From the article:
The Hamilton Sundstrand team is considering a technology that would project information onto the helmet's visor or onto the astronaut's retina. They are also looking into small wrist-worn devices.
This is why I love seemingly pointless scientific endeavors. Why should we go to Mars? I guess it's cool, maybe we'll find some cool microrganisms to study, etc, but cool new gadgets are what I'm into.
I want this display info on my glasses system. Forget PDAs, all your info could be on your glasses. Even better, maybe on your contacts. No more forgetting my PDA in my backpack. This is freakin cool!
That misses the whole essence of 1984 (which is really a cool date because Orwell finishes the book in 1948). Being able to have a backdoor into all email is bad, but not 1984 bad. We'll move a lot closer to 1984 if Congress (w/out restraint from the Courts) is able to use laws like this as a springboard for more intrusions into privacy.
George Orwell's police state won't be here until we either know (or can't be sure of the contrary) that the government is watching us.
Then comes thought crimes - they can tell when we're thinking thoughts against the government and social norms (which will probably be set by the government).
Then schools will be places to indoctrinate kids into the army of the state that watches its parents for even the slightest sign of rebellion.
Then we won't remember if we're friends with this country and at war with another.
Then war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
The real question: is privacy a fundamental liberty? It's never touched on in the constitution. The right to be left alone is flat out left out.
The reason? Our founding fathers had no idea how large cities and communities and government would get. How oculd they forsee the future conflicts of privacy vs safety?
I generally lean toward protected privacy, but it almost seems like it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, who's the one who's doing the deciding?
Sure, they want backdoors into email encryption now, and it seems harmless, but what will they want next? Why not have every home in America bugged; that way we can know when a burgaler is going to commit a crime. Cameras everywhere, low crime. Of course, the price will be the right of privacy.
And when your behaviors are available freely for government inspection, it's much easier for them to supress behaviors they do not approve of (cause they know when it happens, unlike now when it can be hidden behind closed doors). You know, meetings about how to reform government.
Of course the government will tell you that they'll use these backdoors only when they need to, national security type things. That's what the Dean at my old high school said, and then we caught him watching the monitors repeatedly for the fun of it.
Oh yeah, not that the government has to actually be watching for you to be good now. Think how different your ations would be if you thought that the government might be watching at all times. This is pure, hardcore social control. It's like a gaurd tower in a jail. If there are clear windows, you can always tell when you are watched and when you are not. If the windows are dark, then you never know if you are being watched, so you act as if you are always being watched.
Journalists are (for the most part) human, and don't want to see other humans hurt or killed. They feel emotions, they feel pain, they cry. They throw up the morning after watching several thousand people die before their eyes.
On the other hand, tragedies like this are what make their careers. This is big news. This is how they make all their money. As human as they are, there's something inside of them just hoping something bad will happen to cover. Even worse, sometimes they wish bad situations turn even more horrific...
Even though I'm not a journalist, I can feel this pull. Half of us wants people to be safe, the other half wants to see something spectacular.
What a horrible, contradictory dualism we humans have,
F-bacher
I honestly don't think they were attacking the state of NY. They were attacking the federal government, and purhaps capitalism. That's why they hit the WTC and hit the pentagon (althought there's reports they were aiming at the whitehouse).
The only thing I wonder about is what the passengers on the planes that hit the WTC were thinking. Why didn't they try to overthrow their captors like the passengers on the Pennsylvania flight? Did they have time to react? I can't imagine the terror they must have felt when they saw themselves heading towards the WTC...
No, it just means we have to tell them THAT we did it, not before we do it. It would be kind of hard to report our actions before we make them in the middle of a battle or something like that. Also, it would be a considerable security risk, especially if the terrorists (whoever they are) tep into out lines.
Oh man, you really missed the point. In Fahrenheit 451, the people were led to believe that the wrongly arrested man was the real convict through the media. All the government has to do is show some picturers of a Muslim, some footage of FBI agents chasing down another Muslim (not necessarially the same one, if the camera is far enough away), etc.
And why shouldn't those other countries be pleased? They HATE us. That doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.
F-bacher
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ohpss, I meant to say some; I didn't want to implicate all. Secondly, I am a Chrisitian, so that's why I abhor this type of conduct. Thridly, there may never have been a suicide bombing by a Chrisitian, but there defintely have been bombings.
