Debian has users that will continue to use it for a long, long time. I was just talking with someone who still uses potato on their email server. Potato! I know I'll probably end up using debian or some derivative of it until either I die or all the modern day computers die. Debian is simply not going to go away because you don't like it, or becase it doesn't do multimedia as well as ubuntu[1], games as well as windows[2], doesn't optimize as well as gentoo, or whathaveyou; it serves a purpose, and the fact that it's still got life shows that this purpose is an important one, that many people are striving for.
Wanting to be able to legally[4] *use* a computer, and wanting to be free to make changes to it, and to share your work is not simply an 'annoying' attitude; it's a necessary result of years of working with computers[3], seeing how one's actions and the similar actions of their peers impact the rest of the world.
Second; not all the things you can do with a computer involve multimedia. There's a lot of serious research, and work that needs the help of computers; For these applications you do not need win32 codecs, or resource-hogging compiz; you just need a working operating system. Debian is ideal for this situation, because you only have as much graphical overhead as you want, and either have the tools you need, or the open platform to develop them on.
[1] ubuntu is a debian fork anyway. the whole point about debian is that you can fork it, like ubuntu has, and be successful; and then the next guy can come along, and do the exact same thing. It's the baseline; the absolute minnimum. If you're distro of choice isn't as good as debian it's either optimized highly in one direction, or it's not a serious distro.
[2] Windows is dying! netcraft confirms!
[3] And years of doing difficult tasks, which inevidably require the use of a computer.
[4] Barring the country you live in becomming a third world dictatorship(more plausible than debian dying off), of course.
Somebody has to do distribution, production and word of the work has to get out somehow; it can either be done with the hands and tools of employees of an industry (in the case of movies and music) who are not just stuck in a mid-20th century system filled with inefficiency and graft; but all too trigger happy in sending SWAT teams and lawyers after innocent people...or it can be done with free agents, choosing to trade information in a free market. Take your choice.
The real freeloaders are people who take one copy, and never distribute it to the rest of the world. People who are on the p2p nets and who do *not* share anything in return. People who shop for music at walmart. They are, for the most part, information and culture sinks.
Who has that right? I don't remember seeing that one before. Actually that's not true; Michael Harrington mentions something similar, saying that it's insufficient, and we have to ask for more. But that's somewhat of a herring so I'll give rest at that.
"By laying open that which someone has taken pains to conceal,"
Now let me get this straight; becuase someone went to a lot of effort to conceal something, that something should be protected? On the contrary, it's the things that are concealed like so that are the exact things that should be under scrutiny. Enron comes to mind. So does halocaust denial. People conceal these sorts of things all the time, and that is certainly counterexample to such an argument. The rest of your post seemed context specific, which I'm not particularily concerned about.
Privacy must exist because all people are different and cannot refrain from judging others or exerting control over them out of self-interest
I'll grant that people are different, but I don't see how "judging others or excerting control over them" necessarily follows from that. It's likely, but not seemingly necessary. And while I'm now going to assume that you are self-interested, control-hungry and irrationally intolerant, at least you gave what I asked for; a moral justification.
"Therefore people have a right to attempt to control what others know about them."
Because people are naturally so power-hungry and naturally evil, that we should control what they know about us. But that argument works the other way, if people are so naturally evil, then shouldn't I be able to see exactly what they are doing at all times; wouldn't it make more sense for them to be subject to scrutiny so that if they choose to give in to their impulses for power, they will be caught and known for it to me?
"Privacy must also exist because not everyone is honorable. If you believe that privacy has no moral justification, then I challenge you to post here all the credentials someone here would need in order to open a line of credit in your name."
I'd say dishonourable people should be watched. I don't want to protect their dishonest ways by protecting their privacy.
As for whatever information that would allow a line of credit to be granted, believe me, my credit is strained to the limit and there isn't a bank or financial institution that I can find that will lend me(or anyone claiming to be me) any more money. It would be a collossal waste of time for me to give away such information, both for me, and whoever would try to use it. Although to tell the truth I don't know exactly what information would be involved, exactly. I've tried to get more loans and I've gotten what I believe is possible under my current condition.
As for similarily key information, such as my credit card number, online trading account passwords, and SaskTel corporate information, I've signed agreements giving my word that I would not disclose them. As much as I value civility, and as much as it annoys me being unable to disclose them, I value keeping my word and sticking to agreements I make more. It was a mistake to sign up to their service, due to that term, perhaps, but I'll leave it at that for now, since up until today they wouldn't even let me have a working credit card due to bad credit concerns, although that has since changed somewhat.
