Why do you attempt to make fun of people who have serious concerns about their privacy?
The same reason I group geeks into one aggregate and then make funny statements that are only funny because they are startlingly true. Some geeks don't like being part of that aggregate, and are annoyed by the jokes. I usually then group them with the aggregate, growing larger every day, of people who can't study (and laugh at) themselves.
Then I make a joke about them that's startlingly accurate, but I only share it with people belonging to the aggregate "people with a sense of humor"
I'd like to make a concrete joke here, but even if you got it you probably wouldn't laugh. (aggregate...concrete...chuckle:)
-Adam
Re:Simpler, quicker, and exists already
on
Privacy in the Woods?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
1. Make sure the area has good cell phone coverage.
2. Require all missing hikers to carry a cell phone.
3. Spam them with text messages. r u short on wood? msg me!!! c14Iis wrks!!!
4. Profit!
A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them.
Let's do some translation here:
A lot of folks who aren't adequetely trained/prepared go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will save search and rescue teams time, money, and remove much of their fun badmouthing idiots.
Going 'into the wilderness' is not a high risk activity for one who is prepared to do so. This system isn't meant for those who know how to build an emergency shelter, seek help, perform simple emergency medical care, etc.
(Going into the wilderness = risky activity) == (Fixing your own computer = risky activity)
There are some unknowns you cannot prepare for and it is for these reasons rescue services should be used. A person going into the woods expecting their GPS to save them with no map of the area is inadequately prepared. It is often these people who need rescue services than those prepared who get caught in flash thunderstorms/floods, etc.
If you relish an element of risk in a particular activity, be certian that your foolishness will not endanger the lives of others trying to save you in your stupidity. If they must risk their lives saving you then don't deny them the tools to do so.
From the 'explanation': Customers who change their minds about membership receive ongoing opportunities from Memberworks to cancel and request a full refund through its "no questions asked" policy.
Translation: Customers who request to disenroll from this program will be autoenrolled and are given the oportunity to disenroll on a monthly basis.
If you can find a suitable tiny laptop with burner, you'll end up with a much more flexible platform for doing what you want to do.
To trickle charge your laptop, you break the chargin into two steps:
1) Trickle charge a suitable gell cell or other battery (via solar or generator on cycle)
2) Charge laptop from battery
If you are misery with your energy, you can charge a small battery with a small solar panel on your cycle all day, then charge your laptop from the battery for an hour or two at night (or simply use the battery for power, get rid of the laptop battery)
Pros: get to charge battery all day, don't need to leave laptop with charger or cycle while battery is charging (safer).
Cons: have to lug around another 5-10 pounds of stuff.
Also, you might consider using an ipaq or similar pda. It'll be less power hungry and time consuming than a cd burner, and with built in wireless you're liable to find more open hotspots than you are liable to find cyber cafe's. Connection and transmission speed should be higher going directly from the flash card to the wireless internet than from flash to cd to computer to wired internet.
Let's look at this carefully. Has a consumer product yet emerged which did not work without a service charge, yet was not hacked?
The article mentions that the company is most worried of spoofing identities. Well, they'd better be. If they want the console and service to succeed they must provide one click shopping for games an apps, with either try before you buy, or some sort of 'dissatisfied' cancel in a few hours after purchase return.
This means that once someone has another person's id/password/encrypted key or whatever, then they can purchase games in another's name while having charges applied to the other person.
I believe that within 3 months of wide availability this will be hacked so you can modify the machine without the service knowing, possibly spoofing IDs. Within a year someone will have the service connected to and running on a regular PC.
And, of course, they'll find out that it runs Linux since MS isn't going to license windows to an xbox competitor at low rates. (ie, they'll use windows, but it'll be so expensive that they'll fail financially)
Open String: Contigously allocated memory without a terminator (see also Closed String, Buffer Overflow)
-Adam
Mastercard is not stupid.
on
RFID MasterCard
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The people working for mastercard and other financial credit companies are as smart as we are, and they stand to lose millions in fraud if they don't secure their customer's cards.
I would be very surprised if the cards didn't have built in challenge/response cryptography to send the information. These cards are available now, and cheaply in bulk. Further, they would likely only contain a database link to the credit information which can probably be invalidated without changing the credit card number.
