The way I see it, and this comes not from a religious viewpoint since I am not religious, but a human rights one, is no one else has a right to impose on another person their wishes about their body, including deciding what kind of body that person will have. Every person should have a right to a body that is uniquely theres and no one elses and no one should have a right to force them into someone else's body. At least nature is random and has no agenda. People have agendas and I do not like the idea of people deciding what kind of body a person will have, their facial features, their eye color, etc. People have a right to eb unique and to have things which are uniquely their own and which no one else has control over and the most basic of this is their body. Perhaps people choose their own DNA before they are born, including their phsyical features and characteristics.
Human cloning has a very concerning and unpleasant 1984ish or Brave New World feel to it, a horrific utopian world where every aspect of peoples lives, right down to that which is most personal and sacred to a person, their body, is controlled by others. It is a frightening vision of conformity, uniformity where people are rather than seen as unique individuals instead as carbon copies. It really needs to be completely banned if we care about freedom, the right of each person to be individual, unique, to self determination, the right to a body that is uniquely theres and controlled and manipulated by no one else. We need to respect each person as a unique and diverse person entirely their own, rather than trying to impose ourselves on them and try to determine and control who they are. We need to respect diversity and individuality and eschew totalitarianism and conformism. So I concur with the pope on cloning, not on religious grounds, but on human rights ones.
In the case of test tube babies natural conception still occurs so the child is still unique and natural, and does not have someone elses will imposed on them by being forced into someone elses body. The way I see it, and this comes not from a religious viewpoint since I am not religious, but a human rights one, is no one else has a right to impose on another person their wishes about their body, including deciding what kind of body that person will have. At least nature is random and has no agenda. People have agendas and I do not like the idea of people deciding what kind of body a person will have, their facial features, their eye color, etc. People have a right to eb unique and to have things which are uniquely their own and which no one else has control over and the most basic of this is their body. Perhaps people choose their own DNA before they are born, including their phsyical features and characteristics.
Human cloning has a very concerning and unpleasant 1984ish feel to it, a horrific utopian world where every aspect of peoples lives, right down to that which is most personal and sacred to a person, their body, is controlled by others. It is a frightening vision of conformity, uniformity where people are rather than seen as unique individuals instead as carbon copies. It really needs to be completely banned if we care about freedom, the right of each person to be individual, unique, to self determination, the right to a body that is uniquely theres and controlled and manipulated by no one else. So I concur with the pope on cloning, not on religious grounds, but on human rights ones.
So you would rather have corporations monitoring and filtering your content. The potential for evil is just as great. They are both very large institutions. They can get access at it anyway if they want to, they would just have corporations do it for them, which is why a privacy law is needed to take care of that problem.This is why we need laws to gaurantee privacy. First off government unlike most corporationsa re democratically run and are supposed to represent you and protect your rights. if they are not there is something wrong and it is not a legitimate government. Truly corporations should do the same. The only reason to have these large institutions is to serve the common interest. Do you really think its a good idea for them to exist to consolidate power and wealth for an elite few, which corporations these days are doing to a great extant, having more control of peoples lives than government, control over the products they buy, their jobs, and a good part of their lives while they are working for them. Government is at least supposed to be decentralised in this country through democracy it is supposed to be controlled by the people, and frankly that is how corporations should be too.
Government doing some planning to implement a nationwide fiber optic network does in fact have many benefits and would not lead to more chance of surveillance. It could be built in a manner with government assistance without any loss of freedom or privacy, in fact it might promote freedom and privacy if it is an open access system which anyone can use to provide new services and features on top of it would increase the freedom and diverse ways in which it can be used and actually encourage innovation.
Computer implants present great privacy threat
on
The Next 25 Years in Tech
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I do not foresee the PC going away. The device is just too useful and common sense. Having a monitor on your desk and a keyboard is practical and its not something that is going to become obsolete.
I would be very concerned about the privacy and human rights implications of putting computers or chip implants into peoples bodies. This is the perfect vehicle for total electronic surviellance of a population, and perhaps even more nefarious purposes. For instance it might be possible for a clandestine purpose, or for "law enforcement" purposes to put circuits in these implants that could deliver an electric shock, cause pain or disable a person. The human rights implications and the threats to basic freedom that this would entail would be very dire and serious.
Technology is great on your desk or in your PDA device. It is nice to be able to browse the internet and access and share information through the internet via computer. But this technology should work for our benefit and also be used to promote freedom, not take it away. People must have complete control over their computers, and should be able to put it to use how they see fit. This is the idea of a general purpose computer. DRM indeed is a serious threat to the freedom of the consumer, the freedom to tinker and to utilise technology in new and innovative ways. Closed platforms such as game consoles are designed to limit how they can be used, so that instead of you being able to use your computer as you see fit, some large corporation controls the system and what you can use it for. Putting implants into peoples bodies raises far too much concern for abuse, the the risk or danger to freedom and to control this technology is too great. Once you put electronic devices into the body for these kinds of things, the potential for this to be abused and to be used against you increases exponentially. At least a person should have a choice to refuse this sort of technology. We need to be very wary of schemes to try to forcibly implant people with chips, especially children, and the issues this would create to various bodily integrity and human rights issues, and would also lead us towards a world where no one has any privacy or rights at all, a 1984 like society where everything someone does can be controlled and scrutinised. People should have a basic right to not have their body implanted with electronic devices, tracking devices, etc, which can be used against them. No matter what gaurantee a manufacturer of such technology makes, there is always the opportunity and chance that some technology which you may not be told is there can be embedded into these devices, for tracking or monitoring persons, or as a control measure through some sort of electroshock feature for instance. It is impossible to verify from the consumers end that this technology is not present in such devices. They present a very serious danger and threat to human rights, freedom and privacy.
