If the telecoms want to use a model in which prices are based on content, and if cable companies want to continue their role as content license managers, we should help them out with it.
If the eyeball networks have the technical capacity to inspect the contents of their customers' packets and deciding how to bill based on what they find and are able to back that up for billing disputes, then they should have no problems using that same kit to make other business decisions based on their total knowledge as gleaned from inspecting their customers' packets.
Content creators should attach individual licenses to creative works with respect to distribution, as already occurs for television and film distribution rights. Such licenses should contain randomly generated variation in their terms (with respect to geography, time of day, caching, end user plans, etc.) that differ each time the content is accessed in machine and human-readable formats. Since the content industry is adamant that copyright infringement occurs even if the infringer access accessed or distributed content against license terms unknowingly or unintentionally, they should have no issues with following the same standards in their own actions.
If it happens that the machine-readable version requires a particularly computationally intensive and time-consuming algorithm to obtain "Verizon may distribute on the next two Sundays between 9:43 and 11:12 a.m. to customers within 100 miles of [legal land description] whose plans cost more than $16.48 including state but not federal surcharges", I wouldn't blame a judge who categorically threw out such capricious and overly complicated content and distribution licensing schemes on the grounds of being against the public interest.
(Reposted.)
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Détante
An early morning retail door-crasher in Calgary consists of 30 pick-up trucks and mini-vans idling in a strip-mall parking lot, even if it's not a frosty December weekend.
At the appointed hour of 7:15 a.m., the first snow-crushing carriages break suburbia's tranquility. It's important for both parents to doze off in the vehicle as it replaces the still suspension of ice with clouds of carbon monoxide and other fine products of incomplete combustion. The store does not open for almost two hours, so they wait. Minutes later, another. And another still, a comforting pace until someone eyeballs more headlights or taillights than the score of trickets advertised. The early arrives silently reassure themselves a place in some imaginary line, inferred by the unspoken rules of the community and insured by close proximity to the front door. As long as no one actively wants a leg up on each other, everyone can suffocate warmly in their vehicles.
As still more weary prospective consumers arrive, thinking changes in the community. "Maybe /they/ want that /other/ $40 disposable bauble for $40 off. They're certainly not as smart as we are. We're getting the better deal by paying $150 for the $200 disposable bauble! We've earned the right to that deal by sacrificing time with our families and our health to be here at this unholy pre-dawn hour."
Thirty vehicles.
"There are 40 disposable baubles in total, so /we/ can 'share' the bad $40 'deal' with /them/. We're still a communi--"
Someone has broken the line!
Every vehicle sends a sleepy-legged runner across the black ice and through an arriving flow of vehicles to the front door. The first from a vehicle to arrive asks the pedestrian checking his mobile under the canopy: "Do you work here?"
Not even a 'hello'? What happened to friendly Canada or Calgary or the small-town community values that we supposedly hold dear?
The queue of people instantly blooms to 40. Others still file in, noting that some in line are couples and the "deals" were offered "one per family". But the scurrying and the mixing had obliterated the class system of the parking lot, and none would be assured that their early morning wagers and sacrifices would grant a leg up on their fellow man.
The school across the street has taught that interpersonal competition is the goal of social organization, and that standardized tests of memorization and uncritical thinking prescribed by some authority should sort the haves (for social standing and scholarships) from the have nots. By day, hundreds of parents the athletic park hoping that their child outscores and defeats all the others to become Canada's next great sports hero, yet they count on coaches and referees to somehow impartially adjudicate merit based on glimpses of attention. In suburbua, cedar shakes and stucco set some home owners apart from those with asphalt shingles and siding, according to environmental or insurance experts whose competing sciences defy comprehension. Even within the parking lot of vehicles, those aboard riced-up GMCs literally and figuratively look down upon the few compact cars that dare to show up.
Only an authority figure could sort this perceived unfairness, and sorting out this retail scarcity must be the first priority of the community. The early community's assumptions about enjoying both comfort and discount access to baubles must not be preempted by someone not subscribing to the community's ungrounded rules and limits. Only the early arrivals should be entitled to take advantage of /the/ rules, and no one else.
