Give schools the job to give you an "alround intellectual maturity" and how will they fill it in? With vague specs like these you can't have a good product:).
You need specs because a lot of arguments for learning are indirect: you learn through spinoff.
Pupils pass math exams. This proves that they learn how to think. Does it not? There are long arguments. The proof should be in the cake.
We also need tight specs because any program can be immune to (negative) critique, claiming the program was right but it got implemented wrong (or the students aren't up to it). And so they need more money.
Here is an example of good specs:
Effective thinking. Check the list. Full of things people should have learned at college, but did not.
So I wait for the rest.
Since the pros and cons have had a lot of attention, just adding,organising, boiling down could conclude the parts a and b(b too?).
Normally , to advance from there, you'd try out alternatives,different approaches, see where it takes you:
1. trade. there are many aspects of freedom of speech to protect. In general terms, part of these probably have been surrendered. Maybe there could be a deal "look, this here thing helps little in tracking terrorists, but we 'd like to have it back. We can switch. how hard do you want to take this encryption freedom from us".
If some agency says, "we want as much access as we can get. We'll see later what we can do with it", then they're being a bit inconsiderate.
If they have to trade for it, they have to think twice, is it really going to make a big difference? "You can pick 3 rights. Nothing else. the rest you have to give back"
2. Place a cost on decrypting. You want to decrypt, ok, costs you so much for each mail. You still want to do that? Which ones? there's a nice little hook to this.
3. reciprocity people-FBI. "Ok, you can get more access to people's data. But they have earlier/more access to what you do".
4. shift focus on what government is allowed to do with that info. Aah, you can't use this little bit of data , can you:) Because you got it through a decrypted mail.
Well, it's a first scan. raw material, nothing usable "as is". But already gives me inspiration for more
I try to make some additional versions(just trying, building on earlier thoughts)
1. distributed conspiracy: There is no central committee that knows the exact truth and creates the myths. Instead there are many distributed committees. And when they communicate, some myths actually get accepted by other committees. So the committees have less myths than 'normal' people, but they're stuck with them as well.
2. open but demanding conspiracy : the easily accessible stories are the most distorted myths.
With effort you can get to less distorted myths
The truth is accessible in principle, but requires effort. Which most people don't have time for- or ability. So there is "Free Kuwait", "get rid of Saddam" and "avoid all oil getting controlled by one agent(that's how Powell described it)".
3. bottom up conspiracy: people on top are required to adapt the myths that are constructed at the bottom. That would be like , it's hard to escape from your culture
When people on our side die, the "terrorists" cause the "murder of innocent, men, women and children". Fine, this is accurate. However, when we do start beating up on Afghanistan. "Military commanders" will replace "terrorists" and "inevitable collateral damage during surgical strikes" will replace "bombing civilans". It's very difficult to reason about something when the terms are properly loaded.
it is difficult indeed(grin).
The side you are on is still all over the place. Use "undercover agents" instead of terrorists.
"Killed" instead of murdered. and what's the "innocent" about? Trying to raise support or something?
And "children". Could be, did not know. Is it confirmed? You're not doing that to add emotion?
An objective report is an objective report. An emotional reaction and judgement is another. You can have both, but in your "accurate description" one masquerades as another.
Fanatical assholes? Wait, don't tell me. You're from the other side, right?
I'm afraid I'm attacking sb on his examples now. Sorry. Maybe you're just trying to be nice(and i'm not). It proves your point though: hard to escape from the load of the words.
At mediadishonesty.com there is a media dishonesty rating system. See the link standard dishonesty rating system. As a rating system it is insightful and tough. The author claims a score of 30 bad points is reasonable.
In general i think most press dishonesty is in pursuit of the aim to be more interesting. That's the main selling value. Political agendas are much less important to press than most people think.
Useful moderation system for Slashdot? Very valuable, yes. Question is how. Too heavy for full use.
If there was a rich and userfriendly resource accompanying legal issues, would it be used by anyone?
I don't know,by some i guess, but anyway it leads to the idea of
adding a 'summary posting' towards the end of a discussion(or summarizing part of a tree).
Easy availability of discussion points (lists)could make a difference. I imagine journalists would check them out, at least when an item is relevant to them.
Several people could create their own version of the summary.
