Why did those users need a web based so called "social network" to communicate in the first place? Before FB, they had email, forums, IRC, IMs, why did they need a web based communicaiton tool?
Because they couldn't find each other over email, forums, IRC, IMs. Facebook's big innovation, if you could call it that, was pressuring people to give up their privacy and use real names. Of course, they did prove that giving up some privacy has benefits, as well as the well-known disadvantages we've been taught to fear.
Me, I wish I could believe Rushkoff, and that Facebook would go the way of Myspace and AOL. But it's not for many years yet - possibly very many.
Not always. "Cattle die, kinsmen die, I myself must also die; I know one thing which never dies: the memory of each dead man". From Hávamál. The Norse were all about the impact of the deceased person. But after a generation, you're a name in the kinship records at best, that anyone can confirm. Are you supposed to find solace in that? If that was the best immortality their religion had to offer, no wonder Christianity quickly became so popular.
Like most webcomics, it's for specially interested people... in this case people interested in tactical wargames. I came across it through a somewhat dubious link on the Wikipedia page for "Archon".
Android should be deployed the way the user decrees. No user ever thought, "oh, I would so like to make Amazon my gatekeeper and chaperone!". That business model is based on keeping people in the wool about what they're getting into.
What makes you think Amazon would try to make an Amazon-only phone?
That they are a bunch of bastards. My guess is they'll make deals with handset makers/networks to have only their own, DRM-infested store on a phone, without the option of removing it or installing your own non-Amazon signed apps. They want to recreate that walled garden feeling of the iPhones. Android is pretty open, but each handset maker would like to close down their bit.
They need clusters to do their best, sure, but they're better than I will ever be on even "modest" hardware. Sensei's Library claims Zen19 is running on a Mac Pro 8 core, Xeon 2.26GHz.
Zen19 is taking all comers on KGS - including, presumably, people who study it intensely to find predictably exploitable mistakes. It would be a very good tool for rating advancement if you could find such errors, since it's ranked at 4d.
It was a reasonable parsing of what you said. Either way, it does injustice to the Go Program writers: They have written programs that a go club attendee starting today can not take for granted that he will ever beat (assuming he has neither very much more or less talent than usual).
And that's not even taking program progression into account: 4d is simply out of reach for most of us. Most people on KGS seem to flatten out at 1k/1d or below, and use years for each further level - if they ever get them.
It is relatively easy to beat the existing Go games on a 19x19 board.
Really. When you say such a thing, it can mean one of two things: You're stronger than European 1 Dan (corresponding to Japanese/AGA 4 Dan, KGS 2-3 Dan) or you haven't been playing computer Go much lately. Many Faces of Go, Zen, Fuego, Aya play on a level it will take years of serious club play to beat (for most of us).
Not under Japanese rules, or Korean rules, or any ruleset lacking a superko rule. What dair(210) says is also wrong: The corner cases are NOT a problem for computer go, because programs rarely play with the traditional, informal rulesets lacking superko. (When they are forced to, such as in certain tournaments, they perform slightly worse, but not disastrously so).
A more common problem for Go programs is bugs in the superko handling. Nick Wedd runs monthly bot tournaments at KGS, if you take a look at his reports, you'll see hardly a tournament goes by without some program crashing, or timing out due to wanting to play an illegal move (forbidden by superko)
A more likely approach is suing everyone who puts the private key on a T-shirt, or distributes code signed with it, or code which could possibly be signed with it.
We should think of ideological positions as a network. There's a node called "Christianity", which is strongly connected to a node called "opposition to abortion" - somewhat less strongly connected the other way. "Opposition to abortion" is also weakly connected to a node called "Social conservatism". "Social conservatism" has a strong link to "Christianity", and a somewhat weaker link going the other way (more people are Christians because they are social conservatives than the other way around). "Social conservatism" has a link to "xenophobia", which has links to "anti-islam sentiments" and "opposition to foreign intoxicants" etc. etc. Too big to list it all - and I don't pretend I'm the one who gets to map it out authoritatively.
