psychologically, people need private space. This applies in public as well as behind closed doors and drawn curtains. We need to be able to glance around, judge whether the people in the vicinity are a threat, and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing, such as breaking wind, and jumping for joy;
sociologically, people need to be free to behave, and to associate with others, subject to broad social mores, but without the continual threat of being observed. Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling, unhuman, constrained context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain;
economically, people need to be free to innovate. International competition is fierce, so countries with high labour-costs need to be clever if they want to sustain their standard-of-living. And cleverness has to be continually reinvented;
politically, people need to be free to think, and argue, and act. Surveillance chills behaviour and speech, and threatens democracy.
Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that’s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide. - Bruce Schneir
Yeah, exactly. I never understood why TV science fiction continually avoids trying to push the boundaries. You just need to look at the Science Fiction Masterworks series to fully appreciate just how much good science fiction there is out there from 1950 onwards. Surely there's *something* in there that would make someone go, "Hmm, that's a good idea."
Agreed. Why have a reboot when there's obviously so much great new stuff out there? Not sure about Doctorow or Stross's stuff, but there are plenty out there. Just look at something like Flashforward that came from Robert J. Sawer's novel of the same name, which is shaping up to be a pretty decent science fiction series.
The only reason I can think of that reboots are favoured is because the studios probably already own the rights to the story. Plus, there's the added bonus of a captured audience that are older with more money to spend who remember the original show from their teens, which makes them prime marketing material. In other words, they view it as safe, and therefore they don't have to take major risks on it.
Probably the only "reboot" I may be in favour of would be a live action series based on the Stand Alone Complex series from the Ghost in the Shell world. Done well, that has the potential to be brilliant.
A friend and Douglas Hines were remembering a dear friend who passed away. Douglas thought that it was sad to not be able to ever talk to him again. He said “wouldn't it be great if I could create a robot with artificial intelligence and have it hold someone's personality and preferences - this way, we could talk to the robotic version of that person and ask it questions whenever we wanted"? We thought it was a great idea though we both agreed that it would be a very big undertaking.
On 9/11/2001, that good friend also passed away in Tower 1 at the World Trade Center. And now we cannot talk to that person... so, this made Douglas think seriously about how to implement a robotic representation of a person and have it reflect that person’s personality.
Am I the only one that thinks that's just kinda creepy?
Although, maybe instead of war driving invention, maybe sex will do this time, and we'll get to thank the sex industry for inventing mind/brain copying and transfers into robotic dolls.
On my brief visits to Australia, I was always fascinated by Indigenous Australian culture and history, and made a point of learning more about it. What struck me, though, was how present day Australia has assimilated their culture as a marketing tool, and done next to nothing to allow their people and culture to survive. You can buy cheap Indigenous Australian "art" tat at airports that are made in China, while the vast majority of Indigenous Australians seem to have been left to rot, poor and drunk, in the gutter. There is such a deep undercurrent of racism against them, that I find it remarkable that they still exist at all. Everywhere I went, I heard the same stories of how lazy and worthless they are, they just squander everything they're given, they're all just drug addicts and drunks, stupid, and child abusers, which sounded eerily similar to the attitude of whites towards blacks that I remember from South Africa. I see a deep irony whenever I hear white Australians talk about preserving the white, Christian culture of Australia as justification for their immigration policies: they basically don't want someone to do to them what they did, and are doing, to Indigenous Australians.
"It's unlikely that this change in behaviour has not been a result of human nature." Of course, I meant to say, "It's unlikely that this change in behaviour has been a result of human nature."
People may well kill people, but the existence of guns has caused a change in behaviour in both those who are likely to kill, and those who fear they will be killed, with guns. It's unlikely that this change in behaviour has not been a result of human nature. It's more likely this has happened because of the gun itself. More broadly, having killing technology easily available and more impersonal, and it will be the introduction of that technology that changes us, not necessarily how we use it. McLuhan noted:
"Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot... The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance"
Various technologies impact our world just because it exists, and have nothing to do with how it's used. For example, whether industry is making cars, computers, cornflakes, or books, the effect of mechanisation has been the same regardless of content.
Note that I'm not pointing out that all technology is bad, I'm just saying that I don't think it's as simple as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Just because mental illnesses may be more common amongst poorer people doesn't explain why they are more likely to be given drugs. Please also note the line that says "Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts". If they're less severe in nature, then why the drugs?
Try OptimizeGoogle (based on CustomizeGoogle). It has a great number of features, such as anonymizing your Google Cookie UID, blocking ads, removing click tracking, stopping cookies being sent to Google Analytics etc.