The crowd greedily await the pedestrian's response, knowing that their communal assumptions and individual failures to act have screwed somebody, and that they have each yielded the capacity to effectively watch over themselves.
And they will all return for next week's sale.
Be the pedestrian.
--
Of vaguely related note, a big chain store (not offering the spectacle above) holds a team meeting of everyone except cashiers and greeters at 8:45 a.m. in the furniture section. They had daily sales of $310,000 yesterday, down 1.2 per cent from the same date last year. Their biggest sales were (in descending order): groceries ($35k), pharmacy, electronics, ladies wear, and infant consumables. All were up $1,000-3,000 from last year. Their daily shipment consists of three freight trucks totalling 1,000 food items; and 3 trucks totalling 3,000 non-food items.
At the appointed hour of 7:15 a.m., the first snow-crushing carriages break suburbia's tranquility. It's important for both parents to doze off in the vehicle as it replaces the still suspension of ice with clouds of carbon monoxide and other fine products of incomplete combustion. The store does not open for almost two hours, so they wait. Minutes later, another. And another still, a comforting pace until someone eyeballs more headlights or taillights than the score of trickets advertised. The early arrives silently reassure themselves a place in some imaginary line, inferred by the unspoken rules of the community and insured by close proximity to the front door. As long as no one actively wants a leg up on each other, everyone can suffocate warmly in their vehicles.
As still more weary prospective consumers arrive, thinking changes in the community. "Maybe /they/ want that /other/ $40 disposable bauble for $40 off. They're certainly not as smart as we are. We're getting the better deal by paying $150 for the $200 disposable bauble! We've earned the right to that deal by sacrificing time with our families and our health to be here at this unholy pre-dawn hour."
Thirty vehicles.
"There are 40 disposable baubles in total, so /we/ can 'share' the bad $40 'deal' with /them/. We're still a communi--"
Someone has broken the line!
Every vehicle sends a sleepy-legged runner across the black ice and through an arriving flow of vehicles to the front door. The first from a vehicle to arrive asks the pedestrian checking his mobile under the canopy: "Do you work here?"
Not even a 'hello'? What happened to friendly Canada or Calgary or the small-town community values that we supposedly hold dear?
The queue of people instantly blooms to 40. Others still file in, noting that some in line are couples and the "deals" were offered "one per family". But the scurrying and the mixing had obliterated the class system of the parking lot, and none would be assured that their early morning wagers and sacrifices would grant a leg up on their fellow man.
The school across the street has taught that interpersonal competition is the goal of social organization, and that standardized tests of memorization and uncritical thinking prescribed by some authority should sort the haves (for social standing and scholarships) from the have nots. By day, hundreds of parents the athletic park hoping that their child outscores and defeats all the others to become Canada's next great sports hero, yet they count on coaches and referees to somehow impartially adjudicate merit based on glimpses of attention. In suburbua, cedar shakes and stucco set some home owners apart from those with asphalt shingles and siding, according to environmental or insurance experts whose competing sciences defy comprehension. Even within the parking lot of vehicles, those aboard riced-up GMCs literally and figuratively look down upon the few compact cars that dare to show up.
Only an authority figure could sort this perceived unfairness, and sorting out this retail scarcity must be the first priority of the community. The early community's assumptions about enjoying both comfort and discount access to baubles must not be preempted by someone not subscribing to the community's ungrounded rules and limits. Only the early arrivals should be entitled to take advantage of /the/ rules, and no one else.
The crowd greedily await the pedestrian's response, knowing that their communal assumptions and individual failures to act have screwed somebody, and that they have each yielded the capacity to effectively watch over themselves.
And they will all return for next week's sale.
Be the pedestrian.
