It is the reduced fear of judgement among the population that is the real reward of such a policy. In my opinion. Reduced fear of judgement, together with more effective application of judgement in that small selection of cases where it's importance is recognized by all sounds win-win.
You mean so people can't be honest out of fear of being labeled a communist, nazi, racist, freedom hater and whatever else people feel like calling them and holding everything they've said against them forever.
People can argue it will stop trolling and harassment but it won't. People do that shit on TV, in real life and they do it on facebook under their real name. The thing that will be hurt the most removing anonimity is freedom of expression against your government, corporations and anyone else that's happy to throw your ass in jail for no good reason.
No, I mean so people can't be dishonest, secretly hiding the fact that they're communist nazi racist freedom haters and pretending they're happy citizens "like the rest of us".
I have historically been a believer in google, and thought they where one of the few companies who put principles like free information etc ahead of profit (my naivety).
But moves like this are further cementing my belief that something is rotten at google, and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO. The one good thing about this is that it opens up the doors for competitors to take business from google imho, creating competition.
I want the freedom to have access to the information about who is saying what, and this is a step in the right direction. Eventually, my slashdot pseudonym will disappear into my one identity for all to see, and that's ok too. If we're all going to have control over our political voice, we have to behave like politicians and be public figures... they go hand in hand. Anonymity is the tool of the disenfranchised... it's better NOT to be disenfranchised, and that requires the end of privacy.
Are you insane? North America is running out of water, especially over here in the southwest. People need more room than just the footprint of their house; they need a huge amount of farmland per person to grow their food. Freshwater is a limited resource possibly and shortages of it are possibly even more looming than for oil.
You base your assumptions on obsolete techniques. Using better techniques, the entire population of the planet could live in the state of Texas, grow their own food on their own homestead and have more leisure time than they do now.
People like you keep saying this, but you never answer the question, "where?". It's not like there's tons of perfectly livable land that doesn't already have other people living there, people who don't really want to share with a ton of newcomers.
North America is practically empty. The entire human race could reside in North America without difficulties.
On that note, isn't that the American spirit? That everyone has an equal opportunity to rise to the top, proportional to your efforts, and there is no zero-sum game?
No, and it never has been. Trying your best isn't economical.
All the article says is that forcings related to orbital mechanics may have been larger on a millenium time scale than estimated before. Even that is speculation - the core of the paper is presenting a improved method for evaluating tree ring proxies. The paper, however, does not call into doubt that the industrial age has added a significant greenhouse gas forcing, which gets bigger as we continue to add CO2 and methane.
It calls into doubt the idea that global warming itself is a catastrophe. It suggests that humanity thrived on a significantly hotter world than any living person has known.
You know, I've read a few articles written by reputable scientists who felt that this "discovery" is one of the least significant ones... the justification being that it doesn't give us any abilities we didn't have before and it doesn't in any way drive us to act differently than we do now.
I've yet to see anything that demonstrates that their work HAS any value. I would like to... I've looked, but have yet to find anything that elevates this above the level of naval gazing.
I think the assumption is that war is intrinsically undesirable. Clearly, it serves an important purpose, or we would have set it aside long ago. I'd say the purpose of war is to destroy a state that has become a liability to the human race, and it's past time.
Question is, do you want to START a company, or RUN a company. If you want to START a company, you need to have a drive that doesn't mesh well with sitting at the knee of an authority figure and have him dump his views into your brain. RUNNING someone elses company, on the other hand... any retard can do that. When you get right down to it, the best would be to just go play golf and not screw up what was working before you arrived in an effort to leave your mark.
The difference is, when the government does it, they have an asynchronous advantage over the citizenry. When the citizens do it themselves, they erase that advantage. Your privacy was always an illusion... now you're finally being empowered. It's a positive development.
When I teach my child about why she shouldn't lie, what I tell her is this:
Yes, when you lie, your peers will punish you when they find out. But that's not the real issue.
When you're a liar, you're projecting a false self as a problem solving tool. This forces you to keep multiple versions of reality in your head.
Carried systematically across a lifetime, this will cause you to become a person made up of many people, none of whom are you.
Eventually, you will not know who you are, or what you believe, and when you meet a strong person with integrity, you will be unable to hold a form of your own in their presence.
