Sorry; that wasn't clear from what you wrote. It seemed as if you were implying IE 6 was killed for other reasons, rather than directly being killed because of Safari. On this topic, it does prove that Apple can release a product that is superior to one provided by Microsoft: one that is superior AND interoperates properly and plays nice in the real world. Granted, there are still Windows-IE-only webapps, but thankfully, with the rise of Firefox, even those are becoming an rarity.
I believe that Apple can release a superior complete office suite that is completely Microsoft Office compatible. Granted, the loss of Office would be a blow, but there is no reason, given Microsoft's claimed commitment to moving to completely open document formats with Office, that Apple could not create its own functional, and even superior, suite. With Pages and Keynote so far, it admitted does not seem to be the case, given their priority is definitely not on Office-like behavior and full document compatibility; I'm just noting that it is possible if necessary.
Now, people will be able to easily buy nice, high-quality Apple hardware, that is essentially a high-end PC, and be able to run Mac OS X as the primary OS in addition to being able to run Windows, Linux variants for x86, etc., in a vmware/Virtual PC-like environment, all at the native speed of the underlying hardware. All seamlessly and all without having to dual-boot. Talk about a dream machine...
IE 6 for Mac was a fully staffed program, and Jimmy Grewal was the program manager. Immediately after the Safari announcement, a decision outside of MacBU was made to kill IE 6 for Mac. Once this was dead, the program manager actually left Microsoft. To repeat: IE 6 for Mac was actually in internal beta, and was a fully staffed project. Right when Safari was announced, it was killed, and it was killed *because* of the Safari announcement.
You might be correct, but I don't think it goes as far as you believe it does. I find it unlikely that there were any specific deals regarding Office before the transition announcement. Further, Microsoft Office for Mac OS X and the Mac Business Unit in general are very profitable for Microsoft. Other than for larger strategic reasons, there is no reason to pull Office for the Mac platform. Now, that said, I don't have any problem believing Microsoft might do just that, just as they killed the IE 6 for Mac project within days of Safari's announcement. However, that raises an interesting parallel: IE development was never what Apple wanted it to be, and wanted to control its own browser fortunes. Hence, Safari was born. IE is now dead on the Mac platform. With Microsoft (finally) going to open formats for all Office documents in the next iteration of Office, why can't Apple do the same thing with an office suite? I know the mindshare blow of losing Microsoft Office would be significant, but what if there were a BETTER alternative, that was 100% compatible with Office? The point is that there are paths Apple could take here, and I don't believe that Apple's current commitment to not allow Mac OS X to run on anything but Apple hardware is a commitment to anything but itself and its current best interests.
...will jump on the vmware bandwagon. With Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (especially Mac OS X Server in the context of what I'm about to discuss) supporting x86, it would be trivially easy to have Mac OS X Server run in a supported fashion in a vmware environment on any variety of hardware. Stay with me for a moment: similar to the impact of soon being able to get an Apple desktop or, especially, laptop system that runs Mac OS X plus any x86 OS, including Windows, in a sure-to-exist virtual machine/vmware-like environment at near-native speed of the underlying hardware, having Mac OS X Server run on vmware in a server environment - somewhat the reverse - would be a huge coup for Apple in the datacenter.
Yes, yes, we all know that Apple, at least at the outset, will not "allow" Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. Aside from some semi-insane but actually interesting prognostications from John Dvorak (and TPM panic aside), Apple is primarily talking about the desktop/consumer marketplace when it says this. There is little to nothing to stop Apple from partnering with an enterprise x86 vendor (or a partner such as vmware) to provide a vehicle via which to run Mac OS X Server on hardware other than Apple's 1U, single-power-supply Xserve.
Mac OS X will only run exclusively on Apple hardware as long as its good for Apple. As soon as it becomes desirable to allow Mac OS X (or Mac OS X Server) to run on possible non-Apple hardware configurations, you had better believe they'll do it. That's probably part-and-parcel to this whole x86 transition strategy. Further, consider that individual market segments may be appropriate for this first, such as enterprise datacenter and server markets. Consider also that while Mac OS X is $129 ($69 government and education), Mac OS X Server is $499/$999 ($249/$499 government and education), meaning that Mac OS X Server has a price point much more in line with allowing Mac OS X Server to run sans Apple hardware and still be a profit center. And as it matures, Mac OS X Server is an increasingly powerful, very attractive UNIX server platform, with major commercial vendor support and the best of the open source world wrapped up into one product.
I see Mac OS X Server on (something like) vmware on non-Apple x86 enterprise server hardware in Apple's future.
Well, I'll agree with you, too. Today, and 50 years from now.
Here's the problem: technology marches on.
