I think the most accurate description of twitter is to liken it to away messages on IM. You know, everybody comes up with a clever new away message every five minutes. Even though this meant you were actually sitting right there on IM, thus negating the "away" part. The other half of it is that everybody would constantly patrol their buddy lists checking friends' away messages to see what's new -- also every five minutes.
At least this is how it was for me from middle-school to college on AIM. The same thing happened after Facebook came out (status-stalking). What a great way to waste time. At least with Twitter it's more interactive. And the neat things people have done with the API, like controlling their home lighting... [http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/03/twittering_your_home.html]
2008-11-22
And Finally Two Become One
Ha -- I bet you thought I was going to talk about marriage or something. Whatever.
I just found out how to combine blogs - something I've been meaning to do for a while with my travelogue and moronologue.
Hooray for consolidation.
I just found out how to combine blogs - something I've been meaning to do for a while with my travelogue and moronologue.
Hooray for consolidation.
Gmail why you...
So Google bought Blogger, right? All their products work hand-in-hand full of loving good wishes, right?
Then why do posts emailed from my Gmail account get all wacky with the line breaks?
Actually, I guess the real problem is why does Gmail force line wrapping on plain-text emails? Is this an anachronistic holdover? Is there a reason to force formatting on what should be a mutable set of data?
This has long plagued me in trying to copy email text (for plagiarism) from one application to another. Trying to replace the manual line breaks (\n) but preserve the intended line breaks (\n\n) is annoying. And I think we've all seen what happens after about fifty forwards (those funny emails from grandma) -- those >> carets take up more and more room, pusing each line over, where it then breaks off the last word to a new line.
I've got one word for you, Gooogle -- FIXIT.
Then why do posts emailed from my Gmail account get all wacky with the line breaks?
Actually, I guess the real problem is why does Gmail force line wrapping on plain-text emails? Is this an anachronistic holdover? Is there a reason to force formatting on what should be a mutable set of data?
This has long plagued me in trying to copy email text (for plagiarism) from one application to another. Trying to replace the manual line breaks (\n) but preserve the intended line breaks (\n\n) is annoying. And I think we've all seen what happens after about fifty forwards (those funny emails from grandma) -- those >> carets take up more and more room, pusing each line over, where it then breaks off the last word to a new line.
I've got one word for you, Gooogle -- FIXIT.
If Three is a Crowd, Then 1000 is a Business Asset
Crowdsourcing is awesome. Take reCAPTCHA -- not only does it protect you from robots, but it nearly effortlessly accomplishes an otherwise extremely tedious task. For more complicated content, like encyclopedias, I really want to see an implementation which combines wiki-like submission with ratings (a la eBay seller rankings, digg, amazon products, PageRank). Throw in some kind of accreditation system, whereby legitimate "experts" assign more points, and I believe it would go a long way towards making things like wikipedia more trustworthy.
It would need several pieces: content system, rating system, and metric/analysis system.
@ Content would handle submission / display. This should be simple for most things -- text articles (wikipedia), photos (geotagging, reference guides), numbers (data collection for environmental monitoring).
@ Rating -- other people / users "vote" the item up or down, and points are assigned to the submission's score based on users' "credibility" rankings. The rankings themselves would function like Google's PageRank, and be determined (in the Metric system) by how useful the user's other submitted content has been scored, or they get a bonus factor if they are a registered professional in an appropriately related field (like a physicist would count more on physics content, but not necessarily on interior design content). This may also be subject to certain predefined limitations (on requested content), so that data collection for air quality near Crabtree Valley Mall is only accepted from people who are registered for that area. Or it could also involve an invitational aspect, so that only certain areas (like profession, location) are "invited" to comment. I do think that for some applications of professional information, layman opinion should be considered just to shake things up; possibly a larger gap in 'credibility' rating would be factored in, so that a professional opinion is worth 100 random opinions.
@ Metric or Analysis system: used to determine how the ratings are calculated. This would probably need to function differently for different kinds of content. For example, with wikipedia articles, it would function mainly on user voting (subject to professional moderation? oy), but for "tedium-reducing" work like geotagging or reCAPTCHA, it would have to be based on some kind of quality measurements -- "usefulness" or "appropriateness". I'm not sure which would be more difficult -- the second requires programming and data analysis, while the first is affected by social factors (who's paying attention?).
