People don't get more wise with more ignorance. They get less wise, and more foolish and reactionary and insane.
They don't get more tolerant with more secrets. They get hypocritical, two faced, narrow minded and naive to possibilities.
Nothing you have said here does anything but bolster my points. It is ignorance that allows the demagogue to pervert these things, and it is ignorance that you are defending.
Once, we had a society where everything was known to everybody. That society was called the small town, and the result was oppression by groupthink as a measure of excellence, wielded against those who deviated from the norm, and where gossip and slander were social weapons of choice. Is that any better? Perhaps compared to a heavily rigged oligarchy, but that's not saying much.
Yes, it's much better. When people are deviant in a way that materially threatens the group, it is fitting and good that the group deal with them internally. Technology has made a number of behaviors that were previously threatening benign, and that should be taken into account. The group should always have as one of its underlying agendas the active pursuit of means and methods that remove the material need for oppression of the citizens that are its constituent parts, because needless enforcement of arbitrary rules taxes the system and hurts everyone. Still, the underlying principle is both sound and good. You can't argue this without arguing for the abolishment of all law, because these are the foundations by which all laws are justified.
My system is just so much easier to use in a general sense using free software. My computer used to feel like a wrestling ring with two dozen different companies and a few organized criminals duking it out while I tried to keep things from falling apart, with anti-spyware and anti-virus programs acting like my assistant referrees. That feeling is just gone. I don't think I could go back to the way things were before and be happy working that way now.
I'm sure I'll need to work with MS tech to make my living in the future, and I'm pragmatic about it, but it sure is nice to be free of their crap.
What part of "I don't believe in privacy" do you find complex? I do not believe in privacy in any form, and I don't believe in private information of any kind. In each example, yes, I think it should be public knowledge. Yes, I think all votes should be public record. Yes, I think all economics should be public knowledge. If a human being knows something, every human should be able to know it, and no barriers of any kind should ever be placed between them and that knowledge, ever.
It's interesting to think that the value of a stolen identity cannot be higher than the discrepency between the rich and the poor. You can't use a stolen identity to fraudulently lead willing people, but only to apply leverage and compel people by wielding the economic system as a tool against them. So really, in a healthy, fair and equitable society made up of well informed and actively participating citizens, there is no value in attempting to steal a persons identity.
Personally, I like the idea that such frauds as identity theft will eventually bring these systems low. Which they will, despite all this wasted human effort.
See, I don't consider a blanket opposition to systemic ignorance as an extreme position. I consider it to be a very rational. I don't make violent demands that my grocer begin recording details about people in my town so I can use that information against them. But the intricate systems that support my life depend on these intrusive systems existence, and putting a stop to it would result in collapse, and thus my own death, so the best I can rationally hope for is to be no less aware than my peers. I don't want to be systematically kept in the dark, and I don't want to systematically keep you in the dark, I don't care what you eat or what sort of freaky shit you do in the bedroom, I just want to know what is going on and act consciously as I move through the world. I do think there are a lot of heavily manipulated and oppressed people who find that very scary for reasons that are not sane, and a lot of them seem to be here on Slashdot.
To use your example, if things are secret, the CIA can send a hundred people after you quietly and justify themselves later in a way that obliges anyone who would stand by you to become the first singled out and the next removed while standing alone.
If things are transparent, the people can mobilize in the billions and bring governments and malignant organizations low when the things those organizations do are heinous enough to call the common person to action. If things are transparent, the things the CIA did to me will be known.
It is the fact that you can use an existing power base to gather and control intelligence where others cannot that makes these organizations so powerful and their actions so effective.
This is why there is this global agenda to put Trusted Computing on peoples machines and move them over, and this is why there is such a media push to have people favour the illusion of privacy through exclusive access when they are confronted with the fact that real privacy hasn't been practical for a long time.
Yeah. Just like all those Egyptians who are STILL paying taxes on that pyramid to this day.
