INTENSITY²

Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: punkdrew on June 18, 2010, 02:10:36 AM

Title: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: punkdrew on June 18, 2010, 02:10:36 AM
The Internet is, hands down, the greatest communication medium humankind has come up with to this point (2010). The problem, as with previous communication methods (cave paintings-->MP4s) is that all too often signal is cancelled out and/or overwhelmed by noise. This is what Korzybski warned us about in his treatise on General Semantics entitled SCIENCE AND SANITY: if we use our word-symbols with correct meaning, we perceive the universe objectively. If we use them incorrectly--as, say, schizophrenics do--we use them incorrectly. As the comp engineers are famous for saying, GIGO. (Len Deighton wrote a brilliant novel based on the GIGO meme entitled The BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN, where the computer in question was owned by a paranoid billionaire. Since the data fed to the computer had to be approved by said billionaire, the world-view it generated--based on faulty data--neatly conformed to his worst fears.)

I am, from this moment, declaring myself foursquare against the noise the Internet produces (e.g., anything Sarah Palin says).  In response, I will produce as much intelligent signal as my cognitive processes will allow. I wish I was a genius of Hawking's caliber, but I'll just have to do what I can with what I have.
Here's my opening salvo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WC-5VFcliE&feature=related
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: Frolic_Fun on June 18, 2010, 02:32:24 AM
TL;DR
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: punkdrew on June 18, 2010, 02:55:42 AM
back atcha Shleed. nice to see you're remaining true to form.
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: Alex179 on June 24, 2010, 06:58:10 PM
Gonna need a filter for the noise.   I don't approve of a filtered internet.   I want the ability to selectively choose what to hear and see, and not be forced to watch only what my government deems fitting.
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: "couldbecousin" on June 25, 2010, 06:01:25 AM
Gonna need a filter for the noise.   I don't approve of a filtered internet.   I want the ability to selectively choose what to hear and see, and not be forced to watch only what my government deems fitting.

But we really do know what's best for you!  :police: :prude: :coolguy:
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: earthboundmisfit on June 30, 2010, 10:02:24 AM


Gonna need a filter for the noise.   I don't approve of a filtered internet.   I want the ability to selectively choose what to hear and see, and not be forced to watch only what my government deems fitting.


We don't need a filter for the content, we need to find a way to filter out the morons. There should be an IQ test and required licenses to use the internet.
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: 'andersom' on June 30, 2010, 10:10:10 AM


Gonna need a filter for the noise.   I don't approve of a filtered internet.   I want the ability to selectively choose what to hear and see, and not be forced to watch only what my government deems fitting.


We don't need a filter for the content, we need to find a way to filter out the morons. There should be an IQ test and required licenses to use the internet.
I've seen kids with a measured low IQ and a great ability to think, and people with an extraordinary high measured IQ acting as if they had no idea how to use their brains at all.
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: earthboundmisfit on June 30, 2010, 10:15:58 AM


Maybe a functional test then. If they can interact anonymously with other humans online without acting like a dumbass, they pass.
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: Celticgoddess on June 30, 2010, 10:18:30 AM
Could you imagine how political that would get? "Now let's define dumbass. Hmm..I think there should be a dumbass scale. Yes. Definitely a dumbass scale. So 1-10 you say?" And it would take years for them to discuss and define the dumbass scale and then forever to pass it because it would be protested. :laugh:
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: earthboundmisfit on June 30, 2010, 10:19:58 AM


It would be protested by dumbasses. That's how we would know who the dumbasses are.


(http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/archives/pictures/greater_internet_fuckwad_theory.jpg)
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: 'andersom' on June 30, 2010, 10:27:33 AM


It would be protested by dumbasses. That's how we would know who the dumbasses are.


(http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/archives/pictures/greater_internet_fuckwad_theory.jpg)

Your blackboard (green) equation makes every normal person a dumbass, as soon as anonymity and audience are provided.
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: Celticgoddess on June 30, 2010, 10:32:31 AM


It would be protested by dumbasses. That's how we would know who the dumbasses are.

But I would protest it because I don't want to filter out the dumbasses. Does that mean I'm a dumbass? (emo)
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: earthboundmisfit on June 30, 2010, 10:34:46 AM


But I would protest it because I don't want to filter out the dumbasses. Does that mean I'm a dumbass? (emo)


No, that makes you a bleeding heart hippie.   :zoinks:


Your blackboard (green) equation makes every normal person a dumbass, as soon as anonymity and audience are provided.


You're right, there does seem to be a missing variable. What's the scientific symbol for dumbass?
Title: Re: Signal to noise ratio
Post by: Celticgoddess on June 30, 2010, 10:43:19 AM


But I would protest it because I don't want to filter out the dumbasses. Does that mean I'm a dumbass? (emo)


No, that makes you a bleeding heart hippie.   :zoinks:

Who, me? Never.  :moon: