Is it me, or is that really a lot? And 15% send more than 200 text messages per day? Even if that takes 15 seconds per text message (reading or writing, assuming super fast texting, and the mandatory spelling mistakes), then they spend nearly 1 hour per day texting. And the costs of texting must be quite significant too!
The only remark in TFA was that kids without mobile phones text too. So, do we include twitter then? Chat services?
And all that texting is in addition to the other technologies that the youngsters use (phone (mobile and land line), email, Facebook)?
Is it just me, or do these numbers seem a little too high?
-- My conclusion from this article is that I must be getting old.
The more permanent freedom is a matter of time. At some point, lawmakers will be from the generation that also posts on forums, that downloaded mp3's when they were younger (or still do), and that watched 2 or 3 movies illegally when they were students.
The current lawmakers and judges are of a different generation altogether. they paid the equivalent of a good night out (bar / club) for just 10 songs on a piece of plastic that wouldn't last for more than 10 years of you use it frequently.
So, anything that postpones or reverses silly laws and technology is worth a "hooray", as it brings the solution closer.
-- At least, that's the future I hope for. Don't sue me if it turns out differently!;-)
I don't have anything on my computer but music, email and movies. I don't break the law. I am a average citizen in this respect, and I have nothing to hide. Let them look at my computer if they like.
I don't have any weapons or drugs in my house, I still don't want a police officer to come in unasked and search the place, or look through my windows to what I have inside, or what I am doing. My computer, and the data on it, are just as much in my house as the stuff in my drawers and closets.
And anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that you don't break the law. The fact that you don't know that you break the law does not mean you don't actually break it.
The core of the problem is that the conservative party currently in government is insanely partisan. Their entire MO is about "message management," with actual governing coming in a distant second or third. So of course they are going to try to muzzle scientists, and the actual research they are muzzling doesn't even need to make sense - it's done more as a Pavlovian reflex without taking the time to analyze whether the information is even sensitive or not.
The hypocrisy of it all is astounding considering this same party campaigned on the promise of "transparency and accountability" during the 2006 election.
Are you suggesting that there should be a relation between campaigns and actual party programs ???
Governments log all your data... but when data is lost, you're on your own? If all this happened through the internet, then surely those massive anti-terrorist / anti-cybercrime servers that log everything can be of some assistance here?
(Especially if the data was stolen from a government server where all our personal information is stored... not that it happened this time, but in the future that is certainly a possibility too).
I'm not saying that the EU is the big scary thing here - they're just a part of it. But they are not innocent in any way.
The combination of the individual member states' police forces and the massive surveillance projects are what scares me... or, not so much scares me as it makes me angry.
My government (national and EU) seems to be convinced that there is a criminal or terrorist within everyone, and the only way to keep us safe is to treat everyone as a suspect. It's good that we're all still innocent until proven guilty, but they're trying damn hard to prove guilt all the time.
Sounds like an ethics board on which half its members think that security is more important than privacy, and the other half is so obsessed with technical gadgets that they forget about ethics altogether.
Why isn't there a someone from a court of human rights, or a privacy expert?
Part of the FP7 projects are quite fundamental, and therefore it is unlikely that they include "implementation", but the fact that they don't plan to implement this doesn't make me feel any more comfortable.
And the EU has LOADS of power to impose laws on its members. Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels... http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/ And with the Lisbon "Treaty", the decision making in Brussels was recently streamlined to make it all a little faster.
awesome, it's nice to see a company with a bit of a spine, freedom of speech is one thing, but no-one has to provide a stage.
No one has to provide a stage??? Then why does even/. cover the story? News for nerds, stuff that matters! Damnit, the story is everywhere! What do you mean "no one has to providing a stage"? Everyone is providing a stage!
Let me summarize the story for you: - A guy, who normally gets attention from no more than 50 people wants to burn some holy books. - About 200 guys on the other side of the planet reply by burning a flag.
Now move along, move along - there's nothing to see here!
We all know from measurements that the north pole (and Greenland) was warmer than average - we know that from direct measurements. We all know that the ice is still melting (but slower than we thought).
So, I conclude that all our books regarding heat transfer must be wrong;-)
Let me get this straight. Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.
Let me get this straight. You say that it's ok to commit a crime to prevent a crime. So... how far shall we take this? What if we now get a company that attacks the company that attacks the pirates?
What if someone is suspected of murder? Can you shoot him on the spot if you personally think that evidence is good enough? What if you're certain someone will commit a murder, but hasn't done so yet... can you shoot him on the spot then, if the evidence is good enough?
