I don't think "citizen review boards with the power to punish/fire officers" is the ultimate solution. The problem is that citizens (their "customers") are forced to pay the taxes that fund them, and this removes the critical check on any activity that marks it as "good" - that check is the willingness of others to pay more to have the activity done than it costs to do it. The ultimate solution, I think, would be to run the police station the same way a private company is run: they provide a service to their customers and their customers pay them for that service. But that's the ultimate solution, so it's a very long way off. I don't know how to get there.
Teaching property rights and individual sovereignty would be a good start.
Furthermore do you have a method of deciding which question to answer next, either in your own forums or here on Slashdot?
Disclaimer: I haven't played any MMPORPGs although I'd love to, it's just never a priority. Instead, I've been working on a system that can easily be tuned to provide the most logical order of questions to be answered - so you see I posted this reply in part because I have a solution. Sadly, very few people know about it. It's sort of a voting/moderation thing (at the time of this post, there are 22 comments with a score of 5, but there's obviously no indication which of the 22 is the best comment), but based on users ordering the comments/questions instead of moderating each comment/question up or down individually.
Therefore there will always be a need for some regulation of the wireless spectrum and a need for some governing body to decide what is allowed where and how much.
The radio waves were not regulated when Marconi first started using them. Suppose that competing broadcasters were left to duke it out without a tax-funded agency to threaten them into sharing. What do you think would happen?
They struggle against each other and no one is able to make any profit and this struggle goes on ad infinitum with ever more hoodwinked investors pouring money into "those poor floundering radio companies"?
One company manages to output a vastly stronger signal than all the others and thus creates itself a monopoly and refuses to let others buy pieces of the spectrum from them even though this requires them to spend ever more money boosting their signal?
Rather than innovate technologically, the radio companies start shooting each other and blowing up each others buildings while investors sit back and cheer for their own company?
Competing companies find Nash equilibria in which they come up with ever more technical advancements that allow them to broadcast more with less interference, working together wherever cooperation is called for and attempting to do one better where it isn't?
Profit is a powerful motive, and only one of these options provides it. Imagine that, and getting the tax break from disbanding the FCC.
Do you expect others to help you pay for any of the things you want? Do you hold any responsibilities that are also held by others so that if you don't take care of them, someone else will (or might)?
I ask these things because Bob seems to be someone who will not take responsibility for something unless it is his alone, so that when he handles it, he gets whatever benefits accrue. He also seems like someone who would not expect anyone to help pay for any of the things he wants, including police protection and infrastructure.
Anders seems to be someone who does expect others to help pay, and he is also willing to help pay for others to get what they want. He also seems like someone who would not want to bear total responsibility for something, but rather he'd want others there to back him up if he fails.
I think I understand both positions, and I am closer to Bob's position. However, my most important question is yet to come: Do you feel at all pulled toward the other's arguments? I mean, if the other guy is trying to help you understand more, do you think he's doing a good job, or is he wasting his time? This question is important to me because it is where real change takes place, and that is something I cherish deeply.
Don't they have a way to request that a foreign media company not publish something? It seems that a polite and explanatory request between two parties not under a common authority (or even under one) would work a heck of a lot better. The old fly and vinegar and honey problem again, eh?
Without blacking these results out it can cause apathy among voters for the winning party and impetous for potential voters for the losing parties
I was thinking it would cause apathy among the losing party and enthusiasm among the winning party. But either way...
There's apparently some kind of psychological force involved in voting that can change your vote depending on your perception of what everyone else is voting. What the hell is that all about? Maybe I'm not wired into the Borg-like human mind? Anybody here willing to admit that this happens to them? Is it something that happens to everyone as long as they don't realize it and then maybe continues to happen even after they realize it?
It's because our voting systems suck. Look into it. You can help fix it.
If they were able to easily find jurors that hadn't heard about the case, the ban was effective. You've got to remember that their goal is not to hide the information fro all of us. The goal is to preserve the judgement of enough people that jury selection doesn't become too difficult.
Let's not assume that a media ban is an attempt to keep everyone in the dark.
As intelligent people we all know how easy it is to assume that "the public" is generally pretty dumb. Since that's where the jury comes from, the "intelligent folks" that had power to decided that bans on sensational criminal cases should be used in order to protect the possibly innocent suspect.
I believe that people on a jury are capable of distinguishing between the media guessing and the evidence in court.
The "controlled study" would use two juries, one that followed the media coverage and one that didn't. We'd have to do this for several cases, and then have some analysis done on cases where the two juries came to different conclusions.
...I think...
What SubtleNuance is saying is that perhaps the use of gas in this situation is justified by the mindshare gain for the idea that SUVs waste a lot of gas. Right?
