Interesting, but it would still be just a copy. You will still be dead.
Putting your brain in a tank with life support and connections to an avatar would extend your life. But only for along as you can pay the costs (and even then, only up to a few hundred years, assuming the neurology researchers' estimates are reasonable).
This wasn't black ice. It was a solid sheet of ice, curb to curb, sitting on every paved surface in the area. Without a single grain of salt, sand, or gravel sitting on top. Without a single gap of cleared road surface peeking through. If you've seen conditions like that in Michigan, you guys have the shittiest snow management system in the country, because unlike Georgia, you should be prepared.
I live in the "snow belt" and have driven through Michigan and several other northern states. High priority areas get prepped/cleared first, then other areas in order of descending priority. As such, there are many areas where the road conditions were even worse while waiting for the crews to get to them.
It just isn't affordable to have the kind of coverage you seem to think those states should have.
On the other hand, those of us in the snow belt should not be making fun of those who don't, so are prepared.
I'm pretty sure that Emily Deschanel's character on Bones has a STEM job.
Also, Amanda Tapping's character, Helen Magnus on Sanctuary. (I would also counter her role as Samantha Carter on Stargate: SG1 as both a co-lead* and a STEM job.) If you insist on "mainstream" TV shows, I would count Pauley Perrette's role as Abby Sciuto on NCIS as both a co-lead* and a STEM job.
*These are shows with an ensemble cast, so there are multiple co-leads. Also, in both shows, there were episodes where Abby or Samantha were the central protagonsit (as was other episodes where other members of the ensemble were central).
Many company have internal applications that require IE. Fro example, my employer and a lot of other companies I know of rely on a web-based "project time and resource reporting" system that only supports IE (ver 6 or newer) and uses several methods to get around user agent header spoofing. It is the only reason I still use IE.
Probably very few people are visiting W3Schools from their corporate PCs, so their statistics won't include those installations. On the other hand, if people who use EI at work are using other browsers on their own time, that might show a real preference for not using IE. (Of course, there are people like my parents who are completely oblivious to the fact they are using Windows/IE at work and Linux/FF at home. (I set up their home PCs for them. Unfortunately, they keep telling their friends who great I am at keeping their home PCs running smoothly.)
running power cables and water lines isn't particularly expensive
Water lines, in areas subject to freezing weather, need to be underground to protect against freezing. Elsewhere, water lines tend to be underground because elevating them is usually impractical in an urban environment. Putting those lines underground actually is very expensive.
Power lines underground are expensive enough that very few neighborhoods are willing to pay the power companies to bury them. Adding lines to existing poles would result in the new lines being too low, so either the poles have to be replaced with taller ones, or parallel sets of poles placed. Either way, is actually very expensive.
Crapware? I quit worrying about that in the early 90's when Packard Bell started doing it. It baffles me that everyone does not do it.
The crapware subsidizes the cost of the PC. PC manufacturers get paid to put that stuff on their PCs. The crapware vendors pay for this in the hope that enough customers will like something enough to actually buy the full version. Apparently this happens enough for the practice to be profitable.
I read somewhere that cyanide gas was used. I suspect that if nitrogen was ever considered, the peopled involved assumed it would result in painful suffocation.
So what's the "pain" if they put them under anesthesia, then remove your heart, and hand it to the parent of the person you killed while you were still alive, then unplug you? That level of retribution is what I see called for here.
If you mean simply death-by-vivisection, even the US considers that far too barbaric. If you mean harvesting organs, doctors competent to do that won't do that unless the donor is brain dead. But there's a catch. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed. If the convict is brain dead, then he is no longer mentally competent, so must then be kept alive until he does of natural causes. Therefore, execution must take the form of stopping the heart, first. But the chemicals used to do that make also make the other organs useless. While it would be possible to anesthetize the convict then use a defib machine to stop the heart, it requires a qualified doctor (an anesthetist) to do that correctly, so again, not going to happen.
No doubt there are unethical doctors who would be willing to do this, but using them would open yet another legal/political minefield. I think Ohio politicians who allowed this execution are going to have far more than enough trouble walking the one they just created.
