"Humans are different from X because they can do Y", where X is variously "animals", "machines", and Y is variously, "make tools", "use language", "play chess", "murder", or whatever.
It's a silly exercise because there is nothing specific about humans except their ability to interbreed with other humans. That is all that technically defines us as a species, and even that definition is fuzzy, ignoring people who are sterile, too old or young to breed, or who never leave their keyboards long enough to look for a mate.
When it comes to the mind, emerging consensus is that it consists of a large number of well-designed tools, not some fuzzy blob of software. Most likely, each of these mental tools can be perfectly implemented as software. There are simply a huge number, and some are very, very subtle.
We will, eventually, be able to simulate the whole human mind in software, in the same way as we'll eventually be able to construct robotic bodies that work as well as human bodies, by re-implementing the structures that our genes build, one by one. The best way to construct a robotic hand that works like a human hand is to reimplement a human hand. The best way to construct a robotic mind that works like a human mind is to reimplement a human mind. This is perhaps self-evident but it's not always been accepted.
As for the arbitrary distinctions, this is just a belief system, an attempt to create a soul, however you phrase it.
It's Linge'RFIQin good!
on
RFID Cookware
·
· Score: 3, Funny
One more step to being able to cook a meal without leaving the desk.
"Any software that does things we don't like, and which you have not paid us to 'certify'".
Many of these vendors have implicitly collaborated with spyware vendors in the past, for commercial gain, and anything they say must be taken with a large pinch of salt. This is an attempt to create some teflon in view of more aggressive anti-spyware legislation.
- Start of campaigns against unlicensed distribution of TV shows.
- Such campaigns will not be of the jackboot 3-am-knock-on-the-door RIAA variety.
Piratebay can cock a snoot at lawyer's letters because of the current Swedish law. However, there are concerted efforts to criminalise the abetting of 'piracy', which would make them vulnerable. Further, each person downloading a copyrighted TV show and also sharing it via Bittorrernt is violating the copyright.
I suspect the reason we've not seen any clampdown on such activity is because there has not been any clear loss of business to TV show producers. Indeed, it's arguable that some very high-selling DVDs owe their success to P2P distribution of shows that were cancelled. I'm thinking of Firefly, for instance.
This does not sit well with the growing business in on-demand TV, so I expect some kind of action. However, I don't expect Apple to adopt **AA tactics, and Google certainly won't. What I expect we'll see instead is a very well-designed Google service that competes directly against Piratebay and the like, with the small addition of adverts to the show.
The Big Thing for 2006 is TV on demand, downloaded via some p2p technology.
Take a look at the top downloads on a site like Piratebay and you'll see that they are all TV episodes.
What Google is probably lining up to do is to compete against Apple, who are moving into the same market.
Google are betting that they can deliver TV episodes for free, with advertising. Apple are betting they can sell TV episodes with no advertising. Microsoft are trying to make it all happen through the XBox.
This is why Google's been buying dark fibre. This is why Google is buying into AOL, for access to TW shows. This is what will drive the next generation of portable gadgets.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if it is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
What is "it"? Slight tinge of paranoia here, maybe?
Let's review the score here:
- It does not matter what material is published, the fact of the matter is that every Windows PC in the world regularly has visible and non-trivial security issues, while on Linux and OS/X these issues are generally theoretical.
- People's perceptions of Windows are very simple: it's a piece of crap that they use because it came with the box and everyone else uses it.
- The relative security of Windows vs. the World is not a deciding factor in most people's use of Windows. It's largely a captive, neutered market.
- For people who actually do care, no amount of statistics can change the visible and perceived situation. When I choose to ban Windows in my company, it's not because I read some website or article. It's because I'm sick and tired of removing spyware from people's PCs.
Complaining about these statistics is to give them credibility. Those who chose on the basis of security will ignore this data, and those who chose on other criteria won't care about this data.
If we assume, for the case of probability, that AllPeers is amazingly fantastic, which seems probably, or at least possible, since they are based in Prague, which is on the same side of the ex-Iron Curtain as the location where Kazaa and Skype were built, then it's possible, in my opinion, to assume that it'll be amazingly fantastic.
Heck, I want it now, and if that's anything to go by, it'll be an amazing success! Probably...:-)
Interesting to speculate about software that we can't download, so can't try. Yes, it could be a killer app. Yes, it could be dead on arrival. We won't know until we open the box! Wow, that was interesting...
