If you want to know why technology must be stopped, it's because technology is making all the wrong people smart and successful. Also technology promotes disobedience and the point of society is to promote and maximize submission.
You created the protocols, napster, linux, slashdot, programming languages and compilers, encryption and decryption software, etc.
Start by making sure everything you design and create in the future increases the liberty of the user, call it user-centric design. No more client-server, or slave master designs. Peer to Peer, and Hive designs are the answer.
It's time that the technology industry gets intelligent and stops being stupid. Intelligently design your technology.
Napster was a great idea, it's decentralized. The way to solve this is to decentralize by design and bring as much power as you can to the user through the design of the software itself.
But I thought that pedophiles used tor or freenet or wi-fi slurping?
So, what, the goal is to catch pedophiles that aren't tech-savy? Now, I'm not saying children shouldn't be able to access certain sites designed for them, but if we really want to protect our kids from the internet, rather than letting kids have full access to the internet and dealing with all the legal consequences of this, it's easier to just segregate the internet, ban children from accessing sites like Slashdot for example.
If you allow children and adults to mix in chatrooms, it's just asking for problems. All chatrooms should be legally rated between R and PG13, or whatever rating system. Adults should be legally allowed to enter all chatrooms but teenagers should be banned from entering chatrooms which are adult oriented.
Often there are situations where teenagers deliberately go into obvious adult chatrooms LOOKING for trouble, and the only way to solve this is to keep these teenagers from having access to adults, and adult sites.
The website owners should shift the liability to the parents by putting a legal disclaimer on their site explaining that their site is an adult only site.
On this adult only site, all pictures of teenagers, or children of any form should be banned to protect the site owners from the subjectivity of the DOJ's definition of child pornography. All who are under 18 should be banned from posting or chatting on any site which also has adults posting or chatting on it. That should be a law.
And all internet communication between an adult and an under 18 should be reported to the under 18 individuals parents by the ISP by law. When you segregate the internet, a lot of problems will be solved and you'll free up the courts to go after the child pornographers and molestors.
I'd rather we segregate the internet and save the internet, rather than allow an unsegregated internet to be completely regulated by the government and thus destroyed in the process.
The solution to the child porn problem is to make it illegal to upload any picture of video of anyone under 18 to the internet.
This means making all sites such as MySpace and Youtube 18 and above, and arrest anyone who posts or uploads any picture of a teenager or child anywhere on the internet for any reason.
The banning of children from the internet makes more sense than having illegal filenames and unlawful poses. ""The sexy teenager is sort of a mainstream trope. It's very different from babies being molested, and child pornography law doesn't make a distinction." Define illegal pose
In a 1986 case called U.S. v. Dost, a federal judge suggested a six-step method to evaluate the legality of images. Here's an excerpt from the opinion:
1. Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area. 2. Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive. 3. Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child. 4. Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude. 5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity. 6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
That's no exaggeration: The same section of federal law punishes a pedophile who makes a video recording of a baby being molested, as well as someone who possesses an image of a 17-year-old striking an unlawfully racy pose. "
Rather than have subjective laws which apply to certain pictures defined by the DOJ to be childporn. Let's assume any picture of any child is child porn and ban the posting of any of these pictures anywhere.
I know if I had a site or ran a server and any member of my site were to post anything which can be subjectively interpreted as child porn (any picture of a child fits this definition), I'd ban them from my site. I think this is what website owners will have to do to avoid legal liabilities.
Also, every site and chatroom should ban all individuals under 18 who enter. Anyone entering a chatroom who is under 18 should be in a legally defined chatroom designed for under 18s. There should be no sites which mix adults with the under 18 community. That should be illegal as well.
Just my opinions, but doing it this way makes more sense to me than what they are currently doing.
What is wrong with people? Don't you think the terrorists and the organized crime already infiltrated the police department?
The first thing they'd probably do is take over the local police department. Once one of their men are police chief, imagine how much power they have now that they have all the fucking guns due to gun control, and all the satelites and UAVs too!
Thisis the sorta thing which HELPS organized criminals! The only sorta criminals who will have to worry about this are criminals who aren't gang members or in the mafia.
I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense. If you want to use federal powers for good police use, there already is an FBI.
What these people are trying to do is give LOCAL COPS the ability to access top secret spy technology.
Will these local cops have top secret military clearance? That is not being mentioned. Will these local cops have to follow all the federal laws?
