Jump to content

Social Awareness


RuideAlmeida

Recommended Posts

Now, after all the fuzz, most of the noise and some of the prejudice has gone; I want to thank you all for your valuable opinions.

 

This non-Event will be held December 13th in three portuguese major cities, Oporto, Lisbon and Faro.

We will gather around huge Christmas trees, every geocacher (or muggle invited) will bring a gift for a children.

After the meeting we will take all the gifts to a child care institution... one in each city.

 

This non-Event will be published only in our portuguese forum at http://forum.geocaching-pt.net/viewtopic.php?t=3536.

 

Naturally we would have much more people if this was a real Event, published on GC.com... but, even so, we will do our best!!!

 

We invite everyone around to organize such non-Events worldwide....

 

Like the great philosopher Fox Mulder :D said: I WANT TO BELIEVE!!

 

PS: Please forgive my rough english!

You can still hold your event and even get it published on geocaching.com if you are willing to remove the agenda and solicitation text from the cache listing page. Keep all of that on your own local forums. People don't need to be told to do a good deed on a geocaching.com page is what you are being told here in here.

 

Translation-it doesn't have to be a 'non-event' but you are being inflexible.

Link to comment

Social consciousness is consciousness shared within a society. It can also be defined as social awareness; to be aware of the problems that different societies and communities face on a day-to-day basis; to be conscious of the difficulties and hardships of society.

 

Im a world in change, our community needs to assume is role on social awareness.

 

Is there any valuable reason to justify the prohibition to publish any social cache event nowadays, for instance??

 

We could make the difference next Xmas, for those millions that are in pain, in debt, suffering because of some few incompetents in higher (and even higher remunerations) places.

 

Lets make this kind of cache possible, please!!!

 

I believe that Geocaching's role in the world is just that: Geocaching. There are plenty of groups, associations, parties, churches, non-profits, corporations, governments, societies, etc... that fill their roles too.

 

You are free to join these other groups and be a geocacher at the same time. Just because there is a large group of people here doesn't mean you should hijack it for your cause or frankly any cause.

 

What if your idea of social awareness doesn't match mine? For example you use Xmas some would say Christmas. Should we fight over it here and ruin the one thing we have in common and that is bringing us together now? I say nope.

 

You have other outlets for social issues... Happy Caching!

 

The Cooker

Link to comment

I absolutely respect and admire your spirit. God bless you for it.

 

My wife and I do contribute financially to a number of charities. I also volunteer at Reading for the Blind and Dyslexic. I am a police officer and get more than a belly full of reality on a daily basis. Watching the news further depresses me and I find myself begging Jesus to hurry his return. Believe me, my friend, social awareness is jammed in my face on a daily basis.

 

On my free time, I just want to 'switch off'. I want to put on my iPod and geocaching pack, and lose myself for a few hours. To me, caching is a little escape from reality.

 

Cache Safe

Grigorii Rasputin

http://www.glass-cockpit.org

http://grigoriirasputin.wordpress.com

Link to comment

I think briansnat put it very nicely. I agree with him. And I think that steveherrick has a good point too. There's nothing to stop social awareness-related travel bugs or geocoins from being produced and released -- IIRC (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), geocachers4christ put out a coin that was very unapologetically Christian and there were no issues with that.

 

But briansnat's explanation really puts it in the right perspective: where does one draw the line, and who gets to decide? I think it's best to just keep geocaching about geocaching (at least, from the cache angle), since there are a zillion other ways to pursue social awareness.

Link to comment

I have to say, Vinny nailed this one for me. To want geocaching "credit" for doing things that need to be done, that you feel should be done, or that the altruistic spirit in you wishes to have done, seems a little beside the point. As others have suggested, go and do all the good in the world that you want to do. But that's not what geocaching is for.

 

The real issue for me is ... well, the issues. Many people can agree that soup kitchens are important and necessary and worthy of contributions. But beyond that sort of obvious observation, we all have different opinions as to what causes are worthy. Would every geocacher support Planned Parenthood? Wish to make contributions to the Westboro Baptist Church? Donate to the Salvation Army?