Get a brain. Power generation through water has been working for ages, and it's not a difficult concept to get right. It's not cheap enough to be efficient, when you inflate the costs of the materials, and deflate the cost of the oil, and tweak the timeframe around until that's the answer that you get. But if you built it right, it could last for generations without need for fuel, and drive light rail systems day and night without significant investment of human effort.
I try to convince them that they should be pushing to have this data made open to everyone rather than allowing the data to be kept as a private resource for the use of a few. And I try to make them understand that the Trusted Computing threat, which is all about remote censorship, is a real danger to them that can't really be effectively fought while the illusion of privacy maintained by obscurity is allowed to continue to exist.
And to Captain Splendid and his friends, who will surely once more come along asking why I don't publish my home address and phone number here so he can come stare at me, it's because in the presence of rampant hypocracy that thrives untroubled by the transparency I hope to see one day, singling myself out makes me vulnerable in a way that systematic transparency would not. There is a difference between negotiating a unilateral disarming, which is how I view this effort, and throwing down your guns first and getting shot in the head, which is what you're suggesting I should do.
It's all about preserving scarcity and thus control. There's no reason we couldn't have transportation systems that run off local ocean driven power generation for all our costal cities, and make local personal transportation free of charge and free of pollution. We could build such systems right now, and make them durable enough to last hundreds of years. But then we wouldn't need this fascist control, where companies and governments are in bed together keeping the power strucuture alive and the resources always in short supply. If we didn't have that, the ruling classes wouldn't have a structure that allows them to continue to rule.
Whatever we do, if we arrive there through the current leadership, it will be inefficient and require us all to work hard and follow orders to keep things running. That's the way they like it.
Here's hoping that this will in the end reveal that 99% of humans are freaks, that the loudest judgmental voices are actually the biggest hypocrites, and we can all get along better.
Fuck privacy. Here's to transparency and the death of hypocrisies!
To all those who like to argue against the ongoing use of analog recording mediums for original masters, let this be a lesson to you.
Always record your originals in analog and immediately transfer to digital, and one day you may find that more of the original sonic environment can be recovered from that master than you ever thought possible through the progression of physics, chemistry and math.
Trusted Computing support in Vista, which brings nothing to the public, but causes their computer to cease to be under their control, allowing such things as:
Remote censorship after the fact Unbreakable vendor lock-in Draconian digital rights management Inability to use custom software on your own hardware
Who demanded this? The US Department of Defense and the large media corporations.
Does it serve the public or the end user? No.
Aside from the dangers of what it does when it works right, does it inconvenience the user in unrelated ways? Yes, it consumes resources with no return and causes general bugginess in such a large variety of software that Vista is being refused by the general public despite their ignorance of these larger issues, simply because of the side effects.
Does it tie into a larger agenda to control the worlds information, tax every creative work, rewrite history, and create a system of control that would give would be despots wet dreams? You're fucking right it does.
If you were to take a random sample of a hundred people out of your typical mall and explain the technology and what it does, do you think anyone would ask for it? Anyone at all?
Yet they spent billions of dollars over many years conspiring to bring this technology to our homes. Why do you suppose they did that?
Because they were motivated by interests who wish to control the population at large without regard for what is legal.
They think of their customer base as cows, to be owned, controlled and sold to private interests.
That example about selling ad space in IE is so benign compared to what's going on these days that it actually makes a person wistfully think of how nice Microsoft used to be, relatively speaking.
his means that typically there will be several screens of cruft you need to page down through to get to the main body of text, but it also means that the "designer" can't dictate how you're going to use your screen real estate.
So, you demolish the good design of the good sites, so you can avoid the bad design on the bad sites? Why don't you just skip the poorly designed sites entirely and stick to the good ones?
Because it's not a joke. Microsoft are selling out their client base to third parties while they continue to have a client base. They've got multibillion dollar back room deals, they're being paid to put everyones PC under a centralized lock and key system, and if they succeed, they'll get a percentage. It's not like it's a secret.
