Slashdot Mirror


Wired Writer Imagines Google Island

theodp writes "The last thing Wired's Mat Honan remembered before awaking on the self-driving boat that dropped him on the island was sitting through a four-hour Google I/O keynote in Moscone Center and hearing Google CEO Larry Page promote a vision of a utopia where society could be free to innovate and experiment, unencumbered by government regulations or social norms. 'Welcome to Google Island,' a naked-save-for-a-pair-of-eyeglasses Larry Page tells Honan. 'As soon as you hit Google's territorial waters, you came under our jurisdiction, our terms of service. Our laws — or lack thereof — apply here. By boarding our self-driving boat you granted us the right to all feedback you provide during your journey. This includes the chemical composition of your sweat. Remember when I said at I/O that maybe we should set aside some small part of the world where people could experiment freely and examine the effects? I wasn't speaking theoretically. This place exists. We built it.'"

150 comments

  1. And of course Apple has to have their version by toygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    iLand

    1. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by marsu_k · · Score: 2

      I have mod points... but there's no "-1, Lame" option. Really, you have to put some effort into it.

    2. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... where instead of innovation, you're told how you can dress and what you are allowed to do. If you manage to make any money, Apple get's 30%. Of course, everyone dresses very nicely.

    3. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      ... you're told how you can dress and what you are allowed to do. If you manage to make any money, Apple gets 30%...

      Doesn't this describe Microsoft?

    4. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As of Windows 8, yes. Guess who made it palatable.

    5. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd mod this up.

    6. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I hate M$ as much as the rest. but when did they start taking 30% of anything you do?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Dupple · · Score: 3, Informative

      You could take a look here

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Store

      it does drop to 20% after a certain point

      --
      Watch those corners
    8. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      but are there other options to load apps on your windows 8 machine/tablet?

      Last I checked you could still load apps onto it without going through the app store, where you cant do that with apple.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Macrat · · Score: 1

      I hate M$ as much as the rest. but when did they start taking 30% of anything you do?

      Yup. All that credit card processing, servers, electricity, internet connection, etc. you should get for free I guess.

    10. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      what does any of that have to do with anything?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Not under 'Metro'. That's why they're pushing it so hard.

    12. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Why should you be limited to software bought from them? It's not the 30% I have a problem with.

    13. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      metro != windows

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Not yet.

    15. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you arent (unless you run IOS) any other OS you can run apps made by others (even if that is not the method they prefer, at least you have a choice)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    16. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metro != Windows... not yet. Metro != Linux ... not yet. Metro != a murdering drone that kills people who speak badly of MS... not yet. This game is fun, blaming something for things it hasn't done yet.

    17. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by fatalwall · · Score: 1

      Metro apps can only be installed from the store last i checked. They have made it inconvenient for non savvy users to use anything but metro and they get very confused and upset when using metro because they have a hard enough time setting the time on a vcr.

    18. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that may be true using the metro interface, however you can still access apps without going through metro. but with IOS you have to get apps through IOS. BIG difference/.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    19. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No, you are not clever.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get's

      Moron.

    21. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by c0lo · · Score: 1

      This game is fun, blaming something for things it hasn't done yet.

      No, you are not clever... not yet

      FTFY (why.. wadda yea know?!? surprise-surprise: it's fun indeed!)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    22. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      IOS != macos

      Both apple and MS now have smartphone and locked down arm based tablet platforms where they force people into app stores from which they take a substantial cut. Both apple and MS still have traditional desktop/laptop (and in MS's case bulky x86 based tablet) platforms where for the moment they still let you install apps in the traditional way. However even on those platforms afaict they limit some features of the platform to store apps only.

      The difference is of course that with apple nowadays the desktops/laptops are a sideline and the phones/locked down arm based tablets are the main thrust of the buisness. With MS the OS for phones/locked down arm based tablets is a sideline and the desktop/laptop OS is the main thrust of the buisness.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    23. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which part of "Apple product" did you not understand?

    24. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing you fucks cry about innovation but I have yet to see one of you define innovation with a tangible example. This abstract concept that you guys keep moaning on about doesn't mean shit to me anymore. You use it as a talking point to shit on companies that you don't like while claiming companies that you do like are steeped in the trait.
       
      It's the tech fanboy version of hipster psychobabble.

    25. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However even on those platforms afaict they limit some features of the platform to store apps only.
       
      Care to back this up? I think you're talking shit just to talk shit.

