If Russia's intent here is sincere and carries no ulterior motive, then they should be congratulated for doing what even the United States has failed to do. Cooperative, not competitive, exploration and colonization is the wise approach.
Call me again when I can find these critters on the menu at Black Angus and Denny's. With ET's the video-or-it-hasn't-happened test isn't sufficient... it's gotta be on a menu somewhere. If I can't eat it, it doesn't exist!/sarcasm
In all fairness to DHS and its potential intentions, there isn't necessarily anything nefarious about the mere act of monitoring social media. What if the intent of the monitoring is introspective, actively seeking out criticisms of their performance with the intention of improving it?
I'm not saying the intent actually is that noble, but it could be, lacking damning proof to the contrary.
I agree completely: it's not a level playing field. I ignored that disparity for the sake of my argument, because my argument concerned elements of the same class, not conflicting classes. That double standard does need to be corrected. I dare you to fix it with legislation, though; it's the sort of thing that often requires the wielding of pitchforks.
The softer approach of planting trees is probably still the best approach....
You're overlooking one irreducibly important fact: planting trees won't make this polymer's producer any money. They don't have a patent on trees, dammit!
It seems you don't understand that there isn't really a helluva difference between what you call private and public communication. There's no such thing as private communication, period. You'd like to imagine there is, and people with whom "private" communications occur will assure you it's true, but it's not. Facebook got nuthin' to do with it, buddy. It just makes the problem worse, but the problem with secrecy already existed.
The good thing about social networking is being able to share. Unfortunately, the bad thing about social networking is also being able to share: what is shared will always inevitably include "actionable" details about either you or people with whom you have relationships.
What does Moglen propose to this woman and reporter as a solution to the problem? Why, that she and by extension everyone else simply not network, not share, perhaps not even have relationships... because the logical conclusion of those relationships is always the sharing of information that might prove useful to someone else for control or profit.
While I'm enough of an outcast that I can almost vaguely begin to follow Moglen's directive, most of the people in my life network couldn't. They don't want to exist in a social vacuum, nor could they even psychologically survive in a such a fashion.
The real conundrum here, which Moglen seems to ignore for convenience, is that when information is set free then that information is now free for everyone, for any purpose or intent, good or bad. I wonder... is what Moglen proposes, in terms of attempting to control and censor one's own information, really that different from a copyright regime? The only difference is who is doing the controlling. Ultimately it's all about self-interest, whether it's using information to do harm to others or concealing information in order to avoid harm from others. Why, isn't that precisely the reason that people and corporations and governments keep secrets, to avoid that information being used to their detriment by others? What a coincidence! So Moglen, in a paroxysm of epiphany, declares that rather than doing away with all secrets we should instead be keeping more of them? Genius!
Perhaps the solution is to live such a virtuous life that no skeletons, no actionable information, exists? Social networking is the small-town paradigm applied to the Internet: there's no point in trying to hide what you know or what you've done, because *everyone* will know about it soon enough.
They just want you to buy them, not use them, for Pete's sake. You're supposed to act like a virus and show it off to your friends so that they'll go buy one, too, and that's not supposed to leave you any time to actually play with it. Now back to work!
No. This rockets way past enjoyment and into self-promotion. Given the expense and preparation involved, this is a job done for profit, not something done for fun. More to my point it's not in the least bit constructive except (perhaps) for the companies who are sponsoring her pointless venture. She's an advertising hack with a spin, nothing more.
Space isn't useful, but the stuff that punctuates it certainly can be. It's just that space is BIG and there's no places to make pit stops... stop and build a fire and catch a wabbit or two for dinner. Crossing the oceans was once pretty hard because those pit stops were rare, but they still had air to breath, a magnetosphere and ozone layer overhead, and the medium itself wasn't immediately deadly. Space as a medium is just a wee bit more hostile. It's still necessary and worth it, but we'll need more desperation or vision to do it.
And she can't even justify her odd choice of a bicycle by merely quoting Edmund Hillary, either, because the bike wasn't there until she commissioned it to be built.
I am mystified by people who do things just to be different and get attention, as opposed to solving a problem or serving a practical purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
Except... nobody will know they saved the world, because somebody else will be taking the credit for it.
Uh-oh, we're gonna live to regret slashing all those pot farms in the national forests!
Ummm, don't you mean anti-psychotics or muscle relaxants? I don't think depression causes road rage. Know your pharma, dude!
If Russia's intent here is sincere and carries no ulterior motive, then they should be congratulated for doing what even the United States has failed to do. Cooperative, not competitive, exploration and colonization is the wise approach.