It's never ok to commit a crime to prevent a crime. In our modern world, we have separated the powers: executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. Where in those 3 are the "companies that hold up their own laws to protect the movie industry"? What you're suggesting is a sort of Wild West where the biggest gun has the most rights. No thanks.
Besides, where's the line? When automated, I can see these companies do attacks on every person who accidentally watches the wrong Youtube video, or reads the wrong article, or has interest in the wrong political party.
This isn't such an unusual event (it's just unusual that it's two in one night). It seems with asteroids zipping by fairly frequently, one should be able to do a lot of science on these: impactors, maybe stick a probe to them somehow, etc.
Is the problem that they are always being detected too late to do anything with them?
What would you want to do with them?
-It's much too small for mining. -I don't know if we want to waste a probe, or other measurement device on that (a probe would perhaps significantly affect the behavior of a rock that's only 6 meters long anyway, making the measurement useless). -If we want to find out what it's made of, we can just blow it up with any regular old cannon (aim, fire!), and analyse the debris.
America: What happen?
Slashdotter: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
America: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
America: It's You!!
North Korea: How are you gentlemen!!
North Korea: All your base are belong to us.
North Korea: You are on the way to destruction.
America: What you say!!
North Korea: You have no chance to survive make your time.
North Korea: Ha Ha Ha Ha....
Operator: Captain!!
America: Take off every 'Zig'!!
America: You know what you doing.
America: Move 'Zig'.
America: For great justice.
The point I try to make is that something that does not make money is being prevented in favor of a similar system that actually does make money, but is highly unpopular, and run by the mafia.
It has little to do with capitalism or socialism. It has to do with plain stupidity in our economic system which would still be there is we changed our economics to a more socialist situation.
In case you didn't know, at least in Europe it's against the law to have a cartel (an organization of firms that agrees to fix prizes of products). But a song still costs about 1 euro, the same as 10 years ago, despite the fact that we can now download it, and copy it, at a whim, on a processor at home! We no longer have to buy an expensive vinyl disk which was produced and then transported across half the world. Why are these record companies being protected by the lawmakers rather than being prosecuted for forming a cartel?
A copy of a song simply isn't worth 1 euro anymore. It's nearly for free. But our politicians, who are the slaves of economic growth, cannot accept that. They are scared to change anything, because if copyright laws change, at first, there will be less money going around (=automatically bad). The fact that the general population don't care, and just happily copy music... and the fact that most bands will still make enough money from (live) concerts... and the fact that 99% of the musicians don't earn money with their music anyway... that's all irrelevant to our lawmakers.
Changing copyright laws may actually be progress - but not if your only measure of progress is expressed in money.
*sigh* We're all doomed when even/. doesn't understand sarcasm anymore. I thought I overdid it - but my post has been modded down, and I have a nice serious reply here too (a post which is right on the money, pun intended).
I guess that my example of a free cure for cancer (who could be against that??) wasn't silly enough. And I apologise for not explaining the joke at the end of the post...
Ok, then, if there would be a method to make everyone infinitely happy, and that would make the world perfect in every way, but you cannot make money by this method - then that method is not Economic Growth, at least, not according to our definition of Economic Growth... Does that example show the stupidity of our everlasting need for economic growth enough? Because exactly the fact that we demand of every development in life that it has a measurable profit (expressed in money) prevents us from making some enormous leaps forward.
And it's exactly that kind of thinking within governments that now raises a large police force to take down these servers across Europe.
Don't you see that "Economic Growth" must be expressed in money, and that if people don't pay for it, but still consume it, it's not "growth", for the simple reason that we cannot measure it?
I mean... duh.
That's like curing cancer for free, and not getting rich of it. That's not growth, and therefore not progress... If you aim to improve this world without earning money, you clearly have your priorities wrong.
Police and governments exist to maximize measurable profit.
Hehe... I actually thought of pets when I wrote that post.
It's just that pets pose much less of a risk than a rampant robot. Also, a pet will (in an ideal scenario) listen to voice commands, usually only of the owner - most pets don't even listen to those - while theoretically a robot can be influenced and commanded from many kilometers away. What I nean, in short, is that a pet cannot be hacked.
I was thinking of computer programs and/or operating systems that run updates independently, and that do quite a few things without us knowing about it. And I can imagine that it's quite annoying in the best circumstances, and even dangerous in the case of a bug or a criminal that is able to remotely hack a robot.
I shall write the paranoid post. Since the robots are not going to take over the world anyway, I assume that they come with an off switch (one of those old-fashioned ones that really mean "off", and not "stand-by")?
