--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >> Alton Lindsay Jr. wrote:
> >>> What specific procedure will a Plaintiff take to gather evidences from
> >>> a Defendant for a Case?
> >> Evidence is not normally gathered *from* a defendant, but rather *about*
> >> an Event - in this case about the Event that the Plaintiff thinks is a
> >> Violation of hir which the Defendant has Effectively Caused. The exact
> >> meanings and nuances of those terms are all important here -
> >> particularly my novel and very precise definition of Effective Cause, a
> >> term which has defied exact capture by others throughout history, but
> >> which I am convinced I have fully captured. (By "capture" I mean that
> >> for every real situation one can use my definition criteria to clearly
> >> decide whether or not someone is the Effective Cause - in fact, this is
> >> a highly important definition to be fully vetted, ie examined with
> >> thoroughness.)
> >> The first line of evidence gathering is described in my page on
> >> Social Ordering Technologies at:
> >> http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Ordering_Tech.html
> >> Without the full use of such technologies, solid, objective evidence
> >> will be as difficult to obtain as it is now and many Charges will not
> >> result in a Finding of "valid".
> > I wasn't aware of this page on your website, but I agree that such
> > technologies will be very useful in gathering evidence and are
> > already available. For example, here's a clip of a mini projector
> > that is coupled with a phone and camera that can gather data from
> > objects in the environment, record events, and all information can be
> > stored on the web:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUdDhWfpqxg
> Yes, that is a good example of something related. It is a particularly
> good example of something that can be used for immediate and direct
> Social Preferencing. Just imagine having software that gathers data from
> all recorded Actions and Social Preferencing reports of an individual,
> which projects onto that person, as you meet or pass by, the summed up
> conclusion of the complex Evaluation parameters that you have chosen
> from the software. I can just see it now - "dishonest scumbag" or
> "totally trustworthy" projected right onto the person as you scan
> hir :-)
This would definitely enable quick time evaluations on Freemen and
consumables rather than having to go home to do some research on the web :)
> [More seriously, I (and Paul too) would prefer to see a scale number
> from 1 to 10 with an accompanying validity probability of the rating
> (like a p-factor for a scientific study result). For this the software
> would also assess how many people did the rating and the credibility
> of the raters themselves. Amazon is doing something along this line -
> but much more primitive - by having a notation system showing raters
> who use their real names. This last is very important since the
> evaluation of 5 identified raters is far more valuable to any reasonable
> person than 500 who are anonymous. Credibility of raters is another
> important aspect which, unfortunately in the current society, is not
> guaranteed by full identification but is at least much more likely.
Yes, I noticed raters on Amazon have became a little non anonymous, and
because of this, I often use Amazon as a primary source for product ratings.
Hopefully full identification and the credibility of raters will become
more and more sophisticated on the web.
> > Also, do you think one's DNA information should also be part of their
> > personal ID stored on the UCN?
> I expect that would become universal since it is the most clearly
> digital unique aspect differentiating human beings. Even for identical
> twins in time there will soon likely be technology to differentiate them
> by reading their epigenetically modified DNA, although one problem with
> this is that it changes with time for each individual. Also a
> combination of identifiers may be used. In particular, I have envisaged
> that each person would rationally want to have a unique ID transponder
> implant. These could have unbreakable code ID information (like with
> public key cryptography where the source of a message can be certified
> beyond doubt) that is available to sensors on Egress Real Estate. This
> would also enable the immediate Evaluation that I described above.
> Imagine that when a person, whom a store wishes to not serve, attempts
> to enter and the automated store entrance tells hir that s/he is not
> allowed entry and will be immediate expelled if s/he attempts to do so -
> and of course anyone nearby will also hear and see that (and it will be
> recorded publicly on the UCN via the audio/video equipment previously
> described for other people or software to Evaluate).
This would help store owners a lot in having the right type of customers.
Fingerprints can also be part of these identifiers.