In the future, ideally I see the desktop computer remaining very commonplace. Computer processing power will continue to increase which will improve game performance, rollout of fiber optic networks will allow for more high bandwidth applications such as instant movie downloading, and so on. Linux will eventually become dominate and totally replace windows, which will give consumers vastly increased freedom and control over their computers than ever before. Just keep the computers on your desk and in your pocket, not in your body and we can use them as a tool of freedom and for our own benefit and to use them as we wish, rather than as a tool of survellience and enslavement.
The problem with your argument is these auctions basically give control to the wealthiest corporate interests, which do not at all correspond with what is the best interest of the population or which promotes individual self expression and free speech most. It allows these wealthy interests to control channels of information and communication and hinder innovation and free speech. We are best making sure as many independant voices can be heard and making sure as many people can innovate and use the radio waves how they see fit rather than having a few large corporations controlling them. You can do this while also assuring that the radio stations do not transmit over each other and chaos does not result. The purpose of licencing is to prevent chaos, not to give exclusive control to large corporations, which it has become. The airwaves should not even be owned but licenced, the public should own the airwaves and determine how they are utilised, since they are a limited resource. AS for how we choose how they should be utilised, why not let the people choose through an election how they are run, and why not require, for instance, some public access stations to be provided which would give airtime slots to local groups, organisations, individuals etc. Quite frankly having a lottery is a better way of determining who should have access to broadcast resources, then giving it to whoever has the most money. With the wireless networks we could charter a non profit corporation which would construct the physical network, and then sell access at cost to service providers and consumers. This would assure the great innovation and diversity in services and greatest choice and freedom for consumers. You assume the only ones who want to use the airwaves or have the right to are corporations, when instead they should be used for and by the greater population for the best public interest. We should not have a situation where you have to be a millionaire to have a voice, and the more money you have, the more control you have over the news and information that flows through the airwaves. Wealth should not give a person a greater right to free speech.
It could be given out to, in the case of broadcasters, to strictly locally owners assuring a decentralised media that is not controlled by large corporations. Remember the FCCs ownership rules? They prevented a company from owning more than a handful of radio stations and more than one or two stations in a particular market, assuring a broad diversity of sources of information, news,etc. Now the FCC has pretty much gutted these rules, and a few large corporations now control most radio outlets (clear channel), tv outlets, and now broadcasters will be allowed to own newspapers as well, furthering the consolidation. Allegedly we have free speech, but the means to free expression is increasingly being controlled by a few large corporations who, due to their rapidly expanding power and how they own government and seem to be above the law, the laws are made for them and government is a puppet that they own.
There was a push to get low power FM passed through, which would not have interfered with larger stations and which would have been required to be licenced to only small locally owners, but was opposed by corporations, on a complete lie that it would interfere with their large high power stations, which is a lie since the lpfm licences would require an engineering study to assure they didnt. The corporations just didnt want people freely expressing themselves and are hell bent on controlling all forms of communication.
Auctions of bandwidth are a terrible idea, and shows how biased towards big money interests the government has become, rather than what is in the best public interest. Radio spectrum, considering it is a limited resource, should be given out based on what is the best public interests, and what most promotes free speech, free expression and diversity, not to who has the most money. The auctions basically play perfectly into the hands of telecommunications monopolies who have the resources to win them, and thus control telecommunications infrastructure, with an impact on the ability of the public to freely express itself. I would rather see the FCC require a completely open network and much more choice and competition, especially in the case where the construction of the network would be best coordinated or is capital intensive, the developer of the network perhaps should be a chartered non profit corporation which then sells access at cost to anyone who wants to utilise the network. This would provide a interconnected completely compatable nationwide, seamless network which can be accessed anywhere, and would asusre anyone could use it to innovate with new interesting and novel services. One company would not be able to limit and control what can be done with it. This would assure a diversity of choice and allow many different small service providers who do not have massive resources to get involved with providing services, promoting innovation and a rich and diverse assortment of services.
If the government was not so corrupt and beholden to large corporate interests who want to monopolise and control all assetts and resources for its own gain, basically creating a monopoly which serves a few private interests rather than the public interest and promotes diversity and innovation, we would probably have more choice, diversity and competition. Sometimes monopolies are necessary, for instance in electric utilities, since it is so capital intensive, but in this case they should be regulated and chartered by the government to work in the best public interest rather than in the best interest of corporate profits. What is interesting about the wireless plan, although a publicly owned non profit corporation would build the physical network, it would allow a vast range of competition and services to be offered over it, enabling a diverse marketplace.
Being a Floridian I find this highly offensive. Of course, I am wondering about how we ended up with a government that is so corrupt and absurd as to say we should ignore science and teach a religious fantasy instead. The lengths people will go to discard proveable fact to try to force and indoctrinated children with their completely factless religious ideas is shocking. I was really quite dissappointed. Intelligent Design belongs no where near science course, only in religious studies. Evolution is a real theory with real evidence to back it up.
This idea is particularly bad. You could possibly be giving yourself a vaccine to painkillers. Not at all a good thing. The best thing to do about cocaine is not use it in the first place.
I was recently thinking about what it would take to create some sort of a system which contains a multi-user 3D world, which could become quite large, a continuous, persistant 3D world. I was looking for some possible ways to perhaps render objects more distant to the user with less detail, so the detail would decrease the farther an object is. With a very large world, one that might continue for millions of pixels, that would be rather necessary to keep resource usage down. Perhaps when the terrain is designed several different resolutions could be created, then the client could ask for a certain resolution depending on how far away the object is. As far as existing software, I am afraid I do not know of any off hand.
