This is what the pay-per-click model was designed for - To counter the falling prices, with a higher quality conversion ratio from click-through generated leads.
I think inadvertently, Ads have become the micro-payment system that was bandied about a few years ago.
The mistake the model had initially, was seeing the user as the client, where in fact the user's viewing is the product for sale - much like traditional print media advertising. The micro-payments are happening on a pay-per-click or pay-per-view basis.
As Print media slides further down the slope of obsolescence, online advertising will become more relevant as a means of gaining exposure to marketing messages.
The obvious breakthrough in this arena was context sensitive advertising pioneered by the likes of Google. I can see this becoming a more refined model and process. We are also going to see and hear more embedded advertising in the streaming media content.
Surely Phorm violates copyright at some level?
They are effectively modifying content in such a way that what is presented, is not what was published
There could also be some issues effecting the value of the content. I create content, and BT defaces it before it reaches my client/consumer, they are in a sense effectively damaging my property and assets. If I was a large website owner I might take offense to this kind of behavior.
1. The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
2. A human being
3. Deep feeling or emotion
4. The human embodiment of something
5. A secular form of gospel that was a major Black musical genre in the 1960s and 1970s
I think that in a direct democracy, where each individual has the ability to participate and vote on issues every single day, the role of the media will begin the change dramatically, especially television
I can envisage a whole new increment of media arising as well, around the interactive platform of the internet. I can see people spending more time online, in public virtual debates, watching video clips on all issues, listening to sound bytes and viewing documents. I see our media platforms changing to accommodate this change.
Right now citizens are generally complacent and listless because they vote every four years and hope for the best. If they were in a situation where they could actively participate on a daily basis, a lot of this lethargy, disinterest, and general state of helplessness will disappear from our populace, That change will bring about radical improvements in our societies
Imagine the scenario where there are 10's of millions of voters, reading about, discussing, and voting on issues, at all levels of society, every single day. This has become a very real possibility for the first time in the history of our species.
Our current democratic systems are pretty much a farce of what Plato envisaged. Voting every four years and hoping for the best is simply idiotic if you actually think about it. Sure there are processes to contest issues, but who, apart from the corporations, can really afford to do so? The odd individual who takes up cause is hailed as a hero.
We have the very real possibility today to enable and allow every single individual to participate in our democracies on an ongoing basis. Do I think people will participate? Sure I do, once we remove the feeling of helplessness that the current democratic processes have instilled in us. Today we vote every four years, and hope for this best. When you actually spend some time to think about it, this is totally idiotic. In what other areas of your life would you act in this absurd manner?
The spirit of democracy encompassed the freedoms and the rights of each individual being able to participate. the principals of democracy work fine in their current form in much smaller groups, where debate is possible. In our current national implementations of democracy, the concept has become a joke, and the joke is on us. I see it on a continuous bases how peopleâ(TM)s rights are steam-rolled by those with the big cheque books. This is not democracy, and this is certainly not freedom. It is in fact an enslavement of peopleâ(TM)s minds.
What we are going to build is an electronic platform for democracy where individuals can participate on a daily basis in a modern democratic system. Issues will be able to be tabled, discussed and voted upon every single day. We are going to build this system, even if it takes 10 years to iron out the details. While it is technically very feasible, what we are ironing out is HOW it will work in practice.
These details include how we vote, and what our votes count for. Looking at the scale of what we propose, it becomes obvious that there will be areas where our specialization will be of more use to society. How do we manage this? Well the only way is if our votes become public record. We register for our area of specialty, where we get more authority, and we get general votes for other areas of interest. There will also be areas, for example constitutional or rights issues where we all have an equal say (i.e. a vote on an issue, like the current system). This will enable referendums to be called frequently, with maximum participation by all citizens. These however are the details of implementation. They are the ideas that currently have consensus generally within the groups discussing these issues. Iâ(TM)m sure that they will evolve over time as we further explore how we can enable citizens to participate in the running of their countries.
The purpose of the exercise at hand is to build the platform, through its increments until it gains acceptance. What this system could very well bring about is total change in democracy as we know it. Who knows, party politics may even one day be a thing of the past, as the democratic process becomes fluid. I certainly hope so, and will contribute as much as I can to ensure that this does happen.
