Talk:XML/DTD - Revision history

Jukeboksi: moving everything to somewhere else

2003-04-26T05:31:14Z

moving everything to somewhere else

142.177.75.22: objections

2003-04-26T00:57:09Z

objections

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:57, 26 April 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	And a real-live-person DTD is critical to ensure that anyone who participates in an extremely offensive production process can be excluded across all of a buyer's purchasing decisions, regardless of what shell companies or front groups are in use for them to hide behind. A small number of individuals tend to be involved in decisions that lead to Indonesian rainforest devastation, or similar problems in Brazil and Congo. These people must be identified and very reliably targetted so that their participation becomes poisonous to any commercial effort anywhere in the world, and others get the message that they will economically suffer if their name is linked in any way to ecologically devastating activity.		And a real-live-person DTD is critical to ensure that anyone who participates in an '''extremely offensive''' production process (or is clearly responsible for spreading something like [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=SARS SARS] and contributing to a [http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toronto_respiratory_health_crisis major crisis] now affecting all humans) can be excluded across all of a buyer's purchasing decisions, '''regardless''' of what shell companies or front groups are in use for them to hide behind. A small number of individuals tend to be involved in decisions that lead to Indonesian rainforest devastation, or similar problems in Brazil and Congo. These people must be identified and very reliably targetted so that their participation becomes poisonous to any commercial effort anywhere in the world, and others get the message that they will economically suffer if their name is linked in any way to ecologically devastating activity.

	:Whoa. Hold your horses.		:Whoa. Hold your horses.
Line 80:		Line 80:
	----		----
	==About [[m:person_DTD]]==		==About [[m:person_DTD]]==
	I'm moving this stuff about [[m:person_DTD]] here, because Consumerium project needs to be pragmatic and sensible, which in my mind means for one thing that we are not going to get 100% accurate information in the system most of the time. The key to pulling this whole project off is that we have to convince people that we '''TRY''' to provide them reasonably reliable information and the possibility of [[disinformation]] is something that people should keep in mind, but not let it bother them too much. Otherwise we might just as well be trying to modify lottery machines to run [[nuclear]] power plants --[[User:Consumerium\|Consumerium]] 20:15 Apr 25, 2003 (EEST)		I'm moving this stuff about [[m:person_DTD]] here, because Consumerium project needs to be pragmatic and sensible,

			:you are making it useless, not pragmatic, not sensible, by ignoring this and making it impossible to target people or groups who get away with horrors.

			which in my mind means for one thing that we are not going to get 100% accurate information in the system most of the time.

			:you don't need it, balance of probability is fine in a weighted decision. if all I get out at the end is a 'buy or don't buy' or 'try substitute' decision then I don't even have to reveal the data involved.

			The key to pulling this whole project off is that we have to convince people that we '''TRY''' to provide them reasonably reliable information and the possibility of [[disinformation]] is something that people should keep in mind, but not let it bother them too much. Otherwise we might just as well be trying to modify lottery machines to run [[nuclear]] power plants --[[User:Consumerium\|Consumerium]] 20:15 Apr 25, 2003 (EEST)

			:this makes no sense to me at all - you stop disinformation by reducing the total number of data items you use and focusing strictly on those, making it easy to dispute what is said about those, NOT by having a lot of data. to focus on people more than processes reduces the data items and makes the whole process more reliable.

	===persons ===		===persons ===

Consumerium: Little explanation why the m:person_DTD was moved here

2003-04-25T20:15:11Z

Little explanation why the m:person_DTD was moved here

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 :: Yes please do!  It is probably the most important subject in the world if we are going to have [[w:international law]] that works.
-If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should be a***********.
+If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should we blame.
 :: Or at least, scare that worst person into handing over all assets to a foundation to save poor scared monkeys from big bad abstractions.

193.111.93.130: formatting

2003-04-23T15:48:56Z

formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 23 April 2003
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:: Yes please do! It is probably the most important subject in the world if we are going to have [[w:international law]] that works.		:: Yes please do! It is probably the most important subject in the world if we are going to have [[w:international law]] that works.