I don't think this idea makes sense because I don't think Slashdot has ever had a single coherent voice Ok. So. What can you do if there is no single voice.
Slashdot is a pool. You can recruit people from it for actions(not under slashdot banner evidently).
Suppose : article->discussion->proposal->discussion ->join lobbygroup, workgroup, actiongroup.
From the discussion you can get an idea if there is a lot of opposition.
People who say "it won't work" or "I don't care" are not necessarily opposition. There may be some possibilities.
The biggest challenge?
suppose some young, fairly intelligent lads with big egos. A rich pool of minds.
They will try to be interesting and show that they're smart.
Proposals are met with clever critique, telling you why it won't work. Commentatorship.
A lot of inflated emotional reactions(indignation, disgust, irritation), indicating other people's stupidity.
Drift to the intellectually more interesting parts of the subject.
I recognise these aspects in slashdot, and i think they drive the yield down when it comes to actually reaching some conclusion. (I remember a case on slashdot when the task was to construct a proposal for a law)
Being interesting is different from getting somewhere.
Gut feeling: it's possible to make it work.
First idea: create a "Collaborative Mode". A user in CM agrees to follow a tighter regime. Eg, he'll get moderated down if he puts emotional spin on his arguments.(even if it's an interesting posting).
I don't worry that much about privacy.
Would Mcarthyism have been less of a caricature if there was more privacy?
If you're paranoid and you have little data, then you work with little data. Sometimes you get different results.
If I'd had to point to the biggest danger , i'd pick the lock-in between
giving more power to people/institutions/ways of thinking that thrive on fear and hate, and those people in their turn feeding fear and hate.
I think that has been (re)happening in Israel recently.
The lockin is very real and hard to reverse, even when the enemy is harmless. I remember reading that Mao maintained a regularly changing fake 'internal enemy' of 5% of the population.
Maybe harder if the enemy is real- and big(hm, what about a small enemy with sth big behind it).
There are ways to motivate people to become your enemy, and after a while you can't just suddenly start disarming- (removing the weapons or the people).
Imagine a war ending when one party suddenly just gets fed up with it and leaves.
Slashdot Mirror
These are cute specs.
:).
Give schools the job to give you an "alround intellectual maturity" and how will they fill it in? With vague specs like these you can't have a good product
You need specs because a lot of arguments for learning are indirect: you learn through spinoff.
Pupils pass math exams. This proves that they learn how to think. Does it not? There are long arguments. The proof should be in the cake.
We also need tight specs because any program can be immune to (negative) critique, claiming the program was right but it got implemented wrong (or the students aren't up to it). And so they need more money.
Here is an example of good specs:
Effective thinking. Check the list. Full of things people should have learned at college, but did not.
So I wait for the rest.
Since the pros and cons have had a lot of attention, just adding ,organising, boiling down could conclude the parts a and b(b too?).
:) Because you got it through a decrypted mail.
Normally , to advance from there, you'd try out alternatives,different approaches, see where it takes you:
1. trade. there are many aspects of freedom of speech to protect. In general terms, part of these probably have been surrendered. Maybe there could be a deal "look, this here thing helps little in tracking terrorists, but we 'd like to have it back. We can switch. how hard do you want to take this encryption freedom from us".
If some agency says, "we want as much access as we can get. We'll see later what we can do with it", then they're being a bit inconsiderate.
If they have to trade for it, they have to think twice, is it really going to make a big difference? "You can pick 3 rights. Nothing else. the rest you have to give back"
2. Place a cost on decrypting. You want to decrypt, ok, costs you so much for each mail. You still want to do that? Which ones? there's a nice little hook to this.
3. reciprocity people-FBI. "Ok, you can get more access to people's data. But they have earlier/more access to what you do".
4. shift focus on what government is allowed to do with that info. Aah, you can't use this little bit of data , can you
Well, it's a first scan. raw material, nothing usable "as is". But already gives me inspiration for more
conspiracy is a strange word, but i like it.
I try to make some additional versions(just trying, building on earlier thoughts)
1. distributed conspiracy: There is no central committee that knows the exact truth and creates the myths. Instead there are many distributed committees. And when they communicate, some myths actually get accepted by other committees. So the committees have less myths than 'normal' people, but they're stuck with them as well.