Oh yeah, what about Christians that are for the death penalty (they exist). If they are against the death penalty, do we still consider them pro-life?
First of all, one of the bedrock principles of the US is the protection of freedom of speech... which kind of goes along with the freedom of religion. Oh yeah, and implicitely the freedom to think whatever the hell you want. There are plenty of white supremicists who belive crazy stuff with no backing, but I would rather them have their right to believe what they like than to supress that right. Maybe my ideas would get the short end of the stick one day.
Hey, maybe we should ban all atheism, since it is such a hopeless belief system, with no afterlife or reward system. Maybe that's the cause of a lot of depression.
Almost all religions are against killing and deaths of innocent individuals. BUT, the people who run the religions can be corrupted and use religion for their own purposes (i.e. the Crusades).
F-bacher
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I think it was probably when they bombed an abortion clinic. It's too bad that Christians are suppose to love their enemies and not kill others, then maybe this practice would align with their actions.
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective selfdefence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Not only did the terrorists bombing piss us off really bad (a it should), so we're already more than likely to go bomb anything remotely related to the terrorists (well, ur state was adjacent to theirs, but now we also got NATO wanting to get into the action. So barring UN intervention of some kind (I doubt it, although I don't know if we'd listen to them anyway), we're going to find a terrorist to blame and bomb the hell out of him and all his associates.
Yeah, we may not find the real terrorist, but we'll make sure we can find someone else to blame. The government has that legitimacy thing and competence thing to maintain.
What, the government would never do that? Hey, maybe they're all honest johns in D.C., but if anyone has ever read Fahrenheit 451, you know that the public doesn't want the government to catch THE terrorist, they want them to catch someone that the government say is the terrorist.
We can just think about how horrible this tragedy is for 24/7 and get all bent out of shape (like the terrorists want to), or we can calmly multitask and cover other issues of the day as well as thinking about the World Trade Center being airplane bombed. We can't let them stop our way of life.
I'm not trying to say that everything will be the same as before, because it won't. It will never be business as usual again. But we also cn't freak about this.
So do I, but you really shouldn't. It would be like taking all your bills, letters, homework assignments (or real work), picturers, porn, etc and threw them into a big pile on your desk. It's a lot faster to find them all if they're not all on the desk top and sorted in some meaningful fashion. Hey, I hate it when I can't find my porn fast... err... nevermind.
Geez, you don't get much simpler than a text file. Maybe they should spend more time working on their server than just the interface.
But I have to admit the stripped down version of everything to text files sounds effecient and fast - but most users also like the colorful bell and whistles. Might try this out sometime... if I can ever get at that blasted text file.
I really hope that this turns out to be a white, blue eyed American. That way the little world that racists try to live in, where all whites are good and every body else is scum, will come crashing down.
We should be calm, but it will never be business as usual again. We need to take more precausions in respect to terrorism and to airplane safety. If we just ignore them as a society, I suppose that means the terrorists don't win this round. So guess what: they have to blow up something bigger, with more deaths, and effect more people directly!
That's not to say that we should be calm. But we have to take this seriously too.
We played the game with Oklahoma City. We were wrong - it ended up being a homegrown military man who fought in the Golf War to protect America.
I don't think racial assumptions and stereotyping is going to help resolve this situation any sooner, nor adds to the great discource that is remarkable appearing on slashdot.
I'm not sure if we're dealing with just a terrorist. Bin Laden does have deep pockets ($100 million plus I've heard). And considering the terrorists supposedly used knifes and paper cutters, it doesn't sound like the operation was necessarially well funded (although they may have opted to use thes weapons so as to bypass security).
There very well might be state's that helped. We can bomb the hell out of them. Then what? Maybe the succumb... but will the people? Will they only become more irrate? If so, then maybe that country will aid in more terrorist attacks against the US and other western nations in the future.
Or then again, maybe it's not a terrorist group. My roomate pointed out that this may really be a covert attempt to lure the US into a war. They may have hidden the war attacks as terrorist attacks to make the US make the next move.
What you are all missing is that we are dealing with terrorists, not states. It's easy to bomb the hell out of states (like Germany), it's hard to do that with terrorists, because they are so spread out. If their whole goal is to wipe out the US because they hate us (aka for no good reason), then we should move in and use necessary force (aka kill them if they'd kill us, otherwise just apprehend) to stop them. We could get Bin Laden (if it's him) if we really wanted to. We just don't want to risk American lives to do so. Before mass media, this was doable. But Americans hate to see Americans coming back in body bags from oversees.
