When huge groups of people start sharing information, the powerful lawyers/politicians go nuts and have their staff start deleting things and protect their scheming and lying.
I am so not surprised.
Yet another step toward open and free (both beer and thought) society.
I am very much against porn, ESPECIALLY child pron, where lives are destroyed by the process of "making" it
however, images are just information, and this ruling is now squarely in the realm of a thought crime: having these thoughts == burning these bits to a disk. the act of a human moving bits from one medium to another should never be a crime (by itself).
so each company cannot be expected to handle the downstream effects of what anyone else does in their name.
it is just too easy to create large swarms of automated, online agents - each of which can cause huge numbers of incidents.
Yes, they should do their best (because if the problem continues, it will hurt their bottom line) - but really this is a social/criminal problem and companies don't have the authority to impose any real penalty on people doing this. in our world (now) only governements have that authority.
it will be interesting when companies do get so powerful they rival the governements. then we might expect the google police to knock on your door, or maybe if you're a "bad online citizen" you just don't get to search any more... or maybe they give you the bad ranking and you don't even know.
You are forgetting human nature. Most humans by nature will strive for more - a higher standard of living. More than they have now. More than their neighbors. The fact that few people settle for a low standard of living to get lots of free time proves it.
I understand human nature pretty well. Human will strive for understanding. It is unhealth in both individual and society that leaves the individual scared and fearful or running out, which "drives them for more". Modern society has no safety net, and people are significantly afraid of running out.
The concept of "standard of living" is a complete joke in the western world. it roughly translates into: "having more money", and in practice it leads societies to have depression, anger, economic disparity.
Healthy societies and cultures have always understood that the "good life" is when you can relax and enjoy life, you are energized by your daily contributions to society, not work till you bleed so you can have 6 bedrooms and 3 SUVs.
Even if it could happen, I think for the most part we would be sickened by the result.
It can't. These shifts will TAKE TIME -- think generations. the people ahve to change {out}, die off, or go through radical rethinking, which no one likes to do.
you haven't broken anything. These ideas have been around for CENTURIES.
games define the models on which we train our brains. games will radiaclly shift how we think, and thus will change how we live.
words like "communists" are laden with context and the discussion get quite complex, and almost impossible on chat boards.
"the best we can achieve" -- big myth I assert human nature is highly mutable and defined almost exclusively by the situations in which we train our behaviors. "we" can achieve what ever system "we" make happen.
I agree, there will be significant resistance, hence the "interesting" part of the GP post.
"spectrum of societal market systems" there is no one-dimensional spectrum. there are tons of options human kind has never explored. we're heading toward many of them now. The idea we live in one-dimensional choices is FALSE, and interestingly, the political right attempts in most of it's actions to maintain these dichotomies: right and wrong, "with us or against us", legal and illegal.
why? with the rapid acceleration of idea tranfer globally, what is keeping us back?
we're already training the whole 9-16 age bracket on simple models of social interaction with game-based systems. this generation of people will grasp new models of interaction muchg faster than the aged rich today.
economics are not LAWS -- economics has descriptive observations of social behaviors. the premise of the whole field of economics is "resource allocation". as the definition of "resources" changes, so does economics
Wide, free access is another step in humankind's inevitable re-evaluation of what property means. Everywhere I look, things are becomeing more open and free. Freecycle, free wifi, free search, free software...
when, as a society we unlock the food and shelter, and people start to have real choice in what they do with their time... thigs will start to get REALLY interesting.
my understanding: ethanol is mostly produced now through fermentation of plant matter - specifically using the sugars and converting them into fuel. it's expensive energy wise (the process uses almost as much energy as it produces) and it wastes a huge fraction of the raw material.
We really need to find a way to use physical substrates or catalysts in some process to directly convert the plant matter into ethanol. This is an incredibly hard problem -- but all the chemicals are there. Get to it you chemists!
