Even the most logical society still needs some axioms this logic can build upon. And these axioms are usually values which themselves stem from instincts and emotions. This is why two seemingly rational people can discuss for hours and hours and still end coming to different conclusions because deep in their mind they both want different things.
Brave New World solved this contradiction by assuming that most peoples interests are pretty basic (eat, sleep, drink, fuck) and can be satisfied by industrial progress while any other desires (like the need for a deeper meaning of one's existance) can be suppressed/satisfied with Soma. I don't remember if the novel gives an answer to the question why those who have those "unwanted desires" would not find that treatment degrading.
Because Star Trek has a strong idealist humanistic message which means that every lifeform, even those with the most alien shape and morality, deep in their heart want peace and prosperity and can therefore be reasoned with.
This is why pretty much every conflict in Star Trek is really just a fantastic diplomatic dispute.
Star Wars on the other hand is full of irredeemly evil and powerful people (Palpatine, Jabba etc.) who are mostly motivated by their desire for power and who can only stopped by force.
Funny enough, the TNG movies are not much different from Star Wars movies with less diplomacy and more action.
If we ever come to a world where most of the population doesn't work at all, the respect for work will eventually fade. For most people money will be something that is "just there" without them having any direct relationship to where it comes from. Consequently conditions for those who actually do work will worsen as they lack the necessary majorities to push their political interests.
You still need to verify someones identity to contact him and a number is the most data efficient way to do so. Aside from that, contact lists have not killed the phone number, why should Facebook?
... I get caught up in a situation where I HAVE to create a collision to minimize overall damage? Like, I'm caught up in traffic and a truck ignores a red light heading towards me and my only way to survive is to "push" the car ahead of me? Or I'm stuck in the mud and have to drive up a steep slope that emergency break recognizes as an obstacle? Or a riot breaks out and my car becomes a weapon of self defense. Or my garage burns down and I have to break through the door to save my vehicle.
The problem is that we live in a society where a large number those that traditionally stood on the side of privacy (liberals, minorities etc.) have realized that surveillance can be a very useful tool to achieve the same ends that they previously wanted privacy for.
Republican presidental candidate caught making derogatory comments on certain voter groups? Cool. Basketball club owner recorded making racist remarks on a private phone call and forced to sell his shares? Awesome. Internal Email history of released on the web? What a nice reading for the weekend!
It es inevitable that the liberal movement will split about this at some point: Those who want true freedom respecting even opposing opinions, as long as they are not violent, and radical idealists with an agenda who see surveillance and conformism as more effective tools to shape their utopia. It will be interesting to see on which side the companies most capable of total surveillance - Google, Apple, Microsoft - will end up.
>>> If you fly, ride the bus, train or cruise ship, other people control where you go.
And if I don't go by them they don't, so whats the point? The focus in mass transportation lies on cost efficiency, not on flexibility or privacy and I can choose where my preferences lie any time. Your argument may just as well be used to argue against any unsupervised transportation including walking.
>>>I remember people in a video forum in 2004 telling me they'd be shooting film the rest of their lives. That was just 11 years ago. In just that short >>>time span video has not only rivaled film but surpassed it. Long before video surpassed film in terms of quality, video displaced film on the basis >>>of cost and ease of workflow. The technical hurdles in 2004 for video to replace film were huge and it happened in less than a decade.
When you say "video" do you mean digital cameras vs. analogous? The only reason why someone may choose the latter above the former is image quality and if the quality fits, everythings cool. The problem does not have an individualistic or privacy component. The comparison doesn't work.
>>> It won't be that long before people who insist on driving themselves become the hazards on the road
The only people who will become hazards on the road are the same people that are hazards on the road right now.
If you're an academic and you're writing a paper you have to check on the accuracy of the quotes you used. If the quote happens to be in a premium paper you're screwed.
Technically a TV is just a screen with a cable tuner attached to it and screens will not become obsolete until brainwaves reach market maturity. People like you may get rid of the tuner but that will happen automatically the larger PC screens become.
don't mention the name "Snowden"in the title. Instead, he should have passed himself as a south-american business agency fearing CIA moles. In the best case, he will get a very efficient document streaming service.
People have made the experience that hoarded information may get leaked decades later and in a completely unrelated context and that a single careless commentary publicy exposed may ruin your life. So either you put yourself under permanent stress oder prepare to be listed under "Stupid guy who couldn't let his mouth shut" in some blog.
...that this will end in a full-scale surveillance war where everyone watches everyone turning us in a society of politically correct stepford smilers?
Slashdot Mirror
Even the most logical society still needs some axioms this logic can build upon. And these axioms are usually values which themselves stem from instincts and emotions. This is why two seemingly rational people can discuss for hours and hours and still end coming to different conclusions because deep in their mind they both want different things.
Brave New World solved this contradiction by assuming that most peoples interests are pretty basic (eat, sleep, drink, fuck) and can be satisfied by industrial progress while any other desires (like the need for a deeper meaning of one's existance) can be suppressed/satisfied with Soma. I don't remember if the novel gives an answer to the question why those who have those "unwanted desires" would not find that treatment degrading.