    26. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by petermgreen · · Score: 1
      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    27. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      iLand

      As head patent attorney for Apple Inc. I must tell you that you will have to take down that post or face prosecution for monetary compensation.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    28. Re:And of course Apple has to have their version by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      by petermgreen (876956) Alter Relationship on Sunday May 19, 2013 @07:11AM (#43767707) Homepage

      The difference is of course that with apple nowadays the desktops/laptops are a sideline and the phones/locked down arm based tablets are the main thrust of the buisness. With MS the OS for phones/locked down arm based tablets is a sideline and the desktop/laptop OS is the main thrust of the buisness.

      http://www.osnews.com/story/25547/Apple_Restricts_Certain_APIs_to_Mac_App_Store_Applications
      http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/29/windows-store-metro-mode-no-sideloading-psa/

      Apple is focusing less on OS X for a simple reason - it's not bringing home the cash. It's still raking in more money than iTunes (which rakes in a lot, but since it's run merely as a complementary business...), but iOS devices are making a pile of money for Apple. And business dictates that you should invest in things that are making money now, and less in those that made money in the past (the future IS a post-PC world - most PCs are "good enough" for the vast majority of people), and tons in stuff that will bring in future profits (whatever that might be).

      As for restricting APIs - yes, because it makes sense to. iCloud allows for persistent storage of data. Mac App Store apps are sandboxed. Let's say you have a malware infection - if it infects a MAS app, it's sandboxed so damage is contained. EXCEPT, well, there's iCloud, and it may hop onto there. You delete the app, install it on another Mac. Boom, that app is again reinfected when it scans iCloud.

      Should iCloud be allowed on non-MAS apps, then it will need to be enforced on sandboxed apps to prevent whole-system infections that persist across reinstalls. Think about it - app gets infected and spreads the infecting document via iCloud. You reinstall the OS. Reinstall the app, and it scans iCloud and boom, infected again.

      Sure, Apple could virus-scan it all, but what to make of virus documents? They may be legit documents that users want, and it may be impossible to remove without damaging it.

      So for security, it's best to contain the infection to whatever little damage it can do.

      Hell, it's a surprise no Windows malware has thought to use Dropbox or other service to persist itself across reinstalls.

  2. imagine all the people by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    blah...blah

  3. Hervé Villechaize by puddingebola · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Hervé Villechaize used to say ze Plane ze Plane. Maybe its ze Pain ze Pain of losing any rights to privacy. So is this Fantasy Island or not?

    1. Re:Hervé Villechaize by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hervé Villechaize used to say ze Plane ze Plane.

      I was thinking more of a hideously obese Marlon Brando chatting it up with Elvis over clam boats, while Google Mutants shamble around servicing them.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  4. wealth wearing off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "unencumbered by government regulations or social norms"

    So he means rich guys would not be wealthy anymore because no value for real life money?

    1. Re:wealth wearing off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and/or I'll hack their bank account and take it. If they try to stop my I'll kick their ass.

      What's to stop me?

    2. Re:wealth wearing off by tmosley · · Score: 0

      No government doesn't mean no rules. If it did, cruises would never make it back from international waters, because everyone would have raped each other to death.

    3. Re:wealth wearing off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but I would imagine that cruises are covered by Maritime Law (several hits on google, I'm sure you can find them too.) and the contract you signed before you departed that said you're subject to the laws of one or more countries for the duration of the cruise.

      But the premise of Google Island was no government regulations or social norms––– Maybe you should leave your girlfriend/wife at home!

    4. Re:wealth wearing off by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Cruise ships fly flags.
      They'll typically fly the flag of their principal western nation (the US, for example).

      But when a crime is committed on board they'll fly the flag of the shittiest nation they can to stop investigators while they sweep the crime under the rug.

      Google "flags of convenience".

    5. Re:wealth wearing off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The flag doesn't matter.

      Google "Law of the Sea".

    6. Re:wealth wearing off by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      They don't get to switch flags at will.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:wealth wearing off by sexconker · · Score: 1

      They don't get to switch flags at will.

      They in fact do though.

    8. Re:wealth wearing off by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Go look at what happens when someone dies on a cruise ship.
      They can and do switch flags, and it is in fact successful in delaying or preventing proper investigations.

    9. Re:wealth wearing off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could find no evidence of such, and I doubt that you can. They also most certainly do not fly the US flag for the very reason that they don't wish to be subject to US laws outside of our waters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience

  5. Like the other famous G. Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was supposed to be a three hour tour, but it's been part of our lives ever since.

    1. Re:Like the other famous G. Island by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      LoL

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. I am Andrew Ryan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small!

    And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well...

    1. Re:I am Andrew Ryan... by BanHammor · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up, for the reference to Bioshock has never been as appropriate.

  7. Re: Not an island... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except if you're writing a YouTube app.

    OK, /. Hivemind, mod me into oblivion now.

  8. Techno-homoerotic fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congratulations (?) to Wired's Mat Honan for inventing a subgenre that nobody wants.

    1. Re:Techno-homoerotic fantasy by jhobbs · · Score: 2

      He's just doing his part for Rule 34 by creating "Google Erotic Fan Fiction."

    2. Re:Techno-homoerotic fantasy by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      Just be thankful that the Moderate Safe Search was switched on - the bit where he and Google's Larry Page went to Erection Cove together was clearly inappropriate...

  9. Invasion! by DeathGrippe · · Score: 3, Funny

    All was well until the place was discovered by a colony of penguins...

  10. Imagine a world where people stop imagining stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    shit.

    Who the hell cares?

