" Awww, that's so cute !! Can't nerdy-boi afford a Maccie?? But of course you WindowMaker desktop looks much nicer than the BORING MacOSX thingy, right, my sweetieboi?"
I'm just jumping into this flame after having noticed the same thing about the use of OSX. As to the original post, yeah, it's cool that it runs on OSX. Actually really cool, though it does make me wonder whether it is an app written for OSX or that's simply a web interface.
Regardless, don't take pot shots at WindowMaker. It's my favorite window manager, and I'm someone who uses OSX, Windows, CDE, KDE, Gnome and fvwm2 on a regular basis (don't ask about CDE, just don't ask...) Pretty ain't got nothing to do with it, just utility.
Anyways, I'm only responding because using "boi" in lue of "boy" is really fucking disturbing. I mean, I understand the point of putting one's self in a certain mindset when creating such a flame, but it takes a special kind of person to sound like a rich woman with a poodle. Please don't do that anymore, it hurts my brain.
Can you provide some legal examples? I'm a little shakey on fair use interpretation. I know the Constitution deals with copyright (specificaly Congress has the power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. artical I section 8) but when/where does the concept of fair use enter the legal system?
The company claimed that the service worked during tests....yes. But they fail to mention that every other ring tone repels the bloodsuckers just as well. The minor EM field generated when the phone rings screws with their sensory equipment.
The settlement was for a fixed sum. The amount of money that was distributed to each indivdual was based upon how many individuals submitted a claim. It was going to be in an amount between $5 and $20. If too many made the claim then the money would be donated to local charities (or somthing like that) in the given areas becasue the administration costs (plus postage costs) for mailing x million $3 checks out simply wasn't worth it. In all honesty, I'm suprised that didn't happen.
The integrity and quality of the data isn't so much as important as the sheer volume of it.
A marketer (or really anyone) who is actually using this data is probably using it on a statistical basis. Very few, if any, are using this to check out individuals. What they are doing is focusing in on their target market. This way they dramatically increase their probability of getting a sale... or getting a mark given the potential for abuse. For example, someone sets up a "fake" evangelical fund and targets wealthy old baptists with cold calls and mailings.
It statistical targets us....sometimes I wish we really could copyright facts. I sure as hell would copyright my personal information.
Ah well guess I'll have to continue acting erraticaly to throw the stats off.
Technology doesn't have any unique attributes that give it more privlidge than any other subject matter.
Congress, as a whole, doesn't know that much about farming or road work, or labor unions or pretty much anything.
Congress often *cant'* be the expert on subject matter X that any given group wants it to be. There are just too many laws and too many subjects.
So what congress does instead is listen to intrest groups and their constituants. Indivdual members/groups then write and sponser a Bill dealing with the concerns raised. Each Bill is there for everyone in the nation to read and learn about (http://thomas.loc.gov) and if they do have a problem then it's their right to call up their congressman and say so. It's even their right to go to DC and address the subject matter. They can even start their own lobying group to try and changes things or pass laws addresing their own concerns.
It's just about who has money and who doesn't (though it would be naieve to think money doesn't help). Groups like the AARP have huge sway in congress. And there are thouslands of other such.orgs (eff, aclu, etc) who w/o have done just as much as the big bad corperate wolf.
And the real beauty of the system is that even if you say, "I don't like the system it's croupt and doesn't work as well as it should," you can go out and try to change it.
The only thing that never does any good is to complain about the state of things and not try to change it or even offer an alternative.
In short, it's our job to try to educate congress and others to the issues we feel strongly about.
Of course, so do a lot of crystalized structures. Lots of things are built on patterns.
Anyways as far as this technique is concered this (organic images being more compressable) only holds true for organicly created stromatolite structures vs. chemcialy created stromatolite-like structures.
They've only done 20 images or so, I'd like to know the comparitive compression ratios.
It's about a tormented super anime hero, who despite his vast skills and power can't always defend those around him even if they happen to be main characters (see Wolfwood). He can't even live up to his own standards (see Legato.) Which gives it a nice ring.
The gungho guns and their interplay with each other is pretty cool to.
As far as the moral/educational goes. *shrug* Well if you're going to be watching anime based on that critera you'd best go watch Hamtoro. (If nothing else it'll give you the message not to smoke crack.)
