"Code cannot be free in the same way that a spoon cannot be free -- both are inanimate objects which posess neither intelligence nor free will."
A dangerous assertion. What about code that forms the mind of a true AI?
As much as the Matrix currently is SF, I think it is, apart from some real disaster, inevitable that there will be AI's in the future equalling and surpassing human intelligence. In this respect, I think the fear of a struggle between humans and machines (see the Matrix, Terminator, etc.) is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you learn to fear and hate and mistrust (or at least predict war) with the AI's we create, then it will surely augment the chance, indeed, that it comes to such a struggle.
Instead, we should accept the fact that they are entities with their own will, AND right to live. If we would regard and love them as our children, which in a sense they would/will be, then the prospect of a total annihilation war becomes very remote.
We should not fear AI, we should fear creating an AI without compassion and respect for other life. But then again, we might have created something that is TOO close to our own image, won't we?
For one thing; if humans tried to whipe out intelligent beings, even self-created AI's, I would support the AI's right to defend themselves.
Look, while I'm personally in favor of the GPL, and think on the long run their is something wrong with the concept of BSD-style licenses if one wants to create an as broad possible environment of freedom, one can not deny that, on itself, it is more free than the GPL.
There can be nothing more free, then something without restrictions. any restriction, even the limitation that it it should remain free, is a restriction. It restricts the freedom of not beingt allowed to decide whether or not one wants to make/keep it free. As long as one does not speak about own derivations, BSD is therefor more free then GPL, and only becomes less so, when it's made properietary (but then it's not longer BSD).
Now, it is important to notice that others may use it with equal right to have made/keep it free, and that's why your analogy doesn't fly. The BSD-licence would make it able for the government to take free speech away, but nevertheless be unable to restrict the same free speech by any citizen that wanted to use it him/herself. That would be a more proper analogy.
So, you see, there is no real power (as in: less freedom) in being able to restrict, when everyone has an equal right to use it unrestricted.
The real danger of RFID tags is twofold:
First, if any and all articles and goods, including money, is provided with such a tag, the possibility of privacy-abuse is staggering; the amount of details that could be gathered about a person, without him even knowing, is unheard of.
Second, the ease at which this intrusion is possible. While some claim it's only for short-distance detection, and therfor rather limited, this argumentation seems rather foolish. As the history in technology has shown us, it's rather trivial to come up with much more powerfull and sensitive products, even only after a copple of years (or even months) after the original product.
It is, therefor, not farfetched to imagine that before long, we will have devices capable of RFID-tagt detection on a distance of, let's say, 20 metres, to be consevative. Can you imagine what power that would give to any government or agency, who happens to be interested in you?
And even to common burglars? Someone walking behind you; one push on a button and he knows exactly how much money you have; if you are an interesting prey or not, etc. Or just driving by your house and detecting all things that are of value in your house. It's even possible, using two devices on a known distance of eachother, to exactly pinpoint where you have hidden your stack of cash in the house. The prospects are really frightening.
Yet, one must also akcnowledge RFID has potential. The 'cure' is rather simple: allow RFID tags for bulk-transports, but not for money. Als for individual 'consumer' items: if you (a shop) use them, then just make sure you always remove the tag the moment the customer buys it (just as current anti-theft tags are being handled today).
With these simp^le rules (who should be put into law), you still have the benefits of RFID-tags, but without the frightening possibility of abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
"Code cannot be free in the same way that a spoon cannot be free -- both are inanimate objects which posess neither intelligence nor free will." A dangerous assertion. What about code that forms the mind of a true AI? As much as the Matrix currently is SF, I think it is, apart from some real disaster, inevitable that there will be AI's in the future equalling and surpassing human intelligence. In this respect, I think the fear of a struggle between humans and machines (see the Matrix, Terminator, etc.) is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you learn to fear and hate and mistrust (or at least predict war) with the AI's we create, then it will surely augment the chance, indeed, that it comes to such a struggle. Instead, we should accept the fact that they are entities with their own will, AND right to live. If we would regard and love them as our children, which in a sense they would/will be, then the prospect of a total annihilation war becomes very remote. We should not fear AI, we should fear creating an AI without compassion and respect for other life. But then again, we might have created something that is TOO close to our own image, won't we? For one thing; if humans tried to whipe out intelligent beings, even self-created AI's, I would support the AI's right to defend themselves.
Look, while I'm personally in favor of the GPL, and think on the long run their is something wrong with the concept of BSD-style licenses if one wants to create an as broad possible environment of freedom, one can not deny that, on itself, it is more free than the GPL. There can be nothing more free, then something without restrictions. any restriction, even the limitation that it it should remain free, is a restriction. It restricts the freedom of not beingt allowed to decide whether or not one wants to make/keep it free. As long as one does not speak about own derivations, BSD is therefor more free then GPL, and only becomes less so, when it's made properietary (but then it's not longer BSD). Now, it is important to notice that others may use it with equal right to have made/keep it free, and that's why your analogy doesn't fly. The BSD-licence would make it able for the government to take free speech away, but nevertheless be unable to restrict the same free speech by any citizen that wanted to use it him/herself. That would be a more proper analogy. So, you see, there is no real power (as in: less freedom) in being able to restrict, when everyone has an equal right to use it unrestricted.
The real danger of RFID tags is twofold: First, if any and all articles and goods, including money, is provided with such a tag, the possibility of privacy-abuse is staggering; the amount of details that could be gathered about a person, without him even knowing, is unheard of. Second, the ease at which this intrusion is possible. While some claim it's only for short-distance detection, and therfor rather limited, this argumentation seems rather foolish. As the history in technology has shown us, it's rather trivial to come up with much more powerfull and sensitive products, even only after a copple of years (or even months) after the original product. It is, therefor, not farfetched to imagine that before long, we will have devices capable of RFID-tagt detection on a distance of, let's say, 20 metres, to be consevative. Can you imagine what power that would give to any government or agency, who happens to be interested in you? And even to common burglars? Someone walking behind you; one push on a button and he knows exactly how much money you have; if you are an interesting prey or not, etc. Or just driving by your house and detecting all things that are of value in your house. It's even possible, using two devices on a known distance of eachother, to exactly pinpoint where you have hidden your stack of cash in the house. The prospects are really frightening. Yet, one must also akcnowledge RFID has potential. The 'cure' is rather simple: allow RFID tags for bulk-transports, but not for money. Als for individual 'consumer' items: if you (a shop) use them, then just make sure you always remove the tag the moment the customer buys it (just as current anti-theft tags are being handled today). With these simp^le rules (who should be put into law), you still have the benefits of RFID-tags, but without the frightening possibility of abuse.