Call me again when I can find these critters on the menu at Black Angus and Denny's. With ET's the video-or-it-hasn't-happened test isn't sufficient... it's gotta be on a menu somewhere. If I can't eat it, it doesn't exist! /sarcasm
Boy, you're a mean Friday night drunk, aren't you?
That isn't saying much, given that the named posters I see here don't seem to be especially gifted or articulate.
I bought one of those last month. Looks great in my basement cave at my mom's house.
Making people pedal backwards is da shit.
In all fairness to DHS and its potential intentions, there isn't necessarily anything nefarious about the mere act of monitoring social media. What if the intent of the monitoring is introspective, actively seeking out criticisms of their performance with the intention of improving it?
I'm not saying the intent actually is that noble, but it could be, lacking damning proof to the contrary.
Oh FFS! That's it... where's the razor blade? Can somebody call the Society to come save my cats?
If you can't produce evidence that you owned the patents for the species of trees you acquired, well... we really have nothing to talk about. /snark
I agree completely: it's not a level playing field. I ignored that disparity for the sake of my argument, because my argument concerned elements of the same class, not conflicting classes. That double standard does need to be corrected. I dare you to fix it with legislation, though; it's the sort of thing that often requires the wielding of pitchforks.
The softer approach of planting trees is probably still the best approach....
You're overlooking one irreducibly important fact: planting trees won't make this polymer's producer any money. They don't have a patent on trees, dammit!
It seems you don't understand that there isn't really a helluva difference between what you call private and public communication. There's no such thing as private communication, period. You'd like to imagine there is, and people with whom "private" communications occur will assure you it's true, but it's not. Facebook got nuthin' to do with it, buddy. It just makes the problem worse, but the problem with secrecy already existed.
Was that intended to be a rebuttal? You seem to think it was, but....
The good thing about social networking is being able to share. Unfortunately, the bad thing about social networking is also being able to share: what is shared will always inevitably include "actionable" details about either you or people with whom you have relationships.
What does Moglen propose to this woman and reporter as a solution to the problem? Why, that she and by extension everyone else simply not network, not share, perhaps not even have relationships... because the logical conclusion of those relationships is always the sharing of information that might prove useful to someone else for control or profit.
While I'm enough of an outcast that I can almost vaguely begin to follow Moglen's directive, most of the people in my life network couldn't. They don't want to exist in a social vacuum, nor could they even psychologically survive in a such a fashion.
The real conundrum here, which Moglen seems to ignore for convenience, is that when information is set free then that information is now free for everyone, for any purpose or intent, good or bad. I wonder... is what Moglen proposes, in terms of attempting to control and censor one's own information, really that different from a copyright regime? The only difference is who is doing the controlling. Ultimately it's all about self-interest, whether it's using information to do harm to others or concealing information in order to avoid harm from others. Why, isn't that precisely the reason that people and corporations and governments keep secrets, to avoid that information being used to their detriment by others? What a coincidence! So Moglen, in a paroxysm of epiphany, declares that rather than doing away with all secrets we should instead be keeping more of them? Genius!
Perhaps the solution is to live such a virtuous life that no skeletons, no actionable information, exists? Social networking is the small-town paradigm applied to the Internet: there's no point in trying to hide what you know or what you've done, because *everyone* will know about it soon enough.
They just want you to buy them, not use them, for Pete's sake. You're supposed to act like a virus and show it off to your friends so that they'll go buy one, too, and that's not supposed to leave you any time to actually play with it. Now back to work!
There's the core of an SF-horror movie for ya.
No. I love long distance cycling, but I hate being cold and gratuitous self-promotion disgusts me. Not jealous in the least.
No. This rockets way past enjoyment and into self-promotion. Given the expense and preparation involved, this is a job done for profit, not something done for fun. More to my point it's not in the least bit constructive except (perhaps) for the companies who are sponsoring her pointless venture. She's an advertising hack with a spin, nothing more.
Space isn't useful, but the stuff that punctuates it certainly can be. It's just that space is BIG and there's no places to make pit stops... stop and build a fire and catch a wabbit or two for dinner. Crossing the oceans was once pretty hard because those pit stops were rare, but they still had air to breath, a magnetosphere and ozone layer overhead, and the medium itself wasn't immediately deadly. Space as a medium is just a wee bit more hostile. It's still necessary and worth it, but we'll need more desperation or vision to do it.
And she can't even justify her odd choice of a bicycle by merely quoting Edmund Hillary, either, because the bike wasn't there until she commissioned it to be built.
I am mystified by people who do things just to be different and get attention, as opposed to solving a problem or serving a practical purpose.
Errrr, without a change in total interest paid, that is.
... if they could also see to it that another 20 years is tacked onto the term of my mortgage.