Any geek news site could argue the merits of a boot loader, but only on Slashdot could we go through the whole argument twice just to make sure the first time was not a coincidence.
'cuse me while I go cut/paste some of the insightful comments from the first time this story was posted...
Increase the screen size a little, add a neat 1" hard drive, and you get the killer gadget for Christmas 2006 - the mobile TV player. Episodes and movie trailers get pushed to your handset... this is going to be a big technology, and a huge business, especially in countries where the mobile networks aren't regulated into the mud.
Samsung remind me a lot of Sony before they jumped the shark. Excellent reputation, good eye for the next thing.
The analysis is interesting, and raises some good points about keeping open source projects stable. While forking projects is certainly good for competition, it is probably less efficient than simply focussing on a single well-run project. So, to avoid this kind of circus, my advice to open source teams working with corporate sponsors would be:
1. The copyright does not matter as much as you think, so long as the software is released under a foss license. This is, really, the whole point of the license.
2. Any revenue from services will go to the people who know the software, so ultimately it's better to be working on the code than to be paying for the project, if revenue is your long-term goal.
3. The economics of a sponsored open source project should be discussed early and be clear. No-one can work uneconomically. Settle the money aspects well beforehand, and avoid disputes. IMO, ideally, the corporate sponsor should get an immediate benefit from the technology, while the development team should get the "product" as their baby.
4. In today's world, owning copyright is actually becoming a bad thing - it can lead to software patent lawsuits. There are good arguments for FOSS sponsors to pass the copyrights to non-profit foundations, which can be sued but with little benefit and much bad publicity.
5. If you're going to argue, don't do it publically. It's too easy to overreact, say things that one regrets afterwards.
That's it. It's nice to see corporate sponsorship of FOSS work, since it can be such a natural and mutually beneficial way of working. But watch out for the money! It turns even the best friendships into bitter disputes unless the rules are well-agreed beforehand.
Here are my 20 predictions for 2006...
on
Tech Punditry In 2005
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
1. The EU Commission will make a new attempt to introduce software patents in Europe.
2. They will lose, again.
3. The top gadget of 2006 will be the portable video player, specifically aimed at TV downloads.
4. Music sales will fall and the RIAA will blame piracy.
5. Apple shares will rise by 100% over 2006.
6. Neither Linux nor Apple will make much inroad into Microsoft's PC market in 2006. The public has learned to live with viruses and spyware.
7. Apple will announce deals with several more broadcasters and become the premier online distributor of TV shows.
8. Microsoft will not buy Google.
9. Google will not buy Sun but at least one Industry Pundit will suggest this.
10. The big Internet technology of 2006 will be Ajax applications.
11. The big Internet business of 2006 will be spyw^h^h^h^h Personal Data Security and Collection services.
12. Someone will say, "the Internet is a terrible system but it's better than all the alternatives".
13. Oil will hit $75 per barrel and there will be minor riots in several countries.
14. Most of the rioters will be returned unharmed from police custody.
15. The War on Terror will continue, unabated.
16. Security services and telcos will gang up on free wifi, which will become known as "the service of choice for pedophiles and terrorists".
17. At least one EU country will attempt to ban unmonitored access to web-based email services, and be roundly ridiculed for the attempt.
18. China's economy will grow to be number 3 in the world.
19. The USD will continue to prosper, as people realise that it's a terrible currency, but better than all the rest.
20. Many of these predictions will be proved wrong.
No doubt the insides vary. Yay. Two identically-clad notebooks, both with dual-core AMD two 7200 RPM hard drives, minor differences in screen, etc. I hate to be pedantic, but it's just the same story.
Assuming a salary cost of $50k, we're talking about eight thousand open source programmers. OK, a chunk of this money is going to overheads. Say 5,000 open source programmers.
That is not a lot in the global IT business, but when you consider that in order to be paid to develop open source you usually need to be a *lot* better than an average programmer, and when you consider that such programmers are significantly more productive (10 times or more) than average programmers, we're talking about a large slice of the best of software development.
The open source model is seriously more efficient than the closed source one, also as regards the internal costs of developing technology. Compare the size and cost of the Firefox team to the Microsoft MSIE team (when it was in serious development).
