I'm going to tackle your discernment of "evil" and see if I can pinpoint it, because I had exactly the same feeling. Please forgive the distasteful imagery in the following, but I think you'll see what I'm trying to do.
It would seem as if the ultimate, unspoken ideal of the individual who wrote such stuff is the packaging of human meat "on the foot" as "efficiently" as possible, meaning maximum density with minimum overhead (i.e. energy and resource consumption, carbon production, etc). Clearly this is what it must be, once *the well-being and happiness* of those who live in such packing-house conditions (or lack thereof, rather) is not the primary consideration. It's almost as if humans are spoken of as a commodity, rather like chickens or other, perhaps herded, animals.
A point to ponder: why it is often the case that the same ones who won't eat meat or eggs from anything but free-range chickens because of the unspeakable cruelty of the non-free-range producers ( full disclosure -- I agree with that assessment -- it is cruelty ) think that this kind of thinking is OK for human beings, s long as it makes "Gaia" happy? You very likely would agree with me that such thinking is upside-down. I will not go into that now.
It is well and good to ponder over how 20+ billion individuals are supposed to share this planet, and indeed it is prudent to do so. But if these ideas are permitted to take root at the center of this pondering, the result can only be beyond horror, with the same old result -- the ones doing the 'central planning' somehow never seem to share the fate of those subjected to their plans. This simply cannot be permitted to happen. Such ideas must be refuted with vigor everywhere they crop up. Once a human being is seen as mere meat, Stalinist-Russia.Nazi-Germany.Maoist.China 2.0 is the inevitable result.
Historically the motivations for this are so that the very, very few can live the way they want. Consider comment http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1565742&cid=31304366. I think that captures it, and I believe that's what you're sensing.
Your assessment is correct. Perhaps I should limit that to saying only that I agree. It is evil.
I, too, am sole developer on two huge projects. What you describe happens to me sometimes, too. I'm assuming that you're referring to those "stalls" that can last for days, and not simply battle fatigue.
I have found that the following things help me:
1. Pick out something very small and very simple to accomplish, and do it. Don't worry if it's not on the mainstream of the effort. What's important is to move forward. That relieves some of that horrible inner pressure that builds up when stuck for too long.
2. If that fails, try creating on or more small experiments for yourself, regarding things that you're curious about or things that have been particular troublespots. These can bring great joy and release the flow for you.
3. If these things fail, be productive doing something else altogether. Don't worry about wasting time, because you weren't moving forward anyway. This, too, can start a flow.
Remember, friend, that in a time of famine, a small harvest is better than none. Do not despise small accomplishments.
We should have exhausted this question when cigarette companies were caught enhancing nicotine levels in their product, in order to increase addiction, which enhances profit.
Consumers must have the opportunity to make conscious choices and give informed consent when consuming anything known (or reasonably suspected) to be habit-forming. I have no desire to form a nanny state, but folks need to know what they're getting.
Human nature being what it is, this is an excellent opportunity for black market corruption -- drug company sells to developing country. Corrupt elements in developing country sell back to corrupt black marketeers who then resell in 'rich' countries to corrupt vendors for reduced prices and still make huge profits. And still the people who need the drugs don't get them, but maybe some actually will, and that's a good thing.
The scenario I saw play out is admittedly far-fetched but as a Slashdot reader, I've come upon shocking articles regarding our infrastructure here in the US being targeted by hackers from inside Russia and China. Here's one such example:
Now let's do a bit of extrapolation: 1. widespread adoption by NYC & LA -c class municipalities 2. traffic signal control governed by this 'network' 3. Understanding of the architecture gets into the hands of even more virulent enemies.
These three steps are not unlikely should this technology prove to be effective and become popular.
Now consider this scenario.
It's a day with fairly good weather near the Holiday shopping season. Commercial activity is at it's peak, along with tourism. A physical attack is then initiated along the lines of a medium sized chemical or biological weapon, or perhaps bombing of a central municipal structure such as Grand Central Station in NYC. Coordinated with this attack is a simultaneous assault on the traffic control network. This attack makes it impossible to a. escape the scene b. get first-responders to the scene
The increasing tendency to use this type of communication to support critical infrastructure is an open invitation to chaos and disaster induced by malicious hacking.
Consider for a moment all the past reports of external hacking on U.S. infrastructure and the chaos they created. Now imagine what would happen were this to be hacked after widespread adoption.
You all very well know that from the moment of its inception there will be concerted efforts to do just that.
No thanks.
Leave out the networking with private vehicles and it gets a bit better, but there's still a vulnerability.
Let's start by setting an example and weaning ourselves off the addiction to stupid, pointless entertainment. Let's start paying attention to things that mean something. Let's refuse to care about passing fads. Let's honor teachers, and not just with mere money. Let's utterly cease reflecting back on our stoner days with pleasant nostalgia, but talk about them as wasted time. Let's stop overemphasizing how our children feel, and begin to address how they think. Let's establish the notion that it's a young adult's job to develop to their own full potential (no one else's), and the notion that it's the job of all the adults in their lives to support that effort fully and hold them accountable.
