Negative attitude aside, you're pretty much right on the money. I find it seems similar to the jock/geek mentality many of us encountered in high school. The jocks had the "power" then, but the vast majority of them have lost it, and I'd wager that those that did keep some of it did so because they buddied-up with the geeks before it was too late. The rest of them are managing McD's or something else equally unsatisfying.
In this scenario, the publishing companies become the jocks as they currently have the money/influence/power/etc. This will change (how soon is another discussion completely) and those that wish to retain any modicum of profitability are going to have to start buddying-up to those they chastise today.
And since I'm ranting anyway... I'm *really* looking forward to when this happens to the RIAA and MPAA. Their business model is changing and they aren't going to be able to rake in cash hand-over-foot as they have in the past. Their entire infrastructure is becoming obsolete and I'm going to enjoy watching them slowly crush themselves under their own weight and ignorance. It reminds me of a scene from Erik the Viking:
[Hy-Brasil is sinking, everything is collapsing and exploding] Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!
That seems to be about how it works anyhow, so no net change? If they don't spend on mining 'roids, they'll spend on buying huge yachts, jets, etc. The resources will still be misallocated.
You give the link to your friends. The link contains both a paste ID as well as a key. You and your friends' browsers use the key to decrypt the data for the given paste ID.
So, anyone that uses it not only has a potential key stored in their browsing history (if they are a newbly-type user), but even more importantly, their ISP has a history URLs requested, which *definitely* has the key posted.
Granted, the key is random every time and, in theory, the server should be deleting what you posted after the time you specified, but one can't really verify that and we're back to trusting the server again.
You're talking about test results. You wouldn't know that there were 1001 bees at the large flowers and 1000 bees at the small flowers unless you had already conducted your test. The fact that you were able to conduct your test (regardless of what the results were) makes it testable, yes?
(And, no, gathering the opinions of people on what they think is prettier is not a test - it's a survey)
I think that "prettier" is surveyable, but not testable. At least, not testable by yourself, which is how I personally interpret the word "testable". If you need to ask a group of other people their opinion on something, then that's not testing it - that's gathering a popular consensus of opinion as opposed to fact.
I didn't mean to imply that natural selection was limited to the medicinal field, but was just classifying the specific context being discussed (vaccination VS natural selection). Using a vaccine could be argued as being natural selection because humans are generally a social and collaborative species. Somewhere, though, the line between "natural" and "man-made" selection (as in "natural" and "man-made" carbon emissions, etc.) becomes blurred and I'd imagine that everyone is going to have a different viewpoint on where that line is, whether that's in medicine, comprehension of danger, choosing of a mate, or whatever.
Natural selection doing its job would be killing people off from the disease. By taking vaccinations, you're denying natural selection. Not that I agree/disagree with vaccination - just sayin.:)
Are young black men more violent towards young white men because they're inherently violent because of genetics?
Out of curiosity, if this were a scientifically proven fact (not saying that it is, mind you, just hypothisising [is that a word?]), would reacting to said individuals on sight as if they were dangerous constitute racism or stereotyping?
My guess is that "apps" like this have existed for a good while now. Just underground... where the creepier, more shadowy characters lurk. It's most likely that they still exist there.
I'd mod you if I hadn't arleady posted, but this is a concerning point that I didn't see addressed in the comments above (my apologies if I missed it - there are a lot of comments here).
To me, personally, it seems *much* more creepy for someone to collect all of this information manually... "behind closed doors", as it were. Someone with the technical knowledge, drive, and motivation to go down this path sounds like the ingredients for a stereotypical horror movie opening (Any takers on how long it takes Hollywood to make this movie? They probably already have...). Someone with that level of intelligence seems potentially that much more dangerous than the common yokel who can download an app. It seems to me that an app like this should be shedding light on the privacy issues that people themselves just aren't taking care of. Take these two remarkably similar statements for example...
"Ok, [insert gossipy friend's name here], I'm going to tell you some secrets, but you can't tell anyone, alright?"
"Ok, [insert internet connected machine here], I'm going to give you some secrets, but you can't tell anyone, alright?"