It's about the developers freedom and the users freedom. The developer is free of leverage, and can act as they wish. The user is free of leverage, and can act as they wish. They're not allowed to use the legal system to enforce leverage around the code, obviously. But that doesn't prevent them doing anything they wish with the code, it just prevents them being bastards via the legal system.
There are a lot of people who think very poorly of libertarians who nevertheless were interested in him because he was talking about removing the Federal Reserve.
That is to say, I like humans, even though a great many of them piss me off with their rampant stupidity. I want them to thrive while I am here, I want them to thrive after I am gone.
Right now, we're on the edge of a collapse caused by allowing men and women to choose not to procreate, but rather get that nice new car. The productivity of our society came not from our economic system, nor from our political system, but from the elimination of dependents.
The boomers had a low relative percentage of elderly dependents because their parents had large families, and they created a culture that prevents the creation of new young dependents and further absolved anyone of any responsibility to those young are created.
Which is all well and good, except that very soon those boomers are going to be the dependents, and the wealth of the society, indeed the society itself, is going to disappear. At which point, both democracy and economics are going to make everyone from my generation and those that follow my generation into slaves to the needs of the elderly, and are furthermore going to demand that we all deliver care to the rich DINKS before our own parents, who were systematically rendered poorer by their choice to create us.
I learned all about the particulars of this when I was briefly in the insurance industry as a young man and got access to the actuary tables, over a decade ago now. That sort of data is hidden in the name of privacy, you won't find it in any census, because it's a problem of catastrophic proportions and those who rule would be cast down and cast out were these facts to be integrated into the common consciousness.
What this means is that all those doctors who are giving birth control to people, all the women who are taking it, all the men who are permitting it to happen, they're all enemies of humanity. They're actively avoiding responsibilities that aren't just socially recognizable, but biologically hard wired for our survival, and they're taking resources from those who are actually participating in the ongoing story of humanity and making them slaves through economics.
So, either we're in this together, or we're not. If we're in this together, everyone has responsibilities to the future of mankind, and I'm happy to work together.
If we're not in this together, well, then I really don't see any reason for me to participate in this charade. From a purely self-interested point of view, I may as well just kill every man and old woman inside my territory, rape the young attractive ones into pregnancy, create my own little tribe and exterminate the rest of you.
I'm pro get married young, have kids young, don't get divorced, but feel free to screw around guilt free when you're old and bored if that's what you want, as long as you're only doing it with others who have already had their families.
Why? Because that's sustainable without being needlessly oppressive, and what's going on now isn't.
Lifelong sexual monogamy made the shift from needfully oppressive to needlessly oppressive when and because we developed the capacity to suppress STDs. But that doesn't mitigate the need for a population that is if nothing else stable enough that it doesn't decline dramatically within a couple of generation, as ours has done.
As far as I'm concerned, the feminists and the abortionists and the family lawyers and the DINKs and all the other special interest groups promoting the "choice" agenda are actively attacking me and mine.
We will need new systems to govern our society when this crisis hits, and it will hit regardless of anything we do at this late date.
Ah, another idiot who thinks '1984' is a howto book.
Actually, I do think that some of the ideas put forth in 1984 have a lot of potential to liberate people from manipulation if they were employed properly and for higher purposes.
I don't believe in party politics. Liberal and conservative are equally bad.
The ideology that resonate most with me are such as Anarchist Communism, but I don't think they're realistic as they have been put forward in the past.
I favour mandatory non-discriminatory involvement by all citizens in the infrastructure that supports their lives, and the absence of compulsion at any level beyond that.
Every person should be involved in the various systems that are required to maintain life, like food production, transportation, energy generation, material harvesting, etc.
For achievements beyond the mandatory systems that are necessary to sustain life, there should be leadership instead of compulsion. Contracts should not exist, money should not exist, personal possessions should be respected, but private property should not.
I think religions, despite being the container for much wisdom, are evil in all forms, because they subjugate the intellect and consideration of consequence. If you made the perfect way of life for the world as it exists now, and you convinced everyone God said that was what they should do and they created Utopia, it would still be bad because there is no "This behavior is contraindicated by the following world symptoms" in religion, so it will inevitably lead to catastrophe with the passage of time.
