Certain things about interfaces are absolutely intuitive, such as clicking on/touching a picture representing the task you want the device to perform.
Others are quasi-arbitrary, with the rest coming from what is now common. Green for go, red for stop. Certain things under a file menu. A QWERTY keyboard layout.
These things that we're talking about - they all fall into these two subsets of obvious solutions; solutions that have become the absolute standard, and without which, the technology in general is crippled and unusable to many people.
How can you have competition to build a better mousetrap when one company says that you can't build mousetraps at all?
Three years of this and Amazon won't even bother waiting for you to place your orders, the page will just popup 'Based on purchase history, we have boxed the following and just await confirmation to deliver them to your door in 3 hours.'
Five years from now, it will be fraud if you aren't home in three hours to receive your package.
He may have gotten his start in the public realm, but he's sure gone private these days.
Of course, that doesn't mean that this sort of technology won't be used for other purposes eventually. Since we already have thoughtcrime, the next step will be to wire these things us to cameras on the street.
Yeah, it sounds tin foil hat to me too - or would, if I hadn't experienced the changes over the last few decades.
What I, at least try to do, with some modicum of success, is to keep things at a fairly high level, and not drill down into what the specific technologies are, and what they do.
What I usually do is provide a very brief history of the 'net; that it is an inherently open and distributed framework, due to the original DARPA and MILNET requirements that it be a network that survive a nuclear attack, and also, due to the fact that the other primary original component, BITNET, grew in an disorderly and... ah... bitwise... manner as universities hooked up to each other.
Once this is established, I make the point that what DC is trying to do with all of their 'net legislation is effectively provide centralized control of a decentralized system. Even if my listener doesn't understand the technology completely, if presented correctly, it seems that it often makes sense at an intuitive level that the DC approach can't work well to start with, and that it attempts to impose an inordinate level of control over the net in general. It also allows me to explain why it won't work anyway for those who really do want to steal IP, and why darknets and such will still be possible.
Of course, your millage will very with your audience.
Or to put it another way, absolute security is absolutely impossible, no matter how much freedom you give up.
Watchlist the heck out of the guy, but until he at least purchased the bomb materials, you can't arrest him and call it anything other than an arrest for thought crime.
A shopping list is still in the realm of twisted fantasy.
If he'd actually bought anything on it, then it goes beyond thought crime.
It did not.
This guy should have absolutely been put on a watchlist. But it doesn't sound like he actually, you know, actually took action on his bent thought process.
Well, I did read the article, and the guy hadn't broken any laws. He had not rendered material aid to terrorists, nor had he actually built any bombs, nor shot anyone.
He's probably not a savory character, and probably should be on a watchlist. But probably not jailed for acting at the same level as say a white supremacist survival nut (who should also be on a watchlist).
Slashdot Mirror
Then I'm sure that there will be a market for a cunning linguist model.
(Somebody had to say it. You know you thought about saying it. I just did it for you.)
Jail time for ninjas?
Import tariffs for overseas gold farmers?
Sales tax on the WoW auction house?
Income tax on raid loot?
I guess all the Cialis and Extends commercials, and "get bigger" spam campaigns work well on military brass...
Certain things about interfaces are absolutely intuitive, such as clicking on/touching a picture representing the task you want the device to perform.
Others are quasi-arbitrary, with the rest coming from what is now common. Green for go, red for stop. Certain things under a file menu. A QWERTY keyboard layout.
These things that we're talking about - they all fall into these two subsets of obvious solutions; solutions that have become the absolute standard, and without which, the technology in general is crippled and unusable to many people.
How can you have competition to build a better mousetrap when one company says that you can't build mousetraps at all?
Three years of this and Amazon won't even bother waiting for you to place your orders, the page will just popup 'Based on purchase history, we have boxed the following and just await confirmation to deliver them to your door in 3 hours.'
Five years from now, it will be fraud if you aren't home in three hours to receive your package.
You listed step 2. Now it'll never work. It's like having a 999,999:1 or a 1,000,001:1 chance - those never work either.
He may have gotten his start in the public realm, but he's sure gone private these days.
Of course, that doesn't mean that this sort of technology won't be used for other purposes eventually. Since we already have thought crime, the next step will be to wire these things us to cameras on the street.
Yeah, it sounds tin foil hat to me too - or would, if I hadn't experienced the changes over the last few decades.
Rather, it seems like Apple is claiming ownership the entire concept of a tablet.
On the one hand, Samsung is getting nailed because they are using pretty standard tablet/smartphone user interfaces that Apple claims ownership of.
On the other hand, they're in trouble because they're not allowed to claim whole and full ownership of certain standard 3G technologies.
Regardless, I thought that Republicans at least pretended to be all about people getting paid for the fruit of their labors....
You left out their biggest seller: advertisement.
... he was more of a Dead Kennedys fan anyway....
Guilty as charged. True nevertheless.
*grumbles at spell checker*
Interesting etiology: The word privilege comes from private law.
Newt and those in his circle have it, and aren't used to being told they have to follow the same rules that the rest of us do.
What I, at least try to do, with some modicum of success, is to keep things at a fairly high level, and not drill down into what the specific technologies are, and what they do.
What I usually do is provide a very brief history of the 'net; that it is an inherently open and distributed framework, due to the original DARPA and MILNET requirements that it be a network that survive a nuclear attack, and also, due to the fact that the other primary original component, BITNET, grew in an disorderly and... ah... bitwise... manner as universities hooked up to each other.
Once this is established, I make the point that what DC is trying to do with all of their 'net legislation is effectively provide centralized control of a decentralized system. Even if my listener doesn't understand the technology completely, if presented correctly, it seems that it often makes sense at an intuitive level that the DC approach can't work well to start with, and that it attempts to impose an inordinate level of control over the net in general. It also allows me to explain why it won't work anyway for those who really do want to steal IP, and why darknets and such will still be possible.
Of course, your millage will very with your audience.
And that message is, "We are watching everything now. Everything."
Because, you know, the best way to make a hungry man work harder for his food is to push him right over into starvation....
That is the risk one pays for freedom.
Or to put it another way, absolute security is absolutely impossible, no matter how much freedom you give up.
Watchlist the heck out of the guy, but until he at least purchased the bomb materials, you can't arrest him and call it anything other than an arrest for thought crime.
Just wait till it goes recursive:
Unlawful possession of the knowledge that there is unlawful knowledge to be had...
Another way to phrase "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is "be not afraid".
It means that we can and should be fearless.
Oppression? Don't fear it, fight it.
A shopping list is still in the realm of twisted fantasy.
If he'd actually bought anything on it, then it goes beyond thought crime.
It did not.
This guy should have absolutely been put on a watchlist. But it doesn't sound like he actually, you know, actually took action on his bent thought process.
I have no doubts that he had terrorist fantasies.
However, until actual action is taken along those lines, it's still just thought crime.
Oh, thanks a bunch.
Now you've turned all of us into terrorists by asking us for help hiding out.
Well, I did read the article, and the guy hadn't broken any laws. He had not rendered material aid to terrorists, nor had he actually built any bombs, nor shot anyone.
He's probably not a savory character, and probably should be on a watchlist. But probably not jailed for acting at the same level as say a white supremacist survival nut (who should also be on a watchlist).