How is this insightful? No matter what the marketing and networking skills of the unemployed, it won't make any new jobs! This sort of thing might let you scramble to the top of the pile but only at the expense of others - it's got nothing to do with the overall employment rate.
Yes, let's realise the potential we are holding in our hands - especially the medical potential. Let's not waste research effort, and the real risks of unforeseen ecological side-effects, on novelty pets. Or pointlessly sweeter strawberries, come to think of it, or food that ripens more slowly so it's easier to grow further away where labor is cheaper, and pesticide restrictions more lax.
If it's disingenuous to declare all genetic engineering Frankenstein science, how much more so for biotech companies to say "Yes, but you'd be closing off future benefits to mankind!" - and then use the techniques predominantly as a marketing strategy to lock farmers into their own pesticides. Or foist fluorescent fish upon an indifferent world.
How is this "better living through chemistry"? Take each case as it comes, but remember market forces are such that they maximise profit, not human progress.
No, this isn't a a daft claim like the one that do-not-call lists breach freedom of speech. I agree with the article that it's just not the place of the state, or even infrastructure providers like ISPs or Hotmail, to filter our private mail based on content.
Even if you think that governments might be technically competent to fight spam, should they be given licence to read (even in an automated way) and analyze all private correspondence just in order to stop some junk mail? [1] I'm not so concerned about blacklisting known spammers, etc., but
Spam is really, really annoying, but when does the cure become worse than the disease?
[1] (Obviously they're going to do this anyway, but we don't need to condone this or make it acceptable.)
OK, spam is a nuisance. But how much worse is allowing corporations to make judgments about what messages you should read based on their content?
We're taking for granted that the language, nature of the words, senders, content of the pictures, etc. of an increasing part of our private communication should be monitored, analyzed and pattern matched, and cheering this surveillance effort on. At Slashdot!
I'm all for stopping spam, but I'd sooner decide what I want to read myself. The Hotmail monopoly on email for the masses spooks me out, especially when they make actions like this a matter of course. People treat it as a utility like the postal service, but they don't see how massively more invasive it is. Would they agree to have all their private mail opened, read and checked in case some of it was junk mail?
That last paragraph leapt out at me as well. It's in such contrast to the rest of the article, which is precisely and thoroughly argued. He describes in detail the strategies needed to to ensure unthinking loyalty from his army of "pawns" (apparently this means developers), and then right at the end performs a glorious doublethink backflip. We finish with the triumphant non-sequitur that his victory is in everybody's interests, even to some degree the rest of the industry (whom he earlier "crushed... ruthlessly, and systematically"). It's priceless!
"They may be pawns, but they are really important pawns."
"DARPA affirms that TIA's research and testing activities are only using data and information that is either (a) foreign intelligence and counter intelligence information legally obtained and usable by the Federal Government under existing law..."
I feel particularly reassured as a non-US citizen. Am I right I thinking there are no legal restrictions at all in the US on what intelligence they can gather on me?
I think it's about time the citizens of the extended United States of America got the vote. Currently those of us who live in places like the UK and Iraq are effectively ruled by the US but have absolutely no say in the government...
Re:Pretending the world is NOT random is most logi
on
Fooled by Randomness
·
· Score: 1
True, true... but don't you find that the arbitrary nature of picking a goal like that undermines your belief in it in an insurmountably recursive way?
What can you do. Shrug your shoulders and smile as/dev/random scrolls past.
This isn't just monitoring which cell a phone user is in, but actually using the base station masts as radar to detect moving objects (e.g. people and cars) anywhere within the field - which means basically making the entire UK transparent, even if you're not carrying a cellphone! It's perfectly serious, here's a link to the company developing it - first mentioned in Jane's Defence Weekly in 2000, but it's only recently got government funding.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this insightful? No matter what the marketing and networking skills of the unemployed, it won't make any new jobs! This sort of thing might let you scramble to the top of the pile but only at the expense of others - it's got nothing to do with the overall employment rate.
Yes, let's realise the potential we are holding in our hands - especially the medical potential. Let's not waste research effort, and the real risks of unforeseen ecological side-effects, on novelty pets. Or pointlessly sweeter strawberries, come to think of it, or food that ripens more slowly so it's easier to grow further away where labor is cheaper, and pesticide restrictions more lax.
If it's disingenuous to declare all genetic engineering Frankenstein science, how much more so for biotech companies to say "Yes, but you'd be closing off future benefits to mankind!" - and then use the techniques predominantly as a marketing strategy to lock farmers into their own pesticides. Or foist fluorescent fish upon an indifferent world.
How is this "better living through chemistry"? Take each case as it comes, but remember market forces are such that they maximise profit, not human progress.
No, this isn't a a daft claim like the one that do-not-call lists breach freedom of speech. I agree with the article that it's just not the place of the state, or even infrastructure providers like ISPs or Hotmail, to filter our private mail based on content.
Even if you think that governments might be technically competent to fight spam, should they be given licence to read (even in an automated way) and analyze all private correspondence just in order to stop some junk mail? [1] I'm not so concerned about blacklisting known spammers, etc., but
Spam is really, really annoying, but when does the cure become worse than the disease?
[1] (Obviously they're going to do this anyway, but we don't need to condone this or make it acceptable.)OK, spam is a nuisance. But how much worse is allowing corporations to make judgments about what messages you should read based on their content?
We're taking for granted that the language, nature of the words, senders, content of the pictures, etc. of an increasing part of our private communication should be monitored, analyzed and pattern matched, and cheering this surveillance effort on. At Slashdot!
I'm all for stopping spam, but I'd sooner decide what I want to read myself. The Hotmail monopoly on email for the masses spooks me out, especially when they make actions like this a matter of course. People treat it as a utility like the postal service, but they don't see how massively more invasive it is. Would they agree to have all their private mail opened, read and checked in case some of it was junk mail?
And here is another of Senator Hatch's WWW sins from the days of meta-tag search engine stuffing.
That last paragraph leapt out at me as well. It's in such contrast to the rest of the article, which is precisely and thoroughly argued. He describes in detail the strategies needed to to ensure unthinking loyalty from his army of "pawns" (apparently this means developers), and then right at the end performs a glorious doublethink backflip. We finish with the triumphant non-sequitur that his victory is in everybody's interests, even to some degree the rest of the industry (whom he earlier "crushed ... ruthlessly, and systematically"). It's priceless!
"They may be pawns, but they are really important pawns."
How gracious."DARPA affirms that TIA's research and testing activities are only using data and information that is either (a) foreign intelligence and counter intelligence information legally obtained and usable by the Federal Government under existing law..."
I feel particularly reassured as a non-US citizen. Am I right I thinking there are no legal restrictions at all in the US on what intelligence they can gather on me?
I think it's about time the citizens of the extended United States of America got the vote. Currently those of us who live in places like the UK and Iraq are effectively ruled by the US but have absolutely no say in the government ...
How did the idea of the economically rational individual ever persist, in the face of things that cost $9.99?
A virus was created from scratch last summer. Does that count as "one day"? ;-)
True, true ... but don't you find that the arbitrary nature of picking a goal like that undermines your belief in it in an insurmountably recursive way?
What can you do. Shrug your shoulders and smile as /dev/random scrolls past.
This isn't just monitoring which cell a phone user is in, but actually using the base station masts as radar to detect moving objects (e.g. people and cars) anywhere within the field - which means basically making the entire UK transparent, even if you're not carrying a cellphone! It's perfectly serious, here's a link to the company developing it - first mentioned in Jane's Defence Weekly in 2000, but it's only recently got government funding.