 

My point is that in our personal lives we make personal decisions about how to contribute to the greater good, but the moment we assume that our choices are everyone's choices we're making a mistake.

 

Here's an example: I am extremely liberal in my opinions and beliefs, but I geocache and attend geocaching events with people who have strong opinions that do not coincide with mine, and we can all do it precisely because we don't talk about our conceptualization of the greater good or a better world: we talk about geoaching. Should one of my more conservative fellow geocachers host an event to benefit an organization I dislike, it's going to open a gulf between us.

 

And there are enough of those out there already, really, aren't there?

 

-- Jeannette (angevine)

Link to comment

Similarly, when someone seemingly has no finds yet pops into the furoms to scold us for being poor stewards.

 

Hi, Sbell111... could you please remember me, where I did such thing?

 

I just throw a question to the forum (a place of free speach) for everyone to say of hes own. Nothing more than that.

 

Merry Xmas, Merry Christmas, Feliz Natal!!!

Link to comment
Here's an example: I am extremely liberal in my opinions and beliefs, but I geocache and attend geocaching events with people who have strong opinions that do not coincide with mine, and we can all do it precisely because we don't talk about our conceptualization of the greater good or a better world: we talk about geoaching. Should one of my more conservative fellow geocachers host an event to benefit an organization I dislike, it's going to open a gulf between us.

Good point angevine. I've met and cached with a lot of different people, and the cool thing is that when you meet someone you don't know, there's an instant connection. At GW6, we met 3 cachers early one day and ended up caching together for the rest of the day. We talked about everything from placing caches to different style events and everything in between, but none of us ever learned anything about each others' political or religious views because all that mattered was that we were having fun caching.

Link to comment

Similarly, when someone seemingly has no finds yet pops into the furoms to scold us for being poor stewards.

 

Hi, Sbell111... could you please remember me, where I did such thing?

 

I just throw a question to the forum (a place of free speach) for everyone to say of hes own. Nothing more than that.

 

Merry Xmas, Merry Christmas, Feliz Natal!!!

Reread my post. I didn't say that this is what you did. I said that your post had this 'feel'.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Similarly, when someone seemingly has no finds yet pops into the furoms to scold us for being poor stewards.

 

Hi, Sbell111... could you please remember me, where I did such thing?

 

I just throw a question to the forum (a place of free speach) for everyone to say of hes own. Nothing more than that.

 

Merry Xmas, Merry Christmas, Feliz Natal!!!

Reread my post. I didn't say that this is what you did. I said that your post had this 'feel'.

And the original post did indeed have that feel, and that tone!

Link to comment

Agendas are like butt-cracks, everyone’s got one and yours may or may not stink when you shove it in someone’s face.

 

I HAVE to work that into a sermon someday.

 

As a pastor who caches, I agree with the majority opinion here - there's enough "social awareness" being generated within the current guidelines. I would be really disappointed if I walked a mile to a cache that was full of tracts, pictures of starving kids or donation cards. I am aware that some people place these items as swag, which is questionable at best, but to build caches around them - no thank you!

If we build friendships within the community of cachers around us, we have plenty of opportunities to share our faith or lack of it, or our desire to see sick kids get better or abused puppies get adopted. We don't need to lay guilt traps in tupperware to advance worthy causes.

CITO is a gold star social awareness cause that is already in the fold, and that's plenty for me.

Link to comment

Now, after all the fuzz, most of the noise and some of the prejudice has gone; I want to thank you all for your valuable opinions.

 

This non-Event will be held December 13th in three portuguese major cities, Oporto, Lisbon and Faro.

We will gather around huge Christmas trees, every geocacher (or muggle invited) will bring a gift for a children.

After the meeting we will take all the gifts to a child care institution... one in each city.

 

This non-Event will be published only in our portuguese forum at http://forum.geocaching-pt.net/viewtopic.php?t=3536.

 

Naturally we would have much more people if this was a real Event, published on GC.com... but, even so, we will do our best!!!

