All the players who have power: (read the large businesses), get together and have a scrum. Not invited to the table are the (1) the public, or (2) the content creators. - both of which are large and mostly unorganized groups of individuals.
Sounds suspiciously like the process the industry went through to re-invent copyright law.
One only needs to be guaranteed "Rights" in the context of Wrongs. Comcast and Virgin and others should get their head completely out of their ass and start providing a real **customer** focused service (instead of profit-driven) and this whole issue goes away.
yet another reason to remove the TV from your life. now we have a device that not only shuts off your brain and delivers unhelpful marketing into your home, but on top of that, it has government support to encourage a digital system that is both more expensive than working alternatives and allows increased information access control.
every time I see places where consumer marketplaces have heavy handed intervention from government (read: not regulation to protect consumers, but rules or supports to direct consumer behavior), it seems there is something wrong. corporations a bit too close to the state.
in a healthy marketplace, if digital TV products and services can't out compete and win vs. the analog systems, then they would lose. period. if the government is going to come in and with the corporate-directed, lobby-directed practice of mandating a specific technology -- just because it works better for the business practice of some large companies -- well, this is not in most people's interest.
the truculent refusal to admit the changing nature of content distribution and actions like this with digital TV on the part of existing content and hardware companies has already has created a vibrant black market for their products. luckly many people are building alternatives...
Like all technologies, the effects depend on how the technology is used. While there are issues of unfairness with random drops, one can *imagine* ways that (from TFA), "What is really necessary is to detect just the flows that need to slow down" - however, it would seem just as easily networks could "detect just the flows that need to slow down" based on who is paying more for that flow (the sender or the receiver) - leading to even more "unfairness" (read: non-neutral network a la net neutrality) than we currently have.
no flat monthly fee, instead 95% bandwidth billing over a while month (like used in colo facilities)
real time, web and RESTful interface to a control panel for my connection (so I can write and others can write friendly local clients for control) that will set my down and up stream connection speed throttle levels
options for web access and email delivery of pricing feedback for the useage I consume, so I can adjust my behavior. Warning emails if in a particular day I go about an expected price level, for example.
set up trust levels for users with deposit of credit that would allow them to up their speed levels above certain limits. If I put up a $1000 credit, let me put teh throttle at 100Gbit. For most home users, let them set the throttle to 6 or 10 Mbit. Charge them based on actual 95% bw level usage.
We live in a society, on the way to be adopted globally, where capitalism is interpreted so narrowly that we have only one linear metric for success: cash.
When you are a billionaire, you can pay for participating in situations where the pitcher tosses you softballs, and if they don't you have enough power to never have to go to bat with them again. Knowing this, the cowardly sheep in the media duly bend over and give deference to rich people. It's not wrong, it just is the way it is when money is the *only* metric we use to evaluate a person's value.
If you have not heard the phrase: "It's just business"
I read a lot of people stating in this forum "it's bad" and "it's a problem" when referring to the fact that people in other parts of the world illegally obtain a set of information and sell a product based on that information.
I ask, "bad for whom?"
Let's back up. The whole fiction of intellectual property exists for a very good reason. Within a society, there needs to be a way to reimburse creative works when the result of those works is primarily intellectual in nature: artistic expressions, brands, and inventions. So, as a society, have this socially understood and agreed-upon deal, that looks different for copyright, trademarks and patents but at the core the deal is the same: exclusivity to profit for some time in return for the intellectual result.
The problem I see with the "it's bad" assertions in this case that as a whole globe, there is no shared society, and there is no socially understood deal about fictitious property, globally. Maybe humans will get there someday - and have some shared agreement of global humanity with common norms and behaviors and laws. WIPO aside, and efforts to get there notwithstanding, . . . personally, I think that in that kind of world it means there is only one right way to live, and I think that will be bad for humans. I think having different places, different countries, (maybe someday different planets) where the rules and norms and languages are entirely separate and distinct - is a very good thing. Such diversity makes us more robust as a species. Tough noogies if that makes mega-corporate globalized business more challenging.
To answer my rhetorical question above, the balance of what intellectual property is today so far swayed toward the interests of large corporate organizations, the answer seems pretty clear to me - this kind of theft is bad for very large corporations - basically the only entities who would realistically be hurt by lack of sales from patent infringement in distant regions of the world. For everyone else, 'it's just business.'
I would like to see no carry ons - one personal briefcase/purse only.
of course this would also require the whole airline system treat checked bags differently- with much more care and respect so nothing was lost or broken or stolen...
ok forget it. bad idea.
How about guns on planes, for everyone? That might speed up certain passengers.
"Doing law enforcement is getting harder, so let's change the rules"
I see this now in almost every arena of law enforcement... and for good reason. It *is* getting harder to do low enforcement. The thought process is something like this: "As law enforcement, we know we're failing; we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect." Basically enforcing laws is a traditional behavior. It is the way to maintain stability and control on society and in a similar way that traditions maintain cultural norms. Traditional behaviors are the antithesis of innovation.
