When they say "think of the children", they are talking about us. The problem is these laws don't protect the children, they protect profits of the businesses and industries they run at the expense of the "children." The "children" will be punished for downloading mp3s and DVD movies that they probably couldn't afford because they are college students.
Rather than hiring the "children" these businesses and corporations would rather sue the "children" who already are in debt to loan companies, banks, credit companies, because the "children" are unable to find a job. Lets face it if they are going to sue people for downloading mp3s and DVDs they ought to sue the people who they know have the money to pay for it, or they ought to sue people who are making obscene profits at their expense via actual piracy. To sue people for downloading or uploading is thought control in some cases and a way to guarantee profits in other cases.
It's nothing more than an entertainment tax. If you don't like the government taxing the hell out of you, how do you feel about being taxed by entertainment companies? And of course none of the companies taxing/suing/complaining that you aren't shopping enough are going to hire you.
And as children they have to monitor everything you see, because we can't have the children accessing the wrong kind of information can we?
Lets face it these types of laws don't work and aren't mean to work. In fact the unintended consequences of logging every upload based on IP address is that the smart hackers who happen to also be dealing in child porn will start using their botnets to trade child porn. There is no amount of laws that can prevent a worm from infecting millions of computers and using those computers as a medium to exchange encrypted information which could be anything from child pornography, to blueprints for a terrorist attack, to something completely innocuous.
To punish individual IP addresses for being connected to illegal information is to basically criminalize every node and computer on the internet. The only way to actually accomplish anything is to work with the owners of these computers and create software to help the computer owners log and defend their own networks. To put legal liability onto the servers isn't really fair because most people who are running servers don't even know they are running one.
The best solution is to have the government secretly watch everything and go after only the terrorists and worst offenders. If an individual is trading gigs of child porn, or is running a proxy for terrorists, it's not the same as an individual whos computer downloaded 10 megs here and there of questionable content. To log everything when the laws are ridiculous is to basically make everybody a criminal.
So thats how we protect the children? By basically criminalizing everything? So once every child is a criminal then we punish the children? Of course in order to punish the children we need even more police, more surveillance, etc. It's a circle and it does not end until the government literally builds satelites that can read our thoughts from space.
And how long until some politician decides that we need to use these satelites on everybody to find out which among us are thinking like pedophiles? I don't like pedophiles either but I'm not dumb enough to believe technology like this will be used only on pedophiles. Replace pedophile with jew, replace it with homosexual, replace it with non-white, or any other group that has been hated or suppressed in the past.
When these technologies are invented to stop the so called "pedophile elite", there is no guarantee that once all the pedophiles have been found that this technology wont be used to hunt down virtually everybody else who doesn't think straight. We have to either change our laws so that individuals wont get a decade to life in prison for possession of bits, or we need to stop building technology which we know before it's installed that it's going to create hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals.
And I'm not even getting into the file sharing angle. Yeah of course they say this technology is to stop the pedophiles but there probably isn't even a million pedophiles in most countries. So to log every bit on the internet is a bit extreme. On the other hand theres probably hundreds of millions of file sharers. So you download that mp3, you download that movie, or if you upload it, now they have a way to sue you.
Once again you are the "child" and the MPAA are the "parent." Or the RIAA is the parent. Or just the Corporation in general.
I looked at the site and it's basically a math degree which requires calculus and some statistics. I don't think this degree in specific would be worth the money unless you really have a passion for math.
I say it's payback. Sony came into the gaming world with little to no respect for developers or the gaming community as a whole. Sony put the focus in on the 3d, and the specs, and the commercialism that we come to expect in the gaming world of today. The gaming world of yesterday had an entirely different ecosphere which in my opinion was better for the developer and the gamers. The gaming industry used to be able making quality games, fun games, which may not have been 3d but which were much more fun because they weren't
But Nintendo respected the gamer. Nintendo did use bullying tactics but then again they respected the gamer and the gaming community. Sony does not and has never respected the gaming community.
This is nothing but bitterness and misguided nostalgia.
Off the top of my head Nintendo were the first ones to use various bullying tactics to get their own way in the videogaming marketplace and had no respect for anyone or anything other than their profits.
As for those who say that the gaming industry used to about making fun games can any of you point to when this changed? After all, ET and Pac Man for the Atari 2600 were appalling cash-ins and the likes of the Commodore 64 were awash with legions of horrendously bad games.
