..from what the author posited: In America, should such a British-style system be implemented, you might see the exact opposite of social conformity, mass social rebellion.
If I am being watched constantly, eventually I'm going to get pissed off and decide to give you really something to watch. Much like punks with foot high mohawks, it'll probably get truly extreme.
And there's another problem with it. What sorts of person would you be hiring to man those cameras? How much would these jobs pay? Probably no more than a security guards wages, right? So who can live on that? The very old, the very young, and or the stupid. Americans have fuck all for social responsibility as it stands, and now you want to put the average Joe in charge of a system like this?
I also hope the CCTV folks decide to TEMPEST shield their electronics. Imagine what fun you could have, dropping taps on cameras near where your worst enemy works. Or your boss. Camera jacking for fun and profit!
I have questions for you: First, since I play 3D shooters quite often and for long stretches at a time, I should be suffering massive eye-strain. I don't. Doesn't bother me. Here's why:
I've developed the habit of looking away from the screen for a second or two when nothing's going on. Works great.
Now, you have a display floating in your field of view, but not totally encompassing your view nor blocking the view. My adaptation would apply, I think. And I didn't conciously develop this, it just sort of happened.
So I don't think eyestrain is a real problem with this particular form of display. Now, if the display covered your entire view field, then you might have issues.
I like the idea of a specialized compiler being available if I need it (I'm stepping into the 3D waters).
But I have a small warning for you: If your compiler really does produce awesomely better code in that particular area, then if that area becomes popular with the GCC crowd, you are going to see alot of work spent on optimization. In other words, your product may be a spur to make GCC competitive with VectorC.
And I would also point out that I think that if VectorC, available for Linux/someArch, does NOT stir the GCC developers to improve, then your specific market doesn't exist on Linux.
Really sucks: Either you eventually face competition with GCC, or your product bombs on Linux.
So, wearable output has an apparently decent solution. Now for input. Have you looked at doing something like this? Or perhaps offer a Twiddler with your other parts for sale?
I like the Xybernaut's design, yet it's price is beyond my means (and I'm usually an early adopter of geek chic). If you could offer just a few more components for sale, or a construction service, that's competitive with the big guys, I think you could make a decent living. As a previous poster mentioned, Ebay works.
IF it's legit. One and a half million? There are houses in Beverly Hills that aren't a tenth as cool. 'course, the being out in the boonies part really sucks.
I know a guy who has a fat folder of business plans and research papers detailing just exactly what it would take to create an indestructable, cant-be-taken-down, freedom forever ISP. This would be exactly the kind of facility he'd need (Are you out there James?)..
Given this, I would prefer to see a list of operating systems in which things were done RIGHT, but which are no longer in use or from which lessons are not being learned. Multics, TOPS-10, and TOPS-20 come to mind. Any others?
sorry for that last one, accidently hit enter.. goddamned IE POS..
Asking a politician to be hip to our particular arena kind of unrealistic, I think, because a pol (who is trying to be as honest as possible) needs to be hip on EVERYTHING. Hip to the automotive industry, farming, science, education, entertainment, etc, etc.
So how do they select what topics they plunge into, and how do they justify ignoring others? You can't know everything, so how do you decide anything?
Re:More eclectic, less practical...
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 1
Well, hyperoperators seem to be a very convenient way to deal with operations on matrices and tables, no? Makes vector math much more succinct.
I will agree, alot of the proposed changes don't seem to have alot of immediate application to what I do personally, but I admit their utility.
But here's an idea in which we can both be happy: Don't use Perl 6. Continue on with 5. Considering the immense amount of v5 code, I doubt highly that it will all suddenly disappear. In fact, I recall from a previous Apocalypse that Larry mentioned the idea of allowing all existing Perl5 syntax, until you use a piece of new syntax.
Yeah, it's not the greatest of solutions. Perhaps what will happen will resemble C/C++, with many continuing to use the old for quite a while yet.
Re:More eclectic, less practical...
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Okay. All languages that are Turing complete are equivalent, as you well know. So why do we need more than one language?
Sweet! Hyperoperators!
