Back in the day, there was some concern over the fact that domain names are universal. Someone wanting Amazon in the US for example has different rights than someone wanting Amazon in Brazil. Many people suggested that we go to location-based domains.
Amazon has mostly followed this model. You order from Amazon.de if you're in Switzerland, or Amazon.co.uk if you like toast with your Earl Grey.
Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com, even though there is a region, at least one bookstore, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?
While I like regulation in many cases, like nuclear power plants, in my experience new regulations are like cables.
When you put all the cables on the floor, they're more likely to snag your legs, or get entangled and knotted with each other.
This is why sometimes the solution is fewer regulations, and more direct solutions. If relatively few companies control our banking or money flow, the solution may be to break up some large companies.
I think the feds are about to do this to Google for their near-total-dominance of search results and search-based advertising. Too much power in one set of hands can be destructive, unless that set of hands truly does "do no evil."
That will get us out of the nuclear age. A stop rate of 90% eliminates a first strike advantage.
But what's going to replace mutually assured destruction (MAD) when the destruction isn't assuredly mutual?
These missile shields could bring us closer to nuclear war, or end it forever when the party with the shield tells everyone else to drop their nukes or vanish in sparkly glowing fireballs.
It sounds to me like this is designed to prevent people from downloading HD-quality movies. In the old days, you could click, wait your sixty seconds and then start the download, and a half-hour later have your movie.
I guess their policy of policing music blogs is assumed to take care of the music piracy.
Either way, as the article pointed out, these changes are to keep the regulators happy, more than they are designed to actually curb piracy.
For example, a blogspot music blog that uses a URL redirector should be OK from these new restrictions.
Just because I'm a male within 5km of a rape does not mean I should be required to give up my DNA.
First, who owns it? Does it get destroyed? Do I trust government to do that competently? No: it will be sold to the highest bidder.
Second, am I coerced into doing this? Will they shame me publicly for not giving up my DNA?
Finally, who else knows about it? Is my health insurance going up because they've found I'm susceptible to lung cancer or AIDS? What if there's a way to tell if I'm gay or prone to alcoholism (hic)?
There's got to be a better way to solve these rapes than asking all of us to give up private information at the threat of arrest.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.
Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.
This blurred the line between important speech and everyday raging around with emotions through words.
Now, we the people see all speech as a matter of flavor. Don't harsh my buzz with your unkind words, man.
As a result, the free markets are responding and are removing words that generate expensive customer complaints.
They're removing them whether there's validity to them or not.
Its 2 faced and all about pacifying the mob, the UK is starting to get very mob like, witch hunts for pedos, people stoning MPs, people in the UK are very unhappy lately but we are not allowed to come out and say it in case we offend someone and have to spend a night in jail.
It seems to me this is the underlying problem.
We can demand absolute free speech on the internet, but it won't help if people are very unhappy. It's doubly not going to help if there's a mob which waits for someone to be offensive, and then pounces on them.
Maybe free speech only happens in happy societies. They don't mind the complaining. Unhappy societies are unstable and punish it.
Looks like the solution is to make society more happy.
At this point, why not have them VPN in to a central server, and keep all work materials there?
Between the trendy "cloud" and the availability of high-speed internet and most computers having encryption cycles to spare, our machines are now souped-up thin clients.
The idea that people need to take gigabytes or even megabytes (640k is ok though) of confidential data home with them on their laptops needs to be questioned. What are you doing with all of that? At home? On the subway?
Forget it: keep the data under control, and make the laptops worthless to foreign espionage.
We know it can happen. Rome fell, Greece fell, Angkor Wat fell, Easter Island collapsed. Societies die just like we do.
It would be a shame to lose all of the knowledge, art, and literature that we have accumulated during our tenure so far.
Scanning books is a good way to archive much of that information for the next society that can develop digital computing. I suggest we enshrine it all in orbit or on the moon, guaranteeing it relative immortality and making it accessible only to those technologically advanced enough to benefit from it.
