Author Topic: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju  (Read 24760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ghoul

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 33.201
    • The Cult of Ghoul
Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« on: 15-01-2010, 21:58:17 »
Uprkos brigama o štetnim uticajima digitalnog doba na razvoj mozga, "surfovanje" Internetom pomaže povećanju IQ-a, tvrde naučnici.

Istraživači sa Fakulteta "California" u Los Anđelesu uporedili su mozgove osoba koje retko koriste Internet i iskusnih korisnika dok su pretraživali web. Posle pet dana, područja frontalnog korteksa, koji kontroliše sposobnost odlučivanja i integraciju kompleksnih informacija se značajno aktivirao.

- Reč je o području koje je na početku eksperimenta bilo poprilično neaktivno kod osoba koje se ne služe toliko Internetom, ali posle pet dana se aktiviralo kao i kod redovnih korisnika - objasnio je Geri Smal, profesor koji je vodio navedenu studiju dodavši kako to ukazuje na to da se funkcije mozga mogu menjati čak i poboljšati upotrebom Interneta i to poprilično brzo.

- Ovo pokazuje kako se prosečni IQ povećava sa napretkom digitalne kulture. Unapređuje se i sposobnost procesuiranja informacija, dok se greške tipične za obavljanje više zadataka odjednom smanjuju - dodaje Smal.

Čak i dosadne aktivnosti kao sortiranje e-mailova, može da podstakne sposobnost donošenja odluka.

Selektivno čišćenje e-mailova na dnevnoj bazi može da pomogne u razvijanju sposobnosti da se lakše i brže prolazi kroz velike količine informacija i odluči šta je važno a šta ne - kaže profesor Smal i dodaje da nam to pomaže da se lakše nosimo sa ogromnom količinom informacija koje se pojavljuju i nestaju na našem mentalnom ekranu iz trenutka u trenutak.

Međutim, postoji i loša strana priče. Preduga upotreba računara ima duboko dejstvo na način na koji razmišljamo, osećamo i ponašamo se.

- Iako Internet unapređuje procesuiranje informacija i ubrzava sposobnost donošenja odluka, preterana upotreba može da ošteti neke naše druge veštine. S vremenom, naime, se smanjuje sposobnost povezivanja sa ljudima i dolazi do pada zadržavanja pažnje - upozorava Smal i preporučuje da ukoliko celi dan osoba radi za računarom, posle posla treba što je više moguće da se druži sa ljudima.


(Preuzeto sa sajta Lepota i zdravlje - 08. 01. 2010.)
11.01.2010

ridiculus

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.934
    • Strahoslovni domen999
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #1 on: 15-01-2010, 23:16:02 »
Znači, opet se "naučnici" busaju u prsa misleći da su prvi otkrili toplu vodu. Ne, pardon, sad su je "dokazali". Ono ranije je bila čista intuicija - nešto na nivou religije...

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

(Ta teorija je već dokazana pre gotovo 30 godina, nevezano za internet, istina, ali potrebna je minimalna moć zaključivanja, odnosno ono što Boban zove piščevom inteligencijom, da bi se povukla analogija - "pojačava percepciju (pronalaženje bitnih elemenata), ali smanjuje disciplinu".)
"Reference to the artist's 'intentions' is usually a sign that the commentator has lost touch with the essentials of the poetic work."
G. Wilson Knight, The Wheel of Fire

lilit

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 11.014
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #2 on: 18-07-2012, 00:00:50 »
hhaha, prigodan topik imajući u vidu nekoliko poslednjih dana. gul uvek ide ispred svog vremena!!!
That’s how it is with people. Nobody cares how it works as long as it works.

Josephine

  • Guest
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #3 on: 18-07-2012, 00:24:56 »
Quote
"surfovanje" Internetom pomaže povećanju IQ-a, tvrde naučnici.

Ne i kod Džona.

Джон Рейнольдс

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.507
  • @
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #4 on: 18-07-2012, 00:37:02 »
Мислим да је код мене други проблем. Живим не претерано бурним животом средовечног мушкарца из средње класе. Уме то да... успори човека.

Рачунам да чергарење по Београду, без икакве перспективе, и паразитирање као једини начин за пуко преживљавање захтева веће напрезање можданих вијуга. Не да ће то донети богзна какве резултате, говорим чисто о напрезању.
America can't protect you, Allah can't protect you… And the KGB is everywhere.

#Τζούτσε

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #5 on: 18-07-2012, 00:40:05 »
Jao, što nisam neka vlast, pa sve bih vas obrisao!

Lilit, šta je to bitno u vezi sa poslednjim danima?

Josephine

  • Guest
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #6 on: 18-07-2012, 00:50:14 »
Ne budi smešan. Niti si ti srednja klasa ( xyxy ), niti sam ja parazit. Još plaćam i porez za nezaposlene.

A i kolo sreće se okreće. Gore-dole, gore-dole. Pogotovo kada pojma nemaš o čemu pričaš, a još i mrziš pride. I imaš potrebu da ističeš "srednju klasu".  xrofl Sva je verovatnoća da si najobičniji golja. :lol:

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #7 on: 18-07-2012, 02:49:45 »

Posle pet dana, područja frontalnog korteksa, koji kontroliše sposobnost odlučivanja i integraciju kompleksnih informacija se značajno aktivirao.

moguće, ali to je samo jedan aspekat inteligencije, pogotovo što

Quote
smanjuje sposobnost povezivanja sa ljudima i dolazi do pada zadržavanja pažnje

ovo i nije baš naročito inteligentno, plus mi nije jasno kako neko integriše kompleksne informacije a nije sposoban da zadrži pažnju, zvuči kao balerina kojoj odsijeku prste pred premijeru.




Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #8 on: 31-08-2012, 10:04:47 »
Upotreba Interneta možda povećava inteligenciju ali se to ne da primetiti od silne gluposti na istome. Kejs in point: Bitcoin je izmišljen da se zaobiđu države i banke u finansijskim transakcijama, ali to ne znači da je imun na piramidalne šeme:
 
 Suspected multi-million dollar Bitcoin pyramid scheme shuts down, investors revolt 
Quote

Remember pirateat40, the e-currency banker we speculated could be the Bernie Madoff of Bitcoin? Well, it looks like he owes a lot of people money. On August 17, pirateat40 announced the closure of Bitcoin Savings & Trust, a virtual hedge fund that promised to pay high rewards to investors who parked their Bitcoins there. Ten days later, investors are still waiting to get paid and pirateat40 is on the defensive. "When I know, you will," says his away message in the fund's official chat room, an effort to quiet the loudening chorus of, "WHERE ARE MY BITCOINS?"
Pirateat40 consistently maintained that he made his money legitimately through secret investment strategies. The announcement that BS&T was shutting down was similarly vague and obtuse:
 
The decision was based on the general size and overall time required to manage the transactions. As the fund grew there were larger and larger coin movements which put strain on my reserve accounts and ultimately caused delays on withdraws and the inability to fund orders within my system. On the 14th I made a final attempt to relieve pressure off the system by reducing the rates I offered for deposits. In a perfect world this would allow me to hold more coins in reserve outside the system, but instead it only exponentially increased the amount of withdrawals overnight causing mass panic from many of my lenders.
He claimed that BS&T was sitting on 500,000 BTC on the day of the shutdown, worth more than $5.6 million USD at today's price of $11.38. "Once my process is released you'll understand more of how coins move around," he told members of the Bitcoin community last week.
Pirateat40 initially promised to refund his investors' Bitcoin deposits plus interest within a week, effectively admitting that he did not have the Bitcoins on hand. The fund normally paid out on Mondays, but last Monday and today have passed so far without refunds. BS&T investors are complaining loudly and so-called "pass-through" funds that invested with BS&T are shutting down. As of this writing, BS&T says there is "no ETA on payments."
BS&T claimed to be sitting on 500,000 Bitcoins when it shut down, worth more than $5.6 million USD today

Some investors are still keeping the faith, imagining various scenarios under which they might see their Bitcoins again. Others have started hunting for pirateat40, who is believed to be based in Texas. Others are sure that the jig is up. "It's game over, just a question of who wants to believe it yet," Bryan Micon, a poker player and early pirateat40 skeptic, said in an email. "He has been paying interest since late 2011, albeit a helluvalot more recently... it looks like he doubled the size of the scam from April until it went boom."
Pirateat40 and BS&T had been promising interest payments of up to seven percent a week, a rate that would nearly double one's total investment in just 10 weeks. The promises of such hefty profits attracted scores of investors, but the claims struck some as too good to be true. It was speculated that the fund, one of several "high yield investment programs" to pop up in recent months, was a pyramid scheme that used new deposits to pay off its previous investors. One detractor made several bets that BS&T would implode, including a 5,000 BTC wager with pirateat40 himself.
If pirateat40 fails to pay his debts, it certainly won't be the first time an elaborate scheme cost Bitcoin users real money. The community that has sprung up around the decentralized currency still lacks an effective way to deal with crime. However, there is a lawsuit pending in California that aims to take some Bitcoin bankers to task for lost deposits.
 

Dafina dvadeset prvog veka!!!

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #9 on: 29-09-2012, 08:32:16 »
Međutim! Hipoteza: sad kad ljudi imaju smartfounove da nekakvom intelektualnom stimulacijom popune svaki trenutak u danu, više nemaju momente za refleksiju, introspekciju itd.
 
Have smartphones killed boredom (and is that good)?
 
Quote

(CNN) -- Take a look around today at people in line at Starbucks, on the train platform or waiting for their bags at the airport.
 
Odds are, a huge chunk of them are staring down into a glowing mobile device -- passing time by checking on friends, catching up on texts or e-mail or playing a video game that would have required a PC or home console just a few years ago.
 
"That's me," said Jeromie Williams, a 36-year-old social media manager and blogger from Montreal. "If I'm on the bus. If I'm waiting in line somewhere ... .
 
"The other day I was at a restaurant with a friend. He got up two times -- once to smoke a cigarette and once to go to the bathroom. As soon as his ass was off the seat, 'Boom!' iPhone in hand."
 
Opinion: Going a day without my cell phone
 
Thanks to technology, there's been a recent sea change in how people today kill time. Those dog-eared magazines in your doctor's office are going unread. Your fellow customers in line at the deli counter are being ignored. And simply gazing around at one's surroundings? Forget about it.
      Watch this video  Staying connected without a cell phone 
Between smartphones, tablets and e-readers, we're becoming a society that's ready to kill even a few seconds of boredom with a tap on a touchscreen.
 
Smartphone ownership in the United States, and elsewhere, hit a tipping point in 2012. More people now own a smartphone in the United States -- 45% of adults -- than own a traditional cellphone, according to a survey from the Pew Internet & American Life project.
 
And 42% of all mobile phone users say they expressly use their phone for entertainment when they're bored. (Presumably, non-entertainment uses like texting and e-mail would jack that number up even higher).
 
"I do everything with my phone," said Alexandra Reed, 39, a self-employed single mom from Charlotte, North Carolina.
 
"I have five e-mail accounts for different things. I have two phones, one for business and one personal. I use apps -- Mapquest, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Google Plus, CNN, ESPN ... ."
 
Is it a boredom killer? Absolutely, she said.
 
"Even when I'm driving, I might have Facebook open," she said. "At a red light the first thing I (do is) just look at my phone. I get a little anxious if I see a notification and don't read it."
 
Researchers say this all makes sense. Fiddling with our phones, they say, addresses a basic human need to cure boredom by any means necessary.
 
Five user complaints about iPhone 5
 
Christopher Lynn, an anthropology professor at the University of Alabama, compares tapping at smartphones to smoking a cigarette. Both can be "pivots," he says -- things that quickly transfer us from the monotony of everyday life into a world of "unscheduled play."
 
"Smartphones are like cigarettes are like junk food are like chewing your nails or doodling ...," Lynn wrote in a May essay for the Evolutionary Studies Consortium. "Does the naked space of your own mind and the world around you send you screaming into oblivion when you walk across campus, across a street even? Pull out your smartphone and check your email again -- that car will swerve around you."
 
With their games, music, videos, social media and texting, smartphones "superstimulate" a desire humans have to play when things get dull, Lynn told CNN in an interview. And he believes that modern society may be making that desire even stronger.
 
"When you're habituated to constant stimulation, when you lack it, you sort of don't know what to do with yourself ...," he said. "When we aren't used to having down time, it results in anxiety. 'Oh my god, I should be doing something.' And we reach for the smartphone. It's our omnipresent relief from that."
 
So, our phones are brutally efficient at addressing an ancient desire. But is that always a good thing?
 
At Oxford, England's Social Issues Research Centre, researchers fear it is not. In their view, by filling almost every second of down time by peering at our phones we are missing out on the creative and potentially rewarding ways we've dealt with boredom in days past.
 
"Informational overload from all quarters means that there can often be very little time for personal thought, reflection, or even just 'zoning out,' " researchers there wrote. "With a mobile (phone) that is constantly switched on and a plethora of entertainments available to distract the naked eye, it is understandable that some people find it difficult to actually get bored in that particular fidgety, introspective kind of way."
 
Williams, the Montreal blogger, admits as much.
 
"One thing that unfortunately I do miss out on is that sort of quiet time where I can think about something I want to write ... where, if I'm bored, I'm flipping open Word and punching something out," he said. "Instead, out comes 'Infinity Blade II' and I'm killing titans.
 
"Before smartphones came out, you had that down time where you sit on the bus and your mind just kind of wanders and you think of these amazing things. You get out that old thing called pen and paper and you jot it down."
 
Watch: Dramatic iPhone 5 arrival
 
But Joel Marx, a 25-year-old research assistant in Baltimore, Maryland, disagrees. Marx juggles two jobs and sees his phone as a way to be productive, and keep up with the news, during gaps in his hectic workdays. He relies on it for fun, but also for research and scheduling.
 
"I feel like it gives me a break from what's at hand," he said. "I even find it helps to keep me going through the day as I can get in touch with things in the outside world. Most of the time, I would have done nothing during those times anyhow."
 
Reed, the Charlotte mom, admits her phone use sometimes distracts her from work or even watching a movie. But compared to other time-killers, she thinks the phone is a good option.
 
"I actually feel more productive reading things online and on social media like Twitter and Facebook than if I was just sitting and watching a TV show," she said. "I follow people who are mostly sports and news anchors, people like that -- interesting people I know I can learn something from."
 

I još malo na tu temu, ovaj antropolog je citiran u članku:

Pivoting around Smartphones & Cigarettes: Evolved to Play in Extra-structural Interludes
 