Is how you can have *self* contradictory belief system that is a logical construct if all belief systems are based upon logical constructs.
It sounds like you want to say all belief systems share a common axiom, that of logic (ie that it works that its true, etc.) But some belief systems are comprised of entirely illogical ideas like the trinity in Christianity: God is one person and God is not one person
Or emotional ideas conflicts that are also foundations for our actions/beliefs: I love her and I don't love her
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean with "logical constructs". I could see where you're coming from if you say "hierarchal constructs" perhaps, but the logical aspect, isn't something I'm really sure is always found, it suggests all belief systems share an internal logical cohesion with themselves, I'm not sure they do. Actually I'm not even sure if belief systems are based on a hierarchal construct either, if anything I'd say they are much more web like in nature, and not necessary reducible into component parts (although some likely are) without loosing inherent aspects of them
Personally a lot of my belief system is based on intuition, emotion and self contradiction. Things that don't fit well into the logical construction.
*shrug* while I like the ease and logic of your system (sounds similar to Kant's a prior and a posteriori setup... if you haven't read his Critique of Pure Reason you should check it out) I honestly can't apply certain belief facets to it. Esp. ones like skepticism and much of the postmodern belief structures.
But if one is going to poke fun at them, they should at least poke fun at the correct things.
This isn't a battle. It's the angels harvesting the "bounty" of the earth. In which case the factor is still off... by about 6 billion too few.
(Rev. 14)
17Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." 19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
Frankly I find works that try to disprove Apocalyptic literature about as silly as works that try to prove it.
Is like saying how sucessful the dotcom economey was because of Amazon and Ebay.
Both groups are very sucessful in their respective generes, however they are in no way represenitive of those generes. Many bands have tried things that the TGD and Ebay have, but most have simply failed.
As far as labels having it backwards. No, they don't.
They know how to promote, get play on the radio, and get advertisments. They set up the system, so they *can* work it.
I know a great number of *extrmely* talented artists (the DC sceene is choke full of em, if you ask me) and unless they have a well known name backing em up, its dificult to get more of an audience...lots of it is simply phsycological. We tend to like music we think is supose to be good. And we tend to like music we've heard before. *shrug* most of us anyways
Very few talented muscians will ever make it rich. But really, that's ok, because most very talented muscians I know of don't care so much about the money (that is to say care about money more than the average joe) as they do about playing. (And to a degree playing for others who enjoy it).
*shrug* just my view though.
Actualy, you're begging the question
on
The Taste of Pain
·
· Score: 1
As to whether the system which we call "consciousness" is in fact determinate.
You've already assumed a universal cause and effect relationship in a reductionist world (That is to say one's consciousness is formed from determinate features, therefor it too must be determinate.)
Assuming every effect can be traced to a determinate cause is a useful assumption to make. However it is unscientific on its own, *especially* when dealing with non-linear dynamic systems where wholly new and previously unpredicted properties can emerge (the whole is more than the sum of its parts). In humans this thing we call consciousness can be said to be such a system, and thus can not be explained via the prosperities of its parts alone, but rather the properties of its whole. At best when dealing with such systems we can only suggest probabilities in human action. As such, even if there is a gene that makes people have a tendency to be lazy, some can still act to over come it. Because complex human behavior is an assortment of genetic parts, environmental factors *and* consciousness feedback.
Sorry... I fail to see where the issue is.
on
The Taste of Pain
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This has linked COMT with a gene. (for those who didn't read the article it "cleans up" after a dopamine chemical linked in sensing pain)
Is it really all that revealing that COMT production is genetically based. Anymore than it is to say insulin production is genetically based.
Regardless, the whole "nature v. nurture" debate is a futile argument when it comes to explaining individual action and the personality that defines those actions. Esp. when one has a much more reliable and immediate explanation for one's actions, which is to say conscious "choice." Something which we have a much more intimate connection to. (Sure it's easy to say our conscious choices are mere illusion created from a chain of causation in a reductionist universe... of course doing requires that "illusion" to believe in the reality of reductionism.)
At best genetics and enviorrment are probability guidelines in judging the possible future actions/personalities of an individual. However they are a piss poor way to explain human actions as a whole.