So, each person has a couple of basic positions, which he drops a couple of points in. They flow around in the network until it stabilizes. Now even if Christianity has only a weak direct link to "opposition to foreign intoxicants", people who put a high initial value in "Christianity" are probably going to have a few points flow there.
Are they considering selection effects at all? Yes, those who go to Ivy league may earn that much more - but would the same people have earned that much less if they for some reason didn't?
> If you can make a law limiting someone's use of money to promote their views, then you can make a law limiting any kind of speech.
Maybe, in a very narrow way, you're right. Because what should be regulated isn't the giving of money, but the taking of money. Taking money to promote a particular political view (as all channels for political advertisement do) is on the same moral level as selling your vote, in my opinion.
Who's this "he" you quotes? Oh right, it's the women's lawyer. A lawyer almost as notorious for his militant version of feminism as accuser A, by the way.
Oh come on, have you talked to cypherpunk people much? Agreeing on stuff isn't the strongest point of uberhackers with crypto-anarchist leanings. Douchebag or not, the odds that wikileaks would have forks was 1.
With all these *YAWN*s, I wondered if you were trying to parody all the hipsters who claim "there's nothing new". Sure you didn't listen to Wikileaks when they were on vinyl?
I'm not going to list it all for you, but one of the very first things that came out was that Hillary had ordered diplomats to spy on UN representatives - including from the other permanent Security Council members. You think China and Russia are going to be happy about that?
No. For all we know, maybe everyone does it. However, Hillary was the one who got caught. It's like holding in football (soccer): Everyone does it, but they still get a penalty if the referee sees it. I bet they had to give significant concessions to China and Russia in order to keep it down.
(By the way, in case you bought in to the propaganda that it wasn't really spying: Yes, grabbing someone's encryption keys and biometric identification is spying, not mere information gathering.)
You can look it up on the archives of the old cypherpunks mailing list. It was a divisive issue, and many people saw it as neither desirable or possible. Julian Assange was there, it's not impossible he has taken a position on it one way or another. I for one hope he was smart enough to reject it.
Anonymous payment will always require an arbiter. Say you have a service you want to sell, and someone wants to buy it, and both want to hide their identity from the other.
Now if I do the work first, there's no reason why you should pay me: I would, by definition, not be able to seek you out and demand the money. If you pay first, there's no reason I should do the work, for the same reason.
Now, with a trusted arbiter, you can easily pay for something anonymously. Major investors operate under freer rules than us mere mortals, so banks do indeed hide investments for wealthy clients. But there's always the danger that the government come down upon you with a heavy hand.
If the goods can be exchanged probabilistically (which not all things can: most importantly, information can't) the arbiter can give himself deniability. However, governments would take an extremely dim view of any bank providing a service like this; justifiably, in my opinion. So it's not gonna happen, forget about it.
But you wouldn't want it either. For instance, if the Koch brothers to be able to hire assassins in a completely untraceable way, life would quickly get unpleasant.
There are some things diplomats are not allowed to do. This includes stealing people's encryption keys.
If you do that, you're not a diplomat, you're a spy.
Hillary Clinton broke international law when she put her name on that paper (even if it was as she argues "just a wish list" from the CIA). Get it? It's illegal. It's in violation of the 1961 Vienna convention, and the UN convention itself.
There are rules even among thieves: You may be fine, as long as you aren't caught. Hillary Clinton, and by extension the CIA and the US government, was caught. If you think "everybody does it", and this means it doesn't matter, think again. The other permanent members of the security council in particular can make hell over this, and they probably are unless they are bribed with political concessions.
Half the ads on my HTC Desire are for iPad and iPhone 4-stuff in some form or another. It's rather annoying, but at least it proves Google aren't afraid.
(Nor should they be, in my case: I'd prefer even my old Sony Ericsson T39 over any of Jobs' gilded crap)
Wikileaks simply does the kind of job that used to be performed by guys like Woodward and Bernstein back in the days when the word "journalism" still meant something and newspapers did that job.
Now, it's overkill to demonize all kinds of private enterprise, but the media is failing us, for reasons pretty transparently related to their role as private enterprises.
