and i thought trance was hitting MY que hard with the downvotes.
jesus christ trance,what newt do to piss in your wheaties?

i usually dont care why somebody downvotes.its their business and i rarely care enough to inquire why.
thats not quite true..i WILL ask,but only from someone i feel i have a fairly good understanding of and if i truly dont understand the downvote.

but systematic downvoting?
seems to be a pattern based on an emotional response reflex.maybe we should ask a social scientist the implications.

oh,
and *promote the crowd-sourcing!

I'm not sure he answered the question, or at least that wasn't his focus... rather than explain why privacy matters, he stressed that we 'like' privacy. Don't get me wrong, I like it too, and I don't see that there are any overarching security or economic concerns that consistently outweigh my liking it, but it would be interesting to hear if there are arguments that more directly address why privacy matters.

As far as I could tell, he had three overarching points:

1. Privacy is culturally and psychologically valuable to us, and we suffer if we feel that this private sphere is taken away from us. This is fine, but it doesn't really tell me why privacy 'matters', just that it's an artifact of our current civilization and culture. A similar argument could be made for religion, which I don't think is a necessary but certainly a very common phenomenon.

2. Privacy allows for dissent against tyranny and corruption to grow. This, to me, seems a little fallacious - in a system of asymmetrical privacy, where your government has more privacy than you, this might be true, but in a system of very high transparency on all sides it would be very possible to effectively express and build a dissenting voice. It seems dissent is possible in both very private and very open societies, but not in societies where privacy is only granted to the state.

3. Privacy is needed for creativity and unique expressions of talent. This might be true on an individual level (though it might also be a case of overlapping with #1) but transparency and openness are also facilitators of collective creativity. It might be that we need a private creative space for traditional acts of genius, but who's to say that we can't supersede this with crowd-sourced creativity in the future?

I'm not arguing in favor of any measures to take away privacy, but it would be interesting to see some more rigorous arguments for the need for privacy. Looking at what Snowden did, for example, we see that his actions might contribute to increased privacy in the long term, but in the short term he actually removed privacy (from the government) and made the equation a little more balanced in that sense.

I just watched the full movie. It was amazing (in a so-bad-its-good purposeful way).
SPOILERS!
I don't think the other Robocop remake has a scene where he's shooting 15 dicks off... choreographed dance murder sequence was bravo as well. Then the obligatory "80's coke party" with cocaine and boobs. And at least 2 references to That 70's Show, cause the bad guy is the dad.

Just organizing 55 different film crews is a crowd-sourcing accomplishment.

*promote

Indeed, the inescapable irony.


These tactics are time-honored, cameras and tech simply gives them new tools:
These thugs still use covert operations, undercover agents, and perlustration (now made simple with facebook/twitter/etc) and agent provocateurs.

How 'bout we all call this techy cunt being used by these other cunts and let him know how much safer the world is for the assholes in charge now that Billy is working for the secret police??.....MEH!-"Crowd-sourced policing": A euphemism for creating a police state, one-citizen-at-a-time.


Email:
James@kingston.ac.uk

Phone:
+44 (0) 208 417 2858

Location:
PRSB113

Seriously, one of those guys looked like he was just passing by and stopped to help. Crowd-sourced construction!

I would have preferred it without the overly maudlin / cloying music, and that particular style of voice acting, but amazing work none the less. The crowd sourced animation is really affecting - you don't have time to get used to one style of representing / adding subtext to the story before the next one kicks in, and catches you unexpectedly.

Because they don't "come" from reddit. Reddit essentially does the same thing videosift does. What I've gathered from this site (Videosift) is that it's supposed to bring in the best, most fresh, and even obscure videos from all corners of the internet using its members for crowd-sourcing. Going to another crowd-sourced content aggregate site is kind of just making this one a duplicate of the other. Which is fine I guess, but I wanted to know how people felt about that.

Essentially videosift is *dupeof=http://www.reddit.com/r/videos>> ^critical_d:

I am not sure I understand why it matters where the videos come from?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'backups, app, crowd sourcing, 4G, 5G, 6G, all the Gs' to 'backups, app, crowd sourcing, 4G, 5G, 6G, all the Gs, onn' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^luxury_pie:

The music is the Star Wars Theme I guess?


They use most of the music and a lot of the sounds of Star Wars. So this totally isn't SOPA approved...and with it's timing and execution I don't think it could've gone any better. Hard to watch at times it really just reminds me about how much I love Star Wars.

Your video, Crowd Sourced Star Wars Remake: Star Wars Uncut, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

i did.;)>> ^ant:

Who watched the whole thing?

As the great philosopher Janet Jackson once reminded us, this is about Control.

All I'll add to the perceptive comments and breakdowns above is that platform control is still important. People will say that the net offers different options but apparently music acts still want to be signed and promoted. Is there more money that way in the long term? The amount of artists for whom this didn't work out suggests to me there's got to be an alternative.

Alternatives to itunes, Xbox Live, Netflix, every app store out there and who knows what else.