Wtf is going to be next? Giving corporations police powers and making CEO's into deputy and letting them access all the top secret spy satelites and launch UAVS?
Do you realize what this does? The domestic law enforcement is even more filled with moles than the federal law enforcement. So instead of having to worry about the Soviets, the domestic law enforcement has to worry about the bloods, the crips, mafia, MS13, the vice lords, and all these other gangs and mafias who have infiltrated and who have moles all throughout domestic law enforcement and police departments all over this country.
If we give the domestic law enforcement access to all this technology, don't you realize that you'll be giving even more power and access to the very criminals you think this technology will be targeting?
You think they are stupid? They read the news too, they go to Slashdot too, their spies in the police department soon may have the power to look into your house and see what you do.
If we take the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. .. how does this apply to aerial or satellite surveillance where we are now talking about technologies that can monitor us everywhere we go and using different techniques than we are used to?
Examples:
If I am reading e-mail on my phone outdoors (for the sake of argument lets assume it was transmitted securely) and I'm not openly displaying it to others, yet a UAV can see the text because it's above me, am I secure in my effects? What if it is a public place but there is nobody near me and it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could see what I'm looking at? Even in the workplace, when I type my password into my desktop my coworkers, should they be near my desk, look away because their is an assumed need for privacy under some circumstances.
Satelites and UAVs do not just see in the visible spectrum. What happens when they are capable of looking into our homes either actively or passively via different ranges of the spectrum? One one hand, if I am yelling inside my house and there are people outside who overhear, that's my own fault. If a UAV can discern objects and people through a roof, monitor radio emissions and so forth, is that the same thing? My intuition says no, but I doubt it's defined.
Satelites, UAVs, and even cell networks have the ability to track our every move, and by monitoring us all build a social probability map (if you are regularly near other individuals and perhaps at some point have travelled to the same points at the same time or along the same route, you probably know them, can be expanded to group relationship probabilities). Although I don't have much of an expectation of privacy in public places, I do not have an expectation that I should be monitored in my every move and in every relationship I have with other individuals by any entity. However, increasingly that is a) possible, and b) likely.
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president. Are we going to let just anyone in domestic law enforcement access this?
They know that domestic law enforcement is infiltrated by the mafia, by the bloods and crips, the vice lords, MS13, the neo nazi's, all those people are able to join the police force and become police chief and none of these people have top secret clearances.
Are we supposed to start giving them access to top secret spy technology without requiring they have top secret clearances? I have a problem with this because they don't give us enough information on just who will have access to the technology within domestic law enforcement.
If it's someone in the FBI who has top secret clearance, thats very different than just letting any police chief access infrared spy satelites and scan out closets looking to see which of us is growing the marijuana plants.
We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions.
This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us. If we let domestic law enforcement have access to satelites without requiring top secret clearance, wha stops the mafia cops, crips, vice lords, etc from access the satelite through their moles in domestic law enforcement?
They need to restrict this just to people with top secret clearance. If they let everyone access it then we are in big trouble.
This argues from an assumption that there is no personal responsibility for healthcare.
I don't want the government running my healthcare, thank you, they've managed to screw up international affairs, wireless communications, taxes, roads, telecommunications, and regulation of food so far... Socialized medicine will likely lead to race based medicine. Just watch what happens, the same government that uses the census to ask you what your race is, will be collecting samples of your genes and begin making a medicine just for you and your kind.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? just about every vice in our society now is handled by psychologists instead of jail guards. It's not that everything is a disease, the question is whether or not immorality is a disease.
When you say personal responsibility, you assume everyone is equally responsible, but if you want everyone to be equally responsible then the consequences have to be absolute and apply to everyone.
Currently they don't apply to everyone. There are people who can behave irresponsibly because they have the money to pay for their irresponsibility, and act above the law, and then there are poor people who have to be personally responsible for the crimes of those rich who happen to be able to buy their way out of every bad situation.
So it's more complicated than you make it seem. But it's clear that some people are morally insane and some people are morally sane. And if someone is not a morally intelligent person, and if you happen to be some sorta moral genius, then you are more capable of reason and moral behavior and should be more personally responsible than someone less capable.
You know right from wrong and you are good enough to do the moral calculus. Some of us aren't as capable of figuring out right from wrong. In fact, to some people right and wrong depends on their mood, or on their ability to get away with it, and if they could get away with raping or murdering people then it would be right.