2. open but demanding conspiracy : the easily accessible stories are the most distorted myths.
With effort you can get to less distorted myths
The truth is accessible in principle, but requires effort. Which most people don't have time for- or ability. So there is "Free Kuwait", "get rid of Saddam" and "avoid all oil getting controlled by one agent(that's how Powell described it)".
3. bottom up conspiracy: people on top are required to adapt the myths that are constructed at the bottom. That would be like , it's hard to escape from your culture
When people on our side die, the "terrorists" cause the "murder of innocent, men, women and children". Fine, this is accurate. However, when we do start beating up on Afghanistan. "Military commanders" will replace "terrorists" and "inevitable collateral damage during surgical strikes" will replace "bombing civilans". It's very difficult to reason about something when the terms are properly loaded.
it is difficult indeed(grin).
The side you are on is still all over the place. Use "undercover agents" instead of terrorists.
"Killed" instead of murdered. and what's the "innocent" about? Trying to raise support or something?
And "children". Could be, did not know. Is it confirmed? You're not doing that to add emotion?
An objective report is an objective report. An emotional reaction and judgement is another. You can have both, but in your "accurate description" one masquerades as another.
Fanatical assholes? Wait, don't tell me. You're from the other side, right?
I'm afraid I'm attacking sb on his examples now. Sorry. Maybe you're just trying to be nice(and i'm not). It proves your point though: hard to escape from the load of the words.
At mediadishonesty.com there is a media dishonesty rating system. See the link standard dishonesty rating system. As a rating system it is insightful and tough. The author claims a score of 30 bad points is reasonable.
In general i think most press dishonesty is in pursuit of the aim to be more interesting. That's the main selling value. Political agendas are much less important to press than most people think.
Useful moderation system for Slashdot? Very valuable, yes. Question is how. Too heavy for full use.
If there was a rich and userfriendly resource accompanying legal issues, would it be used by anyone?
I don't know,by some i guess, but anyway it leads to the idea of
adding a 'summary posting' towards the end of a discussion(or summarizing part of a tree).
Easy availability of discussion points (lists)could make a difference. I imagine journalists would check them out, at least when an item is relevant to them.
Several people could create their own version of the summary.
I don't think this idea makes sense because I don't think Slashdot has ever had a single coherent voice
Ok. So. What can you do if there is no single voice.
Slashdot is a pool. You can recruit people from it for actions(not under slashdot banner evidently).
Suppose : article->discussion->proposal->discussion ->join lobbygroup, workgroup, actiongroup.
From the discussion you can get an idea if there is a lot of opposition.
People who say "it won't work" or "I don't care" are not necessarily opposition. There may be some possibilities.
The biggest challenge?
suppose some young, fairly intelligent lads with big egos. A rich pool of minds.
They will try to be interesting and show that they're smart.
Proposals are met with clever critique, telling you why it won't work. Commentatorship.
A lot of inflated emotional reactions(indignation, disgust, irritation), indicating other people's stupidity.
Drift to the intellectually more interesting parts of the subject.
I recognise these aspects in slashdot, and i think they drive the yield down when it comes to actually reaching some conclusion. (I remember a case on slashdot when the task was to construct a proposal for a law)
Being interesting is different from getting somewhere.
Gut feeling: it's possible to make it work.
First idea: create a "Collaborative Mode". A user in CM agrees to follow a tighter regime. Eg, he'll get moderated down if he puts emotional spin on his arguments.(even if it's an interesting posting).
I don't worry that much about privacy.
Would Mcarthyism have been less of a caricature if there was more privacy?
If you're paranoid and you have little data, then you work with little data. Sometimes you get different results.
If I'd had to point to the biggest danger , i'd pick the lock-in between
giving more power to people/institutions/ways of thinking that thrive on fear and hate, and those people in their turn feeding fear and hate.
I think that has been (re)happening in Israel recently.
The lockin is very real and hard to reverse, even when the enemy is harmless. I remember reading that Mao maintained a regularly changing fake 'internal enemy' of 5% of the population.
Maybe harder if the enemy is real- and big(hm, what about a small enemy with sth big behind it).
There are ways to motivate people to become your enemy, and after a while you can't just suddenly start disarming- (removing the weapons or the people).
Imagine a war ending when one party suddenly just gets fed up with it and leaves.