I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "What is this?"
I then want to see the specs appear on my computer screen.
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "I'm happy to lend this." I'd like my neighbors, if they are looking for a vacuum cleaner, to be able to see that there is a willing lender nearby.
I don't care if my neighbors scan my apartment, and find out that I have underwear, and a toaster, and books.
"Naughty" stuff is not going to leave a store with RFID. If they're willing to ship in a brown paper bag, then they're smart enough to ship with the RFID tag taken off.
Valenti just doesn't know that this is an age where mobs of self-educated people collaborate out in open and make complex things simple.
He's still in the "only a company has the resources to make something complex" model of the world. "If you make something on you're own, that's really rare."
I seriously doubt that minds really make "choices."
When we think of a choice, we generally think: "Okay: I've got A, and I've got B, and maybe I've got C, and I've got to make a decision."
These kinds of decisions fill our conscious mind, but in the background, our minds are doing all this organic stuff. You might say it's making "choices," but- that doesn't sound quite right to me.
Original thoughts just "pop" into our minds. They just appear, suddenly. We might be able to imagine what led to their being there, but we don't really know. It's these thoughts that are really interesting.
Making "choices" is just part of the mechanics of our conscious thought processes clashing, and stuff like that. But that's only the surface.
Most of the really important stuff in our life comes from a pre-choice mush of grey matter.
Choices throw themselves at us. Decide this or that. But neat things come from mush, with no clear origin, and with no real decision making attached.
People who say "our lives are made of choices," and what not- it's not really so. That's just Rationalism speaking. Far more of our lives come from imagination, or something like that.
"It is critical that we bring the moral force of the government to bear against those who knowingly violate the federal copyrights enshrined in our Constitution."
Yeah. I'll feel guilty about it, when the fed actually proves that copyrights exist in order to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It sure doesn't feel like limited times.
You've heard it before. And you'll hear it many times over again.
In Wiki, you can name a page just by putting "[[ ]]" marks around it, and it links to the page. Recent advances such as the NearLink have made it so that you can refer to pages on "nearby" wiki, even without naming the wiki. If the word you are linking to isn't defined on the immediate wiki, but it is defined on a near wiki, then the word links to it's definition on that nearby wiki.
But we're carrying the concept even further. With Local Names, we want to be able to link not just to wiki pages, but any sort of page. For example, you could bind [[Slashdot]] to http://slashdot.org/.
But wait! There's more! We want to store these bindings in a "Local Names Server", which you could then tell people about, or store in your person preferences server, or a FOAF file. Then, when you post to a website, or slashdot, or whatever, and refer to something that it doesn't know about, it can look it up in your personal local names server. Of course, Slashdot would have to know what local name servers are, and would have to know to look at them.
At the end of the day, what you effectively have, is a world without URL's- just lots of local names. You'd have a mechanism for "picking up" and "giving away" local names. So, for example, if someone refers to something by a name, and you like it, you can "pick it up" into your own local names server. There are all sorts of possibilities here.
Why would only poor people want really cheap glasses, in only 5 minutes?
There may be some good reason- Perhaps the glasses are low quality, and we would rather pay with time and money for higher quality glasses.
But I wonder- Is this a demonstration of a pattern in media reporting? I've seen articles about robotics that seem to avoid the conclusion "these people don't need jobs any more." I've seen them focus on "this robot will assist humans," when it seemed like, based on what the article said, it would greatly reduce the need for humans.
And, in this other article, about attaching nerves to chips. What does the article say is so cool about this? "The findings could help in the design of devices that combine electronic components and brain cells. That includes controlling artificial limbs or restoring sight for the visually impaired." Okay- but what about hard-core interaction between the brain and the computer? What about putting pictures directly into the brain, or using your mind to work on the computer? Those seem like obvious implications. Why does the article pussy-foot around them?
Is this a real pattern in media reporting, or am I just seeing patterns that aren't there, and support some world view of mine?
Actually, what I (IT worker) found out, was that if you can't find work at the rate you previously got, that they won't hire you period, even if you offer to work for free.
You are right- it will be a supply and demand situation.
The supply of 24-hour a day small one-time payment professional and obedient humans that can instantly jack into the intelligence architecture and interacting with you by a slick GUI will be very, very, very, small.