--
Of vaguely related note, a big chain store (not offering the spectacle above) holds a team meeting of everyone except cashiers and greeters at 8:45 a.m. in the furniture section. They had daily sales of $310,000 yesterday, down 1.2 per cent from the same date last year. Their biggest sales were (in descending order): groceries ($35k), pharmacy, electronics, ladies wear, and infant consumables. All were up $1,000-3,000 from last year. Their daily shipment consists of three freight trucks totalling 1,000 food items; and 3 trucks totalling 3,000 non-food items.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Questions for people who know about the WikiLeaks thing
1) What's the annual population of diplomatic cables from which the current leaks sample?
2) How many interactions requiring reporting via cables occur each year?
3) How many nodes and links are represented in the total population of cables?
4) What measures have been suggested to rectify the issues highlighted?
On all of the above, are the examples in the media representative of regular activity or are they exceptions? This is required information before the individual examples reported can be used as the basis to make judgements about the system.
If the system works within parameters most of the time for most individuals for most uses, it would be inefficient to seek to scrap it entirely.
2) How many interactions requiring reporting via cables occur each year?
3) How many nodes and links are represented in the total population of cables?
4) What measures have been suggested to rectify the issues highlighted?
On all of the above, are the examples in the media representative of regular activity or are they exceptions? This is required information before the individual examples reported can be used as the basis to make judgements about the system.
If the system works within parameters most of the time for most individuals for most uses, it would be inefficient to seek to scrap it entirely.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Copyright, continued
Unlike prior eras when distribution of information implied and was limited by diffusion of items or warm bodies, the present pressing social needs relating to locating and organizing relevant diffused information. Four centuries of policy about copying rights have yielded an uncountable number of works bearing information, but very few systems through which to find and use it. The problem of socializing* the information, enabling us to know and consider it, not only remains unsolved, but is structurally prevented from being solved by our current concepts of copyright as relating only to authors, publishers, and consumers. A new role is indicated for someone to index authors' works, publishers' products, and consumers' information needs.
Public policy should therefore reassert its role to solve the social problem of knowledge distribution and use, by encouraging entrepreneurs to index and/or combine it in useful ways with other knowledge or people. As with copyright in its earlier incarnations, policy should not decide which method of socialization should become popular or succeed, but that anyone who wants to take a risk by investing in an socializing method should be able to try. Instead of attempting to shoe-horn 21st century problems into a 17th century paradigm, policy should recognise that the social value of knowledge production is not in exclusivity over the production or distribution of that information, but in its use.
To that end, socializers of information should be entitled to some protection to take earnings from the value they have added to knowledge and information (not "socialized information should be protected..." as with the current degraded model). A new (non-copyright) paradigm to gain social value from mobilizing big information would have the following characteristics.
1) Instead of barriers, there should be incentives to open or inter-link indexes of information. This is analogous to enabling lending libraries to assemble collections of items that provide additional value in aggregate.
2) Authors, publishers, and socializers of information should be incentivized to add context to published information, treating such meta-information not as works derivative of the works indexed, but as first-class original creative contributions.
3) The present monetary reward system for authoring and distributing information is based on traffic and referral, not on exclusive control over publication and derivative use. Protections for indexes should reward the most "open" socializing or indexing systems that would attract the largest number of hits, citations, referrals, or uses.
4) An index-right should recognize that information is not static. That is, the value added to knowledge by socializing it rests significantly in the socialized knowledge, and also in the methods and knowledge required to socialize it, and to supplement it with new knowledge and information as inevitably arises.
5) Elements of the current copyright system that generate social value through production of original knowledge information should be retained and enhanced, elements that inhibit generating social value should be phased out.
* in the sense interacting with others, not in the sense of collective ownership
Specific responses to prior offline comments:
- I agree that not all 'Free' software licensing schemes are equal. I provide no sympathy if your favourite scheme: protects the interests of the knowledge or its expression at the expense of broader social interests; relies on an artificial scarcity model; or claims to break the core of copyright but only tinkers at the edges. Reconsider why we have public policy in the first place.
- Copyright and index-right schemes would not be mutually exclusive. In fact, they add value to each other. The problem arises when one scheme is used with respect to activities of the other.