Interesting view point. Though I'm not so sure the "codifying" of the seasons was really the result of a religion being invinted. Certianly a society would know of the "planting season" the "harvest season" and so on... I'd say the "celibrations" durings those times were more of either an "offering" in the hope of a prosperus new season or a "thanksgiving" as the result of a prosperus season.
As far as the church sponsering science. *shrug* the church (at least I'm asuming the cathloic church in the hight of its power) sponsered everything, really. It was a poltical entity as much as a religious one. Had its hands in all the pies, as it were.
I'm not going to even touch "why religion was created" because while I can easily come up with a subital hypothesis that fits my own (or really anyone else's) paradigm, I don't have any evidence of religion's origion... still, some very interesting ideas of yours.
Anyone who sailed far distances where there were moutains You can see the land apear to sink below the horizon. (Thus the earth must be curved.) I'm not too sure on wheter one can see a ship "sink" beneath the horizion though before it's lost sight of.
Likewise one can gather the "shape" of the earth by observing lunar eclipses.
As far as scientists... *shrug* depends on what you mean. There were certianly emperisists. And there were definitly those who aproached things with somthing similar to the scientific method.
Aristotle for instance... indeed zoological clasificaions are a reminante of his science.
Though if you mean more the paradigim in which science tends to work...for instance, the idea that a few fundemental "external" forces can account for the actions of an object rather than the inherient "internal" properities of that object (the differnce between us explaining an arrow's flight as a result of air reistance, gravity and inertia rather than airstotle's explainination of the arrow having the properities of "swiftness" and "heaviness").
I find the similarites between Plato and Airistotle arguing over the valdidty of the forms with prominant physicsts arguing over the valdity of the "big crush" quite... singular (haha, stupid black hole joke)
Ultimatley I'm not sure the *True* validity of anything. In all honesty I think we pick a paradigm and go with it, part out of stuborness (or an unwillingnes.. or even an inablity to think outside the box) but a great deal due to the results it brings us.
In this time and this place, science (as we know it) meets some of our deeper goals and desires... not sure what those might be in a 100 years though.
Sorry. Went off on a tangent there just putting some thoughts down to clarify them later to myself. Wasn't an argument against your post, since I agree with it anyways =]
There is no sliperly slope, but you sure did make yourself a nice Straw Man.
Slipperly slope requires a chain of deductive arguments where a conclusion is made by skipping a large number of those arguments: if A then B if B then C if C then....Theta
The post wasn't even an argument. It was a number of facts and a single question.
Facts: 1. PA is forcing ISPs to block child porn sites. 2. PA ordered ISPs may need to block legitimate sites to acomplish the goals.
Questions: 1. Will ISPs be libal if they don't succeed in blocking all sites sucessfuly.
That is a differnt point than the one I was addressing and if that was the orginal point, to use the.us if the other has already in use, then it was a good one and I was mistaken in my understanding.
What I find faulty is getting people to change from using the.com's and.net's and.govs out there (this is more specific to.govs than anything else really, since.coms and.nets are, when you get right down to it, avaliable to anyone) Certian TLDs like the.gov have allready become institutionalized, and if our goal is order then it's probably better to have them all as.gov or.gov.us... since they're all already.gov (as far as I know) its probably most practical to take the path of least reistance.
Though for.com.net etc I don't think it really matters.
It's more trouble than it's worth with little practical benifit to those involved. Sure, it gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling of equality, but other than that there just isn't much practical benifit compared to the effort of such a change.
Exacting standards look great on paper, but when dealing with legacy systems (esp. when those systems are historicaly and socialy based) it's sometimes more trouble than its worth.
If you'd like to spearhead the effort to convience everyone to change, then more power to you. But frankly I think you'll need to get in line right behind the people who want to have everyone learn esperanto.
Slashdot Mirror
" Awww, that's so cute !! Can't nerdy-boi afford a Maccie?? But of course you WindowMaker desktop looks much nicer than the BORING MacOSX thingy, right, my sweetieboi?"
I'm just jumping into this flame after having noticed the same thing about the use of OSX. As to the original post, yeah, it's cool that it runs on OSX. Actually really cool, though it does make me wonder whether it is an app written for OSX or that's simply a web interface.
