Thank you for the excellent reference. It makes a strong and worthwhile arguement. It does work, just not perfectly. Note, this response is directed to address the applicability of the paper to my system proposed above...
Where content providers don't feel it is of benefit to label their content and the related possibility of mislabeling- wheter deliberately or unintentionally.
In fast paced/free flowing mediums - such as slashdot, IRC, and USENET.
For webhosting communities such as geocities where a vast number of users post individual pages that may not be categorized.
When a site has not been rated by others than the creator.
differing standards among groups and individuals
metric problems (related to above...)
trusted recipient - ie can the client disable the filter
dynamically genereated content versus static pages
Third party ratings... *****
For the first case, using more than one source for the labeling system with independant labelers. Contention cases can be flagged and sent to a trusted independent reviewer
For free flowing mediums- they cannot be rated quickly enough, but they can be categorically rated as generally safe or unsafe if the discussion forum is longer lasting. Also, most forums have trends. Admittedly, inappropriate content can be posted to any of these mediums, but some are more likely than others. This must be left to the viewers discretion... There isn't really any good solution (Slashdot moderation works, but Usenet rarely has the critical masss for any specific forum, and IRC/Chatrooms are to fast response...)
Geocities etc. - the content can vary frequently on these sites and deliberate deciet of the moderators is trivial (ie posting something innocent one day, then pRon the next...). Depending on how critical that the 'offensive' material be avoided, blocking or not of these sites must be up to the individual. A spider that rescans after each content change might help, but a sufficiently crafty individual can easily defeat them.
Unrated sites- upon desire to access, these can be flagged, and sent to an appropriate reviewer for immediate review. This probably is not quick enough response for a site which is desired immediate access. This will be dependent upon the immportance of protecting the viewer from 'harmful' content, and the number of reviewers available. Also, a fallback of a spider can be used, but this has the same problems as noted above.
Differing standards/deliberate deciet- this can be handled in part by multiple independant reviewers, combined with a random audit by a trusted reviewer. Not perfect but should catch many/most of the contention cases. Also, a system similar to that used by Amazon.com whereby your known biases are matched with the known biases of other reviewers and a good match your preferences on unviewed content can be determined. Again, not perfect, but useful...
metric problems- this problem can be minimized by the directory based filtering approach, combined with the bias filters, and a contention flag.
trusted recipient- Windows security does make problems for this, however the ability to disable the filter requires a certain skill set that is generally only acheived at a more mature age. Also, much of the concern here is in avoiding unintentional viewing of innapropriate material. The case of deliberate subversion to access the material is of less concern.
dynamic content- much of the objectionable material is based at URLs specifically designed to present that material thus URL based filters are likely appropriate for the majority of cases. Marginal cases can again be caught by the contention device.
Third party ratings- this is addressed to commercial systems, the current proposal is community based and hence the criticisms are largely irrelevant...
Nonenforeability- Since the proposed solution is not intented to be legally forced, and is instead an individual choice, again irellevant
Nonscalability- The scalability of my system increases with the number of users willing to participate similar to Slashdot... while its usefulness in early stages will be limited, as distribution grows it will likely scale appropriately.
Well... that's enough response:), the rest of the problems mentioned I think were already addressed at previous points in my response...
So, while ACS & R is certainly not perfect, it can be implemented in such a way that for that majority of content it can provide useful and accurate decision making information. A 98% effective solution is certainly better than no solution
In the discussion following the Interview with the "censoreware" experts (or a similar discussion, I can't find the post anywhere now...), I suggested the creation of a open source project that would allow the following-
A 'censorware' project with a three aspect rating system-
a weighted average system, where registered users rate sights similar to the slashdot system, but instead of +/-. There would also be a categorical rating and likert scale of appropriateness for age groups. For sites that had highly dichotomous ratings (ie three ratings of adult only, two of appropriate for all ages) a flag for independant review would be in order...
a self rating system, in which the site maintainer is solicitied to categorize their web site.
a bot rating system, (the norm for censorware), which goes by 'dirty' words and whatnot.
also a directory system, in which anything in a particular directory branch can be blocked. This might be a great way to get more participation in DMOZ.org (The mozilla open directory project)
These of course can be combined, and have thresholds for the individual browser etc.
This information could be used not just for blocking, but to aid in logging by flagging potentially inappropriate material to the parents.
Some comments on the original post were- it takes a critical threshold of moderators to be effective and unbiased. A legitimate complaint, but the weighted system is likely to find equilibrium faster, and likely to find outliers/controversy quicker.
