So we see someone whom we perceive to be a douchebag, we can tag him as #AbsoluteDouche and every body will know, when they view that person, that he has been tagged as such, and be prepared to deal him pre-emptively
How is that different from online bullying? I have this feeling that somehow you'll be one of the first to get the label.
I'll consider that world, and then leave it for one with move privacy.
when everyone is effectively "armed" with video surveillance tech that sends data straight to the cloud, the bullies and low-lifes of the world will indeed be forced to be more polite
Not when the bullies are the ones making the laws - and making laws to bash innocent people who commit victimless crimes (e.g. prostitutes)... I can imagine your world, throwing increasingly more such innocent people into its jails.
The point of this talk looks like marketing to me, and this reads like a Slashvertisement. "Enchant Me, Simplify My Life, and Make Me Amazing" - are you kidding me? Make me gag. It's just a regular bland interface of a regular bland smartphone (and yes, I use Android). "We saw the profound effect that technological design has on people's lives" Seriously? This is 2013, I thought people got tired of hearing this sort of of cliché'd "oh we're such technological visionaries" marketing wiffle-waffle in the 90's.
Holder fired? This is the same Holder who has come out publicly saying you don't have due process, this is the same Holder who advocates for blowing up American citizens with drones on US soil with no due process, this is the same Holder involved with Fast and Furious... so for him to blithely say it's OK to trample on a little person like Aaron Schwarz, seems perfectly in character for this sociopath of note. But if Holder hasn't been fired by now for all the other crap, one can only assume the average American supports what he says and does, either that or Americans are collectively asleep or something.
Of course, if we do seed life (and ultimately intelligent life) on other planets, we should leave them with some really confusing "guide-books" explaining their origins, as a prank.
Yeah, but we already don't really "know", due to meteor-based seeding that has been going on for a long time. I agree it is of course prudent to at least check for existing life before attempting to seed life (the summary implies a lifeless body as a contextual premise here).
You're worried that we can "screw up" a sterile (i.e. lifeless) environment? What does that even mean? If it's sterile, then by definition there is nothing and nobody there to harm - just lifeless dirt, rocks etc. And so who does it benefit to keep it sterile? Do the rocks or dirt benefit?
If introducing life on to a planet is "bad", then shouldn't you be arguing that we wipe out all life on Earth too? Or is that actually what you're arguing?
We could take a lifeless planet and in a few hundred million years complex life forms might evolve
'Correction', I mean also, moons, e.g. Europa is one candidate.
As far as we can tell, life is precious and valuable in this universe... to inherently call life "contamination" smacks of some very broken way of thinking. If we see ourselves as "contaminating" other planets by colonizing them, then it is only logical that we must exterminate ourselves on Earth too, as we are a "contaminant". That would be silly.
Of course, if there are existing complex life forms beneath the ice of Europa, then there can indeed be "contamination", in the sense of unleashing bacteria on them. But if it's just a matter of worrying that we're finding the same life we introduced, that's silly... seeding life would be awesome.
I don't see how it's a bad thing to seed life on a lifeless planet. We could take a lifeless planet and in a few hundred million years complex life forms might evolve. This is bad how? I thought life is a good thing.
Actually, thought experiment: If it's "better" to keep a planet lifeless and dead instead of seeding it with life, then wouldn't it also have been "better" if Earth had remained lifeless and dead?
Oh please, it will be "about time" when they scrap the TSA or replace with it something much smaller, leaner, less expensive, and more effective at what it's supposed to do.
This amounts to little more than a PR move, throwing a few scraps to the plebs to make us somehow feel like 'common sense is breaking out', and it's pathetic that our standards are so low now, that we actually respond like dogs with tails wagging at this incredibly negligibly small change in the grand scheme of the TSA's operations. Will this in any significant way change the fact that they will continue to suck $8 billion a year of taxpayer money to violate the 4th amendment rights and dignity of American travellers? No? Then what is the "about time" that you refer to?