Along with the march of technology will inevitably come better ways of, for example, tracking people. Tools that will allow law enforcement agencies or government entities to see farther. Store more. Track discreetly. Listen further.
What is important is how we use those tools. These tools will ALWAYS be abused. But to presume that abuse is the default; that abuse is the intent; is somewhat pessimistic.
Look at all the ways we can be monitored today, instantly. Have they been abused, at times? Sure. Have they been used properly countless more times? Absolutely. The difference may be that I'm willing to accept some abuse - yes, even if it involves me personally, as it has in the past - as just the nature of things. That the good and/or positive benefits massively outweighs the bad and/or abusive uses. The threshold of some folks might be lower than mine, or zero. I simply think that a zero-threshold is impossible, and wishing for it is counterproductive.
ANYTHING can be abused by governments or law enforcement agencies. The technology is NOT the key. It's our system of checks and balances and oversight in our model of government that we hope keeps government in check. I know we have a lot of tinfoilies among us who, quite literally, think the Constitution has been shredded, and Republicans' sole mission is to remove as many rights as possible, and that our civil liberties are disappearing in droves by the second. They're apparently reading a *tad* too much indymedia and truthout, but, nonetheless, I value their eternal vigilance. The fact of the matter is that sometimes there are abuses. Sometimes there are bad provisions in law. Our system of government and application of law is extremely imperfect. But doing away with technologies is not the answer. If you're not advocating that, then how, reasonably, do we prevent technologies from being promoted and used? What if someday we had an implantable device that could only be read with your explicit approval? Would we still be against it? Or would we recognize it as the march of technology?
As a side note, that's the only thing I find wrong with implantable RFID: it's the equivalent of being required to wear outwardly visible identification at all times. You CHOOSE to whom you identify yourself. If you could make the same conscious, explicit choice with a future RFID technology, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's just yet another technology that can be both used and abused.
It's this kind of technological advancement that suddenly seems to turn slashdot into anti-technology luddites.
The same technology that brings us everything that you think is great also brings us things like subdermal implantable RFID chips.
The same philosophical arguments people make for things like why P2P is "just a tool, not inherently good or bad" can equally be applied to RFID.
With the internet, the web, things like Google's creations, and tools that have vaulted us beyond anything we thought possible just ten years ago, is it any surprise that such technology can be applied in ways you personally might not agree with?
RFID, even implantable RFID, is not inherently bad.
Nor are the examples you cited to promote it.
Before binoculars, a law enforcement officer might not have been able to see you from as far away.
Before telephones and computers, a government agency might not have been able to as effectively do its work.
The bottom line is that companies and government are going to use and promote technology that will continue to advance.
So what do we do? Outlaw technologies? Outlaw uses of technology? This is a very valid question. With all the outcry of a company attempting to promote a technological product, I'm really curious what an actual answer might be (short of "get rid of all the Republicans") in this very situation. We've got a perfect example right here. So, really, what would you do?
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
I don't have any problem with a company making a product attempting to promote it. Viewed in a vacuum, as I said, these products, like many others, could have positive applications. That they would try to promote the product in such a fashion as it would be used as widely as possible comes as no surprise to me.
If we expand the discussion to politics, civil liberties, and so on, I certainly can see how people who be disturbed by any such proposal, however initially benign it might be. But in a "free" country, as some who oppose this might be quick to sarcastically point out, as the submitter did, isn't a business free to make and promote products?
Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
Here we can perhaps agree. But it's only natural, and frankly, to me anyway, expected, for very skilled and effective managers and leaders to be picked up from government by industry and vice versa.
At any rate, you are probably right that these things won't ever become mandatory-- in the United States. But there are lots of other places in the world. The government of China, for example, already has national "citizen identification" cards, and already has a precedent of compulsory medical care (for example abortions). Do you think it would be the least bit unusual if this kind of chipping became mandatory there? Because I don't.
And once again, companies involving themselves in the affairs of governments with questionable regimes (cf. US companies in Nazi Germany) is an issue much larger than what we're discussing here. If we agree that, say, China doing this with all of its citizens is a bad idea, what do we do? How do we respond? Make it against the law to make implantable RFID chips? Of course, this would only apply in the jurisdiction of the US. Oops, there's a business lost, too. Granted, that's kind of an oversimplified fringe example, but really, what would you propose we do?
I'd personally rather use the extremely imperfect system of democracy we've built to hopefully elect leaders that will make halfway decent decisions - keep in mind that non-ignorant, thinking conservatives (and no, not bible-thumping fundie ones, but honest to God reasonable conservatives - and yes, they do exist) are just as sure their philosophies on government, economics, etc., are just as likely to bring happiness to the widest amount of people as the liberals and progressives are of their policy. (Of course, if you're someone who believes that all US politicians are already bought and paid for, and cynically think that the entire government is a behemoth out to get you and we've already lost all of our freedom, then we're probably speaking on a slightly different wavelength here.)
