While petitions are useful for generating interest in a topic they are not as useful for getting the change you want. You are subjugating yourself - you are saying pretty please. What I would like to see people do is go out, demand what you want through rock-solid argument and if denied press the issue through the connectivity of the web.
Damn sleep, missed the beginning of this one. Secrecy is the antithesis of Democracy. Unless your talking about your newest super-duper kill-em-all weapon then secrecy is Evil. It hides agendas, it does not promote truth and it allows people to push their petty prejudice onto everyone. It's Evil. Whatever is decided do it in the open with all parties being on the level.
But in France, you are responsible for securing your own network, see: Here. Wonder how long till that migrates across the pond? ACTA anyone? Maybe, whats in that is secret because, you know, trade agreements are of national security...
Instead of hiding under whatever is the closest rock, how about checking out an organization such as the Pirate Party. I hear their doing relatively well over in Euro-Land.
The agenda probably goes something more like this: They don't care who is on the other end because soon they'll phase out that pesky anonymity because, you know, them terrrrrissts could use it! Yes thats it! Lets kill another Civil Liberty because we can! *Cackles-Evily-As-They-Stuff-Their-Pockets-Full-Of-Money*
Here in Canada, you can borrow a friends original cd and copy it to a blank cd for your own use. This is legal because of the levy placed on blank media. However, if you own a cd and download a song from that cd from a peer-to-peer network that is illegal as infringement. Someday they'll tie themselves into enough knots that hopefully they'll cut off the blood to their brains.
To set the stage to further promote the interest of the public domain I am attempting to create a platform where Citizens through virtue can force change.
Here is the latest revision:
I place this in the public domain. If your nation does not permit a public domain then I grant you an unlimited license to use this in any manner you see fit with or without attribution.
I am outlining a method here for harnessing our collective plurality, creativity, values, and intelligence to manage the issues of the day that relate to public importance.
Social networks have risen in popularity in the last few years and while they are excellent methods to maintain contact with your friends and acquaintances they could be dramatically improved by adding an agenda driven, truth seeking through adversity, and hierarchical organization of discussion, where you drill down and bubble back up - closing deeper levels of conversation with truth. You may also support your position by linking around to more comprehensive arguments.
It is organized as a forum with a root or starting point, and linking further into branches so when taken together they compose a "tree". At the root there are general categories and as you go into the branches you may encounter topics, issues, or agendas which are categories, or comments which are opinions. Both these groups are also referred to as branches. Categories are tagged with keywords. Both categories and opinions can be mixed and matched at all levels in the tree.
Anyone may start a topic/issue/agenda or comment anywhere within the tree to be managed. You have your "watch" branches, when they change you are notified and you have the opportunity to go there and be either a proponent, opponent, or authority.
When you contribute something new you have the option to link back to any other branch to support it.
Some mechanics could include: At the root of the tree, general topics exist. Root moderators manage here but they are not permitted to be proponents or opponents, only authorities. Root moderators may also change the moderator of any sub-branch. Moderators get to manage branches within their domain. Creating a branch makes you its moderator and gives you the ability to add or remove others with this status and also all branches leaving your branch are included in your domain. As truth is established it moves back up the hierarchy to support or detract from those parent branches. Your record of truth contributes to your rating of authority in their respective tags. Various information at each branch is collected to be used for different purposes - from a vote up/down in reputation for a branch, categorizing a branch (funny, off topic, insightful, interesting, etc.), declaring yourself an proponent/opponent/authority, voting to move a branch and its sub-branches to another branch, or voting for truth - to suggest some.
Everyone may attach their own opinion of reputation to any branch and these may be collated and shown. Reputation may also apply to individuals, if someone abuses, lies, vandalizes, and is pointless they can be filtered out. Being linked to your account this would sort out the majority of abuse only leaving new users and people who decide to go occasionally rogue to contend with.
Comments may be subversive, inflammatory, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Most of this could be minimized using keyword filtering, approval required to post if below a reputation threshold, and general moderation systems if desired.
The steps people take in interacting with this forum are: understanding the issue, adding their own ideas, contributing to the strengths, and criticizing the weakness'. While seeking truth, bias is permitted to cover areas of opinion but prejudice is not as this covers areas of fact.