Then again, because the terrorists attacked us first, then it's very likely that their would be popular support for such attempts to capture/kill Bin Laden. In Vietnam, we were the agressors and American's become disillusioned with the purpose. All the news has to do is replay the WTC collapsing, and people will remember why we're after him.
I'll never argue that what they did is just, but they may still have a cause that we could damper. Were we just in killing hundreds of thousands in Japan with nuclear bombs? No, because killing is always wrong (especially against civilians).
This is the most disturbing post I have ever read on slashdot. I know some people need to use humor to deal with crisis (I commented earlier to a friend that 20,000 people died and I get a day off of school [I wasn't laughing]), but this is just aweful. Ascii porn and goatse.cx links are inappropriate, this is down right morally repugnant. You really could offend someone. Hell, I'm really offended. It does a diservice to the memory of the people who died and doesn't take into account the graveness of the situation.
The question is, what will retaliation accomplish? Sure, we'll feel all good about it in the longer term, but if we attack the terrorist(s) (if we figure out who exactly did this), that might just enrage other affiliated terrorists, making the terrorists will kill in retaliation martyrs. The things we need to do, and in this order (some sort of in parrallel):
1. Help save those trapped in the rubble
2. Beef up security against terrorists attacks (i.e. find out how the terrorists were able to hijack so many planes)
3. Find out who the terrorists are
4. Find out what they want/why they did this
5. Evaluate their rational (maybe we gave them cause, it's possible)
6. See if it's possible to both hold the leaders responsible and appease their demands if it's reasonable.
The key thing is a dialogue. If the terrorists want to complain about something to the US, and we just ignore them, then that could explain why the go to such drastic measurers.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
The Hamilton Sundstrand team is considering a technology that would project information onto the helmet's visor or onto the astronaut's retina. They are also looking into small wrist-worn devices.
This is why I love seemingly pointless scientific endeavors. Why should we go to Mars? I guess it's cool, maybe we'll find some cool microrganisms to study, etc, but cool new gadgets are what I'm into.
I want this display info on my glasses system. Forget PDAs, all your info could be on your glasses. Even better, maybe on your contacts. No more forgetting my PDA in my backpack. This is freakin cool!
F-bacher
That misses the whole essence of 1984 (which is really a cool date because Orwell finishes the book in 1948). Being able to have a backdoor into all email is bad, but not 1984 bad. We'll move a lot closer to 1984 if Congress (w/out restraint from the Courts) is able to use laws like this as a springboard for more intrusions into privacy.
George Orwell's police state won't be here until we either know (or can't be sure of the contrary) that the government is watching us.
Then comes thought crimes - they can tell when we're thinking thoughts against the government and social norms (which will probably be set by the government).
Then schools will be places to indoctrinate kids into the army of the state that watches its parents for even the slightest sign of rebellion.
Then we won't remember if we're friends with this country and at war with another.
Then war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
F-bacher
The real question: is privacy a fundamental liberty? It's never touched on in the constitution. The right to be left alone is flat out left out.
The reason? Our founding fathers had no idea how large cities and communities and government would get. How oculd they forsee the future conflicts of privacy vs safety?
I generally lean toward protected privacy, but it almost seems like it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, who's the one who's doing the deciding?
F-bacher
Sure, they want backdoors into email encryption now, and it seems harmless, but what will they want next? Why not have every home in America bugged; that way we can know when a burgaler is going to commit a crime. Cameras everywhere, low crime. Of course, the price will be the right of privacy.
And when your behaviors are available freely for government inspection, it's much easier for them to supress behaviors they do not approve of (cause they know when it happens, unlike now when it can be hidden behind closed doors). You know, meetings about how to reform government.
Of course the government will tell you that they'll use these backdoors only when they need to, national security type things. That's what the Dean at my old high school said, and then we caught him watching the monitors repeatedly for the fun of it.
Oh yeah, not that the government has to actually be watching for you to be good now. Think how different your ations would be if you thought that the government might be watching at all times. This is pure, hardcore social control. It's like a gaurd tower in a jail. If there are clear windows, you can always tell when you are watched and when you are not. If the windows are dark, then you never know if you are being watched, so you act as if you are always being watched.
They might as well run a wire into our head.
