This is nonsense - no-one needs training to recognise faces. The brain is so good at picking out faces that it can find a `face' on the moon or in clouds. Of course it may be surprising to see such a realistic reproduction of a face for the first time.
A magazine realistically represents people? Presumably all of your friends are film stars with inane grins and cigarette advertisments on the backs of their heads?
They could recognize the face okay. Their confusion was over the absence of the back of it.
Arguably a 3-dimensional representation of a head (a sculpture) is more realistic than a 2-dimensional one, in that you could look at it from the side or back and still be able to tell what it was supposed to be. This implies two things:
If one thing can be more judged more realistic than another then 'reality' is relative.
What you see depends upon your point of view.
You are quite able to construct a 3-dimensional interpretation of a perspective painting or drawing, because your mind is trained to do that.
Perspective is an optical con-job, which in fact didn't even exist until relatively recently. Have you ever seen medieval art? Weird (to modern eyes)senses of scale, big archers crammed into tiny turrets, the Bayeux tapestry? This was the representational convention of their day.
These images seemed as normal and 'realistic' to them as motion pictures (the camera lies 24 frames per second), Magic Eye-style autosterograms and phosphorent patterns on CRT screens seem to us now.
In the future, people will look back at the crude representations we have now, and laugh at their strangely mannered appearence compared those generated by their nanotechnological sensorial implants (or whatever... you get the idea though).
British libel law applies regardless of whether you knew it was false, and regardless of whether you had any malice.
That's true, but AFAIK, libel law only applies to comments made about individuals.
If it's a lie, you swing for libel in Her Majesty's Realm.
If you can afford the lawyers to bring your case to court. No legal aid is available for libel cases, so he who can afford to pay for his version of the truth generally gets it. Thankfully this isn't always true though - cf convicted tory liar Jonathan Aitken.
As far as indicators of the relative truth content of media go, the existence of libel laws isn't much to write home about.
I don't care if the smarmiest tabloid on Fleet Street said it...
You're not from round these parts, are you? The tabloids (and pretty much everyone else) left Fleet Street ages ago... As far as 'truth' in the tabloids goes, if you're looking for up-to-date and accurate information about next week's soap storylines and which footballer's shagging which member of which girl group, you'll do fine. If you want any kind of serious examination of world or domestic events, forget it.
Try reading BBC or Reuters sometime. It's an entirely different take on the news...
The domestic BBC news coverage has already been 'dumbed-down' to a certain extent. Heaven knows it ain't as bad as the states, but it's not as good as it used to be.
...there may be some spin there, but they're not going to outright lie to you.
Where are you drawing the lines between truth, spin and lies?
1. The NSA and FBI would have built into any legislation allowing this a provision for tracking who votes for what party.
If the voting software was open-source, people would be able to dike out any tracking 'features'. Any code used in the voting process would be available for inspection by the electorate on the 'net. A new copy of all required software, including a complete copy of the state's law would be burnt off onto a CD every day (or every hour, or whatever you chosen between-election-period was). People suspecting foul play could demand a complete recompile and re-install).
2. FRAUD. If a person who is an invalid is able to vote, there is no provision that says that he/her caretaker would not do the voting him/herself.
Retina scan? Maybe you should take better care of your invalids (or at least get decent caretakers). Maybe a button on the website:
3. Uninformed people whould then be able to shape the future of the nation. People who don't care enough to take 15 minutes to vote now shouldn't be voting in the first place. Better the uninformed than the uniformed. This is the information age. Don't ban the uninformed from voting, fsking inform them.
Re:An opportunity to change the political paradigm
on
Voting over the net?
·
· Score: 1
As a UK resident, I watch very little C-span. Government is not software, and your hackers-users/government-governed analogy isn't particularly useful. By referring to the users, you seem to miss my point entirely - people in a democracy are not the users of their government. Theoretically, they are the government, it's just that any power they have has been abstracted away to their representative. Now that there's the technology to do it, it's time to give that power back to the people.
Re: the Federal Budget, nobody reads the thing in full. No individual ever could (see PJ O'Rourke's Parliament Of Whores for more on this).
I don't think anyone would disagree with me that producing said budget in paper format is a very useful way to work with the information it contains.
Does the phrase "With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow" ring any bells? 100 000 people could each read a page of the budget. By applying lessons which have been learnt from open-source movement (distributed effort), we can get around the current 'necessity' for centralised big government.
An opportunity to change the political paradigm
on
Voting over the net?
·
· Score: 1
Voting on the net - why? Open up an on-line parliament, where everyone's a member, and can represent their own interests.
Britain (and the US, Canada, et al) has a representative democracy. We the public elect someone to act upon our interests, to represent us at a national level. We transfer our authority to them.
Speaking personally, my elected representative doesn't really represent many of my opinions, yet he is my only voice in the political arena.