 

We invite everyone around to organize such non-Events worldwide....

 

Like the great philosopher Fox Mulder :blink: said: I WANT TO BELIEVE!!

 

PS: Please forgive my rough english!

 

I still don't have the first clue why this needs to be linked to Geaocaching??? Geocaching is about finding stuff with a GPS. I'm sure your event is very nice and all but seriously... it has nothing to do with Geocaching.

Link to comment

No... not realy... Almeidara is also a fine portuguese geocacher, please dont jump into conclusions and leave him alone.

For some reason, our login in the forum area doesnt recognize the original profile... this one: http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default....36-cb8fee89fbaa

 

Oh, almost forgot;

Dude, your 'login to the forum' is what it is because that is the name you logged into Groundspeak with. I'm still smelling a troll...

Link to comment
I would be really disappointed if I walked a mile to a cache that was full of tracts, pictures of starving kids or donation cards.

I've had a tough week and am looking forward to getting out with my family and going caching where I don't have to worry about anything other than fun. I'm all for helping people, but I wouldn't enjoy finding said things while caching because it's a way for me to get out and escape from the daily routine of things like that.

Link to comment

WOW a compliment from the famous Vinny and Sue. My life is complete. I will remember this day forever.

While Vinny of Vinny & Sue Team still stands behind his original compliment, it must be noted, for the record, that the utterance of the compliment triggered strong protests by the following parties:

  • Venona
  • The Four Ancient Ones, bless their calcified variegated segmented exoskeletons, who landed on earth over three million years ago in their starship.
  • Sionevil, aka Sioneva

...and thus the compliment is being re-considered in light of these protests. Any needful updates or revisions to original compliment will, if needed, be uttered within the next 24 hours in order to be incorporated into the official permanent record.

 

Thank you for doing the needful.

Link to comment

OK. How about a list of organizations that someone may want to support via geocaching.

 

The Salvation army?

Your local soup kitchen?

The united negro college fund?

The UN foundation?

The American skin heads society?

The Taliban?

Al-Qaida?

 

Who decides what groups are worthy and what groups should be shunned? Best just to stay out of it.

 

You've laid out the problem with "Agenda's" quite nicely. Thanks for the post! (now I don't have to)

Link to comment

Just to announce that the non-Event went just fine.

 

Unfortunally we had the event only in two cities, Oporto and Lisbon.

 

In both places we had around 15 teams (enduring heavy rain showers), bringing more than 50 children gifts (toys, books, DVD's and clothes).

 

After the event, some of us delivered those gifts in two children care institutions.

 

Our most gratefull thank you to all that managed to come!

 

God bless you all!

 

A TODOS UM BOM NATAL!!!

Link to comment

I don't need my recreational activity and escape from my regular life to edumicate me on any social welfare agendas. I just need it to show me a good time by taking me to interesting places, making me think about how a cache is hidden, and give me an excuse to gather with like minded souls to enjoy some food and brew.

 

Keep the social agendas out of events and cache listings. I have enough of it and support the ones I choose to on my non-caching days.

Ditto.

 

Couldn't have said it better meownself!

Link to comment

Okay... some good opinions... tough all in the same direction.

What's about evolution, instead of unanimism?

 

If you think we have a perfect game thats fine... I think everything can always be better.

 

Thank you all very much for your feedback... its solely what I wanted... to measure the trends.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. I think that's why most opinions are going in the same direction.

Why does everyone feel like they need to constantly change or improve on something that works fine the way it is? :blink:

Link to comment

Talking about social awareness now... http://www.10balloonies.com/ :D

Its good to be right before the bosses!!

 

Off course we had our 2009 edition of our Christmas event aroud here... this time in three cities, covering the country from north to south, spreading joy to children with AIDS and needs.

 

Thanks to all that attended!!

Edited by ruidealmeida
Link to comment
Talking about social awareness now... http://www.10balloonies.com/ :D

Its good to be right before the bosses!!

They are right; you are still wrong.

 

What's the difference? The difference is something they have that you don't: the privilege of ownership.

