i don't have any mod points this week otherwise I would...well in...seems like/. has had so many posts about the music industry bending over backwards to do anything but the right thing, it's almost like there's nothing more to say.
apropo of nothing...Sometimes I hate iTunes, other times I love it. The reasons to hate it are obvious, but I always remember what digital music was like before iTunes. Haphazard at best. Labels wouldn't even consider selling songs online, and the quality of what was available through p2p's was suspect at best. Since we have MyTunes, i think the net effect of iTunes has been positive. I still use my dbpoweramp to rip cd's though;)
Just wanted to clarify that the UK still has due process. Being *charged* with an immigration crime is not the same as being guilty of said crime. Your reaction to the arrest was a bit extreme, but if ya want to have free speech then ya gotta put up with reactionary (sometimes total bullshit) posts on message boards.
I've got to take issue with a your post...nuke power is the energy source of the future...your post has three of the most counterproductive phrases when it comes to space exploration
Public perception also plays a role
This is ass-backwards thinking. Policy makes public perception, not the other way around. "public perception" is only relevant if *we* make it relevant. EDUCATING the public is the proper way to think of this. If you talk to 'the public' like adults, give them accurate information, and educate about what's going on, they almost always get on board in the end.
err on the side of caution
In theory this is a nebulous, but good idea. In practice, people use this phrase to justify not doing something, when really they are just coving their ass...and in general being wimpy. For example: deciding to "err on the side of caution" and storing extra food on a mars mission = good...saying "err on the side of caution" to justify not doing something that we should but that "the people" THINK is dangerous = BAD
It's all about managing risk. Nuclear power is risky, and thus NASA avoid it unless it's necessary for the mission
Managing Risk...such a nebulous concept. "It's all about" accomplishing the mission. Making "risk" avoidance the guiding precept is just an excuse for failure. Take this example: when snowboarding (or skiing) in tight tree runs, you can't think about "not hitting trees" because you unconsciously focus your attention on the trees to avoid hitting them, and therefore you're looking at trees (which you want to avoid) and neglecting focusing on the open part of the run, which you have to go through to actually get down the hill. If you focus on NOT doing bad as opposed to doing what you're trying to do, you will inevitably fail
I'm sorry, but nuke power is the best source of power. If we dedicated ourselves do doing the job right, we could take all those man-hours we've been wasting trying to come up with alternate sources of power (because we fear nukes), and use them to make nukes safer.
they use either self reported feelings or perceptions or a scored test. both are highly problematic.
1. self reported feelings and perceptions of creativity: this is kinda ridiculous, like asking someone if they have cancer vs doing a biopsy.
2. scored test: obviously, this is biased by who is scoring the test. Is some psychologist qualified to determine what is 'creative'? What about a panel of experts? not a chance...how would they choose an example of creativity? what's popular?
we're nowhere near being able to 'measure' creativity.
You raise a good point, one of several problems with this silly study. I read TFA and this portion tells us all we need to know:
The researchers also took readings of the players' skin conductance and asked players if they were feeling either positive or negative after the game... [T]he study appears to indicate that after playing the game, happy or sad people are most creative, while angry or relaxed people are not. The findings suggest that either high or low arousal is key to creativity. In other words, medium amounts of arousal are not conducive to creativity.
Skin conductance? "Feeling positive or negative"? Dance Dance Revolution? Not to mention how they measure creativity...it's basically a self assessment.
There are so many problems...skin conductance is a meaningless measurement. All we know is that is changes...we don't know why with any reliability. The rest is Freudian/behaviorist psychology bullshit. It's not pseudo-science...it's worse...it's a fraud. These experiments do not come close to proving any sort of hypothesis.
I can say from personal experience that *some* video games substantially increase my brain activity, but having some sort of statistical proof is a long way off. We simply do not understand the human brain and creativity enough to draw these kind of conclusions from this shitty data.
I'm not anti-video game by any means, I'm anti-behaviorist psychological bullshit peddlers who do this work and call it "science".
I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, but torts are way down on the list of court reform issues that need to be addressed. Federal, State, and local Attorney's offices are the worst offender here, with large companies being a close second. Our criminal justice system is basically a plea bargain system now, it's so gamed and rigged by the DA's that any notion of a person accused of a crime having a 'fair day in court' is reserved only for the very rich who can afford $50,000+ lawyers. The RIAA, MPAA with their frivolous lawsuits are just as bad.
The common thread here is that the courts have become another way to abuse everyday citizens in our country for political and financial gain, or even worse, for Public Relations.