F-bacher
Journalists are (for the most part) human, and don't want to see other humans hurt or killed. They feel emotions, they feel pain, they cry. They throw up the morning after watching several thousand people die before their eyes.
On the other hand, tragedies like this are what make their careers. This is big news. This is how they make all their money. As human as they are, there's something inside of them just hoping something bad will happen to cover. Even worse, sometimes they wish bad situations turn even more horrific...
Even though I'm not a journalist, I can feel this pull. Half of us wants people to be safe, the other half wants to see something spectacular.
What a horrible, contradictory dualism we humans have,
F-bacher
I honestly don't think they were attacking the state of NY. They were attacking the federal government, and purhaps capitalism. That's why they hit the WTC and hit the pentagon (althought there's reports they were aiming at the whitehouse).
The only thing I wonder about is what the passengers on the planes that hit the WTC were thinking. Why didn't they try to overthrow their captors like the passengers on the Pennsylvania flight? Did they have time to react? I can't imagine the terror they must have felt when they saw themselves heading towards the WTC...
F-bacher
Works now. Although the server is obviusly feeling the strain of the slashdot effect.
I'm kind of curious on how google cache works. Would it be possible for slashdot to add these websites to the cache before the story is posted?
F-bacher
No, it just means we have to tell them THAT we did it, not before we do it. It would be kind of hard to report our actions before we make them in the middle of a battle or something like that. Also, it would be a considerable security risk, especially if the terrorists (whoever they are) tep into out lines.
F-bacher
Oh man, you really missed the point. In Fahrenheit 451, the people were led to believe that the wrongly arrested man was the real convict through the media. All the government has to do is show some picturers of a Muslim, some footage of FBI agents chasing down another Muslim (not necessarially the same one, if the camera is far enough away), etc.
And why shouldn't those other countries be pleased? They HATE us. That doesn't mean they had anything to do with it.
F-bacher
Ohpss, I meant to say some; I didn't want to implicate all. Secondly, I am a Chrisitian, so that's why I abhor this type of conduct. Thridly, there may never have been a suicide bombing by a Chrisitian, but there defintely have been bombings.
Oh yeah, what about Christians that are for the death penalty (they exist). If they are against the death penalty, do we still consider them pro-life?
F-bacher
First of all, one of the bedrock principles of the US is the protection of freedom of speech... which kind of goes along with the freedom of religion. Oh yeah, and implicitely the freedom to think whatever the hell you want. There are plenty of white supremicists who belive crazy stuff with no backing, but I would rather them have their right to believe what they like than to supress that right. Maybe my ideas would get the short end of the stick one day.
Hey, maybe we should ban all atheism, since it is such a hopeless belief system, with no afterlife or reward system. Maybe that's the cause of a lot of depression.
Almost all religions are against killing and deaths of innocent individuals. BUT, the people who run the religions can be corrupted and use religion for their own purposes (i.e. the Crusades).
F-bacher
I think it was probably when they bombed an abortion clinic. It's too bad that Christians are suppose to love their enemies and not kill others, then maybe this practice would align with their actions.
F-bacher
Personal Video Recorder.
Atleast that's what google keeps coming up with, and it makes sense in the context of the article.
F-bacher
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective selfdefence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
F-bacher
Not only did the terrorists bombing piss us off really bad (a it should), so we're already more than likely to go bomb anything remotely related to the terrorists (well, ur state was adjacent to theirs, but now we also got NATO wanting to get into the action. So barring UN intervention of some kind (I doubt it, although I don't know if we'd listen to them anyway), we're going to find a terrorist to blame and bomb the hell out of him and all his associates.
Yeah, we may not find the real terrorist, but we'll make sure we can find someone else to blame. The government has that legitimacy thing and competence thing to maintain.
What, the government would never do that? Hey, maybe they're all honest johns in D.C., but if anyone has ever read Fahrenheit 451, you know that the public doesn't want the government to catch THE terrorist, they want them to catch someone that the government say is the terrorist.
F-bacher
We can just think about how horrible this tragedy is for 24/7 and get all bent out of shape (like the terrorists want to), or we can calmly multitask and cover other issues of the day as well as thinking about the World Trade Center being airplane bombed. We can't let them stop our way of life.
I'm not trying to say that everything will be the same as before, because it won't. It will never be business as usual again. But we also cn't freak about this.
