You make some good points, and I was being flip with my choice of words. And yes, I have been scammed once or twice and will probably end up being scammed several times more before I die.
...it is unacceptable to me for people who haven't even met me (only read data about me in a database) to have the power to judge and affect my life with as much impact as this technology would give them...
But it already is happening. Just by living where you live, by being male or female, by having gone to college or not... all these things already are being used by people who have never met you to affect your life. Don't tell me you've never gotten a "you're already pre-approved!" credit card offer.
Knowing this information can prove beneficial in several ways. Twice I've had my credit card forged, and both times the credit card company caught it--once they even caught the perpetrator in the act of purchasing a computer. They actively called me and asked me about the purchases. That, to me, is a valuable service.
As to the "crap mail" from that bar: If the "crap mail" they send you consists of vouchers for two free drinks, or a two-for-one cover charge, are you likely to use it or throw it out, particularly if you actually liked the club?
The real worry, for me, is identity theft and the hassles that would cause. That is why I think it's important for the technology of preventing abuse to keep up with the technologies of opening up the information.
The ultimate of course would be for everyone to have a digital-only ID and for everyone to be able to keep their ID information up to date personally.
I moved four years ago, and it's such a pain to get my license changed that it still shows my old address. This has caused some problems from time to time, but if I were granted the right to change it, there would be no problem.
We can pay our taxes and get our refunds on line, we can buy postage on line. Why can't we update our IDs on line?
I'm curious if I can obtain a copyright on my personal information... or perhaps if the hospital where I was born, having produced the initial birth certificate, holds a copyright.
The mag stripe is digital media.
That would mean that the scanners fall under the SSSCA, and if that law passes, no one could make a copy of my personal information from my driver's license, right?
The point, of course, is that if they actually make and keep a copy of your personal information, suddenly the amount of control you have over your private information is reduced.
I believe that some day, all information about every individual will be pretty much publicly and freely available because of the extreme convenience and significant economic benefits that will result. Generally, if you're not a bad apple, an absolute freak, or a ridiculously easy mark, then everyone will be too busy to worry about your personal information or activities.
Should we pave the way for that future, however? No; a few speed bumps along the way will give us, as a society, some time to mature as to how we consume and use that information, and how we build up defenses against its abuse.
The thing I was wondering most about as I read the article was, "Can the reporter's middle initial really be 8?" I mean, what type of middle name starts with the number 8?
Perhaps she keeps her drivers license too close to her building cardkey, and it munged a few bits in her name or something.
One of the links you pointed to used the word "lost." So have many other posts that, I admit, you did not write. Apologies if I put words into your mouth to make my point.
I did not intend to "badmouth" the theoretical side of science. In fact, I firmly feel that many of our beliefs based on scientific observation will be refined as we see further detail more clearly. Galileo is the prime example of that: once he refined the telescope and pointed it at the stars, he observed things no one else had ever seen, thus changing the way those other phenomena were understood. He and others then used these observations to theorize about many other mysterious phenomena.
Today we are still continuously refining our understanding of pretty much everything. The difference is that now, we are not (normally) dragged down by blind loyalty to one particular philosophy, theology, or theoretical model.
off topic: I recommend the book "Galileo's Daughter," which is essentially a biography of Galileo.
Even if it is not enough energy there will still be an effect (just not detectable by our instruments)
That would make it a theoretical effect, right? I.e., if we can't observe it, even indirectly, then it may or may not actually exist. Thus, this idea is more philosophical than scientific.
Anyway, I still object to the idea that any energy is "lost" or "removed from the system." The energy is transformed and relocated, but it's not "lost." Perhaps this energy will be relocated to people's Pentium laptops, thus increasing global warming, thus keeping the Earth's core and mantel from cooling as quickly, thus allowing the core and mantel to continue to be affected by tidal forces, thus keeping the energy entirely "within" the "system" and allowing the moon to stay in its comfortable orbit.
Problem solved! And I never realized how Intel might be saving the planet from annihilation. Wow.
Funny... Galileo, among the first to truly understand and explain many things in the world, wrongly used the tides as "proof" of the movement of the Earth, particularly its diurnal rotation. His theory was that the oceans "sloshed" because of the earth's spinning motion. Of course, we know that's not true: the tides are caused by the moon's gravitational pull as it travels around the Earth.
The ocean's sloshing action has no more effect on the Earth's rotation or the moon's orbit than water sloshing in a glass on a train affects the speed or direction of said train.
Extracting energy from the tides will no more affect the earth's spinning than putting up windmills to extract energy from the wind does.
When the "spammer" buys what they think is an opt-in list, that's no different than Publishers Clearinghouse buying a snail mail list from some marketing list source, of which there are many.