I know, because my business has done both, and it's always been the open source that comes out best and cheapest.
We also found our first main corporate sponsor for large-scale (for us) open source development at the end of 2004, and in my experience, there are real and viable open source business models, mainly based on the fact that most closed-source products and vendors are really quite mediocre. Provide a comparable product, and better service, which is easier to do if the product is open source, and you can earn decent money.
Well, you can come back to my comment in six months' time when we release the product we're being paid to build, and when we start to build a business out of supporting it!
Rapid patent enforcement would be quite fine if patents in general respected the original social bargain, namely exclusive rights to the inventor in exchange for a temporary monopoly.
It's not really about politics, just that "intellectual rights" have been twisted into "intellectual property" over the last decades, with the implication being that ideas and inventions are now property. In fact they are not, it's the exclusive right that is property.
Patents and copyrights could work very well (possibly even in software, though only with fundamental reforms) if the concept of "I.P." was replaced, by, e.g. "Intellectual License", and the terms of these licenses made much more clear and transparent.
E.g. "the USPTO grants inventor X the exclusive commercial rights to invention Y for N years under such and such conditions, including a clear description of the invention, and fair use for all non-commercial use."
If the patent system was reformed to clarify the license behind the property, it'd be quite fine to enforce patents rapidly and firmly. At the same time, a large part of the enforcement would be against patent holders that abused their licenses.
The Directive will be rubber-stamped by the Council. It will be challenged in several national courts and possibly the European Court of Human Rights, for it breaks article 8 of this convention quite flagrantly.
But there appears to be no process for overturning the directive. EU directives override national law. This is a great success for the UK government which tried and failed to have this law passed in the UK.
Ironically, a report by the Commission just 4 years ago on the Echelon surveillance system stated quite clearly that "Only in a 'police state' is the unrestricted interception of communications permitted by government authorities."
The EU is now officially a 'police state', by the Commission's own words.
Games... Yes, the point was to run games on a laptop, but to be honest I've not played any computer games since about 1995, and I guess those games'd run fine on a simple PC.
I did not get the impression the review was aimed at a "games machine"... it was more of a "see how much we can pack into a box" style of thing. My point was that sometimes, the "see how much we can remove from the box" can lead to very useful designs.
I am the proud owner of a Sony X505, which is not a power machine, but is so sexy that pulling it out in a meeting actually gives one credibility, and it runs cool and silent, with no fan. You can hear the disk humming a little, that's it.
The only downside to the X505 is that it's *very* costly. But if you buy one portable every three or four years, like me, and you take it everywhere you go, it's absolutely perfect.
"Engineering a crisis" does not necessarily mean planting bombs. It can mean training extremists, over decades, perhaps to fight wars in places like Afghanistan, and then when these extremists turn and attack their original sponsors, leaving the doors open. See the BBC documentary, "the Power of Nightmares" for a good analysis of how both sides (western and islamic extremists) have created conflict in order to hold onto power.
The most convincing argument I've heard against the conspiracy theories is that it would require a level of capability that is beyond the general incompetence that defines most government. I don't accept that any government possesses a sense of morality. Indeed, the state is driven by the ammoral self-interest of individuals, and without checks and balances, the state generally becomes extremist.
The current assault on European civil society is so well orchestrated that it shows how efficient the state can be when it is really motivated. So no, I don't think it's nonsense to accept the possibility that "terrorism" is so useful to the current crop of politicians that if it had not existed, they'd have gone and created it.
You have hit the nail on the head. This is about a lot of very autocratic people who do not understand, or like, new technology, and want to control it at any cost.
The people who are frightened are (a) the content cartels, (b) all police forces, (c) all other government agencies tasked with law enforcement of one kind or another.
Similar things have happened in the past, but not in so-called democratic countries. The sad irony of this assault on civil society is that the paranoiacs have been saying for decades, "the EU is a malign superstate", and it is coming true, partly because voters have swallowed the "anti-terrorism" pill.
There is also a school of thought that says: the emergence of police states in the US and EU is driven by the fear of real civil unrest in the coming decade due to a crash in oil supplies that is predicted to happen in the near future. If you follow this school of thought, you might even believe that the police states have engineered the entire "terrorist" crisis simply as a convenient excuse for seizing power and demolishing the civil society that we've known for the last 50 years.
