Searching for details on the 9/11 terrorism event...
Student doing research for school on the atom bomb or genocide for ww2 project
Or, you know, actually searching for details of how bombs work and how to make them. Don't accept the underlying fallacy here that searching for information on how to make a bomb is evil. We are geeks, we love to understand how things work.
My take is this: Privacy is dead. The only way to keep the playing field level is to make sure everyone has access...
Your take is wrong. Just because privacy is hard doesn't mean it's dead. If you're going to fight "to keep the playing field level" then it is better to fight FOR privacy, not against it. The government will always have more eyes and ears, more computing power, and more political power than private citizens, so even if everyone has access to everything the government still "wins" and you still lose. They are the ones deciding what is bad, not you.
is you have the same crowd who often pillories things like a us national id and microsoft's passport, but are quick and happy to embrace an open login system like this, and bemoan things like IM systems that don't talk to each other
There isn't one comment here saying this is a good thing - who exactly are you mad at?
You could get a computer to simulate 409 cu. in. automobile engine,... but it couldn't torque a flea's leg!
and a simulated coupling to a simulated... Aw, let's let it go at that!
A computer simulation of intelligence (AI) is fundamentally the same thing as a brain - a physical object which is supporting an electrical computation. It is another form of intelligence itself, not just a simulation of it.
An engine is a physical object and a computer simulation of it is the equivalent of someone thinking about an engine. This is why a simulation of an engine cannot do the work of a real engine, but a simulation of intelligence could do the work of a brain.
How to go about establishing the credibility of people who enforce it is a completely separate question. It is not however a reason to dismiss the approach altogether.
You misunderstood me. I'm not dismissing it - on the contrary, it worries me a great deal.
Let's just hope they don't get swamped with false positives.
No, let's hope they do. It would be nice if there was some limit to airport security where it becomes impractical to be any more totalitarian, especially as the measures at airports are creeping in to every other part of society.
This would be awesome if it was open to the public. As long as it's not just a way for the few to know everything about the many and engage in selective enforcement, it's towards the good.
If we give the public cancer that's bad, but so long as we give the people in charge cancer too, that's GREAT!!! Honestly what on Earth is the attraction some people see in a surveillance state, regardless of who is doing the surveilling?
Surveillance isn't like a debt that can be cancelled out by the other side paying it too - if both sides are under surveillance, both sides LOSE.
Crime is best prevented by the fear of getting caught and punished.
No, and that's what's wrong with almost all the crime-prevention programs you hear about. Drugs education is about instilling fear, drink-driving adverts are about instilling fear, anti-smoking campaigns are about instilling fear.
The best way to prevent crime is not by instilling fear, but by having a society of people who are aware of how their actions affect others and genuinely want the world to be a nice place to live in, because then you don't need all the restrictions of liberty and ubiquitous surveillance to keep people in line. It's not a quick fix like fear, and it requires effort and co-operation and education across society. Maybe instilling fear is the first step in a transition to a society where people are considerate, but I doubt it.
I won't object to it as long as I can recored the location and activities of the cops, and store that indefinitely
What use would that be? The police will store the information from hundreds of cameras on a database that is searchable by the whole organization and other organizations, while you store your little bit of information on your home computer. They have hundreds of people paid to sort and scan a constant flow of information from hundreds of sources, you have some labeled mini-DV tapes on a shelf. They're recording everything pre-emptively, how much free time would you have to video the police and then organize your tapes when you got home? They're creating a database of the movements of thousands of private citizens, and you're talking about balancing that by recording a few public servants at work.
Even if you were allowed to do it, you shouldn't feel it evens the playing field for you.
This just proves that it's the shape of the cellphone towers that causes the headaches, rather than the radio waves they transmit. Those big metal structures are the perfect shape for channeling masses of concentrated "negative vibes".
there is a big crowd of Slashdotters who are reasonable luddite-like
A technophile and a technophobe can come to the same conclusion that one aspect of technology is invasive or unnessecary, but that does not mean the technophile is now a technophobe, or that they both used the same logic to get to that conclusion. On the contrary - an understanding of technology makes you more acutely aware of its disadvantages.