"BrainConnection has an interesting article about a man who lives life straight out of the movie Memento. FTA: "When twenty-seven year old Henry M. entered the..."
I reject the assertion that someone is "stupid" if they don't follow all the grammar and spelling rules. It's simply not true.
There are several points here: people have DIFFERENT SKILLS. Personally, I don't think I'm so smart, but many many of my peers and friends all tell me I'm the smartest person they know. I can't spell for shit. Frankly, I think people who can work on cars are amazing, I can't do it at all. Some people who solve really hard math problems are thought of as "smart". Some people are masters at getting others to feel good and part with their money.
Some people have a natural propensity for details. Jung described these types as "S" for "sensors". Others have a natural tendancy for models, and use details to support the models. These were described as "N" or intutives. Everyone can spell if they want to, and pay attention. But here's the point: It's a LOT more energy for some than others to spell correctly every time.
Second, there are many people in world who are hard wired to follow the rules, simply because those are the rules. Some call this group "traditionalists" -- Whatevery those rules are: go to church, eat at 5pm, capitalize the first letter at the start of a sentance, raise your hand in class, pay your taxes. "Everyone is doing it, so should I". Other people are not so hard wired to follow rules. Some will follow them becasue they make logical sense, and don't give a shit if everyone else is doing it. Some people simply *don't* want to follow them at all, because they are like bringing their fellow man down with them through the conflicts that erupt from breaking rules. For me, I follow rules if they align with my morals, PERIOD. I honestly don't care if large percentage of other people follow a rule. If a rule does not align with my morals, my only decision is a cost/benefit that weighs the costs of getting caught breaking a rule vs the reward that comes from breaking it (or following them). I have ABSOLUTELY NO moral feelings on the grammar and spelling rules other people set up for English, and there is almost no cost to breaking them. I simply don't care if there are grammar mistakes in online posts on places like slashdot.
Frankly, I coudn't really be bothered to spell well on slashdot posts.
there is mounting evidence that these types are genetic/environment effects that are set before birth.
as for psycobabbble, no, it's not babble at all, Jung types are quite real. The signal is not completely clear, as many environmental factors, people habilts, experiences, etc. all cloud measuring the effects - but I firmly believe that as our understanding of functional and chemical neurology emerges to the point of truely understanding how our brains function, we will go back to these "babble" models and see them as crude approximations grounded in real effects. [[ note to the information archaeologists -- HI! ]]
While the rest of the world moves toward abolition
What world do *you* live in? In the last 5 years since December 2000, the USA has been totally lost toward secrecy, corruption and breaking our own laws.
the chineese are soooooooo going to take over the world.
The west has a culture dominated by traditionalists (Jung sJ types - think "lawyer") - the East, esp china is dominated by conceptualists (Jung NT types - think "engineer").
duh -- we're hardwired for geometry because of problems like this:
* misty haze rises - 300,000 years ago:
ancient man talks to his son, points and grunts the following instructions: "go 300 yards over there, take a left and go 600 yards. thats where the women were. go get 'em boy..."
in this country we have 2 private organizations with more power than anyone else -- two of them: the Republicans and the Democrats. one step to fixing things in this country is to strip the power from these parties and get humans who run our country to think for them selves, and not how to win favors in the "ride up the ladder" - party game
That is because the parties run the government. Literally, the party line tells senators how to vote. Bush and the leaderts in congress are in the same party -- all getting rich, fat, happy raping the people. Why WOULD he veto anything? It's all worked out in private meetings beforehand.
I reject a prioiri that minds and machines are different. machines now are simpler, yes, but at the atomic/neuron level, the mind *is* a machine. It's just a complex one that combines both electronics and chemicals. minds also train on constant input from 5 senses, estimated at gigabits/second for a period of years before reasonably coherent semantics are reproducible. compare that to modern training sets for mahcines.
blogging gets close, but as I said, the limits are now (1) availablility -- not everyone can blog, because they don't have access to the Internet, and (2) search still sucks badly. It is still extremely difficult to find information that exists. This judgement is against an ideal where one might find any data that exists - not just what has been put online in one protocol (http) and then indexed by crawlers and then organized by some algorithms. I mean against all data that exists, search still really sucks.