Nintendo may have used bullying tactics but Nintendo respected the gamer and the gaming community. Sony has never respected the gamer or the gaming community and only has ever cared about profits. The quality of their games never mattered, the quality of their hardware never mattered with overheating issues and other nonsense.
Bullshit. Sony entered the market when Sega was trying to sell people on a hacked-together dual-CPU console even Sega struggled to develop for, while Nintendo was fucking about with a drifting launch date nobody could schedule for and hefty licencing fees. Sony offered the developers a console with extensive libraries, comprehensible hardware, and a due date that publishers could actually rely on. They made a system developers would want to work with. They were able to snatch the market from Nintendo and Sega because they had much, much more respect from developers than anyone else at the time.
Ironically having taught Nintendo and Sega that lesson, leading to a Dreamcast and GameCube that were very coder-friendly they completely forgot about it when the PS2 rolled around, with predictable consequences.
The Saturn was not a bad console. It's hardware was on par with the PSX. The reason the PSX beat it is because it was easier to develop for so I'll give you that. PSX had good timing and a good price.
PS2 didn't have a better price than the Dreamcast or the Gamecube. It also didn't have better hardware than the Dreamcast or the Gamecube. So while you can say Sony legitimately beat Sega and Nintendo with the PSX, they did not genuinely beat Sega or Nintendo in the hardware or software with the PS2.
My point still stands that Sony is what lead to a ruined gaming industry. The golden era of gaming was ended by Sony's PS2.
Same exact gameplay. No real graphical improvements. So why is it "3d" and they claim the graphics are "updated", when they aren't? 3d doesn't always make a game more fun or always make the graphics better.
I say it's payback. Sony came into the gaming world with little to no respect for developers or the gaming community as a whole. Sony put the focus in on the 3d, and the specs, and the commercialism that we come to expect in the gaming world of today. The gaming world of yesterday had an entirely different ecosphere which in my opinion was better for the developer and the gamers. The gaming industry used to be able making quality games, fun games, which may not have been 3d but which were much more fun because they weren't.
Look at Mortal Kombat and the NBA Jam series. These games were never supposed to be 3d and never were as good when forced into 3d. The graphics actually looked photorealistic when they were 2d and the games were more fun as 2d, so why were these series forced into 3d? Sony had a policy where if your game wasn't 3d they didn't want to let you release it. This is why starting with the PSX and really with the PS2 we saw the death of all 2d gaming, even revolutionary 2d technologies which had photorealistic graphics, because Sony wanted to use their formula of hardware over software.
Now their formula isn't working anymore. Good hardware can only take you so far and we are once again entering into an era where games are supposed to be fun again. I think if Sony were to leave the gaming industry alone on the software level and just make hardware we'd all be better off. Sony has no business making software and no real understanding of the gaming industry as Sony is a hardware company. Perhaps it's time for Sony to follow Sega and move on to specialize in what they are good at, and thats making gaming computers, chips, graphics engines and other hardware components to be used by Nintendo or Microsoft.
If Google wants to do this right they should just make Wine work well enough to run the most important specialist Windows applications. Later on Chrome can support virtual machines from Googles server.
FMRI is far more accurate than the polygraph. It may be the most accurate means of detecting a lie that we have. What those traitors were able to accomplish should never be allowed to happen again. The government should be using any and all means to prevent it.
It may be that there is no absolute security and we may have to accept that having a sense of security is a cause of insecurity. But at this time the FMRI is the newest most accurate technology, not the polygraph.
The whole point of cloud computing is to give corporations access to all your files and all your computing behavior so they can analyze it, sell it, broadcast it, trade it, and make it into a product for governments and corporations around the world.
Obviously people refuse to learn the truth because the truth is too scary. They want to believe in the fantasy illusion created by Disney and by religious systems, to convinced themselves that God is protecting them or that the good guys always win, or that the government is protecting them, or that some savior, aliens, robots from cybertron, will come and save them.
NOBODY IS COMING TO SAVE YOU. First learn to save yourself and you wont tolerate being ignorant. Free yourself from your own ignorance before you try to save someone else.
Thats the only message that will allow people to truly WTFU(Wake the f*ck up). And even this isn't enough because even if you know the truth about reality you won't be able to change it, because the majority of sheep are comfortable.
It's impossible to ever have a data literate citizenship because data is interpreted by religion. It's interpreted by religion because people aren't naturally reasonable and don't do whats in their individual self interest.
An example, if the sexual behavior of every human being in the USA were released what would be the response by the general public? If you want to predict the response look at the response to homosexuality.
Another example, if nobody in the USA had any secret from anyone else what would be the result?