Even if Texas seceded from the US, they will still drag the US down their "rabbit hole" due to lack of an organized counter balance on the influence their money has on text books.
Sadly, the open text book project won't be of much help. As great the potential of this project for increasing rational thought, ultimately, someone has to put in money to make the texts available, whether electronically or in print. The conservatives who are running text book selection in Texas aren't going to let federal tax money pay for it. And if they'd even touch it at all, more likely they would take the material, re-edit it, then make profits from the distribution (and maybe printing) charges.
The organizations still doing actual science are either under the control of similar conservatives or barely have enough money to do science, let alone donate enough to the open text book project to make a real difference.
And if a grass roots organization tried, how much money would it be allowed to raise before it gets either co-opted or shutdown?
and how feminism forced women to 'turn to the state as a surrogate husband
I know some women of the "Father Knows Best" variety, who are on state assistance. 2 of them are windows of soldiers killed in the Iraq war. The others were abandoned by their husbands. Because they were raised to be dependent on their husbands - just like their mothers - they weren't prepared to be "single" mothers. The only jobs they are qualified for are waiting on tables at restaurants, non-cashier work at McDonalds or stocking shelves in stores. They are not able to earn enough to support themselves and their children. and their father-knows-best fathers lost their manufacturing jobs so are not able to help. These women are trying to find new husbands, but seems there are not enough available men who are both able and willing to become "instant fathers".
Most other single mothers I know are able to get better jobs, so don't need state assistance. They were raised to be able to be independent. They do not view themselves as "feminist", merely "capable of carrying their own". Also, some of them are dating men because they like dating men.
I do know a few non-father-knows-best, single mothers who are on state assistance. Their husbands/boyfriends abandoned them. Then they either were forced to accept deep pay cuts, were laid off due to off-shoring or were disabled due to injury or illness. They do not view the state as a surrogate husband. Nor do they view themselves as "feminist". The one I mentioned this to responded, "Then I want a divorce! And a real job!"
My experience has been that women in technology who say they "experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness" are experiencing the exact same environment that the men they work with experience.
Sounds like you work in a generally unpleasant place.
I have rarely experienced hostility or nastiness, let alone sexism. I have witnessed most of my female coworkers be subjected to such on a semi regular basis. Most often, some variation of a male finding excuses for devaluing a female's contribution in spite of clear evidence of equal or superior quality and quantity of contribution. Sometimes there was actual hostility/nastiness directed at women that was never directed at other men.
As for school-age treatment of females vs males, from pre-school all the way up, the school discouraged my female classmates from science and engineering, and for those girls set on science and/or engineering, the school cast them as future teachers (or nurses for those interested in medical science), discouraging them from pursuing careers in industry. My girlfriend, who is an engineer, experienced this bias in school, so did our daughter, who is now an engineering student at a highly rated university.
My colleagues in other companies report similar experiences and observations.
I do see lots of teens out in public. But, all of those teens, ALL OF THEM, have their heads buried in their smartphones. They go out of their way to NOT interact, let alone socialize, with anyone.
Maybe the friends they want to be with are n'tthere?
While our daughter was in high school (and middle school), the 3 of us would often go to the mall. My girlfriend and I would alternate between shopping and watching our daughter from a discrete distance. This allowed her time with her friends - at least the ones whose parents also gave them enough space. If none of her friends were there, then yes, she'd be on her smart phone - but still managed to meet new friends. Sometimes, her group would use their phones to include friends not there, but usually just socialized with those present.
Bonus: the methodology here is asking teens why they're doing something "wrong." The answer is "Because my parents won't let me do what I want." Shock.
Is it really shocking to you that teens would want face-to-face social time?
I think it is good they want face-to-face time with their friends (and no, I do not mean "Face Time" on their iDevice). Opportunities for real, face-to-face socialization are far, far fewer than when we were teens.