  11. There are no laws, and you MUST obey that! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    "As soon as you hit Google's territorial waters, you came under our jurisdiction, our terms of service. Our laws — or lack thereof — apply here." HOLY OXYMORONS BATMAN!

  12. Utopian playland by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This appears to be a story depicting a sort-of utopian future (of limited extent - an island) where there are no rules.

    I'm not sure from the context whether the author is in favor or against the concept. It somehow feels like he is knitting together several uncomfortable consequences of "no rules" in an attempt to paint that future as dystopian.

    The thing people always miss, the important overlooked point, is that no one wants a state where there are no rules. What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.

    The most basic human right is to have sovereignty over ones own body. Mat Honan's article shows us that with no rules, outsiders would be able to do anything they wanted to us - even against our consent. It would be the strong doing whatever they wanted to the weak. Typical, obvious, and predictable - we have many examples of lawless societies where the strong do just that.

    Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good: rules about drugs, prostitution, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and yes, wearing clothes. We could do away with large swaths of the legal landscape and eliminate large parts of government, both local and federal, if we could just say "do anything you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others".

    If you would like to read about a rule-less society which enforces basic human rights and is a little less dystopian, try "Manna" by Marshall Brain. It's an easy read and an interesting story.

    Another good example is "Voyage From Yesteryear" by James Hogan. A little longer and with more drama, but essentially a rule-less society which enforces basic human rights.

    1. Re:Utopian playland by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.

      That's not what most people want at all. Most people want roads, education, defense, a framework for business, etc. etc.

      It's what Libertarians say they want. Though each wants only the human rights that happen to serve them individually.

      We could do away with large swaths of the legal landscape and eliminate large parts of government, both local and federal, if we could just say "do anything you want, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others".

      The problem is that huge amounts of what we do infringes on others rights. There's very often a balance between rights of one person and rights of another. That's why an awful lot of those laws were created in the first place.

    2. Re:Utopian playland by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3

      What most people want is a place where they can have everything and do anything, and not suffer any negative consequences.

      Some idealists apparently aren't aware that Utopia means "nowhere".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Utopian playland by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No, actually, libertarians do not say that, but go ahead, keep getting your information on them from the NYT and MSNBC.

    4. Re:Utopian playland by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Libertarians certainly do say that. But you may have confused them with Anarcho-capitalists.

    5. Re:Utopian playland by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      "Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good:"

      I would guess then that you are not in favour of public education for k-12, universal heathcare, or government run power & water companies. Just some of the things, of which to live without, would to me be a distopia already.

      I think most libertarians will find that the things that society collectively taxes and pays for, roads, sewers, schools, bylaw enforcement, emergency preparedness, police, fire, ambulance, etc, will most likely add up to the amount they are paying in taxes anyways. So you most likely will not pay less in the end, or it will be marginal. Unless you want to privatize all those services, which in my experience (yours of course may differ), always leads to poorer quality service and costs going up for everyone. For profit necessitates that costs will always rise to meet an ever-growing need to profit.

      Never forget that YOU are the government. You pay for it, you elect it, they hopefully follow what the majority of the electorate wants. So to argue against government, generally breaks down to "I dont want to pay for various things I do not use or agree with", which is just plain selfish.

      --
      -
    6. Re:Utopian playland by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anyone else but my utopia is simple, it's a tropical island with plenty of fresh water, fruit, and fish, the rest of you can get the fuck off my Island.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Utopian playland by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many people on slashdot holding those kind of opinions self-label as libertarian, but you're correct in that it is not part of the libertarian "platform". However like "flower power" in the 60's, the libertarian movement tends to attract people under 25 who are well-meaning but very naive about the human condition. They tend to believe all people are basically decent people and will naturally "get along withe each other" if only government would stop doing "stuff". This is simply false, without larger societies humans will revert to their natural tribalism, the alpha male in each extend family will rise (sink?) to the status of warlord. What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one. I'm not sure what it says about the US but both movements arose and are strongest in the US.

      During the late 60's, early 70's the hippies leaving the city to join communes in the country was one of the largest, if not the largest, internal US mass migrations of all time. Most of the communes fell apart quickly, people simply walked/ran away when the alpha members of the group turned it into a personality cult and started using and abusing everyone else for pleasure and profit. Very few lasted more than 2yrs, about the time it takes to truly realize that living with other people, (even like minded people), entails copious amounts of compromise + confrontation (politics).

      Simply put evolution has designed our minds to live in tribal societies numbering between 100-200, all other tribes (even tribes of chimps) were universally seen as sub-human, xenophobia is still alive and kicking today because in geological terms evolution is still just playing with the idea of civilization for primates.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No rules? I think, the computer makes and enforces the rules.

    9. Re:Utopian playland by spasm · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a few hundred uninhabited islands listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uninhabited_islands_by_country but I think maybe 25 of those would be "tropical .. with plenty of fresh water, fruit, and fish". Problem is, what's the other 6 billion people who'd like the same thing supposed to do?

