It's a neat idea in theory, but a lot of smart, well-meaning people have tried it, and that's rarely what you get.
133 karma · joined November 25, 2009
I just don't buy the idea that the short-sighted whims of politics can make the world a better place.
[edit: adding for clarity: "stop encouraging" DOES NOT translate as "start discouraging"]
It baffles me that people think social development can be somehow exempted from evolutionary processes. Call it callous or compassionless, if you want, but there will always be less fit members of a species/society. Humans didn't get to this spot on the food chain by subsidizing failure. If we want to increase prosperity, we should stop encouraging the propagation of actions/ideas/genes that would otherwise be unsustainable without throwing short-sighted policy and/or tax money at it.
...I kid, I kid!
In all seriousness, though, a widget on a browser with a chronic ~2% usage share is one thing. The exact same thing available on any standards-compliant browser is quite another, wouldn't you say?
Of course. I'd prefer "efficient" to "aggressive", though. True, the literal definition of aggressive does fit, but seems to imply intent (or even malice) in common usage, neither of which are possible attributes of evolution.
"Just look at global politics to see that this isn't about being fair only about expanding your own territory and power"
This returns to my point. I'm not a politician, and using the behavior of politicians or generals to predict my behavior is specious. Yes, we are a competitive species -- I made comments to this effect further down the page. I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I only object to the characterization of the "wars in iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestina, etc" as somehow indicative of the fundamental nature of life in the universe. As I and others have commented, we don't have much to go on in that arena.
edit:terminology/drunkenness.
Evolution is neither. It does not have any such personality traits, and there are plenty of examples of symbiotic behavior in nature.
We just fill the gaps. If there's a niche to be filled, and an extraterrestrial species can fill it at our expense, then so be it.
I certainly agree that our dataset, re: "life as we know it", is horribly limited. Likely to the point of uselessness. But hypotheses are the foundation of any science, after all, and what little we do have to go on suggests that competition/predation, rather than cooperation/symbiosis, may be a more reasonable expectation.
But perhaps not. In which case, we'd be very lucky to encounter such an enlightened species.
On the other hand, should we encounter sentient life, it certainly is not difficult to imagine hostility or callous indifference -- from either party. Particularly if said encounter is not on our terms.
And as profoundly exciting as the prospect of meeting alien life would be, I'd much rather it occur sometime after we've grown up a bit, ourselves.
Because politicians do a great job, re: managing the economy, protecting social security, foreign relations, IP law, education, not inflating costs of all things medicinal, and just putting the public interest first, in general.
With such an impressive track record, why not trust them to start inching their toes into the most complex, most creative, most free entity in the history of humankind?
/facetious
I'll be among the first to question Google's motives in the long term, but in this instance, I'll take Google's obviously-self-interested stance over that of a career liar claiming to act on my behalf -- by adding yet more legislation to an already immense corpus of unintelligible jargon.
So no, I _don't_ trust politicians or any other bureaucrats to understand (or at least cogently react to) any complex subject, and I'm continually flabbergasted that so many people do.
>> there is a difference between tax funded and government owned.
Okay, yes, that was poor wording on my part. Whether truly State-run or some sort of tax-funded NGO, though, the premise is more or less the same. He who has the gold makes the rules, and in this case, the BBC's funding is a result of legislation, not the direct choices of voluntary customers. You're right, there is a difference, and I was conflating the two for the sake of my argument. I still would not say that they're answerable to the viewers, however, even if it is more responsive to public opinion than outright State-owned TV would be.
>> And in my opinion (and it really is my opinion, but I know others share it) we have the best TV programing in the world.
This could be; won't argue with you there. This is still not an acceptable premise for spending other peoples' money to promote subjective matters of taste, though. Government and culture don't mix, on the same basis that government and religion don't mix.
>> I think the BBC is MUCH more accountable to us viewers than pretty much any other network I've seen.
