So far I and my employer have paid just over $57,000 in to Medicare, and I estimate about another $60,000 will be paid in on my behalf before I reach retirement age. That is $117,000 taken from me by the government as payment in advance for providing me with Medicare services when I reach retirement age.
Ignoring the time value of the money that was paid in by me and on my behalf over my entire working lifetime (i.e., interest it should have earned), if that money was paid out on my behalf every month starting when I reach retirement age, it would fund a health insurance plan at $300/month for 32 years.
So, in some sense, it would be "my Medicare" that was being manipulated, wouldn't it?
You are assuming that everyone things that the Bush-Cheney years were some kind of complete failure. I happen to disagree with that line of thought.
I do believe that the WTF! attack on Iraq was out in left field someplace, and I abhor the Patriot Act and the line of thought that demands USA citizens give up all privacy rights in order to have security theater surroundings. However, I have no problem with the USA's original response to the 9/11/2001 attack, nor "No Child Left Behind," nor the Bush remake of the White House administrative environment to something approaching a modern business environment. I don't think that the Bush administration is responsible for a) the "Tech wreck" (the economic pullback that began under the last days of Clinton and continued on through the beginning of the Bush administration) or b) the "housing bubble." I think that the Bush administration's very measured economic response to the combined effects of the "Tech wreck" and the 9/11 attack was partially responsible for the period of significant economic growth from the end of 2002 through to 2007. Much of this growth in areas other than housing was *not* erased by the housing bubble collapse, although its been fairly stagnant since that collapse.
So, although I don't consider myself to be a "Republican," I don't regret voting for Bush/Cheney, either. Place the blame where you will, but give credit where credit is due as well.
For the "other side," I don't see the "Audacity of Hope" bringing about anything like the "Change" that was expected, either. More like business as usual... no repeal of the Patriot Act, a health insurance debacle, a stagnant economy, etc. One of the biggest sureties with the government is that they will continue to act like the government... overzealous activity in a direction nominally seen as desirable until it goes far to far.
I don't know the context in which the assignment was given. Where I said "Depending on the context..." was intended to indicate my lack of certainty here.
I obviously don't have a problem presuming that 16 year olds may require some specific guidance about the ethics of such an attack. Sociopathic or not, I have known some pretty stupid things to have been undertaken by people in this age range, some of which could have gone very wrong and caused grave problems.
I believe in the overall social contract observed by most of us, in that we couldn't possibly form large societies without this social contract being ingrained in our DNA. It is simply too easy to cause major damage to large segments of our population, and the fact that this damage isn't being done indicates to me that by and large we aren't likely to cause this sort of mass mayhem.
However, there is a point at which an individual's level of intelligence and capability for action is high, yet at which that individual's maturity is not, where an "inspired" idealistic action could be undertaken that would have significant negative consequences.
The people who flew the 4 airplanes on 9/11 were born of human parents, raised in human societies, yet still found it in themselves to take over planes full of other humans, slice the throats of the pilots, then fly these planes into buildings full of other people with the express intent of causing mass mayhem. One failed only due to the actions of heroic sons of bitches on those planes, the other three succeeded.
Were the sociopaths? Or were they soldiers in a war? How fine if the line dividing these two labels?
Year 10 students would be about 16 years old, I believe. This is a fairly fluid time for many people in terms of morals and social consciousness.
Depending on the context in which such an assignment was issued, there could be a lot of value in it. Examining a potential threat by planning an attack yourself is an excellent way in which to uncover vulnerabilities, especially vulnerabilities that exist due to invalid assumptions. Its too bad we didn't do this prior to 9/11 when we might have realized that the assumption that hijackers wanted to survive the hijacking was no longer valid. This is something that adults should be doing, but also one in which students may have a more "fresh" and unassuming state of mind that could prove useful in uncovering those unwarranted assumptions.
However, having 16 year olds do this in a context that doesn't also examine why it wouldn't be right to make such an attack would be unacceptable to me. Its likely that the review would uncover lots of situations where causing mass mayhem is fairly easy, especially if the perpetrator/perpetrators doesn't/don't mind being caught. The fact that such attacks aren't made more often is probably related more to our basic social contracts than anything else. To cover this well with the age range in question would be difficult, and to fail to cover it well could possibly be disastrous, if only on a small scale (think Columbine).