The measurements revealed that for all types of tasks, subjects lost time when they had to switch from one task to another, and time costs increased with the complexity of the tasks, so it took significantly longer to switch between more complex tasks. Time costs also were greater when subjects switched to tasks that were relatively unfamiliar. They got "up to speed" faster when they switched to tasks they knew better, an observation that may lead to interfaces designed to help overcome people's innate cognitive limitations.
"People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself. Switching from task to task, you think you're actually paying attention to everything around you at the same time. But you're actually not. You're not paying attention to one or two things simultaneously, but switching between them very rapidly. Think about writing an e-mail and talking on the phone at the same time. Those things are nearly impossible to do at the same time. You cannot focus on one while doing the other. That's because of what's called interference between the two tasks. They both involve communicating via speech or the written word, and so there's a lot of conflict between the two of them."
Researchers say they can actually see the brain struggling. And now they're trying to figure out the details of what's going on.
The current study looked at the distracting effects of pop music on introverts' and extraverts' performance on various cognitive tasks. It was predicted that there would be a main effect for music and an interaction effect with introverts performing less well in the presence of music than extraverts. Ten introverts and ten extraverts were given two tests (a memory test with immediate and delayed recall and a reading comprehension test), which were completed, either while being exposed to pop music, or in silence. The results showed that there was a detrimental effect on immediate recall on the memory test for both groups when music was played, and two of the three interactions were significant. After a 6-minute interval the introverts who had memorized the objects in the presence of the pop music had a significantly lower recall than the extraverts in the same condition and the introverts who had observed them in silence. The introverts who completed a reading comprehension task when music was being played also performed significantly less well than these two groups. These findings have implications for the study habits of introverts when needing to retain or process complex information.
Not that I agree with the boss of course; I like listening to music to block out the sound of people talking, which is a bigger distraction. I would imagine that if there were a comparison between working while listening to music, and working in a noisy, talkative environment, you'd find that the latter has worse performance results than the former. And no, I don't have a citation for that:)
/. is about the only forum I take part in these days, mainly because of the mindset: people here generally try to use reason and logic, and like to learn. Most people here embody the ideals of science, logic, philosophy - such a wide range of thought that I sometimes catch myself thinking, "I'd never thought of that." It's the only forum I've seen where this actually happens on a regular basis. Not all the time, true, but still...
I prefer using Optimize Google (which is based on Customize Google, but that one is no longer maintained). Optimize Google enhances Google search results, but also allows you to make Google cookie UID anonymous, plus allows you to stop all cookies being sent to Google Analytics. You can also remove Google Ads, and Google click tracking. There are other options available for most other Google tools, too e.g. GMail, Calendar, Maps, Docs etc.
Easy. Google wants access to the data, and doesn't want to be shut out. Therefore, it's in their interest to implement something that appeases the Murdochs of the world. I don't quite think people understand just how much influence and clout Murdoch (and people like him) have in the world. More fundamentally, from Murdoch's point of view, if Google does it, then the changes can apply to all newspapers, including his competitors. If only Murdoch's news empire does it, then there is less chance of other newspapers following the trend. I suspect Murdoch does not want that many competitors offering free news, and actively wants to encourage the vast majority of newspapers out there to adopt a similar pay-per-view model, because that means that it's a fairly level playing field in terms of competition. So, if you get Google to do it, it encourages everyone else to follow along.
This all reminds me of a nice little lesson from history when the thriving independent press were shut out a few hundred years ago because of spiralling costs. Advertising became the big funder of newspapers back then, and those that attracted the most funding were able to crush all competition. Independents simply couldn't compete with the rocketing costs of machinery, distribution etc. The market became a wonderful tool of censorship. I won't be surprised to see this having a similar effect ie. shutting down a lot of independents who rely on free news for commentary. Difficult to predict, but it's worth thinking about. I hope I'm wrong.
Always knew that having an advertising company as the gatekeeper to knowledge on the internet was a bad idea.
We MUST avoid moral neutrality, otherwise we become the tools of the government rather than government being a tool of the people. The usage of the phrases good and evil have no value when coming from the top down, they should be very meaningful coming from the bottom up.
This is only meaningful when applied by people against their own government first and foremost. For me, the actual risk is not from avoiding moral neutrality, but in avoiding applying the same moral standards to ourselves as we do to others.
Which is actually why I said, "The only usage of the term 'good' that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state."
It didn't first surface on Amazon and then become available. If you actually read the article (at the Boston Globe and Wired), it's available for sale on Amazon, but it originally got declassified by the CIA itself.
"As they are tools they can be used for both Good and Evil purposes."
I know what you mean, but that's the wrong terminology to be using when discussing Machiavelli and the school of realism (which is essentially what you're describing). It's nothing to do with "good" and "evil". It's only about power, and continuing the existence of the state by whatever means necessary. This tradition goes all the way back to Thucydides, who basically recorded that the “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept [and] by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire – it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can". Rousseau, Niebuhr, Edward Bernays, and various others all expound the same principles.