If you are a jew are you comfortable with neo-nazi's having your medical records? If you are muslim are you comfortable with jews having access to your medical history? If you are anyone are you comfortable with everyone having access to every dumb thing you've said or done in your entire life?
Sure they wont be as much blackmail going on, instead people will be getting killed for who they are and with unlimited information it's much easier to make the lists.
The sexual behavior of humans was released in the Kinsey books. It offended many people.
Medical records are not suggested as an open source item, the data is too personal.
You are taking it a bit too far, they are only suggesting making a massive amount of public data available. It would specifically identify your credit card purchases, just the fact that Y people spent X amount over Z time on A things.
Unfortunately your medical records aren't as secret as you think. When you search for certain terms on Google or buy certain things on amazon the spyware, adware, and other products track where you go, what you look at, and somewhere somebody knows at least some of your medical vulnerabilities. These individuals are running privately controlled corporations which may be controlled by foreign entities with no regard for the Constitution or your rights. This information can be sold to anybody for any reason once collected and through statistically analysis along with your identity and purchase history, you can learn a surprising amount of details about a person.
This is the least of it because with facebook now every detail about you is public. Think about it.
If we knew for sure the data being datamined on facebook were anonymous and would forever remain anonymous thats one thing but when you have peoples names and identities attached to this data it moves beyond the realm of statistical analysis and scientific research and into the realm of religious judgement and criminal persecutions.
What you end up with is witch-hunting, banning of certain behaviors, hatred of larges groups of individuals who think a certain way, and general cultural bigotry.
How can you trust with your life, liberty and honor that the data being collected about you wont someday be used to destroy your life, liberty and honor?
It's impossible to ever have a data literate citizenship because data is interpreted by religion. It's interpreted by religion because people aren't naturally reasonable and don't do whats in their individual self interest.
An example, if the sexual behavior of every human being in the USA were released what would be the response by the general public? If you want to predict the response look at the response to homosexuality.
Another example, if nobody in the USA had any secret from anyone else what would be the result?
If you are a jew are you comfortable with neo-nazi's having your medical records? If you are muslim are you comfortable with jews having access to your medical history? If you are anyone are you comfortable with everyone having access to every dumb thing you've said or done in your entire life?
Sure they wont be as much blackmail going on, instead people will be getting killed for who they are and with unlimited information it's much easier to make the lists.
Anyone who does not take cyberwarfare seriously is not envisioning a world where nanotechnology is everywhere in everything. Where the enemy can create a bomb that you shallow in a pill, or that is sprinkled on your food. Where the enemy can use nano bots too small to see to kill people, or hack into or reprogram, etc.
It's definitely not fiction, it's reality. The technology to do this already exists and for all we know governments could be launching their attacks as we speak. Whoever controls the nanotech weapons will control the future.
When millions of people in key positions have artificial hearts, limbs, microchips in their body, nanotechnology with RFID in their clothes, then cyberwarfare becomes something physical.
If hackers can stop the artificial heart of somebody important, this is no different than assassinating the person.
Just as dumb people have blamed TV for crimes. Just as dumb people have blamed books for crimes.
And it's not just about crimes, violence, provoked by song lyrics. General ignorance is caused not because people don't have tools, but because they don't use the tools and resources they have to overcome their ignorance.
The internet is like having a library at your fingertips. If you have the internet and you remain ignorant, you truly have no excuse. In the generations before the internet if you remained ignorant its because you didn't have a choice or didn't have access, but now that everybody has access the individuals who remain ignorant today are usually ignorant by choice and there will be less sympathy for these individuals.
I'm not saying we should know everything there is to know just because we have access to everything. I'm saying we should know everything we need to know if we have access to unlimited streams of information.
If profits truly are more important than lives, why haven't we created the death engine? Why have we not taken it to the extreme of betting on who lives and dies via tontine to increase profits to the maximum?
At some point, somewhere in our system, somebody has made the calculation that certain lives matter while the rest of the lives don't matter. If you are wealthy you can bet on when millions of poor people will die indirectly, but if you are poor the tontine is outlawed.
So it's a bit more complicated. It's a situation where some lives are worth more than others, and wealth has a lot to do with it. Unless you think this is wrong and if so then how would you say society values life in the context of ever increasing profitability?
Slashdot Mirror
When they say "think of the children", they are talking about us. The problem is these laws don't protect the children, they protect profits of the businesses and industries they run at the expense of the "children." The "children" will be punished for downloading mp3s and DVD movies that they probably couldn't afford because they are college students.