- It's a member of a company's board of directors promoting its products.
- Even in some kind of alternate universe where compulsory, mandatory implants for all residents of the United States were a rider on ANY bill, no matter WHAT the bill, it would NEVER pass.
No, really.
Even for those people who think (wildly erroneously, I might add) that the US is a totalitarian police state and one step away from 1984 (or already there).
Newsflash 1: Director[1] of company that makes RFID chips extols virtues of RFID chips!
Newsflash 2: There is a revolving door between executive-level government and industry!
Newsflash 3: A former government official might use his contacts to lobby for his benefit!
Newsflash 4: Company in question presents its product in a positive light!
Newsflash 5: Melodramaic slashdot sumbission contains no actual news at all.
Frankly, there could be benefits from and novel uses for a universally globally unique identifier that is always with you and can't be lost. But the potential for abuse, obviously, outweighs those benefits. (In fact, if it could only be activated and/or read when you explicitly wished, it might be a good, albeit voluntary, idea. But that's not how this system is applied.)
And further, it's probably not a bad idea for health applications. However, like the Social Security number, it's bound to get misappropriated and misapplied for all manner of other uses. Some of which we
So far, where has it been used? Bars and clubs as gimmicks.
So what does this all mean?
We have a former government official with no official standing or position in government whatever promoting a product of a company of which he's a member of the board.
Stunning.
Bottom line: Sure, absolutely: be vigilant. But there will never be compulsory "implants" that will be required for all. Does that mean a company that would benefit massively from such an idea wouldn't try to promote it? In fact, I'd be worried if a for-profit company operating in a quasi-capitalist society didn't attempt to promote its products. (And no, having national standards for state driver licenses and identification cards was/is not a bad idea.)
[1] Tommy Thompson, while he incidentally may have been the former HHS secretary, is a director of the company that makes the RFID chips.
I hadn't considered the possibility that presenting the argument in a context of an external "intelligent" force, without regard to what it is, might necessarily define it as "religion" (albeit not what most people would consider "religion").
This is exactly the kind of discussion I value: that which makes me reconsider an aspect of my beliefs. I'm not sure I yet agree that simply the act of considering an external "intelligent" force beyond our understanding must therefore make such a concept "religion", but I suppose at that point, it gets down to semantic issues. I will look into this more, and definitely take your post under consideration. Thanks again.
I know that's probably not what you intended, but that's essentially what you're saying.
There's a lot more to learn, consider, and think about in schools than "science". Or at least, there should be. And note, I'm not talking about religion or Creationism here. I'm talking about honest consideration and discussion about ages-old questions of why we're here, how we and the world around us came to be, and so on. The non-bastardized concept of "Intelligent Design" has a place in that debate - even if only as a bad idea. But it's not science, and I never said it was. In fact, I said the exact opposite. But to say that debate or discussion of an idea has no place in schools, well, I'd argue we have a different idea about what school should be, then.
I agree that Intelligent Design, as applied by the Creationist agenda, is utterly flawed. It is not science, it is not provable, and it plain just doesn't belong in a science class.
I guess the problem might be that when I talk about Intelligent Design, I'm not talking about it in that fashion. I'm talking about it as a conglomeration of ideas that attempt to assert that there must be, or at least ask if there might have been, an intelligent force beyond our understanding that has created the physical world around us, including life. That's truly what "Intelligent Design" is, though I reject the premise that Intelligent Design is in any way "scientific" in nature.
I don't think that at a basic philosophical level that that's worthless to discuss.
As to your other comments, I agree it's possibly an exercise in futility to attempt to answer inherently unanswerable questions. But I do believe there is value and perhaps wisdom that can be gained from their consideration in an intelligent and reasonable fashion (i.e., not how Creationists would do it).
Stem cell research - what I thought he was talking about in the first place
Global warming - not really any explicit denial, but rather willful ignorance for political/economic purposes; that's a political issue, not a scientific one
Economic/tax policy - heh, that's a can of worms if I've ever seen one; first, many will assert - even some economists! - that economics isn't a "science", per se, and further, conservative versus liberal tax and economic policy is a political issue of protracted debate, not a scientific one
AIDS research - itself has more funding than ever, and Bush has pledged or already given far more money than any previous president and all of Europe combined to Africa, the key region in which AIDS is a major issue
Um, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different ideas.
Creationism believes that the Christian God created the universe and life, as described in the Bible. Sometimes literally.
Intelligent Design believes there was SOME intelligence that we don't understand that had influence on creating the universe and life and our physical world, but doesn't speak to religion at all.
Not in a science class, it doesn't.
Perhaps that's why right after what you quoted...