Another comment was- many words have dual interpretation hence a bot can mistake an innocent post for something 'naughty' and miss content that the censor would like censored. While true, weighting a site to the degree of trigger words is much less likely to get a false positive, which can be counterbalanced by one of the other methods. Similarly, a false negative can be avoided by only allowing sites that have been rated by an alternative method. Perhaps a system similar to metamoderation, the sites could be flagged if it has had fewer than say eight ratings, it could then be sent to those who have expressed an interest in the topic for which it has been preliminary rated. If the moderator were say in charge of a DMOZ directory related to the topic, then they could get a heavier weighting.
If there is sufficient interest, I might be willing to lead such a project...
What is your opinion of Roger Penrose's "Quantum Theory of Mind"? (His popular treatment of the subject can be found in "Shadow's of the Mind" and earlier in "The Emperor's New Clothes"). The only relevant criticisms I've seen have been by logisticians, and the criticisms seemed to be adequately resolved.
The logistical discussion and related information is here: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/psyche-index-v2.htm l
"While I don't think computers will ever replace flesh and blood teachers, (A computer can't be as passionate about a subject as a real teacher, but it can be an excellent tool to reinforce teaching.) I do think that his support of computers in education is A Good Thing (tm)."
While its possibly true that a computer may not be able to eventually emulate passion, and hence replace passionate teachers. There are such a small portion of teachers that are passionate about there subject -(1/100 or fewer I would guess?), that the other 99/100 could be replaced without much difficulty.
The future role for teachers (10-20 years? I'm optomistic ) will likely be
1) education in subjects where teachers excel, and computers suck, namely in social interaction and group communication. Areas that are largely ignored formally in schools, but generally have the greatest impact on success in life. (For almost any definition of success...)
2) tutoring, counseling of special needs students. Roughly ten to fifteen percent (more I think, don't have the statistic on hand...) of students have handicaps which substantially impact learning ability. These range from learning disabilities (Dyslexia, Dyscalcia, Attention Defficit), genetic and developmental problems (Fetal Alcohol Effect (FAE is the widely spread, but lesser known cousin of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) is the most common, as well as many others...), the emotionally handicapped (EH) and abused. There are also the common physical disabilities.
3) There is also the role that the WOZ mentions, that of glorified babysitter. The major changes that will be effected here are- substantial increase in the student teacher ratio- currently 20-30/1 will likely change to 200/1 or perhaps even as high as 400/1 with computers. (Think freshman college courses at major University's). There will also probably be a substantial reduction in administrative overhead.
4) There will probably be an increase in the use of teachers for special tutoring- athletic, academic, and artistic.
"[Will women] be creators of software and virtual communities, or will they be disempowered users? "
Since when does software creation and virtual communities = empowerment? Or being a user suggest being disempowered?
Women have the highest number of college graduates both for undergraduates as well as Ph. D and Masters Programs. Just because many women prefer fields other than software engineering does not imply that they are disempowered. Check the graduate rolls for Med. Schools, Law Schools, and Business Schools.
Katz "[..] Nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads."
Shotgun "It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money. "
I disagree with your interpretation. An equally valid interpretation is that the current pay for download offerings suck, and that the wording of the survey question was bad. Ie the product is at the same or similar cost but with much greater hassle for an inferior product. My guess is that the individuals would have been willing to pay for download IF the above problems were addressed, but WILL NOT until they are addressed.
I think that many potential candidates that people believe in get otherwise eliminated because people don't want to 'waste' there vote. Thus the candidate doesn't get the support they need to win, or to even look competitive, and it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, to solve this problem, I propose the following- Any non-major candidate that may have decent prospects of winning should propose the following - that each of those who would desire to see him/her win, vote in a pre-election (online or a similar methodology)- If a sufficient number of votes are recieved to suggest a win, or a close race even- then they should be encouraged to vote in the primary for that candidate. If not, then the voters should be encouraged to vote for whom they would have chosen as second best, or alternatively the candidate may suggest whom they would like the votes cast for and why...
I agree that it's difficult to implement, that is why the triple methodology. A bot, moderators, and self moderation.
It does not require altruism to implement in this fashion either. If you are a member of the NRA and your site is cateqorized as 'sexual' then you'd have a strong interest in getting it categorized appropriately. Similarly, sites with sexual content would want there sites categorized properly- minors are bad for business, and adults who want to find the material might use the ratings to find the site. Thus groups will act in self interest to have their site properly categorized. At worst, the site would not be rated by the site owner or via moderation, and hence you'd only have the bot filtering mechanism, which is what other filtering systems use already.
" Herein lies one flaw. Slashdot moderation is a delicate thing. Much effort is put into trying to make sure people don't abuse it, and new users cannot overwhelm it. That's for one site. Scaling this up to the WHOLE WORLD, the ENTIRE PLANET, is, ahem, easier said than done."