I'm glad someone got to this lower in the thread... The fact Monty is required to open another door, and not the right door makes the probability calculation possible.
Turns out the 2/3 analogy works only if Monty will reveal another door every time (or at the least has comitted to doing a second reveal before you make your choice). If he makes a choice if he will reveal the second door contents based on your choice of the first door, then bets are off on probability of the switch. This is a point rarely discussed in the treatment of this problem.
I have to respectfully disagree. We have envelopes for a reason. We have SSL for a reason.
This idea that anything not under my direct ownership is public -- is flawed. We're going to have to come up with a better definition that that if we expect to all be able to live in peace together.
5. If successful bid, go get item and send it to bidder
5. If successful bid, go to "get" the item with a box, tape, packing material and mailing label. Package the item in the owner's living room and ask them to drop it in the mail for you. Go home.
I think the army should consider very seriously just how "real" to make an immersive training envoronment. If they actually made it close to reality, not many people would join.
Will they include losing limbs? Losing your best friends? Not having enough armor? Superiors without a spine following orders against regulations? Rightfully angry people trying to kill you?
I can't imagine ANY 3D game in an immersion cave coming close to these experiences.
I don't mean this as a troll - I think that many people who go into the armed services in the US have no intention of dying for their country. They are trying to get money for college, and they are attracted to the excting images they see on the TV commercials: I love the one: "Join the Army - you'll learn how to work with computers" yeah right, at it's core, messages like these are simply lies.
Slashdot Mirror
When huge groups of people start sharing information, the powerful lawyers/politicians go nuts and have their staff start deleting things and protect their scheming and lying.
I am so not surprised.
Yet another step toward open and free (both beer and thought) society.
so a man was prosecuted for copying an IMAGE
I am very much against porn, ESPECIALLY child pron, where lives are destroyed by the process of "making" it
however, images are just information, and this ruling is now squarely in the realm of a thought crime: having these thoughts == burning these bits to a disk. the act of a human moving bits from one medium to another should never be a crime (by itself).
so each company cannot be expected to handle the downstream effects of what anyone else does in their name.
it is just too easy to create large swarms of automated, online agents - each of which can cause huge numbers of incidents.
Yes, they should do their best (because if the problem continues, it will hurt their bottom line) - but really this is a social/criminal problem and companies don't have the authority to impose any real penalty on people doing this. in our world (now) only governements have that authority.
it will be interesting when companies do get so powerful they rival the governements. then we might expect the google police to knock on your door, or maybe if you're a "bad online citizen" you just don't get to search any more... or maybe they give you the bad ranking and you don't even know.
You are forgetting human nature. Most humans by nature will strive for more - a higher standard of living. More than they have now. More than their neighbors. The fact that few people settle for a low standard of living to get lots of free time proves it.
I understand human nature pretty well. Human will strive for understanding. It is unhealth in both individual and society that leaves the individual scared and fearful or running out, which "drives them for more". Modern society has no safety net, and people are significantly afraid of running out.
The concept of "standard of living" is a complete joke in the western world. it roughly translates into: "having more money", and in practice it leads societies to have depression, anger, economic disparity.
Healthy societies and cultures have always understood that the "good life" is when you can relax and enjoy life, you are energized by your daily contributions to society, not work till you bleed so you can have 6 bedrooms and 3 SUVs.
Even if it could happen, I think for the most part we would be sickened by the result.
It can't. These shifts will TAKE TIME -- think generations. the people ahve to change {out}, die off, or go through radical rethinking, which no one likes to do.
you haven't broken anything. These ideas have been around for CENTURIES.
games define the models on which we train our brains. games will radiaclly shift how we think, and thus will change how we live.
words like "communists" are laden with context and the discussion get quite complex, and almost impossible on chat boards.
