You are right. But basically what you are saying just narrows down the usefulness of such 'expertize'. Think of Wikipedia; you can often rely on it to check what some obscure term really means, but no way you can be so sure about anything anywhere close to politics. You just don't go to Wikipedia for that sort of stuff, although it is sometims kind of educational to read the fighting at certain talk pages. Or take Digg, we can already digg articles, this way we can digg people. But that something is dugg to the top doesn't mean it is correct, just amusing/interesting enough to mention. And that someone is marked as expert by the masses doesn't mean he's always right, just worthy of note. Should work like a good filter in many cases.
The piece of software may be a vaporware for what it's worth. The idea, however, is not, and in fact very clever. They may flop with the way they want to implement it.. but think of all the possibilities.
Say, you need a new mobile phone and have some twenty or something friends in a social circle whose opinion you value. You decide you want to start with a brand first. You do some preliminary research and end up with say Nokia and Motorola. From that point, you can proceed no further since you really haven't a clue.. or maybe torn for options.. or maybe behind the trend and want to keep up.. doesn't matter. You want opinions of the people you know.. so now here's what you supposedly do in such a system:
You issue a 'call for opinions', type your question and nokia on the left and motorola on the right. Your friends hopefully indicate their opinions, maybe attach some notes why they think so and what models they recommend. You have your answers and make your decision. Now you have to select a model, you follow the same routine, probably in more than one step, and somehow end up with a conclusion. You now go and buy the phone and after using it some time you can issue some feedback by rating how helpful and truthful the friends' tips were.
Now if your friends do the same, and their friends etc. and a system that does some magic with the ratings is in place. There you can have a weighted rating of how useful or not opinions of the people you know to you are. With the advantages of the other networking, and public queries/answers you would hopefully then be able to fine tune your preferences in such a way so that you would be taking advice from the people you feel you trust the most.
From a commercial POV, this really seems to be a goldmine, if implemented properly, that is. Given that in general some personal information on you is availiable to the owners of such a system, Nokia and Motorola would kill for such information as who buys their phones and what models and possibly attached feedback.
Well let's see anyway. Oh, and somebody else in the comments has the link to the site.
There are enough unsolicited fakesters as is, no need to introduce more.:)
Seriously though, you don't 'introduce fakesters into a social circle', you introduce them to a system. What goes for someone considered an expert isn't obligatory to work for you, especially where usability/design/fashion-trend issues are concerned. If you have a working system that allows you to rate how peoples' opinions conicide with yours, and a hiscore table from among your friends of sorts, it's all that it takes to be at least of some use for you -- you wanted 'weighted advice', you got it, not like you're obliged to follow it or something.
Oh, and if properly implemented, brands fighting holy wars could probably cancel each other out.
From what I've read, it looks like they are trying to make it work like this. I ask a question, is A better than B? My friends state their opinion. I then make a decision, given all the opinions, and rate afterwards whether it was useful to me or not. There we have a rating. And if I know somebody is rated by the majority of their friends as an expert, I would be more inclined to believe them.
As to commercial possibilities, the capability to know who really your TA is (sex/age/background/whatnot) is priceless, and the questions kind of reveal it. Looks like they could hit a goldmine if done 'properly': it's much like polls, but with more or less honest answers and done voluntarily!
What could be complicating matters, though, is the fact that the concept is very natural for any blogging or social networking service. It would make sense if the feature gains popularity (which seems very likely) if LinkedIn or even LiveJournal would release such a feature shortly. There we could have a problem Houston for Illumio, because it would be then hard to compete against the existing monsters.. unless their "killer algorythm" is "too good".
It talks about why email is bad and doesn't take into consideration the simple fact that email is good because it closely imitates reality. That is the reason for what he calls a 'walled garden'; email only puts in 0s and 1s the way people communicate.
While he has some valid points about such issues as email folders not being searchable, not being shared easily, not secure enough etc. his main argument seems to stay the same: the problem is that email makes us act in a bad, counter-productive way. My opinion is that this is where he is fundamentally wrong. It's all about that usability thingie, and usability is often about imitating what you would do in reality. Email is perhaps the most user-friendly service that Internet has, and thus is expected to be used by the people the way they would do similar things in reality.
And most people around us are not geeks; they don't think in terms of 'how online collaboration should work'. (Not even all geeks do, either.) They most often have a vague comprehension of the fact that data shared by everyone is much more valuable than data that somebody has in private. So until people actually feel the need for a better collaboration engine, until they understand why it's better and how it makes them, their groups and companies more efficient at their tasks, email will stay the information medium of choice.
