People are polite because of the potential repercussions of not. Sometimes those repercussions are as simple as people not wanting to be around you. When that's effective, it's the best response. But, sometimes, people are rude or racist to complete strangers. This not acceptable behaviour and it is not something the police should have to deal with. It would be lovely if we could get everyone's mother on the phone the minute they start acting like an asshole to complete strangers but unfortunately there isn't a "dial this jackass' Mum" on my telephone. As such, the nice punch in the face is about the only thing that will get through to some people.
Now if you want to pretend there's some kind of slippery slope here and that this isn't the way the world has worked for all time, go right ahead.
We'll be asked to leave the establishment and if we fail to do so then we'll be arrested, yes. But in a public place, we're free to engage in whatever social activity we find appropriate to resolve our differences, so long as we're not endangering others. But hey, don't feel bad, you're opinion in the norm. You don't like X, you don't think people should be permitted to do X.
What I think is more funny is that he could have got away with two rules:
1. No human may harm another. 2. Robots follow orders.
With the usual precidence stuff. You'll note that this is basically Asimov's rules, without the stupid self preservation rule. In fact, if you want a really interesting society, try this one:
1. No human may harm another. 2. No human may prevent a robot from enforcing the first rule.
Heh. As an Australian I was particularly surprised to discover that I can be arrested for "brawling" in public in the UK even if the person I'm fighting has given me his consent. In Australia, the law is clear, if someone hits you, you can hit them back or you can have them arrested for assault, but not both. If someone invites you to hit them, "go on then, hit me!", you are free to do so. I believe this is the case in the US too. I don't really know.
What's more strange, I found, was that I never got into a fight in all my adult life until I went to the UK. There I got into a bunch of them. One caused by annoying people who wouldn't turn down their music while I was trying to sleep. (I politely asked them to turn down their music, one of them hit me). One caused by men at McDonalds rudely describing a female patron. (I politely asked them to watch their language, one of them hit me). One which I started after listening to a white guy call a guy I knew "niger" a bunch of times. My friend didn't want to get in trouble with the nearby security people.. but where I come from, that kind of talk earns you a broken nose.
Of course, a bunch of you reading this probably think this is terribly uncouth and that I am clearly an anti-social person. Call me Quentin Tarantino if you like, but I think there's a place for violence in our society.. it's a regulating force which every person has the power to exercise. Just look at how impolite some forums without violence can be.
To me the concept of people being free to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same is self evident. Unfortunately, I think the majority of people think the exact opposite: there is a list of things the majority of people believe we should not be allowed to do and there should be perfect enforcement of that list. The absolute tyranny of the majority of the minority is considered by most people to be the best form of government.
As such, the only arguments you'll see the mainstream make against perfect enforcement is the posibility of corruption or misuse.
Oh, those things I numbered? They weren't "rules". They were "principles". The rules are made from the principles via a democratic process. Do you really want to read a story about how the principles are perverted over time to mean things different to what they started out as and the rules become more and more creative to maintain the status quo? Just go read a history book.
That's fantastic. Rehashed old news on another site gets the exact same writeup on Slashdot because the person who submitted the story doesn't read Slashdot and then it gets through the queue because the "editors" don't read Slashdot either.
a millions of years more advanced species would have no need or interest to enslave us.
On the other hand, a species that was a mere few hundred years more advanced than us would probably be technologically superior to the point where we couldn't defend ourselves from them and have motivations that were largely similar to our own. If they wanted our planet they'd just shuffle us off into "human reserves" like we do to native peoples and animals.
Uhh no. The Lisa was more advanced than the Macintosh.. Apple had to take a step back to make something that they could actually sell to the mainstream. Unfortunately they took YEARS to get back the baseline of the Lisa cause, hey, if you're onto a winner, don't screw with it right?
Ya know, I really have to wonder how you can claim to have read the story twice and still wonder about the enforcement program and how conflicts are resolved. It's right there in Chapter 7:
"Wait a minute. Your entire life?" I asked.
"Yes. Basically your entire sensory feed, along with all your muscle actions, get recorded every minute of every day. Then if you want to go back and relive something, you can. It's like a complete diary of your entire life." She explained.
"Is that public?" I asked.
"No. Well, sort of. There are the refs, but they are the only thing accessing it besides you, unless you publish something." She said.
"The refs?" I asked.
"The referees. They monitor things and prevent problems." She clarified.
"How so?" I asked.
"They are like referees in any sport. They watch things, and flag you if you break the rules or are about to break the rules." She said.
"They watch everything?"
