Hard to walk away from it yes. But it seems the choice here is to walk away from it on your own terms, or be arbitrarily and randomly kicked to the curb without having had the time to develop a go-forward plan.
And at the end of the day, it's all about what costs more/less money where these financial institutions are concerned. If new "red flag" procedures and checks for ID theft cost a bank $25 million per year, and their actuaries tell them they only suffer $10 million per year in ID-theft-related losses, then it's not in their interests to put those "red flag" measures in place.
The human cost to their customers (lost time, mental anguish, etc.) of an incident carries absolutely no weight in their thinking. It's all about the bottom line.
How many times should I watch the same safety demonstration in order to satisfy your requirements? If I fly the exact same airline, with the exact same flight numbers, between the exact same two cities, on the exact same weekdays, at the exact same times, often with the exact same crew, and I do this for six weeks in a row, do I still need to rivet my attention on the oxygen mask demonstration during week seven?
I disagree. I think it's important to study examples of the kinds of smokescreens employed by special interest groups, the appeals to emotion, the use of strawmen, the false dichotomies, and all the other ways in which untenable beliefs are shielded from rational scrutiny. Simply hearing a teacher say "Intelligent Design is rubbish and we're not going to waste any time on it" is the exact opposite of critical thinking.
My question to you: What are you personally doing to ensure a conservative MP does not get (re)elected in your riding next time around? It's all well and fine to bitch about the blatant fiscal mismanagement of the current conservative government (and I would argue that the damage to Canada's democratic institutions is the even more egregious crime) but AC posts on internet forums are cheap.
Several countries (most notably China) already use armies of human workers wandering around with pollination brushes in order to pollinate crops that used to be taken care of (for free) by bees.
This sort of thing falls squarely in the realm of "ecological services" provided by the various natural systems we humans are busily degrading or outright destroying.
Why should we let Apple (or any other company) abdicate responsibility for their supply chain? If Apple chooses to work with Foxconn, then Apple is on the hook for ensuring Foxconn is a reputable and humane supplier.
Or is it okay to let a company like Apple accrue the benefits of outsourcing (i.e. lower prices, more flexible manufacturing, etc.) while ignoring negative consequences (i.e. environmental damage, inhumane working conditions, etc.)?
I don't think they'll disable the feature entirely, but they'll probably require you to buy some kind of expensive, proprietary cylinder that you wrap the screen around.
For Physics - and newtonian mechanics in particular - this is actually an excellent way to study. Few things reinforce book learning better than participating in a series of dramatic real-world examples, and then seeing those examples replayed when you watch the evening news.
Women know that they should never, ever break up with a guy while they're in a car and he's driving. "Honey, I think we should start seeing other people"
"You want to see other people? Okay. How about Jesus?"
Let's start with dropping a big rock on top of the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon rig and see how that goes. If we discover that big rocks are excellent problem-solvers, we can think about scaling our way up to your idea.
If you cannot express an opposing position on any topic through any forum without everyone knowing your position, opposing thought cannot flourish. If all know you as the one who began the dissenting thought, you instantly become a lightning rod for any who would disagree.
Seems to me the correct antidote here is courage of conviction.
You pose the choice we must make on what constitutes a fair and just society. My firm belief is that you cannot have a fair and just society without sovereignty of the individual, and that being reliant in part on a right to privacy.
And my firm belief is that sovereignty of the individual is entirely possible, but only for those who have the fortitude to accept themselves despite their flaws, and to accept others despite their flaws. That sort of clarity of being, that sort of naked intellectual honesty, isn't the sort of thing a lot of people are prepared for. To be honest it scares the bejeezus out of me, but the alternatives frighten me more.
The fact you're willing to flippantly label me a coward for my beliefs in interesting, but outside the point: Humans are either going to live in a technological society in which there is no privacy, or humans will bring about some kind of societal cataclysm that throws us back into a pre-technological age. You seem to have made your decision, and I have made mine.
I was talking in a much broader sense than just information about DNA mapping, and I was talking about a much broader audience than just "left-wing" and "right-wing" nutjobs. If information - about everybody and everything - is universally available, then anybody who uses that information to commit a crime will be immediately and transparently "caught" since information is universally available.
You seem to think you have a choice between having your innermost privacy invaded through technology, or not having your innermost privacy invaded through technology. You are wrong. The coming decades will shatter any possibility of humans ever having privacy ever again.
The real choice, and the question you need to be asking yourself, is this: would I rather have no privacy at all, and have all my information in the hands of a "watcher" class (whoever that ends up being), or would I rather have no privacy at all, but also have the ability to know about it when somebody else harms me or those close to me by abusing that lack of privacy.
The absence of privacy part is coming. Count on it. So faced with that fact, you need to decide what constitutes a fair and just society.
This is only a problem while "one side" has a monopoly on the use of these technologies. If invasive technology is ubiquitous and uncontrollable, then any abuse of that technology should be totally transparent to everybody.
In short, the answer to "who will watch the watchers" needs to be "everyone... and records should be kept forever."
Slashdot Mirror
Those are strangely (and disturbingly) reminiscent of George Costanza's racy photo spread in that one episode of Seinfeld.
unlike second life there are competitors and other opportunities.
I recently heard about a competitor to Second Life. Details are scarce but I understand it involves some things called "sunshine" and "other humans."
I'll post further details as they become available.
Hard to walk away from it yes. But it seems the choice here is to walk away from it on your own terms, or be arbitrarily and randomly kicked to the curb without having had the time to develop a go-forward plan.
