Deus Ex Writer Discusses 'Dangerous Technology'

Dan Weaver writes "One of the writers for the exceptionally good action RPG Deus Ex has authored a rather thought-provoking Salon article on the Bill-Joy theme of dangers posed by emergent technologies and the difficulties that police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant) encounter in dealing with them. In the light of revelations about China's tardiness and confusion in addressing the SARS epidemic, this article is particularly timely."

Comments

police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant)

[Threni]

What's a pleasant police state?

Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Here's a question that I'm mulling over as a result of reading the synopsis of this article. With all the literary and cinematic works that have been made which deal with a Big Brother-like state [for lack of a shorter term], why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works? It seems like no matter how embedded in our culture the idea that certain traits of governments are bad and that we must rally against them, these traits continue to crop up. Consider this, has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[GoodFun!!!!!!!!]

It's going to become a lot more like 1984 when I come to your house, beat a confession out of you, and then carry you away in a windowless truck to work as slave-labor on my trans-Nebraska model railroad.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Angry White Guy]

It is because the people who are the most at risk are usually working too much to do anything about it, living from paycheque to paycheque. When you have your own problems, who cares if the government is picking on the immigrants. Who cares that e-mail's getting bugged? Who cares if some crack addict got the living sh*t kicked out of him for speeding in California. The other side of the coin is the guy who has enough money to live like a king, has influence in the community. Are they going to upset the boat? No, because its these laws that help keep them where they are. The balance of power is just that, a balance. You take too much, and the people have nothing. When they have nothing, then they have nothing to lose, and that's when civil revolt occurs. Read Macheiovelli's 'The Prince' for a much better understanding of what's going on in the world, and what has gone on in the world since we started walking upright.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[f97tosc]

Consider this, has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?

In general, I believe that it is a myth that we had some super-democratic past, and that American society is getting less and less democratic.

Take for example discrimmination at airports against arab-americans; or the background checks of immigrant arabs. Well, I am not saying it is right, but it is nothing compared to the treatment of ethnic Japanese during WW2. They were locked up for years even though they were US citizens.

I don't like everything in the Patriot act either but to say that it constitutes a strong trend towards an Orwellian 1984 is not very well grounded in history. Did you know, for example, that during Washington's presidency it was illegal to criticize the president in print? This is much worse than all these questionable patent and copyright laws.

Tor

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[hesiod]

> It seems like no matter how embedded in our culture the idea that certain traits of governments are bad and that we must rally against them, these traits continue to crop up

Can you be a little more specific? What bad traits of government have cropped up that are similar to dystopic works that were not there previous to those works being created (or have gotten worse)? And PLEASE, don't say mindless things like "We've lost our freedoms" or "The Police State has taken away the rights of others" without backing it up with facts.

> has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?

If I must quantize "big-brother-ness", more, but not because we are achieving dystopia, but because you are looking only at specific qualities. For instance, 1984 doesn't even come close to taking into account freedom of information, such as media (who, despite its bias, usually reports the "important" things) and namely, the Internet.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ScuzzMonkey]

Your point is excellent, but of course the reason that things have generally improved in these matters is exactly because of that perception and a willingness to act on it to block such extreme measures. It's that public pressure that keeps it down, not some general inclination toward the common good on the part of those in power.

As an aside, I think there is a pretty strong case that America is getting less and less democratic (not in the pure sense of the word, of course, but representatively democratic, as it was intended to be). It essentially has to do with the fact that the citizen/representative ratio has grown much larger than the founders could ever have expected. With so many constituents to such a small number of representatives, it shouldn't be any surprise that our views are represented much less democratically than in the past.

This is not at cross-points to your point, mind you--it's perfectly possible (and probably even natural) for a democratic decision to result in less freedom for a minority (or perceived minority). Those issues were really a failing of the judiciary, which is theoretically immune from democratic pressures, to check the democratically elected executive and legislative branches.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[operagost]

I suggest that WWII was a no-win situation. If we had left the ethnic Japanese alone, many may have fallen victim to mobs. Some of the people who were in the camps even agree with me, so perhaps I'm not totally out of line. The underservedly harsh treatment many of them received after the war is supporting evidence.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[luzrek]

I think that the law preventing hte criticism of the president in print during Washington's presidency was actually part of the power struggle between Adams and Jefferson (Jefferson owned a newspaper).

I would also like to point out that the United States is the oldest Constitutional Democracy bar none. I think that one of the major stabilizing factors of the US governement and our democracy is our pride in our constitution. Our soldiers and polititicians swear to uphold the constitution first and foremost. This means that fundamental changes to our government are increadibly slow and that ussually makes them well thought out (ok, that prohibition thing, but we repealed that, hence all the bars named "21rst amendment"). Stupid and unconstitutional laws may be passed by our congress and signed by our president, but they ussually don't last very long because of our supreme court. We are afterall a nation of laws, not men.

Unlike our secretary of deffence, I think that France and Germany are young countries. Both are (2003 - 1945) 58 years old, about a quarter of the United State's age. Russia is younger than I am, and China is less than 100. Culturally, of course they are all much much older, but that just means they are even worse at government. You don't take marriage advice from someone on their fifth marriage. You take it from someone who is still on their first years later.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Due to the fact that you believed I would reply with something "mindless", since you assumed it, I will not bother with you. You've proven yourself to be rude and not interested in an interesting discussion. Rather, you are looking to make yourself look good at the expense of others.

In the future, take note of this.
Here are two statements:
1) And PLEASE, don't say mindless things like "We've lost our freedoms"
2) Could you expound on your statement a bit? What, specifically, are you referring to when you say that government is taking on bad traits?
They are accomplishing the same basic result but one is the mark of someone who is interested in discussion and the other is the mark of someone who feels small in their life. You figure out the difference.

Good Luck!

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those in the camps had their property confiscated. I seriously doubt that any of them were thankful that they were in the camps rather than at home in their own communities and I challenge you to come forth with a single citation.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

The subject of this article will care. And all of his cousins who've lost mothers and sisters will care too. The US response to this will be... PATRIOT2, more draconian legislation to take away more of the citizens "rights". The current administration has guaranteed an endless supply of Bin Ladens. One of them will get through and then...

I saw this in another thread last night. Someone posted it AC and I can't find a Google for it. It hits the nail right on the head though.

One constant throughout human history has been the struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots." For the purpose of this discussion, I will refer to the "haves" as "the elite" and will call the "have nots" "the rabble." I am doing this to emphasize the fact that the rabble, while comprising most of the population, is almost always pitifully weak and disorganized, thanks to constant manipulation by the elite. "Divide and conquer" has always been the name of the game here; it has always been easy for the elite to manipulate public opinion and keep the rabble squabbling among each other.

The elite, though comprising only 1% of the population (the exact percentages are arguable, though the figures I am using are in the right ballpark), control most of the wealth. (In modern America, one has to be worth at least $100 million to be a serious player.) The elite don't have to work per se; they spend their time making deals, which, although stressful at times, is much too stimulating to fall into the realm of institutionalized drudgery which people commonly refer to as "work."
Falling below the elite in status and power are what could be called "elite wannabes," "lackeys of the elite," or "wealthy rabble." These people are very wealthy by rabble standards.

Power and status are hardwired into human behavior. Before the rise of agriculture, when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate power and status, since possessions were limited by what people could carry with them. There were probably powerful lineages that got passed through the generations, but the gap between the powerful and everybody else was limited due to the nature of their lifestyle.

All this changed with the rise of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. For the first time, people became sedentary, and they produced surpluses of grain which had to be defended. These surpluses meant unprecedented power for whoever was able to control them, and the first elite was born. For the first time, organized war became possible.

Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America" describes the real dynamics at work behind the American Revolution. Rather than some idealistic "liberty and justice for all," the American Revolution was actually fomented by the American elite, who chafed under the British royalty.

It has been pointed out that by fighting an enemy, one takes on many of the characteristics of that enemy. Interestingly, it was World War 2 when America became a fascist power. By fascism, I am referring to Mussolini's definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

By 1945, state and corporate power in America had merged into what was later termed the "military-industrial complex," even though it wasn't until 1961 that Dwight Eisenhower gave his famous speech warning America about a system that had already been in place for 15 years.

Even though America had become fascist by 1945, there remained a vast amount of consolidation to do: there still remained the rabble and their pesky vote (an archaic carryover from the Revolutionary War era). The rabble had recently suffered two major traumas -- the Great Depression and World War Two, and had reached an unprecedented level of solidarity. The rabble had become dangerous, and it was necessary to manipulate them back into their customary position of helplessness, while at the same time enhancing the power of t

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Blue Stone]

"In general, I believe that it is a myth that we had some super-democratic past, and that American society is getting less and less democratic."

I agree, but it's not about that, it's about "are we moving toward or away from "a democratic state" at any given time.

At the moment, it appears to be, "away from."

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Trurl's Machine]

I would also like to point out that the United States is the oldest Constitutional Democracy bar none. I think that one of the major stabilizing factors of the US governement and our democracy is our pride in our constitution.

Seen "Gangs of New York"? Just watch how this "democracy" had worked in XIX century. Of course, this movie is a piece fiction, but the description of the Tammany Hall dictatorship in New York is historically accurate, and boss Tweed was a real person. America has become a modern democracy only after WWII. Maybe American Constitution does not change, but its interpretations made by the Supreme Court do change quite fundamentally. Just see how many intepretations the First Amendment has had - from oppresive censorship to flag burning.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[DoomHaven]

Noting thread for future reference.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[antiMStroll]

Poor reasoning. You simply picked something worse from the past and derivied a conclusion about current overall trends from a single static point on a curve. By similar reasoning, the Japanese had it good by not being forced to work on plantations. Look back on the 18th century, didn't Americans kept Africans as property? So things must be getting better now.

Over the last twenty years your civil liberties have taken a very hard hit. That it's still better than what the Japanese or Blacks went through is neither relevant or comforting. Unless you're of the opinion we don't need to worry until plantations and internment camps return (Guantanamo Bay excepted of course.)

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[James_Duncan8181]

Umm...Iceland had a functioning democracy with a constitution about 800 years before the founding of the US...

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[threephaseboy]

Read Macheiovelli's 'The Prince'

I tried reading that once, but I didn't have the Symbol font installed on my system

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and this guy named hitler outlined his world domination plans in this crazy book called "mein kamph". Note to self outline plans for world domination, then follow through, and avoid getting addicted to drugs, bonus side note make the book a self help book and get rich at the same time.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[christalyss]

why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works?

One reason for this, already discussed, is that there's not much most people can do.

But there is another, deeper reason. These kinds of works create a storyline in the cultural consciousness. We then develop our culture in such a way as to enact that story. It doesn't matter whether we like the story, the fact that it has been inserted in our consciousness means that we will create it as a reality.

Fortunately, there are other stories which we are simultaneously enacting. The tide is turning.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[error0x100]

In general, I believe that it is a myth that we had some super-democratic past

Essentially, yes, you are correct. The USA can only have begun being considered a free country after the last of the Jim Crow laws was dropped, which was, IIRC, in the late 50s or early 60s. And 100 years ago women did not even have the vote in the US - so certainly not a democracy then. The USA is thus a relatively new democracy, less than 100 years. And in the 50s you of course had the whole McCarthyism thing, which wasn't pleasant, but after that the USA improved again in terms of freedom/democracy.

Anyway, its difficult to say right now where the US is headed, the timespans we're looking at are too short here. While the last 10 years has definitely seen a trend towards fewer freedoms, the optimists would hold that the 'checks and balances' will kick in eventually (presumably after the war(s?) is(are?) over) and that the trend will reverse again. The question is not so much "where will the US be in 5 years" (since the US will very likely have fewer freedoms than now in 5 years time), but rather, "where will the US be in 50 years". In other words, in a few decades time, will counter-trends to the current trends have kicked in.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[error0x100]

If women in the US couldn't vote 100 years ago, could it still have been considered a democracy? (I know for one that South Africa was definitely not considered a democracy until the black people were finally able to vote in 1994.)

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Tranzboy]

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains
seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we
must be aware of change in the air, however slight,
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
- - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas - -

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great. I'm sure all 14 of its inhabitants are fuckin' proud of themselves.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Moofie]

Wow, that's an appalling attitude. "They might have gotten hurt had they not gotten interred, so it was less awful."

Uh, no.

Any actor has responsibility for their actions. If the government wanted to believe that it was "protecting" the Japanese citizens, that's nothing but a hollow justification.

Was Japanese people getting beat up also appalling? Yes. Only thing that would be worse is if the State didn't pursue and prosecute the assaulters.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[benzapp]

Two points. Notice he said CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. Iceland certainly had a democracy, but was lost to Denmark by 1500 IIRC.

Prior to the United States, a constitutional democracy did not exist since Athens.

In all honesty, the US is not a democracy, but a Republic loosely based on Roman governance and Athenian constitutional law. Pure democracy is nothing more than rule by majority which is always chaotic. In the United States of America, like in Athens, certain rights are guaranteed and cannot be deprived by the democracy.

Iceland was a democracy because of necessity, simply because the population was so small and no one group or person could assert control over the entire island. The entire population of Iceland is honestly LESS than the zip code in which I live TODAY.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[jpop32]

why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works?

Fear. Plain and simple. Here's an explanation from a man who knows what he's talking about:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Apparently, still works.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[jpop32]

I know for one that South Africa was definitely not considered a democracy until the black people were finally able to vote in 1994.

Ummm... Didn't the US have a thing with black people until about the same time? Slavery and stuff? When was that, 100-150 years ago?

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

Weaken the federal government as much as possible, while keeping the military as strong as possible. This is done by starving the government of funding (except for military spending, of course), and by doing away with any and all government regulations.

I was in total agreement until this. The federal government is *not* weakening by any means. Quite the contrary -- the federal government is growing in power and expense, and has been growing strong since the introduction of the federal income tax. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that created the police state. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that steals our freedom.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

"The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas."
--Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925.

Cubans have a greater life expectancy than Americans.
In 1980 American CEOs received 42 times the pay of an average worker, compared with 419 times in 1998.
More than 5 million people in Britain are living in conditions of absolute poverty (set at $240 per week), according to Breadline Europe, a recent study led by academics from Bristol University and the London School of Economics. Poverty in other European countries - apart from Russia - is not nearly as high as in Britain. In France, for example, the study found that fewer than 1% of the population lives in absolute poverty. The study found that more than 60% of Russians are now living in poverty, with over a quarter of them in extreme poverty. This compares with a poverty level of less than 5% before the collapse of the Soviet Union.


So, you think that s strong central government is the problem? I guess it depends on your yardstick. A strong federal government in the U.S. is the only check that the people of the country have on their most privileged citizens, the corporations and those who control them.

Now for some stats:

1970: Total Military Budget Per Capita = $400
Total Federal Budget Per Capita = $983
Total Military As % Of Budget = 40.1%
1992: Total Military Budget Per Capita = $1170
Total Federal Budget Per Capita = $1496
Total Military As % Of Budget = 78.2%

These numbers were taken from U.S. Census Data at fedstats.gov.

So, measured in cash, you can see that the U.S. Federal Government is on it's way to being a powerless entity, merely a tool for wealth redistribution from taxpayers to the elite. And of course, the number one way to do this in a very quick way is through war. The lower classes pay with their labor and their lives and the elite benefit when the corporations under their control move in to make profits from: Arms Sales, Reconstruction of Infrastructure, and Provision of Goods and Services to the newly subjected lower classes of wherever it is the are taking over this week.

If you still beleive that the U.S. Federal Government is growing too large, look at the rapid deconstruction going on under the current administration. Kyoto is a great example. Cheney, his puppet and the rest of the neo-con administration hate it because it recognizes that destroying the environment is a bad thing for people, but the cost to corporations of implementing it is too high. The Cheney administration's tax cuts will shift the burden of running the tools of state to the lower classes, further increasing the domination of the elite. Eventually of course, the elite will take too much, the masses will rise up and destroy them and a new elite will take their place. History is littered with examples of this pattern, but people never learn from history, only from their own mistakes.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[hesiod]

I didn't believe you in particular would reply with anything. When I post something to /. I make posts, not replies. I wasn't implying YOU would say something mindless, I meant "please, anyone who is reading, don't waste my (and all of our) time by posting off-the-handle replies that don't give any facts. That is a very common occurence here, so it was a valid precaution. (okay, precaution is a slightly self-indulgent way of saying it, but the meaning's still there)

You suggested I say
> Could you expound on your statement a bit?

What I DID say was:
> > Can you be a little more specific? What bad traits of government have[...]

So I said almost exactly what you suggested before you suggested it.

A few things to take note of yourself in the future:
1) You say "I will not bother with you," but then you DO bother trying to explain why I am rude. If you say I won't bother, then don't I think you would have made a better impact leaving it at that. Heck, I might have been stunned into not replying. HAHA, foolish mortal!

2) Your entire experience with me is one post made to a site that is generally very opinionated and rude (to be blunt) and yet you assert that I am a rude person? Talk about arrogance.

3) Assuming the worst, that I was gunning for you for some reason -- This is a public forum, and while there are usernames, it is mostly anonymous. I don't know anything about you, I don't make statements about you. Don't take things so personally, and get off your high horse (yes, that one was aimed directly for you).

4) Since I said what you suggested, obviously I was "interested in discussion." While I can't claim I don't feel small in life, because I do, I don't generally take that out on other people by pointing out their flaws (except in this case -- turnabout is fair play).

I am one of the nicest people in the world, and I get really fucking sick of assholes like you getting a superiority complex and trying to make me feel like I'm a jerk. If you don't like what I say, ignore it. It's that simple. You should figure out yourself before suggesting someone else do the same.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

How can the federal government be losing power when the federal budget per capita nearly triples over 20 years? It doesn't matter how the tax money is spent. Any increase of tax revenue represents an expansion of government. In this case, it represents an expansion of federal government -- an expansion of centralized power.

The military is not some mysterious entity seperate from the rest of government. The military *is* government, just as any cause which recieves tax dollars is government. The military is simply another tool -- albeit the most powerful tool -- in the politician's toolbox.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

Do the math. The non-military areas of the federal government theoretically provide benefits to the citizens through program spending and regulation of the economy and the environment.

Non-Military Spending, Per Capita, 1970: $583
Non-Military Spending, Per Capita, 1992: $326

So, even though the government as a whole has grown, the actual beneficial (to the masses) part of the federal government has shrunk by 56%.

The military is a tool for wealth redistribution. Credible military threats to the U.S. as a nation do not exist in today's world. So why the big army?

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[error0x100]

The US had institutionalised segregation (separatism) up until the 1950's, and IIRC the last of the so-called "Jim Crow" laws was finally dropped only in the 1960s. I'm not sure when blacks were first allowed to vote in the US though. I seem to remember they had some system where a black persons vote counted as half or two-thirds of a person. Before segregation they had slavery, I think that was until about 150 years ago. Slavery was harsh; it is believed that approx 12 million black people died during the transit from Africa due to the harsh conditions they were kept in on the ships. But US segregation was never as harsh as SAn apartheid.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In general, I believe that it is a myth that we had some super-democratic past, and that American society is getting less and less democratic."

*applaud*

One day, people will wake up, and realize that written words are scribed by the victors. And that history isn't truth - it's the *search* for truth.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

Do the math.

I did, and the math tells me that the federal government has drastically increased in expense -- and hence power -- over the last quarter century. What the money was spent on is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. If the federal government were to drop all military spending today and use that money for social services, they would hold no more or less power over the people. You see, I am concerned primarily with freedom, and freedom is directly proportional to the size of government.

The non-military areas of the federal government theoretically provide benefits to the citizens through program spending and regulation of the economy and the environment.

Beneficial? By whose logic? My logic says that the market can do anything government can, more efficiently and for less cost (measured both in raw cash and -- more importantly -- liberty). Your logic (I assume) says that centralized power is the answer to education, health care, money management, and probably other private issues. Your logic is based on force: By forcing the people to band together, lead by a centralized power, certain problems will be overcome. My logic is based on voluntary association: By removing the element of force from society -- using government only to protect against force, not to initiate force -- the free people will prosper. Again, whose logic?

Second, the military "theoretically" provides benefits to the citizenship as well! All government spending "theoretically" provides benefits. And I guarantee, there are plenty of US citizens (myself not included) who do believe that a trillion-dollar military budget benefits them. What makes your wants any more important (or more correct) than theirs? The law, beyond the core functions of securing property rights and personal liberty, is nothing but a mix of special interests -- and this is exactly why I oppose nearly any expansion of government beyond the core functions.

why the big army?

Any expansion of government represents profit for those in power -- and there is your answer.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

By removing the element of force from society -- using government only to protect against force, not to initiate force -- the free people will prosper. Again, whose logic?

And those in power are those who would benefit the most from a smaller federal government.

OK, the current administration is waltzing down the garden path to your market driven dystopia. Once they get there, we'll have the corporations dictating social policy (who lives and who dies), environmental policy (strip mine it all, let 'em breathe sulphur dioxide), and economic ethics (ya right, like that would ever work).

The per capita numbers were based on real populations. 205 million in 1970, 255 million in 1992. The military budget has little bearing on the well being of the citizens of this country. (There are long term spinoffs from R&D and some economic benefit by employing cannon fodder) Let's deal with the part that I believe has some benefit to society at large. (Not the corps, or the elite, but the masses of people) 205 million at $583 each is $119,515,000,000.00 in 1970 as compared to 255 million at $326 each is $83,130,000,000.00 in 1992.

So, even in real dollars, the non-military side of the federal governments budget has shrunk by 30%. Since Reagan, the federal government has been neutered domestically. That process continues. I guess we'll see where it leads as it seems the country is walking to the neo-con agenda.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

we'll have the corporations dictating social policy (who lives and who dies), environmental policy (strip mine it all, let 'em breathe sulphur dioxide), and economic ethics (ya right, like that would ever work)

You're missing something very important. Corporations (or any private group) can only hold power over others if government grants that power to them. Corporations are not inherently any more or less powerful than you or me. Corporations are, after all, nothing but a collection of individuals. Only government can grant a corporation (or individual) the power to initiate force, because only government holds that power to begin with.

Before you point the finger at free trade and voluntary association, realize that our "free market" is hardly "free". Quite the contrary -- government is very deeply entangled in the market via regulation and taxing. It is this ridiculously complex web of law that makes it possible for corporations to gain power over others -- not free trade itself. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

Only government can grant a corporation (or individual) the power to initiate force, because only government holds that power to begin with.

But what if it's the corporations who are running the government? (As is quite arguably the case today)

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

If corporations are able to bribe government into passing unjust or oppressive laws (the DMCA for example), or convince government to dump billions of tax dollars into corporate handouts (the airline "bailout" for example), then the problem lies squarely in government, not the private sector. Government holds the key to oppression, not the private sector. More regulation of the market (i.e. more government) won't do a thing to stop these scams -- we need to focus on the root of the problem: government has too much power to begin with. Government has too many resources at its disposal. Government needs to be strictly limited in scope and function, and held strictly accountable to those limits.

The private sector is only doing what it feels it needs to do to gain the upper hand. In today's market, that means trying to get the "big player" (government) on your side. If government was seperated from the market, corporations would have to compete on merit alone, through voluntary association -- the way it should be.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

Government has too many resources at its disposal.

