about the internet medium has very little to do with the PC in its current form. THe capability of hardware to deliver information to our mental processes in one form or another pales in comparison with the widespread and volatile nature of the medium. The net is not: - regulated by the requirements of publishing machinery and delivery deadlines: papers / journals updated at irregular intervals are possible. - of necessity funded via advertising and editiorial content regulation. The current lack of oligopoly (Microsoft-haters settle...) across the actual net rather than the mainstream distribution gives far more freedom of publishing. This whole process demonstrates the ridiculousness of attempting to transfer a process designed for another media. It's like saying, hmm, lets design horseshoes for working in the ocean and then realising that all the horses are drowning. The current application is defined by its medium
Instead of investing in destructive methods to show underfunded school administrators what they already know, or ignoring the problem because it's considered 'bickering and complaining' consider the benefits inherent in assisting the CS department / administrators with transitions to linux. Admittedly, most of them will be about as experienced as blind person learning to touch type, and possibly unwilling to give any form of privileges to anyone still in the school system. But as a possible approach, suggest that instead of learning how to use Microsoft Word for the 99th time you spend your time converting just one of the computers into a linux box. Even a simple one. Then you demonstrate to them: 1) your ability 2) Your responsibility 3) The fact that you dislike the workload. This should get you somewhere
Slashdot Mirror
Operator: I have a collect call from Bob I'm-at-23.494923N-82.293823W-3042.4293-feet-below- sea-level, will you accept charges?
Cuba is 3000 feet below sea level?
Maybe they decided to take over Holland.
This may be a bit off-topic,but I think a broader point can actually be extrapolated from this.
It is always more important to look at the ideas of someone for their own value rather than because of who said them. Although Goddard may have been a racist, the ideas he influenced are pivotal because of their own power, not because of anything he believed in.
It's a big thing these days to believe in someone because of the ideas they espouse, rather than examining the idea on its own merits.
The danger in this works the other way, when you despise someone for who they are rather than their ideas. For instance, many people villify Nazi Germany without fully understanding the ideas that shaped what happened. And in demonising the individuals involved, they lose the chance to learn from it.
Many studies have shown (the Electric Shock experiment etc etc) that any and all of the acts committed during the holocaust would be performed by 90% of the population in any "civilised" country. The assumption that such things happened in Nazi Germany because the people were "Nazi's" is dangerously erroneous. They happened because people like to conform when someone in authority tells them it's ok. And this assumption is mirrored in minimising any valuable or useful ideas introduced by someone whose values are twisted.
A good idea is a good idea regardless of who thinks of it, and the same with bad ideas.
mick
We were actually given this problem in school when I was about 8. I had a maths teacher who liked to try and make us break a few limits. Needless to say, none of us figured it out, but it reassures me to know that there are at least some teachers who don't just force kids to rote learn.
Now, if only the rest of my teachers had managed to keep that kind of attitude.
mick
Just as a comparison
In the global arms trade, there are various classifications made according to whether a certain piece of weaponry is "dual-use" i.e. whether it can be used for something other than killing. It in no way requires that the said piece of weaponry ever __is__ used for another purpose.
This affects bans, import restrictions etc.
mick
My point was in reply to someone asserting that stupid lawsuits are the fault of the plaintiff, not the lawyer themselves.
:) THat'll teach me to skim read.
And of course they want their services used, but my main focus was the fact that they are also defining the way they are used. Lawyers could still make a living very easily without preforming such silly actions, and by taking other cases. Indeed, if they did not take such cases, no one would ask.
And I was wondering for at least 30 seconds why you had a sentence saying simply "The Motion Picture Ass."
mick
Obviously, the law suits would not exist without the business CEO's deciding to start one. However, the methodologies, culture, and tradition of business within the legal profession only encourages such actions to be taken. If lawyers didn't accept such silly cases, then the CEO's wouldn't think it was possible to try them.
>> The point being, of course, is to thin their numbers.
I don't suppose we could make elections work the same way? Though that is really just going back a few centuries.
>> It can't be any worse than it is now.
What, the legal system or the WWWF?
Well, at least it would put an end to the court of Appeal.
Personally, I think clubs aren't quite the way to go. The arguments would just be heavy and blunt. Now with swords, you have the cut and thrust of debate, the deadly riposte, the parry, the defensive stance etc.
mick
I agree with your point that Lessig is merely pessimistic rather than anti-freedom. However, I do disagree with your (implied) agreement with his belief in the lesser evil of government regulation over corporatisation. While the Internet does not (AFAIK :)) have any mystical powers to protect online rights, the collective behaviour of the online community can act on its behalf against the DoubleClicks of the world.
I find it hardly credible that the net as a medium with amazing fluidity and adaptability will be easily controllable by the corporate giants of this world.
mick
So more intelligent than you then...
I think the most important thing is whether they can tip themselves all over the floor for people to tread on in the dark.
Yeah, by the cool lego people themselves.
As someone who does a bit of Natural Language processing, you would not need to tune it to your particular voice, and I suspect the game makers haven't. It would presumably work on particular commands and a limited speech interpreter, as the problem of getting something to actually understand english is far beyond the scope of a game. Even Star Trek. However, a list of up to 50 or 60 commands done on keywords would be relatively simple to implement with current methods, and (I would say) pretty useful
I've actually worked in telemarketing The only way you ever take someone's name off (for any type of financial telemarketing) is if they are a pensioner i.e. we couldn't sell them anything. In addition, if we determined from a few houses that this was a low income area we would write that down. So if you don't want to be rung, tell them you're 80 with no money. However, since the CD's with everyones phone numbers on them are sold from company to company, only one company will ever cross you off their list.
The essential thing about the internet medium has very little to do with the PC in its current form. THe capability of hardware to deliver information to our mental processes in one form or another pales in comparison with the widespread and volatile nature of the medium. The net is not: - regulated by the requirements of publishing machinery and delivery deadlines: papers / journals updated at irregular intervals are possible. - of necessity funded via advertising and editiorial content regulation. The current lack of oligopoly (Microsoft-haters settle...) across the actual net rather than the mainstream distribution gives far more freedom of publishing. This whole process demonstrates the ridiculousness of attempting to transfer a process designed for another media. It's like saying, hmm, lets design horseshoes for working in the ocean and then realising that all the horses are drowning. The current application is defined by its medium
Instead of investing in destructive methods to show underfunded school administrators what they already know, or ignoring the problem because it's considered 'bickering and complaining' consider the benefits inherent in assisting the CS department / administrators with transitions to linux. Admittedly, most of them will be about as experienced as blind person learning to touch type, and possibly unwilling to give any form of privileges to anyone still in the school system. But as a possible approach, suggest that instead of learning how to use Microsoft Word for the 99th time you spend your time converting just one of the computers into a linux box. Even a simple one. Then you demonstrate to them: 1) your ability 2) Your responsibility 3) The fact that you dislike the workload. This should get you somewhere