This is such an over-reach, especially the intellectual property parts, it's going to lead to mass civil disobedience in the form of a fundamental attitudinal shift from one of basically respecting the law to one of basically disrespecting it *on the part of everyone* including society's intellectuals, academics and cultural leaders.
That's the deeper danger of this kind of law making, not to mention the content of the law itself. It leads to contempt for the law, contempt for Congress , the Executive and the Judiciary. Contempt leads to mass, defacto civil disobedience where ignoring or subverting the law becomes the norm, as in the days of prohibition.
It's not directly about being physically close to each other. It's about how advancing technology gives extraordinary leverage to smaller and smaller groups of people. That leverage includes the ability to hurt other people, potentially a large number of other people, potentially fatally.
This basic fact is going to drive the shape of human society into the future. It's never been true before. You either needed an army to kill a lot of people or you needed a nation state. Depressingly, the number of people you need now is dwindling to one and the resources you need are coming online.
This is going to drive a nworld without privacy. I hate the idea too, and bitch about it loudly, but I can simultaneously see the inevitiability, even necessity of it.
The task at hand for people who want to create a decent future is to constrcut a system in which there is no ultimate privacy but there is honesty and transparency and trust and fairness and justice.
Just taking away privacy from everyone is the road to fascism. That's the road we're on now unfortunately. What we need are civil institutions, laws and a jsuticce system that actually ARE fair, just and honest. We don't have that now. Our systems of government are corrupt, our justice system system is corrupt, our economy and businesses are corrupt.
We can make them not corrupt with enough transparency, but how do you balance that with security, boradly defined to include both personal and national security? It's not a simple problem.
A great post. One tweak. People put people in subjegation because they thrill to doing so. They like to do it. They like knowing that they have absolutely everything- all power, all money and they control opportunity for everyone.
This is a basic unhappy fact about humans. They get off on dominance hierarchies, seek to ascend them instinctively, and equally as instinctively seek to rule, cripple and destroy those beneath them.
The socio-biological roots of this are well known. In an era of competition for the basics of survival, when stuff is basicallya zero sum game, the males seek to monopolize everything and the females, who do the same, also do it by proxy. That is, they differentially reward powerful, high status males with sex and offspring.
They way we moderns represent this to ourselves is we say men are ambitous and women like rich, powerful men.
The world devoves to harems, a few select males monpolizing all females, whenever conditions permit. The fact that the majority of males get cut out and rebel means that this *system* can't always sustain itself and is unstable (but look at the Middle East, Saudi and other places for current examples).
But with respect to *stuff*, well, the system does indeed permit and even encourages it.
In both cases, it's all about competition for limited resources and selfish genes wanting to monopolize reproduction. In the harme case, we've gotten past that in the Western world. In the case of *stuff*- for which money is a proxy- we are nearly as primitive as we've ever been.
...Sustainability advocates and environmental activists often claim that âoethe planet is at risk,â but of course it is not. The planet is a large mass of rock and a film of various carbon compounds, and that is not at risk at all. What is at risk is a particular mental model of what the world should look like, a constructed snapshot. That does not mean that there arenâ(TM)t many environmental issues that require attention; of course there are. But, as in the case of the emerging technology discourse, it does mean that existential catastrophe language is not only invalid, but can actually prevent seeking constructive adaptations to accelerating change.
Uh, no it doesn't.
This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".
The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.
M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F
Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!
Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.
Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.
Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100 High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.
you trigger all sorts of three-letter agency attention that you don't want, because it's now considered a sign of possible criminal activity if you actually have the gall to protect your privacy.
This. People are considered criminals and engaging in suspicious activity if they try to arrange their lives so people can't develop dossiers on them, attach derogatory information on whim and then share that dossier with just anyone.
That's insane.
Ask anyone from any dictatorship - and I have- especially read history how democracies turn into dictatorships. It all starts with lists. Lists of people and their supposed attrtibutes and governments encouraging people to turn each other in.
This is exactly what went down in Iraq. Iraqis used the US government's hunger for terorists as an opportunity to get even. A lot of the people arrested and jailed and some tortured did nothing more wrong than be distateful in some way to their neighbor. Other's had ho-hum run of the mill grudges that they'd been nursing.