I know many elements of this have already been implemented, but I don't think they've been combined into a standardized whole. Has it? Can this even be done? I'm open to your comments...
It would need several pieces: content system, rating system, and metric/analysis system.
@ Content would handle submission / display. This should be simple for most things -- text articles (wikipedia), photos (geotagging, reference guides), numbers (data collection for environmental monitoring).
@ Rating -- other people / users "vote" the item up or down, and points are assigned to the submission's score based on users' "credibility" rankings. The rankings themselves would function like Google's PageRank, and be determined (in the Metric system) by how useful the user's other submitted content has been scored, or they get a bonus factor if they are a registered professional in an appropriately related field (like a physicist would count more on physics content, but not necessarily on interior design content). This may also be subject to certain predefined limitations (on requested content), so that data collection for air quality near Crabtree Valley Mall is only accepted from people who are registered for that area. Or it could also involve an invitational aspect, so that only certain areas (like profession, location) are "invited" to comment. I do think that for some applications of professional information, layman opinion should be considered just to shake things up; possibly a larger gap in 'credibility' rating would be factored in, so that a professional opinion is worth 100 random opinions.
@ Metric or Analysis system: used to determine how the ratings are calculated. This would probably need to function differently for different kinds of content. For example, with wikipedia articles, it would function mainly on user voting (subject to professional moderation? oy), but for "tedium-reducing" work like geotagging or reCAPTCHA, it would have to be based on some kind of quality measurements -- "usefulness" or "appropriateness". I'm not sure which would be more difficult -- the second requires programming and data analysis, while the first is affected by social factors (who's paying attention?).
I know many elements of this have already been implemented, but I don't think they've been combined into a standardized whole. Has it? Can this even be done? I'm open to your comments...
2008-11-19
The Varnished Truth
This is response to this article concerning the right to gay marriage: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/11/unvarnished-truth.html. I wrote too much to post as a comment on the originating blog.
################
Before I begin, let me say that even though I disagree with you, I enjoyed reading your article -- it was very well written. I hope I am not offensive in my reply.
There are several problems with your assumption that there must be a "rational basis for society to decide that only certain people may marry---not brothers with sisters, not children with adults, and not men with men or women with women". One is that you're considering it from a very subjective viewpoint -- that of Western Judeo-Christian society. We may now live in a society where the rules are as you state, but there are plenty of other places where the rules are different. Does that make our rules correct and the others wrong? It depends on who you talk to. Our society may state that marriage = man + woman, but elsewhere polygamy and polyandry are acceptable.
Point 15: it is "an historical fact that the institution we refer to as 'marriage' did evolve---in a society in which heterosexual relationships were the norm". The idea that heterosexual monogamy is the pinnacle of societal evolution is bogus. Who is the authority that determines when the idea of "marriage" is fully-matured and complete. Maybe "the institution we refer to as 'marriage'" is *continuing* to evolve, in our predominantly heterosexual society, into a more logical definition based on commitment.
I'd like to go back to point 14, the hypothetical society. You say that there is no possible way that two homosexual individuals would ever consider bonding themselves together. Why? This assumes that love doesn't exist in this homosexual society; love, which I would argue is the true foundation for marriage -- not gender. I'm sure that in your brutal and ruthless society it may very well have been eliminated, and so marriage may be an unknown concept there. I don't think that's because of homosexuality, but rather the harsh and sterile conditions. But in our society, which is defining what "marriage" is and will be (not was), love and all of the finer emotions do exist.
So let's take a look at a different hypothetical society. Men and women are allowed to mingle as they please, where their every need is taken care of. Sperm and egg are unobtrusively collected, and the resulting children are raised by robots in specially sheltered underground bunkers, where there are given a basic education before being released into the world. Where in this society would there be an incentive to form marital unions? Would men and women feel the urge to declare, "I feel you to be utterly compatible and I wish to be with you and only you for ever." I would answer, sure, they would have just as much reason to as man + man, woman + woman, or man + woman + dog.
