if you bring in Expert along with it you have to bring in a qualifying machanism for expert. i.e how you can trust an expert? he/she may misguide you for his/her gains.
I agree with you, I don't think the problem is an easy problem. Take for example this idea. Osama Bin Ladin says person X is an expert in flying planes, or better yet, person X is an expert in Civil Engineering (his degree is in Engineering if I remeber correctly.) Now is person X an expert in those areas? Do you let him into your 100 story building?
My problem I propose has no easy answer, I agree to that.
In general: What you are doing is integrating sucessesfull solutions. Focus on new solutions.
Specifically now, the problem with tagging is that you are drawing a relationship between you and a friend, and it's based on trust/affinity. You trust your friends views of Auto Repair and not on politics. But agreeing/affinity/trust is not the same thing as experience or level of ability. Just becuase you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they are not an expert or that they are not more correct than you.
The goal shouldn't be to find more stuff that agree's with ourselves, but to find more stuff which is more correct.
You want something else. There are different dynamics where you trust people. For example, no one should trust me with regard to South American history and politics. The reason, I know nothing about those areas. There needs to be a connection between Trust and areas of knowledge.
For example, I trust my parents, but I would never trust them to make decisions about computers. But if it came to building a building, I'd trust my father a bit more as he is an architect and his field is related to the construction of buildings. But I would never trust my mom regarding that. Now if the issue was the development and educational patterns of children in a bi-lingual situation, I would trust my mom, but I would never trust my father. He isn't a highly trained educator, he is an architect.
This type of trust network is good, but really is just an extension of the database that AOL has had for their buddy lists on AIM for years.
What is really needed is a way to rate peoples expertise in areas. If this can be done, a whole new dynamic internet could be formed.
Just one example of this would be to filter Wiki articles based on the level of expertise that author has in the subject.
Another example would be to filter all the recommendations you see on amazon. Wow, an English professor at Oxford recommends I read this book about the development of the symbolic languages, perhaps I should pay attention. -OR- Wow, this Policy Wonk who works for this special interest wants me to trust his opinions about the enviroment. Nope!
So to restate it, we need an Expert Network, on top of our Trust Network. And the trust networks are already in place. Just use any IM network, and apply a trust value to that connection. Now getting the Expert Network established, that's another problem. Perhaps tying a connection between each user and a DMOZ catagory. Or something along those lines.
One: I would look for some data mining companies with some nice IP. If you choose correctly you could end up with a nice product to brand. Some nice Algorithms to improve your own systems. And some nice IP to own. Think along the lines of say Biometrics, pattern regconition, and datamining. The idea is to imporve your own search and to leapfrog remaining companies in this space by tying in data mining into search.
Two: GIS. Purchase some of the providers of the data for your Google Maps. Purchase the company which will scan buildings and real world strucutres to put into Keyhole. You might also want to pick up a nice clean multiplatform 3D engine. You also want to pick up better GeoCoding capabilities.
Three: Realtime Monitoring. Traffic.com and other sites like this which provide real time data about the real world. Also look into companies which provide real time monitoring of other transportation systems.
Let them charge you a percentage of money you save by switching to Windows from your previous operating system...
So, if you save a ton of money switching from Windows Server 2003 to Dos 5.0. Then Dos 5.0 costs $1000. But if you can't save a dime by switching from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Then they don't get a dime.
Man 'killed' the all knowing all seeing and now 'we' are finding we need a replacement for him so 'we' are empowering our government to be that all seeing all knowing force.
I personally think the All knowing all Powerful God was a bit more manageable than the All knowing and All Powerful state.
[blockquote]Once our privileges get escalated to "godlike" we'll just bring them back[/blockquote]
Some would say that you have just described what heaven/purgatory will be like for the first couple of tens of thousands of years. We get to clean up the crap hole we made of the place, and fix all the mistakes we made to good ol' mother earth. But the idea would probably be more along the lines of "immortal" as opposed to "godlike".
1. I don't see how this is a trick question for Christian Scientists.
2. I think your statement should read, what percentage of species that once lived are now extinct. Extinction is generally applied to a species or subspecies, not a specific animal.