Quote

Smartphones are like cigarettes are like junk food are like chewing your nails or doodling.  Right.  What do they have in common?  Easy.  Things we do when we’re bored.  Bored in my class?  Doodle.  There were some amazing Jurassic landscapes drawn on quizzes in my “Evolution for Everyone” class last semester.  Can’t sit idly waiting for the red light?  Chew your fingernails until the edges bleed.  Commercials got you down?  Good you keep a bag of chips handy & a bowl full of M&Ms.  Is our conversation too much of me talking & not enough about you?  Step outside & have a smoke break in the monotony of our friendship.  Does the naked space of your own mind & the world around you send you screaming into oblivion when you walk across campus, across a street even?  Pull out your smartphone & check your email again–that car will swerve around you.
I am being facetious…& of course I am not.  All these little things we compulsively do when it would be nice if we were paying attention are annoying when you’re on the other end of them, but this isn’t one of those preachy what-has-the-world-come-to those kids with their smartphone-doo-hickies I-remember-when-we-thought-a-rotary-dial-was-newfangled rants. ( I am currently desperately seeking to upgrade to an iPhone myself.)  No, no, I’m far more interested in how smartphones “superstimulate” our evolved compulsion to “play” at all the “extrastructural” interludes of our lives — i.e., when we’re “bored.”  I love the concept of cultural  structures or objects superstimulating our cognitive architecture because it simultaneously stimulates a variety of mechanisms that evolved for other purposes.  Pascal Boyer uses this concept to outline the by-product model of religion (read a 2008 summary article in Nature here).  I think many successful memes are so because they simultaneously please us in so  many ways.  Television superstimulates us, as do computers (with high-speed internet), & now smartphones.   Smartphones do so by both serving as a fantastic “prop” (Walton 1990) or “pivot” (Vygosky 1978(2007:5)It is in response to such unstructured time that unscheduled play enters the picture in “improvisational forms” (2007:6).  Play typically involves some rules, particularly in the case of certain games, & thus extrastructural situations are not wholly without structures, as play imposes structure on the interstitial space “to substitute for that which is missing” (2007:6).
I began riffing on this halfway thru this past semester when (1) either the smartphone texting came to a critical mass in the midst of my lecturing or (2) I started to take more notice & umbrage.  Maybe it’s because I’ve been growing the course, maybe it’s attracting a less interested general audience, maybe it’s me…No, no, it’s the “Anthropology of Sex.”  It’s hard to kill the interest in that class.  I have my days, but not EVERY day…I had brought up Peter Stromberg’s 2007 Culture, Medicine, & Psychiatry article with Mark & Mimi Nichter, “Taking Play Seriously: Low-Level Smoking among College Students,” in an Honors seminar I teach called “Primate Religion & Human Consciousness,” made a smartphone connection, & then noticed them popping up like so many Bics being flicked at  a golden oldies reunion concert.  ”Youth live in an age of increasing time compression, greater opportunities for arousal and diminishing tolerance for boredom, and the proliferation of products that promise instant gratification (Starace 2002),” the authors point out (2007:7).  As I say, I have resisted the “these young people today” sentiments, but perhaps there is something to it.  Stromberg, who has written the book Caught in Play: How Entertainment Works on You & writes a blog for Psychology Today called ”Sex, Drugs, & Boredom,” draws on the evolution of play literature to frame young adult cigarette smoking behavior as “play,” & I find myself quite taken with this idea.
Developmentally, play is how we build & test social contingencies or “scenario-build,” as Richard Alexander laid out in his seminal article “Evolution of the Human Psyche.”  Playing is how we superficially test scenarios & test the boundaries of safety, both in social relationships & reality.  So I pose the question, what do you like to play?  Would anyone say, “I like to play with smoking cigarettes”?  What is the difference between saying, “I like to play knife- & ax-throwing” (which I had just done at a Renaissance Faire-type event) & “I like to play cigarette smoking”?  Both are adult forms of boundary-pushing, safe in moderation & controlled settings but potentially dangerous.  Both can make a person look cool if done right or a ridiculous caricature if not.  And then if I’m a knife-thrower, when I’m not throwing my knives, what do I do with them?  I may try to keep them safely in my…(what? pants pocket?)…er, I may find myself picking my teeth with them, cleaning my nails, even while I talk to you.   Thru obtaining some mastery of them, they now become my props with which I pivot around social space.
What person lights his or her first cigarette saying, “I want to be a smoking addict & be compelled to smoke a pack or more a day despite the unpleasant breath, reduced senses of taste & smell, lingering odor, frequent sore throat, & higher risk for all forms of cancer & emphysema”?  But, in this day & age, who doesn’t know it comes with a risk when they first inhale?  The same is true of alcohol, drugs, sky-diving, driving fast cars — hell, playing football (sorta big in my neck of the woods)!  These are all obvious, intuitive.  Yes, we play football — “play” is in the very way it is expressed.  We don’t say, “I’m going footballing” (well, not in the U.S., at any rate).  You get my meaning.  So what is qualitatively different about smoking?  As Stromberg points out, not much.  We start off smoking even though we know it’s bad for us, because, well, probably there are a lot of reasons.  Smoking is, Stromberg & his colleagues point out, “socially engineered (advertised) to be an antidote for boredom (Mark Nichter 2003)” (2007:7).
I smoked because it looked cool.  I still think some people simply look cool holding & smoking a cigarette, & I thought I was one of them.  I stopped but not because I wanted to.  It just wasn’t worth it anymore.  Same with drugs.  Few people smoke a first joint & say, ”I want to die a drug addict.”  As the authors say, “both drinking and smoking served to structure the unstructured situation of the party through routines of consumption” (Stromberg, Nichter, & Nichter 2007: 8) .  I wanted to know what I was missing, how to be social like those people, how to feel light like they looked, how to feel more comfortable in my own skin, how to be bolder, better, more free, more laid, all that…And it worked.  That’s the magic of it.  And this is all the exact same thing as boredom.  When I’m not bored, I do not think about what I look like to other people or what I might be missing out on because I am busy doing.
Not only does the cigarette or other pivot structure an ambiguous situation, it “promotes social interaction, contributing to an atmosphere of egalitarian comaraderie” (Stromberg, Nichter, & Nichter 2007:9), a factor I also have found to be true.  Smoking provides an embodied feeling of belongingness, “something Csordas (1993) has described using the term ‘somatic mode of attention’” (Stromberg, Nichter, & Nichter 2007:11).  There was a Friends episode once where Rachel took up smoking so she could go out with her coworkers on smoke breaks, as obviously there was significant bonding & structuring of extrastructural time going on, such that decisions being made in favor of other members of the smoking club in her absence.  I distinctly remember this feeling of being part of something, both when I started drinking & smoking.  It takes a lot of work for some of us to socialize without a prop when much of the world is oriented around consumption.  When I played in bands, the long hours spent sitting in bars after load-in until showtime, including waiting for all the other bands to play, was incredibly fucking boring.  In my last band, I used to have to go take walks around the neighborhoods of whatever city we were in while the others sat in the club in some town we’d never been to & drank & smoked.  Extrastructural time.  What do you do with it?  My wife has recently taken up knitting.  I get it.
What is so interesting about smoking & drinking to fill these spaces is that they are not innocuous substances.  They come with great risk.  No one takes the risk without the promise of experiencing something.  Gosh, I remember doing incredibly stupid things & remember them with relish.  I would never want to take them back & not just because I’d be doomed to do something else stupid & might not be so lucky the next time.  Gloriously, ridiculously stupid acts have the potential to be so life-altering.  Life-altering things are important things, right?  Having kids was life-alteringly important.  Getting married was life-alteringly important.  And we play at both of those things before they happen.  ”Play activity is closely patterened after something that already has a meaning in its own terms” (Goffman 1986:40).  We play around them because they have tremendous potential import.
Of my late teens & early 20s, I am most proud of what some might have considered the most stupid things I ever did but that in testing the limits of my own capacities were, personally, incredibly important.  I used to take multiple hits of acid to see how out of my mind I could get.  I remember once being in a predicament wherein I had to drive the half hour home at 4AM thru downtown Indianapolis even though I had lost a reflexive motor sense of how to put the key in, turn on the car, put it in gear, turn the wheel, etc.  I felt like I was in a hovercraft going 20MPH & the actions of the car had nothing to do with the actions of my hands & body.  Another time I remember walking across a rotted out train trestle in the dark my friends knew about.  The next day I saw it was about 100 feet up over a ravine.  I wouldn’t do it again, mind you, but I am pleased for that playful night.  When I moved to NYC, I used to get smashed drunk & pass out on subways, riding back & forth all night long.  One night I kept dozing off & missing my stop, crossing the platform at the next stop to the return train, missing it again.  Finally, the car was getting fuller & fuller with people & I ran into some co-workers on their way to work, & there I was still trying to get home.  Fortunately, I worked in the music industry where play like that was par for the course.  I always say, everything in moderation, even the extremes, which I believe expresses the same principle.
Smoking & drug use are obvious risk behaviors adults play with, but there are many others, more & less obvious.  Anything associated with “at-risk” behavior starts as a form of play — sex, body modification, joining gangs, skipping school (which I also did once or twice to play & have fun but was so nerdy at that point I ended up at the library working on a report so I wouldn’t get behind) — but so does joining a cult.  I experienced the same awkward nervousness upon entering a Pentecostal revival meeting in my first anthropological research endeavor but ultimately enjoyed playing at praying & the charisms, which make for fantastic pivots (if you can’t think of what to do or say, just shout “Jesus!”).  Not that I am calling Pentecostalism cultish, but they both provide compelling props to fill all manner of interstitial spaces & can really string you out & take over your life, for better or worse.  As Stromberg et al. point out, play is what we do in those periods of our day that are not scheduled, wherein we have no plans for our minds or bodies.  These are the chunks that the religions like to get hold of, to give us some more structure/ritual, these are the “idle hands” moments.
Probably most of the time such pivotal exploration is adaptive, or it would not be so ubiquitous.  Sometimes it is maladaptive.  We poke at the fire, we see if it burns.  We smoke a cigarette, we take a drink, we eat a potato chip, we push the envelope to see what will happen.  Sometimes kids doing stupid things while on acid or drunk get killed, sometimes smokers get cancer & die, sometimes people who use potato chips as props grow obese & contract type II diabetes & cardiovascular disease…right?  Sometimes.  So I would say, for instance, that someone who sky-dives or bunjie-jumps or drives race cars is no more crazy than someone who smokes cigarettes or plays with a smartphone.  It’s all on a continuum of playing with risk.Pull out your smartphone in my class againNow, back to smartphones.  What is risky about them?  I don’t know.  This is not a neat & tidy unitary theory where play = risk or anything like that.  A smartphone in the hands of a student while you’re teaching class is certainly a prop that they’re playing with because they’re bored or stressed or something.  I learned a trick from a colleague to bribe the students to keep the phones put away.  The whole class gets an increasing amount of extra credit on the final if no one pulls one out all semester, but if one person violates that, everyone loses.  It’s like Full Metal Jacket, where Pyle eats the donut while the whole platoon does push-ups as punishment for his error.  You remember what they did to Pyle?  Then he went postal.  So if you pull your goddamn smartphone out my class again…
 

I još malo
 
The desire for desires
 
Quote
Why reports of the death of boredom have been greatly exaggerated"Since boredom advances and boredom is the root of all evil, no wonder, then, that the world goes backwards, that evil spreads. This can be traced back to the very beginning of the world. The gods were bored: therefore they created human beings."
  Soren Kierkegaard
Have things changed so very much since Kierkegaard's time? His portrayal of boredom echoes the tagline of a recent mobile phone advertisement — "The devil finds work for idle thumbs". The boredom of the supermarket checkout queue, the launderette, the long haul bus trip, is anathema to most of us, and the current plethora of portable amusement gadgets — camera phones, i-pods, portable games consoles — stands as a testament to general fear of what the hermits of 4th century Lower Egypt called 'the noonday demon'.
Our frantic attempts to avoid boredom uphold a lucrative corner of the entertainment industry, while the variety of books, websites, tv programmes and videos aimed at children and called "Boredom Busters" suggests that ennui has no age restriction. This is no new development – obsessive texting is hardly on a level with watching lions rip gladiators to shreds for entertainment, and, as the British public seem to be moving on to a stage where fox-hunting is no longer seen as a justifiable, fun diversion, we must be doing something right. However, some pundits have recently pointed out that obsessive avoidance of boredom (apart from being quite dull in itself – have you ever tried to have a decent conversation with an extreme sports enthusiast?) denies access to the certain kind of mental space which boredom brings and in doing so leaves us creatively and spiritually malnourished. In other words, boredom is becoming "a lost art form".
It would be simple to dismiss such statements as (boring?) bourgeois nostalgia, of the "times were better when we had to make our own entertainment" genre. But, as Steven Winn of the San Francisco chronicle puts it in a recent article:
"As more and more people seem to recognise, the universal experience of being bored – unengaged, detached, afloat in some private torpor – may be far more precious, fruitful and even profound than a surface apprehension might suggest. As ordinary as grey skies and equally pervasive, boredom deserves its own sun-splashed attention and celebration."
This is a very particular understanding of what boredom is, and perhaps this very problem of definition is what lies at the root of the supposed debate. On the one hand, boredom can be defined as a state of listlessness, a lack of interest in that which surrounds us and a general sense of ennui. Of this particular definition, Saul Steinberg wrote, "The life of the creative man is led, directed and controlled by boredom. Avoiding boredom is one of our most important purposes." So in this case, boredom is something we flee from in horror – even Kierkegaard's gods existed in perpetual fear of this kind of boredom, a fear which, if Kierkegaard's thesis is to be followed to the letter, we can apparently thank for our own existence.
Another conception of boredom is of a blank, private mental space, invaluable for relaxing and for the fermentation of creative juices. Steven Winn quotes US poet Billy Collins on this conception of boredom, saying that:
"Boredom is paradise.it is the blessed absence of what the world offers as 'interesting', i.e., the lures of fashion, media and other people, which, you may recall, Sartre considered Hell."
It is this type of boredom which is considered by some to be a lost art form. Informational overload from all quarters means that there can often be very little time for personal thought, reflection, or even just 'zoning out'. With a mobile that is constantly switched on and a plethora of entertainments available to distract the naked eye, it is understandable that some people find it difficult to actually get bored in that particular fidgety, introspective kind of way.
Yet if we look more closely at these two different ideas of boredom, it is fair to say that they are the same phenomenon witnessed from two different perspectives. To the man who lives in a constant whirl of advertising, lights, noise, pollution and general urban overstimulation, the comparative boredom of a white room or a four-hour chanting session may be the epitome of peace and clarity. On the other hand, to the frustrated teenager with limited control over his/her circumstances, living under a 'regime' of parentally enforced sensible peace and quiet, the noise, lights, stink and confusion of a rave or a commercial music festival bring joy unbounded. To say that boredom is a lost art form in this context is therefore a bit like saying "I don't have time to think anymore" or "I don't like computer games, they are distracting and noisy" — entirely subjective opinions that have nothing to do with our definition of ennui. Peach or poison is what this supposed distinction comes down to, and so one can only conclude that boredom as an art form is alive and kicking. Or rather, alive and listlessly dangling its legs.
The essential role of boredom in the creative process is part of a dialectic between activity and inactivity which characterises all human life. Perhaps best expressed in the form of the "Get out of bed today? Don't get out of bed today?" dilemma, movement between rest and thought, flurries of activity and spells of relaxation, characterises the creative process and indeed working life in general, for many people. As Graham Greene's protagonist Bendrix, from the novel "The End of the Affair" puts it:
"So much of a novelist's writing, as I have said, takes place in the unconscious: in those depths the last word is written before the first word appears on paper. We remember the details of our story, we do not invent them."
Perhaps the boredom that the creative type rails against through music-making or book-writing is the most effective impetus towards work. (Except for poverty, although I suppose it could be argued that poverty is in itself a kind of boredom).
So-called 'boring' things often act as welcome release from overload of one kind or another. A plain fast after the overindulgence of the festive season, for example, or the freshness of  minimalist art or music after an overload of baroque. Nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in the pornography trade. After the first five minutes of visual shock, most pornography descends into the utter banality of a broken record, which perhaps explains the almost ludicrous variety of 'harder', specifically fetishistic pornographic material — the basic stuff simply doesn't cut it after a while.
Fashion matriarch Muiccia Prada acknowledges this paradox of sexual availability in a recent interview with "The Observer":
"Sometimes I think that the obsession with fashion is  just about the desperation of being sexy. My young assistants come to work and they wear these amazing things. Very provocative. And they are so obsessed about being beautiful and sexy, and they are always alone. And I tell them that the more they dress for sex, the less sex they will have. It's so basic, but they don't seem to understand me."
Wise words indeed from a woman who has turned dressing like David Bowie in 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' into an acceptable activity for wannabe starlets. Anyone who can sell a million brown bowling bags at £300 a pop has to know something about the subversive power of the plain and the boring in an overloaded, overstimulated market.
From a religious perspective, the capacity for handling 'boring' scenarios is seen as a powerful tool for concentrating the mind and as an aid to spiritual development. Rather than frantically attempting to escape from the fidgety numbness of one's own thoughts, the Buddhist monk and the Christian contemplative alike find strength in facing the unquiet mind, facing the lack of understanding and ultimate fear of death which drives the mind so frantic in the quieter moments of life. As Michael Raposa, author of 'Boredom and the Religious Imagination' points out:
"Trying or even excruciating as it may be, boredom offers an elevated awareness of time's conquering, expansive enormity. It's an intimation of death, a glimpse into the nothingness that lurks behind and threatens each person, each project, each moment."
So, the state of boredom has a role not just as a dialectical opposition to the state of creative activity, but also as an entity to be explored in search of a deeper understanding of thought and fear.
Reports of the death of boredom, then, have been greatly exaggerated. But before we all run off to buy Steve Reich records and grey woolly jumpers, it is perhaps best to remember that boredom's value is as part of a dialectic between activity and inactivity. A potential spur for the creative impulse, excessive boredom can also drive us barmy if not acted upon quickly enough. On that note, I shall leave you with words of the US president George Bush:
"What's wrong with being a boring kind of a guy?"
Potentially, George, one hell of a lot.
 

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #10 on: 29-09-2012, 09:10:07 »
Sad vidim zašto sam tako zaostao. Nemam smartfon.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

M.M

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.868
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #11 on: 29-09-2012, 09:57:19 »
I ja sam.
Nijedan poraz nije konačan.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #12 on: 02-10-2012, 10:26:53 »
PCPRO ima članak koji analizira recentnu epidemiju crowdfundinga i pokazuje šta tu funkcioniše, a šta ne:
 
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/377242/does-crowdfunding-work
 
Quote

 Does crowdfunding work? Posted on 28 Sep 2012 at 14:45
Is it really practical to fund a business from hundreds of small donations harvested over the internet? Simon Brew investigates
There’s a sporting chance that you’ve seen the work of Jane Espenson on your television over the past decade or so. She’s written scripts for shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Torchwood and Battlestar Galactica. Naturally, therefore, she’s worked with and befriended some people with very deep pockets.
Yet, when it came to raising funds for one of her most recent projects – a small web-based sitcom by the name of Husbands - she chose not to turn to her well-heeled contacts. For Espenson is one of a growing number of people who has turned to the idea of crowdfunding: seeking small donations from many supporters over the internet, instead of big contributions from venture capitalists, banks and such like.
Husbands
Consequently, the budget for Husbands’ second season has come almost directly from its audience. In all, 956 people have donated a total of $60,000, with the smallest contribution being only $1. Impressively, it raised its budget in less than a month.
Crowdfunding is a fascinating idea, and one that’s beginning to find its feet, thanks to the rise of dedicated websites such as Kickstarter. Could it really give the banks – with their continued reluctance to lend to small businesses – some serious competition?
 Who needs crowdfunding?
Let’s be honest from the outset: for the majority of businesses, crowdfunding simply won’t work. Since it requires the interest of a comparatively large number of people to fund a venture, the project itself has to have relatively wide appeal. After all, there’s something idyllic and romantic about being able to fund a film, but an educational hobby robot? That had 31% of its target when we visited its appeal page, with only 18 days left to go. Setting up a crowdfunding appeal is clearly no guarantee of success.
“You need to do your homework,” Jane Espenson told PC Pro. “Look at other projects, both successful and unsuccessful, and figure out what would make you back something. Work on the campaign video and the wording of your appeal. Find great incentives for donors and include incentives across the spectrum, from low to high amounts. And publicise the campaign.”
 
Espenson only turned to the crowdfunding model for the second season of Husbands, “so we had all of season one to use as a demonstration of what people were funding”. And if you don’t have a back catalogue of work at hand? “Find another way to demonstrate what makes your project special,” she advises.
 
Many have. In the past year, there’s been a substantial rise in the number of crowdfunded projects. These range from small video games costing a few hundred dollars, through to a documentary about US footballer Jay DeMerit, which has banked $223,422. Seemingly out of nowhere – although the roots of this variant of crowdfunding go back a decade in the music industry, at least – a viable, previously relatively untapped source of project funding has appeared.
However, Doug Andrews, the CFO of the Homeworking & Small Business Alliance (HSBA) wonders if the novelty factor is what’s attracting investors. “Crowdfunding sounds like something that could work brilliantly for early pioneers, but I suspect that once it becomes mainstream, it will be very difficult to get your idea found among all the other businesses vying for attention. A lot of the excitement and goodwill that’s associated with early trends will have been replaced with people asking ‘what am I going to get out of this?’”. Andrews admits that such questioning is “not necessarily a bad thing in itself”, but adds that “as a business owner, I wouldn’t want 2,000 investors dipping their oar in and trying to run my business”.
 