Of course, this means the bad guys only need to break one (or maybe a few) keys to gain access to everyone's card, but then they have to go around and collect them by hand.
The assumption that companies are stupid or lazy is actually based on the fact that they have to make cost/performance decisions. What seems stupid to us generally is cheaper including all the incidental and security costs. I doubt that the cost/performance ratio here would favor a 'stupid' solution.
Yes, I should update my website. I stand by what I've said here and on my site, though. It's interesting that you've decided to go for personal attacks, instead of refuting the salient points.
I use Windows as my primary workstation (job requirement). I do use FreeBSD, Linux, and other Unix machines where they are better suited for a given task.
Don't assume that because I use windows, and previously programmed mostly in VB that I know very little about this subject.
GNU make available the main elements of an OS for free (or some useful helper utilities, make whatever distinction you want, it doesn't really matter for the purpose of my argument) and they request that you include them in the name of the OS.
I'm sorry. I realize my error now. At what point, when Linus was originally using the GNU utilities, did 'GNU' request that he include the name 'GNU' in any future OS he creates that contains or uses those utilities?
Never?
So now that Linux is somewhat mainstream 'GNU' wants a free ride on coat tails?
Your choices above change drastically when you look at the reverse argument:
Someone says their programs are "free" and "open" for any use, provided that if you modify the programs themselves then you must contribute your modifications to the community. You use their programs to create something which, after years of blood, sweat, and tears becomes very popular, and the name you originally put to it is known worldwide.
The person who originally said the utilities were 'free' and 'open' now decides that you must pay for your usage by changing the name of you software.
Now, you have several choices.
Sell out, bow to dictators:
* Gratefully use the software they've provided for free and agree to their modest request
* Decide that they're on a power trip and decline to use their software
Ethically pure:
* Hold firm to original agreements, indicate that if they want to change the terms of the agreement they should change the license future software is released under to include those terms - at that point you can decide whether to honor the new license agreement and use the newer utilties, or continue to use the old, or remove them entirely.
What do you call a person who has changed the terms of use after you've built something which depends on their products? I only call it as I see it. GNU is riding on the coattails of Linux already - changing the name is a petty gesture to get attention. It is one of the many things that turns me off of GNU utilites whenever possible.
I'm sorry (that many of you will disagree with me), but any paper starting out with GNU/Linux instead of just plain Linux isn't going to get more than passing attention from me.
Would you call Kool-Aid "Water/Kool-Aid" just because without water it's not as useful?
Pre-pending GNU to Linux is an affront to the Linux trademark. Microsoft would be furious if people started advertising "x86/Windows XP".
If you must pay homage to the GNU utilities often included in free software, it's sufficient to say "Linux with GNU utilities," or some similar phrase. If people want to get GNU into the mainstream they can build their own distribution or OS and name it whatever they want.
Name your distribution anything you want. When referring to any distribution or OS primarily using the Linux kernel as its kernel then the term is "Linux". A Linux OS is any OS which uses the Linux kernel. GNU is not an OS. GNU/Linux does not refer to any OS in general, or specifically. If anything, it may refer to the utilities specific to linux systems, but I do not know of any GNU utilities which work only on linux systems and not on other operating systems.
The rape charges are brought by the state, not the school. The school cannot legally punish the kids for crimes not under their jurisdiction. If it happened on school grounds, then perhaps.
The laptop signout could not have been prosecuted by the state, as no crime was committed. He broke school rules (accidently or not) and suffered the consequences.
Nothing in your comment really gets to the point you are trying to make, that popular kids get slaps on the wrist and unpopular kids get leg irons. I don't doubt it happens, but pick more analogous circumstances if you really want to make a case.
Slashdot needs one of those weather maps with all the love/hate relationships with companies...
"Slightly heated discussion will take place today about the Google IPO, SCO still firmly in the outhouse, and there's a 30% chance that IBM will be favored with positive comments..."
"You can buy these and develop them by feeding them different items you find in the world."
Oh great, now PETA's going to be 'weighing in' on the video game violence debate:
"And next in our presentation you'll see test subject B abusing his virtual kitty..."
"EAT THE STAFF YOU STUPID CAT! IT'LL GIVE YOU MORE POWER! EAT IT! EAAAAAAT IT!!!!!"