Just prohibit the use of Mozilla in your organization and then make sure employees have access to the Internet. They're bound to set it up themselves that way.
Has anyone heard of a system like this:
Your email provider delivers an email to you only if
it has a "Reply-To" field in the header AND
the Reply-To value has been accepted as a valid email address by another customer.
So in order for a person that just created an email address to email you, they would have to get their new address validated first and would receive a message to that effect the first time they tried to email you. They would have to get in touch with you or someone else under your email provider to get validated.
If you get some spam, you report it to your email provider and the ISP deals with the customer who validated the "Reply-To" address.
Email providers would set up peering relationships wherein they can share validated email addresses.
If the Reply-To value is faked, it would have to point to a validated email address and would probably bring severe damage to that email account. This method would push spammers into using this strategy, but it would certainly get them into more trouble that they currently get into.
I'm sure there are holes in my idea, so shoot away and educate me.
Slashdot controls trolls through democratic moderation (and other means previously mentioned). Perhaps the "positive goal" that we can achieve here is some time from a geek or group of geeks that can help PCT set up a slash-site. This would get the word out on how great slashcode is, generate some publicity, I imagine, and help out the poor bastards to whom/. has unwittingly brought such harm.
I had another idea in moderation that/. could implement: Every new post would have to pass one well-established karma-positive random member's crap-test (Is this post crap?). The poster could appeal if they didn't post anonymously.
A fool sometimes has a good idea and a wise man sometimes has a foolish one. Do you eat poison because the fool tells you not to?
If it is politically motivated, it's worth less, is that the idea? Certainly, a little less, but politics does a great job of making people talk about important issues. It is a shame when we interrupt the discussion of those issues to discuss the fact that people are not always motivated purely by a search for the truth.
Just because we will modify the weather does not mean that we should modify it. Let's not throw out arguments against being stupid just because there are stupid people.
Changing the weather is probably a good idea, but if it isn't, we'll need a good reason not to change it. We're here to find that reason.
"Chaotic" does not mean random, so it does not mean that ramifications will never be known. We may find conditions in which something we can do will very regularly (and perhaps through magnification of effects - chaos that is) increase rainfall or evaporation off the ocean in some area. Taking advantage of the regularity that we discover in the chaos will not prevent us from seeing the ramifications of our actions.
Didn't humans evolve to such a state by letting the monkeys that weren't clever get eaten by the lions?
It seems to me that we humans had to do more than let the monkeys get eaten. From the lack of animals more like us, it seems that we must have done quite a job of killing off slightly weaker species - perhaps species that were slightly more intelligent but didn't have the time to develop defenses against brute force.
When we started recognizing the value of diversity, we started backing away from the "nature" of unenlightened animal behavior: kill off anyone you don't know that uses the same resources you use. Some balance between strength and intelligence was optimal for defense and survival.
As the rate of growth in our ability to leverage intelligence has increased, we've started valuing it more and the balance is shifting. I think that's great because it seems that intelligence brings happiness more effectively than strength. Evolution has labored merely to optimize survival but conscious beings labor to optimize happiness. When the two conflict, it is right for us to defy evolution.
If the stupidity or laziness of a few makes the efforts of everyone else useless (they still have to pass them under a magnet), then the industrious and smart people should rebel and pretend they're stupid to send a message that thier time and efforts are being wasted.
However, the magnet that processes steel might be part of a system that can't handle aluminum and vice versa, so the magnet simply causes a small percentage of material to be rejected. In this sense, the stupid people generate rejected material, but the efforts of the smart people are not wasted. It would be interesting if someone who knew explained how the recycling system works.
How do the recycling folks like it? What's the number in the little triangle? I suppose they'll have to separate the top from the body to recycle it at all. Gotta love that!
Hey, I'm only here because I asked a friend of mine about an idea I had for enlisting the masses in ranking input from several people. He said "Oh - check out slashdot!" So here I am.
I'd like to see less editor input and more member input. I'd like to alter slashcode to create a meritocratic system of sorts that would be used to solve problems like "paper or plastic" and the problem of the 2000 presidential race. Suppose we talk about doing that in 2003?
Ten years ago, most of us paid well over $1500 for machines that do a hell of a lot less than they do now. The machines are worth a lot more than we pay for them. As for Apple...
Apple has trained people to trust their Macs, and they've done a great job of it too. It's like speaking a different language. If they can maintain the illusion that "learning the PC language" is tough and unrewarding, they will continue winning the minds of people who will then pay an arbitrarily high price to keep speaking Mac-ese.
What's your computer worth to you? How much would you pay for it if there was no other way to get one?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think "citizen review boards with the power to punish/fire officers" is the ultimate solution. The problem is that citizens (their "customers") are forced to pay the taxes that fund them, and this removes the critical check on any activity that marks it as "good" - that check is the willingness of others to pay more to have the activity done than it costs to do it. The ultimate solution, I think, would be to run the police station the same way a private company is run: they provide a service to their customers and their customers pay them for that service. But that's the ultimate solution, so it's a very long way off. I don't know how to get there.
