Only some proponents who pretend to be in favor of free markets. Otherwise I agree - real free market types will be against this sort of spying. It appeals only to monopolists and politicians.
I could favor a short copyright term (maybe 7 years) to allow producers to profit from their creations, with ample provisions for Fair Use - though even a short copyright term is probably not necessary to profitability.
I'm opposed to allowing the government to spy on American citizens generally. As far as I'm concerned, even warrants should be restricted to cases where there are well-grounded suspicions of a crime that causes actual harm. Extortion, murder, terrorism - yes. Possession of restricted content - no. That's just silly - unless the real purpose is make everyone a criminal, because people with something to hide are easier to control.
There's also a tendency for people to overvalue the present while discounting the future, which leads to people making false confessions in the hope of escaping present duress because they value their present safety more than their future safety. The innocence project has found that in one quarter of cases where DNA evidence has cleared a suspect, that suspect had given a (false) confession.
While there are a few minimally competent psychiatrists and psychologists (the relative infancy and complexity of the field preventing great competence), I think you give them far too much credit.
In effect, if not in intent, the impact of these fields on society could accurately be described as Satanic (in a metaphorical sense). It is true that Catholic priests are ignoramuses who are especially dangerous when they believe they are knowledgeable, but it is even more true of psychologists and psychiatrists who find unwarranted credibility among the general public.
"Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers."
Am I the only one with such a low opinion of various professions as to think that the Vatican has invited their enemy into their midst?
Agreed that there is grounds here for a civil suit, based on using video of these kids without permission from either them or their parents.
Given Evan Emory's inexperience, a rational society might demand he take down the video and maybe make some small recompense. He was thoughtless, but he doesn't deserve to be ruined financially.
The actual response is so far beyond belief that I don't know where to begin denouncing it. Emory was thoughtless, but the prosecutor Tony Tague is actively malicious and deserves nothing less than a slow and painful death that lasts - Oh, I don't know - about 20 years?
Repression of traumatic memories sounds nice but I haven't seen any real evidence for it that didn't involve drugs or hormones that blocked the memories from ever being formed (so they could not be recovered in any case). However, there is an excess of evidence for implanted or suggested memories.
I haven't read the book either, but certainly one's culture affects one's attitude toward the world.
Most people in the United States would feel humiliated if they were compelled to eat insects - yet for many traditional peoples around the world eating insects is a way of life, and the only harm would come from the sense of being compelled - not from the choice of food.
In college I had a professor who explained to us that any childhood sex play in which one child was a few years older than another was rape, regardless of whether the younger child willingly participated. She said this in such a matter-of-fact manner - as if it were empirically proven - that it took me several hours to realize that she was speaking utter nonsense. There's a huge difference between being forced to do something (which our government specializes in) and doing something willingly - no matter how old you are.
Nonetheless, there are close to three hundred million people in the United States who engaged in childhood sex play, and it seems many of them have learned to feel victimized by it, because the only other choice that society allows them is to feel guilty.
It is chilling that there are so many people willing to accept such nonsense as fact. The people who came up with this false equivalency of rape and play are loons, and I don't care if they have degrees from Harvard or Yale. They're still loons.
I might think it was intentional, except the War on Drugs (a.k.a. the War on Blacks and Hispanics) and the War on Terror (a.k.a. the War on Muslims) have already proven that prosecutors are frequently just as malicious and short-sighted as they seem to be. But, hey - they've been profiting from it forever, so I don't suppose we could call it stupid.
Feminist theoreticians have already proven (well, asserted - but no one is allowed to question them) that viewing an image of a child is exactly the same as forcibly raping a child, so doesn't it follow that associating actual sexually suggestive speech with imagery of children is much, much worse than forcible rape?
Serendipitously, this article about the first war on terror - governmental suppression of 19th century peaceful anarchists - was just published by Reason.