 

If you own the website you get to make the rules. By making that observation I am neither attacking nor defending Groundspeak's corporate participation in the DARPA challenge; all I am saying is that if you are unhappy with what you perceive to be an ethical inconsistency in this place, you are free to leave – and, if you like, start your own website where you can make your own rules.

Link to comment

Some of you still don't get it... the DARPA Challenge was not a charitable or social event.

 

It was a competitive challenge for which one winning team was paid a cash award.

 

The only charitable aspect was Groundspeak's decision to offer the award, if won, plus $10k of their own, as a charitable contribution.

 

The challenge had no social agenda, no cause was supported, just research into an interesting question.

 

Did some cachers choose to participate because the money was to go to charity? Certainly. I did. But the event wasn't about raising social awareness or promoting a cause, it was about how to best use social media tools and practices.

 

 

Will resurrecting this thread near Christmas each year become someone's attempt at social awareness? :D

Link to comment
Some of you still don't get it... the DARPA Challenge was not a charitable or social event.

 

It was a competitive challenge for which one winning team was paid a cash award.

And who provided the cash for the award? American taxpayers, that's who. Which means the DARPA Challenge represents a political/social/economic agenda that I cannot support.

 

If a group of cachers had submitted an event cache for the specific purpose of making an attempt to win the DARPA challenge, and if their reviewer had rejected their event cache on the grounds that it violated the 'no agenda' guideline, I would have supported that rejection.

 

Groundspeak’s owners, on the other hand, have the right to ignore their own rules whenever they please. I happen to support that as well.

Link to comment
And who provided the cash for the award? American taxpayers, that's who. Which means the DARPA Challenge represents a political/social/economic agenda that I cannot support.

I'm genuinely confused.

 

DARPA is part of the Department of Defense, a taxpayer-funded organisation whose existence (if not all of its policies) I presume that you are not fundamentally opposed to, although you get a chance to answer that below :laughing:. And from what they told us, they are conducting research (that's what the "R" stands for in DARPA) into social media, Internet usage, and for all I know the American public's ability to spot red balloons. This research had a budget. Some of that budget went on balloons, some went on Web site design, and some - $40,000 - went on "incentivising" people to take part.

 

I don't see any political, social, or economic agenda in there, any more than if Coca-Cola asks 10,000 people to taste a new beverage and gives $40,000 to a randomly-chosen member of the tasting team.

 

Let's say that the research is useful - maybe it will help the DoD secure the Internet for national defence. Sounds like a reasonable aim. Maybe with all the Web site design and balloons, the budget is a million dollars (they probably get the balloons where the Air Force or whoever buys those $600 toilet seats). It would be a shame to have all that stuff and no participants.

 

Now, having given the $40,000 away, should DARPA care what happens to it? And how can they tell, anyway? Should they say "You can win $40,000, but you must spend it on a Lexus?".

 

So, a genuine question: can you tell us if your objection is based on:

- The fact that the winner of the prize was able to give the taxpayers' money to charity if they so chose

- The fact the part of the project budget went on a prize

- The existence of the project

- The existence of DARPA

- The existence of the United States Department of Defense

- The existence of the United States :D

- Or something else?

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment
I don't see any political, social, or economic agenda in there, any more than if Coca-Cola asks 10,000 people to taste a new beverage and gives $40,000 to a randomly-chosen member of the tasting team.

The difference is that Coca-Cola is a private entity giving away its own private money; DARPA is a public entity giving away MY money.

 

I have no more right to tell Coca-Cola how to spend its own money than Coca-Cola has to tell me how to spend mine. The government, on the other hand, has the power to tax. The government therefore does, to the extent that I am taxed, have the right to tell me how my money is going to be spent.

 

It is an awesome responsibility, one never to be taken lightly. As I said in the other thread:

 

The power to tax is a deadly bludgeon which needs to be taken very, very seriously. Taxes are collected by force. (Anyone who believes otherwise should try saying a polite "no thank you" to the tax man when collection time comes around.) When a government uses its police power to lift cash directly out of the pockets of it citizens, it had better first make dadgum sure it is doing so for a very good, and very
justifiable,
purpose. Anything short of that is morally wrong because it is an abuse of power, and economically wrong because it is counterproductive.

