I think this situation can be resolved by viewing our search data as akin to the content we'd put online on a blog with a Google AdSense account attached.
If you're passing our data on to an end user, that user needs to pay for it, and thus this can't be a question of default settings but of a contract made between user and giant monolithic search engine company.
2 of those things have an objectively measurable positive impact, 2 of them are actually junk.
Which two do you see as having an objectively measurable positive impact? I quote for convenience from my own message:
Fake solution: plastic bag bans, CFL lightbulbs, carbon caps, and "green" disposable junk you buy at stores.
In addition to measuring positive impact, I think we should also mention secondary consequences and whether or not they're of greater or lesser impact than the positive impact.
I appreciate you making this clear. I didn't understand it and perceived anger in it.
It was actually intended as a joke, with a point: The point is that any solution to the "population-too-high" problem is going to involve killing people.
I can't agree with this, however. One possibility would be to avoid any acts that support population growth or excessive economic growth, in other words removing the incentives for these things and letting the torrent of humanity calm down a bit. I don't think it necessarily involves killing people.
I think you can interpret any policy in terms of those extremes, but it's not helpful. For example, if I say I want to cut down on drunk driving, some could interpret that as "shoot the drunk drivers." On the contrary, I advocate an end to drunk driving laws and an increase in civil penalties with extended liens over those whose drunkenness was found to cause a crash. This is less severe than killing them, but also means that if you drink and cause a wreck, you'll pay for it for the rest of your life. That's more extreme than a fine, etc.
I think this could be great, and have unintended consequences that end up strengthening piracy.
By driving out the for-profit pirates, you restore it to the hobbyists, who tend to have high standards and be somewhat fanatical.
This will probably damage piracy of the vapid "big media" movies, music, etc. but will enhance piracy of niche markets and specialty genres, which will strengthen those through the "try before buy" principle among those who are likely to buy them anyway, if they like them.
Google's policies have already somewhat achieved this model. Some of the best piracy for music at least is through Youtube these days. They take down the big acts, but you can find lots of obscure and older material (full albums) with a simple search.
In many ways, this is the resolution between pirates and industry. Industry gets to protect its big money makers, which if pirated result in a loss of profits because they are only purchased for a short term (novelty value). Pirates get access to the vast breadth of information available that isn't in that single protected category.
My advice, for everyone who thinks the way you do, is to show some leadership and live in Africa.
Africa is a classic case where rising population threatens the local wildlife and environment. The main problem is a lack of rule of law in many places, in addition to their remoteness.
I'm not sure what dkleinsc was going on about when he posted this angry reply:
My advice, for everyone who thinks this way, is to show some leadership and drop dead.
He seems to be upset at the idea of having fewer people. It's not a particularly functional response, and probably indicates some kind of personal reaction that is unrelated to a logical discussion about this topic.
Actual problem: there's too many people, using too much land, and not only can nature not keep pace through renewing resources, but we're eliminating the habitats of species. The solution is to have fewer people, which requires we rethink our concept of "freedom," and to focus on cradle-to-grave handling of technology to reduce pollution.
That's taboo.
Fake solution: plastic bag bans, CFL lightbulbs, carbon caps, and "green" disposable junk you buy at stores.
It doesn't work but it (a) feels good and (b) doesn't interrupt our busy lifestyles.
Nature: creates universe, life, billions of years of different species, creatures of every conceivable size and type, vast oceans, huge forests, nicotine, sugar and alcohol.
Humans: internal combustion, digital computers, drone strikes and Minecraft.
It makes me feel tiny, insignificant and sort of helpless, and to think the same of my species.
It seems to me like a lot of these patents are about interfaces, not algorithms or code. If you're patenting rounding buttons or that the software allows you to purchase with one click, the code is probably trivial. It's either a visual or interface idea.
You don't get to choose what society does, but if *you* want to live porn-free, then you have the freedom to not consume porn. It really is that simple.
No, it's not. I want to live in a society without the effects of legal pornography. Every action has effects, remember?
