As was pointed out on slashdot yesterday http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 18/152205, calling these things voting computers rather than voting machines gets the story across much better. People might wake up when they hear these things more accurately described.
Oh, and since my power comes from the local nuclear plant, I'm not sending clouds of greenhouse gases and radioactive carbon isotopes billowing into the atmosphere.
But then, speaking as a professional writer, there is no possible way in which you could convince me that a WYSIWYG word processor is the right tool for any jobs I have; they are toys for people who have grown out of finger painting, not tools for people who deal with large quantities of text.
Really? What about Framemaker? What kind of professional writing are you doing?
Is it really OK with you if any company, in any country (and eventually this ability will apply to virtually any individual anywhere) releases their great new idea for some new genes into the world's food supply?
I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?
Well, thanks for asking, because I'm a Linux idealist. I appreciate how you call my ideal OS "cute", but I never really thought of it that way. I mean, Clippy is cute(?) But Linux? To each his own.
I would prefer my country use better rather than inferior technology in everything it does. I may not (in fact, I do not) agree with a retarded foreign policy, but the point is to correct that foreign policy, not to give it inferior technology.
Yes. Bad information is worse than no information. .
Certainly. But I'd say that limited information is better than no information.
What's the point of using Google if it only mimics the government view?
No point whatsoever. But I doubt very much it would do that. Really this is the illusion of the censor--that you can do that. It is especially impossible with the quantity of info coming down even a T1 pipe. Oh you can censor based on key words etc. Come on, if you were in China, would that stop you from finding out at least some of what is going on in the world that your overlords want to keep from you? I doubt it.
I believe I understand your concern. But I just think some google is better than none, and that some google may well lead to all google but that no google might not. Whew.
I can only imagine how many women are going to protest this. On the same key, if there was a report that said women are smarter then men, most likely we would just accept it, or ignore it, and continue to put together the desk without directions.
Gee. And meanwhile the women had put together a party while you were putting the desk together. Boy are they dumb.
I can't speak for coders, but as a technical writer I hate the thing. I pop the key off on my keyboards so I don't keep hitting the thing. Who uses it?
In any event, as long as people are sending clear text email across the net, it's all being read and stored by _somebody_.
Uh gee. I'm sending clear text across the net? What the hell is that? I don't care what it is, really, but nobody better read my email or I'll be royally pissed. I hear this Google place is going to read my email! No way!
- Joe Sixpack
Face it geeks, nobody knows what you're talking about. Google's reasonable plan is DOA.
burn in the Sun
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I want to burn in the Sun...
OK, you can moderate this off-topic, but I just want to get this off my chest: why not shoot nuclear waste into the sun? Permanent disposal. Obviously it would have to be put in containers that
were disaster proof. But it would get rid of the stuff once and for all and so remove the final (strong) argument against nuclear power.
As a lover of the desert and card carrying member of Earth First, I thought I'd point out another contest that happens to be occurring on the same day. Its called "Bag the Unmanned Vehicle". Contestants compete to disable unmanned vehicles trashing desert flora and fauna for fun and prizes.
This monster called technology is a force we have to deal
with. "Deal with" being the operative words: it is not something
we control, at least not anymore. It is way too big, powerful,
and important to be arbitrarily restricted, and any efforts
to implement controls would have to be quick, effective,
and global, i.e., practically impossible. In light of this,
what the author of the article proposes is eminently reasonable
and foresighted.
There has been much talk of the dangers of nanotech, for
example from Bill Joy and others, and it is, or should be,
a point well-taken. What the author proposes is twofold:
when designing replicable nanotech devices, implement
constraints on reproduction rates, and second and probably
most important, design in disassembly through, for example,
the ability to take the thing apart, or by biodegradabilty, or by
oxidation susceptibility. In other words, prepare in advance
an "achille's heel" that would allow a dangerous development
to be easily disabled. I would only argue here that mutliple
achille's heels should be designed in.
And, to quote from the article (yup, I read it, sorry):
Why can't this discussion wait? Here's why: Primitive
non-MNT nanotechnologies are already creating products
that cannot yet be disassembled in such pathways. Complex
coatings and integrated nanomaterials that are hard to
take apart are being manufactured now, albeit in smaller
quantities that so far have negligible impacts. We can't
blindly continue to say that someday we'll know how to
decommission them.
No doubt there is much to argue with and discuss at this
point, but that is the whole idea - let the discussion
begin. The future is coming and the time to plan for it
is now.
Re:Some nanotech shouldn't be disassembled.
on
The Law of Disassembly
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There are
some nanotech applications where this "Law Of Disassembly" would be a generally bad plan, because there are some things that we want to stay made.
I don't believe that your examples (space elevator, nuclear waste repositories) apply to the article. What he is arguing is that self-replicating devices be dissambleable (If I just coined that word, I'm sorry cause it is way ugly).
