The less that my signal is electronic, the harder it is to tap/spy on. Now if they could master that photon/quantum based security model, where the data is destroyed by being viewed, that would be sweet.:)
-
Actually I have. I listened to NPR discussing it just the other day. In fact, they provided a much more balanced take on the matter than any visible comment on slashdot.
NPR is great. But it isn't a major news outlet. It may have the highest percentage of intelligent listeners, but it isn't where most get their news. -
At some point, one must stop to consider the terms that one uses in daily life. The words that one chooses to describe something are a great indicator of one's true nature. In this same way, the words we choose to use as a society, as a species, are a great tool for determining the true nature of humanity.
One area of particular personal interest is what is referred to when you state that something is natural. "Natural" is a word that is often throw about, in advertisements, in politics, and in religion. Advertisements use the appeal of the common (mis)conception that natural is healthy. Many naturally occurring compounds can kill you. The poison that we synthesize is no more toxic than things already here before us. The only real difference is that we are ill equipped to deal with the amount of poison that we are creating. Political debate over moral issues often turns to the common argument, "This action is immoral, it is unnatural". Often there is some reference to God, or the fuzzy concept of "natural law".
With all the different ways that the word "natural" is being used, it can be hard to focus on what we really mean. It is easy to get tunnel vision. Someone with authority tells you what is and isn't natural. Nature is pushed in your face as a selling point. Political types spew meaningless arguments. What really matters is what nature means to you.
Let's define natural in a way that make sense and is easy to understand. The dictionary could be said to represent the common understanding of the meaning of words, so let's start there. It defines something natural as, "Something that exists in or is produced by nature."(1)
That doesn't help much, so the definition of nature seems to be in order, "The material world and its phenomena". Surely artificial compounds are part of the material world, and are synthesized using the material world's phenomena, so even things that we create are also natural. In fact, it is impossible to create anything that is truly unnatural.
You might argue that such things as emotions are not of the material world. Science repeatedly has proven that emotions are only a chemical reaction, which can be stopped or enhanced using chemicals. Thought, memory, control of your body, are all phenomena of the material world. To argue that anything is unnatural, you must prove that the action or object is not of the material world, and not part of the phenomena of the material world. No such thing exists, therefore everything is, and indeed must be, natural.
The most compelling example of this is the thought of total earthly destruction. Even if all life on earth were destroyed, even if it was human action that directly caused this, it would still be a natural event. This may seem a little hard to swallow, but consider this: What if we, as humans, discovered a species that existed only on you island. These animals are fighting over the remaining resources of the island, becoming more and more ingenious in their attacks. At you point, you faction discovers that fire can be used to destroy the enemy, and develops methods for using fire. Unfortunately, in the process of the attack, the island catches fire, and all the plant life is destroyed. The animals die.
Would the human viewer of these advanced animals consider the happening unnatural? No, it was only animals trying to survive. That is the same thing an external viewer of a dead earth would conclude. Just animals trying to survive. Break free from the thought pattern that some things are natural, and others are unnatural. All things are necessarily natural.
One might think, "If everything we can do is natural, why not do whatever we want." Why be concerned about the environment if nothing we do is unnatural? The distinction needs to be made that natural is not necessarily positive. Natural cannot be associated with being positive, because as we discussed before, nothing truly unnatural can exist, therefore natural cannot be used to describe the nature of an object in this way. There is no positive when there is no negative. There just is.
(1) American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition, pp 908,909
our computer may be transmitting everything you say and do to the three-letter-agencies, and most people won't even notice. Welcome to 1984 ladies and gentlemen.
You know, I always use the "video cameras in your house" argument against this stuff.... but I always use it as a logical exaggeration to get people to think about this stuff. I never thought that I would hit the point so soon where I am not exaggerating anymore. -
It's a real shame too. Although I'm skeptical, if any open system could ever attain real journalistic quality,
And you think that ABC (Disney), CBS (?), and NBC (GE), are "real journalistic quality"?
One thing we have here is truth. Sometimes opinions that are not well thought out get modded up, but oh well. When ABC runs a story that is bullshit, they generally do it for financial gain of one sort or the other. Slashdot of course can run stories that are popular for financial gain, but the posts will refute it if it is BS. That is the great thing about/.
You will never see scaremongering stories about the latest "nightmare drug" on slashdot, because slashdot isn't tied to big corporate interests.
We don't give a fuck about Jon Benet Ramsey, or care much about OJ simpson, and most of the US never gave much of a fuck either. Slashdot gives us stuff we care about, for the most part. Just because there are more Linux stories than you care to see, or maybe you hate Anime, doesn't mean that Slashdot won't eventually cover most of what is important to you.