Rather than hiring the "children" these businesses and corporations would rather sue the "children" who already are in debt to loan companies, banks, credit companies, because the "children" are unable to find a job. Lets face it if they are going to sue people for downloading mp3s and DVDs they ought to sue the people who they know have the money to pay for it, or they ought to sue people who are making obscene profits at their expense via actual piracy. To sue people for downloading or uploading is thought control in some cases and a way to guarantee profits in other cases.
It's nothing more than an entertainment tax. If you don't like the government taxing the hell out of you, how do you feel about being taxed by entertainment companies? And of course none of the companies taxing/suing/complaining that you aren't shopping enough are going to hire you.
And as children they have to monitor everything you see, because we can't have the children accessing the wrong kind of information can we?
Lets face it these types of laws don't work and aren't mean to work. In fact the unintended consequences of logging every upload based on IP address is that the smart hackers who happen to also be dealing in child porn will start using their botnets to trade child porn. There is no amount of laws that can prevent a worm from infecting millions of computers and using those computers as a medium to exchange encrypted information which could be anything from child pornography, to blueprints for a terrorist attack, to something completely innocuous.
To punish individual IP addresses for being connected to illegal information is to basically criminalize every node and computer on the internet. The only way to actually accomplish anything is to work with the owners of these computers and create software to help the computer owners log and defend their own networks. To put legal liability onto the servers isn't really fair because most people who are running servers don't even know they are running one.
The best solution is to have the government secretly watch everything and go after only the terrorists and worst offenders. If an individual is trading gigs of child porn, or is running a proxy for terrorists, it's not the same as an individual whos computer downloaded 10 megs here and there of questionable content. To log everything when the laws are ridiculous is to basically make everybody a criminal.
So thats how we protect the children? By basically criminalizing everything? So once every child is a criminal then we punish the children? Of course in order to punish the children we need even more police, more surveillance, etc. It's a circle and it does not end until the government literally builds satelites that can read our thoughts from space.
And how long until some politician decides that we need to use these satelites on everybody to find out which among us are thinking like pedophiles? I don't like pedophiles either but I'm not dumb enough to believe technology like this will be used only on pedophiles. Replace pedophile with jew, replace it with homosexual, replace it with non-white, or any other group that has been hated or suppressed in the past.
When these technologies are invented to stop the so called "pedophile elite", there is no guarantee that once all the pedophiles have been found that this technology wont be used to hunt down virtually everybody else who doesn't think straight. We have to either change our laws so that individuals wont get a decade to life in prison for possession of bits, or we need to stop building technology which we know before it's installed that it's going to create hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals.
And I'm not even getting into the file sharing angle. Yeah of course they say this technology is to stop the pedophiles but there probably isn't even a million pedophiles in most countries. So to log every bit on the internet is a bit extreme. On the other hand theres probably hundreds of millions of file sharers. So you download that mp3, you download that movie, or if you upload it, now they have a way to sue you.
Once again you are the "child" and the MPAA are the "parent." Or the RIAA is the parent. Or just the Corporation in general.
I looked at the site and it's basically a math degree which requires calculus and some statistics. I don't think this degree in specific would be worth the money unless you really have a passion for math.
I say it's payback. Sony came into the gaming world with little to no respect for developers or the gaming community as a whole. Sony put the focus in on the 3d, and the specs, and the commercialism that we come to expect in the gaming world of today. The gaming world of yesterday had an entirely different ecosphere which in my opinion was better for the developer and the gamers. The gaming industry used to be able making quality games, fun games, which may not have been 3d but which were much more fun because they weren't
But Nintendo respected the gamer. Nintendo did use bullying tactics but then again they respected the gamer and the gaming community. Sony does not and has never respected the gaming community.
This is nothing but bitterness and misguided nostalgia.
Off the top of my head Nintendo were the first ones to use various bullying tactics to get their own way in the videogaming marketplace and had no respect for anyone or anything other than their profits.
As for those who say that the gaming industry used to about making fun games can any of you point to when this changed? After all, ET and Pac Man for the Atari 2600 were appalling cash-ins and the likes of the Commodore 64 were awash with legions of horrendously bad games.
