I believe the stereotype is that/.ers never have sex, so as long as we're following the rules of stereotypes that means/.ers don't have girlfriends, but wives are certainly possible.
"Finally, photonics is real today. I'll repeat that; PHOTONICS IS REAL. The problems have been solved. Fabs make lasers on chips now. They are integrated with the silicon circuits. They are cheap. They are fast. They cost nothing. Try to keep up."
So here's a question, just because you didn't include "reliable" in your list of superlatives. What's the mean time to failure for these laser on a chip devices? Years or decades or longer? I'm still using a 26" (i think) SD tube TV at home that i bought back in... 2000 i think. I _might_ upgrade to a HD LCD TV this year. Or maybe next year. I'm not the type to be constantly upgrading to the latest and greatest (okay, except for game consoles, but those have a built in delay period) and i certainly don't want to get cables that are going to die before the device they're plugged in to. If they're guaranteed to last at least a decade or two that's _probably_ good enough for me.
Which summary were you reading? The one i see mentions "formation" several times and talks about how exciting it is, and the only reference to destruction is "When the small moon makes another pass, it is not known whether these giant 'snowballs' remain or get destroyed."
How did you translate "Lots of stuff is getting formed and we're learning a lot about the formation process, though we don't know if these things get destroyed later or not" into "The summary only talks about celestial objects destroying each other"?
I'm sure you're speaking in jest, but game concepts are one of the few things you _can't_ patent or copyright, only the specific implementation of those concepts. That's why there are so many clones of popular games online with different art and a different name and a (usually very small) change to the rules. Scrabble is especially popular in that regard, see Lexulous, Words With Friends, and others.
"and Bing has been trying to sell their "Decision Engine" as a tool for selecting flights and predicting fare movement, so this seems like a natural acquisition to add to Google."
To be fair(?) this wasn't Bing/Microsoft's idea originally. As is so frequently the case it seems, a website called Farecast came up with the idea of basically aggregating the aggregators (which isn't a big idea in itself) and using that information to predict future flight prices (which is, IMHO.) It was incredibly useful, and when Microsoft realized that they bought out the company and merged it into Bing. I used Farecast before the buyout and now it's the only thing i use Bing for, since as far as i'm aware no one else has implemented the idea. (If i'm mistaken about that then someone please inform me of the alternatives.) If this acquisition means Google is thinking about doing the same thing, then great!
"Please note, when doing robotics work, calling any part of your creation "HAL" is usually a mistake..."
You might think so, but apparently a lot of people disagree (and that's just the "notable" projects.) On one hand, a lot of tech projects like that are founded by geeky people, who are inclined to say "I know that [X] was a bad guy, but he totally kicked ass!" and name their company/project/product after it anyways. On the other hand, every time something like that comes up (HAL, Skynet, and lots of others i'm sure) people joke about "I'm sorry, i can't let you do that" or whatever is appropriate, but very few seriously believe the item in question is actually dangerous just because of the name. So what does that really mean? Free publicity.
"If the old game's multiplayer server gets shut off once the sequel comes out, then yes."
Congratulation on presenting an argument completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand. If multiplayer is important to you then you're not going to be any multiplayer game whose sever has been shut down, regardless of why that happened or whether it was part of a series or not.
"Textbooks tend to run for such a price."
And that would be reason #2, or possibly reason #3, as to why i don't buy textbooks for recreational reading. For people who actually have to use textbooks, ie students, i'm sure they'd love a system where you could buy each chapter independently for (1/# of chapters) of the original price, at least if the prof could be convinced to provide a list of which chapters were specifically needed for the class. Or if it was delivered digitally and they could just download the chapter they needed as soon as the reading from it was announced. Again, you're providing counterarguments that seem to have nothing to do with the theoretical value of splitting a large item up into small chunks available for a fraction of the price.