One general thing.
3. As a Christian Scientist, I would agree with your assertion that the natral process has killed more species than humans have.
I know that where I work there is a basic 6 month email retention policy, which states that all email will be deleted if it is 6 months old. I have always wondered if and when this will change.
There is probably an opportunity here for a company to come up with an extension to an email system which will manage keeping old emails. Something which will allow for the catagorizing of unstructured data. That way the system can trash the not to serious emails and keep the 'important' ones.
The interviewer and writer was a published author with several books listed on Amazon. Now granted this person was not on the level of a Bruce Sterling, but there was enough info on him out there that I was able to read several books by him before I was interviewed.
I've been interviewed for a Wired Story, and the interviewers/Writers editor called us up to fact check, and quote check. I wonder why this didn't happen here?
You can make that comment in 2019 when we see what cameras can do. And of course when we see what Computers can do then as well. It's kinda like looking today at a game like World of Warcraft and saying such a thing would be crazy back 1970. Bladerunner was basically set 35 years in the future...
What about a regard for the authors/artist orignal intent, do you not think that should be given some level of creedance above and beyond my own interpertation of a given piece of artwork? What about experts in the same field?
What I am pushing towards is that artwork and its interperation are not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. Facts about the author and his culture. Facts about the viewer/reader and his culture.
We can establish that there are certain facts about an author and his intent, and his ability to communicate to his orignal audience. I also say we can establish certain facts about person makeing the critique's ability to understand a given piece of art and his cultures ability to understand it.
If we take these four facts and judge someones interpertation against them, we can make a value judgement about that piece of art within my context and within the artists context.
I guess what I'm making a distinction between good vs. bad and enjoyable vs. unenjoyable.
There are no facts about which is intrinsically better, only opinions, and mine are just as valid as his.
Have you ever studied literary Criticism? Do you know that there are whole different schools of thought, and different methodologies?
I ask all this becuase the position you are currently taking in regards to criticism is one which few take becuase it is fraught with many problems. The largest of which I will present.
For example: Take your statement about opinions, I say its full of crap and you are a dullard and a ninny for holding it. It's an opinion, and therefore valid.
I would suggest that perhaps a different way of considering the value of a proposition should be looked at.
One thing way off topic that tends to annoy me about the argument regarding sexaulity is that those on one side of the issue always assume that the other side of the issue has a certain belief, or that supporting a certain belief will provide ammunition for the 'other' side.
Your example. If someone argues for Choice in regards to sexual preference and saying that it plays into the hands of the religious right is wrong.
As someone who considers themsevlves religious, I feel that there are people who are born homosexual and people who through the circumstances of life has been brought to that place. The problem is that the next assumed argument is that if someone is born a certain way, they have they are right to continue to life that way.
So the here is how the argument goes:
Gay. I was born gay RR. No you were not Gay. You have no idea on my reality. (tune out) RR. Stop Ignoring me, I have something to say {Idealogical wars with both sides sticking fingers in their ears and hating each other}
or
Gay. I was born gay. RR. Yea, thats possible. Gay. Then I was created this way. RR. No, you were born that way. Gay. I will continue to life my life this way. RR. ok, but I feel that is also wrong. Gay. Then how can you say I can't help the way I was born and yet its still wrong. RR. Now you are starting to get the idea that Christianity calls Orignal Sin. {Discussion on beingness and good and evil starts}
I feel that the second approach is a lot more helpful. So as one crazy right winged religious nut to a openly homosexual, can we each try to move the discussion off the first and forward onto the second one? I'll do my job in trying to convince the rest of the whacko's in my community that they shouldn't tell you how you were born and what's inside your head. With that said, can you tell the outspoken members of your community that not all of us on the religious right are homophobes who hate you, and there are some of us who don't mind converstaions as long as they don't dredge up all the past hate?
Ted Tschopp p.s. I'm sure now that I posted this I'm going to take some heat, perhaps I should have done the cowardly thing and posted Anonymously. Oh well, now you all know where at least one of us stands. Fire away! How much you wanna bet I get hit from both sides on this one.