Not as difficult as you suggest, the problem with slasdot moderation is that it uses an accumlation system- thus each single person moves it up or down, versus my system will show the number of each kind of moderation- ie 21 users gave it a 'high quality' and 'educative' (dual ratings, one on quality similar to our 1-5, but as a likert scale and each person rates it independently as opposed to adjusting other peoples ratings, of course average rating could be done as well...; the other the categorical rating simlar to our 'flamebait'/'informative' ratings) possibly also an appropriate for young adults or appropriate for children ratings also. Other implementation details... until a site has had a certain number of ratings (20?) the ratings must be from unique internet IP's. If all of the ratings are roughly equivalent and nonconflicting, then the site could get a stable rating. IP addresses that abuse the rating privilege would be excluded from rating sites and their previous ratings for other sites could potentially be removed... (abuse defined as clearly mislabling a site - ie labeling NRA as sexually explicit...)
"Yet an 18 year old isn't old enough to buy alcohol", the restriction on alcohol usage by those under the age of 23, actually has some merit. The law was supposedly originally enacted because research conclusively showed that alcohol causes sugnificant brain damage to developing minds (the orginal studies showed stunted growth in the brain up to age twenty one, hence the current age requirement, later research showed that actually the effects were still significant up to age 23.) The reason has not been widely disemenated and thus is viewed as an arbitrary law (as many laws based on age ARE). However, though the 'HARM' argument has merit, the way to reduce the harm is via education, and a tax burden equivalent to the harm done, not legislation
I've read through all of the comments that have been posted, and it appears there are three primary complaints with current filtering software-
One- It blocks sites that according to the filtering critereon should not be blocked
Two- It often misses sites that according to the critereon should be blocked
Three- The lists of sites that are blocked are not made available to the owners of software
Thus I propose the following-
A filtering tool with the following properties
1) sites are rated in two methods- 1st a web spider that searchs for words that are objectionable, and what not. This is the primary methodolgy used by current 'censorware'.
Then visitors to the site will have displayed a rating mechanism similar to the moderation we currently have on slashdot, where they will be able to select wether the site is filed properly, and what categorys it belongs to.
Both the 'bot rating and human ratings will be displayed, and wheter or not a site has been rated by humans. Sites that have significantly conflicting ratings will be flagged.
A third rating could be done by sending a email to the site maintainer and have them rate their own site...
2) The selection of sites which can be accessed can then be set by the criterion of the user/parents/whatevers choice.
Thus bot ratings would likely be less accurate and more prone to mistakes, but cover a much larger number of sites. The human ratings would likely quickly correct miscategorized bot raters. The owner defined criteria would give insite into intent, etc.
A sister project would be a logging tool that used the filtering tools categories to sort the log, thus inapropriate/unknown sites could be more easily found by the concerned parents.
Incidentily I don't condone a great deal of censorship of the material viewed by minors (and especially adults!), but if its going/got to be done, it should be done right...
Questions, comments? suggestions?
LetterRip Tom M. fstmm@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (remove NOSPAM...)
PS Since I've been looking for a way to give back to the Open Source community, I guess I could take this on as a project (assuming something like this isn't in the works already...) please email me if you're interested in helping.
"Excuse me?! As a parent, I most certainly DO have the right to know everything my kids do!"
I'm curious as to where this right derives, and at what age, (determination of maturity? some other standard?) you no longer have that right. Is it a scale? ie at age 3 I should know everything, age 12 85%, age 17... age 45?
" What is the danger in a child seeing a vagina in Hustler, and why is it not dangerous to see the same thing in a medical book? "
The standard argument is, the picture in Hustler is an objectification of women, and is strictly for sexual gratification. This 'potentially' can lead to women being treated (by those exposed to the pornography) as objects instead of people. Whereas the medical text is educational/informative, and isn't presented in a sexual manner.
As to the merit of the argument, that's up to you to decide... LetterRip
An empty enviornment does not exist due to quantum effects. It can only exist as a intellectual abstraction/ideal. Yes, engineering can be done with a good enough approximation, I said that in my original post . But, unless you can suggest someway to prevent quantum effects TANSTAACS (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Closed System- with my apologies to RAH)...Similarly for the whole universe constituting a closed system - Well, maybe if they are defined as closed systems over an infinitely short period of time/no time. Hmm... there is an interesting question... how long can a 'system' remain 'closed'... infinitely, not at all, somewhere in between... or better- how long is a system of a certain size likely to remain closed for(assuming that it can be truely defined as closed...)... -And, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The pitfalls of the English language in describing something of a mathematical/deep physics nature becomes apparent, and rather than continue the defense of a point of dubious worth... I think I'll go to bed...
First, the actual statement is (as another poster has posted below)-
1.You can't win 2.You can't break even 3.You can't quit the game
second, there is a vital part which most laymen (and seemingly scientists) ignore -
These are only perfectly valid for a CLOSED SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!
Since no system- (let me repeat that) NO SYSTEM is completely closed they can never be perfectly applied. Now, I'm not saying that they aren't generally useful, and that for most purposes they'll be well within the error tolerance of any given experiment (just as Newtons Laws are great approximations for measurements of velocity, acceleration and distance).