 

Now, having given the $40,000 away, should DARPA care what happens to it? And how can they tell, anyway? Should they say "You can win $40,000, but you must spend it on a Lexus?"

I have made no comment as to how the prize money should be spent by the winners. That’s not what I meant when I said I object to the social agenda. The social agenda I object to is the idea that it’s okay to spend taxpayer money on whatever whim pleases a government agency.

 

I don’t care where the money goes now that it is back in private hands; the damage is already done. My point is that the money should have never been taken from taxpayers in the first place, if this was all it was going to be used for.

 

So, a genuine question: can you tell us if your objection is based on:

- The fact that the winner of the prize was able to give the taxpayers' money to charity if they so chose

- The fact the part of the project budget went on a prize

- The existence of the project

- The existence of DARPA

- The existence of the United States Department of Defense

- The existence of the United States :D

- Or something else?

Given those choices, I guess my answer to your question would be the second one: The fact the part of the project budget went out as a prize. Possibly numbers three and four as well. You can read the following and decide for yourself where my answer fits:

 

I am not necessarily against government-awarded prizes intended to encourage technological advancement. I think offering incentives to the private sector can be effective, especially when they are done in lieu of the government directly and clumsily trying to legislate technological change itself.

 

My objection was to the way this concept was presented. The announcement I saw gave me the impression that DARPA simply wanted to celebrate the 40th birthday of the Internet, and was offering this contest as a way to make a more splashy commemoration. I don’t care to see the hard-earned tax dollars of my fellow citizens being passed out like candy at a birthday party.

 

If the prize is a part of a greater research project with an important goal, one that is expected to produce real, practical gains in knowledge, then that’s not quite so bad. Maybe you can convince me that that is the case.

 

But that’s still not ideal. I would much rather see these things done only in the private sector where the free market decides what is needed and businesses are free to prioritize solution-finding based on that true need, as opposed to what some government wonk thinks is needed, or worse (and more common), what some politician thinks should be done based on what he thinks will get him re-elected. In other words: If the problem being solved by this particular DARPA project truly merited attention, then someone would have already been willing to pay their own money for the solution, and some enterprising person or entity in the private sector would have risen to the occasion.

 

If nobody was willing to volunteer their own money before DARPA came along with their balloons and tax dollars, then how big a problem could it have been? If nobody was willing to front their own money, then why should I or anyone else have been forced to help pay for it?

 

I think this birthday contest, and the prize money it gave away, represent a serious abuse of the police power of government.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

EDIT: spelling.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

Geocaching was created here in the Pacific Northwest, probably by people who would need to process their feelings over and over again if they were accused of not being socially aware. They created a hobby where navel gazers and rednecks, Subaru drivers and born agains could go out in the city, suburb or wilderness to find a box of junk and in the process see the land, sky, water and air. Those finders could decide for themselves how to best serve society from their experiences.

Link to comment

If nobody was willing to voluntarily front their own money before DARPA came along with their balloons and tax dollars, then how big a problem could it have been? If nobody was willing to voluntarily front their own money, then why should I or anyone else have been forced to help pay for it?

For now let's ignore all of the other good that has come from DARPA and government entities like them and look solely at one pertinent example to answer your question.

 

Transport yourself in time, if you can, to 40 years ago.

 

Our nation had a problem. We had no fast, easy, reliable way to communicate data. This was every bit as much a problem for corporate as it was for government. Everyone shared this need.

 

Computers were expensive but essential, and government as well as corporate were building out their infrastructure at a tremendous rate and expense. No two systems would, by design, interact. If you had an IBM system it worked with other IBM systems, it was not in IBM's best interest to have its computers interact with Data General's.

 

IBM, Data General, any number of companies are working, using the best minds in the world, on ways to communicate data from one computer to another. Huge sums are being spent by corporate users. At this point corporate users actually have more powerful systems than does the government. And every system is different and exclusive. There is no standard way to communicate data because standards, especially open ones, are the exact opposite of what corporations do to make money.