And at the end of the day, it's all about what costs more/less money where these financial institutions are concerned. If new "red flag" procedures and checks for ID theft cost a bank $25 million per year, and their actuaries tell them they only suffer $10 million per year in ID-theft-related losses, then it's not in their interests to put those "red flag" measures in place.
The human cost to their customers (lost time, mental anguish, etc.) of an incident carries absolutely no weight in their thinking. It's all about the bottom line.
pay attention to the crew
How many times should I watch the same safety demonstration in order to satisfy your requirements? If I fly the exact same airline, with the exact same flight numbers, between the exact same two cities, on the exact same weekdays, at the exact same times, often with the exact same crew, and I do this for six weeks in a row, do I still need to rivet my attention on the oxygen mask demonstration during week seven?
I disagree. I think it's important to study examples of the kinds of smokescreens employed by special interest groups, the appeals to emotion, the use of strawmen, the false dichotomies, and all the other ways in which untenable beliefs are shielded from rational scrutiny. Simply hearing a teacher say "Intelligent Design is rubbish and we're not going to waste any time on it" is the exact opposite of critical thinking.
In an academic setting, the correct place for ID is as a case study during a course on critical thinking.
My question to you: What are you personally doing to ensure a conservative MP does not get (re)elected in your riding next time around? It's all well and fine to bitch about the blatant fiscal mismanagement of the current conservative government (and I would argue that the damage to Canada's democratic institutions is the even more egregious crime) but AC posts on internet forums are cheap.
Yup. With these guys it's not about providing good government, it's about staying in power and doing whatever it takes to consolidate political power.
an iPad stuck in your skull
Is this some kind of Jobsian mindmeld?
Several countries (most notably China) already use armies of human workers wandering around with pollination brushes in order to pollinate crops that used to be taken care of (for free) by bees.
This sort of thing falls squarely in the realm of "ecological services" provided by the various natural systems we humans are busily degrading or outright destroying.
Everyone who has had, or will have, my current phone number is going to die too.
Apple (or any other company)
Care to try again genius?
Why should we let Apple (or any other company) abdicate responsibility for their supply chain? If Apple chooses to work with Foxconn, then Apple is on the hook for ensuring Foxconn is a reputable and humane supplier.
Or is it okay to let a company like Apple accrue the benefits of outsourcing (i.e. lower prices, more flexible manufacturing, etc.) while ignoring negative consequences (i.e. environmental damage, inhumane working conditions, etc.)?
I don't think they'll disable the feature entirely, but they'll probably require you to buy some kind of expensive, proprietary cylinder that you wrap the screen around.
For Physics - and newtonian mechanics in particular - this is actually an excellent way to study. Few things reinforce book learning better than participating in a series of dramatic real-world examples, and then seeing those examples replayed when you watch the evening news.
Stand-up comic I once saw:
Women know that they should never, ever break up with a guy while they're in a car and he's driving.
"Honey, I think we should start seeing other people"
"You want to see other people? Okay. How about Jesus?"
Let's start with dropping a big rock on top of the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon rig and see how that goes. If we discover that big rocks are excellent problem-solvers, we can think about scaling our way up to your idea.
Somewhere in the Middle East, there is a group of Al Qaeda operatives sitting around smoking hookah under a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished"
"You should have seen their faces when they saw us in ninja gear coming towards them"
If they see you coming towards them, you've failed.
This was one of those comments that made me laugh, then immediately made me cry.
If you cannot express an opposing position on any topic through any forum without everyone knowing your position, opposing thought cannot flourish. If all know you as the one who began the dissenting thought, you instantly become a lightning rod for any who would disagree.
Seems to me the correct antidote here is courage of conviction.
You pose the choice we must make on what constitutes a fair and just society. My firm belief is that you cannot have a fair and just society without sovereignty of the individual, and that being reliant in part on a right to privacy.
And my firm belief is that sovereignty of the individual is entirely possible, but only for those who have the fortitude to accept themselves despite their flaws, and to accept others despite their flaws. That sort of clarity of being, that sort of naked intellectual honesty, isn't the sort of thing a lot of people are prepared for. To be honest it scares the bejeezus out of me, but the alternatives frighten me more.
The fact you're willing to flippantly label me a coward for my beliefs in interesting, but outside the point: Humans are either going to live in a technological society in which there is no privacy, or humans will bring about some kind of societal cataclysm that throws us back into a pre-technological age. You seem to have made your decision, and I have made mine.
You miss my point.
I was talking in a much broader sense than just information about DNA mapping, and I was talking about a much broader audience than just "left-wing" and "right-wing" nutjobs. If information - about everybody and everything - is universally available, then anybody who uses that information to commit a crime will be immediately and transparently "caught" since information is universally available.
You seem to think you have a choice between having your innermost privacy invaded through technology, or not having your innermost privacy invaded through technology. You are wrong. The coming decades will shatter any possibility of humans ever having privacy ever again.
The real choice, and the question you need to be asking yourself, is this: would I rather have no privacy at all, and have all my information in the hands of a "watcher" class (whoever that ends up being), or would I rather have no privacy at all, but also have the ability to know about it when somebody else harms me or those close to me by abusing that lack of privacy.
The absence of privacy part is coming. Count on it. So faced with that fact, you need to decide what constitutes a fair and just society.
I'd tell you to be careful opting out of Google, but you're probably in a place where you can't read this reply anyhow.
This is only a problem while "one side" has a monopoly on the use of these technologies. If invasive technology is ubiquitous and uncontrollable, then any abuse of that technology should be totally transparent to everybody.
In short, the answer to "who will watch the watchers" needs to be "everyone ... and records should be kept forever."