But it all gets written down and once it's written down, it's true to the next guy who read the dossier.
jadserve.postrelease.com cdn.taboola.com The following domains don't appear to be tracking you www.googleadservices.com cdn-social.janrain.com cdn.quilt.janrain.com player.ooyala.com widget-cdn.rpxnow.com slashcdn.com s.ntv.io
Bored people in the airline reservation system who pre-screen passenger names for security using, in part , known pictures of them continuer to amuse themselves by seating "twin strangers" right next to each other then laughing as the internet loses its shit at the crazy coincidence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Some "witnesses" will lie if they know they'll never be held accountable. I would think this pool is significantly larger than the clam up pool. Especially given plea deals, jailhouse confessions, and all the other prods prosecutors have at their disposal to make people say what they want them to say irrespective of the truth.
It's come to my attention later than it should have that people are not afraid to lie and lie big for a mind-boggling variety of reasons. Ask any cop and they will tell you people do nothing but lie to them all day long. Well, it's not just limited to people talking to cops. On the job, between friends, in relationships, I eman the amount of non-face-saving, really damaging malicious lying that goes on is shocking at least to me. Most of it is slander about some 3rd party.
I have the impression that this dependable, well known uh, quirk of human nature is what our criminal justice system is actually based on. That's disturbing.
Seems like there's limited room in the economy for this kind of thing since the people who play it have no dough, most likely, although there are a lot of them.
It's probably also a market subject to crazes and fads and a winner take all dynamic since there's limited time and money anyone can devote to it and also you want to *do it* (whatever it is) with your friends and one up them etc etc.
So it's got a built in boom bust dynamic to it and they were booming and then they sold themselves and now comes the bust.
Yeah. Don't want my life's work having created that. Thanks though.
Yeah or we stole your DNA and now we will replicate it and plant it at the scene of a crime. It's not impossible and probably not even far fetched. Maybe it's even happened already.
"However, the use of cassette tape recorders, hand-written data disk mailers, and 1997-era e-mail systems with near zero storage definitely hurts competitiveness in the global market."
As others have said, prove it. Japan is a technologically advanced, developed nation with an extremeluy high standard of living. It's people are well educated, well behaved and live long and happy lives.
Just because they haven't drunk every last drop of KoolAid a lot of other nations have drunk, how does is equivalent to an nation of uncompetitive laggarts?
Frankly, their perception of the plausible negative consequences of digitizing everything is grounded in facts and their reasoning is sound. So they act in accord with their better judgment. And for this they're critized. Give me a break.
Having been privy to what just exactly what goes on in cases on a number of ocassions I have to ask- why is any little nook or cranny of the jurisprudence apparatus not videoed and recorded 24/7? I am talking interviews of witnesses, DAs talking amongst themselves, investigator's notes, prisoners, wardens in fact every utterance of everyone involved in every aspect of every case should be memorialized. Futhermore, talking about cases while OFF the system should be forbidden and punished.
If we're going to have universal and omnipresent surveillance of citizens, and that IS what the NSA et. al. sis bucking for, then the same has to be true of the people who operate society's levers of ultimate power. Failing this, we're barrelling towards an un-usurpable fascism.
What people say and do during their jobs is just what they say and do. Sure, it would be shocking, but we can learn a lot from it and end up in a better society because of it. Moreover, it would restore trust between those in government at any one time and those not in government.
Everything the NSA offcials do or say should be recorded. That's bad for individuals perhaps but good for society since 1) it would inhibit criminality and 2) we can dissect what we're doing wrong when things do go wrong.
Thent he NSA systems would have some use We could troll through every decision making process and see how ti got made. Who bullied who. Who threatened who. Who manipularted who and how. Who fired who and why.
These are the ultimate keys to the kingdom, the REAL most closely guarded secrets people and organizations have. You can bet they'll never give them up willingly, but, uh, looks like maybe societal and technological momentum is on our side for once. Oh, the irony.
The lesson, which the world teaches you daily in the headlines is once data and PID is in electronic form, unless it's encrypted and never decrypted (and thus useless for analysis using today's technology) then it is not safe and WILL be exposed, revealed, possibly leveraged against you in both likely and forseen and unlikely and unforeseen ways.
The lesson is- never believe anyone who tells you that your data is secure.