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I like the way Perl6 is going, I have to say. Though I kind of agree with others, changing
$a.$b.$c
to
$a _ $b _ $c
kind of bites. Then again, this could also be looked at as readability enforcement. Common cases:
$a = $b.$c;
print "Hello: ".$you."\n";
becomes
$a = $b _ $c;
print "Hello: " _ $you _ "\n";
It is definitely more readable, but
I dislike significant whitespace. shrug
But as to the rest of the proposed changes, I can't wait.
I cannot answer your chemistry question, but I believe I have an answer to your business case:
First the business case issue:
This sounds like an unfortunate 'service' vs 'product' market migration. Why would I pay $xx / month for either disposable batteries or fuel for the cell when I can essentially charge the phone for free using an existing infrastructure? If it's to replace a forgotten charger, who's to say I wouldn't forget the fuel cell? If it's to power the phone where there is no infrastructure, I wonder where I would be for days with cell phone access, but no electricity?
What if the battery and fuel-cell were combined into a single unit? Or more precisely, an ultracapacitor, a bit of battery and alot of fuel cell packed into the same volume? I believe that is the real intention and where you would see the long term value.
If other articles on these FC's are accurate in terms of durability, then with a hybrid FC/Ultracap unit, you'd only ever need to add fuel to have power. No more batteries to wear out. Ultracaps can go millions of cycles before needing replacement (as long as you don't abuse them).
And if what I have just described is not the real intentions, then I'm going to hie myself down to the infernal patent office and make a quick buck:-)
What you fail to mention is that Hydrogen, being extremely light, won't hang around in a cloud for long enough. It expands rapidly and in an upwards motion.
FAE's work because you take a highly flammable substance, such as jet fuel, and spray it out into the atmosphere. It then hangs around in a slowly falling cloud. To detonate, you merely have to hit it with a shockwave of some sort (NOT merely ignite it). Dynamite, C-4, hell perhaps even a well-made pipebomb, would do it.
They do not work via gas, this is a misconception. Vapored liquid fuel is the trick. And it must be a shockwave, merely setting fire to it just makes a pretty display.
This tech could really kick some Duracell ass. I am so fucking sick of buying batteries every few weeks.
Long term, I need the power density that methanol would provide. Hook this baby up to an ultracapacitor from here and burst-power needs are taken care of.
And looking laterally, what about plates of these suckers, laid down in stacks a dozen at a time? PowerBrick.
I read someone along this thread was spewing noise about terrorist applications. Hah. Like they'd need this technology. There are literally hundreds of things out there right now that are potentially far deadlier.
But enough of that. This tech looks wonderfully promising and, I think, should be promoted.
Now we are debating act consequentialism versus rule consequentialism, as well as subtypes of act consequentialism 'egoism' and 'utilitarianism'.
I think a fundamental problem here is that we're trying to discuss matters of group value, when it is entirely the individual who makes the choice on how to behave. A society doesn't really make choices, only many individuals make their own choices and society lurches to and fro from that.
Pure utilitarianism seems radically wrong to me. I do not think that society has the right to sacrifice someone for the 'greater good'. Point is, I truly don't think society has rights at all. Yes, collective rights are a recognized legal 'fact', but that doesn't mean I buy it. You have rights. I have rights. But as we are seperate and unique (just like everyone else:), 'we' don't have rights.
Now, egoism. Take any action as long as my own happiness is maximized. I have a problem with this, for this reason: If my happiness comes at your expense, I have just reduced my own happiness as well. Living in a society of pissed off people is certainly the stuff of nightmares.
This extends to: My preventing you from reading what you want, because of some perceived gain I will make from that prevention, causes you anger, resentment and a sense of marginality. This, in turn, effects me and my quality of life.
For me, I try to walk a path that maximises my own joy and satisfaction, while not changing your happiness (in the worst case), and increasing yours as well, (in the best).
Along with this is the understanding that I don't know what's best for you in your life, I can only really judge my own life.
You don't like porn. Fine and dandy, we're a large country with plenty of room for disagreemnts. I respect your opinion, though I don't share it. I don't think you've stated your case strongly enough, however: Morals should not be legislated.
Morals do, like it or not, change according to culture and society.
A middle-ground needs to be found where you can feel reasonably safe, and where I can live without feeling persecuted.
Here's an example: A hundred years ago in the south it was considered immoral and an outrage for two people of different racial types to get married. The vast majority of this country thinks that view is bullshit these days. Morals do change, and I think it's a healthy thing that they do so.