This is a road to hell on earth, a hell contained within ones own mind, where the wind can blow your identity to and fro at a moments notice, and you live in a constant state of fearful reactionary adjustment of self.
What it all boils down to is this: people are not worth lying to.
Deterrence is a weasel word. The word you're looking for is "Fear".
Myself, I loosely define conspiracy as an "in" group that acts in secret to further their own aims without regard for the consequences to the "out" group. Which includes pretty much every government and corporation on earth.
When I lived in Australia, I could go to the movies, sit in a comfortable recliner and order a glass of beer from the waitress.
I don't give a shit about the technological gimmicks, but if they had similar theaters here, I'd take a date there.
It would be nice if a theater owner read this and decided to invest their money into classing up the place a bit instead of spending it on gimmicks and leaving the place in a state that makes you feel like you need to wash your hands when you leave, but that's probably hoping for too much.
I did something similar with my old laptop until the hard drive died, but it still has decent wireless, so now it boots off a live cd and provides proxy service to the computers in the bedrooms through an old ethernet switch.
It's been my experience that my right hand responds well to rational thought, but my left hand is useless when I attempt to control it with rational thought. My left hand responds well to "feel"... the approach that is effective is to concieve the outcome and allow the hand to do what feels right.
Developing the ability to stickfight with both hands simultaneously required being able to think about what one hand was doing while explicitly not thinking about what the other one was doing.
No "inner voice" involved. Now, the left hand reacts to need in the heat of the moment, the right hand implements my tactics, and I can still focus yet another part of my mind on analyzing patterns in the external world and devising strategy on the fly.
I could probably do all this and sing a song at the same time, but I'd look awfully silly, so I've never tried.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the reduced fear of judgement among the population that is the real reward of such a policy. In my opinion. Reduced fear of judgement, together with more effective application of judgement in that small selection of cases where it's importance is recognized by all sounds win-win.
You mean so people can't be honest out of fear of being labeled a communist, nazi, racist, freedom hater and whatever else people feel like calling them and holding everything they've said against them forever.
People can argue it will stop trolling and harassment but it won't. People do that shit on TV, in real life and they do it on facebook under their real name. The thing that will be hurt the most removing anonimity is freedom of expression against your government, corporations and anyone else that's happy to throw your ass in jail for no good reason.
No, I mean so people can't be dishonest, secretly hiding the fact that they're communist nazi racist freedom haters and pretending they're happy citizens "like the rest of us".
I have historically been a believer in google, and thought they where one of the few companies who put principles like free information etc ahead of profit (my naivety).
But moves like this are further cementing my belief that something is rotten at google, and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO. The one good thing about this is that it opens up the doors for competitors to take business from google imho, creating competition.
I want the freedom to have access to the information about who is saying what, and this is a step in the right direction. Eventually, my slashdot pseudonym will disappear into my one identity for all to see, and that's ok too. If we're all going to have control over our political voice, we have to behave like politicians and be public figures... they go hand in hand. Anonymity is the tool of the disenfranchised... it's better NOT to be disenfranchised, and that requires the end of privacy.
+1 Insightful
Are you insane? North America is running out of water, especially over here in the southwest. People need more room than just the footprint of their house; they need a huge amount of farmland per person to grow their food. Freshwater is a limited resource possibly and shortages of it are possibly even more looming than for oil.
You base your assumptions on obsolete techniques. Using better techniques, the entire population of the planet could live in the state of Texas, grow their own food on their own homestead and have more leisure time than they do now.
People like you keep saying this, but you never answer the question, "where?". It's not like there's tons of perfectly livable land that doesn't already have other people living there, people who don't really want to share with a ton of newcomers.
North America is practically empty. The entire human race could reside in North America without difficulties.
On that note, isn't that the American spirit? That everyone has an equal opportunity to rise to the top, proportional to your efforts, and there is no zero-sum game?
No, and it never has been. Trying your best isn't economical.
All the article says is that forcings related to orbital mechanics may have been larger on a millenium time scale than estimated before. Even that is speculation - the core of the paper is presenting a improved method for evaluating tree ring proxies. The paper, however, does not call into doubt that the industrial age has added a significant greenhouse gas forcing, which gets bigger as we continue to add CO2 and methane.