I started off this response ready to argue against censorship and in favor of free thinking everywhere, but I find I must put some constraints on my thoughts. Interesting.
Your point is well-made, and I agree with most of what you say. However, I find that there is often value in the re-examination of practices and legal concepts by the ignorant legions of Slashdot contributors. Left alone, without review, legal practices such as trademark registration and defense become very specialized and separate from the real world. I think its useful for more-or-less ordinary people to run into the specialized jargon and practices and rant about them, possibly uncovering a certain amount of ingrown idiocy in the practices, and possibly effecting a change for the better. I've always been slightly idealistic, but without ideals, where would we be?
Its also counter-intuitive to throw disks into the trash when you want to dismount them. Why do interface designers come up with these rather stupid ideas?
One of the problems with traffic cameras is that the punishment occurs long after the alledged infraction. So long, in fact, that the accused may not have a clear recollection of the event. That diminishes the value of the punishment. The length of time also causes another problem. Since the alledged violator cannot clearly recall the exact circumstances of the event, he/she has no basis for protesting the ticket.
"The camera doesn't lie" you might say - but where is the proof? The lines placed in the picture aren't really on the pavement. The timing betwen the two pictures is done by the camera system. There is no way you can remember exactly how fast you were going when the picture was taken. About all you can do is shake your head and pay the fine. Oh, and if you think about protesting it, there is a good chance the fine will double because you didn't pay it quickly enough. If you do go to court, it is unlikely that the court will even entertain the notion that the camera system might not be accurate.
Now as long as everything is on the up and up, fine. But what happens when the camera is "adjusted" a bit? It will be extremely hard to determine whether the tickets are fair or not.
Brains have a limited amount of "attention" resource to focus on problems, just like computers have a limited amount of CPU time to give to processes. Multi-tasking on the brain is similar to multi-tasking on a CPU. You can do it, but it does impair efficiency. The more frequently you switch tasks, the more switching overhead you incur. Perhaps you can improve your task-switching speed to minimize overhead.
The process of learning to drive is a bit different (I think) than normal multi-tasking demands. In driving, you are training your brain to take care of certain functions without conscious attention - developing low-level subroutines (checking gauges, mirrors, monitoring distance to the cars around you). To the extent that your "multi-tasking" can involve tasks that can be done subconsciously, you can probably improve your multi-tasking ability by training your brain to use low-level subroutines.
I don't think of "multi-tasking" as the development of semi-autonomous capabilities like I describe above. To me, multi-tasking is when you are switching conscious attention from one thing to another, such as having a conversation with one person while undertaking another focused task. To a certain extent, you can balance the attention you pay to one or the other, but there is probably a cost. Your focused task may proceed more slowly, or you may realize at some point that although you have been automatically responding to your conversational partner, you haven't really been "hearing" what they are saying. If your focused task is "driving your car in traffic" I hope the impact is to the latter rather than the former.
With this in mind, I think there are variations in multi-tasking ability among people, and I think that it may be possible to achieve some improvements in multi-tasking abilities through practice, but in general the article matches my experience and beliefs. I think that multi-tasking may feel like more is being accomplished but actual measured performance will suffer. If some of the tasks involve synchronous interaction with other people, the multi-taskers perception of improved experience will probably come at a cost to the other folks with whom the multi-tasker is interacting.
Because the comparing the velocity of the wind and the velocity of the car is a bogus comparison. In order to not be a perpetual motion machine, it is only necessary for the energy of the wind (available to the car) to be more than the energy required for the car to accelerate to and maintain a particular velocity. The tricky part is in extracting the energy from the wind when the velocity of the car exceeds the velocity of the wind. But that is an engineering problem, not a metaphysical problem.
Malfunctions should void losses as well, then. If the casino gets a "second chance" for every big win, then the only way to correctly apply the rules of chance to the process is for the machine to be inspected after every loss as well.