Riiiightt.... Like anyone should trust a machine to keep a secret. Anyone with the right technical knowledge can pry any information stored in any machine and, being that the internet is pretty much one big machine (at least in working theory for sake of discussion, anyway), anything you post anywhere can (and most likely will) be retrieved at one point or another. In other words, if there's stuff I don't want people to know, I have about as much interest in telling "the internet" as I would my most gossipy friends/family... i.e. *none*.
There's this huge outcry for social networks to keep our data private. I have a better idea: Let's keep our own data private! I know, I know... it's a *radical* concept, but the crux is this: Social networks are designed to be social. They're supposed to be a digital equivalent of that gossipy friend you have. You know... the one that's always going, "[tsk]... did you hear what *he* said?" While it's true that you could blame a gossipy friend for revealing your secrets, but, ultimately, it was you that revealed them in the first place - especially to someone you know to be gossipy.
My apologies to all of you who know this already - this is primarily intended to be for the benefit of people who don't think.:)
Close, but not quite. By default, your land-line information is posted in the white pages unless you pay a service fee to have it not listed. My solution is to not have a land-line. Or a facebook account for that matter.:)
With the number of comments in this thread, this has bound to have been said repeatedly and in various forms, but that's not enough - I need to say it myself.
This is the stupidest load of horseshit I've heard of in a loooong time. This is *reality* we live in. Being offended because someone shared an opposing opinion seems completely idiotic and closed minded. Creating laws/regulations around such closed minded attitudes sets a dangerous precedent. This *might* be putting on the tinfoil hat for a moment, but, really... how long before this gets accepted as normal, then big brother starts using this precedent to stifle any discussion that opposes its views? That might be *slightly* unrealistic and contrived, but my original point is still valid. (Unless you happen to be offended by my original point, in which case I should lose the right to express it, correct?)
Slashdot Mirror
Negative attitude aside, you're pretty much right on the money. I find it seems similar to the jock/geek mentality many of us encountered in high school. The jocks had the "power" then, but the vast majority of them have lost it, and I'd wager that those that did keep some of it did so because they buddied-up with the geeks before it was too late. The rest of them are managing McD's or something else equally unsatisfying.
In this scenario, the publishing companies become the jocks as they currently have the money/influence/power/etc. This will change (how soon is another discussion completely) and those that wish to retain any modicum of profitability are going to have to start buddying-up to those they chastise today.
And since I'm ranting anyway... I'm *really* looking forward to when this happens to the RIAA and MPAA. Their business model is changing and they aren't going to be able to rake in cash hand-over-foot as they have in the past. Their entire infrastructure is becoming obsolete and I'm going to enjoy watching them slowly crush themselves under their own weight and ignorance. It reminds me of a scene from Erik the Viking:
[Hy-Brasil is sinking, everything is collapsing and exploding] Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!
Oh... posting undoes that? Interesting. Nothing to see here...
Meh... misclicked and you got your wish :\
That seems to be about how it works anyhow, so no net change? If they don't spend on mining 'roids, they'll spend on buying huge yachts, jets, etc. The resources will still be misallocated.
And why shouldn't they invest in their childhood dreams?
You give the link to your friends. The link contains both a paste ID as well as a key. You and your friends' browsers use the key to decrypt the data for the given paste ID.
So, anyone that uses it not only has a potential key stored in their browsing history (if they are a newbly-type user), but even more importantly, their ISP has a history URLs requested, which *definitely* has the key posted.
Granted, the key is random every time and, in theory, the server should be deleting what you posted after the time you specified, but one can't really verify that and we're back to trusting the server again.
You're talking about test results. You wouldn't know that there were 1001 bees at the large flowers and 1000 bees at the small flowers unless you had already conducted your test. The fact that you were able to conduct your test (regardless of what the results were) makes it testable, yes?
(And, no, gathering the opinions of people on what they think is prettier is not a test - it's a survey)
I think that "prettier" is surveyable, but not testable. At least, not testable by yourself, which is how I personally interpret the word "testable". If you need to ask a group of other people their opinion on something, then that's not testing it - that's gathering a popular consensus of opinion as opposed to fact.
They have Montessori schools that are public? All the ones we've found in our area are private and *very* expensive.