 Investor influence
Do investors really get much say? The emerging crowdfunding model, through websites such as Kickstarter, Sponsume, Indiegogo and their ilk, encourage project initiators to offer rewards for differing levels of donation, but they tend to be gift-based rather than offering input into the business or a guaranteed return. Some of the rewards are enticing – a part in a film, special versions of the product being funded, the chance to get involved – but they tend to be a substitute for a firm, legally binding share of the profits that a substantive investment would normally attract.
“It’s more like a charity investment,” says Toby Ricketts, CEO of Margetts Fund Management. “People are investing on trust, or in excitement, in the same way you and I would buy a lottery ticket. There’s pleasure at the point of investment”. There are, however, far more effective – and tax-efficient – ways to invest in a business, Ricketts argues, adding that he would “invest £20 in a project, but only if I got £20 of enjoyment out of it”.
    While the burgeoning popularity of crowdfunding websites suggests that people like the idea of small, tangible sponsorship of a project, it’s an uphill battle to convince potential investors to part with their credit card details, especially in less glamourous industries. A scan of the most popular crowdfunding websites confirms a skew towards creative projects. At Kickstarter, 943 film and video projects were trying to attract funding when we visited, compared to 90 in technology. More tellingly, in May 2012, only 23 tech projects had hit their funding target. In the film and video category, it was 345.
That isn’t to say tech projects can’t attract funding. Tammy Erdel, for example, is using Kickstarter to finance AIRbudz in-ear earphones. “I believe that Kickstarter is beginning to promote more products that don’t necessarily fall into the creative works arena,” she told PC Pro. That said, she adds that “it’s important that you have another means to promote your product and direct people to Kickstarter”.
Theresa Burton, CEO and co-founder of British crowdfunding service Buzzbnk, told us that 58% of projects listed on her site receive full backing, although she adds that “we work hard to set expectations about what does and doesn’t work in crowdfunding, and the amount of effort required to actively fundraise”. Buzzbnk also offers the option for investors to make a loan, possibly with an interest return.
It’s worth noting that if you have a less prominent project that fails to meet its target, you haven’t actually lost much. Bernie Thompson, of Plugable, has successfully raised funding via Kickstarter in the past, and is currently seeking investment for a $50 thin client computer for schools. He isn’t sure he’ll get to his funding target this time – although “there’s often a big jump in backers at the end”. But he argues: “We’ll have invested a bunch of time, but we won’t have risked a big investment in hardware inventory, because we do that purchase only if the Kickstarter succeeds. We’ll have learned something very valuable about the size or character of the market for the product, with less risk.” And if he doesn’t hit his target? He’ll scale down his project, and do it anyway.       The crowdfunding sites
A growing number of projects do manage to hit their goals, and the current wave of crowdfunding services seems to have tapped into an appetite among individuals to contribute to projects. That’s interesting news for business.
Furthermore, it’s a myth to suggest that crowdfunding is all about a few pounds here and a few dollars there. The scaling system of incentives (which you determine when setting up your appeal) is intended to attract the wealthier investor. There’s ample evidence already of people being willing to offer large sums, even though the most popular reported donation is around the $25 mark.
With the growing number of people interested and investing in crowdfunding, there’s been an inevitable rise in the number of services catering for it. Among the highest profile is Kickstarter. Its model is simple, and not uncommon. If you want to list a project, there are certain criteria you must meet.
  First, you have to have a tangible end point: to produce a film, make a product or write something, for example. The golden rule is simple – your venture can’t be an open-ended proposition. Second, it has to fit within the fairly broad, predetermined categories, which inevitably limits what projects can be listed. And third, there are expected criteria prohibiting certain products. You’re not allowed what the site describes as “fund my life” projects either, meaning appeals for tuition fees or expensive holidays are off limits.
Next, you’re at a screen where you’re entering details of the project, coming up with a target funding goal, and setting a duration of up to 60 days to keep your appeal open (Kickstarter recommends 30 or fewer). There’s a small, salient point lying in the small print here: Kickstarter will take 5% of funds raised, and Amazon then skims off a further 3-5% for credit card processing. There’s no charge if a project doesn’t raise all of its funding, but it’s all or nothing: if you miss your target by a penny, you don’t get a bean.
Once your project page is complete, it goes off to Kickstarter for approval, and it can be live within a matter of days. Already, that’s a far quicker process than the traditional model of attracting investment. You don’t even need to print a physical prospectus, although investing in a good video makes sense.
 The cons of crowdfunding
For a small business looking to get a project off the ground, there are obvious advantages to the crowdfunding model, but there are risks too. The obvious one is having to surrender a proportion of capital raised, up to 10%, to the crowdfunding site in the first place.
You also have to be realistic. Crowdfunding might be a catalyst for a business, but that’s it. It’s quick funding for a single project, and that’s different to a long-term investment.
For instance, what happens if your project runs over budget? What happens if things don’t go to plan? Partnering with a more traditional investor may leave you open to similar costs, but there’s a relationship. It comes back to the all-or-nothing mentality. If you raise funding but fail to complete your project, you’re honour-bound with crowdfunding – although not legally obliged – to return people’s money.

   Anthony Caulfield is trying to raise money for a documentary feature, and he argues that “no-one oversees how you spend the money, and donors have to trust that you’re capable. If you’ve been involved in dodgy campaigns in the past, that reputation will stick, and you’re unlikely to be successful.”
Also, you may have to surrender more information about your business than you’re comfortable with. You need to put enough details of your idea into the public domain to raise interest, but that in turn exposes what’s arguably your primary business asset.
 Is it worth it?
The question, then, is does it all work? The answer: sort of. Crowdfunding certainly has its place, and the indisputable fact is that many creative projects that otherwise wouldn’t attract money are receiving funding from generally undemanding investors.
  Take From Bedrooms to Billions, Anthony and Nicola Caulfield’s planned documentary about the rise of British video games. Anthony told PC Pro that, after pitching the idea for the project to broadcasters, he couldn’t believe the lack of interest. He was told that gaming was a “niche hobby”, and that broadcasters “wouldn’t know where to place” his documentary. BBC Four turned it down, despite having recently commissioned an expensive drama on the rivalry between Sir Clive Sinclair and Chris Curry. “We’re not talking about a fad that suddenly appeared then fizzled out,” Caulfield argues. “Gaming was something that was born out of enthusiastic interest and not necessarily commercial enterprise, which went on to become the biggest entertainment industry on the planet!”
Caulfield, an experienced documentary maker, therefore turned to crowdfunding and, at the time of writing, has achieved more than 20% of his target total, and stands a real chance of hitting his target.
The immediate future for this iteration of crowdfunding seems bright, with the sheer novelty set to fuel things for a good while yet. The real test, however, will be when it’s time to deliver on the many projects that have successfully achieved full funding. In the months and years ahead, it’s vital that they’re realised, and that the backers are kept in touch with, simply to allow them to keep faith with the initiative.
Inevitably, then, the continued future and broadening of crowdfunding hinges on the very people who have raised funds through the assorted services. Or, more to the point, on the people who suddenly have a few hundred bosses they didn’t have before. After all, as Jane Espenson acknowledges, a crowd of investors brings with it an unwritten demand of its own. “We’re spending their money,” she told us, “and I feel a huge responsibility to spend it in smart ways.” There’s little doubt Espenson will. It needs many more like her to keep crowdfunding viable, well into the future.
Author: Simon Brew


 Five tips for crowdfunding success Keep your goal attainable
Most crowdfunding websites won’t give you a penny of the cash you raise unless you hit your target, so don’t miss out by a few pounds because you over-stretched. 
Kickstarter alone isn't enough
The funding page itself should be only the final part in a broader attempt to drive awareness and interest.
Stagger rewards
Come up with interesting rewards for differing levels of funding. You might get an extra £10 out of a donor, just for something as simple as autographing whatever you produce.
Keep your investors up to date
That way, when you come to do another project, they’ll already know you’re trustworthy.
And the big one
Deliver on your project, or return the money.
 
        Notable hitsThe Age of Stupid
A 2009 feature documentary, directed by Franny Armstrong and starring Pete Postlethwaite. The bulk of its £450,000 budget was raised via a crowdfunding model, with 223 investors.
Carmageddon: Reincarnation
A sequel to the ultra-violent video game of yesteryear is now in production, courtesy of a Kickstarter campaign; 11,947 backers donated a total of $456,944.
Amanda Palmer
American musician Palmer chose to raise funding for her new album, tour and art book outside of the record label system. She raised $1,059,129 from 21,963 backers.

 


Loni

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.743
  • Mejnstrim Paša
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #14 on: 25-10-2012, 10:07:38 »
   Upotreba interneta, pored ostalog, smanjuje i nacionalizam. Umesto druženja samo sa pripadnicima svog naroda, praćenja samo medija svoje države i svega ostalog što vodi zaarikadiranju, imamo priliku da svet imamo na dlanu, upoznajemo strance i njihove ideje. Zapravo ništa i nije takav sinonim za globalizam kao net.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #15 on: 25-10-2012, 10:53:27 »
Loni, da li ti je poznat sajt www.stormfront.org ? Upotreba bilo koje tehnologije ti samo omogućava da još više budeš ono što već jesi.

Father Jape

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.244
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #16 on: 25-10-2012, 11:05:05 »
Pa ovo o čemu Loni priča, i ako jeste tačno, može da radi samo na duge staze. Dakle morali bismo uporediti društva posle sto godina neograničenog pristupa Internetu, i ista takva bez njega.
A dotad, naravno da će sve ono što postoji postojati i tamo. Mada, nekako ipak mislim da na papiru i VHSu nije bilo baš *toliko* pornografije.  :lol:
Blijedi čovjek na tragu pervertita.
To je ta nezadrživa napaljenost mladosti.
Dušman u odsustvu Dušmana.

https://lingvistickebeleske.wordpress.com

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #17 on: 25-10-2012, 11:21:29 »
Bilo je manje, ali je bolje vozdizala.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Джон Рейнольдс

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.507
  • @
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #18 on: 25-10-2012, 11:28:11 »
Лони има класичан проблем глобалиста и мондијалиста јер национализам поистовећује с интелектуалном и образовном ограниченошћу. Следећа замка у коју пада је заблуда да ће ако некоме нешто тури под нос, тај неко променити свој став. Па ту лежи парадокс, јер то што му тура под нос заправо нема никакве везе са тим "проблематичним" ставом.

Упознавање страних култура ће смањити национализам? Бизарна помисао! Ниђе везе.
America can't protect you, Allah can't protect you… And the KGB is everywhere.

#Τζούτσε

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #19 on: 25-10-2012, 11:30:44 »
Meni je zanimljiva diskrepancija između globalizma i biodiverziteta.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #20 on: 25-10-2012, 11:33:21 »
Loni, klasična tehnooptimistička budaletina, nikako da shvati da svaka priča o revolucionarnom uticaju tehnologije direktno poništava teoriju evolucije.

Dakle, valjda je svakome jasno da se kod Darvina govori o milionima godina, to ne može da se neutralizuje za pišljivih 20 godina interneta.

Barbarin

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.647
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #21 on: 25-10-2012, 12:21:46 »
i naplaćivati nam malo manje,

Nema šanse, može samo skuplje, a može da povećaju brzinu, cene ispod ovih u Srbiji neće ići.
Jeremy Clarkson:
"After an overnight flight back to London, I find myself wondering once again if babies should travel with the baggage"

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #22 on: 25-10-2012, 12:42:30 »
kako skuplje kad ne moraju da mijenjaju infrastrukturu bar desetak godina?

sa ovakvim rješenjem je i dial up solidna veza a kamoli obični adsl

naravno, sve zavisi je li ovo neko licencirano rješenje problema

Barbarin

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.647
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #23 on: 25-10-2012, 12:51:47 »
Živiš u Srbiji, zar ne, kad je ovde nešto stvarno pojeftinilo. Skoči evro, cene gore, padne evro, cene iste, skoči evro, cene gore, i tako dalje i tako dalje. Skoči cena nafte na svetskom tržištu, skoči i kod nas, iako se ta poskupela nafta nije ni kupila niti će se u Srbiji prodavati.
Jeremy Clarkson:
"After an overnight flight back to London, I find myself wondering once again if babies should travel with the baggage"

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #24 on: 25-10-2012, 13:02:58 »
ne živim u Srbiji, na sreću :)

ali niko nema uredbe o cijeni nafte, jer se od toga direktno puni budžet, ali ne puni se budžet od internet koncekcije, ima dosta privatnih provajdera + postoji plan za digitalizaciju, dakle država mora da radi na pojeftinjenju internet pristupa

po meni je logično za očekivati da bar 5mbps košta kao 2 ili 1 mbps

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #25 on: 25-10-2012, 13:09:33 »
Ne, ne, pa jasno je valjda šta sam mislio: naplaćivaće manje isto kao što rade danas kada ti cena paketa ostane ista a povećaju ti brzinu. Dakle, sad će da ti povećaju brzinu samo time što će promeniti algoritme, pa će njihov profit biti veći.

Barbarin

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.647
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #26 on: 25-10-2012, 14:03:28 »
Uvek su oni na dobitku dal bila država ili kompanija, pa se čak i te dve stvari ponekad ujedine da isprazne naše čepove.

Evo ti sjbb 1.566 dinara imaš tri varijante brzina, ako oćeš da plaćaš svaki mesec bez ugovora i obaveza imaš 2mbps, ako uzmeš samo kao postpaid imaš 6mbps a ako potpišeš ugovor na 12 meseci imaš 10mbps, a ako uzmeš još neki mix paket dobiješ za malo manje pare, al ti je televizija malo skuplja.

Svi su se oni lepo uračunali i ugradili.
Jeremy Clarkson:
"After an overnight flight back to London, I find myself wondering once again if babies should travel with the baggage"

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #27 on: 21-11-2012, 11:17:51 »
You Can’t Say That on the Internet
 
Quote
A BASTION of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A. But its hyper-tolerant facade often masks deeply conservative, outdated norms that digital culture discreetly imposes on billions of technology users worldwide.
What is the vehicle for this new prudishness? Dour, one-dimensional algorithms, the mathematical constructs that automatically determine the limits of what is culturally acceptable.
Consider just a few recent kerfuffles. In early September, The New Yorker found its Facebook page blocked for violating the site’s nudity and sex standards. Its offense: a cartoon of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Eve’s bared nipples failed Facebook’s decency test.
That’s right — a venerable publication that still spells “re-elect” as “reëlect” is less puritan than a Californian start-up that wants to “make the world more open.”
And fighting obscenity can be good for business. Impermium, a Silicon Valley company that helps Web sites deal with unwanted reader comments, has begun marketing technology that identifies “all kinds of harmful content — such as violence, racism, flagrant profanity, and hate speech — and allows site owners to act on it in real-time, before it reaches readers.” Impermium will police the readers — but who will police Impermium?
Apple, too, has strayed from its iconoclastic roots. When Naomi Wolf’s latest book, “Vagina: A New Biography,” went on sale in its iBooks store, Apple turned “Vagina” into “V****a.” After numerous complaints, Apple restored the title, but who knows how many other books are still affected?
True, these books are still on sale. Unlike the good old United States Post Office, which once confiscated “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” and other books it deemed too lewd, Silicon Valley does not engage in direct censorship. What it does, though, is present ideas and terms that have gained public acceptance as something to be ashamed of. Silicon Valley doesn’t just reflect social norms — it actively shapes them in ways that are, for the most part, imperceptible.
The proliferation of the Autocomplete function on popular Web sites is a case in point. Nominally, all it does is complete your search query — on YouTube, on Google, on Amazon — before you’ve finished typing, using an algorithm to predict what you’re most likely typing. A nifty feature — but it, too, reinforces primness.
How so? Consider George Carlin’s classic comedy routine “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” See how many of those words would autocomplete on your favorite Web site. In my case, YouTube would autocomplete none. Amazon almost none (it also hates “penis” and “vagina”). Of Carlin’s seven words, Google would autocomplete only “piss.”
Until recently, even the word “bisexual” wouldn’t autocomplete at Google; it’s only this past August that Google, after many complaints, began to autocomplete some, but not all, queries for that term. In 2010, the hacker magazine 2600 published a long blacklist of similar words. While I didn’t verify all 400 of them on Google, a few that I did try — like “swastika” and “Lolita” — failed to autocomplete. Is Nabokov not trending in Mountain View? Alas, these algorithms are not particularly bright: unable to distinguish between Nabokov’s novel and child pornography, they assume you want the latter.
Why won’t tech companies let us freely use terms that already enjoy wide circulation and legitimacy? Do they fashion themselves as our new guardians? Are they too greedy to correct their algorithms’ mistakes?
Thanks to Silicon Valley, our public life is undergoing a transformation. Accompanying this digital metamorphosis is the emergence of new, algorithmic gatekeepers, who, unlike the gatekeepers of the previous era — journalists, publishers, editors — don’t flaunt their cultural authority. They may even be unaware of it themselves, eager to deploy algorithms for fun and profit.
Many of these gatekeepers remain invisible — until something goes wrong. Thus, in early September, the online livestream from the Hugo Awards, the Oscars of the science fiction world, was interrupted with a cryptic copyright warning, right before the popular author Neil Gaiman was to deliver an acceptance speech.
Apparently, Ustream — the site streaming the ceremony — was using the services of another company to determine whether its streamed videos violated any copyrights. The partner company draws on a very large video archive to see, in real time, if what’s being streamed matches anything in its collection. Somehow, the celebratory video that preceded Mr. Gaiman’s speech tripped a copyright match, and the feed was cut off, even though the organizers had all the requisite permissions (and, under the doctrine of fair use, probably didn’t need them anyway).
The limitations of algorithmic gatekeeping are on full display here. How do you teach the idea of “fair use” to an algorithm? Context matters, and there’s no rule book here; that’s why we have courts. From the perspective of sticky, amorphous human culture, semi-automation — pairing up humans with algorithms — beats full automation. Sometimes, gaps are productive. But will profit-driven Silicon Valley ever acknowledge this insight?
Our reputations are increasingly at the mercy of algorithms, too. No one knows this better than Bettina Wulff, the former German first lady who has sued Google for autocompleting searches for her name with words like “escort” and “prostitute.” Ms. Wulff insists that Google’s algorithms spread false rumors about her; Google says that the suggested terms are just an “algorithmically generated result of objective factors, including the popularity of the entered search terms.”
Google’s defense would sound tenable if its own algorithms weren’t so easy to trick. In 2010, the marketing expert Brent Payne paid an army of assistants to search for “Brent Payne manipulated this.” Soon anyone typing “Brent P” into Google would see that phrase in their autocomplete suggestions. After Mr. Payne publicized his experiment, Google removed that particular suggestion, but how many similar cases have gone undetected? What is “objective” about such algorithmic “truths”?
Quaint prudishness, excessive enforcement of copyright, unneeded damage to our reputations: algorithmic gatekeeping is exacting a high toll on our public life. Instead of treating algorithms as a natural, objective reflection of reality, we must take them apart and closely examine each line of code.
Can we do it without hurting Silicon Valley’s business model? The world of finance, facing a similar problem, offers a clue. After several disasters caused by algorithmic trading earlier this year, authorities in Hong Kong and Australia drafted proposals to establish regular independent audits of the design, development and modifications of computer systems used in such trades. Why couldn’t auditors do the same to Google?
Silicon Valley wouldn’t have to disclose its proprietary algorithms, only share them with the auditors. A drastic measure? Perhaps. But it’s one that is proportional to the growing clout technology companies have in reshaping not only our economy but also our culture.
Obviously, Silicon Valley won’t develop or embrace similar norms overnight. However, instead of accepting this new reality as a fait accompli, we must ensure that, in pursuing greater profits, our new algorithmic gatekeepers are forced to accept the idea that their culture-defining function comes with great responsibility.
  The author of the forthcoming book “To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism.”

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #28 on: 21-11-2012, 11:25:30 »
Džon Mekafi je u bekstvu od policije jer je osumnjičen za ubistvo i odlučio je da se opere pišući blog.
 
Quote

John McAfee, the security software pioneer who is wanted in connection with a murder in Belize, has launched a blog to defend himself while on the lam.
SLIDESHOW: 11 sorriest tech companies of 2012
Buzzblog: Calling BS on McAfee’s “pre-written” blog posts
   Related Content  "The Hinterland - The official blog of John McAfee" debuted on Nov. 17, with McAfee writing of a couple of reporters who he claims appear to be out to get him through the press by emphasizing his dark side. One, he claims, is seeking revenge over incriminating photos McAfee believes the reporter thinks McAfee sent to the writer's wife.
According to news reports, the 67-year-old McAfee is the prime suspect in the shooting death of Gregory Faull, an American expatriate and a neighbor of McAfee's.
ABC News and The Register report that the blog has been authenticated by Chad Essley, a friend of McAfee's whose upcoming graphic novel about McAfee is plugged prominently. ABC News also reports that a man identifying himself as McAfee confirmed the blog is his.
McAfee writes that he is on run with a 20-year-old female named Sam, photos of whom are in the blog, along with a post from her. McAfee says a handful of friends and associates have been rounded up by police over the past week or so. His posts are filled with dramatic descriptions of his actions (including returning to his home in disguise to find police digging up his dead dogs and cutting off their heads) and lay bare his suspicions about Belize authorities.
BUZZBLOG: Oh, you mean it's THAT John McAfee?
"The first two days Sam and I were on the run we were far from our house. I felt helpless, especially given the fact that so many of our friends and workers were being arrested. I realized that unless I knew, moment by moment, what was happening, my chances of coming out of this intact, both emotionally and physically, were slim. I needed to be close to area where the events occurred and needed to watch, and hear, the actions of the authorities. I also needed to do my own investigation, since the police only seemed to be investigating my whereabouts. My safety is contingent on the truth being discovered. I today announced on NBC Television that I am offering a $25,000 reward for the capture of the person or persons responsible for Mr. Faul's murder."
Another post urges readers to study up on Belize's prime minister and a Gang Suppression Unit that McAfee says has been used to go after the prime minister's critics and enemies, apparently including McAfee himself, as he refers to a raid of his compound by the unit in April. McAfee says the government was wrongfully going after him for illegal drug production and possession of firearms.
McAfee pledges that the blog will stay updated even if he is captured:
"I have pre-written enough material to keep this blog alive for at least a year."
McAfee started McAfee, Inc. in 1987 and resigned in 1994, before McAfee merged with Network General to form Network Associates (the company later reorganized, shed some acquisitions and McAfee returned to its old name). As for John McAfee, he amassed a fortune once estimated at about $100 million before the economy tanked and he moved to Belize a few years ago.
 
