= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Idea: Solve Violent Crime
As a lot of you are probably already aware, testosterone level is considered a top predictor of violent crime. There are prescriptions that lower testosterone, so why do we still have violent crime?
I've been told there are two obstacles to treatment:
One, people with such excessively high testosterone that it causes them to commit crimes (most of them are men) feel strongly that reducing testosterone would make them less manly.
Two, our legal and ethical systems are such that forcing people, even convicted criminals, to undergo medical treatments is frowned on.
Here's something that might work for both:
I bet the condition begins in the teen years - during the time when parents can still make the decision as to whether their children should be tested for testosterone over-production and receive medication. What if, as part of a yearly checkup, doctors were to ask questions designed to find out whether the teens that come to their office (boys AND girls - women can get it, too) have been experiencing signs of testosterone over production. Free yearly exams for teens could be offered to poor teens who aren't covered by health insurance and free testosterone prescriptions could be offered to anyone with high testosterone that meets an income requirement. Even if they later decided to go off the meds as adults, this would at least make sure that they know about their condition and know that there is a treatment, giving them an option that they may not even know about otherwise. Perhaps the ones that go off of their medication will decide, during their time in jail, that the medication is a good idea after all and go back on it. That could make jail time much more effective if it doesn't prevent crime entirely.
We could ask stars and athletes to participate by publicly revealing their testosterone levels. I've read the testosterone levels of violent criminals can be ten times as high as the testosterone levels of other criminals. If the testosterone levels of admired and manly men are well-known, then people who have so much more testosterone that it puts them into a state that I imagine is similar to a 'roids rage will have reason to feel manly being brought down to the same testosterone level of Michael Jordan or Arnold Schwarzenegger (or whoever is idolized this week - I have no idea who teenagers and violent criminals idolize).
Also, I have to wonder if people with incredibly high testosterone might qualify as having lost touch with reality or meeting some legal definition of insanity that would qualify them for, at the very least, temporary involuntary testosterone reduction? I say "temporary testosterone reduction" because IF the person can be brought back to reality for even a few days they may voluntarily decide to maintain treatment.
What sort of test would have to be administered to legally verify that they qualify by such a definition? For brain damage patients, you can do things like ask them their name and birthday and see if they know. With schizophrenics you can just ask them questions like "Are you Jesus?" and if they say "Yes" they've lost touch. Maybe we can figure out what the equivalent questions would be for people with dangerously high testosterone levels... something that would prove it if they are out of touch with reality and qualify them for treatment. For instance "Do you care whether you go to jail?" if they rant and rave about how they don't care, then they're not being influenced by the threat of punishment which keeps people from committing crimes - that's dangerous. If you ask them whether they care about being seriously injured and they rave about how they don't, then they're a danger to themselves AND others. I'm pretty sure that at least one state uses "A danger to themselves and others." as a qualification to hospitalize people who are having a mental health episode.
I'm not familiar enough with the law to know whether this would fly, but I think going in this direction could work.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The solution to disbelief is to make a verifiable claim. You can get clobbered so hard for making a verifiable claim that is wrong that it seems bold and people will hear you out then. Also, they can relax as soon as they have consciously noted to themselves that there is some way to test what you said - they're no longer paranoid that you can fool them when they have such an easy way to prove you wrong.
And sometimes it's best to let people see for themselves, be impressed, and categorize something by themselves. So, instead of "It makes decisions." I would give an example that is immediately verifiable as soon as you use the program. I would say "Type in X and it will say Y" - give a few more impressive examples to give the gist of the way that this thing "reasons" or whatever it does.
Hmmm... this is almost like a phone operating system, a different interface that's essentially language-based rather than visual-spatial. That could be really handy, especially if you're having a terrible time finding your buttons. Heck, I'd love to have that on my computer. And it does speech recognition? That's awesome.
Okay, I now understand why some people will think its awesome. (:
"From your history, the program knows that you are more likely to accept results from the contributor who lists an apple as a fruit available from a supermarket price aggregator. That result will go on top. "
Oh wow. I see this now. The implications for targeted advertising are all over that. I wonder what your stance is on targeted advertising? If you take a stance of "no" on that early on, I'd advertise that and put your decision in a prominent place - there's a growing movement of people who are starting to understand that they're being tracked and they don't like it. You'll get more respect and attention from them if you refuse to use it. Might be a way to stand out from competitors at some point, either now or in the future.
Those three paragraphs (with the search, the apple, and the way it selects results) were a really good start at explaining.
I feel like the screen saver fits in now, which is because my mind has decided this is kind of like an operating system. Or an operating system upgrade. Or a totally new paradigm about how to use your phone. That's enough of an umbrella to make a screensaver make sense.
Ok, so to confirm: the screensaver is a way to promote ideas? You want the public to know about technologies that you want to see happen so that they happen faster?
"It is my intent to develop the content in another application. However, to make use of the power of crowd-sourcing the content needs to be linked to the app."
That feels out of context.
So do you intend to make money off of the app or not? If not, definitely mention that it's non-profit. If this particular method (selling background colors) has been proven profitable, then cite an example and the amount of profit. Either making the claim if being non-profit or making a claim to know how to profit is really important. That's a lot of people's first question and a lot of people won't take you seriously if you don't have a realistic answer.
"This reputation-based value is a potential path to monetization."
Do you have plans in place for spammers? If not, they will ruin your app. Think I'm kidding? Back in 1998 you could try and find a pair of shoes on line, or some glasses, or other mundane household items. It didn't matter what you typed in because every result would be porn.
That's what will happen to your app if you have no security against it.
