Right. So let's continue using coal. Oh, yeah. Carbon emissions, acid rain, heat dumping, chat disposal. Ever so much better. Right. So let's use dams. Oh, yeah. River blockage, flooding, bursting dangers. Ever so much better. Right. So let's burn wood. Oh, yeah. Deforestation, carbon emissions, heat dumping, ash disposal. Ever so much better. Right. So let's....... let's...... Lack of tech is more dangerous, nimrod.
a.) You're fucking stupid. Analyzing potential hazards before mass deployment doesn't mean returning to the Stone Age. To the contrary, the examples you mentioned are exactly about "not analyzing (or having the capability to do so) negative (long term) effects of stuff that brings a positive effect on the surface and/or short term."
Lack of tech is NOT as dangerous as "random tech". And by the way, all the examples you mentioned involved tech, too. Tech that hasn't been thought about well enough before widespread adoption.
No one denies that research in the area of nanoparticle toxicity is urgently needed.Vicki Colvin,Director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University (Houston,TX,USA)has written,"In a field with more than 12,000 citations a year,we were stunned to discover no prior research in developing nanomaterials risk assessment models and no toxicology studies devoted to synthetic nanomaterials." John Bucher,of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Environmental Toxicology Program in the USA, recently stated that "we don 't know the answers [to the questions related to nanomaterial toxicity]; we've just begun to ask the questions." Unfortunately,Colvin 's Center at Rice,one of six National Science Foundation multi-million dollar research facilities dedicated to atomtechnology and the only one focused exclusively on the environment and the interface between biological and material atomtechnology,does not include toxicology as a research area. While it's important for scientists in the field to acknowledge the lack of data, acknowledgement falls short when nanoparticles are already being sold to consumers.
Q: You also cite [the American philosopher and educator] John Dewey. What did he have to say about this?
A: Dewey was one of the last spokespersons for the Jeffersonian view of democracy. In the early part of this century, he wrote that democracy isn't an end in itself, but a means by which people discover and extend and manifest their fundamental human nature and human rights. Democracy is rooted in freedom, solidarity, a choice of work and the ability to participate in the social order. Democracy produces real people, he said. That's the major product of a democratic society -- real people.
He recognized that democracy in that sense was a very withered plant. Jefferson's "banking institutions and monied incorporations" had of course become vastly more powerful by this time, and Dewey felt that "the shadow cast on society by big business" made reform very difficult, if not impossible. He believed that reform may be of some use, but as long as there's no democratic control of the workplace, reform isn't going to bring democracy and freedom.
Like Jefferson and other classical liberals, Dewey recognized that institutions of private power were absolutist institutions, unaccountable and basically totalitarian in their internal structure. Today, they're far more powerful than anything Dewey dreamed of.
This literature is all accessible. It's hard to think of more leading figures in American history than Thomas Jefferson and John Dewey. They're as American as apple pie. But when you read them today, they sound like crazed Marxist lunatics. That just shows how much our intellectual life has deteriorated.
For me it seems really quite simple. Corporations are fascist. They have to be. Just like cells in our body can't do what they want - it just wouldn't work.
The question is, do you want to be a cell in a body which has no brains, no eyes, no feelings, no regards for further generations - only the desire to GROW at all costs?
Seriously, if you're like me and not really into (or don't have time to) protesting on the street, stop buying anything you can't use in a way that is acceptible to you.
Money talks - that has been made clear time after time by corporations and governments. We stop buying, things change. Remember, WE are funding governments and corporations. They need us.
But not buying specific stuff by itself doesn't encourage others to do the same. What's more, it doesn't inform anyone about anything. Do you really think if 10% stoppped buying their stuff corporations would stop dismantling democracy? When they could get more money out of the remaining 90% by not stopping?
If you have a website, you can put up banners or links or post articles. If you have a printer or a CD burner, you can collect info from the web and distribute it. Of course it's also good to support organizations like the EFF, but simply paying an annual fee is not enough!
Inform yourself - do the knowledge, there's no way around it - then friends and relatives. If you can't spare a few hours a month to defend your freedom you might not deserve it.
If possible, try to reach farther than relatives and friends - but in any case, opening the eyes of 3 friends to these issues is a lot. If everybody did that, it would be over next week. The people you know know people who know people.
And hey, have you ever BEEN to a protest? If not, how can you know if you're "into it"? It's a great feeling, don't knock it until you tried it. You don't have to wield signs or chant bullshit slogans. Just visit one, watch it from a safe distance etc.