I'm somewhat skeptical myself about the 40yos and 50yos being able to learn the new ways of handling information; it seems to me that at least a decade should pass before people en masse actually realize what email can and what email cannot do and move on to better collaboration tools, such as forums/wikis/whatnot. Until then, there's only so much we can do: work on the Web 2.0 and patiently wait until somebody puts the new toys to serious use and hopefully proves their efficiency. From that point on, as money starts talking, things get moving...
Myself, with my projects I make heavy use of both the intranet forums and the IRC. I don't put much trust in IMs because they suffers from pretty much the same problems as e-mail does. However, only the young and open-minded are feeling themselves comfortable in this environment; even 30yos often have problems communicating online and there is almost no hope for those on the wrong side of 40 to adapt. Oh well.
They surely are providing LJ with content, through the mere fact of their existence. They have friends and friends have friends and thus they create a community, and community attracts paying customers. If there were only people who would pay in LJ it would have been a totally different place than it is.
How whether the owners consider this revenue sufficient is an entirely different story... but we yet have to see if they succeed or fail.
In a way, it is. This is a part of the price that you pay for these things actually existing, and existing for the prices you have them. When you get sold something it's yours as sold, not as you want it to do. If you don't like it, don't buy it, it's as simple as this.
Please realize that in order for the corporations to meet business targets, it is sometimes needed to cut off competition like that. If you had the right of getting every piece of equipment being compatible with everything else out there, then you might find yourself in a world where aforementioned pieces are delayed or don't exist at all, because selling these (and funding R&D in the first place) wouldn't be financially viable.
So this is a trade-off of sorts: you get a worse-compatibility item for better prices and better availiability. How much would that RAZR cost if you could use any charger you like? And would Verizon even bother?
Now, I'm not defending Microsoft in this particular case, since your post didn't either. I'm just trying to be fair to evil corps (gasp!). After all, there is still free market and if there is enough of likes of you who have a desire of "mine damnits", then there is demand and someone will surely fill the supply.
And if not... well then I guess there's a lot that I'd like myself to use, too, but does not exist/costs too much as well.
For some reason it shows standings about 2 hours prior to the end of the competition. In fact Jagellonians from Krakow were the 2nd, Altai was the 3rd.
frankly I fail to see what's wrong about it, especially since people do that all the time. this is blogosphere, after all, where everybody has the right to speak and be heard on every matter they deem important to -- and it's not even like he's pushing some personal agenda here or has real issues with IP. compare this to newspapers and TV where you hear an opinion and have little to no way to verify if who expressed one is really a specialist or not.
and not like he accomplishes much anyway. with his easy language and persuasive words, he still didn't deceive me and didn't deceive you into taking it for granted he's right. both of us (presumedly) still know who he is and know that this is only his opinion. he has some good points, but neither of us is like obliged or forced to agree. I for one don't feel he sufficiently proved much of what he illustrated.
but if someone falls in for his figures of speech, then again, what now? if someone cannot do themselves a favor of actually checking who is who, why then he would be at fault? especially if you consider that it happens all the time with much more important matters like politics and religion in mass media.
imagine if you write in your blog what you think of some activity you're not an expert in that you dislike. then someone else comes over and starts telling you that you have no right to sound like an authority and talk light that. if you'd think that's a breech in your right to express your ideas however you feel appropriate, why then would it be any different for paul graham?
Interesting point. However, supposing that happens, would that really change anything? It's an added cost for the product anyway, and to the end user it doesn't really make much of a difference to whom the money goes. So the producer would be about as interested in unattaching the patent string off the product as they are today... or wouldn't they?
>Then agan, Uranus is an odd planet in and of itself too -- it is tilted on its side with each pole facing the sun less than once a year. Seasons on Uranus would be odd.
could you please elaborate on this? how would seasons on Earth look if Earth would be like that?
In Russian, we most often leave off the -us and -as at the end of Latin words, so the Russian name for the planet is Uran [ooh-rahn] and the joke is lost.
Incidentally, we also often leave other Latin endings, and that's why the Russian word for Uranus and Uranium is the same. Go figure.
>popular music will be popular, regardless on distribution method, regardless of vain lock-in. Or rather, popular music will be distributed no matter how locked.