	If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should be a***********.		If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should be a***********.

	:: Or at least, scare that worst person into handing over all assets to a foundation to save poor scared monkeys from big bad abstractions.		:: Or at least, scare that worst person into handing over all assets to a foundation to save poor scared monkeys from big bad abstractions.

Jukeboksi: Amazing feat 142.177.X.X! ?

2003-04-23T12:17:32Z

Amazing feat 142.177.X.X! <product_substitution from="Kit-Kat McFlurry to="something else"/>?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 23 April 2003
Line 60:		Line 60:

	::Done.		::Done.

			:::Hmmm. Care to do a [[product substitution]] on that Kit-Kat McFlurry to something not so [[capital]] intensive. (Small is beautiful and economic even if the ppl with [[buying power]] decide so) How about a cup of [[organic]], [[fair trade\|fairly traded]] coffee?

	and		and

142.177.76.222: done

2003-04-16T19:18:34Z

done

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 16 April 2003
Line 58:		Line 58:

	A) You've managed to create the following article in [[w:\|Wikipedia]]: [[w:Formal method for evaluating and quantifying ethicality and morality of human actions]]		A) You've managed to create the following article in [[w:\|Wikipedia]]: [[w:Formal method for evaluating and quantifying ethicality and morality of human actions]]

			::Done.

	and		and
Line 63:		Line 65:
	B) Managed to keep it from appearing in [[w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] for 59 seconds without resorting to [[DDoS]]		B) Managed to keep it from appearing in [[w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] for 59 seconds without resorting to [[DDoS]]

	Other Trolls are also invited to attempt the above. If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should be a***********.		::I counted one full minute (60 seconds), and then came here to tell you.

			Other Trolls are also invited to attempt the above.

			:: Yes please do! It is probably the most important subject in the world if we are going to have [[w:international law]] that works.

			If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should be a***********.

			:: Or at least, scare that worst person into handing over all assets to a foundation to save poor scared monkeys from big bad abstractions.

Jukeboksi: TROLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!. (SEE BOTTOM)

2003-04-16T07:06:19Z

TROLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!. (SEE BOTTOM)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:06, 16 April 2003
Line 54:		Line 54:

	:::::Really, we all do this anyway when we trust our mother, or our grocer, or any local supplier. See [[w:Slow Food]] for best examples.		:::::Really, we all do this anyway when we trust our mother, or our grocer, or any local supplier. See [[w:Slow Food]] for best examples.
			----
			Hey 142.177.X.X, I'll get back to you and our sysop might buy you a McFlurry of your choice when:

			A) You've managed to create the following article in [[w:\|Wikipedia]]: [[w:Formal method for evaluating and quantifying ethicality and morality of human actions]]

			and

			B) Managed to keep it from appearing in [[w:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] for 59 seconds without resorting to [[DDoS]]

			Other Trolls are also invited to attempt the above. If someone succeeded in this it would advance our cause a lot. We would just have to code the algorithm, insert data and then wait for the computer to tell us who should be a***********.

142.177.99.48: um, you keep re-explaining because you have not got it right yet? If I want to explain 2+2=5 it will take many tries!

2003-04-16T06:05:38Z

um, you keep re-explaining because you have not got it right yet? If I want to explain 2+2=5 it will take many tries!

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:05, 16 April 2003
Line 30:		Line 30:

	#) Start a [[boycott]] on the [[company]] doing the harmful things and it's associates ([[Importer]], [[Advertisement agency]]... whatever you can think of)		#) Start a [[boycott]] on the [[company]] doing the harmful things and it's associates ([[Importer]], [[Advertisement agency]]... whatever you can think of)

			:How many seconds can I do it in? If it takes minutes then that's not good enough, since a new company can be started in minutes.