Except the teeth it needs to deal with the corporations. The whole MS Anti-Trust was a good case in point. Politics over-ruled the law. S&L was another good one. The elite behind the corporations pulled the strings and the taxpayers barfed money to bail them out.

If government was seperated from the market, corporations would have to compete on merit alone

Problem is you are talking bottom line (merit). There is no profit in protecting the environment. There is no profit in moral behavior. There is no profit in customers, only in consumers.

Government holds the key to oppression, not the private sector.

But the private sector holds the keys to government. And that is the immediate problem.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

Politics over-ruled the law.

Because of decisions made by those in power (government). Not decisions made by a private corporation. These are decisions that can be made only by a person of power -- a person who holds the "right" to use force against others. A private individual or corporation who uses force is called a criminal, and would (should) be dealt with accordingly.

The elite behind the corporations pulled the strings and the taxpayers barfed money to bail them out.

No, the government pulled the strings. Without the backing of government, those corporations would be equal in power to you and me.

There is no profit in protecting the environment.

Strong property rights -- which we don't currently have in the US -- is the answer to most (if not all) environmental issues. If a factory down the road from my house is polluting the water that flows through my backyard, I should have the right to sue them. If an oil refinery is pouring smoke into the air that I breathe, I should have the right to sue them. Search cato.org if you are interested in learning more about this. Incidentally, government itself creates more pollution than any one private corporation ever could.

But the private sector holds the keys to government.

The private sector does not "run" the government. A private corporation or lobbying group may attempt to bribe a person of political power, but if that person accepts the bribe, it is not the fault of the private corporation. They do not make that decision. They cannot make that decision because they do not hold the power to make that decision. Only government holds the power to make that decision.

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[Iguanaphobic]

So what is the solution?

Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc.

[ratamacue]

Limited government. Currently, the only major political party committed to reducing the size of government is the Libertarian party.

Here is a good intro if you are interested.

Fictional Writer

[FortKnox]

Take this article with a grain of salt.
We are talking about a good science fictional game writer (that helped write a game about conspiracy theories, and a terrible future), writing about conspiracy theories and a terrible future.

I'm sure he has insight, but he also has an active imagination (not necessarily a bad thing, but, like I said, take it with a grain of salt).

Re:Fictional Writer

[Xerithane]

Not only this but labeling SARS as an "epidemic" is the same as the hoax where the kid said Hong Kong was being listed as an infected city. SARS has reached 100 deaths, and they are getting a handle on the disease and understanding it more.

Sensationalist journalism at it's finest points, authored by a sci-fi game writer.

Re:Fictional Writer

[L7_]

No.

You are almost saying that because he writes fiction he can't think about the state of the world. That seems a very limited view. I mean, what special knowledge MUST one have to be able to criticize or comment on something? The author, it seems, has made a life studying technology, its ramifications, and plausible futures. So, when commenting on said technology, I would actually not take his comments "with a grain of salt" but rather as an educated opinion of the state of the world's technology.

I can't think of a better background for a person to have to comment on the things that he is commenting on.

Re:Fictional Writer

[mgs1000]

Thats 100 reported deaths. It probably is quite a bit worse in China.

Chinese government is not exactly The cooperating with the investigations.

Re:Fictional Writer

[mgs1000]

I apoligize for that terrible sentence. I meant that "The Chinese government is not exactly cooperating with the investigation"

Re:Fictional Writer

[grazzy]

Well, not to be picky, but hes written Ebola-AIDS virus like 5 times in the text and afaik there is nothing such as a aids-virus, except for maybe in southafrican pres. mbekis head.

Re:Fictional Writer

[Uber Banker]

Yeah, compare SARS to BSE (mad cow disease), SARS may be a cold derived from animals [news released today], BSE mutated into CJD and millions were infected unknowingly [read lied to by their government], the tip of the iceberg appearing, with well over 100 deaths so far (at least with SARS only a few thousand have been infected and the Chinese government have been a lot more honest than the lying-for-ten-years British government).

Hell, the US is still lying about steroids in cattle...

I wish this was a work of fiction.

*pls note it was michael who wrongly labelled SARS as an epidemic, so I don't think this is off-topic, and i dodn't mention piggy-spongyform-ensophlysis either.

Re:Fictional Writer

[FortKnox]

You are almost saying that because he writes fiction he can't think about the state of the world. That seems a very limited view. I mean, what special knowledge MUST one have to be able to criticize or comment on something?

Yes, he does think about the state of the world, and he does have an educated view, but he ALSO has his own 'world' that he thinks the world is becoming. Does he have an overactive imagination? Have you played Deus Ex?

Re:Fictional Writer

[Lumpy]

We are talking about a good science fictional game writer (that helped write a game about conspiracy theories, and a terrible future), writing about conspiracy theories and a terrible future.

I'm sure he has insight, but he also has an active imagination (not necessarily a bad thing, but, like I said, take it with a grain of salt).


the same thing was said about Arthur C. Clarke about his wild ass ideas about putting devices in space to allow global communication.

those silly Sci-Fi writers.. they'll say anything!

Re:Fictional Writer

[Theodore Logan]

I haven't yet read the article, and so cannot comment on it, but my intuition and experience with these kind of diatribes tell me you are right on the mark.

Take the Bill Joy piece referenced in the write up, for example. While amusing, it was an unbelievably far-out vision of a near future full of hyped up sci-fi scenarios (robots come alive, nano-tech grey goo etc. etc.) that are rarely discussed in anywhere but in pulp fiction. Bill Joy is smart and rich, I grant him that (though he should go to hell for writing vi), but with what authority can he speak of the dangers of sentient robots or nanotechnology still hundreds of years in the future?

Celebrities speak out on all kinds of issues they don't know anything about, but while the average Slashdotter wouldn't take Britney Spears comments on world politics very seriously (although her knowledge of semiconductor physics is more than decent), there is a tendency to forget this very sound and skeptical attitude when it comes to what a respected scientist/engineer/intellectual has to say on matters, regardless if they are part of his/her domain of expertise or not.

We all know that everything you read on the net is true, but sometimes there might be a point in pretending that this were not the case. That's all.

PS. As an example of the opposite phenomenon, remember the time Dubya was asked to name foreign heads of state and fared rather badly? That was completely unfair! Why is he expected to know that sort of thing when he's in office to fight against terrorists, something completely unrelated!

Re:Fictional Writer

[Anonymous Coward]

Influenza kills almost 2000 people in the U.S.A. every year. Well, that's reported deaths. Who knows how many it really kills. The point being, SARS is not an epidemic. Period.

Re:Fictional Writer

[usotsuki]

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (ptui!). Man, I'd hate to get that. Usually caused because the cows were being fed remains of other cows, so they say. "So they say" being key here.

-uso.

Re:Fictional Writer

[Trespass]

'Almost saying'.... What the fuck does that mean?

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the post you were replying to was making the point that the guy who wrote the article is an entertainer, not a profit.

Re:Fictional Writer

[nelsonal]

I find it ironic that the leader he didn't remember is Gen. Musharif of Pakistan, who became significantly more important in Pres. Bush's mind on September 12th.

Re:Fictional Writer

[L7_]

You're dead on that the post I was replying to was pointing out that the guy who wrote the article is in the computer entertainment business. He also interjected some skepticism of the author's ability to comment on the topics the article was about. My reply post was stating my opinion that the author, due to his background, has a legitamate position to comment on the topic, be it if he is in the entertainment industry or not.

Remember that Ronald Regan was an entertainer. He was also a President of the United States.

Don't overlook people or thier ideas because of the way that they pay thier bills.

P.S. "Almost saying" is a polite way to say 'my interpretation'.

Re:Fictional Writer

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's not a profit, huh? Then he must be a loss. Dumbass.

Re:Fictional Writer

[Anonymous Coward]

>I haven't yet read the article, and so cannot comment on it, but my intuition and experience with these kind of diatribes tell me you are right on the mark.

LOL. Thus begins another typical ignorant Slashdot post.

Re:Fictional Writer

[mfrank]

My impression is that he was talking about an engineered virus that is easily transmitted (like Ebola) with a long incubation period (like AIDS). Something like that could spread and infect everybody in the country (well, the world) before anybody showed symptoms. Then, two years later, everyone is dead. Except for the group that was immunized beforehand.

Of course, then he talks about the spore form of it, and ruins it that way.

Re:Fictional Writer

[Blue Stone]

"Remember that Ronald Regan was an entertainer. He was also a President of the United States."

Dude, you're trying to give this guy credibility by comparing him to Ronald Reagan?????

What is this?

The /. version of friendly fire??!!??

Re:Fictional Writer

[Minna Kirai]

English probably isn't your favorite language, but it seems you're saying that only Mbeki believes in the AIDS virus?

That is precisely the opposite of what world newspapers claim- Mbeki is often attacked because he denies that HIV causes AIDS, even though all modern doctors have believed this since the 1980s.

Re:Fictional Writer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and George Orwell wrote fiction too, which means I don't have to worry any more!!! Ill just go watch tv now.

Re:Fictional Writer

[TheFrood]

Yes, he does think about the state of the world, and he does have an educated view, but he ALSO has his own 'world' that he thinks the world is becoming.

So? Everyone who looks at the world and thinks about the future has some ideas about where he/she thinks it's headed. The only difference between Pacotti and (most of) the rest of us is that he's shared some of his ideas in a computer game.

TheFrood

Re:Fictional Writer

[grazzy]

no, but you cant be infected by the AIDS-virus, hiv is the virus that infects. and mbeki believes hiv does not cause aids, hence its only in his head there can be a ebola-aids-virus.

(but to be 100% correct he believes aids to be caused by bad food habits and living in the slum, and im sure you know he'd be very upset if we western foreigners said his fellow countrymen got this dirty sexually transferable disease - just because they're black doesnt mean they have sex does it?)

btw, i guess whatever language they speak in iraq isnt your favourite language?

Re:Fictional Writer

[grazzy]

Yeah, I kinda guessed that, but then call it Ebola-HIV for clearance ;) Hiv does after all cause AIDS..

Is AIDS a disease or just a state of HIV? And his parallels to deus ex where some organisation blackmails goverments is kinda silly, science is afaik a fairly open community, atleast in medicin, right? ;)

Re:Fictional Writer

[Minna Kirai]

Many scientists and journalists will agree that HIV is "the AIDS virus".

Technically, there is such a thing as the AIDS-virus, and it's called HIV. This is just as correct as saying "Dodge pickup" instead of "Ram".

The difference between HIV and AIDS is that AIDS is an older word, and was used before the virus was known. AIDS, obviously, is a "syndrome"- a set of visible symptoms. If a person catches the disease, but doesn't yet show any bad effects from it, then it's accurate to say he has HIV, or "the AIDS virus", but not AIDS. (There are at least 2 people who've had HIV for 10+ years and not developed AIDS, and that's without medication)

SARS is also a syndrome, and it's presumably caused by the "SARS virus", which has no other name that I've heard.

Re:Fictional Writer

[mfrank]

I believe AIDS is diagnosed when the T-cell count gets below a certain lever. You can be infected by HIV for quite a while before this happens (in some people, apparently, until they die of old age).

Re:Fictional Writer

[Trespass]

Can I touch your peepee?

Re:police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasan

[Anonymous Coward]

The US I'd say, though some might disagree with me.

well, I'm in the USA

[krog]

and I find it pretty pleasant.

at least we're not getting shelled, anyway.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[GoodFun!!!!!!!!]

I'll have to do something about that.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Overly Critical Guy]

Anyone who thinks the US is a true "police state" is automatically an intellectually devoid overreactionary. At least you didn't throw in "Nazi."

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Threni]

I'm going there in a month or so (Pittsburgh) from Heathrow (probably) in the UK. So if I don't get blown out of the sky by stoneage nazis, what are the chances I`ll enjoy myself? (I'm staying with a US girl...they're kinda hot on English accents hehe!)

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

> Pretty easy to find it pleasant when you can just ignore it.

Yes, it is very nice that we can ignore the rest of the world bitching endlessly and tirelessly about how we ignore the rest of the world. WE KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE US, WE DON'T FUCKING CARE, so quit complaining that you don't like us.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Elwood P Dowd]

I agree. A much better example is that the USSR was pretty comfy for Communist Party officials, and Nazi Germany was plenty comfy for blue eyed blonds.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[knobmaker]

Anyone who thinks the US is a true "police state" is automatically an intellectually devoid overreactionary.

Anyone who hasn't figured out that the United States is a police state just hasn't been paying attention. This is really not a matter of opinion. The fact is that the U.S. has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation in the world. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance:

One: we live in a police state.

Two: Americans are more likely to be rotten scurrilous criminals than the citizens of other countries.

I believe the former to be the case. If you believe the latter, why don't you pack up your anti-American sentiments and move to France?

Seriously, it's possible that both explanations are true. But it is highly unlikely that neither explanation is true, because if so, why are so many Americans in prison?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there are a lot of us intellectually devoid overreactionaries out here then. I can speak freely now I am not there anymore. I find it ironic the way that in the past 20 years Russia and the US have swapped places and now the US wants to stop its people from knowing the truth while it bullies its way around the world.

The gov would like you to think that the rest of the world hates Americans because they are jealous or something but it is because they are fed up with getting shot at by American or American supplied guns.

Russia has a long way to go before they gain any respect but at least they are going in the right direction. America is too busy looking for the next target (we'll think of a reason after we choose the target) to care about direction.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[canajin56]

But it is highly unlikely that neither explanation is true, because if so, why are so many Americans in prison?

The third option is that the police system is superior, and thus catches a higher percentage of dangerous criminals...

Not saying that is the case, but it IS another possible explanation

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[operagost]

Three: We have better law enforcement.

Your argument presents a false dilemma.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[mfrank]

The beer is worse but the food is better :)

Whether or not you have a good time will be entirely dependant on the girl . . .

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Threni]

Naah, the girl is cute - she came here a few months back! That's a given.

I'm just wondering about the culture. It's hard to get to live in the US legit, right? I've heard it's really hard to get a work permit (I have VB and C skills, assembler too but I don't mention that). I'm not sure i`m up for marriage just yet!

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Iguanaphobic]

You mean a better... police... state?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's pretty simple to live in the US legit.

I know a number of canadians who have green cards because they have married american women. Even if they're not actually *married* to them other than on paper and don't even live in the same city or see them more than once every few months. And are living with and dating other women.

Yet another reason to hate canadians.

So since you apparently are getting along with this american girl, I'm sure you can persuade her to hitch up with you to get you a green card (most american girls are stupid enough to go for that anyway). Then you just stick with her (on paper) for three years or so, get divorced - and you're set.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Iguanaphobic]

This sums up your position nicely.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[BerntB]

USA seems to have criminal subcultures that most countries in Europe don't have.

I don't know if it's because of poor people not having many alternatives to crime, historical reasons, more open borders (criminals probably move more often) or because it's such a damn big place (hard to control and plan). (-: Go check some criminologist researchers, or something, don't discuss it with computer nerds like us... :-)

Don't worry about USA being "special" in this way -- that kind of problems are probably coming to Europe, too... :-(

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Threni]

Actually, it's a case of her persuading me to hitch up with her. She really likes England! Hmmm, i'll have to think about it. England is one of the few countries to not have the immigration lottery thing going (apparantly more than 50,000 people leave here for there every year).

Thanks for the help!

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[kfx]

Three: Most modern Americans are too wussy/etc. to use the Death Penalty on criminals who deserve it, instead giving them relatively comfy 'apartments' (read: jail cells) in which to live the rest of their lives... all on federal tax dollars.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[shadowbearer]

4.

More laws?

One of the reasons we have such a high percentage of our population in prison is the War On Drugs - "victimless" laws. Another is the huge percentage of laws on the books which are frivilous (thou shalt not take a bath in, what is it, Pennsylvania?).

SB

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. Where do I start with such a dumbass as yourself?

How about the fact that France supplies weapons and weapons materials to other countries, including terrorist states? How about Russia doing the same? How about China doing the same? I'm sure Britain and a number of other world power's can be included in that list.

To suggest that they're only American supplied weapons is either ignorant or deceptive.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Well, do be careful. Not sure how it is with the brits, but American girls are typically uptight and focused on their career and education - or the drastic opposite.

Any american woman who is eager to get married would make me take a great pause. The American-Way if you're a female is to get hitched, get lazy, get some kids, get fat and then sit at home watching television all day while her husband - now trapped into domesticity - provides for her. They all want a substitute father so they can be as lazy and carefree as they were in their childhood.

Granted, some are not this way... but be careful.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[jo42]

1 out of every 142 Americans is in jail (source: ABC News).

If that isn't a police state, I don't know what is...

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[knobmaker]

Three: We have better law enforcement. Your argument presents a false dilemma.

It may, but your explanation is demonstrably false. If, as you assert, we have better law enforcement, why then are our crime rates much higher in most categories (particularly violent crime) than other industrialized Western democracies? Better law enforcement, if defined in any rational manner, ought to lead to lower crime rates, not higher ones.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Trurl's Machine]

I agree. A much better example is that the USSR was pretty comfy for Communist Party officials,

A popular mistake, but still a mistake. In fact, the Communist Party officials lived in constant terror. Stalin was holding their closest relatives in gulags as hostages, and they themselves never knew the day of their fall. Communism was a living hell for everyone involved. Party officials in the first place.
http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture1.htm

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks the US is a true "police state" is automatically an intellectually devoid overreactionary. At least you didn't throw in "Nazi."

We need this kind of overreaction to avoid becoming a police state!

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Threni]

"Not sure how it is with the brits, but American girls are typically uptight and focused on their career and education - or the drastic opposite." That sounds pretty similar to Brits, actually! Bridget Jones vs Springer style trailer trash. But yeah, i`d never really considered getting married so its something to think about.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[arose]

Bullshit. The EU doesn't has a death penalty and still less crime.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonvmous Coward]

"A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force."

Above is the definition of police state. Sorry, the USA doesn't fit that description. Your observation that a lot of people are in jail could be easily tied to our strong economy.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[maxpublic]

Anyone who thinks the US is a true "police state" is automatically an intellectually devoid overreactionary.

Well now, that depends on what you think the minimum qualifications for a police state are.

Right now the government can come and kidnap you, then imprison you indefinitely without any recourse to the court system and in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution. I use the word 'kidnap' because they don't even have to arrest you; all they have to do is declare that you're a 'material witness' to some unspecified crime.

That's it. Piss someone off in power and away you go, with no chance of regaining your freedom until those in power choose to let you go.

How anyone can see this as anything but a characteristic of a police state is beyond me. Guess your definition of 'freedom' allows you to overlook those kinds of abuses - so long as they don't happen to you, eh?

Max

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[NanoGator]

"Anyone who hasn't figured out that the United States is a police state just hasn't been paying attention. This is really not a matter of opinion. The fact is that the U.S. has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation in the world. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance: "

The USA is a huge and diverse country. How can you take any aspect of it and simplify it down to only two options? Don't see a few shades of gray there?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think they were living in terror under brezhnev, Andropov, etc.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[vsprintf]

Anyone who hasn't figured out that the United States is a police state just hasn't been paying attention. This is really not a matter of opinion. The fact is that the U.S. has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation in the world. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance:

There are two types of people in the world: those that divide everything into two possibilities and those that don't. Is it possible there are several reasons, including that the U.S., like banks, attracts criminals because it's where the money and opportunity is?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[uberdave]

Perhaps there is a sociological pressure for a certain percentage of the population to be criminals. As the highly effective police put away the current crop, another takes its place, resulting in higher crime rates.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[linzeal]

That is not true, crimes in the US are solved less than in Britain and Austraila both of which have less criminals in prison as a % of the population.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[rthille]

Yeah, because in police states people can be held without access to a lawyer, or without being charged with a crime, 'because the government says so'. Oh, wait, we've got that here...

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

It pisses me off that Americans always blame communism for these sorts of problems, when really it's due to despicable people.

It's just as stupid as me starting a holy war on democracy because "well, look what's happening to the USA!"

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons we have such a high percentage of our population in prison is the War On Drugs - "victimless" laws.

It's a lot easier on the police to bust down a pot smoker's door and throw them in jail (score one for the department! most effective police in the world!) than it is to risk being shot and killed by actual criminals.

I'm not calling the police cowards - I would be scared for my life if I had to deal with those kinds of people, too. I wouldn't resort to imprisoning harmless people instead though.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[knobmaker]

Perhaps there is a sociological pressure for a certain percentage of the population to be criminals. As the highly effective police put away the current crop, another takes its place, resulting in higher crime rates.

So, in order to have a very safe society, we should make sure the police are as ineffective as possible?

Okay, it's an extertaining idea, but why then are areas which have the highest clearance rates for murder and other violent crimes (they solve the cases and catch the criminal) safer than areas which have the lowest clearance rates?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible there are several reasons, including that the U.S., like banks, attracts criminals because it's where the money and opportunity is?

More along the lines of 'like calls to like'.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

"secret police force"

What do you think it means when a police office goes "undercover", sets up a "sting", or just plain violates peoples rights to due process?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonvmous Coward]

"What do you think it means when a police office goes "undercover", sets up a "sting", or just plain violates peoples rights to due process?"

undercover or sting != violation of due process.

As for whether or not sting operations and undercover police are secret police , here's the dictionary definition:

"A police force operating largely in secret and often using terror tactics to suppress dissent and political opposition."

Exactly what part of a sting is a terror tactic? When does an undercover cop suppress dissent and political opposition? You really think our gov't works that way?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[uberdave]

Well, I guess that might fall into the "When the cat's away, the mice will play" category... or rather it's opposite. Just like when you see a police officer who's pulled over a speeder. Most people slow down, but when they are out of range, they speed up, and may even drive faster to make up for "lost time".

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[shadowbearer]

But it's not necessarily better on society as a whole.

Cops know the risks when they take the job. If they can't accept those risks, they have no business being a cop (and I know several cops).

SB

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, as well as some ridiculously high percentage of black people are or have been in prison.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[DaedalusHKX]

Dude I agree.. and forget homeland security and all that shit

KEVIN MITNICK... BEFORE terrorism was big... he was held for several years before even being charged... as I recall... if THAT isn't a violation of the constitution...

then THIS is:

I recall during my following of the case back some 4 years ago, or maybe 7 now... it IS 2003, I recall Kevin's exploits were inflated at the re-re-request of the investigators when the comapnies involved (Sun, AT&T, someone else I forgot) failed to provide BIG claims. The original total was several thousand dollars. The feds then got pissed off and re requested the research costs to be added to the price tag. That's when the claims went into the hundreds of thousands USD. Funny how our "justice" system works eh? The system wanted to make an example and he just happened to be the juiciest morsel the corporate demons could sacrifice to their desire to make an example of those smarter than themselves. After all, how GOOD can the FBI be, when it took a MASSIVE manhunt to catch ONE little hacker... imagine if there were a few thousand like mitnick, helping each other. :)

Look it up if you want, if freekevin.com is still around. I'm too lazy to look it up.

Hint... US Justice has not worked properly for most of this last century... we've won a freedom with hard fighting, and given up fifty because King George said so... Equal treatment under the law, in the USA is more equal for those with more capital. It is a capitalism after all. And with King George back in power, so much for all that fighting in the war of Independence (which as I recall, we won with FRENCH guns).

