Worse yet - it's not even an accurate description. Can't wait to have to try to support lusers wanting me to install Project 2000 on their Windows Powered palm device...
"but it says it's powered by windows - what do you mean it can't run the same things that are on my PC - it's powered by windows too..."
Katz has exagerated the half-truths which he uses (and, on a side note, why is this even posted in/. ? Replies sometimes get labelled as off-topic, this entire story should have been.)
First, my position: I am not against the WTO; I am against how the WTO operates. Secret meetings with no public input, undemocratic representations in the WTO, and decisions which can overrule the hard won environmental regulations of any nation is unacceptable.
Here in Seattle, the message from the protesters has rarely been missed by the news agencies. Those few times when the reporters get onto a tangent re: the destruction, they still follow up afterwards to make the distinction between the protests and the rioters. The local news agencies have never labelled the protesters as throwbacks to the 60's, or wanting to relive the 60's. If that message has gotten out in other areas, it's not coming from here. As for the internet, the only mention I've heard on local Seattle news is that it helped organize the protesters both here and in some other cities. While other news sources outside this area may be attempting to blame the internet in some way, I'm yet to hear such a suggestion from local sources.
On the first day of riots, the police were severely outmanned (oddly, the only persons who didn't seem to realize that the crowds would get as big as they did were the Mayor and the Chief of police; everyone else fully anticipated the size crowds which appeared). Each side points to the other as the initial "flash point" of the violence. Quite simply, I blame both sides for a back-and-forth escalation which resulted in the large scale destruction of the downtown area. Who caused the destruction? One of the main groups getting blamed is "The Eugene Anarchists". A group which promotes violence as a means to an end (this group existed prior to using the internet to better organize and recruit). Of course, while destroying the front of the Nike Town store, it would have been more believable that they were protesting Nike's labor practices if the main person kicking apart the store front hadn't been wearing Nikes at the time (yes, it was caught on tape, you had to watch close to see it though).
Later, the teens and "gang" wanna-be's came out and began looting; not carrying signs, logos, or any other label that declared themselves to be anti-WTO. And, when asked, only one out of nearly a dozen questioned by the media even knew what the complaints about WTO activity was about.
Regretably, this violent activity completely overshadowed the true protests. Here, the numbers of people involved and the unified messages have left a lasting impression on everyone who saw them. But in much of the rest of the world, only the images of violence and destruction were broadcast. It's unfortuneate, but for those not here the message from those protests was lost.
While a relatively small subgroup promoted violence to oppose the WTO, most of the true protests were peaceful. It's unfortuneate that the destructive individuals used the peaceful protesters as shields - running into them to hide whenever police came too close. These violent demonstrators even used the police as targets for throwing bottles and rocks - taunting the police and forcing a responce.
I do not hold the police blameless; their misconduct Wednesday night - gassing a peaceful protest and unnecesary use of force - was unprofessional, unwarranted, and should result in the immediate suspension of the officers involved and possibly the removal of the police chief. However, thru most Tuesday the police did as best they could with their limited numbers.
Events in Seattle are finally quieting down. Thursday's protest (partially anti-WTO and partially in responce to police misconduct) was a much needed return to sane and sensible action. Peaceful civil disobedience accomplished more in terms of relaying a meaningful message than did the violent multi-million-dollar destruction previously. Katz' attempt to legitimize the destruction is misguided, and the accomplishments of the peaceful civil disobedience proves that violence is not the most direct means to accomplishing the anti-WTO goals.
I can't seem to reach http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/ - it seems they've been slashdotted.
From what I've read from other posts of what was on that site, it seems a fair turn on them. It's the Karma - don't threaten DOS if your server isn't any better...
YES! Finally, an excuse to stop cleaning up those pesky Y2K issues! See you all later - I'm off on a spending spree - afterall, the world will end before the VISA bill is due!
The Katz predictions are interresting, but they seem superficial to a certain degree. Additional thought needs to be made to how the predictions will impact society and affect the future predictions. That is one of the great skills of Arthur C. Clarke, he develops a very coherent image of how the prediction will impact our world culture. I don't always agree with them, but he makes good arguments.
First, the "Techno-wars". This is simply not a realistic forcast. With technology prices constantly falling, these devices become more and more easilly obtainable to all levels of society. Any conflicts of this sort would, in most cases, be limited to those with a phobia re: technology. These groups would have a tendancy to seal themselves off from most of society (as technology is spreading to all areas, they need to seal themselves off to avoid it). As a result, any potential "Techno-Wars" would be very localized and contained to small areas. Education is the best deterent to such a future. Another, more likely conflict is a type which has repeatedly scarred human history; conflicts resulting from financial status. While there are more people today who are able to afford their own homes, the divide in incomes between those who can and cannot has been widening. It's a gulf which can create feelings of rebelion, and it could, potentially, create large scale riots more significant than the conflicts resulting from technology acceptance.
