The universe is an object, and Time is one of its spatial dimensions. You do not travel through time, existing only in the present. You grow, shrink, and twist in 4 spatial dimensions, X/Y/Z/T.
Death is when you stop growing, and become a completed object. At the moment of your "death", you will finally be able to look upon yourself as a completed thing, and become fully self-aware. Personally, I consider it the last thing I have to look forward to.
Your past doesn't cease to be any more than a plants roots cease to be as its petals push upwards towards the sun.
I think you just made-up some BS. If they did design TVs like that, how would people playback their old SVHS-C, Hi8, or miniDV home movies from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s? Nobody would buy such a TV that refused to show their old wedding and baby videos. It would die a quick death.
They did design TVs like that. The technology is in every modern computer processor, every modern television, every set top box. This isn't just about preventing recording. You can use this to revoke playback rights after something has been recorded. Like a news program that leaks information embarrassing to the government, for example.
Oh, and those TVs that you'd rather buy? The ones that don't have this technology? They're illegal to manufacture and illegal to sell. You'll have to build your own or smuggle them into the country if you want one.
Wow... and with all those free features backported to WinXP, users who can't afford to upgrade can enjoy the same technology as everyone else. Those nice people at Microsoft.
"We're sorry. This news broadcast was not approved, the recording cannot be played. Tech support from the NSA will be along shortly to assist you with your problem."
You put forth the opinion that they can look out for shareholders interests in fashions that are not strictly related to the bottom line. However, courts have repeatedly demonstrated that this opinion you hold is false.
The courts have demonstrated that if you make a quantifiable expenditure, and you don't have a quantifiable increase in resources on the other end of it, or a plan to get them, then you're giving away what is not yours and arbitrarily wielding power that is entrusted to you and not truly your own.
If there is no quantifiable economic return from your expenditures, it holds no weight in any court.
If you cost the company 10,000 on air scrubbers when you weren't legally required to, it doesn't matter if people breath easier, it doesn't matter if you saved half the shareholders from suffocating to death. You gave away money that wasn't yours for a non-measurable and non-quantifiable return, and you're not permitted to do so.
This is how the law is implemented in a courtroom setting. Everything you said is so much bullshit, made easier by the misleading lawyerspeak used to express these various rules.
Dude, I've got a job to do. If I don't do it, my corporate masters will kick me to the curb. So, I really don't have time to spoon feed you. I gave you links to an expert who will share with you the details that I don't have on the top of my head, you're free to go inform yourself. If you want someone to pry your head out of your ass with a crowbar, ask someone else.
The list of things people need is short. The infrastructure needed to supply the peoples are all owned already. The people who own everything you need don't need anything from you. So, how do you get what you need from those that own it and survive when they don't need anything from you?
You give them things they don't need, like sports cars, recorded music and blowjobs, and hope they'll take care of you, like a pet.
You have no choice, because property is all about "I got here first, I stuck a flag in it, and you can't have any", and everything has already been claimed.
"Dance prettily little whore, and I'll give you a condo. Unless you'd rather wander the streets. You want dignity? Right. If you were deserving of dignity, you would be trying to kill me for the position I've put you in instead of dolling yourself up with fancy clothes and educational degrees. Go make me fanciful inventions and pretty things before I grow bored with you."
look, i'm as anti-corporation as the next crypto-socialist quasi-liberal in the IT world (huh?), but seriously, what's with this idea that corporations can't occasionally just want to do something good?
It's illegal. You can't do something good with my money, if I want to do something good, I'll sell you and do it myself.
let's assume Apple's motives are simply for-profit.
If they aren't, someone at Apple is going to jail...
I have to say, if you lined up the Olympic committee, the corporations involved in this Olympics, and the Chinese government, I would say the Chinese government inspires more trust than the other two. All three are self-serving, but the Chinese government are the most socially responsible of the lot.
I could care less what Microsoft calls their "open" licenses. Wouldn't use any Microsoft license at all. Any tie to Microsoft is a tie they can and will exploit, a liability no one can really afford.
The nice thing about this simple truth is, you don't really need to convince anyone. If someone is stupid enough to disagree, you can just go into business, eat half their lunch, watch MS eat the other half, and laugh yourself to sleep at night.
Slavery is a good deal more efficient than negotiating with unions. An Emperor is a good deal more efficient than Democracy. Do we want to live in a perfectly efficient world? No. We do not. 99% of the foolish, arrogant ideas held by those in positions of authority should be prevented from ever being pursued in a serious fashion.