I am not sure I would like a machine in my house that can take (semi-)independent decisions without the option to switch it off completely.
The fine therefore is about $ 8000 per person, if they want to make the 40 million back (or less - I admit I didn't read the article).
Anyway... in a next case, what happens if they manage to track down 1 million people? I bet that some really popular movies got shared that much. Do the movie companies get $ 8,000,000,000 from suing and winning a case?? I mean - with such profits possible, why even put the movie in the cinema, or DVD? Just make it really, really good, and totally unavailable in mainstream movie places, then leak it onto internet, and sue everyone who do downloads and shares it. Brilliant.
Making them stronger and water proof is bad business.
Call me a conservative engineer but making something intentionally fragile in order to sell more replacement is bad engineering. Demand should be driven by constant innovation, not planned ageing.
That was a sarcastic remark from my side - and planned aging is why electronics things still break down. There are plenty examples of devices that nowadays break down faster than in the past. Good for the economy, but useless nonetheless.
What's the point of this? Is it more efficient (using less electricity) than just plugging a cable into a small socket on the side of the phone? I doubt it.
It easier to use than plugging in a cable in a socket? Hardly.
Is the charger easier to replace than those standard nokia chargers that everyone has several of lying around? Doubt it.
Will it be standardized? That'd be lovely. But normal chargers should have been standardized long ago.
The only added value I see is that you can now completely waterproof a gadget. I can see the added value for things like electric toothbrushes - those must be encased in a water proof shell. But the whole point of phones is that you replace them every 1-2 years. Making them stronger and water proof is bad business.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. And only new threads. Nobody replying (politely disagreeing) with each other in replies.
Typical that when modern communication is discussed, the slashdot communication system breaks down.
Wow.
Is it me, or is that really a lot?
And 15% send more than 200 text messages per day? Even if that takes 15 seconds per text message (reading or writing, assuming super fast texting, and the mandatory spelling mistakes), then they spend nearly 1 hour per day texting.
And the costs of texting must be quite significant too!
The only remark in TFA was that kids without mobile phones text too. So, do we include twitter then? Chat services?
And all that texting is in addition to the other technologies that the youngsters use (phone (mobile and land line), email, Facebook)?
Is it just me, or do these numbers seem a little too high?
-- My conclusion from this article is that I must be getting old.
The more permanent freedom is a matter of time. At some point, lawmakers will be from the generation that also posts on forums, that downloaded mp3's when they were younger (or still do), and that watched 2 or 3 movies illegally when they were students.
The current lawmakers and judges are of a different generation altogether. they paid the equivalent of a good night out (bar / club) for just 10 songs on a piece of plastic that wouldn't last for more than 10 years of you use it frequently.
So, anything that postpones or reverses silly laws and technology is worth a "hooray", as it brings the solution closer.
-- At least, that's the future I hope for. Don't sue me if it turns out differently! ;-)
I don't have anything on my computer but music, email and movies. I don't break the law. I am a average citizen in this respect, and I have nothing to hide. Let them look at my computer if they like.
I don't have any weapons or drugs in my house, I still don't want a police officer to come in unasked and search the place, or look through my windows to what I have inside, or what I am doing. My computer, and the data on it, are just as much in my house as the stuff in my drawers and closets.
And anyway, I wouldn't be so sure that you don't break the law. The fact that you don't know that you break the law does not mean you don't actually break it.
The core of the problem is that the conservative party currently in government is insanely partisan. Their entire MO is about "message management," with actual governing coming in a distant second or third. So of course they are going to try to muzzle scientists, and the actual research they are muzzling doesn't even need to make sense - it's done more as a Pavlovian reflex without taking the time to analyze whether the information is even sensitive or not.
The hypocrisy of it all is astounding considering this same party campaigned on the promise of "transparency and accountability" during the 2006 election.
Are you suggesting that there should be a relation between campaigns and actual party programs ???
*dazed and confused*
Governments log all your data... but when data is lost, you're on your own?
If all this happened through the internet, then surely those massive anti-terrorist / anti-cybercrime servers that log everything can be of some assistance here?
(Especially if the data was stolen from a government server where all our personal information is stored... not that it happened this time, but in the future that is certainly a possibility too).
[...] and frequent moments when someone erases the whole thing and just writes "Saddam Hussein was a dickhead.
I searched the page, and I cannot find the entry that Saddam Hussein was a dickhead. Should I assume he was not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
You're right.
The EU does not control the police.
I'm not saying that the EU is the big scary thing here - they're just a part of it. But they are not innocent in any way.