 
His exotic relocation and recent actions have lured enterprising reporters to McAfee's south-of-the-border, former paradise. A CNN correspondent tells of visiting McAfee's beachfront property (or the beach in front of his property) via golf cart, and running into one of seven McAfee girlfriends who live together.
Bob Brown tracks network research in his Alpha Doggs blog and Facebook page, as well on Twitter and Google +.
Read more about security in Network World's Security section.
 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #29 on: 14-12-2012, 11:47:12 »
Oh, noes!!!! Bezbednosni propust u novim Samsungovim televizorima koji imaju ugrađenu i kameru i mikrofon (da biste mogli da sajberujete sa prekomorskim partnerima udobno razlogićeni na trosedu a ne zgrbljeni ispred laptopa) potencijalno omogućava hakerima da vas posmatraju i slušaju protiv vaše volje!!!!!!!!!

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #30 on: 10-04-2014, 09:29:15 »
Ovo smo sami primetili i bez naučnika, ali lepo je to potvrđuju anegdotalne dokaze:

Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say

Quote
Claire Handscombe has a commitment problem online. Like a lot of Web surfers, she clicks on links posted on social networks, reads a few sentences, looks for exciting words, and then grows restless, scampering off to the next page she probably won’t commit to. “I give it a few seconds — not even minutes — and then I’m moving again,” says Handscombe, a 35-year-old graduate student in creative writing at American University.


But it’s not just online anymore. She finds herself behaving the same way with a novel.
“It’s like your eyes are passing over the words but you’re not taking in what they say,” she confessed. “When I realize what’s happening, I have to go back and read again and again.”
To cognitive neuroscientists, Handscombe’s experience is the subject of great fascination and growing alarm. Humans, they warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia.
“I worry that the superficial way we read during the day is affecting us when we have to read with more in-depth processing,” said Maryanne Wolf, a Tufts University cognitive neuroscientist and the author of “Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain.”
If the rise of nonstop cable TV news gave the world a culture of sound bites, the Internet, Wolf said, is bringing about an eye byte culture. Time spent online — on desktop and mobile devices — was expected to top five hours per day in 2013 for U.S. adults, according to eMarketer, which tracks digital behavior. That’s up from three hours in 2010.
Word lovers and scientists have called for a “slow reading” movement, taking a branding cue from the “slow food” movement. They are battling not just cursory sentence galloping but the constant social network and e-mail temptations that lurk on our gadgets — the bings and dings that interrupt “Call me Ishmael.”
Researchers are working to get a clearer sense of the differences between online and print reading — comprehension, for starters, seems better with paper — and are grappling with what these differences could mean not only for enjoying the latest Pat Conroy novel but for understanding difficult material at work and school. There is concern that young children’s affinity and often mastery of their parents’ devices could stunt the development of deep reading skills.
The brain is the innocent bystander in this new world. It just reflects how we live.
“The brain is plastic its whole life span,” Wolf said. “The brain is constantly adapting.”
Wolf, one of the world’s foremost experts on the study of reading, was startled last year to discover her brain was apparently adapting, too. After a day of scrolling through the Web and hundreds of e-mails, she sat down one evening to read Hermann Hesse’s “The Glass Bead Game.”
“I’m not kidding: I couldn’t do it,” she said. “It was torture getting through the first page. I couldn’t force myself to slow down so that I wasn’t skimming, picking out key words, organizing my eye movements to generate the most information at the highest speed. I was so disgusted with myself.”
 Adapting to read
The brain was not designed for reading. There are no genes for reading like there are for language or vision. But spurred by the emergence of Egyptian hieroglyphics, the Phoenician alphabet, Chinese paper and, finally, the Gutenberg press, the brain has adapted to read.
Before the Internet, the brain read mostly in linear ways — one page led to the next page, and so on. Sure, there might be pictures mixed in with the text, but there didn’t tend to be many distractions. Reading in print even gave us a remarkable ability to remember where key information was in a book simply by the layout, researchers said. We’d know a protagonist died on the page with the two long paragraphs after the page with all that dialogue.
The Internet is different. With so much information, hyperlinked text, videos alongside words and interactivity everywhere, our brains form shortcuts to deal with it all — scanning, searching for key words, scrolling up and down quickly. This is nonlinear reading, and it has been documented in academic studies. Some researchers believe that for many people, this style of reading is beginning to invade when dealing with other mediums as well.
“We’re spending so much time touching, pushing, linking, scroll­ing and jumping through text that when we sit down with a novel, your daily habits of jumping, clicking, linking is just ingrained in you,” said Andrew Dillon, a University of Texas professor who studies reading. “We’re in this new era of information behavior, and we’re beginning to see the consequences of that.”
Brandon Ambrose, a 31-year-old Navy financial analyst who lives in Alexandria, knows of those consequences.
His book club recently read “The Interestings,” a best-seller by Meg Wolitzer. When the club met, he realized he had missed a number of the book’s key plot points. It hit him that he had been scanning for information about one particular aspect of the book, just as he might scan for one particular fact on his computer screen, where he spends much of his day.
“When you try to read a novel,” he said, “it’s almost like we’re not built to read them anymore, as bad as that sounds.”
Ramesh Kurup noticed something even more troubling. Working his way recently through a number of classic authors — George Eliot, Marcel Proust, that crowd — Kurup, 47, discovered that he was having trouble reading long sentences with multiple, winding clauses full of background information. Online sentences tend to be shorter, and the ones containing complicated information tend to link to helpful background material.
“In a book, there are no graphics or links to keep you on track,” Kurup said.
It’s easier to follow links, he thinks, than to keep track of so many clauses in page after page of long paragraphs.
Kurup’s observation might sound far-fetched, but told about it, Wolf did not scoff. She offered more evidence: Several English department chairs from around the country have e-mailed her to say their students are having trouble reading the classics.
“They cannot read ‘Middlemarch.’ They cannot read William James or Henry James,” Wolf said. “I can’t tell you how many people have written to me about this phenomenon. The students no longer will or are perhaps incapable of dealing with the convoluted syntax and construction of George Eliot and Henry James.”
Wolf points out that she’s no Luddite.  She sends e-mails from her iPhone as often as one of her students. She’s involved with programs to send tablets to developing countries to help children learn to read. But just look, she said, at Twitter and its brisk 140-character declarative sentences.
“How much syntax is lost, and what is syntax but the reflection of our convoluted thoughts?” she said. “My worry is we will lose the ability to express or read this convoluted prose. Will we become Twitter brains?”
 Bi-literate brains?
Wolf’s next book will look at what the digital world is doing to the brain, including looking at brain-scan data as people read both online and in print. She is particularly interested in  comprehension results in screen vs. print reading.
Already, there is some intriguing research that looks at that question. A 2012 Israeli study of engineering students — who grew up in the world of screens — looked at their comprehension while reading the same text on screen and in print when under time pressure to complete the task.
The students believed they did better on screen. They were wrong. Their comprehension and learning was better on paper.
Researchers say that the differences between text and screen reading should be studied more thoroughly and that the differences should be dealt with in education, particularly with school-aged children. There are advantages to both ways of reading. There is potential for a bi-literate brain.
“We can’t turn back,” Wolf said. “We should be simultaneously reading to children from books, giving them print, helping them learn this slower mode, and at the same time steadily increasing their immersion into the technological, digital age. It’s both. We have to ask the question: What do we want to preserve?”
Wolf is training her own brain to be bi-literate. She went back to the Hesse novel  the next night, giving herself distance, both in time and space, from her screens.
“I put everything aside. I said to myself, ‘I have to do this,’ ” she said. “It was really hard the second night. It was really hard the third night. It took me two weeks, but by the end of the second week I had pretty much recovered myself so I could enjoy and finish the book.”
Then she read it again.
“I wanted to enjoy this form of reading again,” Wolf said. “When I found myself, it was like I recovered. I found my ability again to slow down, savor and think.”

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #31 on: 13-10-2014, 10:01:09 »
S obzirom da se na ovom forumu poslednjih dana unaokolo bacakaju izrazi koje u kafanskoj komunikaciji ne možete da čujete, mislim da je ovo pravo mesto da se zakači link na poučan tekst koji prenosi Wired a koji se ozbiljno bavi trolovanjem, internet-zlostavljanjem i percepcijom toga šta je u redu a šta ne:



Why the Trolls Will Always Win


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #33 on: 08-04-2015, 06:37:05 »
Upotreba interneta (ponekad) povećava samo saldo na računu:
 
 The Maker Of The Trollface Meme Is Counting His Money

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #34 on: 15-04-2015, 06:25:44 »
Skajnet je još korak bliže. Na univerzitetu Kornel razvijaju algoritam koji, vele, već sada ume da prepozna trolove u diskusijama već sa prvih deset postova i, prezjumabli, biće korišćen da se ovakve pojave automacki benuju, da se ne muče administratori:
 
  Scientists develop algorithm that can auto-ban internet trolls
 
Quote
Researchers at Cornell University claim to be able to identify internet trolls with more than 80% AUC*, positing the possibility of creating automated methods to identify or even auto-ban forum and comment-thread pests.
 
Justin Cheng, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and Jure Leskovec submitted the paper Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities [PDF] in early April, which details the findings from an 18-month study of banned commenters over three high-traffic communities: news giant cnn.com, political hub breitbart.com and the vocal gaming communities at ign.com.
 
The study, which was partly-funded by Google and had the cooperation of the Disqus commenting ecosphere, compared anti-social users (‘Future Banned Users’ or FBUs) ‘destined to be permanently banned after joining the community with those joiners who are not permanently banned (Never Banned Users or NBUs) in the study-period.
 
Many of the study’s findings could have been anticipated by anyone who has ever had a comment thread hijacked by an interloper who seems more intent on causing disruption and friction than participating in a reasonable discussion. For example over the 10,000 FBUs studied, nearly all began their commenting life at a lower perceived standard of literacy and/or clarity than the median for their host groups, with even that standard dropping in the final stretch towards a moderator ban. Additionally those last pre-ban troll posts tend to home in on a smaller number of comment threads relative to the number of posts – the classic characteristic of digging in for a sustained flaming match either with the host community or one or more members of it who have decided to engage the troll.
 
The study found that on CNN the studied trolls were more likely to initiate new posts or sub-threads, whilst at Breitbart and IGN they were more likely to weigh into existing threads.
 
The report does not exonerate host communities of all blame for troll behaviour, finding that immediately intolerant communities are more likely to foster trolls:
 
[communities] may play a part in incubating antisocial behavior. In fact, users who are excessively censored early in their lives are more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior later on. Furthermore, while communities appear initially forgiving (and are relatively slow to ban these antisocial users), they become less tolerant of such users the longer they remain in a community. This results in an increased rate at which their posts are deleted, even after controlling for post quality,”
 
The broad profile of the FBU as presented by the paper is that of a semi-literate, provocative and fairly persistent poster, whose descent into totally anti-social behaviour is summoned at inverse speed to that with which the host community rejects them, and whose final posts before a permanent ban are characterised by persistent and heated battle on a small number of topics.
 
Regarding the possibility of developing automated methods for identifying and even banning trolls, the researchers are circumspect, since 1 in 5 of users were misclassified by their analysis system, which otherwise claims to spot a persistent comment pest within as few as ten posts.While we present effective mechanisms for identifying and potentially weeding antisocial users out of a community, taking extreme action against small infractions can ex- acerbate antisocial behavior (e.g., unfairness can cause users to write worse), “

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #35 on: 17-05-2016, 07:55:15 »
Sami pali, sami se, jelte, ubili:

In Oracle v. Google, a Nerd Subculture Is on Trial



Quote
The problem with Oracle v. Google is that everyone actually affected by the case knows what an API is, but the whole affair is being decided by people who don’t, from the normals in the jury box to the normals at the Supreme Court—which declined to hear the case in 2015, on the advice of the normals at the Solicitor General’s office, who perhaps did not grasp exactly how software works.
In a world where Silicon Valley is coming into dominance, Oracle v. Google is an unusual instance in which the nerds are getting totally owned by the normals. Their judgment on the technologies they have birthed is being overridden by old people in black robes; their beloved traditions and mythologies around free and open source software are being scoffed at by corporate stiffs in suits as inconsistent hippie nonsense.
Google’s witnesses are—or at least profess to be—true believers in free and open source software (FOSS), and FOSS isn’t purely about the technology, it’s also a bastion of copyright radicalism. The General Public License (GPL) and other licenses carve out a counterculture amidst a harsh copyright law. In trying to explain the facts, the nerds must also explain their religion, and Oracle attorneys have nothing but scorn and skepticism for them.
Silicon Valley wants to live in a world of its own, where it sets its own rules and writes its own laws. Oracle v. Google does little to change its mind that this is only right and fair.
 
And to be fair to Oracle attorneys, although the copyleft idealism of the free and open source software movement infects Silicon Valley at its very foundation, Silicon Valley is a capitalist enterprise, and has always had an ambivalent relationship with FOSS. It’s all well and good for Andy Rubin, co-founder of Android, to sit in a courtroom and explain that Android makes money despite giving a product away for free, but outside the walls of the courthouse, the elegant, perfectly manicured, proprietary walled gardens of Apple are beating the goddamn pants off Android.
The nerds don’t want to dwell on that. There’s one big thing on their minds: they are really, really worried that the jury does not understand nerd shit. The witnesses that Google calls keep turning to the jury and trying to explain what an API is, only to be halted by Oracle’s objections that Eric Schmidt (once an executive at Sun Microsystems, later chairman and CEO of Google, now executive chairman of Alphabet) and Jonathan Schwartz (CEO of Sun during Android’s development) aren’t expert witnesses.
Schmidt and Schwartz are just there to talk about how things went down over the years that Google created Android: the who, what, where, when. They aren’t there to explain the technology as experts—that job falls to the actual expert witnesses, who are, as Judge Alsup speculated disapprovingly on Wednesday, likely being paid millions of dollars to play their roles in this litigation. But to Schmidt and Schwartz, the definition of an API—which may be an arcane, slippery concept for the jury—is fundamental to the questions they are being asked about who, what, where, when. They know this, and with the classic compulsion inherent to every nerd, they want to explain so very badly.
Eric Schmidt sought to describe APIs and languages using power plugs as an analogy. Jonathan Schwartz tried his hand at explaining with “breakfast menus,” only to have Judge William Alsup respond witheringly, “I don't know what the witness just said. The thing about the breakfast menu makes no sense.”
Schwartz’s second attempt at the breakfast menu analogy went much better, as he explained that although two different restaurants could have hamburgers on the menu, the actual hamburgers themselves were different—the terms on the menu were an API, and the hamburgers were implementations.
No one bothered to challenge Schwartz’s apparent belief that hamburgers are commonly featured on breakfast menus, as he had already moved on to confusing the jury on another front: the operating system GNU, which is a pearl of the free software community. When asked by Judge Alsup to “explain GNU in 30 seconds,” he launched into a reverent speech about how a “very smart man” believed that software should be free.
Before he could actually name Richard M. Stallman, or give out the “free as in freedom” speech that many of us adjacent to the tech community have heard from that one friend of ours many times, Alsup interrupted him. “That’s not 30 seconds,” the judge said, and managed to truncate the stirring legend of the Free Software Movement to a few minutes of terse explanations, including what the acronym GNU stands for: GNU is Not Unix.
“The G part stands for GNU?” Alsup asked in disbelief.
“Yes,” said Schwartz on the stand.
“That doesn’t make any sense,” said the 71-year-old Clinton appointee.



Schwartz and Schmidt aren’t supposed to be expert witnesses, but they can’t help but be ambassadors of a strange universe that the jurors may or may not be familiar with. In any other jurisdiction I would confidently say that none of the jurors had ever heard of Richard Stallman—but this is San Francisco, after all. There’s a chance that all this talk of free and open source software is not nearly as alien to the jury as it could be, but it’s more likely than not that it’s very, very, very alien.
The nerds struggle to be understood. It doesn’t help that towards the end of his cross-examination by Oracle, Schwartz became snippier and snippier, answering the Oracle lead attorney’s questions with passive-aggressive hostility. He seemed to lose his cool starting with the moment that Benjamin Bicks brandished an exhibit, asking, “You kept a Google blog on yourself, did you not?”
“No,” replied Schwartz, bewildered. When Bicks showed him the exhibit, he looked it over, and said, “I think you’re mistaken on what this is.”
It was a Google Alert on Jonathan Schwartz’s name, one of many emails that had landed in his inbox and likely never gotten read. “You don't remember this article about being one of the fifteen worst CEOs in American history?” Bicks asked him.
“There’s a lot of things on Google Alerts I don’t control,” said Schwartz, unable to resist sarcasm. “It’s a big internet.”
Schwartz seemed less upset about being called one of the worst CEOs in America, and more put off by the sheer indignity of being cross-examined by a man who didn’t know what a blog is—enough that he broke a 10-month long Twitter silence to snark about it.
On the stand, Schwartz comes off as an inconsistent character, but his inconsistencies are only the inconsistencies of the tech industry at large. The big players both love and hate FOSS, and FOSS both loves and hates the big players. And in reality, the soulless corporations can’t really be separated from the starry-eyed idealists, who themselves work for the corporations as both engineers and executives—thus generating the hypocrisies that Oracle is eager to point out in this trial.
This is why Schwartz can speak reverently of Stallman, even though Schwartz apparently walked away from a deal with Android over disagreements about control of the Java ecosystem—control that Sun did not wish to relinquish. This is why Schwartz congratulates Google on developing an open source mobile platform to its face, and then calls it “Scroogle” in a private email—derogatory portmanteaus being a classic pastime of FOSS nerds, the most prolific creator being FOSS patron saint Richard Stallman himself, who insists on calling the Amazon Kindle “the Amazon Swindle.”
Google’s nerd witnesses are hamstrung on their ability to explain the motivations behind their actions, because a big part of the sequence of events that led up to Oracle v. Google is that no one thought the Java APIs were copyrightable. Programming languages aren’t copyrightable because they were only valuable insofar as many programmers could freely use them. And it is impossible to implement programming languages without the APIs. Copyrighting a Java API would be absurd. It’s why Sun never threatened to sue Apache Harmony for their implementation of Java, it’s why Sun put out their own open source implementation of Java themselves.
Oracle v. Google is the revenge of the normals, bringing a hammer down on the customs and practices that the nerds decided for themselves.
 