They aren't trying to 'use the Skype network', they're using XMPP. XMPP is a protocol for a server that anyone can implement (e.g. Jabber is to XMPP as Apache is to HTTP, and Jitsi is to XMPP as e.g. Firefox is to HTTP). XMPP supports standard extensions for things like voice. Microsoft can't "block it" any more than they can block me from running or accessing an Apache server.
Come on, just admit you got this one wrong. Jitsi is software utilizes exactly those 'central standards' you refer to - XMPP may be the primary contender for messaging/voice (via Jingle over XMPP) etc. standard at the moment. The whole point is that different software can talk to one another as e.g. Jitsi supports XMPP, and other XMPP clients also do e.g. Adium. Think of Jitsi end-user software as the equivalent of a web browser and of XMPP as the equivalent of HTTP.
I don't think that opposing gay marriage always equals hate
It's not about "hate". I don't care if someone 'hates' gay people. It's about initiating force against innocent people in order to violate their rights, by for example legally severely restricting the types of partnerships they may form and the conditions of those partnerships (actually Orson went further and actually advocated to criminalize gay sex, but anyway).
You can hate gay people all you want, but the moment you actually start literally violating the natural rights of others, you are in the wrong.. I don't see how you can "see where someone is coming from" to use force against innocent people.
His organization's tactics also include such delightful strategies as:
... pitting the African-American and homosexual communities against each other, of discouraging Latino assimilation into a culture accepting of same-sex marriage... The internal NOM documents state that they seek "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks" by promoting "African American spokespeople for marriage", thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into "denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots", and to interrupt the assimilation" of Latinos into "dominant Anglo culture" by making the stance against same-sex marriage "a key badge of Latino identity"
Orson has also previously advocated for, in effect, that gays should be locked up in jail.
There are other potential areas of savings too. The estimated cost of the War on Drugs is $76 billion a year. That's more than 4 times NASA's annual budget. . But no, space is "too expensive". We've spent over $60 billion on the TSA, which has caught zero terrorists. But no, space is "too expensive". Something is deeply wrong with human priorities.
Just to put $600 million into perspective, it's only 1/7000th of the cost of the Iraq War alone. Please don't tell me that the problem is cost. You could fund NASA for literally 200 years just from the money blown on the Iraq War. And now we have companies like SpaceX who are bringing down costs much further still. Mars One estimate they can put people on Mars for just $6 billion. That's 1/700th the cost of the Iraq War. Hell, $6 billion is much smaller than the Star Wars (movie) franchise value. It's less than humans spend on booze in one year. Enough with this bullshit that it's somehow just super-duper expensive.
I'm less concerned about whether "big guys" or "small guys" are given a free pass to rape website users, and more concerned about giving users a choice over who violates them, with opt-out as the default.
The real issue is who the robots are being used against, and how.
Example 1: A team of robot soldiers is used in a highly targeted, precision operation to take out Kim Jong Un and the most rotten in that regime, in order to restore the natural rights of the citizenry. This would be a bad thing, how?
Example 2: A team of robot soldiers is used to blow away thousands of citizens in a foreign country, including women and children, semi-indiscriminately, for the private profit of a corporatist military-industrial-complex loosely also aiming to secure cheap oil. A top secretary of state declares it was "all worth it". This would be a good thing, how?
Banning the robots would be stupid - robot soldiers could allow us to do unprecedented good in this world. Robot soldiers could perhaps have stopped the likes of Hitler or Kim Jong Il cold, before they had a chance to kill millions. Robot soldiers could help us turn military forces into forces of good - protecting the natural rights of global citizens, rather than violating them - what a military is supposed to be.
The way we're going, I can just imagine the first time we really do make contact with aliens.
Aliens: Greetings earthlings.
Humans: Welcome, you can feel safe amongst us, because we progressed beyond our primitive obsession with "weapons", and have now attained a more enlightened peaceful civilization that is disarmed.
Aliens: Really? Are you f'ing kidding me? (Pull out weapons, blow every last human away)... "That was easy, what a bunch of idiots."
Slashdot Mirror
That can be partly solved by having the option to stream directly to a server.
