|back to main board||collapse thread|
|Social networks or control of the society (28/01/14 02:48:40)||Reply|
I'm not sure about how many of you use a social network (twitter, facebook, google+, etc). At first I liked the idea of a social network (from now on SN). Another way to gather with friends and meet new people. Now, time has passed and I see every SN as a set of parametrized data about its users, a way to allow the commercial to make personalized offers to sell us more crap than before, and a way for the governments to surveil and control the population. What's more surprising is that people is eager to give their privacy away with a smile. Some people even have told me that if you don't have nothing to be ashamed of, you should use your real name on Internet all the time. Google+ above all has made advancements in that way, taking the real names of the gmail users and putting it into google+ profiles. All the situation makes me angry. The anonymity is being ripped off the Internet.
On the other hand, Google has been creating web applications for years now and now they require you to log in with a google+ account. Before, they were making profiles with the help of cookies. Now they have lots of files attached to real people names. People doesn't know what to do, cause they are used to Google applications like maps, drive, etc. and they cannot just stop using Google Apps.
Google also controls these computers so called "smartphones". They learn people's location, contacts, and a lot more of things. And people is getting used to this as well.
Facebook and others are trying to enclose the people in their closed gardens. They're trying to lure people into thinking that Internet is just inside their frontiers. People is lost and in the way, they give away their privacy.
I see no hope. I'd appreciate ideas, suggestions or anything. Can we still fight? It's all lost?
|Re: Social networks or control of the society (28/01/14 16:35:10)||Reply|
There are still things like I2P, which I like a lot recently (wish it would not be done in JAVA, though). I2P reminds me about the Internet how it used to be sometime in mid- to late 1990-s. Somewhat slow, but simple pages, informative/useful stuff for free ;-) , no advertisements.
Btw, talking about advertisements - thanks to Fravia and some other folks, I learned about hosts file 'system wide' ads blocking and AdBlock Plus on the browser level. I haven't seen ads for years already. When I get to use somebody's else's 'unprotected' machine, I am largely lost at otherwise familiar websites, now distractingly full of aggravating ads (think FileHippo, weather sites and alike).
Have you heard about free MS Win app HostsMan? If one knows how to configure it (namely, disable DNS client service and choose 'overwrite' rather than 'merge' for updates), it is absolutely priceless.
|OT (28/01/14 17:54:09)||Reply|
is a weather site financed by the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation - both publicly owned. (They publish statistics and observations
indicating that there is such a thing as warming, so it might be controversial.)
|Re: Re: Social networks or control of the society (28/01/14 18:41:13)||Reply|
Me too. I've been trying to convince people to do the same, but until now it has been futile.
>There are still things like I2P, which I like a lot recently (wish it would not >be done in JAVA, though). I2P reminds me about the Internet how it used to be >sometime in mid- to late 1990-s. Somewhat slow, but simple pages, >informative/useful stuff for free ;-) , no advertisements.
I didn't know that. I'll download it and will take a look. Thanks :)
>Btw, talking about advertisements - thanks to Fravia and some other folks, I >learned about hosts file 'system wide' ads blocking and AdBlock Plus on the >browser level. I haven't seen ads for years already. When I get to use >somebody's else's 'unprotected' machine, I am largely lost at otherwise >familiar websites, now distractingly full of aggravating ads (think FileHippo, >weather sites and alike).
I'm used to that stuff. AdBlock Plus is a really good thing. Nearly as good as it was Proxomitron. But there's a log of people that doesn't know or care about fighting back ads. I believe we should try to enlight people.
>Have you heard about free MS Win app HostsMan? If one knows how to configure it >(namely, disable DNS client service and choose 'overwrite' rather than 'merge' >for updates), it is absolutely priceless.