The implications are- anything you say or do may be used against you. So act as though that's true.
"..the thing that comes through clearest is this almost, if we werenâ(TM)t on TV, Iâ(TM)d say almost psychopathic denial of reality. As you saw, even the creators of that hoax Planned Parenthood video, that even they say that this is not the footage that she says it isâ¦when she was national finance chairman for McCain, she was jousting with him, what his positions are on contraceptives, trying to contradict him in real time. It was very bizarre.
Or saying that he is not equipped to be the CEO of a corporation, but he could be the commander in chief while sheâ(TM)s helping to run his campaign, and then denying she said it when it was on tapes everywhere.
This is like, she stomps her feet and demands that black is white, hot is cold, and rich is poor and wins are losses.â
âoeâ¦Many great leaders failed. but their resilience came from exoneration or contrition. She just stomps her feet and demands redemption. You have to earn redemption.â
Wallace: âoeWhat about the 30,000 American jobs that you laid off?â
Fiorina: âoeYou know, every family and every business in California knows what it means to go through tough times. And every family is cutting back, and every business is laying off right now. I donâ(TM)t say that with delight. I say that with sorrow. But yes, it is true that jobs are being taken out of California. By the way, China fights harder for our jobs than we do.
As CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina laid off 18,000 workers. When reflecting on her tenure, she admitted she wished she had "done them all faster." Fiorina Fired At Least 18,000 HP Employees
POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS / IMPULSIVITY
According to those who work with her, she has a barely stifled impulsivity towards make deeply personal and alienating remarks to others, and for no real reason:
She once ridiculed the music interests and appearance of a dissenting board member Walter Hewitt, son of HPâ(TM)s co-founderâ"as well as the allegedly dowdy look of rival Senate candidate Barbara Boxer.
"....She makes irresponsible decisions. At HP, Fiorina abruptly pivoted from a strategy of chasing IT services to a splashier, but less sound strategy of ramping up in device manufacturing.
While her predecessor, revered HP CEO Lew Platt, traveled coach in commercial planes, she demanded the company buy her a Gulfstream IV. More recently, her service on the Taiwan Semiconductor board indicates continued irresponsibility. Financial disclosures at the time Fiorina left the board in 2009 show that she attended just 17 percent of the companyâ(TM)s board meetings."
Sorry , your response confused me. AFAIK it's conservative-libertarian spectrum who oppose regulation and "libtards" (an insult which almost made me not bother replying to you) are often accused by those same conservative-libertarians of wanting to regulate anything not nailed down.
Perhaps you're new to these ideas and you've got yourself turned around? After all, people are always coming "on line" politically speaking.
In ay case, the sane 60-80% in the middle of the polity agree that thoughtful, flexible regulation which is open to being tweaked revisited is indispensible to civilization. At the extreme ends of the spectrum and well outside the aforementioned 80% lie on the right the Ayn Randers and libertarians and on the left ideologically driven Communists and Anarchists.
Going forward, it might be worth your while to check to see if you actually have a real difference with people you think are your opponents, at least, before lobbing the insult grenade.
The downsides being cited against Google's Go "poiteness" policy are all hypothetical. Let's let it play out, do the experiement and see how it does actually play out. You have to try something new or you'll end up where you 've always been.
If you are one who likes where things are, and I am not criticizing anyone who does, then things are as good as they're likely to get IMO. If you think the conversational tone and interactions online would be better if they were other than they are now, then you have to try something new.
Maybe this will work. Maybe it won't. Either way, we're likely to learn something useful.
So what is the assertion here- the government will stop technology as soon as it gets a whiff of what's going on? Are you sure you're not mixing up the government with your parents?
The government has no interest in stopping the forward movement of technology, nor do they have a historical record of trying to do so. The idea that they *might have* stopped the automobile or drones or bitcoin is just that, an idea you have for some reason. It's a historical counterfactual injected to frame the government as technologically regressive.
I see no evidence that the government is ideologically technologically regressive. If your point is that politicians think the internet is a like a bunch of old fashonied vacuum tubes through which messages get sent (which actually is not a terrible analogy) then consider that about as many older movie stars and writers and artists don't use or *get* modern technology as politicians, who skew heavily upwards in age.