Honestly though, you wouldn't get very much. I live on practically nothing, have no money or valuable possessions to speak of and am just a lack-of-a-month's paycheque away from living out of a shopping cart or something. Your argument would work better on someone with something to lose other than some small change they don't really have to begin with.
Computers are cheap. You just have to know where to get them, and be willing to settle for less than "vista-ready" hardware.
I just bought a laptop for 9$CAN. I've owned around 30 computers, and probably haven't spent more than 200-300$ on all of them together, not counting internet service. Assuming that there's allowance involved(not an unreasonable assumption? Someone help me out here), this should be something a kid should be able to afford after around two years of saving or so, assuming they want it.
"Most parents can safely assume their kids are only talking to people they personally know? "
Where exactly do you get that assumption? The 1980's? I'd assume the exact opposite; that almost nobody a teen knows has any contact with his parents whatsoever.
3 postings in a row? Can anyone tell that I'm bored at work? I just asked around and no one here seems to think that your assumption is reasonable. Please explain.
"Or, where I live, you could risk the life of some Muslim high-school girls by publishing photographs of them kissing non-Muslim boys."
That's not a problem with people being videotaped, that's a problem with religious conservativism and backwards religion in general. However since that is not going away in the near future, a shorter-term solution would be more cameras. Cameras in the home, that clearly show the face of the man while he's gang-raping or murdering said muslim high-school girl, what street he walked down to get to the place where it happened, where he lives, where he sleeps, etc, so that there's no threat of him being a threat to civilized society ever again. (I should point out here that yes, some men do this. And yes, some of them are muslim. And no, not all muslims are uncivilized and or rapists. The vast majority, as far as I can tell are generally no different than anyone else. I'm just going along with the example here)
The fact of the matter is, those pictures of muslim girls kissing non muslim boys are going to start to get published, if not today, then tomorrow. Societies, including muslim sections of it, have to be prepared for this, and people have to start admitting that the old moral systems given to us by the major religions of the world are a sham, built on ignorance on how people really behave, on how people really interact with one another, and how the actions and activities of people really affect one another, and are only effective in keeping people ignorant of themselves, ignorant of how groups of people can peacefully coexist, and ignorant of the power structures they inhabit. Study is needed into these topics on a large scale, and the information is only going to come from the panopticon, particapatory or not.
Always act as if you are on camera, because you probably are. What this means, as well, is that things that we do, that may seem 'stupid' or worthy of being watched (like, the 'star wars kid') if we are hypocrites, perverts, and ignorant of those around us who are hidden by their privacy barriers, are often trivial and non-interesting when there *is* no privacy, and no longer should anyone fear doing such things for fear of being shamed. It is possible to live without both privacy and regret, and with the constant application of reason.
Don't get me wrong, the left here is certainly guilty of censorship, but censorship exists on the right just as well. Let's just face it; freedom of expression in Canada isn't very protected, regardless of your political orientation. Telus v. Voices for Change, and David Orchard v. Mulruney's RCMP goons, are the first things that comes to my mind.
You just try wearing no clothes anywhere where police can get to you. Especially near children.
My reason? Clothes help manage my fat, and keeps my fat from rubbing together uncomfortably.:( It also keeps me from freezing to death in the cold Canadian weather, though. Sometimes, though, clothes can keep yourself from being stabbed by a protuding object, or scraped in an accident, or from being scalded by a hot (or very cold) object. You can also hold objects and tools in clothes, or even take off the clothes in a hurry and use them as a towel or drying cloth.
Seriously, why do you even bother bringing war into this? This is trying to go beyond war. Sure there's something distinctly optimistic about it, but people have been trying to end war as we know it since at least the first world war, and there's good reason for this.
War will only end when man can trust man, and only insofar as that trust goes.
Robots. This wasn't an issue 10-12 years ago..but for those guys out there thinking this over right now, We're talking 2016-2018 here. We have vacuuming robots, we should see lawnmower robots in a decade or few.
Slashdot Mirror
Debian has users that will continue to use it for a long, long time. I was just talking with someone who still uses potato on their email server. Potato! I know I'll probably end up using debian or some derivative of it until either I die or all the modern day computers die. Debian is simply not going to go away because you don't like it, or becase it doesn't do multimedia as well as ubuntu[1], games as well as windows[2], doesn't optimize as well as gentoo, or whathaveyou; it serves a purpose, and the fact that it's still got life shows that this purpose is an important one, that many people are striving for.
Wanting to be able to legally[4] *use* a computer, and wanting to be free to make changes to it, and to share your work is not simply an 'annoying' attitude; it's a necessary result of years of working with computers[3], seeing how one's actions and the similar actions of their peers impact the rest of the world.