That's crazy talk, of course, the kind that could get you shot.
First, the "Big Brother" directive being forced through the EU which mandates logging of all end-points used in communications.
Second, the elimination of anonymous access, via cybercafes and pre-paid phone cards. This closes the present loopholes in the implementation of Big Brother.
Third, the creation of EU-wide databases that are accessible to police forces before criminal acts occur. Yes, this data will be abused, sold, stolen, leaked. It always happens.
Forth, the creation of new types of "crime". See the French proposal to outlaw free software, proposals to criminalise patent infringement, etc.
Fifth, the creation of EU juduicial and police structures to enforce these crimes. See EPO tribunals, EU arrest warrant, extradition for crimes like "piracy", etc.
Interesting to note that all references to "terrorism" were removed from the compromise ammendments that will be voted on Wednesday. This wave of anti-privacy legislation has nothing to do with terrorism (that was just the stick) and everything to do with autocrats in business and in government that feel they have lost control of new technology and will do anything to regain it.
The real targets of these laws are downloaders, tax evaders, petty and less petty crooks... it'd be justified if the EU was sinking in a sea of crime, but since crime rates have been falling year on year...
Europe's privacy advocates are rightly worried. It is the sheer speed of the assault (all happening in a few months) that has left most of us staggered. No time to lobby, no time to mount a resistance, almost no time even for journalists to notice what's happening.
Lastly, and most worryingly for EU citizens, is the way criminal law and new definitions of crime are being created by the unelected Council and Commission burocracy - these groups have basically coerced the European Parliament into accepting "compromises" or being left out of the legislative process completely.
In other words... we cannot vote these laws away. There is no mechanism for appeal. There is no supreme court. There is no constitution. When French and Dutch voters threw out the consitution, they threw out a last chance for European democracy. If only they had known...
Slashdot Mirror
"Humans are different from X because they can do Y", where X is variously "animals", "machines", and Y is variously, "make tools", "use language", "play chess", "murder", or whatever.
It's a silly exercise because there is nothing specific about humans except their ability to interbreed with other humans. That is all that technically defines us as a species, and even that definition is fuzzy, ignoring people who are sterile, too old or young to breed, or who never leave their keyboards long enough to look for a mate.
When it comes to the mind, emerging consensus is that it consists of a large number of well-designed tools, not some fuzzy blob of software. Most likely, each of these mental tools can be perfectly implemented as software. There are simply a huge number, and some are very, very subtle.
We will, eventually, be able to simulate the whole human mind in software, in the same way as we'll eventually be able to construct robotic bodies that work as well as human bodies, by re-implementing the structures that our genes build, one by one. The best way to construct a robotic hand that works like a human hand is to reimplement a human hand. The best way to construct a robotic mind that works like a human mind is to reimplement a human mind. This is perhaps self-evident but it's not always been accepted.
As for the arbitrary distinctions, this is just a belief system, an attempt to create a soul, however you phrase it.
One more step to being able to cook a meal without leaving the desk.
"Any software that does things we don't like, and which you have not paid us to 'certify'".
Many of these vendors have implicitly collaborated with spyware vendors in the past, for commercial gain, and anything they say must be taken with a large pinch of salt. This is an attempt to create some teflon in view of more aggressive anti-spyware legislation.
Oh, yes, and two more predictions for 2006:
- Start of campaigns against unlicensed distribution of TV shows.
- Such campaigns will not be of the jackboot 3-am-knock-on-the-door RIAA variety.
Piratebay can cock a snoot at lawyer's letters because of the current Swedish law. However, there are concerted efforts to criminalise the abetting of 'piracy', which would make them vulnerable. Further, each person downloading a copyrighted TV show and also sharing it via Bittorrernt is violating the copyright.
I suspect the reason we've not seen any clampdown on such activity is because there has not been any clear loss of business to TV show producers. Indeed, it's arguable that some very high-selling DVDs owe their success to P2P distribution of shows that were cancelled. I'm thinking of Firefly, for instance.
This does not sit well with the growing business in on-demand TV, so I expect some kind of action. However, I don't expect Apple to adopt **AA tactics, and Google certainly won't. What I expect we'll see instead is a very well-designed Google service that competes directly against Piratebay and the like, with the small addition of adverts to the show.