But ever since a bunch of normals at the Federal Circuit decided in 2014 that the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java APIs are copyrightable, copyrightable they are—and now Google witnesses are struggling to explain their actions as part of a long shared history in an insular community of nerds with their own language, their own mythology, their own intuitions about software and intellectual property.
Oracle v. Google is the revenge of the normals, bringing a hammer down on the customs and practices that the nerds decided for themselves. After all, something can’t be copyrightable just because all the nerds agree it is; so why should something be unable to be copyrighted just because the nerds think it is?
But Oracle v. Google does nothing to disabuse the nerd of the conviction that they are right, and that the copyright law forged by the normals is an unrigorous wishy-washy piece of nonsense. Because in this case, the law really is completely out of touch with what the technology actually is, with reality itself. Just look at the Federal Circuit opinion that ruled that APIs are copyrightable, where they say, “Google was free to develop its own API packages and to ‘lobby’ programmers to adopt them.” A federal appeals court actually proposed that in some alternate universe, Android launched and told developers to write apps in a language they’d never encountered before.
Silicon Valley wants to live in a world of its own, where it sets its own rules and writes its own laws. And Oracle v. Google does little to change its mind that this is only right and fair. It’s why the tech community often lashes out with such vitriol at Larry Ellison over this suit: It’s a betrayal of nerd solidarity, Ellison selling them all out just to land a $9 billion punch right in Google’s face.
The normals would have never had a chance to get it wrong if Ellison hadn’t pursued this grudge-match all the way to the top. And now this trial—over whether the Android use of the Java APIs was fair use—proceeds on an absurd foundation, the assumption that APIs are copyrightable in the first place.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Eric Schmidt is the CEO of Alphabet. He is the chairman.


lilit

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 11.014
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #37 on: 12-07-2016, 15:42:16 »
blast from the past!

ontopik :lol:
dobar tekst, još kad bismo ponovo umeli da sletimo na mesec, ne bi bilo tužno kako sve to izgleda danas.
That’s how it is with people. Nobody cares how it works as long as it works.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #38 on: 12-07-2016, 16:36:09 »
Saće još malo Elon na Mars,

#wecandoit



Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #39 on: 17-08-2016, 21:39:19 »
Фејсбукери заглупљени, гејминг опамећује

Students who use social media score lower in math, reading and science
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/social-media-use-linked-low-math-reading-science-performance/
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #40 on: 19-08-2016, 08:23:38 »
U.S. says transfer of internet governance will go ahead on Oct. 1



Quote
The U.S. will go ahead with its plan to hand over oversight of the internet's domain name system functions to a multistakeholder body on Oct. 1, despite fierce opposition from some lawmakers and advocacy groups.



 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), under contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce, operates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) which enables the operation of the internet domain name system (DNS). These include responsibility for the coordination of the DNS root, IP addressing and other internet protocol resources.
 The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Commerce Department, said in March 2014 that it planned to let its contract with ICANN expire on Sept. 30, 2015, passing the oversight of the functions to a global governance model. NTIA made it clear that it would not accept a plan from internet stakeholders that would replace its role by that of a government-led or intergovernmental organization or would in any way compromise the openness of the internet.
 The transfer was delayed to September as the internet community needed more time to finalize the plan for the transition. The new stewardship plan submitted by ICANN was approved by the NTIA in June.   NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said Tuesday that the agency had informed ICANN that “barring any significant impediment,” NTIA intends to allow the IANA functions contract it has with ICANN to expire as of Oct. 1, said Strickling, who is also assistant secretary for communications and information.
 Last week, ICANN said Public Technical Identifiers, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, had been incorporated in California, to eventually run the IANA functions under contract from ICAAN, after the transition was complete.
 The proposed transfer of control of the IANA functions has been criticized by Republicans in Congress and some conservative groups, who are concerned that the transition will hand over control of the internet to governments, including some that have a reputation for stifling online activity.
 Last week, 25 advocacy groups asked Congress to sue to enforce riders it passed on prohibiting spending of taxpayer money on the IANA transition. On Tuesday, one of the groups, TechFreedom, said the move to go ahead with the transition, which would require the time of NTIA staff and thus appropriated salaries, was a "deliberate affront to Congress."   The courts can still pause the transition in September or unwind it after the contract expires, said Berin Szóka, president of TechFreedom, in a statement. He raised the possibility that private parties could sue if Congress doesn't. The groups, which are opposed to rushing the transition, have said that key issues about the transfer are "not expected to be fully resolved until summer 2017."
 NTIA said in an accompanying FAQ on Tuesday that both NTIA and ICANN have formally affirmed that the U.S. government is the administrator of .mil and .gov and any changes made to the top-level domains can only be made with the express written approval of the U.S. government. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, has introduced legislation that stated that the .gov and .mil top-level domains are U.S. property and asked the government to secure in the transition the exclusive ownership, control and use of the domains in perpetuity.
 Under ICANN's transition proposal, governments will continue to have an advisory role through the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). There is nothing that increases the role of governments over the DNS or ICANN as an organization, and the ICANN bylaws retain the prohibition on government officials serving as voting board members, NTIA said.   

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #41 on: 20-08-2016, 00:58:33 »
Луд збуњеног... ко на крају контролише днс протокол?
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #42 on: 20-08-2016, 01:10:26 »
Šta znači kontrolisati protokol? DNS protokol je jedan tekst koji opisuje način komunikacije sa DNS serverima. Ima ko to kontroliše (mislim ICANN), to jest ko je odgovoran za standardizaciju, ali sumnjam da je to ono što tebe interesuje. Možda je pravo pitanje ko kontroliše DNS servere? Sećam se da je ranije bilo da je glavnih servera bilo 13, od čega su Amerikanci držali 12, a Evropljani 1. Sada je to pravednije raspodeljeno. Ameri su prihvatili da Internet nije baš samo njihov, ali većina glavnih DNS servera je i dalje njihova.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #43 on: 20-08-2016, 02:06:47 »
ко може да искључи нпр кину с мреже?

То би било конкретније питање
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #44 on: 20-08-2016, 10:44:31 »
U Evropi Evropljani, u Americi Amerikanci, u Africi Afrikanci, itd. To je što se tiče DNS-ova, ali moguće je ograditi ceo region i na IP nivou, što je sama Kina uradila. Lepo narediš svim provajderima da spreče saobraćaj na određene IP segmente, i pojedine IP adrese, i zakonski zabraniš pučanstvu da se kači na internet bilo kako osim preko tih provajdera, kao i da koristi spoljne VPN sevise, i gotova priča, manje-više.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #45 on: 20-08-2016, 11:03:14 »
Ја сам некад читао да је днс протокол и измишљен само ради тога, контроле, кажњавања, искључивања, онај што је створио www, Бернерс Ли бјеше се зове, изјавио да је то Ахилова пета слободног интернета
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #46 on: 20-08-2016, 11:05:16 »
Питам у смислу колико је сад релевантно што се не питају само Амери, кад и даље то контролише шачица људи.... иако сам начуо да је било неког уласка актера цивилног друштва у icann
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Son of Man

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.961
  • See ya in Bambiland...
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #47 on: 20-08-2016, 11:08:50 »
Ja sam bio imbecil 2000. kad sam počo rabiti internet, a sad sam već nabio IQ na 120+, jel to TO?

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #48 on: 20-08-2016, 11:22:59 »
По истраживању које сам поставио, само гејмери су увећали интелигенцију!

šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Dybuk

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.345
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #49 on: 20-08-2016, 14:03:12 »
Hahah @Sin  :lol:

moj slucaj je suprotan; licno se osecam nepametnije otkad aktivno koristim net, al jopet nisam gejmer, pa mozda zato.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #50 on: 26-08-2016, 11:10:35 »

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #51 on: 01-09-2016, 08:19:51 »
Upotreba pametnih telefona smanjuje produktivnost?


Not using smartphones can improve productivity by 26%, says study

Quote
Smartphones might be helping employees keep in touch with colleagues and do urgent tasks on the move, but using these devices at workplace actually make people less productive, says a new study by the Universities of Würzburg and Nottingham-Trent.
 
 The study, commissioned by Kaspersky Lab, showed that employees’ performance improved 26 per cent when their smartphones were taken away. The experiment tested the behaviour of 95 persons between 19 and 56 years of age in laboratories at the universities of Würzburg and Nottingham-Trent.   
 
 The experiment unearthed a correlation between productivity levels and the distance between participants and their smartphones.  “Instead of expecting permanent access to their smartphones, employee productivity might be boosted if they have dedicated ‘smartphone-free’ time. One way of doing this is to enforce rules such as no phones in the normal work environment,” says Altaf Halde, managing director - South Asia at Kaspersky Lab.
 
 Contrary to expectations, the absence of smartphones didn’t make participants nervous. Anxiety levels were consistent across all experiments. However, in general, women were more anxious than their male counterparts, leading researchers to conclude that anxiety levels at workplace are not affected by smartphones (or the absence of smartphones), but can be impacted by gender.
 
 “Previous studies have shown that separation from one’s smartphone has negative emotional effects such as increased anxiety, but studies have also demonstrated that one’s smartphone might act as a distractor. In other words, both the absence and presence of a smartphone could impair concentration,” said Jens Binder from the University of Nottingham-Trent.
 
 “Our findings from this study indicate that it is the absence, rather than the presence, of a smartphone that improves concentration,” says Astrid Carolus from the University of Würzburg.
 
 The results of the experiment correlate with the findings of an earlier survey named ‘Digital Amnesia at Work’. In this survey, Kaspersky Lab demonstrated that digital devices can have a negative impact on concentration levels. It showed, for example, that typing notes into digital devices during meetings lowers the level of understanding of what is actually happening in the meeting.                   

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #52 on: 02-09-2016, 07:50:06 »
Upotreba interneta povećava inteligenciju...



...ili ne.


So much for counter-phishing training: Half of people click anything sent to them

Quote
Security experts often talk about the importance of educating people about the risks of "phishing" e-mails containing links to malicious websites. But sometimes, even awareness isn't enough. A study by researchers at a university in Germany found that about half of the subjects in a recent experiment clicked on links from strangers in e-mails and Facebook messages—even though most of them claimed to be aware of the risks.
The researchers at the Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, led by FAU Computer Science Department Chair Dr Zinaida Benenson, revealed the initial results of the study at this month's Black Hat security conference. Simulated "spear phishing" attacks were sent to 1,700 test subjects—university students—from fake accounts.
The e-mail and Facebook accounts were set up with the ten most common names in the age group of the targets. The Facebook profiles had varying levels of publicly accessible profile and timeline data—some with public photos and profile photos, and others with minimal data. The messages claimed the links were to photos taken at a New Year's Eve party held a week before the study. Two sets of messages were sent out: in the first, the targets were addressed by their first name; in the second, they were not addressed by name, but more general information about the event allegedly photographed was given. Links sent resolved to a webpage with the message "access denied," but the site logged the clicks by each student.
The messages that addressed the targets by name scored clicks from 56 percent of e-mail targets and 37 percent of Facebook message recipients. But while the less-targeted messages in the second test only yielded 20 percent results for the e-mails, they scored 42 percent via Facebook messages.
"The overall results surprised us, as 78 percent of participants stated in the questionnaire that they were aware of the risks of unknown links," Dr Benenson said in a FAU posting on the research. "And only 20 percent from the first study and 16 percent from the second study said that they had clicked on the link." But in fact, of those claiming they were security savvy, "we found that 45 and 25 percent respectively had clicked on the links," Dr Benenson said.
For those who admitted to clicking on the link, the majority said they did so out of curiosity. Half of those who didn't were warned off because they didn't recognize the sender's name, and a small minority avoided clicking because they were concerned about the privacy of the person who may have accidentally sent them the link. "I think that with careful planning and execution, anyone can be made to click on this type of link, even if it’s just out of curiosity," Benenson said.
Given the vast amount of personal data that's available to attackers—especially thanks to breaches like the one at the Office of Personnel Management, for example—crafting that sort of message for targets of interest has gotten a lot easier. The bottom line is that telling people not to click strange links is not going to be enough.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #53 on: 07-09-2016, 08:01:35 »
"Normalan" internet, dakle, onaj kojem pristupate iz browsera i koji se može indeksirati i pretraživati search enginima ustupa pred web appovima već godinama a sada već više od polovine vremena koje Amerikanci provedu na internetu bude provedeno tako. Slegnuti ramenima ili vikati na oblak? You decide!!!!!!!!!


Mobile apps are now bigger than the web — a trend that threatens to eat Google's core business



Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #54 on: 04-10-2016, 07:54:28 »
Has the US just given away the internet?



Quote
A judge in Texas has put the kibosh on a last-minute legal attempt to block the controversial decision for the US to give up control of one of the key systems that powers the internet.
It's a move being breathlessly described by some as the US "giving up the internet" to the likes of China, Russia and the Middle East.
It’s the weekend, so if you’re keen to save yourself several hundred words and get on with whatever you like to do with your free time, then here we go: No, the US hasn’t given away the internet. Don’t be absurd.
The long answer, naturally, is more complicated than that - and one mired in mistrust of one of the internet’s key organisations, the detail of which I’ll dig into in a moment.
Let’s start with the basics.
For starters, while they can take the credit for inventing the underlying technology, the US never “had the internet” to begin with. Nobody did. It’s a, duh, network. Decentralised. That’s what makes it so powerful.
But there are bits of internet infrastructure that some people and governments do have control over, and that’s what this row is all about.


One of them is the DNS -  Domain Name System. This is the system for looking after web addresses. Thanks to the DNS, when you type bbc.com, you’re taken to the correct servers for the BBC website. It saves you the grief of having to remember a string of numbers.
That pairing of names and numbers is kept in one great big master file, the land registry of the web. The only organisation that can make changes is Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
As of Saturday 1 October 2016, Icann will no longer be under US government oversight.
Instead, it’s now a fully “multi-stakeholder” non-profit that will take on board the views of companies, experts, academics and, yes, nation states, in how the naming system of the web is run.
Here’s a crucial bit: as a user of the internet, you won’t notice any difference whatsoever. And that’s because Icann isn’t a new entity. It’s been doing precisely this job since 1998 before the vast majority of us were even online.
The switch ends a transition that has essentially been in the works for around two decades, removing a dominant power the US had by circumstance rather than intention, and one which was causing friction in the international community.God of the internetBack when there were only a handful of websites, a man named Jon Postel - nicknamed “god of the internet” - was in control of DNS.
His task was assigning the easy-to-remember names to those bothersome numbers. It was a crucial step in accelerating the popularity of the world wide web.


When it became clear this was clearly not a job for one man, however godly, a new body was set up to take over the task. They called it the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA.
In 1998, control of IANA was given to the newly-formed Icann. It was given the power over internet naming globally. Experts saw Icann as a good blend of interests and expertise. One which they felt would keep the internet as open and useful as possible.
One quirk of this set-up, though, was that all the while the US’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, kept its final say over what the IANA did.
In short, if Icann did something the US government didn’t like, it could step in and knock it on the head.
With the handover, that power is lost -  though it was very sparingly used.FreedomsAs with most political tussles in the US, both sides say they are fighting for freedom.
Opponents of the plan, the likes of which include presidential candidate Donald Trump and his former rival Ted Cruz, say giving up the power amounts to handing it over to countries like China and Russia.
In one hearing, Senator Cruz asked if Icann - an international organisation - was bound by the First Amendment to the US constitution defending freedom of speech. No, came the reply from Icann's chief executive, Goran Marby.


Evidence enough, the senator argued, that by giving Icann complete control over the internet’s naming system, it could use that power to disrupt and censor communications online.
And so this week, at the eleventh hour, district attorneys representing four US states filed a legal challenge in Texas.
They had hoped to argue that the root file, the big directory of domain names and their associated servers, was US government property - and therefore required congressional approval before being "given away".
In court documents filed on Thursday, they also argued that without US control, well established domains like .gov and .mil (for government and military-related websites, respectively) could be tampered with.
In other words, a fully independent Icann could not be trusted and may act unpredictably once free of US oversight.
But others, including some of the web’s founding fathers, believe blocking the handover is a far bigger risk to the internet’s long term well-being.Diplomatic headacheBecause if the US didn’t handover its power to Icann, it may have been cornered into doing something far riskier.
Unnerved by US power, many countries, particularly Russia and China, have pushed for the DNS to be looked after by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is part of the UN.
This came to a vote in 2012, but failed. The US, UK, Canada and Australia were the dissenters, refusing to back a new treaty on the grounds it could be abused to affect internet governance, and by extension, content.



In other words, the four countries were worried by sharing out ownership of the internet’s core systems, more states could act like China and clamp down on internet use on their own countries - and all would be fair under the UN.
The US opposition drew heavy criticism - as it was essentially saying no countries can be trusted to look after the internet. Except the US. That didn’t go down well.
That said, given the US was responsible for creating the internet, it did have a valid argument in taking its time in handing over DNS. But it knew time was running out - ownership of the internet’s naming system was fast becoming a diplomatic headache the US needed to solve sooner rather than later.
The handover to Icann is a compromise that appears to suit the country very nicely, and not just because Icann will remain in Los Angeles.
It has the backing of many influential experts who, to counter the likes of Senator Cruz and Mr Trump, argue those opposed to it simply have no clue what they’re talking about.
On Friday, an amicus brief was filed to the Texas court by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), a group which represents the tech industry en masse. Its president, Dean Garfield, said: “This effort by a small number of attorneys general is misguided and inconsistent with the founding values of the Internet.
“It is an ironic endeavor because the transition will actually keep the internet an open and flourishing engine of innovation and open global communication.”
The judge agreed.
So when it comes to domain names, it's true. The US no longer has the keys to the kingdom.
But the important thing to remember is: neither does anyone else.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #55 on: 04-10-2016, 15:35:26 »
jel sad zavisimo od Vučića za torente?
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #56 on: 05-10-2016, 07:54:10 »
Vint Cerf: Modern Media Are Made for Forgetting



Quote
Vint Cerf, the living legend largely responsible for the development of the Internet protocol suite, has some concerns about history. In his current column for the Communications of the ACM, Cerf worries about the decreasing longevity of our media, and, thus, about our ability as a civilization to self-document—to have a historical record that one day far in the future might be remarked upon and learned from. Magnetic films do not quite have the staying power as clay tablets.
It's more than a then-vs-now thing. It's a progression through history. Clay tablets are more resilient than papyrus manuscripts are more resilient than parchment are more resilient than printed photographs are more resilient than digital photographs.
At stake, according to Cerf, is "the possibility that the centuries well before ours will be better known than ours will be unless we are persistent about preserving digital content. The earlier media seem to have a kind of timeless longevity while modern media from the 1800s forward seem to have shrinking lifetimes. Just as the monks and Muslims of the Middle Ages preserved content by copying into new media, won't we need to do the same for our modern content?"
As media becomes more ephemeral across technological generations, the more it depends on the technological generation that comes next. As the paper texts of just a few decades ago fade and crumble, their only hope is digitization. The historical record depends on future technology—necessarily—which is a bit unsettling.
"It seems inescapable that our society will need to find its own formula for underwriting the cost of preserving knowledge in media that will have some permanence," Cerf concludes. "That many of the digital objects to be preserved will require executable software for their rendering is also inescapable. Unless we face this challenge in a direct way, the truly impressive knowledge we have collectively produced in the past 100 years or so may simply evaporate with time."
   

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #57 on: 06-10-2016, 09:15:29 »
4Chan ima problem sa parama, a može da se desi da ga kupi Martin Škreli. A meč mejd in hel!!!!!!