This is relatively infeasible. So casinos should be offered the option of paying out the win even though the machine malfunctioned if they will not inspect the machine after every loss. Then it becomes a business decision. They can either constantly inspect the machines, or they can pay out the winners that occur even though a machine was "defective" so that they can keep the income from the losses that occurred while the machine was "defective."
Regardless of how they chose to implement, unless a win occurs in the first play after a machine is certified as working, with a subsequent examination showing that the machine is malfunctioning, the casino should have to pay. The risk that the machine is defective is thus embedded in the overall risk of play, with both parties taking on the risk.
In order to cover the possibility that a casino would just have a set of "broken" machines that never paid out a big win, the normal inspections and certification of correct operation would still need to be enforced.
In a perfect world, the machines would have to display (on a card next to the payment slot) how much money they have paid out (on average) for every dollar wagered. I suspect this would be ignored by many, but would probably prove useful information to a few.
I understand what you are saying, and I believe that there is reason in your words. However, I would point out that exposing the breaches of trust can also be used to significantly reduce the breaches of trust that occur, making the level of trust higher. When people know that they are being watched, they behave more in line with the law (even if they are police). In some situations, it has been shown that even a picture of eyes watching people is enough to deter minor transgressions. It is somewhat fatalistic to take the position that exposing breaches of trust will only reduce trust. I believe that if you don't expose the breaches of trust, they will spread and become more commonplace. If those in trusted positions can not be watched (meaningfully) then they will ultimately abuse their power. This appears to be a fact of human nature that few manage to avoid, not an uncommon individual failing.
I don't know that its just 30 to 100 year olds who fail to get excited about this. I think the apathy is broader, and I'm not sure why.
I'm 47 years old, and I have a very strong belief in checks on police power. My wife (similar age) feels the same way. Recorded incidents that have come to light where the police have obviously lied need to be heeded for the lesson that they teach. The evidence that the police are not always the stalwart defenders of law and order needs to be heard so that ordinary citizens have a chance of defending themselves when it is just their word against that of an officer of the law. Most people may never need this capability, but when the need exists, the need is great.
Photographic evidence is the key method by which this balance can be obtained. The idea that police have the special powers that they do, and the special level of credibility in their statements and deeds, yet are somehow exempt from meaningful oversight (through the use of photographic and videographic evidence) by the very public who has created the government that gave them their powers is fundamentally wrong. I have seen firsthand how police may overstep their rights and authorities, and it is quite frightening to realize that you may be right, but you could end up being found quite wrong (in a court of law) or even dead (oops!), with little or no consequence to the officers involved.
I have great respect for the police, and the danger into which they are sometimes placed, as they provide a check on lawlessness. I am not willing, however, to completely lay aside meaningful oversight of their behavior as a cost of checking lawlessness. If we get to the point where we must authorize the police to take any means necessary against lawlessness, with no oversight, then at that point our society will have failed and the check against lawlessness will itself be without rule.
It is not blown out of proportion. Using search engine records is a bit like using pre-cognitives to identify pre-crime from the story Minority Report. We don't really have the means to tell what people are thinking (let alone truly predict the future), but perhaps we can get a good idea of what they are thinking by observing what they seek in information from the Internet. And if they are thinking the wrong things, then they are going to commit a crime. And we have to stop them before they do. There! Thought-crime.
BINGO! Just Make It Their Problem! I like the sound of it. Nice and simple. It is exactly what should happen. If a bank extends credit to someone claiming to be me, then bills me for it, it should be the bank's problem to PROVE it was me, not mine to prove it wasn't. There should also be a penalty for those people who falsely claim it wasn't them when it was. I suspect the whole "stolen identity" thing will largely die off when the banks have to eat the results of their bad decisions. There will probably also be an impact on the availability of credit, but I'm not convinced that will be a bad thing.
At my son's elementary school, they have a "don't touch" rule. So when my son defended himself on the school bus by *blocking* punches from the kid sitting next to him, he got in trouble, same as the kid who was trying to punch him. Because he was "touching" that kid when he blocked his punches. We told him he did the right thing. He is in a martial arts program and knows the difference between attacking and defending.
Not to mention that the ignition cycle is the most demanding thing on a car's engine. This system would wear out your engine one hell of a lot faster. I expect all automakers to be in favor of implementing this system because you'll have to buy a new car every few years.