Well, as I said previously, there are some areas where we would all have equal votes, and one of those areas would relate to our rights & constitutional issues.
Universal health-care would be one of those areas that would need to be decided by the whole group/nation.
Policy within the area, for instance what would be the most effective way to deal with obesity (hopefully within a Universal health-care program:-)), should rather be left to those with the knowledge to debate and consider.
Another option that I thought about last night, would be for each person to have a certain amount of floating votes, for a given period, outside their area of expertise. that they could use to vote on any other issue that they may choose to vote on. This would encourage participation on areas that may be close to heart, but where I don't necessarily have much more than common knowledge on a subject.
With regards to participation there would need to be some framework where issued could be raised, and heard. Like the internet, an electronic platform would enable all potential participants to have an equal platform on potentially a national scale. What options do I have right now to raise issues. It is a really difficult and costly exercise at the moment. On a public platform, it would be very difficult for those who currently act as the gatekeepers to simply sweep these issues under the carpet because they would be visible to all. One could get national groundswell on an issue overnight on an electronic platform, where currently your local politician could simply bury it if it was not in their best interests.
What I am talking about is a form of franchise voting. There are obviously limits to how many votes one can have in a system like this.
the system that I am proposing would by requirement need to be totally computerized - the votes would be counted electronically
With regards to tyranny, one could only get more votes in ones area of specialty, which would limit the overall threat of tyranny, while encouraging participation by voters within their area of specialty. In this regard, the experts themselves would have to vote along with everyone else. This system has the advantage of encouraging voters to focus within their area of specialty, by contributing to society in this manner. This is a new concept that could only be implemented electronically. As you may notice by my tag-line, I am more interested in a participatory democracy than a direct democracy, although the two have a fair amount in common
One of the most friendly voting examples that I have seen is Ubuntu's Brainstorm project http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ where people can vote on new features for Ubuntu. Something utilizing a platform along these lines would be very easy and friendly to use.
A system would ideally be split into silos of expertise, but would also have areas of general interest. My votes within my area of expertise would count for more (weighted voting), and in certain areas we could all have the same vote (e.g. constitutional issues).
Like anything that can intrinsically and fundamentally change anything can really be stopped. Consider it a force of nature - the collective will of a general population. In the end true democracy will prevail.
Those in power will object, and there probably will be some levels of civil unrest, and attempted suppression. But in the true spirit of democracy, freedom will prevail, and the taste real freedom will be sweet.
At the moment we are ruled by groups of those who wish to preserve their self interest by sacrificing our freedoms. It is time to change this.
This may be the case, but I would expect a nuclear physicist to have more say (votes) on issues relating to nuclear power than myself who has only a general understanding of the subject. This is possible in a direct democracy run on an open voting platform.
Consider your example, of nuclear power. Your average man with general knowledge on the subject (including most politicians) would possibly not even know about thorium reactors that could offer a clean nuclear solution. It would not be in anyone best interest (in the altruistic sense) for these votes to have much say in considering nuclear technologies.
I would rather have someone who understood that we could actually have clean nuclear energy for the next 10 000 years with a weighted vote making the decisions in this area of our societies.
More importantly, I would like these votes to be public, so that we can begin to measure levels of responsibility, accountability, and expertise within any given area. The secret ballot would simply not cut it any more in an open and truly democratic society.
With a weighted voting system, your votes would count more within your area of expertise, so doctors would have a larger say in public health issues, while having very little influence in say energy or transport.
One of the aspects of a direct democracy, is that I would for instance would contribute within my field of expertise. The voting would be weighted accordingly. The weighting of votes could be designed for instance, so that people with more experience, social responsibility, education in a field, and age experience, would have more say.
This way we have people with understanding voting on relevant issues. The whole voting system would need to be well structured, but the whole concept certainly is feasible, especially in with an open managed platform.
I'm glad that you are at least taking the time to think about this. A voting system of this magnitude would be fairly simple when compared with say for instance a cellular network switching system.
