The tags about "embrace, extend, extinguish" don't make much sense at all. How do you "extinguish" open source? It isn't even possible. And the whole point of open source software is that you can extend it.
If that's the case, they've managed to back themselves into a hell of a corner, because they've accumulated a userbase that's actively opposed to their advertising ambitions. In case they haven't noticed, the internet positively hates being marketed to, and they're not afraid to express this. When it's nothing but virtual material, people have no problem with bombing a company simply for existing.
When corporations invade a community's environment for the purpose of marketing, of course they aren't going to elicit a positive reaction. How could any reasonable person expect that?
Saying this is going to reinvent computing is like saying habaneros are just a bit spicy. At the very least, this will completely overhaul civilization.
Most people are complete idiots who overestimate their abilitites, yet have no idea of what's good and what isn't. Most user-generated content is worthless for precisely this reason.
This is why it's important to build friendly AI that views us as collaborator rather than competitor. When it becomes smarter than us, and it surely will, there's no telling what it will do, which is why we need to guide it to behave in ways that won't harm us.
When things really take off (they've obviously already begun) there won't just be simple enhancements like integrated email and genetic corrections. There are so many other possibilities that the article hasn't brought up. Once nanomachines become practical, they could become part of us, reconstructing any damaged DNA, destroying cancer cells and unwanted pathogens, reversing aging, and augmenting the brain or even replacing biological neurons and synapses as the substrate of our minds. As computers increase in speed and become more and more parallel, we'll be able to move our consciousness to the digital realm, eventually allowing us to experience subjective years in a second, rewire the way we think, and literally expand our minds. This is way past merely having a cell phone in your head, but it's a bit much for most people to conceive of.
I think a lot of people who complain about the expense of certificates are individuals who would like to set up their own apache server and take credit card transactions via https. The fact that they're worried about this particular expense tells you that they're probably hobbyists who aren't serious about running a business full time.
Or they think encryption should be available for all HTTP traffic instead of forcing people to pay hundreds of dollars to these "authority" rackets for something functionally equivalent and just as secure as a self-signed certificate, just so the end user's browser doesn't pop up a warning because they dared to use a certificate that isn't from a company that managed to convince browser manufacturers that they're somehow more worthy of being trusted. Certificate authorities are a scam, plain and simple. Encryption needs to be freely available for everyone, not just people willing to shell out an extra $100-400 a year for something they could do themselves.
Google's personalized homepage has hardly ever worked correctly for me. More often than not, the page would load halfway and refuse to load anymore, even after multiple refreshes on several different browsers. It would do this for hours at a stretch. Most of the time, the boxes would only show one link instead of the number I had specified. The little plus icons to expand and collapse each item's description would disappear. All of this made their service a complete loss. And people are just starting to have problems with it now? I went to Netvibes and never looked back.
In that case, it's probably good these people are staying away from the internet, if they aren't willing or able to learn how to protect themselves and use computers responsibly.
Why would someone need a static identity in order to be taken seriously? If anything, they should be judged on the merits of WHAT they're saying, rather than WHO is saying it, which may very well be irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
The tags about "embrace, extend, extinguish" don't make much sense at all. How do you "extinguish" open source? It isn't even possible. And the whole point of open source software is that you can extend it.
Plugging in a cord that you just unplugged isn't exactly a geek-level skill. I'm sure anyone who's ever used electrical outlets could figure it out.
Ha! I bought it, I'll do whatever I want with it.
Take out the battery and SIM card, and tape over the camera and microphone when you aren't using it.
If that's the case, they've managed to back themselves into a hell of a corner, because they've accumulated a userbase that's actively opposed to their advertising ambitions. In case they haven't noticed, the internet positively hates being marketed to, and they're not afraid to express this. When it's nothing but virtual material, people have no problem with bombing a company simply for existing.
When corporations invade a community's environment for the purpose of marketing, of course they aren't going to elicit a positive reaction. How could any reasonable person expect that?
Why not just take whatever you want, and then claim you've released it into the public domain?
Saying this is going to reinvent computing is like saying habaneros are just a bit spicy. At the very least, this will completely overhaul civilization.
Most people are complete idiots who overestimate their abilitites, yet have no idea of what's good and what isn't. Most user-generated content is worthless for precisely this reason.
It is a rubber ducky. There is no similarity here. This guy is really reaching.
This is why it's important to build friendly AI that views us as collaborator rather than competitor. When it becomes smarter than us, and it surely will, there's no telling what it will do, which is why we need to guide it to behave in ways that won't harm us.
When things really take off (they've obviously already begun) there won't just be simple enhancements like integrated email and genetic corrections. There are so many other possibilities that the article hasn't brought up. Once nanomachines become practical, they could become part of us, reconstructing any damaged DNA, destroying cancer cells and unwanted pathogens, reversing aging, and augmenting the brain or even replacing biological neurons and synapses as the substrate of our minds. As computers increase in speed and become more and more parallel, we'll be able to move our consciousness to the digital realm, eventually allowing us to experience subjective years in a second, rewire the way we think, and literally expand our minds. This is way past merely having a cell phone in your head, but it's a bit much for most people to conceive of.
Encryption doesn't have to be conflated with authentication. You don't need to prove who you are to secure your server's communications with clients.
Google's personalized homepage has hardly ever worked correctly for me. More often than not, the page would load halfway and refuse to load anymore, even after multiple refreshes on several different browsers. It would do this for hours at a stretch. Most of the time, the boxes would only show one link instead of the number I had specified. The little plus icons to expand and collapse each item's description would disappear. All of this made their service a complete loss. And people are just starting to have problems with it now? I went to Netvibes and never looked back.
At last, freedom from speech!
Yeah, but not many people become involuntary internet phenomenons on such a scale.
As well as the bullying of straight people accused of being gay.
There's a good chance that would fall under child pornography laws anyway, and thus be legally actionable.
The whole world probably has no clue who they are or how the situation came about, and thus have no reason to care anyway.
Like anyone cares about user agreements.
How is any of this new? It's been going on for decades. Doesn't anyone remember "A Rape in Cyberspace"?
The idea that companies should ever control what the web says about them is so abhorrent I can hardly put it into words.
In that case, it's probably good these people are staying away from the internet, if they aren't willing or able to learn how to protect themselves and use computers responsibly.
Why would someone need a static identity in order to be taken seriously? If anything, they should be judged on the merits of WHAT they're saying, rather than WHO is saying it, which may very well be irrelevant.