Agreed, and although it probably isn't much of a problem for such a small newspaper/site it's also a great way to discourage spammers. There are a lot of forums online where i wouldn't mind paying a one time 99 cent fee to sign up if it meant that the continuously regenerated spammer accounts would go away. (I'd rather pass on the "real name required" bit though =)
When I buy a game, I buy the game. I don't buy a license to play the game. I don't buy a piece of the game. I buy the game. This is why I avoid all games that involve microtransactions, limited activations, etc.
How does this make any sense? Avoiding games with limited activations is understandable, but a blanket statement that you won't buy games that have microtransactions/DLC just seems strange. Do you not buy games that are part of a series? What about books or movies with sequels? Do you not buy a season of a tv show because there's another season after it?
There are certainly ways to do DLC/microtransactions badly, but the basic theory of splitting something large up into smaller parts and selling them separately is perfectly sound and can be beneficial to all parties involved if the pricing is done correctly. I don't want to have to wait ten years (if i'm lucky) for an author to finish an entire series so i can pick the whole think up at once before buying the first book. And unless it's an author i know really well i probably don't want to put down the cost of the entire series all at once without having read any of it first. Likewise i wouldn't mind buying a smaller chunk of a game and trying it out before buying the rest of it if the pricing was amenable to doing so. I'm willing to gamble $7 or $8 on a book to an extent that i would never consider for a $50 or $60 game. If books only came bundles in "complete" series for $50 then deciding which books to invest in would be just as much of a pain as it currently is for (most) video games.
Your examples make it seem like you're confusing DLC with rentals. You would still own what you bought, you'd just be buying smaller chunks of it at a time for a smaller amount of money. (In the cases where the idea was implemented in a successful manner anyways.)
It doesn't help that the question is vague. Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens were around. However if you make the question "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg," you then need to define if a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken or an egg that would hatch a chicken (if it was fertilized.) After the question is properly defined the answer is easy. (Personally i think it makes more sense to define a chicken egg as an egg laid by a chicken, since you can make that determination before the egg hatches, so i think my answer differs from yours.)
"The state lottery can give you all that, with about the same chance of success. Do you purchase your lottery tickets regularly? If not, why would you make an exception for the music lottery?"
Hyperbole much? Have you actually stopped to think about the odds at all, or did you just throw out the first comparison that came to mind, however inaccurate?
First of all, i expect that being in a signed band will get you laid, even if you never become a big success. People who buy lottery tickets and don't win don't get squat for it.
Second, where i live the odds of winning the lotto are either about 1 in 40 million or 1 in 175 million, depending on which version you want to play. Wikipedia lists almost 150 "best selling artists", by which they mean artists with cumulative sales of over 50 million. That's just a fraction of the bands who've "won the RIAA lotto," but even with just that number you'd have to maintain that there are over 250,000 signed bands in order to make the odds worse than even the "easy" lotto. (I would work out the actual odds, but finding good numbers for this kind of thing doesn't seem amenable to a quick google search.)
And finally, if you just want your music to be heard because you love the art, being a signed band, even if you never "make it big" is going to do far more for you than a bunch of losing lottery tickets.
So in summation, if you're musically talented then signing with the RIAA provides more benefits and better odds of future success than the lotto. If all you want is money there are probably a lot of better ways to get it, but if you want to make music and want to be well known for it then signing with the RIAA is going to do you a lot more good than buying lotto tickets.
And finally, i do occasionally buy a few lotto tickets when the jackpot is larger than the odds of winning by a reasonable margin.
It might get you laid. And it might also get you famous. And if you're both smart and lucky it might get you famous enough that you can ditch the original label and work out something a little more profitable. Not saying that signing a deal with an RIAA affiliated company is a great option, but it might be the best option if your eventual goal is to become a "big name" star, or if you care more about getting your music heard than you care about the money.
I'm slightly confused. Yes low battery life is a problem in general, however i would have thought there was a simple solution in the case you describe. If you can't bring the phone into work with you, why not just turn it off when you leave it in the car? Missed calls would still go to voicemail, and i can't think of anything else that it would be useful to be on for when you have no access to it.