One interesting concept, if the game is 3D multi-user, allow users to perhaps contribute graphics or expand the terrain of game, by uploading new graphics and terrain to the server. The sort of project I find interesting would be something involving a persistant, dynamic always running 3D world running on a server, which can also change, for instance, trees might blow in simulated winds for instance. People could move their "avatar" or whatever you want to call it and perhaps even manipulate objects in the world with it. There are design challenges involved with this, since it could be one very large continuous 3D space, millions or more pixels large, a way would need to be found to only feed the data closest to a user down to the user at full resolution and uses less detail the farther away an object is, or it would use massive amounts of bandwidth. Having a horizon where simply anything beyond the horizon is not rendered probably would not be sufficient, since you may want items which are far, far away rendered, such as a distant mountain, but without the detail, such as individual trees, is not needed. If you moved closer, then those details would need to be fed to the user.
I am glad to see that there is work underway to show what Linux, X/ OpenGL can do in the area of gaming. There are too few games avialable for Linux.
I do think it would be a good idea for the developers to make this is a server based multiple user game ( a virtual world), the sort where you can login and logoff but the world remains persistant. Perhaps that does not fit with the plot they have for the game, I dont know. But I do think that having more open source multi-user games is a fantastic idea can be quite a bit of fun, especially being able to interact with other users in a virtual 3D space.
I also see value in 3D chat environments based on rendered 3D landscapes and scenes, a visual 3D version of chat rooms. There was a similar system called WorldsAway on compuserve years ago, but was quite limited by the technology of the time. With todays hardware, the level of realness could be much more developed. An open source system could start an IRC-like community of visual environments.
There are a few points that should be made here that many people are missing. This on demand system will be used in early voting (before the official election date) where a voter can show up at any voting location in a county to vote. This is a problem since each precint needs a different ballot, for the congressional districts which vary by district. So they needed a way to give a person a ballot for their precinct, without having to have perhaps dozens of different ballots at the early voting locations. On the main election day, ballots will be preprinted, since everyone in a precinct uses the same ballot. As far as concerns about anonymity, it should be only necessary to type in the precinct number into the computer connected to the printer, not any of the voters identifiying information.
Paper ballots will be a definite improvement and certainly the move back to paper ballots should be appreciated. There needs to be a paper trail to verify that votes are being properly counted. Since one cannot see inside of a computer to verify that their vote was recorded onto the disk, it is essential to have a user verifiable paper ballot. Computer voting machines make rigging elections just too easy.
Whatever happened to competition? I thought that telcos were required to provide at cost access to their networks for third party telephone companies so people could have a choice of telephone companies. Maybe this should apply to access to the network for ISPs as well, perhaps ISPs should be able to offer DSL even when the phone line is provided by another comopany. We also have FIOS and there really ought to be a provision where other companies can offer service over FIOS lines. Either this, or telephone companies need to be regulated as a public service monopoly as electric utilities are. There has also been talk of requiring cable companies to provide at cost access to their networks to third party cable providers but it never happened.
Actually, corporations would be even more powerful without government, so they are always working to reduce the size of government (neocon talk) so they have fewer inconviencies such as minimum vacation times, minimum wages, overtime, and unions to deal with and which get in the way of their plans for treating employees like garbage baying tme as little as they can get away with and perhaps subjecting them to dangerous or inhumane conditions. Corporations power does not depend on government, so the corporations buy politicians to have the politicians eliminate their own power to regulate the corporations. Corporations keep politicians in line through controlling campaign finance, that is a major tool at corporations disposal to make sure that politicians look the other way and let the corporations do whatever they want, pollute the environment, working employees for $1 per hour for 15 hours without restroom breaks, or what have you. Getting rid of government will only make corporations more power, and would reduce the ability of the public through democracy to force these corporations to treat people with respect, not serve the interests of a wealthy few, so serve the interests of the people rather than a wealthy few. If we want corporations that benefit society in general and serve the best common interest, we must have a government to regulate them and force them to be honest, humane and operate in a matter that is a responsible and where they benefit society, and under laws passed by representatives of the people. The problem with government is not intrinsic, but it is due to structual flaws in the current political system. Reducing government power will not solve the problem. What will solve the problem is making government a seperate institution with no conflict of interest with corporations, and that means abolishing all corporate campaign finance and implement public campaign finance, and thus the government represents the people again, rather than the corporations. Politicians would no longer pander to corporations for money. This is the only way to reign in corporate corruption, is not getting rid of government, but making it work for the people not for the corporations. The purpose of government is to protect personal (not corporate) freedom and liberties for all persons, and to assure that everyone is able to obtain a good standard and quality of living, to protect the environment for all to be able to enjoy and so our children will have a planet which is a good place to live, where the basic pleasures of life are intact such as the scenic beauty and environments, and that so they have clean air and water, and so on. It is not to protect the fortunes of a wealthy elite class or get us involved in wars against countries which have posed no threat to us and which drain this countries resources which should be used to help eliminate poverty, to help those in need, through social welfare programs, not destroy other countries.
Truly libertarian policies will lead to total chaos. The corporations would get ever stronger and utilise their massive wealth to supress smaller independant businesses, would be able to continue to centralise and control markets, assets and jobs, and be able to control and supress the wages of the common people while directing money they have acquired from the labour of the working class into their billion dollar accounts. It would be a world where the rich get ever richer and the poor get poorer and die of starvation, where might makes right and where the common good is completely ignored. For those libertarians who think reducing the size of government will protect their freedom, you are losing most of your freedom already to corporations. These corporations can fire you, make you poor and destitute, lay you off, and bar you from a job at their slightest whim. Without government to regulate them and prevent them from dismissing or not hiring employees for spurious reasons, in an increasingly corporate dominated economy, where corporations have suppressed small businesses and where a
The fact the FCC has not mandated TV sets be DTV capable while we they have putdown a switchover date in 2009, and we still have analog TVs for sale is ludicrous. The DTV switchover has been planned since the mid-90s or so, its amazing all TVs are not DTV ready. If they were standard on TVs years ago there would not be as much of a problem now. I would also make the point i think its a really bad idea for the federal government to subsidise this, especially when we have people who are malnourished and have people without health care, when congress does not seem to want to seriously tackle those problems, it seems ludicrous to subsidise set top boxes. I think universal health care and addressing poverty is a much more dire need than digital television. That digital television (and a war in iraq that was designed to enrich wealthy corporate interests close to bush, and has actually reduced living standards and security for iraqis) is a higher priority than housing, health care and food insecurity shows how mixed up our priorities are.