While AI can conceivably develop (or "evolve") to a point where machines exceed humans in their ability to think and create. If this comes to pass, each next generation of machines could only possibly be built by the machine generation before it, leaving humans out of the loop. While I see this likely, I also wouldn't expect it until 2100, if then - remember, we need to grant them the right to self-evolve and self-rule first. It's naive to think that humans will willingly grant machines equal human rights (varying by country). Humans will resist this. Also, the suggestion that machines will all be benevolent is eaqually naive. If humans maintain access to the machine "minds", they also have the ability to modify those minds. It is, sadly, human nature to have someone eventually decide to modify those electronic minds to attack his/her enemies. The other side would do likewise, and machine/robot warfare results. Not a promising future, but militaries won't be able to resist the idea of armies of "replacable" robots, no matter how smart they are.
"Fusion Power" - or more acurately Cold Fusion, has long been a dream for affordable energy sources. Create an easy to afford energy source with no dangerous by-products, and the world economy would experience a massive cultural shift. The only downside is that groups controlling existing energy sources will want to hold back any new energy sources. How this will manifest itself is up for debate. At the very least, expect corporate espianage and sabotage of the new technology. If the secret to creating and controlling a cold fusion reaction can be discovered, it will become the dominant energy source. But due to the above, not until 20 or more years after its discovery.
"Sensory Input". Inevitable. This will eventually come to pass; but like much of technology, we will make many partial steps in the race to achieve the full benefits that can be dreamt. A "swap-out" memory is unlikely, but accelerated learning - and more importantly - learning dangerous tasks with relative safety will come to pass. Not to mention the effect it'll have on communication (now this is instant messaging!), entertainment (try playing quake with ALL your sences!), terrorism (expect terrorist groups to try sabotaging or taking over the controls for the sensory input), military (a robot wired to a human gives all the advantages of a live soldier, with the replacability of a robot soldier), not to mention manufacturing, search-and-rescue, exploration, and government.
Just a few of my opinions on the potentials in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse yet - it's not even an accurate description. Can't wait to have to try to support lusers wanting me to install Project 2000 on their Windows Powered palm device ...
..."
"but it says it's powered by windows - what do you mean it can't run the same things that are on my PC - it's powered by windows too
AAAUUURRRGGGHHH!!!
Katz has exagerated the half-truths which he uses (and, on a side note, why is this even posted in /. ? Replies sometimes get labelled as off-topic, this entire story should have been.)
First, my position: I am not against the WTO; I am against how the WTO operates. Secret meetings with no public input, undemocratic representations in the WTO, and decisions which can overrule the hard won environmental regulations of any nation is unacceptable.
Here in Seattle, the message from the protesters has rarely been missed by the news agencies. Those few times when the reporters get onto a tangent re: the destruction, they still follow up afterwards to make the distinction between the protests and the rioters. The local news agencies have never labelled the protesters as throwbacks to the 60's, or wanting to relive the 60's. If that message has gotten out in other areas, it's not coming from here. As for the internet, the only mention I've heard on local Seattle news is that it helped organize the protesters both here and in some other cities. While other news sources outside this area may be attempting to blame the internet in some way, I'm yet to hear such a suggestion from local sources.
On the first day of riots, the police were severely outmanned (oddly, the only persons who didn't seem to realize that the crowds would get as big as they did were the Mayor and the Chief of police; everyone else fully anticipated the size crowds which appeared). Each side points to the other as the initial "flash point" of the violence. Quite simply, I blame both sides for a back-and-forth escalation which resulted in the large scale destruction of the downtown area. Who caused the destruction? One of the main groups getting blamed is "The Eugene Anarchists". A group which promotes violence as a means to an end (this group existed prior to using the internet to better organize and recruit). Of course, while destroying the front of the Nike Town store, it would have been more believable that they were protesting Nike's labor practices if the main person kicking apart the store front hadn't been wearing Nikes at the time (yes, it was caught on tape, you had to watch close to see it though).
Later, the teens and "gang" wanna-be's came out and began looting; not carrying signs, logos, or any other label that declared themselves to be anti-WTO. And, when asked, only one out of nearly a dozen questioned by the media even knew what the complaints about WTO activity was about.
Regretably, this violent activity completely overshadowed the true protests. Here, the numbers of people involved and the unified messages have left a lasting impression on everyone who saw them. But in much of the rest of the world, only the images of violence and destruction were broadcast. It's unfortuneate, but for those not here the message from those protests was lost.