Yes, intelligence, muscular structure, blue eyes, etc. are encoded in genes, but a difference in a certain gene does not simply turn on/off one specific trait or select between traits. Modify a gene and you mess with a whole bunch of stuff at once. That's why genetic science is so difficult.
There will be a day when IQ can be adjusted genetically.
Some primates are social, some aren't - gorillas vs orangutans, and that's genetic. There will be a day when the need for social approval can be adjusted genetically.
I doubt it. You can't simply "adjust" something genetically. That's the whole misconception. We would have to learn to write genetic code ourselves, and we are a long way from that. All we can do is piece together what we have to try to make something happen, and we end up screwing it up more often than not. Reverse engineering genetic code is a much scarier challenge than reverse engineering Windows. (BTW, I know that there is work being done on this, see ReactOS) The governments of the world have been researching how to do this for a while now. They've got it working in animals, just not humans.
Agreed. Genes do not "turn off/on" certain functions like a checkbox in a properties/preferences dialog. Genetic science can provide many wonderful things, but we will never be able to alter a gene to "make sure the baby is smart" or "keep him from being anti-social." As usual, the mainstream press sensationalizes science and contributes to the dumbing down already far advanced by public^Wgovernment education.
Agreed. Genes do not "turn off/on" certain functions like a checkbox in a properties/preferences dialog. Genetic science can provide many wonderful things, but we will never be able to alter a gene to "make sure the baby is smart" or "keep him from being anti-social." As usual, the mainstream press sensationalizes science and contributes to the dumbing down already far advanced by public^Wgovernment education. We probably will discover the genes which control certain kinds of intelligence and will likely be able to activate or deactivate certain genes in a fetus. Designer babies are a reality even today.
The question is which set of genes to turn off or turn on. Right now we just don't know, and it's going to take a long time to find out.
So yeah, there will eventually be a way to make sure every baby is smart, or at least a way to prevent babies from being autistic or having down syndrome, and eventually we'll figure out how to make the baby smarter.
As for which genes make a baby ruthless, we are far from discovering exactly which genes do that, and just finding one gene is not enough to convince me of anything other than we found a gene involved in ruthlessness.
Most people who kill many characters on FPS are not going to kill real people.
There, fixed that for you. There have been a few notable exceptions. The reason they aren't going to hunt you down and kill you is because killing you has consequences.
Your life has value precisely because of those consequences.
I am a gamer and I'll agree that games are not real life. But I must say, I wouldn't kill people in real life because there are repercussions. I can kill all the bad guys (or good guys if I feel like it) in a game and there are no REAL consequences. In real life, that's not so...so killing = bad.
But if I were a dictator and had total control of my country, the repercussions for cracking down and killing thousands of people may not be so bad. First order of business: institute mandatory DNA registrations, checking every person for AVPR1a and killing all the other ruthless people. And so would Stalin, if you think that one gene is worth wiping out millions of lives.
Also, just because a person has the gene it doesnt mean their behavior will automatically be ruthless, it simply means being ruthless comes easier to them.
Anyone can be ruthless if the situation calls for it, just some people feel more natural in that state than others.
Slashdot Mirror
What if we don't want to give money? what if we want to actually DO something ourselves using our own talents?
The open hardware solution is the ultimate solution.
The question is, how do we make it cheap enough for the masses to get involved? We don't own factories in China yet.
What about through non profit organizations? How about we form a church?
If you want to know why technology must be stopped, it's because technology is making all the wrong people smart and successful. Also technology promotes disobedience and the point of society is to promote and maximize submission.
-> New American Theology of Civil Submission
It's the geeks that rigged the voting machines.
Wouldn't you rather code with a purpose?
Anyone can be a software engineer, don't you want to change the world?
You understand the technology, they dont.
You understand the code, they dont.
You designed the hardware, they cant.
You created the protocols, napster, linux, slashdot, programming languages and compilers, encryption and decryption software, etc.
Start by making sure everything you design and create in the future increases the liberty of the user, call it user-centric design. No more client-server, or slave master designs. Peer to Peer, and Hive designs are the answer.
Decentralize and distribute.
Liberty through creativity!
It's time that the technology industry gets intelligent and stops being stupid. Intelligently design your technology.
Napster was a great idea, it's decentralized. The way to solve this is to decentralize by design and bring as much power as you can to the user through the design of the software itself.
Revolutionary software and hardware designs will bring you a revolution of options.