The combination of the individual member states' police forces and the massive surveillance projects are what scares me... or, not so much scares me as it makes me angry.
My government (national and EU) seems to be convinced that there is a criminal or terrorist within everyone, and the only way to keep us safe is to treat everyone as a suspect. It's good that we're all still innocent until proven guilty, but they're trying damn hard to prove guilt all the time.
Sounds like an ethics board on which half its members think that security is more important than privacy, and the other half is so obsessed with technical gadgets that they forget about ethics altogether.
Why isn't there a someone from a court of human rights, or a privacy expert?
I know FP7 projects. The EU is definitely interested in the outcome. They cost many millions of euros. It's not just an exercise.
Not all the outcomes of FP7 projects (or FP6 or older ones) will be used, but it shows a trend in which way the EU thinks that Europe should go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Framework_Programme#FP7_Specific_Programmes
Part of the FP7 projects are quite fundamental, and therefore it is unlikely that they include "implementation", but the fact that they don't plan to implement this doesn't make me feel any more comfortable.
And the EU has LOADS of power to impose laws on its members. Already, the majority of laws in Europe come from Brussels... http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/
And with the Lisbon "Treaty", the decision making in Brussels was recently streamlined to make it all a little faster.
awesome, it's nice to see a company with a bit of a spine, freedom of speech is one thing, but no-one has to provide a stage.
No one has to provide a stage??? Then why does even /. cover the story? News for nerds, stuff that matters! Damnit, the story is everywhere! What do you mean "no one has to providing a stage"? Everyone is providing a stage!
Let me summarize the story for you:
- A guy, who normally gets attention from no more than 50 people wants to burn some holy books.
- About 200 guys on the other side of the planet reply by burning a flag.
Now move along, move along - there's nothing to see here!
We all know from measurements that the north pole (and Greenland) was warmer than average - we know that from direct measurements.
We all know that the ice is still melting (but slower than we thought).
So, I conclude that all our books regarding heat transfer must be wrong ;-)
Let me get this straight. Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.
Let me get this straight. You say that it's ok to commit a crime to prevent a crime. So... how far shall we take this? What if we now get a company that attacks the company that attacks the pirates?
What if someone is suspected of murder? Can you shoot him on the spot if you personally think that evidence is good enough?
What if you're certain someone will commit a murder, but hasn't done so yet... can you shoot him on the spot then, if the evidence is good enough?
It's never ok to commit a crime to prevent a crime. In our modern world, we have separated the powers: executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. Where in those 3 are the "companies that hold up their own laws to protect the movie industry"?
What you're suggesting is a sort of Wild West where the biggest gun has the most rights. No thanks.
Besides, where's the line? When automated, I can see these companies do attacks on every person who accidentally watches the wrong Youtube video, or reads the wrong article, or has interest in the wrong political party.
LOL
Good idea! Stupid that I hadn't thought of a way of making profit.
Silly me was thinking only of gathering knowledge and information, which is actually spending money, rather than earning it.
What are you talking about? Everyone's known for years that guys who dance like they're a frog in a blender don't make the cut.
This is NOT news. Except maybe to nerds, [...]
... which is why /. links to the whole article, for your convenience.
This isn't such an unusual event (it's just unusual that it's two in one night). It seems with asteroids zipping by fairly frequently, one should be able to do a lot of science on these: impactors, maybe stick a probe to them somehow, etc.
Is the problem that they are always being detected too late to do anything with them?
What would you want to do with them?
-It's much too small for mining.
-I don't know if we want to waste a probe, or other measurement device on that (a probe would perhaps significantly affect the behavior of a rock that's only 6 meters long anyway, making the measurement useless).
-If we want to find out what it's made of, we can just blow it up with any regular old cannon (aim, fire!), and analyse the debris.
I say we wait for a bigger one.
In A.D. 2010
Flash game was beginning.
America: What happen? ....
Slashdotter: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
America: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
America: It's You!!
North Korea: How are you gentlemen!!
North Korea: All your base are belong to us.
North Korea: You are on the way to destruction.
America: What you say!!
North Korea: You have no chance to survive make your time.
North Korea: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Operator: Captain!!
America: Take off every 'Zig'!!
America: You know what you doing.
America: Move 'Zig'.
America: For great justice.
In commie Korea, games create you!
The point I try to make is that something that does not make money is being prevented in favor of a similar system that actually does make money, but is highly unpopular, and run by the mafia.
It has little to do with capitalism or socialism. It has to do with plain stupidity in our economic system which would still be there is we changed our economics to a more socialist situation.