The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough. Accidental side effects included the Russian Revolution and the exacerbation of the First World War (which events of course led to the Second World War and the Cold War).
I agree that this is the future, but this proposed change is about now. However, I have hopes that - if implemented properly - these backup cameras may be useful to retrofitting these cars in the future to allow them to drive themselves.
While I have many strong disagreements with the government, including over safety issues, I have to concede that they have done a pretty good job with cars. Looking at your link it is clear that improved safety standards have greatly decreased both accidents and fatalities.
A few highlights:
1980: 17.9 million accidents. 2007: 10.6 million accidents.
1980: 53,200 deaths. 2007: 43,100 deaths.
Death rate per 100 million vehicle miles. 1980: 3.3. 2007: 1.4
Death rate per 100,000 population. 1980: 22.5. 2007: 13.6
In short, despite an increased population and increased use of vehicles, your chance of being in an automobile accident or being killed in an automobile accident is much lower now than it was 30 years ago. While changes in laws (particularly regarding DUI) and improvements in medical care have been responsible for much of this, improvements in the safety of the cars themselves have also played a large role.
I agree in general, but these backup cameras aren't really about preserving the safety of the driver and passengers - these are for the safety of pedestrians, especially children and the elderly. This is more in line with requiring cars to have good tires and working brake lights, not for the safety of those in the car but for the safety of others in public places.
Of course, experience has also shown that most people don't adopt novel safety procedures even if the benefits are clear and significant. I'm all in favor of letting people who make a conscious decision not to wear a seat belt die at a faster rate than those who do - it's just evolution in action. On the other hand, most car makers did not install seat belts at all - despite a very minor expense - until they were required to by law, because most customers - having never used seat belts - did not demand them even though they may have wanted them. It can be quite difficult to overcome inertia, but in this case the law had to overcome social inertia before seat belts could overcome the physical sort.
Just to give you an idea of what these cameras are meant to prevent:
Fortunately it was no one I knew, but at the time it happened about ten years ago I drove by the place where it happened every day on my way to work. A mother had dropped off her child at daycare, and then went back to her car. Unknown to her, her two year old evaded the staff and dashed out after her. As she was backing up there was no way to see behind her, and she rolled over and killed her own child.
Digital cameras are cheap enough now that there is no reason not to have this. Properly implemented, the systems may even be useful in retrofitting these cars a few years down the road with computerized guidance systems. If you're worried about the video screen being a distraction, have it only turn on when the car is in reverse or when a button on the steering wheel is pushed.
Like edawstwin above, I attended both public and private schools in the U.S. - in fact, three of each.
While there is truth to the assertion that some private schools are much better than others, this doesn't take into account how bad many government schools are. I attended one private school that is one of the best in the United States, and another which was the Baptist-run type referred to, with underqualified teachers. Despite this handicap, that Baptist school still performed better than the local government schools, at least up through 8th grade. They just didn't have funds for proper laboratory work, as they only charged - in 2010 dollars, about $2000/year. However, every single student at that school could read and do basic math, which by itself is an improvement over the government schools.
Perhaps the British author of the post several stages up is the victim of another phenomenon: namely, he doesn't see the many students from government schools who dropped out or never learned to read because they don't apply to universities in England. A private education is an indication that a family is interested in education, and so the children are more likely to attempt to avail themselves of educational opportunities, even when they are something of a stretch. In school districts where the residents are relatively wealthy the schools tend to be reasonably good, so these already-advantaged students are also more likely to attend the government schools, again skewing the results.
As one last aside, note that since 1970 real spending per pupil at government schools in the U.S. has more than doubled, with - so far - nothing to show for it. But then, as John Taylor Gatto has noted, government schools in the U.S. have not failed. In fact, they have fulfilled their mission perfectly. We should be aware, however, that their mission never included educating students.