In the same way, if society legalized child porn, I'd want to live in a society without the effects of legal child porn, which would be a slow but steady legitimization of intergenerational underage sex.
In the same way, if society legalizes the Holocaust, and decides to put Jews in death camps, I can personally not put any Jews in death camps, but that doesn't change the result and the consequences for my society and myself.
While you were busy working, the masses have learned that credit is cheap and so they're buying $50,000 cars now. I am not objecting to your point, because it's a good one, but am pointing out that for many people this is no longer a (mental) barrier to purchase.
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
Have we yet covered the Southwest with solar panels? The tech seems ripe. As long as we don't obstruct any areas where protected species are, this should be a good source of power. It's fusion power, just long-distance.
Why do I still have to commute via car, and why do I always see fifteen cars in the drive-thrus, idling for up to a half hour while they get their "food"?
Then stop using negative regulation to trash my society, which influences a lot more than either of our noses.
Internet people are amazing. They repeat the same things over and over again, even when oblivious to context, and assume it somehow makes them profound.
Philosophically, it's no different than copypasta.
What I think many commentators are missing is that Google, as the actual seller of the app, is like a retail outlet. The app developer is selling through Google, not directly.
What Google is doing here is like Best Buy sending my information to Sony if I purchase a Sony camera at Best Buy.
I hope they stop this leaky, unpredictable practice. It's counter-intuitive to what the buyer rightfully expects, which is that their information is exposed to the primary seller only (Google) and not secondary providers like the app developers.
You still have the freedom to choose. It just requires relocation, much as if you want to view child porn today, you have to go outside the first world.
If your porn is that important to you, it's a small sacrifice.
Again, I will defy popular opinion and make my unfashionable point:
What do we lose, if porn is banned?
Speech is political or social commentary, which is what actually needs to be protected. If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society. If politicians attack political and social speech as porn, it must be defended there, as it has been in past court cases like the ones legalizing Ulysses and Naked Lunch. However, political speech is much more easily censored by having six media companies control the news who refuse to report on certain things.
I think "free speech" as we want to practice is now is an illusion. It has a very bad consequence, which is that the signal-to-noise ratio becomes almost all noise. Even more, it prevents us from having a community with standards. When porn is common, everyone gets desensitized to porn and lets it shape their worldview.
In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas, and in fact force them on others, just to prove we're "open-minded" and that we like government and big media are supporters of freedom, liberty, peace, sexual liberation, diversity, porn, etc.
(if you think that they're not running at a loss, try getting any other company to deliver a letter for 46 cents in any time frame, much less in the usual time for the post).
With $140 billion in annual cash flow, it doesn't look like the problem is their prices. It looks like their overhead is too high, starting with many of the Congressionally-imposed costs mentioned in the article.
Other companies do not have many of the legal advantages the USPS has that were created specifically to allow it to be solvent but inexpensive.
The service last year projected it would save $7.1 billion a year by managing its own benefits.
...a $5.6 billion payment due to the U.S. Treasury for future retiree health-care costs...
Look to the causes here, not some comparison of apples and oranges.
We'll start arresting people based on their search and CC usage history. And mainstream America will be happy "because we're safer".
Why stop there? Just arrest people for non-conforming behavior.
Anything but shopping, going to work, watching TV and loudly proclaiming "they hate us because of our freedom, liberty, peace, diversity, consumerism, sexual liberation and excellent shopping" is suspect.
If we round up these deviants, I think we can achieve Utopia within the decade.
In part, this is because those predicting them often have a vested interest in making them sound a scarier than they actually are.
Financial incentive? In science?
Well, yes. Scientists are people too, and they want the same thing most of us want: to put together enough of a money pile to leave the rat race adn go do what we want for a change, without having to make it profitable and thus bending it to the lowest common denominator (LCD).
Michael Crichton's State of Fear reveals this tendency in our media and science. Quite simply, fear sells. And what doesn't sell will not get funded, will not help your 401(k) swell, and will leave you an unethical but underpaid lab-drone while fools get the gold for preaching what people want to hear.
Slashdot Mirror
I broke the first rule of Download Club. Sorry about that.