It's strange the more you consider when so much software is open-source, there's crowd-sourcing, all kinds of online collectives etc, that there isn't a alternative distribution hub for artists of all kinds whose work can be digitised. A place where artists and consumers get a fair deal and individuals like Louis CK don't have to set up their own infrastructure.

I don't know, maybe I'm being terribly naive but my gut feeling says there is an opportunity here. Or maybe these things exist and haven't done very well against the prevailing orthodoxy.

It's been said already, but I'll say it again. 'Free market' doesn't apply here. They didn't just release their data and ask someone else to do it for them. FoldIt is a crowd-sourced protein-folder. It's a fancy version of the programs that spammers use to crack CAPTCHAs: you farm the problem that's difficult for a computer to do out to human labor. This is no different from the researchers hiring computer time at Amazon or releasing an @Home distributed computing program to get more computer time. The only novel thing here, that makes for a good headline, is that it's in the shape of a video game on the labor's end.

That's what it was the last time I played FoldIt, anyway. Is there something different here?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^dag:
I'd say two for a pardon - should not happen regularly.>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^lucky760:
Instead of getting banned, perhaps the offending user could be put into "Mute" mode where they aren't allowed to comment temporarily (1 week?).
And we can have a page available to our highly prized Crown members that lists all Muted members with their offending comment, so if a few (10?) decide their Mute was undeserved, they can be un-muted.
Thoughts?

I like this, especially the part where crowns get the power to pardon, though I tentatively say it should only take 1 of us to unmute.
If we have problems with anarchist crowns unmuting everyone (cough @blankfist cough), then we can just lop off his head and sift the video of it.
Or put a cap on how often you can pardon people...
Checks & balances, and all that.


I also think people who've been sent to the Mutebox should still have a place they can go to plead their case to the (royal?) court.
I still say we need a more explicitly written standard of conduct though. Without one, people are always going to make the argument that they're not being punished because they did something wrong, but because they're being oppressed by a clique who doesn't like them personally (or wants to silence their dissenting opinion, or some other form of persecution).
It also helps you (or whoever ends up having to make these decisions) keep yourself honest. It forces you to think about the standard of conduct in abstract, impersonal terms, before an actual incident gets your emotions involved. Then when an incident does happen, you can just focus on determining objective facts of the case, and then hold them up to the ready-made objective standard.
Then finally, when they inevitably accuse you of having wielded your power in a capricious or abusive way anyways, you can point to the law and say "no I didn't, pigfucker!"
And since writing this code probably sounds too much like work to write, you could always crowd source it...

After spending a decade and a half deeply involved in online communities, both as a member and as staff, I feel compelled to point out that explicit standards of conduct aren't really much help. The vast majority of people already understand what's "over the line", and making an explicit list of "forbidden" words and actions works mostly as fodder for the rules lawyers ("I didn't say fag, I said fhag, so you can't ban me!"). And people who cross the lines of common decency are -still- going to claim that they're only in trouble because the powers that be don't like them.


I'm personally fine with guidelines just as we already have...they're clear enough that anyone who cares can understand. However, I'm not a fan of the semi-anonymous, pseudo-automated "X votes means a ban" style of systems. I prefer to rely on the judgement of a known person or small group of persons. Dag and Lucky stand as a pretty convincing example for that approach, but if they want to take a break from the stress, I'd really rather we pick two or three new "monitors" to take over the task. How they're picked I don't much care...let Dag and Lucky pick people with calm tempers, let everyone vote on it, whatever. The goal is to get people who care about the site, and who will at least -try- to reach dispassionate answers.

Then Dag and Lucky could spend a smaller, less stressful amount of time just keeping an eye on the monitors (because nobody I can think of is going to have as much incentive to keep things running well as they do).

>> ^dag:

I'd say two for a pardon - should not happen regularly.>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^lucky760:
Instead of getting banned, perhaps the offending user could be put into "Mute" mode where they aren't allowed to comment temporarily (1 week?).
And we can have a page available to our highly prized Crown members that lists all Muted members with their offending comment, so if a few (10?) decide their Mute was undeserved, they can be un-muted.
Thoughts?

I like this, especially the part where crowns get the power to pardon, though I tentatively say it should only take 1 of us to unmute.
If we have problems with anarchist crowns unmuting everyone (cough @blankfist cough), then we can just lop off his head and sift the video of it.
Or put a cap on how often you can pardon people...
Checks & balances, and all that.



I also think people who've been sent to the Mutebox should still have a place they can go to plead their case to the (royal?) court.

I still say we need a more explicitly written standard of conduct though. Without one, people are always going to make the argument that they're not being punished because they did something wrong, but because they're being oppressed by a clique who doesn't like them personally (or wants to silence their dissenting opinion, or some other form of persecution).

It also helps you (or whoever ends up having to make these decisions) keep yourself honest. It forces you to think about the standard of conduct in abstract, impersonal terms, before an actual incident gets your emotions involved. Then when an incident does happen, you can just focus on determining objective facts of the case, and then hold them up to the ready-made objective standard.

Then finally, when they inevitably accuse you of having wielded your power in a capricious or abusive way anyways, you can point to the law and say "no I didn't, pigfucker!"

And since writing this code probably sounds too much like work to write, you could always crowd source it...