But don't think you're going to get help if you don't help yourself. It never happened, never will. Democracy isn't as much about joining organizations and buying bumper stickers as it is about *individuals* practicing it.
Sure, we could all have our mailboxes made out of really thick steel with multiple security systems protecting them. Or we could just be decent people and not take other people's things.
I can figure out how the mail system works without stealing someone else's mail or encouraging others to steal mail. What's the societal benefit to publishing flaws in a system?
Heh. Your analogy is flawed.
As you said, mailboxes are vulnerable. But instead of hoping people won't realize the possibilities, you even detailed some of them, and added the footnote that we shouldn't make illegal things impossible - but instead simply not do 'em and punish those who do.
But then you turn around and say publishing that information is "trying to aid criminals."? That's exactly the opposite of what you argued for with your analogy, and that's the frightening fucking thing about too much of the stuff we hear from America these days - it's not logical. (btw, do you really think that some people publish exploits just to have the satisfactory knowledge that "bad guys will exploit it"? Are you that paranoid?!)
You see, saying "you can steal stuff out of a mailbox" doesn't equal actually stealing it. Publishing a security flaw doesn't equal abusing it. Maybe it's "aiding them".. but where do you draw the line then? What about people selling tools like hammers? Can be used for all kinds of nasty stuff. What about mothers feeding their children?
The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web.
Which means: mainly "from the US and US allies." =P (the majority of english sites is still America and Britain based I'd guess)
I suck at history, but IIRC the Nazis also claimed they invaded Poland to "free" the Sudets living there... oh, and did you know that the regime in Kuwait is more totalitarian now than it was before Saddam invaded? I guess it's still better than Saddam, but we didn't exactly "free" the people of Kuwait...
I'd certainly trust my information to the goverment rather than any for-profit corporation.
Heh, considering how widespread corruption is and how many politicians are in cahoots with the industry, I'd say most governments are for-profit organizations....
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
Hmm. We will also always have the "technical ability" to violence or fraud... the solution is not to make it *impossible*, but making it illegal and trying how to figure out good ways to prevent, detect and punish it. The world is "messy", yeah, but I prefer some messiness on the fringes to total control.
Re:Are they technological-age hippies?
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 1
Because (at least by the writeup) it sounds like they're delivering some sort of Zen-style analysis from within a cloud of blue smoke. How well does the sound of a hand stream over the Internet?
Huh? What is your point, ie. what do you mean by "writeup" - it seems pretty to the point, one could even say technical? And what do you mean by Zen style, as lumping it together with "hippies" indicates you have no clue wtf you're talking about?
=)
Re:Theorem
on
World of Ends
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In the context of the Article "adding value" doesn't equal "improve" - that's kinda the whole point...
Slashdot Mirror
Out of context, I heartily second that...
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
This looks a lot like Woodstock for computer geeks.
Well, actually it's a Woodstocks for sceners. If you want to become one, too, click here =P
Right. So let's continue using coal. Oh, yeah. Carbon emissions, acid rain, heat dumping, chat disposal. Ever so much better. Right. So let's use dams. Oh, yeah. River blockage, flooding, bursting dangers. Ever so much better. Right. So let's burn wood. Oh, yeah. Deforestation, carbon emissions, heat dumping, ash disposal. Ever so much better. Right. So let's....... let's...... Lack of tech is more dangerous, nimrod.
a.) You're fucking stupid. Analyzing potential hazards before mass deployment doesn't mean returning to the Stone Age. To the contrary, the examples you mentioned are exactly about "not analyzing (or having the capability to do so) negative (long term) effects of stuff that brings a positive effect on the surface and/or short term."
Lack of tech is NOT as dangerous as "random tech". And by the way, all the examples you mentioned involved tech, too. Tech that hasn't been thought about well enough before widespread adoption.
It's about nanoscale *particles*, not machines.
For me it seems really quite simple. Corporations are fascist. They have to be. Just like cells in our body can't do what they want - it just wouldn't work.
The question is, do you want to be a cell in a body which has no brains, no eyes, no feelings, no regards for further generations - only the desire to GROW at all costs?
I don't.
Seriously, if you're like me and not really into (or don't have time to) protesting on the street, stop buying anything you can't use in a way that is acceptible to you.
Money talks - that has been made clear time after time by corporations and governments. We stop buying, things change. Remember, WE are funding governments and corporations. They need us.
But not buying specific stuff by itself doesn't encourage others to do the same. What's more, it doesn't inform anyone about anything. Do you really think if 10% stoppped buying their stuff corporations would stop dismantling democracy? When they could get more money out of the remaining 90% by not stopping?