"If a government wishes to use Free Software for itself, then go for it. But they have no business whatsoever mandating non-governmental groups to do the same. "
What an excellent sentiment, and I agree wholeheartedly, of course the converse should apply as well, shouldn't it?
Well, in the US, many of the businesses that have contracts with the US, were/are required to submit all documents in certain specified formats. For many government agencies the required formats have been MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. and always the latest version. Because there are few products that import/export MS formats completely (and even more so in years past), numerous government contractors have been forced to purchase MS products, and update to the newest versions.
Thus a tyrany of Closed Source software... Personally all formats required by any government should be based on standards instead of proprietary formats, so that the choice of software can be left to the individual/company...
"It still doesn't change the fact that there has never been any hard evidence for a relationship between fantasy violence and real violence."
Depends on what you consider hard evidence, and also whether by fantasy violence you mean any form (ie does cops and robbers count, D & D, movies, TV?) And finally what do you mean by 'real' violence, ie does it have to be something as horrific as the Colombine shootings, or a murder, or substantially tamer versions such as siblings hitting each other and domestic violence?
For television, there is strong correlational evidence for violent programming leading to violent behavior, especially among the young(mostly sibling sibling violence...) And a study of the violent crime rates in countries pre/post introduction of television show a small but sharp incline in violent crime immediately after the mass introduction of television.
Now admittedly correlation is not causation, but given the correlations found, it's definitely something that should be looked at more closely.
"What is the difference between free beer, and free free...?"
Free beer is distribution related, free speech relates to viewing and modification of the source - the recipie for the beer, and free free means you get both the beer and the recipe.
... open up there software? What I'm thinking of, is along the lines of going to each effects house, and seeing if they'd be willing to (L)GPL their software. Try to do it by reciprocal agreement - ie if such and such FX shops will open their software will you? This would provide the possiblitiy for improving the quality of tools in all of the movie houses, it would allow potential prospects to use the graphics software that they would be using on the job, hence significantly reducing training costs, it will reduce maintenance costs of the various tools, it might allow a merge among the various tools resulting in overall more powerful tools... (For instance the place the makes Blender has suggested already that they may GPL it...)
I've been contemplating a restructuring of the jury system for sometime. The key points are this, -
You state- "most people today are incapable of - listening to facts, remembering facts, following a chain of logic, or going with the logical choice no matter what their personal feelings are"
However, 1)our legal system does not allow jurists to take notes or in anyway have recordings of the trial. 2)Most of the information presented is not 'factual', or at least certainly not objective 'truth', the presentations of both sides are highly skewed and biased. 3) The majority of legal arguements are specifically crafted for strong emotional content because of the length of trials and the ease with which 'fact' and 'logic' can be obfuscated. Whereas emotional content leaves a very deep and powerful impression.
Thus... here are my proposed solutions,
1) The court proceedings should be fully recorded on video- the witnesses, the judge, and the attorney's - yes I know there is a court recorder typing up every word spoken, however much of what we say is in body language, inflection, and tone. The jury should have full access to these recordings during there deliberation. This will likely minimize the impact of the tactics of confusion and emotional plea.
2) I would like to see a pool of 'Professional' jurors. Individuals who have sufficient knowledge about a jurys rights and powers, are at least moderately intelligent, and have decent reasoning ability's. While this may not be strictly a trial by one's peers, the current jury system certainly isn't. Jury selection is based on psychometrics of who will give the most likely verdict- usually chosen on there basis to be emotionally swayed and their predispostion to biases based on there ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
... as to your ideas of letting people to reschedule or opt out- I think that is an excellent idea.
Thanks, LetterRip
(for those who would like to further discuss these ideas, I can be reached at - fstmm@yahoo.com)
there is a story in the mining engineering department about a company that stumbled upon a frozen mammoth while digging a mine (this was about ten years ago?). Legally speaking they were suppossed to report it, but doing so would have certainly resulted in the shutting down of the mine and subsequent loss of jobs and money, thus instead a major barbeque was held in which they made mammoth steaks. Apparently they tasted awful (talk about serious freezer burn!)
Of course I'm certain fresh McMammoth burgers would be great.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the excellent reference. It makes a strong and worthwhile arguement. It does work, just not perfectly. Note, this response is directed to address the applicability of the paper to my system proposed above...
:), the rest of the problems mentioned I think were already addressed at previous points in my response...
Where content providers don't feel it is of benefit to label their content and the related possibility of mislabeling- wheter deliberately or unintentionally.
In fast paced/free flowing mediums - such as slashdot, IRC, and USENET.
For webhosting communities such as geocities where a vast number of users post individual pages that may not be categorized.