I also think that most of today's adults would agree that face-to-face socialization is better. Unfortunately, too few are willing to take on the responsibility of enabling self-directed activities like when we were teens. Example: When I was a teen (and even when I was a child), all the parents in my neighborhood made the effort to get to know each other and help each other monitor the neighborhood so that it would be safe for the kids. I have not seen that happening in recent years. If neither of a kid's parents is with the kid, the kid isn't playing outside. And when kids do visit other kids' homes, the host parents expect the visiting kids' parents to stay for the duration. And the parents of the visiting kids expect to be allowed to stay. Another example: My school had informal, after school activities that were only loosely monitored by teachers and/or staff. In recent years, the closest there is to unscripted time is lunch break, which is often barely long enough for all the kids to get their lunches and eat.
it just sends a powerful message from governments that only suckers try to save money because governments will inevitably confiscate it from you.... Bitcoin does not allow governments to do this.
I think you greatly under estimate the ingenuity of motivated tax collectors. This is "merely" a "technical limit". They will find ways to work around it.
I get that sentiment, hence why I said that "libertarian utopians" would want it. Because they actually believe that gigantic defaults can be a good thing for an economy.
I think the GP was saying the default would have been much smaller because the bank would have (a) been less willing to loan out the money, and (b) had less money to lend out.
While (a) might be a reasonable assumption, I am not sure about (b). I think that the banks, regardless of the currency, would have figured out other ways to emass gigantic sums of money.
The problem is that there are an infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies.
I'm not a BitCoin fan, but I'm not sure I buy this argument, because it seems too close to saying "gold can have no value because lots of other metals exist." How do you differentiate those two arguments?
Each metal has a set of properties that differentiate it from other metals that affect its desirability for various uses. The combination of gold's properties and its relative scarcity give it its value. Scarcity can vary over time, thus changing the value. An interesting example is aluminum. Before the techniques and technologies required for large (or even medium) scale smelting of bauxite, aluminum was almost as valuable as silver.
The difference with digital currency is simply that it is easier to assemble the required algorithms and protocols to create new currencies with whatever set of desired properties/features. The main obstacle to its competitors is achieving sufficient level of adoption by users. Part of achieving that will involve addressing Bitcoin's problems without compromising its benefits. - and then adequately demonstrating its superiority,
There isn't much to compare to the horror that's going on there now. I'd hate to see their arsenal get lose but the pain and suffering happening to those people now dwarfs even the worst case scenario with the nukes.
Um, several million will die quickly, but the rest of the world - both humans and non-humans - will suffer some combination of radiation sickness and freezing weather. I think that is bigger.
try to build up instead the perception, that punishment will be inevitable afterwards
Unfortunately, this won't be a deterrent. The ones like the 911 terrorists expect to die during the attack. Even if they didn't die - and don't then kill themselves - even the most humiliating public punishment would not deter others. They will just be more careful to not survive.
Then there are the crazies. They won't even think of the consequences.
So that leaves prevention. Most of the crazies could be dealt with by vastly improving access to mental health care. For latent malignancy cases and "professionals", detection is much harder.
And that means the debate on what and how much data is collected and how long it is stored will continue. Also, just what the true value of any given datum. For example, the use of the terminology "friend" in social media. Or even "follower" or "contact". I think, in most cases, "monitored people" would be more accurate.
The company I work for has a 5000 sq meter manufacturing facility packed full of robots - and only 5 engineers and 10 technicians. The manufacturing, assembly, packing and shipping are all automated. Even the maintenance is mostly automated.
IMHO, what we need is to establish standards of respect for this kind of personal data, where it's not socially acceptable to share potentially sensitive information about someone without their knowledge and consent.
Once upon a time, parents did teach their children this kind of respect. Over time, fewer parents did so. Mine (and my GF's) parents were probably amoung the last. Sadly, my GF and I are not able to give our daughter anywhere near the amount of privacy as our parents did. Not because we don't want to give her that level of privacy, but because the social climate demands that parents watch their children a lot more closely than prior generations of parents. We watch her get on the school bus in the morning (it stops close to our house and there is a public webcam at the stop, as well as a public webcam in the school bus) and watch her get off and walk home each day. When she visits a neighboring friend, we (and the friend's parents) are watching her go and return from the friend's house. Any further than that, one of us takes her to her destination, then gets her, later. And one of us goes with here when she goes bicycling. Within our house, all tools are in either workshop or the kitchen. When she's working on a project, one of us is watching as well as helping with the potentialy dangerous tools.