DTV uses the same spectrum as NTSC I believe, so I do not believe that is the reason. Though its good for broadcasters since they can carry several channels where previously there was one.
Probably what will happen, instead of snowing and ghosting, it wont come in at all. The digital signals may be far less tolerant of interference, especially with all that encryption. An analog signal, if you pick up distant signals you can at least get something, with dtv you probably wont get anything. The only thing you might get is strong local stations just around the block. Am i wrong? Someone correct me if so.
It is not true that the x86 architecture is somehow severely limiting of CPU design. All x86 is is a instruction set. The actual chip can be designed and laid out in any way you like, the instruction set does not greatly inhibit this. The instruction set increasingly has very little to do with the actual design and layout of the chip, and its performance. x86 can be and has been extended to eliminate defincies in the instruction set as well. Increasingly, and I have heard CPU engineers say this, instruction sets are pretty inconsequental as CPU design goes, it really would be of very little or no benefit to dump x86, so you might as well keep it to retain backwards compatability.
Lambda calculus is a high level construct. It would be more apt to say we could all be programming in ones and zeros, or assembly language, or entering in memory addresses and instruction codes by hand.
Well the huge difference between what you mention, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation directly is selective breeding still leaves coding of the DNA entirely up to random natural processes. One is not allowing scientists to force certain DNA structures on organisms, cloning, and other such madness. It still leaves a level of autonomy and individuality for the being, something that is uniquely its own and beyond the ability of humans to impose on. Even with selective breeding, the actual conception is still out of direct control of humans, and how the genes of the parents will be combined is left up to the randomness of nature. The organism can introduce its own mutations and combine the DNA in its own unique way without outside interderence. So the ability for the beings own freedom to a unique body unmanipulated by others is much less infringed upon.
Seriously, the idea of cloning seems horridly unethical to me, for some reason. Perhaps it allows for mad scientists to impose their will on beings, where as nature tends to be a random process which does not have an agenda, and that beings should have a right to be unique and have a body that is uniquely their own, and which is programmed by nature, and not interfered with or has an agenda pushed on it. Dystopian nightmares is what these sorts of tampering with life gives me, with beings genitally engineered for instance to be obedient and subservant or what have you. It is all deeply unsettling. I feel that it would be best to ban cloning and genitic engineering. There are various health and ethical reasons for this. We cannot and perhaps never will be able to understand all of the dynamics behind genetic systems. Scientists think they know everything and understand how it works but it is often true that there are completely unintended results from changing a gene that was thought to only have one function. There have been instances where a gene in a potato which was added which was thought to simply give it pesticide residue, also increased its starchiness. There are likely complex relationships and interdependancies between genes and as well importance in specific ordering and arrangements of genes that nature uses. Perhaps there are certain patterns and rules which are obeyed by the natural conception process that are critical for various reasons for the health of organisms and the environment.
Again treating life as a computer program and trying to alter and manipulate, program the lives of other beings like a computer program, deeply bothers my sense of ethics and as well seems to be a great threat to freedom. It is better to leave these things to the randomness of nature (or perhaps if in fact, beings choose their own genes to their own bodies before they are born, who knows), rather than allowing the will of others to be imposed upon the life of any conscious being through genetic manipulation, where there body is not their own but is someone elses. I do not see this as being amusing but a great concern.
We should send a strong and clear message that we do not want censorship of the internet by electing only politicians who support net neutrality and other anti-censorship and pro-rights measures. Dennis Kucinich is one candidate who does and who has a strong record of voting down other laws such as the Military Commissions act and the "thought crime" bill which is so loosely defined that peaceful protests could fall under its provisions.
This filtering and modifications of internet traffic is no different than what we see happening in china and else where, except corporations are doing censoring rather than the government directly. Many of these corporations have political alignments, often republican, so they could perhaps even abuse the power to manipulate political web pages. Its Really the same thing as what happens in china, the people who do it are different in name only, but they are both powerful elite establishment. The internet can be such a powerful tool of citisen empowerment that for the first time has given everyone free speech and the ability to publish and access information published by anyone else. It has decentralised information flow in a way that no single large entity can control it and thus use media channels for propogandisation purposes. The powers that be dont like this because they sense they are losing their power to meld the public mind at their wish and keep people ignorant and stupid, thus easily controlled. These corporations can easily become defacto government and through this power control what people can say, among so many other things.
If we value free speech, and the values of free expression and free thought, that has made this country great, we should soundly reject this pro censorship position. It is still censorship even if corporations which are sort of quasi governmental do it. ISPs should be considered common carriers, that is what they are, and they should be obliged just like a telephone company to carry data unmodified. They form a communications infrastructure in society, like the telephone network need to respect free speech rights.