When a site has not been rated by others than the creator.
differing standards among groups and individuals
metric problems (related to above...)
trusted recipient - ie can the client disable the filter
dynamically genereated content versus static pages
Third party ratings...
*****
For the first case, using more than one source for the labeling system with independant labelers. Contention cases can be flagged and sent to a trusted independent reviewer
For free flowing mediums- they cannot be rated quickly enough, but they can be categorically rated as generally safe or unsafe if the discussion forum is longer lasting. Also, most forums have trends. Admittedly, inappropriate content can be posted to any of these mediums, but some are more likely than others. This must be left to the viewers discretion... There isn't really any good solution (Slashdot moderation works, but Usenet rarely has the critical masss for any specific forum, and IRC/Chatrooms are to fast response...)
Geocities etc. - the content can vary frequently on these sites and deliberate deciet of the moderators is trivial (ie posting something innocent one day, then pRon the next...). Depending on how critical that the 'offensive' material be avoided, blocking or not of these sites must be up to the individual. A spider that rescans after each content change might help, but a sufficiently crafty individual can easily defeat them.
Unrated sites- upon desire to access, these can be flagged, and sent to an appropriate reviewer for immediate review. This probably is not quick enough response for a site which is desired immediate access. This will be dependent upon the immportance of protecting the viewer from 'harmful' content, and the number of reviewers available. Also, a fallback of a spider can be used, but this has the same problems as noted above.
Differing standards/deliberate deciet- this can be handled in part by multiple independant reviewers, combined with a random audit by a trusted reviewer. Not perfect but should catch many/most of the contention cases. Also, a system similar to that used by Amazon.com whereby your known biases are matched with the known biases of other reviewers and a good match your preferences on unviewed content can be determined. Again, not perfect, but useful...
metric problems- this problem can be minimized by the directory based filtering approach, combined with the bias filters, and a contention flag.
trusted recipient- Windows security does make problems for this, however the ability to disable the filter requires a certain skill set that is generally only acheived at a more mature age. Also, much of the concern here is in avoiding unintentional viewing of innapropriate material. The case of deliberate subversion to access the material is of less concern.
dynamic content- much of the objectionable material is based at URLs specifically designed to present that material thus URL based filters are likely appropriate for the majority of cases. Marginal cases can again be caught by the contention device.
Third party ratings- this is addressed to commercial systems, the current proposal is community based and hence the criticisms are largely irrelevant...
Nonenforeability- Since the proposed solution is not intented to be legally forced, and is instead an individual choice, again irellevant
Nonscalability- The scalability of my system increases with the number of users willing to participate similar to Slashdot... while its usefulness in early stages will be limited, as distribution grows it will likely scale appropriately.
Well... that's enough response
So, while ACS & R is certainly not perfect, it can be implemented in such a way that for that majority of content it can provide useful and accurate decision making information. A 98% effective solution is certainly better than no solution
LettterRip
Tom M.
In the discussion following the Interview with the "censoreware" experts (or a similar discussion, I can't find the post anywhere now...), I suggested the creation of a open source project that would allow the following-
A 'censorware' project with a three aspect rating system-
a weighted average system, where registered users rate sights similar to the slashdot system, but instead of +/-. There would also be a categorical rating and likert scale of appropriateness for age groups. For sites that had highly dichotomous ratings (ie three ratings of adult only, two of appropriate for all ages) a flag for independant review would be in order...
a self rating system, in which the site maintainer is solicitied to categorize their web site.
a bot rating system, (the norm for censorware), which goes by 'dirty' words and whatnot.
also a directory system, in which anything in a particular directory branch can be blocked. This might be a great way to get more participation in DMOZ.org (The mozilla open directory project)
These of course can be combined, and have thresholds for the individual browser etc.
This information could be used not just for blocking, but to aid in logging by flagging potentially inappropriate material to the parents.
Some comments on the original post were- it takes a critical threshold of moderators to be effective and unbiased. A legitimate complaint, but the weighted system is likely to find equilibrium faster, and likely to find outliers/controversy quicker.
Another comment was- many words have dual interpretation hence a bot can mistake an innocent post for something 'naughty' and miss content that the censor would like censored. While true, weighting a site to the degree of trigger words is much less likely to get a false positive, which can be counterbalanced by one of the other methods. Similarly, a false negative can be avoided by only allowing sites that have been rated by an alternative method. Perhaps a system similar to metamoderation, the sites could be flagged if it has had fewer than say eight ratings, it could then be sent to those who have expressed an interest in the topic for which it has been preliminary rated. If the moderator were say in charge of a DMOZ directory related to the topic, then they could get a heavier weighting.
If there is sufficient interest, I might be willing to lead such a project...