"As any idiot can see, congressman, this is going to lead to a world where children will abuse animals for special protection from trolls and hellhounds."
You are in a governement full of twisty laws, all alike. You are likely to be eaten by a lobbyist.
Now it's time to watch and see which employees are singing, "Go on, take the money and run" while sadly telling a tale of woe about how, despite their best managerial efforts, the company folded.
It's good for a bad business to die. It's bad for a good business to go bad. It's good for a dead business to... wait, where was I again?
You're right, this is not likely to be a significant harbinger of peace, just as nuclear power was not, industrial revolution was not, information revolution was not, chemicals were not, genetically engineered crops are not, etc.
You have to generate hype to get a product going, but the hype can last only so long. Once the product is out it becomes status quo, and it appears as though nothing as changed. Reality (from an objective view) shows that changes have taken place, but the changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Our society is drastically different from the society of the 1800's.
However, aggressive instincts that must find an outlet regardless of the trigger issue (be it hunger or idealism) are no more than pride and power seeking. People are naturally prone to these two vices, and they are what bring us down.
So yes, I agree. Peace will not ride on the back of nanoassembly. Peace will not ride on the back of any technology.
That's an interesting point of view, in a 'conspiracy theory' sort of way. It would, however, require an incredibly sheep-like populace like most 1984 type futures. History has proven time and time again that people, in general, only play sheep for a generation or two. Then they morph into wolves and bite the hand that 'feeds' them. Wolves can be tamed/otherwise dealt with for so long.
Are you asserting that the reason we don't use available chemical and biological weapons now is due to an outdated delivery system? If I understand correctly, you are saying that if we could develop a more targetted delivery then we'd go back to open sores software, er, nanotechnology?
And if you think that nano technology is about to create self replicating nanotechnology from available products in the wild, then it appears to me that you don't know about nanotechnology. Perhaps - perhaps - in a few dozen years we'll have a scientist that can demonstrate how their nano thing can, in a laboratory environment with exactly the right raw materials in just the right spots, recreate an exact replica of itself, which then starts functioning to create replicas again.
But we can do that now with genetically engineering. Has mutant corn taken over the world yet? No. Is it likely to do so, ever? No - we can burn it faster than it can grow. Does the uber-herpes virus survive in the wild? No. It lives fine in a lab, but it's not going to survive 'out there'.
There's lots of things to worry about, certianly. But to start fear mongering about something that, even if it happens, is dozens of years off at least is shortsighted. The good that can come of this technology could, and probably will, outweigh the bad.
My point still stands - you can't know the future benefits and consequences of this technology. Are you going to decry the possible consequences without weighing the benefits fairly?
If so, you really should stop using computers. They are contributing to the heat death of the universe. We must stop using them until we fully understand the consequences.
we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
Where's all the dicussion about how this technology could reduce current stress?
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
I say bring it on. The consequences will sort themselves out as they always have upon previous technology.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong? Can you believe they would have made the correct choice if they could have caused researchers to halt experiments on such common materials as antibiotics?
In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Politicians: Yay. More legislative work means we'll forever be yammering about stuff.
Missionaries: Yay. End world hunger. I can go home and stop building bridges.
Eco-groupies: Boo. This will destroy the environment.
Engineers: Screw the consequences, I want ot play with one! Less talk, more tech!
Your Rights Online Whiners: We have to pass laws NOW about this technology. Because there's nothing like an archiac law for a technology we can't understand the ramifications of until it's been used for many years.
Console Junkies: Wha...? Can this wait? I'm almost through to the boss...
Babies: YES! With this power I alone will rul - WAAAAAAAAIMHUNGRYAAAAAAAA!
Slashdot Mirror
And it'll help with your carpal tunnel problem.
-Adam
start a fire if they're in trouble
Yeah. Usually when I have a wound that hurts, I like to hit my big toe with a hammer. Then my wound doesn't hurt any longer.
Same idea. In trouble? Start a forest fire - your previous worries will seem miniscule.
-Adam
Why do you attempt to make fun of people who have serious concerns about their privacy?
The same reason I group geeks into one aggregate and then make funny statements that are only funny because they are startlingly true. Some geeks don't like being part of that aggregate, and are annoyed by the jokes. I usually then group them with the aggregate, growing larger every day, of people who can't study (and laugh at) themselves.