Actually, Kucinich refused to sell Muni Light, the publicly owned electric utility in cleveland, to a private company, staying true to a campaign promise to the people. He was placed on a mafia hit list and almost assasinated. After he refused to sell it, the Cleveland Trust demanded that all the cities debt be paid in full. Through previous administrations the debt had simply been rolled over. To say this is kucinich's fault is a big stretch.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, and this comes not from a religious viewpoint since I am not religious, but a human rights one, is no one else has a right to impose on another person their wishes about their body, including deciding what kind of body that person will have. Every person should have a right to a body that is uniquely theres and no one elses and no one should have a right to force them into someone else's body. At least nature is random and has no agenda. People have agendas and I do not like the idea of people deciding what kind of body a person will have, their facial features, their eye color, etc. People have a right to eb unique and to have things which are uniquely their own and which no one else has control over and the most basic of this is their body. Perhaps people choose their own DNA before they are born, including their phsyical features and characteristics.
Human cloning has a very concerning and unpleasant 1984ish or Brave New World feel to it, a horrific utopian world where every aspect of peoples lives, right down to that which is most personal and sacred to a person, their body, is controlled by others. It is a frightening vision of conformity, uniformity where people are rather than seen as unique individuals instead as carbon copies. It really needs to be completely banned if we care about freedom, the right of each person to be individual, unique, to self determination, the right to a body that is uniquely theres and controlled and manipulated by no one else. We need to respect each person as a unique and diverse person entirely their own, rather than trying to impose ourselves on them and try to determine and control who they are. We need to respect diversity and individuality and eschew totalitarianism and conformism. So I concur with the pope on cloning, not on religious grounds, but on human rights ones.
In the case of test tube babies natural conception still occurs so the child is still unique and natural, and does not have someone elses will imposed on them by being forced into someone elses body. The way I see it, and this comes not from a religious viewpoint since I am not religious, but a human rights one, is no one else has a right to impose on another person their wishes about their body, including deciding what kind of body that person will have. At least nature is random and has no agenda. People have agendas and I do not like the idea of people deciding what kind of body a person will have, their facial features, their eye color, etc. People have a right to eb unique and to have things which are uniquely their own and which no one else has control over and the most basic of this is their body. Perhaps people choose their own DNA before they are born, including their phsyical features and characteristics.
Human cloning has a very concerning and unpleasant 1984ish feel to it, a horrific utopian world where every aspect of peoples lives, right down to that which is most personal and sacred to a person, their body, is controlled by others. It is a frightening vision of conformity, uniformity where people are rather than seen as unique individuals instead as carbon copies. It really needs to be completely banned if we care about freedom, the right of each person to be individual, unique, to self determination, the right to a body that is uniquely theres and controlled and manipulated by no one else. So I concur with the pope on cloning, not on religious grounds, but on human rights ones.
So you would rather have corporations monitoring and filtering your content. The potential for evil is just as great. They are both very large institutions. They can get access at it anyway if they want to, they would just have corporations do it for them, which is why a privacy law is needed to take care of that problem.This is why we need laws to gaurantee privacy. First off government unlike most corporationsa re democratically run and are supposed to represent you and protect your rights. if they are not there is something wrong and it is not a legitimate government. Truly corporations should do the same. The only reason to have these large institutions is to serve the common interest. Do you really think its a good idea for them to exist to consolidate power and wealth for an elite few, which corporations these days are doing to a great extant, having more control of peoples lives than government, control over the products they buy, their jobs, and a good part of their lives while they are working for them. Government is at least supposed to be decentralised in this country through democracy it is supposed to be controlled by the people, and frankly that is how corporations should be too.
Government doing some planning to implement a nationwide fiber optic network does in fact have many benefits and would not lead to more chance of surveillance. It could be built in a manner with government assistance without any loss of freedom or privacy, in fact it might promote freedom and privacy if it is an open access system which anyone can use to provide new services and features on top of it would increase the freedom and diverse ways in which it can be used and actually encourage innovation.
I do not foresee the PC going away. The device is just too useful and common sense. Having a monitor on your desk and a keyboard is practical and its not something that is going to become obsolete.
I would be very concerned about the privacy and human rights implications of putting computers or chip implants into peoples bodies. This is the perfect vehicle for total electronic surviellance of a population, and perhaps even more nefarious purposes. For instance it might be possible for a clandestine purpose, or for "law enforcement" purposes to put circuits in these implants that could deliver an electric shock, cause pain or disable a person. The human rights implications and the threats to basic freedom that this would entail would be very dire and serious.
Technology is great on your desk or in your PDA device. It is nice to be able to browse the internet and access and share information through the internet via computer. But this technology should work for our benefit and also be used to promote freedom, not take it away. People must have complete control over their computers, and should be able to put it to use how they see fit. This is the idea of a general purpose computer. DRM indeed is a serious threat to the freedom of the consumer, the freedom to tinker and to utilise technology in new and innovative ways. Closed platforms such as game consoles are designed to limit how they can be used, so that instead of you being able to use your computer as you see fit, some large corporation controls the system and what you can use it for. Putting implants into peoples bodies raises far too much concern for abuse, the the risk or danger to freedom and to control this technology is too great. Once you put electronic devices into the body for these kinds of things, the potential for this to be abused and to be used against you increases exponentially. At least a person should have a choice to refuse this sort of technology. We need to be very wary of schemes to try to forcibly implant people with chips, especially children, and the issues this would create to various bodily integrity and human rights issues, and would also lead us towards a world where no one has any privacy or rights at all, a 1984 like society where everything someone does can be controlled and scrutinised. People should have a basic right to not have their body implanted with electronic devices, tracking devices, etc, which can be used against them. No matter what gaurantee a manufacturer of such technology makes, there is always the opportunity and chance that some technology which you may not be told is there can be embedded into these devices, for tracking or monitoring persons, or as a control measure through some sort of electroshock feature for instance. It is impossible to verify from the consumers end that this technology is not present in such devices. They present a very serious danger and threat to human rights, freedom and privacy.
