There's a difference between a user blocking email and an ISP. Please, tell me you realize the difference between USERS and ISPs. Do you really want the internet to become this big wasteland and firewalls and obstacles and general closed-ness? By taking this kind of control over the (supposedly free and open) INTERNET you destroy what makes it so fuckin great.
Don't fall for this bullshit about spam. They shouldn't be blocking ANY legitimate emails, it's that simple. Blocking an entire domain is wrong and just plain bad for the internet, especially when the blocking is arbitrary.
BFD. Should we give them a medal or something? I mean, listen, it's great that this is GPLed, but don't look at it as some sort of sign or change in the wind as far as corporations or whatever. Their main and primary purpose is to make money, and since they're only selling hardware and subscriptions for cable (and not selling the particular software for whatever hardware they use). I'm not saying it's wrong to make money, but take it for what it is. They will try to make money no matter what, and they aren't going out of their way, not even a little, to "give back".
Not everyone has their own web page. And the stuff on web pages, things that people publish, don't always reflect what users are looking for. This is really like page rank, just taking a much bigger sample (more users, not just people who have web pages). Plus it will probably balance out the disproportionate amount of power of incestuous links (scientologists, bloggers).
The whole concept of "inately evil" is wrong and dangerous.
Yes, it is very dangerous. Some people think it's unfortunate that people are innately evil, as they believe, but that it's the truth. But it's not the truth at all. In another world, people might be innately evil, but it is simply a fact: people are NOT innately evil.
it's true, we are a long way from it, but what's a long way? I'll be alive in 30 years, so if it might happen by then I oughtta be concerned. Even if it takes 100 years, a time when I'll probably be gone, I'm still concerned for the inheritors of these problems. Maybe I went outside the scope of the article, and maybe I'm going outside the scope of what we should be concerned with, today, right now, but this is a real issue, and it's going to happen unless strong people, strong leaders, make deliberate efforts to prevent it.
Threats to those in power are not the same as threats to society. Please, if there's anything you gain from this post, understand that point. If you don't understand or agree, spend some time trying to reconcile it with what you believe, because I think it's the truth. Every revolutionary or rebel is a threat to those in power, but our country was founded by those types. They were a threat to the "natural order" and they caused a little chaos, but I think they did more good than harm.
Now, you mention terrorists, and this is something that is really hard to get into and something I can't even defend right here right now, but I think that terrorism happens only when there is some fundamental injustice in the world. I am not a terrorist, and I don't defend terrorism, but I don't think it's right to resign yourself to the fact that terrorism is inevitable. Terrorism is not inevitable. And like you said, the terrorists didn't even present as criminals, so I still maintain that being tracked will be a bad thing for everyone.
We definitely are a long way away from the creation of these thought crimes I'm talking about. But I see our society, our nation, on this inevitable course and I think we should discuss it before it actually happens. I agree we are still pretty far from this horrible future (though not as far as I would like) but I also think that if action is not taken, such a future is INEVITABLE.
Well, I'm also astonished by the seriousness of my reply. I know this technology is not possible yet, but I think it's silly to deny that it might be possible one day, and I think it's helpful to talk about it. Descartes talked about robots, after all.
Now you may disagree with me, but the very essence of my post was that such tracking IS VERY DIFFERENT than cops patrolling a beat. This kind of tracking finds patterns in your behavior, it profiles you, it can think three steps ahead, putting you into a statistical model based on the books you read and the shows you watch and the people you talk to, in order to assess your THREAT LEVEL. Cops on a beat can only do one thing: see if you're doing anything wrong RIGHT NOW.
Listen, maybe this kind of surveillance is good for our society, for our species. You're entitled to think so. Maybe just like in the evolution of the universe, atoms lost their identity when cells developed, and cells lost their identity when organisms developed, maybe in the same way individuals will lose their identity for the greater cause of "society". Maybe all of this is a good thing, and like I said, you're entitled to think so. But don't deny that this is actually happening. It will happen. If we allow this to happen, for better or worse, we will be tracked, and profiled and surveilled to make sure we are not doing anything that threatens those in power.
I can make a case for why this is a bad thing, but that's not even the point. You won't even accept that it's happening at all, so it would be pointless for me to tell you why it's bad.
The change you described, the synaptic changes going on in your head (or whatever it is that is actually happening) is something I've been going through also. I also don't believe in god, but I feel more spiritual and I find beauty in things more and more than I ever have. I find life richer and I see more beauty in the world ever since I've tried marijuana. While stoned I noticed myself, my brain, shift modes, into this new mode I never experienced before. It's been with me ever since and I'm very glad. Drugs have helped me see this side of the world, this side of people, and it is now my goal to fully integrate this into myself (even without drugs). In moments when I see this beauty, I can also see intense goodness in everyone, and I want to be able to see that always. I think this is the key to being a good, and perhaps more importantly, a happy person.