So we see someone whom we perceive to be a douchebag, we can tag him as #AbsoluteDouche and every body will know, when they view that person, that he has been tagged as such, and be prepared to deal him pre-emptively
How is that different from online bullying? I have this feeling that somehow you'll be one of the first to get the label.
when everyone is effectively "armed" with video surveillance tech that sends data straight to the cloud, the bullies and low-lifes of the world will indeed be forced to be more polite
Not when the bullies are the ones making the laws - and making laws to bash innocent people who commit victimless crimes (e.g. prostitutes) ... I can imagine your world, throwing increasingly more such innocent people into its jails.
The problem is everyone's an asshole these days, that's why we can no longer tell when someone's being an asshole - it's the new normal.
solves a well designed problem
I think the world has enough problems without people going around designing new problems.
That's what kids today call a "free market".
The point of this talk looks like marketing to me, and this reads like a Slashvertisement. "Enchant Me, Simplify My Life, and Make Me Amazing" - are you kidding me? Make me gag. It's just a regular bland interface of a regular bland smartphone (and yes, I use Android). "We saw the profound effect that technological design has on people's lives" Seriously? This is 2013, I thought people got tired of hearing this sort of of cliché'd "oh we're such technological visionaries" marketing wiffle-waffle in the 90's.
Holder fired? This is the same Holder who has come out publicly saying you don't have due process, this is the same Holder who advocates for blowing up American citizens with drones on US soil with no due process, this is the same Holder involved with Fast and Furious ... so for him to blithely say it's OK to trample on a little person like Aaron Schwarz, seems perfectly in character for this sociopath of note. But if Holder hasn't been fired by now for all the other crap, one can only assume the average American supports what he says and does, either that or Americans are collectively asleep or something.
Of course, if we do seed life (and ultimately intelligent life) on other planets, we should leave them with some really confusing "guide-books" explaining their origins, as a prank.
Yeah, but we already don't really "know", due to meteor-based seeding that has been going on for a long time. I agree it is of course prudent to at least check for existing life before attempting to seed life (the summary implies a lifeless body as a contextual premise here).
You're worried that we can "screw up" a sterile (i.e. lifeless) environment? What does that even mean? If it's sterile, then by definition there is nothing and nobody there to harm - just lifeless dirt, rocks etc. And so who does it benefit to keep it sterile? Do the rocks or dirt benefit?
If introducing life on to a planet is "bad", then shouldn't you be arguing that we wipe out all life on Earth too? Or is that actually what you're arguing?
We could take a lifeless planet and in a few hundred million years complex life forms might evolve
'Correction', I mean also, moons, e.g. Europa is one candidate.
As far as we can tell, life is precious and valuable in this universe ... to inherently call life "contamination" smacks of some very broken way of thinking. If we see ourselves as "contaminating" other planets by colonizing them, then it is only logical that we must exterminate ourselves on Earth too, as we are a "contaminant". That would be silly.
Of course, if there are existing complex life forms beneath the ice of Europa, then there can indeed be "contamination", in the sense of unleashing bacteria on them. But if it's just a matter of worrying that we're finding the same life we introduced, that's silly ... seeding life would be awesome.
I don't see how it's a bad thing to seed life on a lifeless planet. We could take a lifeless planet and in a few hundred million years complex life forms might evolve. This is bad how? I thought life is a good thing.
Actually, thought experiment: If it's "better" to keep a planet lifeless and dead instead of seeding it with life, then wouldn't it also have been "better" if Earth had remained lifeless and dead?
Oh please, it will be "about time" when they scrap the TSA or replace with it something much smaller, leaner, less expensive, and more effective at what it's supposed to do.
This amounts to little more than a PR move, throwing a few scraps to the plebs to make us somehow feel like 'common sense is breaking out', and it's pathetic that our standards are so low now, that we actually respond like dogs with tails wagging at this incredibly negligibly small change in the grand scheme of the TSA's operations. Will this in any significant way change the fact that they will continue to suck $8 billion a year of taxpayer money to violate the 4th amendment rights and dignity of American travellers? No? Then what is the "about time" that you refer to?