"the best we can achieve" -- big myth
I assert human nature is highly mutable and defined almost exclusively by the situations in which we train our behaviors. "we" can achieve what ever system "we" make happen.
I agree, there will be significant resistance, hence the "interesting" part of the GP post.
"spectrum of societal market systems" there is no one-dimensional spectrum. there are tons of options human kind has never explored. we're heading toward many of them now. The idea we live in one-dimensional choices is FALSE, and interestingly, the political right attempts in most of it's actions to maintain these dichotomies: right and wrong, "with us or against us", legal and illegal.
why? with the rapid acceleration of idea tranfer globally, what is keeping us back?
we're already training the whole 9-16 age bracket on simple models of social interaction with game-based systems. this generation of people will grasp new models of interaction muchg faster than the aged rich today.
economics are not LAWS -- economics has descriptive observations of social behaviors. the premise of the whole field of economics is "resource allocation". as the definition of "resources" changes, so does economics
Wide, free access is another step in humankind's inevitable re-evaluation of what property means. Everywhere I look, things are becomeing more open and free. Freecycle, free wifi, free search, free software ...
when, as a society we unlock the food and shelter, and people start to have real choice in what they do with their time... thigs will start to get REALLY interesting.
my understanding: ethanol is mostly produced now through fermentation of plant matter - specifically using the sugars and converting them into fuel. it's expensive energy wise (the process uses almost as much energy as it produces) and it wastes a huge fraction of the raw material.
We really need to find a way to use physical substrates or catalysts in some process to directly convert the plant matter into ethanol. This is an incredibly hard problem -- but all the chemicals are there. Get to it you chemists!
"BrainConnection has an interesting article about a man who lives life straight out of the movie Memento. FTA: "When twenty-seven year old Henry M. entered the ..."
here's 3 words I would have never guessed I'd see together tonight:
"bowel retraining program"
I'll put that right next to
"Hey Joe, would you toss me that piano?"
I reject the assertion that someone is "stupid" if they don't follow all the grammar and spelling rules. It's simply not true.
There are several points here: people have DIFFERENT SKILLS. Personally, I don't think I'm so smart, but many many of my peers and friends all tell me I'm the smartest person they know. I can't spell for shit. Frankly, I think people who can work on cars are amazing, I can't do it at all. Some people who solve really hard math problems are thought of as "smart". Some people are masters at getting others to feel good and part with their money.
Some people have a natural propensity for details. Jung described these types as "S" for "sensors". Others have a natural tendancy for models, and use details to support the models. These were described as "N" or intutives. Everyone can spell if they want to, and pay attention. But here's the point: It's a LOT more energy for some than others to spell correctly every time.
Second, there are many people in world who are hard wired to follow the rules, simply because those are the rules. Some call this group "traditionalists" -- Whatevery those rules are: go to church, eat at 5pm, capitalize the first letter at the start of a sentance, raise your hand in class, pay your taxes. "Everyone is doing it, so should I". Other people are not so hard wired to follow rules. Some will follow them becasue they make logical sense, and don't give a shit if everyone else is doing it. Some people simply *don't* want to follow them at all, because they are like bringing their fellow man down with them through the conflicts that erupt from breaking rules. For me, I follow rules if they align with my morals, PERIOD. I honestly don't care if large percentage of other people follow a rule. If a rule does not align with my morals, my only decision is a cost/benefit that weighs the costs of getting caught breaking a rule vs the reward that comes from breaking it (or following them). I have ABSOLUTELY NO moral feelings on the grammar and spelling rules other people set up for English, and there is almost no cost to breaking them. I simply don't care if there are grammar mistakes in online posts on places like slashdot.