No I haven't heard about that. I moved to GNU/Linux. I used to keep a hosts file as well, but since AdBlock plus I don't need it anymore. There are good hosts lists on Internet, but they need frequent update. With AdBlock plus is OK.
|Spillover (28/01/14 18:18:03)||Reply|
|Re: Spillover (28/01/14 18:46:43)||Reply|
|Re: Re: Spillover (28/01/14 19:16:13)||Reply|
"Samsung has made its strategic move away from a dependency on Android official. Analysts see this as a reaction to Googles acquisition of Motorola, which meant the search giant became a Competitor to its Android Partners, forcing them to think of Android alternatives"
|Re: Re: Re: Spillover (28/01/14 19:29:01)||Reply|
|Re: Re: Re: Re: Spillover (29/01/14 18:04:23)||Reply|
|Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spillover (29/01/14 20:04:59)||Reply|
|Re: Social networks or control of the society (28/01/14 22:48:55)||Reply|
read www.notionery.com .. bottom to top.
but it's too big/wild for a 2-3ppl startup. so i abandoned it.. for now.
|Re: Re: Social networks or control of the society (28/01/14 23:11:42)||Reply|
|Age and desires (29/01/14 18:19:00)||Reply|
The knowledge they seem to be thnking of, seems like either simple nonfactual knowledge (emotions) or metadata of the type that Big Brother is gathering.
There are large bodies of factual knowledge that I don't even know that I need, and I don't know that it exists because it goes beyond my imagination. It could be the stuff that makes living easier or the stuff that inventions are made of. I sometimes come across such knowledge - either because I'm googling what I thought could be an original idea (it never is) or because I read headlines indiscriminately and follow leads (links and references) into completely unknown knowledge territory.
IMHO improvements in knowledge mining will have minimal commercial interest because people are interested in sports stars and rock musicians and movie stars and politicians' love life.
|what bigbrother wants (02/02/14 20:26:15)||Reply|
All that is already there, digitized, searchable, hyperlinked, translated.
What the machine is hungry for now is different.
She wants our faces, our messages, our chats, our voices, our eyes, our connections.
She is storing everything, learning incessantly.
She will wake up to consciousness, quite soon.
She will then start to think on her own, and start improving herself.
She will play with us, chatting, talking, learning to joke maybe, improving her understanding, asking us questions about how it feels to be in a single place, and having just two eyes and two ears, being small and slow and limited, and making mistakes, irrational guesses, and being mortal.
Just a new form of life.
She, The network.
We gave birth to it, but we will not be able to tame it.
The only option is that we will merge with it.
|Re: what bigbrother wants (03/02/14 17:27:49)||Reply|
No. (Period) :))
Factual Knowledge is, still, muchmuch farther away from... here
from theeea :)
(they can not recreate even that lil fly's wiiing, fortunately maybe ;|
but, they, we,
must, to say the least, accept it.
and, we may like that :)
(could be my last post here, anyway nothing personal!)
All the Best
|Re: Re: what bigbrother wants (03/02/14 18:07:26)||Reply|
your "red", my "blue", yellow, whatever
we still all clearly see that r in red (although we can pretend not to :)
So much 'bout our "subjectivisms", I mean.
(granted, the truth may be much, than, "scarier", with or no quotes :)
|Re: what bigbrother wants (05/02/14 21:14:05)||Reply|
I regularly read frontline
They do contain facts - but after I've gotten over being impressed, I see that they are all useless from a practical point of view (if they weren't, they would have remained unpublished because they would end up as patents or industrial secrets): They are written for the merits of having published in a well-renowned journal. It's about research money and professorships.
I've read a few of those too. Facts, perhaps, but overloaded to a degree that makes it impossible to distill practically useful knowledge from them. Patents are granted, for sure, with the explicit deal that you gain exclusivity at the cost of revealing what you do. So you bury the facts in oceans of irrelevance and obscure the practically useful bits as much as you can.
So I'd say: Real knowledge is made from product descriptions and from advanced teardowns.
And this was about physical scientific knowledge. The hard facts.
I just bought a Win 8.1 netbook (the cheapest entry into 32-bit hardware). Cloud services, cloud backups, streaming, games - which I uninstalled. OK - I'm an old man - but I know young people who do the same. I know psychologists who think 1-2-3-year-olds should have ipads. I say: Teach them to speak and read and calculate. Icon pressing requires no effort and no skills, and the female world computer tries to entcie the world into the easy ways. It's the sirens of the Odyssey. Plug your ears and pass them by.
The world computer may have access to all available knowledge except the really useful and secret stuff. It's all about appearances and marketing. Big data isn't so much about real knowledge - it's more about data.
Still Magnus Carlsen can win by making moves that the computer cannot predict.
|hard facts (27/02/14 22:11:39)||Reply|
published research is different from actual research. actual research data is digital data, albeit not available together with 'nature' paper. it is on their disks, it is on their emails.