I'm glad they're hanging in there, although I have no plans to use IE 10.
Having multiple different browsers in active development actually spurs innovation.
Many of the features of our modern browsers are inherited from older versions of IE, just like many are inherited from Opera, Firefox, Netscape and Mosaic.
Here are a few of the innovations that have come to us through Internet Explorer:
My kid's to be an only child because my wife can't carry again, there is distinct good for people this science can create.
My sympathies to you for this difficult situation. Hug that wife.
However, my post wasn't an argument against the technology. I am a futurist, and I'll always believe we should zoom forward with all sorts of technologies, including some I consider immoral (because they often lead to better things).
That being said, where my post applies is not to a specific technology, but our across-the-board use of all technologies to create a dystopian society. There are facts, and interpretations. There are technologies, and their arrangement into a civilization.
It's true. It's how we socialize: what I saw on TV last night, what I downloaded, what funny line in a movie this current situation reminds me of, etc.
It is pretty much true already. It's a frightening thought.
Many of us out here are former golden children who got burnt out not on our ability to succeed, but in the direction things are heading. There's a default assumption that there is no other way, and that this way is good or at least necessary.
The result is a strong cynicism, even toward most solutions.
The "something else" however is always there. I will always believe in people. Not all of them, but the good ones. I don't know if there is an objective measurement for "good" or that objective measurements exist at all beyond basic chemistry, physics and math, but there is good out there. It gets up every day fighting not just to win, but to be good.
What's really really obvious is that if you take a human and raise them in isolation or in a primitive tribe, they might have a much lower IQ than if the exact same human was raised by the finest minds and educators in the modern world.
Oh really? I've never seen that. Only studies which suggest that if you separate twins and raise them in different circumstances on other sides of the country, they tend to end up having the same prospects.
He's talking about a steady decline in population through low IQs, and you started talking about retardation. There are more causes of low IQs than retardation; in fact, retardation is fairly rare.
At any crowded poker table there is a lamb. Everyone knows about the lamb. And there is also the lamb elect. Only the sharpest players realize how thin the boundary is between lion and lamb elect.
That's terrifying! I can feel the fear seize me up from within. It takes over my thoughts. That's why I push it back.
And yet, life is more complex than a poker table.
Much as in natural selection, which got us to this state, in life there are many options for success.
In nature, the predators tend to carry off the old, sick, and weak. These are not individuals near the middle of the curve, but very near to its extreme lows.
I think nature is more forgiving than you think. Poker, not so much, which is why in life the smartest players are often those who choose not to gamble.
Windows would be a future option that would allow RIM to offload the OS portion of their product onto Microsoft, including maintenance. As to whether Windows phones sell, I don't know. I think I know one person who owns one and they seem to enjoy it.
The iphone has always been about closed, proprietary lock-in. People still buy iphones despite that.
That's true. However, much of what it is based on are tools derived from open source or desktop computing. I think over time this model will be less responsive than, say, a Linux-based model.
I sensed this was going to turn into one of my favouritest of slashdot posts, the sub genre known as "I was too clever for school, I got bored easily and failed all the exams because the teachers despised my genius, which is why I am now working as a part time burger flipper at the age of 43 while living in my dead mother's basement".
These types generally seem to me to have other problems.
My concern is for the large crop of bored but intelligent adolescents I see on a daily basis, and in my own class, the high number of promising people who simply zoned out.
As to the implicit accusation, I didn't end up that way. I even did well in school.
But, sadly, it fizzled out into just another right wing brain wank.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the day, there was some concern over the fact that domain names are universal. Someone wanting Amazon in the US for example has different rights than someone wanting Amazon in Brazil. Many people suggested that we go to location-based domains.
Amazon has mostly followed this model. You order from Amazon.de if you're in Switzerland, or Amazon.co.uk if you like toast with your Earl Grey.
Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com, even though there is a region, at least one bookstore, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?
While I like regulation in many cases, like nuclear power plants, in my experience new regulations are like cables.