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
What is your opinion of Roger Penrose's "Quantum Theory of Mind"? (His popular treatment of the subject can be found in "Shadow's of the Mind" and earlier in "The Emperor's New Clothes"). The only relevant criticisms I've seen have been by logisticians, and the criticisms seemed to be adequately resolved.
m l
The logistical discussion and related information is here: http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/psyche-index-v2.ht
LetterRip
It's common practice in the financial industry to pay off h/cracker blackmailers.
Quite likely, almost every major financial institution has done it.
Not that this is a good thing, just common practice.
LetterRip
I think its a computer
LetterRip
"While I don't think computers will ever replace
flesh and blood teachers, (A computer can't be as passionate about a subject as a real teacher, but it can be an excellent tool to reinforce teaching.) I do think that his support of computers in education is A Good Thing (tm)."
While its possibly true that a computer may not be able to eventually emulate passion, and hence replace passionate teachers. There are such a small portion of teachers that are passionate about there subject -(1/100 or fewer I would guess?), that the other 99/100 could be replaced without much difficulty.
The future role for teachers (10-20 years? I'm optomistic ) will likely be
1) education in subjects where teachers excel, and computers suck, namely in social interaction and group communication. Areas that are largely ignored formally in schools, but generally have the greatest impact on success in life. (For almost any definition of success...)
2) tutoring, counseling of special needs students. Roughly ten to fifteen percent (more I think, don't have the statistic on hand...) of students have handicaps which substantially impact learning ability. These range from learning disabilities (Dyslexia, Dyscalcia, Attention Defficit), genetic and developmental problems (Fetal Alcohol Effect (FAE is the widely spread, but lesser known cousin of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) is the most common, as well as many others...), the emotionally handicapped (EH) and abused. There are also the common physical disabilities.
3) There is also the role that the WOZ mentions, that of glorified babysitter. The major changes that will be effected here are- substantial increase in the student teacher ratio- currently 20-30/1 will likely change to 200/1 or perhaps even as high as 400/1 with computers. (Think freshman college courses at major University's). There will also probably be a substantial reduction in administrative overhead.
4) There will probably be an increase in the use of teachers for special tutoring- athletic, academic, and artistic.
That's it for my predictions
LetterRip
"[Will women] be creators of software and virtual communities, or will they be disempowered users? "
Since when does software creation and virtual communities = empowerment? Or being a user suggest being disempowered?
Women have the highest number of college graduates both for undergraduates as well as Ph. D and Masters Programs. Just because many women prefer fields other than software engineering does not imply that they are disempowered. Check the graduate rolls for Med. Schools, Law Schools, and Business Schools.
LetterRip
Katz "[..] Nearly 70 per cent say that they have not paid -- and will not pay -- for digital music downloads."
Shotgun "It means no such thing. It suggests that people want something for free and that they are quicker to lie about their willingness to pay than they are to produce their money. "
I disagree with your interpretation. An equally valid interpretation is that the current pay for download offerings suck, and that the wording of the survey question was bad. Ie the product is at the same or similar cost but with much greater hassle for an inferior product. My guess is that the individuals would have been willing to pay for download IF the above problems were addressed, but WILL NOT until they are addressed.
LetterRip
Is there also some place to post our Y2K fetch and beg experiences?
LetterRip
I think that many potential candidates that people believe in get otherwise eliminated because people don't want to 'waste' there vote. Thus the candidate doesn't get the support they need to win, or to even look competitive, and it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Thus, to solve this problem, I propose the following- Any non-major candidate that may have decent prospects of winning should propose the following - that each of those who would desire to see him/her win, vote in a pre-election (online or a similar methodology)- If a sufficient number of votes are recieved to suggest a win, or a close race even- then they should be encouraged to vote in the primary for that candidate. If not, then the voters should be encouraged to vote for whom they would have chosen as second best, or alternatively the candidate may suggest whom they would like the votes cast for and why...
Thanks,
LetterRip
I agree that it's difficult to implement, that is why the triple methodology. A bot, moderators, and self moderation.
It does not require altruism to implement in this fashion either. If you are a member of the NRA and your site is cateqorized as 'sexual' then you'd have a strong interest in getting it categorized appropriately. Similarly, sites with sexual content would want there sites categorized properly- minors are bad for business, and adults who want to find the material might use the ratings to find the site. Thus groups will act in self interest to have their site properly categorized. At worst, the site would not be rated by the site owner or via moderation, and hence you'd only have the bot filtering mechanism, which is what other filtering systems use already.
Thanks,
LetterRip
fstmm@yahoo.com
" Herein lies one flaw. Slashdot moderation is a delicate thing. Much effort is put into trying to make sure people don't abuse it, and new users cannot overwhelm it. That's for one site. Scaling this up to the WHOLE WORLD, the ENTIRE PLANET, is, ahem, easier said than done."