If you have a website, you can put up banners or links or post articles. If you have a printer or a CD burner, you can collect info from the web and distribute it. Of course it's also good to support organizations like the EFF, but simply paying an annual fee is not enough!
Inform yourself - do the knowledge, there's no way around it - then friends and relatives. If you can't spare a few hours a month to defend your freedom you might not deserve it.
If possible, try to reach farther than relatives and friends - but in any case, opening the eyes of 3 friends to these issues is a lot. If everybody did that, it would be over next week. The people you know know people who know people.
And hey, have you ever BEEN to a protest? If not, how can you know if you're "into it"? It's a great feeling, don't knock it until you tried it. You don't have to wield signs or chant bullshit slogans. Just visit one, watch it from a safe distance etc.
But don't think you're going to get help if you don't help yourself. It never happened, never will. Democracy isn't as much about joining organizations and buying bumper stickers as it is about *individuals* practicing it.
Sure, we could all have our mailboxes made out of really thick steel with multiple security systems protecting them. Or we could just be decent people and not take other people's things.
I can figure out how the mail system works without stealing someone else's mail or encouraging others to steal mail. What's the societal benefit to publishing flaws in a system?
Heh. Your analogy is flawed.
As you said, mailboxes are vulnerable. But instead of hoping people won't realize the possibilities, you even detailed some of them, and added the footnote that we shouldn't make illegal things impossible - but instead simply not do 'em and punish those who do.
But then you turn around and say publishing that information is "trying to aid criminals."? That's exactly the opposite of what you argued for with your analogy, and that's the frightening fucking thing about too much of the stuff we hear from America these days - it's not logical. (btw, do you really think that some people publish exploits just to have the satisfactory knowledge that "bad guys will exploit it"? Are you that paranoid?!)
You see, saying "you can steal stuff out of a mailbox" doesn't equal actually stealing it. Publishing a security flaw doesn't equal abusing it. Maybe it's "aiding them".. but where do you draw the line then? What about people selling tools like hammers? Can be used for all kinds of nasty stuff. What about mothers feeding their children?
Where do you draw the line?
Here's another thought...Wait until you (or someone trustworthy) has actual evidence of something like that, before spouting off?
But would having evidence not be illegal, reverse engineering and all that?
The headlines on the Google News homepage are selected entirely by a computer algorithm, based on many factors including how often and on what sites a story appears elsewhere on the web.
Which means: mainly "from the US and US allies." =P (the majority of english sites is still America and Britain based I'd guess)
'bush' has a 13.53% googleshare of 'hitler'
'saddam' has a 7.7% googleshare of 'hitler'
I don't think many departments here would buy in.
Just a quick note: thanks to the Department of Homeland Security local police is going to be effectively centralized.
Hahaha, ouch! Fuck karma though, just was too lazy / not interested to RTFA, have a nice day =D
Now combine that with E ?
Bobby
If you intend to follow the guidelines or not... reading the results is often interesting in either case =)
Bah...
I suck at history, but IIRC the Nazis also claimed they invaded Poland to "free" the Sudets living there... oh, and did you know that the regime in Kuwait is more totalitarian now than it was before Saddam invaded? I guess it's still better than Saddam, but we didn't exactly "free" the people of Kuwait...
Ironic that they would call a "tracking system" the "Liberty Project".
what about the "Patriot Act"?
What about Newspeak ?
I'd certainly trust my information to the goverment rather than any for-profit corporation.
Heh, considering how widespread corruption is and how many politicians are in cahoots with the industry, I'd say most governments are for-profit organizations....
And the reason we talk about it all the time is that these two desirable things can't be reconciled without ever-greater levels of technological evil stuff materializing (Paladium, anyone?). Give me the technological ability to have my fair use rights, and I've also got the technological ability to pirate.
The world is messy.
Hmm. We will also always have the "technical ability" to violence or fraud... the solution is not to make it *impossible*, but making it illegal and trying how to figure out good ways to prevent, detect and punish it. The world is "messy", yeah, but I prefer some messiness on the fringes to total control.
Because (at least by the writeup) it sounds like they're delivering some sort of Zen-style analysis from within a cloud of blue smoke. How well does the sound of a hand stream over the Internet?
Huh? What is your point, ie. what do you mean by "writeup" - it seems pretty to the point, one could even say technical? And what do you mean by Zen style, as lumping it together with "hippies" indicates you have no clue wtf you're talking about?
=)
In the context of the Article "adding value" doesn't equal "improve" - that's kinda the whole point...
Anyway, let me make a small correction: These things are not mutually exclusive, you know. To the contrary.