    10. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's a few hundred uninhabited islands listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Uninhabited_islands_by_country but I think maybe 25 of those would be "tropical .. with plenty of fresh water, fruit, and fish". Problem is, what's the other 6 billion people who'd like the same thing supposed to do?

      They're supposed to FUCK OFF!

    11. Re:Utopian playland by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ... like "flower power" in the 60's, the libertarian movement tends to attract people under 25 who are well-meaning but very naive about the human condition. They tend to believe all people are basically decent people and will naturally "get along withe each other" if only government would stop doing "stuff". This is simply false, without larger societies humans will revert to their natural tribalism, the alpha male in each extend family will rise (sink?) to the status of warlord. What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one. ... ...

      Simply put evolution has designed our minds to live in tribal societies numbering between 100-200, all other tribes (even tribes of chimps) were universally seen as sub-human, xenophobia is still alive and kicking today because in geological terms evolution is still just playing with the idea of civilization for primates.

      +6, Absofuckinglutely Excellent.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Utopian playland by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No you are wrong.
      "Many of our rules are violations of that first most basic right, pretty much anything that someone else thinks that you should do or not-do for your own good: rules about drugs, prostitution, abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, and yes, wearing clothes. "
      Let's tear this apart one by one.

      'rules about drugs"
      No you are wrong. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/medical-quackery.htm#page=0 not to mention FDA testing of drugs for safety and effectiveness. You are probably talking about recreational drugs but even then you will want laws to keep them safe and more or less pure and not mixed with who knows what.

      "abortion,"
      No you are wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-found-guilty-of-murder.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Even if you support abortion rights if you are not a total nut job you will want laws that make them safe like requiring a doctor perform them.

      "prostitution"
      No you are wrong. Even if you believe that prostituion should be legal you would want laws regulating the minimum age of the prositute and health checks of the workers.

      "doctor-assisted suicide"
      Yea what could go wrong with that. Again you would want laws to make sure that the patient understood and that they where not pressured into such a choice.

      "wearing clothes"
      Like hell! Don't you know that the only people that want to walk around naked are people that nobody wants to see naked?

      This is all just extreme libertarian clap trap. It is as unworkable as anything Marx or Ayn Rand ever came up with. And just as with Marx and Rand it is too extreme and over simplified to be workable. What I am pointing out is that you are wrong. You really do not want to get ride of laws on those subjects. You want different laws that reflect your world view. There is nothing wrong with that just work within the system and change the laws and stop pretending you want to get rid of laws on those subjects because frankly they are needed.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:Utopian playland by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Never forget that YOU are the government. You pay for it, you elect it, they hopefully follow what the majority of the electorate wants.

      Kinda, true, no you don't, HAHAHAHA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.

      Most people seem to want a state where people are punished for putting certain things into their own bodies; where everyone's freedom gets violated in the name of safety; where people get put in free speech zones for speaking a certain message; where certain people are allowed to have government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures; where the government can't go a year without declaring war on some country, ideal, or action; and where ubiquitous public surveillance is used to make people feel safe. If not everything, most people seem to want more than one of those things. So no, I would say that few people truly want small government.

    15. Re:Utopian playland by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      they hopefully follow what the majority of the electorate wants.

      Tyranny of the majority is no good, I think.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    16. Re:Utopian playland by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Like hell! Don't you know that the only people that want to walk around naked are people that nobody wants to see naked?

      You have no right to not be offended (or at least I don't believe you should).

      That said, you keep saying, "No you are wrong." This is a subjective matter, so that doesn't seem likely, but I do agree with at least some of what you said.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    17. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymatt · · Score: 1

      Uh, I thought the end of Manna was unnerving.

      Basically the character submits to a control system that he has no reason to trust except for that his tour guide is an easy lay. He is able to opt out of this system, but he is still walking around with a kill switch in his neck.

      I don't know if that's the feeling Marshall intended. The first half with it being a cautionary tale of citizens ending up as wards of a robo-state seems to make enough sense (he makes it seem dystopian), but having this crime-free control system at the end (he makes it seems utopian) just seems irrelevant beyond the scope of a story about complete industrial automation.

    18. Re:Utopian playland by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Newsflash, the 60s radicals that wanted to shut down society are in power today. The President of the United States is a protege of the head of the Weather Underground terrorist group.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymatt · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying you're wrong, lost soul, but it just sounds like you're extrapolating from Electric Kool-aid Acid Test.

    20. Re:Utopian playland by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I tried it. Well not quite abandoned but an unspoiled island with 3000 people. It was heaven for the first couple of years. By 7 years, groundhog day was making me look to the horizon for a passing ship. The sea, the surf and the blue skies, and the personal creativity are lovely, but after a while one needs some culture, generated by other people, with other ideas.

    21. Re:Utopian playland by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Newsflash, the 60s radicals that wanted to shut down society are in power today.

      They grew up. So will todays's "libertarians" (anarcho-capitalists).