Another 'moral' issue: Marriage itself is viewed differently by certain sub-cultures. Case in point, Mormons. I don't have a problem with them. Do you? Do you think they should be prevented from living their lives as they see fit?
I'm not attacking or defending, I am merely pointing out that 'morals' frequently follow from religious and cultural mores that are 1) Not shared by everyone and 2) Change with time.
But not all morals change in the US. Murder is, was and probably always will be, considered wrong and grossly unjust to the murdered.
Child pornography involving real children does disgust me and probably always will. But I also realize that that disgust arises from my culture and society, which can change.
'Fake' child pornography.. Well, on it's face, the issue doesn't appear any different than with pornography that doesn't involve children. But in the case of, say, hand-drawn animation from a certain island nation, it's just about impossible to 'tell'. Visually there isn't a lot of distinction in age differences in how many manga (that's the point right, it's an abstract, not ment as a photorealistic work) draw women. So if you were to make virtual child porn illegal, you'd probably see alot of hentai disappear, merely because the people depicted could be children.
A sticky issue, one that I don't think will be satisfactorally settled by the courts.
I currently work for a dot-bomb on a short fuse. I've been programming professionally for six years, and as a hobby for fourteen. On my own I study every text on comp.sci theory I can get, because I want to. It's truly helped me be a better developer.
I don't have a degree of any sort, merely lots of work experience. So far, I haven't been lacking employment opportunities.
I now face a choice: Do I enroll in college to pick up a degree (due to job market situation), or do I keep at it?
Long term, a wide exposure to many fields will almost certainly help me more than hinder. Where else am I going to be challeneged on the theory I've tried to learn on my own? Where else am I going to have a chance to really get into those subjects I love?
So yeah, go for the variety, and then later you'll have the chance to go for depth into those areas you enjoy. I'd say you'll be a better person for it.
No, really. I'm quite familiar with a ship on an exploration mission solving problems in an episodic format.
deep breath
HOW ABOUT SOME CREATIVTY PLEASE?
I'd like a premise I haven't seen before. I'd like a plotline that isn't so blaringly obvious. I'd like some genuine puzzles that can't be neatly solved in an hour. I'd like real conflict with real problems. A little philosophy maybe?
We have seen good scifi on televsion. It does exist. Dr. Who. Babylon-5. The Prisoner. Red Dwarf. Space: Above and Beyond.
Is it too much to ask? Is it really so hard to bring good writing to the small screen? Are there so few screenwriters interested in doing good SF?
And why the hell was he only first officer?? Are all Vulcans mumbling morons when compared to humans? I mean, look: You spend a couple of human lifetimes solving the same damn problems over and over, you're gonna end up pretty skilled at it. Don't they learn?
Yeah, it's just a fantasy series, I shouldn't expect logic and rationality.. but it still irk's me. And that teleporter.. why not just drop explosives right next to a target ship, rather than mounting them on a sub-light delivery system? Or how about warp missiles? And who designed their computer security system, Microsoft??
TOS had great plots, and I still enjoy watching it. A couple of TNG episodes matched, but never exceeded it, in my never humble opinion. Voyager / DS9.. The mere thought causes me to return my dinner to the keyboard.
"Physics" of StarTrek.. I gotta go clean up this puke.
I'm willing to listen to a workable system where I can express myself freely, yet another's security isn't comprimised, nor is my own.
Direct threats are entirely actionable, and I have no expectation of my privacy being protected in the case where I make such threats. I'm comfortable with that idea.
Do I think it would make us less secure? Yes, if the national ID replaced other existing forms of ID, which I think would happen over time.
Privacy is not a myth, and it's not a stupid one.
Recall that in this country we have people who are killing doctors for their forms of medical practice. Do those doctors need privacy? Should it be protected?
There are many examples of subcultures that face persecution in this country, persecution that having a centralized way of tracking movements would help.
We don't matter? Our imagined rights don't matter? Have you read the Constitution?
Here is what I am afraid of: I speak out against group X, and group X decides to retaliate against me.
But you don't want to discuss, you want to merely insult and flame. Fine. Fuck off.
