So Google will photograph all the byways of Europe, including its bystanders. Then it will be forced to develop technology that ID's the bystanders, and propositions them with permission forms when they're most likely to sign.
Like getting an email while googling porn.
People in public should expect to be recorded. Governments should be prohibited from linking among private data, must expire data after/outside necessary/authorized transactions, and other restrictions respecting large orgs with too much power and info that threatens the broadest boundary between privacy and publicity. But relying on tech incompetence to protect false privacy in public is game over.
When we've got that line drawn properly, we'll start to defend our privacy inside the boundary much more aggressively.
When you (except you, the FBI agent snooping on this message) or I "overstep bounds" like those the FBI "overstepped" in this operation, we're guilty of breaking the law. We're criminals. The people the FBI are responsible for arresting and pushing into the justice system that jails us.
Who at the FBI will even get fired for their crimes? Who will be charged? No one. They should be held to a higher standard than are civilians, because of the stakes at risk in their control, and the trust they're given based on their superior integrity. But instead, no one every gets fired, no one is ever charged.
We cannot be surprised when cops not only do crimes repeatedly when they're not punished, but are more tempted to do them, their integrity undermined. Because by failing to hold them to account, to pay for their crimes, we demonstrate that our laws are arbitrary, our government merely force, not justice.
Most people aren't so linear in reading, nor as completely distractable, as you describe. As I said, I've found the styled text effective, as have others on the Web, and in other mediums. And I was an English major, among others. I'm satisfied that my way works.
Besides, the people complaining about it haven't had anything to say about the subject, "SSL for all my friends!", so I expect there's some connection to reading comprehension and/or distractability.
The Web isn't a novel people have at home. You probably noticed that Web pages have a lot more pictures in them than do the books you have at home.
I have found that people understand my posts with exactly the same syntactical style better when they include the easy, familiar HTML style markup. The highlighting isn't necessary, but it's useful. People scan Web pages much more superficially than they read books.
Magazines have a lot more highlighting and layout than do books, closer to the Web. Magazine attention span and depth is more like the Web, which is even more extreme.
Why do you dislike the highlighting? It works better.
Do you know how to config (recode?) Apache-SSL to rewrite all HTTP requests to HTTPS and redirect the browser to the rewritten URL?
Firefox is open source. It could be rewritten, or perhaps just a patch offered, or a plugin, to rewrite all HTTP URLs requested to its network engine into HTTPS. When an Apache-SSL detects a browser without that code, it could send back with the HTTPS URL a URL pointing to the new code for download/install. That could spread the code like wildfire.
Other protocols also need to be secured, probably most conveniently by wrapping them in HTTPS. They would need an "encrypting proxy" that took the HTTPS-wrapped requests and made them. These Apache-SSL gateways could serve. Which would not really be secure (they're just middlemen, probably unknown in order to scale as a pool), but they'd be more secure than the totally insecure transaction.
There's one way to find out: SSL for all my friends! And then lawsuits from by best friends in that crowd. We'll get to 1934, even if we have to stop collecting our Y2K consulting fees from AT&T.
Try saying it out loud, emphasizing the words in bold. You can do it. You'll gradually learn to understand how to read silently, with the emphasis in appropriate places, and maybe even stop moving your lips while you read. It'll be harder for you to understand the words, why some are emphasized, and how it's not random. But with practice, you'll learn to fool listeners into believing that you know how to read.
AT&T would find it a lot harder to legally justify operating middleman proxies, especially for traffic merely routing across their WAN but not terminating at an AT&T edge (neither end is an AT&T customer), than it does in examining payload fields of packets whose routing fields it must examine. When I send a packet with a destination address and my return address, but no AT&T address, that is clearly an explicit request for processing by only those endpoints, and only intermediary processing that is necessary to route it. If I encrypt the payload, and AT&T poses as either endpoint without permission from the real endpoint, that is a clear violation of the expectation of privacy that the endpoints have invested (valuable) processing work into for that express purpose.