    22. Re:Utopian playland by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Libertarians are people who have never ceased being teenagers and seeing beyond their own personal needs and desires, they have no expectations at all about other people's behaviour as they do not think of it at all. They are permanently stuck in the 'me now generation' like a broken record and they quite simply cannot conceive of a society based upon that principle because it is beyond their understanding, hence their desire for it.

      Of course never forget evolution does not stop, so human evolution, drives social evolution, drives human evolution, drives social evolution. So models of extended families can exist but as currently demonstrated they consistently fail as patriarchies however as demonstrated by Mosuo culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo they can succeed as matriarchies.

      So a healthier human society requires a shift away from psychopathic patriarchies to far more stable socially matriarchies (it's the whole extended families concept).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you assume that everyone who disagrees with you (or has that particular mindset) is young. It would also be necessary for you to be able to see into the future.

      Well, I doubt either of those things are true. I don't like these anarcho-capitalist imbeciles, but it's silly to pretend as if you know others will change their beliefs in the future, or that 'growing up' means coming to agree with you.

    24. Re:Utopian playland by Raenex · · Score: 1

      What both groups are really asking for is a self governing society, what they fail to see is that we already have one.

      No, that's a definition of some kind of democracy. What the Libertarian Party wants is listed right in the title of it's homepage: "Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government".

      You can't seriously argue that when you can't even legally smoke pot Libertarians have what they are "really" asking for.

    25. Re:Utopian playland by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention the girls.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    26. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... thats a hippie libertarian. The kind from the social mistake of the 1960s. Real libertarians realize that government should serve a limited capacity in of handling things the states cannot. The states should be able to set standards for themselves as originally planned.

    27. Re:Utopian playland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And another example,

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia

      Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston is the seminal utopian novel by Ernest Callenbach, published in 1975. The society described in the book is one of the first ecological utopias and was influential on the counterculture, and the green movement in the 1970s and thereafter. The author himself claimed that the society he depicted in the book is not a true utopia (in the sense of a perfect society), but, while guided by intentions and values, was imperfect and in-process.

    28. Re:Utopian playland by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Rights are a useless passive tool attempting fight a proactive enemy: human nature.

    29. Re:Utopian playland by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, that's a bit of a bleak outlook socceroos. How's your nature? That of your family and friends. How's the nature of the school teachers and professors you had? Your doctor?...

      And rights, useless? Your right to life and right to control over your own property has served you reasonably well so far I hope.

    30. Re:Utopian playland by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Your right to life and right to control over your own property has served you reasonably well so far I hope.

      I have a mortgage. I have no right to my property - in reality. I'm permitted to live here by the bank so long as I continue to serve. My right to life is completely subjective to anyone elses whim and my ability to defend myself. That's kind of my point, no rights or laws stop human nature. Any discouragement of an action by law and rights is worked around by those entities who wish to do so.

      Also, rights and laws are subjective. One man's fish is another man's poisson.

    31. Re:Utopian playland by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I have a mortgage. I have no right to my property - in reality. I'm permitted to live here by the bank so long as I continue to serve.

      Well that just means that it's not actually your property, but the bank's. In whole or in part. But presumably you do have possessions that you bought outright?

      My right to life is completely subjective to anyone elses whim and my ability to defend myself.

      No it's not. The fact that someone else might transgress your rights (and hopefully incur punishment for doing so) does not mean you don't have rights. And in the general course of things the right serves us well. Few people are murdered. Imagine how many more would be killed were there not a government/police to support your right. It's no so hard to imagine, look at somewhere like Somalia.

    32. Re:Utopian playland by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You lack a sense of humor... But really look at any nudist camp website and you will see that hot 20 something nudest are very rare.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    33. Re:Utopian playland by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Libertarians are people who have never ceased being teenagers and seeing beyond their own personal needs and desires, they have no expectations at all about other people's behaviour as they do not think of it at all. They are permanently stuck in the 'me now generation' like a broken record and they quite simply cannot conceive of a society based upon that principle because it is beyond their understanding, hence their desire for it.

      You've obviously never actually known many. Instead of making a sweeping stereotype, maybe you could act unlike those you accusations you've made above, and learn something.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    34. Re:Utopian playland by A+Bookworm · · Score: 1

      "Majority rule, minority rights"

      Too many people forget the second part. That's what avoids the tyranny of the majority. The majority can make whatever laws they want, so long as those laws don't infringe on the rights of a minority. For example, in the US, no majority can pass a law that legalizes slavery, as that violates the rights of minorities.

      All too often I see US citizens squawking about "majority rule!" when the courts uphold the rights of a minority. They should know better; without minority rights, they would be the next to suffer the tyranny of the majority.

  13. Dystopia - last exit on your right(s) by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Follow signs 'GGL"

  14. Let me be the first to say it by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    Shaddup And Take My Money Already!

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Let me be the first to say it by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Let me be the first to say the more libertarians that disappear off to this island, never to be seen again, the better.

