Now there'll be a bunch of people who say, basically "Well, since the sun can detroy the ozone layer, it's okay if we don't pay attention to anything _we_ do that might destroy it."
Which to me is like saying "Well, since my house already has radon gas buildup, I might as well take up smoking and rubbing dioxins into my skin"
I can think of all sorts of reasons that _I_ would not use Passport.
But I have the suspicion that you are right. That it's not that most people were educated about the subject, or carefully considered the dangers versus benefits. I suspect that it was largely that they didn't "get it". I so suspect that at least some of it was that they didn't trust it, also... for at least some people.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I suspect that the main reason this thing didn't catch on had less to do with consumer awareness and concern, than with lack of knowledge, poor marketing, and that it was yet another fiddly thing for people to have to sign on to.
An idea being bad or unhealthy is, sadly, is often not the reason it's discarded. I think it's safe to say that people buy stupid, dangerous, unhealthy, or useless products all the time, and use useless, insecure internet products all the time.
Whether an idea is good or bad has less to do with how well it sells than how catchy it is, how infectious it is, how well-marketed it is.
Loki is also the deity who gets all the dirty work done, that the more "noble" gods won't "sully" themselves with. In the mythology, Loki often saves the Gods of Asgard... and is then reviled as being a sneak or a liar after he's done so.
Loki is part of the myths because he's _needed_. Whether we like them or not, the tricksters and deviants are part of our society and myth because they serve a purpose. They do the things that others cannot or will not do.
Of course torrent technology is being used to violate copyright, steal software and creative work, and it can be said that isn't good.
But the defense of such technologies may also protect other intellectual (or real!) rights and freedoms.
Sometimes, freedom and versatility are maintained only because people press the envelope of what is allowed. In a society where everything is controlled, managed, permitted/denied, eventually we reach a point where innovation and expression can be curtailed. Obviously though, the reverse is true. If people aren't given any boundaries, there's always the risk they'll use their freedom to abuse or steal or be irresponsible.
Coyote
One of the things I have to consider, as a person suffering from brain injury that inhibits my memory, attention, and sometimes cognition, is whether the possible side effects of the drugs, even if they include decreased lifespan, are better or worse than the "side effects" I already have as a result of my brain injury.
I can go days, or even weeks at a time, with severely reduced functioning.
There's a _lot_ in the way of side effects that I would be able to put up with if I were able to get a return of functionality that let me return to doing the work and creative pursuits I'd like to do.
The problem, of course, is that often we discover that various medications or treatments simply let us trade one set of symptoms that decrease our ability to function normally with different ones that decrease our ability to function normally. If we're lucky, the side effects we experience (as an individual) may be something that we _prefer_ to our normal illness or injury.
I'm personally _very_ leery of chemicals that may affect my brain or it's chemistry. I already have irreparable problems, and I'm very cautious about doing anything that could leave me worse off.
At the same time, I'm always _very_ eager to hear of anything that might possibly give me some relief, and help me to be a more functional member of society and my family.
I would be willing to put up with lessened physical activity, pain, or even a shorter life, if it would let me just function again. My concern is always that something I take that affects my brain will give me all that... as well as some other effects such as headaches, nausea, (things that would reduce my functionality also), or long-term effects that may last even after I stop taking the meds that might make my existing symptoms even worse.
And, of course, my biggest fear is that the companies that make these drugs don't strike me as being concerned about anyone's health _first_. They are concerned about making _money_ first. I worry that they'll apply "the formula" (a la Fight Club) to any new medication, rather than stringent and ethical testing. I see a lot of what looks like drugs that get pushed through like "fads" that seem to provide little additional benefit, but lots of new problems, for more money. I'd hate to take risks with an arthritis or heart medication... and I'd _really_ hate to take risks with something that messes with my brain.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear hear.
Now there'll be a bunch of people who say, basically "Well, since the sun can detroy the ozone layer, it's okay if we don't pay attention to anything _we_ do that might destroy it."
Which to me is like saying "Well, since my house already has radon gas buildup, I might as well take up smoking and rubbing dioxins into my skin"
Or perhaps I'm just being cranky.
I can think of all sorts of reasons that _I_ would not use Passport.
But I have the suspicion that you are right. That it's not that most people were educated about the subject, or carefully considered the dangers versus benefits. I suspect that it was largely that they didn't "get it". I so suspect that at least some of it was that they didn't trust it, also... for at least some people.
Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I suspect that the main reason this thing didn't catch on had less to do with consumer awareness and concern, than with lack of knowledge, poor marketing, and that it was yet another fiddly thing for people to have to sign on to.
An idea being bad or unhealthy is, sadly, is often not the reason it's discarded. I think it's safe to say that people buy stupid, dangerous, unhealthy, or useless products all the time, and use useless, insecure internet products all the time.
Whether an idea is good or bad has less to do with how well it sells than how catchy it is, how infectious it is, how well-marketed it is.
People sell bad ideas all the time.
Loki is also the deity who gets all the dirty work done, that the more "noble" gods won't "sully" themselves with. In the mythology, Loki often saves the Gods of Asgard... and is then reviled as being a sneak or a liar after he's done so. Loki is part of the myths because he's _needed_. Whether we like them or not, the tricksters and deviants are part of our society and myth because they serve a purpose. They do the things that others cannot or will not do. Of course torrent technology is being used to violate copyright, steal software and creative work, and it can be said that isn't good. But the defense of such technologies may also protect other intellectual (or real!) rights and freedoms. Sometimes, freedom and versatility are maintained only because people press the envelope of what is allowed. In a society where everything is controlled, managed, permitted/denied, eventually we reach a point where innovation and expression can be curtailed. Obviously though, the reverse is true. If people aren't given any boundaries, there's always the risk they'll use their freedom to abuse or steal or be irresponsible. Coyote
One of the things I have to consider, as a person suffering from brain injury that inhibits my memory, attention, and sometimes cognition, is whether the possible side effects of the drugs, even if they include decreased lifespan, are better or worse than the "side effects" I already have as a result of my brain injury.
I can go days, or even weeks at a time, with severely reduced functioning.
There's a _lot_ in the way of side effects that I would be able to put up with if I were able to get a return of functionality that let me return to doing the work and creative pursuits I'd like to do.
The problem, of course, is that often we discover that various medications or treatments simply let us trade one set of symptoms that decrease our ability to function normally with different ones that decrease our ability to function normally. If we're lucky, the side effects we experience (as an individual) may be something that we _prefer_ to our normal illness or injury.
I'm personally _very_ leery of chemicals that may affect my brain or it's chemistry. I already have irreparable problems, and I'm very cautious about doing anything that could leave me worse off.
At the same time, I'm always _very_ eager to hear of anything that might possibly give me some relief, and help me to be a more functional member of society and my family.
I would be willing to put up with lessened physical activity, pain, or even a shorter life, if it would let me just function again. My concern is always that something I take that affects my brain will give me all that... as well as some other effects such as headaches, nausea, (things that would reduce my functionality also), or long-term effects that may last even after I stop taking the meds that might make my existing symptoms even worse.
And, of course, my biggest fear is that the companies that make these drugs don't strike me as being concerned about anyone's health _first_. They are concerned about making _money_ first. I worry that they'll apply "the formula" (a la Fight Club) to any new medication, rather than stringent and ethical testing. I see a lot of what looks like drugs that get pushed through like "fads" that seem to provide little additional benefit, but lots of new problems, for more money. I'd hate to take risks with an arthritis or heart medication... and I'd _really_ hate to take risks with something that messes with my brain.
Cautious, but hopeful, nonetheless,
Coyote