AT&T would find itself not only hated by people it was middlemanning. It would find itself subject to many lawsuits it couldn't afford, for the wasted computing resources as well as the invaded privacy. And 3rd party routers routing to AT&T could be forced to switch traffic away from AT&T, and stop paying it for carriage.
If Firefox and Apache both made HTTPS their default protocol instead of HTTP, AT&T wouldn't be able to invade any of our private traffic that happens to get routed over their WANs. Then they'd have only their Net Doublecharge, preferential routing between IPs paying their extortion fees, to work against us, and that gambit will likely get killed by the government that otherwise protects AT&T's resurgent monopoly.
If we act now, while we still can, before AT&T and their telco/cableco cartel shuts us down.
plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings. [...] Though they lack cognition and memory, the study shows plants are capable of complex social behaviours
The family that par-tays together, is paranoid of the neighbors together.
Everyone in public should expect to be recorded there. We're already based on that way of expecting publicity in public, rather than expectations of privacy in private. Technology is just letting us live up (or down) to our expectations.
These police aren't just appearing in public. They work for the public, represent the public. They absolutely should expect to be recorded when in public.
In fact, all police should be recorded every minute they're on duty, with explicit (and logged) privacy breaks. Their records should be scanned for completeness after every shift, and archived for some reasonable time, like a year, or after a couple of performance reviews. Cops should use the videos as evidence in trials, as reports (just voice annotated), as tools to help other people identify and link suspects. How many escaping suspects require excessive force to stop them, because otherwise they'd get away, who could just be recorded and caught later, without car chases and shooting that endangers the cops, the suspects, and bystanders?
Once the public is already always recorded, we'll have good reason to stop being so lazy and defend our actual privacy, in private, which the government is already invading and recording all the time, even despite laws against it.
And the total value of all of the separate units would nearly certainly be greater than the monolithic Microsoft.
But much harder to run as a single empire - that's the entire point. The reason why Gates wouldn't allow it, and the reason the rest of us need it done.
Now that Gates is kinda gone, the reorg could accommodate that kind of breakup. And anticipation of it in the new reorg could be part of what's kept Microsoft from doing anything interesting, including its failure to launch Vista with anything like the aplomb with which it launched XP, or even 2000/3.
Maybe if Gore gets a second chance at a DoJ and a remedy, MS will be easier to break up in every way, including from inside Microsoft.
No SDK for this exciting new mobile platform with a surely simple GUI and integrated multimedia/network OS means that the killer app is a dead-simple SDK that anyone can use to whip out apps.
Some kind of flowcharting tool among existing iPhone components, apps and network resources/APIs that gives anyone with spreadsheet formula or HTML/1.0 level skills the ability to make unique apps would catch on like wildfire. A distribution app for sharing with friends would fan those flames, even if it just works with iTunes.
Even just a good Eclipse environment for iPhone dev could be really hot, if not "the next Netscape (+Notepad)".
Apple is really being generous by not filling the market niche with their own SDK. If you make one yourself, it could be that killer app on the newest killer platform. Go do it yourself!
For one, you don't know enough about time travel's effects to say it would put the universe into an unstable state, or how long the "process" takes (time
For another, you don't know enough about the universe to say it's not already unstable - or that time travel isn't currently happening somewhere/somewhen in it.
I think there's a lot of opportunity for a "middle layer": people who fundraise from private investors to produce research. If that middle layer were run by government agencies, there would still be a compelling argument for publishing everything into the public domain (no patents or other private intellectual property). Without the public (or its representatives) in the critical path of producing the research, the only argument for keeping the products public is that which keeps privately funded museums public: a sense of civic responsibility, perhaps boosted by tax deductions. But I don't expect our public museum culture (at least of unique physical artifacts) to last in such substance much longer than another generation or two. The momentum is going in the other direction: all useful info becoming private, with the public domain swamped with a cacophony of unreliable, mostly calculatedly biased propaganda/advertisements.