    2. Re:Let me be the first to say it by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Eventually, your kind will attempt to invade with real-world laws. You are part of a giant, hyper organism whose parts, humans, can be directed by data streams that "warm your heart" and "make you feel like a Good Person".

      We understand this. You don't.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Let me be the first to say it by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, we promise to leave you entirely alone on your island, just you libertarians, the telephone sanitizers, the hairdressers and advertising account executives.

    4. Re:Let me be the first to say it by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the rest of you will tear yourselves apart. Good riddance to thieving rubbish. Too bad you will wind up killing everyone on the island in your vain attempts to deflect the blame for the complete and total failure of your policies. Nothing like a nice war against the enemy of the week to stop the proles from discovering that the king can't command the tide.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say it by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Eventually, your kind will attempt to invade with real-world laws

      It's much more likely to be a coup from within, reason being "your kind" are also humans. The bit that "your kind" haven't worked out yet is that the ability to discern the folly of humans in large groups does not imply the ability to avoid it.

      We understand this. You don't.

      "My kind" get the hyper-organism thing, it's not created by "my kind", it spontaneously forms whenever a human society grows past a handful of related individuals. It's only when "your kind" fully realize "your kind" are not immune that "your kind" will start to understand why society 'doesn't work'.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Let me be the first to say it by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You are part of a giant, hyper organism whose parts, humans, can be directed by data streams that "safeguard your property rights" and "protect you from the Government".

      Hiya, Pot! Kettle here...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:Let me be the first to say it by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. You probably want to stay where you are, what with the wars and pestilence and everything. Don't feel the need to hurry back. You could send a postcard if you like. We'll be sure to read it. If you don't get a reply, well it probably got lost in the post or something.

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say it by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      BTW, you do realise you're taking the guns with you? Wouldn't want you to leave them here.

  15. You can shove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Utopia who the fuck are you trying to kid? it smacks of a dystopia run by a megacorp rather than a mega government.

  16. Same history different time by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    This is only the natural progression of things, a group of people (company) seeks freedom from what they view as restrictive intervention in their lives and dreams of striking out to find a new land of freedom where they can create their 'utopian' society. The only difference now is that it's the merchant class seeking to break away from the state, instead of a new state seeking to break away from a monarchy and so on and so forth. Ultimately any independent group of people will start to run into the same problems over and over and over again because circumstances are always changing leaving group A feeling cheated by group B or vice versa, until another splinter groups seeks to break away from the old establishment to begin the cycle anew.

    1. Re:Same history different time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only now all the land is taken.

  17. I know where this is going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah yeah, and next there's this dude calling himself Atlas having you do things over the radio and you're shooting fireballs out of your hands and "would you kindly?"

  18. You KNOW I'm right.... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 0, Redundant

    .... when I say "shaddup and take my money already!" (where do I sign up for this magical island experience)

    People are happy to "go explore and the consequences can go fuck themselves". In fact, some people are HAPPIEST in such circumstances.

    Long before there was ever proposed a ONE WAY Mars Mission I was saying that the NASA/US insistence on human safety during exploration missions was THE WRONG ATTITUDE.

    I said that should such a mission be proposed, with a well explained and clearly stated intention to NEVER even ATTEMPT to return these pioneers to earth (yes folks, you're gonna die out there - one way or another) they'd STILL have squilliions more applicants than they could ever accept.

    And I was proven right.

    The Same Goes for this (as yet hypothetical) 'Google Island', there's be literally thousands of people who would rationally consider all the possible negative outcomes and despite everything still choose to explore-the-possibilities.

    To deny such a thing is true is to completely misunderstand something fundamental about what it is to be human.

    For some opportunities the reward is so great that it is worth any risk.

    And before anyone tries to belittle such an atitude, remember folks that without such a pioneering risk-accepting attitude The US of A would never have been discovered (by anyone). In fact without such attitudes your great-to-the-umpteenth primate ancestors would never have left the trees (ditto THEIR great-to-the-umpteenth fishlike ancestors and water).

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:You KNOW I'm right.... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How you equate the human need to explore with this self indulgent shite is beyond me. Google is a marketing company, end of. That they've managed to make the "don't be evil" tag stick in the face of their persistent attempts to violate every human convention about privacy in the name of gross lucre merely means they are a good marketing company.

      Hopefully it will be forgotten before too long.

    2. Re:You KNOW I'm right.... by Nerdfest · · Score: 0

      They're a technology company that pays the bills with advertising. They're into energy, languages, automation, AI, and lots of other areas.

    3. Re:You KNOW I'm right.... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      They're an Advertising company that leverages technology to stay on top of critical new marketing trends.

      The days when Google wasn't an Advertising business ended many years ago. Any highly successful entity that involves a significant amount of advertising is quickly flooded by a special kind of people. Let's not pretend otherwise.

    4. Re: You KNOW I'm right.... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't "pay the bills" and then go engage in their hobbies. Google is an advertising company that develops technology to support their business.