To the lawsuits mentioned in this story, I think the litigants in this lawsuit deserve their day in court. Part of me is glad his identity was stolen. Anyone who knows about how identity theft works (even at a cursory level), knows that the services this guy was pedaling were complete vaporware. His company was taking advantage of a climate of fear and he inadvisably believed his own hype. Granted, courts do get it very wrong sometimes, and we always need to make sure we provide ways to rectify those situations, but I do not think this case is in that territory.
It is wrong to mislead people using their irrational fears and ignorance. Yes. It is wrong. Alot of people in our society seem to think that it's ok to do this...that's what I think needs reform!
I have been aware, and understood, Brin's ideas for quite awhile (as most regular/. reader), but your summary is a good one nonetheless.
The first part was my thought that, since Brin's ideas are so silly, he couldn't be serious. I was musing about how he MUST have some sort of backdoor idea...theorizing about what that idea would be, and providing counterpoints to it.
I don't like where he's going at all. He just obfuscates the issue, making it harder for strong privacy advocates to unite. The US is a democracy, and it IS possible for us to force our government to better (never perfect of course, but we can vote for people who will do substantially BETTER!).
please mod parent up...makes excellent point and has a great example w/ the Amartya Sen research
If a person has a right to liberty, they also have a right to give up that liberty. We do it in small (but ever increasing) amounts here in the US...it's the idea of the social contract. However, as parent elegantly made clear, there is a point where accepting control for security becomes harmful.
Now, I cannot hold a gun to a Russian's head and force them to want liberty (lesson from Vietnam that some candidates never learned), but I can say that those Russians *should* fight for liberty in their society.
The parent's "brin would be happy comment" seemed to be partially tongue in cheek. Brin's ideas are no "solution" to anything. At best, he's misguided, at worst he's on the CIA payroll sewing seeds of dischord among privacy advocates.
Brin's idea is interesting in theory, but that's it. It has a major flaw:
The government will never be 100% open to its citizens. Sure, as some sort of purely philosophical thought experiment, the idea is interesting to ponder, but it has no relevance when discussing actual policy. Let me break it down further:
1. Brin is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If everyone just gave up privacy rights en masse in some Faustian bargain with the government agreeing to do the same it would be a tragic loss for the idea of liberty. To me, this is akin to the US surrendering to the USSR at the height of the Cold War.
2. Even the whole of the US would not be able to watch the government close enough all the time to check its power and ensure it was not keeping secrets or having 'private' information in some way. This incorrect assumption is at the heart of those who support CCS cameras and other privacy invading tactics: no matter how much information you have, you cannot provide total security. It works both ways...citizenry to government and government to citizenry.
Sometimes I wonder if Brin is playing a type of nuclear brinkmanship with privacy issues. As in, if we do as Brin says, and accept a completely "open" society without privacy as we understand it, then those who seek to take away privacy in the name of security will begin to balance their demands on our rights because they never really wanted that much access in the first place, they were just ramping up rhetoric as a bargaining tool.
If he is, he's dead wrong. Law enforcement and the military at the top levels are operating more like totalitarian enforcers rather than protecting and serving. The operating mentality is that privacy rights of citizens only serve to impede these neo-totalitarian goals of law enforcement.
In other words, law enforcement whether it's the FBI, Chinese government, or the City of Chicago, will ALWAYS take as many rights as they can in the name of providing security. They actually think that if they can only gain a certain level of knowledge, then they will be able to control practically everything, and thereby provide "security".
These ideas must be fought on two fronts: 1. fighting for privacy in all forms. 2. seeking to change way people view what law enforcement can do.
As for what a person in the US, like me, can do for China...well, that's easy, we must be outspoken in our rejection of American companies that are making money by helping the Chinese abuse its citizens.
I think we've got to the bottom of this pretty well...wish all/. posts were of your quality
The survey you're referring to may be one that was done by Sports Illustrated as part of a story about steroids. It's at least 5 years old, but I remember it b/c of the type of answers you mentioned. Yep...I agree with your point that once the tech gets going heavy, there will need to be something proactive done to mitigate eager athletes. maybe an "organic" and "non-organic" category?