-DaedalusHKX

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Overly Critical Guy]

Three: We have more people.

Crap, I tore apart your tirade with a healthy injection of simple common sense. Now who will you talk down to?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Thing 1]

Exactly what part of a sting is a terror tactic?

All of it? I think it's pretty terrorizing to the populace to think that, for growing a plant you can have your house and car taken from you.

And the police befriend people and then prosecute them. So it terrorizes the populace into being afraid of their friends.

We proved prohibition doesn't work back in the 1920's. Tactics are getting scarier, even raiding shops that sell certain pipes which can be used to smoke anything, including tobacco. As another poster said, Walmart sells tobacco pipes but you didn't see them raiding Walmart, did you?

That's selective enforcement; I believe that's another mark of a police state. I'll close with a quote from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged":

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Thing 1]

There are two types of people in the world: those that divide everything into two possibilities and those that don't.

There are 10 types of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

There are three types of people in the world: those who know how to count, and those who don't.

(I know there are more just can't think of them. A little help? ;-)

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[canadian_right]

No, it is not becuase the USA attracts criminals. Ever hear of these things called "borders" and "immigration"? Most of your locked up people are citizens from the "war on drugs". The USA has a higher percentage of its citizens locked up than China.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[canadian_right]

A very small number of people locked up in the USA are for capital crimes. Most are locked up for possesion of small amouints of illegal drugs.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[canadian_right]

And the USA didn't? So just where did the Taliban get all the USA made Stingers? Who was that was selling weapons to Iraq when it was fighting Iran? Why, that would be the USA, the largest seller of weapons in the world.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[redmond]

I think it's pretty terrorizing to the populace to think that, for growing a plant you can have your house and car taken from you.

If growing a plant is illegal, then you should be arrested. If it is illegal, then this is not a terror tactic, but law enforcement regardless of your political stance on the law. Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean police should ignore you if you break it.

And the police befriend people and then prosecute them. So it terrorizes the populace into being afraid of their friends.

I don't know of many police officers who befriend people. I'm not saying there aren't bad cops, we all know there are, but most law enforcement officials do what their job demands of them. After all, it's not like they chose law enforcement for the high wages and glamour.

Walmart sells tobacco pipes but you didn't see them raiding Walmart, did you?

I haven't seen many bongs at Wally World?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I think you're being a little overly critical there, guy. Geez!

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

If growing a plant is illegal, then you should be arrested.

So-called victemless crimes like the above simply underscore the OP's point. As as been said, you can't rule innocemt men. When a government passes laws protecting one from oneself, I see it as a sign of oppresive government.

By the way I'm not just talking about Prohibition (past & present). I'm also talking about things like The Seat Belt Law(tm), bought to us by our friendly insurance companies.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

If they'd just stop commiting crimes...

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalinism != Communism

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

In proportion, idiot. USA has more people in jail in proportion to its population than any other country. Go back to elementary school and learn to read and count beyond ten, American asshole.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Mac Degger]

I'm very sorry, but: what strong economy? The US' economy is down the crapper..even more so after spending another 100 billion on Iraq instead of education, debt reduction or healthcare.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[BinBoy]

> 1 out of every 142 Americans is in jail (source: ABC News).
> If that isn't a police state, I don't know what is...

It depends on whether they broke the law and what those laws were and whether they had a fair trial. If they are all murderers and rapists, then there's nothing wrong with putting them in jail. If they are innocent, then we have a problem.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on your definition of "crime" though. Why? Is this a genetic thing? Or the result of a racist society?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[meadowsp]

So you think that having 1 out of every 140 people being a murderer or rapist isn't a problem?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[krautmann]

The main reason for the large prison population in the US is how the US system deals with those who are poor.

US approach --> leave them at their fate, if they steal, lock them up. Be tough.
European approach --> provide social benefits so they won't steal. Be friendly.

Results:
- many prison inmates in the US
- high sentences in the US
- low taxes in the US
- fewer prison inmates in Europe
- low sentences in Europe
- high taxes in Europe

Without doubt both systems have their pros and cons. What is your choice?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[ratamacue]

Bingo. The US has the highest ratio of inmates/population in the world. Why? Is there something inherently evil about US residents compared to other "free" countries around the world? Of course not.

The reason why the US locks up more civilians than anywhere in the world is drug prohibition. Last I checked, over half of all US citizens currently held in detention are non-violent "criminals" arrested for victimless crimes (posession of marijuana for instance). Guess who's paying for all this? It ain't the government. It's you and me, the US citizen. Our penalty is measured in loss of liberty (including privacy), violent crime (from the resulting black market), and corruption (at all levels of government) as well as tax dollars.

Not liking the sound of this? I don't either. This is why we need to keep government in check. We need strict limits on the scope and expense of government. We need to drastically reduce the amount of revenue they take in, and drastically reduce the level of power they posess. We need limited government, or we can forget about liberty and justice for all.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[mr breakfast]

Lets not forget that keeping people in prison is a very expensive activity, which the tax payer is going to end up paying for.

The US justice system is very punishment based- whereas in many European countries the aim is not to get even with criminals for having broken the law but to try and make sure that at the end of their sentence they are not going to go and break the law again. Typically the public perception is that this is "easy on criminals" but the ultimate consequence is less crime and greater public safety.

When it comes to sentencing it makes absolutely no difference if the punishment for stealing a chocolate bar is a slap on the wrist, six months imprisonment, life imprisonment or the death penalty- pretty much no-one commits a crime with any thought to the punishment if they get caught. People typically commit crimes under the expectation they are going to get away with it.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Thing 1]

And the police befriend people and then prosecute them. So it terrorizes the populace into being afraid of their friends.

I don't know of many police officers who befriend people.

I was talking about in a sting, which the original poster meant. In order to do a sting, the police first have to gain the confidence of the dealer. Then their confidence is shattered when they're busted for providing a good or service to meet market demand.

As far as "if growing a plant is illegal, then you should be arrested" -- I was questioning the absurdity of the law, in which the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime. Providing nourishment and love to a growing organism can have your house, car, and bank account stolen from you. How is that just?

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[JimFromJersey]

> what are the chances I`ll enjoy myself?

In Pittsburgh? Not a chance in hell. You'd have more fun in Camden, NJ. just kidding, I've only flown through Pittsburgh so I couldn't really say. So I guess it depends on what you are into, Pitt is there so it should have the standard college area attractions. As far as work goes, a quick search on Dice came up with 4 positions in the Pittsburgh area.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[BinBoy]

Yes that would be a problem. It wouldn't make the country a police state though, which is what the topic was.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[Overly Critical Guy]

That's okay; I probably make more a year than you do at your part-time job down at K-mart as you save up money to buy the latest Blizzard release.

Again, America has more in their prisons because of their higher population level. Has nothing to do with proportion. Think a little.

Re:well, I'm in the USA

[vsprintf]

No, it is not becuase the USA attracts criminals. Ever hear of these things called "borders" and "immigration"? Most of your locked up people are citizens from the "war on drugs". The USA has a higher percentage of its citizens locked up than China.

ROFL. You have something of a point, but ever see a Canadian denied entrance at the border? The southern border is almost as bad with just a once-in-a-while check unless it's a big truck - I know, I lived around there for a while. And I'm not sure where you came up with the number for "citizens". The only numbers I've seen are for total people in prison.

Many of those locked-up for drug crimes are foreigners and resident aliens. I don't believe in the restrictive drug laws, but that's not the point - the point is money and the ability to get it by criminal means. There are many people from Asia and people from south of the border in prison for everything from racketeering and drug dealing to bootlegging M$ software. A Chinese lady who resided in my old home town just got sent up the river for such offenses.

China has a different solution for those it considers antisocial, which may include death by tank treads or a life shortened by tetanus due to sewing accidents while engaged in prison labor for American companies. Given my druthers, I'd pick the American prison with laws against forced labor, color TV, three square meals a day, training courses, a legal library, and free medical and dental instead of a virtual short death sentence - but that's just me - you're welcome to the Chinese version.

Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.

Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)
Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.

Surveilance Technology-- goes hand in hand with communication technology... allowing those being watched to organize to fight the abuses of that same tech.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Kjella]

Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.

Umm since when did that become a legitimate desire? Every other human being is made with at most half your genetic make-up, and most that want perfect clones of themselves suffer from the delusion that their "children" will be exactly like them or a "better" version of them, or some "perfect" race (aryan *cough*).

Or maybe I'm just too much of a conspiracy theorist and misunderstood something that was ment to say that all people should be allowed to be normal parents :)

Kjella

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say nuclear weapons is a technology that's inherently dangerous.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[XianDeath]

Of course there's such a thing as 'dangerous' technology; nuclear fission, explosives/pyrotechnics, species engineering, etc. Technology such as this can melt down and evacuate a fairly significant chunk of country (Chernobyl), can blow your hand off (fireworks) or create unforseen biological epidemics (any well-meaning attempt to bring one animal in to solve an insect problem only to have an animal problem).

The gun is just as dangerous to grandma as it is to the 4 year old kid, or the criminal for that matter. The difference is in your phrase 'used properly'. 'Use' or implementation is far different from the technology itself as any programmer on Slashdot can most likely attest. The difference between the gun and some program I wrote is that while a user may 'mishandle' my program, their head probably will not explode where as with a gun... well, just take a look at Hemmingway.

Divorcing the actions of the user before evaluating technology should tell you whether it is inherently dangerous and I can't imagine anything more so than an Acme Do-It-Yourself A-Bomb Kit regardless of whether I have a PhD in advanced physics or work as a greeter at Wal-Mart

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[grimsweep]

There isn't a technology out there that can't be abused. As you pointed out, there's plenty of benefits *when things are done properly*. Democracy works when done properly, as does Communism. We can sit around all day and theorize about the proper use of things if we want.

But the truth of the matter remains: the end result of technology is what people use it for, not necessarily what it was intended to do.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[YrWrstNtmr]

As has been demonstrated by various countries, Communism cannot work properly.

Once you put humans into the equation, they screw it all up.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Guppy06]

"Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms""

Clonus: The MST3K Horror

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

Nuclear Fission-- Provides efficient cheap power and when the risks are carefully evaluated and prepared for is also fairly clean

Explosives--Quick clean land clearing
Pyrotechnics-- OHHHH PRETTY!!!
Species Engineering--We've been doing this for 6000+ years. doing it at the micro level is no different morally or practically from doing it at the macro level.
Anything can be dangerous. You can fall in the shower, or gargle with windex instead of blue listerene. Some drug addicts drink listerene/nyquil/etc.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[etcpasswd]

Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.

What "selfish" desire? To me, cloning is like crappy remix music - just the same thing, but probably worse. I prefer something original, thank you very much.

The examples in the article like perfect eyesight (and even health) are something that most likely happen AFTER your DNA is decided, not before, as in one's interaction with the environment. Even if you can have designer genes that you can make with point-and-click interface, I don't think it's possible to ask for "Can I have a kid with genes like Stephen Hawking minus the ones responsible for motor neuron disease?". Maybe you can have such a kid, but don't expect him to be Stephen Hawking.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns --designed to "kill"

No. Guns --designed to kill. Note the lack of "s.

When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home

As oppossed to a non-lethal weapon?

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

I used legitimate to clarify selfish. some people feel that the sort of selfishness that desires "flesh of my flesh" is in some way wrong or evil. It IMHO is normal and natural, however, I would also argue that the person who can raise as his own a child not of his own flesh has subscribed to a "greater good".

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Champaign]

Is Communism a technology?

And how has it been shown that it cannot work properly? I agree with you that it hasn't in the past (although Mainland China could be an argueable exception), but that doesn't prove a country will never make it work in the future.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

You know, that new phaser technology that sends a paralysing electrical charge down a laser might just work. Until that is available for $150, I think grandma is better off with a 38 special.

Or did you have a better non-lethal solution?

Panic room??

on what social security pays
.... BWAHAHAHa

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[StrawberryFrog]

There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous. Guns --designed to "kill"..

Rubbish. That's like saying that a razor-sharp, foot-long knife is as likely to cut you as a swivel chair. Some tools are (suprise, suprise) remarkably apt to a single purpose.

When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home

What you mean to say that her gun is by design inherently dangerous to would-be burglars.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[sbeitzel]

There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.

bzzzt, thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts...

'dangerous' from Webster's: Attended or beset with danger; full of risk; perilous; hazardous; unsafe.

One may adopt policies and follow procedures to minimize the inherent risk in handling, for instance, nitroglycerine, but ultimately the substance itself is unstable and there is the hazard of an explosion attendant upon all interactions with the stuff.

I think that what you meant to suggest is that technology is morally neutral -- that is, that it is not inherently evil or good, but is just a tool that can be used to evil or good ends. This position is a bit more defensible, but it's hardly straightforward.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

Oddly enough, I've never been cut by any of my razor sharp foot long knives... They cut bread, meat, carrots, celery, etc... Never gotten a nick. OTOH, I've got a scar on my hand from a box of plastic wrap, a cut on my foot from a computer case, and scars on each knuckle of each hand from computer cases.

Anything that makes the world less safe for would-be burglars is a good thing.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

Really, I was unable to find any report of someone blowing his head off with a Nitro tablet... In fact, AFAICT, It is the most popular and safe instant treatment for Heart attack.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[StrawberryFrog]

Oddly enough, I've never been cut by any of my razor sharp foot long knives... They cut bread, meat, carrots, celery, etc... Never gotten a nick.

Well, I must be a klutz then.

Anything that makes the world less safe for would-be burglars is a good thing.

I never said otherwise. But you do seem to be admitting that a gun is inherently dangerous.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)"

Yeah, hi, I love the show, love hearing people's opinions, that's what made this country great. People. And opinions. And stuff. Most of all, guns. I've had it with people whining about 'guns kill people,' guns don't kill people, death kills people. Ask a doctor, it's a medical fact. You can't die from a bullet. You can die from a cardiac arrest or organ failure or a major hemorrhage, small piece of metal ain't the problem. Besides, I only use my machine-gun in the safety of my own home and car. I ain't hurting nobody. And countries that don't have guns ain't American.

I know some of you were thinking about that quote. Admit it.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[knobmaker]

Species Engineering--We've been doing this for 6000+ years. doing it at the micro level is no different morally or practically from doing it at the macro level.

That's a remarkably dumb thing to say. There are substantial differences between selective breeding within species, and the mixing of genetic material from completely unrelated species. Don't believe it? Well, when you get a flounder to breed with a tomato, get back to us. Hey, we'll give you another 6000 years. Good luck!

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[knobmaker]

Is Communism a technology?

And how has it been shown that it cannot work properly? I agree with you that it hasn't in the past (although Mainland China could be an argueable exception), but that doesn't prove a country will never make it work in the future.

Just like the fact that monkeys have never flown out of my ass doesn't prove that they never will?

Seriously, read Animal Farm by Orwell. Excellent explanation for why Communism will never work, at least until human nature changes completely.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[bheerssen]

There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.

Sure there is.

Airplanes, space shuttles, and race cars are examples of technology that are inherently dangerous even when used properly. Furthermore, even though steps can be taken to reduce the risk of operating these technologies, that risk can never be completely mitigated.

Moral: all blanket statements are false ;)

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[jdbo]

Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)

I'm not going to dispute that guns have their uses; but to deny that they are inherently dangerous is to deny why they are useful. Sure, a squirt gun is useful as a toy, but this is not why guns are useful.

A non-dangerous gun is a contradiction in terms.

Some technology bears inherent dangers; what is important is being able to take the balance of usefulness to dangerousness.

Even if something falls far on the side of useful (vs. dangerous), denying that it is dangerous is the first step to falling victom to those dangers.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Melchior_of_wg]

But it would allow parents, without the whole ethical approach to genetically 'chosing' traits, to recieve and raise a child which is, in every respect, genetically theirs. Surely there has to be some way to duplicate the process that randomly choses how to mix genes in ordinary births? This is not possible in adoptions.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Champaign]

I've read Animal Farm, and I appreciate and believe that incentive is a huge part of the human experience and is a very good explaination for why communism hasn't done well historically.

That being said, in the past people could argue that heavier then air flight isn't possible, because it's never been done before. As soon as somebody demonstrated it was possible, this was shown to be rubbish. I wasn't commenting on your view of communism per se, just on your claim "it's never worked before" proves that its destine to fail.

If you want to prove to me that monkeys won't fly out of your butt, human anatomy and simian ecology will go a lot further to convincing me then saying "its never happened before".

An excellent example would be, you've never slept with a woman. It doesn't mean you never will, just that its pretty unlikely :-).

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[CommieOverlord]

You arguement seems to be that because something is good it isn't dangerous. Needless to say, this is faulty logical.

Take, for example, the previous example of fission. A previous poster stated that fission is an inherently dangerous procedure. You countered that assertion by stating that it is used to provide cheap, clean power. However, that does not change the fact that it is more inherently dangerous (at in terms of short-term catastrophic failure) than other power forms. A failure at a coal power plant does not have the possibility of adversely affecting the lives and health of people within a radius measured in the hundreds of miles.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[etcpasswd]

Given the current state of technology, it's a much safer bet to adopt a kid, than cloning, or randomly mixing genes.

Surely there has to be some way to duplicate the process that randomly choses how to mix genes in ordinary births?

No. We are not even close. Firstly, it is not random. Mother Nature achieved a stable way to conserve the important portions of the genome through trial and error for millions of years. We don't the have such a liberty.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[knobmaker]

That being said, in the past people could argue that heavier then air flight isn't possible, because it's never been done before.

Probably only stupid people argued this, since birds are demonstrably heavier than air.

The logical fallacy you're struggling with here is twofold: (first) the problem of disproving a negative. Example: "Just because men from Mars have never landed on Earth doesn't mean that they won't." There's no rational answer to such an assertion, and (second) there need not be any answer to such an assertion, because the burden of proof is on he who asserts. An assertion that Communism might succeed at some future point is without merit unless you offer some sort of argument for it happening, other than "just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it can't ever happen." By the way, you seem to be conflating my reply with the original post.

An excellent example would be, you've never slept with a woman. It doesn't mean you never will, just that its pretty unlikely :-).

I'll just chalk this up to wistful projection. I have three children.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[uberdave]

Grandma would be a lot safer with a decent door and deadbolt than with a gun.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Champaign]

Yup, stupid people like Scientific American, the New York Herald, and the US Army. You're being pedantic on this point and you know it.

I believe you are doing some conflating of your own. I made no assertion. YrWrstNtmr said:
"As has been demonstrated by various countries, Communism cannot work properly."

Assertion: Communism cannot work properly.
Proof: It never has in the past.

As you point out, he's making a negative assertion. I never claimed the opposite was true, I merely attempted to explain that saying "something has always been this way" doesn't mean it always will be, and certainly doesn't stand as proof.

E.g. "As has been demonstrated in every election,
America will never have a female president".

Maybe they never will, but the fact that they never have certainly doesn't prove that to me. The fallacy I was pointing out was that of Limited Scope. I certainly wasn't struggling with the "Flying Saucer" fallacy. I never even asked him for additional proof.

Since you like fallacies, your example of monkeys in your ass (your wistful projection?) is an excellent example of Straw Man, your suggestions that I "Seriously, read Animal Farm by Orwell", "The logical fallacy you're struggling with here" and my assertion that you have fantasies about monkeys in your butt are Argumentum ad Hominem (you're implying, incorrectly, that I'm not well read and don't understand logical fallacies, whereas I'm implying you're into bestiality, which may or may not be true but certainly has no bearing on the discussion).

Your response was surprisingly mature, but I really think you've misunderstood my original post. Shall we consider the misunderstanding resolved or at least agree to disagree and part as gentlemen? I think we're both wasting more time on this than it deserves.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

That cops going to look funy carying a door and a deadbolt in his holster

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

OK, you are asking the same question as several others, and I was unnecessarily vague. I was endevouring to point out that a gun is not inherently dangerous to the immediate user(if the gun is used correctly ie not pointed at self). If a gun wasn't dangerous to a bear or mountain lion or deer, then we would have a fairly useless toy.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

And when the burglar comes through the window, or gets past the deadbolt?

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[zazylawy]

> Is Communism a technology?

Of course it is! Haven't you ever played Civilization/freeciv? You know, Research Tech: Communism: Allows: Police Station, Obsoletes: Marco Polo's Embassy ;-)

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[knobmaker]

Yup, stupid people like Scientific American, the New York Herald, and the US Army. You're being pedantic on this point and you know it.

To be even more annoyingly pedantic, those aren't people. But it's not entirely pedantic. Flying birds offered evidence that heavier-than-air flight was indeed possible, (da Vinci was smart enough to figure this out, as did the Chinese long before that-- manned kites) and this is more evidence than you, or anyone else, has offered that Communism can "work."

You refer to my monkeys-flying-out-of-my-ass analogy as a straw man argument. I'm not sure why. Perhaps you are relying on the perception that we both regard this event as unlikely to the point of near-impossibility. However, I regard the success of Communism as being in that same range of possibility, and considerable evidence supports that viewpoint. That Communism might suddenly begin to work after 80 years of tragic failure is at best implausible. But as you say, not proven to be absolutely impossible.

All in all, I'm encouraged. If I can figure out a way to expel flying monkeys from my ass, I'll get my own show on Fox.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[rvacca]

Sheldon Pacotti's arguments are quite stimulating. Large tech systems present other relevant risks. I contended that a major gridlock may take place in congested advanced countries /megalopolises due to inadequate competence in designing and managing large systems, in my book THE COMING DARK AGE (Doubleday 1973). I revised and updated this essay. It is available on www.printandread.com A grievous danger resides in nontransparence of comouterized control systems - nobody knows really what they're doing and the originators are dead, have moved, have forgotten what they did.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[Charm]

And when the burglar comes through the window, or gets past the deadbolt?

Or she misses with the gun?
All three are used to prevent the crime and all three can fail, don't make stupid comments. It is particularly harder to kill someone with a door or deadlock, that includes accidental victims as well as villains. By implementing a good door and deadbolt you lower the risk of the crime without raising the danger of an accidental death by gunfire.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[st0rmcold]

Here is the problem, and why you probably are pro-police state. Because it has never happened, you need to have proof of something being possible, instead of being open to possibilities that are beyond your grasp.

Ideas make the world prosper, there have been plenty in the past which were thought unimaginable, and now they are so true, you would be made fun of if you repeated.

No matter how crazy the idea, if you throw down the possibility, you garantee is won't happen, because you won't accept it.

Some people were talking about cloning and genetics up somewhere, if you cross-bread a monkey and a bird in the future, you could stick one in your ass and prove your theory. While this might be far from the truth now, the idea of it "not" being possible might be laughed at in the future. Might be a bad exmaple, but it's the truth, you can't deny possibilities or knowledge, that's what the article talks about, the freedom of knowledge and ideas, it drove us to where we are, and must be able to continue and flourish.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[juhaz]

It's random. Mother Nature just kills the bad results afterwards, THAT is the way to remove bad and promote good portions. But Mother Nature doesn't care about inviduals, only about whole. Humans can't, of course, use the same mechanism(s) because of ethics and other such cultural burdens.

Sexual production is favoured exactly because of its randomness, combining DNA from two different inviduals can create almost limitless number of (very slightly) different variants, whereas one invidual duplicating itself can create descendant different from itself only with mutation.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[juhaz]

What's the heck is wrong or "abuse" with "organ farms"? Organ transplants are very good medical technology and have saved LOTS of people even in the current limited form that has lots of problems, the least of them not being immunological reactions and shortage of donors and thus organs.