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
Whatever. I can't believe you're now posting as an AC, on top of it.
You say the president has an "anti-science" agenda, and then imply that you didn't mean the ONLY thing that the president has been even remotely affirmatively or substantially "anti-science" about. I ask you SPECIFICALLY to what you're referring, if not that, and instead of answering, you accuse me of trolling. I find it especially amusing since everything I post here is genuine, I don't do it anonymously, and I'm happy to speak with anyone who might directly email or otherwise contact me, as I have on various occasions.
If you can't answer what you mean by the president's "anti-science" agenda, if not in reference to embryonic stem cell research, then your assertions are nothing but tired vagaries. Just as "unproven" as Intelligent Design, as it were.
And your comment in and of itself, if it were posted in response to the submission, I might consider a typical knee-jerk reaction from you in response to an article like this - just as much of a "troll" that you accuse me of being. But you posted it in response to MY post, which was merely saying that this idea has a place in philosophical debate, albeit NOT a scientific one (since it isn't science, as I've repeatedly said).
Wondering about why and how we're here, and how our existence came to be, certainly has a place in a philosophical discussion.
And while some related with Intelligent Design may have decidedly anti-science agendas, "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a name slapped on a group of ideas some of us have long held: namely, that there must be more than meets the eye in the wonderful complexity and elegance of our universe and life. Will that ever be provable, or ever be science? No. But then, that is true for just about any philosophical idea. They're just that: ideas. And ideas like this don't have a place in a science class.
If you want to talk about the "Intelligent Design movement" with respect to its political agenda, anti-evolution Creationists who've co-opted the term, and its effect on society, sure, that has a place in a sociology or political science class. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about exactly what I just said, which is a philosophical construct, a group of attempted answers to the oldest questions about why we're here and where we came from. And those questions, in that context, aren't scientific in nature. Even if I could go back and witness the very creation of life itself, that still does not answer WHY we are here, HOW this event came to pass. Note: I am not saying that "God" did it. I am saying that questions about our existence are worthwhile and worthy of discussion and debate, and there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't belong in, e.g., a philosophy class.
I didn't say it was scientific. I didn't say it makes provable predictions. In fact, I said almost the exact opposite:
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
But not the biology or science classrooms. I'd hope that we've evolved, no pun intended, to the point that we can agree that this might belong in, say, a philosophy classroom.
"Intelligent design", not in a form that has been co-opted by anti-evolution Creationists and people who think pi should be equal to exactly 3, has a place in this debate.
Does it have a place in a biology class? No.
Does it have a place in a philosophy class? Absolutely.
and
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will it ever be? Nope.
Does it hopefully have a place in humanity's honest questions about why we're here? I'd hope so.
If you can't accept that, then, well, I don't really know what to say.
It's unfortunate that the President of a developed country who is in direct charge of some of the most powerful and awesome technologies created by scientists continues to push an agenda that is anti-science.
I agree.
But what does this have to do with anything I said?
I'm glad you're so righteously smug in your ethical beliefs regarding what can and can't be done with embryos, since that is almost certainly to what you're referring.
Personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as you'd paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we ask important questions that define our very humanity?
On this closely related topic: I am also not anti-abortion. But abortion is not only a "medical procedure", and not only about a "woman's choice". A life is ended. I am willing to concede that it ultimately be better, societally, for unwanted children to not be born. It does somewhat fly in the face of the concept that actions have consequences, but indeed, the action of forcing someone to have a baby they don't want itself has consequences. Consequences that will be manifestly negative. However, the assertion that abortion is only about "life" or "choice" are equally disingenuous. It's about both.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry; that wasn't clear from what you wrote. It seemed as if you were implying IE 6 was killed for other reasons, rather than directly being killed because of Safari. On this topic, it does prove that Apple can release a product that is superior to one provided by Microsoft: one that is superior AND interoperates properly and plays nice in the real world. Granted, there are still Windows-IE-only webapps, but thankfully, with the rise of Firefox, even those are becoming an rarity.
I believe that Apple can release a superior complete office suite that is completely Microsoft Office compatible. Granted, the loss of Office would be a blow, but there is no reason, given Microsoft's claimed commitment to moving to completely open document formats with Office, that Apple could not create its own functional, and even superior, suite. With Pages and Keynote so far, it admitted does not seem to be the case, given their priority is definitely not on Office-like behavior and full document compatibility; I'm just noting that it is possible if necessary.
Right, that's what I alluded to in my post:
Now, people will be able to easily buy nice, high-quality Apple hardware, that is essentially a high-end PC, and be able to run Mac OS X as the primary OS in addition to being able to run Windows, Linux variants for x86, etc., in a vmware/Virtual PC-like environment, all at the native speed of the underlying hardware. All seamlessly and all without having to dual-boot. Talk about a dream machine...