I understand that drugs can be abused and all, but you don't have to use a disclaimer every time you talk about it:) In fact, it sounds like you're a drug enthusiast and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Certain drugs can definitely be harmful, and highly addictive, and it's important you be aware of that, but that's no reason to avoid all drugs altogether.
This is not about absolute values or anything. Sure, in theory you are observed and recorded (by memory) in public, but this information is not easily searchable. Even though making it more easily searchable seems like a small difference: just making things easier for law enforcement, it is actually a total and complete change into a totally different catergory. Allowing this kind of easy search is the difference between searching for a criminal (the old way) and SURVEILLANCE. This technology allows for surveillance, that is, watching ordinary citizens before they do anything wrong or just watching them in general. We can't allow that.
I consider myself more of an introvert than an extrovert (being alone recharges me, I usually only consider "deep" relationships to be my friends, though I'm changing that), and I can say that drugs have definitely opened doors in my mind. I'm not talking about psychedelics or hallucinatory drugs.
Simple marijuana has really opened up my mind in so many ways, helping me realize so many things about myself and about the world. When I'm stoned, I get excited and every little detail about the world is totally fascinating and amazing and I understand it on a totally new level. I agree with you, I don't think extroverts experience it the same way; they seem to have a totally different experience from weed.
But I don't really understand the details of this. Maybe you can tell me more about the differences between an extrovert and an introvert on drugs.
I understand your philosophy, but I think you're being a little bit too hard-ass about it. The fact is, a console is an investment. You're not buying it just for the games that are already out, but also for games whose release you can't predict. If a console is selling poorly then it's a sign that fewer games, and probably lower quality games will be released for it, making that console a bad investment.
Of course it's a very tricky thing, because if EVERYONE bought that console even though it's selling poorly, then it would no longer be selling poorly. So it's kind of a random process, based on fickle consumers who usually don't know too much about the gaming industry and which console is more "powerful".
Some people can't afford more than one console, or they just don't need to pay for more than one. I own all 3 consoles, but most people don't.
No, but that's the point. People express themselves creatively because they enjoy it, not because they make money on it. (A corollary of this is that copyright is meant to finance art, not motivate it.)
Until they put Tivo out of business, when the FCC will require all broadcasts digital, with brodcast flags and then they can just stop you from skipping commercials, recording stuff you're not supposed to, etc. Think I'm paranoid? Watch. It WILL happen.
Charging for something that costs nothing most definitely does not adhere to free market principles. You see, the only way to charge for something that costs nothing, and have people pay for it is with government enforced, artificially maintained MONOPOLIES. In fact, there is a school of thought that believes that no monopoly can ever form and continue to exist without exerting forces OUTSIDE the market, such as the law.
Now, I haven't made up my mind entirely yet. Of course I don't want the government, or any single entity, in charge of all creative thought and endeavours. So maybe, in the end, I believe a certain amount of government enforced monopoly, ie copyrights, patents etc., is OK. But I also think that public research, the kind that Universities do for the public good, and not for a profit, profits everyone more.
I'm sure you're wondering about incentive for creative thought. I'm sure you think that people create new drugs, etc. because it will make them rich. Well, you'd be wrong. Pharmaceutical companies hire scientists to work on a SALARY. They don't make profit off their creations. So whether these scientists work for a profitable organization or a public one, is irrelevant; they'd be doing the same work for the same money.
But if these scientists were creating drugs for a PUBLIC organization, these drugs would then be public domain, and most likely dirt cheap. Sure, the citizenry will bear the costs of development, but they won't be squeezed any more than necessary. In other words, the public is already bearing the costs of development and then some. And sort of like insurance, the sick ones won't be bearing an extraordinary amount of the load. And furthermore, we'd probably have more useful drugs, more important drugs that aren't being created because they are less profitable (vaccines is the most common example of important but less profitable drugs that are being neglected).
I understand that this article wasn't about pharmaceuticals, but I think the same principles apply. The same principles applied when DARPA (or ARPA, whatever) created internet techologies, and the same principles applied when academic institutions developed these techonologies. Not in a million years would a private corporation create something as powerful (and powerfully open) as the internet. In fact, these corporations, right now as we speak, are doing their best to close it up.
I'm not talking about centralized planning, or bureacracy. I believe in creative inspirations and moments of genius and all that. I just don't think our system is ideal.