"The refs are robots. They watch your sensory feed as it is coming in and look for rule violations. For example, let's say you start screaming obscenities at someone in public. The refs would flag that and detain you. It's against the rules to scream at someone in public, mainly because no one wants to be around when it happens."
"That makes sense. Did you say they can flag you if you are about to break a rule?" I asked.
"Yes." She said.
"How can they know you are about to break a rule?" I asked.
"Let's say you have picked up a bat, you are running toward someone and your muscles are getting the bat in position to swing it. A ref would look at that and say, 'there's a good chance someone is going to get hurt here.' The ref would shut down the person with the bat."
"Shut down?"
"It just disconnects your brain from your muscles and the ref takes control. Then you are detained to review the situation and retrain." She said.
"That must really cut down on crime." I said.
"You cannot imagine. And there is always a complete record after any crime is committed, so there is no question about innocence or guilt. Prosecution is trivial if you are guilty, and exoneration is instant if you are not. It's a little creepy the first time a ref warns you about something. It is sort of like a lifeguard yelling at you at the pool for something you thought was OK. It's embarrassing, at least to me. But then the ref explains the rule, you can ask questions about it and then you move on."
"How often do the refs flag you?" I asked.
"It can be pretty often in the beginning, but I haven't heard from a ref in over a year I'd say. It's been a long time."
"Where do the rules come from?" I asked.
"We make them. Everyone is involved. They'll spend almost a week on that during orientation -- it's a big part of living here." They've handed infinite power to entities they presume to be incorruptable which they control by a democracy. Of course, this is about the point in the story that I would say "take me back to terrafoam" cause I'd rather live in a world with nothing than live in a world where control of my own body could be taken away from me by some bunch of rules a committee made. This is the usual problem with geeks, they think consensis should equal might and they're willing to put blind faith in democratic processes backed up with technological enforcement.
So, ya know, as soon as someone does something like build a big gold statue and convince others they should worship it, there's going to be a smackdown by the majority of society which, unfortunately, is most likely still religous. They'll pass some laws that say that worshipping false gods is a crime and the robots will shut down anyone who starts doing it. Hell, we're fiddling with the insides of people's heads.. it's pretty obvious that eventually we'll be able to tell what they are thinking.. the robots will make great thought police.
On another note, did anyone else chuckle at the fact that there is a "Disney Monopoly" boardgame you can buy?
No. There's like thousands of different themed Monopoly boards. I have Simpsons, Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, Australian, US, and UK (aka original). I'd like to get that one with the stock market add-on.
My response is simple, who gives a shit if they're justified or not? We can't stop them so our opinions don't count. It's all very interesting to wax philosophical but when it comes down to it, if it is in their interest to enslave us they will.
A prequisite to talking about creating the kind of utopia that Marshall Brain speaks of is to actually read what he wrote. The principles of the society are:
1. Everyone is equal
2. Everything is reused
3. Nothing is anonymous
4. Nothing is owned
5. Tell the truth
6. Do no harm
7. Obey the rules
8. Live your life
9. Better and better
So long as everyone agrees with this, you get your utopia. The problem with this world is that people inevitably want to change the rules.. so what do you do? Program the robots not to let them? Sounds like tyranny to me.
No, see, women worked for women's rights and minorities worked for these "minority rights" you speak of. Before they stood up and demanded they be counted as equals efforts to liberate them was pointless.
I agree with you that an unsecured AP is exactly the same as an open HTTP port.
Thing is, I think an unsecured vehicle is exactly the same too.
The difference is.. it is socially acceptable to connect to an open HTTP port. It isn't socially acceptable to "borrow" someone's car. An open AP? It's considered by most people to be unacceptable to use someone's unsecured AP.. but a lot of people still do it.
That's all it is. There's some things we're happy to allow others to have access to.. and expect them to have access to. There's some things we're not happy to.
Truth is.. I have a web server running on my Linux box. I've given the ip (which changes often) to a few people over the years and, of course, I access it myself. So when I look in my logs and see worms trying to do ISS sploits on my machine and other random ip scanning people, I *do* get annoyed, but it's not something I would kick someone's ass for.. but don't fuck with my car.
Superior how exactly? I tell ya, some people think so abstractly that they make absolutely no sense.
Are they superior in a way that we can't hunt them down with a shotgun?
Cause that's what it would take. We have human rights because we demand them. We have the power to fight for them and we did. This really shouldn't be too hard to understand..