This is not what we think we should be doing. It was what society demands of us.
In contrast, I was allowed to play outside, roaming all over the neighborhood unsupervised. The only restrictions were that I either be able to hear my parents's bell and return home within 15min, or be where my parents had a phone number to call - and call them to let them know I was there. If I wanted to go beyond the neighborhood, I only had to ask and say how to contact me and about how long I expected to be away. The answer was usually "yes" and I could ride my bike to almost anywhere in town.
And I know I had almost no supervision as I roamed the neighborhood. There were many wooded areas when my friends and I could gather out of sight and out of hearing - something that would scare nearly all today's parents shitless.
As for tools, once I demonstrated I could handle a tool safely, I was allowed to use it - even tools my parents were not skilled enough to safely use. Forexample, when I was a Cub Scout, I built all my Pinewood Derby cars myself - no help from anyone and almost no supervision.
Well said. To expand on that a little, if someone's trying to crack your account then they can probably afford to have a human involved who will have a somewhat reasonable chance of getting your clues correct.
I recall reading, a few years ago, that some were using pr0n sites as a way to have humans answers CAPCHAs. They rigged their pr0n sites to "proxy" the CAPCHAs from the target websites. Once a human successfully answered a CAPCHA, a bot could then get into the target site while the human continued to browse the pr0n site.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, but it would still be just a copy. You will still be dead.
Putting your brain in a tank with life support and connections to an avatar would extend your life. But only for along as you can pay the costs (and even then, only up to a few hundred years, assuming the neurology researchers' estimates are reasonable).
Besides, I don't think I'd be a happy clone/chatbot going around with a patent number on my arse.
Yes, you would. You'd be programmed to be happy. (and to not notice the patent number).
This wasn't black ice. It was a solid sheet of ice, curb to curb, sitting on every paved surface in the area. Without a single grain of salt, sand, or gravel sitting on top. Without a single gap of cleared road surface peeking through. If you've seen conditions like that in Michigan, you guys have the shittiest snow management system in the country, because unlike Georgia, you should be prepared.
I live in the "snow belt" and have driven through Michigan and several other northern states. High priority areas get prepped/cleared first, then other areas in order of descending priority. As such, there are many areas where the road conditions were even worse while waiting for the crews to get to them.
It just isn't affordable to have the kind of coverage you seem to think those states should have.
On the other hand, those of us in the snow belt should not be making fun of those who don't, so are prepared.
I'm pretty sure that Emily Deschanel's character on Bones has a STEM job.
Also, Amanda Tapping's character, Helen Magnus on Sanctuary. (I would also counter her role as Samantha Carter on Stargate: SG1 as both a co-lead* and a STEM job.) If you insist on "mainstream" TV shows, I would count Pauley Perrette's role as Abby Sciuto on NCIS as both a co-lead* and a STEM job.
*These are shows with an ensemble cast, so there are multiple co-leads. Also, in both shows, there were episodes where Abby or Samantha were the central protagonsit (as was other episodes where other members of the ensemble were central).
Many company have internal applications that require IE. Fro example, my employer and a lot of other companies I know of rely on a web-based "project time and resource reporting" system that only supports IE (ver 6 or newer) and uses several methods to get around user agent header spoofing. It is the only reason I still use IE.
Probably very few people are visiting W3Schools from their corporate PCs, so their statistics won't include those installations. On the other hand, if people who use EI at work are using other browsers on their own time, that might show a real preference for not using IE. (Of course, there are people like my parents who are completely oblivious to the fact they are using Windows/IE at work and Linux/FF at home. (I set up their home PCs for them. Unfortunately, they keep telling their friends who great I am at keeping their home PCs running smoothly.)