I've studied a number of perspectives in the fields of philosophy, religion and politics in order to be able to speak effectively on my ideology, but I created it by the observation of the world.
I also favour a modified democratic process for the election of leadership, in which ever individual can vote on any issue, or they can vote for any person, adding their vote to the decisions that person makes. They should be able to revoke that attribution of political power at any time and reclaim it for themselves or transfer it to someone else.
I'm not interested in compelling people to do what I say, but spend my time working on developing systems that might one day provide the infrastructure to support what I'm describing.
I hate my culture, my parents culture, my community culture. They're sick. I've known they were sick and twisted all my life. I mortified my parents telling a 70 year old Nun that I thought she was a bad person for trying to make me believe a bunch of stories were literally real and mess my head up. I was six.
I find it very difficult sometimes not to be angry with the people I live amongst, because they're all have such a small, narrow and self-centered focus that, coupled with the sense of entitlement that they have, makes them part of the problem.
I hate the attitude that freedom comes from passing the buck to someone else rather than facing the real needs the world imposes on us all and co-operating to make them less weighty.
At the end of the day, I believe that if there was an infrastructure around that made these ways of life practical, 99.9% of you would just shut the fuck up with your opinions and ideologies and sign on because you're greedy and this way of living will give you more for less. Therefore, I work in my spare time to build such systems, and use places like Slashdot to find challengers to my ideology so I can refine it.
Privacy means ignorance, and ignorance renders people incapable of intelligently running their lives. Therefore, I am utterly opposed to these types of enterprises, because the consequences are dire for anyone who isn't already in a position of power. All these "privacy after the fact" attitudes do is feed into the system where there are the watchers who know everything and the watched who get fucked.
Wow, that was cathartic. Thanks for asking. I'm going to go play with my kid now.
We live in an age where anonymity is almost totally gone. We can hope, now, only for privacy.
I don't hope for that. I hope for pervasive information, where I am always informed, where I never have a smiling snake oil salesman with no integrity moving from victim to victim, where I never have to deal with the hypocrisies of people because they're not practical to maintain anymore. I'd quite happily go to war with an assault rifle in my hands and kill people to prevent something like what you are describing.
No, it wasn't. I don't want privacy and anonymity. I don't trust people, so I won't support technology that allows them to operate from the shadows with impunity. As far as I'm concerned, if you use it, you're guilty.
Yeah, right. I mentor university graduates as a matter of course and write infrastructure that brings food and medicine to billions of people. But you just keep looking down your nose anyways. Maybe you'll find your pecker someday.
Much research rely on private funding and venture capitalism. Even if an institute resides on University grounds that doesn't mean that it funds the research going on there. Institutes take the money where they can get it. An institute I worked at received large donations from IBM in exchange for research data.
There's just not enough public funding to go around. If you'd worked at a University, you would know this. In no way does this mean that the University has become "corrupted".
It means that the society has become corrupted. Universities are institutions that were created to serve higher purposes for society and not serve the profit motive. The profit motive doesn't need a university, because it serves itself.
There are no universities that run on public funding, because there isn't enough public funding, because it's all privately controlled, because the society is hopelessly corrupt and has to be rebuilt from zero, just like after the fall of the Roman Empire.
I wouldn't work at a university. I wouldn't go to one either. I think they're degrading and make you both blind and stupid, frankly. No one ever developed problem solving skills and perceptive eyes by sitting at the seat of an authority figure like a child. You just end up with inherited blind spots and a disconnectedness from the means by which your livelihood is assured.
The education system is just another system of control, a way to turn people into pets. University graduates do the cutest tricks, but they can't take care of themselves without an owner.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't get more wise with more ignorance. They get less wise, and more foolish and reactionary and insane.
They don't get more tolerant with more secrets. They get hypocritical, two faced, narrow minded and naive to possibilities.