Then I make a joke about them that's startlingly accurate, but I only share it with people belonging to the aggregate "people with a sense of humor"
I'd like to make a concrete joke here, but even if you got it you probably wouldn't laugh. (aggregate...concrete...chuckle:)
-Adam
1. Make sure the area has good cell phone coverage.
2. Require all missing hikers to carry a cell phone.
3. Spam them with text messages. r u short on wood? msg me!!! c14Iis wrks!!!
4. Profit!
-Adam
A lot of folks who go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will not appeal to most of them.
Let's do some translation here:
A lot of folks who aren't adequetely trained/prepared go into the woods do so because they relish the element of risk involved. Idiot-proofing the wilderness experience will save search and rescue teams time, money, and remove much of their fun badmouthing idiots.
Going 'into the wilderness' is not a high risk activity for one who is prepared to do so. This system isn't meant for those who know how to build an emergency shelter, seek help, perform simple emergency medical care, etc.
(Going into the wilderness = risky activity) == (Fixing your own computer = risky activity)
There are some unknowns you cannot prepare for and it is for these reasons rescue services should be used. A person going into the woods expecting their GPS to save them with no map of the area is inadequately prepared. It is often these people who need rescue services than those prepared who get caught in flash thunderstorms/floods, etc.
If you relish an element of risk in a particular activity, be certian that your foolishness will not endanger the lives of others trying to save you in your stupidity. If they must risk their lives saving you then don't deny them the tools to do so.
-Adam
hostinfo
slashdot.org 127.0.0.1
-Adam
From the 'explanation':
Customers who change their minds about membership receive ongoing opportunities from Memberworks to cancel and request a full refund through its "no questions asked" policy.
Translation: Customers who request to disenroll from this program will be autoenrolled and are given the oportunity to disenroll on a monthly basis.
-Adam
If you can find a suitable tiny laptop with burner, you'll end up with a much more flexible platform for doing what you want to do.
To trickle charge your laptop, you break the chargin into two steps:
1) Trickle charge a suitable gell cell or other battery (via solar or generator on cycle)
2) Charge laptop from battery
If you are misery with your energy, you can charge a small battery with a small solar panel on your cycle all day, then charge your laptop from the battery for an hour or two at night (or simply use the battery for power, get rid of the laptop battery)
Pros: get to charge battery all day, don't need to leave laptop with charger or cycle while battery is charging (safer).
Cons: have to lug around another 5-10 pounds of stuff.
Also, you might consider using an ipaq or similar pda. It'll be less power hungry and time consuming than a cd burner, and with built in wireless you're liable to find more open hotspots than you are liable to find cyber cafe's. Connection and transmission speed should be higher going directly from the flash card to the wireless internet than from flash to cd to computer to wired internet.
-Adam
Let's look at this carefully. Has a consumer product yet emerged which did not work without a service charge, yet was not hacked?
The article mentions that the company is most worried of spoofing identities. Well, they'd better be. If they want the console and service to succeed they must provide one click shopping for games an apps, with either try before you buy, or some sort of 'dissatisfied' cancel in a few hours after purchase return.
This means that once someone has another person's id/password/encrypted key or whatever, then they can purchase games in another's name while having charges applied to the other person.
I believe that within 3 months of wide availability this will be hacked so you can modify the machine without the service knowing, possibly spoofing IDs. Within a year someone will have the service connected to and running on a regular PC.
And, of course, they'll find out that it runs Linux since MS isn't going to license windows to an xbox competitor at low rates. (ie, they'll use windows, but it'll be so expensive that they'll fail financially)
-Adam
This could be solved with one entry:
Closed String: Contiguously allocated memory ending with 0x00 ('\0', 0, 0b00000000, etc)
Open String: Contigously allocated memory without a terminator (see also Closed String, Buffer Overflow)
-Adam
The people working for mastercard and other financial credit companies are as smart as we are, and they stand to lose millions in fraud if they don't secure their customer's cards.
I would be very surprised if the cards didn't have built in challenge/response cryptography to send the information. These cards are available now, and cheaply in bulk. Further, they would likely only contain a database link to the credit information which can probably be invalidated without changing the credit card number.