Here is one issue. We used Google ads for a while until they shut us off. Turned out that someone else (not those of us running the site) had set up a bot and had been clicking away at the links.
We have no idea if this was to 'help' us or to hurt us. But the problem remains. Want to screw someone over who has uses Googles Adwords on the site. You know how. Want to screw someone over who is advertising on Google. Now you know how.
The assumption that is being made by google is that there is a relationship between the clicking on an add and the recievership of money. In our case there might have been a relationship, but it was done without our knowledge. Now we can't use any of Google's Ads.
The issue is a bit harder than it orignally seems.
Well, normally in the past we would have released it by now, but becuase you are always complaining about security, the piece of crap is caught in a security review, and marketing is getting worried that we won't ship on time. So here have at it, and we told you so.
I started to play around with morphing each of the days images into the next. I'll spend more time away from work trying to get that to work. The effect for the month of April was interesting. Now to watch it for the full year, that would be very cool.
The Arclight Theatre(http://www.arclightcinemas.com), where they are trying to get it shown, is the old Cinerama Dome theatre a couple blocks away, and is now the latest place in Hollywood to catch a movie. They have a rather nice restraunt, and the food they serve is actually quite good. Seating is assigned. On a given night of the week, you will see premiers there, press screenings, and random film festivals. They also play old movies and have the writers and directors show up and give talks.
Also don't be too suprised if you see famous people waiting in line with you to purchase a tasty beverage.
Another nice feature of the theatre is that they offer 21+ screenings of most R rated movies. Get a couple stiff drinks or a couple beers and watch your movie. It really helps for those really bad Sci-Fi movies which call for a full suspension of disbelif. I know that for one I will be seeing SW:III there.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually rather easy.
Step 1. Include support in IIS (via Patch)
Step 2. Include support for it in IE (via Patch)
Step 3. DONE!
I agree with you, I don't think the problem is an easy problem. Take for example this idea. Osama Bin Ladin says person X is an expert in flying planes, or better yet, person X is an expert in Civil Engineering (his degree is in Engineering if I remeber correctly.) Now is person X an expert in those areas? Do you let him into your 100 story building? My problem I propose has no easy answer, I agree to that.
I'm not trying to be a spoil sport with this.
In general: What you are doing is integrating
sucessesfull solutions. Focus on new solutions.
Specifically now, the problem with tagging is that you are drawing a relationship between you and a friend, and it's based on trust/affinity. You trust your friends views of Auto Repair and not on politics. But agreeing/affinity/trust is not the same thing as experience or level of ability. Just becuase you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they are not an expert or that they are not more correct than you.
The goal shouldn't be to find more stuff that agree's with ourselves, but to find more stuff which is more correct.
You want something else. There are different dynamics where you trust people. For example, no one should trust me with regard to South American history and politics. The reason, I know nothing about those areas. There needs to be a connection between Trust and areas of knowledge.
For example, I trust my parents, but I would never trust them to make decisions about computers. But if it came to building a building, I'd trust my father a bit more as he is an architect and his field is related to the construction of buildings. But I would never trust my mom regarding that. Now if the issue was the development and educational patterns of children in a bi-lingual situation, I would trust my mom, but I would never trust my father. He isn't a highly trained educator, he is an architect.
This type of trust network is good, but really is just an extension of the database that AOL has had for their buddy lists on AIM for years.
What is really needed is a way to rate peoples expertise in areas. If this can be done, a whole new dynamic internet could be formed.
Just one example of this would be to filter Wiki articles based on the level of expertise that author has in the subject.
Another example would be to filter all the recommendations you see on amazon. Wow, an English professor at Oxford recommends I read this book about the development of the symbolic languages, perhaps I should pay attention. -OR- Wow, this Policy Wonk who works for this special interest wants me to trust his opinions about the enviroment. Nope!
So to restate it, we need an Expert Network, on top of our Trust Network. And the trust networks are already in place. Just use any IM network, and apply a trust value to that connection. Now getting the Expert Network established, that's another problem. Perhaps tying a connection between each user and a DMOZ catagory. Or something along those lines.
Ted Tschopp
Spyware is found in Bit Torrent.
Microsoft Releases competitor to Bit Torrent.