Actually, that's not true.
IE 6 for Mac was a fully staffed program, and Jimmy Grewal was the program manager. Immediately after the Safari announcement, a decision outside of MacBU was made to kill IE 6 for Mac. Once this was dead, the program manager actually left Microsoft. To repeat: IE 6 for Mac was actually in internal beta, and was a fully staffed project. Right when Safari was announced, it was killed, and it was killed *because* of the Safari announcement.
You might be correct, but I don't think it goes as far as you believe it does. I find it unlikely that there were any specific deals regarding Office before the transition announcement. Further, Microsoft Office for Mac OS X and the Mac Business Unit in general are very profitable for Microsoft. Other than for larger strategic reasons, there is no reason to pull Office for the Mac platform. Now, that said, I don't have any problem believing Microsoft might do just that, just as they killed the IE 6 for Mac project within days of Safari's announcement. However, that raises an interesting parallel: IE development was never what Apple wanted it to be, and wanted to control its own browser fortunes. Hence, Safari was born. IE is now dead on the Mac platform. With Microsoft (finally) going to open formats for all Office documents in the next iteration of Office, why can't Apple do the same thing with an office suite? I know the mindshare blow of losing Microsoft Office would be significant, but what if there were a BETTER alternative, that was 100% compatible with Office? The point is that there are paths Apple could take here, and I don't believe that Apple's current commitment to not allow Mac OS X to run on anything but Apple hardware is a commitment to anything but itself and its current best interests.
...will jump on the vmware bandwagon. With Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (especially Mac OS X Server in the context of what I'm about to discuss) supporting x86, it would be trivially easy to have Mac OS X Server run in a supported fashion in a vmware environment on any variety of hardware. Stay with me for a moment: similar to the impact of soon being able to get an Apple desktop or, especially, laptop system that runs Mac OS X plus any x86 OS, including Windows, in a sure-to-exist virtual machine/vmware-like environment at near-native speed of the underlying hardware, having Mac OS X Server run on vmware in a server environment - somewhat the reverse - would be a huge coup for Apple in the datacenter.
Yes, yes, we all know that Apple, at least at the outset, will not "allow" Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware. Aside from some semi-insane but actually interesting prognostications from John Dvorak (and TPM panic aside), Apple is primarily talking about the desktop/consumer marketplace when it says this. There is little to nothing to stop Apple from partnering with an enterprise x86 vendor (or a partner such as vmware) to provide a vehicle via which to run Mac OS X Server on hardware other than Apple's 1U, single-power-supply Xserve.
Mac OS X will only run exclusively on Apple hardware as long as its good for Apple. As soon as it becomes desirable to allow Mac OS X (or Mac OS X Server) to run on possible non-Apple hardware configurations, you had better believe they'll do it. That's probably part-and-parcel to this whole x86 transition strategy. Further, consider that individual market segments may be appropriate for this first, such as enterprise datacenter and server markets. Consider also that while Mac OS X is $129 ($69 government and education), Mac OS X Server is $499/$999 ($249/$499 government and education), meaning that Mac OS X Server has a price point much more in line with allowing Mac OS X Server to run sans Apple hardware and still be a profit center. And as it matures, Mac OS X Server is an increasingly powerful, very attractive UNIX server platform, with major commercial vendor support and the best of the open source world wrapped up into one product.
I see Mac OS X Server on (something like) vmware on non-Apple x86 enterprise server hardware in Apple's future.
...world keeps using Google for searching.
Well, I'll agree with you, too. Today, and 50 years from now.
Here's the problem: technology marches on.
Along with the march of technology will inevitably come better ways of, for example, tracking people. Tools that will allow law enforcement agencies or government entities to see farther. Store more. Track discreetly. Listen further.
What is important is how we use those tools. These tools will ALWAYS be abused. But to presume that abuse is the default; that abuse is the intent; is somewhat pessimistic.
Look at all the ways we can be monitored today, instantly. Have they been abused, at times? Sure. Have they been used properly countless more times? Absolutely. The difference may be that I'm willing to accept some abuse - yes, even if it involves me personally, as it has in the past - as just the nature of things. That the good and/or positive benefits massively outweighs the bad and/or abusive uses. The threshold of some folks might be lower than mine, or zero. I simply think that a zero-threshold is impossible, and wishing for it is counterproductive.
