What worries me about patches like this, is their potential requirement by the workplace or, more upsetting, the government. Then it is a threat to free speech.
Hmm... Are you seriously saying that a requirement by your workplace not to send any flames from your office account is an infringement on your free speech?
In my opinion, it is quite reasonable for an employer to require of his employees that they adhere to a minimum of politeness when representing the company.
Now, if the employer required you to install the filter on your home PC, and to use it even in your unofficial correspondence, then we could talk about free-speech limitations.
But, like it or not, when you accept employment, you must also accept a commitment to certain standards of courtesy while you're on "company time".
One final point: The flame meter does not block a mail - it merely flags it, and asks you whether you really want to send it. It gives you a chance to think things over, before committing yourself to "print". In my opinion, this can never be an infringement of free speech, since it can be overridden by the user.
If you actually bother to read the PDF-file referenced in the story, you will see that the author of the white paper, David Kaufer, makes it clear that this is not "big brother software" he is proposing.
"The use of a flame meter needs to be a voluntary act," he points out - and underlines his point that the purpose of the algorithm is to assist a writer in identifying potentially hurtful text, not to prevent him from writing it.
In my experience, one often has a completely different view of one's text than the readers. Having created the text, and knowing what it was intended to communicate, one can easily become blind to the other interpretations that the recipients can put on one's words.
I'm not sure I'd use a flame meter filter, myself, but I certainly can't see that it's a threat against anyone's free speech. On the contrary, it can probably be a very valuable tool to assist writers in making sure that they are getting their message across to others.
Okay, so we're so far off-topic that I find it reasonable to comment on the following:
"But the Roman Empire collapsed because they had spread themselves too thin, and didn't have enough soldiers to control such a lot of territory."
Actually, there have been a lot of theories advanced over the years as to why "the Roman Empire collapsed". Everything from lead poisoning to inadequate infrastructure.
However, over recent decades a number of historians have begun to question the basic assumption, and ask: Did the Roman Empire collapse?
It is inarguable that the Western Roman imperial power waned - but Eastern Rome (Byzantium) lived on with vigour until 1453. And, though there were no actual emperors in the West, there was no breakdown of Roman society - it continued, in an unbroken (albeit gradually modified) thread up through the centuries. Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800, and he can justly be said to have taken over a culture that was an unbroken inheritor of the Rome of old.
I could go on, but suffice to say that Rome never really fell - it lived on in its inheritors.
"...or it should not be a crime in the first place"?
Look, like it or not, society's rules are clear enough. Someone who cracks knows that he is committing an illegal action (or, if he doesn't, then he should be locked up for criminal stupidity).
We could debate whether a particular action should be criminalised or not - but that is what the entire legislative system is set up to do. Whatever we decide is immaterial, unless we can make the legislative system follow suit.
Now, I will be the first to stipulate that there are numerous crimes on the books that in my opinion are stupid and counterproductive at best, and downright unjust at worst. That does not change the fact that if I choose to deliberately set myself above those laws, I am asking for the full weight of society's retribution to come down on me.
There are situations where defying the law can be a reasonable thing to do. But when you get caught, it's time to pay the piper - and one of the prices you pay for breaking security is that nobody will ever trust you with important stuff again.
I think we're going to be seeing a lot of this - new technology masquerading as old tech.
Look at the e-book formats - there's no practical reason why an e-book should open like a traditional book. That design was made for bound sheets of paper, not for a single electronic display surface and a cover. Nevertheless, e-book designers who forego the oldfashioned "opening book" design are asking for trouble.
What I'm getting at is that what we're seeing is new technology being deliberately designed to evoke the traditional tech. The point, I suppose, is that people are comfortable with the old tech, and that designers are trying not to scare them too much by offering them a total redesign. Instead, they are getting "masquerade tech", which appears innocuously similar to stuff they are already familiar with.
Now, back in the Hugo Gernsback days, in the early days of our fascination with high-tech, people couldn't get things futuristic enough - even the cars had wings, flanges and all kinds of totally superfluous stuff. Heck, even the refrigerators looked like space stations.
So, what has changed? Why do people suddenly feel more comfortable with old-fashioned usage paradigms, favouring them over futuristic design?