Efficiency, ultra-violence, ultra-realism and secret prison camps. Gee, where does this all lead?
They were hoping to get everyone to pay for their Trusted Computing screwjob. But people didn't want to pay, so now they're getting screwed for free. That's good value!
They're trying to get it passed by a bunch of conservatives. "Net Equality" reminds them of communism and sharing, which they don't like. "Net Neutrality" on the other hand, reminds them of Swiss bankers, which every rich conservative likes. Neutrality is a much easier sell than equality.
He didn't chase anyone. He found out where they ran their illegal businesses by getting the community to work together, then stood outside their building intimidating their customers by his silent, watchful presence until they all moved away.
Now families with small children live there, and old people are no longer afraid to walk the streets. Incidentally, he ran for mayor after this transpired, and got over 30% of the vote.
No one with your level of naivety and ignorance should speak in public. There are anti-social people in the world who consider other people resources and prey, and they rule the day when common men do not stand up to them.
This is true. However, sane law isn't going to happen when the courageous person who stands up and says "This is unjust" gets locked up while a hundred guilty parties stand silent and afraid.
Sane law will only happen when a systematic change forces all 101 of them out into the light at the same time.
The population is in a divide and conquer type situation, afraid to be the first to say "There's nothing wrong with that. I do that, my friends do that, and we're all good people". But if the right approach were taken, they would all be revealed at once, be startled by the fact that they outnumber their persecutors, and make real change.
Real life almost never fits the vague, incorrect, or incomplete wording of the laws and it's simply not feasible to expect the laws to always cover every situation.
I disagree with the assumption that laws cannot cover every situation. It is entirely reasonable to think that we could make a much smaller set of laws that would cover every necessary situation. A great deal of what is currently regulated should not be regulated. There are vast areas of law that are about forcing people to behave in a fashion that benefits a few corrupt people, and you can't imagine living in a world that was any different. That is why you feel the way you do.
Well, when the house kitty-corner to the one you just bought gets blown to pieces by bikers with explosives the day after you move in, and women flirt with you on the street to find out how much money you've got so their boyfriends who are standing a block away can mug you for it... it's not so much fun then...
It is a good plan. It works. My father established himself as a police liaison, cleared the prostitutes and drug dealers out of his neighbourhood with a low-tech implementation of such as this, and tripled the value of his house before he sold it. When the cops can do nothing, a retired military man with a German Shepard, a baseball bat and some good intel can make the next pasture over look awfully green.
The debate, once again, should not be around a particular method of law-enforcement, but whether 100% effective law-enforcement is desirable...
It means, you can not exceed speed-limit by 1 mile/h, nor drop a candy-wrap on the street, nor ask for money on subway. You will also not be beaten by a cop, nor will they be able to treat fire-hydrants as special parking spots reserved for "the force". Etcaetera...
Do we want the laws obeyed and enforced 100%, or do we want to live some "wriggle-room" for the dystopian future, when it will be needed to fight some kind of oppression?
I would say that yes, we want laws to be 100% enforced. But we need to get rid of 99% of the laws. The alternative is laws that everyone is guilty of violating, and enforcers who can immediately find a reason to arrest and convict anyone they see fit.
I'd like to see those cameras made available to the public to scrutinize at their leisure. They would be effective if they were.
I envision a system where every person has a personal recorder that they carry around, and all the output of public cameras is mirrored and shared in a fashion that made it difficult to tamper with. Something along the lines of Freenet, except simplified by the fact that you don't have to anonymize the sources.
Any time there was a contested event, it would be possible to examine the footage from the CCTVs and from the personal data recorders of both parties. Barring a sophisticated attack, this would give you the facts right away. And, if someone tried to tamper with the public record and there were any anomilies, then you could start looking at where they came from with lots of forensic data available.
This would have all sorts of rewards... we would be able to watch the watchers, and we would be able to clearly see those ill conceived laws that are being casually broken all over the place so we could remove them from the books. This would protect us from selective enforcement of laws that aren't meant to be obeyed, but only grant power to the rulers.
Slashdot Mirror
The universe is an object, and Time is one of its spatial dimensions. You do not travel through time, existing only in the present. You grow, shrink, and twist in 4 spatial dimensions, X/Y/Z/T.
Death is when you stop growing, and become a completed object. At the moment of your "death", you will finally be able to look upon yourself as a completed thing, and become fully self-aware. Personally, I consider it the last thing I have to look forward to.