Regardless, don't take pot shots at WindowMaker. It's my favorite window manager, and I'm someone who uses OSX, Windows, CDE, KDE, Gnome and fvwm2 on a regular basis (don't ask about CDE, just don't ask...) Pretty ain't got nothing to do with it, just utility.
Anyways, I'm only responding because using "boi" in lue of "boy" is really fucking disturbing. I mean, I understand the point of putting one's self in a certain mindset when creating such a flame, but it takes a special kind of person to sound like a rich woman with a poodle.
Please don't do that anymore, it hurts my brain.
Can you provide some legal examples? I'm a little shakey on fair use interpretation. I know the Constitution deals with copyright (specificaly Congress has the power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. artical I section 8) but when/where does the concept of fair use enter the legal system?
I made that up.
The company claimed that the service worked during tests. ...yes. But they fail to mention that every other ring tone repels the bloodsuckers just as well. The minor EM field generated when the phone rings screws with their sensory equipment.
The settlement was for a fixed sum. The amount of money that was distributed to each indivdual was based upon how many individuals submitted a claim.
It was going to be in an amount between $5 and $20. If too many made the claim then the money would be donated to local charities (or somthing like that) in the given areas becasue the administration costs (plus postage costs) for mailing x million $3 checks out simply wasn't worth it.
In all honesty, I'm suprised that didn't happen.
The integrity and quality of the data isn't so much as important as the sheer volume of it.
...sometimes I wish we really could copyright facts. I sure as hell would copyright my personal information.
A marketer (or really anyone) who is actually using this data is probably using it on a statistical basis.
Very few, if any, are using this to check out individuals. What they are doing is focusing in on their target market. This way they dramatically increase their probability of getting a sale... or getting a mark given the potential for abuse.
For example, someone sets up a "fake" evangelical fund and targets wealthy old baptists with cold calls and mailings.
It statistical targets us.
Ah well guess I'll have to continue acting erraticaly to throw the stats off.
Technology doesn't have any unique attributes that give it more privlidge than any other subject matter.
.orgs (eff, aclu, etc) who w/o have done just as much as the big bad corperate wolf.
Congress, as a whole, doesn't know that much about farming or road work, or labor unions or pretty much anything.
Congress often *cant'* be the expert on subject matter X that any given group wants it to be. There are just too many laws and too many subjects.
So what congress does instead is listen to intrest groups and their constituants. Indivdual members/groups then write and sponser a Bill dealing with the concerns raised.
Each Bill is there for everyone in the nation to read and learn about (http://thomas.loc.gov) and if they do have a problem then it's their right to call up their congressman and say so. It's even their right to go to DC and address the subject matter. They can even start their own lobying group to try and changes things or pass laws addresing their own concerns.
It's just about who has money and who doesn't (though it would be naieve to think money doesn't help). Groups like the AARP have huge sway in congress. And there are thouslands of other such
And the real beauty of the system is that even if you say, "I don't like the system it's croupt and doesn't work as well as it should," you can go out and try to change it.
The only thing that never does any good is to complain about the state of things and not try to change it or even offer an alternative.
In short, it's our job to try to educate congress and others to the issues we feel strongly about.
Of course, so do a lot of crystalized structures. Lots of things are built on patterns.
Anyways as far as this technique is concered this (organic images being more compressable) only holds true for organicly created stromatolite structures vs. chemcialy created stromatolite-like structures.
They've only done 20 images or so, I'd like to know the comparitive compression ratios.
Prior Art
It's about a tormented super anime hero, who despite his vast skills and power can't always defend those around him even if they happen to be main characters (see Wolfwood).
He can't even live up to his own standards (see Legato.) Which gives it a nice ring.
The gungho guns and their interplay with each other is pretty cool to.
As far as the moral/educational goes. *shrug* Well if you're going to be watching anime based on that critera you'd best go watch Hamtoro.
(If nothing else it'll give you the message not to smoke crack.)
Why I am not surprised that Slashdot readers sympathize with a paranoid loser who walls himself up within his own house?
That was a pretty funny comment.
Is how you can have *self* contradictory belief system that is a logical construct if all belief systems are based upon logical constructs.
