The idea that what anyone writes is "original" is a fallacy. all ideas come from group human interaction.
When you look at it closly, there is a huge grey area between the "new idea no one has ever seen on paper" and "I copied 26 words in a row from someone else". somewhere in that grey area there is a line and to the right we call it "plagarism" and to the left it's OK.
the future: everyone in the world is able to write whatever they want, and have it available to anyone else in the world, instantly.
we're getting there, not yet, we're limited now by Internet access and by search, both of which are being vigorously corrected.
so in this future world, writing is no longer as interesting or as important as it has been in the past. writing will become EPHEMERAL, like sound on a phone call. it used to be that getting written word out was relatively hard (at first really hard in the 1600s) even until the last 20 years it took a lot of work to put a book article, etc out to the world because of centralized publishing. people put a lot of work to get it right. as a couter example, look at all the writing on this page.
in the future vision above - almost no work is required to distribute. written word is literally available as soon as you're done editing. by everyone, for everyone.
so here's the question: as the value of writing goes down beacuse anyone can do it - who will care so much about plagarism? really, plagarism is back to the idea that if you write it first, you "own" it, and everyone else is supposed to give you credit for it. there are two problems with this: (1) not everyone buys into that system, as it doesn't really make that much sense, and (2) just because someone wrote something *first* is no longer going to be the best way to attribute credit for an idea. typically all ideas come from other people anyway.
I think that as we move away from central publishing, over the next 20-50 years the whole concept of writing and plagarism will change radically and plagarism will potentially go away as an idea
it took me a long time to come around to this view -- but the value of information is always positive. storing and managing it might be costly or take time, but all information, by itself, always has positive value. I argued with my decision analysis prof in grad school a whole semester on this point and after losing miserably I finally came around.
Seems I must not have used small enough words for you to understand.
Marx does state the words you quote. What he means and what I'm talking about are different.
He is simply stating that individuals don't get to own the property that exists. The government does. By your own admission, he thought, "government owns everything". He also makes strange and long-outdated differentiations about means of production vs. capital... all that is irrelevant to this discussion. You've assumed in a small context, one-dimensional view that Marx pissed on some intellectual territory that my statement above overlaps. The space of ideas is much larger than you've taken time to consider or understand.
What I wrote in the GP was something different, orthogonal to Marx. Not new by any stretch, but certainly not Marx. This is the idea: It could be possible for humans to eliminate the whole idea of property. Doing so could prevent humans from the inevitable mass genocide mediated through ever-advancing technology. You've posted like six times attacking this idea in this thread, but it seems you can't understand the concept. No assignment of ownership. Granted, for this to work people and society and family would all be significantly different too: No one gets to involuntarily force others into action. There are real alternatives for people... The significant degree to which the world would have to change to support no property might take several generations to get there. You are so afraid that someone might understand something different from you, you have failed to really understand the idea at all.
If the "government" owns everything then there is clearly still property - owned by the prevailing, largest control structure.
I would say someone with a closed mind that lowers themselves to personal attacks is the one who's "drunk the kool aid". As for children, it is kids who actually understand these ideas much better than you do. They get it immediately.
you seem to have completely missed the point: society only needs right for the individual in a world of wrongs. why on earth are you breaking windows?? people who break windows (murder, etc.) for no reason are sick and need help. one does not need a struture or rights and permissions to live -- they only need rights and permissions in a world where people are trying to hurt and control each other.
what we should be doing is building a world where we don't need "rights", including property rights. this may be hard for you to comprehend, but it is possible.
this is a very important point. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO HURT EACH OTHER. the army has had significant problems with this - read about how military training has changed over the last 50 years to train out the human nature out of our soldiers so that the CAN kill other humans. healthy people -- by this I mean healthy emotionally -- are not consumerist and greedy, they are sexual predators, they are not thieves and murderers. in every one of these cases there are people trying desparately to get their needs met without the skills of the abilities or opportunities to do so in ways that don't hurt others. there are people who are (quite understandably in many cases) transferring their pain to others.
totalitarianism is complete control -- a situation that occurs only when people are completely broken. I would agrue the contrary - elimination of the concept of property will only happen when as a species we can get to a place where we don't need it any more.
aversion, no. it's a rule that doesn't really need to be followed.
here, let me give you another example.
It tnurs out the wehn you read in egsnilh, your biran desnot rlaley see all the leretts in eceh wrod. It is cleelmopty pbisosle to cotiumncmae with wetritn eiglnsh setceenns if you olny palce the fisrt and lsat ltteer of the wrod in the ppeorr pclae.