Technology is changing at a breakneck pace, and increasing in the speed of change. It is hard, nigh impossible for large, bureaucratic, rules-based organizations to keep pace with innovation in technology, and the concomitant adoption by criminals.
The disturbing thing is that instead of law enforcement innovating to keep up with the demands of the job, many in law enforcement have lobbied successfully to change the rules of the game. This is most true in the United States over the last five years with the tired dirge: "give up your liberties or the terrorists will win".
I think the correct solution is to change the way we do law enforcement. Change the people who do it. Make smaller, more nimble organizations. Change the speed with which law enforcement operates. Remove entrenched, non-technical savvy deadweight from organizations. Incorporate the latest technology. Change quickly with the rest of society and keep the fundamental principles that make open society possible and successful.
And for christ's sakes, please stop degrading people by forcing them to take off their clothing and shoes to board an airplane. I know, it seems totally off topic, but the same idea we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect.
They "detect" it the same way we "know" now that only 5% of the Universe is matter we can detect and the rest is boogy- man style "dark energy" and "dark matter". It is the most probable explanation given the prevailing consistent and agreed upon set of understandings (stories) by leading rational scientists.
This is not optimal, but is the unfortunate result of extremism within the anti-rational camp (including religious fundamentalists of all the major religions) that cause the other camp (rational scientists) to also become extreme - huddling together to present consistency of thought and theory to rebuff the insanity driving the extreme nature of the opposing camp. Closer to reality is that astrophysics and most modern physics today have some extremely serious problems with making all the data that has been collected and verified fit together. By all, I'm mean to include data from quantum size scales with light-year scales and near-zero energy with very high energy, femto-seconds to years. Most data works amazingly well, while other data consistently does not match.
So, in order to present a consistent theory that is not assailable by luddites and those that would use seemingly believable arguments and descriptions of Universal truths for their own ends, many scientists understandably have developed an anti-scientific bent that provides consistency and certainty in their scientific story. A consistent story drives funding. It drives papers. It drives tenure. It drives careers, lectures, salaries, and status. It keeps the system going for scietists to keep doing academic science, which *is* a good thing. This is just how academia works, even when what is really needed in scientific exploration and, mostly, physics today is more unabashed non consistency and non conformism to established physics laws to deal with various inconsistent and conflicting data.
You are selectively trying to reframe this discussion, and I will no longer engage with you. From my point of view, you are perpetuating obviously false claims while avoiding the larger picture. I strongly disagree with you on many points.
No, there is no conspiracy. The sentence about permission was within the context of a possible future, as was written in my statement "Once that becomes the norm". You've assumed a position I do not have by selectively misinterpreting one half of one sentence and then, with that assumed position, asserting a false point of view for me throughout what I wrote. Nice. It makes it not worth the effort to deal with you.
As far as I can tell, there are no liability issues for retailers regarding selling items that are also removed by having untrained checkstand operators looking at IDs. Most likely there are financial issues for the company from chargebacks but again, these are private organizations, and individuals have a choice to conduct business with them. Private organizations can do what they choose within the law; Best Buy is not the issue here.
Yes, there are a variety of different data collection efforts in the government, many open and lawful, some overtly illegal, some challenged, and probably many that remain secret. By stating, "There is no data collection " you eliminate your credibility.
Trying to dismiss someone as hysterical with a personal attack is the refuge taken when there is no rational or reasonable ways to refute the point. The articles I reference are clear on the situation.
Uninformed, perhaps. (which is why I related a story about getting some information!) However, with your reply you seem to have missed some of the points about how the US system was designed to work. Granted the country pretty far from it now, so it is understandable, but I'll explain.
Certainly I'm not resorting to personal attacks to make my points. Where, exactly, was there a conspiracy theory?
The 4th amendment issue I have (above the problem of the current system) is the search I would receive when traveling without presenting an ID (and the one I get now even with an ID). The intent of the amendment is extremely clear: the government will leave you alone unless you are doing something wrong. If a private business is conducting a service that only works technically if participants are searched, then it is up to them to ensure the safety of their service, NOT the federal government.
To think there are not privacy issues with the current system is absurd.
I'm not concerned with the Airline policies. These are private organizations and I have choice to engage or participate with them. I do not have a choice to participate in the federal government which is why we have (rather, had) so many protections against abuses of its power.
You wrote: So Best Buy, the grocery store, hotels, and bars are part of the government now? I must have missed the passage of that bill. That seems a non sequitur. How do you conclude that? They are obviously not part of the government, which is why their requirement for ID is wrong when offering private services to individuals. Bars do scan id numbers now, and other businesses may well follow suit.