It sounds like you want to say all belief systems share a common axiom, that of logic (ie that it works that its true, etc.) But some belief systems are comprised of entirely illogical ideas like the trinity in Christianity:
God is one person and God is not one person
Or emotional ideas conflicts that are also foundations for our actions/beliefs:
I love her and I don't love her
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean with "logical constructs". I could see where you're coming from if you say "hierarchal constructs" perhaps, but the logical aspect, isn't something I'm really sure is always found, it suggests all belief systems share an internal logical cohesion with themselves, I'm not sure they do.
Actually I'm not even sure if belief systems are based on a hierarchal construct either, if anything I'd say they are much more web like in nature, and not necessary reducible into component parts (although some likely are) without loosing inherent aspects of them
Which ones?
Personally a lot of my belief system is based on intuition, emotion and self contradiction. Things that don't fit well into the logical construction.
*shrug* while I like the ease and logic of your system (sounds similar to Kant's a prior and a posteriori setup... if you haven't read his Critique of Pure Reason you should check it out) I honestly can't apply certain belief facets to it. Esp. ones like skepticism and much of the postmodern belief structures.
from believers and non believers alike
But if one is going to poke fun at them, they should at least poke fun at the correct things.
This isn't a battle. It's the angels harvesting the "bounty" of the earth. In which case the factor is still off... by about 6 billion too few.
(Rev. 14)
17Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth's vine, because its grapes are ripe." 19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.
Frankly I find works that try to disprove Apocalyptic literature about as silly as works that try to prove it.
Is like saying how sucessful the dotcom economey was because of Amazon and Ebay.
..lots of it is simply phsycological. We tend to like music we think is supose to be good. And we tend to like music we've heard before. *shrug* most of us anyways
Both groups are very sucessful in their respective generes, however they are in no way represenitive of those generes. Many bands have tried things that the TGD and Ebay have, but most have simply failed.
As far as labels having it backwards.
No, they don't.
They know how to promote, get play on the radio, and get advertisments. They set up the system, so they *can* work it.
I know a great number of *extrmely* talented artists (the DC sceene is choke full of em, if you ask me) and unless they have a well known name backing em up, its dificult to get more of an audience.
Very few talented muscians will ever make it rich. But really, that's ok, because most very talented muscians I know of don't care so much about the money (that is to say care about money more than the average joe) as they do about playing. (And to a degree playing for others who enjoy it).
*shrug* just my view though.
As to whether the system which we call "consciousness" is in fact determinate.
You've already assumed a universal cause and effect relationship in a reductionist world (That is to say one's consciousness is formed from determinate features, therefor it too must be determinate.)
Assuming every effect can be traced to a determinate cause is a useful assumption to make. However it is unscientific on its own, *especially* when dealing with non-linear dynamic systems where wholly new and previously unpredicted properties can emerge (the whole is more than the sum of its parts). In humans this thing we call consciousness can be said to be such a system, and thus can not be explained via the prosperities of its parts alone, but rather the properties of its whole.
At best when dealing with such systems we can only suggest probabilities in human action. As such, even if there is a gene that makes people have a tendency to be lazy, some can still act to over come it. Because complex human behavior is an assortment of genetic parts, environmental factors *and* consciousness feedback.
This has linked COMT with a gene. (for those who didn't read the article it "cleans up" after a dopamine chemical linked in sensing pain)
Is it really all that revealing that COMT production is genetically based. Anymore than it is to say insulin production is genetically based.
Regardless, the whole "nature v. nurture" debate is a futile argument when it comes to explaining individual action and the personality that defines those actions.
Esp. when one has a much more reliable and immediate explanation for one's actions, which is to say conscious "choice." Something which we have a much more intimate connection to.
(Sure it's easy to say our conscious choices are mere illusion created from a chain of causation in a reductionist universe... of course doing requires that "illusion" to believe in the reality of reductionism.)
At best genetics and enviorrment are probability guidelines in judging the possible future actions/personalities of an individual. However they are a piss poor way to explain human actions as a whole.
Interesting view point. Though I'm not so sure the "codifying" of the seasons was really the result of a religion being invinted. Certianly a society would know of the "planting season" the "harvest season" and so on... I'd say the "celibrations" durings those times were more of either an "offering" in the hope of a prosperus new season or a "thanksgiving" as the result of a prosperus season.