Here is the bottom line. Have you seen much of anything about Carnivore on any major news outlet? Don't think think this is important to all of our collective futures? Yeah thats right. I thought so. Its a choice, truth or happiness, and I would give up liking everything I see on my news, for a little truth. -
Now this is something I would like to see more often. I think you guys that run this site should jump in here and respond every now and then. Of course you shouldn't reply to the obvious flames, but who said that you all can't participate in relevant conversation. After all, you guys are nerds too, probably some of the most up to date nerds in regard to the issues we talk about on here, and the best part is, you all don't give a fuck about your Karma! -
I'm not sure that I've really liked the practice declaring perfectly good evidence "inadmissible" in court - the idea that a rapist, murderer or CEO could be legally freed (and immune to further prosecution for that crime because of the double-jeopardy rule) because the judge or jury has to "ignore" a real piece of evidence really annoys me.
Those technicalities are usually minor things like oh.... the 4th or 5th amendment. Hell lets repeal all the Bill of Rights, at least another rapist or murderer will never go free. -
Similarly, if I write a letter in MS Word and delete a paragraph about how the recipient and I should kill my husband, but I delete the paragraph before I print and mail the letter, the file recovered from my hard drive should not be used as evidence of conspiracy to commit murde
There is an important legal concept that blows your whole argument away. You can talk about committing a crime all you want, so long as you don't act in a way to further the crime. You can even conspire with others to commit a crime, so long as there is no action toward the end of committing the crime, except talking about it.
If you go out and buy a gun, after talking about killing your wife/husband with a gun, then that is attempted murder. If you just talk about it, but never make an action toward completing it, then there is no crime. There is a grey area, such as, suppose you talk about killing your wife, then drive to a gun store and don't buy anything. It would still probably be enough to convict you, but it is more of a grey area. -
To the AC that called you a dumbass: It isn't always apparent that C/C++ is going to destroy a files contents, iostreams are kind of weird sometimes. One ios:: flag can make a world of difference. -
That still doesn't address 1. Hoarding, and the argument that it would kill Napsters legal defense... and also, how can you realistically expect the RIAA and the artists to split the single penny per song from someone who downloads 500 songs a month. Oh wait, we have to split the penny three ways, Napster needs to stay in business after the VC runs out. -
In Marshall v. Barlow's, US Supreme Court 1978, the court found that businesses are subject to the same Fourth Amendment protection as individuals are, in regard to Administrative agencies. How will the FBI install these boxes in ISPs when there is no ongoing investigation, and no warrant?
I could see the temporary installation during a specific investigation (with warrant) being constitutional, if there is no other way to get the data they need, but the permanant installation of these boxes goes directly contrary to this ruling. I quote Justice White, "The authority to make warrantless searches devolves almost unbridled discretion upon executive and administrative officers, particularly those in the field, as to when to search and whom to search".
This ruling gives businesses power to refuse entry to any agent that does not have a warrant. How exactly are they going to install these boxes, if the ISP has the legal right to refuse them entry without a warrant? -
Simple find and replace, carnivore with "home surveillance" whereby the FBI puts cameras in every room in your house.
I honestly to not understand the large amount of panic over the home surveillance system. So far as I am aware, you will only be tracked if you are suspect to criminal activities, in much the same way as more traditional wire taps.
If you are genuinely worried about what impact home surveillance will have on you, then maybe it is time YOU SHOULD STOP DOING WHATEVER ILLEGAL OR QUASI-ILLEGAL ACTIVITES you are currently engaged. If aren't engaged in said activities then why on Earth are you worring???
"All power to the Soviets"
Because we don't know the effects that this will have.
You think the creaters of the Internet knew the effects it would have on society in the future? I don't see why there are so many Neo-Luddites on a site like this.
[Once we] upset the balance of nature and to stop it's natural course, then we've crossed the line and we need to wake up and take a long hard look at what we're doing.
Back to my original argument: We have been doing this since we learned to harness tools other than our own bodies. You can't differentiate between "good technology" and "bad technology", that is the point of nearly EVERY article on/. Everyone on here criticizes laws being passed against "hacking tools", and stuff like that, and I agree.
This is the exact same thing. You can't brand a technology "bad" or "good" like that. Technology has posed a serious threat to our existance for millenia, ever since the invention of the first weapon used to kill another man.