 

Corporations are competitive and therefore very secretive. They do not share their research, the 'common good of the people' is not why they are in business. Building out what we now know as the internet is in no corporation interest... it is a huge net expense (no pun intended) and shareholders do not like expenses.

 

To answer the need our government created ARPA. See http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/~acc/docs/arpa.html for details.

 

Unlike corporate private commercial systems ARPA would create a system using the latest technology which could be shared amongst government AND the public, benefiting everyone (ARPANET).

 

ARPANET and the shared-resource greater-common-good practices that could ONLY have come from a government-sponsored effort without competitive commercial distraction would become the tool we use today - the internet.

 

Left to the choices of corporations there would be no open internet, you can absolutely count on that, and what we would have in its place sure as heck would not be interoperable, much less free!

 

Fast forward to today. Do you foresee Posterous, Google, Twitter, Facebook and the other social media developers deciding to combine their research and practices to create one big suite of interoperative free tools for the public? Ain't gonna happen... unless and until some non-commercial entity like DARPA makes it happen.

 

That's why we need DARPA out there doing this kind of research, that's why this experiment is tax money well spent, and if they need to spend small sums to incentivize or reward participation then I'm all for it, for I and all of us will eventually be one of its beneficiaries!

 

Lastly, the cash prize is actually part of the research! DARPA does projects every day for which there is no cash reward. How a cash incentive changes participation is an important part of developing new systems.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
If the prize is a part of a greater research project with an important goal, one that is expected to produce real, practical gains in knowledge, then that’s not quite so bad. Maybe you can convince me that that is the case.

...

Does that answer your question?

Thanks for the thought that went into your answer.

 

I guess my point is that while I don't know whether or not the research is worthwhile - I suspect that neither of us can know, although you seem to have stronger opinions than I do - the specific aspect that some part of the budget for the research was spent on a prize as an incentive, does not seem to me to be, in and of itself, unreasonable.

 

When any organisation needs to find out how the world (or the part of the world which concerns it) works, and if handing out a prize of some kind gets more people involved - provided, of course, that the existence of the prize itself doesn't distort the research - then it would seem to me to be a reasonable way to use some of the budget. It would seem strange that some of the tools of the world of marketing should be deprived to a government agency when it seeks to engage with the public.

 

(Indeed, one could argue that it might make your ideal, which if you will permit the simplification can, I believe, be summed up as "let the private sector do it", become self-fulfilling, since the government agency not only has to cope with the indisputable inefficiencies of a bureaucracy, but also the fact that you've tied one of their hands behind their back.)

 

Now, if your main argument is (as I think it is, approximately) that DARPA shouldn't be doing research with public money, well then of course the fact that they shouldn't be handing 40 big ones out to balloon-spotting geeks from MIT is perfectly coherent. :D

Link to comment

... When any organisation needs to find out how the world (or the part of the world which concerns it) works, and if handing out a prize of some kind gets more people involved - provided, of course, that the existence of the prize itself doesn't distort the research - then it would seem to me to be a reasonable way to use some of the budget. It would seem strange that some of the tools of the world of marketing should be deprived to a government agency when it seeks to engage with the public.

The possibility of reward ALWAYS changes results! As mentioned in my last post, how it changes things is part of the research itself.

Link to comment
If nobody was willing to voluntarily front their own money before DARPA came along with their balloons and tax dollars, then how big a problem could it have been? If nobody was willing to voluntarily front their own money, then why should I or anyone else have been forced to help pay for it?

Transport yourself in time, if you can, to 40 years ago ...

Thanks for the history. This is interesting stuff. You are obviously more familiar with this subject than me.

 

The thing is, when I hear your story I hear a consistent contradiction:

 

Our nation had a problem. We had no fast, easy, reliable way to communicate data. This was every bit as much a problem for corporate as it was for government....

Translation: Private business wanted the Internet.