Also a system of this nature could only work if it was open source. That way, in the spirit of democracy, the best developers in the world could ensure that it was virtually error free. and yes it is possible. All it would take would be a dedicated group of people to make it work. The implementation of a system with today's network's in place would be fairly trivial.
If we implemented a true democracy where we all voted all of the time, the party based democracy that we know today could possibly become redundant. Democracy as we know it today is a far cry from the spirit of democracy that Plato envisaged. when democracy was conceived every body could participate. Today we vote every 4 years and hope for the best. What we have today is a worn out husk that still call fruit. With technology as the enabler, we can re-enliven the true spirit of democracy, and implement this platform throughout the world.
Democracy as we know it today has made us complacent and helpless because we no longer participate in the collective well being of our cultures. This truth is self evident in the the social ills that plague the democracies of the world today.
Change is possible. and we have the opportunity to do so. All we have to do is take it
In fact, in a direct democracy, doing "more to address global warming" would pass with a veto-proof majority: 68% [time.com].
The answer to this is of course, that in a direct democracy, we would have more influence (votes) in the areas of our specialization. I would have a much greater say in IT, especially software, than would say for instance a doctor. This would enable the focused expertise of the general populace to be utilized in making informed decisions.
This is obviously a very simplified example. There would need to be layers of voting and decision makers. These layers would ideally be based upon levels of experience in the world. With this approach we could get back to a situation where the wise are making the important decisions
The democracy of old was conceived to work in much smaller groups of people. where participation was possible. Today, voting once every 4 years for some individual to represent you, is an insult to the spirit of democracy. We have been fooled into thinking that we live in democracies, when in fact we no longer do in the spirit of the concept
Having said that I do believe that technology can re-enliven democracy in its truest sense. With networks and uniquely identifiable devices we can openly and continuously vote on issues that effect our every day lives.
For example, in the case of open document standards: do you think for one moment that we would not have decided 10 years ago that all public records would have to be stored in an open format?
Instead we have this public circus that we continually discuss on Slashdot, while microsoft bribes its standards into existence while we stand around and watch helplessly (for the most part). This is one simple example, but extrapolate this by 10 000 times and you can begin to get a feeling for the scope of the magnitude of the problem facing us today. More importantly there are those who would seek to stop true democracy from happening, and they are the ones who would be willing to sacrifice (your) freedom for personal gain. these people are the real enemy, and they are amoung us
In his wildest fucking dreams will open source disappear.
Guys like this just don't get it. The Natural force that drives Open Source is Altruism. It is not some man made construct like capitalism. Giving freely is a form of action that aids the whole groups survival. The strength of the group is ultimately more important than the individual.
This principal is counter intuitive when one just considers the individual, but the truth is that Altruism makes people happy, and ultimately people will tend to do what makes them happy. So try as one may, this simple fact is impossible to explain away, and because of this I predict that this soothsayers rant will remain as worthless as those he wants to appease.
The scientific method and religion remain at odds.
It is possible to apply the scientific method selectively, as most religious folk do, generally within their own fields of expertise, while denying the truth exposed through the scientific method. This is a clear example of cognitive dissonance.
For instance most Abrahamic religions have within their core doctrine that the earth was created 6000 years ago, which may have sounded believable 2000 years ago, but which by today's standards is truly arcane. The concept of Gods word blindly forces this reality upon billions of people.
In short, there are probably not that many religious anthropologists, geneticists, and astrophysicists, while the sciences that do not investigate the evidence, like computer science, or medicine for instance are more likely to have proportionately more religious practitioners in their ranks.
Why is this a surprise? We are limited by non-standards compliant browsers.
Unfathomable amounts of development time has been wasted over the years trying to set sites running and usable in multiple browsers.
To complicate the issue, over the last few years there has been an explosion in the number of browsers on the market. It is really no fun navigating this modern tower of Babel.
If I had one wish that would be granted, it would be that all browsers would be compliant to a standard. Literally millions of man years in development time could have been saved if this issue was somehow nipped in the bud earlier on.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what the pay-per-click model was designed for - To counter the falling prices, with a higher quality conversion ratio from click-through generated leads.
Care to place a wager on whether Google will allow plugins that block advertising in their browser?
I think inadvertently, Ads have become the micro-payment system that was bandied about a few years ago.