I've only seen basic info about transhumanism, but I like the idea of putting tech in my body to help me snowboard better. Not sure about all the philosophical underpinnings, but i'd def. get something done to my eyes for better than natural vision...if it were cheap enough, i'd get some LED lights or something just for the hell of it...
at least you put forth some effort, that's respectable
my original criticism still stands: cutting off your legs and getting Tommy John's surgery (even if it's REALLY early or not truly necessary) are NOT analogous.
the article you linked to showed that:
1. the number of tommy john's surgeries performed are increasing 2. one doctor interviewed for the story has a piece of anecdotal evidence that some young ballplayers are exaggerating symptoms to get the surgery 3. many coaches, parents, and players at the high school level have a misconception that Tommy John's surgery is a shortcut to good pitching
None of these things directly contradicts my criticism of you spurious analogy. Yes, it appears there is alot of misconception and a little lying going on with regards to the surgery, but...it just does not compare in scope...lying to get ligament surgery vs. cutting off your leg to enhance athletic performance... c'mon...
also, you didn't respond to my point about how no adapted sprinter has even come close to doing anything that an olympic hopeful would desire to emulate performance-wise.
you seem like a reasonable person, so allow me to lay out a scenario in which your analogy would apply:
If several sprinters with adapted apparatuses were qualifying for national and world class events, some even winning and setting records, and it continued to progress such that adapted runners were winning in, say equal numbers to non-adapted runners...then your point of "this is bad, it will cause people to cut off their legs to be able to compete" will be viable...not until then.
"it's not too much of a stretch" is his thesis, supported by the fact that a *few* pro baseball players had Tommy John's surgery before it was medically necessary.
These two things are not analogous in any current context. First of all, the amputee runner hasn't qualified for the olympics yet (needs to shave of 1 second off his personal best which is an eternity in sprinting), let alone accomplished a feat that would warrant any sort of envy from the medal contenders.
Second, this is not analogous b/c the MLB pitchers who were getting Tommy JOhn's surgery were most likely going to need it eventually due to ligament strain already present. They just got it earlier than what some doctors would have recommended. Parent is talking about CUTTING OFF THEIR LEGS. Big difference.
parent is not flaming...but he is totally raping logic to get attention. Low level troll I'd say...no offense fleaplus...but c'mon
You missed my greater point. Beyond issues of the war and police brutality, we have a problem that I feel is deeper and more systemic.
The problem is: the government, at all levels, has in many aspects adopted a philosophy of "perception is reality" In other words, many in government believe that if people *think* that they are being protected then that means that they are, and those people in government are directing their policies to alter PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than actually doing anything substantial to solve problems. For example, on the Daily Show recently, Doug Fife was promoting his new book. When asked about what the administration did wrong with Iraq, he basically said it was a problem of bad "branding". That's it in a nutshell...
It's like this, if I serve you a steaming pile of shit for dinner, it doesn't matter how much parsely and parmegian cheese I put on it. It doesn't matter if I put a well designed placard next to it that says "authentico spagetti itialiano"...IT'S STILL A PILE OF SHIT
you can troll all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that what the military is doing in Iraq and what law enforcement are trending towards here in the states are the same thing: making people *feel* safe so politicians can get re-elected.
The local cop who keeps the peace with judicious use of authority is an endangered species.
The military and law enforcement are both quickly becoming just another arm of a political machine who's purpose is to act as a PR agency for how "tough on crime" or "committed to stopping terror" politicians are. Reality has left the building.
The worst part of this is, the fact that this sales was allowed to go through is troubling. There is very little difference between the military and the police these days here in the USA. In other countries it is much worse, and in China the two are usually indistinguishable.
An easy example of this is how law enforcement and military tradeshows are now one in the same.
I don't have all the answers (wait, this is/. I DO have all the answers!) but the merging of military and police functions is bad for communities.
your ideas represent the mindless thinking that would be perfect for a citizen of a totalitarian regime. why don't you move to North Korea? No one questions the government or law enforcement policies....bon voyage
That doesn't mean that everyone else can't contribute to society in a better way than watching TV but that the internet doesn't really open up a new world of possiblites
I think I see your point. I wonder how the gradual merging of audio/visual media (we know as cable and broadcast TV) with the internet will do for the 50% you speak of? One assumes that they will just access the same alpha state-inducing 'content' via the web as they do on traditional TV.
I guess if we take your statement further, there could be something to the passive, consumption oriented delivery of AV media via television that encourages a certain type of passive, consumer-culture oriented lifestyle. In this context, I find myself wanting to increase the use of internet in schools beyond what we already have in most middle and upper class classrooms.
The article is based on two whopping unfounded assumptions:
- That this cognitive surplus even exists. It's possible that people simply have a finite amount of thought available per unit time and that this thought is already being completely expended.
I agree and I'd go further to say that any human thought that does not lead to productive action is useless in the context of making some point about any 'cognitive surplus' lost to TV viewing.