-
But a black market can be shut down, and doesn't provide the same kind of saturation cover that a legal market would. Whilst the opportunity might be there for a few couples, it wouldn't result in the same kind of loss of genetic diversity we would otherwise see.
Yep, I sure can't get marijuana or cocaine since they started that War on Drugs. But we are starting to get offtopic, and this is a skilled black market, but you get the general point. Black markets will never be completely eliminated, so long as there is sufficient demand.
My point is, if you make it illegal, it assures that the rich will be the only ones that can afford to fly overseas to get it done in countries where it is legal, or where it is tolerated. This is a pandora's box.
Illegality has more problems. Whats to keep scam artist doctors from preforming a normal in vitro without any genetic engineering, and charge for genetic engineering? Since it is all illegal, there is no recourse for the defrauded customers, if they even ever find out. Illegal means unregulated. -
Must you get pissed off at every 5 moderated post you didn't write?
If you would have actually read my post, you would notice that I wasn't making a case for or against patents per se. I only said that they work best for the things they were originally designed for, and not so well on the Internet, which, if anything, is an argument against the applications of patents to Internet technology.
I was only addressing the point that the parent poster made that perfect competition=zero profits, which I believe to be false. -
t'll be a nation of celebrity clones endorsed by glossy magazines. Is this really what you want?
And how is this different from what we have now? Like you said, parents already have a good measure of control of certain things that are influenced by popular culture, such as names, and closer to the topic, circumcision, since you can change your name, but you can never grow a foreskin back. What is wrong with extending this? In a way it doesn't matter. Even if we all decide it's morally wrong, and congress decides it's morally wrong, so long as the technology is available, there will be a black market. Think abortion.
-
can be abused, such as choosing the eye colour of your child, the sex of your child etc. etc. This is just plain stupid, and anyone else who thinks otherwise, just post a comment
Why does it matter? Who cares if we genetically create better (or customized) people? We choose the sex of chickens by controlling egg temperature, and we have done it for years!
I am SO SICK of these people yelling about "playing god". We have been playing god ever since we learned how to harness fire and sharpen sticks. This is just another step in our evolution. -
If it is alright to select for medical reasons, who is to say that it isn't alright to select for other reasons - intelligence, appearance, resistance to diseases...?
And what the hell is so wrong with selecting a child that will be smarter, better looking, and healthy?
-
Rather than pushing zealotry on behalf of any particular operating system, these guys have a cool idea: provide a forum that proves there are different ways to do anything.
I think that for some applications, using a MS product is the different way to do things. I mean, there are lots of apps that have been traditionally Unix, and you kind of have to hack around to get something equivalent to work in Windows.
And sometimes, Windows does work best. Believe it or not. Don't get me wrong, I like Unix for lots of stuff, but who said one OS has to be a one stop shop for everything we need to do? Rather than pushing the strong points of the OS's, we are no better than MS, a lot of us want to see Linux, or some other OS become a monopoly like Windows is. It isn't like hardware where you have to make a choice, you can run as many OS's as you want. -
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly!
:)
Natural=Just another fantasy like God and Santa and the tooth fairy and eskimos.*
*Just ask Homer.
-
The less that my signal is electronic, the harder it is to tap/spy on. Now if they could master that photon/quantum based security model, where the data is destroyed by being viewed, that would be sweet. :)
-
I can see the right frame, but no menu. Then again, lots of stupid web sites are not made to work with a real standard browser like Opera.
-
NPR is great. But it isn't a major news outlet. It may have the highest percentage of intelligent listeners, but it isn't where most get their news.
-
At some point, one must stop to consider the terms that one uses in daily life. The words that one chooses to describe something are a great indicator of one's true nature. In this same way, the words we choose to use as a society, as a species, are a great tool for determining the true nature of humanity.
One area of particular personal interest is what is referred to when you state that something is natural. "Natural" is a word that is often throw about, in advertisements, in politics, and in religion. Advertisements use the appeal of the common (mis)conception that natural is healthy. Many naturally occurring compounds can kill you. The poison that we synthesize is no more toxic than things already here before us. The only real difference is that we are ill equipped to deal with the amount of poison that we are creating. Political debate over moral issues often turns to the common argument, "This action is immoral, it is unnatural". Often there is some reference to God, or the fuzzy concept of "natural law".
With all the different ways that the word "natural" is being used, it can be hard to focus on what we really mean. It is easy to get tunnel vision. Someone with authority tells you what is and isn't natural. Nature is pushed in your face as a selling point. Political types spew meaningless arguments. What really matters is what nature means to you.