Wow 3-D printers. You have quite a vision for cell phones.
Okay, I'm going to suggest another rewrite: If I was you, I would start with the three paragraphs I mentioned before (with the search, the apple, and the way it selects results), elaborate / add information, and also, let the reader know how many users your app has so far. If it's growing quickly, let us know how long it takes to double?
Before I get to the rewrite, let me an answer some questions. The pitch is not the place to answer all questions, but instead just enough to recruit users
Form Factor There are a few misconceptions that I have allowed to creep in in order to simplify my description. While I am currently writing the app to be run on a smartphone, this is only the current design iteration. It started as a website, but websites can't properly store data locally. This took up several redesigns until I moved onto a standalone Java app. Then the rise of smartphones happened. Smartphones have many features to recommend them for this application. They are ubiquitous, feature a modular code design, and specialize in data transfer. And they are programmed in Java, so minimal learning curve.
The point of the backstory is that smartphones are a single form factor. A more visually appealing form factor is, what I refer to as, the 'magic mirror.' The magic mirror is a Raspberry Pi running Android and connected to a wall mounted flat screen TV. This TV is not a dedicated device, but a ~$35 component which runs the app on a single input (HDMI) to the TV. The premium version of the app makes configuration very easy.
Another form factor is far more utilitarian. A headless version, run on a Raspberry Pi, executes pre-programmed queues of commands without user interaction.
Note to makers: The reliance on the Raspberry Pi is not absolute. I was thinking Arduino before. The program is only in Java and Android because I decided to learn Java to execute the project. Rapberry Pi is the cheapest computer that runs Android that I know of.
Money at the App Store Honestly, money is a secondary concern. This project is a tool.
Even if no one else ever uses the app, I will draw value from it (though perhaps not enough to offset the time invested already, but that's Sunk Cost and written off).
Even if someone steals the idea, the open source version will be more efficient because it does not need to incorporate overhead to support financial motives. I have sufficient code and description posted to protect my own right to develop and publish. This development trail goes back several years across multiple sites.
So let's look at possible sources of revenue anyway.
The app store is a possible source of income. If there is a free version of an app and a pay version, some people will pay for the app. I wouldn't, but some people will. As I said above, the only thing I want to give those people is a little ease of customization.
Another way the app store can be used to generate income is through soliciting donations. When you ask for people's time and then ask for people's money, you get more of people's money then a direct request for donations. Using the hierarchy of gamification rewards (Status, Access, Power, Stuff), the first reward we give is status.
Another reinforcement mechanism that I am trying to call into play amounts to triggering the Sunk Cost Fallacy in users who decide to become contributors - financial or content. This is the lesser of the two purposes for splitting the app into two implementations. Users who go to the trouble of downloading an new app are going to feel the need to make use of its features. The relevant feature is the ability to add content.
The user is directed to download a new app ('Plan A') after they have created new content on their own (as opposed to when solicited from a peer). At this moment the user is being asked to take an extra step, possibly have to delete things from their phone, and to download a new copy of the app. This is because they have said they know how to do something better than someone else. This is when we ask them to upgrade to contribute more, and this is where we ask them for money. Maximum is $20 on Android market per app sale.
The new version of the app simply displays a full set of options for creating new content. These settings can be confusing for lay users which is the major reason they are kept apart. The same functionality should be accessible from the search bar in any version of the app.
Android apps make very little money compared to iPhone apps. Porting to iPhone should be an early priority.
Money and advertisers The model here is the phonebook. Businesses pay to get listed. We administer the starting directory that every app loads with. This is baked in at the code level in a mechanism used to simplify comparing databases. Under most conditions users will not be deleting these initial tables from their own devices. This does not guarantee top ranking, only the inclusion of the correct information in the results. If you don't pay, you aren't guaranteed even that.
Covert Advertising This is not meant to be a capitalist endeavor. It is meant to compete in a capitalist marketplace. The project is meant to drive users to other open source projects and solutions.
In terms of utility modeling: Every open source advance is available to me, so my fitness is increased by the sum of all open source knowledge. So is everyone else's. Preferential access to open source solutions exist. Fitness is a relative measure in a closed system.
I want "to be reminded to take my pills twice a day" Sample Responses: set alarm "Take my pills" every twelve hours, set alarm "Take my pills twice a day" time to be specified, text messages on timers.
User chooses to look for additional alternatives. Request sent to peers in network. User will not be satisfied without in home care. An opportunity. User could have been satisfied with talking to her daughter on the phone as she was actually looking for companionship.
I want "I'm hungry" Sample Responses: google maps closest restaurant, closest supermarket, local peer with excess food.
User closes search screen without selecting anything because the google map preview was sufficient. Ratings remain unchanged.
I want "to learn German" Sample Respones: google search with a website that teaches German, peer offering language lessons in exchange for dinner, Rosetta Stone website.
User chooses the peer tutoring based on the photo in the response.
Spammers The sharing algorithm is meant to allow spammers in, but force them to have a lower reputation. They play by the rules. I want something. They offer something. Their offer is of low value so they don't get up-voted.
My fear is account hijacking.
Current users I don't have users because I don't have a demo yet. I have abandoned my last several builds due to difficulties of peer to peer networking. What I have are small groups of reviewers who I consult for advice. Even that runs into problems. I usually only get one round of feedback from each person before they agree. And then stop providing meaningful feedback.
What I need are developers. I have taught myself various computer languages for the purpose of putting this program together. Experienced developers would hopefully already know how to implement the missing components. To reach developers I need a demo. So the only thing I can see to do is to continue work on the demo and to build up supporters and collateral skills and assets in the meantime.