Comments on: In Joyous Loss http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/ Open Mindedness Development Sun, 20 May 2012 12:38:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: » Yes, SOPA Breaks The Internet: http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-20458 Sat, 17 Mar 2012 01:38:19 +0000 http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-20458 [...] By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet   Venture capitalist Brad Burnham has a brilliant blog post that explains how SOPA really breaks the internet. It isn't just the technical aspects of it. SOPA is an attack on the fundamental belief system that underlies the internet, and much of what makes it successful: At a dinner earlier this week, Joi Ito, the head of the Media Lab at MIT described the Internet as a “belief system” and I suddenly understood. The Internet is not just a series of pipes. It’s core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature. The Internet is designed to empower individuals not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time. Services like eBay, Craigslist, Etsy and AirBnB are built on the assumption that most people are honest. Other services like Tumblr, Twitter, YouTube, Wordpress, and Soundcloud assume people will be generous with their ideas, insights and creations. Wikipedia has proven that people will share their knowledge. Companies like Kickstarter show that people will even be generous with their money. This does not mean that there are not bad people out there. All of these companies spend a lot of time and money to battle spam and fraud. The companies are simply betting that there are many more good people than bad. The architecture of the Internet shares this assumption. It could have been designed to prevent bad behavior. Instead its design empowers good behavior. The entertainment industry does not share this view of human nature. That encapsulates the point wonderfully. And SOPA is really about suggesting that that "belief system" built on trust and sharing isn't worth keeping around. I think this is a fundamental issue that people who understand the internet fully get: that it's more than the "series of tubes" or the specific technology that holds it together. It's built on a philosophy of openness and sharing. And that is a worldview that some businesses just don't grasp. Whether you agree with me that the vast majority of people are good or with my friend that given a chance many people will steal is not really important. What is important is that PIPA, and SOPA, the legislation the content industry is currently pushing through Congress, will not allow me to architect a service and build a relationship with consumers that reflects my core beliefs about human nature. If I am a search engine and I remove sites from my index, I am essentially lying to my users. If I am a social media site and I remove links my users have posted to sites that some authority has deemed illegal, I am breaking a promise. I am sympathetic to the content industries struggles with piracy, but my belief system tells me the answer is to capitalize on the great strengths of the Internet to create a healthy and profitable relationship with their users not to sue them. No matter how strongly I believe that, however, I do not think I have the right to tell them how to run their business. Apparently, they do not feel the same way about our businesses. The current legislation in Congress does not just create an administrative burden, it requires service providers who have built wonderful businesses on a deep conviction about human nature to change their relationship with their users in a way that subverts their core values. It really is this that's the issue at hand. The "breaking" is of this recognition of the wonderful aspects built on the fact that people really are, for the most part, good. And when you treat them as being good -- rather than treating them as criminals -- you get rewarded for it. Are there some people who take advantage? Sure. But should we break the whole system just to stop those few people, when it will hinder all the wonderful things built on trust? That, unfortunately, appears to be the position the pro-SOPA folks are taking. Read more . . .   Bookmark this page for "breaking the internet" and check back regularly as these articles update on a very frequent basis. The view is set to "news". Try clicking on "video" and "2" for more articles. [caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption] By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet   Venture capitalist Brad Burnham has a brilliant blog post that explains how SOPA really breaks the internet. It isn't just the technical aspects of it. SOPA is an attack on the fundamental belief rnet_map_10247.jpg" alt="Visualization of the various routes through a ..." width="300" height="300" />[/caption] [...] […] By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet   Venture capitalist Brad Burnham has a brilliant blog post that explains how SOPA really breaks the internet. It isn’t just the technical aspects of it. SOPA is an attack on the fundamental belief system that underlies the internet, and much of what makes it successful: At a dinner earlier this week, Joi Ito, the head of the Media Lab at MIT described the Internet as a “belief system” and I suddenly understood. The Internet is not just a series of pipes. It’s core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature. The Internet is designed to empower individuals not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time. Services like eBay, Craigslist, Etsy and AirBnB are built on the assumption that most people are honest. Other services like Tumblr, Twitter, YouTube, Wordpress, and Soundcloud assume people will be generous with their ideas, insights and creations. Wikipedia has proven that people will share their knowledge. Companies like Kickstarter show that people will even be generous with their money. This does not mean that there are not bad people out there. All of these companies spend a lot of time and money to battle spam and fraud. The companies are simply betting that there are many more good people than bad. The architecture of the Internet shares this assumption. It could have been designed to prevent bad behavior. Instead its design empowers good behavior. The entertainment industry does not share this view of human nature. That encapsulates the point wonderfully. And SOPA is really about suggesting that that “belief system” built on trust and sharing isn’t worth keeping around. I think this is a fundamental issue that people who understand the internet fully get: that it’s more than the “series of tubes” or the specific technology that holds it together. It’s built on a philosophy of openness and sharing. And that is a worldview that some businesses just don’t grasp. Whether you agree with me that the vast majority of people are good or with my friend that given a chance many people will steal is not really important. What is important is that PIPA, and SOPA, the legislation the content industry is currently pushing through Congress, will not allow me to architect a service and build a relationship with consumers that reflects my core beliefs about human nature. If I am a search engine and I remove sites from my index, I am essentially lying to my users. If I am a social media site and I remove links my users have posted to sites that some authority has deemed illegal, I am breaking a promise. I am sympathetic to the content industries struggles with piracy, but my belief system tells me the answer is to capitalize on the great strengths of the Internet to create a healthy and profitable relationship with their users not to sue them. No matter how strongly I believe that, however, I do not think I have the right to tell them how to run their business. Apparently, they do not feel the same way about our businesses. The current legislation in Congress does not just create an administrative burden, it requires service providers who have built wonderful businesses on a deep conviction about human nature to change their relationship with their users in a way that subverts their core values. It really is this that’s the issue at hand. The “breaking” is of this recognition of the wonderful aspects built on the fact that people really are, for the most part, good. And when you treat them as being good — rather than treating them as criminals — you get rewarded for it. Are there some people who take advantage? Sure. But should we break the whole system just to stop those few people, when it will hinder all the wonderful things built on trust? That, unfortunately, appears to be the position the pro-SOPA folks are taking. Read more . . .   Bookmark this page for “breaking the internet” and check back regularly as these articles update on a very frequent basis. The view is set to “news”. Try clicking on “video” and “2″ for more articles. [caption id=”" align=”alignright” width=”300″ caption=”Image via Wikipedia”][/caption] By Breaking The Belief In Trust And Sharing That Is The Internet   Venture capitalist Brad Burnham has a brilliant blog post that explains how SOPA really breaks the internet. It isn’t just the technical aspects of it. SOPA is an attack on the fundamental belief rnet_map_10247.jpg” alt=”Visualization of the various routes through a …” width=”300″ height=”300″ />[/caption] […]