There seems to be a subtle dependency people usually disregard; that, they think that certain music becomes popular and known because it's good and better than the other stuff there is. Well, this is what a free thinking guy would think and this is how it would work in a free world.
Unfortunately, quite far from that. The very same mafia that is RIAA and Co, is the mafia that imposes a de facto tax on all kinds of artists. You can't just play good music and hope that people know, you need promotion. In order to get played on radio etc. you will need connections and you don't have any, and that's why you have to sell your soul to Sony and company. Their whole business model DEPENDS on their ability to regulate who gets promoted and who doesn't, because why would an artist otherwise want to publish with them?
Two points follow.
1. Since the pop music market is not free, but controlled by the mafia, we don't get to hear the best artists and the best music, we can only choose from what they will allow us to choose from. Even worse, it is possible for not-so-talented bands to sometimes basically pay their way into music industry, and get their average production played more often than it deserves, thus getting more attention. And due to the nature of the way humans understand music, it becomes more popular -- but it's a 'rigged' popularity, because for many people there could be any other song in its place if played enough.
Even worse, the "Sony tax" deters people from actually writing music, and with less competition the quality level drops as well. In fact, that's why their sales are dropping -- the way they do their business makes it inevitable that the material quality drops. And that the losses they've been so vigorously trying to blame on the non-licensed copying actually attribute to the fruits of their own actions.
2. RIAA and the company do not only oppose the free music because of the possible damages. Their problem is that musicians being capable of promoting themselves undermines their very ability to 'rig' the musical business! In order to maintain their grip on the artists, they need to control all music stations. But they can't control the Internet and people making music availiable in free formats. So they try to make people use such formats and hardware that restrict the ability of users to play music...
But I'd say, good luck guys, you're going to need it and it's not like it is going o help you any either:)
I'm sorry, but the article is anything *but* insightful. It smells very much like someone's trying to stress their point by "...this argument. Today, thankfully, its dissipated. Oh, sure, it pops back up once in a while from someone exceptionally clueless" and "Why dont we see people spouting such nonsense today?"
Trying to prove one's point by dissing those that disagree does not a good article make.
Density depends on the number of pixels/bits in a page of data, the number of pages stored in a particular volumetric location, the dynamic range of the recording material, the thickness of the material, and the wavelength of the recording laser.
I'm confused. The technology is supposed to be taking advantage of the entire volume, why do they measure effectiveness in data bits per square inches, and not cubic ones?
That only works with small products. If I'm paying genericJoeSupportGuy for Apache support, that doesn't mean that I get to influence Apache in any way.
In a way, you do: you create a market for Apache support. That influences the value of the product since it creates an incentive to offer Apache support. The support people form communities, they find out what problems they need to be solved, they let Apache know what should be worked on etc. Every little helps, as the old lady said.
BREAKING NEWS! A newly found asteroid does not present a threat to Earth!
The piece of space rock that has no chance of colliding with Earth any time soon has been prompty dubbed Benevolent by astonomers and journalists everywhere. In an interview a well-known scientist states that Benevolent is the first astral body found in the last decade that doesn't pose a threat to our mother planet, and hopes that more funds will be raised to learn the secret of this 'space phenomena'.
In other news, there are 723 remaining asteroids of different sizes on a collision course with Earth that still have a less than one-in-million chance of causing the death of all life on the planet until the end of the year.
>In case you don't recall, sexual scandals are just about the only scandals that have any traction in the media any more, so the opportunity to catch a current or future politician looking at porn is a great tool for whoever's in power, and it's even better if your opposition consider using that power against your people to be wrong.
This appears a little shallow of a resource, since everybody knows most people look at porn. After all, this is XXIst century, and many people will be like "oh, so he watches porn? big deal, so do I" and move on.
Well maybe this will still work for some time, but not much. I'd give it maybe a decade.
That's what I did to my kid when he was 5 and a half -- just let him make Windows unusuable several time by deleting too much stuff he thought he doesn't need. The third or fourth time it made the machine unbootable so he couldn't play his games, he became much more conservative in his usage of Delete options:)
I don't let him near the Internet yet though, and only load the box with the educational games so at least he can learn to do simple math while playing. Not sure that it's effective though; time will tell. He's attending some classes anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. But basically what you are saying just narrows down the usefulness of such 'expertize'. Think of Wikipedia; you can often rely on it to check what some obscure term really means, but no way you can be so sure about anything anywhere close to politics. You just don't go to Wikipedia for that sort of stuff, although it is sometims kind of educational to read the fighting at certain talk pages. Or take Digg, we can already digg articles, this way we can digg people. But that something is dugg to the top doesn't mean it is correct, just amusing/interesting enough to mention. And that someone is marked as expert by the masses doesn't mean he's always right, just worthy of note. Should work like a good filter in many cases.