(Responding to this post rather than the top one so you'll see it)
(To be fair it's usually considered a sign of maturity to be able to admit that you made a mistake after the fact, but just i couldn't resist the dig. Guess i'm not mature enough.)
Okay, raise your hands, how many people got to the bit about "while the Post favors the femme fatale angle (alleged spy Anna Chapman)" and immediately stopped to go do some google searches on this spy in particular?
This sounds pretty much exactly like the system Vernor Vinge described in "Rainbow's End." (Which also included the "kill switch" that came up on slashdot a few days ago.) However Vinge had what seemed to me to be a naive optimism that the government would have some kind of epiphany and realize that it should use such unprecedented power only to protect people from serious crimes, and not for the kind of petty things the government currently abuses its power for.
The article mentions a similar procedure performed on the liver. Have they done any research into growing new kidneys? There are a lot of people dependent on dialysis who could really use a "quick and easy" way to get a new kidney. (At least as compared to the approximately seven year wait list for a donor transplant now. Or, you know, trying your luck in Thailand.)
"You can't pull right from a bank or credit card. You must pre-deposit funds."
Er, sorry, but how is this a bad thing? The only reason i'm relatively okay with paypal pulling money from my account is because it's hooked to a credit card, which has at least some fraud protection in place. I'm still whittling away at the initial amount of virtual paypal dollars (or whatever you call that limit) because i'm not willing to attach a bank account.
Why is it that i'm concerned about this with paypal when a lot of my other accounts have the same ability to freely transfer funds? Well first of all because paypal is the Windows of the online financial world. It's the big target that all the hackers and scam artists aim for, whereas there are hundreds of other banks and credit card companies. More importantly PayPal is not a bank, and doesn't have to work under the numerous safeguards and regulations that regular financial institutions do. And most importantly, i've heard way too many stories about PayPal screwing people over one way or the other.
The other issues you mentioned are serious problems, but i have absolutely no complaints about the idea of having to pre-load a payment mechanism that is intended for use primarily over the internet. Any time i want to use it i'll already be at a computer and if necessary can transfer some more funds into it.
That's exactly what i was going to say. I'm willing to believe it if someone can provide some numbers from a reputable geologist, since i don't know a lot about the field myself, but until then i'm far more willing to believe that Wyoming would be the US's "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" than i would Nevada.
I agree. I wonder if the identity of this person is public knowledge? Because if so he's going to end up being _real_ popular.
But anyways, clearly the way to fix the problem is to just have a "skirt or bra night," where anyone who shows up wearing a skirt or a bra gets in without paying the cover. As long as they're willing to accept male cross-dressers (including people who aren't normally cross-dressers but are so cheap that they'll do it to save the cover charge) i don't think there would be any legal problem with it.
The addendum just mentions in passing this is only one of four new X Prizes, however the other three all sound much more interesting than an AI Physician for cellphones. Organ regrowth/replacement and AI cars could have a huge impact on our lives, and even a new deep sea submersible sounds kind of cool. As others have pointed out there are already a lot of health resources on the web that are accessible by smartphone. This seems more like evolutionary development than revolutionary.
there are MANY of us that have
1) no secrets
2) very little to no privacy
3) all the interest in the world to share our experience with the most people we can in our lives and we sure are perfectly happy about it.
Seriously? No secrets at all, and almost no privacy? Okay, why don't you share your SSN with us? Or how about your home address and the date of your next vacation? And do you have a girlfriend? (You're posting on slashdot, odds are that you're male.) Why don't you post some nude photos of her for our enjoyment? And can i have her phone number?
You must be okay with all that, right? And there are "MANY" more people like that? And this isn't a strawman argument, if you don't agree with that then what you said above isn't true, and we're just debating _how_ _much_ privacy we need, not if we need it at all.
