From: Jei (jei@cc.hut.fi)
Date: Sat Jan 17 2004 - 14:36:22 MST
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Memetic engineering:
>
> I've decided to spend 5 minutes each day talking to a complete stranger
> about politics.
>
> I start with hello, and a mention of the weather or some crowded subway
> conditions, etc. Some “background of relatedness” thing to enroll the
> listener in the idea of our similarity.
>
> Then I ask them about a popular political topic. I inquire about
> possible solutions, etc. I only offer my opinions when they explicitly
> ask for them. This usually, but not always, happens.
>
> Then, tell them about my project (described as above). I explain that
> the purpose of the project is to encourage a more connected society,
> more familiarity with our community and a greater sense of belonging.
>
> Finally, I ask them if it they'd be interested in doing the same. I
> tell them that if they do this, then within 6 months, they could help
> establish a powerful and fun social tradition that lasts for
> generations. I stress that it is a 6 month commitment before they will
> see results, and ask them to keep calling it the “Global Discussion
> Project”
>
> So far, 4 people out of about 15 have said they will give it a try.
>
> Online, my results are worse, about 1 in 100.
>
> I've written 2 articles, published it in a weblog. I'm in the process
> of writing an op-ed for local papers.
>
> And ideas on how to improve/foster the meme??
Make the pyramid-like scheme and it's intended effect more obvious.
E.g. a simple stated goal might help it achieve both the goal and
the spread (like the self-fulfilling prophecy). But it might be best
to bring it's goals up last. Web might be best to recruit like-minded.
If people aren't skilled writers and talkers themselves, they can
still always help spread good information that they agree with to
increase the social awareness, and ask others to do the same.
...
BTW. In thinking about digital voting systems and their
(un-)trustworthiness, it came to mind: what would happen
if people started breaking or sabotaging the devices
intentionally in the voting booths?
Pour cola on them, fall them over, electrocute them, put a
sticker on the screen that ruins the votes for the other side,
drink alcohol, act drunk and puke/urinate all over the machine,
cut some wires or just smash the screen with a hammer?
...There's a thousand ways to break a computer when you start
to think about them...
It seems to me that if you had a thousand or so individuals
organized and doing this, prepared to pay the fines, etc.,
and you chose the voting sites carefully, you could effect
the result of the vote easily.
Compared to a paper system that is near fool-proof, this new
computer system seems incredibly easy to sabotage. Computers
and digital systems break so easily. - And all this would
probably be within the acceptable limits of social disobedience
to "disown a fraudulent voting system", for quite a few radical
individuals. - Making it quite likely to happen.
So, is the new digital voting system vandal-proof? The
"booths" or public PC's that I have seen certainly aren't.
Has anyone seen any discussion on this topic? Or is it illegal
to even discuss in the "Land of the Free"? (Wouldn't put it past them.)
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 14:36:38 MST