ANYTHING can be abused by governments or law enforcement agencies. The technology is NOT the key. It's our system of checks and balances and oversight in our model of government that we hope keeps government in check. I know we have a lot of tinfoilies among us who, quite literally, think the Constitution has been shredded, and Republicans' sole mission is to remove as many rights as possible, and that our civil liberties are disappearing in droves by the second. They're apparently reading a *tad* too much indymedia and truthout, but, nonetheless, I value their eternal vigilance. The fact of the matter is that sometimes there are abuses. Sometimes there are bad provisions in law. Our system of government and application of law is extremely imperfect. But doing away with technologies is not the answer. If you're not advocating that, then how, reasonably, do we prevent technologies from being promoted and used? What if someday we had an implantable device that could only be read with your explicit approval? Would we still be against it? Or would we recognize it as the march of technology?
As a side note, that's the only thing I find wrong with implantable RFID: it's the equivalent of being required to wear outwardly visible identification at all times. You CHOOSE to whom you identify yourself. If you could make the same conscious, explicit choice with a future RFID technology, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's just yet another technology that can be both used and abused.
Ok, I'll stipulate to all you've said.
It's this kind of technological advancement that suddenly seems to turn slashdot into anti-technology luddites.
The same technology that brings us everything that you think is great also brings us things like subdermal implantable RFID chips.
The same philosophical arguments people make for things like why P2P is "just a tool, not inherently good or bad" can equally be applied to RFID.
With the internet, the web, things like Google's creations, and tools that have vaulted us beyond anything we thought possible just ten years ago, is it any surprise that such technology can be applied in ways you personally might not agree with?
RFID, even implantable RFID, is not inherently bad.
Nor are the examples you cited to promote it.
Before binoculars, a law enforcement officer might not have been able to see you from as far away.
Before telephones and computers, a government agency might not have been able to as effectively do its work.
The bottom line is that companies and government are going to use and promote technology that will continue to advance.
So what do we do? Outlaw technologies? Outlaw uses of technology? This is a very valid question. With all the outcry of a company attempting to promote a technological product, I'm really curious what an actual answer might be (short of "get rid of all the Republicans") in this very situation. We've got a perfect example right here. So, really, what would you do?
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
I don't have any problem with a company making a product attempting to promote it. Viewed in a vacuum, as I said, these products, like many others, could have positive applications. That they would try to promote the product in such a fashion as it would be used as widely as possible comes as no surprise to me.
If we expand the discussion to politics, civil liberties, and so on, I certainly can see how people who be disturbed by any such proposal, however initially benign it might be. But in a "free" country, as some who oppose this might be quick to sarcastically point out, as the submitter did, isn't a business free to make and promote products?
Yes, the practice of ex-political officials entering industry and using their contacts for lobbying purposes is common. However just because it is a common thing does not make it a good thing.
Here we can perhaps agree. But it's only natural, and frankly, to me anyway, expected, for very skilled and effective managers and leaders to be picked up from government by industry and vice versa.
At any rate, you are probably right that these things won't ever become mandatory-- in the United States. But there are lots of other places in the world. The government of China, for example, already has national "citizen identification" cards, and already has a precedent of compulsory medical care (for example abortions). Do you think it would be the least bit unusual if this kind of chipping became mandatory there? Because I don't.
And once again, companies involving themselves in the affairs of governments with questionable regimes (cf. US companies in Nazi Germany) is an issue much larger than what we're discussing here. If we agree that, say, China doing this with all of its citizens is a bad idea, what do we do? How do we respond? Make it against the law to make implantable RFID chips? Of course, this would only apply in the jurisdiction of the US. Oops, there's a business lost, too. Granted, that's kind of an oversimplified fringe example, but really, what would you propose we do?
I'd personally rather use the extremely imperfect system of democracy we've built to hopefully elect leaders that will make halfway decent decisions - keep in mind that non-ignorant, thinking conservatives (and no, not bible-thumping fundie ones, but honest to God reasonable conservatives - and yes, they do exist) are just as sure their philosophies on government, economics, etc., are just as likely to bring happiness to the widest amount of people as the liberals and progressives are of their policy. (Of course, if you're someone who believes that all US politicians are already bought and paid for, and cynically think that the entire government is a behemoth out to get you and we've already lost all of our freedom, then we're probably speaking on a slightly different wavelength here.)
And how does that change anything I said?
What's that?
It doesn't?
Ok, thanks!
- It's not even any kind of proposed bill.
- It's a member of a company's board of directors promoting its products.
- Even in some kind of alternate universe where compulsory, mandatory implants for all residents of the United States were a rider on ANY bill, no matter WHAT the bill, it would NEVER pass.
No, really.
Even for those people who think (wildly erroneously, I might add) that the US is a totalitarian police state and one step away from 1984 (or already there).
None, dumbass.
I'm pointing out that it's no surprise a company is promoting its own products.
Of course, naturally, I'd expect everyone here to miss that point.
Newsflash 1: Director[1] of company that makes RFID chips extols virtues of RFID chips!