Why? Because I believe you are missing the point of marriage. I think you're stuck on the biological aspect of marriage -- male + female = continuation of the species. But really, marriage arose because of the fact that children with parents who stay attached together tended to survive longer.
Now though, we really have no imperative to have more children. There are already too many of us as it is. You must also concede that man + woman does not necessarily result in the best parents. Two men or two women may raise a child just as well as a man and a woman, or a single dad, or a single grandmother raising the children of her son who died with his wife in a car accident. Isn't there even a saying "it takes a village to raise a child"?
None of this actually requires that any of the parties ever get married -- marriage is not a prerequisite for raising a child. It may help, sure, since two people have committed themselves to building a future together...
Wait, what did I just say? "Two people have committed themselves to building a future together". Here is the important idea behind marriage -- TWO PEOPLE have COMMITTED themselves to building a future TOGETHER.
You're definitely allowed to feel more comfortable believing that those two people may only share one chromosome -- you can exercise your right to free choice and choose not to marry your same gender. But I really can't understand why you won't allow that choice for others.
We can argue semantics all day about what is a right and what is a privilege. You're even probably right that marriage is a privilege. But I would think that our choice of who to marry, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, should be a protected right.
"Wait! Now you're talking about letting people marry their dogs!" Maybe I'm just baiting you at this point, but let's take this as another hypothetical situation. Who is being harmed by this union? If a man says he wants to marry his dog, and he is a just, law abiding citizen, who pays his taxes, builds homes for the poor on the weekend, always eats the correct portions of the food pyramid, and continues to do so after getting married -- then why should we stop him? I repeat -- who is harmed by this union?
Now let's consider the flipside -- who benefits from this union? Well, if there are tax benefits, and credit benefits, and discounts at amusement parks for being married, then we see there is a selfish benefit to being married. If the man and his dog truly love each other, and take care of each other, then everyone around them shares in their happiness. His parents know the joy of seeing their child live happily. Their friends enjoy spending time with them because of the happy smiles on their faces. But all of those are only incidental benefits, because they could be just as happy without marriage (more on this -- see endnote ++).
So how is this different than a man and a woman doing the same things? Because they could theoretically have offspring? Okay -- should we then deny marriage licenses to individuals unable to reproduce? Accident victims paralyzed below the waist? Unlucky people who are just barren or infertile?
While I do appreciate that you are entitled to your beliefs, I don't see in your article any real support for why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, asides from "because it's always been defined as heterosexual union in the past". We should only be moderately guided by what has gone on before, but we should not ignore what is going on around us. Without that, you have no evolution.
Perhaps I'm arguing a different point, since you focused on the issue of gay marriage as a privilege vs. a right, but I think I am addressing the underlying issue.
++ Endnote:
I read an article in French once about how it was a growing trend for couples to live together without the "bond" of marriage. When asked why, one couple said that with marriage, you are legally required to return every night to your bondmate. When not married, it shows that you are choosing to come home to that person. I thought that was a beautiful statement. Especially considering how common divorce has become.
################
Before I begin, let me say that even though I disagree with you, I enjoyed reading your article -- it was very well written. I hope I am not offensive in my reply.
There are several problems with your assumption that there must be a "rational basis for society to decide that only certain people may marry---not brothers with sisters, not children with adults, and not men with men or women with women". One is that you're considering it from a very subjective viewpoint -- that of Western Judeo-Christian society. We may now live in a society where the rules are as you state, but there are plenty of other places where the rules are different. Does that make our rules correct and the others wrong? It depends on who you talk to. Our society may state that marriage = man + woman, but elsewhere polygamy and polyandry are acceptable.
Point 15: it is "an historical fact that the institution we refer to as 'marriage' did evolve---in a society in which heterosexual relationships were the norm". The idea that heterosexual monogamy is the pinnacle of societal evolution is bogus. Who is the authority that determines when the idea of "marriage" is fully-matured and complete. Maybe "the institution we refer to as 'marriage'" is *continuing* to evolve, in our predominantly heterosexual society, into a more logical definition based on commitment.