Teaching property rights and individual sovereignty would be a good start.
Furthermore do you have a method of deciding which question to answer next, either in your own forums or here on Slashdot?
Disclaimer: I haven't played any MMPORPGs although I'd love to, it's just never a priority. Instead, I've been working on a system that can easily be tuned to provide the most logical order of questions to be answered - so you see I posted this reply in part because I have a solution. Sadly, very few people know about it. It's sort of a voting/moderation thing (at the time of this post, there are 22 comments with a score of 5, but there's obviously no indication which of the 22 is the best comment), but based on users ordering the comments/questions instead of moderating each comment/question up or down individually.
The radio waves were not regulated when Marconi first started using them. Suppose that competing broadcasters were left to duke it out without a tax-funded agency to threaten them into sharing. What do you think would happen?
- They struggle against each other and no one is able to make any profit and this struggle goes on ad infinitum with ever more hoodwinked investors pouring money into "those poor floundering radio companies"?
- One company manages to output a vastly stronger signal than all the others and thus creates itself a monopoly and refuses to let others buy pieces of the spectrum from them even though this requires them to spend ever more money boosting their signal?
- Rather than innovate technologically, the radio companies start shooting each other and blowing up each others buildings while investors sit back and cheer for their own company?
- Competing companies find Nash equilibria in which they come up with ever more technical advancements that allow them to broadcast more with less interference, working together wherever cooperation is called for and attempting to do one better where it isn't?
Profit is a powerful motive, and only one of these options provides it. Imagine that, and getting the tax break from disbanding the FCC.Do you expect others to help you pay for any of the things you want? Do you hold any responsibilities that are also held by others so that if you don't take care of them, someone else will (or might)?
I ask these things because Bob seems to be someone who will not take responsibility for something unless it is his alone, so that when he handles it, he gets whatever benefits accrue. He also seems like someone who would not expect anyone to help pay for any of the things he wants, including police protection and infrastructure.
Anders seems to be someone who does expect others to help pay, and he is also willing to help pay for others to get what they want. He also seems like someone who would not want to bear total responsibility for something, but rather he'd want others there to back him up if he fails.
I think I understand both positions, and I am closer to Bob's position. However, my most important question is yet to come: Do you feel at all pulled toward the other's arguments? I mean, if the other guy is trying to help you understand more, do you think he's doing a good job, or is he wasting his time? This question is important to me because it is where real change takes place, and that is something I cherish deeply.
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful answers.
Did they also come up with something to get rid of the fungi once all the asbestos is gone?
Don't they have a way to request that a foreign media company not publish something? It seems that a polite and explanatory request between two parties not under a common authority (or even under one) would work a heck of a lot better. The old fly and vinegar and honey problem again, eh?
Without blacking these results out it can cause apathy among voters for the winning party and impetous for potential voters for the losing parties
I was thinking it would cause apathy among the losing party and enthusiasm among the winning party. But either way...
There's apparently some kind of psychological force involved in voting that can change your vote depending on your perception of what everyone else is voting. What the hell is that all about? Maybe I'm not wired into the Borg-like human mind? Anybody here willing to admit that this happens to them? Is it something that happens to everyone as long as they don't realize it and then maybe continues to happen even after they realize it?
It's because our voting systems suck. Look into it. You can help fix it.
If they were able to easily find jurors that hadn't heard about the case, the ban was effective. You've got to remember that their goal is not to hide the information fro all of us. The goal is to preserve the judgement of enough people that jury selection doesn't become too difficult.
Let's not assume that a media ban is an attempt to keep everyone in the dark.
As intelligent people we all know how easy it is to assume that "the public" is generally pretty dumb. Since that's where the jury comes from, the "intelligent folks" that had power to decided that bans on sensational criminal cases should be used in order to protect the possibly innocent suspect.
I believe that people on a jury are capable of distinguishing between the media guessing and the evidence in court.
The "controlled study" would use two juries, one that followed the media coverage and one that didn't. We'd have to do this for several cases, and then have some analysis done on cases where the two juries came to different conclusions.
...I think...
What SubtleNuance is saying is that perhaps the use of gas in this situation is justified by the mindshare gain for the idea that SUVs waste a lot of gas. Right?
Maybe it's a glider?
What about whistling? Can the staff whistle while the kids sing? That could be fun.
Just prohibit the use of Mozilla in your organization and then make sure employees have access to the Internet. They're bound to set it up themselves that way.