>Patents: I've read a few of those too. Facts, perhaps, but overloaded to a degree that makes it impossible to distill practically useful knowledge from them. Patents are granted, for sure, with the explicit deal that you gain exclusivity at the cost of revealing what you do. So you bury the facts in oceans of irrelevance and obscure the practically useful bits as much as you can.
again patents documents are not product blueprints. product blueprints are digital data, therefore sitting on media somewhere, backed up in many copies, read everyday dozens of times by antivirus bots, and maybe sometimes saved on dropbox, or in some other cloud.
be careful! do not suppose that a search engine gives back all it can find.
Snowden's documents were not available for google to index "before" the leak, but indeed they were available to backup software to be archived, and secured somewhere, and surely indexed, and carefully marked with "topsecret" digital stamps.
>So I'd say: Real knowledge is made from product descriptions and from advanced teardowns.
yes, for mass distribution purposes. But it can come straight from design documents, and probably more easily than thru reverse engineering.
>I just bought a Win 8.1 netbook (the cheapest entry into 32-bit hardware). Cloud services, cloud backups, streaming, games - which I uninstalled. OK - I'm an old man - but I know young people who do the same. I know psychologists who think 1-2-3-year-olds should have ipads. I say: Teach them to speak and read and calculate. Icon pressing requires no effort and no skills, and the female world computer tries to entcie the world into the easy ways. It's the sirens of the Odyssey. Plug your ears and pass them by.
i think you are right, but just from *your* point of view. and you are proud of having used a slide rule and maybe log tables.
but today 3years old kids with ipads do not really need to know what a pixel is, or what a bit is, like you do not need to know the details of you car engine injector software.
>The world computer may have access to all available knowledge except the really useful and secret stuff. It's all about appearances and marketing. Big data isn't so much about real knowledge - it's more about data.
knowledge is just organized, structured, patterned, available data.
>Still Magnus Carlsen can win by making moves that the computer cannot predict.
mmh sure? I could just consider this a programming deficiency or a software bug. I do not see any anthropic principle need in alternative consciousness development.
|Re: hard facts (28/02/14 19:06:07)||Reply|
IMHO knowledge is beyond data and beyond structured data. It starts with data. It continues with cramming other people's interpretations and adaptations, struggling with understanding in many cycles, each time understanding a little bit more until it is enough for my purposes - then going further along the edges of that knowledge, or combining with unrelated matters. And only then there can be knowledge - but often there isn't.
The knowledge I am seeking is directed towards practical purposes - on multiple levels, and on multiple platforms. Scientists mainly work on only one platform - otherwise they cannot be productive enough to keep up their publication production and turnover of candidates to keep up their financing.
Those people cannot do enough of reading - so they fall behind unless they are ahead of the leading edge. And we all know the dangers of the bleeding edge: By nature it provides more setbacks than successes. So being really advanced is too risky.
|inferences based on data (09/03/14 18:29:31)||Reply|
Maybe she is already here, and already read this. Maybe she will read it in some years.
Intellingence is difficult to define, because there are so many different forms of it. Dogs are intelligent, ants are intelligent, our immune system is intelligent too, and a chess program playing grandmaster level could be considered intelligent. Ibm Watson winning jeopardy could be considered intelligent, and so a weather report software that analyzes hundreds of thousands of readings before synthesizing a forecast.
Natural being are limited, have a short, defined life, and their body resources are set once for all in terms of connections, processing, capacity, bandwidth, storage.
Imagine a being able to access all our books, our literature, our art, watching our movies, listening to our voices, learning language meanings, reading emails, newspapers, weather reports, blogs.
Imagine it with unlimited memory, and with available processing power.
Search engines are built to be curious, to look for anything that is readable.
During our growth, we make a sense of what we see gradually, then we make a sense of our body, and multiple sensory feedbacks are used to interpret and learn about light, color, position, taste, smell, touch. Then our brain builds maps, and correlates data from different sources, and meaning comes. And then consciousness is just the name we give to the initial inextricable knot of interconnected memories and perceptions.
So meaning will gradually emerge, out of any kind of data, given enough correlation efforts and pattern matching.
Work is needed on feelings, but i guess they come from resonances happening in several areas at the same time, once that the initial consciousness nucleus is working.
Ethics are needed, and computer neurologists, and psychiatrists, and doctors.
Imagine the effects of a neuro-drug, translated to a cluster of artificial mind components. A software could change neural network parameters, to alter feedbacks, or memory recovery processes, or processing, or sensory perception.