    5. Re:You KNOW I'm right.... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      All you need is around $75 000 from 100 000 people; that gives you $7.5 billion. 50, 000 acre islands are surprisingly cheap (10 -50 million); if you build shelters in a mass produced fashion or even low cost sky rise you could get the price down to around 25 000 a home (maybe 30 000 with shipping) call it $3 billion; a billion dollars gets you a lot of wind/tidal power; internet cost depends where you get the island but should be under a billion for a submarine cable; you can grow enough vegetables to support 10 people from one 40 foot shipping container with 2 kw of continual power for the hydroponics, at $5000 for 10 000 that's $50 mill; planting a 10 000 acre orchard some where wouldn't cost more than 10 million; your an island nation so coastal fish farming would make sense, maybe $50 mill; throw some cows, chickens and whatever on to 10000 acres for $50 mill; a billion in investment for maintenance and stuff like rice and soap (it's so cheap it doesn't make sense to make it your self). That all adds up to 6.21 billion, leaving 1.29 billion dollars to spend on robots to do all the boring work, gaming/film studio, engineering work shops, and arts centers. Don't think it's enough, add on $10 000 to the entry cost and you have another billion to play with ($75 000 is nothing for shelter, food, water, power, internet, greatest hacker space ever imagined, and robot slaves, for life). and it's not even controlled by an advertising giant.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    6. Re:You KNOW I'm right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes they want to control everything so they have can sell even more advertising.

  19. Re:Not an island... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    Google's more of an intensive care bed. Where they stick a probe into your every orifice.

  20. scienceisland.org already being planned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  21. ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    First off, way to be homophobic! And bravo to everyone who voted the AC up for it! Second: there are a large number of star trek fanfics that have homosexual themes. They're coming from somewhere, folks.

    1. Re:ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations (?) to Wired's Mat Honan for inventing a subgenre that almost nobody wants...

      You ignore the possibility that the AC is gay, and therefore, likely not homophobic. Classic case of close-mindedness.

    2. Re:ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the naked Larry Page gets some furry action too, then I'm down with it.

    3. Re:ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That raises a serious issue, the current Google Glasses are in no way properly sized for full-scale rabbit or tiger outfits.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by tftp · · Score: 1

      They're coming from somewhere, folks.

      Yes, there are writings of all sorts out there. It doesn't really matter who produces them and how. It's far more important to know what percentage of readers reads them.

    5. Re: ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      You seriously believe that a gay person can't be homophobic? That's so naive that it's almost sweet (if it weren't so flawed). Fact is that many of the most homophobic bigots in this world are themselves gay.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    6. Re: ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      "Gay" is such a weird label. People who openly profess to being 'gay' can go around claiming that other people are 'gay' and use it to as the basis to ridicule them. Yet it's supposed to be something that we all accept in one another. Its like peoples' copulation preferences are something the defines them and must direct the rest of their lives. Really, get over it.

    7. Re:ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're coming from somewhere?? No dude. They are not. You are seriously the only one who is into that shit. And it is weird.

      I think the majority of rational people can agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

      However, when you put the pointy ears and oil filter visor in there? Weird. Fuck-ing Weird.

    8. Re:ST gay fanfic authors beg to disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the fuck up, you raving nancy-boy.

  22. Re:Not an island... by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    Same with Talk vs. FaceTime/iMessage. Google wants you to use their tools so they can target ads, Apple wants to sell you hardware and time you to their ecosystem. It would be cool for Google to give people the option of paying for the nice open tools with no tracking or information gathering. You can opt out of most of it already though.

  23. A Thousand Google Employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Thousand Google Employees on the island Google-Glassed for a thousand hours and managed to reproduce "Lord of the Flies".

  24. Someone had to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New idea: Drop it underwater. Imagine all the possibilities in genetic research!

  25. Billy Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quoting Bill Gates, "that's the stupidest fucking thing I ever heard".

  26. utopia = selfishness by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    What people invariably want is a state which has rules enforcing human rights, and little else.

    Sort of. What people invariably want is a state where the rules benefit them, or at least not stopping them from doing what they want to do.

    It would be the strong doing whatever they wanted to the weak.

    Given Brin and company are arguably the most powerful people in the world, it's not terribly surprising he wants a land where there are no rules, is it? See above.

  27. Powering Down Google Island by theodp · · Score: 4, Funny

    We have just announced on the Official Google Blog that we will soon retire Google Island (the actual date is August 18, 2013). We know Island has a devoted following who will be very sad to see it go. We're sad too.

    There are two simple reasons for this: usage of Google Island has declined, and as a company we're pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience.

    To ensure a smooth transition, we're providing a three-month sunset period so you have sufficient time to find an alternative island. If you want to retain your Island data, you can do so through Google Takeout.

    Thank you again for using Google Island.

    1. Re:Powering Down Google Island by Swampash · · Score: 1

      We have just announced on the Official Google Blog that we will soon retire Google Island (the actual date is August 18, 2013). We know Island has a devoted following who will be very sad to see it go. We're sad too.