4chan is running out of money

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #58 on: 12-10-2016, 08:17:33 »
Milo bi, izgleda, da kupi 4Chan (tuđim parama, takođe):


Milo Yiannopoulos Eyeing Bid for 4chan Social Media Site

Quote
4chan is an imageboard Internet site that allows users to post anonymously.  Milo Yiannopoulos, an alt-right hero known for his banishment from Twitter, is preparing a bid to acquire his own social media firm: 4chan.
Launched in 2003, 4chan is an imageboard Internet site that allows users to post anonymously. Its roots were in anime and manga, though it has evolved into much more and has facilitated some controversy, including allegations that it allows for cyberbullying.
The Hollywood Reporter has learned that Yiannopoulos, with the help of a wealthy backer, is preparing to approach 4chan owner Hiroyuki Nishimura, a Japanese entrepreneur, with a bid this week.
Contacted Saturday, Yiannopoulos confirmed plans for a possible acquisition but did not offer details.
"As a free-speech fundamentalist and a student of Internet culture, I appreciate how fragile and precious the 4chan ecosystem is and how much it gives to the wider Internet — even if some corners of it, such as /pol/, don't always approve of me very much," Yiannopoulos said.
/Pol/ is a reference to 4chan's political discussion board. It was created in 2011 to replace /new/, which was deleted after it became a haven for self-loathing, misogyny and racism.
"I spoke to my lawyer this morning about purchasing the business," said Yiannopoulos. "I intend to approach the current owners in the next few days with an offer. My philosophy as owner would be very simple: free-speech central, no ifs, no buts."
Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter after he engaged in a war of tweets with Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #59 on: 18-10-2016, 13:52:40 »
The habit of multitasking could lower your score on an IQ test.

In other words, repetitively switching tasks lowers performance and productivity because your brain can only fully and efficiently focus on one thing at a time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/devices-probably-ruining-productivity-heres/
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #60 on: 20-12-2016, 08:57:57 »
Upotreba interneta povećava inteligenciju, ali ne korisnika nego veštačke inteligencije koju slabo plaćeni ljudi širom sveta obučavaju. Clickwork? Ou jes:


Inside Amazon's clickworker platform: How half a million people are being paid pennies to train AI


Quote
Internet platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk let companies break jobs into smaller tasks and offer them to people across the globe. But, do they democratize work or exploit the disempowered?Each morning when she wakes up, Kristy Milland powers up her home computer in Toronto, logs into Amazon Mechanical Turk, and waits for her computer to ding.
Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT), which has been around for over a decade, is an online platform where people can perform small tasks for pay.
Milland is looking for job postings, or "HITs"—and the alerts tell her when a listing matches her criteria. "The alerts go off once a minute," Milland said. "I break from what I'm doing to see if it's a good HIT before I accept the job."
Sometimes, a group of HITs is posted. "If a batch comes up and it's lunchtime, or I have a doctor's appointment, or my dog needs to go out," said Milland, "I drop everything and do it. I'm literally chained to my computer. If this is how you feed your children, you don't leave."
She has been doing this for 11 years.
Milland is one of more than 500,000 "Turkers"—contract workers who perform small tasks on Amazon's digital platform, which they refer to as "mTurk." The number of active workers, who live across the globe, is estimated to run between 15,000 and 20,000 per month, according to Panos Ipeirotis, a computer scientist and professor at New York University's business school. Turkers work anywhere from a few minutes to 24 hours a day.


Who are Turkers? According to Ipeirotis, in October 2016, American Turkers are mostly women. In India, they're mostly men. Globally, they're most likely to have been born between 1980-1990. About 75% are Americans, roughly 15-20% are from India, and the remaining 10% are from other countries.
"Requesters"—the people, businesses, and organizations that outsource the work—set prices for each task, and the tasks vary widely. They include, but are not limited to:
  • data categorization
  • metadata tagging
  • character recognition
  • data entry
  • email harvesting
  • sentiment analysis
  • ad placement on videos
For instance, a recent task for Milland was to transcribe the contents of a receipt. According to Milland, the company that asks for that work will then sell the information to marketing and research departments at companies like Johnson & Johnson, P&G, and others. (The pay for that specific task was three cents.)The early days of AMTMilland calls herself a digital native. "I hit puberty, [and] I was on the internet," she said. And Milland said she's always "hustled online," using platforms like eBay for extra income. So when she came across an article about the opportunity to do click work when Amazon Mechanical Turk launched in 2005, it seemed like a perfect fit.



In those early days, Milland saw it as "more of an experiment" than real work, she said. But during the 2008-2009 recession, that changed. Milland, who had been running a daycare center, had to move—and lost her income. At the same time, her husband lost his job. She began working on AMT full-time. For Milland, that meant 17 hours a day, seven days a week.
"We started viewing it as work," she said. "And we really started questioning it as work."
Rochelle LaPlante, based in Los Angeles, has been working on AMT full-time since 2012. Echoing Milland, LaPlante agreed that the work is unpredictable. "You never know when work will be posted," she said. "It could be at 3 am. And there's absolutely nothing to do at 9 am."
"I'm not as hardcore as some people," LaPlante said, "because I do value my sleep." Others, she said, set alerts. "If a requester posts at 3 am, their computer will ding, their phone will ding, and they'll get out of bed to do that work. It completely controls their day." Neither Milland or LaPlante experience a "typical" day—primarily because they're usually setting a goal for how much money they need to make. During a normal day, LaPlante may work eight hours. "But it's 10 minutes here, 20 minutes there—it all runs together," she said.
So what do Turkers make, on average? It's hard to say. But Adrien Jabbour, in India, said "it's an achievement to make $700 in 2 months of work, working 4-5 hours every day." Milland reported that she recently made $25 for 8 hours of work, and called that "a good day." Just over half of Turkers earn below the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, according to a Pew Research Center study.
LaPlante talked about the difficult choices she needs to make, juggling work and life. "I have to decide: Do I take that job, or do I go to my family dinner?"
"For people living paycheck-to-paycheck on this kind of thing, on the edge of being evicted," she said, "those decisions are difficult."Master TurkersFor those working on AMT, there's a frustrating reality: Not all Turkers are created equal.
Amazon's system designates certain workers "Master's Level." When a new requester posts a HIT, it's automatically defaulted to find Turkers at this level—which costs more for the requester, and pays more for the worker.
If you don't have that designation, you are eligible for far fewer jobs.
One weekday in March, Milland said, there were 4911 available tasks on Mechanical Turk. She was eligible for 393 of them—just 8%.
So how does one attain a "Master's Level" designation? No one knows.
Milland has seen unqualified people—those with a low number of completed tasks, low approval ratings, false accounts, or suspensions—all earn a Master's Level.
"There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason," she said.
Amazon won't reveal their criteria to attain this level. (TechRepublic reached out to Amazon for comment, but after initially agreeing, the company later declined to be interviewed for this story.)
There are various theories floating around on Turker forums about how to get to Master's Level. Sometimes, a batch of HITs will be posted, and high-performers on that batch break into the Master's Level. "It's a matter of being in the right place at the right time," said Milland.
Beyond the Master's designation, where you live also disqualifies you for certain jobs. Being outside of the US is an obstacle, for instance, since many requesters restrict their tasks to US-only. Getting paid"No two Turkers are alike," said LaPlante. "Some come for essential income, and some people just use it for play money."
William Little is a moderator for TurkerNation, an online community for Turkers from Ontario, Canada. He uses AMT for extra cash. Little aims to make $15 a day for three hours of work. "Most of the time, I can achieve that," he said, "which is better than someone starting out." "No two Turkers are alike. Some come for essential income, and some people just use it for play money." Rochelle LaPlante, AMT worker in Los AngelesStill, the payment process is a major issue for many Turkers.
Right now, only Turkers in the US and India are paid in cash. All others, including Milland and Little in Canada, are paid via Amazon gift cards.
Little will drive 45 minutes to a US border store, where he can receive free shipping from Amazon, to pick up his packages. There are also workarounds for those who actually need the cash—although they mostly involve taking a loss on the earnings. Different websites, like purse.io, can convert the Amazon gift cards into bitcoins, for instance.
"You put your 'wish list' up on purse.io. I see that list and say 'I'll buy that for Hope.' I purchase that product and ship it to you," said Little. "The bitcoins are held in escrow. When you receive the product, I receive the bitcoins."
Then Little could sell the bitcoins, receive cash by PayPal, and transfer it to his bank. "I'm taking a loss on the transaction twice," he said. "It's not really worth it."
Another problem? Unpaid labor. A job might be rejected with no explanation. And beyond that, Turkers often spend time assessing whether a job is good. Searching, looking up the requestor. Loading scripts, adding tools, checking statistics.
Download this article as a PDF (free registration required).Slaves to the machineMiland and LaPlante are part of an invisible, online workforce—one that is increasingly in demand for their vital role in helping train intelligent machines.
Smart systems are gradually coming into everyday use, as artificial intelligence (AI) begins to be put to use across society. Today's narrow version of AI powers everything from voice-controlled virtual assistants, such as Amazon's Alexa and Microsoft's Cortana, to the computer vision systems that underpin the Autopilot in Tesla automobiles.
These systems are being taught to carry out tasks that historically would have been too complex for a computer, tasks that can range from understanding spoken commands to spotting a person crossing the road.
A common technique for teaching AI systems to perform these tricky tasks is by training them using a very large number of labeled examples. These machine learning systems are fed huge amounts of data, which has been annotated to highlight the features of interest. These examples might be photos labeled to indicate whether they contain a dog or written sentences that have footnotes to indicate whether the word "bass" relates to music or a fish.
This process of teaching a machine by example is called supervised learning and the role of labeling these examples is commonly carried out by Turkers and other online workers.
Training these systems typically requires vast amounts of data, with some systems needing to scour millions of examples to learn how to carry out a task effectively. Training datasets are huge and growing in size—Google's recently announced Open Images Dataset has about nine million images, while its labeled video repository YouTube-8M links to eight million labeled videos. ImageNet, one of the early databases of this kind, has more than 14 million categorized images. Compiled over two years, it was put together by nearly 50,000 people—most of whom were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk—who checked, sorted and labeled almost one billion candidate pictures.
Because of the scale of these datasets, even when the labeling is spread across many workers, each individual can be repeating essentially the same simple action hundreds of times. It's menial and often mentally wearing work. Beyond labeling, Turkers and other online workers also clean up the often messy datasets ready for use in training machine learning systems—deduplicating, filling in gaps, and other tasks needed to sanitize the data.
As AI becomes ubiquitous, every big name firm in the tech industry is engaging people in this sort of microwork to support their machine learning efforts. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, IBM and Microsoft—all of the major tech companies—either has their own internal crowdworking platform or contracts tasks to external alternatives, such as the two biggest, Amazon Mechanical Turk and CrowdFlower. "If anybody hears the 'ding' that indicates high-paying work, they say, 'Go, go, go!'" Kristy Milland, AMT worker in TorontoThese internal microwork platforms, such as Microsoft's Universal Human Relevance System (UHRS) or Google's EWOK, are used for a considerable amount of work. Around the time UHRS was launched, some five years ago, the platform was listed as being used within Bing and across various product teams in Microsoft and as orchestrating 7.5 million tasks per month.
According to Mary Gray, senior researcher at Microsoft, the firm's UHRS is "very similar" to Amazon Mechanical Turk. Gray said the firm uses UHRS to source labor in regions where "Amazon Mechanical Turk doesn't have the best reach" or where the work is sensitive and needs to be carried out in secret.
"Every company that has an interest in automating a service has access to or uses some sort of platform like Amazon Mechanical Turk. Indeed, many of them use Amazon Mechanical Turk," she said.
Chris Bishop, laboratory director for Microsoft Research Cambridge, said that UHRS gives Microsoft "a little bit more flexibility" over third-party platforms such as AMT, saying the firm is using AI to automatically identify strengths and weakness in crowdworkers, such as relative levels of expertise, which in turn helps Microsoft decide whether to attach more or less importance to different workers' results.
Beyond helping train AI, platforms like AMT are used by household names, everyone from eBay to Autodesk, to offload an assortment of repetitive, small-scale grunt work, which has made up the bulk of microtasks on AMT for many years.
This low-skilled, monotonous works spans many tasks: the occasionally traumatic process of screening user-generated images and other content, completing marketing and academic surveys, deduplicating entries and checking product descriptions and images for online retailers—Amazon created Mechanical Turk to help with its inventory management, categorizing images and products, writing website descriptions, extracting names from emails, translating text, transcribing text from speech or images, correcting spellings, verifying geolocations, giving feedback on web design, leaving reviews for products, choosing thumbnails for videos, or letting companies track which part of an ad you view.How did we get here?The idea of humans working to help machines carry out tasks they would otherwise find impossible is nothing new.
While the recent AI explosion has magnified demand for data labeling and curation, these sorts of microtasks date back more than two decades, said Gray, when work revolved around trying to improve spelling and grammar checking in word processors like Microsoft Word.
The wider history of click working and microtasks goes back to the rise of online retailers during the dotcom bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s.
In 2001, Amazon, looking for new ways to more efficiently organize products on its rapidly growing store and solve difficult inventory problems that lay beyond the ability of computers, patented a hybrid machine/human system.
Four years later, Amazon realized its goal of building a digital platform to provide on-demand access to the huge pool of labor available online, with the launch of Amazon Mechanical Turk.



Being able to tap into Amazon's pool of "artificial artificial intelligence"—Amazon's description of Mechanical Turk's USP—appealed to a broad range of companies, everyone from online retailers to porn sites looking for affordable ways to sort their products, particularly at the low price for which Turkers would carry out microtasks.
In 2015, an average of 1,278 people or organizations were posting jobs to Amazon Mechanical Turk each day. While the amount of work being carried out by crowd laborers is increasing, particularly via sites like CrowdFlower, the exact amount remains unclear, since much work goes unrecorded or is contracted out multiple times.
And while more than 500,000 people may be signed up to work for Amazon Mechanical Turk, according to Amazon's website, these numbers don't reveal how people use crowd-working platforms—whether it's a full-time gig or something people do to earn cash on the side.
The Oxford Internet Institute estimated that the two large microtask platforms—Amazon Mechanical Turk and CrowdFlower—had a combined annual gross revenue of about $120 million in 2013. Professor Vili Lehdonvirta, associate professor and senior research fellow at the institute, estimates this is about 5% to 10% of the overall online crowd labor market, but again stresses the difficulty of sourcing accurate figures that account for employment via non-English language platforms globally.The other cost of click workBeyond the dull nature of click work for the people doing it, there can be more costly consequences. It can take a severe toll on the physical and mental health of some workers. 
"I would wake up, ignore everything else," said Milland. "My family would prepare food and leave it here for me so I could eat while I worked. I would eat at the computer and I wouldn't see my family. If my daughter needed homework help she'd have to go to her dad. It got so bad that I developed a ganglion cyst in my wrist. I've got a repetitive strain injury in my arm, but that's what you do."
"I was lucky that I was doing it at the peak when my husband was home, because he was unemployed," said Milland. "If anybody hears the 'ding' that indicates high-paying work, they say, 'Go, go, go!'"
A Turker from southern India, Manish Bhatia, has been a volunteer moderator for MTurk Forum for almost two years, and currently moderates two forums.
The strangest thing he'd been asked to do? Film himself lying in a bathtub with rose petals. "That was really weird," he said. In terms of the graphic content, Bhatia also reports seeing disturbing images. "You don't get to know beforehand," he said. "You can opt out afterwards." But, then you don't get paid for a job you don't complete and it wastes time.
Milland reported similar experiences. "People say to me 'Oh my god, you work at home? You're so lucky,'" said Milland. "You can't tell them 'I was tagging images today­­—it was all ISIS screen grabs. There was a basket full of heads.' That's what I saw just a few months ago. The guy on fire, I had to tag that video. It was like 10 cents a photo."
Milland isn't the only one tasked with tagging graphic or grotesque images.
"In the YouTube batch yesterday," said LaPlante in March, "there were a lot of beheadings. There's a check-box at the bottom that says 'Inappropriate Content,' and you push 'Submit," she said.
This kind of work can be important, since it has the potential to prevent objectionable material from appearing online. Still, it can be pretty traumatic to the people doing it, and the pay doesn't necessarily match the value it's providing to YouTube or its users.
Little said he would often have to tag photos or videos for pornographic content. "The only time I would take any exception to that is if there was child pornography," said Little. "Then I would report that to the requester and Amazon."
But in terms of gore or mutilation, for instance, it's "par for the course to see stuff like that," said Little.
Once a task is completed, it's impossible to know what happens with the result. "I wonder, is somebody going to review this? Hopefully, this is going to be reported or removed," LaPlante said. "Someone came across some child pornography, and they checked the box, but is that going to be ever checked into or looked into? You just don't know."
Since requesters use pseudonyms, no one knows who is asking for this work to be done. LaPlante calls it "the wild, wild west." And while requesters rate Turkers, there is no way for Turkers to rate or review requesters.
"You could be tagging faces in a crowd, but maybe something is being built for a malicious purpose or something," she said. "You don't know what you're doing, exactly, because there's no information."


"It's called vicarious traumatization," said John Suler, a psychology professor at Ryder University who specializes in behavior in cyberspace. "The same thing happens with first responders, and this is another example. When people see horrible images online, they become traumatized."
But we are not always aware of the psychological toll, he said. "Our conscious mind goes numb," said Suler. "But our unconscious mind doesn't—it picks up on things. We're underestimating how all these things we see online impact us at a subconscious level."
Workers have found online community forums to connect with each other and share stories, commiserate, and support each other. "There are so many questions around things like pay [and] content moderation," said Milland.
"It's a place to find social support," she said.
Each of the community platforms has a slightly different vibe. MTurk Forum has a "water cooler feel." On the other hand, Mturkgrind "seems to be more focused on production and efficiency and work," Milland said. At TurkerNation, she said, "the focus seems to be on answering questions and helping new users navigate and understand the system. They're a little more production-minded."
There's also a closed Facebook group called Mturk Members, with 4,436 members. The group uses the page to ask questions, post earnings, and cheer each other on.
LaPlante and three other women created MTurk Crowd, a worker forum for Turkers that helps them locate resources to enable them to do the best work they can on the platform. And there are many other forums, subReddits, and organizing platforms online, as well.
There's also an organizing site for workers: WeAreDynamo.org. It's where the "Dear Jeff Bezos" campaign was initiated. That campaign was an attempt to humanize Turkers, giving a voice to people actively engaged in the platform, where they stated their experiences and voiced concerns about the nature of their work.
Unfortunately, the campaign had very little impact: Although Indian workers were able to receive bank transfers after the campaign, neither Amazon nor Jeff Bezos ever directly addressed the initiative.
Communicating with Amazon is, for all practical purposes, virtually impossible. "The lack of support we have is disturbing," said Bhatia. "There's no live chat, no phone number." The only way a Turker can make contact is through email, which prompts a boilerplate response.
"I am utterly baffled by the choices they are making," said Little, "and the number one choice they are making a mistake in is a lack of communication. Why do they want to be so hands off? It can't because of the risk of a lawsuit, because their terms of service clearly state 'No class action lawsuits.'"
Little talked to lawyers, but "none of them would ever take on a single worker against Amazon," he said. And Amazon still refuses to talk. "Not even about rejections, not about improvements, not about how we think they could make more money," he said. "Nothing."
Lilly Irani, who teaches at UC San Diego, explores the "cultural politics of high-tech work practices.". Irani co-authored a 2013 study looking at forums for Turkers. The work aimed to understand how collective actions could work, looking at things like Dynamo, the collective platform for Turkers, and Turkopticon, which allows Turkers to review and rate available jobs. In a paper called "Turkopticon: Interrupting Worker Invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk," the authors stated: "We argued that AMT is predicated on infrastructuring and hiding human labor, rendering it a reliable computational resource for technologists."
Despite the poor working conditions, people like Milland rely on the income AMT provides. And she has a disability that makes her doubt her chances of being hired for a traditional job. "I applied at McDonald's, and they won't hire me," she said.
Download this article as a PDF (free registration required).Humans working alongside AIHelping fuel demand for this piecemeal, on-demand employment, predicts Microsoft's Gray, will be the growth of human/AI systems that promote a symbiotic relationship between people and machines.