The piece of software may be a vaporware for what it's worth. The idea, however, is not, and in fact very clever. They may flop with the way they want to implement it.. but think of all the possibilities.
Say, you need a new mobile phone and have some twenty or something friends in a social circle whose opinion you value. You decide you want to start with a brand first. You do some preliminary research and end up with say Nokia and Motorola. From that point, you can proceed no further since you really haven't a clue.. or maybe torn for options.. or maybe behind the trend and want to keep up.. doesn't matter. You want opinions of the people you know.. so now here's what you supposedly do in such a system:
You issue a 'call for opinions', type your question and nokia on the left and motorola on the right. Your friends hopefully indicate their opinions, maybe attach some notes why they think so and what models they recommend. You have your answers and make your decision. Now you have to select a model, you follow the same routine, probably in more than one step, and somehow end up with a conclusion. You now go and buy the phone and after using it some time you can issue some feedback by rating how helpful and truthful the friends' tips were.
Now if your friends do the same, and their friends etc. and a system that does some magic with the ratings is in place. There you can have a weighted rating of how useful or not opinions of the people you know to you are. With the advantages of the other networking, and public queries/answers you would hopefully then be able to fine tune your preferences in such a way so that you would be taking advice from the people you feel you trust the most.
From a commercial POV, this really seems to be a goldmine, if implemented properly, that is. Given that in general some personal information on you is availiable to the owners of such a system, Nokia and Motorola would kill for such information as who buys their phones and what models and possibly attached feedback.
Well let's see anyway. Oh, and somebody else in the comments has the link to the site.
There are enough unsolicited fakesters as is, no need to introduce more. :)
Seriously though, you don't 'introduce fakesters into a social circle', you introduce them to a system. What goes for someone considered an expert isn't obligatory to work for you, especially where usability/design/fashion-trend issues are concerned. If you have a working system that allows you to rate how peoples' opinions conicide with yours, and a hiscore table from among your friends of sorts, it's all that it takes to be at least of some use for you -- you wanted 'weighted advice', you got it, not like you're obliged to follow it or something.
Oh, and if properly implemented, brands fighting holy wars could probably cancel each other out.
From what I've read, it looks like they are trying to make it work like this. I ask a question, is A better than B? My friends state their opinion. I then make a decision, given all the opinions, and rate afterwards whether it was useful to me or not. There we have a rating. And if I know somebody is rated by the majority of their friends as an expert, I would be more inclined to believe them.
As to commercial possibilities, the capability to know who really your TA is (sex/age/background/whatnot) is priceless, and the questions kind of reveal it. Looks like they could hit a goldmine if done 'properly': it's much like polls, but with more or less honest answers and done voluntarily!
What could be complicating matters, though, is the fact that the concept is very natural for any blogging or social networking service. It would make sense if the feature gains popularity (which seems very likely) if LinkedIn or even LiveJournal would release such a feature shortly. There we could have a problem Houston for Illumio, because it would be then hard to compete against the existing monsters.. unless their "killer algorythm" is "too good".
Otherwise, *rubs hands in anticipation*
um.. to wear a beard?
It talks about why email is bad and doesn't take into consideration the simple fact that email is good because it closely imitates reality. That is the reason for what he calls a 'walled garden'; email only puts in 0s and 1s the way people communicate.
While he has some valid points about such issues as email folders not being searchable, not being shared easily, not secure enough etc. his main argument seems to stay the same: the problem is that email makes us act in a bad, counter-productive way. My opinion is that this is where he is fundamentally wrong. It's all about that usability thingie, and usability is often about imitating what you would do in reality. Email is perhaps the most user-friendly service that Internet has, and thus is expected to be used by the people the way they would do similar things in reality.
And most people around us are not geeks; they don't think in terms of 'how online collaboration should work'. (Not even all geeks do, either.) They most often have a vague comprehension of the fact that data shared by everyone is much more valuable than data that somebody has in private. So until people actually feel the need for a better collaboration engine, until they understand why it's better and how it makes them, their groups and companies more efficient at their tasks, email will stay the information medium of choice.