The funny part is they probably got what they paid for: They probably went on the cheap to get the most email addresses for the smallest price, and it turns out the list was dirty.
Clearly, the Soviet space program was hamstrung by the fact that during the cold war, magnetic north was in the territory of the west. Without free access to the actual magnetic North Pole (though Lech Walesa was a pretty magnetic Pole), they obviously had a hard time navigating, as their most sophisticated navigational equipment (besides the sextant) was a souvenir compass obtained from an East German high school science fair.
Too bad they don't have the budget to pursue the moon again now that magnetic north will actually be in their own territory. They would have a distinct advantage over Nasa if they could make Nasa pay for access to magnetic north, maybe on a subscription basis or using micropayments.
Reading the discussion and articles posted here, it seems to me that two separate issues are getting mixed up, leading no doubt to extra confusion on the part of the lawmakers.
Is copy protection good/bad/viable/other?
This is a tremendously complex issue for which the answer is probably "it depends...." This is a question that must be answered organically by the market, over time.
Should the government outlaw the manufacture, sale, and posession of devices that allow copying? The answer to this is a resounding NO. The reasons are numerous, but they boil down to favoring the rights of the citizenship over the rights of corporate entities and government.
Please do write to your elected representatives to focus them on the issues they should really be considering (I certainly have).
It is easy for Disney et. al. to confuse the lawmakers into believing this legislation is about economics, and it IS about economics... The problem with it, however, is that it tries to solve economic problems by restricting the citizenry's freedoms rather than by allowing the market to self-adjust. If we were talking about foreign competition, there MIGHT be merit to temporary protections, but we are not. This bill protects corporations from citizens, which is the exact opposite of what our country is about.
I agree with all but the wording of this statement:
In a democratic free-market, the government should ensure fairness...
I would rephrase to say, "... the government should prevent abuse and protect rights."
It's a subtle but profound difference: For example, having the same toys as the other guy is "fair" but not an unalienable right. Having toys, however, IS an unalienable right.
This legislation goes to the heart of our independence--control over what we are allowed to acquire, what we are allowed to do, and how we are allowed to act. Rather than the government controlling that for the sake of "security," it now is in the form of corporations controlling it for the sake of economics. Americans are used to railing against strong-handed governmental tactics, but we often tend to ignore or fail to understand strong-handed corporate tactics until it's too late.
Interesting reading here:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/de claration.html
Especially the 2nd paragraph.
(why am I constantly reminded of the Stamp Acts when I consider this legislation?)
Forgive me, but isn't this idea something along the lines of taking one medication to curtail the side effects of another?
I would much rather give my $1 directly to the recording industry than give $1 to a politician and give another $1.50 to the recording industry so THEY can give it to the same politician.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no. I already said what I'm saying, and if you had actually read it you might have understood it.
But then again, my biggest fault is giving people too much credit.
You make some good points, and I was being flip with my choice of words. And yes, I have been scammed once or twice and will probably end up being scammed several times more before I die.
But it already is happening. Just by living where you live, by being male or female, by having gone to college or not... all these things already are being used by people who have never met you to affect your life. Don't tell me you've never gotten a "you're already pre-approved!" credit card offer.
Knowing this information can prove beneficial in several ways. Twice I've had my credit card forged, and both times the credit card company caught it--once they even caught the perpetrator in the act of purchasing a computer. They actively called me and asked me about the purchases. That, to me, is a valuable service.
As to the "crap mail" from that bar: If the "crap mail" they send you consists of vouchers for two free drinks, or a two-for-one cover charge, are you likely to use it or throw it out, particularly if you actually liked the club?
The real worry, for me, is identity theft and the hassles that would cause. That is why I think it's important for the technology of preventing abuse to keep up with the technologies of opening up the information.
They'll fix it fast if it affects them.
Yes, but you never know HOW they'll "fix" it.
I predict they will outlaw forwarding spam to an elected government official.
The ultimate of course would be for everyone to have a digital-only ID and for everyone to be able to keep their ID information up to date personally.
I moved four years ago, and it's such a pain to get my license changed that it still shows my old address. This has caused some problems from time to time, but if I were granted the right to change it, there would be no problem.
We can pay our taxes and get our refunds on line, we can buy postage on line. Why can't we update our IDs on line?
Any lawyers out there?
I'm curious if I can obtain a copyright on my personal information... or perhaps if the hospital where I was born, having produced the initial birth certificate, holds a copyright.
The mag stripe is digital media.
That would mean that the scanners fall under the SSSCA, and if that law passes, no one could make a copy of my personal information from my driver's license, right?
The point, of course, is that if they actually make and keep a copy of your personal information, suddenly the amount of control you have over your private information is reduced.