We get these ridiculous RFPs where they ask us to detail our 'strategy' for this or that
Send them a quote for the hours that would be required to prepare such documentation.
Jabber's a server, Jitsi's a client. That would be a bit like trying to merge Apache and Webkit.
I tried the previous major release of Jitsi and all it did was crash a lot, hopefully this new one's a bit better.
They aren't trying to 'use the Skype network', they're using XMPP. XMPP is a protocol for a server that anyone can implement (e.g. Jabber is to XMPP as Apache is to HTTP, and Jitsi is to XMPP as e.g. Firefox is to HTTP). XMPP supports standard extensions for things like voice. Microsoft can't "block it" any more than they can block me from running or accessing an Apache server.
Come on, just admit you got this one wrong. Jitsi is software utilizes exactly those 'central standards' you refer to - XMPP may be the primary contender for messaging/voice (via Jingle over XMPP) etc. standard at the moment. The whole point is that different software can talk to one another as e.g. Jitsi supports XMPP, and other XMPP clients also do e.g. Adium. Think of Jitsi end-user software as the equivalent of a web browser and of XMPP as the equivalent of HTTP.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-related_features
I don't think that opposing gay marriage always equals hate
It's not about "hate". I don't care if someone 'hates' gay people. It's about initiating force against innocent people in order to violate their rights, by for example legally severely restricting the types of partnerships they may form and the conditions of those partnerships (actually Orson went further and actually advocated to criminalize gay sex, but anyway).
You can hate gay people all you want, but the moment you actually start literally violating the natural rights of others, you are in the wrong .. I don't see how you can "see where someone is coming from" to use force against innocent people.
On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction ...
He does a lot more than just "advocate his views". He is a director of a large anti-gay organization, with a budget of $7.5 million per year, that "has been involved in ballot measures, legislative elections, judicial elections, and issue advertising in various states".
His organization's tactics also include such delightful strategies as:
Orson has also previously advocated for, in effect, that gays should be locked up in jail.
There are other potential areas of savings too. The estimated cost of the War on Drugs is $76 billion a year. That's more than 4 times NASA's annual budget. . But no, space is "too expensive". We've spent over $60 billion on the TSA, which has caught zero terrorists. But no, space is "too expensive". Something is deeply wrong with human priorities.
Just to put $600 million into perspective, it's only 1/7000th of the cost of the Iraq War alone. Please don't tell me that the problem is cost. You could fund NASA for literally 200 years just from the money blown on the Iraq War. And now we have companies like SpaceX who are bringing down costs much further still. Mars One estimate they can put people on Mars for just $6 billion. That's 1/700th the cost of the Iraq War. Hell, $6 billion is much smaller than the Star Wars (movie) franchise value. It's less than humans spend on booze in one year. Enough with this bullshit that it's somehow just super-duper expensive.
I'm less concerned about whether "big guys" or "small guys" are given a free pass to rape website users, and more concerned about giving users a choice over who violates them, with opt-out as the default.
Example 1: A team of robot soldiers is used in a highly targeted, precision operation to take out Kim Jong Un and the most rotten in that regime, in order to restore the natural rights of the citizenry. This would be a bad thing, how?
Example 2: A team of robot soldiers is used to blow away thousands of citizens in a foreign country, including women and children, semi-indiscriminately, for the private profit of a corporatist military-industrial-complex loosely also aiming to secure cheap oil. A top secretary of state declares it was "all worth it". This would be a good thing, how?
Banning the robots would be stupid - robot soldiers could allow us to do unprecedented good in this world. Robot soldiers could perhaps have stopped the likes of Hitler or Kim Jong Il cold, before they had a chance to kill millions. Robot soldiers could help us turn military forces into forces of good - protecting the natural rights of global citizens, rather than violating them - what a military is supposed to be.
Aliens: Greetings earthlings. ... "That was easy, what a bunch of idiots."
Humans: Welcome, you can feel safe amongst us, because we progressed beyond our primitive obsession with "weapons", and have now attained a more enlightened peaceful civilization that is disarmed.
Aliens: Really? Are you f'ing kidding me? (Pull out weapons, blow every last human away)