After the disaster in 1986, everyone knew about the role of Utah's senators in the disaster - but as you say, it's hard to find now. Between the fact that much data from that era was never put online, and possibly some gaming of search results to steer searchers elsewhere, I don't see anything now. I imagine that certain rocket companies in Utah would prefer that no one knew about that.
Yes, Fundies are not the most reliable source, but considering how pervasive the argument was at the time (only 30 years ago) I was surprised that no one else had mentioned it - and occasionally even Fundies are right (and sometimes the only loud voice opposing a clueless "establishment"). Such instances are a reminder of the advantages of diversity of opinion.
As for ancient superstitions: they got a lot of things wrong, but very often they understood people surprisingly well.
There's much to be said for streamlining financial transactions, but there are limits to what we should allow, for reasons others have stated. There is simply too much opportunity for mischief in an economy where there can be this sort of control.
I'm surprised no one mentioned it, perhaps the/. readership is too young and secular to remember the concerns of Fundies from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, but I will give the relevant quote from the Book of Revelations, chapter 13, verses 16 & 17:
"16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
(The number is, of course, 666, or in a few ancient texts 660.)
Regardless of whether one believes ancient prophecies, I think those Fundies had one thing right: Don't trust ANYONE - not even the "Majority" - to have that sort of control over humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Only some proponents who pretend to be in favor of free markets. Otherwise I agree - real free market types will be against this sort of spying. It appeals only to monopolists and politicians.
I could favor a short copyright term (maybe 7 years) to allow producers to profit from their creations, with ample provisions for Fair Use - though even a short copyright term is probably not necessary to profitability.
I'm opposed to allowing the government to spy on American citizens generally. As far as I'm concerned, even warrants should be restricted to cases where there are well-grounded suspicions of a crime that causes actual harm. Extortion, murder, terrorism - yes. Possession of restricted content - no. That's just silly - unless the real purpose is make everyone a criminal, because people with something to hide are easier to control.
I sure wasted a lot of time playing Nethack. But I enjoyed it.
Police in the U.S. are masters of psychological torture. It's the reason they get so many false confessions.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
There's also a tendency for people to overvalue the present while discounting the future, which leads to people making false confessions in the hope of escaping present duress because they value their present safety more than their future safety. The innocence project has found that in one quarter of cases where DNA evidence has cleared a suspect, that suspect had given a (false) confession.
Do prosecutors know about this? They count on it.
Just adding my farewell. Sarah Jane was always my favorite Dr Who companion.
While there are a few minimally competent psychiatrists and psychologists (the relative infancy and complexity of the field preventing great competence), I think you give them far too much credit.
In effect, if not in intent, the impact of these fields on society could accurately be described as Satanic (in a metaphorical sense). It is true that Catholic priests are ignoramuses who are especially dangerous when they believe they are knowledgeable, but it is even more true of psychologists and psychiatrists who find unwarranted credibility among the general public.
I was actually suggesting that many psychologists and psychiatrists are de facto agents of Satan - doubly so if they are religious as well.
I really distrust those professions, even more than Catholic priests.
"Organizers of a six-day conference that has brought together more than 60 Catholic clergy as well as doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and youth workers."
Am I the only one with such a low opinion of various professions as to think that the Vatican has invited their enemy into their midst?
Three times as much power from a single well as the traditional method - that is pretty neat.
This isn't about a radically new concept, but a radically new implementation - and a rather large "incremental" gain.
Agreed that there is grounds here for a civil suit, based on using video of these kids without permission from either them or their parents.
Given Evan Emory's inexperience, a rational society might demand he take down the video and maybe make some small recompense. He was thoughtless, but he doesn't deserve to be ruined financially.
The actual response is so far beyond belief that I don't know where to begin denouncing it. Emory was thoughtless, but the prosecutor Tony Tague is actively malicious and deserves nothing less than a slow and painful death that lasts - Oh, I don't know - about 20 years?
Using Occam's Razor, False Memory Syndrome seems a better fit in almost all cases.