You may very well be right; I wouldn't necessarily doubt that. But you have to ask, is the BBC seemingly more accountable than US stations because it is tax-funded? Or are there some other reasons why US stations seem comparatively less accountable/responsive? I tend to think it's the latter. There are plenty of explanations for why the television market is the way it is. Artificially high barriers to entry. Unnecessarily-limited broadcast spectrum. Regulatory capture. Practically all of our media being owned by the same handful of people/corporations. Situations ALL facilitated in one way or another -- you guessed it -- by government.
>> Also we get major sports and other stuff on the free channels
And here, we've come full circle: people are paying for this "free" content.
edit:"bandwidth"->"spectrum"
Actually, my entire point was that people considering these things need to stop considering them...
>> sorry to keep picking on the US - but they are the worst offenders by far
Fair enough. I'm by no means a fan of US television on the whole; there is some real garbage (in my personal opinion), and watching advertisements on television you're already paying for (cable, satellite) is ridiculous. But that's not enough to justify what you're calling for.
>> The BBC are meant to be politically neutral - and they do a reasonably good job of being so. Better than anyone else by far.
That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC Even if you think the news on the Beeb is mostly politically neutral...suppose it isn't? What are you going to do, stop paying for it and watch another channel? Oops, you have to pay for it to watch ANY channel. Which means that politically un-neutral commentary (which should be PROTECTED) is forced to indirectly fund the BBC's idea of 'politically neutral,' which could be anything at any time, depending on who's in charge.
>> It also funds the BBC website - which is easily one of the best news sites around (note how often it gets submitted here, and upvoted, as opposed to other general news sites :))
Got me there; I don't have a problem with the BBC website. I rather like it, actually. Aside from the fact that it's paid for by taxes. Notice how if you watch TV but don't happen to have a computer + internet, you're still paying for a website you can't even access?
>> Additionally it funds iPlayer - HD streaming of BBC content. Again, yet to see a commercial offering as slick.
Yeah, speaking of that: "BBC blocks open source video players" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1157704
>> Finally the tax funds Ofcomm which regulates all TV - I think this is one of the main reasons we aren't suffering shoddy corrupted TV :D
We have the FCC; how is that different? Censorship, just what the world needs! Why let people pay for what they enjoy and not pay for what they don't enjoy, when we can just let the government tell us what is and isn't "quality programming"?
>> People are used to solid hours of content with no advertising on te BBC - which means other channels cant get away with as much as certain other countries cram in. Example: Channel 5 shows CSI from 9pm on Tuesdays. It has 10-12 minutes of advertising between segments
Firstly, CSI is an American franchise. Advertisements over here are likely making up the difference for those smaller commercial breaks over there.
Secondly, this is EXACTLY the process by which a little bit of government interference can sometimes completely distort a market. Suppose (hypothetically, now) that shorter commercial breaks aren't cost-effective enough to produce certain quality shows. But the State (having appropriated your money already) can afford to eliminate commercials on its channels. Like you said, this changes the standards that private companies have to live up to. In many markets to the point where it simply isn't worth it to do what they do, or to do it as well as they could.
Yes, US television companies have _plenty_ of problems.
The way things are going, though, advertisements aren't really one of them any more. DVRs, Hulu, Etc. It's only a matter of time before the advertisement/quality ratio balances back out. And what set us off is this direction? Well, it wasn't the efforts of government. It was the internet (decidedly UNregulated) and new hardware like DVRs (time to tax those, too?) that have made us less reliant on the whims of the TV industry, an oligopoly which is largely the result of government regulation to begin with.
>> So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get (7 BBC channels and guaranteed between 3 and 10 other, well regulated, free-to-air channels plus the BBC website).
I like BBC channels, too. I even listen to BBC radio from this side of the pond. But you can't say one way or the other what kind of television you might have if the BBC didn't exist, because it's been with you since 1932. Maybe you'd have even BETTER television if the BBC wasn't taking up market share that could otherwise be utilized by broadcasters who are actually accountable to their viewers (and their viewers' wallets)? Our personal taste in television is no basis for government programs that are funded by taking other peoples' money.
