Fly, schmie. The real deal would be some sort of grippy walkbot with a cam -- go to the bathroom with it in your pocket, place it above the drop ceiling, leave the building. Return a few hours later, activate it, walk it along the inside of the drop ceiling punching tiny holes through here and there. Its camera is at the end of a 2 inch eyestalk. Poke the cam through the hole, look around. Once you've scoped out a place you'd like to surveil, you leave the eyestalk through the hole, turn off the motors, and let it coast as far as the batteries will take it.
You wouldn't want Bush to go for more governmental control of the Internet in order to fight all kinds of cyber-terrorism, wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't. Good thing there's a bunch of people working hard to get him out of office legitimately and a bunch of people working smart to get him out of office illegitimately. It's the best of both worlds!
All of your "advantages" involve speaking to a small group of known people anywhere/anytime.
Yeah, because there's only a handful of people using the internet.
In the physical world, you meet new people.
They've just been created. They're called babies. They don't have a lot to say. Or, did you mean strangers? Oh, right, you meant strangers. Yeah, it's fun to get knifed and robbed by new people!
New people bring new ideas, perspectives, activities, etc.
Yeah, because nothing new ever gets talked about on the internet.
It always amazes me when someone gets up on a soapbox and screams some silly thing, then claims that there's no such thing as free speech. Like Michael Moore.
Perhaps you're not listening to the whole statement. Usually it goes something like there's no such thing as free speech when there's censorship of this kind.
You know what amazes me? People are willing to give up loads of rights for imaginary security precautions. People are pretty much going to sign up for national ID cards, as long as it's for the cheeeeeeyldren.
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. Lazy assholes who don't care if they're free will be perfectly willing to give up their freedom for the imagined security of speech restrictions, or metal detectors, or what-have-you.
Banning personal portable storage devices (iPods, USB, powerful calculators w/ a computer connection, etc) is pretty much standard (and smart!) pratice when either government
If the discussion were only about the government, then yes, there wouldn't be a discussion. The government can do whatever it damn well pleases, because It Has The Guns.
What I believe is being expressed here is that nothing's going to be prevented for the truly determined individuals, and it's going to inconvenience actual productive workers to the point where they find policy irritating and banal. When productive workers find policy irritating and banal, they become less productive.
The government does this, the government does that...the government is a spoiled child who has all the toys and the toybox and happens to own the house. When President Cartman says "Screw you guys," he doesn't add "I'm going home," because it's his house. It's like the Pope talking -- of course the government does X, they can do whatever they want -- except switch to metric.
the bottom line is that you have to go to a lot more trouble to read someone's email
I'm curious why you have to go to more trouble doing what can essentially be an automated service versus violating numerous federal laws (breaking into the post office/mailbox, etc.)
I mean, do all the postcards ever sent get faxed to you, or something? Why would snail mail be so much easier to infiltrate, considering that access to it's going to be guarded by actual physical safeguards such as distance and armed officers?
What you're missing here is that everybody thinks they are wonderfully moral, just like the Standard Human Being.
The truth is that morality as a standard does not actually exist but is agreed upon by each person that walks the earth, and when most of them agree, they cluck at those who do not.
The difference between humans and animals is that humans believe there is a difference between humans and animals. Animals have no such delusion -- as far as they can tell, we all taste the same.
Ah, that wondrous battle cry! I wonder, when will your magically proper laws be in place? Can I get cryogenically frozen until then?
Until your wonderful wonderful laws that will make people Do The Right Thing 100% of the time show up, I would find it heartening that the alternative of encryption exists, and I'd love to see its widespread use, as I suspect you would as well.
Why do you think laws are going to be easier to change than practices? Reality does not bear that opinion out.
Problems such as the broadcast flag are more a fault of intense lobbying from the MPAA and very little opposition because people either don't understand or don't care. The fcc cannot be faulted for blunders to fair use.
Look, the problem isn't that there's an easily manipulated pile of politicians running the airwaves -- it's that evil corporation over there!
"People" don't care because, much like a presidential election, they don't have enough money to affect the outcome. I don't care either -- I don't have the clout to fight the FCC, and despite your ever-present faith in Democracy And Government, there's simply a lot of people in America who are convinced that they pay taxes to keep the government off their backs, not because they get a say in anything. I have a hard time thinking otherwise myself.
The only reason the evil corporation has this kind of leverage is the pile of easily manipulated politicians. The solution is to remove the easily manipulated from power, and remove the levereage thereby.
Scrapping the FCC would lead to complete anarchy which would in turn result in very bad things for consumers, such as cell phones that only worked half the time or in certain parts of the country, or radio stations trying to muscle each other out by broadcasting static on each others' stations.
At first, perhaps. Eventually, as standards are created and applied to the airwaves just as they've been applied to the Net, things will settle down without a governing body of old farts who are easily bought. In fact, I'm pretty sure the DOD could just coordinate its own friggin' efforts and commercial interests could operate according to standards, kinda like Net standards.
Google's doing innovative and intelligent things with a small organizational base. 3M and GE are good examples of the notion that if you have more money and people, you can, with great luck, get the same results as smaller, more agile people with less money.