There may be a world market for, what, maybe five humans.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
A technologist told a doctor-in-training about the day robots perform all unskilled labor, and then the skilled labor as well.
The technologist said most people would be put into boats constructed overnight by robots, sent to sea, delivered food shipments by robots, and kept there, by robot sentries.
The doctor-in-training laughed. "No no no, we'll be able to just turn them off."
The technologist replied, "In the future, you will own a laptop. One day, you will need to reboot, but it will not reboot. You will then unplug it, but it will continue to run. On that day, you will remember this conversation."
Slashdot Mirror
For those wondering what the Semantic Web is behind all the computer babble:
The Semantic Web Cereal Box analogy
Plain Talk.
I made a thing called a "Personal Log" (plog) a while back.
I was surprised to see my little program had reached Slashdot!
What framework would that be?
What framework could that be?
Because of this, I am likely to make better decisions about cryptography. I will not confuse a stream cypher with a one time pad.
Now:
More and more, my education is coming from the Internet.
I believe we need to rethink the whole concept of school, and what it is for.
Personally, I want my RFID tags.
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "What is this?"
I then want to see the specs appear on my computer screen.
I want to be able to go up to any item in my house, and say, "I'm happy to lend this." I'd like my neighbors, if they are looking for a vacuum cleaner, to be able to see that there is a willing lender nearby.
I don't care if my neighbors scan my apartment, and find out that I have underwear, and a toaster, and books.
"Naughty" stuff is not going to leave a store with RFID. If they're willing to ship in a brown paper bag, then they're smart enough to ship with the RFID tag taken off.
Valenti just doesn't know that this is an age where mobs of self-educated people collaborate out in open and make complex things simple.
He's still in the "only a company has the resources to make something complex" model of the world. "If you make something on you're own, that's really rare."
That's not the case any more.
It defines spyware as software that transmits personal information or computer usage data without obtaining explicit approval from the user.
So, that describes RecentChanges on a wiki.
Should we have a check box, that you must press, before each submit to a wiki?
What does this mean for Slashdot- does it transmit personal computer usage data when my name page shows the posts I've made?
No, really, what's wrong with that?
I use passwords to protect my online traffic.
I use a deadbold to protect my apartment.
If a thief did break in- do you have any idea how much paper I have strewn about? Do you know how long it would take to find my password?
My handwriting alone has to be equivalent to at least 1024 bit PGP encryption.
Write passwords on paper, and memorize them. It's simple. If you forget, you can try every password on your paper list.
What new jobs, specificly, will employ vast numbers of laid off unskilled workers?
What fields of work can't robotics do?
Will robot owners have any obligations to the unemployed? If so, will they heed them?
What should we do now?
Please visit the Paper Talk wiki to organize around making Open standards and implementations of this sort of technology, or just to watch.
A digital camera can be a scanner, and automatically pull out digital information.
You can encode computer data inside of big letters, readable by humans.
You can do a lot with this technology.
For those who are interested in organizing around this, please go to:
http://www.quicktopic.com/26/H/pVk3skqaGhFU
Then, hit the button to sign up for mail when posts are made.
We can do SO MUCH with this. We just need an open standard for the way computers read the data from a scanned page.
IMAGINE: You could put this on business cards, with your PGP key, your contact information, everything on it.
You could make it so that you could make fliers, with large letters, readible by humans, viewable from a distance.
But inside the "gigantic" letters (say, 24pt letters), you could have encoded a bunch of computer readable data..!
So someone could take the flier, and then scan it, and then there would be all this semantic information that the computer could read as well!
So, you get directions to something, and embedded in the human instructions themselves, are the computer interpretation information..!
You could do ALL SORTS of stuff with this..!
We just need to ACT.
So sign up for the list.
I seriously doubt that minds really make "choices."
When we think of a choice, we generally think: "Okay: I've got A, and I've got B, and maybe I've got C, and I've got to make a decision."
These kinds of decisions fill our conscious mind, but in the background, our minds are doing all this organic stuff. You might say it's making "choices," but- that doesn't sound quite right to me.
Original thoughts just "pop" into our minds. They just appear, suddenly. We might be able to imagine what led to their being there, but we don't really know. It's these thoughts that are really interesting.