The Big Thing for 2006 is TV on demand, downloaded via some p2p technology.
Take a look at the top downloads on a site like Piratebay and you'll see that they are all TV episodes.
What Google is probably lining up to do is to compete against Apple, who are moving into the same market.
Google are betting that they can deliver TV episodes for free, with advertising. Apple are betting they can sell TV episodes with no advertising. Microsoft are trying to make it all happen through the XBox.
This is why Google's been buying dark fibre. This is why Google is buying into AOL, for access to TW shows. This is what will drive the next generation of portable gadgets.
Yes, the Internet and P2P is finally going to transform TV into something that actually produces good entertainment, and will one day turn around and redefine the movie industry as well.
They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if it is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
What is "it"? Slight tinge of paranoia here, maybe?
Let's review the score here:
- It does not matter what material is published, the fact of the matter is that every Windows PC in the world regularly has visible and non-trivial security issues, while on Linux and OS/X these issues are generally theoretical.
- People's perceptions of Windows are very simple: it's a piece of crap that they use because it came with the box and everyone else uses it.
- The relative security of Windows vs. the World is not a deciding factor in most people's use of Windows. It's largely a captive, neutered market.
- For people who actually do care, no amount of statistics can change the visible and perceived situation. When I choose to ban Windows in my company, it's not because I read some website or article. It's because I'm sick and tired of removing spyware from people's PCs.
Complaining about these statistics is to give them credibility. Those who chose on the basis of security will ignore this data, and those who chose on other criteria won't care about this data.
I just went and registered "deadcatware.com". W00t!
I thought about registering "livecatware.com" but then I reckoned, that'd really be a waste of $9.20.
Probably, at least, I assume so.
:-)
If we assume, for the case of probability, that AllPeers is amazingly fantastic, which seems probably, or at least possible, since they are based in Prague, which is on the same side of the ex-Iron Curtain as the location where Kazaa and Skype were built, then it's possible, in my opinion, to assume that it'll be amazingly fantastic.
Heck, I want it now, and if that's anything to go by, it'll be an amazing success! Probably...
Interesting to speculate about software that we can't download, so can't try. Yes, it could be a killer app. Yes, it could be dead on arrival. We won't know until we open the box! Wow, that was interesting...
1. Improved video iPod with larger horizontal screen
2. More tie-ins with TV producers
Any geek news site could argue the merits of a boot loader, but only on Slashdot could we go through the whole argument twice just to make sure the first time was not a coincidence.
'cuse me while I go cut/paste some of the insightful comments from the first time this story was posted...
Increase the screen size a little, add a neat 1" hard drive, and you get the killer gadget for Christmas 2006 - the mobile TV player. Episodes and movie trailers get pushed to your handset... this is going to be a big technology, and a huge business, especially in countries where the mobile networks aren't regulated into the mud.
Samsung remind me a lot of Sony before they jumped the shark. Excellent reputation, good eye for the next thing.
The analysis is interesting, and raises some good points about keeping open source projects stable. While forking projects is certainly good for competition, it is probably less efficient than simply focussing on a single well-run project. So, to avoid this kind of circus, my advice to open source teams working with corporate sponsors would be:
1. The copyright does not matter as much as you think, so long as the software is released under a foss license. This is, really, the whole point of the license.
2. Any revenue from services will go to the people who know the software, so ultimately it's better to be working on the code than to be paying for the project, if revenue is your long-term goal.
3. The economics of a sponsored open source project should be discussed early and be clear. No-one can work uneconomically. Settle the money aspects well beforehand, and avoid disputes. IMO, ideally, the corporate sponsor should get an immediate benefit from the technology, while the development team should get the "product" as their baby.
4. In today's world, owning copyright is actually becoming a bad thing - it can lead to software patent lawsuits. There are good arguments for FOSS sponsors to pass the copyrights to non-profit foundations, which can be sued but with little benefit and much bad publicity.
5. If you're going to argue, don't do it publically. It's too easy to overreact, say things that one regrets afterwards.
That's it. It's nice to see corporate sponsorship of FOSS work, since it can be such a natural and mutually beneficial way of working. But watch out for the money! It turns even the best friendships into bitter disputes unless the rules are well-agreed beforehand.