On a more serious note, if there _are_ "MANY" people who already feel that way, why do we need his help to understand that we don't need privacy?
Furthermore, if "he has no interest in removing privacy from people," then why does he keepremoving our privacy? And then only letting us (somewhat) restore it after the fact?
Or is this supposed to be a case where if he does it to us but can convince us that we really wanted it all along after the fact, then it's not a bad thing? "No" doesn't mean "no," it just means we haven't been enlightened yet? If you try that approach with most things in real life you would probably end up facing criminal charges pretty quickly.
At first i thought they meant they were adding completely new kanji specifically dealing with modern electronics (presumably to replace older kanji that had previously been adapted to the task.) Which led to the thought that since originally a lot of kanji got their start as pictograms that were them simplified to their current forms, wouldn't it be cool if new kanji for electronics were developed from simplified versions of circuit diagrams?
It would be ideal if the FDA could come up with some kind of sliding scale of approval. Places that are actually doing serious work ought to be allowed to treat people as long as they're required to state the fact that the procedures are experimental and unproven up front. The FDA ought to have a fairly easy time screening out the cynical hucksters, but i expect it would be difficult to figure out who was a sincere crank or not, since that's probably a kind of sliding scale. The people who think they're learned their techniques from UFO aliens are clearly nuts (assuming they actually believe that and aren't just crooks of course) but people with more moderate revolutionary ideas (so to speak) would be hard to filter properly.
"Kirkpatrick reaches the conclusion that money isn't a primary motivation for Zuckerberg"
If that's really true (which i'm certainly willing entertain doubts about) does he want to reduce privacy because he really believes that's what best for everyone? Or if he's not in it for money is he in it for power? Does he just like knowing everything about everyone, and making a profit off of that knowledge is a side game to him? I'm really not sure which of those would be worse. The first case is a lot less despicable, but it's also a lot more threatening if you think that a certain amount of privacy is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the stereotype is that /.ers never have sex, so as long as we're following the rules of stereotypes that means /.ers don't have girlfriends, but wives are certainly possible.
"Finally, photonics is real today. I'll repeat that; PHOTONICS IS REAL. The problems have been solved. Fabs make lasers on chips now. They are integrated with the silicon circuits. They are cheap. They are fast. They cost nothing. Try to keep up."
So here's a question, just because you didn't include "reliable" in your list of superlatives. What's the mean time to failure for these laser on a chip devices? Years or decades or longer? I'm still using a 26" (i think) SD tube TV at home that i bought back in... 2000 i think. I _might_ upgrade to a HD LCD TV this year. Or maybe next year. I'm not the type to be constantly upgrading to the latest and greatest (okay, except for game consoles, but those have a built in delay period) and i certainly don't want to get cables that are going to die before the device they're plugged in to. If they're guaranteed to last at least a decade or two that's _probably_ good enough for me.
Which summary were you reading? The one i see mentions "formation" several times and talks about how exciting it is, and the only reference to destruction is "When the small moon makes another pass, it is not known whether these giant 'snowballs' remain or get destroyed."
How did you translate "Lots of stuff is getting formed and we're learning a lot about the formation process, though we don't know if these things get destroyed later or not" into "The summary only talks about celestial objects destroying each other"?
I'm sure you're speaking in jest, but game concepts are one of the few things you _can't_ patent or copyright, only the specific implementation of those concepts. That's why there are so many clones of popular games online with different art and a different name and a (usually very small) change to the rules. Scrabble is especially popular in that regard, see Lexulous, Words With Friends, and others.
"and Bing has been trying to sell their "Decision Engine" as a tool for selecting flights and predicting fare movement, so this seems like a natural acquisition to add to Google."