If enough people do this, the culture will either change for the better or become irrelevant.
Q: With web crackdowns like this becoming more and more frequent do you think we will start to see similar (overt) activities from US and European governments?
A: In order to do this in the U.S. on any significant scale ( e.g. China), there would have to be a pervasive, gradual (so as not to raise alarms in the general populace) erosion of 1st Amendment Constitutional sensibilities. There are several pretexts that could be used to accomplish this, all of which are based on fears of one sort or another. I doubt very much if commercial concerns would succeed directly, but certainly commercial interests are capable of co-opting gov't, as we have seen many times in U.S. history. Consider how the confinement into concentration camps of U.S. citizens in WW II was rendered acceptable to the population at large by spreading FUD regarding the possibility of Japanese 5th column activity. I say that in the end fear is much more powerful than greed, both as a motivator and as a pretext. The notion of "the enemy within" is powerful indeed.
As fears of terrorism and 5th column activity within our borders increase, it becomes easier and easier to sway popular sentiment away from safeguarding 1st Amendment rights and move it towards safety and security. I need not repeat the admonition of Benjamin Franklin to this audience. I make no judgement as to the legitimacy of such a move when we are at genuine extremity, but in any other circumstance, it would be a tragedy.
I see that you are a compassionate person, and I fully understand your actions, but it is also good to ask the question, though. It can be argued that suicide makes victims of the survivors, and hence they (IMHO) become entitled to anything that would help them cope in any way. It can also be argued that the deceased has a continuing right to privacy. I suppose much depends on one's view of suicide, as to whether it's a legitimate choice or a heinous act. In the interest of full disclosure, I hold the latter view, albeit with the caveat of being careful to judge only the act and not the person.
It says very good things about you that you even stopped to ask the question. Many would not, either because they wanted to be a "hero" or because they were overwhelmed by the grief of the survivors. That being said, my bias would be to uncover as much information as could possibly be uncovered, especially seeing as how the circumstances of the deceased's passing are not yet entirely clear. As the attainment of said clarity is paramount for legal, moral, and psychological reasons (IMHO), I would view any action taken toward that goal as entirely appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
How right you are! But for longer than 20 years...consider IBM's DISSOS, circa 1980.
I'm going to tackle your discernment of "evil" and see if I can pinpoint it, because I had exactly the same feeling. Please forgive the distasteful imagery in the following, but I think you'll see what I'm trying to do.
It would seem as if the ultimate, unspoken ideal of the individual who wrote such stuff is the packaging of human meat "on the foot" as "efficiently" as possible, meaning maximum density with minimum overhead (i.e. energy and resource consumption, carbon production, etc). Clearly this is what it must be, once *the well-being and happiness* of those who live in such packing-house conditions (or lack thereof, rather) is not the primary consideration. It's almost as if humans are spoken of as a commodity, rather like chickens or other, perhaps herded, animals.
A point to ponder: why it is often the case that the same ones who won't eat meat or eggs from anything but free-range chickens because of the unspeakable cruelty of the non-free-range producers ( full disclosure -- I agree with that assessment -- it is cruelty ) think that this kind of thinking is OK for human beings, s long as it makes "Gaia" happy? You very likely would agree with me that such thinking is upside-down. I will not go into that now.
It is well and good to ponder over how 20+ billion individuals are supposed to share this planet, and indeed it is prudent to do so. But if these ideas are permitted to take root at the center of this pondering, the result can only be beyond horror, with the same old result -- the ones doing the 'central planning' somehow never seem to share the fate of those subjected to their plans. This simply cannot be permitted to happen. Such ideas must be refuted with vigor everywhere they crop up. Once a human being is seen as mere meat, Stalinist-Russia.Nazi-Germany.Maoist.China 2.0 is the inevitable result.
Historically the motivations for this are so that the very, very few can live the way they want. Consider comment http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1565742&cid=31304366. I think that captures it, and I believe that's what you're sensing.
Your assessment is correct. Perhaps I should limit that to saying only that I agree. It is evil.
Grace and peace
I, too, am sole developer on two huge projects. What you describe happens to me sometimes, too. I'm assuming that you're referring to those "stalls" that can last for days, and not simply battle fatigue.
I have found that the following things help me:
1. Pick out something very small and very simple to accomplish, and do it. Don't worry if it's not on the mainstream of the effort. What's important is to move forward. That relieves some of that horrible inner pressure that builds up when stuck for too long.
2. If that fails, try creating on or more small experiments for yourself, regarding things that you're curious about or things that have been particular troublespots. These can bring great joy and release the flow for you.
3. If these things fail, be productive doing something else altogether. Don't worry about wasting time, because you weren't moving forward anyway. This, too, can start a flow.