And just to be clear, I'm not certain that we don't need any copyrights or patents at all (although that might work out nicely, I'm not positive). Certain types of projects and developments work better if there is a profit motive driving behind it, sure. But I also think we need more public funding for creative developments, because otherwise there won't be any new innovations created unless a profit can be squeezed from it.
I'd like to put it this way: certainly you agree that there are some technologies that can be developed, which have no ways of making a profit from it. Certainly not all innovations that will benefit mankind can be shoehorned into a business plan. Well, if you acknowledge that such innovations exist, innovations which benefits everyone, but no one stands to profit from, then I'm sure you'd be in favor of a certain level of public funding for these innovations.
I am not a communist, or a socialist, and I'm definitely not a hippie. I think market economies are great...for things like grain or steel or coal. I'm not convinced that communism or socialism is a good thing (in fact, I'm inclined to think its not). But I do think that there is a huge, obvious, and non-arbitrary division between physical goods (which can be exhausted) and the products of creative thought (which cannot).
Communism may not be a good fit with physical goods and commodities and stuff like that, but I think China is setting a good example with intangible, non-rivalrous goods (IP). Once they design a chip, or a video compression scheme, no one can exhaust its usefulness. This is a good thing.
Now don't think I'm going so far out there. We have similar ideas here, and we at least pretend to practice them. That's the idea behind University research and stuff like that (at least before universities had the right to own the products of their research).
Here in America, I think we need more research done for the public benefit, paid with public money. There are so many intricacies to the vision I have, and I can anticipate many objections, but I'm not going to write a whole long post here. I'm just making a positive suggestion here.
What has changed so much since 1950? I think the world changed a lot more from 1900 to 1950 than from 1950 to now. Sure, we have computers and the internet, but things aren't really that much different, in my opinion. And also, sure, computers are a zillion times faster than 1950, and a zillion times smaller, and looking at progress just in the field of computers it seems there's been incredible progress. But the world really hasn't changed all that much as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between a user blocking email and an ISP. Please, tell me you realize the difference between USERS and ISPs. Do you really want the internet to become this big wasteland and firewalls and obstacles and general closed-ness? By taking this kind of control over the (supposedly free and open) INTERNET you destroy what makes it so fuckin great.
Don't fall for this bullshit about spam. They shouldn't be blocking ANY legitimate emails, it's that simple. Blocking an entire domain is wrong and just plain bad for the internet, especially when the blocking is arbitrary.
BFD. Should we give them a medal or something? I mean, listen, it's great that this is GPLed, but don't look at it as some sort of sign or change in the wind as far as corporations or whatever. Their main and primary purpose is to make money, and since they're only selling hardware and subscriptions for cable (and not selling the particular software for whatever hardware they use). I'm not saying it's wrong to make money, but take it for what it is. They will try to make money no matter what, and they aren't going out of their way, not even a little, to "give back".
Actually, with the money they make raping and pillaging the planet, tycoons can afford to bathe in bottled water. Most of the world can't.
The year was 2001. Go into preferences, then select the homepage tab and choose a date/time format that includes the year.
Not everyone has their own web page. And the stuff on web pages, things that people publish, don't always reflect what users are looking for. This is really like page rank, just taking a much bigger sample (more users, not just people who have web pages). Plus it will probably balance out the disproportionate amount of power of incestuous links (scientologists, bloggers).
I'm actually a Chimera of a set of identical twins.
Actually, the new one isn't so bad. It's kind of nice.
The whole concept of "inately evil" is wrong and dangerous.
Yes, it is very dangerous. Some people think it's unfortunate that people are innately evil, as they believe, but that it's the truth. But it's not the truth at all. In another world, people might be innately evil, but it is simply a fact: people are NOT innately evil.
it's true, we are a long way from it, but what's a long way? I'll be alive in 30 years, so if it might happen by then I oughtta be concerned. Even if it takes 100 years, a time when I'll probably be gone, I'm still concerned for the inheritors of these problems. Maybe I went outside the scope of the article, and maybe I'm going outside the scope of what we should be concerned with, today, right now, but this is a real issue, and it's going to happen unless strong people, strong leaders, make deliberate efforts to prevent it.
Threats to those in power are not the same as threats to society. Please, if there's anything you gain from this post, understand that point. If you don't understand or agree, spend some time trying to reconcile it with what you believe, because I think it's the truth. Every revolutionary or rebel is a threat to those in power, but our country was founded by those types. They were a threat to the "natural order" and they caused a little chaos, but I think they did more good than harm.