Human organ cloning would solve both problems and has potential to tremendously raise quality and span of MANY lives. If the replacement part is grown with your own DNA there's no need to deliberaly keep your immune system and sub-optimal level and be more suspectiple to diseases, and there'd be no more people who die because there just is no donors to be found in time.

Note that I'm talking about cloning of invidual organs, not raising whole human clones that are then killed and harvested for bits and pieces.

I think it's quite a bit more justified application of biotechnology than mail-order kids made just perfect for you from hand-picked selection of genes. I for one am eagerly waiting for a day this one's ready for use.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[knobmaker]

Dude! You're seriously confused. If you peek up the thread a ways, you'll see that I'm one of the guys who says we live in a police state right now. And I'm against it. Really!

My response, which you seem to be posting about but aren't, was to a person who felt that just because Communism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried doesn't prove that it can't ever work. In absolute terms, he's right. My view was that the likelihood of Communism being a successful form of government was approximately equal to the likelihood of monkeys flying out of my ass.

I'd prefer it if people didn't try to pigeonhole my politics, but if you must know, I'm a proud gun-toting peace-and-love hippie anarchist/libertarian. Among other things.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[stanmann]

When I referenced "organ farms" I was refering to the growing of clones and harvesting of parts... since the technology for doing that is very nearly available. Where the morally neutral technology of growing a spleen isn't quite so nearly complete YET.

Re:Dangerous Technology?

[st0rmcold]

yea I wanted to answer to someone who replied to you, obviously we are in the same line of thought. Sorry about that, just got pissed that I fucked up and left, hehe :P

So what

[Timesprout]

Mankind has been producing dangerous technology since we first learned to bang sticks and stones together. Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far.

Re:So what

[Anonymous Coward]

Mankind has been producing dangerous technology since we first learned to bang sticks and stones together. Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far.

Yeah, but dangerous technology - even though we so far has managed to avoid it - only "needs" to wipe us out once.

The point the article author was making, was that up until now, we have been able to maintain a reasonable control of dangerous technology. However, in the future, it might be possible for a small number of motivated loonies to create some sort of rapidly spreading, deadly decease, and kill a whole lot of people before the world realises there is a new treath out there.

Re:So what

[Blue Stone]

"Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far."

Err... and what would be your definition of reckless usage?
Millions killed, wounded, poisoned, debilitated, oppressed?
Already happened m8.

Nuclear weapons turned on civillians? Happened.

Chemical weapons.... happened.

Does your definition of a mess up require that all mankind, save a few be-straggeled survivors perhaps, be wiped from the face of the earth???

Re:So what

[Anonymous Coward]

Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far

No it hasn't. We're surviving inspite of ourselves, not because of ourselves. I mean, look how many times we've been close to blowing this planet up already. It's not responsability that's stopping us - it's fear of the result.

Re:So what

[christalyss]

Responsible usage and control have worked for us so far.

Yes, but the risk level has been steadily increasing. It has only been in the last half-century that we've had the credible power to cause our own extinction. This doesn't seem like long enough to conclude that it is safe.

New technologies threaten to up the risk level yet again. Is it not high enough yet for you? Good God! Did you know that during the Cuban missile crisis, the world was literally saved by one man, a Soviet submarine captain and perhaps the greatest hero of all time, who refused to push the button and set it off dispite being ordered to do so by his superiors? Is that a close enough call for you? Or would you like to see the next one even closer?

No, this argument is dangerously complacent. The risks posed to the very existence of our species by the technology we already posess are unacceptably high. We need to be aware of the ways in which new tech are increasing those risks to even higher levels. This is total insanity. Something needs to keep it in check. Technological development must be tempered with wisdom, or we're pretty much screwed. We may very well be screwed already.

boorriinngg

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else stop reading after a few paragraphs... then skim down and see that there's TWO more pages left? Bah.

Re:T I T T I E S

[Anonymous Coward]

All lesbians do.

SARS and Chinese timeliness

[squashed]

SARS is the Chernobyl of the Chinese government. Chernobyl taught the Russian people, and the world, the unprecedented dangers of a closed society in a highly technological era. Another aspect of the modern era is globalization and international mobility. Again, we see that a closed society is no longer tenable. SARS' underreporting and denials by the Chinese authorities, like Chernobyl, will bring severe, lasting political consequences for the regime, and may be an impetus that finally takes toward replacing the totalitarian political system.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[Anonymous Coward]

What Chernobyl taught the Russians was not to do something on the cheap. And it taught the rest of the world that if you withold your technology from your enemies they will eventually blow themselves up.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[ahfoo]

Uhm. . . SARS is just a nasty pneumonia. People are acting like it's an aerosol form of AIDS or Ebola and that everybody who gets it inevitably dies. But in fact, it's already been well reported that most people who get SARS recover in a few weeks.
I don't think you can compare a nasty flu strain to Chernobyl. The hype is because everybody was waiting to find out it had something to do with Saddam and at this point it's obvious that it doesn't and that Bush's whole cabinet is full of paranoid maniacs who are prepared to kill over rumors.
Good thing they give the troops amphetamines too. I'm sure they're shooting responsibly. Reuters would tell you if they were just shooting like mad at . . . oh nevermind.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[Anonymous Coward]

SARS kills about 3% of those who get it. That's on par with a standard pneumonic flu strain. The only thing new about SARS is the media hype.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[aron_wallaker]

As opposed to the Chinese governments underreporting and denial of widespread HIV infection rates in some parts of rural China due to unsafe blood collection ? SARS is currently being tracked at about a 4% fatality rate and that largely correlates to 4% of the people infected being elderly. Many many more people have died and will die in China from HIV/AIDS than SARS and it shows no sign of destabilizing the government there.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how ignorant a statement that is?

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[matman]

SARS is a nasty flu like illness, and I do think that too much hysteria is being generated over the problem; however, SARS is very dangerous. SARS is not so much dangerous because it has a high mortality rate, but rather because it is very contagious and likely to require medical support; imagine how the health care systems of the world would handle a full out spread of SARS. Hospitals would be overloaded and it would be impossible to treat immune suppressed people like AIDS, cancer and transplant patients. The mortality rate of SARS would likely also rise as it would become more difficult to support the infected. Exposure to the elderly - those most likely to die from the disease - would also rise (the elderly don't get to China as often as business people, but they sure go to the mall).

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[SuiteSisterMary]

Aye, they recover in a few weeks, with proper medical support. But what if the entire hospital is down with it? What if there *is* nobody to give you proper medical support?

It's the easy of contagion that's the problem with SARS; you've got to go pretty far out of your way to get AIDS, or even the flu, but SARS, well, be in the same room as somebody, you've got a problem.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[kurtkilgor]

The Chinese never denied the existence of SARS. They reported it when it was still confined to a single hospital. The World Health Oragnization and other medical groups immediately issued a mild alert which they have since upgraded. The Chinese are fully cooperating in this, this is exactly what we want any government to do in the case of an outbreak. Read the news sometime . . .

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[squashed]

There are some developments that signal a change in view about China's conduct:

Time Magazine Asia Edition

This isn't like the AIDS epidemic, which has had governments all over the world making terrible missteps, in a slowly unfolding saga of policy horrors with no strong correlation to political system.

China *may* prove to be significantly at fault here, in failing to acknowledge and contain the epidemic in its very earliest hours, in strict contrast to the rest of the civilized world.

This is potentially much more significant than Chernobyl in relation to body count. Very few deaths can be connected to Russia's coverup of Chernobyl. While Chernobyl is widely considered as a critical turning point in the last days of the USSR, Russia's denials led mainly to delayed administration of Iodine to prevent Thyroid Cancer in Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland and Skandinavia -- not a massive body count.

It is more a question of striking intense fear in the populace.

Does anyone want to deny Asia is in a panic over SARS?

Depending on its spread, far more people could conceivably die from SARS (even given its posited low death rate) in one year than AIDS, even twenty years into the AIDS epidemic.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[The Cydonian]

I can't remember where I read this, but the most common form of influenza has a bigger mortality rate than SARS. In fact, the expert whose comments I was reading actually said that it will be impossible for SARS to ever reach influenza's mortality figures.

That said, you're right; Asia is scared stiff about SARS. You wont believe how spooky it was when *everyone* in the flight suddenly wore gloves and masks, the moment it landed in Singapore.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[The Cydonian]

I'll ignore the last flame-bait-ing sentence, but I think it's quite apparent that the Chinese have fuddled with information. The first cases apparently came out in November in Guandong, but it appears to me that the first reports came only out of Hong Kong, which, unlike the mainland, has a thriving free media.

The Chinese government, apparently, is still under-reporting the number of people affected.

Now, it must be said that it's quite possible that the Chinese government might think it's doing the right thing in not disclosing completely, and certainly, it has apparently given the fullest co-operation to the WHO, but we can't avoid the fact that SARS infection rates have been under-reported and withheld from the outside world. Symptomatic, I'd say, of the oh-what-will-the-outside-world-think-about-us mentality that most governments in Asia, including India, Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia to name a few, share. All these governments have, on earlier ocassions, done similar subterfuge, although not necessarily with respect to information on SARS.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[error0x100]

What a load of bunk. To put SARS in some perspective, go google for "Spanish flu 1918". This flu epidemic killed between 20 and 40 million people worldwide in the space of about a year. (Much of that incidentally could have been prevented had it not been for severe under-reporting/over-optimism of the threat in the USA by US authorities). Surprise, a free society can also do stuff under-reporting and denials. (Uh, "duh").

SARS does of course have the potential to be the next "Spanish flu". I for one hope that they manage to contain and destroy it before it "gets out" on that level, because once it 'gets out', the threat becomes too large to effectively contain.

Another aspect of the modern era is globalization and international mobility.

This is one point in the argument that SARS may "hit big". But a point working against SARS is that today's society is also far more paranoid than that in 1918. A few dozen people die, and suddenly travel to the region, and business in the region, is down by more than 50%.

Interestingly, a side note; if in these sorts of cases it turns out that "only the paranoid survive" (i.e. that people who are genetically inclined to be more paranoid about such things have a higher survival rate), Darwinism would predict that future generations of humans become increasingly paranoid.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[iggymanz]

Even in recent years, the average yearly deaths from flu has been 36,000. Over the past 25 years sometimes 100,000 deaths in a year. SARS has thus far been NOTHING in comparison. Why would the Chinese goverment or any other bother with that when AIDS and influenza are dropping people like flies?

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[error0x100]

Symptomatic, I'd say, of the oh-what-will-the-outside-world-think-about-us mentality that most governments in Asia, including India, Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia to name a few, share. All these governments have, on earlier ocassions, done similar subterfuge, although not necessarily with respect to information on SARS.

Honestly, with all due respect, grow up. Not everything is a commie cover-up by a totalitarian regime bent on maintaining an inflated image of control and prosperity for purely ideological reasons. The reason that China is underreporting this is largely pragmatic: the worldwide paranoia resulting from the media spread this will potentially cripple their economy (and in fact has already slashed both tourism and business in the Hong Kong area by over 50%.

Around here you'd think that every time a member of the Chinese government got up to piss that it was more evidence of government cover-ups and oppression of their people. You can't even mention China on /. without the knee-jerk "China spam blah blah" and "China 1984-style government blah blah" crap flooding the place.

Sheesh .. some days .. you people live in a vacuum, you really need to get out more. I'm not saying there isn't corruption and coverups in those governments, but really, its as if you people think everything outside the US is 1984. Yeah yeah, -1 flamebait me, its not going to make you any less ignorant anyway. Go actually learn something about the countries you criticize, go actually get a balanced perspective. Half these people here don't even know the difference between Taiwan and China, or that "Africa" is not a country, but that sure doesn't stop them from posting lengthy diatribes detailing what they believe the problems with those places are and how to solve them.

Sorry, this rant isn't really aimed at you anymore, Cydonian. Just a more general nit I feel like picking.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[AtomicBomb]

I have read the news articles in Hongkong and the mainland China newsgroups closely since Feb this year.

In terms of the timeline, it is not too fair to blame the Chinese govt of covering up for 4 months before reporting. SARS is a new virus, which is not too different from a nasty pneumonia. The Novmember index case is traced back from the medical records after they noticed something very unusual at around the first major outbreak in mid Feb. That outbreak was occurred in Guangdong province and has notified WHO on 11 Feb. It was known as atypical pneumonia by the time.

It sparked some social chaos in a number of citis in Guangdong, fuelled by rumours.... There were a few facts: 1) the medical staff knew that there were probably more people got infected by visiting the ER of the most affected hospital then thru other channels. Most of these patient rushed to ER unnecessarily -- they may just have normal cold to start with. 2) many people think that boiling vingear can "clean" their homes. At least, two person were killed by carbon monoxide when boiling that in closed rooms. It is part of the reason why they want to tone that down later on (in late Feb to March). Of course, we cannot discount the more selfish motivation of the officials/govt...

Chinese govt, esp for the officials in Guangdong, has a lesson to learn in the whole event. It is arguable whether 100% openness is the best way to go in crisis. For example, if I were the mayor of a city which was going to be flatten by a major earthquake in 4 hrs, I would seek special power from the central govt, mobilise all the police/troop, arrange transport before telling people to move. In any case, those in the power will definitely need to be more reactive. There are good ways to cooperate with WHO more fully in an early stage without causing further panic to the people...

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[Charm]

It is the speed of the deaths that is the problem. You don't die from AIDS in a couple of days.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[Charm]

I'm not Usian but I think that the Chinese government is very likely to cover something like this up mainly because it would hurt their national pride. Their pride is something they regard highly and wo behold anyone who trys to tarnish it. The Chinese government is in a constant state of denial about things like this.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[The Cydonian]

Point well taken. I'm pretty sure that the Chinese government officials thought it was the right thing to not let out on the details.

However, I'm rather unconvinced about the point you raised about social chaos vis-a-vis SARS. For one, I remember reading a report (on BBC I think; can't find the link now, sorry about that) that suggested that people in Guandong are acutely unaware of the problem. For another, Singapore, Vietnam and Hong Kong are also in the thick of an epidemic; but their governments have been both forthright and, at least in the case of Singapore, have been pro-active in their raising awareness about SARS. Yet, there's no social panic per se in any of these countries/ administrative regions. Indeed, the most logical way, one would think, to counter rumours is to educate the masses about the disease, not by restricting information.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[error0x100]

I agree with you that they are very likely to cover something like this up, I just don't think the primary reason is pride, I think it has more to do with protecting their economy (which indirectly of course reflects on their image/pride, so the motivations are probably connected anyway.). The Chinese government is of course a whole bunch of people, and I'm sure that many of them have more than one reason why they may want to or not want to cover this up. And people are people; so likewise, I'm sure there are those WITHIN their government who are arguing to rather be as open as possible about SARS in order to save lives. Things are never quite so 'black and white' as USians tend to paint them. This is what I mean about having a 'balanced view'. Chinese people are not single-minded stereotypical homogenous caricatures like those in American TV shows. They are people.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[AtomicBomb]

I have watched that. The dumb reporter used the term "SARS"--the direct English pronouncation "sa-see" and asked the locals. It is known as atypical pneumonia over there, the Chinese equivalent term of course. You can scare the butt off everyone....

>>but their governments have been both forthright >>and, at least in the case of Singapore, have been >>pro-active in their raising awareness about SARS
As I had said in my original post, the Guandong province govt has done a very bad job in handling this event. But, the biggest accusation is not pro-active enough, rather than restricting information. In case of big crisis, there are 2 worst approach you can take: 1) complete denial. 2) free information but no instruction/action. In both cases, people tend to take random and potentially harmful action.

It should be pointed out the importance of synchronisation between information release (or leakage) and action. The third wave of infection in Hongkong is partially caused by information spreading faster than the govt can reaction. In the second wave of infection, many people in an apartment block (Amoy Garden) suddenly become sick. The govt planned to move all the health ones to an isolation center for further monitoring. The condition of Amoy Garden leaked to media in the mean time. About 60% of the Amoy Garden occupients had already abandoned their home and lived with relatives by the time govt was ready after 48 hrs. Needless to say, it accelerates the spread of virus.

Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness

[squashed]

Today's Washington Post Editorial, 2 weeks later!

China's Chernobyl
Tuesday, April 22, 2003; Page A18

SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO this month, Swedish scientists first noticed disturbingly high levels of radiation on their monitoring screens -- the first signs of the Chernobyl disaster. But although Western scientists quickly pinpointed the source of the radiation in the Soviet Union, the Soviet leadership was slow to respond. For 18 days Mikhail Gorbachev, who had just taken power, said nothing. When he finally spoke, he accused Western media of sensationalism but also seemed genuinely affected by the suffering and illness. Within months, Chernobyl had helped persuade him to launch glasnost, a policy of greater honesty in Soviet public debate.

Watching China react to SARS, the mysterious new respiratory disease, it is impossible not to be reminded of Chernobyl. . .

It is far too early to say whether the SARS fiasco will lead to a new era of glasnost in China. . .

In other words, there are more cracks in China's totalitarian armor than the Chinese and even some Americans are prepared to admit. The damage caused by secrecy in the SARS case shows why it is right to continue pressing China in every way possible to become more open.

feedback loops

[Anonymous Coward]

one missing piece of analysis is the idea that biotechnologies tend to be used and developed first in decoding or understanding biology and then in changing biology.

think of it this way, a lot of the effort in decoding AIDS and other diseases have brought the marginal cost of deconding the next disease down. We have identified SARS and started to put containment efforts in place within weeks of its outbreaks. The next step would be to come up with a vaccine or other way to stop the spread.

Now there is no way a bioterrorist could create anything like SARS. In the future perhaps, but no way now. Our capabilities are just not there.

But we do have an early detection network and we do have ways to counteract this threat. So where should our investments be focused - on a police state or on the safety systems needed to counteract these threats?

Re:feedback loops

[Anonymous Coward]

The next step would be to come up with a vaccine or other way to stop the spread.

I'm not trolling or flaming, but considering reality...

The scary thing is that to save face, and stop the idea that SARS originated from within China, the anti-human rights Chinese government would likely have opted for the second method of "[an]other way to stop the spread" of SARS by just killing off the infected people.

Fortunately, the world found out first.

i remember this game

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember this game! This is the one I bought online at amazon for $20 where the description of it failed to ever mention that it was a SHAREWARE copy. A DEMO.

The packaging even came with a serial number and gave every impression that it was THE FULL GAME. I've been playing video games for a couple decades so I'm not naive. I found this packaging method to be very deceptive and found others who encountered the same problem.

Needless to say, I have never spent another dime to get the full version of the game and I have no intention of ever buying another EIDOS title (and I haven't since I was screwed over by Deus Ex a year and change ago).

Re:i remember this game

[johannesg]

I got mine (full version) for 5 euros from the bargain bin at the Media Markt in Rotterdam... Together with a copy of Half Life for that same price. I'm not sure why anyone would want to sell you a demo for $20 - are you sure it was Eidos? Or did some private person rip you off? Anyway, give it a try. It really is a cool game.

Negative Utopia

[mandrake*rpgdx]

the term for "1984" style books is Negative Utopia. And besides, i think 1984 wasn't really all that good of a negative utopia...it focused more on brutal police states that were becoming big at the time, but have little relevence to non-3rd world countries this day in age. Brave New World, OTOH, might be a better indication of were we are heading.

Re:Negative Utopia

[megamouse]

"the term for "1984" style books is Negative Utopia."

I prefer the term dystopia.

Re:Negative Utopia

[mandrake*rpgdx]

Right, but in literary circles the genres of Negative Utopia and Dystopia are different. Dystopia being post apocalptic and cyberpunk, Negative Utopia being those like 1984, Brave new world, We, etc etc etc

Re:Negative Utopia

[PD]

you mean double-plus un utopia

Re:Negative Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've got it wrong. There is nothing about dystopia that says it has to be post-apocalyptic or cyberpunk (for one thing the term is far older than "cyberpunk") but is exactly used to describe such genres as "1984".

Re:Negative Utopia

[voodoo1man]

Getting in on the Negative Utopia vs. Dystopia debate, I think a much better term for the concept of the former (I didn't realize the latter was co-opted by science fiction) would be cacotopia. I first saw it in Burgess' 1985, where I think he claims to have made it up (I don't have a copy on hand, so I might be totally wrong, but if he did it's an entirely logical word to come up with). He likewise disliked dystopia for some connotation it had, but I forget the exact reason.

According to Wikipedia it was actually coined by John Stuart Mill's associate Jeremy Bentham. Anybody with access to the OED care to provide further details (it would be particularly interesting to see whether cacotopia inspired the coinage of dystopia or vice-versa)?

Re:Negative Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't that be "double plus un good utopia"?

Re:Negative Utopia

[canadian_right]

Its called a "dystopia", not negative utopia.

If you are going to claim something, at least make sure you are right. What do you think this is, some internet forum?

Re:Negative Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Utopia = Nowhere
Dystopia = Bad Place
Topia = Somewhere = police state...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I do have a dreadful time being clever...

Re:Negative Utopia

[mandrake*rpgdx]

from the back of the penguin classics edition of 1984:

"Written in 1948, 1984 was George Orwell's chilling prophecy about the future. And while 1984 has come and gone, Orwell's narrative is more timely that ever. 1984 presents a "negative utopia," that is at once a startling and haunting vision of the world-"

from:
http://www.penguinputnam.com/Book/BookFrame/0,1007 ,,00.html?id=0452262933

So the word negative utopia? See the lack of the term dystopia? Common vernacular has changed the meaning of dystopia, but that's just because ignorant fools speak before they research, and propagate mis-usage of terms and concepts.

Re:Negative Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to make me dig out my copy of 1984 when I get home that makes reference to the novel as being a "Dystopia" in the intro to it, aren't you? :)

Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Mankind has been producing dangerous people since we first learned to bang with our "sticks and stones". Responsible usage and control haven't worked quite as well as it could have.

cloning

[mandrake*rpgdx]

"can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that"

This is the sole reason I think cloning is an excellent idea, and one of the main cause of fights between me and my wife. She thinks it's unnatural, and therefore wrong. I think anything that can bring people the happiness of a family that could not have one before is a fantastic idea in all aspects.

I also think almost all of the misconceptions about cloning come from scifi novels...few people actually know what cloning is about or what it's like. people think that they can make instant hitler replicas that are full grown and evil...

Re:cloning

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely your wife's position is more complex than that?
The naturalness of anything is completely irrelevant as to whether it is right or wrong, good or bad.
I would of course disagree with your wife as well, but perhaps she has a more complex theory. (Or maybe she is a "Head-in-the-sand" type of person; if so, just remember you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink)

Re:cloning

[etcpasswd]

From my limited understanding, we haven't really come to a point where we can clone animals successfully. IMO, not being able to children isn't a good case for cloning, yet.

From Nature about the sheep Dolly:

it emerged that caps at her chromosome ends called telomeres, which get shorter each time a cell divides, were 20% shorter than was normal for a sheep her age. This led to speculation that Dolly's biological age might equal that of her and her mother combined.