These companies collectively off-shored $400B in profits last year. they can afford another $10k a year for their engineers.
$10k * 100,000 engineers = $1B additional wage cost.
Seems reasonable to me. Of course, I am an engineer (thought not one of those engineers).
running power cables and water lines isn't particularly expensive
Water lines, in areas subject to freezing weather, need to be underground to protect against freezing. Elsewhere, water lines tend to be underground because elevating them is usually impractical in an urban environment. Putting those lines underground actually is very expensive.
Power lines underground are expensive enough that very few neighborhoods are willing to pay the power companies to bury them. Adding lines to existing poles would result in the new lines being too low, so either the poles have to be replaced with taller ones, or parallel sets of poles placed. Either way, is actually very expensive.
Crapware? I quit worrying about that in the early 90's when Packard Bell started doing it. It baffles me that everyone does not do it.
The crapware subsidizes the cost of the PC. PC manufacturers get paid to put that stuff on their PCs. The crapware vendors pay for this in the hope that enough customers will like something enough to actually buy the full version. Apparently this happens enough for the practice to be profitable.
I read somewhere that cyanide gas was used. I suspect that if nitrogen was ever considered, the peopled involved assumed it would result in painful suffocation.
Or just closing the room vents. Putting a mask on the convict would likely make him panic.
So what's the "pain" if they put them under anesthesia, then remove your heart, and hand it to the parent of the person you killed while you were still alive, then unplug you? That level of retribution is what I see called for here.
If you mean simply death-by-vivisection, even the US considers that far too barbaric. If you mean harvesting organs, doctors competent to do that won't do that unless the donor is brain dead. But there's a catch. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed. If the convict is brain dead, then he is no longer mentally competent, so must then be kept alive until he does of natural causes. Therefore, execution must take the form of stopping the heart, first. But the chemicals used to do that make also make the other organs useless. While it would be possible to anesthetize the convict then use a defib machine to stop the heart, it requires a qualified doctor (an anesthetist) to do that correctly, so again, not going to happen.
No doubt there are unethical doctors who would be willing to do this, but using them would open yet another legal/political minefield. I think Ohio politicians who allowed this execution are going to have far more than enough trouble walking the one they just created.
Even if Texas seceded from the US, they will still drag the US down their "rabbit hole" due to lack of an organized counter balance on the influence their money has on text books.
Sadly, the open text book project won't be of much help. As great the potential of this project for increasing rational thought, ultimately, someone has to put in money to make the texts available, whether electronically or in print. The conservatives who are running text book selection in Texas aren't going to let federal tax money pay for it. And if they'd even touch it at all, more likely they would take the material, re-edit it, then make profits from the distribution (and maybe printing) charges.
The organizations still doing actual science are either under the control of similar conservatives or barely have enough money to do science, let alone donate enough to the open text book project to make a real difference.
And if a grass roots organization tried, how much money would it be allowed to raise before it gets either co-opted or shutdown?
They can do that with their own private money then, and not receive money from the state for such things
Also note that the people channeling public money in to these schools are also the ones who claim public education is a waste of taxpayer money.
and how feminism forced women to 'turn to the state as a surrogate husband
I know some women of the "Father Knows Best" variety, who are on state assistance. 2 of them are windows of soldiers killed in the Iraq war. The others were abandoned by their husbands. Because they were raised to be dependent on their husbands - just like their mothers - they weren't prepared to be "single" mothers. The only jobs they are qualified for are waiting on tables at restaurants, non-cashier work at McDonalds or stocking shelves in stores. They are not able to earn enough to support themselves and their children. and their father-knows-best fathers lost their manufacturing jobs so are not able to help. These women are trying to find new husbands, but seems there are not enough available men who are both able and willing to become "instant fathers".
Most other single mothers I know are able to get better jobs, so don't need state assistance. They were raised to be able to be independent. They do not view themselves as "feminist", merely "capable of carrying their own". Also, some of them are dating men because they like dating men.