Yes, we do have those things. One, SS numbers are used for tax purposes only (or at least, they should be). Two, Driver's Licenses are an indication that I have passed a certain test of competancy to drive.
Do I need a license to walk down the street? To breathe for gods sake?? Listen, everything I have heard so far about what this card would be used for, is little different from the way DL's are used now, only they would have broad-spectrum applications (not just when I'm driving, but anytime Mr Policeman decides to check me). And, I cannot be put in jail for not carrying ID right now. Why? Innocent until proven guilty. "Yes officer, I'm so and so." Don't believe me? You don't have a choice, unless I have done something to give you reasonable suspicion that everything is not alright, you have to accept my word.
This, I suspect, would change. Now I would be required to carry this card at all times, and (probably) face repercussions if I didn't have one. THIS IS FUCKING WRONG.
I don't drive. I don't usually carry ID to walk to work. Why should I have to?
"He's a blank!"
"An off switch? She'll get twenty years for sure.."
Dystopia here we come. Am I over-reacting? I can't tell, I've just been told I'm going to get severely screwed and I haven't quite recovered yet.
We've got to stop this nonsense. More letters, a thousand letters if that's what it takes. Public agitation. ANYTHING.
But I fear it may be for naught. The people appear to favor this idea now. What about after the next major attack? These unreasonable ideas will seem more and more reasonable, until there's nothing left but tattered remains of our country.
Okay, now I'm over reacting. This is just the beginning, and it may actually be the end of the current sillyness, right? Can't get any worse, can it? I mean, next they'll be suggesting that we need to destroy civilian use of encryption.. oh.. wait.. nevermind..
Okay, lets see. Your formulation for the "perfect" security system is as follows:
Store DNA profile, fingerprints, photos etc of all people in your country.
Implant id tags in all citizens so they can be tracked, like the electronic dog tags.
Place monitors everywhere so everyones every movement and purchase is monitored and tag vs biometrics are checked to make identity theft difficult.
DNA Profile: So lets see. DNA profile stored at a remote location and compared with results from an extremely expensive machine locally. Difficult and costly, but probably the "best" so far. But I have several ideas to fake this one out.
Implant ID tags: This won't fly. Period. But in case it does, the signal can be interfered with as well as altered. For example, what if I'm carrying a device which puts out a duplicate signal? Or maybe a TERRIBLY simple broad-spectrum RF jammer? (micro emitter + battery + antenna = bolix)
Cameras everywhere: You now have a data problem. As in, too much data to sort through and coordinate. Not insurrmountable, but generally difficult. Biometrics? What, the tag ain't good enough for you? Suffers from the same problem as DNA.
Not saying that what you describe can't happen or is totally infeasable, but only that the cost to implement goes into the hundreds of thousands per location, with today's tech. In twenty years, only a few thousand. But hey, now that means that if I want to run a shop, I have to buy a connection to the governmental security system. Doesn't that just suck.
And I'm sorry for my opening rant, I realize you don't want to get into the morality of it, but I'm just shocked at how easily "The American People" are being pursuaded towards this idea, and that Ellison is promoting it. Though I am getting over my shock quickly, as others have pointed out, it is a great way to secure a monopoly if they get the contract.
I'm with the next guy on this, you're nearly incohate. But I think I see the gist of your arguemnt. Here's mine:
Want to give everyone a universal identifier and make all access to everything dependant on it? You've just given the real identify theives a real target to shoot for. Now they only have to beat one system. Far from making identity theft impossible, it would certainly make it far more widespread and complete. I hack your ID, I get your bank, medical records, website history, etc. The only thing saving you is that credit cards also require you to know something as well as have something. Get rid of that and the last vestiges of security fades. Multiple identifiers and many systems, not just one, may give better results.
But this whole notion is plain out fucking evil and I will have no part of it.
Slashdot Mirror
If I am being watched constantly, eventually I'm going to get pissed off and decide to give you really something to watch. Much like punks with foot high mohawks, it'll probably get truly extreme.
And there's another problem with it. What sorts of person would you be hiring to man those cameras? How much would these jobs pay? Probably no more than a security guards wages, right? So who can live on that? The very old, the very young, and or the stupid. Americans have fuck all for social responsibility as it stands, and now you want to put the average Joe in charge of a system like this?
