They are ingenious. I'm convinced they put the Windows Office Talking Paperclip and the Windows XP Search Puppy to give us a motivation to upgrade away from them.
What's most interesting about Minitel is not the "historical" origins 30 years ago, but the way the French Government kept subsidizing it up until 2012. It was already presque obsolete when AOL was on the rise, but the tax dollars just kept it going. Government isn't that bad at developing something new (NASA, nuclear power), but it does a pretty bad job of management if it decides to stay "in the business".
I agree with your sentiment. But interested parties "market" the risks to affect peoples perceptions. We need third party evaluation of actual risks. Do gay marriages or freedom to own guns REALLY pose a risk to me?
It was one of many examples of democracies trying to "simplify" our decisions with a rule or law. If you ask a majority of people what should be "allowed" they will create a set of rules which not even Nazis and Maoists can successfully regulate. Three strikes and you're out laws lead to medical marijuana and Supreme Court "cruel and unusual" laws overturned. Society desperately needs "depth perception", the ability to implement laws and regulation based on 1) priority of risk, and 2) feasibility of regulating. The "risks" posed by X (lying on the internet, gay or interracial marriage, immigration, piracy, smoking pot) are nothing compared to the risk of society with a power to ban them or the power of the mafia to corrupt that regulation. Society's cognitive risk dissonance has created thousands of laws just as silly as this Rhode Island example. We need to start at the top and prioritize real risks and feasible enforcement.
1) Do not give workers cell phones and do not track them
2) Do give workers cell phones and do not track them.
3) Do give workers cell phones and do track them.
4) Do not give workers cell phones and do track them.
In any of these cases, employees can "Opt Out" (quit). Even a 10% quit rate would probably cause a company to rethink its strategy. The question is, are 10 percent more likely to quit over not being given a phone, or for being tracked? At our company, we give the staff cell phones but only track truck drivers in order to know where the trucks are during their routes. Since the CEO is not a truck driver, his phone is not tracked. Is that hypocracy? Or maybe the truck drivers just don't realize they are being exploited? Ugh, It gets so complicated, this process of giving devices to employees to improve their productivity...
My three kids are capable of reasoning, but they have a lower tolerance for the amount of time it takes to arrive at an answer through logic. They expect correct answers to be displayed, not deduced. They do play chess, but angry birds as well.
The more people have a stake in someone else's lives, the more people can "mod down" the warmongers. It works if there is an economic investment (Foxconn and Wistron do more to guarantee peace between Taiwan and mainland China than the USA fleet), but having any stake at all - even a facebook friend - works the same way. That's how Germans in Philadelphia stopped fighting with Irish immigrants. Exposure and familiarity promotes peace.
What ever happened to antiphorm? Noise, camouflage, false flags generated by a random search generator seems like an easier approach than Tor, and requires no second party server. I don't like getting ads based on my health care searches. I'd be fine if terms for child porn were omitted from the search.
The value of the Nobel prize has been deflating for several decades, which has resulted in (correlates with) an increase in wars and conflict. This latest cut could trigger a new set of skirmishes.
Yes. Do you think that the 8.2% who are underemployed are eligible for the "top 20th percentile" jobs? 15% of Americans are barely employable, and we have 8.2% unemployed. The best hope of the unemployed 8.2% is a quick injection of smarts to their prospective employers.
Top 20% creates jobs for the people in the bottom 80%. The myth of immigrant labor taking jobs is pretty much busted. Wall St Journal reported last month that Mexico is a NET EMMIGRATION country since 2006. If you add up all the "lost jobs" since they started broadcasting the "lost jobs" statistic, the developing world would be an empty desert. The jobs that are lost are not jobs we want. What we want are the top 20%, and we want those companies to excel with the best workforce possible. http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/mexican-immigration-solved.html
We would have a problem of underemployment of physics Ph.Ds, scientists flipping burgers, and a different "straw man", as the summary puts it. The issue is, sadly, race baiting. America has always been able to hire the scientists it needs from the best and brightest in other places (India, Iran, China). The panic over how many "Americans" had those jobs is only important to the people who want to keep immigrants out and deny the Ph.Ds visas. It was fine when it was ok for an American to be a car mechanic or a carpenter and have a scientist or doctor come from a country where someone really, really, really wanted to be that. The people alarmed by the low percentage of "native born" scientists are the same racists who want to deny naturalization to the foreign-born scientists.