Calling someone who is concerned with how technology affects people's privacy rights a Luddite is disingenuous.
I agree with you, but that's not what I meant by a saved state. The "saved state" is saved in the way the neurons have been changed by your thoughts - not an electrical state but a physical one. When the power comes back on there is only one way for it to flow through the brain, so it flows that way, and that flowing electrical field that is guided by the unique pathways in your brain is what makes you you. It's just a guess at how it works, but it seemed likely to me since I found out that neurons and the connections between them are physically altered by the electrical charges that pass through them - your thoughts physically change your brain.
The stalkers of the world will always have the upper hand as long as we try and keep the genie in the bottle. We need to make the technology a two-way street and get rid of the myth of privacy.
Completely 180-degrees wrong. Privacy is not a myth; it's something you have to continually work at, but that doesn't stop it existing. Throwing privacy away is not the solution. You may not care about your own privacy but seeing as many other people do, it makes sense to protect their rights and you lose nothing, instead of giving away everyone's privacy and making a lot of people lose out.
PS. Your "battered woman" scenario has nothing to do with privacy - assault is illegal and stalking is illegal, the privacy debate is irrelevant to it.
or where any "personality" goes when it's sleeping.
No, because when you are sleeping there is still electrical activity in the brain - "a succession of mental states continually re-created in our brains, even during sleep" as the article says.
This is asking the question of where "you" go when the power to your brain is switched off. It seems probable to me that - as neurons and the connections between them are modified, weakened, or strengthened by the signals that pass through them - when power is restored to the brain it has to move through these unique pathways and your consciousness is restarted based on the saved state.
It's OK if you don't care care about your privacy, but the implication of your statement (and of everyone else who says "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.") is that you don't care about anyone else's privacy, either.
When it is obvious that many people do care about something, and you're dismissing their concerns because you don't care about it, it shows that you have no solidarity for your fellow countrymen - you believe in every citizen obeying the set laws, rather than in respecting each other and working together. It's what is at the heart of "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."
As an aside, about "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - that has to be one of the most sinister sentences ever written. It may as well say "If you won't do what we say, you need to fear us."
If it took this to put you off David Cameron, you haven't been paying attention to what a knee-jerk-politics empty-headed photo-op publicity-seeker he is.
but if it is the UK gov doing it, nobody bats an eyelid.
This isn't the UK government imposing a law, it's a proposal by the leader of the opposition. People in the UK do complain when the government does something they don't like, loudly. Downing Street even has a site where you can create and sign petitions so your complaint has a good chance of being heard. The roads pricing petition had over a million signatures - how is that "nobody bats and eyelid"?
For example, smoking. I hate smoking, it's horrid. But if people want to do it, they should be able to go to pubs where it's allowed.
I'm one of the biggest believers in a leave-everyone-the-hell-alone government that there is, but smoking indoors doesn't fall in to that category. If you smoke indoors you affect the other people in that room - why should I have to wash my clothes just because I went for a drink?
And if people want to copy music or books or whatever of an artist that is well dead and buried then they should be able to do that too.
Yep, virtually nobody's heard of that online petition thing.
I'm willing to bet that most people who sign the buzzword-issue-petitions like the road-charging one have never explored the rest of the site, and could do with a kick to make them care about politics instead of just their wallet. But you're right, I was making excuses for people because of the low turn-out for this petition and almost all the others.
The conclusion is either that most people don't know about the site, or that most people do know about the site but don't give a damn. Depressing either way.
Will someone in the US government please do the same?
Well, the reason this came up in the UK just now is because it's a response to this "e-petition" on the Downing Street web site, which only 1505 people signed, including me. To be fair, not many people know about the online petition system - it's been going for less than a year and the only time it is mentioned in the media is in passing in stories like this one. It's a system set up and run by the government, anyone can start a petition, and the site is clear and mercifully free of jargon.
Perhaps what you need to push for in the US is a similar system. Even if the only response from the government is to give a statement clarifying a point or saying it's not their job to do anything about it, it often gets in the news and that's a result.