I think he misspoke (mistyped?) and meant *sub*jective, perhaps? :)
I didn't mean to imply that natural selection was limited to the medicinal field, but was just classifying the specific context being discussed (vaccination VS natural selection). Using a vaccine could be argued as being natural selection because humans are generally a social and collaborative species. Somewhere, though, the line between "natural" and "man-made" selection (as in "natural" and "man-made" carbon emissions, etc.) becomes blurred and I'd imagine that everyone is going to have a different viewpoint on where that line is, whether that's in medicine, comprehension of danger, choosing of a mate, or whatever.
:)
... natural selection doing its job, etc...
Natural selection doing its job would be killing people off from the disease. By taking vaccinations, you're denying natural selection. Not that I agree/disagree with vaccination - just sayin. :)
You should be careful - you're getting awfully close to the way things work.
If they* don't just pass a law declaring that this type of operation is illegal.
(* they == anyone with the power [directly or otherwise] to enact/enable such a law)
Does this mean that some hybrid of IE/Netscrape will be created? That could be either very interesting or very scary.
Are young black men more violent towards young white men because they're inherently violent because of genetics?
Out of curiosity, if this were a scientifically proven fact (not saying that it is, mind you, just hypothisising [is that a word?]), would reacting to said individuals on sight as if they were dangerous constitute racism or stereotyping?
Or, at least, get our electorates to vote 3rd party...
A public presence doesn't necessarily have to be *your* personal data. That's what a persona is for! :)
My guess is that "apps" like this have existed for a good while now. Just underground... where the creepier, more shadowy characters lurk. It's most likely that they still exist there.
I'd mod you if I hadn't arleady posted, but this is a concerning point that I didn't see addressed in the comments above (my apologies if I missed it - there are a lot of comments here).
:)
To me, personally, it seems *much* more creepy for someone to collect all of this information manually... "behind closed doors", as it were. Someone with the technical knowledge, drive, and motivation to go down this path sounds like the ingredients for a stereotypical horror movie opening (Any takers on how long it takes Hollywood to make this movie? They probably already have...). Someone with that level of intelligence seems potentially that much more dangerous than the common yokel who can download an app. It seems to me that an app like this should be shedding light on the privacy issues that people themselves just aren't taking care of. Take these two remarkably similar statements for example...
"Ok, [insert gossipy friend's name here], I'm going to tell you some secrets, but you can't tell anyone, alright?"
"Ok, [insert internet connected machine here], I'm going to give you some secrets, but you can't tell anyone, alright?"
Riiiightt.... Like anyone should trust a machine to keep a secret. Anyone with the right technical knowledge can pry any information stored in any machine and, being that the internet is pretty much one big machine (at least in working theory for sake of discussion, anyway), anything you post anywhere can (and most likely will) be retrieved at one point or another. In other words, if there's stuff I don't want people to know, I have about as much interest in telling "the internet" as I would my most gossipy friends/family... i.e. *none*.
There's this huge outcry for social networks to keep our data private. I have a better idea: Let's keep our own data private! I know, I know... it's a *radical* concept, but the crux is this: Social networks are designed to be social. They're supposed to be a digital equivalent of that gossipy friend you have. You know... the one that's always going, "[tsk]... did you hear what *he* said?" While it's true that you could blame a gossipy friend for revealing your secrets, but, ultimately, it was you that revealed them in the first place - especially to someone you know to be gossipy.
My apologies to all of you who know this already - this is primarily intended to be for the benefit of people who don't think.
But... in the US... corporations *are* individuals. Or something to that effect. :)
Close, but not quite. By default, your land-line information is posted in the white pages unless you pay a service fee to have it not listed. My solution is to not have a land-line. Or a facebook account for that matter. :)
Speedos (and all spandex) are a privilege, not a right!
Aren't apples fruits? :)
With the number of comments in this thread, this has bound to have been said repeatedly and in various forms, but that's not enough - I need to say it myself.
:)
This is the stupidest load of horseshit I've heard of in a loooong time. This is *reality* we live in. Being offended because someone shared an opposing opinion seems completely idiotic and closed minded. Creating laws/regulations around such closed minded attitudes sets a dangerous precedent. This *might* be putting on the tinfoil hat for a moment, but, really... how long before this gets accepted as normal, then big brother starts using this precedent to stifle any discussion that opposes its views? That might be *slightly* unrealistic and contrived, but my original point is still valid. (Unless you happen to be offended by my original point, in which case I should lose the right to express it, correct?)
Sorry... I feel better now, thanks for reading!