Your email provider delivers an email to you only if
it has a "Reply-To" field in the header AND
the Reply-To value has been accepted as a valid email address by another customer.
So in order for a person that just created an email address to email you, they would have to get their new address validated first and would receive a message to that effect the first time they tried to email you. They would have to get in touch with you or someone else under your email provider to get validated.
If you get some spam, you report it to your email provider and the ISP deals with the customer who validated the "Reply-To" address.
Email providers would set up peering relationships wherein they can share validated email addresses.
If the Reply-To value is faked, it would have to point to a validated email address and would probably bring severe damage to that email account. This method would push spammers into using this strategy, but it would certainly get them into more trouble that they currently get into.
I'm sure there are holes in my idea, so shoot away and educate me.
Slashdot controls trolls through democratic moderation (and other means previously mentioned). Perhaps the "positive goal" that we can achieve here is some time from a geek or group of geeks that can help PCT set up a slash-site. This would get the word out on how great slashcode is, generate some publicity, I imagine, and help out the poor bastards to whom /. has unwittingly brought such harm.
/. could implement: Every new post would have to pass one well-established karma-positive random member's crap-test (Is this post crap?). The poster could appeal if they didn't post anonymously.
I had another idea in moderation that
A fool sometimes has a good idea and a wise man sometimes has a foolish one. Do you eat poison because the fool tells you not to?
If it is politically motivated, it's worth less, is that the idea? Certainly, a little less, but politics does a great job of making people talk about important issues. It is a shame when we interrupt the discussion of those issues to discuss the fact that people are not always motivated purely by a search for the truth.
Maybe he was trying to distinguish it from the magnetic south pole, which I think is what "South Pole" means. Probably very ambiguous in usage.
Ok you're right. From the essay at duke:
seemingly random systems produce patterns of spooky understandable irregularity.
I meant Taking advantage of the patterns of spooky understandable irregularity that we discover in the chaos...
Just because we will modify the weather does not mean that we should modify it. Let's not throw out arguments against being stupid just because there are stupid people.
Changing the weather is probably a good idea, but if it isn't, we'll need a good reason not to change it. We're here to find that reason.
"Chaotic" does not mean random, so it does not mean that ramifications will never be known. We may find conditions in which something we can do will very regularly (and perhaps through magnification of effects - chaos that is) increase rainfall or evaporation off the ocean in some area. Taking advantage of the regularity that we discover in the chaos will not prevent us from seeing the ramifications of our actions.
Didn't humans evolve to such a state by letting the monkeys that weren't clever get eaten by the lions?
It seems to me that we humans had to do more than let the monkeys get eaten. From the lack of animals more like us, it seems that we must have done quite a job of killing off slightly weaker species - perhaps species that were slightly more intelligent but didn't have the time to develop defenses against brute force.
When we started recognizing the value of diversity, we started backing away from the "nature" of unenlightened animal behavior: kill off anyone you don't know that uses the same resources you use. Some balance between strength and intelligence was optimal for defense and survival.
As the rate of growth in our ability to leverage intelligence has increased, we've started valuing it more and the balance is shifting. I think that's great because it seems that intelligence brings happiness more effectively than strength. Evolution has labored merely to optimize survival but conscious beings labor to optimize happiness. When the two conflict, it is right for us to defy evolution.
If the stupidity or laziness of a few makes the efforts of everyone else useless (they still have to pass them under a magnet), then the industrious and smart people should rebel and pretend they're stupid to send a message that thier time and efforts are being wasted.
However, the magnet that processes steel might be part of a system that can't handle aluminum and vice versa, so the magnet simply causes a small percentage of material to be rejected. In this sense, the stupid people generate rejected material, but the efforts of the smart people are not wasted. It would be interesting if someone who knew explained how the recycling system works.
How do the recycling folks like it? What's the number in the little triangle? I suppose they'll have to separate the top from the body to recycle it at all. Gotta love that!
Hey, I'm only here because I asked a friend of mine about an idea I had for enlisting the masses in ranking input from several people. He said "Oh - check out slashdot!" So here I am.
I'd like to see less editor input and more member input. I'd like to alter slashcode to create a meritocratic system of sorts that would be used to solve problems like "paper or plastic" and the problem of the 2000 presidential race. Suppose we talk about doing that in 2003?
Dave.
How can you post that without a link to some such studies?
Ten years ago, most of us paid well over $1500 for machines that do a hell of a lot less than they do now. The machines are worth a lot more than we pay for them. As for Apple...
Apple has trained people to trust their Macs, and they've done a great job of it too. It's like speaking a different language. If they can maintain the illusion that "learning the PC language" is tough and unrewarding, they will continue winning the minds of people who will then pay an arbitrarily high price to keep speaking Mac-ese.
What's your computer worth to you? How much would you pay for it if there was no other way to get one?