It calls into doubt the idea that global warming itself is a catastrophe. It suggests that humanity thrived on a significantly hotter world than any living person has known.
BING = BING is not Google.
Thanks... now everyone within earshot knows I was on here instead of working...
So why not focus on faster browsing rather than debugging ?!?
They're turning it into an OS. This is trickle down.
You know, I've read a few articles written by reputable scientists who felt that this "discovery" is one of the least significant ones... the justification being that it doesn't give us any abilities we didn't have before and it doesn't in any way drive us to act differently than we do now.
I've yet to see anything that demonstrates that their work HAS any value. I would like to... I've looked, but have yet to find anything that elevates this above the level of naval gazing.
Looks like the cowards are all horned up today...
Bring it, motherfucker.
Be patient. We will.
I think the assumption is that war is intrinsically undesirable. Clearly, it serves an important purpose, or we would have set it aside long ago. I'd say the purpose of war is to destroy a state that has become a liability to the human race, and it's past time.
Question is, do you want to START a company, or RUN a company. If you want to START a company, you need to have a drive that doesn't mesh well with sitting at the knee of an authority figure and have him dump his views into your brain. RUNNING someone elses company, on the other hand... any retard can do that. When you get right down to it, the best would be to just go play golf and not screw up what was working before you arrived in an effort to leave your mark.
The difference is, when the government does it, they have an asynchronous advantage over the citizenry. When the citizens do it themselves, they erase that advantage. Your privacy was always an illusion... now you're finally being empowered. It's a positive development.
If she asks you "Does this make me look Fat?"
Yes, that outfit sucks. You should wear XYZ instead, you look sexy as hell in it.
If she asks you "Is she prettier than me?"
Yes, but she drags her teeth... I'd much rather be with you.
Your child understood everything you said? Wow - at what age to you give them this lesson?
When she was 9. And yes, she understood everything. I know this because she intelligently paraphrased me to someone else while I was in earshot.
When I teach my child about why she shouldn't lie, what I tell her is this:
Yes, when you lie, your peers will punish you when they find out. But that's not the real issue.
When you're a liar, you're projecting a false self as a problem solving tool. This forces you to keep multiple versions of reality in your head.
Carried systematically across a lifetime, this will cause you to become a person made up of many people, none of whom are you.
Eventually, you will not know who you are, or what you believe, and when you meet a strong person with integrity, you will be unable to hold a form of your own in their presence.
This is a road to hell on earth, a hell contained within ones own mind, where the wind can blow your identity to and fro at a moments notice, and you live in a constant state of fearful reactionary adjustment of self.
What it all boils down to is this: people are not worth lying to.
Deterrence is a weasel word. The word you're looking for is "Fear".
Myself, I loosely define conspiracy as an "in" group that acts in secret to further their own aims without regard for the consequences to the "out" group. Which includes pretty much every government and corporation on earth.
When I lived in Australia, I could go to the movies, sit in a comfortable recliner and order a glass of beer from the waitress.
I don't give a shit about the technological gimmicks, but if they had similar theaters here, I'd take a date there.
It would be nice if a theater owner read this and decided to invest their money into classing up the place a bit instead of spending it on gimmicks and leaving the place in a state that makes you feel like you need to wash your hands when you leave, but that's probably hoping for too much.
Nothing sexier than a big, hard vagina. I'm moving to Norway.
I studied celtic stickfighting for a bit, I still try to keep my hand in it from time to time.
I did something similar with my old laptop until the hard drive died, but it still has decent wireless, so now it boots off a live cd and provides proxy service to the computers in the bedrooms through an old ethernet switch.
Ever try to develop ambidexterity?
It's been my experience that my right hand responds well to rational thought, but my left hand is useless when I attempt to control it with rational thought. My left hand responds well to "feel"... the approach that is effective is to concieve the outcome and allow the hand to do what feels right.
Developing the ability to stickfight with both hands simultaneously required being able to think about what one hand was doing while explicitly not thinking about what the other one was doing.
No "inner voice" involved. Now, the left hand reacts to need in the heat of the moment, the right hand implements my tactics, and I can still focus yet another part of my mind on analyzing patterns in the external world and devising strategy on the fly.
I could probably do all this and sing a song at the same time, but I'd look awfully silly, so I've never tried.