Remember, friend, that in a time of famine, a small harvest is better than none. Do not despise small accomplishments.
Peace---
We should have exhausted this question when cigarette companies were caught enhancing nicotine levels in their product, in order to increase addiction, which enhances profit.
Consumers must have the opportunity to make conscious choices and give informed consent when consuming anything known (or reasonably suspected) to be habit-forming. I have no desire to form a nanny state, but folks need to know what they're getting.
Human nature being what it is, this is an excellent opportunity for black market corruption -- drug company sells to developing country. Corrupt elements in developing country sell back to corrupt black marketeers who then resell in 'rich' countries to corrupt vendors for reduced prices and still make huge profits.
And still the people who need the drugs don't get them, but maybe some actually will, and that's a good thing.
The scenario I saw play out is admittedly far-fetched but as a Slashdot reader, I've come upon shocking articles regarding our infrastructure here in the US being targeted by hackers from inside Russia and China. Here's one such example:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2409865.ece
Now let's do a bit of extrapolation:
1. widespread adoption by NYC & LA -c class municipalities
2. traffic signal control governed by this 'network'
3. Understanding of the architecture gets into the hands of even more virulent enemies.
These three steps are not unlikely should this technology prove to be effective and become popular.
Now consider this scenario.
It's a day with fairly good weather near the Holiday shopping season. Commercial activity is at it's peak, along with tourism. A physical attack is then initiated along the lines of a medium sized chemical or biological weapon, or perhaps bombing of a central municipal structure such as Grand Central Station in NYC. Coordinated with this attack is a simultaneous assault on the traffic control network. This attack makes it impossible to
a. escape the scene
b. get first-responders to the scene
Result: complete chaos and panic.
The increasing tendency to use this type of communication to support critical infrastructure is an open invitation to chaos and disaster induced by malicious hacking.
Consider for a moment all the past reports of external hacking on U.S. infrastructure and the chaos they created. Now imagine what would happen were this to be hacked after widespread adoption.
You all very well know that from the moment of its inception there will be concerted efforts to do just that.
No thanks.
Leave out the networking with private vehicles and it gets a bit better, but there's still a vulnerability.
Again, no thanks. It can't be made hacker-proof.
Let's start by setting an example and weaning ourselves off the addiction to stupid, pointless entertainment. Let's start paying attention to things that mean something. Let's refuse to care about passing fads. Let's honor teachers, and not just with mere money. Let's utterly cease reflecting back on our stoner days with pleasant nostalgia, but talk about them as wasted time. Let's stop overemphasizing how our children feel, and begin to address how they think. Let's establish the notion that it's a young adult's job to develop to their own full potential (no one else's), and the notion that it's the job of all the adults in their lives to support that effort fully and hold them accountable.
If enough people do this, the culture will either change for the better or become irrelevant.
Q: With web crackdowns like this becoming more and more frequent do you think we will start to see similar (overt) activities from US and European governments?
A: In order to do this in the U.S. on any significant scale ( e.g. China), there would have to be a pervasive, gradual (so as not to raise alarms in the general populace) erosion of 1st Amendment Constitutional sensibilities. There are several pretexts that could be used to accomplish this, all of which are based on fears of one sort or another. I doubt very much if commercial concerns would succeed directly, but certainly commercial interests are capable of co-opting gov't, as we have seen many times in U.S. history. Consider how the confinement into concentration camps of U.S. citizens in WW II was rendered acceptable to the population at large by spreading FUD regarding the possibility of Japanese 5th column activity. I say that in the end fear is much more powerful than greed, both as a motivator and as a pretext. The notion of "the enemy within" is powerful indeed.
As fears of terrorism and 5th column activity within our borders increase, it becomes easier and easier to sway popular sentiment away from safeguarding 1st Amendment rights and move it towards safety and security. I need not repeat the admonition of Benjamin Franklin to this audience. I make no judgement as to the legitimacy of such a move when we are at genuine extremity, but in any other circumstance, it would be a tragedy.
I see that you are a compassionate person, and I fully understand your actions, but it is also good to ask the question, though. It can be argued that suicide makes victims of the survivors, and hence they (IMHO) become entitled to anything that would help them cope in any way. It can also be argued that the deceased has a continuing right to privacy. I suppose much depends on one's view of suicide, as to whether it's a legitimate choice or a heinous act. In the interest of full disclosure, I hold the latter view, albeit with the caveat of being careful to judge only the act and not the person.
It says very good things about you that you even stopped to ask the question. Many would not, either because they wanted to be a "hero" or because they were overwhelmed by the grief of the survivors. That being said, my bias would be to uncover as much information as could possibly be uncovered, especially seeing as how the circumstances of the deceased's passing are not yet entirely clear. As the attainment of said clarity is paramount for legal, moral, and psychological reasons (IMHO), I would view any action taken toward that goal as entirely appropriate.