>> Certainly I'd never consider paying for cable channels in the way other countries do :(
That's great; neither would I. And the very fact that I have a CHOICE not to pay for something that I DON'T WANT is the matter at hand. But with tax-funded television, what are my options? I guess, like you said, I could just not watch any television at all. But I'd rather that the government and all the busybodies of the world would just keep their thieving hands to themselves, and let me pay only for the TV that I want, like a sensible civilization would.
Yes, things could be better. There are solutions to our many television problems, and all of them involve LESS government, NOT more.
[edit- snark reduction]
I can agree that some good programming has come out of British public television, but I've been given no reason to think this is necessarily a result of (or in spite of) it being tax-funded.
>>note the tax is optional. Yu can choose not to watch tv
I'll grant that being forced to pay for public television only when watching TV is less bad than being forced to pay for public television regardless of whether or not you can even watch TV would be. On the other hand, even half a spoonful of poop ruins a whole pan of brownies. (Less-bad != Good). Why should I have to pay a tax to watch a private broadcast? Why not tax the internet and create a State-run intranet, on that basis?
>>It might not work elsewhere admittedly. But it's worth a shot.
No. Do not want. This is how problems start. Someone gets (or is given, and runs with) the easy idea: "Let taxes pay for it! If it doesn't work out the way we want, they'll just stop doing it!" But governments don't just stop doing things simply on account of them not working. You're already paying them to do it. Why go through the trouble of admitting mistakes and debating about repealing stuff and, in many cases, taking away peoples' (inefficiently allocated, needlessly created) jobs? Sure sounds like a hassle.
Next thing you know, you've got...what we've all already got. Too much fucking government. Please stop asking for more of it on other peoples' account. Even if you think the BBC airs a few good shows, it's the principle. It's not your money, so quit asking them to spend it. No new taxes. No new programs. No new agencies. We can't get rid of or fix all the crap we _already_ have.
Apologies for the zeal, but this is the appropriate reaction when people start clamoring to take your money and use it for something you will have for all practical purposes absolutely zero say in. This is not an efficient way to use our resources, nor an ethical one.
Edit: typo, linebreak.
The difference? If you don't like what's on cable, you can stop paying for cable! Neat.
First let me disclaim that I am by no means a crypto expert, and perhaps I am actually way off base here.
I'm not suggesting that Gmail could revolutionize popular use of encryption overnight. What I AM suggesting is that by storing and making it simple to send and receive public keys, Gmail could very easily and transparently facilitate the growth of such webs of trust. Simple example (what TFA seemed to be):
1) Alice, a crypto-savvy non-gmail user, sends Bob, a non-crypto-savvy gmail user, her public key. (Or, better, Alice gives Bob a thumbdrive with her public key on it for upload to Gmail.) 2) Gmail stores it. 3) Alice later sends signed mail to Bob. 4) Gmail verifies it, and prominently notifies Bob whether it is a valid or invalid signature. Perhaps it even presents a link for Bob to learn more about how it knows this, and how his mail from Alice is different from un-signed mail.
So with extremely little forced interaction on Bob's part (nothing to install, nothing much to learn, no key generation), there is now some added security between the two of them, even if it is unidirectional. From this point, Bob could then quickly learn enough to be able to encrypt the email that he sends to Alice from within Gmail, and Alice, using PGP in her mail client, would be able to decrypt it.
It certainly doesn't cover every angle, but it would improve relative security and it would allow those who ARE familiar and experienced with public-key cryptography to bring up basic concepts with their friends/family/coworkers (among the ~150 million monthly Gmail users, anyway).
Edit: wonky formatting
Your private key could still be handled locally. Hell, even if they left signing and decryption (the parts you'd need your private key for) entirely up to the browser or plugins or a full-blown mail client, you could still verify signed mail that you'd received and send out encrypted mail from within Gmail's interface. That alone could go a long way towards encouraging cryptography beyond the security-conscious crowd. At the very least, it spreads awareness.
EDIT: Also, as far as my more unimportant emails are concerned, I'd rather have them bouncing around the internet encrypted by a compromised/throw-away key (i.e., one that Google has access to) than not encrypted at all. But in common use, yeah, the illusion of security would be worse than no security at all.