You can find the submission in Facebooks feedback forum: Here.
There is a book called, The Public Domain written by a professor of law from the Duke Law School. You can download an electronic version legally and for free from that link. It outlines the conflicts facing areas of creativity like the arts and sciences and explains the history of how it came to be so enclosed. It also does not pull any punches, it supports industry where deserved and advocates Citizen interests where right. It certainly is a lot better than my rants and raves when I scream: I Want My Public Domain! Although he has more reasons to be tactful than I. Inform yourself, read the free book. I am and once I'm done I'm going to go read some Pirate Party propaganda to see if it is compatible with the good professor.
Reputation may also apply to individuals, if someone abuses, lies, vandalizes, and is pointless they can be filtered out. Being linked to your account this would sort out the majority of abuse only leaving new users to contend with.
I hope I didn't turn you off by exposing my Machiavellian methods. Manipulation is a tool, it can be used for both Good and Evil purposes. In this case I am going with Good because this issue is one that would provide an positive influence in our society. That link sucks by the way, it was the wrong one and the real one doesn't have much bearing on our conversation anyway so I've discarded it.
I place this firmly in the public domain. If your nation does not permit a public domain then I grant you an unlimited license to use this in any manner you see fit with or without attribution.
I have an agenda. I want to improve the lot of humanity as a whole.
As we enter the Information Age I am outlining a method here for harnessing our plurality, creativity, values, and intelligence to manage the issues of the day that relate to public importance.
Social networks have risen in popularity in the last few years and while they are excellent methods to maintain contact with your friends and acquaintances they could be dramatically improved by adding an agenda driven, truth seeking through adversary, and hierarchical organization, where you drill down and bubble back up. Closing deeper levels of conversation with truth. You may also support your position by linking around to more comprehensive arguments.
While seeking truth, bias is permitted to cover areas of opinion but prejudice is forbidden as this covers areas of fact.
Anyone may start a agenda/topic/issue to be managed. Topics are tagged, You have your "watch" topics, when your interests appear you are notified and you have the opportunity to go there and be either a proponent, opponent, or authority.
When you contribute something new you have the option to link back to your agenda to support it.
Some mechanics could include:
At the root in a social network, general categories exist for discussion. Moderators manage here but they are not permitted to be proponents or opponents, only authorities. These authorities also may place any other authority at any sub-branch in their domain. Every reply is a branch, and drilling down, moderators get to manage branches they are responsible for. Creating a branch makes you its primary moderator and gives you the ability to add or remove others with this status. Your record of truth contributes to your rating of authority in their respective tags.
As an agent everyone my attach their own opinion of reputation to any branch and these may be collated and shown for everyone.
As an example, and I apologize if I turn some of you completely off while I was establishing the topic, fending off the trolls, and getting other general formalities out of the way. Read this branch: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1450972&cid=30167330 of a thread. Be sure to adjust the display slider as successive comments are continuations of the previous. Jump straight to the chase here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1450972&cid=30192990 . This outline takes work to pull off in a traditional forum setting but if purpose-built into social networks the kludginess could be minimized while maximizing efficiency and effectiveness - it is a prototype after all.
Now I do have an obligation to that thread. I didn't jerk people around, I have to spend some real time and effort there defining the finer points of why the public domain is important in an adversarial setting. I also have the commitment to do what I said and pay more attention to slashdot so that when those relevant stories appear I do go in and contribute something while linking back and rewarding the efforts of everyone who helped with the consensus. Its a social contract, I hope the social networks don't take too long to adapt to issue management.
Please respond to this post by understanding the issue, adding your own ideas, contributing to the strengths, and criticizing the weakness'.
--
If you know of anywhere that would be receptive to an opinion piece such as this PLEASE let me know by replying.
It IS in the public domain so if you would like to post this anywhere PLEASE do, you don't even have to credit me!
I will completely level with you. You don't know what I believe. I have surface thoughts and I present them to be interpreted and play with the dynamics of conversation gaining the advantage where I can and rebuilding where I am weak. I have my agenda. I want to see people organize to improve our lot at humans. The public domain is a singular issue that could reinforce this goal. It must be liberated by any means necessary. How we go about this in tangential. PLEASE continue this discussion, I respect and am fully engaged with you because you have demonstrated completely to me that you are not a sheep. Thank you.