Why use the 'net to perpetuate this "one-choice-every-five-years" system?.
Representative-based systems are the most common manifestation of democracy because they were the most feasible way to do it at the time. Things have changed. Individuals now have the technology (if not always the time) to be their own spokesperson in political debate. Online forums, daily opinion polls, use the net to widen the debate, get everyone involved in decision-making. People see politicians and parties as somehow separate from themselves. They're not. Politicians are people just like us.
Slashdot Mirror
A magazine realistically represents people? Presumably all of your friends are film stars with inane grins and cigarette advertisments on the backs of their heads?
They could recognize the face okay. Their confusion was over the absence of the back of it.
Arguably a 3-dimensional representation of a head (a sculpture) is more realistic than a 2-dimensional one, in that you could look at it from the side or back and still be able to tell what it was supposed to be. This implies two things:
You are quite able to construct a 3-dimensional interpretation of a perspective painting or drawing, because your mind is trained to do that.
Perspective is an optical con-job, which in fact didn't even exist until relatively recently. Have you ever seen medieval art? Weird (to modern eyes)senses of scale, big archers crammed into tiny turrets, the Bayeux tapestry? This was the representational convention of their day.
These images seemed as normal and 'realistic' to them as motion pictures (the camera lies 24 frames per second), Magic Eye-style autosterograms and phosphorent patterns on CRT screens seem to us now.
In the future, people will look back at the crude representations we have now, and laugh at their strangely mannered appearence compared those generated by their nanotechnological sensorial implants (or whatever... you get the idea though).
Consensus reality is neither. Fnord.
There are a number of prospective new TLD services, maybe it was The SuperRoot Consortium?
British libel law applies regardless of whether you knew it was false, and regardless of whether you had any malice.
That's true, but AFAIK, libel law only applies to comments made about individuals.
If it's a lie, you swing for libel in Her Majesty's Realm.
If you can afford the lawyers to bring your case to court. No legal aid is available for libel cases, so he who can afford to pay for his version of the truth generally gets it. Thankfully this isn't always true though - cf convicted tory liar Jonathan Aitken.
As far as indicators of the relative truth content of media go, the existence of libel laws isn't much to write home about.
I don't care if the smarmiest tabloid on Fleet Street said it...
You're not from round these parts, are you? The tabloids (and pretty much everyone else) left Fleet Street ages ago... As far as 'truth' in the tabloids goes, if you're looking for up-to-date and accurate information about next week's soap storylines and which footballer's shagging which member of which girl group, you'll do fine. If you want any kind of serious examination of world or domestic events, forget it.
Try reading BBC or Reuters sometime. It's an entirely different take on the news...
The domestic BBC news coverage has already been 'dumbed-down' to a certain extent. Heaven knows it ain't as bad as the states, but it's not as good as it used to be.
Where are you drawing the lines between truth, spin and lies?
If the voting software was open-source, people would be able to dike out any tracking 'features'. Any code used in the voting process would be available for inspection by the electorate on the 'net. A new copy of all required software, including a complete copy of the state's law would be burnt off onto a CD every day (or every hour, or whatever you chosen between-election-period was). People suspecting foul play could demand a complete recompile and re-install).
2. FRAUD. If a person who is an invalid is able to vote, there is no provision that says that he/her caretaker would not do the voting him/herself.
Retina scan? Maybe you should take better care of your invalids (or at least get decent caretakers). Maybe a button on the website:
If your vote has been coerced, please click here.
3. Uninformed people whould then be able to shape the future of the nation. People who don't care enough to take 15 minutes to vote now shouldn't be voting in the first place. Better the uninformed than the uniformed. This is the information age. Don't ban the uninformed from voting, fsking inform them.
Re: the Federal Budget, nobody reads the thing in full. No individual ever could (see PJ O'Rourke's Parliament Of Whores for more on this).
I don't think anyone would disagree with me that producing said budget in paper format is a very useful way to work with the information it contains.
Does the phrase "With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow" ring any bells? 100 000 people could each read a page of the budget. By applying lessons which have been learnt from open-source movement (distributed effort), we can get around the current 'necessity' for centralised big government.
Britain (and the US, Canada, et al) has a representative democracy. We the public elect someone to act upon our interests, to represent us at a national level. We transfer our authority to them.
Speaking personally, my elected representative doesn't really represent many of my opinions, yet he is my only voice in the political arena.
Why use the 'net to perpetuate this "one-choice-every-five-years" system?.
Representative-based systems are the most common manifestation of democracy because they were the most feasible way to do it at the time. Things have changed. Individuals now have the technology (if not always the time) to be their own spokesperson in political debate. Online forums, daily opinion polls, use the net to widen the debate, get everyone involved in decision-making. People see politicians and parties as somehow separate from themselves. They're not. Politicians are people just like us.