Facebook is like a truly famous celebrity. It has a lot of clout and power. But if it uses that power, and someone else comes on the scene, it could quickly go the way of Warren Beatty Ishtar (names my kids have never even heard of). Google and credit cards have more access to private info and potential for abuse (I use gmail), but haven't made any really bad movies yet. The only problem I see with Facebook is what choices it will make with my data tomorrow.
To avoid censorship (which the Party is attempting to be less ham-fisted with) the "political" comments with the most re-tweets have become more and more sideways. I'd expect the "rewards" system to have to wait until some re-tweet elevates, at which point everyone will be punished retrospectively who re-tweeted it. The evolution of Chinese commentary in social networks is really something.
To give credit so some of the religious, it is hard to take off the training wheels when science cannot prove there is a reason not to harm others in society without getting caught. A huge portion of society believes that, atheist and worshippers alike, that the key is not what you do but not getting caught. Evolution at this point seems to back them up, and that is why a lot of people are not willing to let go of a few thousand years of morality based on faith. Calling them stupid when we don't have a moral system capable of replacing it, or calling ourselves "more intelligent" than the avowed believers, or even more intelligent than the hypocrites, lacks any prima facia proof. I know plenty of smart religious people.
I have a couple of these "don't listen to parents" examples. I had the idea in 6th grade to have a car run on perpetual motion, just put a generator in front to capture the energy and feed it back. My parents and grandparents told me, correctly, that' won't work because of the laws of theromdynamics, which they explained and I understood. I thought about it, then said "But what if I wanted the car to stop? Could it be used as a brake, to capture the energy?"
Have tried Tor, found it promising but buggy. I think it would be cheaper and easier to have my computer auto-search random words from the dictionary when it's on idle. If 15% of people start using Tor, they'll either find a way to stop it or bug it or take it away. But no one can stop me from showing random interest, and no one can get me for surfing a specific site if my browser searches millions of sites randomly.
Slashdot Mirror
Couple of options here... you can go with the cassette player, or the new "Compact Disks".
They are ingenious. I'm convinced they put the Windows Office Talking Paperclip and the Windows XP Search Puppy to give us a motivation to upgrade away from them.
What's most interesting about Minitel is not the "historical" origins 30 years ago, but the way the French Government kept subsidizing it up until 2012. It was already presque obsolete when AOL was on the rise, but the tax dollars just kept it going. Government isn't that bad at developing something new (NASA, nuclear power), but it does a pretty bad job of management if it decides to stay "in the business".
I agree with your sentiment. But interested parties "market" the risks to affect peoples perceptions. We need third party evaluation of actual risks. Do gay marriages or freedom to own guns REALLY pose a risk to me?
Duh. Follow the conversation. It's about laws designed to restrict X which result in XXX. Marijuana, Guns. Dugh. Find the bias.
Guns.
Ok, that's what they were pumping into Neo's backbone... Right?
It was one of many examples of democracies trying to "simplify" our decisions with a rule or law. If you ask a majority of people what should be "allowed" they will create a set of rules which not even Nazis and Maoists can successfully regulate. Three strikes and you're out laws lead to medical marijuana and Supreme Court "cruel and unusual" laws overturned. Society desperately needs "depth perception", the ability to implement laws and regulation based on 1) priority of risk, and 2) feasibility of regulating. The "risks" posed by X (lying on the internet, gay or interracial marriage, immigration, piracy, smoking pot) are nothing compared to the risk of society with a power to ban them or the power of the mafia to corrupt that regulation. Society's cognitive risk dissonance has created thousands of laws just as silly as this Rhode Island example. We need to start at the top and prioritize real risks and feasible enforcement.
1) Do not give workers cell phones and do not track them
2) Do give workers cell phones and do not track them.
3) Do give workers cell phones and do track them.
4) Do not give workers cell phones and do track them.
In any of these cases, employees can "Opt Out" (quit). Even a 10% quit rate would probably cause a company to rethink its strategy. The question is, are 10 percent more likely to quit over not being given a phone, or for being tracked? At our company, we give the staff cell phones but only track truck drivers in order to know where the trucks are during their routes. Since the CEO is not a truck driver, his phone is not tracked. Is that hypocracy? Or maybe the truck drivers just don't realize they are being exploited? Ugh, It gets so complicated, this process of giving devices to employees to improve their productivity...
169 cancer patients were studied. Cancer showed a stronger correlation with a preference for apples than with a preference for oranges.