Your past doesn't cease to be any more than a plants roots cease to be as its petals push upwards towards the sun.
I think you just made-up some BS. If they did design TVs like that, how would people playback their old SVHS-C, Hi8, or miniDV home movies from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s? Nobody would buy such a TV that refused to show their old wedding and baby videos. It would die a quick death.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/aacs-key-revocation-future-drm
They did design TVs like that. The technology is in every modern computer processor, every modern television, every set top box. This isn't just about preventing recording. You can use this to revoke playback rights after something has been recorded. Like a news program that leaks information embarrassing to the government, for example.
Oh, and those TVs that you'd rather buy? The ones that don't have this technology? They're illegal to manufacture and illegal to sell. You'll have to build your own or smuggle them into the country if you want one.
Wow... and with all those free features backported to WinXP, users who can't afford to upgrade can enjoy the same technology as everyone else. Those nice people at Microsoft.
"We're sorry. This news broadcast was not approved, the recording cannot be played. Tech support from the NSA will be along shortly to assist you with your problem."
You did nothing of the sort.
You put forth the opinion that they can look out for shareholders interests in fashions that are not strictly related to the bottom line. However, courts have repeatedly demonstrated that this opinion you hold is false.
The courts have demonstrated that if you make a quantifiable expenditure, and you don't have a quantifiable increase in resources on the other end of it, or a plan to get them, then you're giving away what is not yours and arbitrarily wielding power that is entrusted to you and not truly your own.
If there is no quantifiable economic return from your expenditures, it holds no weight in any court.
If you cost the company 10,000 on air scrubbers when you weren't legally required to, it doesn't matter if people breath easier, it doesn't matter if you saved half the shareholders from suffocating to death. You gave away money that wasn't yours for a non-measurable and non-quantifiable return, and you're not permitted to do so.
This is how the law is implemented in a courtroom setting. Everything you said is so much bullshit, made easier by the misleading lawyerspeak used to express these various rules.
Dude, I've got a job to do. If I don't do it, my corporate masters will kick me to the curb. So, I really don't have time to spoon feed you. I gave you links to an expert who will share with you the details that I don't have on the top of my head, you're free to go inform yourself. If you want someone to pry your head out of your ass with a crowbar, ask someone else.
The list of things people need is short. The infrastructure needed to supply the peoples are all owned already. The people who own everything you need don't need anything from you. So, how do you get what you need from those that own it and survive when they don't need anything from you?
You give them things they don't need, like sports cars, recorded music and blowjobs, and hope they'll take care of you, like a pet.
You have no choice, because property is all about "I got here first, I stuck a flag in it, and you can't have any", and everything has already been claimed.
"Dance prettily little whore, and I'll give you a condo. Unless you'd rather wander the streets. You want dignity? Right. If you were deserving of dignity, you would be trying to kill me for the position I've put you in instead of dolling yourself up with fancy clothes and educational degrees. Go make me fanciful inventions and pretty things before I grow bored with you."
That is the nature of this society.
Does a former corporate securities attorney with 23 years experience qualify as a reputable source?
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02july-aug/july-aug02corp4.html
look, i'm as anti-corporation as the next crypto-socialist quasi-liberal in the IT world (huh?), but seriously, what's with this idea that corporations can't occasionally just want to do something good?
It's illegal. You can't do something good with my money, if I want to do something good, I'll sell you and do it myself.
let's assume Apple's motives are simply for-profit.
If they aren't, someone at Apple is going to jail...
It's raining straws...
Your journal is interesting reading ShieldW0lf. Don't mistake the actions of a country's government with the (in)action of it's people.
How about, you don't support evil regimes, then tell the rest of the world you shouldn't be held to judgment because your heart wasn't really in it.
I'm all for the theory that the USA should be placed under economic sanction and be cut off from the rest of the world to choke on their own spleen.
I have to say, if you lined up the Olympic committee, the corporations involved in this Olympics, and the Chinese government, I would say the Chinese government inspires more trust than the other two. All three are self-serving, but the Chinese government are the most socially responsible of the lot.
I could care less what Microsoft calls their "open" licenses. Wouldn't use any Microsoft license at all. Any tie to Microsoft is a tie they can and will exploit, a liability no one can really afford.
The nice thing about this simple truth is, you don't really need to convince anyone. If someone is stupid enough to disagree, you can just go into business, eat half their lunch, watch MS eat the other half, and laugh yourself to sleep at night.