Nintendo may have used bullying tactics but Nintendo respected the gamer and the gaming community. Sony has never respected the gamer or the gaming community and only has ever cared about profits. The quality of their games never mattered, the quality of their hardware never mattered with overheating issues and other nonsense.
little to no respect for developers
Bullshit. Sony entered the market when Sega was trying to sell people on a hacked-together dual-CPU console even Sega struggled to develop for, while Nintendo was fucking about with a drifting launch date nobody could schedule for and hefty licencing fees. Sony offered the developers a console with extensive libraries, comprehensible hardware, and a due date that publishers could actually rely on. They made a system developers would want to work with. They were able to snatch the market from Nintendo and Sega because they had much, much more respect from developers than anyone else at the time.
Ironically having taught Nintendo and Sega that lesson, leading to a Dreamcast and GameCube that were very coder-friendly they completely forgot about it when the PS2 rolled around, with predictable consequences.
The Saturn was not a bad console. It's hardware was on par with the PSX. The reason the PSX beat it is because it was easier to develop for so I'll give you that. PSX had good timing and a good price.
PS2 didn't have a better price than the Dreamcast or the Gamecube. It also didn't have better hardware than the Dreamcast or the Gamecube. So while you can say Sony legitimately beat Sega and Nintendo with the PSX, they did not genuinely beat Sega or Nintendo in the hardware or software with the PS2.
My point still stands that Sony is what lead to a ruined gaming industry. The golden era of gaming was ended by Sony's PS2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyw8YGuEEyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bUm4_dyiI4
Same exact gameplay. No real graphical improvements. So why is it "3d" and they claim the graphics are "updated", when they aren't? 3d doesn't always make a game more fun or always make the graphics better.
I say it's payback. Sony came into the gaming world with little to no respect for developers or the gaming community as a whole. Sony put the focus in on the 3d, and the specs, and the commercialism that we come to expect in the gaming world of today. The gaming world of yesterday had an entirely different ecosphere which in my opinion was better for the developer and the gamers. The gaming industry used to be able making quality games, fun games, which may not have been 3d but which were much more fun because they weren't.
Look at Mortal Kombat and the NBA Jam series. These games were never supposed to be 3d and never were as good when forced into 3d. The graphics actually looked photorealistic when they were 2d and the games were more fun as 2d, so why were these series forced into 3d? Sony had a policy where if your game wasn't 3d they didn't want to let you release it. This is why starting with the PSX and really with the PS2 we saw the death of all 2d gaming, even revolutionary 2d technologies which had photorealistic graphics, because Sony wanted to use their formula of hardware over software.
Now their formula isn't working anymore. Good hardware can only take you so far and we are once again entering into an era where games are supposed to be fun again. I think if Sony were to leave the gaming industry alone on the software level and just make hardware we'd all be better off. Sony has no business making software and no real understanding of the gaming industry as Sony is a hardware company. Perhaps it's time for Sony to follow Sega and move on to specialize in what they are good at, and thats making gaming computers, chips, graphics engines and other hardware components to be used by Nintendo or Microsoft.
It can work, it's just a matter of how Google wants to make it work.
If Google wants to do this right they should just make Wine work well enough to run the most important specialist Windows applications. Later on Chrome can support virtual machines from Googles server.
You either need a clearance or you don't. Most don't need one.
FMRI is far more accurate than the polygraph. It may be the most accurate means of detecting a lie that we have. What those traitors were able to accomplish should never be allowed to happen again. The government should be using any and all means to prevent it.
It may be that there is no absolute security and we may have to accept that having a sense of security is a cause of insecurity. But at this time the FMRI is the newest most accurate technology, not the polygraph.
The polygraph is an outdated technology which can be easily fooled.
The whole point of cloud computing is to give corporations access to all your files and all your computing behavior so they can analyze it, sell it, broadcast it, trade it, and make it into a product for governments and corporations around the world.
Obviously people refuse to learn the truth because the truth is too scary. They want to believe in the fantasy illusion created by Disney and by religious systems, to convinced themselves that God is protecting them or that the good guys always win, or that the government is protecting them, or that some savior, aliens, robots from cybertron, will come and save them.
NOBODY IS COMING TO SAVE YOU. First learn to save yourself and you wont tolerate being ignorant. Free yourself from your own ignorance before you try to save someone else.
Thats the only message that will allow people to truly WTFU(Wake the f*ck up). And even this isn't enough because even if you know the truth about reality you won't be able to change it, because the majority of sheep are comfortable.
It's impossible to ever have a data literate citizenship because data is interpreted by religion. It's interpreted by religion because people aren't naturally reasonable and don't do whats in their individual self interest.
An example, if the sexual behavior of every human being in the USA were released what would be the response by the general public? If you want to predict the response look at the response to homosexuality.
Another example, if nobody in the USA had any secret from anyone else what would be the result?
