I salute you and your well-thought, calm, polite and really mature position. Alas, as history shows us, most often than not mature people were not the one to rule this world. And they have really slim chances of doing this in the foreseeable future. That is why we have paranoid sociopaths in our "ruling class", who really think that one-sided total control is what will keep them in power indefinitely. And that is why we have almost as paranoid "freedom fighters" unable to even think of the compromise - they, too, are often lack the ability to see the whole picture, to separate "idea" from "idealism", and are happily ignored by the majority of the population.
Speaking of which, we catastrophically lack that calm, rational, mature majority, who would be able to separate apples from orangutans and unnecessary power grab from legitimate enforcement of sane laws. But to have such a majority is a much more crazy dream than even the society with absolute freedom of information and respect of privacy.
Hell, what's wrong with immature amusements once in a while? I bet most of bearded and mature 40+ years old Russian-speaking programmers will at least smirk upon seeing this news. Not to say anything about younger ones. There's already a discussion on habrahabr.ru with some... immature but amusing comments. Creativity, even in this form, is something that adds flavor to life, don't you think?
It won't take off in Russia (mainly because almost no one here uses Raspberry Pi), but this release will give something to talk about on our tech forums for couple of days for sure. Immature? Maybe. Amusing? Quite so.
I seriously doubt that there is anyone here who honestly believes in any good outcome of this initiative. Cut copyright terms? Implement saner policies? Right... what, there are communists in that Committee?
Orthodox Christianity had strong support from the government and KGB in the later Soviet years - from 70-s onward almost every high-level church hierarch had also been an KGB officer. On the other hand, Soviet ideology was rapidly becoming a religion on its own - with the cult of undead Lenin-Osiris, heavy symbolism and obscure irrational ideology. It was so backward and unnatural that it never took off for real, but it was enforced on every citizen of USSR from the very birth (and I'm speaking literally here - red stars and Lenin's portraits were mandatory in all clinics, nurseries and kindergartens. When powers-to-be realized that it doesn't work, they fell back to (secretly) supporting Christianity. By the 1990 it was full-on religious restoration throughout all of Union - and Party was behind it, no doubt. The rest is history.
One can say that it is true only while there is someone who somehow perceives the concepts of "triangle" and even "property". So unless you can say that all Psyche is supernatural, properties of a triangle is not a supernatural entity, it's just a psychical object - as natural as any physical object, just of the other nature (pun not intended).
Even when Tokamak was introduced for the first time, it was obvious that idea of using fusion process as a heating element (using steam or other inefficient way to convert heat to electricity) is simply laughable. Laser-based fusion is horrendous even as a concept - it's as barbaric as trying to create mass transit using 19-th century tram carriage propelled by small-scale nuclear blasts. There is absolutely no engineering elegance in it, even less than in the first-generation (fission) nuclear plants.
I find Focus Fusion or some other non-billion-budget projects much more appealing - not because they have more chances to succeed (most of them don't), but because they represent something new. New technologies, new designs, new way of thinking at least. Compare NASA and SpaceX - yes, latter would not be possible without the former, but for now our real chance to progress towards easily accessible space-travel lies with (comparatively) small private companies, not with some inefficient hulking money-consuming monstrosity. Of course I would be glad to any form of cheap fusion energy, or any form of "consumer-grade" space-travel, but for now my hopes don't lie with NIF or NASA.
His name is James, James Cameron
The bravest pioneer
No budget too steep, no sea too deep
Who's that?
It's him, James Cameron
James, James Cameron explorer of the sea
With a dying thirst to be the first
Could it be? Yeah that's him!
James Cameron
Hmm... people, who used to burn factories, were they from the police or army? Were they backed up by the full extent of the law, publicity and all-powerful corporations? I don't think that Industrial Revolution and Luddites are correct analogy to modern times and reactional forces like RIAA.
So, MakerBot vs IP holders (patent and even copyright owners). Hmm, so hard to predict who will be supported and protected by courts, media, politicians, regulating agencies and so on. So hard.
Oh, and imagine something even more interesting - automation of accounting and legal departments, for example? IBM's Watson with a lawyer's database - not a lawyer itself, but potentially an extremely powerful tool in the hands of, say, RIAA? Apple? Monsanto? Hundreds or thousands of cases with only a handful of people to manage and represent company in courts? That's an interesting thought, don't you think?