Just recalling instances from one day's reading and listening Richard Gere isn't on Twitter and Richard Ford writes his novels longhand without a computer. So it goes.
OTOH we fund via DARPA and other programs vast amounts of the most cutting edge science, science which if it were declassified would seem like magic to us. We're talking advances in things like human cloning and quantum computers which are mind blowing even to readers of/.
So where is this "good thing they didn't know about THIS" attitude coming from? America celebrates it's inventors, tinkerers, mavericks, oddballs. All these things you cite are products of tinkering. They're not basic science but the application of well known technologies to solve problems in novel ways.
Say what you want about America, pre-emptive legislation is not in American's DNA. If something becomes big enough to start impacting innocent bystanders, broadly considered, then Congress steps in, as is its right and duty.
"I'm going to take my ball and go home" is the response to bullys. Withdrawing the SXSW panel is just reinforcing the behavior. What they needed to do was up physical security, and still have it.
Yes, yes you're quite right. If the pathetic little questioner wants an answer to his question he will justify himself to us to whatever extent we feel we need. See, I'm a libertarian and it's all about the market. We have something he wants. He's going to do what we say in order to get us to give it to him. It's a simple market exchange and anyone who disagrees is a communist, a socialist, a totalitarian who wants to take away individual liberty!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
This is such an over-reach, especially the intellectual property parts, it's going to lead to mass civil disobedience in the form of a fundamental attitudinal shift from one of basically respecting the law to one of basically disrespecting it *on the part of everyone* including society's intellectuals, academics and cultural leaders.
That's the deeper danger of this kind of law making, not to mention the content of the law itself. It leads to contempt for the law, contempt for Congress , the Executive and the Judiciary. Contempt leads to mass, defacto civil disobedience where ignoring or subverting the law becomes the norm, as in the days of prohibition.
How is this good for the country?
Yeah, and ants and beetles "terraform" the earth too.
Oh and earthworms .
It's not directly about being physically close to each other. It's about how advancing technology gives extraordinary leverage to smaller and smaller groups of people. That leverage includes the ability to hurt other people, potentially a large number of other people, potentially fatally.
This basic fact is going to drive the shape of human society into the future. It's never been true before. You either needed an army to kill a lot of people or you needed a nation state. Depressingly, the number of people you need now is dwindling to one and the resources you need are coming online.
This is going to drive a nworld without privacy. I hate the idea too, and bitch about it loudly, but I can simultaneously see the inevitiability, even necessity of it.
The task at hand for people who want to create a decent future is to constrcut a system in which there is no ultimate privacy but there is honesty and transparency and trust and fairness and justice.
Just taking away privacy from everyone is the road to fascism. That's the road we're on now unfortunately. What we need are civil institutions, laws and a jsuticce system that actually ARE fair, just and honest. We don't have that now. Our systems of government are corrupt, our justice system system is corrupt, our economy and businesses are corrupt.
We can make them not corrupt with enough transparency, but how do you balance that with security, boradly defined to include both personal and national security? It's not a simple problem.
A great post. One tweak. People put people in subjegation because they thrill to doing so. They like to do it. They like knowing that they have absolutely everything- all power, all money and they control opportunity for everyone.
This is a basic unhappy fact about humans. They get off on dominance hierarchies, seek to ascend them instinctively, and equally as instinctively seek to rule, cripple and destroy those beneath them.
The socio-biological roots of this are well known. In an era of competition for the basics of survival, when stuff is basicallya zero sum game, the males seek to monopolize everything and the females, who do the same, also do it by proxy. That is, they differentially reward powerful, high status males with sex and offspring.
They way we moderns represent this to ourselves is we say men are ambitous and women like rich, powerful men.
The world devoves to harems, a few select males monpolizing all females, whenever conditions permit. The fact that the majority of males get cut out and rebel means that this *system* can't always sustain itself and is unstable (but look at the Middle East, Saudi and other places for current examples).
But with respect to *stuff*, well, the system does indeed permit and even encourages it.
In both cases, it's all about competition for limited resources and selfish genes wanting to monopolize reproduction. In the harme case, we've gotten past that in the Western world. In the case of *stuff*- for which money is a proxy- we are nearly as primitive as we've ever been.
FTA:
Uh, no it doesn't.