	#) Send them [[feedback]] telling you'll pull out of the [[boycott]] the second they stop doing what is annoying you		#) Send them [[feedback]] telling you'll pull out of the [[boycott]] the second they stop doing what is annoying you

			:Irrelevant. They are too stupid to understand the issue or they would not be doing it to begin with. One does not try to change company behavior. One has to wipe companies out of existence with no chance to recover, so fast that any competitor realizes they must behave perfectly, or also be wiped out. No mercy, no negotiating. The purpose of a boycott is to destroy a company or a regime.
			You cannot take bad people and make them good people by negotiation or force. Once a company exists its DNA is set, it can only be replaced not "fixed". Like any other lower animal...

	#) Start an [[endorsment]] on it's companies providing replacement products for the evil company's products		#) Start an [[endorsment]] on it's companies providing replacement products for the evil company's products

			:Here there is room for negotiation. And more complex transaction than just "don't buy", it could be a number (of cents more you pay for a tolerable product), or it could actually direct you to anothe product that is a best price/morality tradeoff. Then you are talking about more than a binary destroy/not outcome.

	:: and the [[Hardware Requirements\|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback\|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both.		:: and the [[Hardware Requirements\|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback\|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both.
	:::Still requires my personal morality, idea of "evil", to be expressed in [[XML]] so that things I consider evil can turn on "green light" or "red light" on the shelf. The fact that I considered but did not buy from that seller can be communicated directly, or later with details, or never. Up to me. But I am not reading or writing an essay for every single purchase. I want to pre-load preferences and never see things that don't satisfy requirements online, and on the shelf, I want just the "OK/not" (i.e. "buyable/EVIL") signal.		:::Still requires my personal morality, idea of "evil", to be expressed in [[XML]] so that things I consider evil can turn on "green light" or "red light" on the shelf. The fact that I considered but did not buy from that seller can be communicated directly, or later with details, or never. Up to me. But I am not reading or writing an essay for every single purchase. I want to pre-load preferences and never see things that don't satisfy requirements online, and on the shelf, I want just the "OK/not" (i.e. "buyable/EVIL") signal.

	::::Well. Either you have to choose some [[authority]] you [[trust]] (let me take a wild guess: Greenpeace) and let them decide on this matter or you can browse all available information and make decisions yourself. Once you've been through all the information and made some evaluation of the product in case you'd propably like [[markup]] that allows you to become the authority for other people that choose to trust you instead of using their time to go through all the information.		::::Well. Either you have to choose some [[authority]] you [[trust]] (let me take a wild guess: Greenpeace) and let them decide on this matter or you can browse all available information and make decisions yourself.

			:::::No, no one can possibly "browse all available information" except for a few very major purchases, and even if the do that the information comes from some source. No reason why Greenpeace or some other organization committed to total transparency (see their "[[Open Campaigning]]" model, state of the art) cannot make it easy to simply see how their recommedations are made, and adjust some parameters to arrive at your own.

			::::Once you've been through all the information and made some evaluation of the product in case you'd propably like [[markup]] that allows you to become the authority for other people that choose to trust you instead of using their time to go through all the information.

			:::::Yes, sure, for instance, I would focus on the Great Ape issue out of all Greenpeace campaigns, and be so good at that that this would make me the only one worth negotiating with when time came for companies doing nasty things to apes were brought to their knees. That would make me "ambassador for the apes". Someone else would do it for dolphins, for Hawaii, for fresh water used by poor mothers in Africa, etc., whatever scope they could handle. It is all about this capacity to trust and be trusted, that is [[w:social capital\|"social capital"]]. And yes it creates hierarchies, but only by the effort of becoming nearly perfect on that one question of how best to protect that otyhpe of life.

			:::::Really, we all do this anyway when we trust our mother, or our grocer, or any local supplier. See [[w:Slow Food]] for best examples.

Jukeboksi: Why do I feel I'm explaining the same thing over and over again?

2003-04-16T02:24:47Z

Why do I feel I'm explaining the same thing over and over again?