F-bacher
So do I, but you really shouldn't. It would be like taking all your bills, letters, homework assignments (or real work), picturers, porn, etc and threw them into a big pile on your desk. It's a lot faster to find them all if they're not all on the desk top and sorted in some meaningful fashion. Hey, I hate it when I can't find my porn fast... err... nevermind.
F-bacher
Geez, you don't get much simpler than a text file. Maybe they should spend more time working on their server than just the interface.
But I have to admit the stripped down version of everything to text files sounds effecient and fast - but most users also like the colorful bell and whistles. Might try this out sometime... if I can ever get at that blasted text file.
F-bacher
I really hope that this turns out to be a white, blue eyed American. That way the little world that racists try to live in, where all whites are good and every body else is scum, will come crashing down.
Racism has no place in this dialogue.
F-bacher
We should be calm, but it will never be business as usual again. We need to take more precausions in respect to terrorism and to airplane safety. If we just ignore them as a society, I suppose that means the terrorists don't win this round. So guess what: they have to blow up something bigger, with more deaths, and effect more people directly!
That's not to say that we should be calm. But we have to take this seriously too.
F-bacher
We played the game with Oklahoma City. We were wrong - it ended up being a homegrown military man who fought in the Golf War to protect America.
I don't think racial assumptions and stereotyping is going to help resolve this situation any sooner, nor adds to the great discource that is remarkable appearing on slashdot.
F-bacher
I'm not sure if we're dealing with just a terrorist. Bin Laden does have deep pockets ($100 million plus I've heard). And considering the terrorists supposedly used knifes and paper cutters, it doesn't sound like the operation was necessarially well funded (although they may have opted to use thes weapons so as to bypass security).
There very well might be state's that helped. We can bomb the hell out of them. Then what? Maybe the succumb... but will the people? Will they only become more irrate? If so, then maybe that country will aid in more terrorist attacks against the US and other western nations in the future.
Or then again, maybe it's not a terrorist group. My roomate pointed out that this may really be a covert attempt to lure the US into a war. They may have hidden the war attacks as terrorist attacks to make the US make the next move.
F-bacher
What you are all missing is that we are dealing with terrorists, not states. It's easy to bomb the hell out of states (like Germany), it's hard to do that with terrorists, because they are so spread out. If their whole goal is to wipe out the US because they hate us (aka for no good reason), then we should move in and use necessary force (aka kill them if they'd kill us, otherwise just apprehend) to stop them. We could get Bin Laden (if it's him) if we really wanted to. We just don't want to risk American lives to do so. Before mass media, this was doable. But Americans hate to see Americans coming back in body bags from oversees.
Then again, because the terrorists attacked us first, then it's very likely that their would be popular support for such attempts to capture/kill Bin Laden. In Vietnam, we were the agressors and American's become disillusioned with the purpose. All the news has to do is replay the WTC collapsing, and people will remember why we're after him.
I'll never argue that what they did is just, but they may still have a cause that we could damper. Were we just in killing hundreds of thousands in Japan with nuclear bombs? No, because killing is always wrong (especially against civilians).
But of course, these are big ifs
F-bacher
This is the most disturbing post I have ever read on slashdot. I know some people need to use humor to deal with crisis (I commented earlier to a friend that 20,000 people died and I get a day off of school [I wasn't laughing]), but this is just aweful. Ascii porn and goatse.cx links are inappropriate, this is down right morally repugnant. You really could offend someone. Hell, I'm really offended. It does a diservice to the memory of the people who died and doesn't take into account the graveness of the situation.
F-bacher
The question is, what will retaliation accomplish? Sure, we'll feel all good about it in the longer term, but if we attack the terrorist(s) (if we figure out who exactly did this), that might just enrage other affiliated terrorists, making the terrorists will kill in retaliation martyrs. The things we need to do, and in this order (some sort of in parrallel):
1. Help save those trapped in the rubble
2. Beef up security against terrorists attacks (i.e. find out how the terrorists were able to hijack so many planes)
3. Find out who the terrorists are
4. Find out what they want/why they did this
5. Evaluate their rational (maybe we gave them cause, it's possible)
6. See if it's possible to both hold the leaders responsible and appease their demands if it's reasonable.
The key thing is a dialogue. If the terrorists want to complain about something to the US, and we just ignore them, then that could explain why the go to such drastic measurers.
F-bacher