What's the difference if a construction worker spends his free time watching Blue Collar comedy tour or reading Sports Illustrated? Neither have any influence on his production, so any greater point about cognitive surplus wasted watching TV is meaninglesss.
The problem is Shirky didn't take a few things into account:
1. TV is analogous to several types of leisure activity. Any serious discussion of productivity or 'time' wasted watching TV much occur in the greater context of all the things people do when they are not working.
2. Depending a person's main area of work, watching TV may be helpful, even necessary for them to work effectively. This factor must be taken into account. A person working in TV production, music, journalism...hell even health care, religious work, and education could find legitimate and relevant information on television that will increase their productivity and therefore not be a "waste of time"
3. I can think of more, but I have an article to write, so I'd better not waste any more time posting about how this Shirky guy's ideas about wasted man hours watching TV are lacking basic support....ah irony
This is more than a 21st century equivalent of fingerprint matching because DNA contains so much more information than fingerprints.
Law enforcement will try to use a familial DNA match found at a crime scene as probable cause for a search warrant. It will happen. There are several scenarios. Imagine you have two brothers and you live in the same town, and brother 1 has been convicted of armed robbery. DNA at the crime scene of another robbery with a similar location to brother 1's first armed robbery is found that has a familial match to his DNA. A DA or detective would love to be able to use that as probable cause for a search warrant of your house and brother 2's house as well. Whether it would be granted depends on many factors. If you and brother 2 were suspected of being accomplices in the first armed robbery (say, letting him keep money, etc at your house) but never charged b/c of lack of evidence, you can be sure that would increase the chance of the warrant being granted.
The potential for abuse of this is off the chart.
Another question, how reliable are these markers for familial relationships in DNA anyway? Who is making sure that these DNA 'markers' are viable? Seems like the public is willing to swallow anything that involves DNA when it comes to law enforcement.
do you think that this gamma ray burst you speak of in the last few seconds of the SM black hole's life might have something to do with 'restartng' our universe once everything gets consumed by black holes?
IANAP, but i have been reading up on the ultimate fate of the universe and it seems like the going theory is "with a whisper"
correct me if i'm wrong, but once the universe is completely 'flat' in a google years, current ideas say that only another brane collision could start another big bang
a wise history professor of mine taught that no problem is monocausative. it's true. putting blame on one single entity and piling on the shame ignores the other contributing factors to the problem, and allows them to continue unabated.
of course the media outfits share some of the blame, but to say the "real" blame lies with them does not hold the Pentagon, Bush administration, and the American people accountable. They all share the "real" blame, and the ACTUAL people who are lying (aka the generals) get the lion's share of that blame. It's their words first and foremost.
"the media" isn't one entity. The propaganda machine described in the NYTimes article is primarily for TV News. Standards and practices vary wildly between types of newsmedia. I, like many, hate the jerry-springerization of what has in the past been thought of as "tv news". Fox News is #1 on this list by a mile...it just isn't journalism in any traditional sense. But, it gets high ratings.
Notice I didn't say "alot of people watch". Ratings are a survey of a (supposedly) representative sample. Neilsen and others do a horrible job of providing information to advertisers about what people actually watch. This is an ancient problem of perception in TV that pre-dates cable, CNN, etc. Ratings in their current incarnation simply do not accurately reflect what people watch and why, and it skews the business decisions at the top of the news companies and for the advertisers.
Yes, the american people share in this blame. American government was intended to be advanced government. To work well, the electorate has to be on its toes, savvy, and not easily manipulated. Sadly, the opposite is the case (on it's ass, dumb as shit, and very easily manipulated).
Other posters on this story also say predictable/. stuff like:
1. "The NYTimes reported it but they are just as bad!!1!!1!1" That's just not the case. The NYtimes answers that criticism directly and provides links to prove it. Let's see someone step up and give equal or better counter evidence. Be sure to include links to specific NYTimes articles by generals mentioned in the report, and show how they connect directly with Pentagon propaganda campaigns about the war.
2. "How is this news, we all know the Bush administration is corrupt and manipulative beyond measure!!!1!!!1!1" The part that makes this news is that WE CAN PROVE IT. The systematic "psy-ops" manipulation of public opinion by the Pentagon is provable in court. That is news.
TV news has a long way to go. A good first step is to never, ever watch Fox News (unless to mock it), and deride anyone who does. Sure CNN isn't blameless, but Fox News was the main offender.