If you want a call to arms, the best ideas would be new legalese licensing schemes to protect privacy rights, and the rights of the tinkerer.
New software designs which promote tinkering and interaction, such as free software. Use your creativity to promote your liberty.
So, what, the goal is to catch pedophiles that aren't tech-savy? Now, I'm not saying children shouldn't be able to access certain sites designed for them, but if we really want to protect our kids from the internet, rather than letting kids have full access to the internet and dealing with all the legal consequences of this, it's easier to just segregate the internet, ban children from accessing sites like Slashdot for example.
If you allow children and adults to mix in chatrooms, it's just asking for problems. All chatrooms should be legally rated between R and PG13, or whatever rating system. Adults should be legally allowed to enter all chatrooms but teenagers should be banned from entering chatrooms which are adult oriented.
Often there are situations where teenagers deliberately go into obvious adult chatrooms LOOKING for trouble, and the only way to solve this is to keep these teenagers from having access to adults, and adult sites.
The website owners should shift the liability to the parents by putting a legal disclaimer on their site explaining that their site is an adult only site.
On this adult only site, all pictures of teenagers, or children of any form should be banned to protect the site owners from the subjectivity of the DOJ's definition of child pornography. All who are under 18 should be banned from posting or chatting on any site which also has adults posting or chatting on it. That should be a law.
And all internet communication between an adult and an under 18 should be reported to the under 18 individuals parents by the ISP by law. When you segregate the internet, a lot of problems will be solved and you'll free up the courts to go after the child pornographers and molestors.
I'd rather we segregate the internet and save the internet, rather than allow an unsegregated internet to be completely regulated by the government and thus destroyed in the process.
The solution to the child porn problem is to make it illegal to upload any picture of video of anyone under 18 to the internet.
This means making all sites such as MySpace and Youtube 18 and above, and arrest anyone who posts or uploads any picture of a teenager or child anywhere on the internet for any reason.
The banning of children from the internet makes more sense than having illegal filenames and unlawful poses. ""The sexy teenager is sort of a mainstream trope. It's very different from babies being molested, and child pornography law doesn't make a distinction."
Define illegal pose
In a 1986 case called U.S. v. Dost, a federal judge suggested a six-step method to evaluate the legality of images. Here's an excerpt from the opinion:
1. Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area.
2. Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive.
3. Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child.
4. Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude.
5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.
That's no exaggeration: The same section of federal law punishes a pedophile who makes a video recording of a baby being molested, as well as someone who possesses an image of a 17-year-old striking an unlawfully racy pose. "
Rather than have subjective laws which apply to certain pictures defined by the DOJ to be childporn. Let's assume any picture of any child is child porn and ban the posting of any of these pictures anywhere.
I know if I had a site or ran a server and any member of my site were to post anything which can be subjectively interpreted as child porn (any picture of a child fits this definition), I'd ban them from my site. I think this is what website owners will have to do to avoid legal liabilities.
Also, every site and chatroom should ban all individuals under 18 who enter. Anyone entering a chatroom who is under 18 should be in a legally defined chatroom designed for under 18s. There should be no sites which mix adults with the under 18 community. That should be illegal as well.
Just my opinions, but doing it this way makes more sense to me than what they are currently doing.
What is wrong with people? Don't you think the terrorists and the organized crime already infiltrated the police department?
The first thing they'd probably do is take over the local police department. Once one of their men are police chief, imagine how much power they have now that they have all the fucking guns due to gun control, and all the satelites and UAVs too!
Thisis the sorta thing which HELPS organized criminals! The only sorta criminals who will have to worry about this are criminals who aren't gang members or in the mafia.
I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense. If you want to use federal powers for good police use, there already is an FBI.
What these people are trying to do is give LOCAL COPS the ability to access top secret spy technology.
Will these local cops have top secret military clearance? That is not being mentioned. Will these local cops have to follow all the federal laws?
Wtf is going to be next? Giving corporations police powers and making CEO's into deputy and letting them access all the top secret spy satelites and launch UAVS?
Do you realize what this does? The domestic law enforcement is even more filled with moles than the federal law enforcement. So instead of having to worry about the Soviets, the domestic law enforcement has to worry about the bloods, the crips, mafia, MS13, the vice lords, and all these other gangs and mafias who have infiltrated and who have moles all throughout domestic law enforcement and police departments all over this country.
