corporalagumbo

How should I know?

Yet again, I struggle to make sense of what exactly you're trying to say. You're using a lot of big words, but not necessarily making your point clear. What does "making a dispersion of self and novelty apparent" mean?

...

Dude, what does that even mean?

Come on, don't be so harsh. Everyone has room to improve.

Increasing the efficiency of people's sex lives?

My little brother and sister had it from 11 and 12 respectively. Yes, it's quite interesting to think about.

Anyway, what's your point? By the way, you're discussing this with someone who believes that in the future we will record and utilise orders of magnitude more amount of data about our lives and our planet than we do now, enough to make your eyes water, and furthermore, that we are inexorably fated to do so, and furthermore, that it's a really, really good trend, one which is going to play out in highly unpredictable and surprising ways.

Haven't heard that one before...

Sorry, "pathetic chat rooms"? What are you trying to say? And why are you saying whatever it is so bitterly?

I think by 'silliness' he's referring to "Girls who live nearby who are single and like Getting drunk!" Fair call in my opinion.

I made this point in another post: the take-away from this link shouldn't be how bad it was of Facebook to not realise that making available powerful search tools for already-public data might put some people in an unfortunate spotlight. The real take-away is that we shouldn't live in a world where people should be scared to be openly gay in Iran, or openly a Falun Gong member in China. Those are the things we should focus on and try and change. And we should appreciate, rather than chastise, the tools which make us realise that there are things we need to improve in the world.

I think "socialisation under the umbrella of a facebook type environment" was inevitable one way or another. The advantages of an efficient system for socialising with a centralised online persona system are just too huge to forgo. I'd be interested to hear what you consider might have been alternatives, but personally, I think the economics lead inexorably to a free-to-play ad-supported system such as Facebook. Show me the day when you can convince a couple hundred million people to sign up for a paid social network product and I'll eat my hat. Show me the day that an open-source community can compete with a for-profit business in terms of attracting the best talent willing and able to slave away for hours to build great products, and I'll eat my hat.

I don't think it means the end of individuality as we know it. We've had ad-supported newspapers for hundreds of years now and people seemed to manage okay.

His criticism isn't about the OP's lack of time at University, it's about his lack of life experience. I mean, the guy's a sophomore at college, after all. It's not outrageous to suggest that he's a bit naive and/or idealistic.

He doesn't need to provide a "backing for the idea" - Holloway's point did that adequately. And for me, personally, reading the counterpoint just convinced me of the validity of Holloway's argument further.

I'm not sure I follow you. Right now, Facebook knows roughly this much about me:

1) All of the people I have legitimated as Friends. 2) Screeds and screeds of data about the quality of all my connections with those friends (have I hid them from my news-feed? how much do I interact with their posts? how much do I interact with them? talk to them? share with them? stalk them? how much time do I spend in interactions with them? how do the patterns of my interactions change with them (mouse-click patterns, scroll patterns, typing patterns)? do I use different words (different emotions/more formal/informal language/different function word patterns?) 3) People I've stalked but haven't friended 4) Brands, companies, causes, ideas, things from history, all sorts of random shit I've liked (along with similar data to 2)) 5) What sorts of things I click on, how I leave the site and where I go. And certainly more.

Etc., etc., etc. Facebook didn't manifest my entire social life. They just built a platform which allowed me to socialise orders of magnitude more efficiently than before, a platform of great benefit to me, and one into which I've poured vast quantities of data (and the amount, quality and variety of the data is only set to increase as we open up more input modalities - eg eye-tracking, gesture-tracking, and biometrics). the data is all there. All facebook is doing is cobbling together some of the most very basic tools one might use to make sense of a subset of that data.

What exactly do you mean by that?

That's true. I do consider it polite though not to display their names openly on the site. It gives these people a chance to change their preferences and hide from future searches for instance.

Interesting concept... showing courtesy for strangers you find in search results...

Zuckerberg thinks people complain about privacy because they're old-fashioned and scared of the future. He thinks in the future we're all going to be extremely open, share shit all the time, aaaand basically the whole world is going to be one big chat room where people don't really hide things any more.