 

Corporations are competitive and therefore very secretive. They do not share their research, the 'common good of the people' is not why they are in business. Building out what we now know as the internet is in no corporation interest...

Translation: Private business did NOT want the Internet.

 

To answer the need our government created ARPA.

Translation: Private business wanted the Internet.

 

Left to the choices of corporations there would be no open internet, you can absolutely count on that,...

Translation: Private business did NOT want the Internet.

 

So which is it? Am I missing something? :D

 

Like I said: Any time there is a real, actual need for something – a need real enough that the solution is worth paying for – someone will always rise to the occasion and fill the need. That’s how the free market works.

 

When government responds, on the other hand, it always does so out of political motivations, not economic incentives. At best this results in serious inefficiencies and wastefully poor allocations of resources.

 

In your story: if private business really wanted the Internet, they would have made it work. By that I mean if there was any real money to be made in creating an Internet where there was none, then someone would have made it happen in response to that incentive.

 

If, on the other hand, businesses disliked the idea due to legitimate competitive concerns, then what business does the government have overriding those concerns?

Link to comment
... provided, of course, that the existence of the prize itself doesn't distort the research ...

I’m glad you brought that up.

 

Someone (was it you?) recently used the analogy of the Amber Alert to justify the research in question.

 

If this experiment is relevant to Amber Alert-type activities, then is it really a valid experiment if cash incentives are involved?

 

Is the government going to start paying, not just cash, but many thousands of dollars for every missing child returned? Does anybody other than me see an inherent flaw in that plan?

 

Now, if your main argument is (as I think it is, approximately) that DARPA shouldn't be doing research with public money, well then of course the fact that they shouldn't be handing 40 big ones out to balloon-spotting geeks from MIT is perfectly coherent. :D

That’s pretty close.

 

But it might be more accurate to sum up my argument this way: DARPA shouldn't be celebrating birthdays by passing out large wads of public money as party favors.

 

If DARPA can’t come up with any better way than that to dispose of its budget, then it needs to send the cash all the way back from where it came.

Link to comment

ruidealmeida, you appear to be struggling with some misconceptions. Geocashing's offer to publish cashes and events for members has limitations. The publisher has complete freedom to set those limitations in their own medium. A prohibition would be a limitation enforced upon you or the publisher by an outside authority.

 

Similarily, this forum is not "a place of free speach." The owner and provider of the forum has both a right and a responsibility to limit speech here.

 

Nevertheless, you retain all your rights to free speech and to publish events independent of Geocashing/Groundspeak. What ever rights you might have if they didn't exist, you still have. Isn't that wonderful news?!

 

Best wishes and hope this helps =)

Edited by zulutime
Link to comment

The thing is, when I hear your story I hear a consistent contradiction:

 

...Translation: Private business wanted the Internet.

 

...Translation: Private business did NOT want the Internet.

 

So which is it? Am I missing something? :D

I'm sorry, you are quite right! I apologize for not being a better writer.

 

What I was trying to convey is that there was a real need for data communication in every business and throughout the government.

 

There were a few corporations who were in the business of developing commercial communication transport protocols.

 

Anyone who needed to transport data digitally (the whole world) was at the mercy of those few commercial developers.

 

Those few commercial developers had no intention of handing their systems over to the government so that everyone could use them.

 

At a time when Bellsouth had IBM 370/158 mainframes talking across nine states the US Navy was still using Morse Code! IBM would (and did) gladly sell the use of that technology to the Navy, just like they sold it to Bellsouth... in very restricted and terribly expensive competition and development-stifling contracts!

 

ARPA, and ARPANET, was the only answer that could have put together the best and the brightest from our universities, government and military who made today's open standards freely available. Corporate developers of the underlying structure fought it all the way.

 

I should have made it clear that the companies invested in the development of this infrastructure had diametrically opposed business interests (making a profit) with the rest of the world (getting the job done efficiently and affordably) wanting to adopt and adapt their products.

 

Nothing much has changed in that respect. The social media tools being researched in this project are for the most part proprietary commercial developments. DARPA's research may lead to an open-source tool or suite of tools freely available to anyone.