Just to pick a poor defenseless nit, the ignition is the part of the automotive engine system that ignites the fuel-air mixture at the appropriate point in the compression cycle to produce the power stroke. The starting system is the part I would be worried about wearing out.
Gee, an interface in the engine of every single car on the road that can be remotely controlled at an incredibly large number of geographical locations. I'm sure there won't be any security problems, because IT has such a good track record in security.
Demonstrate that a technology *can* be done right first, before calling those who are justifiably cynical of success "Luddites"
I have had a vasectomy. Knowing what I know now, I would rather have a vasectomy than have an ultrasonic emmitter bathing my testicles. Remember, if you are choosing to have a vasectomy you are choosing to do so because you want to eliminate the possibility of having active sperm. Just like information security works better with an air gap, so sterilization probably works better with a vast gap in the vas deferens.
The school is not "free" by any means. The citizens of the school district pay for it. Attendance is mandatory, by law. Try not sending your kids to school and see what happens. The teachers at the school are acting in (I believe the term is) "loco parentis" (in place of parents). The rules that are enforced should be rules that are reasonable to most parents, not the uber-whacky stuff that the most nut-job rule makers on the school board can come up with. It is not the job of the school control every aspect of the student's lives, it is their job to provide basic education in a safe and effective manner. Giving a 10-year old a week's detention for having a piece of hard candy that he/she was merely consuming is ridiculous, assuming that this individual student was not purposely acting out by doing so.
Most of the Bush "mess" stems from the WTC attack. Prior to that, he was on track for a fairly obscure presidency, pushing things like "No Child Left Behind" and otherwise staying out of trouble.
After the attack, the initial response was measured and appropriate (in my opinion, anyway). Anything less would have led to further attacks. Anything faster or more significant would have been out of proportion.
Then we had to deal with the effects of all of that political adrenaline racing through the system... Patriot Act, Iraq, etc. Just remember, it wasn't one man alone involved in all of these activities. All of our elected representatives were in it up to their eyeballs. Also note that measures such as the Patriot Act surely could have been modified or repealed if the policitical will to do so was present, especially in light of the rather unusual single party control of all of Congress and the head of the executive branch at the start of President Obama's tenure.
Blaming one man is missing the forest for the trees.
So if you get injured in an automobile accident that is not your fault, and you can't work for three weeks, you will not press a claim for lost wages from the other person's insurance. After all, you didn't work the hours, so you didn't have any money coming to you.
You could, perhaps, think of the US Federal/State relationship as being more like the European Union/European Union member country relationship. At least, that's how it seems to have been originally intended, and how some of us (US citizens) still view it. States are fairly independent entities with the responsibility for most of the legislation. The federal government has a restricted set of power specifically granted to it by the agreement under which the individual States agreed to participate in the Union. This document describes the constitution of the federal government (and hence is called the "Constitution").
So US Federal law covers those powers specifically set aside for Federal control. US State law covers just about everything else, except for some amount of county and town/city-based legislation that takes care of fine details at the local level. At least, that is the way that the Constitution describes it.
Unfortunately, in the normal course of events the areas into which the Federal government has become entangled has grown enormously, helped along substantially by the so-called "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution. This clause gives the Federal government certain authorities over elements of interstate commerce. It has been used (and overused) to extend Federal jurisdiction quite broadly.
Morality is necessary for entities to live together in a society. Religion is a way of packaging morality, among other things. God may not exist, but its hard to make societal progress if everyone is stealing from each other, whacking each other, and generally not observing the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).
Isn't it important to consider whether the Wikipedia information, the Google routes, and the online discussions are actually adding something to your life, as opposed to merely making you feel good? The sense that I got from the comment about addiction was that the problem lay with a sense of comfort related to doing those things themselves, as opposed to a sense of comfort brought about by being better able to make their way through life through the use of those things.