If I'm wrong and such examples would require self-replicating devices to construct, them I'd have to say sorry, but I agree with the article that they should be capable of being disabled.
[U]nlike many CEO responses, Szulik's answers to the selected questions are his own, not PR-generated. (One clue is that they are not in perfect English, as interview responses or articles that are 'laundered' by PR or media relations departments almost always are.
Slashdot Mirror
As was pointed out on slashdot yesterday http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/ 18/152205, calling these things voting computers rather than voting machines gets the story across much better. People might wake up when they hear these things more accurately described.
Never been to usenet, I take it.
Clearly never watched Parliament either.
The sound of one hand clapping, Grasshopper.
Great! Umm, what are you doing with the waste?
Really? What about Framemaker? What kind of professional writing are you doing?
Is it really OK with you if any company, in any country (and eventually this ability will apply to virtually any individual anywhere) releases their great new idea for some new genes into the world's food supply?
I wonder how Linux idealists feel about their cute little OS being deployed in machinery of war?
Well, thanks for asking, because I'm a Linux idealist. I appreciate how you call my ideal OS "cute", but I never really thought of it that way. I mean, Clippy is cute(?) But Linux? To each his own.
I would prefer my country use better rather than inferior technology in everything it does. I may not (in fact, I do not) agree with a retarded foreign policy, but the point is to correct that foreign policy, not to give it inferior technology.
Certainly. But I'd say that limited information is better than no information.
What's the point of using Google if it only mimics the government view?
No point whatsoever. But I doubt very much it would do that. Really this is the illusion of the censor--that you can do that. It is especially impossible with the quantity of info coming down even a T1 pipe. Oh you can censor based on key words etc. Come on, if you were in China, would that stop you from finding out at least some of what is going on in the world that your overlords want to keep from you? I doubt it.
I believe I understand your concern. But I just think some google is better than none, and that some google may well lead to all google but that no google might not. Whew.
--bj
I can only imagine how many women are going to protest this. On the same key, if there was a report that said women are smarter then men, most likely we would just accept it, or ignore it, and continue to put together the desk without directions.
Gee. And meanwhile the women had put together a party while you were putting the desk together. Boy are they dumb.
In Soviet Union, Mars comes to you!
Now, a powered, unicycle segway. Woot.
Good news folks: the files were released under the Freedom of Information Act. I just got them. Here they are:
Thank God that's all out in the open now.The latter. You have just violated the patent. Expect to hear from the lawyers.
I can't speak for coders, but as a technical writer I hate the thing. I pop the key off on my keyboards so I don't keep hitting the thing. Who uses it?
Nonsense. Now emacs and vi: those are teh suck.
Uh gee. I'm sending clear text across the net? What the hell is that? I don't care what it is, really, but nobody better read my email or I'll be royally pissed. I hear this Google place is going to read my email! No way!
- Joe Sixpack
Face it geeks, nobody knows what you're talking about. Google's reasonable plan is DOA.
As a lover of the desert and card carrying member of Earth First, I thought I'd point out another contest that happens to be occurring on the same day. Its called "Bag the Unmanned Vehicle". Contestants compete to disable unmanned vehicles trashing desert flora and fauna for fun and prizes.
Sounds like darn near perfect security to me.
In other news, MSNBC is reporting that the American Bar Association's Hen House will now be run by I. M. Foxxe.
This monster called technology is a force we have to deal with. "Deal with" being the operative words: it is not something we control, at least not anymore. It is way too big, powerful, and important to be arbitrarily restricted, and any efforts to implement controls would have to be quick, effective, and global, i.e., practically impossible. In light of this, what the author of the article proposes is eminently reasonable and foresighted.
There has been much talk of the dangers of nanotech, for example from Bill Joy and others, and it is, or should be, a point well-taken. What the author proposes is twofold: when designing replicable nanotech devices, implement constraints on reproduction rates, and second and probably most important, design in disassembly through, for example, the ability to take the thing apart, or by biodegradabilty, or by oxidation susceptibility. In other words, prepare in advance an "achille's heel" that would allow a dangerous development to be easily disabled. I would only argue here that mutliple achille's heels should be designed in.
And, to quote from the article (yup, I read it, sorry):
No doubt there is much to argue with and discuss at this point, but that is the whole idea - let the discussion begin. The future is coming and the time to plan for it is now.I don't believe that your examples (space elevator, nuclear waste repositories) apply to the article. What he is arguing is that self-replicating devices be dissambleable (If I just coined that word, I'm sorry cause it is way ugly). If I'm wrong and such examples would require self-replicating devices to construct, them I'd have to say sorry, but I agree with the article that they should be capable of being disabled.
You realize of course when you do this you are wiping out warm_fuzzies by talking about love. Often happens, though.
Welcome to closed-source, folks. You buy, you die, Jobs flies. Why do you buy into such a thing in the first place?