Second; not all the things you can do with a computer involve multimedia. There's a lot of serious research, and work that needs the help of computers; For these applications you do not need win32 codecs, or resource-hogging compiz; you just need a working operating system. Debian is ideal for this situation, because you only have as much graphical overhead as you want, and either have the tools you need, or the open platform to develop them on.
[1] ubuntu is a debian fork anyway. the whole point about debian is that you can fork it, like ubuntu has, and be successful; and then the next guy can come along, and do the exact same thing. It's the baseline; the absolute minnimum. If you're distro of choice isn't as good as debian it's either optimized highly in one direction, or it's not a serious distro.
[2] Windows is dying! netcraft confirms!
[3] And years of doing difficult tasks, which inevidably require the use of a computer.
[4] Barring the country you live in becomming a third world dictatorship(more plausible than debian dying off), of course.
Somebody has to do distribution, production and word of the work has to get out somehow; it can either be done with the hands and tools of employees of an industry (in the case of movies and music) who are not just stuck in a mid-20th century system filled with inefficiency and graft; but all too trigger happy in sending SWAT teams and lawyers after innocent people...or it can be done with free agents, choosing to trade information in a free market. Take your choice.
The real freeloaders are people who take one copy, and never distribute it to the rest of the world. People who are on the p2p nets and who do *not* share anything in return. People who shop for music at walmart. They are, for the most part, information and culture sinks.
"you violate their right to do as they please"
Who has that right? I don't remember seeing that one before. Actually that's not true; Michael Harrington mentions something similar, saying that it's insufficient, and we have to ask for more. But that's somewhat of a herring so I'll give rest at that.
"By laying open that which someone has taken pains to conceal,"
Now let me get this straight; becuase someone went to a lot of effort to conceal something, that something should be protected? On the contrary, it's the things that are concealed like so that are the exact things that should be under scrutiny. Enron comes to mind. So does halocaust denial. People conceal these sorts of things all the time, and that is certainly counterexample to such an argument. The rest of your post seemed context specific, which I'm not particularily concerned about.
Privacy must exist because all people are different and cannot refrain from judging others or exerting control over them out of self-interest
I'll grant that people are different, but I don't see how "judging others or excerting control over them" necessarily follows from that. It's likely, but not seemingly necessary. And while I'm now going to assume that you are self-interested, control-hungry and irrationally intolerant, at least you gave what I asked for; a moral justification.
"Therefore people have a right to attempt to control what others know about them."
Because people are naturally so power-hungry and naturally evil, that we should control what they know about us. But that argument works the other way, if people are so naturally evil, then shouldn't I be able to see exactly what they are doing at all times; wouldn't it make more sense for them to be subject to scrutiny so that if they choose to give in to their impulses for power, they will be caught and known for it to me?
"Privacy must also exist because not everyone is honorable. If you believe that privacy has no moral justification, then I challenge you to post here all the credentials someone here would need in order to open a line of credit in your name."
I'd say dishonourable people should be watched. I don't want to protect their dishonest ways by protecting their privacy.
As for whatever information that would allow a line of credit to be granted, believe me, my credit is strained to the limit and there isn't a bank or financial institution that I can find that will lend me(or anyone claiming to be me) any more money. It would be a collossal waste of time for me to give away such information, both for me, and whoever would try to use it. Although to tell the truth I don't know exactly what information would be involved, exactly. I've tried to get more loans and I've gotten what I believe is possible under my current condition.
As for similarily key information, such as my credit card number, online trading account passwords, and SaskTel corporate information, I've signed agreements giving my word that I would not disclose them. As much as I value civility, and as much as it annoys me being unable to disclose them, I value keeping my word and sticking to agreements I make more. It was a mistake to sign up to their service, due to that term, perhaps, but I'll leave it at that for now, since up until today they wouldn't even let me have a working credit card due to bad credit concerns, although that has since changed somewhat.
Honestly though, you wouldn't get very much. I live on practically nothing, have no money or valuable possessions to speak of and am just a lack-of-a-month's paycheque away from living out of a shopping cart or something. Your argument would work better on someone with something to lose other than some small change they don't really have to begin with.
If I look, throughout the entire conservative blogosphere, I will not find a single conservative who will exhibit this behaviour?
Computers are cheap. You just have to know where to get them, and be willing to settle for less than "vista-ready" hardware.
I just bought a laptop for 9$CAN. I've owned around 30 computers, and probably haven't spent more than 200-300$ on all of them together, not counting internet service. Assuming that there's allowance involved(not an unreasonable assumption? Someone help me out here), this should be something a kid should be able to afford after around two years of saving or so, assuming they want it.