If we give the domestic law enforcement access to all this technology, don't you realize that you'll be giving even more power and access to the very criminals you think this technology will be targeting?
You think they are stupid? They read the news too, they go to Slashdot too, their spies in the police department soon may have the power to look into your house and see what you do.
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president. Are we going to let just anyone in domestic law enforcement access this?
They know that domestic law enforcement is infiltrated by the mafia, by the bloods and crips, the vice lords, MS13, the neo nazi's, all those people are able to join the police force and become police chief and none of these people have top secret clearances.
Are we supposed to start giving them access to top secret spy technology without requiring they have top secret clearances? I have a problem with this because they don't give us enough information on just who will have access to the technology within domestic law enforcement.
If it's someone in the FBI who has top secret clearance, thats very different than just letting any police chief access infrared spy satelites and scan out closets looking to see which of us is growing the marijuana plants.
This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us. If we let domestic law enforcement have access to satelites without requiring top secret clearance, wha stops the mafia cops, crips, vice lords, etc from access the satelite through their moles in domestic law enforcement?
They need to restrict this just to people with top secret clearance. If they let everyone access it then we are in big trouble.
Yes I do know, So I guess down syndrome was not the best example.
Because eventually the different families within your race will decide to exterminate you.
http://www.sciforums.com/Race-based-medicine-t-42289.html
I don't want the government running my healthcare, thank you, they've managed to screw up international affairs, wireless communications, taxes, roads, telecommunications, and regulation of food so far... Socialized medicine will likely lead to race based medicine. Just watch what happens, the same government that uses the census to ask you what your race is, will be collecting samples of your genes and begin making a medicine just for you and your kind.
When you say personal responsibility, you assume everyone is equally responsible, but if you want everyone to be equally responsible then the consequences have to be absolute and apply to everyone.
Currently they don't apply to everyone. There are people who can behave irresponsibly because they have the money to pay for their irresponsibility, and act above the law, and then there are poor people who have to be personally responsible for the crimes of those rich who happen to be able to buy their way out of every bad situation.
So it's more complicated than you make it seem. But it's clear that some people are morally insane and some people are morally sane. And if someone is not a morally intelligent person, and if you happen to be some sorta moral genius, then you are more capable of reason and moral behavior and should be more personally responsible than someone less capable.
You know right from wrong and you are good enough to do the moral calculus. Some of us aren't as capable of figuring out right from wrong. In fact, to some people right and wrong depends on their mood, or on their ability to get away with it, and if they could get away with raping or murdering people then it would be right.
Yes, intelligence, muscular structure, blue eyes, etc. are encoded in genes, but a difference in a certain gene does not simply turn on/off one specific trait or select between traits. Modify a gene and you mess with a whole bunch of stuff at once. That's why genetic science is so difficult.
I doubt it. You can't simply "adjust" something genetically. That's the whole misconception. We would have to learn to write genetic code ourselves, and we are a long way from that. All we can do is piece together what we have to try to make something happen, and we end up screwing it up more often than not. Reverse engineering genetic code is a much scarier challenge than reverse engineering Windows. (BTW, I know that there is work being done on this, see ReactOS) The governments of the world have been researching how to do this for a while now. They've got it working in animals, just not humans.
The question is which set of genes to turn off or turn on. Right now we just don't know, and it's going to take a long time to find out.
So yeah, there will eventually be a way to make sure every baby is smart, or at least a way to prevent babies from being autistic or having down syndrome, and eventually we'll figure out how to make the baby smarter.
As for which genes make a baby ruthless, we are far from discovering exactly which genes do that, and just finding one gene is not enough to convince me of anything other than we found a gene involved in ruthlessness.
There, fixed that for you. There have been a few notable exceptions. The reason they aren't going to hunt you down and kill you is because killing you has consequences.
Your life has value precisely because of those consequences.
But if I were a dictator and had total control of my country, the repercussions for cracking down and killing thousands of people may not be so bad. First order of business: institute mandatory DNA registrations, checking every person for AVPR1a and killing all the other ruthless people. And so would Stalin, if you think that one gene is worth wiping out millions of lives.
Also, just because a person has the gene it doesnt mean their behavior will automatically be ruthless, it simply means being ruthless comes easier to them.
Anyone can be ruthless if the situation calls for it, just some people feel more natural in that state than others.
Every group directs it's reproduction, and we call it evolution. It's not a big deal to me, but thats not the same as "exterminating" the other races.