Depends on what you mean by genuine. If you consider James Cameron a genuine inventor for coming up with an idea for the display he would like to have, I disagree,
Slashdot Mirror
Because they couldn't find each other over email, forums, IRC, IMs. Facebook's big innovation, if you could call it that, was pressuring people to give up their privacy and use real names. Of course, they did prove that giving up some privacy has benefits, as well as the well-known disadvantages we've been taught to fear.
Me, I wish I could believe Rushkoff, and that Facebook would go the way of Myspace and AOL. But it's not for many years yet - possibly very many.
Not always. "Cattle die, kinsmen die, I myself must also die; I know one thing which never dies: the memory of each dead man". From Hávamál. The Norse were all about the impact of the deceased person. But after a generation, you're a name in the kinship records at best, that anyone can confirm. Are you supposed to find solace in that? If that was the best immortality their religion had to offer, no wonder Christianity quickly became so popular.
Like most webcomics, it's for specially interested people... in this case people interested in tactical wargames. I came across it through a somewhat dubious link on the Wikipedia page for "Archon".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfworld
So you read Erfworld, too?
Android should be deployed the way the user decrees. No user ever thought, "oh, I would so like to make Amazon my gatekeeper and chaperone!". That business model is based on keeping people in the wool about what they're getting into.
That they are a bunch of bastards. My guess is they'll make deals with handset makers/networks to have only their own, DRM-infested store on a phone, without the option of removing it or installing your own non-Amazon signed apps. They want to recreate that walled garden feeling of the iPhones. Android is pretty open, but each handset maker would like to close down their bit.
They need clusters to do their best, sure, but they're better than I will ever be on even "modest" hardware. Sensei's Library claims Zen19 is running on a Mac Pro 8 core, Xeon 2.26GHz.
Zen19 is taking all comers on KGS - including, presumably, people who study it intensely to find predictably exploitable mistakes. It would be a very good tool for rating advancement if you could find such errors, since it's ranked at 4d.
It was a reasonable parsing of what you said. Either way, it does injustice to the Go Program writers: They have written programs that a go club attendee starting today can not take for granted that he will ever beat (assuming he has neither very much more or less talent than usual).
And that's not even taking program progression into account: 4d is simply out of reach for most of us. Most people on KGS seem to flatten out at 1k/1d or below, and use years for each further level - if they ever get them.
Really. When you say such a thing, it can mean one of two things: You're stronger than European 1 Dan (corresponding to Japanese/AGA 4 Dan, KGS 2-3 Dan) or you haven't been playing computer Go much lately. Many Faces of Go, Zen, Fuego, Aya play on a level it will take years of serious club play to beat (for most of us).
It's just wrong. The endgames are the same. They are just typically played out a bit further under Chinese rules, that's all.
Not under Japanese rules, or Korean rules, or any ruleset lacking a superko rule. What dair(210) says is also wrong: The corner cases are NOT a problem for computer go, because programs rarely play with the traditional, informal rulesets lacking superko. (When they are forced to, such as in certain tournaments, they perform slightly worse, but not disastrously so).
A more common problem for Go programs is bugs in the superko handling. Nick Wedd runs monthly bot tournaments at KGS, if you take a look at his reports, you'll see hardly a tournament goes by without some program crashing, or timing out due to wanting to play an illegal move (forbidden by superko)
But you got it, didn't you? Good enough for me.
A more likely approach is suing everyone who puts the private key on a T-shirt, or distributes code signed with it, or code which could possibly be signed with it.
We should think of ideological positions as a network. There's a node called "Christianity", which is strongly connected to a node called "opposition to abortion" - somewhat less strongly connected the other way. "Opposition to abortion" is also weakly connected to a node called "Social conservatism". "Social conservatism" has a strong link to "Christianity", and a somewhat weaker link going the other way (more people are Christians because they are social conservatives than the other way around). "Social conservatism" has a link to "xenophobia", which has links to "anti-islam sentiments" and "opposition to foreign intoxicants" etc. etc. Too big to list it all - and I don't pretend I'm the one who gets to map it out authoritatively.