]]> by: Frank Cook in Floyd Virginia | Rawdad Healthy Living http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-18673 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:02:28 +0000 http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-18673 [...] Menopausal Girls Perimenopause Signs Perimenopause Symptom Menopause Treatment method Menopausal Perimenopause SymptomsPerimenopause Symptom, Menopausal Females, &lta href="http://menopausesymptoms.biz/menopause-symptomes/incredibly-important- Thrivalist Frank Cook did a Weed Walk Speak in front of the Jessie Peterman Library in May '09. Here he talks about Wild Carrot (aka Queen Anne's Lace). Frank sadly passed away in August 2009. Video Rating: five / 5 Write-up by Mason Colon Be outrageous. The emotional extremes - rage, depression, /embed> [...] […] Menopausal Girls Perimenopause Signs Perimenopause Symptom Menopause Treatment method Menopausal Perimenopause SymptomsPerimenopause Symptom, Menopausal Females, &lta href=”http://menopausesymptoms.biz/menopause-symptomes/incredibly-important- Thrivalist Frank Cook did a Weed Walk Speak in front of the Jessie Peterman Library in May ‘09. Here he talks about Wild Carrot (aka Queen Anne’s Lace). Frank sadly passed away in August 2009. Video Rating: five / 5 Write-up by Mason Colon Be outrageous. The emotional extremes - rage, depression, /embed> […]

]]> by: Bad Debt Home Owner Loan http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-3188 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:17:22 +0000 http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-3188 <strong>Home Mortgage Loan...</strong> Are you trapped under the burden of high debts and paying huge interest rates? You can take care of that debt by accessing the equity in your home by paying a lower monthly payment. We have number of home mortgage loan programs that can help you make t... Home Mortgage Loan…

Are you trapped under the burden of high debts and paying huge interest rates? You can take care of that debt by accessing the equity in your home by paying a lower monthly payment. We have number of home mortgage loan programs that can help you make t…