Drinking socially while at a party may not be an addiction. Drinking in order to bring about the feeling of being drunk, repeatedly, if not constantly, as the addiction. Being buzzed does not really add to your life, and can even detract from it significantly (especially as you begin to forsake more affirmative life actions in place of drinking). Using the Internet, cell phones, etc. can become disfunctional in a similar fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
So far I and my employer have paid just over $57,000 in to Medicare, and I estimate about another $60,000 will be paid in on my behalf before I reach retirement age. That is $117,000 taken from me by the government as payment in advance for providing me with Medicare services when I reach retirement age.
Ignoring the time value of the money that was paid in by me and on my behalf over my entire working lifetime (i.e., interest it should have earned), if that money was paid out on my behalf every month starting when I reach retirement age, it would fund a health insurance plan at $300/month for 32 years.
So, in some sense, it would be "my Medicare" that was being manipulated, wouldn't it?
You are assuming that everyone things that the Bush-Cheney years were some kind of complete failure. I happen to disagree with that line of thought.
I do believe that the WTF! attack on Iraq was out in left field someplace, and I abhor the Patriot Act and the line of thought that demands USA citizens give up all privacy rights in order to have security theater surroundings. However, I have no problem with the USA's original response to the 9/11/2001 attack, nor "No Child Left Behind," nor the Bush remake of the White House administrative environment to something approaching a modern business environment. I don't think that the Bush administration is responsible for a) the "Tech wreck" (the economic pullback that began under the last days of Clinton and continued on through the beginning of the Bush administration) or b) the "housing bubble." I think that the Bush administration's very measured economic response to the combined effects of the "Tech wreck" and the 9/11 attack was partially responsible for the period of significant economic growth from the end of 2002 through to 2007. Much of this growth in areas other than housing was *not* erased by the housing bubble collapse, although its been fairly stagnant since that collapse.
So, although I don't consider myself to be a "Republican," I don't regret voting for Bush/Cheney, either. Place the blame where you will, but give credit where credit is due as well.
For the "other side," I don't see the "Audacity of Hope" bringing about anything like the "Change" that was expected, either. More like business as usual... no repeal of the Patriot Act, a health insurance debacle, a stagnant economy, etc. One of the biggest sureties with the government is that they will continue to act like the government... overzealous activity in a direction nominally seen as desirable until it goes far to far.
I don't know the context in which the assignment was given. Where I said "Depending on the context..." was intended to indicate my lack of certainty here.
I obviously don't have a problem presuming that 16 year olds may require some specific guidance about the ethics of such an attack. Sociopathic or not, I have known some pretty stupid things to have been undertaken by people in this age range, some of which could have gone very wrong and caused grave problems.
I believe in the overall social contract observed by most of us, in that we couldn't possibly form large societies without this social contract being ingrained in our DNA. It is simply too easy to cause major damage to large segments of our population, and the fact that this damage isn't being done indicates to me that by and large we aren't likely to cause this sort of mass mayhem.
However, there is a point at which an individual's level of intelligence and capability for action is high, yet at which that individual's maturity is not, where an "inspired" idealistic action could be undertaken that would have significant negative consequences.
The people who flew the 4 airplanes on 9/11 were born of human parents, raised in human societies, yet still found it in themselves to take over planes full of other humans, slice the throats of the pilots, then fly these planes into buildings full of other people with the express intent of causing mass mayhem. One failed only due to the actions of heroic sons of bitches on those planes, the other three succeeded.
Were the sociopaths? Or were they soldiers in a war? How fine if the line dividing these two labels?
Year 10 students would be about 16 years old, I believe. This is a fairly fluid time for many people in terms of morals and social consciousness.
Depending on the context in which such an assignment was issued, there could be a lot of value in it. Examining a potential threat by planning an attack yourself is an excellent way in which to uncover vulnerabilities, especially vulnerabilities that exist due to invalid assumptions. Its too bad we didn't do this prior to 9/11 when we might have realized that the assumption that hijackers wanted to survive the hijacking was no longer valid. This is something that adults should be doing, but also one in which students may have a more "fresh" and unassuming state of mind that could prove useful in uncovering those unwarranted assumptions.