To be fair(?) this wasn't Bing/Microsoft's idea originally. As is so frequently the case it seems, a website called Farecast came up with the idea of basically aggregating the aggregators (which isn't a big idea in itself) and using that information to predict future flight prices (which is, IMHO.) It was incredibly useful, and when Microsoft realized that they bought out the company and merged it into Bing. I used Farecast before the buyout and now it's the only thing i use Bing for, since as far as i'm aware no one else has implemented the idea. (If i'm mistaken about that then someone please inform me of the alternatives.) If this acquisition means Google is thinking about doing the same thing, then great!
"Please note, when doing robotics work, calling any part of your creation "HAL" is usually a mistake..."
You might think so, but apparently a lot of people disagree (and that's just the "notable" projects.) On one hand, a lot of tech projects like that are founded by geeky people, who are inclined to say "I know that [X] was a bad guy, but he totally kicked ass!" and name their company/project/product after it anyways. On the other hand, every time something like that comes up (HAL, Skynet, and lots of others i'm sure) people joke about "I'm sorry, i can't let you do that" or whatever is appropriate, but very few seriously believe the item in question is actually dangerous just because of the name. So what does that really mean? Free publicity.
"If the old game's multiplayer server gets shut off once the sequel comes out, then yes."
Congratulation on presenting an argument completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand. If multiplayer is important to you then you're not going to be any multiplayer game whose sever has been shut down, regardless of why that happened or whether it was part of a series or not.
"Textbooks tend to run for such a price."
And that would be reason #2, or possibly reason #3, as to why i don't buy textbooks for recreational reading. For people who actually have to use textbooks, ie students, i'm sure they'd love a system where you could buy each chapter independently for (1/# of chapters) of the original price, at least if the prof could be convinced to provide a list of which chapters were specifically needed for the class. Or if it was delivered digitally and they could just download the chapter they needed as soon as the reading from it was announced. Again, you're providing counterarguments that seem to have nothing to do with the theoretical value of splitting a large item up into small chunks available for a fraction of the price.
Agreed, and although it probably isn't much of a problem for such a small newspaper/site it's also a great way to discourage spammers. There are a lot of forums online where i wouldn't mind paying a one time 99 cent fee to sign up if it meant that the continuously regenerated spammer accounts would go away. (I'd rather pass on the "real name required" bit though =)
When I buy a game, I buy the game. I don't buy a license to play the game. I don't buy a piece of the game. I buy the game. This is why I avoid all games that involve microtransactions, limited activations, etc.
How does this make any sense? Avoiding games with limited activations is understandable, but a blanket statement that you won't buy games that have microtransactions/DLC just seems strange. Do you not buy games that are part of a series? What about books or movies with sequels? Do you not buy a season of a tv show because there's another season after it?
There are certainly ways to do DLC/microtransactions badly, but the basic theory of splitting something large up into smaller parts and selling them separately is perfectly sound and can be beneficial to all parties involved if the pricing is done correctly. I don't want to have to wait ten years (if i'm lucky) for an author to finish an entire series so i can pick the whole think up at once before buying the first book. And unless it's an author i know really well i probably don't want to put down the cost of the entire series all at once without having read any of it first. Likewise i wouldn't mind buying a smaller chunk of a game and trying it out before buying the rest of it if the pricing was amenable to doing so. I'm willing to gamble $7 or $8 on a book to an extent that i would never consider for a $50 or $60 game. If books only came bundles in "complete" series for $50 then deciding which books to invest in would be just as much of a pain as it currently is for (most) video games.
Your examples make it seem like you're confusing DLC with rentals. You would still own what you bought, you'd just be buying smaller chunks of it at a time for a smaller amount of money. (In the cases where the idea was implemented in a successful manner anyways.)
It doesn't help that the question is vague. Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens were around. However if you make the question "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg," you then need to define if a chicken egg is an egg laid by a chicken or an egg that would hatch a chicken (if it was fertilized.) After the question is properly defined the answer is easy. (Personally i think it makes more sense to define a chicken egg as an egg laid by a chicken, since you can make that determination before the egg hatches, so i think my answer differs from yours.)