      *golf clap*

  28. No rules, no regulation, haven't we done that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, most of history. Seems to cause exploitation, abuse, and suffering. Some people get rich.

  29. Bioshock by Arffeh · · Score: 2

    After reading the summary, I couldn't help but think of the storyline to the first Bioshock.

  30. Googlian's Isle by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just scroll right down and you'll read a tale,
    A tale of a fateful trip,
    That started at Google IO,
    and it involves a ship.

    Some fool was a dreamer of sailing men,
    All naked -- That's for sure!
    "They'd 'innovate'; No, it won't be gay",
    Said the blogger du jour -- A blogger "du jour"!

    The commenters started getting rough,
    The idyllic ship was tossed,
    It wrought imagery of a lawless few:
    Your privacy would be lost -- Yar! "privacy wood" be "lost!"

    The ship made port at a private pier:
    A Google-owned desert isle,
    With Googliaaaaans!
    The Blogger too...
    Some billionaires,
    (but no wives),
    Home "movie" stars,
    Terms of Service-er, and
    Hairy Mans!
    Here on Googlian's Isle!

  31. Seasteading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dimly remember that patri friedman worked for google for awhile. My guess is he built the island. Actually projects like this are doable and practical within google's budget. Several energy plays are easy to do on an island. Solar, wind, tidal, using the temperature difference between the surface and the deep. The place could be a vacation spot for google staff, and a place for refugees whenever political instability somewhere threatens populations of good coders willing to work cheap.

  32. Sorry.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I was just imagining whore island.

  33. Googleshock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Glassature

  34. So much for the 'Three Hour Cruise' bit. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    How do we get off this island?

    The Professor and MaryAnn aren't helping things by panicking, btw.

  35. Dumbest article I've seen on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like something I'd have written when I was in grade 5, aside from the fact that google didn't exist then...

    Either way some pretty pedestrian writing, not really worth any consideration...

  36. Congratulations..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no cake.......

  37. Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prehistory: "Error -58: Illegal Syntax"
    Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today?"
    Google: "This is where you want to go today."

  38. Sounded more like "Microsoft Island" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Than "Google Island".

  39. HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hope my nudity doesn’t bother you." Welcome to the new Google Sodom and Gomorrah! Instead of God having to destroy this new "utopia" without "social norms" with raining brimstone, all he will have to do is sink it with a hurricane or freak storm.

  40. Libertarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarians as they are allways demanding 'Give me liberty or Give me death' * the facist government should give them what they ask for and execute them.

    *funny they never specify whose death they want , bet it's not their own. Bah death to all fanatics.

  41. Like Wal-Mart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's like living in Wal-Mart, but without any actual products?

  42. A great Utopian vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is a great Utopian vision but im damn sure it only applies to the first wolrd..what about the people who are dying to facilitate this sick vision of reality.

  43. buying shares of Fontaine industries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you kindly put your pants back on?

  44. A Nice Place To Visit vs. other interpretations by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    See the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place To Visit" on that theme. It may surprise you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nice_Place_to_Visit
    "Henry "Rocky" Valentine is robbing a pawnshop after shooting a night watchman, but before he can get away he is shot by the police. He wakes up to find himself seemingly unharmed by the encounter and in the company of a pleasant individual named "Pip" who tells Rocky that he is his guide and has been instructed to grant him whatever he desires. ... [Spoilers follow...]"

    Still, I guess it could be what you make of it in terms of self-improvement, Contrast with the movie "Groundhog Day".

    Although James. T. Kirk decide to leave the "Nexus" because nothing is real or matters.

    And then there is what happened in "The Metamorphasis of Prime Intellect" (where an AI enforces rules that people choose for themselves as they get bored...).
    http://localroger.com/prime-intellect/

    For an example, the human body needs a certain amount of exercise to be healthy. But we are naturally lazy because in the past those who wasted energy did not do as well. But in today's society, you can get food without much physical effort. So we get sick because our lymph system becomes sluggish and also our blood does not circulate enough to get enough oxygen to our tissues. Similarly, the human body is adapted to expect a lot of nutrients from vegetables with fairly low calories per unit fiber. Now we can eat lots of calories from refined sugar and refined starch which appeals to laziness, but without the nutrients and fiber our bodies get sick in various ways like cancer and diabetes. Search also also on the book "The Pleasure Trap" which covers this in detail.
    http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

    Or the book "Supernormal Stimulus: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose" which talks about other implications (including in the media).

    Granted, you said "not suffer any negative consequences". And obviously cancer, diabetes, boredom, ennui, a loss of sense op purpose or a loss of sense of relationship and belonging, and so on, are indeed negative consequences of solipsistic abundance. So, it's perhaps a deep philosophical issue. Humans are tuned (or adapted) for a certain environment with certain levels of scarcities as well as certain types of social interactions. When you change the environment to one of universal abundance and no social constraints, our natural tuning becomes suboptimal or nonsensical relative to the environment, and that can lead to all sorts of unhealthy problems (another one is mentioned in my sig).

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.