I'm somewhat skeptical myself about the 40yos and 50yos being able to learn the new ways of handling information; it seems to me that at least a decade should pass before people en masse actually realize what email can and what email cannot do and move on to better collaboration tools, such as forums/wikis/whatnot. Until then, there's only so much we can do: work on the Web 2.0 and patiently wait until somebody puts the new toys to serious use and hopefully proves their efficiency. From that point on, as money starts talking, things get moving...
Myself, with my projects I make heavy use of both the intranet forums and the IRC. I don't put much trust in IMs because they suffers from pretty much the same problems as e-mail does. However, only the young and open-minded are feeling themselves comfortable in this environment; even 30yos often have problems communicating online and there is almost no hope for those on the wrong side of 40 to adapt. Oh well.
They surely are providing LJ with content, through the mere fact of their existence. They have friends and friends have friends and thus they create a community, and community attracts paying customers. If there were only people who would pay in LJ it would have been a totally different place than it is.
How whether the owners consider this revenue sufficient is an entirely different story... but we yet have to see if they succeed or fail.
In a way, it is. This is a part of the price that you pay for these things actually existing, and existing for the prices you have them. When you get sold something it's yours as sold, not as you want it to do. If you don't like it, don't buy it, it's as simple as this.
Please realize that in order for the corporations to meet business targets, it is sometimes needed to cut off competition like that. If you had the right of getting every piece of equipment being compatible with everything else out there, then you might find yourself in a world where aforementioned pieces are delayed or don't exist at all, because selling these (and funding R&D in the first place) wouldn't be financially viable.
So this is a trade-off of sorts: you get a worse-compatibility item for better prices and better availiability. How much would that RAZR cost if you could use any charger you like? And would Verizon even bother?
Now, I'm not defending Microsoft in this particular case, since your post didn't either. I'm just trying to be fair to evil corps (gasp!). After all, there is still free market and if there is enough of likes of you who have a desire of "mine damnits", then there is demand and someone will surely fill the supply.
And if not... well then I guess there's a lot that I'd like myself to use, too, but does not exist/costs too much as well.
Microsoft is not the answer.
Microsoft is the question.
No is the answer.
For some reason it shows standings about 2 hours prior to the end of the competition. In fact Jagellonians from Krakow were the 2nd, Altai was the 3rd.
frankly I fail to see what's wrong about it, especially since people do that all the time. this is blogosphere, after all, where everybody has the right to speak and be heard on every matter they deem important to -- and it's not even like he's pushing some personal agenda here or has real issues with IP. compare this to newspapers and TV where you hear an opinion and have little to no way to verify if who expressed one is really a specialist or not.
and not like he accomplishes much anyway. with his easy language and persuasive words, he still didn't deceive me and didn't deceive you into taking it for granted he's right. both of us (presumedly) still know who he is and know that this is only his opinion. he has some good points, but neither of us is like obliged or forced to agree. I for one don't feel he sufficiently proved much of what he illustrated.
but if someone falls in for his figures of speech, then again, what now? if someone cannot do themselves a favor of actually checking who is who, why then he would be at fault? especially if you consider that it happens all the time with much more important matters like politics and religion in mass media.
imagine if you write in your blog what you think of some activity you're not an expert in that you dislike. then someone else comes over and starts telling you that you have no right to sound like an authority and talk light that. if you'd think that's a breech in your right to express your ideas however you feel appropriate, why then would it be any different for paul graham?
does he *have* to? or are you so gullible you need to be told each time that someone is speaking his view and not posing as a specialist somewhere?
the "general populace" may be so but that's not his fault. this is internet, after all..
Interesting point. However, supposing that happens, would that really change anything? It's an added cost for the product anyway, and to the end user it doesn't really make much of a difference to whom the money goes. So the producer would be about as interested in unattaching the patent string off the product as they are today... or wouldn't they?
>Then agan, Uranus is an odd planet in and of itself too -- it is tilted on its side with each pole facing the sun less than once a year. Seasons on Uranus would be odd.
could you please elaborate on this? how would seasons on Earth look if Earth would be like that?
In Russian, we most often leave off the -us and -as at the end of Latin words, so the Russian name for the planet is Uran [ooh-rahn] and the joke is lost.
Incidentally, we also often leave other Latin endings, and that's why the Russian word for Uranus and Uranium is the same. Go figure.
>popular music will be popular, regardless on distribution method, regardless of vain lock-in. Or rather, popular music will be distributed no matter how locked.