Not as difficult as you suggest, the problem with slasdot moderation is that it uses an accumlation system- thus each single person moves it up or down, versus my system will show the number of each kind of moderation- ie 21 users gave it a 'high quality' and 'educative' (dual ratings, one on quality similar to our 1-5, but as a likert scale and each person rates it independently as opposed to adjusting other peoples ratings, of course average rating could be done as well...; the other the categorical rating simlar to our 'flamebait'/'informative' ratings) possibly also an appropriate for young adults or appropriate for children ratings also.
Other implementation details... until a site has had a certain number of ratings (20?) the ratings must be from unique internet IP's. If all of the ratings are roughly equivalent and nonconflicting, then the site could get a stable rating. IP addresses that abuse the rating privilege would be excluded from rating sites and their previous ratings for other sites could potentially be removed... (abuse defined as clearly mislabling a site - ie labeling NRA as sexually explicit...)
Anything else?
Thanks,
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@yahoo.com
"Yet an 18 year old isn't old enough to buy alcohol", the restriction on alcohol usage by those under the age of 23, actually has some merit. The law was supposedly originally enacted because research conclusively showed that alcohol causes sugnificant brain damage to developing minds (the orginal studies showed stunted growth in the brain up to age twenty one, hence the current age requirement, later research showed that actually the effects were still significant up to age 23.)
The reason has not been widely disemenated and thus is viewed as an arbitrary law (as many laws based on age ARE). However, though the 'HARM' argument has merit, the way to reduce the harm is via education, and a tax burden equivalent to the harm done, not legislation
Thanks,
LetterRip
I've read through all of the comments that have been posted, and it appears there are three primary complaints with current filtering software-
One- It blocks sites that according to the filtering critereon should not be blocked
Two- It often misses sites that according to the critereon should be blocked
Three- The lists of sites that are blocked are not made available to the owners of software
Thus I propose the following-
A filtering tool with the following properties
1) sites are rated in two methods- 1st a web spider that searchs for words that are objectionable, and what not. This is the primary methodolgy used by current 'censorware'.
Then visitors to the site will have displayed a rating mechanism similar to the moderation we currently have on slashdot, where they will be able to select wether the site is filed properly, and what categorys it belongs to.
Both the 'bot rating and human ratings will be displayed, and wheter or not a site has been rated by humans. Sites that have significantly conflicting ratings will be flagged.
A third rating could be done by sending a email to the site maintainer and have them rate their own site...
2) The selection of sites which can be accessed can then be set by the criterion of the user/parents/whatevers choice.
Thus bot ratings would likely be less accurate and more prone to mistakes, but cover a much larger number of sites. The human ratings would likely quickly correct miscategorized bot raters. The owner defined criteria would give insite into intent, etc.
A sister project would be a logging tool that used the filtering tools categories to sort the log, thus inapropriate/unknown sites could be more easily found by the concerned parents.
Incidentily I don't condone a great deal of censorship of the material viewed by minors (and especially adults!), but if its going/got to be done, it should be done right...
Questions, comments? suggestions?
LetterRip
Tom M.
fstmm@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
(remove NOSPAM...)
PS Since I've been looking for a way to give back to the Open Source community, I guess I could take this on as a project (assuming something like this isn't in the works already...) please email me if you're interested in helping.
"Excuse me?! As a parent, I most certainly DO have the right to know everything my kids do!"
I'm curious as to where this right derives, and at what age, (determination of maturity? some other standard?) you no longer have that right. Is it a scale? ie at age 3 I should know everything, age 12 85%, age 17... age 45?
I thank you for your reply...
LetterRip
" What is the danger in a child seeing a vagina in Hustler, and why is it not dangerous to see the same thing in a medical book? "
The standard argument is, the picture in Hustler is an objectification of women, and is strictly for sexual gratification. This 'potentially' can lead to women being treated (by those exposed to the pornography) as objects instead of people. Whereas the medical text is educational/informative, and isn't presented in a sexual manner.
As to the merit of the argument, that's up to you to decide...
LetterRip
An empty enviornment does not exist due to quantum effects. It can only exist as a intellectual abstraction/ideal. Yes, engineering can be done with a good enough approximation, I said that in my original post . But, unless you can suggest someway to prevent quantum effects TANSTAACS (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Closed System- with my apologies to RAH)...Similarly for the whole universe constituting a closed system - Well, maybe if they are defined as closed systems over an infinitely short period of time/no time. Hmm... there is an interesting question... how long can a 'system' remain 'closed'... infinitely, not at all, somewhere in between... or better- how long is a system of a certain size likely to remain closed for(assuming that it can be truely defined as closed...)... -And, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The pitfalls of the English language in describing something of a mathematical/deep physics nature becomes apparent, and rather than continue the defense of a point of dubious worth... I think I'll go to bed...