Making "choices" is just part of the mechanics of our conscious thought processes clashing, and stuff like that. But that's only the surface.
Most of the really important stuff in our life comes from a pre-choice mush of grey matter.
Choices throw themselves at us. Decide this or that. But neat things come from mush, with no clear origin, and with no real decision making attached.
People who say "our lives are made of choices," and what not- it's not really so. That's just Rationalism speaking. Far more of our lives come from imagination, or something like that.
That's how I see it, at any rate.
"It is critical that we bring the moral force of the government to bear against those who knowingly violate the federal copyrights enshrined in our Constitution."
Yeah. I'll feel guilty about it, when the fed actually proves that copyrights exist in order to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It sure doesn't feel like limited times.
You've heard it before. And you'll hear it many times over again.
...you mean, like...
..?
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
You mean something like that?
Part of the plan is to be able to route from local name server to local name server. ;)
In the Wiki world, we've been thinking about ideas such as having Local Names.
.
In Wiki, you can name a page just by putting "[[ ]]" marks around it, and it links to the page. Recent advances such as the NearLink have made it so that you can refer to pages on "nearby" wiki, even without naming the wiki. If the word you are linking to isn't defined on the immediate wiki, but it is defined on a near wiki, then the word links to it's definition on that nearby wiki.
But we're carrying the concept even further. With Local Names, we want to be able to link not just to wiki pages, but any sort of page. For example, you could bind [[Slashdot]] to http://slashdot.org/
But wait! There's more! We want to store these bindings in a "Local Names Server", which you could then tell people about, or store in your person preferences server, or a FOAF file. Then, when you post to a website, or slashdot, or whatever, and refer to something that it doesn't know about, it can look it up in your personal local names server. Of course, Slashdot would have to know what local name servers are, and would have to know to look at them.
At the end of the day, what you effectively have, is a world without URL's- just lots of local names. You'd have a mechanism for "picking up" and "giving away" local names. So, for example, if someone refers to something by a name, and you like it, you can "pick it up" into your own local names server. There are all sorts of possibilities here.
Why would only poor people want really cheap glasses, in only 5 minutes?
There may be some good reason- Perhaps the glasses are low quality, and we would rather pay with time and money for higher quality glasses.
But I wonder- Is this a demonstration of a pattern in media reporting? I've seen articles about robotics that seem to avoid the conclusion "these people don't need jobs any more." I've seen them focus on "this robot will assist humans," when it seemed like, based on what the article said, it would greatly reduce the need for humans.
And, in this other article, about attaching nerves to chips. What does the article say is so cool about this? "The findings could help in the design of devices that combine electronic components and brain cells. That includes controlling artificial limbs or restoring sight for the visually impaired." Okay- but what about hard-core interaction between the brain and the computer? What about putting pictures directly into the brain, or using your mind to work on the computer? Those seem like obvious implications. Why does the article pussy-foot around them?
Is this a real pattern in media reporting, or am I just seeing patterns that aren't there, and support some world view of mine?
I really want to understand this.
Dude, I'm SO with you.
No, seriously!
A lot of my coder friends have actually expressed similar sentiment.
Just don't know how to do it. That's all..!
Actually, what I (IT worker) found out, was that if you can't find work at the rate you previously got, that they won't hire you period, even if you offer to work for free.
You are right- it will be a supply and demand situation.
The supply of 24-hour a day small one-time payment professional and obedient humans that can instantly jack into the intelligence architecture and interacting with you by a slick GUI will be very, very, very, small.
There may be a world market for, what, maybe five humans.
There will be an impending shortage of labor... ...for those who need to labor!!
There is a saying:
"What happens when goverments no longer need citizens?"
It applies just as much to the network of corporations as it does to the network of governments.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Unfortunately, I've lost track of it.
I searched, and only found this small project from 2000.
Hmmm...
A technologist told a doctor-in-training about the day robots perform all unskilled labor, and then the skilled labor as well.
The technologist said most people would be put into boats constructed overnight by robots, sent to sea, delivered food shipments by robots, and kept there, by robot sentries.
The doctor-in-training laughed. "No no no, we'll be able to just turn them off."
The technologist replied, "In the future, you will own a laptop. One day, you will need to reboot, but it will not reboot. You will then unplug it, but it will continue to run. On that day, you will remember this conversation."