Now, you mention terrorists, and this is something that is really hard to get into and something I can't even defend right here right now, but I think that terrorism happens only when there is some fundamental injustice in the world. I am not a terrorist, and I don't defend terrorism, but I don't think it's right to resign yourself to the fact that terrorism is inevitable. Terrorism is not inevitable. And like you said, the terrorists didn't even present as criminals, so I still maintain that being tracked will be a bad thing for everyone.
We definitely are a long way away from the creation of these thought crimes I'm talking about. But I see our society, our nation, on this inevitable course and I think we should discuss it before it actually happens. I agree we are still pretty far from this horrible future (though not as far as I would like) but I also think that if action is not taken, such a future is INEVITABLE.
Well, I'm also astonished by the seriousness of my reply. I know this technology is not possible yet, but I think it's silly to deny that it might be possible one day, and I think it's helpful to talk about it. Descartes talked about robots, after all.
Now you may disagree with me, but the very essence of my post was that such tracking IS VERY DIFFERENT than cops patrolling a beat. This kind of tracking finds patterns in your behavior, it profiles you, it can think three steps ahead, putting you into a statistical model based on the books you read and the shows you watch and the people you talk to, in order to assess your THREAT LEVEL. Cops on a beat can only do one thing: see if you're doing anything wrong RIGHT NOW.
Listen, maybe this kind of surveillance is good for our society, for our species. You're entitled to think so. Maybe just like in the evolution of the universe, atoms lost their identity when cells developed, and cells lost their identity when organisms developed, maybe in the same way individuals will lose their identity for the greater cause of "society". Maybe all of this is a good thing, and like I said, you're entitled to think so. But don't deny that this is actually happening. It will happen. If we allow this to happen, for better or worse, we will be tracked, and profiled and surveilled to make sure we are not doing anything that threatens those in power.
I can make a case for why this is a bad thing, but that's not even the point. You won't even accept that it's happening at all, so it would be pointless for me to tell you why it's bad.
The change you described, the synaptic changes going on in your head (or whatever it is that is actually happening) is something I've been going through also. I also don't believe in god, but I feel more spiritual and I find beauty in things more and more than I ever have. I find life richer and I see more beauty in the world ever since I've tried marijuana. While stoned I noticed myself, my brain, shift modes, into this new mode I never experienced before. It's been with me ever since and I'm very glad. Drugs have helped me see this side of the world, this side of people, and it is now my goal to fully integrate this into myself (even without drugs). In moments when I see this beauty, I can also see intense goodness in everyone, and I want to be able to see that always. I think this is the key to being a good, and perhaps more importantly, a happy person.
:) In fact, it sounds like you're a drug enthusiast and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Certain drugs can definitely be harmful, and highly addictive, and it's important you be aware of that, but that's no reason to avoid all drugs altogether.
I understand that drugs can be abused and all, but you don't have to use a disclaimer every time you talk about it
This is not about absolute values or anything. Sure, in theory you are observed and recorded (by memory) in public, but this information is not easily searchable. Even though making it more easily searchable seems like a small difference: just making things easier for law enforcement, it is actually a total and complete change into a totally different catergory. Allowing this kind of easy search is the difference between searching for a criminal (the old way) and SURVEILLANCE. This technology allows for surveillance, that is, watching ordinary citizens before they do anything wrong or just watching them in general. We can't allow that.
I consider myself more of an introvert than an extrovert (being alone recharges me, I usually only consider "deep" relationships to be my friends, though I'm changing that), and I can say that drugs have definitely opened doors in my mind. I'm not talking about psychedelics or hallucinatory drugs.
Simple marijuana has really opened up my mind in so many ways, helping me realize so many things about myself and about the world. When I'm stoned, I get excited and every little detail about the world is totally fascinating and amazing and I understand it on a totally new level. I agree with you, I don't think extroverts experience it the same way; they seem to have a totally different experience from weed.
But I don't really understand the details of this. Maybe you can tell me more about the differences between an extrovert and an introvert on drugs.
I understand your philosophy, but I think you're being a little bit too hard-ass about it. The fact is, a console is an investment. You're not buying it just for the games that are already out, but also for games whose release you can't predict. If a console is selling poorly then it's a sign that fewer games, and probably lower quality games will be released for it, making that console a bad investment.
Of course it's a very tricky thing, because if EVERYONE bought that console even though it's selling poorly, then it would no longer be selling poorly. So it's kind of a random process, based on fickle consumers who usually don't know too much about the gaming industry and which console is more "powerful".
Some people can't afford more than one console, or they just don't need to pay for more than one. I own all 3 consoles, but most people don't.
You're totally right, I just really wanted FP.
OH YEAH, Christians have so many problems with bias and prejudice against them in America! Poor Christians.
Maybe they should work on reliable mail first. I know, cheap shot.