- I do not generally agree with tactics to constipate information flows "for the public good". Explicitly enabling anyone to flood the market with copyright-protected works has not co-occured with the publication and distribution of even a small fractino of copyright-protected works. Likewise, explicitly protecting the right of anyone to produce an index would not obviously flood the market with indexes or socializations.
Public policy should therefore reassert its role to solve the social problem of knowledge distribution and use, by encouraging entrepreneurs to index and/or combine it in useful ways with other knowledge or people. As with copyright in its earlier incarnations, policy should not decide which method of socialization should become popular or succeed, but that anyone who wants to take a risk by investing in an socializing method should be able to try. Instead of attempting to shoe-horn 21st century problems into a 17th century paradigm, policy should recognise that the social value of knowledge production is not in exclusivity over the production or distribution of that information, but in its use.
To that end, socializers of information should be entitled to some protection to take earnings from the value they have added to knowledge and information (not "socialized information should be protected..." as with the current degraded model). A new (non-copyright) paradigm to gain social value from mobilizing big information would have the following characteristics.
1) Instead of barriers, there should be incentives to open or inter-link indexes of information. This is analogous to enabling lending libraries to assemble collections of items that provide additional value in aggregate.
2) Authors, publishers, and socializers of information should be incentivized to add context to published information, treating such meta-information not as works derivative of the works indexed, but as first-class original creative contributions.
3) The present monetary reward system for authoring and distributing information is based on traffic and referral, not on exclusive control over publication and derivative use. Protections for indexes should reward the most "open" socializing or indexing systems that would attract the largest number of hits, citations, referrals, or uses.
4) An index-right should recognize that information is not static. That is, the value added to knowledge by socializing it rests significantly in the socialized knowledge, and also in the methods and knowledge required to socialize it, and to supplement it with new knowledge and information as inevitably arises.
5) Elements of the current copyright system that generate social value through production of original knowledge information should be retained and enhanced, elements that inhibit generating social value should be phased out.
* in the sense interacting with others, not in the sense of collective ownership
Specific responses to prior offline comments:
- I agree that not all 'Free' software licensing schemes are equal. I provide no sympathy if your favourite scheme: protects the interests of the knowledge or its expression at the expense of broader social interests; relies on an artificial scarcity model; or claims to break the core of copyright but only tinkers at the edges. Reconsider why we have public policy in the first place.
- Copyright and index-right schemes would not be mutually exclusive. In fact, they add value to each other. The problem arises when one scheme is used with respect to activities of the other.
- I do not generally agree with tactics to constipate information flows "for the public good". Explicitly enabling anyone to flood the market with copyright-protected works has not co-occured with the publication and distribution of even a small fractino of copyright-protected works. Likewise, explicitly protecting the right of anyone to produce an index would not obviously flood the market with indexes or socializations.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
What societal problems do copyright solve today?
Copyright as a set of policies addressed two major concerns:
1) It encouraged the authorship of work by providing authors an exclusive right to earn an income on their works.
2) It encouraged the distribution of work by protecting publishers' investments in dead tree printing.
Such policies successfully resolved the social problem of inadequate dissemination of knowledge through methods of knowledge distribution. The policies did not stipulate which knowledge would become popular and pervade the culture of the people, nor did it enable authors or publishers to tax the people for using published works in their culture. Hymns and ballads and poems and all manner of national or religious or popular literature were performed and adapted and remixed in public both before and after copyright protections without compensation to their authors, and everyone seemed amenable. Scientific and philosophical texts were likewise freely recited lecturers and students and whomever else, providing great incentives to earn an industrial and social currency. With the exclusive right to earn income by authoring and distributing works of good quality, authors, and the people all profited from the expanding commons of information.
Concern 1 was based on the assumption that for authors to earn income, they required exclusivity to the rights to duplicate their works.
Concern 2 was based on the assumption that distribution of works requires producing tangible representations of the information they contain.