]]> by: Lumoko http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-14 Wed, 02 Aug 2006 03:53:05 +0000 http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-14 Really coincidental... I recently just read the book 'The Fourth Estate' during my recent getaway vacation. The book is about two men and their endless ambition to become the owner of the biggest media empire known to mankind. Throughout the book the two struggle to survive and expand their corporations influence, and quickly become fierce rivals on the global scale. The two, stuck in utter competition almost lose their entire empires at the book's climax. They both, so determined to achieve over the other, make impossible deals (such as buying another large corporation with funds that they never had) that end up bringing both men's lagacy's to their knees. They are both conflicted over defaulting their companies, over a tediously small loan that cannot be repaid. One man, who cannot bring himself out of debt, kills himself by jumping of his yacht and drowning, while his counterpart just about does the same, but is saved by the skin of his teeth, and in a dramatic twist, ends up merging with his lifelong rival's company. The effect of the book is dizzying. These are two truely awesome protaganists, who any average reader, would naturally envy their perseverance and success. Yet the book never fails to remind the reader that the corporation is the only things they live for. Their conglomeracies are the only things they ever truely live for (as well as defeating their opposing rival). Without their beloved companies, they are left without definition and void of any rational meaning. (Which is why Armstrong commits suicide just before his business files for bankruptcy) One particular anecdote tells of Townsend's first fiance. Townsend drives away from his own wedding, when he discovers that his personal driver was forced into divorce from a marriage of over 11 years because of his employer's endless hours. Realizing that such a marriage wouldn't be right, and fearing what his life might become, he flees the chaple 5 minutes before the wedding ceremony takes place. I compare the book to MacBeth, because of its usage of raw ambition as the ruiner/creator of the protaganist's lives. It shows two utterly remarkably great men using their drive to succeed, and it ultimately becomes the double-edged sword that stabs them through the gut. So how does the book correlate to your post? Ambition is great. It easily gets out of hand if not kept in frequent check. I would describe myself as ambitious, so this is a subject of great concern. I think there are few things as poetic as the ultimate rise to power, and the vicious fall of those who climb too high. I think that ambition is the key quality of those who wish to do great things in their life, whether it be a global media conglomaracy(?sp) or a goodwill/ charitable foundation. However, ambition must be separated from petty competitiveness. So I shall leave you all with a quote from one of my favourite movies, Blade Runner... "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy." NOW THAT'S CLASSY Really coincidental…

I recently just read the book ‘The Fourth Estate’ during my recent getaway vacation. The book is about two men and their endless ambition to become the owner of the biggest media empire known to mankind. Throughout the book the two struggle to survive and expand their corporations influence, and quickly become fierce rivals on the global scale.

The two, stuck in utter competition almost lose their entire empires at the book’s climax. They both, so determined to achieve over the other, make impossible deals (such as buying another large corporation with funds that they never had) that end up bringing both men’s lagacy’s to their knees. They are both conflicted over defaulting their companies, over a tediously small loan that cannot be repaid. One man, who cannot bring himself out of debt, kills himself by jumping of his yacht and drowning, while his counterpart just about does the same, but is saved by the skin of his teeth, and in a dramatic twist, ends up merging with his lifelong rival’s company.

The effect of the book is dizzying. These are two truely awesome protaganists, who any average reader, would naturally envy their perseverance and success. Yet the book never fails to remind the reader that the corporation is the only things they live for. Their conglomeracies are the only things they ever truely live for (as well as defeating their opposing rival). Without their beloved companies, they are left without definition and void of any rational meaning. (Which is why Armstrong commits suicide just before his business files for bankruptcy)

One particular anecdote tells of Townsend’s first fiance.
Townsend drives away from his own wedding, when he discovers that his personal driver was forced into divorce from a marriage of over 11 years because of his employer’s endless hours. Realizing that such a marriage wouldn’t be right, and fearing what his life might become, he flees the chaple 5 minutes before the wedding ceremony takes place.

I compare the book to MacBeth, because of its usage of raw ambition as the ruiner/creator of the protaganist’s lives. It shows two utterly remarkably great men using their drive to succeed, and it ultimately becomes the double-edged sword that stabs them through the gut.

So how does the book correlate to your post?

Ambition is great. It easily gets out of hand if not kept in frequent check.
I would describe myself as ambitious, so this is a subject of great concern.

I think there are few things as poetic as the ultimate rise to power, and the vicious fall of those who climb too high. I think that ambition is the key quality of those who wish to do great things in their life, whether it be a global media conglomaracy(?sp) or a goodwill/ charitable foundation.

However, ambition must be separated from petty competitiveness.

So I shall leave you all with a quote from one of my favourite movies, Blade Runner…

“The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.”

NOW THAT’S CLASSY

]]> by: Christine Emmorey http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-9 Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:37:05 +0000 http://forestofthought.com/philosophy/human-nature/in-joyous-loss/#comment-9 I really enjoy your writing style and opinion. i like how you touched upon the whole 'big house sexy spouse is perfect' thing, because to me i really dont strive to have that, i want children, i was love, i want happiness, money truely does not matter that much. although you do still have to try and fail and learn and try some more to accomplish anything no matter what it is. I really enjoy your writing style and opinion. i like how you touched upon the whole ‘big house sexy spouse is perfect’ thing, because to me i really dont strive to have that, i want children, i was love, i want happiness, money truely does not matter that much. although you do still have to try and fail and learn and try some more to accomplish anything no matter what it is.

]]>