I do know a few non-father-knows-best, single mothers who are on state assistance. Their husbands/boyfriends abandoned them. Then they either were forced to accept deep pay cuts, were laid off due to off-shoring or were disabled due to injury or illness. They do not view the state as a surrogate husband. Nor do they view themselves as "feminist". The one I mentioned this to responded, "Then I want a divorce! And a real job!"
Seems to me that the problem isn't "feminism".
My experience has been that women in technology who say they "experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness" are experiencing the exact same environment that the men they work with experience.
Sounds like you work in a generally unpleasant place.
I have rarely experienced hostility or nastiness, let alone sexism. I have witnessed most of my female coworkers be subjected to such on a semi regular basis. Most often, some variation of a male finding excuses for devaluing a female's contribution in spite of clear evidence of equal or superior quality and quantity of contribution. Sometimes there was actual hostility/nastiness directed at women that was never directed at other men.
As for school-age treatment of females vs males, from pre-school all the way up, the school discouraged my female classmates from science and engineering, and for those girls set on science and/or engineering, the school cast them as future teachers (or nurses for those interested in medical science), discouraging them from pursuing careers in industry. My girlfriend, who is an engineer, experienced this bias in school, so did our daughter, who is now an engineering student at a highly rated university.
My colleagues in other companies report similar experiences and observations.
I do see lots of teens out in public. But, all of those teens, ALL OF THEM, have their heads buried in their smartphones. They go out of their way to NOT interact, let alone socialize, with anyone.
Maybe the friends they want to be with are n'tthere?
While our daughter was in high school (and middle school), the 3 of us would often go to the mall. My girlfriend and I would alternate between shopping and watching our daughter from a discrete distance. This allowed her time with her friends - at least the ones whose parents also gave them enough space. If none of her friends were there, then yes, she'd be on her smart phone - but still managed to meet new friends. Sometimes, her group would use their phones to include friends not there, but usually just socialized with those present.
Bonus: the methodology here is asking teens why they're doing something "wrong." The answer is "Because my parents won't let me do what I want." Shock.
Is it really shocking to you that teens would want face-to-face social time?
I think it is good they want face-to-face time with their friends (and no, I do not mean "Face Time" on their iDevice). Opportunities for real, face-to-face socialization are far, far fewer than when we were teens.
I also think that most of today's adults would agree that face-to-face socialization is better. Unfortunately, too few are willing to take on the responsibility of enabling self-directed activities like when we were teens. Example: When I was a teen (and even when I was a child), all the parents in my neighborhood made the effort to get to know each other and help each other monitor the neighborhood so that it would be safe for the kids. I have not seen that happening in recent years. If neither of a kid's parents is with the kid, the kid isn't playing outside. And when kids do visit other kids' homes, the host parents expect the visiting kids' parents to stay for the duration. And the parents of the visiting kids expect to be allowed to stay. Another example: My school had informal, after school activities that were only loosely monitored by teachers and/or staff. In recent years, the closest there is to unscripted time is lunch break, which is often barely long enough for all the kids to get their lunches and eat.
it just sends a powerful message from governments that only suckers try to save money because governments will inevitably confiscate it from you.... Bitcoin does not allow governments to do this.
I think you greatly under estimate the ingenuity of motivated tax collectors. This is "merely" a "technical limit". They will find ways to work around it.
I get that sentiment, hence why I said that "libertarian utopians" would want it. Because they actually believe that gigantic defaults can be a good thing for an economy.
I think the GP was saying the default would have been much smaller because the bank would have (a) been less willing to loan out the money, and (b) had less money to lend out.
While (a) might be a reasonable assumption, I am not sure about (b). I think that the banks, regardless of the currency, would have figured out other ways to emass gigantic sums of money.
The problem is that there are an infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies.
I'm not a BitCoin fan, but I'm not sure I buy this argument, because it seems too close to saying "gold can have no value because lots of other metals exist." How do you differentiate those two arguments?