I'd like to think of slashdot as a place where we could move beyond this generational warfare.
Get a grip grandpa. When you were just starting college, you were a know it all too. You did stupid things, spoke out of turn, presumed you knew everything, and in general annoyed the people who knew what they were doing.
ALL young people (no matter what stupid "Gen" letter you want to arbitrarily assign to them) are immature and clueless. That's what it's like to be young. The right thing to do is realize this fact and show patience, maturity, humor, and guidance.
You are doing the wrong thing. You are expecting teenagers to act like 20 or 30 somethings, and ignoring the fact that you used to be just like them. Realize what's going on and start acting your age.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't have any mod points this week otherwise I would...well in...seems like /. has had so many posts about the music industry bending over backwards to do anything but the right thing, it's almost like there's nothing more to say.
;)
apropo of nothing...Sometimes I hate iTunes, other times I love it. The reasons to hate it are obvious, but I always remember what digital music was like before iTunes. Haphazard at best. Labels wouldn't even consider selling songs online, and the quality of what was available through p2p's was suspect at best. Since we have MyTunes, i think the net effect of iTunes has been positive. I still use my dbpoweramp to rip cd's though
Just wanted to clarify that the UK still has due process. Being *charged* with an immigration crime is not the same as being guilty of said crime. Your reaction to the arrest was a bit extreme, but if ya want to have free speech then ya gotta put up with reactionary (sometimes total bullshit) posts on message boards.
This is ass-backwards thinking. Policy makes public perception, not the other way around. "public perception" is only relevant if *we* make it relevant. EDUCATING the public is the proper way to think of this. If you talk to 'the public' like adults, give them accurate information, and educate about what's going on, they almost always get on board in the end.
In theory this is a nebulous, but good idea. In practice, people use this phrase to justify not doing something, when really they are just coving their ass...and in general being wimpy. For example: deciding to "err on the side of caution" and storing extra food on a mars mission = good...saying "err on the side of caution" to justify not doing something that we should but that "the people" THINK is dangerous = BAD
Managing Risk...such a nebulous concept. "It's all about" accomplishing the mission. Making "risk" avoidance the guiding precept is just an excuse for failure. Take this example: when snowboarding (or skiing) in tight tree runs, you can't think about "not hitting trees" because you unconsciously focus your attention on the trees to avoid hitting them, and therefore you're looking at trees (which you want to avoid) and neglecting focusing on the open part of the run, which you have to go through to actually get down the hill. If you focus on NOT doing bad as opposed to doing what you're trying to do, you will inevitably fail
I'm sorry, but nuke power is the best source of power. If we dedicated ourselves do doing the job right, we could take all those man-hours we've been wasting trying to come up with alternate sources of power (because we fear nukes), and use them to make nukes safer.
I'm going to link to the wiki articlefor you
they use either self reported feelings or perceptions or a scored test. both are highly problematic.
1. self reported feelings and perceptions of creativity: this is kinda ridiculous, like asking someone if they have cancer vs doing a biopsy.
2. scored test: obviously, this is biased by who is scoring the test. Is some psychologist qualified to determine what is 'creative'? What about a panel of experts? not a chance...how would they choose an example of creativity? what's popular?
we're nowhere near being able to 'measure' creativity.
Skin conductance? "Feeling positive or negative"? Dance Dance Revolution? Not to mention how they measure creativity...it's basically a self assessment.
There are so many problems...skin conductance is a meaningless measurement. All we know is that is changes...we don't know why with any reliability. The rest is Freudian/behaviorist psychology bullshit. It's not pseudo-science...it's worse...it's a fraud. These experiments do not come close to proving any sort of hypothesis.
I can say from personal experience that *some* video games substantially increase my brain activity, but having some sort of statistical proof is a long way off. We simply do not understand the human brain and creativity enough to draw these kind of conclusions from this shitty data.
I'm not anti-video game by any means, I'm anti-behaviorist psychological bullshit peddlers who do this work and call it "science".
I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, but torts are way down on the list of court reform issues that need to be addressed. Federal, State, and local Attorney's offices are the worst offender here, with large companies being a close second. Our criminal justice system is basically a plea bargain system now, it's so gamed and rigged by the DA's that any notion of a person accused of a crime having a 'fair day in court' is reserved only for the very rich who can afford $50,000+ lawyers. The RIAA, MPAA with their frivolous lawsuits are just as bad.
The common thread here is that the courts have become another way to abuse everyday citizens in our country for political and financial gain, or even worse, for Public Relations.