The only usage of the term "good" that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state. Machiavelli even notes that "it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity – it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.” "Good" and "evil" simply do not apply as most people would understand them; that's a moral code used for propaganda i.e. whatever we do is "good", while whatever they do is "evil". Lying, deception, torture, wars of aggression, ignoring human rights issues, etc. are not things that most people would endorse as being "good" in any shape or form, but in the realm of realism they are all legitimate means towards the one goal i.e. continuing the existence of the state.
This is one of the prime reasons that there exists a core contradiction in states: internally, its citizens are meant to uphold a strict moral code. Externally, as a collective, they engage in activities that very rarely, if ever, coincide with this moral code.
I remember reading Mindhunter a while ago, and there was one particular story in there about a serial killer or rapist (can't remember which offhand) who claimed in his prison interview that, if he got out again, the police would never, ever catch him again. John Douglas (the FBI profiler) sat back, and took him up on the intellectual challenge, and went through his profile of the guy. He figured out that his crimes were deeply related to his father, who died many years ago. Douglas asked what would happen if he posted FBI agents around the prisoner's father's gravestone on his birthday, anniversary of his death, Christmas etc. The guy just grinned, and said, "You've got me."
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I think you need to be high to write a summary like that.
Yeah, exactly. I never understood why TV science fiction continually avoids trying to push the boundaries. You just need to look at the Science Fiction Masterworks series to fully appreciate just how much good science fiction there is out there from 1950 onwards. Surely there's *something* in there that would make someone go, "Hmm, that's a good idea."
Agreed. Why have a reboot when there's obviously so much great new stuff out there? Not sure about Doctorow or Stross's stuff, but there are plenty out there. Just look at something like Flashforward that came from Robert J. Sawer's novel of the same name, which is shaping up to be a pretty decent science fiction series.
The only reason I can think of that reboots are favoured is because the studios probably already own the rights to the story. Plus, there's the added bonus of a captured audience that are older with more money to spend who remember the original show from their teens, which makes them prime marketing material. In other words, they view it as safe, and therefore they don't have to take major risks on it.
Probably the only "reboot" I may be in favour of would be a live action series based on the Stand Alone Complex series from the Ghost in the Shell world. Done well, that has the potential to be brilliant.
Also from the website:
Am I the only one that thinks that's just kinda creepy?
Although, maybe instead of war driving invention, maybe sex will do this time, and we'll get to thank the sex industry for inventing mind/brain copying and transfers into robotic dolls.
I went from insightful to flaimbait to troll. Tough crowd. Now I just need funny and interesting, and I'll have a full set.
On my brief visits to Australia, I was always fascinated by Indigenous Australian culture and history, and made a point of learning more about it. What struck me, though, was how present day Australia has assimilated their culture as a marketing tool, and done next to nothing to allow their people and culture to survive. You can buy cheap Indigenous Australian "art" tat at airports that are made in China, while the vast majority of Indigenous Australians seem to have been left to rot, poor and drunk, in the gutter. There is such a deep undercurrent of racism against them, that I find it remarkable that they still exist at all. Everywhere I went, I heard the same stories of how lazy and worthless they are, they just squander everything they're given, they're all just drug addicts and drunks, stupid, and child abusers, which sounded eerily similar to the attitude of whites towards blacks that I remember from South Africa. I see a deep irony whenever I hear white Australians talk about preserving the white, Christian culture of Australia as justification for their immigration policies: they basically don't want someone to do to them what they did, and are doing, to Indigenous Australians.
I thought it was 42 digits?
"It's unlikely that this change in behaviour has not been a result of human nature." Of course, I meant to say, "It's unlikely that this change in behaviour has been a result of human nature."
People may well kill people, but the existence of guns has caused a change in behaviour in both those who are likely to kill, and those who fear they will be killed, with guns. It's unlikely that this change in behaviour has not been a result of human nature. It's more likely this has happened because of the gun itself. More broadly, having killing technology easily available and more impersonal, and it will be the introduction of that technology that changes us, not necessarily how we use it. McLuhan noted:
Various technologies impact our world just because it exists, and have nothing to do with how it's used. For example, whether industry is making cars, computers, cornflakes, or books, the effect of mechanisation has been the same regardless of content.
Note that I'm not pointing out that all technology is bad, I'm just saying that I don't think it's as simple as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Oops, my bad. Sorry about that. I think I need better eyes.
The paywall they're referring to is on the first link, which is not the NY Times.
Just because mental illnesses may be more common amongst poorer people doesn't explain why they are more likely to be given drugs. Please also note the line that says "Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts". If they're less severe in nature, then why the drugs?