However, having 16 year olds do this in a context that doesn't also examine why it wouldn't be right to make such an attack would be unacceptable to me. Its likely that the review would uncover lots of situations where causing mass mayhem is fairly easy, especially if the perpetrator/perpetrators doesn't/don't mind being caught. The fact that such attacks aren't made more often is probably related more to our basic social contracts than anything else. To cover this well with the age range in question would be difficult, and to fail to cover it well could possibly be disastrous, if only on a small scale (think Columbine).
I started off this response ready to argue against censorship and in favor of free thinking everywhere, but I find I must put some constraints on my thoughts. Interesting.
Your point is well-made, and I agree with most of what you say. However, I find that there is often value in the re-examination of practices and legal concepts by the ignorant legions of Slashdot contributors. Left alone, without review, legal practices such as trademark registration and defense become very specialized and separate from the real world. I think its useful for more-or-less ordinary people to run into the specialized jargon and practices and rant about them, possibly uncovering a certain amount of ingrown idiocy in the practices, and possibly effecting a change for the better. I've always been slightly idealistic, but without ideals, where would we be?
Its also counter-intuitive to throw disks into the trash when you want to dismount them. Why do interface designers come up with these rather stupid ideas?
"The camera doesn't lie" you might say - but where is the proof? The lines placed in the picture aren't really on the pavement. The timing betwen the two pictures is done by the camera system. There is no way you can remember exactly how fast you were going when the picture was taken. About all you can do is shake your head and pay the fine. Oh, and if you think about protesting it, there is a good chance the fine will double because you didn't pay it quickly enough. If you do go to court, it is unlikely that the court will even entertain the notion that the camera system might not be accurate.
Now as long as everything is on the up and up, fine. But what happens when the camera is "adjusted" a bit? It will be extremely hard to determine whether the tickets are fair or not.
Brains have a limited amount of "attention" resource to focus on problems, just like computers have a limited amount of CPU time to give to processes. Multi-tasking on the brain is similar to multi-tasking on a CPU. You can do it, but it does impair efficiency. The more frequently you switch tasks, the more switching overhead you incur. Perhaps you can improve your task-switching speed to minimize overhead.
The process of learning to drive is a bit different (I think) than normal multi-tasking demands. In driving, you are training your brain to take care of certain functions without conscious attention - developing low-level subroutines (checking gauges, mirrors, monitoring distance to the cars around you). To the extent that your "multi-tasking" can involve tasks that can be done subconsciously, you can probably improve your multi-tasking ability by training your brain to use low-level subroutines.
I don't think of "multi-tasking" as the development of semi-autonomous capabilities like I describe above. To me, multi-tasking is when you are switching conscious attention from one thing to another, such as having a conversation with one person while undertaking another focused task. To a certain extent, you can balance the attention you pay to one or the other, but there is probably a cost. Your focused task may proceed more slowly, or you may realize at some point that although you have been automatically responding to your conversational partner, you haven't really been "hearing" what they are saying. If your focused task is "driving your car in traffic" I hope the impact is to the latter rather than the former.
With this in mind, I think there are variations in multi-tasking ability among people, and I think that it may be possible to achieve some improvements in multi-tasking abilities through practice, but in general the article matches my experience and beliefs. I think that multi-tasking may feel like more is being accomplished but actual measured performance will suffer. If some of the tasks involve synchronous interaction with other people, the multi-taskers perception of improved experience will probably come at a cost to the other folks with whom the multi-tasker is interacting.
Because the comparing the velocity of the wind and the velocity of the car is a bogus comparison. In order to not be a perpetual motion machine, it is only necessary for the energy of the wind (available to the car) to be more than the energy required for the car to accelerate to and maintain a particular velocity. The tricky part is in extracting the energy from the wind when the velocity of the car exceeds the velocity of the wind. But that is an engineering problem, not a metaphysical problem.
Malfunctions should void losses as well, then. If the casino gets a "second chance" for every big win, then the only way to correctly apply the rules of chance to the process is for the machine to be inspected after every loss as well.
This is relatively infeasible. So casinos should be offered the option of paying out the win even though the machine malfunctioned if they will not inspect the machine after every loss. Then it becomes a business decision. They can either constantly inspect the machines, or they can pay out the winners that occur even though a machine was "defective" so that they can keep the income from the losses that occurred while the machine was "defective."