You wrote: to show that you are the party authorized to represent yourself as the named party. What kind of legal blather is that??? What does "authorized to represent myself" even mean? I have a physical body and that is really all the authorization one needs to represent ones self. Think: "Hi, I'm me!" As for my name, if I'm doing nothing wrong, then it's none of the government's business. The points you so eloquently omitted are the data gathering, filtering, and overt surveillance activities that the "named party" is now a-partyin' in because of this system.
What's amazing, is you wrote a reply with the clear implication that you were refuting my points, and calling me a "conspiracy theorist", but in fact, my main points remain untouched:
1) ID is not required to fly 2) The USA TSA agents at airports lie to your face about it
Furthermore, the US federal governement does conduct searches in obvious violation of the 4th amendment for everyone who flies.
While some may try to minimize my choices as "meaningless", I will continue to stand up for my rights in any way I still can.
I was in the LAX Thursday and had a nice, 10-minute conversation with the "big-kahuna" TSA person behind the desk and she confirmed, (only on being pressed) that photo id is NOT REQUIRED to fly in the US.
At first she said it was, "You gotta show your id", "ID is required"... she said it several times. But I pressed. I said, "what if I don't have one, I lost it, or left it at home? What if I'm a foreigner from a place without government IDs?" At first I left out the obvious privacy and search issues. She says, "Well, then we do a full search of you and your bags and let you fly." Bingo! (It took me almost 5 minutes before she would admit this existed) So I continue: "What if I show up and say, 'I don't want to show ID. I don't think I need permission from the government to fly.' " She says, "Well, then we turn you away". This went on for a while, and it became clear (to me) that their mission is to "lie" to my face and get me voluntarily show ID even though I'm not legally REQUIRED to at the checkpoint. The conversation was witnessed by at first 2 then about 4 other people from TSA. She did not agree with my assessment that "ID is required" is effectively a lie, but she did agree that people could fly without it, and pretty soon she said, "You gotta go talk to your government representative" not realizing that with a big TSA badge on, she WAS representing the government.
So, from now on, I have lost my ID. Really, I'm not sure where it is I will take the extra hour at the airport. It sucks to spend the hour and make them follow their inane search circus policy.... but the alternative is much worse. I've been asked for photo ID at best buy, hotels, grocery stores, bars, on and on -- all just to do the my daily life activities I want to do. Once that becomes the norm, we'll need government permission to do anything. Unless people realize the problem and start telling people "no, I'd rather not" when asked for ID, this problem will continue to get worse.
Now instead of getting random users to see goatse, users will be trying to get specific people to view a pic of their now-dead grandma hosted on flickr.
Most of the traditions we have in a non-network-connected world were created and exist because of barriers that now have much less meaning. While I commend them for holding their traditions, it seems a bit misplaced.
First off, people online are going to make friends and connections based on personalities and interests, not physical proximity to their tribal members - very quickly people will be trading accounts and passing information around outside the system. Worse, putting such complex access restrictions in place make it a tempting target for insiders to divulge secrets or for other data breaches and access attacks.
You imply here that you are a counter example to my statement. I think you are not: you are giving away free loss leader downloads to get the rewards you want: minimal money from physical CDs and the enjoyment in sharing your work.
If you're "breaking even" then you're not doing something free (financially) as I meant it.
Not sure, but I assume you have some other money-generating habit or job, which is financing your free giveaways? Who pays your server power bill, the rent, your food bill, buys your instruments, your server, recording equipment, music education, beers on Friday night, etc. etc. etc.
By "doesn't work" -> I mean that the group, service, or product will eventually stop, because people giving their time, energy, and attention will move on to other things having exhausted their reserves of money that allows them to work on the free thing. If it doesn't stop, then someone is paying for the energy people put in.
Your point is well made, that the statement does not apply to individual effort. I was talking more about groups, and services or products requiring mutiple inputs and focus from different people to produce.
Mostly I agree with you. I'm working to change the ways artists can be reimbursed for their efforts.
And security... well... I assume you mean a local police force
Not quite: I mean a relatively high chance your needs will continue to be met in the future. As in, "secure" in your situation in life. In our world, that usually means having money or liquid resources (especially as you age and get less functional) or having friends and family around that can support you.
Thus, killing in general is a completely morally neutral action.
I agree mostly with your post.
The problem will occur in the future, when there are machines, running software that we wrote acting in fully- or semi-autonomous modes attacking other machines and people. Wars will quickly come to machine v. machine between advanced powers in unconventional ways and on nontraditional battlegrounds.
In this world, programmers who release code into the world, free, public domain, whatever, would benefit from having the choice to prevent their creative efforts from being used to perpetuate and increase violence.
I did miss your satire... but there are a lot of people, especially younger people (under 30) who have a warped sense of value for things online.
