Assign every content uploader to be the personal censor for a random other uploader. And then pick a third random uploader to be the metamoderator for the first censor. Shuffle every week. You can't upload if you haven't caught up on your backlog of reviewing and rejecting or approving whoever you're assigned to. Make the random assignments balanced -- people who upload lots of stuff are assigned other people who upload lots of stuff.
Calling it "irresponsible" crosses a line into moral judgement that I disagree with. It is clearly within the realm of debatable whether such content is harmful or not, and therefore should be allowed. It's up to the parents of kids to allow them to watch such content or not.
So we should add to the standard a clause that says "20 years before the new epoch, for one solid minute, all devices must send a junk packet that says: 'DOOM IS COMING! The 157 years are up! Read the spec to learn more!" Enough people will be frustrated by this failure that someone will dig into it and realize that they have 20 years to come up with a new version. With the computing power of 157 years from now, it should be easy... unless they're all watching cat videos.
There's no reason it has to end VOIP systems. We'd just need a way for a VOIP system to register the IP address with the phone company when it makes the phone call and some sort of authentication to say, "Yes, I'm me, so let my phone number appear for people who receive this call." It just has to be built into the protocol.
There's a principle called "in loco parentis" in US law that says, yes, schools do have exactly the right to limit student communications. It's why schools can have things like detention. In most US states, they have rights to do most of what a parent could do (most limits are on physical punishments). The Supreme Court has ruled explicitly on the ability to limit the First Amendment rights of students -- the school has to have strong reason to do so, but it can be done, and speech that disrupts the classroom is acceptable reason.
"You wrote it you own it" works great until the first person leaves the company, and gets doubly bad when there's a hiring freeze. Or when you pass the five-year mark and you can't add any more features because you're permanently tagged to own the backlog of feature requests and bug fixes and OS updates for the features you already wrote. That encourages people to quit just to get away from their past history. In my observation, it's far better to go with "your team wrote it, your team owns it."
He does have bots -- bots he developed. But he also writes complete articles. You can go to Wikipedia and look up the edits he made this week. It's remarkable.
You should come to SxSW in Austin and hear about the unifying power of the Internet. Wikipedia definitely makes hippies swoon! Still, you make a good point... we should all chip in to buy this guy a nifty robe!
Google was barely around for the Mickey Mouse copyright extension of 1998*. That was all Disney, not Google. Google has pushed for lots of widening of fair use law (like the ability to quote web pages as part of search results), but hasn't gotten a whole lot of budge.
* Google was founded in Sept 1998. I'm not sure exactly what month the extension passed Congress, but I guarantee Google didn't have a seat at the table back then.
I'm pretty sure that was Cornelius Vanderbilt's strategy with railroads in the early 20th century. I think the anti-monopoly laws of the era have some provision for dealing with it because control of the transport network (equivalent of the info network today) was a key strategy.
a) The majority of Oklahomans are not Native Americans.
b) The Native American reservations aren't part of Oklahoma, so, technically, Ratzo's comments about Oklahoma would leave them out. That would leave out a large percentage of the Native American population. In short, Ratzo is being derisively stereotypical only against Oklahomans, not Native Americans specifically. His comments are still hateful toward a group of people generically cast but not racism specifically. But we could charitably read the comments as being about the government of Oklahoma specifically, and in that light, deriding the government is an American birthright.
Untrue. Any coherent stream of photons is a laser, and that can be made very sparse. All a laser means is that the photons are flowing in a way that does not make them disperse.
Bingo. This is what I meant above when I said I think most people do care about privacy but they don't understand how information works. I've heard arguments that go like this, "I gave the credit card company my address, and I gave the store my list of items to purchase, but I never gave anyone both my address and my list of items, so I don't know how someone figured out that I should get these coupons." Correlation and aggregation of data just doesn't mentally occur as a possibility to a wide swath of the populace, it seems to me.
I don't think that's the case. Most people care. They just don't realize what actions they take have the potential to leak. People commonly make the most absurd statements about how they think information on the Internet works.
Historically, true. Does that necessarily have to be the case going forward? As tech increases the ability of one person to control power, do we reach a tipping point where rebellion becomes impossible? For example, one person could command a fleet of drones to hold a whole population hostage. That's a big departure from any historical model.
What if the technology goes beyond what is imagined in 1984 and allows the state to operate without needing to lie? Suppose they admit, "Life is shitty. Suck it up," and the populace still cannot rebel no matter how unsatisfied they become with the status quo? There's a concept of a "water empire" that is basically impossible to rebel against. I worry that China can use technology to make a similar system work ubiquitously. Obviously, no way to test my hypothesis, but it's something to think about.
That's always been a concern of mine: that the Orwellian model is more economically viable and therefore will out-compete the individualist model. If one country goes down the road of being sufficiently in control of its people that it has a literal command economy to go after any niche it needs to go after, it's hard to see how the reactive model of US/Western capitalism competes.
If you want people to actually see it, you need to upload it to the site that people are going to visit. The vast majority of the world isn't going to even know that alternative sites exist, much less check them while they're navigating around. Unless Google is pulling from those databases whenever it doesn't have images of its own, the data needs to be put into Google. You could upload it to multiple sites, but Google needs to be in the mix for it to be useful to most people.
Slashdot Mirror
We are talking about unboxing videos and excess consumption in this fork, not gymnastics.