Your WWI history is suspicious. Care to elaborate?
maybe I should be more for parental controls and censorship of children than I am. . .
How, exactly, can one morally justify privacy?
"Most parents can safely assume their kids are only talking to people they personally know? "
Where exactly do you get that assumption? The 1980's? I'd assume the exact opposite; that almost nobody a teen knows has any contact with his parents whatsoever.
3 postings in a row? Can anyone tell that I'm bored at work? I just asked around and no one here seems to think that your assumption is reasonable. Please explain.
"whereas we'll do business with anyone because hey money is money"
Unless of course, you're spreading true information about a partisan war. Then your money, aprently, 'isn't money.'
What exactly do you mean by "racial makeup"?
Post your GPS coordinates. I dare you.
Knowingly profiting from a stolen good, even without ever handling that good, is illegal.
Good thing they aren't involved with theft, but rather copyright enfringement
"Or, where I live, you could risk the life of some Muslim high-school girls by publishing photographs of them kissing non-Muslim boys."
That's not a problem with people being videotaped, that's a problem with religious conservativism and backwards religion in general. However since that is not going away in the near future, a shorter-term solution would be more cameras. Cameras in the home, that clearly show the face of the man while he's gang-raping or murdering said muslim high-school girl, what street he walked down to get to the place where it happened, where he lives, where he sleeps, etc, so that there's no threat of him being a threat to civilized society ever again. (I should point out here that yes, some men do this. And yes, some of them are muslim. And no, not all muslims are uncivilized and or rapists. The vast majority, as far as I can tell are generally no different than anyone else. I'm just going along with the example here)
The fact of the matter is, those pictures of muslim girls kissing non muslim boys are going to start to get published, if not today, then tomorrow. Societies, including muslim sections of it, have to be prepared for this, and people have to start admitting that the old moral systems given to us by the major religions of the world are a sham, built on ignorance on how people really behave, on how people really interact with one another, and how the actions and activities of people really affect one another, and are only effective in keeping people ignorant of themselves, ignorant of how groups of people can peacefully coexist, and ignorant of the power structures they inhabit. Study is needed into these topics on a large scale, and the information is only going to come from the panopticon, particapatory or not.
Always act as if you are on camera, because you probably are. What this means, as well, is that things that we do, that may seem 'stupid' or worthy of being watched (like, the 'star wars kid') if we are hypocrites, perverts, and ignorant of those around us who are hidden by their privacy barriers, are often trivial and non-interesting when there *is* no privacy, and no longer should anyone fear doing such things for fear of being shamed. It is possible to live without both privacy and regret, and with the constant application of reason.
Thank you, sir, you do a service to us all.
Bewitched is under copyright; ie semi-permenently lost to history. Another example, perhaps?
Don't get me wrong, the left here is certainly guilty of censorship, but censorship exists on the right just as well. Let's just face it; freedom of expression in Canada isn't very protected, regardless of your political orientation. Telus v. Voices for Change, and David Orchard v. Mulruney's RCMP goons, are the first things that comes to my mind .
3. Block Hacking sites (possibly a subclass of dangerous information)
:(
HackCanada, Nettwerked and RantRadio would be some of the first to go. Way too much politically incorrect information
(libertarian?)
You just try wearing no clothes anywhere where police can get to you. Especially near children.
:( It also keeps me from freezing to death in the cold Canadian weather, though. Sometimes, though, clothes can keep yourself from being stabbed by a protuding object, or scraped in an accident, or from being scalded by a hot (or very cold) object. You can also hold objects and tools in clothes, or even take off the clothes in a hurry and use them as a towel or drying cloth.
My reason? Clothes help manage my fat, and keeps my fat from rubbing together uncomfortably.
Seriously, why do you even bother bringing war into this? This is trying to go beyond war. Sure there's something distinctly optimistic about it, but people have been trying to end war as we know it since at least the first world war, and there's good reason for this.
War will only end when man can trust man, and only insofar as that trust goes.
SPAM is the "meat". Spam is email. Get your technical terms right d:
I'm a millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
Only in America!
if you hadn't spent your days working 9-5 to raise kids, you could afford to retire on your own labour, including medical and living accomodations?
And if you can't afford to retire on your own labour AND you didn't have kids then maybe that's a GOOD thing?
Robots. This wasn't an issue 10-12 years ago..but for those guys out there thinking this over right now, We're talking 2016-2018 here. We have vacuuming robots, we should see lawnmower robots in a decade or few.