Good .sig, by the way.
I think this situation can be resolved by viewing our search data as akin to the content we'd put online on a blog with a Google AdSense account attached.
If you're passing our data on to an end user, that user needs to pay for it, and thus this can't be a question of default settings but of a contract made between user and giant monolithic search engine company.
OK, well that leaves this:
Which two do you see as having an objectively measurable positive impact? I quote for convenience from my own message:
In addition to measuring positive impact, I think we should also mention secondary consequences and whether or not they're of greater or lesser impact than the positive impact.
I appreciate you making this clear. I didn't understand it and perceived anger in it.
I can't agree with this, however. One possibility would be to avoid any acts that support population growth or excessive economic growth, in other words removing the incentives for these things and letting the torrent of humanity calm down a bit. I don't think it necessarily involves killing people.
I think you can interpret any policy in terms of those extremes, but it's not helpful. For example, if I say I want to cut down on drunk driving, some could interpret that as "shoot the drunk drivers." On the contrary, I advocate an end to drunk driving laws and an increase in civil penalties with extended liens over those whose drunkenness was found to cause a crash. This is less severe than killing them, but also means that if you drink and cause a wreck, you'll pay for it for the rest of your life. That's more extreme than a fine, etc.
I think this could be great, and have unintended consequences that end up strengthening piracy.
By driving out the for-profit pirates, you restore it to the hobbyists, who tend to have high standards and be somewhat fanatical.
This will probably damage piracy of the vapid "big media" movies, music, etc. but will enhance piracy of niche markets and specialty genres, which will strengthen those through the "try before buy" principle among those who are likely to buy them anyway, if they like them.
Google's policies have already somewhat achieved this model. Some of the best piracy for music at least is through Youtube these days. They take down the big acts, but you can find lots of obscure and older material (full albums) with a simple search.
In many ways, this is the resolution between pirates and industry. Industry gets to protect its big money makers, which if pirated result in a loss of profits because they are only purchased for a short term (novelty value). Pirates get access to the vast breadth of information available that isn't in that single protected category.
Africa is a classic case where rising population threatens the local wildlife and environment. The main problem is a lack of rule of law in many places, in addition to their remoteness.
I'm not sure what dkleinsc was going on about when he posted this angry reply:
He seems to be upset at the idea of having fewer people. It's not a particularly functional response, and probably indicates some kind of personal reaction that is unrelated to a logical discussion about this topic.
I don't understand your comment. Who are "the wrong people," and where did you see a reference to this in my message above?
Maybe this was a misdirected reply from another thread.
Actual problem: there's too many people, using too much land, and not only can nature not keep pace through renewing resources, but we're eliminating the habitats of species. The solution is to have fewer people, which requires we rethink our concept of "freedom," and to focus on cradle-to-grave handling of technology to reduce pollution.
That's taboo.
Fake solution: plastic bag bans, CFL lightbulbs, carbon caps, and "green" disposable junk you buy at stores.
It doesn't work but it (a) feels good and (b) doesn't interrupt our busy lifestyles.
Nature: creates universe, life, billions of years of different species, creatures of every conceivable size and type, vast oceans, huge forests, nicotine, sugar and alcohol.
Humans: internal combustion, digital computers, drone strikes and Minecraft.
It makes me feel tiny, insignificant and sort of helpless, and to think the same of my species.
It seems to me like a lot of these patents are about interfaces, not algorithms or code. If you're patenting rounding buttons or that the software allows you to purchase with one click, the code is probably trivial. It's either a visual or interface idea.
Religion seems to be a mixed bag, in that a lot of good comes of it along with the alleged bad. Porn has no such record.
What necessary function does porn serve?
What does it contribute?
No, it's not. I want to live in a society without the effects of legal pornography. Every action has effects, remember?
In the same way, if society legalized child porn, I'd want to live in a society without the effects of legal child porn, which would be a slow but steady legitimization of intergenerational underage sex.
In the same way, if society legalizes the Holocaust, and decides to put Jews in death camps, I can personally not put any Jews in death camps, but that doesn't change the result and the consequences for my society and myself.