Since neither of those assumptions holds for some modern works--anyone can write and publish a blog at no financial cost to themselves*--and social benefits can clearly obtain even without the protections offered by copyright, why do we continue to expand the scope of copyright protections to new forms of work? Certainly, there should be considerations of moral rights of authors relating to attribution and the artistic, scientific, and creative integrity of their works, however such rights should not and cannot be primarily defined in terms of distribution, finances, or methods to ensure scarcity.
The primary purpose of public policy should be the advancement of public good in some way. So what societal problems do copyright solve today?
If the goal of entertainment publishers is to influence popular culture, what is the purpose of litigating against those who subsidize the distribution of works of entertainment? Further, how do they derive a legal right to collect perpetual royalties from the ephemeral popularization of items they've injected into popular culture?
If the goal of software publishers is to enhance the public's well-being through their expression of mathematical algorithms, how do the publishers derive a right to to determine for the public which uses are allowable? ("Free" [libre] software licensing schemes do not escape this criticism. If the rewards to authors are claimed to be primarily social through recognition, reputation of the authors should have more protection than the integrity of derivative versions of the works.)
The social role of at least some modern creative works bear little resemblance to the roles of works originally envisioned to be protected by copyright. Policy around such modern creative works should also reflect that modernity.
*this is a deception that I will address in a separate consideration.
1) It encouraged the authorship of work by providing authors an exclusive right to earn an income on their works.
2) It encouraged the distribution of work by protecting publishers' investments in dead tree printing.
Such policies successfully resolved the social problem of inadequate dissemination of knowledge through methods of knowledge distribution. The policies did not stipulate which knowledge would become popular and pervade the culture of the people, nor did it enable authors or publishers to tax the people for using published works in their culture. Hymns and ballads and poems and all manner of national or religious or popular literature were performed and adapted and remixed in public both before and after copyright protections without compensation to their authors, and everyone seemed amenable. Scientific and philosophical texts were likewise freely recited lecturers and students and whomever else, providing great incentives to earn an industrial and social currency. With the exclusive right to earn income by authoring and distributing works of good quality, authors, and the people all profited from the expanding commons of information.
Concern 1 was based on the assumption that for authors to earn income, they required exclusivity to the rights to duplicate their works.
Concern 2 was based on the assumption that distribution of works requires producing tangible representations of the information they contain.
Since neither of those assumptions holds for some modern works--anyone can write and publish a blog at no financial cost to themselves*--and social benefits can clearly obtain even without the protections offered by copyright, why do we continue to expand the scope of copyright protections to new forms of work? Certainly, there should be considerations of moral rights of authors relating to attribution and the artistic, scientific, and creative integrity of their works, however such rights should not and cannot be primarily defined in terms of distribution, finances, or methods to ensure scarcity.
The primary purpose of public policy should be the advancement of public good in some way. So what societal problems do copyright solve today?
If the goal of entertainment publishers is to influence popular culture, what is the purpose of litigating against those who subsidize the distribution of works of entertainment? Further, how do they derive a legal right to collect perpetual royalties from the ephemeral popularization of items they've injected into popular culture?
If the goal of software publishers is to enhance the public's well-being through their expression of mathematical algorithms, how do the publishers derive a right to to determine for the public which uses are allowable? ("Free" [libre] software licensing schemes do not escape this criticism. If the rewards to authors are claimed to be primarily social through recognition, reputation of the authors should have more protection than the integrity of derivative versions of the works.)
The social role of at least some modern creative works bear little resemblance to the roles of works originally envisioned to be protected by copyright. Policy around such modern creative works should also reflect that modernity.
*this is a deception that I will address in a separate consideration.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
No journalist awoke in the middle of the night to proclaim: "I want a service that puts more distance between me and my sources; that decides in weeks or months if and when I am able to use information from my sources; that centrally prevents me from contacting my local sources directly; and that answers to no one but itself." And yet, here we are.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Frames of dereference
Ugly hacks project elegance by alternative vantage. Science slices the center losing why for what. A universe's best avails, but not possible.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Probably quitting EA. Need compelling reasons to continue to invest time here vs. open social media which has real impact.