Wow, I'm so glad they were so responsive to that problem. It only took them a couple of hours! That's amazing!
One: I would look for some data mining companies with some nice IP. If you choose correctly you could end up with a nice product to brand. Some nice Algorithms to improve your own systems. And some nice IP to own. Think along the lines of say Biometrics, pattern regconition, and datamining. The idea is to imporve your own search and to leapfrog remaining companies in this space by tying in data mining into search.
Two: GIS. Purchase some of the providers of the data for your Google Maps. Purchase the company which will scan buildings and real world strucutres to put into Keyhole. You might also want to pick up a nice clean multiplatform 3D engine. You also want to pick up better GeoCoding capabilities.
Three: Realtime Monitoring. Traffic.com and other sites like this which provide real time data about the real world. Also look into companies which provide real time monitoring of other transportation systems.
Let them charge you a percentage of money you save by switching to Windows from your previous operating system...
So, if you save a ton of money switching from Windows Server 2003 to Dos 5.0. Then Dos 5.0 costs $1000. But if you can't save a dime by switching from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Then they don't get a dime.
Ahhh... now wouldn't that be nice?
Ted Tschopp
Man 'killed' the all knowing all seeing and now 'we' are finding we need a replacement for him so 'we' are empowering our government to be that all seeing all knowing force.
I personally think the All knowing all Powerful God was a bit more manageable than the All knowing and All Powerful state.
Microsoft goes for the IBM Power PC chips as Apple signs on for the Intel Chips.
I can hardly wait until tomorrow to see what other strange things are afoot.
[blockquote]Once our privileges get escalated to "godlike" we'll just bring them back[/blockquote]
Some would say that you have just described what heaven/purgatory will be like for the first couple of tens of thousands of years. We get to clean up the crap hole we made of the place, and fix all the mistakes we made to good ol' mother earth. But the idea would probably be more along the lines of "immortal" as opposed to "godlike".
Two picky things:
1. I don't see how this is a trick question for Christian Scientists.
2. I think your statement should read, what percentage of species that once lived are now extinct. Extinction is generally applied to a species or subspecies, not a specific animal.
One general thing.
3. As a Christian Scientist, I would agree with your assertion that the natral process has killed more species than humans have.
Ted Tschopp
I know that where I work there is a basic 6 month email retention policy, which states that all email will be deleted if it is 6 months old. I have always wondered if and when this will change.
There is probably an opportunity here for a company to come up with an extension to an email system which will manage keeping old emails. Something which will allow for the catagorizing of unstructured data. That way the system can trash the not to serious emails and keep the 'important' ones.
Ted Tschopp
The interviewer and writer was a published author with several books listed on Amazon. Now granted this person was not on the level of a Bruce Sterling, but there was enough info on him out there that I was able to read several books by him before I was interviewed.
I've been interviewed for a Wired Story, and the interviewers/Writers editor called us up to fact check, and quote check. I wonder why this didn't happen here?
Strange...
Ted Tschopp
You are Black.
In all seriousness, why do you think that all of a sudden she is voicing the opinions of Real and Microsoft?
You can make that comment in 2019 when we see what cameras can do. And of course when we see what Computers can do then as well. It's kinda like looking today at a game like World of Warcraft and saying such a thing would be crazy back 1970. Bladerunner was basically set 35 years in the future...
They are forced to purchase this small startup when they truely do something innovative with said technology...
Ted
What about a regard for the authors/artist orignal intent, do you not think that should be given some level of creedance above and beyond my own interpertation of a given piece of artwork? What about experts in the same field?
What I am pushing towards is that artwork and its interperation are not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of facts. Facts about the author and his culture. Facts about the viewer/reader and his culture.
We can establish that there are certain facts about an author and his intent, and his ability to communicate to his orignal audience. I also say we can establish certain facts about person makeing the critique's ability to understand a given piece of art and his cultures ability to understand it.
If we take these four facts and judge someones interpertation against them, we can make a value judgement about that piece of art within my context and within the artists context.
I guess what I'm making a distinction between good vs. bad and enjoyable vs. unenjoyable.