Regardless of how they chose to implement, unless a win occurs in the first play after a machine is certified as working, with a subsequent examination showing that the machine is malfunctioning, the casino should have to pay. The risk that the machine is defective is thus embedded in the overall risk of play, with both parties taking on the risk.
In order to cover the possibility that a casino would just have a set of "broken" machines that never paid out a big win, the normal inspections and certification of correct operation would still need to be enforced.
In a perfect world, the machines would have to display (on a card next to the payment slot) how much money they have paid out (on average) for every dollar wagered. I suspect this would be ignored by many, but would probably prove useful information to a few.
I understand what you are saying, and I believe that there is reason in your words. However, I would point out that exposing the breaches of trust can also be used to significantly reduce the breaches of trust that occur, making the level of trust higher. When people know that they are being watched, they behave more in line with the law (even if they are police). In some situations, it has been shown that even a picture of eyes watching people is enough to deter minor transgressions. It is somewhat fatalistic to take the position that exposing breaches of trust will only reduce trust. I believe that if you don't expose the breaches of trust, they will spread and become more commonplace. If those in trusted positions can not be watched (meaningfully) then they will ultimately abuse their power. This appears to be a fact of human nature that few manage to avoid, not an uncommon individual failing.
I don't know that its just 30 to 100 year olds who fail to get excited about this. I think the apathy is broader, and I'm not sure why.
I'm 47 years old, and I have a very strong belief in checks on police power. My wife (similar age) feels the same way. Recorded incidents that have come to light where the police have obviously lied need to be heeded for the lesson that they teach. The evidence that the police are not always the stalwart defenders of law and order needs to be heard so that ordinary citizens have a chance of defending themselves when it is just their word against that of an officer of the law. Most people may never need this capability, but when the need exists, the need is great.
Photographic evidence is the key method by which this balance can be obtained. The idea that police have the special powers that they do, and the special level of credibility in their statements and deeds, yet are somehow exempt from meaningful oversight (through the use of photographic and videographic evidence) by the very public who has created the government that gave them their powers is fundamentally wrong. I have seen firsthand how police may overstep their rights and authorities, and it is quite frightening to realize that you may be right, but you could end up being found quite wrong (in a court of law) or even dead (oops!), with little or no consequence to the officers involved.
I have great respect for the police, and the danger into which they are sometimes placed, as they provide a check on lawlessness. I am not willing, however, to completely lay aside meaningful oversight of their behavior as a cost of checking lawlessness. If we get to the point where we must authorize the police to take any means necessary against lawlessness, with no oversight, then at that point our society will have failed and the check against lawlessness will itself be without rule.
It is not blown out of proportion. Using search engine records is a bit like using pre-cognitives to identify pre-crime from the story Minority Report. We don't really have the means to tell what people are thinking (let alone truly predict the future), but perhaps we can get a good idea of what they are thinking by observing what they seek in information from the Internet. And if they are thinking the wrong things, then they are going to commit a crime. And we have to stop them before they do. There! Thought-crime.
BINGO! Just Make It Their Problem! I like the sound of it. Nice and simple. It is exactly what should happen. If a bank extends credit to someone claiming to be me, then bills me for it, it should be the bank's problem to PROVE it was me, not mine to prove it wasn't. There should also be a penalty for those people who falsely claim it wasn't them when it was. I suspect the whole "stolen identity" thing will largely die off when the banks have to eat the results of their bad decisions. There will probably also be an impact on the availability of credit, but I'm not convinced that will be a bad thing.
At my son's elementary school, they have a "don't touch" rule. So when my son defended himself on the school bus by *blocking* punches from the kid sitting next to him, he got in trouble, same as the kid who was trying to punch him. Because he was "touching" that kid when he blocked his punches. We told him he did the right thing. He is in a martial arts program and knows the difference between attacking and defending.
Not to mention that the ignition cycle is the most demanding thing on a car's engine. This system would wear out your engine one hell of a lot faster. I expect all automakers to be in favor of implementing this system because you'll have to buy a new car every few years.