To the lawsuits mentioned in this story, I think the litigants in this lawsuit deserve their day in court. Part of me is glad his identity was stolen. Anyone who knows about how identity theft works (even at a cursory level), knows that the services this guy was pedaling were complete vaporware. His company was taking advantage of a climate of fear and he inadvisably believed his own hype. Granted, courts do get it very wrong sometimes, and we always need to make sure we provide ways to rectify those situations, but I do not think this case is in that territory.
It is wrong to mislead people using their irrational fears and ignorance. Yes. It is wrong. Alot of people in our society seem to think that it's ok to do this...that's what I think needs reform!
I have been aware, and understood, Brin's ideas for quite awhile (as most regular /. reader), but your summary is a good one nonetheless.
The first part was my thought that, since Brin's ideas are so silly, he couldn't be serious. I was musing about how he MUST have some sort of backdoor idea...theorizing about what that idea would be, and providing counterpoints to it.
I don't like where he's going at all. He just obfuscates the issue, making it harder for strong privacy advocates to unite. The US is a democracy, and it IS possible for us to force our government to better (never perfect of course, but we can vote for people who will do substantially BETTER!).
I posted elsewhere on this thread with a more indepth criticism of Brin if you're interested.
please mod parent up...makes excellent point and has a great example w/ the Amartya Sen research
If a person has a right to liberty, they also have a right to give up that liberty. We do it in small (but ever increasing) amounts here in the US...it's the idea of the social contract. However, as parent elegantly made clear, there is a point where accepting control for security becomes harmful.
Now, I cannot hold a gun to a Russian's head and force them to want liberty (lesson from Vietnam that some candidates never learned), but I can say that those Russians *should* fight for liberty in their society.
The parent's "brin would be happy comment" seemed to be partially tongue in cheek. Brin's ideas are no "solution" to anything. At best, he's misguided, at worst he's on the CIA payroll sewing seeds of dischord among privacy advocates.
Brin's idea is interesting in theory, but that's it. It has a major flaw:
The government will never be 100% open to its citizens. Sure, as some sort of purely philosophical thought experiment, the idea is interesting to ponder, but it has no relevance when discussing actual policy. Let me break it down further:
1. Brin is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If everyone just gave up privacy rights en masse in some Faustian bargain with the government agreeing to do the same it would be a tragic loss for the idea of liberty. To me, this is akin to the US surrendering to the USSR at the height of the Cold War.
2. Even the whole of the US would not be able to watch the government close enough all the time to check its power and ensure it was not keeping secrets or having 'private' information in some way. This incorrect assumption is at the heart of those who support CCS cameras and other privacy invading tactics: no matter how much information you have, you cannot provide total security. It works both ways...citizenry to government and government to citizenry.
If he is, he's dead wrong. Law enforcement and the military at the top levels are operating more like totalitarian enforcers rather than protecting and serving. The operating mentality is that privacy rights of citizens only serve to impede these neo-totalitarian goals of law enforcement.
In other words, law enforcement whether it's the FBI, Chinese government, or the City of Chicago, will ALWAYS take as many rights as they can in the name of providing security. They actually think that if they can only gain a certain level of knowledge, then they will be able to control practically everything, and thereby provide "security".
These ideas must be fought on two fronts: 1. fighting for privacy in all forms. 2. seeking to change way people view what law enforcement can do.
As for what a person in the US, like me, can do for China...well, that's easy, we must be outspoken in our rejection of American companies that are making money by helping the Chinese abuse its citizens.
I think we've got to the bottom of this pretty well...wish all /. posts were of your quality
The survey you're referring to may be one that was done by Sports Illustrated as part of a story about steroids. It's at least 5 years old, but I remember it b/c of the type of answers you mentioned. Yep...I agree with your point that once the tech gets going heavy, there will need to be something proactive done to mitigate eager athletes. maybe an "organic" and "non-organic" category?
I've only seen basic info about transhumanism, but I like the idea of putting tech in my body to help me snowboard better. Not sure about all the philosophical underpinnings, but i'd def. get something done to my eyes for better than natural vision...if it were cheap enough, i'd get some LED lights or something just for the hell of it...