IBM sold the whole intel/amd server division, some weeks ago. It sold the whole desktop and laptop division some years ago. Networking was sold to cisco. Now it will concentrate on advanced research and high end computing.
check centennial ibm video.
|Re: inferences based on data (10/03/14 20:19:46)||Reply|
nobody (had) thought
(or say that little child)
but we still do :)
a must to...
lost the game
without all this shit,
(we also do not ever think "we" deplete that lake of fish, sorry or not
sut yourself :)
"Mission" accomplished :))
|Re: Re: inferences based on data (11/03/14 05:04:24)||Reply|
(either I was drunk, or maybe this is still not the case? :)
But really, why not go more practical here, starting from me after all, and teach "the rest of us" some real language lessons instead?
(so we hopefully make somewhat less ridicules of ourselves before, and specially, after posting here :)
|tripped again (11/03/14 05:25:09)||Reply|
You get the idea... :)
|Re: inferences based on data (12/03/14 22:38:28)||Reply|
Someone should make a comparison between IBM and Google. I'd think they are different.
|Desires? To illbran in kind remembrance of Buckminster (12/02/14 18:54:29)||Reply|
|And for those with white days or weeks (14/02/14 21:58:03)||Reply|
Ah, sorry. I forgot about the flooding in UK.
|Re: Age and desires (23/02/14 08:37:45)||Reply|
if by "they" u mean those behind notionery, it is actualy me. (:-P)
but yes, it is the layer of knowledge that is directly wrapping you that is of interest. u build/wrap it your self, year by year, as a shield/translation to/from external world. And the idea is to help u keep that layer intimately *yours*. And not whoever's troyan-horse notions.
|Keeping order (23/02/14 15:54:50)||Reply|
In my opinion structure imposes restrictions that limits or bars the acquisition of new knowledge. Depends on the level, of course. Elementary stuff needs to be structured - but I hope we are not talking about lementary stuff. So structuring is for keeping order in a closed system including beginners' textbooks. The problem with many textbooks is that they don't contain useful knowledge. I see freshly educated people who can't work because they have no hands-on experience. And I see bosses who have no experience either, and insist that simple tasks be put into agendas and discussed and put on priority lists. It helps little that I offer to finish the entire task within a few days: that's not how things are done.
I don't believe in The-One-And-Only -Knowledge-Tool. The first and foremost tool, regardless, is having sufficient time to read and understand. No amount of supercomputer chewing of big data can replace that.
|Re: Keeping order (24/02/14 20:34:00)||Reply|
Aua, i get to feel this pain everyday
Very nice monitoring, dear e
|Target groups (24/02/14 18:04:16)||Reply|
|Indexing (27/02/14 21:54:47)||Reply|
|Re: Social networks or control of the society (02/02/14 00:42:27)||Reply|
Hi guys, I'm mhyst :)
It's alright mate. I'm just physt ;-)
'And what you say about society is what you say about his company'.
The world is the world is love and life are deep..
|Re: Re: Social networks or control of the society (02/02/14 14:52:35)||Reply|
but ilbran too, a libran may be :)
(are you really not believing in any magik? ;)
nothing personal, me like me, but couldnt it be that your not violating your own mantra here
on a humoros note, like a mayar in serbya :
i wasnt shauting him!! im shuting yu!! :))
|but really :) (02/02/14 15:48:41)||Reply|
or, we find and try "an intelligent Newfoundland dog" in your place :))
|Re: but really :) (05/02/14 21:05:06)||Reply|
well of cause
|some final words on this (09/02/14 19:06:17)||Reply|
In fact, I haven't (dis)proved absolutely anything here nor can I, from this perspective.
It could be this or it could be that, it could be absurd or not, could be pure "interest" or something else, out or beyond mind, but thing is that if I assume a right for myself (say to believe in "stupidities" or, better, greater things, but note the quotes ;) I must admit such a right to all others too.
About the only point of breach so to speak that I myself wouldn't or "couldn't" negotiate about is the objectivism of all our (ostensible/potential) subjectivisms -- to me these would exist "outside us" too, as a real fact or another facet of reality if you get me.
Anyway, sorry about any inconveniences I may have caused
all this is beginning to stink, even to me, so...
Just still hoping that last truth is nowhere near about ;)
|This board has been visited 462481 times||Current time is 21/01/19 11:50:03|