Have you ever studied literary Criticism? Do you know that there are whole different schools of thought, and different methodologies?
I ask all this becuase the position you are currently taking in regards to criticism is one which few take becuase it is fraught with many problems. The largest of which I will present.
For example: Take your statement about opinions, I say its full of crap and you are a dullard and a ninny for holding it. It's an opinion, and therefore valid.
I would suggest that perhaps a different way of considering the value of a proposition should be looked at.
One thing way off topic that tends to annoy me about the argument regarding sexaulity is that those on one side of the issue always assume that the other side of the issue has a certain belief, or that supporting a certain belief will provide ammunition for the 'other' side.
Your example. If someone argues for Choice in regards to sexual preference and saying that it plays into the hands of the religious right is wrong.
As someone who considers themsevlves religious, I feel that there are people who are born homosexual and people who through the circumstances of life has been brought to that place. The problem is that the next assumed argument is that if someone is born a certain way, they have they are right to continue to life that way.
So the here is how the argument goes:
Gay. I was born gay
RR. No you were not
Gay. You have no idea on my reality. (tune out)
RR. Stop Ignoring me, I have something to say
{Idealogical wars with both sides sticking fingers in their ears and hating each other}
or
Gay. I was born gay.
RR. Yea, thats possible.
Gay. Then I was created this way.
RR. No, you were born that way.
Gay. I will continue to life my life this way.
RR. ok, but I feel that is also wrong.
Gay. Then how can you say I can't help the way I was born and yet its still wrong.
RR. Now you are starting to get the idea that Christianity calls Orignal Sin.
{Discussion on beingness and good and evil starts}
I feel that the second approach is a lot more helpful. So as one crazy right winged religious nut to a openly homosexual, can we each try to move the discussion off the first and forward onto the second one? I'll do my job in trying to convince the rest of the whacko's in my community that they shouldn't tell you how you were born and what's inside your head. With that said, can you tell the outspoken members of your community that not all of us on the religious right are homophobes who hate you, and there are some of us who don't mind converstaions as long as they don't dredge up all the past hate?
Ted Tschopp
p.s. I'm sure now that I posted this I'm going to take some heat, perhaps I should have done the cowardly thing and posted Anonymously. Oh well, now you all know where at least one of us stands. Fire away! How much you wanna bet I get hit from both sides on this one.
Here is one issue. We used Google ads for a while until they shut us off. Turned out that someone else (not those of us running the site) had set up a bot and had been clicking away at the links.
We have no idea if this was to 'help' us or to hurt us. But the problem remains. Want to screw someone over who has uses Googles Adwords on the site. You know how. Want to screw someone over who is advertising on Google. Now you know how.
The assumption that is being made by google is that there is a relationship between the clicking on an add and the recievership of money. In our case there might have been a relationship, but it was done without our knowledge. Now we can't use any of Google's Ads.
The issue is a bit harder than it orignally seems.
Ted
Well, normally in the past we would have released it by now, but becuase you are always complaining about security, the piece of crap is caught in a security review, and marketing is getting worried that we won't ship on time. So here have at it, and we told you so.
Ted
"What" ain't no country I know! Do they speak English in "What?"
But on a side note, I Agree... What?
I started to play around with morphing each of the days images into the next. I'll spend more time away from work trying to get that to work. The effect for the month of April was interesting. Now to watch it for the full year, that would be very cool.
Ted
The Arclight Theatre(http://www.arclightcinemas.com), where they are trying to get it shown, is the old Cinerama Dome theatre a couple blocks away, and is now the latest place in Hollywood to catch a movie. They have a rather nice restraunt, and the food they serve is actually quite good. Seating is assigned. On a given night of the week, you will see premiers there, press screenings, and random film festivals. They also play old movies and have the writers and directors show up and give talks.
Also don't be too suprised if you see famous people waiting in line with you to purchase a tasty beverage.
Another nice feature of the theatre is that they offer 21+ screenings of most R rated movies. Get a couple stiff drinks or a couple beers and watch your movie. It really helps for those really bad Sci-Fi movies which call for a full suspension of disbelif. I know that for one I will be seeing SW:III there.
Ted