So, each person has a couple of basic positions, which he drops a couple of points in. They flow around in the network until it stabilizes. Now even if Christianity has only a weak direct link to "opposition to foreign intoxicants", people who put a high initial value in "Christianity" are probably going to have a few points flow there.
Are they considering selection effects at all? Yes, those who go to Ivy league may earn that much more - but would the same people have earned that much less if they for some reason didn't?
> If you can make a law limiting someone's use of money to promote their views, then you can make a law limiting any kind of speech.
Maybe, in a very narrow way, you're right. Because what should be regulated isn't the giving of money, but the taking of money. Taking money to promote a particular political view (as all channels for political advertisement do) is on the same moral level as selling your vote, in my opinion.
> mob democracy
As far as I know, the states weren't all that democratic in the period of worst state-specific abuses.
Who's this "he" you quotes? Oh right, it's the women's lawyer. A lawyer almost as notorious for his militant version of feminism as accuser A, by the way.
Oh come on, have you talked to cypherpunk people much? Agreeing on stuff isn't the strongest point of uberhackers with crypto-anarchist leanings. Douchebag or not, the odds that wikileaks would have forks was 1.
With all these *YAWN*s, I wondered if you were trying to parody all the hipsters who claim "there's nothing new". Sure you didn't listen to Wikileaks when they were on vinyl?
I'm not going to list it all for you, but one of the very first things that came out was that Hillary had ordered diplomats to spy on UN representatives - including from the other permanent Security Council members. You think China and Russia are going to be happy about that?
No. For all we know, maybe everyone does it. However, Hillary was the one who got caught. It's like holding in football (soccer): Everyone does it, but they still get a penalty if the referee sees it. I bet they had to give significant concessions to China and Russia in order to keep it down.
(By the way, in case you bought in to the propaganda that it wasn't really spying: Yes, grabbing someone's encryption keys and biometric identification is spying, not mere information gathering.)
You can look it up on the archives of the old cypherpunks mailing list. It was a divisive issue, and many people saw it as neither desirable or possible. Julian Assange was there, it's not impossible he has taken a position on it one way or another. I for one hope he was smart enough to reject it.
Anonymous payment will always require an arbiter. Say you have a service you want to sell, and someone wants to buy it, and both want to hide their identity from the other.
Now if I do the work first, there's no reason why you should pay me: I would, by definition, not be able to seek you out and demand the money.
If you pay first, there's no reason I should do the work, for the same reason.
Now, with a trusted arbiter, you can easily pay for something anonymously. Major investors operate under freer rules than us mere mortals, so banks do indeed hide investments for wealthy clients. But there's always the danger that the government come down upon you with a heavy hand.
If the goods can be exchanged probabilistically (which not all things can: most importantly, information can't) the arbiter can give himself deniability. However, governments would take an extremely dim view of any bank providing a service like this; justifiably, in my opinion. So it's not gonna happen, forget about it.
But you wouldn't want it either. For instance, if the Koch brothers to be able to hire assassins in a completely untraceable way, life would quickly get unpleasant.
There are some things diplomats are not allowed to do. This includes stealing people's encryption keys.
If you do that, you're not a diplomat, you're a spy.
Hillary Clinton broke international law when she put her name on that paper (even if it was as she argues "just a wish list" from the CIA). Get it? It's illegal. It's in violation of the 1961 Vienna convention, and the UN convention itself.
There are rules even among thieves: You may be fine, as long as you aren't caught. Hillary Clinton, and by extension the CIA and the US government, was caught. If you think "everybody does it", and this means it doesn't matter, think again. The other permanent members of the security council in particular can make hell over this, and they probably are unless they are bribed with political concessions.
Half the ads on my HTC Desire are for iPad and iPhone 4-stuff in some form or another. It's rather annoying, but at least it proves Google aren't afraid.
(Nor should they be, in my case: I'd prefer even my old Sony Ericsson T39 over any of Jobs' gilded crap)
I can think of one, you mentioned it yourself.
Now, it's overkill to demonize all kinds of private enterprise, but the media is failing us, for reasons pretty transparently related to their role as private enterprises.
Depends on what you mean by genuine. If you consider James Cameron a genuine inventor for coming up with an idea for the display he would like to have, I disagree,