"The state lottery can give you all that, with about the same chance of success. Do you purchase your lottery tickets regularly? If not, why would you make an exception for the music lottery?"
Hyperbole much? Have you actually stopped to think about the odds at all, or did you just throw out the first comparison that came to mind, however inaccurate?
First of all, i expect that being in a signed band will get you laid, even if you never become a big success. People who buy lottery tickets and don't win don't get squat for it.
Second, where i live the odds of winning the lotto are either about 1 in 40 million or 1 in 175 million, depending on which version you want to play. Wikipedia lists almost 150 "best selling artists", by which they mean artists with cumulative sales of over 50 million. That's just a fraction of the bands who've "won the RIAA lotto," but even with just that number you'd have to maintain that there are over 250,000 signed bands in order to make the odds worse than even the "easy" lotto. (I would work out the actual odds, but finding good numbers for this kind of thing doesn't seem amenable to a quick google search.)
And finally, if you just want your music to be heard because you love the art, being a signed band, even if you never "make it big" is going to do far more for you than a bunch of losing lottery tickets.
So in summation, if you're musically talented then signing with the RIAA provides more benefits and better odds of future success than the lotto. If all you want is money there are probably a lot of better ways to get it, but if you want to make music and want to be well known for it then signing with the RIAA is going to do you a lot more good than buying lotto tickets.
And finally, i do occasionally buy a few lotto tickets when the jackpot is larger than the odds of winning by a reasonable margin.
It might get you laid. And it might also get you famous. And if you're both smart and lucky it might get you famous enough that you can ditch the original label and work out something a little more profitable. Not saying that signing a deal with an RIAA affiliated company is a great option, but it might be the best option if your eventual goal is to become a "big name" star, or if you care more about getting your music heard than you care about the money.
I'm slightly confused. Yes low battery life is a problem in general, however i would have thought there was a simple solution in the case you describe. If you can't bring the phone into work with you, why not just turn it off when you leave it in the car? Missed calls would still go to voicemail, and i can't think of anything else that it would be useful to be on for when you have no access to it.
(Responding to this post rather than the top one so you'll see it)
Thank you Slashdot, for letting us know that all those other sites that were exagerating the importance with hyperbolic headlines were totally doin it rong!
(To be fair it's usually considered a sign of maturity to be able to admit that you made a mistake after the fact, but just i couldn't resist the dig. Guess i'm not mature enough.)
Okay, raise your hands, how many people got to the bit about "while the Post favors the femme fatale angle (alleged spy Anna Chapman)" and immediately stopped to go do some google searches on this spy in particular?
This sounds pretty much exactly like the system Vernor Vinge described in "Rainbow's End." (Which also included the "kill switch" that came up on slashdot a few days ago.) However Vinge had what seemed to me to be a naive optimism that the government would have some kind of epiphany and realize that it should use such unprecedented power only to protect people from serious crimes, and not for the kind of petty things the government currently abuses its power for.
The article mentions a similar procedure performed on the liver. Have they done any research into growing new kidneys? There are a lot of people dependent on dialysis who could really use a "quick and easy" way to get a new kidney. (At least as compared to the approximately seven year wait list for a donor transplant now. Or, you know, trying your luck in Thailand.)
"You can't pull right from a bank or credit card. You must pre-deposit funds."
Er, sorry, but how is this a bad thing? The only reason i'm relatively okay with paypal pulling money from my account is because it's hooked to a credit card, which has at least some fraud protection in place. I'm still whittling away at the initial amount of virtual paypal dollars (or whatever you call that limit) because i'm not willing to attach a bank account.
Why is it that i'm concerned about this with paypal when a lot of my other accounts have the same ability to freely transfer funds? Well first of all because paypal is the Windows of the online financial world. It's the big target that all the hackers and scam artists aim for, whereas there are hundreds of other banks and credit card companies. More importantly PayPal is not a bank, and doesn't have to work under the numerous safeguards and regulations that regular financial institutions do. And most importantly, i've heard way too many stories about PayPal screwing people over one way or the other.