Dolly's breed, the Finn Dorset, can live to 11 or 12 years of age. Dolly's comparatively premature - if unnatural - death is typical of cloned animals. From conception onwards, clones suffer a higher mortality rate than non-clones. Studies in mice seem to show that this bad health persists throughout life.

welcome back to Nazi thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Re:welcome back to Nazi thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy Now!

Re:welcome back to Nazi thinking

[stwrtpj]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Why the hell is this moderated a troll? Get a clue, moderators. This quote is trying to make a point, and a damn good one.

While I am not about to jump on the "America is a police state!" bandwagon, it is unfortunately very true that someone who knows how to work the system, or has a great deal of charisma, or both, can often bring people of a country around to a way of thinking that, in the long run, can prove disastrous, especially in times of crisis, whether real or perceived.

This can be linked to the discussion at hand. One could, in a way, consider the current ease at which people can communicate with each other a "dangerous technology", in that someone able to mold human emotions and human will the way Hitler could would be able to reach millions of people very quickly and very easily.

At the same time, this goes both ways. The same technology has fostered a sense of openess that has lead to the formation of several subcultures that value openness to the point where the people that tend to become the de-facto leaders that people look up to tend to get there by passing a sort of unofficial peer review. So perhaps Goering's statement does not ring as true today as it once did, but to ignore that danger and become complacent is to fail to learn from history and thus be doomed to repeat it. This is why when the US Congress started passing legislation that infringed on American citizens' rights, I was very happy when not everyone simply accepted this as necessary and actually spoke out against it.

So someone mod the parent up a few points.

Re:welcome back to Nazi thinking

[Mac Degger]

A very true posting.
And a scary one in light of some hearsay I've ...uh... heard (dunno if it's true, but it could well be). Seems that 'history' is no longer to be taken up in standard school curriculum. Instead, the only kind of history to be given is 'american history'. I find that dangerous because, as a wiser man than me once said: "he who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it".

Re:welcome back to Nazi thinking

[TheLink]

As someone said: "War is the only way the US learns geography".

But so far the US doesn't seem to learn its own history, what it did: Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, etc.

Heh, John Poindexter in charge of ToIA. Tsk tsk.

Pretty bad short term memory.

WARNING! FISHSEX!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

ACK! Good lord, just when I'd thought I was desensitized by such icons as Goatse.cx and Tubgirl...

I feel more human now... a dirtier human, but more human nonetheless.

Click link at your own risk

[Anonymous Coward]

thats some nasty stuff... hehe

Dystopia, actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of the term, "Negative Utopia". I believe you have in mind the word "dystopia" which is in common use.

Re:BAGHDAD (NEARLY) DOWN, PARIS ON DECK

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh! Only Germany is allowed to kick France's ass.

Re:WARNING! FISHSEX!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go click on the "your anti drug" bar at the site. Most of the stuff is pretty sick but funny. The dead baby is pretty bad too. lol

Frog boiling and stupidity.

[Unknown Poltroon]

THey reduce rights a bit at a time, in a kneejerk response to something, and you never get them back, because anyone who tries to roll it back gets accused of being immoral, or encouraging crime.

The stupidity comes in because even when you point it out, people say that it dosent affect me, or have been brainwashed enough so that they prefer the new way, same as how people follow religion, even though you can point out where its wrong..

Re:Frog boiling and stupidity.

[christalyss]

THey reduce rights a bit at a time, in a kneejerk response to something, and you never get them back, because anyone who tries to roll it back gets accused of being immoral, or encouraging crime.

This is, unfortunately, quite true.

However, I also see a ray of hope. Not everybody is fooled. In fact, there are growing numbers of people who won't listen to what the propaganda machine says about anything, just on geeneral principle. This is the so-called Second Superpower that people were arguing about last week. They are a second superpower, but their power lies along a different axis from that of conventional superpowers. It is the power of new ideas, the power of rising consciousness, the power of the people.

The times, they are a-changin'! Ideas of peace, love and freedom are spreading. These new meme-organisms are more highly-evolved than their Orwellian predicessors, because they work better for people, in a more sustainable and beneficial way. This article is an example (though hopelessly naive), in its extolling of the virtues of openness and cooperation. More and more of this sort of thing is spreading through the population, not just "hippies", but across all socioeconomic classes, even the academic elite and the ultra-rich. It is unstoppable, and it might just be in time to save us all.

JHCoaBaBBBB!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ you are the suckiest bunch of sucks to ever suck!

If you want a pleasant policestate, look to Singapore! The streets are safe and clean. Public tranportation is timely and cheap. The populace is well educated. The country courts clean high-tech industries. Everyone's polite. And best yet, it's full of cute lil' Asian girls!

Don't accept any shoddy Occidental substitutes!

Re:JHCoaBaBBBB!

[PD]

it's full of cute lil' Asian girls!

And they are all police. This is what they mean by police state not being fun.

Re:JHCoaBaBBBB!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's full of cute lil' Asian girls!

And they are all police

Stop it! You're making me all TINGLY!

Re:JHCoaBaBBBB!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and download some bukkake porn and masturbate, we'll wait.

William Gibson can kiss my ass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Police state?

I think you just described Heaven!

Re:hey you fucktard! - link is penis fish

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I clicked on it at work, too. I couldn't hit my back button fast enough. I'm packing my personal belongings into cardboard boxes as I type this...

no, no i didn't.

[mandrake*rpgdx]

as i said above, the two genres of writing are similiar, but contain enough differences that the two are seperate. 1984 is a negative utopia, as is Brave new world, we, Player Paino, and Ferenhieght 451. Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly, Mad Max, Neuromancer are examples of Dystopia (as well as Cyberpunk, since that phrase has been coined, anyway)

Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

As usual, there is a group calling the US a police state. First of all, we do not put soldiers in our civilian population, we put them other people's civilian population. Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to. We already did ours, in 1776, and now they are our friends.

But on the issue of police states, to compare to France or Germany, which are quite liberal and free states:

In America, you can still be a Nazi. its tolorated here in the name of free speech. Not so in France and Germany. Cant sell Nazi stuff either. America, we tolorate the worse scum in the name of free speech. We would rather KNOW who they are anyway.

In America, there must 'probable cause' not just 'reasonable suspician' like most of Europe, before a search warrant can be execused. I know this will cause arguements from the uninformed. dont bother replying, just set me as foe.

In the US, it is ILLEGAL to put the military on the boarders, or to act as police except in emergencies (airports after 9-11 for instance). Not so in most other places.

So like the US or not, to call it a police state is as stupid as the Information Minister in Baghdad swearing that there are no troops downtown. Its what you WANT to be true, but its FUD.

Ok, im done, i just get tired of self loathing Americans and other jealous types. Personally, Im pretty damn proud to be an American.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a group calling the US a police state.

Only because it's true.

First of all, we do not put soldiers in our civilian population, we put them other people's civilian population.

Like the National Guardsmen who point assault rifles at innocent people who can't stand on one leg because they're recovering from an injury?

Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to.

The thing is that even if they don't rise up, you still don't have to. You only do it because you want to. (The sanctions were working - which is why Bush invaded - he was afraid that they were going to lose the opportunity to invade.)

America, we tolorate the worse scum in the name of free speech.

Yeah, as long as nobody says the word "terrorist" at an airport.

In America, there must 'probable cause' not just 'reasonable suspician' like most of Europe, before a search warrant can be execused.

Explain how the two are different, and then explain to why it matters, when a police officer can ignore the requirement of a warrant if he has 'reasonable suspicion'.

In the US, it is ILLEGAL to put the military on the boarders, or to act as police except in emergencies (airports after 9-11 for instance). Not so in most other places.

Please list those "most other places", and list the legal statutes that give them that right.

So like the US or not, to call it a police state is as stupid

Like it or not, there's more to having a police state than the things you list.. like, maybe, star chamber trials, innocent people

I met someone from the US a few weeks ago.. he was visiting one of our malls... he was amazed that he wasn't treated like a criminal simply for wanting to see a tourist attraction. (ie: there are no metal detectors in the entrances, and he wasn't searched before being allowed entrance.)

Maybe you should take a trip to another country, before spouting your "national pride - no matter what" attitude.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, proud to be an American. Bet you're proud to commit the deadly sin of pride, too.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mike Hawash

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Quikah]

The sanctions were only working if your goal was to opress the people of Iraq.

I haven't been searched or gone through a metal detector in the last 10 US malls I have been to (or any mall for that matter). Maybe he was from Compton which is gang infested?

Ireland had some pretty heavily armed military types delivering money to the banks when I was there (can't remember if they were military or just special division of cops, all carried SMG, kind of scary). This was in rural northwest Ireland too (Ballina to be exact), which surprised me.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I met someone from the US a few weeks ago.. he was visiting one of our malls... he was amazed that he wasn't treated like a criminal simply for wanting to see a tourist attraction. (ie: there are no metal detectors in the entrances, and he wasn't searched before being allowed entrance.)

Unless the 'mall' you refer to was a major government building or an airport, I don't believe you. I've lived in the US most of my life and visited many a mall, and never had to go through a metal detector or been searched in one. Your story is implausable unless you completely misunderstood or your guest was lying for some reason.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off it, by your inference Ireland is a scary place where the miltary dominiates, what a load of shite. It's pretty much the same as any other western democracy, take a hike.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice nasty inference on Ireland, loser. It's no different thean American in those terms.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[gillbates]

In the US, it is ILLEGAL to put the military on the boarders

Since when did the illegality of something ever stop our government from doing it?

And don't think that this is shot at just the current administration. During Clinton's tenure, the FBI paid snipers to shoot and kill the wife and infant son of a suspect (ruby ridge).

I can understand how someone can love their country, but that doesn't mean we should trust our government.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[commodoresloat]

I find it ironic that one of your examples of how free the US is is that you have the right to be a Nazi.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

you are out of your fucking mind. there are no metal detectors at malls, there are no military on street corners. you are clueless.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[riptalon]

In the US, it is ILLEGAL to put the military on the boarders, or to act as police except in emergencies

The Posse Commitatus Act is effectively dead and has been for years before 11th Sept 2001. The US border is highly militarised and the US military regularly kills US citizens while "helping" with law enforcement. For a particularly egregous case take that of Esequiel Hernandez an "18 year old high school sophomore" who was "shot and killed while tending goats on his own family's land" by US marines. Long before the "war on terror", the "war on drugs" destroyed all but the pretense of separation between the military and police in the US. In fact the given the presence of members of the British Special Air Service (SAS) Regiment at the seige of the Branch Dividian compound in Waco, Texas, even foreign military forces are now appear welcome in US law enforcement.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

Unless the 'mall' you refer to was a major government building or an airport, I don't believe you. I've lived in the US most of my life and visited many a mall, and never had to go through a metal detector or been searched in one. Your story is implausable unless you completely misunderstood or your guest was lying for some reason.

I agree. I fly all over the US, and have lived in 12 states. There is no comparison. That was one of the things about 9-11, smug Europeans thinking we would have to put up with the police the way they do. I dont think so.

Let me tell you something: when i board a plane, you don't see military or marshalls. I haven't seen any military presence at ALL in a year. (in some very large airports). Its just FUD. You guys from Europe need to come visit. It would blow you away. We tolorate different points of view, we don't tolorate a police state. its just rediculous to compare

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

I find it ironic that one of your examples of how free the US is is that you have the right to be a Nazi.

Makes perfect sense. Someone who TRULY believes in free speech is willing to fight to protect YOUR right to say and believe the things that most offend them.

If you would not stand up and defend someone's right to THINK and TALK about things that offend you but are legal, then you don't believe in free speech. Only protecting what you believe in is facism.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

The Posse Commitatus Act [hooah4health.com] is effectively dead and has been for years before 11th Sept 2001.

I see that YOU feel that way, and some other may FEEL that way. Not everyone agrees, however, and there is by NO MEANS a majority that agrees with you on that point. Its an interesting point, but thats all.

The military helps in drug smuggling, which makes sense since the border patrol and state police can not do much outside of our borders. Look, I will freely admit my government has fucked up more than a few times, lately and not lately. But you say we 'regularly' kill innocents, yet I spent most of my life in Texas, and know these incidents to be exceedingly rare. Your most recent example, as tragic as it is, IS 6 years ago and exaggerates the problem.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[NorthWoodsman]

"We already killed [our own butcherous leaders] in 1776..."

I would hardly consider a war arising from tax/representation disputes to be killing a "butcherous" leader. Jeez, Britain wasn't the friggin Nazis.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

I can understand how someone can love their country, but that doesn't mean we should trust our government.

By no means do i have blind faith in my government. Love for country would dictate that you DONT do that.

But I don't assume that everything our government does is illegal either. Ruby Ridge was messed up. So was Waco, no matter how nutty they were. I still haven't figured out how Vince Foster commited suicide with a gun, didn't drop it, and didn't make a drop of blood. So yea, I questions alot.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

Oh, proud to be an American. Bet you're proud to commit the deadly sin of pride, too.

Obviously, we don't share the same religious beliefs. Nice to live in a country where that is ok.

And for your reference, pride to live in a free country is not the same as the Catholic concept of the 7 deadly sins, of which pride is one. You definately misunderstand the concept of what I am saying, probably on purpose, but still. This is not the same. But like I said, you know that, you just don't care, AC.

To any other fools out there, its actually a form of humility. If you can't figure that out, don't bother: you never will because you don't want to.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Aexia]

>>During Clinton's tenure, the FBI paid snipers to shoot and kill the wife and infant son of a suspect (ruby ridge).

Clinton wasn't President during Ruby Ridge. Bush Sr. was.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this will cause arguements from the uninformed. dont bother replying, just set me as foe.

IOW, I know I'm wrong, and I know you can probably prove it, so I'm not going to bother considering your words. Much more fun for me to do my ostrich impression, and hope it all goes away so I can go back to feeling superior because my country is "the world leader".

Amusing also that WE are the uninformed, whereas YOU can't spell 'argument' (or, for that matter, suspicion, executed, borders...).

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[commodoresloat]

Just for the record, I don't disagree with you that it is important to protect that right to say what offends some people. I do still think it is interesting - and ironic - that for you, (at least in the post above) the right to be a Nazi is one of the most important reasons this isn't a police state.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[drinkypoo]

We DO put our own soldiers in our civilian population, they called out the "US Army National Guard" to calm things down during the LA Riots. Several of my friends spent some exciting time riding around in the back of humvees with (usually) unloaded rifles and (constantly) loaded sidearms.

In America, you can be a Nazi and it's tolerated, but you can't make a joke about Terrorism in a restaurant.

In America, no probable cause is required for the federal government to hold you indefinitely.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[AvantLegion]

Come on people, it's not that hard to understand.

He's not talking about "the right to be a Nazi", at least not as some isolated "right". He's talking about the right to have and voice an opinion, even one that is hostile and very much looked down upon and even hated by the state. The Nazi part is simply proving the point by means of extreme case - the implication being that the same applies to less-extreme cases as well.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[canadian_right]

The USA has it share of stupid, freedom trampling laws. Is it still illegal to vote for the commies in the USA? I can vote for 3 flavours of commies up here in the freedom loving Great White North, otherwise known as Canada.

The USA is moving towards being a police state. Arresting people without charging them. Spying on its own citizens in the name of "security". Reducing oversight on various domestic law enforcement agencies. Even before 9/11 and all the freedom trampling laws that followed that horrible event, the USA was using its "war on drugs" to lock up huge numbers of its citizens.

Now is the time for USA patriots to be heard and roll back the recent fascist laws.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Quikah]

Look, I like Ireland, I think it is a great place. I work with several Irish people, they are excellent people. I was just commenting, as an American how it was a bit scary to see heavily armed troops in a TINY town delivering money to the bank. I say this to let you know that it is a very foreign concept for Americans to see heavily armed troops in the streets.

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Kosi]

As usual, there is a group calling the US a police state.

What else would you call a state in which people are being abducted and held in prison by government against the law and the constitution? A state who denies being at war but makes captives and denies them both the rights of war prisoners and the rights a suspected criminal has? A state which tries to collect "total information"?

Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to.

I don't see why you "have to" do such things as this illegal war in Iraq. Noone asked you to do this! The USA do it only because they want to, for whatever reasons they want (in this case: oil, weapon industry and family "honor").

In America, there must 'probable cause' not just 'reasonable suspician' like most of Europe, before a search warrant can be execused. I know this will cause arguements from the uninformed. dont bother replying, just set me as foe.

You are very ignorant concerning your patriot acts and the other bullshit laws thrashing citizen's rights which happily were made after 11.9.01. Here in Germany a judge has to sign a search warrant, except in cases of "danger in sight", in the US the FBI or else just has to claim you being involved in terrorism and you have lost all rights.

In the US, it is ILLEGAL to put the military on the boarders, or to act as police except in emergencies (airports after 9-11 for instance).

Here too.

I'm not going to blame everything in the US. But many of the ideas of your constitution are nowadays perverted in many ways. Too many things depend on how much money someone has, what you call freedom is often only the freedom to buy what you can afford, including politicians and laws. Who is elected depends often on the budget for the election campaign, which gives the richer people more might. Court decisions depend on who can afford to pay the better lawyer, not on what's just.

Kosi

Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks

[Pharmboy]

The USA has it share of stupid, freedom trampling laws. Is it still illegal to vote for the commies in the USA? I can vote for 3 flavours of commies up here in the freedom loving Great White North, otherwise known as Canada.

It never has been illegal to vote communist in the US. Ever. Big misconception started in the 50 with McCarthism, where everyone was accused and blacklisted for being communist. But it wasnt illegal.

Now is the time for USA patriots to be heard and roll back the recent fascist laws.

You are correct on that point. The Patriot Act is pretty fucked up and needs to be changed. It is STILL less obtrussive than any other war time law, however, so while I fight it, I put it in perspective and don't put down my government because of the overzealousness of our elected officials. We are NOT moving toward a police state, however. You need to go back and look at history. If you do, you would be awestruck at how we have so progressively become more and more liberty based.

Its easy (and popular) to simply say we are becoming a police state, but its not true.

Writer was 1/2 right.

[gurps_npc]

The one thing he left out was that fact that that our new technologies are NEW and that they WILL result in major societial changes in NEW and unpredicatable ways.

The Machine gun is a great example.

Many people may not be aware, but the Machine Gun has Saved more soldiers lives than it has taken. In fact many people believe that the Machine Gun has saved more soldier lives than penicillian.

Before the Machine Gun, 10 men could guard no more than 20 or so unarmed prisoners. Otherwise they rush you, take your weapon etc.

Yes, it allowed prisons and concentration camps to grow, but before it, GENERALS COULD NOT ACCEPT THE SURRENDER OF THE ENEMEY EXCEPT AT THE END OF THE WAR

You could not accept the surrender of one battalion, because you could not spare the men to guard them while your other forces went off to fight the next set of soldiers.

So if people surrendered and it was not the last enemey combatants, you killed them. So no one surrended.

The inventor of the Machine Gun did NOT realize he was allowing people to surrender, he thought he creating a horrendous killing machine.

similarly, the new technolgies we are creating WILL surprise us, and will create NEW social structures that we did not have before.

Society will evolve in a strange new manner, not the simple ideas propagated by these Science Fiction Authors mentioned by the writer.

Re:Writer was 1/2 right.

[Anonymous Coward]

hay man, I was gonna mod you up, interesting point, but my last mod point ran out like 6 hours ago :( awww

Re:Writer was 1/2 right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Gatling invented the machine gun because he thought that its horrible efficiency would be a deterent to war -- the c. 1850s equivalent to the nuclear bomb.

Re:Writer was 1/2 right.

[mazarin5]

Actually, he didn't think he was creating a horrendous killing machine. He wanted to save lives. He figured that if one soldier with a machine gun could do the work of 10 soldiers with rifles, that less men would have to go to war, therefore less would die.

Unfortunately, they just gave all the soldiers machine guns and war progresses unhampered.

Mechanically inventive, but still naive.

Re:Writer was 1/2 right.

[IanW998]

Erm, the stuff about machineguns is ... interesting. And up to Slashdot standards of historical accuracy. 1) Machineguns tend to be big, heavy and sit on bipods and tripods. PoWs tend to go marching into PoW camps, and once there are on the inside of compounds (or conventional prisons, or enrolled in your army ). Thus, you probably want something smaller and lighter to escort the prisoners with. 2) Actually, the whole 16th and 17th century saw prisoners being taken with regularity. OK, sometimes they got massacred afterwards, but they definitly got taken. 18th century, I'm not sure about. Napoleonic Wars ... trust me. Entire divisions surrendured on occasions. Ian Whitchurch

Re:Writer was 1/2 right.

[boots@work]

He figured that if one soldier with a machine gun could do the work of 10 soldiers with rifles, that less men would have to go to war, therefore less would die

I wonder how many actual coalition infantry troops there are in Iraq? I've heard that the US Army has about 10 back-end support troops for every many in the field, which would indicate about 20,000 infantrymen actually fighting, plus a couple of hundred thousand doing diverse supporting work. In what other era could you capture such a large country with so few men?

This is not to say the back-end troops are not at risk, or that civilians or conscripts don't get killed, but nevertheless perhaps technology makes war more intense and localized.

Stronger Responsibility/Power Correlation Needed

[4of12]

If we're going to have any hope of surviving a future in which many citizens have the power to create dangerous virii or in any way cause widespread death and devastation, then we're going to have to do a helluva a lot better job than we are now of creating responsible citizens.

Rather than adopt the authoritarian solution of removing all power from as many people as possible and investing as much power as possible with a single "trusted" individual in the hopes of reducing the risks associated with an empowered citizenry, I'd much rather we at least implement better measures to given and take power from individuals based on their demonstrated level of responsibility. Not all or nothing, but a graded continuum. Some of that exists now: felons aren't supposed to get access to firearms in the U.S., for example.

However, there are far too many exceptions to an ideal:

• responsible people without power,
• irresponsible people with power.

Got a ways to go.

SARS - Level 4

[HedRat]

SARS is a very dangerous desease. There are 4 reasons for this.

1. It is lethal.

2. It is air-borne.

3. It comes from a NEW and unknown virus.

4. NO known cure.

These four make a very deadly combination. I see the general public take this desease very lightly. The government knows about this but at
the same time, they don't want to create panic among the public. I wonder what WHO, CDC and USAMRIID are doing about this.

Luddites wrongly attack the abstract

[Anonymous Coward]

Joy and company have been attacking the abstract premise that technology might be a threat. Such an abstract attack is meaningless because technologies manifest themselves in specific, unpredictable ways.

WHEN WILL YOU LEARN??

[Anonymous Coward]

When people post pointless posts on slashdot, which are relatively short, and have a link in them...

DON'T CLICK ON THEM WHILE AT WORK!!!!

man i wish i had mod points

[mandrake*rpgdx]

cause that was really damn funny...i have to remember that one...

Blatent disinformation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit!

As you can read here : SARS was designed by the reptoids to inject THEIR DNA into the human population so that we'd all start bearing reptoid children for them!. The end is near! Planet X is coming!

WTF does SARS have to do with anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Slashbull, always dragging in trendy, topical subjects when they're hardly needed. Feh.

perl code of the future!

[macshune]

"We will be able to fashion a human being with software built upon the twin-shuffle microcode of DNA, perhaps with friendly applications like "The Gene Construction Kit" by Textco or "Visual Cloning" by Redasoft, software currently used to visualize and design plasmid vectors. The deep language of Nature will reveal itself through simple menus on medical Web sites."