Of course, this means the bad guys only need to break one (or maybe a few) keys to gain access to everyone's card, but then they have to go around and collect them by hand.
The assumption that companies are stupid or lazy is actually based on the fact that they have to make cost/performance decisions. What seems stupid to us generally is cheaper including all the incidental and security costs. I doubt that the cost/performance ratio here would favor a 'stupid' solution.
-Adam
Yes, I should update my website. I stand by what I've said here and on my site, though. It's interesting that you've decided to go for personal attacks, instead of refuting the salient points.
I use Windows as my primary workstation (job requirement). I do use FreeBSD, Linux, and other Unix machines where they are better suited for a given task.
Don't assume that because I use windows, and previously programmed mostly in VB that I know very little about this subject.
-Adam
GNU make available the main elements of an OS for free (or some useful helper utilities, make whatever distinction you want, it doesn't really matter for the purpose of my argument) and they request that you include them in the name of the OS.
I'm sorry. I realize my error now. At what point, when Linus was originally using the GNU utilities, did 'GNU' request that he include the name 'GNU' in any future OS he creates that contains or uses those utilities?
Never?
So now that Linux is somewhat mainstream 'GNU' wants a free ride on coat tails?
Your choices above change drastically when you look at the reverse argument:
Someone says their programs are "free" and "open" for any use, provided that if you modify the programs themselves then you must contribute your modifications to the community. You use their programs to create something which, after years of blood, sweat, and tears becomes very popular, and the name you originally put to it is known worldwide.
The person who originally said the utilities were 'free' and 'open' now decides that you must pay for your usage by changing the name of you software.
Now, you have several choices.
Sell out, bow to dictators:
* Gratefully use the software they've provided for free and agree to their modest request
* Decide that they're on a power trip and decline to use their software
Ethically pure:
* Hold firm to original agreements, indicate that if they want to change the terms of the agreement they should change the license future software is released under to include those terms - at that point you can decide whether to honor the new license agreement and use the newer utilties, or continue to use the old, or remove them entirely.
What do you call a person who has changed the terms of use after you've built something which depends on their products? I only call it as I see it. GNU is riding on the coattails of Linux already - changing the name is a petty gesture to get attention. It is one of the many things that turns me off of GNU utilites whenever possible.
-Adam
The GNU "system"? Boy was I wrong, here I was thinking that the GNU utilities were nothing more than a bunch of seperate utilites.
I think I'll start calling my laptop's software "system" Mozilla/Windows.
It'd be, like, a totally accurate description of my 'system'.
-Adam
I'm sorry (that many of you will disagree with me), but any paper starting out with GNU/Linux instead of just plain Linux isn't going to get more than passing attention from me.
Would you call Kool-Aid "Water/Kool-Aid" just because without water it's not as useful?
Pre-pending GNU to Linux is an affront to the Linux trademark. Microsoft would be furious if people started advertising "x86/Windows XP".
If you must pay homage to the GNU utilities often included in free software, it's sufficient to say "Linux with GNU utilities," or some similar phrase. If people want to get GNU into the mainstream they can build their own distribution or OS and name it whatever they want.
Name your distribution anything you want. When referring to any distribution or OS primarily using the Linux kernel as its kernel then the term is "Linux". A Linux OS is any OS which uses the Linux kernel. GNU is not an OS. GNU/Linux does not refer to any OS in general, or specifically. If anything, it may refer to the utilities specific to linux systems, but I do not know of any GNU utilities which work only on linux systems and not on other operating systems.
Go sell your memes elsewhere.
-Adam
The rape charges are brought by the state, not the school. The school cannot legally punish the kids for crimes not under their jurisdiction. If it happened on school grounds, then perhaps.
The laptop signout could not have been prosecuted by the state, as no crime was committed. He broke school rules (accidently or not) and suffered the consequences.
Nothing in your comment really gets to the point you are trying to make, that popular kids get slaps on the wrist and unpopular kids get leg irons. I don't doubt it happens, but pick more analogous circumstances if you really want to make a case.
-Adam
I can't remember - is Google good or bad today?
Slashdot needs one of those weather maps with all the love/hate relationships with companies...
"Slightly heated discussion will take place today about the Google IPO, SCO still firmly in the outhouse, and there's a 30% chance that IBM will be favored with positive comments..."