Who is more likely to party - C*O's of Monsanto or people who own tractors and farms and being sued out of their pants by said Monsanto? It's not a question of automation per se, it's a question of wealth, power and sociopathy. And robots are tipping the balance faster and faster - imagine if corporations could automate lawyers?
Yeah, I've read it, liked the plot, but it's still a very schematic story that lacks really interesting characters (of course, that's even good for this kind of story - easier to identify oneself with the main character). But Vonnegut's "Player Piano" hit me much harder when I've read it - I think that ending of the book contains one of the most frightening insights into the human nature. Given such chance we would destroy ourselves gladly, meeting our slow, but inevitable extinction with a smile. Well, let's hope that some new frontier emerges before everyone who is not happy with our current direction is... excluded from the equation.
Actually, I was trying to say the same - for me "to show how are you doing something" is not at all equal to "to do said something". And the moment these people would feel that they can cut out the costs of that show - poof! It's gone. Hell, in such future the world of "Transmetropolitan" would look like a slightly chaotic Utopia.
Take any parasite - is it an enemy to its host? Or even simpler - do you feel any strong emotions towards all the animals who were killed to become the contents of your sandwich? They aren't clueless, but "enemy" is too strong a word for them - they consider common people only as food for their ambitions, as some common resource to fuel their careers. Only equals can be enemies, and they do not feel equal to "the people" in any way. We'll have to come up with some other term.
Yes, people should use their voting power to stop this insanity. Only catch here is that most of the people are coming to vote after watching some TV news/shows with the same prosecutor, and not after reading Slashdot. These same people then are found sitting in the jury box, listening to the same prosecutor, who then colorfully portrays the defendant as a master criminal, evil genius hacker on the level of Bond's villains. And the wheel continues to roll.
It is sad for me to say, but I think that it'll take more than one dead "computer guy" to really change this system. Insanity has to be seen and felt on the national level, with major news channels and talk shows picking up the story. Chances of that happening? Almost none.
Yep. I still find it very amusing that some people truly believe in some abstract "economic laws", sidestepping the question of human nature completely. Truth is that behind every business there are real people making decisions - top-level managers, their powerful friends and accompli... I mean, acquaintances and so on. And most of these people are only thinking in terms of personal status and gains. Exceptions are too rare to make any real difference. With powerful tools like laws, paid media and robotic workers (maybe even automated police force?) who needs to follow ancient rules of "free market" and "honest competition"?
Well, there are two established points of view on this problem - idealistic and cynical. Idealistic view says that after a while it would cost almost nothing to produce food, clothes, even housing for every living person, so it would became a part of the guaranteed social minimum. Luxuries (informational also, like newest music, books and other art) would cost real money, which would be available to small, but active part of humanity, but most of the people would be pretty happy with what they can get for free.
Cynical view says that only a tiny fraction of all people would still be entitled to more and more luxurious style of living (maybe even smaller than 1% of population), and their status would be reinforced through ever rising army of robotic workers, policemen and even soldiers. Maybe they'll keep a small batch of second-class citizens - high-level engineers, scientists, entertainers, servants and so on. Everyone else - well, tough luck, there's no more free resources in this world, and you don't have any money to pay for anything, including basics like food and living space. Death camps or even processing plants are going to solve this little problem quite effectively.
I think in the short run we'll have something in between - world elites are still like to show that they care for the "common folk", but in the long run - who knows? What's interesting is that dystopian future has more promise for us as a species - it's easier to move to the new frontiers when you just can't stand home any longer, than when your life is an endless holiday. So in order to eventually colonize other worlds we may have to rely more on people's greed, stupidity and other "bad traits", than on people's rationality and goodwill. Anyway, only time will tell how it will all work out in the end.
Sorry - this seems to be one of the typical mistakes of non-native English speakers. In my first language "psychical" is much closer in meaning to "psychological", rather than "future-telling". Still, a scene of Tarot reading by one brutal convict to another could look good in some Hollywood blockbuster, couldn't it?
If you encounter a lone hungry wandering bear in the woods, and you don't have any weapons on you - would you consider his claws or his teeth a bigger problem? But still, even if all system is borked up, the prosecutor plays much more active role in it - he has much more motivation to pursuit his goal, conviction of the accused. Jury is only determined to find the truth... by deciding guilt of the defendant on every charge that prosecutor put on him. And again, statistics shows us that it is almost impossible for jury to find defendant not guilty on all charges.