Frankly, I coudn't really be bothered to spell well on slashdot posts.
there is mounting evidence that these types are genetic/environment effects that are set before birth.
as for psycobabbble, no, it's not babble at all, Jung types are quite real. The signal is not completely clear, as many environmental factors, people habilts, experiences, etc. all cloud measuring the effects - but I firmly believe that as our understanding of functional and chemical neurology emerges to the point of truely understanding how our brains function, we will go back to these "babble" models and see them as crude approximations grounded in real effects. [[ note to the information archaeologists -- HI! ]]
While the rest of the world moves toward abolition
What world do *you* live in? In the last 5 years since December 2000, the USA has been totally lost toward secrecy, corruption and breaking our own laws.
the chineese are soooooooo going to take over the world.
The west has a culture dominated by traditionalists (Jung sJ types - think "lawyer") - the East, esp china is dominated by conceptualists (Jung NT types - think "engineer").
Other notable exapmles:
France,Tibet, Swiss - primarily idealists (NF)
Brazil, Sweden, Italy, Canada - primarily experiencers (SP)
duh -- we're hardwired for geometry because of problems like this:
* misty haze rises - 300,000 years ago:
ancient man talks to his son, points and grunts the following instructions:
"go 300 yards over there, take a left and go 600 yards. thats where the women were. go get 'em boy..."
MOD PARENT UP
in this country we have 2 private organizations with more power than anyone else -- two of them: the Republicans and the Democrats. one step to fixing things in this country is to strip the power from these parties and get humans who run our country to think for them selves, and not how to win favors in the "ride up the ladder" - party game
That is because the parties run the government. Literally, the party line tells senators how to vote. Bush and the leaderts in congress are in the same party -- all getting rich, fat, happy raping the people. Why WOULD he veto anything? It's all worked out in private meetings beforehand.
I reject a prioiri that minds and machines are different. machines now are simpler, yes, but at the atomic/neuron level, the mind *is* a machine. It's just a complex one that combines both electronics and chemicals. minds also train on constant input from 5 senses, estimated at gigabits/second for a period of years before reasonably coherent semantics are reproducible. compare that to modern training sets for mahcines.
blogging gets close, but as I said, the limits are now (1) availablility -- not everyone can blog, because they don't have access to the Internet, and (2) search still sucks badly. It is still extremely difficult to find information that exists. This judgement is against an ideal where one might find any data that exists - not just what has been put online in one protocol (http) and then indexed by crawlers and then organized by some algorithms. I mean against all data that exists, search still really sucks.
required
I'm glad someone got to this lower in the thread... The fact Monty is required to open another door, and not the right door makes the probability calculation possible.
Turns out the 2/3 analogy works only if Monty will reveal another door every time (or at the least has comitted to doing a second reveal before you make your choice). If he makes a choice if he will reveal the second door contents based on your choice of the first door, then bets are off on probability of the switch. This is a point rarely discussed in the treatment of this problem.
I have to respectfully disagree. We have envelopes for a reason. We have SSL for a reason.
This idea that anything not under my direct ownership is public -- is flawed. We're going to have to come up with a better definition that that if we expect to all be able to live in peace together.
5. If successful bid, go get item and send it to bidder
5. If successful bid, go to "get" the item with a box, tape, packing material and mailing label. Package the item in the owner's living room and ask them to drop it in the mail for you. Go home.
I think the army should consider very seriously just how "real" to make an immersive training envoronment. If they actually made it close to reality, not many people would join.
2 .html
Will they include losing limbs? Losing your best friends? Not having enough armor? Superiors without a spine following orders against regulations? Rightfully angry people trying to kill you?
I can't imagine ANY 3D game in an immersion cave coming close to these experiences.
Go read this guy's experience: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/wdc/11878249
I don't mean this as a troll - I think that many people who go into the armed services in the US have no intention of dying for their country. They are trying to get money for college, and they are attracted to the excting images they see on the TV commercials: I love the one: "Join the Army - you'll learn how to work with computers" yeah right, at it's core, messages like these are simply lies.