I believe that some day, all information about every individual will be pretty much publicly and freely available because of the extreme convenience and significant economic benefits that will result. Generally, if you're not a bad apple, an absolute freak, or a ridiculously easy mark, then everyone will be too busy to worry about your personal information or activities.
Should we pave the way for that future, however? No; a few speed bumps along the way will give us, as a society, some time to mature as to how we consume and use that information, and how we build up defenses against its abuse.
Are you allowed to carry two licenses? One a standard DL and one your chauffeur's license?
The thing I was wondering most about as I read the article was, "Can the reporter's middle initial really be 8?" I mean, what type of middle name starts with the number 8?
Perhaps she keeps her drivers license too close to her building cardkey, and it munged a few bits in her name or something.
One of the links you pointed to used the word "lost." So have many other posts that, I admit, you did not write. Apologies if I put words into your mouth to make my point.
I did not intend to "badmouth" the theoretical side of science. In fact, I firmly feel that many of our beliefs based on scientific observation will be refined as we see further detail more clearly. Galileo is the prime example of that: once he refined the telescope and pointed it at the stars, he observed things no one else had ever seen, thus changing the way those other phenomena were understood. He and others then used these observations to theorize about many other mysterious phenomena.
Today we are still continuously refining our understanding of pretty much everything. The difference is that now, we are not (normally) dragged down by blind loyalty to one particular philosophy, theology, or theoretical model.
off topic: I recommend the book "Galileo's Daughter," which is essentially a biography of Galileo.
Even if it is not enough energy there will still be an effect (just not detectable by our instruments)
That would make it a theoretical effect, right? I.e., if we can't observe it, even indirectly, then it may or may not actually exist. Thus, this idea is more philosophical than scientific.
Anyway, I still object to the idea that any energy is "lost" or "removed from the system." The energy is transformed and relocated, but it's not "lost." Perhaps this energy will be relocated to people's Pentium laptops, thus increasing global warming, thus keeping the Earth's core and mantel from cooling as quickly, thus allowing the core and mantel to continue to be affected by tidal forces, thus keeping the energy entirely "within" the "system" and allowing the moon to stay in its comfortable orbit.
Problem solved! And I never realized how Intel might be saving the planet from annihilation. Wow.
Funny... Galileo, among the first to truly understand and explain many things in the world, wrongly used the tides as "proof" of the movement of the Earth, particularly its diurnal rotation. His theory was that the oceans "sloshed" because of the earth's spinning motion. Of course, we know that's not true: the tides are caused by the moon's gravitational pull as it travels around the Earth.
The ocean's sloshing action has no more effect on the Earth's rotation or the moon's orbit than water sloshing in a glass on a train affects the speed or direction of said train.
Extracting energy from the tides will no more affect the earth's spinning than putting up windmills to extract energy from the wind does.
When the "spammer" buys what they think is an opt-in list, that's no different than Publishers Clearinghouse buying a snail mail list from some marketing list source, of which there are many.
The funny part is they probably got what they paid for: They probably went on the cheap to get the most email addresses for the smallest price, and it turns out the list was dirty.
ha, ha, ha
Clearly, the Soviet space program was hamstrung by the fact that during the cold war, magnetic north was in the territory of the west. Without free access to the actual magnetic North Pole (though Lech Walesa was a pretty magnetic Pole), they obviously had a hard time navigating, as their most sophisticated navigational equipment (besides the sextant) was a souvenir compass obtained from an East German high school science fair.
Too bad they don't have the budget to pursue the moon again now that magnetic north will actually be in their own territory. They would have a distinct advantage over Nasa if they could make Nasa pay for access to magnetic north, maybe on a subscription basis or using micropayments.
All this rocket stuff is so confusing!
Reading the discussion and articles posted here, it seems to me that two separate issues are getting mixed up, leading no doubt to extra confusion on the part of the lawmakers.
This is a tremendously complex issue for which the answer is probably "it depends...." This is a question that must be answered organically by the market, over time.
The answer to this is a resounding NO. The reasons are numerous, but they boil down to favoring the rights of the citizenship over the rights of corporate entities and government.
Please do write to your elected representatives to focus them on the issues they should really be considering (I certainly have).
It is easy for Disney et. al. to confuse the lawmakers into believing this legislation is about economics, and it IS about economics... The problem with it, however, is that it tries to solve economic problems by restricting the citizenry's freedoms rather than by allowing the market to self-adjust. If we were talking about foreign competition, there MIGHT be merit to temporary protections, but we are not. This bill protects corporations from citizens, which is the exact opposite of what our country is about.
Forgive me, but isn't this idea something along the lines of taking one medication to curtail the side effects of another? I would much rather give my $1 directly to the recording industry than give $1 to a politician and give another $1.50 to the recording industry so THEY can give it to the same politician.