And even if defendant is acquitted, he is the lucky man here, like a winner of a lottery, or a miracle survivor... at least morally. Financially he could be almost broke - good lawyers cost much, everyone knows it. Prosecutor, on the other hand, loses almost nothing - he can always find another one "tough criminal" and terrorize... sorry... convince him to plead guilty, or throw a book at him before the jury again and again. So yes, there is a problem with the prosecutor - he is an active element in this scheme, while jury has much more passive role.
Well, let's not get into numbers far - even if Swartz would be found guilty only on one charge (and quite possibly more than one), he would still have to spend some time in prison with much more serious offenders. And, statistically speaking, his chances of acquittal were dim, to say the least. Well, OK, prisons in US are all happy gardens of bunnies-and-rainbows, and all inmates (and, more importantly, guards) are perfect gentlemen with bow ties and monocles. Staying in prison would help Swartz both physically and psychically... in some perfect fantasy world. But that's still not the point.
Quick quiz: when he gets out he is viewed by potential employers as a) a brilliant young man, who just made some wrong decisions in the past, but it's all forgiven and forgotten; or b) a felon, found guilty of several computer-related crimes? Guess which viewpoint would be prevalent? And what perspectives such future holds for him? Plus, even if he would spend not 35, but "only" 3-5 years in prison - how would he catch up with current technologies? Restore his skills and social connections? Do you want to be considered a friend of a known felon? So how many friends would he still have after this? So it's not the case of 50, 35 or even 5 years of prison - it's the case of maybe not ruined, but seriously maimed life anyway.
And "if the prosecutor overreaches, the case will collapse very quickly" - if that's true, why did 97% of accused in federal cases plead guilty in 2011? Not one case of "prosecutor overreach", right? Total transparency, responsibility and fairness all around, and every prosecutor is really afraid of his case collapsing, sure... in some perfect fantasy world.
Slashdot Mirror
I salute you and your well-thought, calm, polite and really mature position. Alas, as history shows us, most often than not mature people were not the one to rule this world. And they have really slim chances of doing this in the foreseeable future. That is why we have paranoid sociopaths in our "ruling class", who really think that one-sided total control is what will keep them in power indefinitely. And that is why we have almost as paranoid "freedom fighters" unable to even think of the compromise - they, too, are often lack the ability to see the whole picture, to separate "idea" from "idealism", and are happily ignored by the majority of the population.
Speaking of which, we catastrophically lack that calm, rational, mature majority, who would be able to separate apples from orangutans and unnecessary power grab from legitimate enforcement of sane laws. But to have such a majority is a much more crazy dream than even the society with absolute freedom of information and respect of privacy.
Hah! I see your Jim Carey and raise you Rowan Atkinson!
Hell, what's wrong with immature amusements once in a while? I bet most of bearded and mature 40+ years old Russian-speaking programmers will at least smirk upon seeing this news. Not to say anything about younger ones. There's already a discussion on habrahabr.ru with some... immature but amusing comments. Creativity, even in this form, is something that adds flavor to life, don't you think?
It won't take off in Russia (mainly because almost no one here uses Raspberry Pi), but this release will give something to talk about on our tech forums for couple of days for sure. Immature? Maybe. Amusing? Quite so.
I seriously doubt that there is anyone here who honestly believes in any good outcome of this initiative. Cut copyright terms? Implement saner policies? Right... what, there are communists in that Committee?
I think we really need a "+1 Scary Insightful Funny" mod here.
Orthodox Christianity had strong support from the government and KGB in the later Soviet years - from 70-s onward almost every high-level church hierarch had also been an KGB officer. On the other hand, Soviet ideology was rapidly becoming a religion on its own - with the cult of undead Lenin-Osiris, heavy symbolism and obscure irrational ideology. It was so backward and unnatural that it never took off for real, but it was enforced on every citizen of USSR from the very birth (and I'm speaking literally here - red stars and Lenin's portraits were mandatory in all clinics, nurseries and kindergartens. When powers-to-be realized that it doesn't work, they fell back to (secretly) supporting Christianity. By the 1990 it was full-on religious restoration throughout all of Union - and Party was behind it, no doubt. The rest is history.