I'd like to go back to point 14, the hypothetical society. You say that there is no possible way that two homosexual individuals would ever consider bonding themselves together. Why? This assumes that love doesn't exist in this homosexual society; love, which I would argue is the true foundation for marriage -- not gender. I'm sure that in your brutal and ruthless society it may very well have been eliminated, and so marriage may be an unknown concept there. I don't think that's because of homosexuality, but rather the harsh and sterile conditions. But in our society, which is defining what "marriage" is and will be (not was), love and all of the finer emotions do exist.
So let's take a look at a different hypothetical society. Men and women are allowed to mingle as they please, where their every need is taken care of. Sperm and egg are unobtrusively collected, and the resulting children are raised by robots in specially sheltered underground bunkers, where there are given a basic education before being released into the world. Where in this society would there be an incentive to form marital unions? Would men and women feel the urge to declare, "I feel you to be utterly compatible and I wish to be with you and only you for ever." I would answer, sure, they would have just as much reason to as man + man, woman + woman, or man + woman + dog.
Why? Because I believe you are missing the point of marriage. I think you're stuck on the biological aspect of marriage -- male + female = continuation of the species. But really, marriage arose because of the fact that children with parents who stay attached together tended to survive longer.
Now though, we really have no imperative to have more children. There are already too many of us as it is. You must also concede that man + woman does not necessarily result in the best parents. Two men or two women may raise a child just as well as a man and a woman, or a single dad, or a single grandmother raising the children of her son who died with his wife in a car accident. Isn't there even a saying "it takes a village to raise a child"?
None of this actually requires that any of the parties ever get married -- marriage is not a prerequisite for raising a child. It may help, sure, since two people have committed themselves to building a future together...
Wait, what did I just say? "Two people have committed themselves to building a future together". Here is the important idea behind marriage -- TWO PEOPLE have COMMITTED themselves to building a future TOGETHER.
You're definitely allowed to feel more comfortable believing that those two people may only share one chromosome -- you can exercise your right to free choice and choose not to marry your same gender. But I really can't understand why you won't allow that choice for others.
We can argue semantics all day about what is a right and what is a privilege. You're even probably right that marriage is a privilege. But I would think that our choice of who to marry, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, should be a protected right.
"Wait! Now you're talking about letting people marry their dogs!" Maybe I'm just baiting you at this point, but let's take this as another hypothetical situation. Who is being harmed by this union? If a man says he wants to marry his dog, and he is a just, law abiding citizen, who pays his taxes, builds homes for the poor on the weekend, always eats the correct portions of the food pyramid, and continues to do so after getting married -- then why should we stop him? I repeat -- who is harmed by this union?
Now let's consider the flipside -- who benefits from this union? Well, if there are tax benefits, and credit benefits, and discounts at amusement parks for being married, then we see there is a selfish benefit to being married. If the man and his dog truly love each other, and take care of each other, then everyone around them shares in their happiness. His parents know the joy of seeing their child live happily. Their friends enjoy spending time with them because of the happy smiles on their faces. But all of those are only incidental benefits, because they could be just as happy without marriage (more on this -- see endnote ++).
So how is this different than a man and a woman doing the same things? Because they could theoretically have offspring? Okay -- should we then deny marriage licenses to individuals unable to reproduce? Accident victims paralyzed below the waist? Unlucky people who are just barren or infertile?
While I do appreciate that you are entitled to your beliefs, I don't see in your article any real support for why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, asides from "because it's always been defined as heterosexual union in the past". We should only be moderately guided by what has gone on before, but we should not ignore what is going on around us. Without that, you have no evolution.
Perhaps I'm arguing a different point, since you focused on the issue of gay marriage as a privilege vs. a right, but I think I am addressing the underlying issue.
++ Endnote:
I read an article in French once about how it was a growing trend for couples to live together without the "bond" of marriage. When asked why, one couple said that with marriage, you are legally required to return every night to your bondmate. When not married, it shows that you are choosing to come home to that person. I thought that was a beautiful statement. Especially considering how common divorce has become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