In the future, ideally I see the desktop computer remaining very commonplace. Computer processing power will continue to increase which will improve game performance, rollout of fiber optic networks will allow for more high bandwidth applications such as instant movie downloading, and so on. Linux will eventually become dominate and totally replace windows, which will give consumers vastly increased freedom and control over their computers than ever before. Just keep the computers on your desk and in your pocket, not in your body and we can use them as a tool of freedom and for our own benefit and to use them as we wish, rather than as a tool of survellience and enslavement.
The problem with your argument is these auctions basically give control to the wealthiest corporate interests, which do not at all correspond with what is the best interest of the population or which promotes individual self expression and free speech most. It allows these wealthy interests to control channels of information and communication and hinder innovation and free speech. We are best making sure as many independant voices can be heard and making sure as many people can innovate and use the radio waves how they see fit rather than having a few large corporations controlling them. You can do this while also assuring that the radio stations do not transmit over each other and chaos does not result. The purpose of licencing is to prevent chaos, not to give exclusive control to large corporations, which it has become. The airwaves should not even be owned but licenced, the public should own the airwaves and determine how they are utilised, since they are a limited resource. AS for how we choose how they should be utilised, why not let the people choose through an election how they are run, and why not require, for instance, some public access stations to be provided which would give airtime slots to local groups, organisations, individuals etc. Quite frankly having a lottery is a better way of determining who should have access to broadcast resources, then giving it to whoever has the most money. With the wireless networks we could charter a non profit corporation which would construct the physical network, and then sell access at cost to service providers and consumers. This would assure the great innovation and diversity in services and greatest choice and freedom for consumers. You assume the only ones who want to use the airwaves or have the right to are corporations, when instead they should be used for and by the greater population for the best public interest. We should not have a situation where you have to be a millionaire to have a voice, and the more money you have, the more control you have over the news and information that flows through the airwaves. Wealth should not give a person a greater right to free speech.
It could be given out to, in the case of broadcasters, to strictly locally owners assuring a decentralised media that is not controlled by large corporations. Remember the FCCs ownership rules? They prevented a company from owning more than a handful of radio stations and more than one or two stations in a particular market, assuring a broad diversity of sources of information, news,etc. Now the FCC has pretty much gutted these rules, and a few large corporations now control most radio outlets (clear channel), tv outlets, and now broadcasters will be allowed to own newspapers as well, furthering the consolidation. Allegedly we have free speech, but the means to free expression is increasingly being controlled by a few large corporations who, due to their rapidly expanding power and how they own government and seem to be above the law, the laws are made for them and government is a puppet that they own.
There was a push to get low power FM passed through, which would not have interfered with larger stations and which would have been required to be licenced to only small locally owners, but was opposed by corporations, on a complete lie that it would interfere with their large high power stations, which is a lie since the lpfm licences would require an engineering study to assure they didnt. The corporations just didnt want people freely expressing themselves and are hell bent on controlling all forms of communication.
Auctions of bandwidth are a terrible idea, and shows how biased towards big money interests the government has become, rather than what is in the best public interest. Radio spectrum, considering it is a limited resource, should be given out based on what is the best public interests, and what most promotes free speech, free expression and diversity, not to who has the most money. The auctions basically play perfectly into the hands of telecommunications monopolies who have the resources to win them, and thus control telecommunications infrastructure, with an impact on the ability of the public to freely express itself. I would rather see the FCC require a completely open network and much more choice and competition, especially in the case where the construction of the network would be best coordinated or is capital intensive, the developer of the network perhaps should be a chartered non profit corporation which then sells access at cost to anyone who wants to utilise the network. This would provide a interconnected completely compatable nationwide, seamless network which can be accessed anywhere, and would asusre anyone could use it to innovate with new interesting and novel services. One company would not be able to limit and control what can be done with it. This would assure a diversity of choice and allow many different small service providers who do not have massive resources to get involved with providing services, promoting innovation and a rich and diverse assortment of services.
If the government was not so corrupt and beholden to large corporate interests who want to monopolise and control all assetts and resources for its own gain, basically creating a monopoly which serves a few private interests rather than the public interest and promotes diversity and innovation, we would probably have more choice, diversity and competition. Sometimes monopolies are necessary, for instance in electric utilities, since it is so capital intensive, but in this case they should be regulated and chartered by the government to work in the best public interest rather than in the best interest of corporate profits. What is interesting about the wireless plan, although a publicly owned non profit corporation would build the physical network, it would allow a vast range of competition and services to be offered over it, enabling a diverse marketplace.
Being a Floridian I find this highly offensive. Of course, I am wondering about how we ended up with a government that is so corrupt and absurd as to say we should ignore science and teach a religious fantasy instead. The lengths people will go to discard proveable fact to try to force and indoctrinated children with their completely factless religious ideas is shocking. I was really quite dissappointed. Intelligent Design belongs no where near science course, only in religious studies. Evolution is a real theory with real evidence to back it up.
This idea is particularly bad. You could possibly be giving yourself a vaccine to painkillers. Not at all a good thing. The best thing to do about cocaine is not use it in the first place.
I was recently thinking about what it would take to create some sort of a system which contains a multi-user 3D world, which could become quite large, a continuous, persistant 3D world. I was looking for some possible ways to perhaps render objects more distant to the user with less detail, so the detail would decrease the farther an object is. With a very large world, one that might continue for millions of pixels, that would be rather necessary to keep resource usage down. Perhaps when the terrain is designed several different resolutions could be created, then the client could ask for a certain resolution depending on how far away the object is. As far as existing software, I am afraid I do not know of any off hand.