One can say that it is true only while there is someone who somehow perceives the concepts of "triangle" and even "property". So unless you can say that all Psyche is supernatural, properties of a triangle is not a supernatural entity, it's just a psychical object - as natural as any physical object, just of the other nature (pun not intended).
I think we all know answer to this one, right, my fellow meatbag?
Even when Tokamak was introduced for the first time, it was obvious that idea of using fusion process as a heating element (using steam or other inefficient way to convert heat to electricity) is simply laughable. Laser-based fusion is horrendous even as a concept - it's as barbaric as trying to create mass transit using 19-th century tram carriage propelled by small-scale nuclear blasts. There is absolutely no engineering elegance in it, even less than in the first-generation (fission) nuclear plants.
I find Focus Fusion or some other non-billion-budget projects much more appealing - not because they have more chances to succeed (most of them don't), but because they represent something new. New technologies, new designs, new way of thinking at least. Compare NASA and SpaceX - yes, latter would not be possible without the former, but for now our real chance to progress towards easily accessible space-travel lies with (comparatively) small private companies, not with some inefficient hulking money-consuming monstrosity. Of course I would be glad to any form of cheap fusion energy, or any form of "consumer-grade" space-travel, but for now my hopes don't lie with NIF or NASA.
His name is James, James Cameron
The bravest pioneer
No budget too steep, no sea too deep
Who's that?
It's him, James Cameron
James, James Cameron explorer of the sea
With a dying thirst to be the first
Could it be? Yeah that's him!
James Cameron
Oh yeah!
I have a faint feeling, judging by comments, that we have a major case of 'whoosh' here.
Hmm... people, who used to burn factories, were they from the police or army? Were they backed up by the full extent of the law, publicity and all-powerful corporations? I don't think that Industrial Revolution and Luddites are correct analogy to modern times and reactional forces like RIAA.
So, MakerBot vs IP holders (patent and even copyright owners). Hmm, so hard to predict who will be supported and protected by courts, media, politicians, regulating agencies and so on. So hard.
Oh, and imagine something even more interesting - automation of accounting and legal departments, for example? IBM's Watson with a lawyer's database - not a lawyer itself, but potentially an extremely powerful tool in the hands of, say, RIAA? Apple? Monsanto? Hundreds or thousands of cases with only a handful of people to manage and represent company in courts? That's an interesting thought, don't you think?
Who is more likely to party - C*O's of Monsanto or people who own tractors and farms and being sued out of their pants by said Monsanto? It's not a question of automation per se, it's a question of wealth, power and sociopathy. And robots are tipping the balance faster and faster - imagine if corporations could automate lawyers?
Yeah, I've read it, liked the plot, but it's still a very schematic story that lacks really interesting characters (of course, that's even good for this kind of story - easier to identify oneself with the main character). But Vonnegut's "Player Piano" hit me much harder when I've read it - I think that ending of the book contains one of the most frightening insights into the human nature. Given such chance we would destroy ourselves gladly, meeting our slow, but inevitable extinction with a smile. Well, let's hope that some new frontier emerges before everyone who is not happy with our current direction is... excluded from the equation.
Ah, winter makes me pessimistic...
Actually, I was trying to say the same - for me "to show how are you doing something" is not at all equal to "to do said something". And the moment these people would feel that they can cut out the costs of that show - poof! It's gone. Hell, in such future the world of "Transmetropolitan" would look like a slightly chaotic Utopia.
Take any parasite - is it an enemy to its host? Or even simpler - do you feel any strong emotions towards all the animals who were killed to become the contents of your sandwich? They aren't clueless, but "enemy" is too strong a word for them - they consider common people only as food for their ambitions, as some common resource to fuel their careers. Only equals can be enemies, and they do not feel equal to "the people" in any way. We'll have to come up with some other term.
Yes, people should use their voting power to stop this insanity. Only catch here is that most of the people are coming to vote after watching some TV news/shows with the same prosecutor, and not after reading Slashdot. These same people then are found sitting in the jury box, listening to the same prosecutor, who then colorfully portrays the defendant as a master criminal, evil genius hacker on the level of Bond's villains. And the wheel continues to roll.
It is sad for me to say, but I think that it'll take more than one dead "computer guy" to really change this system. Insanity has to be seen and felt on the national level, with major news channels and talk shows picking up the story. Chances of that happening? Almost none.