But the Internet accommodates all kinds of complex social networks that produce and can refine information. While the public domain itself is such a booster of info, and is a fairly durable idea, despite privatizing pressures. Maybe people will aggregate both demand for info and supply of money that both serves and harnesses the public. Slashdot, after all, captures quite a lot of valuable laborer's time, and is public without being totally worthless.
All science is fiction until the experiments determine the actual boundaries. And even then, more science can reveal those boundaries were limits of the prior experiments.
Is Einstein's rotating cylindrical black holes, which effect nonlinear time travel, fiction?
It doesn't matter where the money comes from, in terms of the ROI.
But apart from the economics, people who call taxation funded government "coercive" don't think the costs of taxation to be worth any return, no matter how high.
The only problem I have with the broad model of funding science is when public money is spent to produce info that is kept private. Either kept secret entirely, or excluded from exploitation by any but one (or a group of) private individuals/orgs. Like governments funding schools R&D that produces patents licensed only from the schools to private licensees. This process is not bad only for science, but for all publicly funded research.
Even though private investment can, always has, and always will produce private science, the public needs lots of public science. And the private science is not nearly as reliable, therefore valuable, as public science. Because the widest possible review produces the most accurate science. Private science might have competitive value, but it's vulnerable to self-selected blindspots that increase its risk - and thereby, the overall value of private science.
Another note on financial return expectations: in an investment market like the past 5 years, any return at all, even a few percent a year, is worth investing, depending on its risk, and the other costs of selecting, managing and cashing out an investment. "Massive" ROI is not available to just anyone, and just avoiding losses (like inflation vs noninterest savings) can be a worthwhile investment, even if just for diversification.
Some time travelers want to keep time travel to themselves, others want us to think about doing it. They destructively interfere to zero, but there's really double the action going on around the issue. If it's so important, it's probably worth trying.
Those experiments only prove that time travel is less impossible than it was once believed to be, but not possible enough to do it the way we want. Also, Lasers were just a parlor trick, like vision persistance was before TV. Mastering those physical tricks can have a great deal of value. Maybe some of what we want to get from time travel doesn't require actual time travel, but just the reliable appearance of it.
Except that "some time travel" != "unlimited time travel". What if time travel is possible, but only for info, and each bit transmitted requires just less than the total energy of the universe for some smallest time backwards? What if that bit can represent only whether or not the bit itself was transmitted? What if there's some other limit, and time travel falls somewhere in between? What if there's complex, perhaps cyclic, dependencies among several limits?
Even those possibilities are possible to consider only after we've started to understand information dynamics, which itself is pretty recent. What if there are other kinds of limits, or other ways to get around limits, that more info engineering experience reveals? What if there are several cycles of paradigm change like that before we understand enough to even investigate time travel directly?
And what about just proving in detail how the universe prevents time travel? The current model, based mostly on Einstein's Relativity, allows for time travel in some circumstances (eg. some rotating cylindrical black holes). Why isn't it easier? Does it already happen in nature? The "intermediate" results, or just disproof, would restructure a great deal of our model of the universe.
All of which has economic benefit, likely greater than the cost.
It's disappointing to me that a scientist would see "financial" vs "scientific" investment as mutually exclusive. Especially when offering private service of "funding reviewer" for pay. Would you publish your results?
I don't understand how you call the financial investment (presumambly you mean "judged by financial returns") "sad", then go on to describe how good it could be, particularly compared to "mammoth granting agencies".
The distinction between "scientific" and "financial" is either nonexistent, or largely irrelevant, except in determining in which terms the funding is decided to grant, and in which terms the return is evaluated for success. The real distinction is whether funding is private or public, and whether the results are kept private or published.
Slashdot Mirror
So Google will photograph all the byways of Europe, including its bystanders. Then it will be forced to develop technology that ID's the bystanders, and propositions them with permission forms when they're most likely to sign.