My guess is that it has to do with the acceleration of technological change. People are beginning to feel the psychological crunch of the fast-approaching Singularity, and they are reacting by seeking comfort in traditional modes of thought.
If I'm right, we'll see more of this, not less. As the pace of technological change accelerates, the popularity of masquerade tech should increase.
Of course, I could be wrong, and this could be just another fashion fad. I doubt it, though - I think this is a more deply rooted phenomenon.
Several of the posters in this thread have spoken with passion of the rights of convicted criminals to resume normal lives. I have seen no posts saying that they should not.
However, normal lives are one thing - but nowhere does it say that they have the right to do whatever they like.
Personally, there are a lot of professions that I'd love to be able to pursue - but for which I am unemployable for various reasons (I can't be an astronaut, for instance, because there are plenty more fit candidates).
Some of these professions I am ineligible for, because of a single "mistake" in my past. I can't be an architect because I chose to study history instead.
Do I have the right to demand that I be given a job as an architect, from the reasoning that "a single mistake in my past should not be allowed to determine the rest of my life"?
Of course not. To employ me as an architect would be foolish, and any company that I applied to would be perfectly within their rights to judge me an unacceptable risk in that job.
In other words, it is the company's decision who to hire, so long as they decided on the basis of objective criteria - i.e. can you do the job satisfactorily, and without constituting an unacceptable risk?
Convicted hackers have shown that, at least once in their lives, they were security risks. Like it or not, that makes them unemployable by all but the most risk-willing employers.
A reputation for trustworthiness is an asset, and a fragile thing. Break it, and it is not magically restored when you get out of jail.
Certainly, there are manmade objects that have lasted that long.
Just think of all the paleolithic stone tools that have been found. They're pretty primitive, but there can be no doubt that they are manmade.
But, this is beside the point - the real question is whether humanity will even be around, 50,000 years from now.
After all, even if you're not a subscriber to linear evolutionary progression, and not the more radical theories of the imminence of the Singularity, you have to admit that humanity has changed a great deal since the Paleolithic. It is only reasonable to assume that the same will be true of the coming 50 millennia.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Are you seriously saying that a requirement by your workplace not to send any flames from your office account is an infringement on your free speech?
In my opinion, it is quite reasonable for an employer to require of his employees that they adhere to a minimum of politeness when representing the company.
Now, if the employer required you to install the filter on your home PC, and to use it even in your unofficial correspondence, then we could talk about free-speech limitations.
But, like it or not, when you accept employment, you must also accept a commitment to certain standards of courtesy while you're on "company time".
One final point: The flame meter does not block a mail - it merely flags it, and asks you whether you really want to send it. It gives you a chance to think things over, before committing yourself to "print". In my opinion, this can never be an infringement of free speech, since it can be overridden by the user.
- Ravn
...let's be reasonable.
If you actually bother to read the PDF-file referenced in the story, you will see that the author of the white paper, David Kaufer, makes it clear that this is not "big brother software" he is proposing.
"The use of a flame meter needs to be a voluntary act," he points out - and underlines his point that the purpose of the algorithm is to assist a writer in identifying potentially hurtful text, not to prevent him from writing it.
In my experience, one often has a completely different view of one's text than the readers. Having created the text, and knowing what it was intended to communicate, one can easily become blind to the other interpretations that the recipients can put on one's words.
I'm not sure I'd use a flame meter filter, myself, but I certainly can't see that it's a threat against anyone's free speech. On the contrary, it can probably be a very valuable tool to assist writers in making sure that they are getting their message across to others.
- Ravn
Okay, so we're so far off-topic that I find it reasonable to comment on the following:
Actually, there have been a lot of theories advanced over the years as to why "the Roman Empire collapsed". Everything from lead poisoning to inadequate infrastructure.
However, over recent decades a number of historians have begun to question the basic assumption, and ask: Did the Roman Empire collapse?
It is inarguable that the Western Roman imperial power waned - but Eastern Rome (Byzantium) lived on with vigour until 1453. And, though there were no actual emperors in the West, there was no breakdown of Roman society - it continued, in an unbroken (albeit gradually modified) thread up through the centuries. Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800, and he can justly be said to have taken over a culture that was an unbroken inheritor of the Rome of old.