When you put all the cables on the floor, they're more likely to snag your legs, or get entangled and knotted with each other.
This is why sometimes the solution is fewer regulations, and more direct solutions. If relatively few companies control our banking or money flow, the solution may be to break up some large companies.
I think the feds are about to do this to Google for their near-total-dominance of search results and search-based advertising. Too much power in one set of hands can be destructive, unless that set of hands truly does "do no evil."
You mean that SDI might work after all?
That will get us out of the nuclear age. A stop rate of 90% eliminates a first strike advantage.
But what's going to replace mutually assured destruction (MAD) when the destruction isn't assuredly mutual?
These missile shields could bring us closer to nuclear war, or end it forever when the party with the shield tells everyone else to drop their nukes or vanish in sparkly glowing fireballs.
Most people insist it doesn't when we're talking about drugs, but insist it does when we're talking about landmines or lobbyists.
I don't get it.
Does it work?
It sounds to me like this is designed to prevent people from downloading HD-quality movies. In the old days, you could click, wait your sixty seconds and then start the download, and a half-hour later have your movie.
I guess their policy of policing music blogs is assumed to take care of the music piracy.
Either way, as the article pointed out, these changes are to keep the regulators happy, more than they are designed to actually curb piracy.
For example, a blogspot music blog that uses a URL redirector should be OK from these new restrictions.
I don't like the idea of DNA dragnets.
Just because I'm a male within 5km of a rape does not mean I should be required to give up my DNA.
First, who owns it? Does it get destroyed? Do I trust government to do that competently? No: it will be sold to the highest bidder.
Second, am I coerced into doing this? Will they shame me publicly for not giving up my DNA?
Finally, who else knows about it? Is my health insurance going up because they've found I'm susceptible to lung cancer or AIDS? What if there's a way to tell if I'm gay or prone to alcoholism (hic)?
There's got to be a better way to solve these rapes than asking all of us to give up private information at the threat of arrest.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.
Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.
This blurred the line between important speech and everyday raging around with emotions through words.
Now, we the people see all speech as a matter of flavor. Don't harsh my buzz with your unkind words, man.
As a result, the free markets are responding and are removing words that generate expensive customer complaints.
They're removing them whether there's validity to them or not.
Good work, We the People.
There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.
It seems to me this is the underlying problem.
We can demand absolute free speech on the internet, but it won't help if people are very unhappy. It's doubly not going to help if there's a mob which waits for someone to be offensive, and then pounces on them.
Maybe free speech only happens in happy societies. They don't mind the complaining. Unhappy societies are unstable and punish it.
Looks like the solution is to make society more happy.
At this point, why not have them VPN in to a central server, and keep all work materials there?
Between the trendy "cloud" and the availability of high-speed internet and most computers having encryption cycles to spare, our machines are now souped-up thin clients.
The idea that people need to take gigabytes or even megabytes (640k is ok though) of confidential data home with them on their laptops needs to be questioned. What are you doing with all of that? At home? On the subway?
Forget it: keep the data under control, and make the laptops worthless to foreign espionage.
You're debating somebody, but it's probably not me.
I never mentioned this at all. What I said was that we should develop technologies.
I never suggested we let the Nazis win any wars. What I suggested was that we should develop technologies.
I'm thinking more of stem cells and genetic modification technology when I speak of "immoral." I'm not even sure how I feel about animal testing.
However, if we improve our overall technological ability through these experiments, we are in a better position (eventually) to do good things.
In general, with technology has come an improvement in living standards, health and safety. I am in favor of continuing this direction.
We know it can happen. Rome fell, Greece fell, Angkor Wat fell, Easter Island collapsed. Societies die just like we do.
It would be a shame to lose all of the knowledge, art, and literature that we have accumulated during our tenure so far.
Scanning books is a good way to archive much of that information for the next society that can develop digital computing. I suggest we enshrine it all in orbit or on the moon, guaranteeing it relative immortality and making it accessible only to those technologically advanced enough to benefit from it.