Many great things online are "free" to the user: Google search results, Facebook profiles, Yahoo events listings, attending Meetup groups, and on and on. So much so that many users are attuned to the idea that all the stuff online could be, it "should be" free for them. But someone is paying all those people who created these services, usually, in a parallel to the broken US medical system, the bill is being paid by a third party. Kmart and Sears are paying for those free search results on Google. This is the great breakthrough that made Google the giant they are: a third-party payer system for Internet services.
The satirical call you made sounds very much like many people who make the same call seriously, after seeing all the great, third-party-financed "free" stuff online and expect that everything "should" be free.
After being part of the founding of 2 nonprofits, and working many years in offering free and near-free services, I've come to the following general conclusion: "Free does not work long term".
What I mean is complex, and it includes many different factors. First off, living and existing requires money: for food, shelter, power, and security. There's no avoiding it. Getting great people to devote (significant) time onto projects requires that they be paid. If not, the great people go elsewhere. For short times, and for specific initiatives, one can get remarkable, free contributions: but it doesn't last very long. There needs to be a financial element to any project or organization that will create value and last long term.
The second thing to realize is that for the long-term services and groups that we do see that are both great and free to you (eg Linux, apache, public parks, etc. etc.) - someone is paying, but it's just not you. There is typically just some kind of cost shifting going on. It is either the programmer who voluntarily spending their time, the foundation donors giving money to pay the staff, EFF staff fighting to keep legal protections available, or taxation programs paying for public services.
There are increasing awareness now among people that there are several other forms of value getting passed around online that are not cash: for example (1) people's time and attention, and (2) social capital/connections and relationships, and others. When you incorporate these factors as ones of own value, then it becomes clear that absolutely nothing is "free". Someone does work to make and organize things, and they need to be paid back, or they will (eventually) move their efforts elsewhere. That payment back does not necessarily need to be only in cash: it can be in attention, credit, or other items or actions they find valuable. That said, for most artists and content creators making great work, they do need cash in order to continue to spend their time making high quality content.
To those who understand pacifism, it is obvious that violence caused "Hitler", from his childhood, and onward through the degradation of Germany in WWI. This is difficult to argue in discussion because it speaks to human personality and behavior.
Unfortunately, bringing up the "Hitler" in a rational discussion is a strong indicator of dealing with disturbed individuals, and it does typically end the useful discussion.
I'm not strictly a pacifist. I don't agree with the statement "violence never solves anything" first because it is an absolute, but mostly, I would use violence: when a criminal breaks into my home and starts after my family, I would use violence without hesitation.
However, to me it is clear that violence begets more violence, every time. Sooner or later, those who are on the receiving end of the stick want to fight back. It sometimes comes back at the perpetrator, but most often does not. People do the "third-cat" routine, and release their anger on third parties, usually weaker ones. It is stopping this pattern that I would seek to change, to encourage non violent solutions wherever possible and prevent those controlled from reacting violently to others.
As I recall, the computer very much wanted to play chess, not war. In a beautiful commentary on human stupidity and aggression it was the person who forced the computer to play war. It was the point of the movie.
because we have an evolved system (humans) that use feelings to derive purpose, and from purpose we get concerted action and progress. having purpose within robots would be nice.
If we want robots to be autonomous and broadly (generally) functional and productive in the real world, some analog to human emotions would (could) be useful. these analogs probably would not be called "emotions" nor would they have the biological drivers or effects that human emotions have - but the result on behavior would be similar: within the robot, the "emotions" would provide generalized internal feedback about success or failure of actions and goal achievment. They would still be algorithmic, yet meeting the criteria for positive "emotions" would allow the robot to generate internal goals, and work to achieve them without external instuctions to achieve some immutable, and inaccessible metrics: the robots' "emotions". These "emotions" in a robot would be used to create separation internally in the processing system, much the same way humans have conscious and sub-conscious separation, and the emotions are subconscious.
I've almost eliminated ads from my life. Not branding, unfortunately, but paid placements, mostly gone.
I don't own a TV. Cron-job-updated hosts file on my computers. Usually I don't drive or see billboards when I do. I read magazines online (without ads). Ads in theatres ended those outings.
When ads do reach me now, I think - "damn, they did a hell of a lot to try and get me to see this" - and conclude it must be something I don't want. The better I can recall an ad for a product, most like the less I choose to buy it.
There are far better models of living than everyone pushing shit onto everyone else that they don't need and who otherwise wouldn't want it. The capitalist system wastes unbelievable amounts of effort getting people to buy stuff they simply would be better off without.
As for a shopping cart spewing ad drivel into my perceptual field while I tried to shop for food, well, such an electronic device probably wouldn't stay working for very long at all.
Slashdot Mirror
All the players who have power: (read the large businesses), get together and have a scrum. Not invited to the table are the (1) the public, or (2) the content creators. - both of which are large and mostly unorganized groups of individuals.
Sounds suspiciously like the process the industry went through to re-invent copyright law.