PS. The software for the petition site is open source (see the bottom of the page).
Privacy should disappear. It's the darkness that allows evil to grow and spread.
Privacy can hide evil so privacy is bad? OK, blankets can hide Nazis so blankets are bad. See what you've done there?
Don't tar privacy with the same brush as one of the bad things it can do - it is also essential for freedom of expression if you don't agree with the majority view. For many people a life without privacy would be unbearable.
Instead of working to eliminate privacy, work to strengthen it. It may be a harder fight but the rewards are greater.
Absolutely: the study wasn't about genetics, it was about social conditioning. They specifically studied cases where the eldest sibling had died and the second-born then became the eldest child, and found that their IQ matched what would be expected for a first-born child.
I know that I'm not willing to go to the USA as long as I'm treated as a criminal and I'm not alone with that sentiment.
Amen. I feel the same way about the USA now as I do about Stonehenge - I'm glad I visited it years ago before it was spoiled by the barriers they put up.
Slashdot Mirror
An engine is a physical object and a computer simulation of it is the equivalent of someone thinking about an engine. This is why a simulation of an engine cannot do the work of a real engine, but a simulation of intelligence could do the work of a brain.
But... if a computer simulation can simulate life, is the simulation alive?
Surveillance isn't like a debt that can be cancelled out by the other side paying it too - if both sides are under surveillance, both sides LOSE.
The best way to prevent crime is not by instilling fear, but by having a society of people who are aware of how their actions affect others and genuinely want the world to be a nice place to live in, because then you don't need all the restrictions of liberty and ubiquitous surveillance to keep people in line. It's not a quick fix like fear, and it requires effort and co-operation and education across society. Maybe instilling fear is the first step in a transition to a society where people are considerate, but I doubt it.
Just saying, but "Good news everyone!" was always the herald of really bad news. The tag should be !goodnewseveryone.
I'll get my coat.
Even if you were allowed to do it, you shouldn't feel it evens the playing field for you.
This just proves that it's the shape of the cellphone towers that causes the headaches, rather than the radio waves they transmit. Those big metal structures are the perfect shape for channeling masses of concentrated "negative vibes".
They cause crop circles, too.
Calling someone who is concerned with how technology affects people's privacy rights a Luddite is disingenuous.
PS. Your "battered woman" scenario has nothing to do with privacy - assault is illegal and stalking is illegal, the privacy debate is irrelevant to it.
This is asking the question of where "you" go when the power to your brain is switched off. It seems probable to me that - as neurons and the connections between them are modified, weakened, or strengthened by the signals that pass through them - when power is restored to the brain it has to move through these unique pathways and your consciousness is restarted based on the saved state.
It's OK if you don't care care about your privacy, but the implication of your statement (and of everyone else who says "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.") is that you don't care about anyone else's privacy, either.
When it is obvious that many people do care about something, and you're dismissing their concerns because you don't care about it, it shows that you have no solidarity for your fellow countrymen - you believe in every citizen obeying the set laws, rather than in respecting each other and working together. It's what is at the heart of "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."
As an aside, about "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - that has to be one of the most sinister sentences ever written. It may as well say "If you won't do what we say, you need to fear us."
The conclusion is either that most people don't know about the site, or that most people do know about the site but don't give a damn. Depressing either way.
Damn You! (shakes fist at Nazis flying away in a Zeppelin covered by a blanket).
Perhaps what you need to push for in the US is a similar system. Even if the only response from the government is to give a statement clarifying a point or saying it's not their job to do anything about it, it often gets in the news and that's a result.
PS. The software for the petition site is open source (see the bottom of the page).
Don't tar privacy with the same brush as one of the bad things it can do - it is also essential for freedom of expression if you don't agree with the majority view. For many people a life without privacy would be unbearable.
Instead of working to eliminate privacy, work to strengthen it. It may be a harder fight but the rewards are greater.
Absolutely: the study wasn't about genetics, it was about social conditioning. They specifically studied cases where the eldest sibling had died and the second-born then became the eldest child, and found that their IQ matched what would be expected for a first-born child.