One interesting concept, if the game is 3D multi-user, allow users to perhaps contribute graphics or expand the terrain of game, by uploading new graphics and terrain to the server. The sort of project I find interesting would be something involving a persistant, dynamic always running 3D world running on a server, which can also change, for instance, trees might blow in simulated winds for instance. People could move their "avatar" or whatever you want to call it and perhaps even manipulate objects in the world with it. There are design challenges involved with this, since it could be one very large continuous 3D space, millions or more pixels large, a way would need to be found to only feed the data closest to a user down to the user at full resolution and uses less detail the farther away an object is, or it would use massive amounts of bandwidth. Having a horizon where simply anything beyond the horizon is not rendered probably would not be sufficient, since you may want items which are far, far away rendered, such as a distant mountain, but without the detail, such as individual trees, is not needed. If you moved closer, then those details would need to be fed to the user.
I am glad to see that there is work underway to show what Linux, X/ OpenGL can do in the area of gaming. There are too few games avialable for Linux.
I do think it would be a good idea for the developers to make this is a server based multiple user game ( a virtual world), the sort where you can login and logoff but the world remains persistant. Perhaps that does not fit with the plot they have for the game, I dont know. But I do think that having more open source multi-user games is a fantastic idea can be quite a bit of fun, especially being able to interact with other users in a virtual 3D space.
I also see value in 3D chat environments based on rendered 3D landscapes and scenes, a visual 3D version of chat rooms. There was a similar system called WorldsAway on compuserve years ago, but was quite limited by the technology of the time. With todays hardware, the level of realness could be much more developed. An open source system could start an IRC-like community of visual environments.
There are a few points that should be made here that many people are missing. This on demand system will be used in early voting (before the official election date) where a voter can show up at any voting location in a county to vote. This is a problem since each precint needs a different ballot, for the congressional districts which vary by district. So they needed a way to give a person a ballot for their precinct, without having to have perhaps dozens of different ballots at the early voting locations. On the main election day, ballots will be preprinted, since everyone in a precinct uses the same ballot. As far as concerns about anonymity, it should be only necessary to type in the precinct number into the computer connected to the printer, not any of the voters identifiying information.
Paper ballots will be a definite improvement and certainly the move back to paper ballots should be appreciated. There needs to be a paper trail to verify that votes are being properly counted. Since one cannot see inside of a computer to verify that their vote was recorded onto the disk, it is essential to have a user verifiable paper ballot. Computer voting machines make rigging elections just too easy.
Whatever happened to competition? I thought that telcos were required to provide at cost access to their networks for third party telephone companies so people could have a choice of telephone companies. Maybe this should apply to access to the network for ISPs as well, perhaps ISPs should be able to offer DSL even when the phone line is provided by another comopany. We also have FIOS and there really ought to be a provision where other companies can offer service over FIOS lines. Either this, or telephone companies need to be regulated as a public service monopoly as electric utilities are. There has also been talk of requiring cable companies to provide at cost access to their networks to third party cable providers but it never happened.
Actually, corporations would be even more powerful without government, so they are always working to reduce the size of government (neocon talk) so they have fewer inconviencies such as minimum vacation times, minimum wages, overtime, and unions to deal with and which get in the way of their plans for treating employees like garbage baying tme as little as they can get away with and perhaps subjecting them to dangerous or inhumane conditions. Corporations power does not depend on government, so the corporations buy politicians to have the politicians eliminate their own power to regulate the corporations. Corporations keep politicians in line through controlling campaign finance, that is a major tool at corporations disposal to make sure that politicians look the other way and let the corporations do whatever they want, pollute the environment, working employees for $1 per hour for 15 hours without restroom breaks, or what have you. Getting rid of government will only make corporations more power, and would reduce the ability of the public through democracy to force these corporations to treat people with respect, not serve the interests of a wealthy few, so serve the interests of the people rather than a wealthy few. If we want corporations that benefit society in general and serve the best common interest, we must have a government to regulate them and force them to be honest, humane and operate in a matter that is a responsible and where they benefit society, and under laws passed by representatives of the people. The problem with government is not intrinsic, but it is due to structual flaws in the current political system. Reducing government power will not solve the problem. What will solve the problem is making government a seperate institution with no conflict of interest with corporations, and that means abolishing all corporate campaign finance and implement public campaign finance, and thus the government represents the people again, rather than the corporations. Politicians would no longer pander to corporations for money. This is the only way to reign in corporate corruption, is not getting rid of government, but making it work for the people not for the corporations. The purpose of government is to protect personal (not corporate) freedom and liberties for all persons, and to assure that everyone is able to obtain a good standard and quality of living, to protect the environment for all to be able to enjoy and so our children will have a planet which is a good place to live, where the basic pleasures of life are intact such as the scenic beauty and environments, and that so they have clean air and water, and so on. It is not to protect the fortunes of a wealthy elite class or get us involved in wars against countries which have posed no threat to us and which drain this countries resources which should be used to help eliminate poverty, to help those in need, through social welfare programs, not destroy other countries.
Truly libertarian policies will lead to total chaos. The corporations would get ever stronger and utilise their massive wealth to supress smaller independant businesses, would be able to continue to centralise and control markets, assets and jobs, and be able to control and supress the wages of the common people while directing money they have acquired from the labour of the working class into their billion dollar accounts. It would be a world where the rich get ever richer and the poor get poorer and die of starvation, where might makes right and where the common good is completely ignored. For those libertarians who think reducing the size of government will protect their freedom, you are losing most of your freedom already to corporations. These corporations can fire you, make you poor and destitute, lay you off, and bar you from a job at their slightest whim. Without government to regulate them and prevent them from dismissing or not hiring employees for spurious reasons, in an increasingly corporate dominated economy, where corporations have suppressed small businesses and where a
The fact the FCC has not mandated TV sets be DTV capable while we they have putdown a switchover date in 2009, and we still have analog TVs for sale is ludicrous. The DTV switchover has been planned since the mid-90s or so, its amazing all TVs are not DTV ready. If they were standard on TVs years ago there would not be as much of a problem now. I would also make the point i think its a really bad idea for the federal government to subsidise this, especially when we have people who are malnourished and have people without health care, when congress does not seem to want to seriously tackle those problems, it seems ludicrous to subsidise set top boxes. I think universal health care and addressing poverty is a much more dire need than digital television. That digital television (and a war in iraq that was designed to enrich wealthy corporate interests close to bush, and has actually reduced living standards and security for iraqis) is a higher priority than housing, health care and food insecurity shows how mixed up our priorities are.