The prospect of an innovative and compelling end boss would do as well.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
"Do not trust venture investors who sit on golden chairs"
http://holyvc.com/2010/06/series-27-do-not-trust-venture-investors-who-sit-on-golden-chairs/
"As it turned out later, it was not INVESTORS at all but swindlers who needed the project of PROGRAMMERS to create illusion of activity in order to swindle out from private investors “money to fund of venture investment”."
http://holyvc.com/2010/06/series-27-do-not-trust-venture-investors-who-sit-on-golden-chairs/
"As it turned out later, it was not INVESTORS at all but swindlers who needed the project of PROGRAMMERS to create illusion of activity in order to swindle out from private investors “money to fund of venture investment”."
Could we please be more creative with the next generation fair/efficient/democratic/open-source government/economy/social system discussions with something other than "assume an Internet"?
Manufacturing plants and supply lines require massive concentration of energy and resources (howsoever enumerated), and equipment must conform to interoperability standards designed by the small percentage of the population competent to apply the requisite high math and engineering.
The carriers and operators, with regulation and price structures almost completely in their favour, are struggling to maintain infrastructure with only 25% of the population on-line. Extending and maintaining (without advancing) a ubiquitous infrastructure for an entire population would likely require as many resources as would otherwise solve the social, economic or other balances to be resolved by whatever new system of organization.
Manufacturing plants and supply lines require massive concentration of energy and resources (howsoever enumerated), and equipment must conform to interoperability standards designed by the small percentage of the population competent to apply the requisite high math and engineering.
The carriers and operators, with regulation and price structures almost completely in their favour, are struggling to maintain infrastructure with only 25% of the population on-line. Extending and maintaining (without advancing) a ubiquitous infrastructure for an entire population would likely require as many resources as would otherwise solve the social, economic or other balances to be resolved by whatever new system of organization.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Would someone please enlighten me as to the social or personal value they gain from playing EA?
As much fun as figuring out and abusing the game mechanics were, I don't see more than ten hours of gameplay here. Despite having interactive story elements and characters played almost entirely by real people, the game appears to have far less story depth than WoW or even Final Fantasy IV.
What would I get for grinding my way from lv 11 to lv 35 on EA as a reward that would be fundamentally different than from not continuing to play? Are there hidden quests or dungeons?
What would I get for grinding my way from lv 11 to lv 35 on EA as a reward that would be fundamentally different than from not continuing to play? Are there hidden quests or dungeons?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Money is not necessarily value
Why do we assume that economic and technological growth are natural and necessarily good for society? Almost every civilization in human history has eventually fallen due to resource pressures arising from unsustainable growth, yet we barrel ahead without having solved that fundamental issue.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
What is the sound of one trumpet blaring?
Strange that people would pay to complain about sounds from 10,000 miles away when a simple notch filter would suffice.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
I didn't realize that the Ptolemaic pattern was once again in vogue
Everything has a cause, and that cause can be expressed in C++, according to almost every AI book I can get my hands on. elaborating with baroque adornments does not and cannot fix the big issues arising from that fundamental assumption. Even economics figured out a way to deal with non-deterministic systems in the 17th century.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Is it just me, or does modern iterative modeling simply average out assumptions over large patched sets of pseudo-data?
The modern implementations remind me of the Youtube video which was uploaded, downloaded, and reuploaded 1000 times. The final result bears more similarity to any other source video undergoing the same process than the source video actually used, and that the final outcome is predictable from applying the most aggressive information-minimizing settings to the sampling function a handful of times: http://gizmodo.com/5555359/the-weirdness-of-a-youtube-video-re+uploaded-1000-times
What am I missing?
The modern implementations remind me of the Youtube video which was uploaded, downloaded, and reuploaded 1000 times. The final result bears more similarity to any other source video undergoing the same process than the source video actually used, and that the final outcome is predictable from applying the most aggressive information-minimizing settings to the sampling function a handful of times: http://gizmodo.com/5555359/the-weirdness-of-a-youtube-video-re+uploaded-1000-times
What am I missing?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)