Nothing you have said here does anything but bolster my points. It is ignorance that allows the demagogue to pervert these things, and it is ignorance that you are defending.
Once, we had a society where everything was known to everybody. That society was called the small town, and the result was oppression by groupthink as a measure of excellence, wielded against those who deviated from the norm, and where gossip and slander were social weapons of choice. Is that any better? Perhaps compared to a heavily rigged oligarchy, but that's not saying much.
Yes, it's much better. When people are deviant in a way that materially threatens the group, it is fitting and good that the group deal with them internally. Technology has made a number of behaviors that were previously threatening benign, and that should be taken into account. The group should always have as one of its underlying agendas the active pursuit of means and methods that remove the material need for oppression of the citizens that are its constituent parts, because needless enforcement of arbitrary rules taxes the system and hurts everyone. Still, the underlying principle is both sound and good. You can't argue this without arguing for the abolishment of all law, because these are the foundations by which all laws are justified.
My system is just so much easier to use in a general sense using free software. My computer used to feel like a wrestling ring with two dozen different companies and a few organized criminals duking it out while I tried to keep things from falling apart, with anti-spyware and anti-virus programs acting like my assistant referrees. That feeling is just gone. I don't think I could go back to the way things were before and be happy working that way now.
I'm sure I'll need to work with MS tech to make my living in the future, and I'm pragmatic about it, but it sure is nice to be free of their crap.
What part of "I don't believe in privacy" do you find complex? I do not believe in privacy in any form, and I don't believe in private information of any kind. In each example, yes, I think it should be public knowledge. Yes, I think all votes should be public record. Yes, I think all economics should be public knowledge. If a human being knows something, every human should be able to know it, and no barriers of any kind should ever be placed between them and that knowledge, ever.
It's interesting to think that the value of a stolen identity cannot be higher than the discrepency between the rich and the poor. You can't use a stolen identity to fraudulently lead willing people, but only to apply leverage and compel people by wielding the economic system as a tool against them. So really, in a healthy, fair and equitable society made up of well informed and actively participating citizens, there is no value in attempting to steal a persons identity.
Personally, I like the idea that such frauds as identity theft will eventually bring these systems low. Which they will, despite all this wasted human effort.
See, I don't consider a blanket opposition to systemic ignorance as an extreme position. I consider it to be a very rational. I don't make violent demands that my grocer begin recording details about people in my town so I can use that information against them. But the intricate systems that support my life depend on these intrusive systems existence, and putting a stop to it would result in collapse, and thus my own death, so the best I can rationally hope for is to be no less aware than my peers. I don't want to be systematically kept in the dark, and I don't want to systematically keep you in the dark, I don't care what you eat or what sort of freaky shit you do in the bedroom, I just want to know what is going on and act consciously as I move through the world. I do think there are a lot of heavily manipulated and oppressed people who find that very scary for reasons that are not sane, and a lot of them seem to be here on Slashdot.
To use your example, if things are secret, the CIA can send a hundred people after you quietly and justify themselves later in a way that obliges anyone who would stand by you to become the first singled out and the next removed while standing alone.
If things are transparent, the people can mobilize in the billions and bring governments and malignant organizations low when the things those organizations do are heinous enough to call the common person to action. If things are transparent, the things the CIA did to me will be known.
It is the fact that you can use an existing power base to gather and control intelligence where others cannot that makes these organizations so powerful and their actions so effective.
This is why there is this global agenda to put Trusted Computing on peoples machines and move them over, and this is why there is such a media push to have people favour the illusion of privacy through exclusive access when they are confronted with the fact that real privacy hasn't been practical for a long time.
It's a crazy new world.
Yeah. Just like all those Egyptians who are STILL paying taxes on that pyramid to this day.
Get a brain. Power generation through water has been working for ages, and it's not a difficult concept to get right. It's not cheap enough to be efficient, when you inflate the costs of the materials, and deflate the cost of the oil, and tweak the timeframe around until that's the answer that you get. But if you built it right, it could last for generations without need for fuel, and drive light rail systems day and night without significant investment of human effort.