Thanks,
LetterRip
First, the actual statement is (as another poster has posted below)-
1.You can't win
2.You can't break even
3.You can't quit the game
second, there is a vital part which most laymen (and seemingly scientists) ignore -
These are only perfectly valid for a CLOSED SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!
Since no system- (let me repeat that) NO SYSTEM is completely closed they can never be perfectly applied. Now, I'm not saying that they aren't generally useful, and that for most purposes they'll be well within the error tolerance of any given experiment (just as Newtons Laws are great approximations for measurements of velocity, acceleration and distance).
Thanks,
LetterRip
"If a government wishes to use Free Software for itself, then go for it. But they have no business whatsoever mandating non-governmental groups to do the same. "
What an excellent sentiment, and I agree wholeheartedly, of course the converse should apply as well, shouldn't it?
Well, in the US, many of the businesses that have contracts with the US, were/are required to submit all documents in certain specified formats. For many government agencies the required formats have been MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. and always the latest version. Because there are few products that import/export MS formats completely (and even more so in years past), numerous government contractors have been forced to purchase MS products, and update to the newest versions.
Thus a tyrany of Closed Source software... Personally all formats required by any government should be based on standards instead of proprietary formats, so that the choice of software can be left to the individual/company...
Thanks,
LetterRip
"It still doesn't change the fact that there has never been any hard evidence for a relationship between fantasy violence and real violence."
Depends on what you consider hard evidence, and also whether by fantasy violence you mean any form (ie does cops and robbers count, D & D, movies, TV?) And finally what do you mean by 'real' violence, ie does it have to be something as horrific as the Colombine shootings, or a murder, or substantially tamer versions such as siblings hitting each other and domestic violence?
For television, there is strong correlational evidence for violent programming leading to violent behavior, especially among the young(mostly sibling sibling violence...) And a study of the violent crime rates in countries pre/post introduction of television show a small but sharp incline in violent crime immediately after the mass introduction of television.
Now admittedly correlation is not causation, but given the correlations found, it's definitely something that should be looked at more closely.
Thanks,
LetterRip
"What is the difference between free beer, and free free ...?"
Free beer is distribution related, free speech relates to viewing and modification of the source - the recipie for the beer, and free free means you get both the beer and the recipe.
LetterRip
... open up there software? What I'm thinking of, is along the lines of going to each effects house, and seeing if they'd be willing to (L)GPL their software. Try to do it by reciprocal agreement - ie if such and such FX shops will open their software will you? This would provide the possiblitiy for improving the quality of tools in all of the movie houses, it would allow potential prospects to use the graphics software that they would be using on the job, hence significantly reducing training costs, it will reduce maintenance costs of the various tools, it might allow a merge among the various tools resulting in overall more powerful tools... (For instance the place the makes Blender has suggested already that they may GPL it...)
...
Comments, suggestions
LetterRip
I've been contemplating a restructuring of the jury system for sometime. The key points are this, -
You state- "most people today are incapable of - listening to facts, remembering facts, following a chain of logic, or going with the logical choice no matter what their personal feelings are"
However, 1)our legal system does not allow jurists to take notes or in anyway have recordings of the trial. 2)Most of the information presented is not 'factual', or at least certainly not objective 'truth', the presentations of both sides are highly skewed and biased. 3) The majority of legal arguements are specifically crafted for strong emotional content because of the length of trials and the ease with which 'fact' and 'logic' can be obfuscated. Whereas emotional content leaves a very deep and powerful impression.
Thus... here are my proposed solutions,
1) The court proceedings should be fully recorded on video- the witnesses, the judge, and the attorney's - yes I know there is a court recorder typing up every word spoken, however much of what we say is in body language, inflection, and tone. The jury should have full access to these recordings during there deliberation. This will likely minimize the impact of the tactics of confusion and emotional plea.
2) I would like to see a pool of 'Professional' jurors. Individuals who have sufficient knowledge about a jurys rights and powers, are at least moderately intelligent, and have decent reasoning ability's. While this may not be strictly a trial by one's peers, the current jury system certainly isn't. Jury selection is based on psychometrics of who will give the most likely verdict- usually chosen on there basis to be emotionally swayed and their predispostion to biases based on there ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds.
... as to your ideas of letting people to reschedule or opt out- I think that is an excellent idea.
Thanks,
LetterRip
(for those who would like to further discuss these ideas, I can be reached at - fstmm@yahoo.com)
then you can find the sensor and apply something nice and icy cold.
LetterRip
there is a story in the mining engineering department about a company that stumbled upon a frozen mammoth while digging a mine (this was about ten years ago?). Legally speaking they were suppossed to report it, but doing so would have certainly resulted in the shutting down of the mine and subsequent loss of jobs and money, thus instead a major barbeque was held in which they made mammoth steaks. Apparently they tasted awful (talk about serious freezer burn!)
Of course I'm certain fresh McMammoth burgers would be great.
LetterRip