See: Here for some background material to show some mutual terms for us both to understand as we continue this conversation.
This following wiki quote relates to what is missing:
"The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works whose use is restricted by copyright. Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country). When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. It is estimated that currently, of all the books found in the world's libraries, only about 15% are in the public domain, even though only 10% of all books are still in print; the remaining 75% are books which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection."
Education is an obvious topic to explore. If there was a truly functioning public domain then my objections to teaching copyright obligations in civics classes to primary school students would be greatly negated.
I have made some arbitrary criteria, if you agree we will apply it: Each party can permit themselves bias, but prejudice is forbidden. If you can rule for yourself then you will but you may not rule for yourself in the face of a credible argument. If both parties are able to stay behind valid bias then other avenues must be pursued to break the deadlock. A party is considered right as defined by the other being unable to refute the logic and values of the statement. If you invalidate a base then other ideas that are built upon top of it must be built back up. Sorry I didn't have that figured out from the start. Now, when you break through the line you will have created not only in your own mind exactly why it is right but unless someone can twist the bias you will have proven a Truth to our mutual limits of fallibility as well. This gracefully sweeps away the old and allows virtue to triumph against adversity. Now if I wasn't such a prick about it I could be smug.
In some Government styles one of the popular systems that codifies rules is called: Robert's Rules of Order.
Well if this doesn't pan out then its off to the next shiny. But I won't abandon - as tidy as the messy process can be resolving sub-branches and bubbling back up will provide closure. That is if you can figure out which way it up.
Slashdot Mirror
While petitions are useful for generating interest in a topic they are not as useful for getting the change you want. You are subjugating yourself - you are saying pretty please. What I would like to see people do is go out, demand what you want through rock-solid argument and if denied press the issue through the connectivity of the web.
Damn sleep, missed the beginning of this one. Secrecy is the antithesis of Democracy. Unless your talking about your newest super-duper kill-em-all weapon then secrecy is Evil. It hides agendas, it does not promote truth and it allows people to push their petty prejudice onto everyone. It's Evil. Whatever is decided do it in the open with all parties being on the level.
That argument actually has some truth, see: Here.
But in France, you are responsible for securing your own network, see: Here. Wonder how long till that migrates across the pond? ACTA anyone? Maybe, whats in that is secret because, you know, trade agreements are of national security...
Heh, should start a cooperative-run ISP connected to the bone which all it does is route traffic through network address translation! Would that work?
Don't get ahead of yourself! Thats only in tentative planning for now! Need more bribes, er.. campaign donations, before it moves further than that!
Please see this: Thread for some suitable outrage yay! But also, please see this: Book (its a free download) for facts.
Instead of hiding under whatever is the closest rock, how about checking out an organization such as the Pirate Party. I hear their doing relatively well over in Euro-Land.
The agenda probably goes something more like this: They don't care who is on the other end because soon they'll phase out that pesky anonymity because, you know, them terrrrrissts could use it! Yes thats it! Lets kill another Civil Liberty because we can! *Cackles-Evily-As-They-Stuff-Their-Pockets-Full-Of-Money*
Here in Canada, you can borrow a friends original cd and copy it to a blank cd for your own use. This is legal because of the levy placed on blank media. However, if you own a cd and download a song from that cd from a peer-to-peer network that is illegal as infringement. Someday they'll tie themselves into enough knots that hopefully they'll cut off the blood to their brains.
That is respectable from me for a politician! His peers snub him!
Your sentiment is valid, but you need to twist the finer nuances of language to manipulate change to your liking.
To set the stage to further promote the interest of the public domain I am attempting to create a platform where Citizens through virtue can force change.
Here is the latest revision:
I place this in the public domain. If your nation does not permit a public domain then I grant you an unlimited license to use this in any manner you see fit with or without attribution.
I am outlining a method here for harnessing our collective plurality, creativity, values, and intelligence to manage the issues of the day that relate to public importance.