I try to convince them that they should be pushing to have this data made open to everyone rather than allowing the data to be kept as a private resource for the use of a few. And I try to make them understand that the Trusted Computing threat, which is all about remote censorship, is a real danger to them that can't really be effectively fought while the illusion of privacy maintained by obscurity is allowed to continue to exist.
And to Captain Splendid and his friends, who will surely once more come along asking why I don't publish my home address and phone number here so he can come stare at me, it's because in the presence of rampant hypocracy that thrives untroubled by the transparency I hope to see one day, singling myself out makes me vulnerable in a way that systematic transparency would not. There is a difference between negotiating a unilateral disarming, which is how I view this effort, and throwing down your guns first and getting shot in the head, which is what you're suggesting I should do.
It's all about preserving scarcity and thus control. There's no reason we couldn't have transportation systems that run off local ocean driven power generation for all our costal cities, and make local personal transportation free of charge and free of pollution. We could build such systems right now, and make them durable enough to last hundreds of years. But then we wouldn't need this fascist control, where companies and governments are in bed together keeping the power strucuture alive and the resources always in short supply. If we didn't have that, the ruling classes wouldn't have a structure that allows them to continue to rule.
Whatever we do, if we arrive there through the current leadership, it will be inefficient and require us all to work hard and follow orders to keep things running. That's the way they like it.
Here's hoping that this will in the end reveal that 99% of humans are freaks, that the loudest judgmental voices are actually the biggest hypocrites, and we can all get along better.
Fuck privacy. Here's to transparency and the death of hypocrisies!
To all those who like to argue against the ongoing use of analog recording mediums for original masters, let this be a lesson to you.
Always record your originals in analog and immediately transfer to digital, and one day you may find that more of the original sonic environment can be recovered from that master than you ever thought possible through the progression of physics, chemistry and math.
Ok, here's an example:
Trusted Computing support in Vista, which brings nothing to the public, but causes their computer to cease to be under their control, allowing such things as:
Remote censorship after the fact
Unbreakable vendor lock-in
Draconian digital rights management
Inability to use custom software on your own hardware
Who demanded this? The US Department of Defense and the large media corporations.
Does it serve the public or the end user? No.
Aside from the dangers of what it does when it works right, does it inconvenience the user in unrelated ways? Yes, it consumes resources with no return and causes general bugginess in such a large variety of software that Vista is being refused by the general public despite their ignorance of these larger issues, simply because of the side effects.
Does it tie into a larger agenda to control the worlds information, tax every creative work, rewrite history, and create a system of control that would give would be despots wet dreams? You're fucking right it does.
If you were to take a random sample of a hundred people out of your typical mall and explain the technology and what it does, do you think anyone would ask for it? Anyone at all?
Yet they spent billions of dollars over many years conspiring to bring this technology to our homes. Why do you suppose they did that?
Because they were motivated by interests who wish to control the population at large without regard for what is legal.
They think of their customer base as cows, to be owned, controlled and sold to private interests.
That example about selling ad space in IE is so benign compared to what's going on these days that it actually makes a person wistfully think of how nice Microsoft used to be, relatively speaking.
his means that typically there will be several screens of cruft you need to page down through to get to the main body of text, but it also means that the "designer" can't dictate how you're going to use your screen real estate.
So, you demolish the good design of the good sites, so you can avoid the bad design on the bad sites? Why don't you just skip the poorly designed sites entirely and stick to the good ones?
Because it's not a joke. Microsoft are selling out their client base to third parties while they continue to have a client base. They've got multibillion dollar back room deals, they're being paid to put everyones PC under a centralized lock and key system, and if they succeed, they'll get a percentage. It's not like it's a secret.
It's about the developers freedom and the users freedom. The developer is free of leverage, and can act as they wish. The user is free of leverage, and can act as they wish. They're not allowed to use the legal system to enforce leverage around the code, obviously. But that doesn't prevent them doing anything they wish with the code, it just prevents them being bastards via the legal system.