One only needs to be guaranteed "Rights" in the context of Wrongs. Comcast and Virgin and others should get their head completely out of their ass and start providing a real **customer** focused service (instead of profit-driven) and this whole issue goes away.
yet another reason to remove the TV from your life. now we have a device that not only shuts off your brain and delivers unhelpful marketing into your home, but on top of that, it has government support to encourage a digital system that is both more expensive than working alternatives and allows increased information access control.
every time I see places where consumer marketplaces have heavy handed intervention from government (read: not regulation to protect consumers, but rules or supports to direct consumer behavior), it seems there is something wrong. corporations a bit too close to the state.
in a healthy marketplace, if digital TV products and services can't out compete and win vs. the analog systems, then they would lose. period. if the government is going to come in and with the corporate-directed, lobby-directed practice of mandating a specific technology -- just because it works better for the business practice of some large companies -- well, this is not in most people's interest.
the truculent refusal to admit the changing nature of content distribution and actions like this with digital TV on the part of existing content and hardware companies has already has created a vibrant black market for their products. luckly many people are building alternatives...
Like all technologies, the effects depend on how the technology is used. While there are issues of unfairness with random drops, one can *imagine* ways that (from TFA), "What is really necessary is to detect just the flows that need to slow down" - however, it would seem just as easily networks could "detect just the flows that need to slow down" based on who is paying more for that flow (the sender or the receiver) - leading to even more "unfairness" (read: non-neutral network a la net neutrality) than we currently have.
a big fat fiber connection at 100Gbps to my home
no flat monthly fee, instead 95% bandwidth billing over a while month (like used in colo facilities)
real time, web and RESTful interface to a control panel for my connection (so I can write and others can write friendly local clients for control) that will set my down and up stream connection speed throttle levels
options for web access and email delivery of pricing feedback for the useage I consume, so I can adjust my behavior. Warning emails if in a particular day I go about an expected price level, for example.
set up trust levels for users with deposit of credit that would allow them to up their speed levels above certain limits. If I put up a $1000 credit, let me put teh throttle at 100Gbit. For most home users, let them set the throttle to 6 or 10 Mbit. Charge them based on actual 95% bw level usage.
and how is this a surprise?
We live in a society, on the way to be adopted globally, where capitalism is interpreted so narrowly that we have only one linear metric for success: cash.
When you are a billionaire, you can pay for participating in situations where the pitcher tosses you softballs, and if they don't you have enough power to never have to go to bat with them again. Knowing this, the cowardly sheep in the media duly bend over and give deference to rich people. It's not wrong, it just is the way it is when money is the *only* metric we use to evaluate a person's value.
If you have not heard the phrase: "It's just business"
I read a lot of people stating in this forum "it's bad" and "it's a problem" when referring to the fact that people in other parts of the world illegally obtain a set of information and sell a product based on that information.
I ask, "bad for whom?"
Let's back up. The whole fiction of intellectual property exists for a very good reason. Within a society, there needs to be a way to reimburse creative works when the result of those works is primarily intellectual in nature: artistic expressions, brands, and inventions. So, as a society, have this socially understood and agreed-upon deal, that looks different for copyright, trademarks and patents but at the core the deal is the same: exclusivity to profit for some time in return for the intellectual result.
The problem I see with the "it's bad" assertions in this case that as a whole globe, there is no shared society, and there is no socially understood deal about fictitious property, globally. Maybe humans will get there someday - and have some shared agreement of global humanity with common norms and behaviors and laws. WIPO aside, and efforts to get there notwithstanding, . . . personally, I think that in that kind of world it means there is only one right way to live, and I think that will be bad for humans. I think having different places, different countries, (maybe someday different planets) where the rules and norms and languages are entirely separate and distinct - is a very good thing. Such diversity makes us more robust as a species. Tough noogies if that makes mega-corporate globalized business more challenging.
To answer my rhetorical question above, the balance of what intellectual property is today so far swayed toward the interests of large corporate organizations, the answer seems pretty clear to me - this kind of theft is bad for very large corporations - basically the only entities who would realistically be hurt by lack of sales from patent infringement in distant regions of the world. For everyone else, 'it's just business.'
I would like to see no carry ons - one personal briefcase/purse only.
of course this would also require the whole airline system treat checked bags differently- with much more care and respect so nothing was lost or broken or stolen...
ok forget it. bad idea.
How about guns on planes, for everyone? That might speed up certain passengers.
"Doing law enforcement is getting harder, so let's change the rules"
I see this now in almost every arena of law enforcement... and for good reason. It *is* getting harder to do low enforcement. The thought process is something like this: "As law enforcement, we know we're failing; we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect." Basically enforcing laws is a traditional behavior. It is the way to maintain stability and control on society and in a similar way that traditions maintain cultural norms. Traditional behaviors are the antithesis of innovation.
Technology is changing at a breakneck pace, and increasing in the speed of change. It is hard, nigh impossible for large, bureaucratic, rules-based organizations to keep pace with innovation in technology, and the concomitant adoption by criminals.