I can see it now...

$dbh = DBI->connect ("DBI:mysql:host=yourmom;database=yourparents)

my @baby = $sth->fetchrow_array ();

foreach $baby (@baby){

writeDNA();

startGestation() or die;

}

$sth->finish();

Usually technology brings its own balance

[OpenSourced]

By the time a "Do your own genome" kit is available to to public, tools will be in the hands of goverments to reduce the menace of it. The article makes the error of extrapolating only a part of reality to the future, while keeping the rest of it at today's lever. I mean, by the time the terrorists have a "Do your own Ebola virus - NOW Improved, it kills faster!" kit, the goverments will have a "Make your own antibody - ALL antigens - guaranteed!" kit that will make all attemps to spread an epidemic seem moot.

As far as I can imagine, the same rationale applies to other areas of science. It's not the lone terrorist that should worry us, it's big organizations (like goverments) that have the means and the people to be at the cutting edge. I mean, really, when you compare in history the damage made by terrorism or small organizations with the damage made by goverments, you can easily detect a pattern.

Rocket propelled grenades are always pleasant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments love them.

An interesting perspective

[ievans]

From Nicolas Buchele in the Arab News, quoted in a piece in Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/22/w orld21/index1.html):

"Americans often seem baffled that others fail to admire their system of government. They know after all that in the United States there exists a lively culture of debate, where the whole lunatic spectrum of opinion can find a platform of one kind or another (though at the same time the difference between the political parties it is actually possible to elect is vanishingly small) ...

"They have a vibrant and largely unchecked artistic community. They have the First Amendment ...

"The new totalitarianism has learned a second lesson from its heavy-handed predecessors. If artists and intellectuals were able to do precisely nothing about Hitler or Stalin or any of the legion of tin-pot dictators around the world, it follows that you might as well have freedom of expression.

"In the new totalitarian system, people can say whatever they like, and it makes absolutely no difference."

Re:An interesting perspective

[mfrank]

Tried to check out the link; didn't seem to work.

Although if the author does live in one of the Arab states, what he's saying is pretty ludicrous.

There's more to democracy than freedom of speech. How about voting, freedom of assembly, trial by jurt, etc? Would Hitler or Stalin been able to get re-elected?

Also, look at Iraq vs.North Korea. Iragis are much more aware of what's going on in the outside world than the North Koreans. You don't think that makes a difference in how easy it is to maintain a totalitarian state?

Re:An interesting perspective

[ievans]

Hrmmm. The article used to be there.

I only quoted one section, the rest of the article talks about how the "new totalitarianism" isn't dependent on a single individual, a la Hitler or Stalin, and therefore can exist within a democracy, albeit one where the elected officials have a limited ability to change things.

As for being aware, how has the awareness of the outside events checked the designs of our administration's push to war? It hasn't. Did the unpopularity of starting the war without the consent of the UN have any effect on Bush and company? Did the disapproval of most of our allies, and more or less the rest of the world, keep the US from invading Iraq?

I don't necessarily agree with Buchele, but he makes some compelling points about how the Bush administration is acting.

What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[Whammy666]

Not knowing much latin myself, can someone fill me in as to what 'Deus Ex' means? I went to their webpage, but it demanded that I install Flash 5 before I could enter. Yeah right. Like that's going to happen. (Bad page design guys.)

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

Not knowing much latin myself, can someone fill me in as to what 'Deus Ex' means?

The answer, as always, is quickly derived from a google search:

In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.

Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[agent2]

The game is about a world that is ruled by one government or a being. On the inside of the cd case it says "Deux Ex Machina." Here is a link to what it means.

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[ReconRich]

It means "God From ..." as in "Deus ex machina" (god from a machine)

-- Rich

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a historian, but deus ex machina was also featured prominently in the performance of any tragedy during medieval times.

After a terrible tragedy of a play, god would come down from heaven and make everything alright, dead characters ressurrected, etc. because, essentially, "by the power of god, no such misfortune/tragedy would ever come to pass within our benevolent lord's princely realm" (lord meaning the head-honcho with all the swords and the knights and whatnot)

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[Prune]

> The answer, as always, is quickly derived from a google search

I can think of a million things that a Google search won't find answers to (at least meaningful answers). I know that Google-worshipping is in vogue on Slashdot, but Google is no god.

Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean?

[Charm]

Google is no god.

Ah yes but in this case it is a Deus Ex Machina to the problem at hand :)

Re:Could be worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

You fuckin' ass. I am at work aswell. How old are you 14? Get a fucking life.

Arthur C Clarke's law variant?

[Doctor Hu]

Any sufficiently dangerous technology is indistinguishable from magic in the view of the authorities.

(Apologies and acknowledgements to A.C.C.)

seems to be more of a pandemic than epidemic

[donkiemaster]

epidemics affect defined populations or geographical areas, pandemics affect large areas. This is becoming more of a global issue, so I think pandemic is a more fitting term, though I don't know if it has reached that magnitude. yet.

Limit of lethality to viruses

[kurtkilgor]

OK, so let's say you have a computer program and associated hardware that let you drag and drop little blocks to make the most lethal virus you can think of. Viruses that target humans have been evolving for as long as humans have, which is several million years. If it were possible to make a virus that would cause extremely massive casualties, don't you think it would have evolved already?

It is not possible for a virus to kill more than a certain percentage of a population because at some point the population gets so sparse that the virus can no longer spread. When we consider modern methods of quarantine, disinfection, and treatment, I find the possibility of a highly lethal virus even less believable.

The reason why biological weapons are scary is because they can spread a virus much more efficiently than it can spread itself. But making biological weapons requires big machines which, as the author says, are "easily visible by satellite." So I don't think he has much of an arugment.

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[Minna Kirai]

If it were possible to make a virus that would cause extremely massive casualties, don't you think it would have evolved already?

No, it absolutely would not have evolved already. Yes, viruses have been evolving forever, but their goal is not to destroy humanity- it's to create more viruses. Exterminating humankind would get in the way.

Textbook: "Evolution by natural selection allows population pressure to gradually change an organism into something more likely to survive."

A virsus that kills 100% of it's host population is not more likely to survive- there is no way natural selection could create one. But that doesn't disprove the possibility of one being created artificially.

However, a biologist with very advanced equipment (near-future science-fiction level) could theoretically create a virus which spreads as rapidly as the common cold, has no known cure, is fatal, and produces no symptoms for 18 months. Something like that could cleanse the planet.

It is not possible for a virus to kill more than a certain percentage of a population because at some point the population gets so sparse that the virus can no longer spread.

True, depending on the nature of the super-virus, it might kill only 90% of the population. And then probably 80% of those survivors would die of starvation or exposure within a year. The remaining 2% of humanity, with luck, can revert to an agrarian society and start rebuilding civilization.

So it might not be "total" destruction, but 6 billion deaths can be treated nearly the same as "the end of the world" for long-range planning purposes.

But making biological weapons requires big machines which, as the author says, are "easily visible by satellite."

One: someday the machines will be smaller.

Two: big machines are visible from satellite, but their function isn't easily recognizable.

The most realistic apocalyptic bio-weapon scenario is that a legitimate medical facility will be subverted to build a killer virus. No spy satellite will be able to tell it apart from an innocent hospital. (It's hard to distinguish between good and bad molecules from orbit)

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[scaryfish]

If it were possible to make a virus that would cause extremely massive casualties, don't you think it would have evolved already?

No, because a virus is essantially a parisite. A successful parasite is one that has little or no impact on its host - to reduce the selective pressure on the host becoming resistant to the parisite.

Imagine this: In a herd of animals, some are infected with a virus that doesn't kill them, but makes them very sick. Those animals are going to be easy prey for preditors, so the animals are under a strong selective pressure to become immune to that virus. If however, the virus has little or no effect on the animal's survival and reproduction, then there is no selection.

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[rthille]

Yeah, unless there's a delay between the infection and the death, like AIDS.

A virus that causes 'extremely massive casualities' is a failure. Gene's exist to replicate, not to kill. A successful virus is one that you spread like crazy, but your body never kills off, and never kills your body (since it's harder to spread to other people from inside a coffin).

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[AvantLegion]

But making biological weapons requires big machines which, as the author says, are "easily visible by satellite."

But then the satellites are called "tools of Big Brother", and the government handling them is in a no-win...

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[Prune]

You are waay off base. First: > If it were possible to make a virus that would cause extremely massive casualties, don't you think it would have evolved already? No, for reasons stated in other replies to your post (basically there's no advantage to the virus as a parasite since it needs a living host). Second: > It is not possible for a virus to kill more than a certain percentage of a population because at some point the population gets so sparse that the virus can no longer spread. Nonsense! Some viral diseases can take decades to develop (AIDS example is aids) but are ultimately fatal nonetheless. All a bioterrorist needs is to design a virus that has both a slow incubation period, and be extremely infective and easily spread. Think of a disease with the incubation period of mad cow disease, the infectiousness of influenza, and the fatality of ebola. Spreading unnoticed (new pthogens often only get attention and are discovered after a disease they cause calls attention to them), it could infect virtually everybody, and after the incubation period, kill all.

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[Charm]

A virsus that kills 100% of it's host population is not more likely to survive- there is no way natural selection could create one. But that doesn't disprove the possibility of one being created artificially.

It couldn't survive past its morbidity but that doesn't mean it couldn't evolve in the first place. The probability is there but after it happened there would be nothing left. So obviously it hasn't happened yet. Also note that viruses can survive for very long periods without the host(some bacterias[0] can survive for hundreds of years). This would enable it to infect almost everyone and anyone who wasn't infected to die at a later point. The only hope against such a plague would be that someone was left who had a genetic immunity and were in a large enough colony to breed.

[0] No I am not saying that a virus is a bacteria; but a plague could be caused by either.

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[Charm]

I should point out that such a plague is highly unlikley and even if it did happen no-one being immune would be even more unlikely. Be more worried about hamsters evolving into a super race and making us all slaves. It is just that it is possible (maybe not the hamsters :)

Re:Limit of lethality to viruses

[Minna Kirai]

It couldn't survive past its morbidity but that doesn't mean it couldn't evolve in the first place.

There's always a slim chance of a totally random mutant springing up, with characteristics drastically different from it's parents.

But I wouldn't quite call that "evolution". And certainly it wouldn't be "natural selection". The word "fluke" seems correct.

One way that a super-plague (or a super-predator, or anything other organism which would destroy its own environment) can really evolve, of course, is if the evolution takes place in a completely different environment from the one that it eventually comes to dominate. "Alien species without natural predators" and all that.

(Some argue that home sapien evolved in a different world than now exists, and that they will outstrip their food supply and doom themselves through relentless expansion)

SARS is not air-borne

[Inexile2002]

I live in Toronto which represents the biggest SARS outbreak in the west. Our news talks about practically nothing else (I have no idea if this is the same in other cities), but one thing they're fairly sure of is that it is NOT air borne.

There was an interview on the radio with Patient 3 on Friday. Her mother and father were the people who brought SARS to Toronto from Hong Kong. He parents flew back on the plane infected with SARS. All of the people on the flight have been now been cleared. There is SOME evidence that it can be transmitted aerially through droplets but it does not appear to be air borne.

Additionally, of the 80 or so likely cases and 100 more possible cases only 10 people have died and in 8 cases they were elderly and most of those cases there were other contributing factors. More people in Canada have died in the same period from complications from regular pnuemonia. Not to say that there is nothing to worry about, but the biggest danger of SARS is that it is infecting health care workers which is crippling the health care system. If SARS was a tenth as bad as the media is making it out to be, there would be thousands of cases, not less than 200.

Mind you, I was in China Town this weekend and when someone sneezed on the street people acted like a bomb went off.

Re:SARS is not air-borne

[Anonymous Coward]

In a very real sense this is a measure of how far we have come. Everyone is panicking over a "new" disease that, so far, has managed to kill about 10 people.

In the mid-1300's, Black Death killed 25% to 50% of the population and there wasn't one damned thing we could do about it!

Progress is good!

Re:SARS is not air-borne

[The Cydonian]

Airborne to a distance of 1 m or so, apparently. And oh, you want to wash your hands often; if you touch something infected, and then wipe your nose or mouth, you're infected.

Not to mention, of course, suggestions that cockroaches might spread the disease. Bear in mind though, that this comment was made by a Deputy Director of Health. Now, I don't know how they have out in Hong Kong, but my experience suggests that Directors of Health are usually civil servants with limited medical knowledge. Not that this should stop you from killing those 'roaches in your house, but on a scientific interest, I definitely would love to read this from a medical professional as well.

Re:SARS is not air-borne

[AtomicBomb]

Spreading via droplet is technically airborne. But, in the context of contagious disease, the definition is a bit more strict. Airborne is defined as a virus/bacteria which can be transmitted through particles with a size of less 0.3 um (or 3um..., can't remember the exact figure). Below that threshold, the particle can be suspended in the air for a long time, pass thru most less capable masks and is considered much more difficult to contain.

Re:SARS is not air-borne

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are right that the Deputy Director who made the comment is a civil servant, he is also a fully qualified practitioner and a specialist in community medicine.

Re:BAGHDAD (NEARLY) DOWN, PARIS ON DECK

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you can somehow manage to keep all of your citizens out of prison.

Yes, Yes You Did

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, your subject makes you look like a jackass. It really pisses me off that you are stealing oxygen from my planet. Hopefully I'll be able to get some legislation passed soon to deal with that obvious problem.

Second of all, for someone who is so nit-pickey about using the right terms to represent a piece of literature, one would think that you'd at least spell fahrenheit correctly, you fucking retard.

As I have said in the past, you are a homosexual and contain enough man-seed to populate a small country. Stop sucking dick, FAGGOT.

Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that the motivation for the machine gun - at least the Gatling gun - was that less soldiers to operate it meant less casulaties, so it was, in fact, meant to lessen the horrors of war by replacing human lives with mechanical tools.

How quickly we digress

[Gridpoet]

its unbelievable to me that people would be so quick to give up what has made this country great. What the heroes of WW1 and WW2 fought so bravely for...freedom. Land of the free, home of the brave my butt...this country is full of sniveling cowards who, at the first sign of danger, turn over what thousands have lain down their lives for. If the government ever outlaws knowledge, then i my friends will remain an outlaw, a new type of outlaw... THE GEEK OUTLAW!!! *smiles* I will never relinquish my basic freedoms, not even when looking down the wrong end of a gun. INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!!!

Re:How quickly we digress

[Minna Kirai]

What the heroes of WW1 and WW2 fought so bravely for

Tzar Nicolas? Stalin?

Motivation

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

A friend of mine and I discuss this quite often. It involves a balance between the increasing ability of people to kill enourmous amounts of people and the motivation to do so. We long ago reached the point where large governments have the power to eradicate all life on earth. The capability of the individual keeps rising.

Stopping the access to the technology would require such things as destroying the internet and other worldwide mass-communications. Essentially, the technology won't go away. Police states are never 100% effective, which means that as soon as a technology like, say, bioweapons or antimatter ends up in the hands of average people, if someone has a motivation to use it, they will.

The only way to stop this threat is to stop the motivation. Secure people generally do not commit crimes. If you have nothing to fear (poverty, hate crimes, etc) then you will be less likely to do these things. As the ability of individuals to secure weapons of mass destruction increases, we have to start thinking about making our society more content.

Re:Motivation

[christalyss]

The only way to stop this threat is to stop the motivation.

This is an excellent idea. Unfortunately, in order to address the roots of the motivation to violence, we would have to fundamentally restructure our entire society from the ground up. The motivation for violence is built in to any system which relies on exploitation to achieve power.

Fortunately, this restructuring is already taking place, in the form of a global paradigm shift of unprecidented scope. First we change our minds and hearts, then we can change our social structures.

we have to start thinking about making our society more content.

Unfortunately, this, though a good idea, will not be nearly enough. For one thing, under the current structure of our society, the only way to make some people content is by the exploitation of other people, which increases their motivation to violence. For another thing, increasing the standard of living may cause contentment in many, but if it is done at the cost of individual liberty, there will always be those wackos out there who value their freedom enough to fight for it (which is a silly idea, by the way, killing people won't make you free, but many people believe so).

The blind contentment of cattle may be enough for some, but it will never be enough for all, at least, not without massive compulsory drug administration.

Having said all that, I think you are definitely on the right track. Addressing the motivation and the means for massive violence will require the fundamental restructuring of our society, but I say, that's a heck of a lot better than extinction of the species! Let's start restructuring!

Re:Motivation

[Mac Degger]

Hurah! Too true...
And, to state what the author of the article meant but put in 8 paragraphs, the thing is that if one relies too much on a closed society, there will still be people who will want to commit mass murder. The problem is that there will only be a small percentage of people knowledgable enough to stop their efforts. In an open society there might be more people who can commit mass murder, but there is also a huge group who can devote effort to stop them.
And, quite relevant due to SARS, people in an open society will also know /that there is something to stop/!

Re:Motivation

[Patersmith]

Doing so would require the elimination of two things that are impossible to eliminate: scarcity and greed.

Without controlling the reproduction of the human population, it will continue to behave like any population...bacteria, plankton, coyotes, or what have you. It will continue to expand until it consumes all available resources, at which time it will be irradicated or will reach a state of equilibrium with the resources it requires to survive. Humanity cannot continue to experience exponential population growth. The earth simply cannot support it. 1/5 of all the people who have EVER lived are alive today. Consider the ramifications of that and then fast-forward 100 years. We are heading for some massive humanitarian disasters within our lifetimes. That frightens me deeply.

Greed is borne out of the innate human desire for superiority. Power is not a tool, but an end unto itself. As long as you have people, you will have people who strive to have more than his neighbour. Communism doesn't work because of greed. Capitalism embraces greed, but is it really any better?

+1 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

somebody mod parent up

Arthur C. Clarke quote

[ralphus]

I'm reminded of a quote from Mr. Clarke:

"There is a hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."

The Information - Knowledge gap

[sielwolf]

I think one of the big holes in this article is the idea that information == knowledge. That anyone can comprehend (and diagnose and modify extensively) any and all information.

Of course this is not the case. How many people use Linux and know each and every last piece of code (and I'm not talking about /. folks here, but people in general)? What about Windows? Hell, how many of us use Aspirin or airplanes and have little more than the basic understanding of how they work?

The problem is this: the more advanced a society becomes, the more specialized its population becomes. That means the slight fraction one has knowledge of shrinks as time progresses even though they might know more than people a hundred years ago.

So what has society done? Attempted to make any and all technology novice-usable. So I don't have to know how an ATM or automobile or cd players works to use it.

So let's take the author's example of the Ebola-AIDS virus. Assuming that the above traits hold (that we become more specialized while technology grows more advanced yet usable) then anybody might be able to unleash Ebola-AIDS while only a handful of people would have the slightest idea how to stop it.

Basically it's the Script-Kiddie Syndrome to the Nth degree. All I need is a Genome Rootkit and I can cause havoc. And who cares if I can't hack any and all persons? What if I just need to hit a 3rd world country that hasn't gotten the latest service pack? I could wipe out Zambia or Cambodia. We see this time and time again: the problem and the cure exist side by side. Yet for some reason the former gets out more than the latter. How often are sites hacked on year old exploits?

Of course this is all hypotheticals. But it seems that the failing is something intrinsically human, not political or technological. So neither a police state or open utopia would solve any of this. Besides, the author's example is a wacky level of technology. Who knows. We might all be Wesley Crushers by then.

Re:The Information - Knowledge gap

[christalyss]

I think one of the big holes in this article is the idea that information == knowledge.

This is an excellent point, but I don't think the article misses it. Note how he talks about the possibility of restricting education to combat the threat (and dismisses it as totalitarian). Unfortunately, neither universal education or restricted education will reduce the risk significantly. As Noam Chomsky put it, when asked why humanity is under threat now when it wasn't in the past, "the means. The means of violence are greater."

You are right, though, it is the Script-Kiddie problem. The risk level just keeps going up and up. How much risk is enough? When do we start to at least try to develop our technology with a bare minimum of sanity?

Re:The Information - Knowledge gap

[Mac Degger]

Yoyu might want to read David Deutch's "The fabric of reality" for refutations to your specific problem; he's wrong on quite a few aspects in that book, but I think that in relation to your specific case (the complexity of knowledge) he's right: human effort has successfull gone into reducing the complexity of knowledge...nearly each new theory in all subjects describes more and is 'smaller' than the last when compared to what it describes.

Also, we are all dying anyway...so let it rip

[Cryofan]

Maybe if we just go all out with genetic engineering and nanotech, we could come up with ways to beat cancer and heart disease, and finally, even old age itself.

And don't gimme all that crap about The Next Generation. I say it is time we stopped living as animals who are nothing but slaves to our DNA, and start moving beyond the animal stage.

Let's take nature into our own hands, and mold it to OUR WILL.

Lifesavers, those machine guns!

[Infonaut]

20,000 British soldiers died at the hands of German Maxim machineguns on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in WWI.

The trench warfare of WWI came about in large part because of the tremendous defensive power of the machinegun. Maneuver warfare, which might have shortened the war considerably, was impossible because no matter how much you "softened up" the enemy with artillery, machineguns would still be there to mow you down. The conditions in the trenches contributed to the death of at least twice as many soldiers as did enemy bullets.

If you don't consider the Gatling Gun to be a "true machinegun", then the surrender of 12,000 Union troops at Harper's Ferry during the American Civil War seems to invalidate the claim that generals couldn't accept surrender.

If you do consider the Gatling Gun to be a machinegun, then you could just go back a bit further, to 1805, when Napoleon's Grande Armee captured 30,000 Prussian and Russian soldiers at Austerlitz. No machine guns, Gatling Guns, or anything even close at the scene of that surrender, yet somehow it happened.

I could go on and on with examples, but the point is that soldiers did surrender before the advent of the machine gun. The machine gun IS a killing device. It kills more efficiently than any other form of bullet-launcher.

I don't consider machine guns to be evil, because I was often damned happy to have two M60s at my disposal as a platoon leader. But let's not pretend that machineguns have saved more lives than "penicillian".

Re:Lifesavers, those machine guns!

[Efreet]

Not that I completly disagree with you (I think the previous poster did overstate his case) but to address some of your points:

It was really the invention of the railroad and the rifle far more than the machinegun that resulted in trench warfare. Infact, you saw exactly the same sort of thing in the Civil War as WWI; its just that the civil war generals were even more lkely to launch suicidal offensives. The rifle, by allowing fire at range, gave dug in troops a greater advantage, and the railroad allowed generals to shift troups behind their lines to counter enemy advances with a speed that the attacking soldiers couldn't match on foot.

Regarding teh surrender at Austerlitz and at Harper's Ferry, these were surrenders after the battle was over; and so the vicorious general could spare the 10 men to watch the 20.

On the other hand, the machine gun does allow police states to gun down mobs of revolting peasants easily, so it certainly isn't all fun and games.

Re:Lifesavers, those machine guns!

[canadian_right]

Read the "Guns of August", a very interesting account of WWI up to when the trench warefare started. Machine guns are SO much more effective than single shot, or even semi-auto rifles at defense that they did, in fact, make a huge difference to the way war is waged. It just took a while for the generals to fully understand the ramifications.

Re:Lifesavers, those machine guns!