Slavery is a good deal more efficient than negotiating with unions. An Emperor is a good deal more efficient than Democracy. Do we want to live in a perfectly efficient world? No. We do not. 99% of the foolish, arrogant ideas held by those in positions of authority should be prevented from ever being pursued in a serious fashion.
Efficiency, ultra-violence, ultra-realism and secret prison camps. Gee, where does this all lead?
They were hoping to get everyone to pay for their Trusted Computing screwjob. But people didn't want to pay, so now they're getting screwed for free. That's good value!
They're trying to get it passed by a bunch of conservatives. "Net Equality" reminds them of communism and sharing, which they don't like. "Net Neutrality" on the other hand, reminds them of Swiss bankers, which every rich conservative likes. Neutrality is a much easier sell than equality.
He didn't chase anyone. He found out where they ran their illegal businesses by getting the community to work together, then stood outside their building intimidating their customers by his silent, watchful presence until they all moved away.
Now families with small children live there, and old people are no longer afraid to walk the streets. Incidentally, he ran for mayor after this transpired, and got over 30% of the vote.
Sorry to screw up your preconceptions.
Personally, I'd pay an extra $50 for the extra hard drive space, even if both versions used Ubuntu. What is the big deal here?
No one with your level of naivety and ignorance should speak in public. There are anti-social people in the world who consider other people resources and prey, and they rule the day when common men do not stand up to them.
This is true. However, sane law isn't going to happen when the courageous person who stands up and says "This is unjust" gets locked up while a hundred guilty parties stand silent and afraid.
Sane law will only happen when a systematic change forces all 101 of them out into the light at the same time.
The population is in a divide and conquer type situation, afraid to be the first to say "There's nothing wrong with that. I do that, my friends do that, and we're all good people". But if the right approach were taken, they would all be revealed at once, be startled by the fact that they outnumber their persecutors, and make real change.
Real life almost never fits the vague, incorrect, or incomplete wording of the laws and it's simply not feasible to expect the laws to always cover every situation.
I disagree with the assumption that laws cannot cover every situation. It is entirely reasonable to think that we could make a much smaller set of laws that would cover every necessary situation. A great deal of what is currently regulated should not be regulated. There are vast areas of law that are about forcing people to behave in a fashion that benefits a few corrupt people, and you can't imagine living in a world that was any different. That is why you feel the way you do.
Well, when the house kitty-corner to the one you just bought gets blown to pieces by bikers with explosives the day after you move in, and women flirt with you on the street to find out how much money you've got so their boyfriends who are standing a block away can mug you for it... it's not so much fun then...
It is a good plan. It works. My father established himself as a police liaison, cleared the prostitutes and drug dealers out of his neighbourhood with a low-tech implementation of such as this, and tripled the value of his house before he sold it. When the cops can do nothing, a retired military man with a German Shepard, a baseball bat and some good intel can make the next pasture over look awfully green.
The debate, once again, should not be around a particular method of law-enforcement, but whether 100% effective law-enforcement is desirable...
It means, you can not exceed speed-limit by 1 mile/h, nor drop a candy-wrap on the street, nor ask for money on subway. You will also not be beaten by a cop, nor will they be able to treat fire-hydrants as special parking spots reserved for "the force". Etcaetera...
Do we want the laws obeyed and enforced 100%, or do we want to live some "wriggle-room" for the dystopian future, when it will be needed to fight some kind of oppression?
I would say that yes, we want laws to be 100% enforced. But we need to get rid of 99% of the laws. The alternative is laws that everyone is guilty of violating, and enforcers who can immediately find a reason to arrest and convict anyone they see fit.
I'd like to see those cameras made available to the public to scrutinize at their leisure. They would be effective if they were.
I envision a system where every person has a personal recorder that they carry around, and all the output of public cameras is mirrored and shared in a fashion that made it difficult to tamper with. Something along the lines of Freenet, except simplified by the fact that you don't have to anonymize the sources.
Any time there was a contested event, it would be possible to examine the footage from the CCTVs and from the personal data recorders of both parties. Barring a sophisticated attack, this would give you the facts right away. And, if someone tried to tamper with the public record and there were any anomilies, then you could start looking at where they came from with lots of forensic data available.
This would have all sorts of rewards... we would be able to watch the watchers, and we would be able to clearly see those ill conceived laws that are being casually broken all over the place so we could remove them from the books. This would protect us from selective enforcement of laws that aren't meant to be obeyed, but only grant power to the rulers.