She cites the emergence of virtual assistants such as Facebook M or customer service chatbots like IPsoft's Amelia, where humans either handle queries with the aid of AI or an AI handles queries and the human takes over when there is an issue the machine can't handle. Over time these smart systems can also learn from human responses, and gradually increase the breadth of queries they can tackle.
Services that use narrow AI to handle easier tasks and humans to handle the more complicated demands are on the rise. One of the major hubs for crowdsourced labor, CrowdFlower, recently launched a machine learning platform to automate certain tasks that previously would have been carried out by manual workers, leaving human workers to "focus on the harder cases and help the [machine learning] models learn". This approach results in significant amounts of manual work being automated, but the more optimistic forecasts predict that, while on a job-by-job level the human's share of the work is reduced, overall employment opportunities won't fall, due to increased demand for these joint AI-human services.How long will machines need people?But, for how long will humans have a role to play in training the smart systems of tomorrow?
As intelligent systems gain the ability to perform tasks that once had to be carried out by people, the nature of the work offloaded to humans on platforms like AMT changes.
In 2006, one year after AMT launched, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said a human was needed to spot whether a person was in a photo, a task that can now be carried out by deep learning, neural networks run by the likes of Baidu, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. So does this mean that the microtasks that offer employment today will gradually be taken over by machines?
The Oxford Internet Institute's Lehdonvirta sees little prospect of demand for AI-focused microtasks being sated. He forecasts that as machine learning is applied to more and more tasks, there will be an ever-increasing amount of data needing to be labeled. "We see this industry of work that's sourced, scheduled, managed, paid for, and shipped through an API."  Mary Gray, senior researcher at Microsoft"It's a moving target. There are so many applications that I don't think we'll be running out of that work anytime soon," he said.
Microsoft's Bishop said that in the near-future, AI systems will likely be trained using a mix of human-led, supervised learning and unsupervised learning. Microsoft's Gray believes there will be a long-lasting need for humans in the loop: "If anything, we would predict they're going to go up because the amount of things we're trying to automate is going up," she said."If we take those early cases of natural language processing and image recognition as a bellwether or as a benchmark, we see a pretty steady amount of work in the system."
The University of Southampton's Ramchurn uses the example of image recognition to illustrate just how much data will still need labeling.
"We are nowhere close to hitting a limit. Image labeling for example still relies on human labeling for every type of context in which pictures are taken," he said.
Such is the range of different settings in which images can be captured—in light, in shadow, obscured, unobscured—that "even after classifying 50 million pictures, only very few items in pictures will be accurately classified in all possible contexts," he said.
Expand that need for data to be labeled in a multitude of contexts to speech, natural language understanding, emotion recognition, and all of the many areas that machine learning is being applied, and there is no danger of the work drying up, he said. Especially as society finds new uses for machine learning.
"Demand is likely to keep growing and we will see more systems combining human and machine intelligence in novel ways to address real-world problems." Jobs as a serviceWhether or not people are needed to help train AI in the long run, the rise of platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk reflects a wider, ongoing shift in working practices.
Just as the advent of faster global telecommunications links in the late 1990s made it possible to outsource and offshore a far greater range of business roles, so online crowd labor platforms and an abundance of people with access to broadband and a computer at home will again reshape the world of work, said Microsoft's Gray.
"We are able to, for better and for worse, break up jobs that use to be full-time occupations and turn them into work that can be done 24x7 by a range of people in different time zones, in different locations," she said.
"We've not so much dismantled or deskilled the work that we do, so much as we've created modules of it that different groups of people can pick up."
In the long run, Gray sees individuals chopping and changing between microtasks as being a much more common way of working. The practice of software managing the task of splitting jobs into chunks and then farming out the resulting microtasks to individuals via online platforms, as and when the need arises, is a natural progression from the outsourcing practiced by firms today, she said. "We have yet to grapple in any substantive way with how they completely reorient the vast majority of people on this planet to how they work." Mary Gray, senior researcher at Microsoft"Technologically, we are there and we have been there for the last decade in some areas of customer service," she said, citing the shifting of customer relations from call centers to live web chats and referencing a similar proportion of software-managed manual roles in retail, marketing and events industries.
As these online platforms become better at rapidly connecting employers with the skills they need for specific tasks, a key appeal of the practice for firms today, so the use of microwork will grow, she said.
"We see this industry of work that's sourced, scheduled, managed, paid for, and shipped through an API [Application Programming Interface]," said Gray. "It's exploding underneath our noses."
The Oxford Internet Institute's Lehdonvirta, shares Gray's perspective that it will become increasingly common for computer systems to orchestrate labor.
"Some of these same practices and ways of organizing the work, the computer mediation—the use of platforms to mediate the working relationship—those kind of things seem to be on the rise," said Lehdonvirta.
As online connectivity and crowd labor platforms continue to grow, enabling full-time jobs to be broken into smaller packets of contract work, it's time for governments to start paying attention to the human impact of this shift in the way we work, said Gray.
"We have yet to grapple in any substantive way with how they completely reorient the vast majority of people on this planet to how they work," she said.
"It's been going on for the last 30 years," Gray said. "We weren't paying attention because, frankly, it didn't hit the kinds of jobs that people in power have and their children have."


Scordisk

  • 3
  • Posts: 2.532
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #62 on: 04-03-2017, 13:01:09 »
Haha, nije losa ideja:)


Dybuk

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.345
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #64 on: 08-03-2017, 12:28:40 »
Pa da, to je taj paradoks. Usamljeni u (virtuelnoj) gomili.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #65 on: 08-03-2017, 13:57:18 »
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala


Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #67 on: 08-03-2017, 17:37:36 »
My ears!
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #68 on: 20-04-2017, 08:14:33 »
Stari tekst, ali vredan promišljanja:



Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism

Quote
Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves.
Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now.  It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing.  But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little—or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting.  (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions—for then the fool dominates conversations.)
So the garden is tainted now, and it is less fun to play in; the old inhabitants, already invested there, will stay, but they are that much less likely to attract new blood.  Or if there are new members, their quality also has gone down.
Then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other, and at that point some of the old members, those with the highest standards and the best opportunities elsewhere, leave...
I am old enough to remember the USENET that is forgotten, though I was very young.  Unlike the first Internet that died so long ago in the Eternal September, in these days there is always some way to delete unwanted content.  We can thank spam for that—so egregious that no one defends it, so prolific that no one can just ignore it, there must be a banhammer somewhere.
But when the fools begin their invasion, some communities think themselves too good to use their banhammer for—gasp!—censorship.
After all—anyone acculturated by academia knows that censorship is a very grave sin... in their walled gardens where it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to enter, and students fear their professors' grading, and heaven forbid the janitors should speak up in the middle of a colloquium.
It is easy to be naive about the evils of censorship when you already live in a carefully kept garden.  Just like it is easy to be naive about the universal virtue of unconditional nonviolent pacifism, when your country already has armed soldiers on the borders, and your city already has police.  It costs you nothing to be righteous, so long as the police stay on their jobs.
The thing about online communities, though, is that you can't rely on the police ignoring you and staying on the job; the community actually pays the price of its virtuousness.
In the beginning, while the community is still thriving, censorship seems like a terrible and unnecessary imposition.  Things are still going fine.  It's just one fool, and if we can't tolerate just one fool, well, we must not be very tolerant.  Perhaps the fool will give up and go away, without any need of censorship.  And if the whole community has become just that much less fun to be a part of... mere fun doesn't seem like a good justification for (gasp!) censorship, any more than disliking someone's looks seems like a good reason to punch them in the nose.
(But joining a community is a strictly voluntary process, and if prospective new members don't like your looks, they won't join in the first place.)
And after all—who will be the censor?  Who can possibly be trusted with such power?
Quite a lot of people, probably, in any well-kept garden.  But if the garden is even a little divided within itself —if there are factions—if there are people who hang out in the community despite not much trusting the moderator or whoever could potentially wield the banhammer—
(for such internal politics often seem like a matter of far greater import than mere invading barbarians)
—then trying to defend the community is typically depicted as a coup attempt.  Who is this one who dares appoint themselves as judge and executioner?  Do they think their ownership of the server means they own the people?  Own our community?  Do they think that control over the source code makes them a god?
I confess, for a while I didn't even understand why communities had such trouble defending themselves—I thought it was pure naivete.  It didn't occur to me that it was an egalitarian instinct to prevent chieftains from getting too much power.  "None of us are bigger than one another, all of us are men and can fight; I am going to get my arrows", was the saying in one hunter-gatherer tribe whose name I forget.  (Because among humans, unlike chimpanzees, weapons are an equalizer—the tribal chieftain seems to be an invention of agriculture, when people can't just walk away any more.)
Maybe it's because I grew up on the Internet in places where there was always a sysop, and so I take for granted that whoever runs the server has certain responsibilities.  Maybe I understand on a gut level that the opposite of censorship is not academia but 4chan (which probably still has mechanisms to prevent spam).  Maybe because I grew up in that wide open space where the freedom that mattered was the freedom to choose a well-kept garden that you liked and that liked you, as if you actually could find a country with good laws.  Maybe because I take it for granted that if you don't like the archwizard, the thing to do is walk away (this did happen to me once, and I did indeed just walk away).
And maybe because I, myself, have often been the one running the server.  But I am consistent, usually being first in line to support moderators—even when they're on the other side from me of the internal politics.  I know what happens when an online community starts questioning its moderators.  Any political enemy I have on a mailing list who's popular enough to be dangerous is probably not someone who would abuse that particular power of censorship, and when they put on their moderator's hat, I vocally support them—they need urging on, not restraining.  People who've grown up in academia simply don't realize how strong are the walls of exclusion that keep the trolls out of their lovely garden of "free speech".
Any community that really needs to question its moderators, that really seriously has abusive moderators, is probably not worth saving.  But this is more accused than realized, so far as I can see.
In any case the light didn't go on in my head about egalitarian instincts (instincts to prevent leaders from exercising power) killing online communities until just recently.  While reading a comment at Less Wrong, in fact, though I don't recall which one.
But I have seen it happen—over and over, with myself urging the moderators on and supporting them whether they were people I liked or not, and the moderators still not doing enough to prevent the slow decay.  Being too humble, doubting themselves an order of magnitude more than I would have doubted them.  It was a rationalist hangout, and the third besetting sin of rationalists is underconfidence.
This about the Internet:  Anyone can walk in.  And anyone can walk out.  And so an online community must stay fun to stay alive.  Waiting until the last resort of absolute, blatent, undeniable egregiousness—waiting as long as a police officer would wait to open fire—indulging your conscience and the virtues you learned in walled fortresses, waiting until you can be certain you are in the right, and fear no questioning looks—is waiting far too late.
I have seen rationalist communities die because they trusted their moderators too little.
But that was not a karma system, actually.
Here—you must trust yourselves.
A certain quote seems appropriate here:  "Don't believe in yourself!  Believe that I believe in you!"
Because I really do honestly think that if you want to downvote a comment that seems low-quality... and yet you hesitate, wondering if maybe you're downvoting just because you disagree with the conclusion or dislike the author... feeling nervous that someone watching you might accuse you of groupthink or echo-chamber-ism or (gasp!) censorship... then nine times of ten, I bet, nine times out of ten at least, it is a comment that really is low-quality.
You have the downvote.  Use it or USENET.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #69 on: 23-05-2017, 07:58:39 »
Vinton Cerf je čovek koji je "izmislio internet" (ovkao se ne piše Al Gore, reći će cinici), a Computer World ga intervjuiše povodom svoje pedesetogodišnjice:


http://computerworld.com/article/3193906/internet/cw-50-vint-cerf-on-his-love-affair-with-tech-and-what-s-coming-next.html

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #70 on: 23-05-2017, 11:11:16 »
Koji moj su kvantni računari?
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #71 on: 23-05-2017, 12:25:50 »
Mnogi problemi se rešavaju tako što moraš brutalnom silom da pretražiš ceo domen mogućih rešenja da bi pronašao konkretno rešenje problema. Probaš svako potencijalno rešenje da bi jednom došao do pravog. E pa kvantni računar ti omogućuje da sva potencijalna rešenja ispitaš istovremeno. U svojoj srži kvantni računar ima generator slučajnih brojeva koji generiše sve slučajne brojeve istovremeno.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #72 on: 23-05-2017, 12:39:32 »
Ništa ne kontam... Što to ne bi mogo da radi i običan procesor?
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #73 on: 23-05-2017, 13:07:32 »
Običan procesor gleda sekvencijalno svako potencijalno rešenje. Neka mu za proveru jednog potencijalnog rešenja treba 0.1 ms, i neka je ukupan broj potencijalnih rešenja 3 milijardi (hehe), to znači da u najgorem slučaju kompjuteru treba 0.1 ms * 3000000000 = 300000 sekundi ili 3.5 dana. Kvantni kompjuter gleda sva potencijalna rešenja istovremeno, pa mu treba samo milisekunda da pronađe rešenje.


Da bi kvantni kompjuter mogao da pokrije ceo problemski domen (tri miljarde) mora da ima 32 "kubita" (jer je 2^32 taman veće od 3*10^9) koji rade u sadejstvu, i tu se sad gleda napredak tehnologije, u broju kubita koji mogu da istovremeno rade u sadejstvu.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #74 on: 23-05-2017, 13:38:59 »
Ok, nači brzina je u pitanju i ništa drugo?

More of the same, što se tiče performansa
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #75 on: 23-05-2017, 14:31:47 »
Asimetrična enkripcija (algoritmi RSA i eliptičke krive) su trenutno osnova svakog poslovanja na internetu. RSA algotiram je zastupljeniji. Jačina RSA algoritma se meri u veličini privatnog ključa, koja se meri u bitovima. Trenutno su aktuelni ključevi od 2048 bitova, i to trenutni konvencionalni računari ne mogu da razbiju ni za 100 godina. Ali kvantni kompjuter će teoretski da razbije te ključeve u sekundi. Šta da radimo, da povećamo ključ na 4096 bitova? To će bitno usporiti stvari na internetu, a kvantni kompjuter će to da razbije za dve sekunde. Znači RSA postaje beskoristan. Ceo internet postaje nebezbedan za korišćenje. SSL postaje beskoristan. Jeste samo brzina, ali brzina je drastična.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #76 on: 23-05-2017, 16:24:34 »
Ok, nisam mislio da je nebitno, nego da radi po istom principu, ne obrađuje podatke drugačije no brže.

I dalje su, kad se uprosti, u pitanju nule i jedinice koje se obrađuju matematički, nema nečeg što u stvari prevazilazi algoritam.

I dalje je to neki if-then programčić, logički nije napredovao od pukog niza komandi no je samo veoma umnožio komande?
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #77 on: 23-05-2017, 17:09:27 »
Kvantni kompjuter ima u sebi ono što nijedan kompjuter sada ne imade, tako da jeste suštinski nešto novo i različito. To suštinski novo i različito treba da nam posluži da brzo rešimo probleme koje smo i do sada rešavali, a za to treba nekakav ljudski napisan algoritam koji će da uposli ovo suštinski novo u kompjuteru. Taj algoritam je takođe nov, ali je bar nešto sa čime ljudi mogu da barataju.

Veća je razlika između kvantnog i klasičnog kompjutera, nego između kompjutera i abakusa.

Petronije

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.758
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #78 on: 31-12-2017, 09:08:40 »

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 22.686
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #79 on: 31-12-2017, 11:49:28 »
Ova teza možda nije bez osnova, mada ništa ne može da poveća inteligenciju nego se praksom, vežbom i tako tim stvarima može stvoriti iluzija veće pameti.
Evo kako ja to vidim, zapravo sam siguran da je tako jer sam se osvedočio u praksi.
Zamislite da je donji grafikon sastavljen od faza u nekom poslu. Potpuno glup čovek kada treba da savlada jednu situaciju kreće od podnožja i ide do vrha. Hiperinteligentan čovek je u stanju da obavlja stvari hodajući samo po vrhovima. Ostali su između, oni pametniji kada treba da pređu s jednog vrha na drugi ne moraju baš da siđu do podnožja, oni gluplji moraju.  To je esencija inteligencije, mogućnost baratanja različitim podacima i sklapanje svega toga u potrebnu sliku.
Zato glupi ljudi ne mogu da budu pisci.
Kompjuter, sam po sebi je otelotvorenje rešavanja situacija odozgo, uz minimalno spuštanje nadole, doslovno skaknje po vrhovima ovog grafikona. Internet sa svojim hiperlinkovima i umreženošću svega sa svim ne opamećuje ljude, ali ih tera da izvuku iz sebe maksimum kombinatorike i onda to sve može da liči da su postali pametniji.

Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #80 on: 31-12-2017, 12:14:47 »
Kakve veze ima prodaja električnih vozila u Kanadi sa inteligencijom na internetu?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #81 on: 31-12-2017, 12:18:35 »
Internet ne uvećava inteligenciju, ali ohrabruje osrednje.


Umesto glupih i nerazumljivih grafikona, evo jedne zanimljive timeline.


Šapirograf - fotokopiranje - letraset slova - budženje fontova - chiwriteri i ostala pakovanja - kolor izdanja...


Jesmo li na tom putu postali inteligentniji ili smo postali brži i vizuelno prihvatljiviji?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Boban

  • 3
  • Posts: 22.686
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #82 on: 31-12-2017, 13:04:25 »
hm... nisam verovao da će doći dan na forumu ZS da jedna metafora bude izvrguta ruglu jer nije direkno opisana.
Put ćemo naći ili ćemo ga napraviti.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #83 on: 31-12-2017, 13:17:54 »
hm... nisam verovao da će doći dan na forumu ZS da jedna metafora bude izvrguta ruglu jer nije direkno opisana.


Nadam se da to ima veze sa Macom, a ne sa mnom. :shock:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 12.052
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #84 on: 31-12-2017, 17:00:42 »
Ma ja samo hoću da svi znaju kako sam pronašao grafik na internetu. Jer sam pametan.



Black swan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.131
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #87 on: 15-01-2018, 07:26:37 »
bolje stari baba koja rovi po kanti
od njega
Najjači forum na kojem se osjećam kao kod kuće i gdje uvijek mogu reći što mislim bez posljedica, mada ipak ne bih trebao mnogo pričati...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #88 on: 25-01-2018, 11:19:38 »
Sećate se plešuće bebe? Prvog znaka da će eksperiment koji zovemo Internet krenuti najgorim tajmlajnom u budućnost? Pa, evo šta čovek zaslužan za njenu popularnost ima da kaže:

I Have a Confession to Make

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #89 on: 25-02-2018, 07:17:01 »
Naravno, bilo je samo pitanje "kada" a ne i "da li" će blokčejn biti predložen kao alatka za oblikovanje političkih odluka.
 