All the other letters can be mixed up and your brain figures it out just fine. I dont really see the need to use rules that are not necessary.
no property = no rights ??? well that depends on your context.
ok - lets talk about logical thinking:
rights are something that are a carve out when everything else is wrong. you make an assumption there should be some external power deciding what individuls get to have as a "right". why? in a world where people were not so angry and killing and stealing from each other, why do we need rights? I'd push for healthy people not interested in killing me instead of a broken world where we need to force people into action they don't want, but carve out "rights" so that they are not completely abused.
actually no, the communist manefest, if you read it, does talk directly about property. marx does not go so far as to state that propoerty should be abololished. quite to the contrary property is central to the implementation of the communist idea
effective abolishion of the whole concept of property would only occur hand-in-hand with radical re-thinking about governement. the whole qiestion of "which government system" capitalism vs. communism assumes that we should all get together and decide how other in a central power rule the group. no so in a non-property world. there would be accepted and enforced norms, but no central power strucutres.
it's also clear that communism did not fail, not only was it never really implemented - the fall of one example lead to absorbing many of its ideals by the west/capitalists. every hear lately how often and easily the US is talking about revolutions? used to be only the commies talked about that. if you look carefully, you see the farmer (the capitolists) and the pigs (the communists) are starting to look an awful lot alike.
People live to be about 80. No one ever said anything about change happening quickly. Over a span of 50-100 years, the end number of people could change radiaclly without genocide.
As long people continue to propigate the concept of property, we will continue to have inter-human competition for resources. Hardware based tools, (computer agents, systems, etc.) will be placed into use to aggregate resources and yes, someone will build skynet.
One solution is to deeply investigate the possible worlds where humans, in a global, conscious choice decide to eliminate the concept of property. (NB: extreme changes in all human society would be associated with this.) I've done some research on this and I'm currently writing a book on what kind of worlds will be possible (post-singularity ) in relation to human assumptions on property. The concepts are not new, but the ability to implement them are new based on persistent global communication.
this is an obvious conclusion. the next obvious step after point to the information is having it and understanding it.
note though - the popular definition of the Turing test (computers passing as humans) is not the initial or the only test Turing proposed. He proposed one in which an outside observer could guess the *gender* of a hidden respondant through bi-directional text communication.
there is a very important difference here. gender is an obvious splitting of context for what someone knows. males have an experience in the world as a male human and females as a female human. there are then very subtle differences in the context (scope and location of knowledge) for each type. there are no set rules for what any particular man or woman can or can't know - but on the whole, their context is different.
this is actually a much easier test than for one in which computers generally pass for humans. This test was about locating and identifying the context of a knowledge source, not about testing the complexity or processing ability of a system.
for people really interested in this -- go read the 1950 paper "Computing Machineryand Intelligence." by Turing.
what makes my SOOO frustrated is that 1.5 years ago I applied several times to Google to work on exactly this question and was never able to get an interview - and I have a PhD in Informatics
I watched the time square ball drop from the west coast last night on TV -- nbc.
of course, they printed "live" on the screen which was bs -- but did anyone else notice that the digital time on the screen and the seconds that the crowd were chanting down were 1 second off? obviously, I had way too little to drink this year to notice this, and no girl nearby to kiss.
I'm wondering if maybe this was due to some clocks on 2005 time and some with more accurate accounting?
I've come to place where talking about "truth" is only meaningful within a restricted context. If one slows downs, thinks, and looks broadly, then it becomes clear there is rarely ever "truth" -- there is instead only consistency with a context. When a fact is consistent within the larger surrounding facts, we call it "true" - when it is inconsistent, it is "false". The right would have us believe that this is the only way to think - to restrict your context and deal in the world or simple dichotomies. True and false, right and wrong, etc. While it is necessary to restrict ones world view to function - to progress with action, such constriction is also very harmful to one's world view.
If you followed all that , you've now done plenty of acid. it's time to start changing the world.
even a cursory undertanding of human nature and modern psychology and personality models show that using one test to characterize everyone is highly reductive and not very useful.
funny - when I first read the title, I thought that maybe they had a branded potion in game -- like a "Red Bull" potion that gave you wings or the "Monster" potion that gives you strength.
so if you go up 2 levels in the directory -- the site where this is hosted looks like a team that does wedding photography and video.
From the front page: http://www.abrahamjoffe.com.au/
Your wedding day will be one of the most joyous occasions in your life. We are totally dedicated to preserving your special day with as much class and quality as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that what anyone writes is "original" is a fallacy. all ideas come from group human interaction.