Social networks have risen in popularity in the last few years and while they are excellent methods to maintain contact with your friends and acquaintances they could be dramatically improved by adding an agenda driven, truth seeking through adversity, and hierarchical organization of discussion, where you drill down and bubble back up - closing deeper levels of conversation with truth. You may also support your position by linking around to more comprehensive arguments.
It is organized as a forum with a root or starting point, and linking further into branches so when taken together they compose a "tree". At the root there are general categories and as you go into the branches you may encounter topics, issues, or agendas which are categories, or comments which are opinions. Both these groups are also referred to as branches. Categories are tagged with keywords. Both categories and opinions can be mixed and matched at all levels in the tree.
Anyone may start a topic/issue/agenda or comment anywhere within the tree to be managed. You have your "watch" branches, when they change you are notified and you have the opportunity to go there and be either a proponent, opponent, or authority.
When you contribute something new you have the option to link back to any other branch to support it.
Some mechanics could include: At the root of the tree, general topics exist. Root moderators manage here but they are not permitted to be proponents or opponents, only authorities. Root moderators may also change the moderator of any sub-branch. Moderators get to manage branches within their domain. Creating a branch makes you its moderator and gives you the ability to add or remove others with this status and also all branches leaving your branch are included in your domain. As truth is established it moves back up the hierarchy to support or detract from those parent branches. Your record of truth contributes to your rating of authority in their respective tags. Various information at each branch is collected to be used for different purposes - from a vote up/down in reputation for a branch, categorizing a branch (funny, off topic, insightful, interesting, etc.), declaring yourself an proponent/opponent/authority, voting to move a branch and its sub-branches to another branch, or voting for truth - to suggest some.
Everyone may attach their own opinion of reputation to any branch and these may be collated and shown. Reputation may also apply to individuals, if someone abuses, lies, vandalizes, and is pointless they can be filtered out. Being linked to your account this would sort out the majority of abuse only leaving new users and people who decide to go occasionally rogue to contend with.
Comments may be subversive, inflammatory, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Most of this could be minimized using keyword filtering, approval required to post if below a reputation threshold, and general moderation systems if desired.
The steps people take in interacting with this forum are: understanding the issue, adding their own ideas, contributing to the strengths, and criticizing the weakness'. While seeking truth, bias is permitted to cover areas of opinion but prejudice is not as this covers areas of fact.
You can find the submission in Facebooks feedback forum: Here.
Please go there and comment to enable change.
There is a book called, The Public Domain written by a professor of law from the Duke Law School. You can download an electronic version legally and for free from that link. It outlines the conflicts facing areas of creativity like the arts and sciences and explains the history of how it came to be so enclosed. It also does not pull any punches, it supports industry where deserved and advocates Citizen interests where right. It certainly is a lot better than my rants and raves when I scream: I Want My Public Domain ! Although he has more reasons to be tactful than I. Inform yourself, read the free book. I am and once I'm done I'm going to go read some Pirate Party propaganda to see if it is compatible with the good professor.
Slashdot almost gets there: some functions have no equivalents
Reputation may also apply to individuals, if someone abuses, lies, vandalizes, and is pointless they can be filtered out. Being linked to your account this would sort out the majority of abuse only leaving new users to contend with.
As truth is established it moves back up the hierarchy to support or detract from those parents.
I hope I didn't turn you off by exposing my Machiavellian methods. Manipulation is a tool, it can be used for both Good and Evil purposes. In this case I am going with Good because this issue is one that would provide an positive influence in our society. That link sucks by the way, it was the wrong one and the real one doesn't have much bearing on our conversation anyway so I've discarded it.
adversary should read adversity.
As an agent everyone my... may
hierarchical organization.. of discussion.
I place this firmly in the public domain. If your nation does not permit a public domain then I grant you an unlimited license to use this in any manner you see fit with or without attribution.
I have an agenda. I want to improve the lot of humanity as a whole.
As we enter the Information Age I am outlining a method here for harnessing our plurality, creativity, values, and intelligence to manage the issues of the day that relate to public importance.
Social networks have risen in popularity in the last few years and while they are excellent methods to maintain contact with your friends and acquaintances they could be dramatically improved by adding an agenda driven, truth seeking through adversary, and hierarchical organization, where you drill down and bubble back up. Closing deeper levels of conversation with truth. You may also support your position by linking around to more comprehensive arguments.