1. The EU Commission will make a new attempt to introduce software patents in Europe.
2. They will lose, again.
3. The top gadget of 2006 will be the portable video player, specifically aimed at TV downloads.
4. Music sales will fall and the RIAA will blame piracy.
5. Apple shares will rise by 100% over 2006.
6. Neither Linux nor Apple will make much inroad into Microsoft's PC market in 2006. The public has learned to live with viruses and spyware.
7. Apple will announce deals with several more broadcasters and become the premier online distributor of TV shows.
8. Microsoft will not buy Google.
9. Google will not buy Sun but at least one Industry Pundit will suggest this.
10. The big Internet technology of 2006 will be Ajax applications.
11. The big Internet business of 2006 will be spyw^h^h^h^h Personal Data Security and Collection services.
12. Someone will say, "the Internet is a terrible system but it's better than all the alternatives".
13. Oil will hit $75 per barrel and there will be minor riots in several countries.
14. Most of the rioters will be returned unharmed from police custody.
15. The War on Terror will continue, unabated.
16. Security services and telcos will gang up on free wifi, which will become known as "the service of choice for pedophiles and terrorists".
17. At least one EU country will attempt to ban unmonitored access to web-based email services, and be roundly ridiculed for the attempt.
18. China's economy will grow to be number 3 in the world.
19. The USD will continue to prosper, as people realise that it's a terrible currency, but better than all the rest.
20. Many of these predictions will be proved wrong.
OK, here's a page with the WidowPC reviewed on 16th December.
Now, compare this to the photo of the notebook reviewed today.
No doubt the insides vary. Yay. Two identically-clad notebooks, both with dual-core AMD two 7200 RPM hard drives, minor differences in screen, etc. I hate to be pedantic, but it's just the same story.
Yes, if it sounds familiar, that's because this is the machine reviewed here about 2 weeks ago.
Assuming a salary cost of $50k, we're talking about eight thousand open source programmers. OK, a chunk of this money is going to overheads. Say 5,000 open source programmers.
That is not a lot in the global IT business, but when you consider that in order to be paid to develop open source you usually need to be a *lot* better than an average programmer, and when you consider that such programmers are significantly more productive (10 times or more) than average programmers, we're talking about a large slice of the best of software development.
The open source model is seriously more efficient than the closed source one, also as regards the internal costs of developing technology. Compare the size and cost of the Firefox team to the Microsoft MSIE team (when it was in serious development).
I know, because my business has done both, and it's always been the open source that comes out best and cheapest.
We also found our first main corporate sponsor for large-scale (for us) open source development at the end of 2004, and in my experience, there are real and viable open source business models, mainly based on the fact that most closed-source products and vendors are really quite mediocre. Provide a comparable product, and better service, which is easier to do if the product is open source, and you can earn decent money.
Well, you can come back to my comment in six months' time when we release the product we're being paid to build, and when we start to build a business out of supporting it!
Since I've been doing that with my own works for 20 years, yes, of course.
Rapid patent enforcement would be quite fine if patents in general respected the original social bargain, namely exclusive rights to the inventor in exchange for a temporary monopoly.
It's not really about politics, just that "intellectual rights" have been twisted into "intellectual property" over the last decades, with the implication being that ideas and inventions are now property. In fact they are not, it's the exclusive right that is property.
Patents and copyrights could work very well (possibly even in software, though only with fundamental reforms) if the concept of "I.P." was replaced, by, e.g. "Intellectual License", and the terms of these licenses made much more clear and transparent.
E.g. "the USPTO grants inventor X the exclusive commercial rights to invention Y for N years under such and such conditions, including a clear description of the invention, and fair use for all non-commercial use."
If the patent system was reformed to clarify the license behind the property, it'd be quite fine to enforce patents rapidly and firmly. At the same time, a large part of the enforcement would be against patent holders that abused their licenses.
Ah, in an ideal world...
The Directive will be rubber-stamped by the Council. It will be challenged in several national courts and possibly the European Court of Human Rights, for it breaks article 8 of this convention quite flagrantly.
But there appears to be no process for overturning the directive. EU directives override national law. This is a great success for the UK government which tried and failed to have this law passed in the UK.
Ironically, a report by the Commission just 4 years ago on the Echelon surveillance system stated quite clearly that "Only in a 'police state' is the unrestricted interception of
communications permitted by government authorities."