Repression of traumatic memories sounds nice but I haven't seen any real evidence for it that didn't involve drugs or hormones that blocked the memories from ever being formed (so they could not be recovered in any case). However, there is an excess of evidence for implanted or suggested memories.
I haven't read the book either, but certainly one's culture affects one's attitude toward the world.
Most people in the United States would feel humiliated if they were compelled to eat insects - yet for many traditional peoples around the world eating insects is a way of life, and the only harm would come from the sense of being compelled - not from the choice of food.
In college I had a professor who explained to us that any childhood sex play in which one child was a few years older than another was rape, regardless of whether the younger child willingly participated. She said this in such a matter-of-fact manner - as if it were empirically proven - that it took me several hours to realize that she was speaking utter nonsense. There's a huge difference between being forced to do something (which our government specializes in) and doing something willingly - no matter how old you are.
Nonetheless, there are close to three hundred million people in the United States who engaged in childhood sex play, and it seems many of them have learned to feel victimized by it, because the only other choice that society allows them is to feel guilty.
It is chilling that there are so many people willing to accept such nonsense as fact. The people who came up with this false equivalency of rape and play are loons, and I don't care if they have degrees from Harvard or Yale. They're still loons.
I might think it was intentional, except the War on Drugs (a.k.a. the War on Blacks and Hispanics) and the War on Terror (a.k.a. the War on Muslims) have already proven that prosecutors are frequently just as malicious and short-sighted as they seem to be. But, hey - they've been profiting from it forever, so I don't suppose we could call it stupid.
Also, I've already seen a comment from someone who is familiar with Tague that this prosecutor is a "grandstanding douchebag".
Feminist theoreticians have already proven (well, asserted - but no one is allowed to question them) that viewing an image of a child is exactly the same as forcibly raping a child, so doesn't it follow that associating actual sexually suggestive speech with imagery of children is much, much worse than forcible rape?
Won't somebody think of the children?
(Not that way! You're going to jail, buster!)
Perhaps the original poster was going for the Serbo-Croatian "lud" (crazy), pronounced the same as lewd or lude?
The "justice" system sure has enough insanity these days, that lud is appropriate.
(At least we have this new research to explain some of it - although old-fashioned cases have a good deal of explanatory power themselves.)
Serendipitously, this article about the first war on terror - governmental suppression of 19th century peaceful anarchists - was just published by Reason.
The authorities made extensive use of agents provocateurs because the anarchists were too peaceful to be threatening enough. Accidental side effects included the Russian Revolution and the exacerbation of the First World War (which events of course led to the Second World War and the Cold War).
It looks like history is repeating itself.
Teaching yourself is fine, but very few people are capable of doing it properly without a lot of help.
We're naturally talking about people who are capable of doing so.
Apparently "people who are capable of doing so" includes slum kids in India. That may still exclude many, but it's more than "very few".
If you've read John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of American Education you'll know that in the 1800s the people of America were the best educated in the world, and had largely educated themselves.
Thanks for the link.
I agree that this is the future, but this proposed change is about now. However, I have hopes that - if implemented properly - these backup cameras may be useful to retrofitting these cars in the future to allow them to drive themselves.
While I have many strong disagreements with the government, including over safety issues, I have to concede that they have done a pretty good job with cars. Looking at your link it is clear that improved safety standards have greatly decreased both accidents and fatalities.
A few highlights:
In short, despite an increased population and increased use of vehicles, your chance of being in an automobile accident or being killed in an automobile accident is much lower now than it was 30 years ago. While changes in laws (particularly regarding DUI) and improvements in medical care have been responsible for much of this, improvements in the safety of the cars themselves have also played a large role.
I've never heard of these, so they can't be all that standard - but they sound like a reasonable alternative.
I agree in general, but these backup cameras aren't really about preserving the safety of the driver and passengers - these are for the safety of pedestrians, especially children and the elderly. This is more in line with requiring cars to have good tires and working brake lights, not for the safety of those in the car but for the safety of others in public places.