If you are a jew are you comfortable with neo-nazi's having your medical records? If you are muslim are you comfortable with jews having access to your medical history? If you are anyone are you comfortable with everyone having access to every dumb thing you've said or done in your entire life?
Sure they wont be as much blackmail going on, instead people will be getting killed for who they are and with unlimited information it's much easier to make the lists.
The sexual behavior of humans was released in the Kinsey books. It offended many people.
Medical records are not suggested as an open source item, the data is too personal.
You are taking it a bit too far, they are only suggesting making a massive amount of public data available. It would specifically identify your credit card purchases, just the fact that Y people spent X amount over Z time on A things.
Unfortunately your medical records aren't as secret as you think. When you search for certain terms on Google or buy certain things on amazon the spyware, adware, and other products track where you go, what you look at, and somewhere somebody knows at least some of your medical vulnerabilities. These individuals are running privately controlled corporations which may be controlled by foreign entities with no regard for the Constitution or your rights. This information can be sold to anybody for any reason once collected and through statistically analysis along with your identity and purchase history, you can learn a surprising amount of details about a person.
This is the least of it because with facebook now every detail about you is public. Think about it.
If we knew for sure the data being datamined on facebook were anonymous and would forever remain anonymous thats one thing but when you have peoples names and identities attached to this data it moves beyond the realm of statistical analysis and scientific research and into the realm of religious judgement and criminal persecutions.
What you end up with is witch-hunting, banning of certain behaviors, hatred of larges groups of individuals who think a certain way, and general cultural bigotry.
How can you trust with your life, liberty and honor that the data being collected about you wont someday be used to destroy your life, liberty and honor?
It's impossible to ever have a data literate citizenship because data is interpreted by religion. It's interpreted by religion because people aren't naturally reasonable and don't do whats in their individual self interest.
An example, if the sexual behavior of every human being in the USA were released what would be the response by the general public? If you want to predict the response look at the response to homosexuality.
Another example, if nobody in the USA had any secret from anyone else what would be the result?
If you are a jew are you comfortable with neo-nazi's having your medical records? If you are muslim are you comfortable with jews having access to your medical history? If you are anyone are you comfortable with everyone having access to every dumb thing you've said or done in your entire life?
Sure they wont be as much blackmail going on, instead people will be getting killed for who they are and with unlimited information it's much easier to make the lists.
Enjoy Gitmo.
If we waited until it was time then how would nuclear weapons be contained?
And in a world where everything is connected, and everything is nanotechnology, and everything can be hacked, the dangerous are entirely different.
Anyone who does not take cyberwarfare seriously is not envisioning a world where nanotechnology is everywhere in everything. Where the enemy can create a bomb that you shallow in a pill, or that is sprinkled on your food. Where the enemy can use nano bots too small to see to kill people, or hack into or reprogram, etc.
It's definitely not fiction, it's reality. The technology to do this already exists and for all we know governments could be launching their attacks as we speak. Whoever controls the nanotech weapons will control the future.
When millions of people in key positions have artificial hearts, limbs, microchips in their body, nanotechnology with RFID in their clothes, then cyberwarfare becomes something physical.
If hackers can stop the artificial heart of somebody important, this is no different than assassinating the person.
They always had this capability.
Just as dumb people have blamed TV for crimes. Just as dumb people have blamed books for crimes.
And it's not just about crimes, violence, provoked by song lyrics. General ignorance is caused not because people don't have tools, but because they don't use the tools and resources they have to overcome their ignorance.
The internet is like having a library at your fingertips. If you have the internet and you remain ignorant, you truly have no excuse. In the generations before the internet if you remained ignorant its because you didn't have a choice or didn't have access, but now that everybody has access the individuals who remain ignorant today are usually ignorant by choice and there will be less sympathy for these individuals.
I'm not saying we should know everything there is to know just because we have access to everything. I'm saying we should know everything we need to know if we have access to unlimited streams of information.
If profits truly are more important than lives, why haven't we created the death engine? Why have we not taken it to the extreme of betting on who lives and dies via tontine to increase profits to the maximum?
At some point, somewhere in our system, somebody has made the calculation that certain lives matter while the rest of the lives don't matter. If you are wealthy you can bet on when millions of poor people will die indirectly, but if you are poor the tontine is outlawed.
So it's a bit more complicated. It's a situation where some lives are worth more than others, and wealth has a lot to do with it. Unless you think this is wrong and if so then how would you say society values life in the context of ever increasing profitability?