Like getting an email while googling porn.
People in public should expect to be recorded. Governments should be prohibited from linking among private data, must expire data after/outside necessary/authorized transactions, and other restrictions respecting large orgs with too much power and info that threatens the broadest boundary between privacy and publicity. But relying on tech incompetence to protect false privacy in public is game over.
When we've got that line drawn properly, we'll start to defend our privacy inside the boundary much more aggressively.
When you (except you, the FBI agent snooping on this message) or I "overstep bounds" like those the FBI "overstepped" in this operation, we're guilty of breaking the law. We're criminals. The people the FBI are responsible for arresting and pushing into the justice system that jails us.
Who at the FBI will even get fired for their crimes? Who will be charged? No one. They should be held to a higher standard than are civilians, because of the stakes at risk in their control, and the trust they're given based on their superior integrity. But instead, no one every gets fired, no one is ever charged.
We cannot be surprised when cops not only do crimes repeatedly when they're not punished, but are more tempted to do them, their integrity undermined. Because by failing to hold them to account, to pay for their crimes, we demonstrate that our laws are arbitrary, our government merely force, not justice.
Most people aren't so linear in reading, nor as completely distractable, as you describe. As I said, I've found the styled text effective, as have others on the Web, and in other mediums. And I was an English major, among others. I'm satisfied that my way works.
Besides, the people complaining about it haven't had anything to say about the subject, "SSL for all my friends!", so I expect there's some connection to reading comprehension and/or distractability.
The Web isn't a novel people have at home. You probably noticed that Web pages have a lot more pictures in them than do the books you have at home.
I have found that people understand my posts with exactly the same syntactical style better when they include the easy, familiar HTML style markup. The highlighting isn't necessary, but it's useful. People scan Web pages much more superficially than they read books.
Magazines have a lot more highlighting and layout than do books, closer to the Web. Magazine attention span and depth is more like the Web, which is even more extreme.
Why do you dislike the highlighting? It works better.
Do you know how to config (recode?) Apache-SSL to rewrite all HTTP requests to HTTPS and redirect the browser to the rewritten URL?
Firefox is open source. It could be rewritten, or perhaps just a patch offered, or a plugin, to rewrite all HTTP URLs requested to its network engine into HTTPS. When an Apache-SSL detects a browser without that code, it could send back with the HTTPS URL a URL pointing to the new code for download/install. That could spread the code like wildfire.
Other protocols also need to be secured, probably most conveniently by wrapping them in HTTPS. They would need an "encrypting proxy" that took the HTTPS-wrapped requests and made them. These Apache-SSL gateways could serve. Which would not really be secure (they're just middlemen, probably unknown in order to scale as a pool), but they'd be more secure than the totally insecure transaction.
My patent for "a functional network of multiply overlapping genetic transcripts distributed in 'junk' DNA" is on its way to the PTO.
As I posted elsewhere in this thread, if AT&T tries that kind of unauthorized decrypting middleman attack, it will get in a lot of trouble.
There's one way to find out: SSL for all my friends! And then lawsuits from by best friends in that crowd. We'll get to 1934, even if we have to stop collecting our Y2K consulting fees from AT&T.
Try saying it out loud, emphasizing the words in bold. You can do it. You'll gradually learn to understand how to read silently, with the emphasis in appropriate places, and maybe even stop moving your lips while you read. It'll be harder for you to understand the words, why some are emphasized, and how it's not random. But with practice, you'll learn to fool listeners into believing that you know how to read.
AT&T would find it a lot harder to legally justify operating middleman proxies, especially for traffic merely routing across their WAN but not terminating at an AT&T edge (neither end is an AT&T customer), than it does in examining payload fields of packets whose routing fields it must examine. When I send a packet with a destination address and my return address, but no AT&T address, that is clearly an explicit request for processing by only those endpoints, and only intermediary processing that is necessary to route it. If I encrypt the payload, and AT&T poses as either endpoint without permission from the real endpoint, that is a clear violation of the expectation of privacy that the endpoints have invested (valuable) processing work into for that express purpose.