Newsflash 2: There is a revolving door between executive-level government and industry!
Newsflash 3: A former government official might use his contacts to lobby for his benefit!
Newsflash 4: Company in question presents its product in a positive light!
Newsflash 5: Melodramaic slashdot sumbission contains no actual news at all.
Frankly, there could be benefits from and novel uses for a universally globally unique identifier that is always with you and can't be lost. But the potential for abuse, obviously, outweighs those benefits. (In fact, if it could only be activated and/or read when you explicitly wished, it might be a good, albeit voluntary, idea. But that's not how this system is applied.)
And further, it's probably not a bad idea for health applications. However, like the Social Security number, it's bound to get misappropriated and misapplied for all manner of other uses. Some of which we
So far, where has it been used? Bars and clubs as gimmicks.
So what does this all mean?
We have a former government official with no official standing or position in government whatever promoting a product of a company of which he's a member of the board.
Stunning.
Bottom line: Sure, absolutely: be vigilant. But there will never be compulsory "implants" that will be required for all. Does that mean a company that would benefit massively from such an idea wouldn't try to promote it? In fact, I'd be worried if a for-profit company operating in a quasi-capitalist society didn't attempt to promote its products. (And no, having national standards for state driver licenses and identification cards was/is not a bad idea.)
[1] Tommy Thompson, while he incidentally may have been the former HHS secretary, is a director of the company that makes the RFID chips.
Um, yes, I did say something similar before.
So what? It's still my original thought, and still relevant to this article.
Uniquely reiterating my view in a relevant article 3 months later is hardly a "double post".
Thanks for your post.
I hadn't considered the possibility that presenting the argument in a context of an external "intelligent" force, without regard to what it is, might necessarily define it as "religion" (albeit not what most people would consider "religion").
This is exactly the kind of discussion I value: that which makes me reconsider an aspect of my beliefs. I'm not sure I yet agree that simply the act of considering an external "intelligent" force beyond our understanding must therefore make such a concept "religion", but I suppose at that point, it gets down to semantic issues. I will look into this more, and definitely take your post under consideration. Thanks again.
So only science belongs in schools?
I know that's probably not what you intended, but that's essentially what you're saying.
There's a lot more to learn, consider, and think about in schools than "science". Or at least, there should be. And note, I'm not talking about religion or Creationism here. I'm talking about honest consideration and discussion about ages-old questions of why we're here, how we and the world around us came to be, and so on. The non-bastardized concept of "Intelligent Design" has a place in that debate - even if only as a bad idea. But it's not science, and I never said it was. In fact, I said the exact opposite. But to say that debate or discussion of an idea has no place in schools, well, I'd argue we have a different idea about what school should be, then.
I agree that Intelligent Design, as applied by the Creationist agenda, is utterly flawed. It is not science, it is not provable, and it plain just doesn't belong in a science class.
I guess the problem might be that when I talk about Intelligent Design, I'm not talking about it in that fashion. I'm talking about it as a conglomeration of ideas that attempt to assert that there must be, or at least ask if there might have been, an intelligent force beyond our understanding that has created the physical world around us, including life. That's truly what "Intelligent Design" is, though I reject the premise that Intelligent Design is in any way "scientific" in nature.
I don't think that at a basic philosophical level that that's worthless to discuss.
As to your other comments, I agree it's possibly an exercise in futility to attempt to answer inherently unanswerable questions. But I do believe there is value and perhaps wisdom that can be gained from their consideration in an intelligent and reasonable fashion (i.e., not how Creationists would do it).
Stem cell research - what I thought he was talking about in the first place
Global warming - not really any explicit denial, but rather willful ignorance for political/economic purposes; that's a political issue, not a scientific one
Economic/tax policy - heh, that's a can of worms if I've ever seen one; first, many will assert - even some economists! - that economics isn't a "science", per se, and further, conservative versus liberal tax and economic policy is a political issue of protracted debate, not a scientific one
AIDS research - itself has more funding than ever, and Bush has pledged or already given far more money than any previous president and all of Europe combined to Africa, the key region in which AIDS is a major issue
Um, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different ideas.
Creationism believes that the Christian God created the universe and life, as described in the Bible. Sometimes literally.
Intelligent Design believes there was SOME intelligence that we don't understand that had influence on creating the universe and life and our physical world, but doesn't speak to religion at all.
Not in a science class, it doesn't.
Perhaps that's why right after what you quoted...
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
...my very next sentence was:
But not the biology or science classrooms.
(WTF?)
Whatever. I can't believe you're now posting as an AC, on top of it.