-Adam
"You can buy these and develop them by feeding them different items you find in the world."
Oh great, now PETA's going to be 'weighing in' on the video game violence debate:
"And next in our presentation you'll see test subject B abusing his virtual kitty..."
"EAT THE STAFF YOU STUPID CAT! IT'LL GIVE YOU MORE POWER! EAT IT! EAAAAAAT IT!!!!! "
"As any idiot can see, congressman, this is going to lead to a world where children will abuse animals for special protection from trolls and hellhounds."
You are in a governement full of twisty laws, all alike. You are likely to be eaten by a lobbyist.
-Adam
yet simple enough that even the school's janitors could use it
And that, children, is where the seeds of garbage collection were sowed.
-Adam
Now it's time to watch and see which employees are singing, "Go on, take the money and run" while sadly telling a tale of woe about how, despite their best managerial efforts, the company folded.
It's good for a bad business to die. It's bad for a good business to go bad. It's good for a dead business to... wait, where was I again?
-Adam
You're right, this is not likely to be a significant harbinger of peace, just as nuclear power was not, industrial revolution was not, information revolution was not, chemicals were not, genetically engineered crops are not, etc.
You have to generate hype to get a product going, but the hype can last only so long. Once the product is out it becomes status quo, and it appears as though nothing as changed. Reality (from an objective view) shows that changes have taken place, but the changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Our society is drastically different from the society of the 1800's.
However, aggressive instincts that must find an outlet regardless of the trigger issue (be it hunger or idealism) are no more than pride and power seeking. People are naturally prone to these two vices, and they are what bring us down.
So yes, I agree. Peace will not ride on the back of nanoassembly. Peace will not ride on the back of any technology.
-Adam
That's an interesting point of view, in a 'conspiracy theory' sort of way. It would, however, require an incredibly sheep-like populace like most 1984 type futures. History has proven time and time again that people, in general, only play sheep for a generation or two. Then they morph into wolves and bite the hand that 'feeds' them. Wolves can be tamed/otherwise dealt with for so long.
-Adam
Are you asserting that the reason we don't use available chemical and biological weapons now is due to an outdated delivery system? If I understand correctly, you are saying that if we could develop a more targetted delivery then we'd go back to open sores software, er, nanotechnology?
And if you think that nano technology is about to create self replicating nanotechnology from available products in the wild, then it appears to me that you don't know about nanotechnology. Perhaps - perhaps - in a few dozen years we'll have a scientist that can demonstrate how their nano thing can, in a laboratory environment with exactly the right raw materials in just the right spots, recreate an exact replica of itself, which then starts functioning to create replicas again.
But we can do that now with genetically engineering. Has mutant corn taken over the world yet? No. Is it likely to do so, ever? No - we can burn it faster than it can grow. Does the uber-herpes virus survive in the wild? No. It lives fine in a lab, but it's not going to survive 'out there'.
There's lots of things to worry about, certianly. But to start fear mongering about something that, even if it happens, is dozens of years off at least is shortsighted. The good that can come of this technology could, and probably will, outweigh the bad.
My point still stands - you can't know the future benefits and consequences of this technology. Are you going to decry the possible consequences without weighing the benefits fairly?
If so, you really should stop using computers. They are contributing to the heat death of the universe. We must stop using them until we fully understand the consequences.
-Adam
we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
Where's all the dicussion about how this technology could reduce current stress?
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
I say bring it on. The consequences will sort themselves out as they always have upon previous technology.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong? Can you believe they would have made the correct choice if they could have caused researchers to halt experiments on such common materials as antibiotics?
-Adam
In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Politicians: Yay. More legislative work means we'll forever be yammering about stuff.
Missionaries: Yay. End world hunger. I can go home and stop building bridges.
Eco-groupies: Boo. This will destroy the environment.
Engineers: Screw the consequences, I want ot play with one! Less talk, more tech!
Your Rights Online Whiners: We have to pass laws NOW about this technology. Because there's nothing like an archiac law for a technology we can't understand the ramifications of until it's been used for many years.
Console Junkies: Wha...? Can this wait? I'm almost through to the boss...
Babies: YES! With this power I alone will rul - WAAAAAAAAIMHUNGRYAAAAAAAA!
-Adam