When you look at it closly, there is a huge grey area between the "new idea no one has ever seen on paper" and "I copied 26 words in a row from someone else". somewhere in that grey area there is a line and to the right we call it "plagarism" and to the left it's OK.
as writing changes, the line will shift.
the future: everyone in the world is able to write whatever they want, and have it available to anyone else in the world, instantly.
we're getting there, not yet, we're limited now by Internet access and by search, both of which are being vigorously corrected.
so in this future world, writing is no longer as interesting or as important as it has been in the past. writing will become EPHEMERAL, like sound on a phone call. it used to be that getting written word out was relatively hard (at first really hard in the 1600s) even until the last 20 years it took a lot of work to put a book article, etc out to the world because of centralized publishing. people put a lot of work to get it right. as a couter example, look at all the writing on this page.
in the future vision above - almost no work is required to distribute. written word is literally available as soon as you're done editing. by everyone, for everyone.
so here's the question: as the value of writing goes down beacuse anyone can do it - who will care so much about plagarism? really, plagarism is back to the idea that if you write it first, you "own" it, and everyone else is supposed to give you credit for it. there are two problems with this: (1) not everyone buys into that system, as it doesn't really make that much sense, and (2) just because someone wrote something *first* is no longer going to be the best way to attribute credit for an idea. typically all ideas come from other people anyway.
I think that as we move away from central publishing, over the next 20-50 years the whole concept of writing and plagarism will change radically and plagarism will potentially go away as an idea
it took me a long time to come around to this view -- but the value of information is always positive. storing and managing it might be costly or take time, but all information, by itself, always has positive value. I argued with my decision analysis prof in grad school a whole semester on this point and after losing miserably I finally came around.
so... realease as much as you can.
Seems I must not have used small enough words for you to understand.
Marx does state the words you quote. What he means and what I'm talking about are different.
He is simply stating that individuals don't get to own the property that exists. The government does. By your own admission, he thought, "government owns everything". He also makes strange and long-outdated differentiations about means of production vs. capital... all that is irrelevant to this discussion. You've assumed in a small context, one-dimensional view that Marx pissed on some intellectual territory that my statement above overlaps. The space of ideas is much larger than you've taken time to consider or understand.
What I wrote in the GP was something different, orthogonal to Marx. Not new by any stretch, but certainly not Marx. This is the idea: It could be possible for humans to eliminate the whole idea of property. Doing so could prevent humans from the inevitable mass genocide mediated through ever-advancing technology. You've posted like six times attacking this idea in this thread, but it seems you can't understand the concept. No assignment of ownership. Granted, for this to work people and society and family would all be significantly different too: No one gets to involuntarily force others into action. There are real alternatives for people... The significant degree to which the world would have to change to support no property might take several generations to get there. You are so afraid that someone might understand something different from you, you have failed to really understand the idea at all.
If the "government" owns everything then there is clearly still property - owned by the prevailing, largest control structure.
I would say someone with a closed mind that lowers themselves to personal attacks is the one who's "drunk the kool aid". As for children, it is kids who actually understand these ideas much better than you do. They get it immediately.
FORTUNE 10 no question
one word: politics
um, yes... the "judge, jury, and final decision" states quite clearly that it is.
you seem to have completely missed the point: society only needs right for the individual in a world of wrongs. why on earth are you breaking windows?? people who break windows (murder, etc.) for no reason are sick and need help. one does not need a struture or rights and permissions to live -- they only need rights and permissions in a world where people are trying to hurt and control each other.
what we should be doing is building a world where we don't need "rights", including property rights. this may be hard for you to comprehend, but it is possible.
this is a very important point. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO HURT EACH OTHER. the army has had significant problems with this - read about how military training has changed over the last 50 years to train out the human nature out of our soldiers so that the CAN kill other humans. healthy people -- by this I mean healthy emotionally -- are not consumerist and greedy, they are sexual predators, they are not thieves and murderers. in every one of these cases there are people trying desparately to get their needs met without the skills of the abilities or opportunities to do so in ways that don't hurt others. there are people who are (quite understandably in many cases) transferring their pain to others.
totalitarianism is complete control -- a situation that occurs only when people are completely broken. I would agrue the contrary - elimination of the concept of property will only happen when as a species we can get to a place where we don't need it any more.
aversion, no. it's a rule that doesn't really need to be followed.
here, let me give you another example.
It tnurs out the wehn you read in egsnilh, your biran desnot rlaley see all the leretts in eceh wrod. It is cleelmopty pbisosle to cotiumncmae with wetritn eiglnsh setceenns if you olny palce the fisrt and lsat ltteer of the wrod in the ppeorr pclae.