In case you didn't know, at least in Europe it's against the law to have a cartel (an organization of firms that agrees to fix prizes of products). But a song still costs about 1 euro, the same as 10 years ago, despite the fact that we can now download it, and copy it, at a whim, on a processor at home! We no longer have to buy an expensive vinyl disk which was produced and then transported across half the world. Why are these record companies being protected by the lawmakers rather than being prosecuted for forming a cartel?
A copy of a song simply isn't worth 1 euro anymore. It's nearly for free. But our politicians, who are the slaves of economic growth, cannot accept that. They are scared to change anything, because if copyright laws change, at first, there will be less money going around (=automatically bad). The fact that the general population don't care, and just happily copy music... and the fact that most bands will still make enough money from (live) concerts... and the fact that 99% of the musicians don't earn money with their music anyway... that's all irrelevant to our lawmakers.
Changing copyright laws may actually be progress - but not if your only measure of progress is expressed in money.
*sigh* /. doesn't understand sarcasm anymore. I thought I overdid it - but my post has been modded down, and I have a nice serious reply here too (a post which is right on the money, pun intended).
We're all doomed when even
I guess that my example of a free cure for cancer (who could be against that??) wasn't silly enough. And I apologise for not explaining the joke at the end of the post...
Ok, then, if there would be a method to make everyone infinitely happy, and that would make the world perfect in every way, but you cannot make money by this method - then that method is not Economic Growth, at least, not according to our definition of Economic Growth...
Does that example show the stupidity of our everlasting need for economic growth enough? Because exactly the fact that we demand of every development in life that it has a measurable profit (expressed in money) prevents us from making some enormous leaps forward.
And it's exactly that kind of thinking within governments that now raises a large police force to take down these servers across Europe.
Don't you see that "Economic Growth" must be expressed in money, and that if people don't pay for it, but still consume it, it's not "growth", for the simple reason that we cannot measure it?
I mean... duh.
That's like curing cancer for free, and not getting rich of it. That's not growth, and therefore not progress... If you aim to improve this world without earning money, you clearly have your priorities wrong.
Police and governments exist to maximize measurable profit.
Hehe...
I actually thought of pets when I wrote that post.
It's just that pets pose much less of a risk than a rampant robot. Also, a pet will (in an ideal scenario) listen to voice commands, usually only of the owner - most pets don't even listen to those - while theoretically a robot can be influenced and commanded from many kilometers away. What I nean, in short, is that a pet cannot be hacked.
I was thinking of computer programs and/or operating systems that run updates independently, and that do quite a few things without us knowing about it. And I can imagine that it's quite annoying in the best circumstances, and even dangerous in the case of a bug or a criminal that is able to remotely hack a robot.
I shall write the paranoid post.
Since the robots are not going to take over the world anyway, I assume that they come with an off switch (one of those old-fashioned ones that really mean "off", and not "stand-by")?
I am not sure I would like a machine in my house that can take (semi-)independent decisions without the option to switch it off completely.
The fine therefore is about $ 8000 per person, if they want to make the 40 million back (or less - I admit I didn't read the article).
Anyway... in a next case, what happens if they manage to track down 1 million people? I bet that some really popular movies got shared that much. Do the movie companies get $ 8,000,000,000 from suing and winning a case??
I mean - with such profits possible, why even put the movie in the cinema, or DVD? Just make it really, really good, and totally unavailable in mainstream movie places, then leak it onto internet, and sue everyone who do downloads and shares it. Brilliant.
Making them stronger and water proof is bad business.
Call me a conservative engineer but making something intentionally fragile in order to sell more replacement is bad engineering. Demand should be driven by constant innovation, not planned ageing.
That was a sarcastic remark from my side - and planned aging is why electronics things still break down. There are plenty examples of devices that nowadays break down faster than in the past. Good for the economy, but useless nonetheless.
Call me a conservative engineer... I don't care.
What's the point of this? Is it more efficient (using less electricity) than just plugging a cable into a small socket on the side of the phone? I doubt it.
It easier to use than plugging in a cable in a socket? Hardly.
Is the charger easier to replace than those standard nokia chargers that everyone has several of lying around? Doubt it.
Will it be standardized? That'd be lovely. But normal chargers should have been standardized long ago.
The only added value I see is that you can now completely waterproof a gadget.
I can see the added value for things like electric toothbrushes - those must be encased in a water proof shell. But the whole point of phones is that you replace them every 1-2 years. Making them stronger and water proof is bad business.