I could go on, but suffice to say that Rome never really fell - it lived on in its inheritors.
"...or it should not be a crime in the first place"?
Look, like it or not, society's rules are clear enough. Someone who cracks knows that he is committing an illegal action (or, if he doesn't, then he should be locked up for criminal stupidity).
We could debate whether a particular action should be criminalised or not - but that is what the entire legislative system is set up to do. Whatever we decide is immaterial, unless we can make the legislative system follow suit.
Now, I will be the first to stipulate that there are numerous crimes on the books that in my opinion are stupid and counterproductive at best, and downright unjust at worst. That does not change the fact that if I choose to deliberately set myself above those laws, I am asking for the full weight of society's retribution to come down on me.
There are situations where defying the law can be a reasonable thing to do. But when you get caught, it's time to pay the piper - and one of the prices you pay for breaking security is that nobody will ever trust you with important stuff again.
I think we're going to be seeing a lot of this - new technology masquerading as old tech.
Look at the e-book formats - there's no practical reason why an e-book should open like a traditional book. That design was made for bound sheets of paper, not for a single electronic display surface and a cover. Nevertheless, e-book designers who forego the oldfashioned "opening book" design are asking for trouble.
What I'm getting at is that what we're seeing is new technology being deliberately designed to evoke the traditional tech. The point, I suppose, is that people are comfortable with the old tech, and that designers are trying not to scare them too much by offering them a total redesign. Instead, they are getting "masquerade tech", which appears innocuously similar to stuff they are already familiar with.
Now, back in the Hugo Gernsback days, in the early days of our fascination with high-tech, people couldn't get things futuristic enough - even the cars had wings, flanges and all kinds of totally superfluous stuff. Heck, even the refrigerators looked like space stations.
So, what has changed? Why do people suddenly feel more comfortable with old-fashioned usage paradigms, favouring them over futuristic design?
My guess is that it has to do with the acceleration of technological change. People are beginning to feel the psychological crunch of the fast-approaching Singularity, and they are reacting by seeking comfort in traditional modes of thought.
If I'm right, we'll see more of this, not less. As the pace of technological change accelerates, the popularity of masquerade tech should increase.
Of course, I could be wrong, and this could be just another fashion fad. I doubt it, though - I think this is a more deply rooted phenomenon.
Several of the posters in this thread have spoken with passion of the rights of convicted criminals to resume normal lives. I have seen no posts saying that they should not.
However, normal lives are one thing - but nowhere does it say that they have the right to do whatever they like.
Personally, there are a lot of professions that I'd love to be able to pursue - but for which I am unemployable for various reasons (I can't be an astronaut, for instance, because there are plenty more fit candidates).
Some of these professions I am ineligible for, because of a single "mistake" in my past. I can't be an architect because I chose to study history instead.
Do I have the right to demand that I be given a job as an architect, from the reasoning that "a single mistake in my past should not be allowed to determine the rest of my life"?
Of course not. To employ me as an architect would be foolish, and any company that I applied to would be perfectly within their rights to judge me an unacceptable risk in that job.
In other words, it is the company's decision who to hire, so long as they decided on the basis of objective criteria - i.e. can you do the job satisfactorily, and without constituting an unacceptable risk?
Convicted hackers have shown that, at least once in their lives, they were security risks. Like it or not, that makes them unemployable by all but the most risk-willing employers.
A reputation for trustworthiness is an asset, and a fragile thing. Break it, and it is not magically restored when you get out of jail.
- Ravn
Certainly, there are manmade objects that have lasted that long.
Just think of all the paleolithic stone tools that have been found. They're pretty primitive, but there can be no doubt that they are manmade.
But, this is beside the point - the real question is whether humanity will even be around, 50,000 years from now.
After all, even if you're not a subscriber to linear evolutionary progression, and not the more radical theories of the imminence of the Singularity, you have to admit that humanity has changed a great deal since the Paleolithic. It is only reasonable to assume that the same will be true of the coming 50 millennia.
-Ravn (born_to_live_forever)