_j
at least you put forth some effort, that's respectable
my original criticism still stands: cutting off your legs and getting Tommy John's surgery (even if it's REALLY early or not truly necessary) are NOT analogous.
the article you linked to showed that:
1. the number of tommy john's surgeries performed are increasing
2. one doctor interviewed for the story has a piece of anecdotal evidence that some young ballplayers are exaggerating symptoms to get the surgery
3. many coaches, parents, and players at the high school level have a misconception that Tommy John's surgery is a shortcut to good pitching
None of these things directly contradicts my criticism of you spurious analogy. Yes, it appears there is alot of misconception and a little lying going on with regards to the surgery, but...it just does not compare in scope...lying to get ligament surgery vs. cutting off your leg to enhance athletic performance... c'mon...
also, you didn't respond to my point about how no adapted sprinter has even come close to doing anything that an olympic hopeful would desire to emulate performance-wise.
you seem like a reasonable person, so allow me to lay out a scenario in which your analogy would apply:
If several sprinters with adapted apparatuses were qualifying for national and world class events, some even winning and setting records, and it continued to progress such that adapted runners were winning in, say equal numbers to non-adapted runners...then your point of "this is bad, it will cause people to cut off their legs to be able to compete" will be viable...not until then.
_j
please mod parent down...seriously
"it's not too much of a stretch" is his thesis, supported by the fact that a *few* pro baseball players had Tommy John's surgery before it was medically necessary.
These two things are not analogous in any current context. First of all, the amputee runner hasn't qualified for the olympics yet (needs to shave of 1 second off his personal best which is an eternity in sprinting), let alone accomplished a feat that would warrant any sort of envy from the medal contenders.
Second, this is not analogous b/c the MLB pitchers who were getting Tommy JOhn's surgery were most likely going to need it eventually due to ligament strain already present. They just got it earlier than what some doctors would have recommended. Parent is talking about CUTTING OFF THEIR LEGS. Big difference.
parent is not flaming...but he is totally raping logic to get attention. Low level troll I'd say...no offense fleaplus...but c'mon
You missed my greater point. Beyond issues of the war and police brutality, we have a problem that I feel is deeper and more systemic.
The problem is: the government, at all levels, has in many aspects adopted a philosophy of "perception is reality" In other words, many in government believe that if people *think* that they are being protected then that means that they are, and those people in government are directing their policies to alter PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than actually doing anything substantial to solve problems. For example, on the Daily Show recently, Doug Fife was promoting his new book. When asked about what the administration did wrong with Iraq, he basically said it was a problem of bad "branding". That's it in a nutshell...
It's like this, if I serve you a steaming pile of shit for dinner, it doesn't matter how much parsely and parmegian cheese I put on it. It doesn't matter if I put a well designed placard next to it that says "authentico spagetti itialiano"...IT'S STILL A PILE OF SHIT
PUBLIC PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY
you can troll all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that what the military is doing in Iraq and what law enforcement are trending towards here in the states are the same thing: making people *feel* safe so politicians can get re-elected.
The local cop who keeps the peace with judicious use of authority is an endangered species.
The military and law enforcement are both quickly becoming just another arm of a political machine who's purpose is to act as a PR agency for how "tough on crime" or "committed to stopping terror" politicians are. Reality has left the building.
The worst part of this is, the fact that this sales was allowed to go through is troubling. There is very little difference between the military and the police these days here in the USA. In other countries it is much worse, and in China the two are usually indistinguishable.
/. I DO have all the answers!) but the merging of military and police functions is bad for communities.
An easy example of this is how law enforcement and military tradeshows are now one in the same.
I don't have all the answers (wait, this is
That EETimes.com story missed one ability of the Raytheon suit:
waste millions of government cheese making pointless boondoggle equipment that has the same basic functionality as a forklift...Wave of the FUTURE!
Hell, the Iron Man suit can't even compete with that!
your ideas represent the mindless thinking that would be perfect for a citizen of a totalitarian regime. why don't you move to North Korea? No one questions the government or law enforcement policies....bon voyage
I guess if we take your statement further, there could be something to the passive, consumption oriented delivery of AV media via television that encourages a certain type of passive, consumer-culture oriented lifestyle. In this context, I find myself wanting to increase the use of internet in schools beyond what we already have in most middle and upper class classrooms.
well put, the parent to your post just doesn't get the idea of civil rights being a GOOD thing....
What's the difference if a construction worker spends his free time watching Blue Collar comedy tour or reading Sports Illustrated? Neither have any influence on his production, so any greater point about cognitive surplus wasted watching TV is meaninglesss.
The problem is Shirky didn't take a few things into account:
1. TV is analogous to several types of leisure activity. Any serious discussion of productivity or 'time' wasted watching TV much occur in the greater context of all the things people do when they are not working.