There are a lot of people who think very poorly of libertarians who nevertheless were interested in him because he was talking about removing the Federal Reserve.
I'm pro-humanity.
That is to say, I like humans, even though a great many of them piss me off with their rampant stupidity. I want them to thrive while I am here, I want them to thrive after I am gone.
Right now, we're on the edge of a collapse caused by allowing men and women to choose not to procreate, but rather get that nice new car. The productivity of our society came not from our economic system, nor from our political system, but from the elimination of dependents.
The boomers had a low relative percentage of elderly dependents because their parents had large families, and they created a culture that prevents the creation of new young dependents and further absolved anyone of any responsibility to those young are created.
Which is all well and good, except that very soon those boomers are going to be the dependents, and the wealth of the society, indeed the society itself, is going to disappear. At which point, both democracy and economics are going to make everyone from my generation and those that follow my generation into slaves to the needs of the elderly, and are furthermore going to demand that we all deliver care to the rich DINKS before our own parents, who were systematically rendered poorer by their choice to create us.
I learned all about the particulars of this when I was briefly in the insurance industry as a young man and got access to the actuary tables, over a decade ago now. That sort of data is hidden in the name of privacy, you won't find it in any census, because it's a problem of catastrophic proportions and those who rule would be cast down and cast out were these facts to be integrated into the common consciousness.
What this means is that all those doctors who are giving birth control to people, all the women who are taking it, all the men who are permitting it to happen, they're all enemies of humanity. They're actively avoiding responsibilities that aren't just socially recognizable, but biologically hard wired for our survival, and they're taking resources from those who are actually participating in the ongoing story of humanity and making them slaves through economics.
So, either we're in this together, or we're not. If we're in this together, everyone has responsibilities to the future of mankind, and I'm happy to work together.
If we're not in this together, well, then I really don't see any reason for me to participate in this charade. From a purely self-interested point of view, I may as well just kill every man and old woman inside my territory, rape the young attractive ones into pregnancy, create my own little tribe and exterminate the rest of you.
I'm pro get married young, have kids young, don't get divorced, but feel free to screw around guilt free when you're old and bored if that's what you want, as long as you're only doing it with others who have already had their families.
Why? Because that's sustainable without being needlessly oppressive, and what's going on now isn't.
Lifelong sexual monogamy made the shift from needfully oppressive to needlessly oppressive when and because we developed the capacity to suppress STDs. But that doesn't mitigate the need for a population that is if nothing else stable enough that it doesn't decline dramatically within a couple of generation, as ours has done.
As far as I'm concerned, the feminists and the abortionists and the family lawyers and the DINKs and all the other special interest groups promoting the "choice" agenda are actively attacking me and mine.
We will need new systems to govern our society when this crisis hits, and it will hit regardless of anything we do at this late date.
Ok, I'll bite... what are you selling?
Ah, another idiot who thinks '1984' is a howto book.
Actually, I do think that some of the ideas put forth in 1984 have a lot of potential to liberate people from manipulation if they were employed properly and for higher purposes.
http://slashdot.org/~ShieldW0lf/journal/195726
Sure, what the hell.
Yes, I'm technically adept.
I don't believe in party politics. Liberal and conservative are equally bad.
The ideology that resonate most with me are such as Anarchist Communism, but I don't think they're realistic as they have been put forward in the past.
I favour mandatory non-discriminatory involvement by all citizens in the infrastructure that supports their lives, and the absence of compulsion at any level beyond that.
Every person should be involved in the various systems that are required to maintain life, like food production, transportation, energy generation, material harvesting, etc.
For achievements beyond the mandatory systems that are necessary to sustain life, there should be leadership instead of compulsion. Contracts should not exist, money should not exist, personal possessions should be respected, but private property should not.