If 2/3 of us agree slavery isn't wrong then it shouldn't be illegal.
I agree strongly that copyright is abusive and harmful and all that (check my post history). But that kind of logic is unfortunately faulty.
No, but that's the point. People express themselves creatively because they enjoy it, not because they make money on it. (A corollary of this is that copyright is meant to finance art, not motivate it.)
Wait, so this thing actually uses film? That's retarded.
Until they put Tivo out of business, when the FCC will require all broadcasts digital, with brodcast flags and then they can just stop you from skipping commercials, recording stuff you're not supposed to, etc. Think I'm paranoid? Watch. It WILL happen.
Okay, ask her and really respond to me right here and answer me. I'm not trolling, just reminding you.
Charging for something that costs nothing most definitely does not adhere to free market principles. You see, the only way to charge for something that costs nothing, and have people pay for it is with government enforced, artificially maintained MONOPOLIES. In fact, there is a school of thought that believes that no monopoly can ever form and continue to exist without exerting forces OUTSIDE the market, such as the law.
Now, I haven't made up my mind entirely yet. Of course I don't want the government, or any single entity, in charge of all creative thought and endeavours. So maybe, in the end, I believe a certain amount of government enforced monopoly, ie copyrights, patents etc., is OK. But I also think that public research, the kind that Universities do for the public good, and not for a profit, profits everyone more.
I'm sure you're wondering about incentive for creative thought. I'm sure you think that people create new drugs, etc. because it will make them rich. Well, you'd be wrong. Pharmaceutical companies hire scientists to work on a SALARY. They don't make profit off their creations. So whether these scientists work for a profitable organization or a public one, is irrelevant; they'd be doing the same work for the same money.
But if these scientists were creating drugs for a PUBLIC organization, these drugs would then be public domain, and most likely dirt cheap. Sure, the citizenry will bear the costs of development, but they won't be squeezed any more than necessary. In other words, the public is already bearing the costs of development and then some. And sort of like insurance, the sick ones won't be bearing an extraordinary amount of the load. And furthermore, we'd probably have more useful drugs, more important drugs that aren't being created because they are less profitable (vaccines is the most common example of important but less profitable drugs that are being neglected).
I understand that this article wasn't about pharmaceuticals, but I think the same principles apply. The same principles applied when DARPA (or ARPA, whatever) created internet techologies, and the same principles applied when academic institutions developed these techonologies. Not in a million years would a private corporation create something as powerful (and powerfully open) as the internet. In fact, these corporations, right now as we speak, are doing their best to close it up.
I'm not talking about centralized planning, or bureacracy. I believe in creative inspirations and moments of genius and all that. I just don't think our system is ideal.
And just to be clear, I'm not certain that we don't need any copyrights or patents at all (although that might work out nicely, I'm not positive). Certain types of projects and developments work better if there is a profit motive driving behind it, sure. But I also think we need more public funding for creative developments, because otherwise there won't be any new innovations created unless a profit can be squeezed from it.
I'd like to put it this way: certainly you agree that there are some technologies that can be developed, which have no ways of making a profit from it. Certainly not all innovations that will benefit mankind can be shoehorned into a business plan. Well, if you acknowledge that such innovations exist, innovations which benefits everyone, but no one stands to profit from, then I'm sure you'd be in favor of a certain level of public funding for these innovations.
I am not a communist, or a socialist, and I'm definitely not a hippie. I think market economies are great...for things like grain or steel or coal. I'm not convinced that communism or socialism is a good thing (in fact, I'm inclined to think its not). But I do think that there is a huge, obvious, and non-arbitrary division between physical goods (which can be exhausted) and the products of creative thought (which cannot).
Communism may not be a good fit with physical goods and commodities and stuff like that, but I think China is setting a good example with intangible, non-rivalrous goods (IP). Once they design a chip, or a video compression scheme, no one can exhaust its usefulness. This is a good thing.
Now don't think I'm going so far out there. We have similar ideas here, and we at least pretend to practice them. That's the idea behind University research and stuff like that (at least before universities had the right to own the products of their research).
Here in America, I think we need more research done for the public benefit, paid with public money. There are so many intricacies to the vision I have, and I can anticipate many objections, but I'm not going to write a whole long post here. I'm just making a positive suggestion here.
What has changed so much since 1950? I think the world changed a lot more from 1900 to 1950 than from 1950 to now. Sure, we have computers and the internet, but things aren't really that much different, in my opinion. And also, sure, computers are a zillion times faster than 1950, and a zillion times smaller, and looking at progress just in the field of computers it seems there's been incredible progress. But the world really hasn't changed all that much as a result.