As far as the church sponsering science. *shrug* the church (at least I'm asuming the cathloic church in the hight of its power) sponsered everything, really. It was a poltical entity as much as a religious one. Had its hands in all the pies, as it were.
I'm not going to even touch "why religion was created" because while I can easily come up with a subital hypothesis that fits my own (or really anyone else's) paradigm, I don't have any evidence of religion's origion... still, some very interesting ideas of yours.
Anyone who sailed far distances where there were moutains You can see the land apear to sink below the horizon. (Thus the earth must be curved.)
... singular (haha, stupid black hole joke)
I'm not too sure on wheter one can see a ship "sink" beneath the horizion though before it's lost sight of.
Likewise one can gather the "shape" of the earth by observing lunar eclipses.
As far as scientists... *shrug* depends on what you mean. There were certianly emperisists. And there were definitly those who aproached things with somthing similar to the scientific method.
Aristotle for instance... indeed zoological clasificaions are a reminante of his science.
Though if you mean more the paradigim in which science tends to work...for instance, the idea that a few fundemental "external" forces can account for the actions of an object rather than the inherient "internal" properities of that object (the differnce between us explaining an arrow's flight as a result of air reistance, gravity and inertia rather than airstotle's explainination of the arrow having the properities of "swiftness" and "heaviness").
I find the similarites between Plato and Airistotle arguing over the valdidty of the forms with prominant physicsts arguing over the valdity of the "big crush" quite
Ultimatley I'm not sure the *True* validity of anything. In all honesty I think we pick a paradigm and go with it, part out of stuborness (or an unwillingnes.. or even an inablity to think outside the box) but a great deal due to the results it brings us.
In this time and this place, science (as we know it) meets some of our deeper goals and desires... not sure what those might be in a 100 years though.
Sorry. Went off on a tangent there just putting some thoughts down to clarify them later to myself. Wasn't an argument against your post, since I agree with it anyways =]
There is no sliperly slope, but you sure did make yourself a nice Straw Man.
....Theta
Slipperly slope requires a chain of deductive arguments where a conclusion is made by skipping a large number of those arguments:
if A then B
if B then C
if C then
The post wasn't even an argument. It was a number of facts and a single question.
Facts:
1. PA is forcing ISPs to block child porn sites.
2. PA ordered ISPs may need to block legitimate sites to acomplish the goals.
Questions:
1. Will ISPs be libal if they don't succeed in blocking all sites sucessfuly.
I thought they were trying to catch a white boy.
That is a differnt point than the one I was addressing and if that was the orginal point, to use the .us if the other has already in use, then it was a good one and I was mistaken in my understanding.
.com's and .net's and .govs out there (this is more specific to .govs than anything else really, since .coms and .nets are, when you get right down to it, avaliable to anyone) Certian TLDs like the .gov have allready become institutionalized, and if our goal is order then it's probably better to have them all as .gov or .gov.us ... since they're all already .gov (as far as I know) its probably most practical to take the path of least reistance.
.com .net etc I don't think it really matters.
What I find faulty is getting people to change from using the
Though for
It's more trouble than it's worth with little practical benifit to those involved. Sure, it gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling of equality, but other than that there just isn't much practical benifit compared to the effort of such a change.
Exacting standards look great on paper, but when dealing with legacy systems (esp. when those systems are historicaly and socialy based) it's sometimes more trouble than its worth.
If you'd like to spearhead the effort to convience everyone to change, then more power to you. But frankly I think you'll need to get in line right behind the people who want to have everyone learn esperanto.
And you're most certianly not being paranoid. When we start skiping due process we start finding people like McCarthy in power.
"Boring people" really are concerned about their privacy, if for no other reason than the fact that most people "don't think" they're boring.
They don't want the goverment having a right to spy on them, anymore than they want their company tracking them every time they a piss break.
There is somthing fundementaly demoralizing about anyone having a right to monitor you 24/7. Even the most boring of people recongize that.
They don't happen to do anything about the law though because most of them don't really *know* about them or the repercusions of them.
From the album Songs from the Earth by Son of Sam:
http://www.softcom.net/users/twolter/songsfromt