The EU is now officially a 'police state', by the Commission's own words.
Games... Yes, the point was to run games on a laptop, but to be honest I've not played any computer games since about 1995, and I guess those games'd run fine on a simple PC.
I did not get the impression the review was aimed at a "games machine"... it was more of a "see how much we can pack into a box" style of thing. My point was that sometimes, the "see how much we can remove from the box" can lead to very useful designs.
I am the proud owner of a Sony X505, which is not a power machine, but is so sexy that pulling it out in a meeting actually gives one credibility, and it runs cool and silent, with no fan. You can hear the disk humming a little, that's it.
The only downside to the X505 is that it's *very* costly. But if you buy one portable every three or four years, like me, and you take it everywhere you go, it's absolutely perfect.
It weighs just under 2lb, 800g, btw.
"Engineering a crisis" does not necessarily mean planting bombs. It can mean training extremists, over decades, perhaps to fight wars in places like Afghanistan, and then when these extremists turn and attack their original sponsors, leaving the doors open. See the BBC documentary, "the Power of Nightmares" for a good analysis of how both sides (western and islamic extremists) have created conflict in order to hold onto power.
The most convincing argument I've heard against the conspiracy theories is that it would require a level of capability that is beyond the general incompetence that defines most government. I don't accept that any government possesses a sense of morality. Indeed, the state is driven by the ammoral self-interest of individuals, and without checks and balances, the state generally becomes extremist.
The current assault on European civil society is so well orchestrated that it shows how efficient the state can be when it is really motivated. So no, I don't think it's nonsense to accept the possibility that "terrorism" is so useful to the current crop of politicians that if it had not existed, they'd have gone and created it.
You have hit the nail on the head. This is about a lot of very autocratic people who do not understand, or like, new technology, and want to control it at any cost.
The people who are frightened are (a) the content cartels, (b) all police forces, (c) all other government agencies tasked with law enforcement of one kind or another.
Similar things have happened in the past, but not in so-called democratic countries. The sad irony of this assault on civil society is that the paranoiacs have been saying for decades, "the EU is a malign superstate", and it is coming true, partly because voters have swallowed the "anti-terrorism" pill.
There is also a school of thought that says: the emergence of police states in the US and EU is driven by the fear of real civil unrest in the coming decade due to a crash in oil supplies that is predicted to happen in the near future. If you follow this school of thought, you might even believe that the police states have engineered the entire "terrorist" crisis simply as a convenient excuse for seizing power and demolishing the civil society that we've known for the last 50 years.
That's crazy talk, of course, the kind that could get you shot.
First, the "Big Brother" directive being forced through the EU which mandates logging of all end-points used in communications.
Second, the elimination of anonymous access, via cybercafes and pre-paid phone cards. This closes the present loopholes in the implementation of Big Brother.
Third, the creation of EU-wide databases that are accessible to police forces before criminal acts occur. Yes, this data will be abused, sold, stolen, leaked. It always happens.
Forth, the creation of new types of "crime". See the French proposal to outlaw free software, proposals to criminalise patent infringement, etc.
Fifth, the creation of EU juduicial and police structures to enforce these crimes. See EPO tribunals, EU arrest warrant, extradition for crimes like "piracy", etc.
Interesting to note that all references to "terrorism" were removed from the compromise ammendments that will be voted on Wednesday. This wave of anti-privacy legislation has nothing to do with terrorism (that was just the stick) and everything to do with autocrats in business and in government that feel they have lost control of new technology and will do anything to regain it.
The real targets of these laws are downloaders, tax evaders, petty and less petty crooks... it'd be justified if the EU was sinking in a sea of crime, but since crime rates have been falling year on year...
Europe's privacy advocates are rightly worried. It is the sheer speed of the assault (all happening in a few months) that has left most of us staggered. No time to lobby, no time to mount a resistance, almost no time even for journalists to notice what's happening.
Lastly, and most worryingly for EU citizens, is the way criminal law and new definitions of crime are being created by the unelected Council and Commission burocracy - these groups have basically coerced the European Parliament into accepting "compromises" or being left out of the legislative process completely.
In other words... we cannot vote these laws away. There is no mechanism for appeal. There is no supreme court. There is no constitution. When French and Dutch voters threw out the consitution, they threw out a last chance for European democracy. If only they had known...