[Efreet]

I'm not saying that machine guns aren't effective, just that an entrenched force of machinegunners outclasses some doughboys with a semi-autos and grenades the same way an entrenched force with rifles and cannons outclasses some people charging single shot rifles and bayonets.

Re:Lifesavers, those machine guns!

[gurps_npc]

You guys should work on your arguements, yours are seriously flawed.

1) Effiecency/Effectiveness as killing machines. How are you measureing it? Deaths per bullet? Nope, machine guns lose to almost any bullet weapon. Death per combat-man hour? Nope, Machine guns lose to bombs, traps, even shotguns. Deaths per energy expanded? Nope, snipers win. Death per cost? Disease does that far better (and yes, disease WAS used as a weapon of war - indians and small pox is just one example.) Deaths per time spent training user? Hand grenades beat them. Also, machine guns are more likely to wound than to kill (especailly with modern combat surgery). But even if you considered a wounded man "dead", all the statements above STILL apply.

Machine guns are VERY VERY effective at what they do best. But they are not the best offensive weapon. Instead, they deny the enemey the ability to move through a small-medium ranged area. If someone is stupid enough to try it 1/2 heartdly, they fail. If they do it with determination, they take HEAVY losses even if they take the land.

As area denial weapons, they pretty much rule. Nothing beats them (with the possible exception of a machine-shotgun against unarmored people). That is why they are the staple at prisoner of war camps and prisons.

2) I never meant prisoners were not taken ever, I meant rarely. And before the Machine gun, the chance of the prisoner being killed was HIGH. The Machine Gun made it FAR more possible to keep massive amounts of prisoners.

3) However, the machine gun does not help you take prisoners, it helps you GUARD them. 90% of the time you can assign 1/3 your army to bring prisoners a short distance to a prison. The problem is once they get their, are you going to LEAVE 1/3 your army guarding the prison - or are you going to put machine gun at the walls and leave a token force to guard them?

Machine Guns made prison of war camps (and prisons) possible, thus negating the strong pressure to kill the captured.

Ah, But...

[Blue Stone]

...The times, they are a-changing....

Laws enacted, and in the process of being enacted since 9-11, have and are turning America toward police-statehood.
Detention without trial; without access to lawyers. Mass surveillance measures being created. The "Material Witness" laws being subverted...

And America is not alone, The UK is also undergoing it's own particular form of Big Brother transformation.
Just don't kid yourself it's not happening.
Little by little, it is.

One of the defining characteristics of a police state (though I'm no expert on the subject, by any means) to my mind, is the mass surveillance, monitoring, cataloging and tracking of the citizenry, for no real good reason.

The Stazi used this means extensively, and the emergence of it in the US, UK, and elsewhere, seems to indicate (to me at least) that the people in charge, are moist in their underwear at the thought of being able to know who you are, where you are, where you've been, where you're going, who you know, who you've associated with, who you've talked to, what you've read/listened to/viewed, who your relatives are, who you care about, what you care about, etc. (the etc. might be a little redundant at this point.)

I don't care what they need it for, whether to stop terrorists/crime/benefit fraud or whtever, on a personal level, that makes anyone who opposes me in any way, in any kind of dispute, whether because I'm fighting the building of houses on allotments, or the re-development of public land, or some bogus council activity, right up to fighting the government in court, a much greater threat than they have any right to be in a society that is not a police state.

That gives them the power to lean on me in ways that they could not, if they minded their own business, and got on with what they are supposed to be doing: representing my own and other common people's interests.

It gives them immense power over the populace that they are supposed to serve.

It isn't fully formed yet, but the Big brother Beast is growing in the womb; limbs and features, already visible.
Police State?
Maybe not today, but someday, soon, and perhaps for the rest of your life.

On a side note, two things: The US has banned the burning of crosses [in public at least] as constituting racial harassment (the term used was somewhat different, but I forget, just having heard it on the radio.) maybe the Nazi/Jew thing will be dealt with in the same manner, in the future.

And, Pharmboy, you said, "Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to."

I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and a pretty easy riposte, but...
...maybe they wouldn't have to rise up, if the US (and other developed, Northern Bloc countries) didn't enable, arm and support their butcherous leaders in the bloody first place!

Re:Ah, But...

[Pharmboy]

On a side note, two things: The US has banned the burning of crosses [in public at least] as constituting racial harassment (the term used was somewhat different, but I forget, just having heard it on the radio.) maybe the Nazi/Jew thing will be dealt with in the same manner, in the future.

Bullshit. The US did NOT ban it. It ruled in that form it wasn't protected speech. you can burn all the crosses you want in your yard, just not in someone elses. get your facts straight. this is also a STATE law. not all states have laws regarding crosses. this is FUD.

I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and a pretty easy riposte, but......maybe they wouldn't have to rise up, if the US (and other developed, Northern Bloc countries) didn't enable, arm and support their butcherous leaders in the bloody first place!

The EU has the most flagerant violations of UN regulations when it comes to arms, so get off your high horse. I agree that the US should not be providing arms to much anyone, but France, Germany, Russia, holy shit, they do it so illegally to support their economies. NO comparison. Either giving arms is wrong, but its a matter of degrees.

And yes, if they would stand up. Many Americans have died standing up for what they believed. From the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam Protests at Berkeley. Even in the face of overwhelming odds.

It isn't fully formed yet, but the Big brother Beast is growing in the womb; limbs and features, already visible. Police State? Maybe not today, but someday, soon, and perhaps for the rest of your life.

My god, you are paranoid. I live here and I am not nearly as worried as you. Once again, COMPARE the liberties here and anywhere. There are HUGE debates on this here. During every war, EVERY WAR before 1980, the US suspended either Habius Corpus, Press access, etc. Not since 1980. Right now, the US has more war time liberty than any other nation has ever enjoyed. PERIOD. Go study history. Even during war, our liberties outweight any other country. This is just paranoid FUD.

Let me tell you something, I have to work with the police most every day because of one of the businesses I own (a pawn shop, just own it, dont work there) and on any given day if a cop gives me a problem, I tell him to go to hell and get out of my shop. Can YOU do that in most of Europe? Yea right....

Re:Ah, But...

[Blue Stone]

"The EU has the most flagerant violations of UN regulations when it comes to arms, so get off your high horse."

What definition of Northern Bloc, are you using? It appears to be a different one to me, which includes all the Western Developed nations.
So, no high-horse from which to dismount.

And while I'm here, you might like to calm down and stop waving your flag quite so vigorously, before you do yourself an injury.

Oh, and go shove it up Rush Limbaugh's arse, while you're at it. ;)

Re:Ah, But...

[rmdyer]

The reason is simple. Because of the worlds population increase there are now more people in the world with the will to destroy than there ever were with the desire to create.

It's just simple arithmetic. For any given population there will be some proportion of citizens who, by nature (in the genes) will commit crime. In the past the population of the whole world was so low that you could actually live for time intervals N without crime. Increase the population and the value of N increases so that crimes will be committed in overlapping (parallel) N intervals.

The future can only grow worse. We've already surpassed a sustainable (good) lifestyle. Just prepare yourself for the resource wars.

Did my comment make you happy?

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Ah, But...

[Omestes]

Um... Yes, COMPARITIVELY we are more free (right now) than most of the world. There are three problems with this though. First is the mater of degrees... Yes, right now we are freer than China, or Soviet Russia used to be, but not as free as Swizerland or the Netherlands. That leaves a whole lot of room for oppression. It sounds as if your stating, 'as long as we're not at the maximum level of opression, we are okay.' This is flawed.

Just because we're not a FULL police state now, doesn't mean that they (not 'They' or 'Them', mind) are not working on it. Just because life in nice right now, does not mean that there is a promise that it can't go down hill, fast. Also, perhaps we're in a transition state, right now, the down slope of the great roller-coaster of police-statehood.]

Taking the 'compairitive' thing further: How are we compaired to pre-9/11 america? The mid '90's? The 70's? The 1840's? 1776? I would put us on par with the mid 50's, with McCarthy running around blabbering about Communist conspiracies. "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the international terrorist conspiracy? Eh, Mr. Muhammed ibn whatnot?" Seems like a dialogue that could happen now, and your average complacent american wouldn't bat an eye.

I'll admit it isn't bad, now. It will get worse. And hopefully it will pass away, like the grim memory of McCarthyism.

Though I am going to agree with several posters, ditch the unenlightened patriotism, America isn't perfect, America probably isn't even the best. And saying so is honest, and since when was honesty a sin?

Re:Ah, But...

[lastberserker]

During every war, EVERY WAR before 1980, the US suspended either Habius Corpus, Press access, etc. Not since 1980. Right now, the US has more war time liberty than any other nation has ever enjoyed. PERIOD. Go study history.

Um, what wars do you refer to exactly? IIRC the last war for USA was WWII.

Re:Ah, But...

[Pharmboy]

Yes, right now we are freer than China, or Soviet Russia used to be, but not as free as Swizerland or the Netherlands.

What is your basis for comparison? You can't own a handgun in the Netherlands for instance. Considering I have a "conceal to carry" legally in my state, I would say this is a major restriction on my liberty. Then again, in Switzerland, assault rifles are issued to all adult males.

What I do NOT get is why all of you keep saying that we have less liberty now than 20 years ago, or 50 years ago. You are simply NOT doing your homework. It is WRONG, UNINFORMED AND FUD.

The degree of freedom enjoyed in America today is so much more than it was 50 years ago, there is NO comparison. Ask any African-American. Plenty of problems left, but no comparison to Pre Rosa Parks. Ask the Japanese who were put in Internment Camps if there is less freedom now. Ask the people who were shot at Berkeley for protesting Vietnam if there is less liberty now. Ask the people of Little Rock, who had Guard troops force busing.

Ask Rodney King, whose sorry case help set new standards for rights. You think your Miranda rights existed since 1776? They didn't exist before 1966. Since 1968 (Terry vs Ohio) officers can stop and search you walking down the street, only if their suspicions can be articulated and are reasonable. This was less restricted before. I could go on and on and on. Yes: There are problems. Yes: Its the best its ever been.

Its simply bullshit. With all the problems we have with liberty, it is STILL better than it ever has been. We are not done yet, but you have to be smart enough to realize we are making progress, and quit having this "usa sucks" attitude if you expect to make it better. When you say we have less liberty now, you give yourself ZERO credibility, because it is simply NOT TRUE.

Go read a history book. All of you. Then we can all go protest the Patriot Act, intellegently.

Re:Ah, But...

[Omestes]

Ask all of the arab-americans stuck in prison right now, for no real reason. Not to jump off of the PC-bandwagon here, but when I talk of freedom I'm not talking about EQUALITY, I don't quite view them on an equal level. Equality is all nice and fine, in concept, but does not equal freedom. It just means that you have the right to be screwed as much as the next man. Great. We got rid of interment camps, now we just have universal survalience[sic] instead. Now we don't even want the public to talk about those "damn arabs" that we keep locked away. Put away in the dead of night, without probable cause, representation, or even visibility (to family/society as a whole). I'm sorry, but the possibility of 'gettin' disapeared' means that there is a police state.

Re:Ah, But...

[divinus23]

Ask the Japanese who were put in Internment Camps if there is less freedom now. Ask the Arabs whom -are- in internment camps right now. Better yet, ask the 100% of foreign born Moslems who were required to submit a whole survey of personal information or be jailed. (Still waiting for the golden moons on the clothes requirement) Ask the people who were shot at Berkeley for protesting Vietnam if there is less liberty now. Well, now they just get handcuffed, pepper sprayed on the ground, beaten, trampled by horses.... and then arrested for assembling peacefully because there are too many people protesting. Ask Rodney King, whose sorry case help set new standards for rights. Oh good thing. I thought the police still beat innocent people. Oh wait. They are!

Re:Ah, But...

[Pharmboy]

More fud. I was going to write a full explanation, but its obvious your goal is to simply bash. If this is the best you can do, and this is your best arguement, give up. You have only served to prove my point.

BTW, if a protestor is VIOLATING the law, I say yes, drag his ass to the ground and pepper him. Smack him once for me. You have the right to protest, you don't have the right to break the law. If you don't get that, I would love to pay for a one way ticket so you can go protest in Egypt, or Syria, or Iran.

Re:Ah, But...

[divinus23]

(sorry for the formatting of my last reply, btw).

As for legality. If protestors break the law, then arrest them. If they resist or fight the police, then sure, use of force is okay.

I'm not talking about those situations though.

I'm talking about situations where protestors gather peacefully, are 'ordered' to move, and when they start walking, they're shot in the backs at point blank range by wooden blocks, metal shot bean bags, and concussion grenades.

In no municipality in the entirety of the US is it legal to use deadly force against peaceful, unarmed suspects for noncompliance of police order. In most municipalities, in fact, it is illegal for an officer to even brandish weapons of deadly force in the same situation.

(and yeah, it does still happen. Happened in Oakland earlier this week. article here, good video actually showing the people peacefully walking away, and the police marching in pursuit shooting them here)

And pepper spray and mace? Its like were using chemical weapons on our own people! People get invaded for that kinda thing.

Homeland security

[Anonymous Coward]

USA 2003

Homeland security ....

Illegal Invasion of Irak ...

Hate french

Nazi

Homeland Security ...

Illegal Invasion of Polland

hate french ...

Lesbian Porn; movies mostly. FREE as in BEER! !DIX

[Anonymous Coward]

Click here, it's faster.
Don't forget this URL. It's the best one I got and is my "secret stash", if you know what I mean.

Anyone want to thank me? C'mon, let me know this post is useful!

watchotalkinboutwillis?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude that's baloney. Where did you get this? The romans (and other ancients I'm sure) regularly took prisoners and enslaved them. In the middle ages & later prisoners were often held for ransom. The union & confederates occassionally took large numbers of prisoners - look up andersonville.

Real problem, clueless article

[Animats]

That's a lousy article.

The real problem is the development of technologies that allow a small number of people to kill a large number of people. There are a few such technologies now, all involving radioactives, chemicals, or biologicals. Computers aren't an issue. Biology might be, as techniques improve.

Any new technology that seems dangerous has to be compared aginst existing dangerous technologies. Cars, for example. Technologies with weapons implications have to be compared against what soldiers carry around now. On that scale, things don't look too bad.

Correct link...

[ievans]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/03/20/wo rld19/

Of course, correct for lameness filter.

Sure Communism is Technology

[rhfrommn]

And once you get it, you are allowed to build the UN for 600 shields.

And your troops outside cities no longer make citizens unhappy. What a deal!

Diversify

[Sloppy]

I think that even some of the nastiest scenarios are survivable.

For all the paranoia about stuff like SARS, I don't think Antarctic researchers or some guy who lives in a shack in Montana is going to catch it.

Flesh eating nanobots? You darn well know there's going to be plenty of pockets of people who will microwave to death, any nanobots that get within 50 meters of them. Maybe they're nuts for not trusting the tech, just as they still don't want flouridation in their water. But long after the nanobot plague has ravaged the rest of humanity, they will still be around and they'll grin toothlessly at the thought that some guy said they were doomed. Their precious bodily fluids will remain pure.

And it's not just a luddite thing. Even if the nanobots eat Joe Schmoe's flesh, they won't get Jane Schmoe, because her transhumanist polymer flesh isn't even compatable with the nanobots. Her defense isn't so much out of deliberate design, but just due to having different weaknesses.

A lot of people didn't catch ILOVEYOU because they weren't dumb enough to run a program that treats data as code. But a lot of people didn't catch Code Red, not because their web server was somehow immune to buffer overflows, but because their web server was just different.

Ebola schmebola. How are people going to catch Ebola from their cow-orkers if they never even meet except over a video-phone? How is my phone going to catch your phone virus if it exploits a mere implementation detail? You think we'll all have the same stuff or be in the same places or do the same things? "One world, one web, one program?" That'll be the day! We don't all want the same things! You might get a lot of us but you'll never get us all.

Diversify, spread out, and compartmentalize. Take that to the extreme, and you can even survive Death Stars.

Re:Diversify

[christalyss]

I think that even some of the nastiest scenarios are survivable.

Two points:

1) Death of the planetary ecosystem is not survivable. Not in any meaningful way, at least.

2) So, what, we just kill off 98% of people, and that won't be so bad? I mean, sure, it'll probably be better for the planet in the long run, but I for one don't want to take on that kind of karma. I think Mother Nature will get around to slaughtering us off en masse eventually (all population graphs look the same), but I think the psychic damage done to the species if we do it to ourselves would be pretty nasty.

Re:Diversify

[Eustace Tilley]

So, what, we just kill off 98% of people, and that won't be so bad?

Sounds awful, but two percent of six billion is 120 million. Coincidentally, that figure is the same as Gibbon's estimate for the population of the Roman Empire and more than the population of Europe at the time Gibbon wrote.

Not to stray too far off topics...

[voodoo1man]

but I've been wondering for a few months now, is Sheldon Pacotti (the author of the article) a Scientologist? I've noticed that in several interviews (and in a couple of 'about the writer' sidelines) it's been mentioned that his novel, Demiurge, received a place in some sort of L. Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future Contest.

Re:Not to stray too far off topics...

[knobmaker]

I don't know if he's a Scientologist, but the Writers of the Future contest is open to all, so he's probably not. I published a story in the WotF anthology many years ago, when it was just starting out. The main criteria for entering the contest is that you haven't had much sf published-- it's designed to discover new talent...

Re:Not to stray too far off topics...

[ymgve]

From a much too short research with Google, I've concluded that he, as many others, is just a participant in the contest, and that he personally doesn't have any ties to Scientology. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

In Communist China...

[pizzaman100]

The Search Engine finds you!

funny

[thornad]

Why are technologies developed ?
To make money. To maintain or get power.
Rarely to actually benefit the human race.
We could have lived happily without 99% of the things that we own and that are basically conveninece.

Has anyone seen the Akira Kurasawa's 'Dreams' ?
We could also have lived without most of the wars.

People would be so much happy if they lived modestly, in peace and harmony with nature.

Technology is supposed to make our lives easier. Does it?
Using computers never saved anyone time for him/herself. It only increased the company's productivity. They had to work the same amount of hours , but now do more stuff. Actually it made the workload heavier.

In the perfect future that I see, humans live in harmony with nature, consuming (and demanding) less, using clean technologies, respecting themselves and their fellows.

The way things are going today is a result of loosing touch with our higher nature and giving in to greed, power hunger, competition.

MODERATION for god's sake, is what we need. Stop being hungry for money! Try to see the big picture. Stop being a robot. Think, feel, outside your pitty self.

Proud to be American

[Tony]

I'm proud to be an American, but I despise the US government. Our current President is a snivelling coward (Daddy helped him stay out of Vietnam) who is willing to put our best and brightest in harm's way, but at the same time is cutting their VA benefits. That's respecting our troops! Ha-ha!

<rant>

The US has contributed to attrocities throughout the world that make Saddam Hussein and his ilk seem like schoolyard bullies by comparison, from the oil-industry-sponsored genocide in East Timor and Nigeria, to the drug-related coups in Central America that overthrew democratically-elected governments and replaced them with military dictator regimes.

My country is filled to overflowing with hypocricy, lies, greed, and callous disregard for the rest of the world; and that is just our President. In a time when a group of companies can sue an individual for $78,000,000 with a straight face; in a country where killing gets you 10 years in prison, but cracking into a corporate machine gets you 20, and a $100,000 fine; with a government in which a convicted felon who perjured himself before congress is now organizing the government's "Total Information Awareness" project (which is a fine name for spying on its own citizens); in this, I am ashamed.

I live in a country where we invade another in an unprovoked act of agression, killing thousands of their citizens, just to do the dual job of distracting us from the failed "war on terror," and to allow the Vice President the chance to reward his previous employer (Halliburton) with some tasty contracts to rebuild Iraq... contracts which have been moved into the purvue of the DoD and classified as "Secret!"

We are getting fucked in the ass with a 50mm wire brush, and you are fucking proud?!?!?! "Give it to me, Mr. President! More! I just love the fucking humiliation and pain! More!"

The reason we aren't just swarming with military is, they don't need it to control us. We're willing to walk to the fucking slaughterhouse, and say, "I'm proud to be an American." We're willing to stand idly by as the US PATRIOT act encourages us to narc out our neighbors, who are guilty of nothing more than honoring a God different from the state-accepted God. We're willing to allow our government to push surveilence devices up our rectums (or at least into our TVs... isn't that ironic?) using the DMCA and the new "Super DMCAs" that will outlaw cryptographic data streams (such as VPN).

I too am proud to be an American. We were once the greatest nation in the world, leading in technology and freedom and honor. But then the damned 1900s hit us, and it's been downhill ever since.
</rant>

Feh, I say. Feh.

Re:Proud to be American

[Anonymous Coward]

We are getting fucked in the ass with a 50mm wire brush, and you are fucking proud?!?!?! "Give it to me, Mr. President! More! I just love the fucking humiliation and pain! More!"

I like you, Tony! Even if I do have to turn you in for seditious acts against our beloved government.

Though I must ask (before you're incarcerated as an "enemy combatant"), what is it that makes you proud to be American? An accident of birth should not impart pride, as some people seem to think (the morons that spout, "America: love it or leave it!") Perhaps it was the indoctrination program (schools) that you went through.

I too am proud to be an American. We were once the greatest nation in the world, leading in technology and freedom and honor. But then the damned 1900s hit us, and it's been downhill ever since.

Well, don't forget that the very foundation of our country is built upon the ethnic cleansing of the indiginous people, whom we call, "Native Americans." Not to mention slavery. And plenty of institutionalized racism against immigrants. Not much honor in that, either.

No, I think you love America for the same reason that I do: Fear. I do not want to be "disappeared" by my government anytime soon. I LOVE President Bush, may his rule be eternal!

you mean:

[joshki]

Dystopia, right?

Re:you mean:

[mandrake*rpgdx]

from the back of the penguin classics edition of 1984:

"Written in 1948, 1984 was George Orwell's chilling prophecy about the future. And while 1984 has come and gone, Orwell's narrative is more timely that ever. 1984 presents a "negative utopia," that is at once a startling and haunting vision of the world-"

from:
http://www.penguinputnam.com/Book/BookFrame/0,1007 ,,00.html?id=0452262933

So the word negative utopia? See the lack of the term dystopia? Common vernacular has changed the meaning of dystopia, but that's just because ignorant fools speak before they research, and propagate mis-usage of terms and concepts.

Re:BAGHDAD (NEARLY) DOWN, PARIS ON DECK

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with death penalty, there are more criminals alive in US than in the rest of the world. Wouldn't be a logical conclusion for everyone except US citizens and gov. that the 2nd Amendment is the cause of that situation ?

thoguht 1

[Anonymous Coward]

placing us in cattle herds (as with no more mass eduaction) is a terrible idea. the dark age happened as a result of the roman empire falling (most citizens were educated in this government), we've screwed ourselves into a hole history will repeat itself. our crappy education system is better than nothing.

Re:BAGHDAD (NEARLY) DOWN, PARIS ON DECK

[SealBeater]

Not if you consider that the majority of people in prison have been jailed for
non-violent crimes, such as simple drug offenses.

SealBeater

Malls are full of them

[Anonymous Coward]

Malls are full of detectors, but they're there so that you don't walk off with the merchandise.

Nukes?