This appears to be disingenuous on the part of the author. What environmentalists mean when they say "the planet is at risk" is "the ability of the planet to sustain human civilization (and not just in its current form, but ANY form) is at risk".
The actual question to ask is- is the habitability of the Earth at risk from global warming. And on THAT question, the answer is a resounding yes.
M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10 degrees with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20 degrees F
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11 degrees F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90 degrees F some 120 days a year and that isnâ(TM)t the worst case, itâ(TM)s business as usual!
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7 degree C warming by 2100 on current emissions path
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Science: CO2 levels havenâ(TM)t been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5 degrees to 10 degrees F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels of about 100 ppm.
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Ocean dead zones to expand, remain for thousands of years
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred
http://climateprogress.org/201...
Nature: Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized.
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100
High Water: Greenland ice sheet melting faster than expected and could raise East Coast sea levels an extra 20 inches by 2100 to more than 6 feet.
http://climateprogress.org/200...
Science stunner: Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warmi
you trigger all sorts of three-letter agency attention that you don't want, because it's now considered a sign of possible criminal activity if you actually have the gall to protect your privacy.
This. People are considered criminals and engaging in suspicious activity if they try to arrange their lives so people can't develop dossiers on them, attach derogatory information on whim and then share that dossier with just anyone.
That's insane.
Ask anyone from any dictatorship - and I have- especially read history how democracies turn into dictatorships. It all starts with lists. Lists of people and their supposed attrtibutes and governments encouraging people to turn each other in.
This is exactly what went down in Iraq. Iraqis used the US government's hunger for terorists as an opportunity to get even. A lot of the people arrested and jailed and some tortured did nothing more wrong than be distateful in some way to their neighbor. Other's had ho-hum run of the mill grudges that they'd been nursing.
But it all gets written down and once it's written down, it's true to the next guy who read the dossier.
For instance Slashdot: (orginally posted as AC)
jadserve.postrelease.com
cdn.taboola.com
The following domains don't appear to be tracking you
www.googleadservices.com
cdn-social.janrain.com
cdn.quilt.janrain.com
player.ooyala.com
widget-cdn.rpxnow.com
slashcdn.com
s.ntv.io
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
http://freebeacon.com/national...
TSA agents continue to grope and oogle women through their clothing
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a...
http://time.com/3822487/tsa-se...
Bored people in the airline reservation system who pre-screen passenger names for security using, in part , known pictures of them continuer to amuse themselves by seating "twin strangers" right next to each other then laughing as the internet loses its shit at the crazy coincidence. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Some "witnesses" will lie if they know they'll never be held accountable. I would think this pool is significantly larger than the clam up pool. Especially given plea deals, jailhouse confessions, and all the other prods prosecutors have at their disposal to make people say what they want them to say irrespective of the truth.
It's come to my attention later than it should have that people are not afraid to lie and lie big for a mind-boggling variety of reasons. Ask any cop and they will tell you people do nothing but lie to them all day long. Well, it's not just limited to people talking to cops. On the job, between friends, in relationships, I eman the amount of non-face-saving, really damaging malicious lying that goes on is shocking at least to me. Most of it is slander about some 3rd party.
I have the impression that this dependable, well known uh, quirk of human nature is what our criminal justice system is actually based on. That's disturbing.
Thank you !
Seems like there's limited room in the economy for this kind of thing since the people who play it have no dough, most likely, although there are a lot of them.
It's probably also a market subject to crazes and fads and a winner take all dynamic since there's limited time and money anyone can devote to it and also you want to *do it* (whatever it is) with your friends and one up them etc etc.
So it's got a built in boom bust dynamic to it and they were booming and then they sold themselves and now comes the bust.
Yeah. Don't want my life's work having created that. Thanks though.
Yeah or we stole your DNA and now we will replicate it and plant it at the scene of a crime. It's not impossible and probably not even far fetched. Maybe it's even happened already.
I dont' understand how Candy Crush makes money. Does anyone know?
"However, the use of cassette tape recorders, hand-written data disk mailers, and 1997-era e-mail systems with near zero storage definitely hurts competitiveness in the global market."
As others have said, prove it. Japan is a technologically advanced, developed nation with an extremeluy high standard of living. It's people are well educated, well behaved and live long and happy lives.