Because Star Trek has a strong idealist humanistic message which means that every lifeform, even those with the most alien shape and morality, deep in their heart want peace and prosperity and can therefore be reasoned with.
This is why pretty much every conflict in Star Trek is really just a fantastic diplomatic dispute.
Star Wars on the other hand is full of irredeemly evil and powerful people (Palpatine, Jabba etc.) who are mostly motivated by their desire for power and who can only stopped by force.
Funny enough, the TNG movies are not much different from Star Wars movies with less diplomacy and more action.
How do you prevetn people form tampering with the road?
I just saw a rainbow colored car going by playing "La Cucaracha" nonstop!
So the Joker went electric.
Nothing agains fighting texting while driving but...why is U.S. legislation always about ruining peoples' lives completely?
My experiences with border customs has led me to the conclusion that
U.S. law enforcement ist mostly designed to deal with wisecrackers.
Let the harassment begin.
You can be pretty sure that tort law will pretty much bankrupt VW or at least their US branch.
Especially regarding the human addiction to self-exposure.
If we ever come to a world where most of the population doesn't work at all, the respect for work will eventually fade. For most people money will be something that is "just there" without them having any direct relationship to where it comes from. Consequently conditions for those who actually do work will worsen as they lack the necessary majorities to push their political interests.
You still need to verify someones identity to contact him and a number is the most data efficient way to do so.
Aside from that, contact lists have not killed the phone number, why should Facebook?
Cancer usually doesn't cause antisocial behavior while many mental illnesses do.
... I get caught up in a situation where I HAVE to create a collision to minimize overall damage? Like, I'm caught up in traffic and a truck ignores a red light heading towards me and my only way to survive is to "push" the car ahead of me? Or I'm stuck in the mud and have to drive up a steep slope that emergency break recognizes as an obstacle? Or a riot breaks out and my car becomes a weapon of self defense. Or my garage burns down and I have to break through the door to save my vehicle.
Can emergency breaking be overriden voluntarily?
the electric companies don't charge this way in your country? Is the battery suitable for long time storage like say from solar or wind?
The problem is that we live in a society where a large number those that traditionally stood on the side of privacy (liberals, minorities etc.) have realized that surveillance can be a very useful tool to achieve the same ends that they previously wanted privacy for.
Republican presidental candidate caught making derogatory comments on certain voter groups? Cool.
Basketball club owner recorded making racist remarks on a private phone call and forced to sell his shares? Awesome.
Internal Email history of released on the web? What a nice reading for the weekend!
It es inevitable that the liberal movement will split about this at some point: Those who want true freedom respecting even opposing opinions, as long as they are not violent, and radical idealists with an agenda who see surveillance and conformism as more effective tools to shape their utopia. It will be interesting to see on which side the companies most capable of total surveillance - Google, Apple, Microsoft - will end up.
>>> If you fly, ride the bus, train or cruise ship, other people control where you go.
And if I don't go by them they don't, so whats the point? The focus in mass transportation lies on cost efficiency, not on flexibility or privacy and I can choose where my preferences lie any time. Your argument may just as well be used to argue against any unsupervised transportation including walking.
>>>I remember people in a video forum in 2004 telling me they'd be shooting film the rest of their lives. That was just 11 years ago. In just that short >>>time span video has not only rivaled film but surpassed it. Long before video surpassed film in terms of quality, video displaced film on the basis >>>of cost and ease of workflow. The technical hurdles in 2004 for video to replace film were huge and it happened in less than a decade.
When you say "video" do you mean digital cameras vs. analogous? The only reason why someone may choose the latter above the former is image quality and if the quality fits, everythings cool. The problem does not have an individualistic or privacy component. The comparison doesn't work.
>>> It won't be that long before people who insist on driving themselves become the hazards on the road
The only people who will become hazards on the road are the same people that are hazards on the road right now.
If you're an academic and you're writing a paper you have to check on the accuracy of the quotes you used. If the quote happens to be in a premium paper you're screwed.
Technically a TV is just a screen with a cable tuner attached to it and screens will not become obsolete until brainwaves reach market maturity. People like you may get rid of the tuner but that will happen automatically the larger PC screens become.
don't mention the name "Snowden"in the title. Instead, he should have passed himself as a south-american business agency fearing CIA moles. In the best case, he will get a very efficient document streaming service.
Even if they're large and heavy we can still use them to store surplus load of a solar cell and heat out houses instead of oil.
Just adding a "T" binary flag to the data would be too simple, right?
People have made the experience that hoarded information may get leaked decades later and in a completely unrelated context and that a single careless commentary publicy exposed may ruin your life. So either you put yourself under permanent stress oder prepare to be listed under "Stupid guy who couldn't let his mouth shut" in some blog.
...that this will end in a full-scale surveillance war where everyone watches everyone turning us in a society of politically correct stepford smilers?
Until the government shows interest in recordings predominantly featuring your friends and you.