All the other letters can be mixed up and your brain figures it out just fine. I dont really see the need to use rules that are not necessary.
kidding -- no. not at all.
no property = no rights ??? well that depends on your context.
ok - lets talk about logical thinking:
rights are something that are a carve out when everything else is wrong. you make an assumption there should be some external power deciding what individuls get to have as a "right". why? in a world where people were not so angry and killing and stealing from each other, why do we need rights? I'd push for healthy people not interested in killing me instead of a broken world where we need to force people into action they don't want, but carve out "rights" so that they are not completely abused.
actually no, the communist manefest, if you read it, does talk directly about property. marx does not go so far as to state that propoerty should be abololished. quite to the contrary property is central to the implementation of the communist idea
effective abolishion of the whole concept of property would only occur hand-in-hand with radical re-thinking about governement. the whole qiestion of "which government system" capitalism vs. communism assumes that we should all get together and decide how other in a central power rule the group. no so in a non-property world. there would be accepted and enforced norms, but no central power strucutres.
it's also clear that communism did not fail, not only was it never really implemented - the fall of one example lead to absorbing many of its ideals by the west/capitalists. every hear lately how often and easily the US is talking about revolutions? used to be only the commies talked about that. if you look carefully, you see the farmer (the capitolists) and the pigs (the communists) are starting to look an awful lot alike.
People live to be about 80. No one ever said anything about change happening quickly. Over a span of 50-100 years, the end number of people could change radiaclly without genocide.
As long people continue to propigate the concept of property, we will continue to have inter-human competition for resources. Hardware based tools, (computer agents, systems, etc.) will be placed into use to aggregate resources and yes, someone will build skynet.
One solution is to deeply investigate the possible worlds where humans, in a global, conscious choice decide to eliminate the concept of property. (NB: extreme changes in all human society would be associated with this.) I've done some research on this and I'm currently writing a book on what kind of worlds will be possible (post-singularity ) in relation to human assumptions on property. The concepts are not new, but the ability to implement them are new based on persistent global communication.
this is an obvious conclusion. the next obvious step after point to the information is having it and understanding it.
note though - the popular definition of the Turing test (computers passing as humans) is not the initial or the only test Turing proposed. He proposed one in which an outside observer could guess the *gender* of a hidden respondant through bi-directional text communication.
there is a very important difference here. gender is an obvious splitting of context for what someone knows. males have an experience in the world as a male human and females as a female human. there are then very subtle differences in the context (scope and location of knowledge) for each type. there are no set rules for what any particular man or woman can or can't know - but on the whole, their context is different.
this is actually a much easier test than for one in which computers generally pass for humans. This test was about locating and identifying the context of a knowledge source, not about testing the complexity or processing ability of a system.
for people really interested in this -- go read the 1950 paper "Computing Machineryand Intelligence." by Turing.
what makes my SOOO frustrated is that 1.5 years ago I applied several times to Google to work on exactly this question and was never able to get an interview - and I have a PhD in Informatics
ok so informatics and widely available information will change the world... I really believe this.
but this is just information masturbation
I watched the time square ball drop from the west coast last night on TV -- nbc.
of course, they printed "live" on the screen which was bs -- but did anyone else notice that the digital time on the screen and the seconds that the crowd were chanting down were 1 second off? obviously, I had way too little to drink this year to notice this, and no girl nearby to kiss.
I'm wondering if maybe this was due to some clocks on 2005 time and some with more accurate accounting?
does this work with mutt and gpg?
"Slow Down Cowboy!"
sorry BZZT -- a "central Ciphire certificate directory"... wtf
like all public key systems, the problem is with the key distribution. they tend to brush over this...
I've come to place where talking about "truth" is only meaningful within a restricted context. If one slows downs, thinks, and looks broadly, then it becomes clear there is rarely ever "truth" -- there is instead only consistency with a context. When a fact is consistent within the larger surrounding facts, we call it "true" - when it is inconsistent, it is "false". The right would have us believe that this is the only way to think - to restrict your context and deal in the world or simple dichotomies. True and false, right and wrong, etc. While it is necessary to restrict ones world view to function - to progress with action, such constriction is also very harmful to one's world view.
If you followed all that , you've now done plenty of acid. it's time to start changing the world.
manufacturers announced today they will try and sell a security related service over a copmletely insecure and unreliable communication system
imagine that
another example in a long list of why we should have a not-for-profit tech hardware company.
what drives these conflicts is the need for profit and growth in the existing companies
here: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e. php
the whole concept of "IQ" is absurd.
even a cursory undertanding of human nature and modern psychology and personality models show that using one test to characterize everyone is highly reductive and not very useful.
funny - when I first read the title, I thought that maybe they had a branded potion in game -- like a "Red Bull" potion that gave you wings or the "Monster" potion that gives you strength.
now THAT would be good marketing.
so if you go up 2 levels in the directory -- the site where this is hosted looks like a team that does wedding photography and video.
From the front page: http://www.abrahamjoffe.com.au/
Your wedding day will be one of the most joyous occasions in your life. We are totally dedicated to preserving your special day with as much class and quality as possible.
wow these guys need some advertising help.