I also hope the CCTV folks decide to TEMPEST shield their electronics. Imagine what fun you could have, dropping taps on cameras near where your worst enemy works. Or your boss. Camera jacking for fun and profit!
I've developed the habit of looking away from the screen for a second or two when nothing's going on. Works great.
Now, you have a display floating in your field of view, but not totally encompassing your view nor blocking the view. My adaptation would apply, I think. And I didn't conciously develop this, it just sort of happened.
So I don't think eyestrain is a real problem with this particular form of display. Now, if the display covered your entire view field, then you might have issues.
But I have a small warning for you: If your compiler really does produce awesomely better code in that particular area, then if that area becomes popular with the GCC crowd, you are going to see alot of work spent on optimization. In other words, your product may be a spur to make GCC competitive with VectorC.
And I would also point out that I think that if VectorC, available for Linux/someArch, does NOT stir the GCC developers to improve, then your specific market doesn't exist on Linux.
Really sucks: Either you eventually face competition with GCC, or your product bombs on Linux.
I like the Xybernaut's design, yet it's price is beyond my means (and I'm usually an early adopter of geek chic). If you could offer just a few more components for sale, or a construction service, that's competitive with the big guys, I think you could make a decent living. As a previous poster mentioned, Ebay works.
I know a guy who has a fat folder of business plans and research papers detailing just exactly what it would take to create an indestructable, cant-be-taken-down, freedom forever ISP. This would be exactly the kind of facility he'd need (Are you out there James?)..
Too bad there was insufficient investment.
Why is it every carpenter who thinks she knows something has to either build her own house or kitchenette set?
Asking a politician to be hip to our particular arena kind of unrealistic, I think, because a pol (who is trying to be as honest as possible) needs to be hip on EVERYTHING. Hip to the automotive industry, farming, science, education, entertainment, etc, etc.
So how do they select what topics they plunge into, and how do they justify ignoring others? You can't know everything, so how do you decide anything?
I will agree, alot of the proposed changes don't seem to have alot of immediate application to what I do personally, but I admit their utility.
But here's an idea in which we can both be happy: Don't use Perl 6. Continue on with 5. Considering the immense amount of v5 code, I doubt highly that it will all suddenly disappear. In fact, I recall from a previous Apocalypse that Larry mentioned the idea of allowing all existing Perl5 syntax, until you use a piece of new syntax.
Yeah, it's not the greatest of solutions. Perhaps what will happen will resemble C/C++, with many continuing to use the old for quite a while yet.
Okay. All languages that are Turing complete are equivalent, as you well know. So why do we need more than one language?
$a = $b.$c;
print "Hello: ".$you."\n";
becomes
$a = $b _ $c;
print "Hello: " _ $you _ "\n";
It is definitely more readable, but I dislike significant whitespace. shrug
But as to the rest of the proposed changes, I can't wait.
If other articles on these FC's are accurate in terms of durability, then with a hybrid FC/Ultracap unit, you'd only ever need to add fuel to have power. No more batteries to wear out. Ultracaps can go millions of cycles before needing replacement (as long as you don't abuse them).
And if what I have just described is not the real intentions, then I'm going to hie myself down to the infernal patent office and make a quick buck :-)
FAE's work because you take a highly flammable substance, such as jet fuel, and spray it out into the atmosphere. It then hangs around in a slowly falling cloud. To detonate, you merely have to hit it with a shockwave of some sort (NOT merely ignite it). Dynamite, C-4, hell perhaps even a well-made pipebomb, would do it.
They do not work via gas, this is a misconception. Vapored liquid fuel is the trick. And it must be a shockwave, merely setting fire to it just makes a pretty display.
This tech could really kick some Duracell ass. I am so fucking sick of buying batteries every few weeks.
Long term, I need the power density that methanol would provide. Hook this baby up to an ultracapacitor from here and burst-power needs are taken care of.
And looking laterally, what about plates of these suckers, laid down in stacks a dozen at a time? PowerBrick.
I read someone along this thread was spewing noise about terrorist applications. Hah. Like they'd need this technology. There are literally hundreds of things out there right now that are potentially far deadlier.
But enough of that. This tech looks wonderfully promising and, I think, should be promoted.