Just to pick a poor defenseless nit, the ignition is the part of the automotive engine system that ignites the fuel-air mixture at the appropriate point in the compression cycle to produce the power stroke. The starting system is the part I would be worried about wearing out.
Gee, an interface in the engine of every single car on the road that can be remotely controlled at an incredibly large number of geographical locations. I'm sure there won't be any security problems, because IT has such a good track record in security.
Demonstrate that a technology *can* be done right first, before calling those who are justifiably cynical of success "Luddites"
I have had a vasectomy. Knowing what I know now, I would rather have a vasectomy than have an ultrasonic emmitter bathing my testicles. Remember, if you are choosing to have a vasectomy you are choosing to do so because you want to eliminate the possibility of having active sperm. Just like information security works better with an air gap, so sterilization probably works better with a vast gap in the vas deferens.
The school is not "free" by any means. The citizens of the school district pay for it. Attendance is mandatory, by law. Try not sending your kids to school and see what happens. The teachers at the school are acting in (I believe the term is) "loco parentis" (in place of parents). The rules that are enforced should be rules that are reasonable to most parents, not the uber-whacky stuff that the most nut-job rule makers on the school board can come up with. It is not the job of the school control every aspect of the student's lives, it is their job to provide basic education in a safe and effective manner. Giving a 10-year old a week's detention for having a piece of hard candy that he/she was merely consuming is ridiculous, assuming that this individual student was not purposely acting out by doing so.
Most of the Bush "mess" stems from the WTC attack. Prior to that, he was on track for a fairly obscure presidency, pushing things like "No Child Left Behind" and otherwise staying out of trouble.
After the attack, the initial response was measured and appropriate (in my opinion, anyway). Anything less would have led to further attacks. Anything faster or more significant would have been out of proportion.
Then we had to deal with the effects of all of that political adrenaline racing through the system... Patriot Act, Iraq, etc. Just remember, it wasn't one man alone involved in all of these activities. All of our elected representatives were in it up to their eyeballs. Also note that measures such as the Patriot Act surely could have been modified or repealed if the policitical will to do so was present, especially in light of the rather unusual single party control of all of Congress and the head of the executive branch at the start of President Obama's tenure.
Blaming one man is missing the forest for the trees.
So if you get injured in an automobile accident that is not your fault, and you can't work for three weeks, you will not press a claim for lost wages from the other person's insurance. After all, you didn't work the hours, so you didn't have any money coming to you.
You could, perhaps, think of the US Federal/State relationship as being more like the European Union/European Union member country relationship. At least, that's how it seems to have been originally intended, and how some of us (US citizens) still view it. States are fairly independent entities with the responsibility for most of the legislation. The federal government has a restricted set of power specifically granted to it by the agreement under which the individual States agreed to participate in the Union. This document describes the constitution of the federal government (and hence is called the "Constitution").
So US Federal law covers those powers specifically set aside for Federal control. US State law covers just about everything else, except for some amount of county and town/city-based legislation that takes care of fine details at the local level. At least, that is the way that the Constitution describes it.
Unfortunately, in the normal course of events the areas into which the Federal government has become entangled has grown enormously, helped along substantially by the so-called "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution. This clause gives the Federal government certain authorities over elements of interstate commerce. It has been used (and overused) to extend Federal jurisdiction quite broadly.
Morality is necessary for entities to live together in a society. Religion is a way of packaging morality, among other things. God may not exist, but its hard to make societal progress if everyone is stealing from each other, whacking each other, and generally not observing the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Ok, its late. But someone had to say it.
Isn't it important to consider whether the Wikipedia information, the Google routes, and the online discussions are actually adding something to your life, as opposed to merely making you feel good? The sense that I got from the comment about addiction was that the problem lay with a sense of comfort related to doing those things themselves, as opposed to a sense of comfort brought about by being better able to make their way through life through the use of those things.
Drinking socially while at a party may not be an addiction. Drinking in order to bring about the feeling of being drunk, repeatedly, if not constantly, as the addiction. Being buzzed does not really add to your life, and can even detract from it significantly (especially as you begin to forsake more affirmative life actions in place of drinking). Using the Internet, cell phones, etc. can become disfunctional in a similar fashion.