Link to comment

Myself I would not like to see that trend here.As many have pointed out the outlets for charity are countless.

My personal peeve with charity is the personal advertising and social hierarchy that is often associated

with it.For "me" a truely selfless act of charity is anonymous.I realise thats impossible in the case of

volunteers,someone has to pull it together and make it happen.I cannot run my weekly errands without

at least several opportunities to give to something,and thats fine with me and I do when I feel moved to

do so,but not in my precious downtime, including geocaching or any other timeout I enjoy.

Link to comment

The thing is, when I hear your story I hear a consistent contradiction:

 

...Translation: Private business wanted the Internet.

 

...Translation: Private business did NOT want the Internet.

 

So which is it? Am I missing something? :D

I'm sorry, you are quite right! I apologize for not being a better writer.

 

What I was trying to convey is that there was a real need for data communication in every business and throughout the government.

 

There were a few corporations who were in the business of developing commercial communication transport protocols.

 

Anyone who needed to transport data digitally (the whole world) was at the mercy of those few commercial developers.

 

Those few commercial developers had no intention of handing their systems over to the government so that everyone could use them.

 

At a time when Bellsouth had IBM 370/158 mainframes talking across nine states the US Navy was still using Morse Code! IBM would (and did) gladly sell the use of that technology to the Navy, just like they sold it to Bellsouth... in very restricted and terribly expensive competition and development-stifling contracts!

 

ARPA, and ARPANET, was the only answer that could have put together the best and the brightest from our universities, government and military who made today's open standards freely available. Corporate developers of the underlying structure fought it all the way.

 

I should have made it clear that the companies invested in the development of this infrastructure had diametrically opposed business interests (making a profit) with the rest of the world (getting the job done efficiently and affordably) wanting to adopt and adapt their products.

 

Nothing much has changed in that respect. The social media tools being researched in this project are for the most part proprietary commercial developments. DARPA's research may lead to an open-source tool or suite of tools freely available to anyone.

 

I think all DARPA related posts should be on the DARPA thread as was stated on that thread, keep it on topic. DON'T bring that here either.

 

It shouldn't go both ways...

Link to comment

I totally support the no-agenda policy for geocaches.

 

I don't necessarily think that has to apply to events.

 

geocaching.com offers us a huge capability... to notify and coordinate with people to stage an event. Most of us have that capability nowhere else. I think the use of that capability is why some (I) would like to be able to use event listings with an agenda.

 

Anyone who did not agree with the event's stated agenda would be free to avoid going to it.

 

Groundspeak has made a stand on this issue so there is no real point in debating it, but I can see event listings being a powerful tool to gather interested geocachers in support of a cause.

 

I've never understood why events were treated like geocaches anyway! :D You get a smilie for finding a hidden geocache... how hard is it to find a public event? :laughing:

Link to comment

I just sent a donation to a British fellow that is walking the length of the Amazon River. He has been at it for over 2 years and has about 8 months to go. I wonder if he has a chance to pick up a geocache here and there on his journey in the 'woods?.'

I am sure that he appreciates the donation. I thank you for being a charitable fellow. But wouldn't he, and the folks who support him, be better served if you could organize an event using the unique power of a widely published geocaching.com event listing to hold an event where folks who support his effort could get together?

Link to comment

I just sent a donation to a British fellow that is walking the length of the Amazon River. He has been at it for over 2 years and has about 8 months to go. I wonder if he has a chance to pick up a geocache here and there on his journey in the 'woods?.'

I am sure that he appreciates the donation. I thank you for being a charitable fellow. But wouldn't he, and the folks who support him, be better served if you could organize an event using the unique power of a widely published geocaching.com event listing to hold an event where folks who support his effort could get together?

 

Yes I hear you and can see the tool your seeing.An event listing would hurt no one at all,view it..don't view it

its a simple choice,and would hurt no one, as long as its not in the middle of the woods in a cache,in a perfect moment on a beautiful day and drags me back to reality sooner then I have to show up.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...