:)
There seems to be a subtle dependency people usually disregard; that, they think that certain music becomes popular and known because it's good and better than the other stuff there is. Well, this is what a free thinking guy would think and this is how it would work in a free world.
Unfortunately, quite far from that. The very same mafia that is RIAA and Co, is the mafia that imposes a de facto tax on all kinds of artists. You can't just play good music and hope that people know, you need promotion. In order to get played on radio etc. you will need connections and you don't have any, and that's why you have to sell your soul to Sony and company. Their whole business model DEPENDS on their ability to regulate who gets promoted and who doesn't, because why would an artist otherwise want to publish with them?
Two points follow.
1. Since the pop music market is not free, but controlled by the mafia, we don't get to hear the best artists and the best music, we can only choose from what they will allow us to choose from. Even worse, it is possible for not-so-talented bands to sometimes basically pay their way into music industry, and get their average production played more often than it deserves, thus getting more attention. And due to the nature of the way humans understand music, it becomes more popular -- but it's a 'rigged' popularity, because for many people there could be any other song in its place if played enough.
Even worse, the "Sony tax" deters people from actually writing music, and with less competition the quality level drops as well. In fact, that's why their sales are dropping -- the way they do their business makes it inevitable that the material quality drops. And that the losses they've been so vigorously trying to blame on the non-licensed copying actually attribute to the fruits of their own actions.
2. RIAA and the company do not only oppose the free music because of the possible damages. Their problem is that musicians being capable of promoting themselves undermines their very ability to 'rig' the musical business! In order to maintain their grip on the artists, they need to control all music stations. But they can't control the Internet and people making music availiable in free formats. So they try to make people use such formats and hardware that restrict the ability of users to play music...
But I'd say, good luck guys, you're going to need it and it's not like it is going o help you any either
I'm sorry, but the article is anything *but* insightful. It smells very much like someone's trying to stress their point by "...this argument. Today, thankfully, its dissipated. Oh, sure, it pops back up once in a while from someone exceptionally clueless" and "Why dont we see people spouting such nonsense today?"
Trying to prove one's point by dissing those that disagree does not a good article make.
TFA says:
Density depends on the number of pixels/bits in a page of data, the number of pages stored in a particular volumetric location, the dynamic range of the recording material, the thickness of the material, and the wavelength of the recording laser.
I'm confused. The technology is supposed to be taking advantage of the entire volume, why do they measure effectiveness in data bits per square inches, and not cubic ones?
"Blue sky" is sometimes used in Cockney slang as a rhyming substitute for "buy". Quite fitting here, too :)
That only works with small products. If I'm paying genericJoeSupportGuy for Apache support, that doesn't mean that I get to influence Apache in any way.
In a way, you do: you create a market for Apache support. That influences the value of the product since it creates an incentive to offer Apache support. The support people form communities, they find out what problems they need to be solved, they let Apache know what should be worked on etc. Every little helps, as the old lady said.
BREAKING NEWS! A newly found asteroid does not present a threat to Earth!
The piece of space rock that has no chance of colliding with Earth any time soon has been prompty dubbed Benevolent by astonomers and journalists everywhere. In an interview a well-known scientist states that Benevolent is the first astral body found in the last decade that doesn't pose a threat to our mother planet, and hopes that more funds will be raised to learn the secret of this 'space phenomena'.
In other news, there are 723 remaining asteroids of different sizes on a collision course with Earth that still have a less than one-in-million chance of causing the death of all life on the planet until the end of the year.
Film, of course, at 11.
>In case you don't recall, sexual scandals are just about the only scandals that have any traction in the media any more, so the opportunity to catch a current or future politician looking at porn is a great tool for whoever's in power, and it's even better if your opposition consider using that power against your people to be wrong.
This appears a little shallow of a resource, since everybody knows most people look at porn. After all, this is XXIst century, and many people will be like "oh, so he watches porn? big deal, so do I" and move on.
Well maybe this will still work for some time, but not much. I'd give it maybe a decade.
That's what I did to my kid when he was 5 and a half -- just let him make Windows unusuable several time by deleting too much stuff he thought he doesn't need. The third or fourth time it made the machine unbootable so he couldn't play his games, he became much more conservative in his usage of Delete options :)
I don't let him near the Internet yet though, and only load the box with the educational games so at least he can learn to do simple math while playing. Not sure that it's effective though; time will tell. He's attending some classes anyway...