2. Depending a person's main area of work, watching TV may be helpful, even necessary for them to work effectively. This factor must be taken into account. A person working in TV production, music, journalism...hell even health care, religious work, and education could find legitimate and relevant information on television that will increase their productivity and therefore not be a "waste of time"
3. I can think of more, but I have an article to write, so I'd better not waste any more time posting about how this Shirky guy's ideas about wasted man hours watching TV are lacking basic support....ah irony
This is more than a 21st century equivalent of fingerprint matching because DNA contains so much more information than fingerprints.
Law enforcement will try to use a familial DNA match found at a crime scene as probable cause for a search warrant. It will happen. There are several scenarios. Imagine you have two brothers and you live in the same town, and brother 1 has been convicted of armed robbery. DNA at the crime scene of another robbery with a similar location to brother 1's first armed robbery is found that has a familial match to his DNA. A DA or detective would love to be able to use that as probable cause for a search warrant of your house and brother 2's house as well. Whether it would be granted depends on many factors. If you and brother 2 were suspected of being accomplices in the first armed robbery (say, letting him keep money, etc at your house) but never charged b/c of lack of evidence, you can be sure that would increase the chance of the warrant being granted.
The potential for abuse of this is off the chart.
Another question, how reliable are these markers for familial relationships in DNA anyway? Who is making sure that these DNA 'markers' are viable? Seems like the public is willing to swallow anything that involves DNA when it comes to law enforcement.
do you think that this gamma ray burst you speak of in the last few seconds of the SM black hole's life might have something to do with 'restartng' our universe once everything gets consumed by black holes?
IANAP, but i have been reading up on the ultimate fate of the universe and it seems like the going theory is "with a whisper"
correct me if i'm wrong, but once the universe is completely 'flat' in a google years, current ideas say that only another brane collision could start another big bang
a wise history professor of mine taught that no problem is monocausative. it's true. putting blame on one single entity and piling on the shame ignores the other contributing factors to the problem, and allows them to continue unabated.
/. stuff like:
of course the media outfits share some of the blame, but to say the "real" blame lies with them does not hold the Pentagon, Bush administration, and the American people accountable. They all share the "real" blame, and the ACTUAL people who are lying (aka the generals) get the lion's share of that blame. It's their words first and foremost.
"the media" isn't one entity. The propaganda machine described in the NYTimes article is primarily for TV News. Standards and practices vary wildly between types of newsmedia. I, like many, hate the jerry-springerization of what has in the past been thought of as "tv news". Fox News is #1 on this list by a mile...it just isn't journalism in any traditional sense. But, it gets high ratings.
Notice I didn't say "alot of people watch". Ratings are a survey of a (supposedly) representative sample. Neilsen and others do a horrible job of providing information to advertisers about what people actually watch. This is an ancient problem of perception in TV that pre-dates cable, CNN, etc. Ratings in their current incarnation simply do not accurately reflect what people watch and why, and it skews the business decisions at the top of the news companies and for the advertisers.
Yes, the american people share in this blame. American government was intended to be advanced government. To work well, the electorate has to be on its toes, savvy, and not easily manipulated. Sadly, the opposite is the case (on it's ass, dumb as shit, and very easily manipulated).
Other posters on this story also say predictable
1. "The NYTimes reported it but they are just as bad!!1!!1!1" That's just not the case. The NYtimes answers that criticism directly and provides links to prove it. Let's see someone step up and give equal or better counter evidence. Be sure to include links to specific NYTimes articles by generals mentioned in the report, and show how they connect directly with Pentagon propaganda campaigns about the war.
2. "How is this news, we all know the Bush administration is corrupt and manipulative beyond measure!!!1!!!1!1" The part that makes this news is that WE CAN PROVE IT. The systematic "psy-ops" manipulation of public opinion by the Pentagon is provable in court. That is news.
TV news has a long way to go. A good first step is to never, ever watch Fox News (unless to mock it), and deride anyone who does. Sure CNN isn't blameless, but Fox News was the main offender.
I'd like to think of slashdot as a place where we could move beyond this generational warfare.
Get a grip grandpa. When you were just starting college, you were a know it all too. You did stupid things, spoke out of turn, presumed you knew everything, and in general annoyed the people who knew what they were doing.
ALL young people (no matter what stupid "Gen" letter you want to arbitrarily assign to them) are immature and clueless. That's what it's like to be young. The right thing to do is realize this fact and show patience, maturity, humor, and guidance.
You are doing the wrong thing. You are expecting teenagers to act like 20 or 30 somethings, and ignoring the fact that you used to be just like them. Realize what's going on and start acting your age.