While a relatively small subgroup promoted violence to oppose the WTO, most of the true protests were peaceful. It's unfortuneate that the destructive individuals used the peaceful protesters as shields - running into them to hide whenever police came too close. These violent demonstrators even used the police as targets for throwing bottles and rocks - taunting the police and forcing a responce.
I do not hold the police blameless; their misconduct Wednesday night - gassing a peaceful protest and unnecesary use of force - was unprofessional, unwarranted, and should result in the immediate suspension of the officers involved and possibly the removal of the police chief. However, thru most Tuesday the police did as best they could with their limited numbers.
Events in Seattle are finally quieting down. Thursday's protest (partially anti-WTO and partially in responce to police misconduct) was a much needed return to sane and sensible action. Peaceful civil disobedience accomplished more in terms of relaying a meaningful message than did the violent multi-million-dollar destruction previously. Katz' attempt to legitimize the destruction is misguided, and the accomplishments of the peaceful civil disobedience proves that violence is not the most direct means to accomplishing the anti-WTO goals.
I can't seem to reach http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/ehippies/ - it seems they've been slashdotted.
...
From what I've read from other posts of what was on that site, it seems a fair turn on them. It's the Karma - don't threaten DOS if your server isn't any better
How about a class-action suit against lawyers who file baseless class-action suits that waste the court's time and our tax dollars?
YES! Finally, an excuse to stop cleaning up those pesky Y2K issues!
See you all later - I'm off on a spending spree - afterall, the world will end before the VISA bill is due!
The Katz predictions are interresting, but they seem superficial to a certain degree. Additional thought needs to be made to how the predictions will impact society and affect the future predictions. That is one of the great skills of Arthur C. Clarke, he develops a very coherent image of how the prediction will impact our world culture. I don't always agree with them, but he makes good arguments.
First, the "Techno-wars". This is simply not a realistic forcast. With technology prices constantly falling, these devices become more and more easilly obtainable to all levels of society. Any conflicts of this sort would, in most cases, be limited to those with a phobia re: technology. These groups would have a tendancy to seal themselves off from most of society (as technology is spreading to all areas, they need to seal themselves off to avoid it). As a result, any potential "Techno-Wars" would be very localized and contained to small areas. Education is the best deterent to such a future. Another, more likely conflict is a type which has repeatedly scarred human history; conflicts resulting from financial status. While there are more people today who are able to afford their own homes, the divide in incomes between those who can and cannot has been widening. It's a gulf which can create feelings of rebelion, and it could, potentially, create large scale riots more significant than the conflicts resulting from technology acceptance.
While AI can conceivably develop (or "evolve") to a point where machines exceed humans in their ability to think and create. If this comes to pass, each next generation of machines could only possibly be built by the machine generation before it, leaving humans out of the loop. While I see this likely, I also wouldn't expect it until 2100, if then - remember, we need to grant them the right to self-evolve and self-rule first. It's naive to think that humans will willingly grant machines equal human rights (varying by country). Humans will resist this. Also, the suggestion that machines will all be benevolent is eaqually naive. If humans maintain access to the machine "minds", they also have the ability to modify those minds. It is, sadly, human nature to have someone eventually decide to modify those electronic minds to attack his/her enemies. The other side would do likewise, and machine/robot warfare results. Not a promising future, but militaries won't be able to resist the idea of armies of "replacable" robots, no matter how smart they are.
"Fusion Power" - or more acurately Cold Fusion, has long been a dream for affordable energy sources. Create an easy to afford energy source with no dangerous by-products, and the world economy would experience a massive cultural shift. The only downside is that groups controlling existing energy sources will want to hold back any new energy sources. How this will manifest itself is up for debate. At the very least, expect corporate espianage and sabotage of the new technology. If the secret to creating and controlling a cold fusion reaction can be discovered, it will become the dominant energy source. But due to the above, not until 20 or more years after its discovery.
"Sensory Input". Inevitable. This will eventually come to pass; but like much of technology, we will make many partial steps in the race to achieve the full benefits that can be dreamt. A "swap-out" memory is unlikely, but accelerated learning - and more importantly - learning dangerous tasks with relative safety will come to pass. Not to mention the effect it'll have on communication (now this is instant messaging!), entertainment (try playing quake with ALL your sences!), terrorism (expect terrorist groups to try sabotaging or taking over the controls for the sensory input), military (a robot wired to a human gives all the advantages of a live soldier, with the replacability of a robot soldier), not to mention manufacturing, search-and-rescue, exploration, and government.
Just a few of my opinions on the potentials in the future.