Of course, experience has also shown that most people don't adopt novel safety procedures even if the benefits are clear and significant. I'm all in favor of letting people who make a conscious decision not to wear a seat belt die at a faster rate than those who do - it's just evolution in action. On the other hand, most car makers did not install seat belts at all - despite a very minor expense - until they were required to by law, because most customers - having never used seat belts - did not demand them even though they may have wanted them. It can be quite difficult to overcome inertia, but in this case the law had to overcome social inertia before seat belts could overcome the physical sort.
Just to give you an idea of what these cameras are meant to prevent:
Fortunately it was no one I knew, but at the time it happened about ten years ago I drove by the place where it happened every day on my way to work. A mother had dropped off her child at daycare, and then went back to her car. Unknown to her, her two year old evaded the staff and dashed out after her. As she was backing up there was no way to see behind her, and she rolled over and killed her own child.
Digital cameras are cheap enough now that there is no reason not to have this. Properly implemented, the systems may even be useful in retrofitting these cars a few years down the road with computerized guidance systems. If you're worried about the video screen being a distraction, have it only turn on when the car is in reverse or when a button on the steering wheel is pushed.
Like edawstwin above, I attended both public and private schools in the U.S. - in fact, three of each.
While there is truth to the assertion that some private schools are much better than others, this doesn't take into account how bad many government schools are. I attended one private school that is one of the best in the United States, and another which was the Baptist-run type referred to, with underqualified teachers. Despite this handicap, that Baptist school still performed better than the local government schools, at least up through 8th grade. They just didn't have funds for proper laboratory work, as they only charged - in 2010 dollars, about $2000/year. However, every single student at that school could read and do basic math, which by itself is an improvement over the government schools.
Perhaps the British author of the post several stages up is the victim of another phenomenon: namely, he doesn't see the many students from government schools who dropped out or never learned to read because they don't apply to universities in England. A private education is an indication that a family is interested in education, and so the children are more likely to attempt to avail themselves of educational opportunities, even when they are something of a stretch. In school districts where the residents are relatively wealthy the schools tend to be reasonably good, so these already-advantaged students are also more likely to attend the government schools, again skewing the results.
As one last aside, note that since 1970 real spending per pupil at government schools in the U.S. has more than doubled, with - so far - nothing to show for it. But then, as John Taylor Gatto has noted, government schools in the U.S. have not failed. In fact, they have fulfilled their mission perfectly. We should be aware, however, that their mission never included educating students.
After the disaster in 1986, everyone knew about the role of Utah's senators in the disaster - but as you say, it's hard to find now. Between the fact that much data from that era was never put online, and possibly some gaming of search results to steer searchers elsewhere, I don't see anything now. I imagine that certain rocket companies in Utah would prefer that no one knew about that.
Anyway, it was common knowledge at the time.
LOL.
Yes, Fundies are not the most reliable source, but considering how pervasive the argument was at the time (only 30 years ago) I was surprised that no one else had mentioned it - and occasionally even Fundies are right (and sometimes the only loud voice opposing a clueless "establishment"). Such instances are a reminder of the advantages of diversity of opinion.
As for ancient superstitions: they got a lot of things wrong, but very often they understood people surprisingly well.
There's much to be said for streamlining financial transactions, but there are limits to what we should allow, for reasons others have stated. There is simply too much opportunity for mischief in an economy where there can be this sort of control.
I'm surprised no one mentioned it, perhaps the /. readership is too young and secular to remember the concerns of Fundies from the 60's, 70's, and 80's, but I will give the relevant quote from the Book of Revelations, chapter 13, verses 16 & 17:
"16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
(The number is, of course, 666, or in a few ancient texts 660.)
Regardless of whether one believes ancient prophecies, I think those Fundies had one thing right: Don't trust ANYONE - not even the "Majority" - to have that sort of control over humanity.