For all we know, the ancient Khmer civilization at Ankgor Wat invented advanced technology, and it's just lost merely to time.
We owe it to future generations to make sure our society does not lose as much when it collapses.
I'm glad they're hanging in there, although I have no plans to use IE 10.
Having multiple different browsers in active development actually spurs innovation.
Many of the features of our modern browsers are inherited from older versions of IE, just like many are inherited from Opera, Firefox, Netscape and Mosaic.
Here are a few of the innovations that have come to us through Internet Explorer:
http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-innovations-of-internet-explorer/
http://htmlcssjavascript.com/web/some-internet-explorer-innovations-you-probably-forgot-about-while-waiting-for-ie6-to-die/
Interesting. Many people forget that, at one time, Internet Explorer was a usable alternative to the rarely-updated Netscape.
My sympathies to you for this difficult situation. Hug that wife.
However, my post wasn't an argument against the technology. I am a futurist, and I'll always believe we should zoom forward with all sorts of technologies, including some I consider immoral (because they often lead to better things).
That being said, where my post applies is not to a specific technology, but our across-the-board use of all technologies to create a dystopian society. There are facts, and interpretations. There are technologies, and their arrangement into a civilization.
We can do better on that latter part.
Dcnjoe69 also makes a good point.
It's true. It's how we socialize: what I saw on TV last night, what I downloaded, what funny line in a movie this current situation reminds me of, etc.
It's dystopian lite.
It is pretty much true already. It's a frightening thought.
Many of us out here are former golden children who got burnt out not on our ability to succeed, but in the direction things are heading. There's a default assumption that there is no other way, and that this way is good or at least necessary.
The result is a strong cynicism, even toward most solutions.
The "something else" however is always there. I will always believe in people. Not all of them, but the good ones. I don't know if there is an objective measurement for "good" or that objective measurements exist at all beyond basic chemistry, physics and math, but there is good out there. It gets up every day fighting not just to win, but to be good.
It's a good source of inspiration for us all.
Born in a test tube.
Nurtured in a plastic womb.
Raised by a telescreen.
Now another soldier for democracy, freedom and the American way...
Oh really? I've never seen that. Only studies which suggest that if you separate twins and raise them in different circumstances on other sides of the country, they tend to end up having the same prospects.
http://twins.wjh.harvard.edu/more_about_expt.html
He's talking about a steady decline in population through low IQs, and you started talking about retardation. There are more causes of low IQs than retardation; in fact, retardation is fairly rare.
That's terrifying! I can feel the fear seize me up from within. It takes over my thoughts. That's why I push it back.
And yet, life is more complex than a poker table.
Much as in natural selection, which got us to this state, in life there are many options for success.
In nature, the predators tend to carry off the old, sick, and weak. These are not individuals near the middle of the curve, but very near to its extreme lows.
I think nature is more forgiving than you think. Poker, not so much, which is why in life the smartest players are often those who choose not to gamble.
Our society instead prefers to starve them with financial discrimination.
We pay more (... in theory ...) for intelligent workers, and discriminate against the people with IQs under 100.
Then we replace them with robots.
What you're left with is a giant gated community full of rich people, and a vast dystopian wasteland populated by the people that society left behind.
Maybe your option isn't the worst after all.
Windows would be a future option that would allow RIM to offload the OS portion of their product onto Microsoft, including maintenance. As to whether Windows phones sell, I don't know. I think I know one person who owns one and they seem to enjoy it.
That's true. However, much of what it is based on are tools derived from open source or desktop computing. I think over time this model will be less responsive than, say, a Linux-based model.
These types generally seem to me to have other problems.
My concern is for the large crop of bored but intelligent adolescents I see on a daily basis, and in my own class, the high number of promising people who simply zoned out.
As to the implicit accusation, I didn't end up that way. I even did well in school.
How is this "right wing"?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410327,00.asp
I completely bungled this link because I googled the wrong magazine. This is the correct link, from /. recently. Sorry about that.