[christalyss]

So, what technology protects us from nukes, exactly?

Re:Nukes?

[OpenSourced]

So, what technology protects us from nukes, exactly?

Good point. Yes, my argument is a little bit lame, in that sense. But the fact remains that nukes are complex devices, difficult to manufacture by one individual. One could argue that when you could set up a nuke in your backyard, some ways could be available to control the explosions. It's the point of the article that technology with great destruction potential is soon to be accesible to little-prepared individuals. I think that's overblown. Of course one could imagine some technology that exploded like a nuke but could be easily manufactured with common soap. It could happen, but I think it's rather unlikely. And then the decission should be made of what to do with that info. But in the meantime, technologies with great destruction potential are complex, and complexity needs a big infrastructure. When the technology becomes simple enough for fools use, then its potential is not so big. Or at least less than the potential dangers of restricting information flow. That's what I think.

Re:Nukes?

[OpenSourced]

Let's put it this way: When you as a poor lone terrorist have the power of easily doing something in your backyard, the goverment with much more structure, people and money can always do the "next-level-of-complexity" thing, that usually (although that is of course not guaranteed) can provide protection from what you can do.

Re:Nukes?

[christalyss]

It could happen, but I think it's rather unlikely.

So what odds would you give, eh? Good enough to gamble the existence of the entire species on?

"You wanna roll those dice, Casper?"--Buccaroo Banzai

Re:Nukes?

[christalyss]

(although that is of course not guaranteed)

It is this small margin of error upon which you are apparently willing to bet the life of the entire planet. Some attacks are much harder to defend against than to launch.

Furthermore, how will all that structure, people, and money protect us from itself? It is clearly just this which is the greatest threat to the survival of the planet, through the rampant expansion of the structure.

Nice to see somebody with faith in positive outcomes, of course, and I mean no disrespect, but I think you are being dangerously naive.

Sanctions against Iraq, others

[John Bayko]

The sanctions were only working if your goal was to opress the people of Iraq.

The sanctions were horribly misused in the case of Iraq. In fact, this is one of the complaints Iraq had involving the weapons inspectors, that led to the U.S asking the U.N to withdraw them.

In general, sanctions should never be maintained for more than three years - by that time, a government can adapt by taking what they need from their people, and it's the people that suffer. Sanctions should be tied to specific actions by the government, and ideally rewards should be included for compliance. Sanctions can be decreased and then increased again if necessary, but not kept constant.

This was how the Clinton administration dealt with North Korea to end its nuclear program and allow inspectors in to ensure that it was complying. In exchange for that, the U.S government promised a harmless U.S designed nuclear reactor for power (Korea has uranium deposits that would allow it to reduce its dependence on oil imports), and to provide food aid. Also there was an informal promise of non-agression.

The Clinton administration stumbled by dragging its feet on fulfilling the nuclear reactor promise, but imagine Kim Jong Il's surprise when he woke up one morning and hearing G.W Bush placing Korea off the "non agression" list and on the "Axis of Evil" list and announcing U.S intention to basically conquer the world in a State of the Union address. However you say "what the fuck?" in Korean, I'm sure he was thinking it - a crash nuclear and missile program being pretty much the only defense, it's only reasonable he would start on that. North Korea's number one demand has simply to get the current U.S administration to promise not to invade them (the mad harsh rhetoric has been mainly to just get the U.S attention - so far, they won't even talk to North Korea).

Back to Iraq - the inspectors had estimated that they were about 80% done their inspections, and nobody really believed Iraq had usable weapons of mass destruction available. Iraq complained that the sanctions were hurting the country and the people, and said it's not fair that the inspections are 80% complete, but the sanctions are still 100% in place - they should be reduced to acknowledge Iraq's compliance, otherwhise why should they bother to continue to cooperate?

Note this "compliance" is relative - by democratic standards it was like pulling teeth, but by standards of most dictatorships, it was pretty good. However, when the U.N refused to consider easing the sanctions, Iraq started cooperating with the inspectors less (they had other complaints, such as accusing one who worked for the CIA as being a spy working for the CIA - go figure), to the point where the U.S warned the U.N to withdraw the inspectors (they were not kicked out) so they could get a clear shot at some of the sites they were looking at.

So, sanctions against Iraq lasted long enough for the government to adapt, they killed thousands of innocent civilians (probably more than the Iraqi government ever did), and Iraq wasn't given any incentive to continue cooperating since it looked to them like both the inspections and sanctions were going to be continued forever no matter what they did.

Iraq is not the cruelest or most beligerant country in the world. There are three main types of dictatorship - Stalinist, ideological, and personal. Personal dictators are only in it for their own wealth and power, like Idi Ami, Manuel Noriega, or Duvalier. Ideological dictatorships want to impose a morality on a population, like the Taliban or Khmer Rouge. Stalinist dictatorships are primarily about country building, and they are very efficient at it, but tend to decay when it comes to maintaining that industrialized standard (historical note - the Baath party traces its roots to Germany's Nazi party). Iraq had a relatively high standard of living for the Middle East, before the sanctions, and relative equality - in the sense, if you supported the governmen

Re:BAGHDAD (NEARLY) DOWN, PARIS ON DECK

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with death penalty, there are more criminals alive in US than in the rest of the world.

First, the DP only apples to murder.

Second, we don't HAVE a Death Penalty. We have a Maybe-if-you-commit-a-bad-enough-crime-and-your-st ate-has-a-death-penalty-and-the-prosecutor-wants-t o-push-for-it-and-the-jury-goes-for-it-and-if-you- don't-get-made-a-celebrity-by-the-anti-Death-Penal ty-crowd-and-if-your-sentance-isn't-reduced-on-one -of-the-numerous-automatic-appeals-and-if-the-gove nor-doesn't-grant-you-clemency-THEN-you might-just-be-put-to-death penalty.

That's Not a death panalty.

Judge: "John Jones, you have been found guilty of Murder. You sentance is death. Guards: Take him out back and shoot him." ::BAM!::

THAT'S a death penalty!

Paradigm shift

[christalyss]

I don't like everything in the Patriot act either but to say that it constitutes a strong trend towards an Orwellian 1984 is not very well grounded in history.

What is interesting about this is not whether our societies are getting more or less totalitarian. Tyrants have been around for a long time (at least 10000 years).

What is more interesting is the growing perception that the society is becoming more totalitarian. This is part of a global paradigm shift of unprecidented proportions and speed.

To give an example which has been much discussed, the war in Vietnam was going on for years before there was significant protest. With this war, protest started before it even began.

I am not interested in arguing about whether the protest is right. What is interesting about it is its magnitude and scale, which is historically unprecidented. Whether or not the political situation is actually getting worse, the fact is that people have an expectation that it get better. They expect our society to conform more to ideals of peace and freedom. When it does not, they react with outrage. Witness all the ranting about 1984 on slashdot, for example.

What this means is that the expectation of peace and freedom is increasing very rapidly. This is part of a much deeper paradigm shift, which is questioning deep, underlying values of our culture which haven't been seriously questioned since the time of Jesus. The idea that it is right for Man to conquor and rule the world by force is being questioned, by many people.

In my view, this paradigm shift is the only hope for our species. As the article points out, distructive tech is advancing rapidly, and poses new and even greater dangers of extinction of the species (which has already been a serious threat for some time). If we continue with our old paradigm, if we continue unchecked expansion and destruction, we probably won't last long.

But the tide is turning. A new paradigm is emerging. You can mock it if you like (and many of the die-hards of the old paradigm do), but it is spreading like wildfire, and there is a chance, just a slim chance, that we might be able to pull back from the precipice before it is too late.

a little late

[emkman]

One of the writers for the exceptionally good action RPG Deus Ex

April fools was about a week ago buddy

All tech is dangerous

[christalyss]

There is not any such thing as technology that is inherently Dangerous.

Actually, I would argue that all technology is inherently dangerous. Technology is power, and power is dangerous.

This doesn't mean that all tech is bad (in my view) but it does raise some serious questions about the wisdom of advancing technology to the point that we have done, and are about to do. Increasingly advanced technology is increasingly dangerous. How much risk are you willing to tolerate? Isn't being on the brink of nuclear holocaust for 50 years enough for all you adreneline junkies, or do you just have to push it one step further?

I like tech. But its development needs to be tempered with wisdom, which is not happening. This is why tech is threatening us with extinction.

Tech is also addictive. Once you let the djinn out of the bottle, it's hard to get it back in. How many of you would uninvent nukes, if you had the chance? Sorry, Charley, too late for that one.

Hand Washing

[Inexile2002]

The handwashing thing is good advice all the time. As for cockroaches, I've lived in Canada for almost my whole life and have never seen one (trips to Mexico and the Caribbean notwithstanding). The cockroach theory is one of the theories to explain the apartment block in Hong Kong cases. Others include possible spread through water systems, sewage and physical contact with the elevator buttons.

Not to say that SARS isn't scary, there are two people I work with in voluntary quaranteen right now but the evidence is that this is not significant threat to most people. (Hope I'm right.)

Re:Stronger Responsibility/Power Correlation Neede

[christalyss]

I'd much rather we at least implement better measures to given and take power from individuals based on their demonstrated level of responsibility.

Who decides?

Re:BAGHDAD (NEARLY) DOWN, PARIS ON DECK

[Grawak]

Maybe we should consider the murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants in year 2000:
USA: 5.5,
France: 1.75
Most European countries: below 2.

If you compare with violent crimes only:
USA: 506 (inc. murders 1.08%)
France: 237 (inc. murders 0.74%)

The article says 702 incarcerations per 100,000 of population, that's very close to 506 violent crimes but who knows how many crimes an individual commits.

Litmus test for "police state"

[AvantLegion]

If you discuss whether the state you're in is a police state, and you're not hauled away for talking about it, it's not.

Re:Litmus test for "police state"

[Pharmboy]

If you discuss whether the state you're in is a police state, and you're not hauled away for talking about it, it's not.

Very well put. So many spoiled Americans think they have it so bad, and simply have no clue as to the validity of this statement.

It's scarey

[Absolutionfse]

After 9/11 Americans seem to be content to let all their privacy go out the window for national security. All these new databases, laws, and surveillance technologies would scare me if I were an American. Unfortunately, the majority seems to be content with it: "it's the price we pay for security". Slippery slope my friends.

If you want a REAL impending doom...

[irritating environme]

Try the environmental threats that six billion people pose to our long-term welfare. From ozone depletion, freshwater pollution, global warming, species depletion, unchecked development, these are far more tangible than out-of-control grey goo.

Bill Joy gets to look smart and visionary talking about science fiction fantasies that we read and play, but the real dangers to humanity are the good ol ones that people have been harping about for years.

Re:If you want a REAL impending doom...

[prestidigital]

I sort of agree, but take slightly different angle. Frankly, to me, any assertion that we are our own biggest threat seems false. Mother Nature *itself* is WAAAY more threatening. Sure, we can (and do) wreak a lot of havoc in our environment. I don't want to downplay the importance of that, nor belittle the importance and significance of responding to "new" threats like terrorism. Terrorist access to nuclear weapons would definitely up the ante in terms of scale of threat, but historically? Holistically? Seems to me that weather, natural disasters, disease, and famine are all more threatening and on a much bigger scale.

The author's web site

[skimmer]

Author's web site.

He has a bunch of his fiction online.

Because Totalitarianism is Seductive

[goliard]

Here's a question that I'm mulling over as a result of reading the synopsis of this article. With all the literary and cinematic works that have been made which deal with a Big Brother-like state [for lack of a shorter term], why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works? It seems like no matter how embedded in our culture the idea that certain traits of governments are bad and that we must rally against them, these traits continue to crop up. Consider this, has the U.S. become more or less like the vision of 1984 since publication?

I have been thinking about that quite a bit, lately, in part because I am reading Social Justice in Islam by Qutb (see this Salon article for why).

It seems to me the answer -- and a very overlooked and under-appreciated answer it is -- is that totalitarianism is massively seductive, even to the average man on the street.

Those of us who self-conceive as outsiders -- whether because of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, eccentricity, etc. -- we look to conformism as an obvious threat. But to people who self-conceive as "normal", who take identity and comfort from their "averageness", who enjoy majority privilege and a sense of entitlement, conformity looks comforting and comfortable.

Totalitarianism is, really, the ultimate dream of conformity -- state imposed, pushishable-by-death conformity. That idea has considerable appeal to people who consider themselves safely within the mainstream. Not only is it not any skin off their nose if a few statistical outliers get trampled, they see it as a relief -- whether emotional or finanacial.

Totalitarianism is inevitably sold as a panacea. Totalitarian movements sell themselves by presenting a vision of how, if everyone just co-operated, transcended their differences, were willing to submit themselves to a little bit of hardship and sacrifice, they could improve the Commonweath -- to build heaven on earth. If we all just pulled together, we could feed all the hungry, eliminate crime, cure disease, and be ensured a pleasant afterlife appropriate deity.

That's a seductive vision. It's even more seductive to people who have an unconsidered conviction that they, being good, loyal citizens doing their part for the the common good, would not be the people who would have to make significant sacrifices. Indeed someone who thinks they are an "average guy" looks at those people who object to going along with the totalitarian regime and resents bitterly that he is going to be deprived of the good life by some weirdo going on about a right to privacy.

Wait a second!

[Fatal0E]

Is there anyone around that can speak towards what that other huge-fucking-democracy called India is doing to keep their citizens safe?

I'm not asking for 10 pages of current affairs but I'm sure a lot of the same threats are on their minds. So what are they thinking?

Humanity vs Nature

[Cybrex]

Actually, I think Sloppy's probably right.

1) Taking Sloppy's scenario literally, the destruction of an entire planet in the Star Wars universe is a terrible thing, but nowhere close to the extinction of all life. By the time the technology for a Death Star (or equivalent WMD) arises, we will most likely have spread beyond a single planet.

Addressing your interpretation of point one the point remains roughly the same. Planetary ecosystems are durable, flexible things. Sudden changes may throw them off kilter temporarily (with a not insignificant level of suckage, but ANY survival is meaningful, as it means a chance for an improved future), but soon enough a new equilibrium point is reached. The end result may not closely resemble the original, but it is still (generally) a viable ecosystem, and as time passes and the indiginous organisms continue to adapt to the new conditions it may very well flourish beyond it's pre-cataclysm state. It would take an awful lot to totally kill an entire planetary ecosystem. No single cause short of a massive asteroid impact or (possibly) an all-out thermonuclear war would stand a significant chance of wiping out even the entire human race, let alone all life.

2) As I indicated above, wiping out a significant percentage of the human race would suck beyond the telling of it, but in the grand scheme of things even such a disaster would be overcome in time. The difference between wiping out 98% of the human race and wiping out 100% of it isn't 2%, it's infinite! (Particularly for the 2%!) A miniscule survival rate means that there ARE survivors, and humans have a knack for adapting to adversity and replenishing their numbers.

To that end, if Mother Nature *IS* going to wipe us all out she'd better hurry. If you look back at human history, it is the story of nature having an ever-decreasing control over the lives and deaths of mankind. Back when our entire species lived in sub-Saharan Africa a single plague, contaminated food supply, or major climate change could've easily wiped us all out. No longer.

ET's aside, Nature's (if I may anthropomorphize) last opportunity to exterminate our species via a stronger competitor died out with the Neanderthals. Her last real opportunity to wipe us all out via a single disease ended with the Black Plague. Nature blew both opportunities, and our species grew smarter, more diverse, and more numerous to the point where neither scenario presents a realistic threat of total extinction anymore. Our annihilation is slipping out of "her" grasp. At this point, for Nature to do us all in would require that she escalate to a major meteor strike or worse, and it's only a matter of time before we spread to other planets, allowing us to dodge even that bullet.

The war for survival isn't over yet, and may very well never be, but we're doing a damn fine job so far.

-Cybrex

Re:Ah, Butt...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try opening your eyes next time your head is in Rush's arse, you might see something useful. Such as a way to get two modest links into your sig.

Dummy.

no sadly enough that's about it.

[mandrake*rpgdx]

She just thinks it's un-natural. It's the same reason why she doesn't like foods with preservitives in it. Which I find strange because how could something be un-natural in the first place?

Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II

[ddimas]

What the author is describing is exactly the same process that the late Roman Empire went through. The progressive disenfranchisment of the masses until the society had divided into a master class and a slave class (keep in mind that this is more than 100 years after slavery was made illegal throughout the Empire). Literacy rates plummeted (why educate a slave unlless you need them for clerical work). When the barbarians moved in they just replaced the master class, the slaves became serfs (no change in status) along with the old masters.

For the next thousand years the majority of people lived like and were treated like cattle.

yawn.

[mandrake*rpgdx]

from the back of the penguin classics edition of 1984:

"Written in 1948, 1984 was George Orwell's chilling prophecy about the future. And while 1984 has come and gone, Orwell's narrative is more timely that ever. 1984 presents a "negative utopia," that is at once a startling and haunting vision of the world-"

from:
http://www.penguinputnam.com/Book/BookFrame/0,1007 ,,00.html?id=0452262933

So the word negative utopia? See the lack of the term dystopia? Common vernacular has changed the meaning of dystopia, but that's just because ignorant fools speak before they research, and propagate mis-usage of terms and concepts.

Re:Stronger Responsibility/Power Correlation Neede

[4of12]

Who decides?

For any given individual, a good place to start would be to sample the judgements of everyone on the receiving end of actions by that individual.

The more of those acquaintances there are that judge you favorably and the greater their own level of assessed responsibility, then the greater would be the trust placed in you to wield power.

Given my experience, I'd be very skeptical of trying to incorporate self-assessments of responsibility (or of anything measure of character) into any judgement of "responsibility" that has effects on society at large.

It's a difficult problem to solve and I'm open to suggestions of better ways to distribute power, not only to ensure the viability of society, but even to make it thrive, providing greater benefit to its members.

information != capability

[soren.harward]

It doesn't seem to me that Pacotti understands that knowing how to do something dangerous and actually having the capability to do it are two vastly different situations. I know enough physics to know how to make a thermonuclear bomb. Given a month or so, I could probably put together the entire genetic sequence of the Ebola virus. I know how to fly an airplane well enough to get it to plow into the side of a skyscraper. Sarin, TNT, or C4 aren't too hard to make and they can do a lot of damage.

However, the capability to do any of these things is far beyond my reach. I don't have access to nuclear-grade plutonium, the equipment to assemble a genetic sequence from scratch costs several million dollars, and I don't stand much of a chance getting into the cockpit of a 747, much less getting control of it. The examples of dangerous information he gives are just software (DeCSS and viruses), which cost basically nothing to generate and reproduce. The examples of computer-based manufacturing he cites are funded by multi-million dollar organizations operating in the open and investing huge amounts of time and talent into their production. The two don't go together as easily as Pacotti makes them seem.

Instruments of mass destruction are quite another story. They require a lot funding, a lot of time, a lot of manpower, and a lot of expertise. The necessity of running the entire operation covertly just complicates matters by several orders of magnitude. Look at North Korea and Iraq: they have had the funding, the technology, and are operating only semi-covertly, and still the most pessimistic estimates put them reaching nuclear or biological weapons capability a few years off! Al Qaeda or any other independent terrorist organization certainly isn't ahead of them. Nanotechnology, which doesn't even exist in an sort of a usable fashion, certainly isn't a threat either.

Pacotti raises some good points about access to information, but I don't think the situation is as dire as he makes it out to be. Playing Deus Ex and writing sci-fi tends to make you a little paranoid like that.

Re:Stronger Responsibility/Power Correlation Neede

[christalyss]

I'm open to suggestions of better ways to distribute power

How about simply distributing it as widely as possible, in such a way that no one person or small group has overwhelming power? Of course, this requires a great reduction in the scale of our organizations, which I think would be a good idea for other reasons as well.

Many things hard to reverse.

[TheLink]

The "Nuke button" tends to appear a lot earlier before the "UnNuke button".

It is usually easier to destroy than to build and there's always the 2nd law of thermodynamics to contend with.

The writer makes a silly conclusion using the Morris worm: "The result of this open distribution of dangerous knowledge wasn't a meltdown of the Internet but improved security around the world. The Net got hit by an epidemic, some machines went down, but the system rebounded within days."

Doh. The system rebounded within days because the worm didn't wipe out system admins - it only affected computer systems.

If there were a designer anti-human virus, it'll affect health care workers too. Most hospitals won't cope. Quarantine would be the only way - sit and wait for the infected to die or recover.

Much of the developed world has become rather specialized, with many critical dependencies on specialist skills and many vulnerable points of failures. If too many specialists for something critical are dead/disabled, you are in trouble.

The human world would be in pretty bad shape if there appeared a new deadly contagious disease with a low symptom incubation time of 2-4 weeks.

Take things to the extreme: Give 6 billion people their own "Kill everybody button PERMANENTLY", at least one person would push it.

Humans have not reach a sufficient level of altruism to allow technology/powers to keep scaling safely.

Flawed arguments

[Infonaut]

You guys should work on your arguements.

I assume you mean "arguments."

Efficiency on the battlefield means one thing and one thing alone. How quickly can you get your enemy out of the fight? Deaths per bullet doesn't matter as long as you have an adequate supply of bullets. Your comparisons to bombs, traps, et. al. are unimportant because I explicitly was talking about bullet-launching weapons.

Deaths per energy expended is a novel creation, but you're way off there anyway. Sniper activities are primarily waiting and watching. A typical sniper team on an infiltration mission could spend as much as 24 to 48 hours just to get set up, then several hours before the shot is taken. Same thing with sniper ambushes. You wait and wait and wait, then get off a few shots and leave. Effective for certain purposes, but not overall the most efficient means of disposing of large numbers of enemy combatants.

Deaths per time spent training the user? Where'd you come up with that? Hand grenades vary widely in their use, depending on the terrain. While I'd agree that grenades are far more effective than machineguns in some situations, they're really only used at close range. Also, they're not really bullet-firing weapons, are they?

As for your comment about wounding versus killing, wounding the enemy removes a larger number of enemy soldiers than killing them does. Evacuation of wounded ties up other soldiers that would otherwise be in the fight. In a modern conflict, that's even more important, as the odds of a recovered combatant returning to the fight are minimized in a rapid conflict.

I agree with your statement about POWs before the machine gun era facing a high probability of extermination. I also agree that machine guns don't help you take POWs so much as guard them.

However your initial statement about the machine gun saving huge numbers still seems flawed to me, as it is offset by the huge effect it has had as a defensive and offensive (let's not forget the machineguns mounted on tanks, APCs, halftracks, aircraft - all very mobile) weapon of destruction.

Don't trust Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Bill Joy. None of them reliable. It's your call.

Guns != cause of criminals

[MasterShake]

Why on gods green earth does it follow "2nd amendment" == more criminals? What? "I've got a gun now, lets go shoot some people, rob a liquor store and set shit on fire!" NO! Thats idiotic reasoning *AT BEST* at worst criminal stupidity. To ascribe such a simple cause to the problem of crime... What if I said Austraila was settled by criminals (Early british penal colony), all crime in Austraila is because of its settlers. You'd think I was dumb, wouldn't you. Read before you post!!!! Abortion? I'm all for it, the world has too many idiots as it is!

Last Post!

[alpg]

These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After
unzipping, these files can be viewed in any text editor, including
all versions of Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer
-- From Micro$oft

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...