The mistake the model had initially, was seeing the user as the client, where in fact the user's viewing is the product for sale - much like traditional print media advertising. The micro-payments are happening on a pay-per-click or pay-per-view basis.
As Print media slides further down the slope of obsolescence, online advertising will become more relevant as a means of gaining exposure to marketing messages.
The obvious breakthrough in this arena was context sensitive advertising pioneered by the likes of Google. I can see this becoming a more refined model and process. We are also going to see and hear more embedded advertising in the streaming media content.
Try writing an ACID 3 compliant HTML parser in Brainfuck for a truly religious experience.
Surely Phorm violates copyright at some level?
They are effectively modifying content in such a way that what is presented, is not what was published
There could also be some issues effecting the value of the content. I create content, and BT defaces it before it reaches my client/consumer, they are in a sense effectively damaging my property and assets. If I was a large website owner I might take offense to this kind of behavior.
1. The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life
2. A human being
3. Deep feeling or emotion
4. The human embodiment of something
5. A secular form of gospel that was a major Black musical genre in the 1960s and 1970s
Which one are we discussing?
This is like the cigarette companies selling cancer treatments.
Sounds like you've just described the OLPC..
I think that in a direct democracy, where each individual has the ability to participate and vote on issues every single day, the role of the media will begin the change dramatically, especially television
I can envisage a whole new increment of media arising as well, around the interactive platform of the internet. I can see people spending more time online, in public virtual debates, watching video clips on all issues, listening to sound bytes and viewing documents. I see our media platforms changing to accommodate this change.
Right now citizens are generally complacent and listless because they vote every four years and hope for the best. If they were in a situation where they could actively participate on a daily basis, a lot of this lethargy, disinterest, and general state of helplessness will disappear from our populace, That change will bring about radical improvements in our societies
Imagine the scenario where there are 10's of millions of voters, reading about, discussing, and voting on issues, at all levels of society, every single day. This has become a very real possibility for the first time in the history of our species.
Our current democratic systems are pretty much a farce of what Plato envisaged. Voting every four years and hoping for the best is simply idiotic if you actually think about it. Sure there are processes to contest issues, but who, apart from the corporations, can really afford to do so? The odd individual who takes up cause is hailed as a hero.
We have the very real possibility today to enable and allow every single individual to participate in our democracies on an ongoing basis. Do I think people will participate? Sure I do, once we remove the feeling of helplessness that the current democratic processes have instilled in us. Today we vote every four years, and hope for this best. When you actually spend some time to think about it, this is totally idiotic. In what other areas of your life would you act in this absurd manner?
The spirit of democracy encompassed the freedoms and the rights of each individual being able to participate. the principals of democracy work fine in their current form in much smaller groups, where debate is possible. In our current national implementations of democracy, the concept has become a joke, and the joke is on us. I see it on a continuous bases how peopleâ(TM)s rights are steam-rolled by those with the big cheque books. This is not democracy, and this is certainly not freedom. It is in fact an enslavement of peopleâ(TM)s minds.
What we are going to build is an electronic platform for democracy where individuals can participate on a daily basis in a modern democratic system. Issues will be able to be tabled, discussed and voted upon every single day. We are going to build this system, even if it takes 10 years to iron out the details. While it is technically very feasible, what we are ironing out is HOW it will work in practice.
These details include how we vote, and what our votes count for. Looking at the scale of what we propose, it becomes obvious that there will be areas where our specialization will be of more use to society. How do we manage this? Well the only way is if our votes become public record. We register for our area of specialty, where we get more authority, and we get general votes for other areas of interest. There will also be areas, for example constitutional or rights issues where we all have an equal say (i.e. a vote on an issue, like the current system). This will enable referendums to be called frequently, with maximum participation by all citizens. These however are the details of implementation. They are the ideas that currently have consensus generally within the groups discussing these issues. Iâ(TM)m sure that they will evolve over time as we further explore how we can enable citizens to participate in the running of their countries. The purpose of the exercise at hand is to build the platform, through its increments until it gains acceptance. What this system could very well bring about is total change in democracy as we know it. Who knows, party politics may even one day be a thing of the past, as the democratic process becomes fluid. I certainly hope so, and will contribute as much as I can to ensure that this does happen.