The disturbing thing is that instead of law enforcement innovating to keep up with the demands of the job, many in law enforcement have lobbied successfully to change the rules of the game. This is most true in the United States over the last five years with the tired dirge: "give up your liberties or the terrorists will win".
I think the correct solution is to change the way we do law enforcement. Change the people who do it. Make smaller, more nimble organizations. Change the speed with which law enforcement operates. Remove entrenched, non-technical savvy deadweight from organizations. Incorporate the latest technology. Change quickly with the rest of society and keep the fundamental principles that make open society possible and successful.
And for christ's sakes, please stop degrading people by forcing them to take off their clothing and shoes to board an airplane. I know, it seems totally off topic, but the same idea we can't really stop the criminals, so let's treat everyone as a suspect.
They "detect" it the same way we "know" now that only 5% of the Universe is matter we can detect and the rest is boogy- man style "dark energy" and "dark matter". It is the most probable explanation given the prevailing consistent and agreed upon set of understandings (stories) by leading rational scientists.
This is not optimal, but is the unfortunate result of extremism within the anti-rational camp (including religious fundamentalists of all the major religions) that cause the other camp (rational scientists) to also become extreme - huddling together to present consistency of thought and theory to rebuff the insanity driving the extreme nature of the opposing camp. Closer to reality is that astrophysics and most modern physics today have some extremely serious problems with making all the data that has been collected and verified fit together. By all, I'm mean to include data from quantum size scales with light-year scales and near-zero energy with very high energy, femto-seconds to years. Most data works amazingly well, while other data consistently does not match.
So, in order to present a consistent theory that is not assailable by luddites and those that would use seemingly believable arguments and descriptions of Universal truths for their own ends, many scientists understandably have developed an anti-scientific bent that provides consistency and certainty in their scientific story. A consistent story drives funding. It drives papers. It drives tenure. It drives careers, lectures, salaries, and status. It keeps the system going for scietists to keep doing academic science, which *is* a good thing. This is just how academia works, even when what is really needed in scientific exploration and, mostly, physics today is more unabashed non consistency and non conformism to established physics laws to deal with various inconsistent and conflicting data.
yawp.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
America is suffering from anti-rationalism
You are selectively trying to reframe this discussion, and I will no longer engage with you. From my point of view, you are perpetuating obviously false claims while avoiding the larger picture. I strongly disagree with you on many points.
No, there is no conspiracy. The sentence about permission was within the context of a possible future, as was written in my statement "Once that becomes the norm". You've assumed a position I do not have by selectively misinterpreting one half of one sentence and then, with that assumed position, asserting a false point of view for me throughout what I wrote. Nice. It makes it not worth the effort to deal with you.
As far as I can tell, there are no liability issues for retailers regarding selling items that are also removed by having untrained checkstand operators looking at IDs. Most likely there are financial issues for the company from chargebacks but again, these are private organizations, and individuals have a choice to conduct business with them. Private organizations can do what they choose within the law; Best Buy is not the issue here.
Yes, there are a variety of different data collection efforts in the government, many open and lawful, some overtly illegal, some challenged, and probably many that remain secret. By stating, "There is no data collection " you eliminate your credibility.
Trying to dismiss someone as hysterical with a personal attack is the refuge taken when there is no rational or reasonable ways to refute the point. The articles I reference are clear on the situation.
Uninformed, perhaps. (which is why I related a story about getting some information!)
However, with your reply you seem to have missed some of the points about how the US system was designed to work. Granted the country pretty far from it now, so it is understandable, but I'll explain.
Certainly I'm not resorting to personal attacks to make my points. Where, exactly, was there a conspiracy theory?
The 4th amendment issue I have (above the problem of the current system) is the search I would receive when traveling without presenting an ID (and the one I get now even with an ID). The intent of the amendment is extremely clear: the government will leave you alone unless you are doing something wrong. If a private business is conducting a service that only works technically if participants are searched, then it is up to them to ensure the safety of their service, NOT the federal government.
To think there are not privacy issues with the current system is absurd.
I'm not concerned with the Airline policies. These are private organizations and I have choice to engage or participate with them. I do not have a choice to participate in the federal government which is why we have (rather, had) so many protections against abuses of its power.
You wrote: So Best Buy, the grocery store, hotels, and bars are part of the government now? I must have missed the passage of that bill. That seems a non sequitur. How do you conclude that? They are obviously not part of the government, which is why their requirement for ID is wrong when offering private services to individuals. Bars do scan id numbers now, and other businesses may well follow suit.
You wrote: to show that you are the party authorized to represent yourself as the named party. What kind of legal blather is that??? What does "authorized to represent myself" even mean? I have a physical body and that is really all the authorization one needs to represent ones self. Think: "Hi, I'm me!" As for my name, if I'm doing nothing wrong, then it's none of the government's business. The points you so eloquently omitted are the data gathering, filtering, and overt surveillance activities that the "named party" is now a-partyin' in because of this system.