Slashdot Mirror
People are polite because of the potential repercussions of not. Sometimes those repercussions are as simple as people not wanting to be around you. When that's effective, it's the best response. But, sometimes, people are rude or racist to complete strangers. This not acceptable behaviour and it is not something the police should have to deal with. It would be lovely if we could get everyone's mother on the phone the minute they start acting like an asshole to complete strangers but unfortunately there isn't a "dial this jackass' Mum" on my telephone. As such, the nice punch in the face is about the only thing that will get through to some people.
Now if you want to pretend there's some kind of slippery slope here and that this isn't the way the world has worked for all time, go right ahead.
it aint, no-one said it was. Look, maybe you missed something.
We'll be asked to leave the establishment and if we fail to do so then we'll be arrested, yes. But in a public place, we're free to engage in whatever social activity we find appropriate to resolve our differences, so long as we're not endangering others. But hey, don't feel bad, you're opinion in the norm. You don't like X, you don't think people should be permitted to do X.
Yeah yeah. That's all well and good, but if you start biffing on in public can the police drag you away in chains?
What I think is more funny is that he could have got away with two rules:
1. No human may harm another.
2. Robots follow orders.
With the usual precidence stuff. You'll note that this is basically Asimov's rules, without the stupid self preservation rule. In fact, if you want a really interesting society, try this one:
1. No human may harm another.
2. No human may prevent a robot from enforcing the first rule.
Hallarity ensues.
Segways launched at $10,000 a pop. $1,000 would have made them affordable.
Please, try not to be so rude.
Heh. As an Australian I was particularly surprised to discover that I can be arrested for "brawling" in public in the UK even if the person I'm fighting has given me his consent. In Australia, the law is clear, if someone hits you, you can hit them back or you can have them arrested for assault, but not both. If someone invites you to hit them, "go on then, hit me!", you are free to do so. I believe this is the case in the US too. I don't really know.
What's more strange, I found, was that I never got into a fight in all my adult life until I went to the UK. There I got into a bunch of them. One caused by annoying people who wouldn't turn down their music while I was trying to sleep. (I politely asked them to turn down their music, one of them hit me). One caused by men at McDonalds rudely describing a female patron. (I politely asked them to watch their language, one of them hit me). One which I started after listening to a white guy call a guy I knew "niger" a bunch of times. My friend didn't want to get in trouble with the nearby security people.. but where I come from, that kind of talk earns you a broken nose.
Of course, a bunch of you reading this probably think this is terribly uncouth and that I am clearly an anti-social person. Call me Quentin Tarantino if you like, but I think there's a place for violence in our society.. it's a regulating force which every person has the power to exercise. Just look at how impolite some forums without violence can be.
If their price point had been an order of magnitude lower, and the units were slightly smaller, it might have.
Maybe it's just inevitable.
To me the concept of people being free to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same is self evident. Unfortunately, I think the majority of people think the exact opposite: there is a list of things the majority of people believe we should not be allowed to do and there should be perfect enforcement of that list. The absolute tyranny of the majority of the minority is considered by most people to be the best form of government.
As such, the only arguments you'll see the mainstream make against perfect enforcement is the posibility of corruption or misuse.
Oh, those things I numbered? They weren't "rules". They were "principles". The rules are made from the principles via a democratic process. Do you really want to read a story about how the principles are perverted over time to mean things different to what they started out as and the rules become more and more creative to maintain the status quo? Just go read a history book.
No.. what you should be afraid of is when people comply with the orders issued from these cameras instead of throwing rocks at them.
That's fantastic. Rehashed old news on another site gets the exact same writeup on Slashdot because the person who submitted the story doesn't read Slashdot and then it gets through the queue because the "editors" don't read Slashdot either.
CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers
September 17, 2006.
a millions of years more advanced species would have no need or interest to enslave us.
On the other hand, a species that was a mere few hundred years more advanced than us would probably be technologically superior to the point where we couldn't defend ourselves from them and have motivations that were largely similar to our own. If they wanted our planet they'd just shuffle us off into "human reserves" like we do to native peoples and animals.
Uhh no. The Lisa was more advanced than the Macintosh.. Apple had to take a step back to make something that they could actually sell to the mainstream. Unfortunately they took YEARS to get back the baseline of the Lisa cause, hey, if you're onto a winner, don't screw with it right?
"Yes. Basically your entire sensory feed, along with all your muscle actions, get recorded every minute of every day. Then if you want to go back and relive something, you can. It's like a complete diary of your entire life." She explained.
"Is that public?" I asked.
"No. Well, sort of. There are the refs, but they are the only thing accessing it besides you, unless you publish something." She said.
"The refs?" I asked.