Well, as I said previously, there are some areas where we would all have equal votes, and one of those areas would relate to our rights & constitutional issues. :-)), should rather be left to those with the knowledge to debate and consider.
Universal health-care would be one of those areas that would need to be decided by the whole group/nation.
Policy within the area, for instance what would be the most effective way to deal with obesity (hopefully within a Universal health-care program
Another option that I thought about last night, would be for each person to have a certain amount of floating votes, for a given period, outside their area of expertise. that they could use to vote on any other issue that they may choose to vote on. This would encourage participation on areas that may be close to heart, but where I don't necessarily have much more than common knowledge on a subject.
With regards to participation there would need to be some framework where issued could be raised, and heard. Like the internet, an electronic platform would enable all potential participants to have an equal platform on potentially a national scale. What options do I have right now to raise issues. It is a really difficult and costly exercise at the moment. On a public platform, it would be very difficult for those who currently act as the gatekeepers to simply sweep these issues under the carpet because they would be visible to all. One could get national groundswell on an issue overnight on an electronic platform, where currently your local politician could simply bury it if it was not in their best interests.
What I am talking about is a form of franchise voting. There are obviously limits to how many votes one can have in a system like this.
the system that I am proposing would by requirement need to be totally computerized - the votes would be counted electronically
With regards to tyranny, one could only get more votes in ones area of specialty, which would limit the overall threat of tyranny, while encouraging participation by voters within their area of specialty. In this regard, the experts themselves would have to vote along with everyone else. This system has the advantage of encouraging voters to focus within their area of specialty, by contributing to society in this manner. This is a new concept that could only be implemented electronically. As you may notice by my tag-line, I am more interested in a participatory democracy than a direct democracy, although the two have a fair amount in common
One of the most friendly voting examples that I have seen is Ubuntu's Brainstorm project http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ where people can vote on new features for Ubuntu. Something utilizing a platform along these lines would be very easy and friendly to use.
A system would ideally be split into silos of expertise, but would also have areas of general interest. My votes within my area of expertise would count for more (weighted voting), and in certain areas we could all have the same vote (e.g. constitutional issues).
Like anything that can intrinsically and fundamentally change anything can really be stopped. Consider it a force of nature - the collective will of a general population. In the end true democracy will prevail.
Those in power will object, and there probably will be some levels of civil unrest, and attempted suppression. But in the true spirit of democracy, freedom will prevail, and the taste real freedom will be sweet.
At the moment we are ruled by groups of those who wish to preserve their self interest by sacrificing our freedoms. It is time to change this.
This may be the case, but I would expect a nuclear physicist to have more say (votes) on issues relating to nuclear power than myself who has only a general understanding of the subject. This is possible in a direct democracy run on an open voting platform.
Consider your example, of nuclear power. Your average man with general knowledge on the subject (including most politicians) would possibly not even know about thorium reactors that could offer a clean nuclear solution. It would not be in anyone best interest (in the altruistic sense) for these votes to have much say in considering nuclear technologies.
I would rather have someone who understood that we could actually have clean nuclear energy for the next 10 000 years with a weighted vote making the decisions in this area of our societies.
More importantly, I would like these votes to be public, so that we can begin to measure levels of responsibility, accountability, and expertise within any given area. The secret ballot would simply not cut it any more in an open and truly democratic society.
With a weighted voting system, your votes would count more within your area of expertise, so doctors would have a larger say in public health issues, while having very little influence in say energy or transport.
One of the aspects of a direct democracy, is that I would for instance would contribute within my field of expertise. The voting would be weighted accordingly. The weighting of votes could be designed for instance, so that people with more experience, social responsibility, education in a field, and age experience, would have more say.
This way we have people with understanding voting on relevant issues. The whole voting system would need to be well structured, but the whole concept certainly is feasible, especially in with an open managed platform.
I'm glad that you are at least taking the time to think about this. A voting system of this magnitude would be fairly simple when compared with say for instance a cellular network switching system.