And, in a final note, "talking to my representative" does not work: it is simply not a functional activity. Not only do they have neither time nor interest in communicating with the populous, they have thoroughly abrogated their responsibility to uphold the law.
For example, see
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/020108Lindorff.shtml
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/opinion/30wed1.html?hp
What's amazing, is you wrote a reply with the clear implication that you were refuting my points, and calling me a "conspiracy theorist", but in fact, my main points remain untouched:
1) ID is not required to fly
2) The USA TSA agents at airports lie to your face about it
Furthermore, the US federal governement does conduct searches in obvious violation of the 4th amendment for everyone who flies.
While some may try to minimize my choices as "meaningless", I will continue to stand up for my rights in any way I still can.
I was in the LAX Thursday and had a nice, 10-minute conversation with the "big-kahuna" TSA person behind the desk and she confirmed, (only on being pressed) that photo id is NOT REQUIRED to fly in the US.
At first she said it was, "You gotta show your id", "ID is required"... she said it several times. But I pressed. I said, "what if I don't have one, I lost it, or left it at home? What if I'm a foreigner from a place without government IDs?" At first I left out the obvious privacy and search issues. She says, "Well, then we do a full search of you and your bags and let you fly." Bingo! (It took me almost 5 minutes before she would admit this existed) So I continue: "What if I show up and say, 'I don't want to show ID. I don't think I need permission from the government to fly.' " She says, "Well, then we turn you away". This went on for a while, and it became clear (to me) that their mission is to "lie" to my face and get me voluntarily show ID even though I'm not legally REQUIRED to at the checkpoint. The conversation was witnessed by at first 2 then about 4 other people from TSA. She did not agree with my assessment that "ID is required" is effectively a lie, but she did agree that people could fly without it, and pretty soon she said, "You gotta go talk to your government representative" not realizing that with a big TSA badge on, she WAS representing the government.
So, from now on, I have lost my ID. Really, I'm not sure where it is I will take the extra hour at the airport. It sucks to spend the hour and make them follow their inane search circus policy.... but the alternative is much worse. I've been asked for photo ID at best buy, hotels, grocery stores, bars, on and on -- all just to do the my daily life activities I want to do. Once that becomes the norm, we'll need government permission to do anything. Unless people realize the problem and start telling people "no, I'd rather not" when asked for ID, this problem will continue to get worse.
Now instead of getting random users to see goatse, users will be trying to get specific people to view a pic of their now-dead grandma hosted on flickr.
Most of the traditions we have in a non-network-connected world were created and exist because of barriers that now have much less meaning. While I commend them for holding their traditions, it seems a bit misplaced.
First off, people online are going to make friends and connections based on personalities and interests, not physical proximity to their tribal members - very quickly people will be trading accounts and passing information around outside the system. Worse, putting such complex access restrictions in place make it a tempting target for insiders to divulge secrets or for other data breaches and access attacks.
You imply here that you are a counter example to my statement. I think you are not: you are giving away free loss leader downloads to get the rewards you want: minimal money from physical CDs and the enjoyment in sharing your work.
If you're "breaking even" then you're not doing something free (financially) as I meant it.
Not sure, but I assume you have some other money-generating habit or job, which is financing your free giveaways? Who pays your server power bill, the rent, your food bill, buys your instruments, your server, recording equipment, music education, beers on Friday night, etc. etc. etc.
By "doesn't work" -> I mean that the group, service, or product will eventually stop, because people giving their time, energy, and attention will move on to other things having exhausted their reserves of money that allows them to work on the free thing. If it doesn't stop, then someone is paying for the energy people put in.
Your point is well made, that the statement does not apply to individual effort. I was talking more about groups, and services or products requiring mutiple inputs and focus from different people to produce.
Mostly I agree with you. I'm working to change the ways artists can be reimbursed for their efforts.
And security... well... I assume you mean a local police force
Not quite: I mean a relatively high chance your needs will continue to be met in the future. As in, "secure" in your situation in life. In our world, that usually means having money or liquid resources (especially as you age and get less functional) or having friends and family around that can support you.
Thus, killing in general is a completely morally neutral action.
I agree mostly with your post.
The problem will occur in the future, when there are machines, running software that we wrote acting in fully- or semi-autonomous modes attacking other machines and people. Wars will quickly come to machine v. machine between advanced powers in unconventional ways and on nontraditional battlegrounds.
In this world, programmers who release code into the world, free, public domain, whatever, would benefit from having the choice to prevent their creative efforts from being used to perpetuate and increase violence.
I did miss your satire... but there are a lot of people, especially younger people (under 30) who have a warped sense of value for things online.