AT&T would find itself not only hated by people it was middlemanning. It would find itself subject to many lawsuits it couldn't afford, for the wasted computing resources as well as the invaded privacy. And 3rd party routers routing to AT&T could be forced to switch traffic away from AT&T, and stop paying it for carriage.
If Firefox and Apache both made HTTPS their default protocol instead of HTTP, AT&T wouldn't be able to invade any of our private traffic that happens to get routed over their WANs. Then they'd have only their Net Doublecharge, preferential routing between IPs paying their extortion fees, to work against us, and that gambit will likely get killed by the government that otherwise protects AT&T's resurgent monopoly.
If we act now, while we still can, before AT&T and their telco/cableco cartel shuts us down.
The family that par-tays together, is paranoid of the neighbors together.
Everyone in public should expect to be recorded there. We're already based on that way of expecting publicity in public, rather than expectations of privacy in private. Technology is just letting us live up (or down) to our expectations.
These police aren't just appearing in public. They work for the public, represent the public. They absolutely should expect to be recorded when in public.
In fact, all police should be recorded every minute they're on duty, with explicit (and logged) privacy breaks. Their records should be scanned for completeness after every shift, and archived for some reasonable time, like a year, or after a couple of performance reviews. Cops should use the videos as evidence in trials, as reports (just voice annotated), as tools to help other people identify and link suspects. How many escaping suspects require excessive force to stop them, because otherwise they'd get away, who could just be recorded and caught later, without car chases and shooting that endangers the cops, the suspects, and bystanders?
Once the public is already always recorded, we'll have good reason to stop being so lazy and defend our actual privacy, in private, which the government is already invading and recording all the time, even despite laws against it.
And the total value of all of the separate units would nearly certainly be greater than the monolithic Microsoft.
But much harder to run as a single empire - that's the entire point. The reason why Gates wouldn't allow it, and the reason the rest of us need it done.
Now that Gates is kinda gone, the reorg could accommodate that kind of breakup. And anticipation of it in the new reorg could be part of what's kept Microsoft from doing anything interesting, including its failure to launch Vista with anything like the aplomb with which it launched XP, or even 2000/3.
Maybe if Gore gets a second chance at a DoJ and a remedy, MS will be easier to break up in every way, including from inside Microsoft.
No SDK for this exciting new mobile platform with a surely simple GUI and integrated multimedia/network OS means that the killer app is a dead-simple SDK that anyone can use to whip out apps.
Some kind of flowcharting tool among existing iPhone components, apps and network resources/APIs that gives anyone with spreadsheet formula or HTML/1.0 level skills the ability to make unique apps would catch on like wildfire. A distribution app for sharing with friends would fan those flames, even if it just works with iTunes.
Even just a good Eclipse environment for iPhone dev could be really hot, if not "the next Netscape (+Notepad)".
Apple is really being generous by not filling the market niche with their own SDK. If you make one yourself, it could be that killer app on the newest killer platform. Go do it yourself!
For one, you don't know enough about time travel's effects to say it would put the universe into an unstable state, or how long the "process" takes (time
For another, you don't know enough about the universe to say it's not already unstable - or that time travel isn't currently happening somewhere/somewhen in it.
I think there's a lot of opportunity for a "middle layer": people who fundraise from private investors to produce research. If that middle layer were run by government agencies, there would still be a compelling argument for publishing everything into the public domain (no patents or other private intellectual property). Without the public (or its representatives) in the critical path of producing the research, the only argument for keeping the products public is that which keeps privately funded museums public: a sense of civic responsibility, perhaps boosted by tax deductions. But I don't expect our public museum culture (at least of unique physical artifacts) to last in such substance much longer than another generation or two. The momentum is going in the other direction: all useful info becoming private, with the public domain swamped with a cacophony of unreliable, mostly calculatedly biased propaganda/advertisements.