Also a system of this nature could only work if it was open source. That way, in the spirit of democracy, the best developers in the world could ensure that it was virtually error free. and yes it is possible. All it would take would be a dedicated group of people to make it work. The implementation of a system with today's network's in place would be fairly trivial.
If we implemented a true democracy where we all voted all of the time, the party based democracy that we know today could possibly become redundant. Democracy as we know it today is a far cry from the spirit of democracy that Plato envisaged. when democracy was conceived every body could participate. Today we vote every 4 years and hope for the best. What we have today is a worn out husk that still call fruit. With technology as the enabler, we can re-enliven the true spirit of democracy, and implement this platform throughout the world.
Democracy as we know it today has made us complacent and helpless because we no longer participate in the collective well being of our cultures. This truth is self evident in the the social ills that plague the democracies of the world today.
Change is possible. and we have the opportunity to do so. All we have to do is take it
In fact, in a direct democracy, doing "more to address global warming" would pass with a veto-proof majority: 68% [time.com].
The answer to this is of course, that in a direct democracy, we would have more influence (votes) in the areas of our specialization. I would have a much greater say in IT, especially software, than would say for instance a doctor. This would enable the focused expertise of the general populace to be utilized in making informed decisions.
This is obviously a very simplified example. There would need to be layers of voting and decision makers. These layers would ideally be based upon levels of experience in the world. With this approach we could get back to a situation where the wise are making the important decisions
The democracy of old was conceived to work in much smaller groups of people. where participation was possible. Today, voting once every 4 years for some individual to represent you, is an insult to the spirit of democracy. We have been fooled into thinking that we live in democracies, when in fact we no longer do in the spirit of the concept
Having said that I do believe that technology can re-enliven democracy in its truest sense. With networks and uniquely identifiable devices we can openly and continuously vote on issues that effect our every day lives.
For example, in the case of open document standards: do you think for one moment that we would not have decided 10 years ago that all public records would have to be stored in an open format? Instead we have this public circus that we continually discuss on Slashdot, while microsoft bribes its standards into existence while we stand around and watch helplessly (for the most part). This is one simple example, but extrapolate this by 10 000 times and you can begin to get a feeling for the scope of the magnitude of the problem facing us today. More importantly there are those who would seek to stop true democracy from happening, and they are the ones who would be willing to sacrifice (your) freedom for personal gain. these people are the real enemy, and they are amoung us
Having traveled in India, I can assure you that 28MPH is plenty of speed for most people, especially when commuting in the cities or rural areas.
I hear Bill Gates might be looking for a job...
In his wildest fucking dreams will open source disappear.
Guys like this just don't get it. The Natural force that drives Open Source is Altruism. It is not some man made construct like capitalism. Giving freely is a form of action that aids the whole groups survival. The strength of the group is ultimately more important than the individual.
This principal is counter intuitive when one just considers the individual, but the truth is that Altruism makes people happy, and ultimately people will tend to do what makes them happy.
So try as one may, this simple fact is impossible to explain away, and because of this I predict that this soothsayers rant will remain as worthless as those he wants to appease.
The scientific method and religion remain at odds.
It is possible to apply the scientific method selectively, as most religious folk do, generally within their own fields of expertise, while denying the truth exposed through the scientific method. This is a clear example of cognitive dissonance.
For instance most Abrahamic religions have within their core doctrine that the earth was created 6000 years ago, which may have sounded believable 2000 years ago, but which by today's standards is truly arcane. The concept of Gods word blindly forces this reality upon billions of people.
In short, there are probably not that many religious anthropologists, geneticists, and astrophysicists, while the sciences that do not investigate the evidence, like computer science, or medicine for instance are more likely to have proportionately more religious practitioners in their ranks.
Why is this a surprise? We are limited by non-standards compliant browsers.
Unfathomable amounts of development time has been wasted over the years trying to set sites running and usable in multiple browsers.
To complicate the issue, over the last few years there has been an explosion in the number of browsers on the market. It is really no fun navigating this modern tower of Babel.
If I had one wish that would be granted, it would be that all browsers would be compliant to a standard. Literally millions of man years in development time could have been saved if this issue was somehow nipped in the bud earlier on.
You missed out Windows 1 & 2. They didn't make much of an impression in the market, but they did exist.