While seeking truth, bias is permitted to cover areas of opinion but prejudice is forbidden as this covers areas of fact.
Anyone may start a agenda/topic/issue to be managed. Topics are tagged, You have your "watch" topics, when your interests appear you are notified and you have the opportunity to go there and be either a proponent, opponent, or authority.
When you contribute something new you have the option to link back to your agenda to support it.
Some mechanics could include:
At the root in a social network, general categories exist for discussion. Moderators manage here but they are not permitted to be proponents or opponents, only authorities. These authorities also may place any other authority at any sub-branch in their domain. Every reply is a branch, and drilling down, moderators get to manage branches they are responsible for. Creating a branch makes you its primary moderator and gives you the ability to add or remove others with this status. Your record of truth contributes to your rating of authority in their respective tags.
As an agent everyone my attach their own opinion of reputation to any branch and these may be collated and shown for everyone.
As an example, and I apologize if I turn some of you completely off while I was establishing the topic, fending off the trolls, and getting other general formalities out of the way. Read this branch: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1450972&cid=30167330 of a thread. Be sure to adjust the display slider as successive comments are continuations of the previous. Jump straight to the chase here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1450972&cid=30192990 . This outline takes work to pull off in a traditional forum setting but if purpose-built into social networks the kludginess could be minimized while maximizing efficiency and effectiveness - it is a prototype after all.
Now I do have an obligation to that thread. I didn't jerk people around, I have to spend some real time and effort there defining the finer points of why the public domain is important in an adversarial setting. I also have the commitment to do what I said and pay more attention to slashdot so that when those relevant stories appear I do go in and contribute something while linking back and rewarding the efforts of everyone who helped with the consensus. Its a social contract, I hope the social networks don't take too long to adapt to issue management.
Please respond to this post by understanding the issue, adding your own ideas, contributing to the strengths, and criticizing the weakness'.
--
If you know of anywhere that would be receptive to an opinion piece such as this PLEASE let me know by replying.
It IS in the public domain so if you would like to post this anywhere PLEASE do, you don't even have to credit me!
I will completely level with you. You don't know what I believe. I have surface thoughts and I present them to be interpreted and play with the dynamics of conversation gaining the advantage where I can and rebuilding where I am weak. I have my agenda. I want to see people organize to improve our lot at humans. The public domain is a singular issue that could reinforce this goal. It must be liberated by any means necessary. How we go about this in tangential. PLEASE continue this discussion, I respect and am fully engaged with you because you have demonstrated completely to me that you are not a sheep. Thank you.
See: Here for some background material to show some mutual terms for us both to understand as we continue this conversation.
This following wiki quote relates to what is missing:
"The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works whose use is restricted by copyright. Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country). When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. It is estimated that currently, of all the books found in the world's libraries, only about 15% are in the public domain, even though only 10% of all books are still in print; the remaining 75% are books which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection."
Education is an obvious topic to explore. If there was a truly functioning public domain then my objections to teaching copyright obligations in civics classes to primary school students would be greatly negated.
I have made some arbitrary criteria, if you agree we will apply it: Each party can permit themselves bias, but prejudice is forbidden. If you can rule for yourself then you will but you may not rule for yourself in the face of a credible argument. If both parties are able to stay behind valid bias then other avenues must be pursued to break the deadlock. A party is considered right as defined by the other being unable to refute the logic and values of the statement. If you invalidate a base then other ideas that are built upon top of it must be built back up. Sorry I didn't have that figured out from the start. Now, when you break through the line you will have created not only in your own mind exactly why it is right but unless someone can twist the bias you will have proven a Truth to our mutual limits of fallibility as well. This gracefully sweeps away the old and allows virtue to triumph against adversity. Now if I wasn't such a prick about it I could be smug.
In some Government styles one of the popular systems that codifies rules is called: Robert's Rules of Order.
Well if this doesn't pan out then its off to the next shiny. But I won't abandon - as tidy as the messy process can be resolving sub-branches and bubbling back up will provide closure. That is if you can figure out which way it up.
<No Carrier>