Assign every content uploader to be the personal censor for a random other uploader. And then pick a third random uploader to be the metamoderator for the first censor. Shuffle every week. You can't upload if you haven't caught up on your backlog of reviewing and rejecting or approving whoever you're assigned to. Make the random assignments balanced -- people who upload lots of stuff are assigned other people who upload lots of stuff.
Calling it "irresponsible" crosses a line into moral judgement that I disagree with. It is clearly within the realm of debatable whether such content is harmful or not, and therefore should be allowed. It's up to the parents of kids to allow them to watch such content or not.
So we should add to the standard a clause that says "20 years before the new epoch, for one solid minute, all devices must send a junk packet that says: 'DOOM IS COMING! The 157 years are up! Read the spec to learn more!" Enough people will be frustrated by this failure that someone will dig into it and realize that they have 20 years to come up with a new version. With the computing power of 157 years from now, it should be easy... unless they're all watching cat videos.
There's no reason it has to end VOIP systems. We'd just need a way for a VOIP system to register the IP address with the phone company when it makes the phone call and some sort of authentication to say, "Yes, I'm me, so let my phone number appear for people who receive this call." It just has to be built into the protocol.
There's a principle called "in loco parentis" in US law that says, yes, schools do have exactly the right to limit student communications. It's why schools can have things like detention. In most US states, they have rights to do most of what a parent could do (most limits are on physical punishments). The Supreme Court has ruled explicitly on the ability to limit the First Amendment rights of students -- the school has to have strong reason to do so, but it can be done, and speech that disrupts the classroom is acceptable reason.
Modern schools often do not have lockers (citation).
But maybe the site does not *boast* about those foreign language articles?
;-)
"You wrote it you own it" works great until the first person leaves the company, and gets doubly bad when there's a hiring freeze. Or when you pass the five-year mark and you can't add any more features because you're permanently tagged to own the backlog of feature requests and bug fixes and OS updates for the features you already wrote. That encourages people to quit just to get away from their past history. In my observation, it's far better to go with "your team wrote it, your team owns it."
He does have bots -- bots he developed. But he also writes complete articles. You can go to Wikipedia and look up the edits he made this week. It's remarkable.
You should come to SxSW in Austin and hear about the unifying power of the Internet. Wikipedia definitely makes hippies swoon!
Still, you make a good point... we should all chip in to buy this guy a nifty robe!
Patents and patent offices predate the United States by many years.
Google was barely around for the Mickey Mouse copyright extension of 1998*. That was all Disney, not Google. Google has pushed for lots of widening of fair use law (like the ability to quote web pages as part of search results), but hasn't gotten a whole lot of budge.
* Google was founded in Sept 1998. I'm not sure exactly what month the extension passed Congress, but I guarantee Google didn't have a seat at the table back then.
The point of cutting off the beast is to learn how far the tentacles reach.
I'm pretty sure that was Cornelius Vanderbilt's strategy with railroads in the early 20th century. I think the anti-monopoly laws of the era have some provision for dealing with it because control of the transport network (equivalent of the info network today) was a key strategy.
a) The majority of Oklahomans are not Native Americans.
b) The Native American reservations aren't part of Oklahoma, so, technically, Ratzo's comments about Oklahoma would leave them out. That would leave out a large percentage of the Native American population.
In short, Ratzo is being derisively stereotypical only against Oklahomans, not Native Americans specifically. His comments are still hateful toward a group of people generically cast but not racism specifically. But we could charitably read the comments as being about the government of Oklahoma specifically, and in that light, deriding the government is an American birthright.
Untrue. Any coherent stream of photons is a laser, and that can be made very sparse. All a laser means is that the photons are flowing in a way that does not make them disperse.
Bingo. This is what I meant above when I said I think most people do care about privacy but they don't understand how information works. I've heard arguments that go like this, "I gave the credit card company my address, and I gave the store my list of items to purchase, but I never gave anyone both my address and my list of items, so I don't know how someone figured out that I should get these coupons." Correlation and aggregation of data just doesn't mentally occur as a possibility to a wide swath of the populace, it seems to me.
I don't think that's the case. Most people care. They just don't realize what actions they take have the potential to leak. People commonly make the most absurd statements about how they think information on the Internet works.
Historically, true. Does that necessarily have to be the case going forward? As tech increases the ability of one person to control power, do we reach a tipping point where rebellion becomes impossible? For example, one person could command a fleet of drones to hold a whole population hostage. That's a big departure from any historical model.
What if the technology goes beyond what is imagined in 1984 and allows the state to operate without needing to lie? Suppose they admit, "Life is shitty. Suck it up," and the populace still cannot rebel no matter how unsatisfied they become with the status quo? There's a concept of a "water empire" that is basically impossible to rebel against. I worry that China can use technology to make a similar system work ubiquitously. Obviously, no way to test my hypothesis, but it's something to think about.
That's always been a concern of mine: that the Orwellian model is more economically viable and therefore will out-compete the individualist model. If one country goes down the road of being sufficiently in control of its people that it has a literal command economy to go after any niche it needs to go after, it's hard to see how the reactive model of US/Western capitalism competes.
As I said in my final sentence earlier: "You could upload it to multiple sites..."
If you want people to actually see it, you need to upload it to the site that people are going to visit. The vast majority of the world isn't going to even know that alternative sites exist, much less check them while they're navigating around. Unless Google is pulling from those databases whenever it doesn't have images of its own, the data needs to be put into Google. You could upload it to multiple sites, but Google needs to be in the mix for it to be useful to most people.
Thank you! Useful link!