Just because they haven't drunk every last drop of KoolAid a lot of other nations have drunk, how does is equivalent to an nation of uncompetitive laggarts?
Frankly, their perception of the plausible negative consequences of digitizing everything is grounded in facts and their reasoning is sound. So they act in accord with their better judgment. And for this they're critized. Give me a break.
Lawrence Lessig- the Real Obama.
Having been privy to what just exactly what goes on in cases on a number of ocassions I have to ask- why is any little nook or cranny of the jurisprudence apparatus not videoed and recorded 24/7? I am talking interviews of witnesses, DAs talking amongst themselves, investigator's notes, prisoners, wardens in fact every utterance of everyone involved in every aspect of every case should be memorialized. Futhermore, talking about cases while OFF the system should be forbidden and punished.
If we're going to have universal and omnipresent surveillance of citizens, and that IS what the NSA et. al. sis bucking for, then the same has to be true of the people who operate society's levers of ultimate power. Failing this, we're barrelling towards an un-usurpable fascism.
What people say and do during their jobs is just what they say and do. Sure, it would be shocking, but we can learn a lot from it and end up in a better society because of it. Moreover, it would restore trust between those in government at any one time and those not in government.
Everything the NSA offcials do or say should be recorded. That's bad for individuals perhaps but good for society since 1) it would inhibit criminality and 2) we can dissect what we're doing wrong when things do go wrong.
Thent he NSA systems would have some use We could troll through every decision making process and see how ti got made. Who bullied who. Who threatened who. Who manipularted who and how. Who fired who and why.
These are the ultimate keys to the kingdom, the REAL most closely guarded secrets people and organizations have. You can bet they'll never give them up willingly, but, uh, looks like maybe societal and technological momentum is on our side for once. Oh, the irony.
The lesson, which the world teaches you daily in the headlines is once data and PID is in electronic form, unless it's encrypted and never decrypted (and thus useless for analysis using today's technology) then it is not safe and WILL be exposed, revealed, possibly leveraged against you in both likely and forseen and unlikely and unforeseen ways.
The lesson is- never believe anyone who tells you that your data is secure.
The implications are- anything you say or do may be used against you. So act as though that's true.
"HP Is Now Two Companies. How Did It Get Here?"
Two words: Carly Fiorina.
I know people throw around the term psychopath in connection with CEO character a lot but in this case, she absolutely ticks off the boxes, including :
PATHOLOGICAL LYING
Carly Fiorina Makes a Lot of Stuff Up About Everything
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS
"..the thing that comes through clearest is this almost, if we werenâ(TM)t on TV, Iâ(TM)d say almost psychopathic denial of reality. As you saw, even the creators of that hoax Planned Parenthood video, that even they say that this is not the footage that she says it isâ¦when she was national finance chairman for McCain, she was jousting with him, what his positions are on contraceptives, trying to contradict him in real time. It was very bizarre.
Or saying that he is not equipped to be the CEO of a corporation, but he could be the commander in chief while sheâ(TM)s helping to run his campaign, and then denying she said it when it was on tapes everywhere.
This is like, she stomps her feet and demands that black is white, hot is cold, and rich is poor and wins are losses.â
âoeâ¦Many great leaders failed. but their resilience came from exoneration or contrition. She just stomps her feet and demands redemption. You have to earn redemption.â
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-...
LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT
Wallace: âoeWhat about the 30,000 American jobs that you laid off?â
Fiorina: âoeYou know, every family and every business in California knows what it means to go through tough times. And every family is cutting back, and every business is laying off right now. I donâ(TM)t say that with delight. I say that with sorrow. But yes, it is true that jobs are being taken out of California. By the way, China fights harder for our jobs than we do.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-...
SHALLOW AFFECT / CALLOUSNESS / LACK OF EMPATHY
As CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina laid off 18,000 workers. When reflecting on her tenure, she admitted she wished she had "done them all faster."