I think a fundamental problem here is that we're trying to discuss matters of group value, when it is entirely the individual who makes the choice on how to behave. A society doesn't really make choices, only many individuals make their own choices and society lurches to and fro from that.
Pure utilitarianism seems radically wrong to me. I do not think that society has the right to sacrifice someone for the 'greater good'. Point is, I truly don't think society has rights at all. Yes, collective rights are a recognized legal 'fact', but that doesn't mean I buy it. You have rights. I have rights. But as we are seperate and unique (just like everyone else :), 'we' don't have rights.
Now, egoism. Take any action as long as my own happiness is maximized. I have a problem with this, for this reason: If my happiness comes at your expense, I have just reduced my own happiness as well. Living in a society of pissed off people is certainly the stuff of nightmares. This extends to: My preventing you from reading what you want, because of some perceived gain I will make from that prevention, causes you anger, resentment and a sense of marginality. This, in turn, effects me and my quality of life.
For me, I try to walk a path that maximises my own joy and satisfaction, while not changing your happiness (in the worst case), and increasing yours as well, (in the best).
Along with this is the understanding that I don't know what's best for you in your life, I can only really judge my own life.
Morals do, like it or not, change according to culture and society.
A middle-ground needs to be found where you can feel reasonably safe, and where I can live without feeling persecuted.
Here's an example: A hundred years ago in the south it was considered immoral and an outrage for two people of different racial types to get married. The vast majority of this country thinks that view is bullshit these days. Morals do change, and I think it's a healthy thing that they do so.
Another 'moral' issue: Marriage itself is viewed differently by certain sub-cultures. Case in point, Mormons. I don't have a problem with them. Do you? Do you think they should be prevented from living their lives as they see fit?
I'm not attacking or defending, I am merely pointing out that 'morals' frequently follow from religious and cultural mores that are 1) Not shared by everyone and 2) Change with time.
But not all morals change in the US. Murder is, was and probably always will be, considered wrong and grossly unjust to the murdered.
Child pornography involving real children does disgust me and probably always will. But I also realize that that disgust arises from my culture and society, which can change.
'Fake' child pornography.. Well, on it's face, the issue doesn't appear any different than with pornography that doesn't involve children. But in the case of, say, hand-drawn animation from a certain island nation, it's just about impossible to 'tell'. Visually there isn't a lot of distinction in age differences in how many manga (that's the point right, it's an abstract, not ment as a photorealistic work) draw women. So if you were to make virtual child porn illegal, you'd probably see alot of hentai disappear, merely because the people depicted could be children.
A sticky issue, one that I don't think will be satisfactorally settled by the courts.
I don't have a degree of any sort, merely lots of work experience. So far, I haven't been lacking employment opportunities.
I now face a choice: Do I enroll in college to pick up a degree (due to job market situation), or do I keep at it?
Long term, a wide exposure to many fields will almost certainly help me more than hinder. Where else am I going to be challeneged on the theory I've tried to learn on my own? Where else am I going to have a chance to really get into those subjects I love?
So yeah, go for the variety, and then later you'll have the chance to go for depth into those areas you enjoy. I'd say you'll be a better person for it.
Meet the Tar-Baby Proxy. Takes absolutely the longest possible time to grab each and every ad, and thence simply discards them.
Not only will I not see your ads, but I will vindictively waste your resources.
I've seen this before.
No, really. I'm quite familiar with a ship on an exploration mission solving problems in an episodic format.
deep breath
HOW ABOUT SOME CREATIVTY PLEASE?
I'd like a premise I haven't seen before. I'd like a plotline that isn't so blaringly obvious. I'd like some genuine puzzles that can't be neatly solved in an hour. I'd like real conflict with real problems. A little philosophy maybe?
We have seen good scifi on televsion. It does exist. Dr. Who. Babylon-5. The Prisoner. Red Dwarf. Space: Above and Beyond.
Is it too much to ask? Is it really so hard to bring good writing to the small screen? Are there so few screenwriters interested in doing good SF?
I want NEW.
Yeah, it's just a fantasy series, I shouldn't expect logic and rationality.. but it still irk's me. And that teleporter.. why not just drop explosives right next to a target ship, rather than mounting them on a sub-light delivery system? Or how about warp missiles? And who designed their computer security system, Microsoft??