Each metal has a set of properties that differentiate it from other metals that affect its desirability for various uses. The combination of gold's properties and its relative scarcity give it its value. Scarcity can vary over time, thus changing the value. An interesting example is aluminum. Before the techniques and technologies required for large (or even medium) scale smelting of bauxite, aluminum was almost as valuable as silver.
The difference with digital currency is simply that it is easier to assemble the required algorithms and protocols to create new currencies with whatever set of desired properties/features. The main obstacle to its competitors is achieving sufficient level of adoption by users. Part of achieving that will involve addressing Bitcoin's problems without compromising its benefits. - and then adequately demonstrating its superiority,
There isn't much to compare to the horror that's going on there now. I'd hate to see their arsenal get lose but the pain and suffering happening to those people now dwarfs even the worst case scenario with the nukes.
Um, several million will die quickly, but the rest of the world - both humans and non-humans - will suffer some combination of radiation sickness and freezing weather. I think that is bigger.
try to build up instead the perception, that punishment will be inevitable afterwards
Unfortunately, this won't be a deterrent. The ones like the 911 terrorists expect to die during the attack. Even if they didn't die - and don't then kill themselves - even the most humiliating public punishment would not deter others. They will just be more careful to not survive.
Then there are the crazies. They won't even think of the consequences.
So that leaves prevention. Most of the crazies could be dealt with by vastly improving access to mental health care. For latent malignancy cases and "professionals", detection is much harder.
And that means the debate on what and how much data is collected and how long it is stored will continue. Also, just what the true value of any given datum. For example, the use of the terminology "friend" in social media. Or even "follower" or "contact". I think, in most cases, "monitored people" would be more accurate.
The company I work for has a 5000 sq meter manufacturing facility packed full of robots - and only 5 engineers and 10 technicians. The manufacturing, assembly, packing and shipping are all automated. Even the maintenance is mostly automated.
IMHO, what we need is to establish standards of respect for this kind of personal data, where it's not socially acceptable to share potentially sensitive information about someone without their knowledge and consent.
Once upon a time, parents did teach their children this kind of respect. Over time, fewer parents did so. Mine (and my GF's) parents were probably amoung the last. Sadly, my GF and I are not able to give our daughter anywhere near the amount of privacy as our parents did. Not because we don't want to give her that level of privacy, but because the social climate demands that parents watch their children a lot more closely than prior generations of parents. We watch her get on the school bus in the morning (it stops close to our house and there is a public webcam at the stop, as well as a public webcam in the school bus) and watch her get off and walk home each day. When she visits a neighboring friend, we (and the friend's parents) are watching her go and return from the friend's house. Any further than that, one of us takes her to her destination, then gets her, later. And one of us goes with here when she goes bicycling. Within our house, all tools are in either workshop or the kitchen. When she's working on a project, one of us is watching as well as helping with the potentialy dangerous tools.
This is not what we think we should be doing. It was what society demands of us.
In contrast, I was allowed to play outside, roaming all over the neighborhood unsupervised. The only restrictions were that I either be able to hear my parents's bell and return home within 15min, or be where my parents had a phone number to call - and call them to let them know I was there. If I wanted to go beyond the neighborhood, I only had to ask and say how to contact me and about how long I expected to be away. The answer was usually "yes" and I could ride my bike to almost anywhere in town.
And I know I had almost no supervision as I roamed the neighborhood. There were many wooded areas when my friends and I could gather out of sight and out of hearing - something that would scare nearly all today's parents shitless.
As for tools, once I demonstrated I could handle a tool safely, I was allowed to use it - even tools my parents were not skilled enough to safely use. Forexample, when I was a Cub Scout, I built all my Pinewood Derby cars myself - no help from anyone and almost no supervision.
Well said. To expand on that a little, if someone's trying to crack your account then they can probably afford to have a human involved who will have a somewhat reasonable chance of getting your clues correct.
I recall reading, a few years ago, that some were using pr0n sites as a way to have humans answers CAPCHAs. They rigged their pr0n sites to "proxy" the CAPCHAs from the target websites. Once a human successfully answered a CAPCHA, a bot could then get into the target site while the human continued to browse the pr0n site.