Fiorina Fired At Least 18,000 HP Employees
POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS / IMPULSIVITY
According to those who work with her, she has a barely stifled impulsivity towards make deeply personal and alienating remarks to others, and for no real reason :
She once ridiculed the music interests and appearance of a dissenting board member Walter Hewitt, son of HPâ(TM)s co-founderâ"as well as the allegedly dowdy look of rival Senate candidate Barbara Boxer.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazi...
a trait she *barely* has under control as evidenced by this live mic "accident" .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
IRRESPONSIBILITY
"....She makes irresponsible decisions. At HP, Fiorina abruptly pivoted from a strategy of chasing IT services to a splashier, but less sound strategy of ramping up in device manufacturing.
While her predecessor, revered HP CEO Lew Platt, traveled coach in commercial planes, she demanded the company buy her a Gulfstream IV. More recently, her service on the Taiwan Semiconductor board indicates continued irresponsibility. Financial disclosures at the time Fiorina left the board in 2009 show that she attended just 17 percent of the companyâ(TM)s board meetings."
Sorry , your response confused me. AFAIK it's conservative-libertarian spectrum who oppose regulation and "libtards" (an insult which almost made me not bother replying to you) are often accused by those same conservative-libertarians of wanting to regulate anything not nailed down.
Perhaps you're new to these ideas and you've got yourself turned around? After all, people are always coming "on line" politically speaking.
In ay case, the sane 60-80% in the middle of the polity agree that thoughtful, flexible regulation which is open to being tweaked revisited is indispensible to civilization. At the extreme ends of the spectrum and well outside the aforementioned 80% lie on the right the Ayn Randers and libertarians and on the left ideologically driven Communists and Anarchists.
Going forward, it might be worth your while to check to see if you actually have a real difference with people you think are your opponents, at least, before lobbing the insult grenade.
Cheers.
The downsides being cited against Google's Go "poiteness" policy are all hypothetical. Let's let it play out, do the experiement and see how it does actually play out. You have to try something new or you'll end up where you 've always been.
If you are one who likes where things are, and I am not criticizing anyone who does, then things are as good as they're likely to get IMO. If you think the conversational tone and interactions online would be better if they were other than they are now, then you have to try something new.
Maybe this will work. Maybe it won't. Either way, we're likely to learn something useful.
The editors quitting, together, as an act of defiance and moral outrage, lifted my heart in a way few stories ever do.
So what is the assertion here- the government will stop technology as soon as it gets a whiff of what's going on? Are you sure you're not mixing up the government with your parents?
The government has no interest in stopping the forward movement of technology, nor do they have a historical record of trying to do so. The idea that they *might have* stopped the automobile or drones or bitcoin is just that, an idea you have for some reason. It's a historical counterfactual injected to frame the government as technologically regressive.
I see no evidence that the government is ideologically technologically regressive. If your point is that politicians think the internet is a like a bunch of old fashonied vacuum tubes through which messages get sent (which actually is not a terrible analogy) then consider that about as many older movie stars and writers and artists don't use or *get* modern technology as politicians, who skew heavily upwards in age.
Just recalling instances from one day's reading and listening Richard Gere isn't on Twitter and Richard Ford writes his novels longhand without a computer. So it goes.
OTOH we fund via DARPA and other programs vast amounts of the most cutting edge science, science which if it were declassified would seem like magic to us. We're talking advances in things like human cloning and quantum computers which are mind blowing even to readers of /.
So where is this "good thing they didn't know about THIS" attitude coming from? America celebrates it's inventors, tinkerers, mavericks, oddballs. All these things you cite are products of tinkering. They're not basic science but the application of well known technologies to solve problems in novel ways.
Say what you want about America, pre-emptive legislation is not in American's DNA. If something becomes big enough to start impacting innocent bystanders, broadly considered, then Congress steps in, as is its right and duty.
"I'm going to take my ball and go home" is the response to bullys. Withdrawing the SXSW panel is just reinforcing the behavior. What they needed to do was up physical security, and still have it.
Yes, yes you're quite right. If the pathetic little questioner wants an answer to his question he will justify himself to us to whatever extent we feel we need. See, I'm a libertarian and it's all about the market. We have something he wants. He's going to do what we say in order to get us to give it to him. It's a simple market exchange and anyone who disagrees is a communist, a socialist, a totalitarian who wants to take away individual liberty!!!!
Sig Heil Ayn Rand!!!
Now. Questioner. DROP AND GIVE ME 20 .
Wow. Just. Wow.
Please tell me how the FUCK that would work out to Russia's benefit.