Personally I think he's probably right. It has shades of that old totalitarian argument, 'why should you be worried about privacy if you don't have anything to hide?' but hopefully it'll be a little more... forgiving than that.

I've got an arduino-powered robotic bow-gun firing Hello Kitty droid-doll you might be interested in...

Maybe this seems horrible right now, but Facebook didn't create these problems and contradictions, it just exposed them uncomfortably. I expect that the eventual abuses springing from this exposure will spur a counterreaction, hopefully with net-positive results. After all, what's the most meaningful take-away from this? Is it that Facebook is endangering individuals? Not really. Powerful, global social search tools like this were bound to happen eventually. The potential benefits of integrative technologies like this are just too great to ignore. No, the real take-away is this: sexual freedoms suck in Iran. Religious freedoms suck in China. And lots of people have embarrassing and/or contradictory and/or naive views and tastes.

So all this tells me is that we should focus on improving sexual freedoms in Iran and religious freedoms in China. Hopefully the people with embarrassing views will take care of themselves as tools such as this subject them to increasing scrutiny.

Really? Nothing good? From any algorithm at all? How can you be so sure? Amazon seems to do a pretty good job thinking up new stuff I might like with its algorithms, for one.

I think it's an ad hominem attack only when the character assertions bear no relation to the argument at hand. In this case, for him to call the OP young and ignorant is perfectly relevant, the implication being that he only dismisses higher education because he is not experienced enough to realise the value of it.

I read your counterpoint, and thought it was less coherently structured and argued than Holloway's. I think your argument may be stuck too much in an idealised present/future.

Quick question, have you gone to university?

If you grew up playing console and PC games then yes, iOS games are a joke. If you loves games, touch-based UIs just don't cut it.

My perspective on smart phones changed hugely when I recently travelled to a new city. Suddenly all of the features which I had paid little to no attention to before, such as maps, directions, business search, and recommendations, all became crucial. It's the difference between going to a crap restaurant and being overcharged, just because you're not a local and don't know these things, and going to a place which serves great food at a good price. The better your phone is at this sort of seamless deduction, the smoother your travel experience is and the more you can focus on more important problems. So for me it's an efficiency problem, one which is only going to become more important as international travel and tourism increase.

Isn't the problem that your phone should make the reminders for you?

Minimisation, false conflation, melodrama and conspiracy theories. Nice.

Terms of use are rules. Terms of use are the contract you establish with a party when they agree to render services to you. Just because it's "a website" doesn't mean shit.

Anyway, I don't care how accomplished you are, you don't get to decide that you don't like an arbitrary subset of the social contract and hence should be exempt from it. You are welcome to construct an argument against those rules and attempt to persuade others to your cause. But an argument for exceptionalism is no excuse for bypassing normal, democratic channels for political change.

Honestly I don't see why this point is so hard to understand. Aaron thought he had the answer to society's ills. You know what, everyone thinks that. Grumpy old men pissed off at immigration think they have the answer. The Unabomber thought he had the answer. It is one of the key advantages of democracy that we do not let individuals who think they have the answer just march in and change things as they see fit.

My first impression is that it's ugly and confusing.

1) The logo is way too small and out of the way. 2) The search and list an item buttons are different sizes, different corners, different text styles (capitalised and non) and garish colours. 3) The birds in the banner overlap with the white letters 4) The orange-bordered box with the info is in a weird place, too small, down in the bottom, the border looks weird, etc. 5) The banner doesn't really explain the concept to me. Why is a .edu address relevant.

http://theboxngo.com/users - the design here is much nicer.

Yes, I agree with you. This issue has nothing to do with the economics and apparent social justice of the journal publishing industry/complex.

This is about headstrong young white men deciding that the rules do not apply to them any more.

Do you have a link to that?

My only question is, why did it take them so long to do this?

Who were his enemies? I'm interested. Do you think the US justice dept was acting as an organ of these would-be tamers?