 
 Liquid democracy uses blockchain to fix politics, and now you can vote for it


Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #91 on: 13-03-2018, 23:45:34 »
E, narode, imal' ko iskustva sa onim VIP G4 internetom.
Ja sam na telekomovoj telefonsko-fixnoj zici,
a cujem da je taj G4 kao bolji?!
Dok sam ovo iskuckao, cujem i telekom ima tu G4 mrezu?!

Koristi li iko to valja li?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #92 on: 13-03-2018, 23:55:40 »
Garant ne povećava inteligenciju.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #93 on: 13-03-2018, 23:58:32 »
Sta ce mi to?
Da brze skapiram u kakvom sam cabru?
Ti ne nauci dosad da je blazenstvo u neznanju!?!?

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 28.512
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #94 on: 14-03-2018, 00:05:01 »
Kako da naučim kad nemam mobilni telefon?
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Petronije

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.758
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #95 on: 14-03-2018, 00:44:43 »
E, narode, imal' ko iskustva sa onim VIP G4 internetom.
Ja sam na telekomovoj telefonsko-fixnoj zici,
a cujem da je taj G4 kao bolji?!
Dok sam ovo iskuckao, cujem i telekom ima tu G4 mrezu?!

Koristi li iko to valja li?
Ti verovatno misliš na ove nove internet pakete koje mobilni operateri nude preko svojih mreža? I verovatno misliš na 4g a ne g4? Ako je tako, treba da znaš par stvari. Obično je mesečni limit oko 100gb, što je uglavnom dovoljno za prosečnog korisnika. Ako ti ukućani dosta troše interneta, ako se puno downloaduje, gleda youtube u visokim kvalitetu itd. može biti tesno. Drugo, treba proveriti da li imaš u kući uopšte 4g mrežu, i čija je. To se lako proveri, svaki noviji telefon sad podržava 4g, instalira se aplikacija speedtest i pustiš da ti istestira brzinu. Ako imaš 4g i ako je dobar signal, sigurno će biti veća brzina nego na telekomovom raspalom 10mbit adslu. Uzmi u obzir da i telenor nudi 4g kućni net, mislim da su cene oko 1000 uz ugovor na dve godine, dobija se i ruter naravno. Tako da, ako ne hvataš vip, probaš telenor ili telekom, neki ćeš sigurno uhvatiti, a ako živiš u gradu, verovatno dva, ako ne i sva tri.

Sent from my Le X626 using Tapatalk


Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #96 on: 14-03-2018, 01:12:36 »
Agli, kako bre bez kabla, pa nije Zemlja okrugla!
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #97 on: 14-03-2018, 08:37:35 »
Okrugla kao Zemljin krug ,jeste, ravna kao gramofonska ploca, ali sa cvrstom kupolom iznad od koje se nazad odbijaju svi radio-talasi, te je tako komunikacija prosta.


Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala






Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #105 on: 04-12-2018, 06:08:38 »
Siguro nisam jedii koji je na ovu vest pomislio "pa zar na tumblru ima nešto drugo?"
 
 Tumblr Will Ban Adult Content This Month



Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #108 on: 26-01-2019, 08:01:40 »
Tekući talas otpuštanja ljudi iz onlajn medijskih kuća je nešto što se moglo predvideti, naravno. Prekarijat postaje klasa21. veka:
 The digital winter turns apocalyptic

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #109 on: 13-02-2019, 17:48:19 »
Max Read tvrdi da sistemske dezinformacije na internetu dolaze od privatnih grupa sa bogatim pokroviteljima a ne od državno-sponzorisanih hakera:
 
 With Social Media Disinformation, What — and Who — Should We Be Afraid Of?

Black swan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.131
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #110 on: 13-02-2019, 17:54:48 »
Povecava cundaru ako gledas youporn
Najjači forum na kojem se osjećam kao kod kuće i gdje uvijek mogu reći što mislim bez posljedica, mada ipak ne bih trebao mnogo pričati...

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #111 on: 13-02-2019, 19:14:04 »
normalno, isto kao macov adblock

ne rade oni to, oni štite druge od dezinformisanja i praćenja!
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #113 on: 18-03-2019, 12:11:39 »
Interesantan i ekstremno dugačak tekst o sudbini književne kritike u doba savremene digitalne komunikacije i društvenih mreža. Iako predugačko za poente koje želi da napravi (da ne pominjem da je na sajtu Harper's Magazina koji vam daje jedan besplatan tekst mesečno za čitanje pa vidite da li će to biti ovaj), ovo je svejedno vrlo lepo napisano, sa mnogo citata i referenci koje sve stavljaju u opširno oslikan kontekst, drugim rečima, zadovoljstvo je za čitanje:


Like This or Die





Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #116 on: 22-04-2019, 07:50:06 »
Zvuči dosadno, zapravo je zabrinjavajuće  :lol:


Google takes a tiny step toward fixing AMP’s URL problem

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #117 on: 04-06-2019, 07:50:47 »
Twitter is eroding your intelligence: Study

Nije baš tako dramatično kako iz naslova deluje, ali...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #118 on: 17-06-2019, 07:49:47 »
Tech overlords Google and Facebook have used monopoly to rob journalism of its revenue


Quote
Over the past decade, the news business has endured a bloodbath, with tens of thousands of journalists losing their jobs amid mass layoffs.   The irony is, more people than ever are consuming news. There’s never been a greater need for factual reporting, from the White House down to the local school board.
 Why the disconnect? Look no further than a new study by the News Media Alliance, which found that in 2018, Google made $4.7 billion off of news content — almost as much as every news organization in America combined made from digital ads last year. Yet Google paid a grand total of zero for the privilege. News industry revenue, meanwhile, has plunged.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #119 on: 16-10-2019, 07:52:17 »
Would you give up Google for $17,000 a year? The Federal Reserve wants to know

Interesantan članak o tome kolika je vrednost servisa na internetu koji su besplatni.







Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #126 on: 10-03-2022, 11:16:43 »
Herbert W. Franke je jedan od ranih kompjuterskih umetnika, koji je radio sa kompjuterskom grafikom još pedesetih godina prošlog veka. Die Zeit ga je nazvao najprominentnijim nemačkim autorom naučne fantastike. Čovek ima 95 godina i pre par dana je počeo da tvituje i to je jedno od podsećanja na čudesnost sveta u kome živimo. Danas je krenuo sa kačenjem slika koje je pravio pre 70 godina koristeći tadašnje kompjutere:
https://twitter.com/HerbertWFranke



Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.617
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #127 on: 10-03-2022, 11:30:34 »
Iznenadio bi se koliko je njegovih priča prevedeno kod nas po raznim tehničkim i omladinskim časopisima. Ima ga i u Andromedi 1...
Mica

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #128 on: 10-03-2022, 12:36:13 »
Da, da, naravno, njegova priča Nalog je u prvoj Andromedi.
Quote
Herbert V. Franke

Nalog


HERBERT W. FRANKE. Doktor filozofije, nauĉnik i veliki popularizator nauke, H. V. Franke (1927) istovremeno je i jedan od najagilnijih nemaĉkih pisaca nauĉne fantastike. Objavio veliki broj priĉa i nekoliko »utopijsko-tehniĉkih romana«. Staklena zamka, Čelična pustinja i dr. Priĉa Nalog uzeta je iz njegove zbirke Zelena kometa.

Preveo: GAVRILO VUĈKOVIĆ

Lekar je seo na bolesnikov krevet i dobrodušno uhvatio njegovu ruku: — Sada nam još jednom ispriĉajte vašu priĉu, ali potpuno mirno, molim! Pa mi vam verujemo. Pacijent se iscrpljeno zavalio natrag na jastuk. Poĉeo je tiho da govori, dok su mu plaviĉasto nateĉene usne podrhtavale. — Otpoĉeo sam sasvim skromno. Danas je moja reklamna agencija preduzeće svetskog glasa. Najbolje firme davale su mi naloge — propagandne kampanje, ispitivanje javnog mnenja, ugovaranje poslova. MeĊutim, najveći nalog dobio sam od jednog neznanca. Moj zadatak bio je pomalo ĉudan — ali iza njega se nalazio novac. Već godinama su moja firma i njene filijale širom sveta uglavnom time zauzete. MeĊutim, sve je trebalo da ostane u tajnosti. Moj zadatak? O tome nisam smeo da govorim. Ali danas to ipak moram da uĉinim. Trebalo je da ĉoveĉanstvo uputim u meĊuzvezdanu misao. Ono je trebalo da postane upoznato sa pitanjima svemirskog putovanja, trebalo se pripremiti na ono šta su mogle da donesu ekspedicije u kosmos, trebalo se priviknuti na misao da je ĉovek samo jedan od raznih oblika ţivota meĊu mnogim drugim u zvezdanom prostoru.
Nisam se raspitivao za razlog, ĉovek je plaćao. Najpre sam testirao javno mnenje — većina krugova bez razumevanja je gledala na takve ideje, samo se mali broj pojedinaca bavio sliĉnim problemima. Doduše, bilo je nekoliko pisaca koji su iz tog podruĉja crpli svoje teme, ali ko je njih ĉitao? Tu sam se ja umešao, i sada svi znaju nauĉnu fantastiku. Upregao sam moje evropske
filijale. Sa uspehom, gospodo! Imam veze i u Rusiji. Znate li koja je literatura tamo u poslednje vreme doţivela najveći polet? Uĉinio sam još mnogo toga. Finansirao sam filmove i predavaĉke turneje, okupljao sam zainteresovane i vodio brigu o tome da se oni udruţe u klubove. Pojma nemate koliko je teško širiti nove misli! Ali ja sam imao uspeha. Pre nedelju dana moj nalogodavac me je pozvao kod sebe. On stanuje izvan grada u jednoj usamljenoj kući. Izgleda da je nekakav privatni nauĉnik. Primio me je u jednom udobno nameštenom salonu. Bio je primetno nervozan. — Ide suviše sporo — uzviknuo je. — Vi radite premalo! — Oprostite — rekao sam — ĉasopis »Galaxy« danas izlazi na deset jezika, osnovan je prvi evropski klub nauĉne fantastike, u istoĉnim zemljama imamo drţavnu podršku... On me prekide. — Sve je to premalo! — obrecnuo se. — Kako je danas moglo doći do panike dok su leteći tanjiri kruţili iznad Sidneja? O tome nisam ništa ĉuo, mada sam uvek dobro obavešten. Otkuda je ovaj ĉovek mogao to da sazna? Ĉitava stvar izgledala mi je sve ĉudnija. Ĉovek je brzo koraĉao tamo-amo, kao da oseća strah. Da, to je prava reĉ — strah! A onda su iz susedne prostorije odjeknuli neki neobiĉni zvuci. On je pritrĉao vratima i prošao kroz njih, ne otvorivši ih ni za palac više nego što je bilo neophodno. Ali uprkos tome osetio sam vlaţnu vrelinu i kiselkast zadah koji je prodro u sobu iz susedne prostorije. Onda sam se prikrao do vrata i bacio jedan pogled kroz kljuĉaonicu... Nije trebalo to da uĉinim... Kad se on ponovo vratio, obećao sam mu sve šta je od mene zahtevao. Nisam ţeleo ništa drugo sem da se izgubim, i on me je uskoro otpustio. U kolima mi je posle toga bilo crno pred oĉima. Moj šofer me je ovamo dovezao. Šta sam video u susednoj prostoriji? U jednoj naslonjaĉi sedela je neka prilika, veća od ĉoveka, ali ne ĉovek — njeno telo sastojalo se iz mnoštva isprepletenih belih gumenih cevi, udovi su izgledali kao raĉje štipaljke, a glava je bila u obliku zvona sa jednom sisaljkom i ĉitavim nizom buljavih oĉiju svuda uokolo. Nije to bilo biće sa ovoga sveta... Bolesnik je zaklopio oĉi. Mada je ćutao, usne su mu i dalje podrhtavale. MeĊutim, nije više reagovao ni na jedno pitanje.
— Ostavimo ga na miru! — odluĉi šef lekara. — Tipiĉno stanje iscrpljenosti posle srĉanog udara izazvanog nervozom. Ili, razumljivije govoreći, menadţerska bolest. Neobiĉne su samo halucinacije. On se neće više vratiti na svoje radno mesto. Sva sreća što njegov sin nastavlja njegovo ţivotno delo. U poslovanju firme nije došlo ni do kakvog zastoja! Gospoda napustiše bolesnikovu sobu i posvetiše se sledećem pacijentu.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 55.862
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #129 on: 26-04-2022, 11:40:36 »
Vidim da je miris slobode opojan, neki su se već napili.



Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #130 on: 26-04-2022, 20:52:20 »
Budući da su crnci 100 godina kasnije i dalje se vozili na zadnjem sjedištu buseva i crkavali u getima, možda je i u pravu

No nekad ti ludi kapitalisti sami sebi iskopaju grobnicu, pa možda bude zanimljivo

"The more capitalism creates wealth, the more it sows the seeds of its own destruction. Ultimately, the proletariat will realize that it has the collective power to overthrow the few remaining capitalists and, with them, the whole system."
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.307
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #131 on: 26-04-2022, 21:17:30 »
Pa to, ja ne mogu da skontam jel ovo kao neka pohvala, ili pokuda, u fazonu doći će sa Maskom sloboda govora taman koliko su i crnci postali slobodni posle akta o ukidanju ropstva.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

dark horse

  • Arhi-var
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.959
  • Kuća Rotsčajld
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #132 on: 26-04-2022, 21:24:07 »
Meni nije jasno, pa zar taj twitter nije ni dosad bio bastion slobode, najslobodnije mesto za izražavanje koje postoji na kugli zemaljskoj? Ok, Trampa su banovali, ali to je bilo zasluženo.

Twitter više treba neki AI, koji će u moru budalaština i ego tripova pronaći bar nešto vredno čitanja, nego oslobodioca Maska.
"Koga briga za to što govore, ako nemaju muda da ti kažu to u lice?" - Toni Soprano

"Ako bismo ljudima oduzeli njihove iluzije, koje bi im zadovoljstvo onda ostalo?" - Volter

Palmer

  • 3
  • Posts: 752
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #133 on: 26-04-2022, 21:32:00 »
Кад год посетим сагиту прочитам да неолиберализам ипак можда није харање и крађа и да алати неолиберализма као што су социјалне мреже сеју слободу. Где живите бре ви људи? Нисте морали да докторирате на Фридману, довољно је да уђете у Лили и видите да нуде супозиторију гратис ако гледате подкаст Галеба и Јелене Ђоковић.. Чак је и клинички доказано да помаже.. Јуче читам неку девојку редовну иначе на овим сад популарним спејсовима по твитеру како се одушевљава акцентом неког лика из Власотинца па му и наречје изједначава борбом за слободу. Где ти људи живе кад се тако над свим и свачим изненађују и шта је с мозговима. Катабаза.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #134 on: 26-04-2022, 22:17:42 »
ako vrati Pepea na Tviter onda nije neoliberalizam!
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Palmer

  • 3
  • Posts: 752
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #135 on: 27-04-2022, 01:24:58 »
#деније

Palmer

  • 3
  • Posts: 752
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #136 on: 27-04-2022, 02:02:54 »
Имаш га на телеграму иначе...

dark horse

  • Arhi-var
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.959
  • Kuća Rotsčajld
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #137 on: 27-04-2022, 07:52:41 »


Čist neoliberalizam!

Šta drugo i očekivati od sina vlasnika rudnika smaragda u Južnoj Africi... ljude lože novac i moć, kao i obično
"Koga briga za to što govore, ako nemaju muda da ti kažu to u lice?" - Toni Soprano

"Ako bismo ljudima oduzeli njihove iluzije, koje bi im zadovoljstvo onda ostalo?" - Volter

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #138 on: 27-04-2022, 08:44:02 »
Имаш га на телеграму иначе...

to treba nešto da se registruje ili skine aplikacija da bi se čitalo, a Tviter ne treba...

al izgleda ću morati da se žrtvujem zbog Pepea
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

dark horse

  • Arhi-var
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.959
  • Kuća Rotsčajld
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #139 on: 27-04-2022, 11:03:48 »
Koliko znam, telegram traži i broj telefona.

Što možda deluje naivno, možda i ne, ali posle toga si u svakom slučaju zauvek zavrbovan za ruse.  :|
"Koga briga za to što govore, ako nemaju muda da ti kažu to u lice?" - Toni Soprano

"Ako bismo ljudima oduzeli njihove iluzije, koje bi im zadovoljstvo onda ostalo?" - Volter

Palmer

  • 3
  • Posts: 752
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #140 on: 27-04-2022, 12:02:08 »
Опрезу има места, страху не јер је то у старту неслободна позиција. Ако ћемо тако сваки лог је проблематичан сам по себи тако да то што се даје бр. телефона или се скида апликација нема везе. Ако сте баш опрезни, онда ставите бабин бр. Друго, телеграм је опен сорс, за разлику од других популарних апликација сличне или исте намене. Само искључите у подешавањима да може свако да вас дода у било коју групу јер скамери вребају. И не кликћите на линкове сумњивог изгледа.

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #141 on: 27-04-2022, 14:04:40 »
ne brine me to, pa sve te podatke već imaju guglovi i slični neoliberali, nije zgoreg ni telegram

nego sam lijen da koristim nove aplikacije, no ako ga Mask ne vrati moraću po dozu Pepea uskoro

eno sad priča da su namjestili izbore u Francuskoj, legendica
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala

Palmer

  • 3
  • Posts: 752
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #142 on: 27-04-2022, 22:07:30 »
Прочитао јутрос. Пратим њега и Гонза Лиру на твитеру.


Можда није место овде, али неко 'оће да постави питање једној од мудријих српских глава, иде уживо сад:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJPm6pFdirY&feature=youtu.be



 


dark horse

  • Arhi-var
  • 3
  • Posts: 2.959
  • Kuća Rotsčajld
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #144 on: 28-04-2022, 10:05:30 »
Ono što smo znali, kao vrlo mali, pa zaboravili.  :(

Never trust the Super-rich
"Koga briga za to što govore, ako nemaju muda da ti kažu to u lice?" - Toni Soprano

"Ako bismo ljudima oduzeli njihove iluzije, koje bi im zadovoljstvo onda ostalo?" - Volter

Palmer

  • 3
  • Posts: 752

Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #146 on: 28-04-2022, 17:26:27 »
kaka neoliberalna objašnjenja ccc
kao promijeniće mišljenje a likovi nabrojali kako će noge da mu lome od Kine do Indokine
ponajviše u Americi, samo to tek na kraju teksta

Talibani vs Mask 1:1
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala


Labudan

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.023
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #148 on: 07-05-2022, 19:00:35 »
sukob frakcija vladajuće klase
ono kad moraš da podržiš bogatstvo aparthejda jer su oni drugi još veći talibani
šta će mi bogatstvo i svecka slava sva kada mora umreti lepa Nirdala




tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 6.307
Re: Upotreba Interneta povećava inteligenciju
« Reply #152 on: 09-07-2022, 09:10:49 »
Kaparu ne vraćaju
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.