You say the president has an "anti-science" agenda, and then imply that you didn't mean the ONLY thing that the president has been even remotely affirmatively or substantially "anti-science" about. I ask you SPECIFICALLY to what you're referring, if not that, and instead of answering, you accuse me of trolling. I find it especially amusing since everything I post here is genuine, I don't do it anonymously, and I'm happy to speak with anyone who might directly email or otherwise contact me, as I have on various occasions.
If you can't answer what you mean by the president's "anti-science" agenda, if not in reference to embryonic stem cell research, then your assertions are nothing but tired vagaries. Just as "unproven" as Intelligent Design, as it were.
And your comment in and of itself, if it were posted in response to the submission, I might consider a typical knee-jerk reaction from you in response to an article like this - just as much of a "troll" that you accuse me of being. But you posted it in response to MY post, which was merely saying that this idea has a place in philosophical debate, albeit NOT a scientific one (since it isn't science, as I've repeatedly said).
Wondering about why and how we're here, and how our existence came to be, certainly has a place in a philosophical discussion.
And while some related with Intelligent Design may have decidedly anti-science agendas, "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a name slapped on a group of ideas some of us have long held: namely, that there must be more than meets the eye in the wonderful complexity and elegance of our universe and life. Will that ever be provable, or ever be science? No. But then, that is true for just about any philosophical idea. They're just that: ideas. And ideas like this don't have a place in a science class.
If you want to talk about the "Intelligent Design movement" with respect to its political agenda, anti-evolution Creationists who've co-opted the term, and its effect on society, sure, that has a place in a sociology or political science class. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about exactly what I just said, which is a philosophical construct, a group of attempted answers to the oldest questions about why we're here and where we came from. And those questions, in that context, aren't scientific in nature. Even if I could go back and witness the very creation of life itself, that still does not answer WHY we are here, HOW this event came to pass. Note: I am not saying that "God" did it. I am saying that questions about our existence are worthwhile and worthy of discussion and debate, and there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't belong in, e.g., a philosophy class.
When you say the president has an "anti-science" agenda, then, to what, exactly, are you referring?
And your original comment itself was off-topic, both to my own post, and I'd go so far as to say to the original article.
Wow.
Hello again, spun.
I didn't say it was scientific. I didn't say it makes provable predictions. In fact, I said almost the exact opposite:
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
But not the biology or science classrooms. I'd hope that we've evolved, no pun intended, to the point that we can agree that this might belong in, say, a philosophy classroom.
In my previous post, I said:
"Intelligent design", not in a form that has been co-opted by anti-evolution Creationists and people who think pi should be equal to exactly 3, has a place in this debate.
Does it have a place in a biology class? No.
Does it have a place in a philosophy class? Absolutely.
and
Intelligent Design, at its most basic level, asks that with all the beauty, wonder, and astounding perfection that make up the physical world around us, and indeed the science itself which proves it to be more and more elegant as time goes on, might there possibly be a force that surpasses our understanding that has allowed for, or caused, its, and our, creation? Is this provable? Nope. Is it a scientific theory? Nope. Will it ever be? Nope.
Does it hopefully have a place in humanity's honest questions about why we're here? I'd hope so.
If you can't accept that, then, well, I don't really know what to say.
I didn't say it was science.
It's not.
In fact, in this and other posts, I specifically said it did NOT belong in a science class.
But if you can't admit it might have a place in a philosophical discussion (NOT a scientific discussion), we have nothing further to say.
And saying it was created by Creationists is a red herring. It doesn't matter who "created" it. The concept is what it is.
It's unfortunate that the President of a developed country who is in direct charge of some of the most powerful and awesome technologies created by scientists continues to push an agenda that is anti-science.
I agree.
But what does this have to do with anything I said?
I'm glad you're so righteously smug in your ethical beliefs regarding what can and can't be done with embryos, since that is almost certainly to what you're referring.
Personally, speaking as someone whose training has been almost exclusively in medical science, I fully support embryonic stem cell research. We have embryos that are and will continue to be destroyed today, that could absolutely be harvested for research. However, to ignore any ethical debate on such issues is just as ignorant as you'd paint the opposition. Scientifically, an embryo is, strictly speaking "human life"; so, when and why is it ok to end such life, regardless of the state it may be in? Why should we not examine the important ethical questions? There is absolutely no doubt that significant scientific benefit could come from cloning or farming of humans in more developed forms. So should we push forward with things such as that, full force? Or should we ask important questions that define our very humanity?
On this closely related topic: I am also not anti-abortion. But abortion is not only a "medical procedure", and not only about a "woman's choice". A life is ended. I am willing to concede that it ultimately be better, societally, for unwanted children to not be born. It does somewhat fly in the face of the concept that actions have consequences, but indeed, the action of forcing someone to have a baby they don't want itself has consequences. Consequences that will be manifestly negative. However, the assertion that abortion is only about "life" or "choice" are equally disingenuous. It's about both.