My three kids are capable of reasoning, but they have a lower tolerance for the amount of time it takes to arrive at an answer through logic. They expect correct answers to be displayed, not deduced. They do play chess, but angry birds as well.
The more people have a stake in someone else's lives, the more people can "mod down" the warmongers. It works if there is an economic investment (Foxconn and Wistron do more to guarantee peace between Taiwan and mainland China than the USA fleet), but having any stake at all - even a facebook friend - works the same way. That's how Germans in Philadelphia stopped fighting with Irish immigrants. Exposure and familiarity promotes peace.
What ever happened to antiphorm? Noise, camouflage, false flags generated by a random search generator seems like an easier approach than Tor, and requires no second party server. I don't like getting ads based on my health care searches. I'd be fine if terms for child porn were omitted from the search.
The value of the Nobel prize has been deflating for several decades, which has resulted in (correlates with) an increase in wars and conflict. This latest cut could trigger a new set of skirmishes.
Yes. Do you think that the 8.2% who are underemployed are eligible for the "top 20th percentile" jobs? 15% of Americans are barely employable, and we have 8.2% unemployed. The best hope of the unemployed 8.2% is a quick injection of smarts to their prospective employers.
Top 20% creates jobs for the people in the bottom 80%. The myth of immigrant labor taking jobs is pretty much busted. Wall St Journal reported last month that Mexico is a NET EMMIGRATION country since 2006. If you add up all the "lost jobs" since they started broadcasting the "lost jobs" statistic, the developing world would be an empty desert. The jobs that are lost are not jobs we want. What we want are the top 20%, and we want those companies to excel with the best workforce possible. http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/mexican-immigration-solved.html
We would have a problem of underemployment of physics Ph.Ds, scientists flipping burgers, and a different "straw man", as the summary puts it. The issue is, sadly, race baiting. America has always been able to hire the scientists it needs from the best and brightest in other places (India, Iran, China). The panic over how many "Americans" had those jobs is only important to the people who want to keep immigrants out and deny the Ph.Ds visas. It was fine when it was ok for an American to be a car mechanic or a carpenter and have a scientist or doctor come from a country where someone really, really, really wanted to be that. The people alarmed by the low percentage of "native born" scientists are the same racists who want to deny naturalization to the foreign-born scientists.
Facebook is like a truly famous celebrity. It has a lot of clout and power. But if it uses that power, and someone else comes on the scene, it could quickly go the way of Warren Beatty Ishtar (names my kids have never even heard of). Google and credit cards have more access to private info and potential for abuse (I use gmail), but haven't made any really bad movies yet. The only problem I see with Facebook is what choices it will make with my data tomorrow.
To avoid censorship (which the Party is attempting to be less ham-fisted with) the "political" comments with the most re-tweets have become more and more sideways. I'd expect the "rewards" system to have to wait until some re-tweet elevates, at which point everyone will be punished retrospectively who re-tweeted it. The evolution of Chinese commentary in social networks is really something.
download:watch ads; protest: vote; wank: pretty people: ____:____?
What Leaky means by "soon" may be relative. "Sometime in the next 15 or 30 years" is close enough for carbon dating purposes.
To give credit so some of the religious, it is hard to take off the training wheels when science cannot prove there is a reason not to harm others in society without getting caught. A huge portion of society believes that, atheist and worshippers alike, that the key is not what you do but not getting caught. Evolution at this point seems to back them up, and that is why a lot of people are not willing to let go of a few thousand years of morality based on faith. Calling them stupid when we don't have a moral system capable of replacing it, or calling ourselves "more intelligent" than the avowed believers, or even more intelligent than the hypocrites, lacks any prima facia proof. I know plenty of smart religious people.
I have a couple of these "don't listen to parents" examples. I had the idea in 6th grade to have a car run on perpetual motion, just put a generator in front to capture the energy and feed it back. My parents and grandparents told me, correctly, that' won't work because of the laws of theromdynamics, which they explained and I understood. I thought about it, then said "But what if I wanted the car to stop? Could it be used as a brake, to capture the energy?"
No, they said. And I dropped it.
Have tried Tor, found it promising but buggy. I think it would be cheaper and easier to have my computer auto-search random words from the dictionary when it's on idle. If 15% of people start using Tor, they'll either find a way to stop it or bug it or take it away. But no one can stop me from showing random interest, and no one can get me for surfing a specific site if my browser searches millions of sites randomly.
Damn, I didn't even realize they had broken into the dictionary to steal the words "social engineering" to apply the term to computer fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)