First you think regulation can destroy our society, now you're claiming it's weak.
What exactly are you arguing here?
While you were busy working, the masses have learned that credit is cheap and so they're buying $50,000 cars now. I am not objecting to your point, because it's a good one, but am pointing out that for many people this is no longer a (mental) barrier to purchase.
Are we nuclear yet? Or still burning coal?
A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.
Are we nuclear yet? For us to do that, we have to take the maintenance of these plants out of the hands of potential Homer Simpsons.
Have we yet covered the Southwest with solar panels? The tech seems ripe. As long as we don't obstruct any areas where protected species are, this should be a good source of power. It's fusion power, just long-distance.
Why do I still have to commute via car, and why do I always see fifteen cars in the drive-thrus, idling for up to a half hour while they get their "food"?
I make an exception for Taco Bell of course.
Then stop using negative regulation to trash my society, which influences a lot more than either of our noses.
Internet people are amazing. They repeat the same things over and over again, even when oblivious to context, and assume it somehow makes them profound.
Philosophically, it's no different than copypasta.
Children can consent to many things, including porn. Just ask them.
Whether that's the case legally is another matter, but the past 50 years have shown us that legal standards change quite a bit regarding sexuality.
If NAMBLA contributes a few million to an election campaign, it could be legal sooner than you think. Free speech!
If I want to live in a porn-free society, that's my only option. Are you OK with that?
What I think many commentators are missing is that Google, as the actual seller of the app, is like a retail outlet. The app developer is selling through Google, not directly.
What Google is doing here is like Best Buy sending my information to Sony if I purchase a Sony camera at Best Buy.
I hope they stop this leaky, unpredictable practice. It's counter-intuitive to what the buyer rightfully expects, which is that their information is exposed to the primary seller only (Google) and not secondary providers like the app developers.
You still have the freedom to choose. It just requires relocation, much as if you want to view child porn today, you have to go outside the first world.
If your porn is that important to you, it's a small sacrifice.
Again, I will defy popular opinion and make my unfashionable point:
What do we lose, if porn is banned?
Speech is political or social commentary, which is what actually needs to be protected. If porn gets banned, we don't lose anything that will improve our society. If politicians attack political and social speech as porn, it must be defended there, as it has been in past court cases like the ones legalizing Ulysses and Naked Lunch. However, political speech is much more easily censored by having six media companies control the news who refuse to report on certain things.
I think "free speech" as we want to practice is now is an illusion. It has a very bad consequence, which is that the signal-to-noise ratio becomes almost all noise. Even more, it prevents us from having a community with standards. When porn is common, everyone gets desensitized to porn and lets it shape their worldview.
In the name of freedom of speech, expression, etc. we have permitted ourselves to become crass and to support outright destructive ideas, and in fact force them on others, just to prove we're "open-minded" and that we like government and big media are supporters of freedom, liberty, peace, sexual liberation, diversity, porn, etc.
With $140 billion in annual cash flow, it doesn't look like the problem is their prices. It looks like their overhead is too high, starting with many of the Congressionally-imposed costs mentioned in the article.
Other companies do not have many of the legal advantages the USPS has that were created specifically to allow it to be solvent but inexpensive.
Look to the causes here, not some comparison of apples and oranges.
Why stop there? Just arrest people for non-conforming behavior.
Anything but shopping, going to work, watching TV and loudly proclaiming "they hate us because of our freedom, liberty, peace, diversity, consumerism, sexual liberation and excellent shopping" is suspect.
If we round up these deviants, I think we can achieve Utopia within the decade.
Financial incentive? In science?
Well, yes. Scientists are people too, and they want the same thing most of us want: to put together enough of a money pile to leave the rat race adn go do what we want for a change, without having to make it profitable and thus bending it to the lowest common denominator (LCD).
Michael Crichton's State of Fear reveals this tendency in our media and science. Quite simply, fear sells. And what doesn't sell will not get funded, will not help your 401(k) swell, and will leave you an unethical but underpaid lab-drone while fools get the gold for preaching what people want to hear.