Let's define natural in a way that make sense and is easy to understand. The dictionary could be said to represent the common understanding of the meaning of words, so let's start there. It defines something natural as, "Something that exists in or is produced by nature."(1)
That doesn't help much, so the definition of nature seems to be in order, "The material world and its phenomena". Surely artificial compounds are part of the material world, and are synthesized using the material world's phenomena, so even things that we create are also natural. In fact, it is impossible to create anything that is truly unnatural.
You might argue that such things as emotions are not of the material world. Science repeatedly has proven that emotions are only a chemical reaction, which can be stopped or enhanced using chemicals. Thought, memory, control of your body, are all phenomena of the material world. To argue that anything is unnatural, you must prove that the action or object is not of the material world, and not part of the phenomena of the material world. No such thing exists, therefore everything is, and indeed must be, natural.
The most compelling example of this is the thought of total earthly destruction. Even if all life on earth were destroyed, even if it was human action that directly caused this, it would still be a natural event. This may seem a little hard to swallow, but consider this: What if we, as humans, discovered a species that existed only on you island. These animals are fighting over the remaining resources of the island, becoming more and more ingenious in their attacks. At you point, you faction discovers that fire can be used to destroy the enemy, and develops methods for using fire. Unfortunately, in the process of the attack, the island catches fire, and all the plant life is destroyed. The animals die.
Would the human viewer of these advanced animals consider the happening unnatural? No, it was only animals trying to survive. That is the same thing an external viewer of a dead earth would conclude. Just animals trying to survive. Break free from the thought pattern that some things are natural, and others are unnatural. All things are necessarily natural.
One might think, "If everything we can do is natural, why not do whatever we want." Why be concerned about the environment if nothing we do is unnatural? The distinction needs to be made that natural is not necessarily positive. Natural cannot be associated with being positive, because as we discussed before, nothing truly unnatural can exist, therefore natural cannot be used to describe the nature of an object in this way. There is no positive when there is no negative. There just is.
(1) American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition, pp 908,909
-
You know, I always use the "video cameras in your house" argument against this stuff.... but I always use it as a logical exaggeration to get people to think about this stuff. I never thought that I would hit the point so soon where I am not exaggerating anymore.
-
And you think that ABC (Disney), CBS (?), and NBC (GE), are "real journalistic quality"?
One thing we have here is truth. Sometimes opinions that are not well thought out get modded up, but oh well. When ABC runs a story that is bullshit, they generally do it for financial gain of one sort or the other. Slashdot of course can run stories that are popular for financial gain, but the posts will refute it if it is BS. That is the great thing about /.
You will never see scaremongering stories about the latest "nightmare drug" on slashdot, because slashdot isn't tied to big corporate interests.
We don't give a fuck about Jon Benet Ramsey, or care much about OJ simpson, and most of the US never gave much of a fuck either. Slashdot gives us stuff we care about, for the most part. Just because there are more Linux stories than you care to see, or maybe you hate Anime, doesn't mean that Slashdot won't eventually cover most of what is important to you.
Here is the bottom line. Have you seen much of anything about Carnivore on any major news outlet? Don't think think this is important to all of our collective futures? Yeah thats right. I thought so. Its a choice, truth or happiness, and I would give up liking everything I see on my news, for a little truth.
-
Hehe, cool thanks!
-
Now this is something I would like to see more often. I think you guys that run this site should jump in here and respond every now and then. Of course you shouldn't reply to the obvious flames, but who said that you all can't participate in relevant conversation. After all, you guys are nerds too, probably some of the most up to date nerds in regard to the issues we talk about on here, and the best part is, you all don't give a fuck about your Karma!
-
OK OK, maybe I am just in a Simpson's mood, but doesn't this guy remind you of the comic shop guys that is always muttering "Worst episode ever?"
-
This just makes me think of the time Homer fell down the Springfield gorge. Doh DOh Doh Doh DoH doh :)
-
Those technicalities are usually minor things like oh .... the 4th or 5th amendment. Hell lets repeal all the Bill of Rights, at least another rapist or murderer will never go free.
-
There is an important legal concept that blows your whole argument away. You can talk about committing a crime all you want, so long as you don't act in a way to further the crime. You can even conspire with others to commit a crime, so long as there is no action toward the end of committing the crime, except talking about it.
If you go out and buy a gun, after talking about killing your wife/husband with a gun, then that is attempted murder. If you just talk about it, but never make an action toward completing it, then there is no crime. There is a grey area, such as, suppose you talk about killing your wife, then drive to a gun store and don't buy anything. It would still probably be enough to convict you, but it is more of a grey area.