DTV uses the same spectrum as NTSC I believe, so I do not believe that is the reason. Though its good for broadcasters since they can carry several channels where previously there was one.
Or I meant to say, compression, not encryption
Probably what will happen, instead of snowing and ghosting, it wont come in at all. The digital signals may be far less tolerant of interference, especially with all that encryption. An analog signal, if you pick up distant signals you can at least get something, with dtv you probably wont get anything. The only thing you might get is strong local stations just around the block. Am i wrong? Someone correct me if so.
It is not true that the x86 architecture is somehow severely limiting of CPU design. All x86 is is a instruction set. The actual chip can be designed and laid out in any way you like, the instruction set does not greatly inhibit this. The instruction set increasingly has very little to do with the actual design and layout of the chip, and its performance. x86 can be and has been extended to eliminate defincies in the instruction set as well. Increasingly, and I have heard CPU engineers say this, instruction sets are pretty inconsequental as CPU design goes, it really would be of very little or no benefit to dump x86, so you might as well keep it to retain backwards compatability.
Lambda calculus is a high level construct. It would be more apt to say we could all be programming in ones and zeros, or assembly language, or entering in memory addresses and instruction codes by hand.
Well the huge difference between what you mention, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation directly is selective breeding still leaves coding of the DNA entirely up to random natural processes. One is not allowing scientists to force certain DNA structures on organisms, cloning, and other such madness. It still leaves a level of autonomy and individuality for the being, something that is uniquely its own and beyond the ability of humans to impose on. Even with selective breeding, the actual conception is still out of direct control of humans, and how the genes of the parents will be combined is left up to the randomness of nature. The organism can introduce its own mutations and combine the DNA in its own unique way without outside interderence. So the ability for the beings own freedom to a unique body unmanipulated by others is much less infringed upon.
Seriously, the idea of cloning seems horridly unethical to me, for some reason. Perhaps it allows for mad scientists to impose their will on beings, where as nature tends to be a random process which does not have an agenda, and that beings should have a right to be unique and have a body that is uniquely their own, and which is programmed by nature, and not interfered with or has an agenda pushed on it. Dystopian nightmares is what these sorts of tampering with life gives me, with beings genitally engineered for instance to be obedient and subservant or what have you. It is all deeply unsettling. I feel that it would be best to ban cloning and genitic engineering. There are various health and ethical reasons for this. We cannot and perhaps never will be able to understand all of the dynamics behind genetic systems. Scientists think they know everything and understand how it works but it is often true that there are completely unintended results from changing a gene that was thought to only have one function. There have been instances where a gene in a potato which was added which was thought to simply give it pesticide residue, also increased its starchiness. There are likely complex relationships and interdependancies between genes and as well importance in specific ordering and arrangements of genes that nature uses. Perhaps there are certain patterns and rules which are obeyed by the natural conception process that are critical for various reasons for the health of organisms and the environment.
Again treating life as a computer program and trying to alter and manipulate, program the lives of other beings like a computer program, deeply bothers my sense of ethics and as well seems to be a great threat to freedom. It is better to leave these things to the randomness of nature (or perhaps if in fact, beings choose their own genes to their own bodies before they are born, who knows), rather than allowing the will of others to be imposed upon the life of any conscious being through genetic manipulation, where there body is not their own but is someone elses. I do not see this as being amusing but a great concern.
We should send a strong and clear message that we do not want censorship of the internet by electing only politicians who support net neutrality and other anti-censorship and pro-rights measures. Dennis Kucinich is one candidate who does and who has a strong record of voting down other laws such as the Military Commissions act and the "thought crime" bill which is so loosely defined that peaceful protests could fall under its provisions.
This filtering and modifications of internet traffic is no different than what we see happening in china and else where, except corporations are doing censoring rather than the government directly. Many of these corporations have political alignments, often republican, so they could perhaps even abuse the power to manipulate political web pages. Its Really the same thing as what happens in china, the people who do it are different in name only, but they are both powerful elite establishment. The internet can be such a powerful tool of citisen empowerment that for the first time has given everyone free speech and the ability to publish and access information published by anyone else. It has decentralised information flow in a way that no single large entity can control it and thus use media channels for propogandisation purposes. The powers that be dont like this because they sense they are losing their power to meld the public mind at their wish and keep people ignorant and stupid, thus easily controlled. These corporations can easily become defacto government and through this power control what people can say, among so many other things.
If we value free speech, and the values of free expression and free thought, that has made this country great, we should soundly reject this pro censorship position. It is still censorship even if corporations which are sort of quasi governmental do it. ISPs should be considered common carriers, that is what they are, and they should be obliged just like a telephone company to carry data unmodified. They form a communications infrastructure in society, like the telephone network need to respect free speech rights.
Actually, Kucinich refused to sell Muni Light, the publicly owned electric utility in cleveland, to a private company, staying true to a campaign promise to the people. He was placed on a mafia hit list and almost assasinated. After he refused to sell it, the Cleveland Trust demanded that all the cities debt be paid in full. Through previous administrations the debt had simply been rolled over. To say this is kucinich's fault is a big stretch.