I think religions, despite being the container for much wisdom, are evil in all forms, because they subjugate the intellect and consideration of consequence. If you made the perfect way of life for the world as it exists now, and you convinced everyone God said that was what they should do and they created Utopia, it would still be bad because there is no "This behavior is contraindicated by the following world symptoms" in religion, so it will inevitably lead to catastrophe with the passage of time.
I've studied a number of perspectives in the fields of philosophy, religion and politics in order to be able to speak effectively on my ideology, but I created it by the observation of the world.
I also favour a modified democratic process for the election of leadership, in which ever individual can vote on any issue, or they can vote for any person, adding their vote to the decisions that person makes. They should be able to revoke that attribution of political power at any time and reclaim it for themselves or transfer it to someone else.
I'm not interested in compelling people to do what I say, but spend my time working on developing systems that might one day provide the infrastructure to support what I'm describing.
I hate my culture, my parents culture, my community culture. They're sick. I've known they were sick and twisted all my life. I mortified my parents telling a 70 year old Nun that I thought she was a bad person for trying to make me believe a bunch of stories were literally real and mess my head up. I was six.
I find it very difficult sometimes not to be angry with the people I live amongst, because they're all have such a small, narrow and self-centered focus that, coupled with the sense of entitlement that they have, makes them part of the problem.
I hate the attitude that freedom comes from passing the buck to someone else rather than facing the real needs the world imposes on us all and co-operating to make them less weighty.
At the end of the day, I believe that if there was an infrastructure around that made these ways of life practical, 99.9% of you would just shut the fuck up with your opinions and ideologies and sign on because you're greedy and this way of living will give you more for less. Therefore, I work in my spare time to build such systems, and use places like Slashdot to find challengers to my ideology so I can refine it.
Privacy means ignorance, and ignorance renders people incapable of intelligently running their lives. Therefore, I am utterly opposed to these types of enterprises, because the consequences are dire for anyone who isn't already in a position of power. All these "privacy after the fact" attitudes do is feed into the system where there are the watchers who know everything and the watched who get fucked.
Wow, that was cathartic. Thanks for asking. I'm going to go play with my kid now.
We live in an age where anonymity is almost totally gone. We can hope, now, only for privacy.
I don't hope for that. I hope for pervasive information, where I am always informed, where I never have a smiling snake oil salesman with no integrity moving from victim to victim, where I never have to deal with the hypocrisies of people because they're not practical to maintain anymore. I'd quite happily go to war with an assault rifle in my hands and kill people to prevent something like what you are describing.
No, it wasn't. I don't want privacy and anonymity. I don't trust people, so I won't support technology that allows them to operate from the shadows with impunity. As far as I'm concerned, if you use it, you're guilty.
Why should good, upstanding citizens of the world need espionage tools like this? Whose interests is this supposed to serve? Not anyone good.
Yeah, right. I mentor university graduates as a matter of course and write infrastructure that brings food and medicine to billions of people. But you just keep looking down your nose anyways. Maybe you'll find your pecker someday.
Much research rely on private funding and venture capitalism. Even if an institute resides on University grounds that doesn't mean that it funds the research going on there. Institutes take the money where they can get it. An institute I worked at received large donations from IBM in exchange for research data. There's just not enough public funding to go around. If you'd worked at a University, you would know this. In no way does this mean that the University has become "corrupted".
It means that the society has become corrupted. Universities are institutions that were created to serve higher purposes for society and not serve the profit motive. The profit motive doesn't need a university, because it serves itself.
There are no universities that run on public funding, because there isn't enough public funding, because it's all privately controlled, because the society is hopelessly corrupt and has to be rebuilt from zero, just like after the fall of the Roman Empire.
I wouldn't work at a university. I wouldn't go to one either. I think they're degrading and make you both blind and stupid, frankly. No one ever developed problem solving skills and perceptive eyes by sitting at the seat of an authority figure like a child. You just end up with inherited blind spots and a disconnectedness from the means by which your livelihood is assured.
The education system is just another system of control, a way to turn people into pets. University graduates do the cutest tricks, but they can't take care of themselves without an owner.
You can keep it.