Yep. I still find it very amusing that some people truly believe in some abstract "economic laws", sidestepping the question of human nature completely. Truth is that behind every business there are real people making decisions - top-level managers, their powerful friends and accompli... I mean, acquaintances and so on. And most of these people are only thinking in terms of personal status and gains. Exceptions are too rare to make any real difference. With powerful tools like laws, paid media and robotic workers (maybe even automated police force?) who needs to follow ancient rules of "free market" and "honest competition"?
Well, there are two established points of view on this problem - idealistic and cynical. Idealistic view says that after a while it would cost almost nothing to produce food, clothes, even housing for every living person, so it would became a part of the guaranteed social minimum. Luxuries (informational also, like newest music, books and other art) would cost real money, which would be available to small, but active part of humanity, but most of the people would be pretty happy with what they can get for free.
Cynical view says that only a tiny fraction of all people would still be entitled to more and more luxurious style of living (maybe even smaller than 1% of population), and their status would be reinforced through ever rising army of robotic workers, policemen and even soldiers. Maybe they'll keep a small batch of second-class citizens - high-level engineers, scientists, entertainers, servants and so on. Everyone else - well, tough luck, there's no more free resources in this world, and you don't have any money to pay for anything, including basics like food and living space. Death camps or even processing plants are going to solve this little problem quite effectively.
I think in the short run we'll have something in between - world elites are still like to show that they care for the "common folk", but in the long run - who knows? What's interesting is that dystopian future has more promise for us as a species - it's easier to move to the new frontiers when you just can't stand home any longer, than when your life is an endless holiday. So in order to eventually colonize other worlds we may have to rely more on people's greed, stupidity and other "bad traits", than on people's rationality and goodwill. Anyway, only time will tell how it will all work out in the end.
Sorry - this seems to be one of the typical mistakes of non-native English speakers. In my first language "psychical" is much closer in meaning to "psychological", rather than "future-telling". Still, a scene of Tarot reading by one brutal convict to another could look good in some Hollywood blockbuster, couldn't it?
If you encounter a lone hungry wandering bear in the woods, and you don't have any weapons on you - would you consider his claws or his teeth a bigger problem? But still, even if all system is borked up, the prosecutor plays much more active role in it - he has much more motivation to pursuit his goal, conviction of the accused. Jury is only determined to find the truth... by deciding guilt of the defendant on every charge that prosecutor put on him. And again, statistics shows us that it is almost impossible for jury to find defendant not guilty on all charges.
And even if defendant is acquitted, he is the lucky man here, like a winner of a lottery, or a miracle survivor... at least morally. Financially he could be almost broke - good lawyers cost much, everyone knows it. Prosecutor, on the other hand, loses almost nothing - he can always find another one "tough criminal" and terrorize... sorry... convince him to plead guilty, or throw a book at him before the jury again and again. So yes, there is a problem with the prosecutor - he is an active element in this scheme, while jury has much more passive role.
Well, let's not get into numbers far - even if Swartz would be found guilty only on one charge (and quite possibly more than one), he would still have to spend some time in prison with much more serious offenders. And, statistically speaking, his chances of acquittal were dim, to say the least. Well, OK, prisons in US are all happy gardens of bunnies-and-rainbows, and all inmates (and, more importantly, guards) are perfect gentlemen with bow ties and monocles. Staying in prison would help Swartz both physically and psychically... in some perfect fantasy world. But that's still not the point.
Quick quiz: when he gets out he is viewed by potential employers as a) a brilliant young man, who just made some wrong decisions in the past, but it's all forgiven and forgotten; or b) a felon, found guilty of several computer-related crimes? Guess which viewpoint would be prevalent? And what perspectives such future holds for him? Plus, even if he would spend not 35, but "only" 3-5 years in prison - how would he catch up with current technologies? Restore his skills and social connections? Do you want to be considered a friend of a known felon? So how many friends would he still have after this? So it's not the case of 50, 35 or even 5 years of prison - it's the case of maybe not ruined, but seriously maimed life anyway.
And "if the prosecutor overreaches, the case will collapse very quickly" - if that's true, why did 97% of accused in federal cases plead guilty in 2011? Not one case of "prosecutor overreach", right? Total transparency, responsibility and fairness all around, and every prosecutor is really afraid of his case collapsing, sure... in some perfect fantasy world.