-
To the AC that called you a dumbass: It isn't always apparent that C/C++ is going to destroy a files contents, iostreams are kind of weird sometimes. One ios:: flag can make a world of difference.
-
That still doesn't address 1. Hoarding, and the argument that it would kill Napsters legal defense... and also, how can you realistically expect the RIAA and the artists to split the single penny per song from someone who downloads 500 songs a month. Oh wait, we have to split the penny three ways, Napster needs to stay in business after the VC runs out.
-
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these? :P
-
I could see the temporary installation during a specific investigation (with warrant) being constitutional, if there is no other way to get the data they need, but the permanant installation of these boxes goes directly contrary to this ruling. I quote Justice White, "The authority to make warrantless searches devolves almost unbridled discretion upon executive and administrative officers, particularly those in the field, as to when to search and whom to search".
This ruling gives businesses power to refuse entry to any agent that does not have a warrant. How exactly are they going to install these boxes, if the ISP has the legal right to refuse them entry without a warrant?
-
I honestly to not understand the large amount of panic over the home surveillance system. So far as I am aware, you will only be tracked if you are suspect to criminal activities, in much the same way as more traditional wire taps. If you are genuinely worried about what impact home surveillance will have on you, then maybe it is time YOU SHOULD STOP DOING WHATEVER ILLEGAL OR QUASI-ILLEGAL ACTIVITES you are currently engaged. If aren't engaged in said activities then why on Earth are you worring??? "All power to the Soviets"
Big Brother is Watching.
-
You think the creaters of the Internet knew the effects it would have on society in the future? I don't see why there are so many Neo-Luddites on a site like this.
[Once we] upset the balance of nature and to stop it's natural course, then we've crossed the line and we need to wake up and take a long hard look at what we're doing.
Back to my original argument: We have been doing this since we learned to harness tools other than our own bodies. You can't differentiate between "good technology" and "bad technology", that is the point of nearly EVERY article on /. Everyone on here criticizes laws being passed against "hacking tools", and stuff like that, and I agree.
This is the exact same thing. You can't brand a technology "bad" or "good" like that. Technology has posed a serious threat to our existance for millenia, ever since the invention of the first weapon used to kill another man.
-
Yep, I sure can't get marijuana or cocaine since they started that War on Drugs. But we are starting to get offtopic, and this is a skilled black market, but you get the general point. Black markets will never be completely eliminated, so long as there is sufficient demand.
My point is, if you make it illegal, it assures that the rich will be the only ones that can afford to fly overseas to get it done in countries where it is legal, or where it is tolerated. This is a pandora's box.
Illegality has more problems. Whats to keep scam artist doctors from preforming a normal in vitro without any genetic engineering, and charge for genetic engineering? Since it is all illegal, there is no recourse for the defrauded customers, if they even ever find out. Illegal means unregulated.
-
If you would have actually read my post, you would notice that I wasn't making a case for or against patents per se. I only said that they work best for the things they were originally designed for, and not so well on the Internet, which, if anything, is an argument against the applications of patents to Internet technology.
I was only addressing the point that the parent poster made that perfect competition=zero profits, which I believe to be false.
-
And how is this different from what we have now? Like you said, parents already have a good measure of control of certain things that are influenced by popular culture, such as names, and closer to the topic, circumcision, since you can change your name, but you can never grow a foreskin back. What is wrong with extending this? In a way it doesn't matter. Even if we all decide it's morally wrong, and congress decides it's morally wrong, so long as the technology is available, there will be a black market. Think abortion.
-
Why does it matter? Who cares if we genetically create better (or customized) people? We choose the sex of chickens by controlling egg temperature, and we have done it for years!
I am SO SICK of these people yelling about "playing god". We have been playing god ever since we learned how to harness fire and sharpen sticks. This is just another step in our evolution.
-
And what the hell is so wrong with selecting a child that will be smarter, better looking, and healthy?
-
I think that for some applications, using a MS product is the different way to do things. I mean, there are lots of apps that have been traditionally Unix, and you kind of have to hack around to get something equivalent to work in Windows.
And sometimes, Windows does work best. Believe it or not. Don't get me wrong, I like Unix for lots of stuff, but who said one OS has to be a one stop shop for everything we need to do? Rather than pushing the strong points of the OS's, we are no better than MS, a lot of us want to see Linux, or some other OS become a monopoly like Windows is. It isn't like hardware where you have to make a choice, you can run as many OS's as you want.
-