TOS had great plots, and I still enjoy watching it. A couple of TNG episodes matched, but never exceeded it, in my never humble opinion. Voyager / DS9.. The mere thought causes me to return my dinner to the keyboard.
"Physics" of StarTrek.. I gotta go clean up this puke.
Direct threats are entirely actionable, and I have no expectation of my privacy being protected in the case where I make such threats. I'm comfortable with that idea.
So I'd say we start the brainstorming there.
Privacy is not a myth, and it's not a stupid one. Recall that in this country we have people who are killing doctors for their forms of medical practice. Do those doctors need privacy? Should it be protected?
There are many examples of subcultures that face persecution in this country, persecution that having a centralized way of tracking movements would help.
We don't matter? Our imagined rights don't matter? Have you read the Constitution?
Here is what I am afraid of: I speak out against group X, and group X decides to retaliate against me.
But you don't want to discuss, you want to merely insult and flame. Fine. Fuck off.
Do I need a license to walk down the street? To breathe for gods sake?? Listen, everything I have heard so far about what this card would be used for, is little different from the way DL's are used now, only they would have broad-spectrum applications (not just when I'm driving, but anytime Mr Policeman decides to check me). And, I cannot be put in jail for not carrying ID right now. Why? Innocent until proven guilty. "Yes officer, I'm so and so." Don't believe me? You don't have a choice, unless I have done something to give you reasonable suspicion that everything is not alright, you have to accept my word.
This, I suspect, would change. Now I would be required to carry this card at all times, and (probably) face repercussions if I didn't have one. THIS IS FUCKING WRONG.
I don't drive. I don't usually carry ID to walk to work. Why should I have to?
"He's a blank!"
"An off switch? She'll get twenty years for sure.."
Dystopia here we come. Am I over-reacting? I can't tell, I've just been told I'm going to get severely screwed and I haven't quite recovered yet.
We've got to stop this nonsense. More letters, a thousand letters if that's what it takes. Public agitation. ANYTHING.
But I fear it may be for naught. The people appear to favor this idea now. What about after the next major attack? These unreasonable ideas will seem more and more reasonable, until there's nothing left but tattered remains of our country.
Okay, now I'm over reacting. This is just the beginning, and it may actually be the end of the current sillyness, right? Can't get any worse, can it? I mean, next they'll be suggesting that we need to destroy civilian use of encryption.. oh.. wait.. nevermind..
Okay, lets see. Your formulation for the "perfect" security system is as follows:
DNA Profile: So lets see. DNA profile stored at a remote location and compared with results from an extremely expensive machine locally. Difficult and costly, but probably the "best" so far. But I have several ideas to fake this one out.
Implant ID tags: This won't fly. Period. But in case it does, the signal can be interfered with as well as altered. For example, what if I'm carrying a device which puts out a duplicate signal? Or maybe a TERRIBLY simple broad-spectrum RF jammer? (micro emitter + battery + antenna = bolix)
Cameras everywhere: You now have a data problem. As in, too much data to sort through and coordinate. Not insurrmountable, but generally difficult. Biometrics? What, the tag ain't good enough for you? Suffers from the same problem as DNA.
Not saying that what you describe can't happen or is totally infeasable, but only that the cost to implement goes into the hundreds of thousands per location, with today's tech. In twenty years, only a few thousand. But hey, now that means that if I want to run a shop, I have to buy a connection to the governmental security system. Doesn't that just suck.
And I'm sorry for my opening rant, I realize you don't want to get into the morality of it, but I'm just shocked at how easily "The American People" are being pursuaded towards this idea, and that Ellison is promoting it. Though I am getting over my shock quickly, as others have pointed out, it is a great way to secure a monopoly if they get the contract.
Want to give everyone a universal identifier and make all access to everything dependant on it? You've just given the real identify theives a real target to shoot for. Now they only have to beat one system. Far from making identity theft impossible, it would certainly make it far more widespread and complete. I hack your ID, I get your bank, medical records, website history, etc. The only thing saving you is that credit cards also require you to know something as well as have something. Get rid of that and the last vestiges of security fades. Multiple identifiers and many systems, not just one, may give better results.
But this whole notion is plain out fucking evil and I will have no part of it.