I had always hoped that gmail would popularize PGP signatures, if not integrate outright encryption (PGP has been implemented in JavaScript plenty of times -- right up Chrome's alley).
I'm sure there are all kinds of legal implications for Google to consider (disabling features for users in countries where crypto is illegal/more strongly regulated, places it would be illegal to "export" to, etc), not to mention the fact that encrypted mail would preclude targeted advertising, but email and crypto go together like PB&J. HTTPS enabled by default was a step in the right direction (and it certainly took them long enough), but signature support seems terribly overdue, to me.
Maybe it's only because my generation's closest ties to Nixon are via Hunter S. Thompson's popular invectives, but I don't know of anybody who thinks that Dicky M. deserves any more veneration than a kidney stone. But then, I suppose I never have had a very keen eye, when it comes to finding the inner beauty of politicians...
Less amusing: after bemoaning the "(awful) state of standards-compliant browsers," 3 out of the 5 tips rely on proprietary/non-standard css. See related article, "5 More Ways to Break Your Site"
But whether or not that fits one's definition of 'affordable', I couldn't say.
On the one hand, I agree with the sentiment that the US Government (at the very least on a Federal level) has deteriorated to a point that it actively prevents itself from being repaired -- it doesn't want fixing. The addition of a two-party system, big media, and citizenry at large careless or clueless about how to protect and expand their liberties, and there's not really anything anybody can do about that.
I don't think, though, that simply accepting bad law as irreparable damage and trying to mitigate its area of influence is a viable long-term course of action. Letting government get progressively worse little by little can result in either a) prolonged suffering for many, until conditions get so bad that the government is disassembled (by civil unrest, economic collapse, population decline, or war), or b) another North Korea, a state frozen in time in total control with little chance of popular revolution, subsisting by the "grace" of other nations that haven't collapsed into political black holes.
One way or another, I expect that the current state of the State will only get worse before getting better. How much worse depending on how long Americans put off the task of figuring out how to start fresh on a new government. One with better antivirus capabilities.
Interesting (if somewhat anecdotal) article on the nocebo response in relation to voodoo hexes, etc: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.100-the-scien...
I thought I discovered this article via a comment thread on HN last month, but can't seem to find it, now.
"The foreigners need to understand the earthquake did the same thing to the police it did to the population," said Antoine Franck, an officer on duty at the Champ du Mars park. "My house fell down. I lost everything. Everyone's house fell down. My dear brother's house fell down, and he is dead under there. Every policeman has dead family."
When will we realize that when it comes to government, at any level, there are no "good guys" or "bad guys"? There are only people, acting in their own interest, as broad or as narrow as that may be. Sometimes -- more often when we find ourselves in a national crisis -- we will act with compassion towards one another.
All other things being equal, though, give a man a uniform, a loaded gun, the security of the "blue wall of silence", and a judicial system inclined to take him at his word no matter what (or worse, no effective judicial system at all, as is the case in many countries), and you might as well just have gang rule.
It's great that the people with the "official" capacity to exercise force in Haiti have opted to look out for their countrymen, rather than loot and pillage. But let's not assume (one way or the other!) that, had there been no disaster, they would be acting so nobly.
Then I read a nearly obsessive review of her on a social networking site. Then I noticed her showing up on last.fm profiles and other music websites. Then I started seeing her name in every other blog I came across. Then I saw her all over the front pages of mainstream news sites.
Now I'm reading about her on a TECHNOLOGY/STARTUP news aggregator, of all places.
I still haven't taken the time to listen to her music, but I'm already impressed. I'm sure I just wasn't paying attention, but Lady Gaga went from occupying absolutely zero braincycles in December to becoming a name that I have heard literally every other day from every other outlet for the past four weeks. I've been crossing more hype about her than for the iPad.
Like TFA, I couldn't hazard to say whether or not she's just "another fleeting pop novelty," but she's obviously doing something right.
iPhone :: Android phones as 'iTablet' :: ??
Apple makes new tech fashionable. Someone else can always come along afterward to make it open.
It's not like I really needed another iTablet rumor fix today, anyway.