Try OptimizeGoogle (based on CustomizeGoogle). It has a great number of features, such as anonymizing your Google Cookie UID, blocking ads, removing click tracking, stopping cookies being sent to Google Analytics etc.
Or here:
Regarding music, see Music while you work: the differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts, Adrian Furnham, Anna Bradley, Department of Psychology, University College London, UK:
Not that I agree with the boss of course; I like listening to music to block out the sound of people talking, which is a bigger distraction. I would imagine that if there were a comparison between working while listening to music, and working in a noisy, talkative environment, you'd find that the latter has worse performance results than the former. And no, I don't have a citation for that :)
/. is about the only forum I take part in these days, mainly because of the mindset: people here generally try to use reason and logic, and like to learn. Most people here embody the ideals of science, logic, philosophy - such a wide range of thought that I sometimes catch myself thinking, "I'd never thought of that." It's the only forum I've seen where this actually happens on a regular basis. Not all the time, true, but still ...
Happy 100,000, /.
I prefer using Optimize Google (which is based on Customize Google, but that one is no longer maintained). Optimize Google enhances Google search results, but also allows you to make Google cookie UID anonymous, plus allows you to stop all cookies being sent to Google Analytics. You can also remove Google Ads, and Google click tracking. There are other options available for most other Google tools, too e.g. GMail, Calendar, Maps, Docs etc.
Was it the word corporate that gave it away? ;)
Easy. Google wants access to the data, and doesn't want to be shut out. Therefore, it's in their interest to implement something that appeases the Murdochs of the world. I don't quite think people understand just how much influence and clout Murdoch (and people like him) have in the world. More fundamentally, from Murdoch's point of view, if Google does it, then the changes can apply to all newspapers, including his competitors. If only Murdoch's news empire does it, then there is less chance of other newspapers following the trend. I suspect Murdoch does not want that many competitors offering free news, and actively wants to encourage the vast majority of newspapers out there to adopt a similar pay-per-view model, because that means that it's a fairly level playing field in terms of competition. So, if you get Google to do it, it encourages everyone else to follow along.
This all reminds me of a nice little lesson from history when the thriving independent press were shut out a few hundred years ago because of spiralling costs. Advertising became the big funder of newspapers back then, and those that attracted the most funding were able to crush all competition. Independents simply couldn't compete with the rocketing costs of machinery, distribution etc. The market became a wonderful tool of censorship. I won't be surprised to see this having a similar effect ie. shutting down a lot of independents who rely on free news for commentary. Difficult to predict, but it's worth thinking about. I hope I'm wrong.
Always knew that having an advertising company as the gatekeeper to knowledge on the internet was a bad idea.
This is only meaningful when applied by people against their own government first and foremost. For me, the actual risk is not from avoiding moral neutrality, but in avoiding applying the same moral standards to ourselves as we do to others.
Which is actually why I said, "The only usage of the term 'good' that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state."
It didn't first surface on Amazon and then become available. If you actually read the article (at the Boston Globe and Wired), it's available for sale on Amazon, but it originally got declassified by the CIA itself.
I know what you mean, but that's the wrong terminology to be using when discussing Machiavelli and the school of realism (which is essentially what you're describing). It's nothing to do with "good" and "evil". It's only about power, and continuing the existence of the state by whatever means necessary. This tradition goes all the way back to Thucydides, who basically recorded that the “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept [and] by conquering you we shall increase not only the size but the security of our empire – it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule whatever one can". Rousseau, Niebuhr, Edward Bernays, and various others all expound the same principles.
The only usage of the term "good" that you can probably use in this scenario is that the actions taken continue the existence of the state. Machiavelli even notes that "it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity – it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.” "Good" and "evil" simply do not apply as most people would understand them; that's a moral code used for propaganda i.e. whatever we do is "good", while whatever they do is "evil". Lying, deception, torture, wars of aggression, ignoring human rights issues, etc. are not things that most people would endorse as being "good" in any shape or form, but in the realm of realism they are all legitimate means towards the one goal i.e. continuing the existence of the state.
This is one of the prime reasons that there exists a core contradiction in states: internally, its citizens are meant to uphold a strict moral code. Externally, as a collective, they engage in activities that very rarely, if ever, coincide with this moral code.
Great post, mod partent up.
I remember reading Mindhunter a while ago, and there was one particular story in there about a serial killer or rapist (can't remember which offhand) who claimed in his prison interview that, if he got out again, the police would never, ever catch him again. John Douglas (the FBI profiler) sat back, and took him up on the intellectual challenge, and went through his profile of the guy. He figured out that his crimes were deeply related to his father, who died many years ago. Douglas asked what would happen if he posted FBI agents around the prisoner's father's gravestone on his birthday, anniversary of his death, Christmas etc. The guy just grinned, and said, "You've got me."
Great book that, enjoyable read.