The other issues you mentioned are serious problems, but i have absolutely no complaints about the idea of having to pre-load a payment mechanism that is intended for use primarily over the internet. Any time i want to use it i'll already be at a computer and if necessary can transfer some more funds into it.
That's exactly what i was going to say. I'm willing to believe it if someone can provide some numbers from a reputable geologist, since i don't know a lot about the field myself, but until then i'm far more willing to believe that Wyoming would be the US's "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" than i would Nevada.
I agree. I wonder if the identity of this person is public knowledge? Because if so he's going to end up being _real_ popular.
But anyways, clearly the way to fix the problem is to just have a "skirt or bra night," where anyone who shows up wearing a skirt or a bra gets in without paying the cover. As long as they're willing to accept male cross-dressers (including people who aren't normally cross-dressers but are so cheap that they'll do it to save the cover charge) i don't think there would be any legal problem with it.
The addendum just mentions in passing this is only one of four new X Prizes, however the other three all sound much more interesting than an AI Physician for cellphones. Organ regrowth/replacement and AI cars could have a huge impact on our lives, and even a new deep sea submersible sounds kind of cool. As others have pointed out there are already a lot of health resources on the web that are accessible by smartphone. This seems more like evolutionary development than revolutionary.
there are MANY of us that have
1) no secrets
2) very little to no privacy
3) all the interest in the world to share our experience with the most people we can in our lives and we sure are perfectly happy about it.
Seriously? No secrets at all, and almost no privacy? Okay, why don't you share your SSN with us? Or how about your home address and the date of your next vacation? And do you have a girlfriend? (You're posting on slashdot, odds are that you're male.) Why don't you post some nude photos of her for our enjoyment? And can i have her phone number?
You must be okay with all that, right? And there are "MANY" more people like that? And this isn't a strawman argument, if you don't agree with that then what you said above isn't true, and we're just debating _how_ _much_ privacy we need, not if we need it at all.
On a more serious note, if there _are_ "MANY" people who already feel that way, why do we need his help to understand that we don't need privacy?
Furthermore, if "he has no interest in removing privacy from people," then why does he keep removing our privacy? And then only letting us (somewhat) restore it after the fact?
Or is this supposed to be a case where if he does it to us but can convince us that we really wanted it all along after the fact, then it's not a bad thing? "No" doesn't mean "no," it just means we haven't been enlightened yet? If you try that approach with most things in real life you would probably end up facing criminal charges pretty quickly.
At first i thought they meant they were adding completely new kanji specifically dealing with modern electronics (presumably to replace older kanji that had previously been adapted to the task.) Which led to the thought that since originally a lot of kanji got their start as pictograms that were them simplified to their current forms, wouldn't it be cool if new kanji for electronics were developed from simplified versions of circuit diagrams?
Alas, it was not to be.
It would be ideal if the FDA could come up with some kind of sliding scale of approval. Places that are actually doing serious work ought to be allowed to treat people as long as they're required to state the fact that the procedures are experimental and unproven up front. The FDA ought to have a fairly easy time screening out the cynical hucksters, but i expect it would be difficult to figure out who was a sincere crank or not, since that's probably a kind of sliding scale. The people who think they're learned their techniques from UFO aliens are clearly nuts (assuming they actually believe that and aren't just crooks of course) but people with more moderate revolutionary ideas (so to speak) would be hard to filter properly.
"Kirkpatrick reaches the conclusion that money isn't a primary motivation for Zuckerberg"
If that's really true (which i'm certainly willing entertain doubts about) does he want to reduce privacy because he really believes that's what best for everyone? Or if he's not in it for money is he in it for power? Does he just like knowing everything about everyone, and making a profit off of that knowledge is a side game to him? I'm really not sure which of those would be worse. The first case is a lot less despicable, but it's also a lot more threatening if you think that a certain amount of privacy is a good thing.