Many great things online are "free" to the user: Google search results, Facebook profiles, Yahoo events listings, attending Meetup groups, and on and on. So much so that many users are attuned to the idea that all the stuff online could be, it "should be" free for them. But someone is paying all those people who created these services, usually, in a parallel to the broken US medical system, the bill is being paid by a third party. Kmart and Sears are paying for those free search results on Google. This is the great breakthrough that made Google the giant they are: a third-party payer system for Internet services.
The satirical call you made sounds very much like many people who make the same call seriously, after seeing all the great, third-party-financed "free" stuff online and expect that everything "should" be free.
After being part of the founding of 2 nonprofits, and working many years in offering free and near-free services, I've come to the following general conclusion:
"Free does not work long term".
What I mean is complex, and it includes many different factors. First off, living and existing requires money: for food, shelter, power, and security. There's no avoiding it. Getting great people to devote (significant) time onto projects requires that they be paid. If not, the great people go elsewhere. For short times, and for specific initiatives, one can get remarkable, free contributions: but it doesn't last very long. There needs to be a financial element to any project or organization that will create value and last long term.
The second thing to realize is that for the long-term services and groups that we do see that are both great and free to you (eg Linux, apache, public parks, etc. etc.) - someone is paying, but it's just not you. There is typically just some kind of cost shifting going on. It is either the programmer who voluntarily spending their time, the foundation donors giving money to pay the staff, EFF staff fighting to keep legal protections available, or taxation programs paying for public services.
There are increasing awareness now among people that there are several other forms of value getting passed around online that are not cash: for example (1) people's time and attention, and (2) social capital/connections and relationships, and others. When you incorporate these factors as ones of own value, then it becomes clear that absolutely nothing is "free". Someone does work to make and organize things, and they need to be paid back, or they will (eventually) move their efforts elsewhere. That payment back does not necessarily need to be only in cash: it can be in attention, credit, or other items or actions they find valuable. That said, for most artists and content creators making great work, they do need cash in order to continue to spend their time making high quality content.
To those who understand pacifism, it is obvious that violence caused "Hitler", from his childhood, and onward through the degradation of Germany in WWI. This is difficult to argue in discussion because it speaks to human personality and behavior.
Unfortunately, bringing up the "Hitler" in a rational discussion is a strong indicator of dealing with disturbed individuals, and it does typically end the useful discussion.
I'm not strictly a pacifist. I don't agree with the statement "violence never solves anything" first because it is an absolute, but mostly, I would use violence: when a criminal breaks into my home and starts after my family, I would use violence without hesitation.
However, to me it is clear that violence begets more violence, every time. Sooner or later, those who are on the receiving end of the stick want to fight back. It sometimes comes back at the perpetrator, but most often does not. People do the "third-cat" routine, and release their anger on third parties, usually weaker ones. It is stopping this pattern that I would seek to change, to encourage non violent solutions wherever possible and prevent those controlled from reacting violently to others.
I'd love to see a software license that says something to the effect of "This software will not be used to wage war or to kill any humans".
As I recall, the computer very much wanted to play chess, not war. In a beautiful commentary on human stupidity and aggression it was the person who forced the computer to play war. It was the point of the movie.
software will automatically "heal itself," retrieving the information
Anthropomorphizing technology is rather misleading... especially in this case, "when death is on the line!"
why would you want to give robots feelings?
because we have an evolved system (humans) that use feelings to derive purpose, and from purpose we get concerted action and progress. having purpose within robots would be nice.
If we want robots to be autonomous and broadly (generally) functional and productive in the real world, some analog to human emotions would (could) be useful. these analogs probably would not be called "emotions" nor would they have the biological drivers or effects that human emotions have - but the result on behavior would be similar: within the robot, the "emotions" would provide generalized internal feedback about success or failure of actions and goal achievment. They would still be algorithmic, yet meeting the criteria for positive "emotions" would allow the robot to generate internal goals, and work to achieve them without external instuctions to achieve some immutable, and inaccessible metrics: the robots' "emotions". These "emotions" in a robot would be used to create separation internally in the processing system, much the same way humans have conscious and sub-conscious separation, and the emotions are subconscious.
I've almost eliminated ads from my life. Not branding, unfortunately, but paid placements, mostly gone.
I don't own a TV. Cron-job-updated hosts file on my computers. Usually I don't drive or see billboards when I do. I read magazines online (without ads). Ads in theatres ended those outings.
When ads do reach me now, I think - "damn, they did a hell of a lot to try and get me to see this" - and conclude it must be something I don't want. The better I can recall an ad for a product, most like the less I choose to buy it.
There are far better models of living than everyone pushing shit onto everyone else that they don't need and who otherwise wouldn't want it. The capitalist system wastes unbelievable amounts of effort getting people to buy stuff they simply would be better off without.
As for a shopping cart spewing ad drivel into my perceptual field while I tried to shop for food, well, such an electronic device probably wouldn't stay working for very long at all.