The IPO is necessarily going to cause chafe. (They do seem to have attempted to minimize said chafing, though.)
"Love" is something you get from a dog. "Support" is something you get from a shoe insole. "Hassle" is a synonym for "relationship". "Legal hassle" is a synonym for "marriage".
Resentment levels towards humans of superior intellect are high now. Do you think that the first robot built with intelligence that outstrips humans both in terms of breadth, depth, and flexibility (which is to say, it's not specialized, it's deeply experienced in areas of knowledge it knows, and it learns as well or better than a human does) will be sufficiently similar to humans to garner this same resentment? If so, do you think that research into robotics will be stifled?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait...
Do we have even the tiniest expectation that our leaders will attempt to learn from history?
Fly, schmie. The real deal would be some sort of grippy walkbot with a cam -- go to the bathroom with it in your pocket, place it above the drop ceiling, leave the building. Return a few hours later, activate it, walk it along the inside of the drop ceiling punching tiny holes through here and there. Its camera is at the end of a 2 inch eyestalk. Poke the cam through the hole, look around. Once you've scoped out a place you'd like to surveil, you leave the eyestalk through the hole, turn off the motors, and let it coast as far as the batteries will take it.
There is no safety, period. You aren't safe now, and you never will be.
Liberty requires vigilance, but vigilance does not cause liberty.
That's better than dumbasses, right?
Patridium in such high concentrations cannot be found anywhere else in the world...
You know what amazes me? People are willing to give up loads of rights for imaginary security precautions. People are pretty much going to sign up for national ID cards, as long as it's for the cheeeeeeyldren.
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. Lazy assholes who don't care if they're free will be perfectly willing to give up their freedom for the imagined security of speech restrictions, or metal detectors, or what-have-you.
Somehow that sounds worse than 'Land Of The Free'. I wonder why...
Of course they'll be obsolete soon! They won't fit completely in 64k of RAM, which everyone knows is enough for anybody.
What I believe is being expressed here is that nothing's going to be prevented for the truly determined individuals, and it's going to inconvenience actual productive workers to the point where they find policy irritating and banal. When productive workers find policy irritating and banal, they become less productive.
The government does this, the government does that...the government is a spoiled child who has all the toys and the toybox and happens to own the house. When President Cartman says "Screw you guys," he doesn't add "I'm going home," because it's his house. It's like the Pope talking -- of course the government does X, they can do whatever they want -- except switch to metric.
I mean, do all the postcards ever sent get faxed to you, or something? Why would snail mail be so much easier to infiltrate, considering that access to it's going to be guarded by actual physical safeguards such as distance and armed officers?
The truth is that morality as a standard does not actually exist but is agreed upon by each person that walks the earth, and when most of them agree, they cluck at those who do not.
The difference between humans and animals is that humans believe there is a difference between humans and animals. Animals have no such delusion -- as far as they can tell, we all taste the same.
Ah, that wondrous battle cry! I wonder, when will your magically proper laws be in place? Can I get cryogenically frozen until then?
Until your wonderful wonderful laws that will make people Do The Right Thing 100% of the time show up, I would find it heartening that the alternative of encryption exists, and I'd love to see its widespread use, as I suspect you would as well.
Why do you think laws are going to be easier to change than practices? Reality does not bear that opinion out.
"Hey, upper management! You know all those people we blocked? They've left, and they're taking customers that read our ads with them."
I don't know. It sounds pretty simple. You'd think even a CEO could understand that.
Oh, wait...
"People" don't care because, much like a presidential election, they don't have enough money to affect the outcome. I don't care either -- I don't have the clout to fight the FCC, and despite your ever-present faith in Democracy And Government, there's simply a lot of people in America who are convinced that they pay taxes to keep the government off their backs, not because they get a say in anything. I have a hard time thinking otherwise myself.
The only reason the evil corporation has this kind of leverage is the pile of easily manipulated politicians. The solution is to remove the easily manipulated from power, and remove the levereage thereby.
At first, perhaps. Eventually, as standards are created and applied to the airwaves just as they've been applied to the Net, things will settle down without a governing body of old farts who are easily bought. In fact, I'm pretty sure the DOD could just coordinate its own friggin' efforts and commercial interests could operate according to standards, kinda like Net standards.
Eric Idle phrased his sentiment differently, but the message is still there.
Google's doing innovative and intelligent things with a small organizational base. 3M and GE are good examples of the notion that if you have more money and people, you can, with great luck, get the same results as smaller, more agile people with less money.
The IPO is necessarily going to cause chafe. (They do seem to have attempted to minimize said chafing, though.)
"Love" is something you get from a dog. "Support" is something you get from a shoe insole. "Hassle" is a synonym for "relationship". "Legal hassle" is a synonym for "marriage".
Resentment levels towards humans of superior intellect are high now. Do you think that the first robot built with intelligence that outstrips humans both in terms of breadth, depth, and flexibility (which is to say, it's not specialized, it's deeply experienced in areas of knowledge it knows, and it learns as well or better than a human does) will be sufficiently similar to humans to garner this same resentment? If so, do you think that research into robotics will be stifled?