"The referees. They monitor things and prevent problems." She clarified.
"How so?" I asked.
"They are like referees in any sport. They watch things, and flag you if you break the rules or are about to break the rules." She said.
"They watch everything?"
"The refs are robots. They watch your sensory feed as it is coming in and look for rule violations. For example, let's say you start screaming obscenities at someone in public. The refs would flag that and detain you. It's against the rules to scream at someone in public, mainly because no one wants to be around when it happens."
"That makes sense. Did you say they can flag you if you are about to break a rule?" I asked.
"Yes." She said.
"How can they know you are about to break a rule?" I asked.
"Let's say you have picked up a bat, you are running toward someone and your muscles are getting the bat in position to swing it. A ref would look at that and say, 'there's a good chance someone is going to get hurt here.' The ref would shut down the person with the bat."
"Shut down?"
"It just disconnects your brain from your muscles and the ref takes control. Then you are detained to review the situation and retrain." She said.
"That must really cut down on crime." I said.
"You cannot imagine. And there is always a complete record after any crime is committed, so there is no question about innocence or guilt. Prosecution is trivial if you are guilty, and exoneration is instant if you are not. It's a little creepy the first time a ref warns you about something. It is sort of like a lifeguard yelling at you at the pool for something you thought was OK. It's embarrassing, at least to me. But then the ref explains the rule, you can ask questions about it and then you move on."
"How often do the refs flag you?" I asked.
"It can be pretty often in the beginning, but I haven't heard from a ref in over a year I'd say. It's been a long time."
"Where do the rules come from?" I asked.
"We make them. Everyone is involved. They'll spend almost a week on that during orientation -- it's a big part of living here." They've handed infinite power to entities they presume to be incorruptable which they control by a democracy. Of course, this is about the point in the story that I would say "take me back to terrafoam" cause I'd rather live in a world with nothing than live in a world where control of my own body could be taken away from me by some bunch of rules a committee made. This is the usual problem with geeks, they think consensis should equal might and they're willing to put blind faith in democratic processes backed up with technological enforcement.
So, ya know, as soon as someone does something like build a big gold statue and convince others they should worship it, there's going to be a smackdown by the majority of society which, unfortunately, is most likely still religous. They'll pass some laws that say that worshipping false gods is a crime and the robots will shut down anyone who starts doing it. Hell, we're fiddling with the insides of people's heads.. it's pretty obvious that eventually we'll be able to tell what they are thinking.. the robots will make great thought police.
You're not married are you?
My response is simple, who gives a shit if they're justified or not? We can't stop them so our opinions don't count. It's all very interesting to wax philosophical but when it comes down to it, if it is in their interest to enslave us they will.
It takes too long. Even when I suggest we play the official "short game" rules, they still say it takes too long. Maybe they just hate me.
A prequisite to talking about creating the kind of utopia that Marshall Brain speaks of is to actually read what he wrote. The principles of the society are:
1. Everyone is equal
2. Everything is reused
3. Nothing is anonymous
4. Nothing is owned
5. Tell the truth
6. Do no harm
7. Obey the rules
8. Live your life
9. Better and better
So long as everyone agrees with this, you get your utopia. The problem with this world is that people inevitably want to change the rules.. so what do you do? Program the robots not to let them? Sounds like tyranny to me.
Damn, I was just about to make a Gentoo jibe. :)
No, see, women worked for women's rights and minorities worked for these "minority rights" you speak of. Before they stood up and demanded they be counted as equals efforts to liberate them was pointless.
I agree with you that an unsecured AP is exactly the same as an open HTTP port.
Thing is, I think an unsecured vehicle is exactly the same too.
The difference is.. it is socially acceptable to connect to an open HTTP port. It isn't socially acceptable to "borrow" someone's car. An open AP? It's considered by most people to be unacceptable to use someone's unsecured AP.. but a lot of people still do it.
That's all it is. There's some things we're happy to allow others to have access to.. and expect them to have access to. There's some things we're not happy to.
Truth is.. I have a web server running on my Linux box. I've given the ip (which changes often) to a few people over the years and, of course, I access it myself. So when I look in my logs and see worms trying to do ISS sploits on my machine and other random ip scanning people, I *do* get annoyed, but it's not something I would kick someone's ass for.. but don't fuck with my car.
Superior how exactly? I tell ya, some people think so abstractly that they make absolutely no sense.
Are they superior in a way that we can't hunt them down with a shotgun?
Cause that's what it would take. We have human rights because we demand them. We have the power to fight for them and we did. This really shouldn't be too hard to understand..