231–240 of 401 posts
We took exactly what you said under "9. Photo/video sharing services" and put our own spin on photo/slideshow sharing. Presentation is key to us. We wanted people to be able to build clean, but custom, slideshows. Make a slideshow's presentation appeal to the users emotions on level apart from the photos themselves. We've still got a long way to go, but the response has been overwhelmingly positive so far. http://www…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give you one idea about the design and how it would treat people like you within it, (I notice that your kama on HN (jerry5) is -10) The creatocracy recognizes that one size does not fit all, treats all according to their history and respect. You would find that your voice counted less with regards voting rights and you may well find that if your attitude became a burden on others that your tax level would rise hi…
The karma system is a popularity contest as discussed in the various Hacker-News-is-going-down-the-drain discussions that have been popping up here a lot as of late. To any one who grew up with /. that's not a surprise. In that respect I found kuro5hin quite interesting in, as it seperates out how many people voted the post/comment up or down. I wrote posts that had a lot of people agree (5 points) and a lot disagree…
And from what little you have said I get the distinct impression that you would be all up for the creatocracy when you realized that you would not be lumped in with everyone else and your voice was counted according to the merits of your history as well as your arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You raise a valid point. Implementation counts for a lot, as it does in everything, I suggested the data be anonymized. So, the govt. knows how many people have downloaded something, but not who. If that is being abused or music is being censored, I'm obviously not in favor of that. My argument for why nothing should be excluded or censored, is that it isn't presently censored, and since fans of every type of music a…
Anonymized, sure. But of course, they need a back door to track child pornography and terrorists. Both McCain and Obama seem to agree that spying is awesome. And I understand you promote doing this in a content neutral way. Perhaps it will be content neutral at first. Then Bill O'Reilly (a popular Fox pundit) or Oprah play "objectionable" songs, and point out (correctly) to their viewers that their taxes are paying f…
Anyway, it wouldn't really be "their" tax dollars paying for the music you like, any more than it would be your tax dollars paying for their Christian music (remember, there's no discrimination in what's purchased). Faced with also having their free Christian music taken away, I'm pretty sure they'll ease up in their opposition. It's better to think of it as your tax dollars paying for the music you like, their tax dollars paying for the stuff they like.
I hope that if ever a law like this were to be passed, you would continue to be concerned. But, I gotta say I always find it annoying when people criticize what might otherwise be a wonderful idea, by arguing that some people might be stupid about it, so we shouldn't do it. It's time to stop being so afraid of stupid people.
Government pays for and administers roads, the military, the justice system, and a host of other things that are much more abusable than our entertainment. They don't completely mess up all those other things, and I don't think it's likely to go badly when it comes to music. Given that the worst thing the government could do would be to not pay for certain things, meaning the artists would have to sell the music just like before, that's not exactly devastating.
An idea for new news: Start with the reddit concept: users submit and vote on links to articles, blog posts and so forth. Then, allow users to tag each link (or otherwise add metadata), and vote on the relevence of the story to the tag. Also allow users to vote on the trustworthiness of each link and/or each source or author. Could also allow users to vote on other users, to get networks of trust. Then you just take…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every idea worth having has been had thousands of times already. Even if this were true (which seems extremely unlikely) someone had to think of it first. So there would have been a point when it was possible to have new ideas. How can you be sure the present is not such a point, when we know there were such points in the past?
No, I think you're misunderstanding my statement. I did not say that people do not have new ideas. That is a blatantly ridiculous statement. I said that worthy ideas have already been had. My argument comes from looking at literary and philosophical ideas, and my comment was a jest in response to another jest, but there's truth in it. There's a persistent quest for originality in literature, and after some years of c…
Arriving at this feeling is an unmistakable symptom of being physiologically incapable of creativity. My condolences. On the plus side, most of humanity is in the same boat as you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymized, sure. But of course, they need a back door to track child pornography and terrorists. Both McCain and Obama seem to agree that spying is awesome. And I understand you promote doing this in a content neutral way. Perhaps it will be content neutral at first. Then Bill O'Reilly (a popular Fox pundit) or Oprah play "objectionable" songs, and point out (correctly) to their viewers that their taxes are paying f…
I really appreciate your concern, and I'm with you on the anti-censorship bandwagon. But, widespread censorship is not popular with a majority of the public- if it were, it would have already been done. They can't even make pornography illegal. The O'Reilly's of the world could just as easily argue, "Our copyright laws make it possible for them to make money. Kill their copyrights!!!". But lately, the most they've ev…
AT&T has assisted the government in illegally spying on you. Barack Obama did what George Bush asked him to do: he voted to give them immunity for their crimes. Is that "Change we can believe in"?
Weird. The problem we're tackling at Pikluk is exactly what #2 is about, yet we weren't even invited for an interview in 07 cycle. Something tells me we should have polished our application more.
I agree, what I offered up hit several points on the list. I think it more comes down to who you are. Like the people behind YouOS.com ( http://www.youos.com/html/static/team.html ) are from MIT, CalTech, Stanford. I can't compete with that, only they gave up and I haven't.
It isn't hard to compete with pompous twits riding on pure cached prestige, when competing on merit. Though I understand that the YC application process may not be entirely merit-based.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really appreciate your concern, and I'm with you on the anti-censorship bandwagon. But, widespread censorship is not popular with a majority of the public- if it were, it would have already been done. They can't even make pornography illegal. The O'Reilly's of the world could just as easily argue, "Our copyright laws make it possible for them to make money. Kill their copyrights!!!". But lately, the most they've ev…
Widespread censorship is already here. One example: the following (completely truthful) ad is illegal 29 days before an election: AT&T has assisted the government in illegally spying on you. Barack Obama did what George Bush asked him to do: he voted to give them immunity for their crimes. Is that "Change we can believe in"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
To address your comment somehow- the law you cite is probably unconstitutional. It was struck down by the Supreme Court once before, before being modified and passed again. I doubt the present form is constitutional, since it obviously does restrict speech.
Ironically, you, me, and the far right are the ones who most agree the law is bad :). Conservatives hate that law much more than do liberals. The conservatives' argument is "money is speech".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I wished people again found their natural ability to create trust relationships, from scratch." I completely agree with this. I don't honestly feel people of good faith need to deal with complicated rules or institutions. But not everyone is willing to go that route, so this is an idea which might serve the other 99%. First off, it might be the case that anyone could be worth investing in (in time, money, energy, ex…
> I completely agree with this. I don't honestly feel people of good faith need to deal with complicated rules or institutions. But not everyone is willing to go that route, so this is an idea which might serve the other 99%. I sometimes wonder whether it isn't that 1% that carries the weight of society. And the Internet lowers the barrier to creating new trust relationships from scratch. If you were interested in th…