But the Internet accommodates all kinds of complex social networks that produce and can refine information. While the public domain itself is such a booster of info, and is a fairly durable idea, despite privatizing pressures. Maybe people will aggregate both demand for info and supply of money that both serves and harnesses the public. Slashdot, after all, captures quite a lot of valuable laborer's time, and is public without being totally worthless.
All science is fiction until the experiments determine the actual boundaries. And even then, more science can reveal those boundaries were limits of the prior experiments.
Is Einstein's rotating cylindrical black holes, which effect nonlinear time travel, fiction?
It doesn't matter where the money comes from, in terms of the ROI.
But apart from the economics, people who call taxation funded government "coercive" don't think the costs of taxation to be worth any return, no matter how high.
The only problem I have with the broad model of funding science is when public money is spent to produce info that is kept private. Either kept secret entirely, or excluded from exploitation by any but one (or a group of) private individuals/orgs. Like governments funding schools R&D that produces patents licensed only from the schools to private licensees. This process is not bad only for science, but for all publicly funded research.
Even though private investment can, always has, and always will produce private science, the public needs lots of public science. And the private science is not nearly as reliable, therefore valuable, as public science. Because the widest possible review produces the most accurate science. Private science might have competitive value, but it's vulnerable to self-selected blindspots that increase its risk - and thereby, the overall value of private science.
Another note on financial return expectations: in an investment market like the past 5 years, any return at all, even a few percent a year, is worth investing, depending on its risk, and the other costs of selecting, managing and cashing out an investment. "Massive" ROI is not available to just anyone, and just avoiding losses (like inflation vs noninterest savings) can be a worthwhile investment, even if just for diversification.
Moderation 0
50% Insightful
50% Overrated
Some time travelers want to keep time travel to themselves, others want us to think about doing it. They destructively interfere to zero, but there's really double the action going on around the issue. If it's so important, it's probably worth trying.
Those experiments only prove that time travel is less impossible than it was once believed to be, but not possible enough to do it the way we want. Also, Lasers were just a parlor trick, like vision persistance was before TV. Mastering those physical tricks can have a great deal of value. Maybe some of what we want to get from time travel doesn't require actual time travel, but just the reliable appearance of it.
How do you know time travel works like that?
Except that "some time travel" != "unlimited time travel". What if time travel is possible, but only for info, and each bit transmitted requires just less than the total energy of the universe for some smallest time backwards? What if that bit can represent only whether or not the bit itself was transmitted? What if there's some other limit, and time travel falls somewhere in between? What if there's complex, perhaps cyclic, dependencies among several limits?
Even those possibilities are possible to consider only after we've started to understand information dynamics, which itself is pretty recent. What if there are other kinds of limits, or other ways to get around limits, that more info engineering experience reveals? What if there are several cycles of paradigm change like that before we understand enough to even investigate time travel directly?
And what about just proving in detail how the universe prevents time travel? The current model, based mostly on Einstein's Relativity, allows for time travel in some circumstances (eg. some rotating cylindrical black holes). Why isn't it easier? Does it already happen in nature? The "intermediate" results, or just disproof, would restructure a great deal of our model of the universe.
All of which has economic benefit, likely greater than the cost.
It's disappointing to me that a scientist would see "financial" vs "scientific" investment as mutually exclusive. Especially when offering private service of "funding reviewer" for pay. Would you publish your results?
I don't understand how you call the financial investment (presumambly you mean "judged by financial returns") "sad", then go on to describe how good it could be, particularly compared to "mammoth granting agencies".
The distinction between "scientific" and "financial" is either nonexistent, or largely irrelevant, except in determining in which terms the funding is decided to grant, and in which terms the return is evaluated for success. The real distinction is whether funding is private or public, and whether the results are kept private or published.