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 16 April 2003
Line 11:		Line 11:

	#Company X is doing some evil		#Company X is doing some evil
	#Find out who are the owners of X		#Find out who are the owners of X and what companies X is doing business with
	#Find out ~~their~~ other holdings		#Find out the owners' other holdings
	#Aggregate the boycott to those other companies too (wishful thinking: and let the owners know why their stock is plunging)		#Aggregate the boycott to those other companies too (wishful thinking: and let the owners know why their stock is plunging)
	#Iterate steps 3. and 4. untill you're picking berries, mushrooms, roots and hunting game with wooden spears ;)		#Iterate steps 3. and 4. untill you're picking berries, mushrooms, roots and hunting game with wooden spears ;)
Line 28:		Line 28:

	:::Yes but... (also realize that "Issue" can be expanded into say Ecoregion/HarmBeingDone/ActivityDoingThatHarm" and then Position taken on how to end it - so "I" can expand)... and more important how we use the information:		:::Yes but... (also realize that "Issue" can be expanded into say Ecoregion/HarmBeingDone/ActivityDoingThatHarm" and then Position taken on how to end it - so "I" can expand)... and more important how we use the information:

			#) Start a [[boycott]] on the [[company]] doing the harmful things and it's associates ([[Importer]], [[Advertisement agency]]... whatever you can think of)
			#) Send them [[feedback]] telling you'll pull out of the [[boycott]] the second they stop doing what is annoying you
			#) Start an [[endorsment]] on it's companies providing replacement products for the evil company's products

	:: and the [[Hardware Requirements\|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback\|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both.		:: and the [[Hardware Requirements\|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback\|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both.
	:::Still requires my personal morality, idea of "evil", to be expressed in [[~~EvilML~~]] so that things I consider evil can turn on "green light" or "red light" on the shelf. The fact that I considered but did not buy from that seller can be communicated directly, or later with details, or never. Up to me. But I am not reading or writing an essay for every single purchase. I want to pre-load preferences and never see things that don't satisfy requirements online, and on the shelf, I want just the "OK/not" (i.e. "buyable/EVIL") signal.		:::Still requires my personal morality, idea of "evil", to be expressed in [[XML]] so that things I consider evil can turn on "green light" or "red light" on the shelf. The fact that I considered but did not buy from that seller can be communicated directly, or later with details, or never. Up to me. But I am not reading or writing an essay for every single purchase. I want to pre-load preferences and never see things that don't satisfy requirements online, and on the shelf, I want just the "OK/not" (i.e. "buyable/EVIL") signal.

			::::Well. Either you have to choose some [[authority]] you [[trust]] (let me take a wild guess: Greenpeace) and let them decide on this matter or you can browse all available information and make decisions yourself. Once you've been through all the information and made some evaluation of the product in case you'd propably like [[markup]] that allows you to become the authority for other people that choose to trust you instead of using their time to go through all the information.

142.177.77.114: Issue can be elaborated structure, Evil must be personal, recommendation must be signalled conveniently, many options for producer notification

2003-04-16T01:28:23Z

Issue can be elaborated structure, Evil must be personal, recommendation must be signalled conveniently, many options for producer notification

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 16 April 2003
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:this requires [[EvilML]]		:this requires [[EvilML]]

	::No it doesn't. It requires well known [[commentator]]s, and [[campaigner]]s that stick more-or-less with [[m:TIPAESA]] principles and the [[Hardware Requirements\|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback\|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both.		::No it doesn't. It requires well known [[commentator]]s, and [[campaigner]]s that stick more-or-less with [[m:TIPAESA]] principles

			:::Yes but... (also realize that "Issue" can be expanded into say Ecoregion/HarmBeingDone/ActivityDoingThatHarm" and then Position taken on how to end it - so "I" can expand)... and more important how we use the information:

			:: and the [[Hardware Requirements\|infrastructure]] to transport their information to [[consumer]]s. Then it's up to the [[consumer]]s to [[feedback\|communicate]] their feelings to producers with [[words or wallets]] or both.
			:::Still requires my personal morality, idea of "evil", to be expressed in [[EvilML]] so that things I consider evil can turn on "green light" or "red light" on the shelf. The fact that I considered but did not buy from that seller can be communicated directly, or later with details, or never. Up to me. But I am not reading or writing an essay for every single purchase. I want to pre-load preferences and never see things that don't satisfy requirements online, and on the shelf, I want just the "OK/not" (i.e. "buyable/EVIL") signal.